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.

Do trans women have a strength advantage? A look at studies on hormone therapy, muscle mass, and why it should determine eligibility in women's sports.
Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans—many following the lead of President Trump—feel that it is not right for trans females to participate in women's sports. But the trans community, supported by those on the left wing of the Democratic Party, insists that this is part of ensuring the rights of trans people. The issue has been divisive among Democrats.
This is a complex issue. On the one hand, boys are boys, and girls are girls. That's the basic fact behind male and female sports, other than some intramural school sports that have boys and girls on the same team. Because boys are biologically stronger and faster than girls, separate leagues have been developed for both. This has nothing to do with gender identity; it is just a reflection of biological fact.
Into this history comes the relatively new fact of trans athletes, in particular, male athletes who transition to women. They want to continue playing, just now on women's teams.
I think the problem arises in part (the other part is transphobia) because most people don't really understand what it means to be a trans female. These are not just men who are cross-dressing, who are living their lives as females, or who are even taking shots to develop breasts. Trans women are mostly men who are changing their biological status from male to female through what's known as feminizing hormone therapy,
Since the late 70s, trans females have had access to medical therapies that alter their hormonal profile from male to female. What is the impact of such therapy? Among many physical and emotional changes, it results in a decrease in muscle mass and strength.
All studies show that, after one to three years, males receiving such therapy do not have the strength of cisgender males. However, whether their upper and lower body strength is comparable to cisgender females or somewhat higher is not clear. I found two reports that are based on multiple studies of the issue. In the one published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, based on 52 studies, they find that trans and cisgender female body strength is comparable. In the other, based on 24 studies, they find that trans females have a slight advantage in most sports, with a significant advantage only in baseball pitching and field hockey drag flick. I found no data on the percentage of trans females who undergo hormone therapy, but a large number do.
Given the impact of feminizing hormonal therapy, I would argue that if a trans female has had the type of hormone therapy that reduces muscle mass and strength, that they should be allowed to play on female sports teams, whether in school, college, or professional. There is no "biological" basis for excluding them.
However, if they have not had such therapy, then I—as a liberal Democrat, as evidenced by my articles on Fulcrum, my blog: Preserving American Values, and my book: "We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto"—would argue that they not be allowed to participate. The reason is based on the fact that biological males are stronger than females. To allow trans females who have not undergone hormone therapy to be on female teams would create an unfair advantage for such teams. This is not an issue of gender identity but one of biological sex.
Given the politically heightened public feeling against trans female athletes playing on female teams, especially in schools, it is critically important that the government, educational institutions, and other groups undertake the public education necessary to make the public aware that trans females are not just cross-dressers living their lives as women, but are people who have chosen to change their biological identity from male to female, resulting in many physical and emotional changes, among them a loss of muscle mass and strength.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Four years ago, a group of senior retired military leaders delivered an unusual message to the American people: trusted elections are not a partisan aspiration—they are a national security imperative. Today, as the country approaches the 2026 elections, these leaders have returned with a fresh warning and a revived hope. Their message is simple, urgent, and profoundly American: free and fair elections constitute the backbone of our constitutional republic, and every citizen has a role in protecting them.
Their new video featuring Gen. Michael V. Hayden, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, Lt. Gen. James Clapper, Maj. Gen. Marilyn Quagliotti, and Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden do not traffic in political rhetoric. Instead, they draw on decades of service, sacrifice, and direct experience in places where trust in institutions has collapsed. These leaders have seen what happens when citizens lose faith in the shared rules that hold a nation together—from the aftermath of elections in Iraq, where uncertainty led to widespread unrest, to the recent instability in Venezuela, where doubts about electoral legitimacy fueled chaos and division. Their message is not about party. It is about country.
To fully grasp the urgency of their message, the generals urge Americans to watch their new video. You can view it here:
- YouTube youtu.be
The principles center on five core principles advanced by Team Democracy, the Ford Presidential Foundation, and the Carter Center. The principles are pillars that define what makes elections trustworthy and what keeps a democratic republic strong:
These principles are not abstractions. They are the practical standards that allow 330 million people to govern themselves peacefully. They are the guardrails that prevent chaos, manipulation, and mistrust. And they are the expectations that all Americans, regardless of ideology, should demand.
In their message, the generals remind us that protecting elections is not politicians' job alone. It is the responsibility of citizens who value evidence over rumor, law over impulse, and country over faction. This means, for example, taking time to verify information through trustworthy sources before sharing it with others, and fact-checking claims that circulate online or in your community. By actively seeking out the truth rather than passing along unverified reports, every citizen helps guard the integrity of our democratic process.
Their warning is grounded in years of experience. Around the world, they have watched nations fracture when leaders undermine electoral legitimacy or when citizens abandon patience, verification, and peaceful acceptance of lawful results. They have seen how quickly misinformation corrodes trust, how rapidly intimidation erodes participation, and how easily force can replace democratic norms.
Their call is not alarmist. It is preventative.
Supporting trusted elections is more than signing a pledge. It requires engagement:
These minor acts have big consequences. They strengthen the civic muscles that keep democracy resilient.
The retired generals’ message reminds us that trust in elections is not a Democratic value or a Republican value; it is an American value. Some readers may wonder if any group of leaders, even senior military officials, can truly rise above the political divisions of our time. Yet these generals have served administrations of both parties and have long been respected by Americans across the political spectrum. Their voices carry weight not because of their rank, but because of their experience defending the Constitution in moments when its survival wasn't guaranteed. Their commitment to nonpartisan service and to upholding the rule of law has earned them trust beyond partisan lines.
At a time when political messaging moves faster than verification, and outrage often outruns evidence, their call for restraint, patience, and integrity is not just welcome—it is essential.
As the 2026 elections approach, Americans face a choice:
Will we allow distrust to deepen, or will we recommit to the shared principles that make self-government possible?
The retired generals have made their position clear. They are asking us to join them at www.PrinciplesForTrustedElections.org, not in partisanship, but in patriotism.
Trusted elections are how a free people keep their republic. And keeping the republic is up to all of us.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

An aerial view of a Flock camera in Burbank, California. U.S. President Donald Trump expressed support for Flock cameras, saying he likes the AI-powered surveillance technology because of its use by law enforcement, despite concerns that it infringes on privacy.
Chances are, you’ve seen one in your neighborhood. Flock cameras have become a major flashpoint for voters in the leadup to the midterms. The concept sounds straight out of 1984 — a network of government-owned cameras that track your movements — it’s no wonder that Americans across party lines are demanding their states and towns sever ties with the controversial company. Surveillance fears are only getting stronger as we enter the AI era.
But the problem isn’t just Flock. These cameras, Automated License Plate Readers or ALPRs to be exact, are a symptom of a larger “surveil first, ask questions later” attitude that has been adopted by local and federal government for decades. In recent years, the federal government has been dramatically expanding the nation’s surveillance infrastructure. This has taken many forms, from facial recognition technology at the airport, to law enforcement monitoring your mail, to the government watching what you’re posting on your personal social media pages. Since April, many Democrats and Republicans in Congress have united to stop what would effectively be a blank check for surveillance via FISA reauthorization, demanding surveillance reforms such as closing the “data broker loophole”, which allows the government to buy Americans’ personal data without a warrant.
Using all of these tactics, the government can obtain outrageous amounts of information about you. The new prescription you picked up last week? The government might know about it because they purchased your search history data. Your trip to the gun range, or a protest, or grandma’s house? With approximately 120,000 ALPRs stationed across the country, a simple warrantless search could reveal that, too. To make matters worse, AI is supercharging all of this. Data brokers, for instance, already sell sensitive information to the government. Now, using AI, federal agencies and law enforcement can build dossiers on individuals in a matter of seconds. No oversight. No accountability. No warrant. The use of AI in ALPRs Flock or any other license plate readers means your movements can be flagged and reported to law enforcement.
The danger isn’t abstract. Just this month, Anthropic reported how several nations attempted to use Claude to “build, run, and otherwise facilitate surveillance operations.” This, not too long after a stunning letter earlier this year, sounded the alarm on the profound risk of domestic mass surveillance using AI.
The government’s willingness to use these technologies with little to no regulation is the very definition of dangerous. The Fourth Amendment exists to protect us from dragnet government surveillance because surveillance can be used to silence and punish anyone who speaks out against the government.
The right to privacy is one of our nation’s most powerful and closely held values and yet, it is under attack.
The outrage against Flock points to a much broader discontent with the state of surveillance in our country. Flock is just the straw that broke the camel’s back because it reveals just how in-your-face surveillance has become. But if the backlash to Flock is a symbol of how angry people are that their privacy rights are being eroded, the response from public officials—asleep at the wheel while surveillance has expanded, or worse, cheerleading the expansion itself—is a sign that speaking out against the surveillance state can wake them up. Florida and Texas both pulled back from Flock this week. Nearly 150 cities and growing have canceled Flock contracts, rejected new deployments, and taken down existing cameras. Imagine what’s possible if we build on this momentum and demand the government stop buying our private data, sifting through our e-mail, and follow the Constitution?
In America, government answers to the people. It has a responsibility to act. States, municipalities, and even Darth Vader are stepping up, but Congress needs to defend the privacy rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. That means going beyond Flock and passing laws that keep up with technology. It means ending warrantless surveillance in all its forms.
We are in a critical moment where public outrage over Flock and unrestrained AI are high, but more is required of us to dismantle this system of mass surveillance. Government being able to crush our privacy rights and peer into our personal lives—for any reason, at any time, using increasingly powerful AI to know us better than we know ourselves, would all but obliterate our civil liberties. Congress must step up and pass legislation that stops dragnet surveillance in all of its forms, not just Flock cameras.
Don Bell is senior policy counsel at The Constitution Project at POGO. In this role, Don manages the organization’s policy and legal advocacy portfolio to protect constitutional rights, particularly when threatened by our government’s domestic law enforcement surveillance practices.

What the fight over The Meadow, formerly EPIC City, reveals about pluralism, Pew data on Muslim Americans, and the duties of both sides.
America runs on a deal nobody signed but everyone is expected to honor. Host communities open their schools, their courts, and their markets. Newcomers, in turn, fold into the civic mainstream instead of asking their new country to rearrange itself around them. It isn’t written into any statute, yet it has been the quiet engine behind two and a half centuries of messy, mostly successful assimilation.
That deal is being argued out right now on a stretch of prairie forty minutes northeast of Dallas.
The development once called EPIC City, and now rebranded The Meadow, is a proposed 402-acre community in Collin and Hunt Counties near Josephine, Texas, built around the East Plano Islamic Center. Plans call for more than a thousand homes, a mosque, a K-12 faith-based school, and commercial space. Since it was announced in 2024, it has drawn a state securities investigation, a federal fair-housing inquiry from HUD, a request from Senator John Cornyn for a Justice Department probe, and, as of August 17, 2026, a fresh lawsuit from Attorney General Ken Paxton. A Travis County judge has already sided with the developers once, ordering a state agency to honor its own agreement with them. The dispute is not settled, and it is not going anywhere soon.
National coverage has treated The Meadow as a referendum on whether Texas, and by extension America, can accommodate a visibly Muslim, self-organized community without triggering a political backlash. That framing captures something real. It also skips past a quieter, larger story unfolding around it.
Roughly 1.1 percent of the American population is Muslim, spread across nearly 2,800 mosques nationwide — more than double the number that existed in 2000. Contrary to the “epicenter of Islam” language that has attached itself to this fight, that population is not a monolith arriving from one country. Pew Research Center finds that only about a quarter of Muslim-American adults are immigrants from the Middle East or North Africa; a fifth are converts, and four in ten U.S.-born Muslims identify as Black. Separate analysis of the same Pew data finds Muslim Americans wearing the hijab in public at roughly two-thirds the rate of Muslims surveyed internationally, and expressing overwhelmingly unfavorable views of groups like al-Qaeda — 81 percent unfavorable, among the highest rejection rates recorded for any group in that survey. None of that fits a “Sharia city” headline. It doesn’t fit a pure persecution narrative either. Both caricatures are doing work the data doesn’t support.
A fair accounting has to hold two things at once.
News organizations and, in this case, elected state officials who elevate a handful of inflammatory soundbites into a narrative of regional religious war are trading accuracy for engagement. Texas has absorbed rapid demographic change in its suburbs over the past decade without the civic unraveling that cable-news segments imply, and that story deserves as much airtime as the shouting match does.
At the same time, communities entering that public square carry a reciprocal duty to read the room. Promotional language describing a housing project as the future “epicenter of Islam in North America” was always going to be heard by anxious neighbors as closer to a territorial claim than a marketing pitch, whatever the legal reality behind it. The First Amendment protection here is not in question. The political judgment behind how that project was pitched to a skeptical public is a separate matter — and it was handled poorly.
None of this settles the underlying legal fight, which courts will decide by weighing fair-housing law against a state government that has, at points, reached for “Sharia law” as a rhetorical bludgeon rather than a legal argument. But the legal fight isn’t the whole story. The larger question is whether Americans can still tell the difference between a contested land-use dispute and a referendum on an entire faith community’s right to exist in a suburb.
They can, if both sides keep their end of an old bargain: restraint from the institutions and officials who shape the narrative, and civic self-awareness from those entering a new community. Neither is a large ask. Both are increasingly rare.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D., is the Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking. A former R&D executive holding 30 U.S. patents, he specializes in interdisciplinary research and public policy analysis. His writing has appeared in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (PNAS), RealClear platforms, The Fulcrum, The Humanist, AFRO American, The Friday Times, and South Asia Monitor, where he serves on the editorial board. He also hosts the interview show "SAM Dialogues with Dr. M. P. Reddy." Website: mpreddyinsights.com | Contact: mpreddy54@yahoo.com