Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democratic senators seek $20 billion in election funding

​Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Sen. Amy Klobuchar

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Democratic senators introduced a bill on Wednesday that would allocate $20 billion in federal funding for election administration. Like other election-related legislation offered over the past two years, it faces a difficult path to enactment.

The bill, sponsored by Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, would fund improvements to election management, poll worker training and the elimination of barriers to voting.

“Free and fair elections are the cornerstone of our democracy, but in recent years we have seen a barrage of threats seeking to undermine our elections. It is critical that we respond to these threats head-on by ensuring that state and local governments have the resources needed to strengthen the administration of our elections, protect election officials on the frontlines, and provide all eligible voters with the opportunity to make their voices heard,” Klobuchar said.


The Minnesota Democrat has been a leading advocate for federal election reform and funding. In February, she led 23 Democrats in urging President Biden to designate $5 billion for election security and to prioritize funding for election administration in his fiscal 2023 budget. Biden in fact included $10 billion for election administration as well as $5 billion for the expansion of mail-in voting in the budget proposal released in March.

Klobuchar chairs the Rules and Administration Committee, which held a hearing on the security of the 2022 election Thursday.

The bill mirrors the recommendations offered in a new report from the National Institute for Civil Discourse. Another report, the Election Infrastructure Initiative’s “ 50 States of Need ”, however, goes much further. It calls for more than $50 billion over 10 years for states to improve election administration, equipment, cybersecurity, voter registration systems and post-election audits. Both reports emphasize not just increased funding but also a consistent flow of dollars to the state for election infrastructure.

If and when this bill comes up for a vote, it will likely face the same procedural barriers that have stopped other election reform bills in the Senate. Three bills – the For the People Act, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act – would have instituted changes to elections but were blocked by Republican filibusters in the Senate.

In 2017, Klobuchar teamed up with Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma on a bill to strengthen cybersecurity, but that also failed to pass. A 2019 bill focused strictly on election security passed the House but did not make it out of committee in the Senate.

But there have been a handful of bipartisan successes over the past 20 years. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act, which provided federal funds for the improvement of election infrastructure and established the Election Assistance Commission. Since 2010, HAVA funds have only been appropriated twice. In 2018, a larger appropriations act included $380 million to increase the cybersecurity of voting systems. An additional $400 million in HAVA funds were appropriated in 2020 through the CARES Act to help state and local governments pay for additional costs caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.


Read More

Donald Trump, US President

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks briefly to the press as he arrives during the 81st United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, on Sept. 22, 2026.

(Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)

Trump will lose his war against the press

“To offend a strong man, tell him a lie. To offend a weak man, tell him the truth.”

That quote, often attributed to Marcus Aurelius, one of the great Stoics, perfectly encapsulates the very troubling and sad moment we’re in, and the very troubling and sad president we’re dealing with.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

People wearing vests with "ICE" and "Police" on the back.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

When Immigrants’ Rights Are Threatened, Democracy Is Too

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists.

We asked Abbey Osborn, a Fall Fulcrum Fellow, to share what democracy means to her and her view of its current health.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hasan Piker

Influencer and left-wing political commentator Hasan Piker is introduced during a campaign rally for Wisconsin Gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong on Aug. 2, 2026, in Milwaukee.

(Joshua Lott/Getty Images/TNS)

While the world is on fire, the media are still obsessed with Israel

No one likes to think they’re being hysterical. And nothing makes hysterical people angrier than being described as such. So, let me offer my apologies in advance for what follows.

Jeremy Musighi, an independent researcher, recently released a study analyzing 14.7 million news articles published across 65 languages over the last decade. He found that, in 2024, news outlets published “more than twice as many stories about Israel as about all 48 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Person using mobile smartphone chatting with AI chatbot, conversation assistant, customer support

New research shows AI beats elite debaters in persuasion — not through better arguments, but by out-pacing human reading and reply speed.

MUNTHITA LAMLUE/Getty Images

Political Chatbots Should Not Be Allowed To Set the Pace

A political chatbot can answer before a citizen has finished reading its previous message. It can add statistics, historical examples, causal claims and links at a rate no human campaign volunteer could match. That does not necessarily make its case wiser. It changes the contest by allowing one speaker to control the tempo.

A June 2026 preprint offers unusually direct evidence of this problem. Across four preregistered experiments involving 18,978 conversations from 6,923 people, frontier AI systems were more persuasive than laypeople, tournament winners, professional canvassers and elite competitive debaters. The human experts were not casual opponents: the study included world and continental champions, paid preparation, live practice and substantial performance incentives.

Keep ReadingShow less