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."
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.