Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Bridge Alliance Education Fund will take over and refashion The Fulcrum

Bridge Alliance Education Fund and The Fulcrum

The Fulcrum is getting a new owner, and a somewhat different mission.

The Bridge Alliance Education Fund announced Tuesday that it will take over next month and reposition the nonprofit digital news and commentary site in partnership with a public relations firm. Issue One, among the more prominent cross-partisan political reform groups in Washington, had created The Fulcrum in 2018 with a commitment to focus rigorous journalism on efforts to reverse the dysfunctions plaguing American democracy.

Terms were not disclosed, but Issue One and The Fulcrum leadership had struggled to raise money to sustain the project in recent months, despite a steadily growing audience at a time when democratic norms faced unprecedented stress. The Bridge Alliance Education Fund itself was among several original funders to sharply reduce their contributions.


The organization is the funding and communications arm of the nonprofit Bridge Alliance, a coalition of 90 groups that advocate for an array of policies they believe would achieve central goals of the democracy reform movement — more competitive elections, influenced less by money than by enhanced civic engagement, leading to transparent and effective governance "with a country-before-party mindset."

In an email to those members, Bridge Alliance leaders made clear The Fulcrum's identity would soon be altered.

"We hope we can count on your continued support as we strike the proper balance between maintaining impeccable journalistic standards and magnifying the voices of all Americans yearning for a healthier governing system," Board Chairman David L. Nevins and CEO Debilyn Molineaux said, promising to soon "share increased possibilities of amplification" of the messaging of umbrella group members.

To that end, they have tapped the Baltimore-based marketing and public relations firm Nevins & Associates. (Its owner is not related to the Bridge Alliance's Nevins.) It will be "overseeing the future success and continued growth of The Fulcrum," Senior Vice President Mitchell Schmale said, with the goal of finding "new and diverse audiences that are interested in supporting a healthy democracy."

That is different from The Fulcrum's approach of the past 29 months. A focus on the debates over dozens of different ideas for bettering the political process — tighter campaign finance rules, alternative election methods, ending partisan gerrymandering and the like — dominated the first year, along with reporting on how fix-the-system promises were only tangential to the nascent presidential race.

But two profound and simultaneous threats to democracy upended coverage: The pandemic put the country's ability to conduct fair and comprehensive voting to an extraordinary test, while President Donald Trump's campaign of lies about fraud have restored voting rights as a topic of national prominence.

"While rooting for our democratic institutions to get stronger, we have no rooting interest in any of the prescriptions out there," the site's mission statement has said. "Our journalistic role is to help you by bringing a clear and unbiased eye to the debates."

The Fulcrum's new strategy will be to "to reach people where they are and help them connect to the reforming democracy movement," BAEF said, and unbiased reporting on efforts to make the American "democratic republic less partisan and more diverse" will remain only "part of its ongoing mission."

The Fulcrum's original publisher, David Meyers, will remain at least temporarily, to "ensure a seamless transition."

"We launched The Fulcrum at a time of intense interest in fixing our country's political system," Issue One CEO Nick Penniman said. "We are pleased that The Fulcrum will be able to continue its important work and reporting."


Read More

AI chip
a computer chip with the letter a on top of it
Photo by Igor Omilaev on Unsplash

We Should Regulate AI to Make It Grow Faster

The debate over artificial intelligence has become divided between two powerful ideas: that we need a “moratorium” to slow AI until we can make it safe, and that regulating AI will slow the innovation we need for our economy and national security. Both concerns are legitimate. But “moratorium” and “slowing AI growth” are divisive terms: they reassure those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences while alarming those who see AI competition and national security as urgent priorities. We need a different starting point—meaningful regulation that provides the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while creating the conditions for AI to continue growing. The experiences of Europe and China challenge the assumption that regulation must slow AI.

China has combined increasingly detailed, technology-specific AI regulation with substantial government support for AI development. Recent studies provide evidence that this approach can promote innovation. One 2026 study of Chinese companies from 2017 through 2023 found that the creation of national AI innovation and development pilot zones significantly increased corporate digital transformation, in part through increased research and development, human capital and reduced transition costs. Another 2026 study, covering Chinese manufacturing companies from 2014 through 2024, found that the same policy significantly promoted the adoption of intelligent technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

A Brief History of Prevention Through Deterrence

The U.S. Border Patrol agency has evolved greatly over the years, shifting its focus to address changing national security concerns. It was originally established in 1924 to restrict illegal immigration by Chinese and European immigrants before moving to restrict alcohol smuggling during Prohibition. The agency adopted its current focus on illegal immigration from Mexico during the 1970s, when immigration pressures coincided with a severe economic recession in the United States. In 1994, the Border Patrol released a strategy document with the support of the Clinton administration which introduced an approach to immigration known as Prevention Through Deterrence. This tactic aimed to discourage border crossings by funneling immigrants through border entry points with harsh terrain, in contrast with previous policies based on arrest and apprehension post-entry.

Successful Prevention Through Deterrence is measured by fewer encounters and apprehensions at the border, indicating that illegal attempts to enter the country have been prevented and deterred. Barriers to entry are policed by a range of physical infrastructure like fences, vehicle barriers, and other blockades designed to stop illegal foot and vehicle traffic. These measures are supported by camera- and thermal-based surveillance systems as well as measures like deportation and criminal charges which impose legal consequences on migrants. The focus of Prevention Through Deterrence operations themselves is twofold: establishing control of high-traffic border sectors and using security measures to enable the seizure of contraband.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

INC ‘26 gathered independent leaders in D.C. to unveil a seven-candidate slate, a Fulcrum Caucus strategy and new tools for corruption-free governance.

Getty Images, uschools

Independent Movement Unites at INC ’26 to Build National Power

From September 23–25, leaders from across the American independent political movement gathered at the JW Marriott in Washington, D.C., for the fourth Independent National Convention (INC ’26). Produced by United Independents, the event brought together hundreds of participants representing political reform organizations, independent campaigns, alternative parties, civic initiatives and grassroots organizing efforts.

The gathering reflected the breadth of activity outside the traditional two-party system while addressing a persistent challenge: translating America's large independent constituency into greater political representation, institutional capacity, and coordinated action.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

Four Reds and four Blues reached unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration, then presented them to Reps. Fitzpatrick and Suozzi. Here’s how it worked.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

On Immigration, Common Ground May Be Closer Than We Think

Immigration has become one of the issues pulling Americans apart. Earlier this month, at a constituent conversation in Bristol, Pennsylvania, I watched eight Americans with very different political views offer a glimpse of how it does not have to stay that way.

Four “Reds” and four “Blues” — terms used for participants on the political right and left — sat across from Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), the Republican and Democratic co-chairs of the House Problem Solvers Caucus, to present something increasingly unusual in our politics: unanimous Points of Agreement on immigration developed through an earlier Common Ground Workshop.

Keep ReadingShow less