The case creating the 1976 Supreme Court decision declaring that spending limits, imposed on candidates and outside groups five years before, were unconstitutional limits on free speech.
Read more about Buckley v. Valeo.
David Meyers is the Executive Editor of The Fulcrum. Before launching The Fulcrum, David spent more than two decades at CQ Roll Call, a leading publisher of political news and information. During his time there, David served as managing editor of Roll Call (“the newspaper of Capitol Hill”) and as managing editor of member information and research, which included co-editing the definitive biographical directory of Congress, “Politics in America.” David went on to lead all of CQ Roll Call’s congressional research teams as vice president of research and content development before shifting to a revenue and strategy role as vice president of business operations for Roll Call, working with the advertising and editorial teams to develop new revenue models and expand the company’s events business. David lives in Fairfax, Va., with his wife, two daughters and rottweiler. A graduate of Tufts University, David is a past president of the Tufts University Alumni Association. He is also a past president of the Washington Press Club Foundation, which works to celebrate and advance the role of women and minorities in the media. David currently serves on the board of directors for Temple B’nai Shalom in Fairfax Station.
The case creating the 1976 Supreme Court decision declaring that spending limits, imposed on candidates and outside groups five years before, were unconstitutional limits on free speech.
Read more about Buckley v. Valeo.

President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2026.
It's been a while since we saw a lame duck presidency — long enough in politics to maybe forget what one looks like.
In October 2014, President Barack Obama hit his lowest approval rating yet at 40%. The midterm elections were an absolute bloodbath for Democrats — Republicans expanded their majority in the House by 13 seats and took control of the Senate with a gain of nine seats.
The predictions for the second half of Obama’s second term were fatalistic. As early as 2013, analysts were calling his presidency DOA, having seemingly spent all of his political capital on getting the Affordable Care Act passed and implemented, which didn’t go smoothly. He suffered early second-term losses on the Bush-era tax cuts, gun control efforts, and immigration reform.
There was just nothing left in the tank. Or so it seemed.
But Obama defied those predictions. In 2015, he got a huge win when the Supreme Court — in a surprise from conservative Chief Justice John Roberts — ruled in favor of keeping Obamacare intact, preserving his signature legislation.
Then, the ambitious Trans Pacific Partnership deal, the world’s biggest ever trade agreement accounting for two-fifths of trade, got fast-tracked by a highly divided Congress.
He got another win in Cuba, where he secured an agreement to resume diplomatic relations after 54 years of hostilities. And he signed an Iran nuclear deal designed to prevent Iran from developing nukes in exchange for sanction relief.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, the TPP, and the Cuba and Iran deals, it’s hard to argue Obama’s final months in office were very “lame.” In as little as a year, he’d redefined the meaning of the term.
We know how much Obama tends to get in Donald Trump’s head. As the legend goes, after all, it was Obama’s mockery of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that provoked him to run for president. Ever since, he’s been fixated on the ex chief, even blasting his Chicago presidential library with petty jabs in recent months.
Well, Trump only wishes he were having the final few years that Obama did. Instead, it seems, Trump’s lame-duck presidency has arrived early.
Trump’s approval has plummeted since his inauguration, dropping from 52% to 38%, while his disapproval has shot up 15 points.
Thanks in large part to his dumb tariffs and dumb war in Iran, the midterms are looking so bad for Republicans, the party’s resorted to mid-census redistricting schemes that may or may not pay off. Democrats could not only take back the House but win the Senate, with candidates in red states like Texas, Iowa and Ohio in real contention.
Then there are his recent losses. A lot of them.
The $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out MAGA loyalists, including Jan. 6 insurrectionists, was met with such disdain from his own party, he had to dump it.
Four Republicans in the House just voted with Democrats to pass a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw military forces from Iran.
Republicans in both chambers have come out to condemn Trump’s utterly absurd pick for director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte.
The fate of his billion-dollar ballroom remains up in the air, as do the “Trump battleships” he’s proposed. A judge ruled he cannot put his name on the Kennedy Center, and his Freedom 250 concert series collapsed as musical acts dropped out one by one, leaving Vanilla Ice to headline, if it happens at all.
These are some humiliating losses. And the crazy part is, had Trump pursued “normal” policy wins for Americans instead of the insane, vulgar, and self-interested nonsense he has, he’d surely be in a different position.
But he didn’t. Welcome to your lame duck, era, Mr. President.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
When I first became an Engaged Athlete Fellow through TheTeam, I thought civic engagement was simply about interacting with one’s community and giving back. Over the course of a year-long project built through planning, leadership, and community connection, however, I learned that true engagement is about creating spaces where people feel seen, supported, and empowered to grow together. Civic engagement goes beyond your actions and emphasizes the impact you can create.
From the beginning, I understood that completing a successful civic engagement project was the desired outcome of my time as a fellow. Between the first day I began drafting my plans and now, reflecting on all that I’ve been able to accomplish, I realized I gained so much more. The Team helped me recognize the opportunity not only to uplift my community but also to create real, intentional change. Even further, with the support of this organization, the path was paved to establish lasting change — the kind that seeps into the hearts of others and inspires them to do the same for years to come.
I believe this passion for impact resonates deeply with my character because of the life I’ve been blessed to live, especially thanks to my parents. They made it their mission to ensure that my younger brother and I had every opportunity to live the lives we WANT to live, not HAVE to live. Throughout my years as a student, athlete, friend, and colleague, I have interacted with people from many different backgrounds. Those experiences allowed me to understand the importance of education, opportunity, equity, and access — and, even more importantly, the detrimental impact of not having access to those things.
Having the ability to use my platform to create meaningful impact beyond my sport, particularly by empowering youth and strengthening my community, is no easy feat — but choosing TheTeam as an outlet to do so was the easiest part. Their initiatives focus on developing teammates, inspiring leaders, and empowering citizens, making civic engagement joyful and accessible. Although this was only the third cohort of Engaged Athlete Fellows, the fellowship has already created meaningful success and connections among student-athletes nationwide.
What makes TheTeam unique is that it unites athletes around a shared mission while still allowing each teammate to personalize their approach and create something authentic to themselves. Throughout the year, I never felt alone. Their network, resources, and support-centered staff served as a constant safety net. My mentors and advisors were always one call or text away, and the program's structure ensured I was always moving in a positive direction. As a Division I athlete, balancing fellowships, internships, and leadership opportunities alongside athletics can often feel overwhelming. Under The Team, however, I never had to sacrifice one commitment at the expense of another. Their support is truly what carried me to the finish line with my year-long civic engagement project.
Over the course of the year, I planned and executed a civic engagement initiative centered around community empowerment, youth development, educational advocacy, and civic awareness. Through collaborative programs and outreach efforts, my project aimed to encourage meaningful engagement on campus and throughout the Norfolk community, emphasizing leadership, service, and access to resources.
One of the major highlights of the initiative was hosting an interactive “Spartans Vote” Game Zone during Norfolk State University’s Homecoming in partnership with the “All Vote No Play Day” campaign. This event promoted voter awareness and civic participation in an engaging and accessible environment for students and attendees. Civic awareness efforts also extended to social media advocacy, where members of my Track & Field team participated in Election Day awareness campaigns during local elections to encourage informed voting and community involvement.
Throughout the year, I also participated in and organized volunteer opportunities through the Robert C. Nusbaum Honors College and the Student-Athlete Advisory Board, reinforcing the importance of servant leadership and collective community impact. In addition, I coordinated a mentorship-focused event within the Honors College designed to foster guidance, connection, and support among students navigating academic and personal growth.
Financial literacy and educational empowerment also became central components of the project. Through a collaborative event involving the Honors College, the National Association of Black Accountants, and King In You organizations, students were provided with resources and opportunities for conversations centered on financial responsibility, professional development, and long-term success.
To conclude the fellowship experience, I collaborated with SAAC and various athletic teams to organize a Youth Literacy Sports Camp with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America at the Grandy Village location. This final initiative combined athletics, mentorship, and literacy engagement to foster a positive, encouraging environment for local youth. The camp reflected the overall mission of my project: using leadership, education, and community connections to inspire and uplift others.
Standing in front of each event I had spent months planning, watching people engage with something that once existed only as an idea in my notebook, I realized how much this fellowship had changed me. What began as a civic engagement project became a lesson in leadership, service, and the power of intentional community impact. Through this experience, I gained a deeper understanding of civic engagement as not only service but impact rooted in collaboration, accessibility, and genuine care for one’s community.
Now that I’ve had a glimpse of what it truly means to remove myself from complacency and act, I want to continue educating the youth in my community, particularly through literacy advocacy
and mentorship. I also hope to encourage athletes, both within and beyond my own circle, to find themselves in the vast realm of civic engagement and continue changing the world one win at a time. My aspiration to attend law school after receiving my Bachelor’s degree is rooted in my desire to address critical issues, including educational inequity, financial and political literacy, and the need for stronger support systems within underserved communities.
From the bottom of my heart, I want to thank everyone involved with TheTeam for giving me the opportunity not only to find myself, but to experience finding myself through this year-long journey of impact and influence.
Lexa Hunter is a business intelligence and data analytics honors scholar from Chesapeake, Virginia, whose passion for civic engagement is rooted in mentorship, education, and community empowerment. She is a Division I track and field athlete at Norfolk State University, using her platform to create meaningful impact beyond her sport.
The Team, a nonprofit that integrates civic engagement into college sports, describes its mission as developing “teammates, leaders, and citizens” through award‑winning programming that connects athletics with civic responsibility.
The Bridge Alliance, the sponsor of the Fulcrum, is a partner of The Team.

Reporters and members of the media raise their hand to ask a question to U.S. President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House on April 25, 2026 in Washington, DC.
“Freedom of conscience, of education, of speech, of assembly are among the very fundamentals of democracy, and all of them would be nullified should freedom of the press ever be successfully challenged.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd U.S. President
Throughout America’s 250 years, the tension between the White House and the press is as old as the republic itself. Several presidents haven’t necessarily tried to repeal the First Amendment (which protects the press), per se, or the Fifth Amendment (which protects journalists’ confidential sources). Instead, some have tried to control the narrative and limit press access.
Let’s try to understand why restricting freedom of the press by the current president should be of concern, as FDR so eloquently stated back in 1940.
The First Amendment clash: Some presidents view media scrutiny as an obstruction to governing and/or a threat to national security, whereas the press views executive branch secrecy and access restrictions as a direct assault on the right to inform the public.
The Fifth Amendment clash: When the government uses surveillance and/or the threat of jail time to force journalists to reveal confidential sources, it creates a battle over federal overreach and the rule of law.
The most significant reason why a few presidents push back against the press is that, since the failed Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and media coverage escalating to round-the-clock news, some leaders have realized that unhindered media access swayed public opinion against their administrations.
Historian scholar Harold Holzer’s work on the presidency reveals that many leaders treat journalists as political threats rather than democratic partners. They fear, not revere, the press (The Presidents vs. The Press, 2021).
There are 15 specific examples where freedom of the press has been challenged during the 16 months of Trump’s 2.0 presidency. Here’s a capsule summary of the incidents:
1) On Sept. 15, 2025, a $15 billion defamation lawsuit was filed against The New York Times and four journalists for their reporting on the book titled Lucky Loser.
2) A $10 billion suit against the BBC over the editing of Trump’s Jan. 6 speech was filed on Dec. 15, 2025.
3) And on July 18, 2025, a $10 billion lawsuit was filed against The Wall Street Journal for reporting the president’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
1) In February, 2025, Associated Press reporters were indefinitely banned from press events after refusing to use the president’s preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.”
2) In 2025, news outlets CNN, NPR, NBC News, The Hill, Politico, The New York Times, and The Washington Post were denied Pentagon office space.
3) In September, 2025, the Department of Defense required reporters to sign a pledge promising not to use material even if it was unclassified.
4) On March 4 and 10, the Pentagon barred Associated Press, Reuters, and Getty Images photographers from attending Iran War briefings.
1) The administration used FCC regulatory approval for the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger as leverage, which led CBS to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
2) On May 1, 2025, executive orders were issued to cancel NPR and PBS federal funding; a congressional request occurred on June 3.
3) On March 14, 2025, the administration attempted to shut down Voice of America and Radio Free Europe.
4) On April 6, 2026, regarding a leak about a U.S. rescue operation in Iran, Trump told journalists to “give [the source] up or go to jail.”
5) The administration launched an official government tool – White House Bias Tracker – to track and publicly flag “media bias,” which serves as a state-sponsored blacklist for journalists.
1) Notable reporters, like Don Lemon and George Fort, were arrested on Jan. 29 while covering public protests.
2) On Oct. 3, 2025, Atlanta-based Spanish-language journalist Mario Guevara was deported to El Salvador following critical reporting.
3) On Jan. 14, the FBI raided the residence of Hannah Natanson, a Washington Post journalist, allegedly to uncover the source of a government contractor leak.
Fifteen attempts by President Trump to restrict freedom of the press in 16 months of his second presidency are unprecedented and should be a clarion call to every American to demand action. Bipartisan congressional oversight is long overdue.
It’s time to seriously reflect on the breadth, depth, and scope of GOP President Ronald Reagan’s Oct. 6, 1983, historic comment: “Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life. The economic freedom that has earned us such great bounty and the precious freedoms of speech and assembly would have little meaning or be totally nullified should freedom of the press ever be ended.”
Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance guest columnist contributor to 158 newspapers and 47 social media platforms in 44 states.

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Academic tracking is the practice of assigning students to different classrooms based on earlier academic achievement or perceived ability. It affects approximately 75 percent of eighth graders nationwide and begins as early as first and second grade. Unlike temporary ability grouping, where a teacher might divide students into small groups for a single lesson on fractions, tracking sorts students into specific pathways such as remedial math, regular Algebra I, or honors Algebra I, with math being the most heavily tracked subject in American schools.
Originating in the early 1900s following the arrival of immigrants from Italy and Ireland, tracking emerged as a way to separate immigrant and working-class students from their more affluent peers. This strategy was primarily based on students’ perceived futures in society. Students who had immigrated were provided a less rigorous curriculum because they were expected to work in factories instead of pursuing higher education. Today, tracking aims to enable teachers to target instruction to students’ current skill levels without simultaneously teaching multiple ability levels in one classroom. However, significant demographic disparities that exist within track placement have raised questions about whether tracking effectively targets instruction or instead exacerbates educational inequities.
Those in favor of tracking argue that ability grouping improves outcomes for high-achieving students without harming their peers. Research from Cornell University demonstrates that sorting students by ability can raise achievement for higher-performing students while leaving lower-performing peers unaffected, showing that tracking is not necessarily a zero-sum system where one group’s gains come at the expense of another’s.
When implemented with flexibility and high-quality instruction across all levels of tracking, both advanced and struggling students can benefit from instruction targeted towards their readiness. A key factor of success is ensuring that students have the ability to move between tracks based on growth, rather than creating permanent, inflexible sorting. Studies have shown that arranging students in the same or separate classrooms results in positive outcomes for advanced students without negative effects on their peers.
Beyond benefitting individual students, tracking creates pathways to advanced coursework that prepares students for competitive colleges and careers. Students who take Algebra I in eighth grade can progress through the traditional sequence to reach Calculus by senior year, a course that is usually required or strongly preferred for admission to selective colleges and competitive STEM programs.
The Brookings Institution observes that entry to advanced coursework is usually organized through earlier course taking sequences that function as informal tracks, highlighting how tracking serves as a pipeline to Advanced Placement (AP) and honors courses. Without early acceleration through tracked pathways, students can’t complete this timeline, potentially limiting their post-secondary options.
On the other side of the debate, those against tracking argue that tracking fails to improve overall student performance. A comprehensive meta-analysis of over 300 studies found that tracking produces minimal effects on learning outcomes alongside many negative equity effects. This research indicates that while tracking may benefit some advanced students, it doesn’t raise overall achievement across all students and comes with significant costs to educational equity.
Critics also point to international evidence supporting their position. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), made up of 38 countries, including the U.S., found that early tracking correlates with wider disparities in educational outcomes without corresponding gains in overall performance, which indicates that education systems in other developed nations that track students later or less aggressively achieve similar outcomes to the U.S while maintaining fewer achievement gaps.
Additionally, while proponents of the pro tracking argument believe that teachers can’t effectively teach a classroom with multiple skill levels, a 2024 study found that student needs in terms of instructional adaptation and individualized feedback are met equally well in tracked and untracked classrooms, suggesting that teachers don’t necessarily struggle more with groups of different ability levels. With appropriate professional development and resources, teachers can successfully meet a mix of student needs within a multiple-ability level classroom.
Advocates for maintaining tracking emphasize that eliminating advanced programs disproportionately harms the very students equitable policies aim to help: low-income gifted students. As one analysis explains, when schools eliminate gifted courses or higher level tracks completely, low-income gifted students will suffer most because wealthy families can afford to pay for private schools and tutoring, while students without these resources become stuck in schools offering only lower-level courses. This argument frames de-tracking as creating a two-tier system where affluent families access advanced education through private alternatives while low-income gifted students lose their only pathway to challenging coursework in public schools.
In San Francisco specifically, when tracked math courses were eliminated it ended up creating new inequities because private schools and wealthy parent organizations could fund additional course offerings. The community ended up overwhelmingly rejecting the policy because of these inequalities. However, detracking advocates counter this, arguing that San Francisco’s problems stemmed from poor implementation rather than the concept itself, noting that the district provided inadequate teacher training and support.
The Fordham Institute notes that while white students are overrepresented in advanced programs relative to their share of the student population, the solution should be expanding access to these programs for underrepresented students rather than eliminating them entirely. They argue that advanced students from disadvantaged and marginalized backgrounds need these programs most but have the least access to them.
Those against tracking argue that tracking reproduces and amplifies existing social inequalities through biased placement processes and unequal resource allocation. The Brookings Institution observes that tracking often perpetuates racial and socioeconomic inequalities even when initial placements seem like they are solely merit-based. Track placements are influenced by teacher expectations, assessment bias, parental advocacy capacity, and access to test preparation which are all factors that strongly correlate with race and class rather than purely reflecting student ability. Even when schools use criteria that seem objective like test scores, systemic bias shapes which students are identified as advanced which perpetuates rather than addresses educational inequality.
The fundamental problem according to those who advocate for this belief is that achievement gaps exist before tracking begins, largely due to socioeconomic factors beyond students’ control. Studies show that substantial performance gaps exist between children from the lowest and highest socioeconomic quintiles from kindergarten onward, and these gaps emerge in the earliest years of children’s lives and persist throughout their education. Schools must therefore decide whether to address or amplify these existing disparities.
Tracking takes students who arrive with different levels of preparation due to family income, parental education, and early childhood opportunities, then sorts them into educational opportunities that widen rather than narrow those pre-existing gaps. Evidence indicates that districts implementing detracking with additional supports see narrower achievement gaps without declines in overall performance. However, analysts acknowledge that many successful detracking examples come from affluent districts with substantial funding, which raises questions about whether similar outcomes would occur in less-resourced schools serving high-needs student populations.
Overall, the debate over academic tracking centers on two main questions: whether it improves student achievement and whether it improves academic equity. Supporters argue that tracking benefits advanced college students without harming others and creates pathways to advanced colleges, while critics say that tracking minimizes overall learning gains and perpetuates a variety of inequalities through biased placement and unequal resource allocation.