Last week, internal Republican Party divisions spilled onto the floor of the House of Representatives in a way rarely publicly seen in Washington. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, the crew looks at why it took 15 votes to get Rep. Kevin McCarthy elected House Speaker and what that process says about the two years ahead and the GOP more broadly. They also consider how Rep. George Santos’s scandals will affect his tenure in Congress and whether he would have been elected at all if his fabricated biography had received more scrutiny during the campaign.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

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
Oct 15, 2026
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.
Europe provides a different example. The European Union has adopted a risk-based AI regulatory system while AI investment continues to expand. AI accounted for 27% of European venture-capital investment in 2025, according to a European Commission report. More than 4,100 European AI startups in ten strategic industrial sectors had a combined enterprise value of €161 billion in 2025, according to a second European Commission report.
None of this proves that regulation automatically accelerates AI. Europe still faces significant challenges in financing and scaling AI companies, and regulation is only one factor affecting innovation. But these experiences undermine the assumption that regulation and AI growth are inherently incompatible.
The objective should be to regulate AI in ways that make it safer, fairer and more sustainable while allowing it to grow faster.
The scale of the challenge is already enormous. The International Energy Agency reports that electricity consumption by AI-focused data centers increased about 50% in 2025. Overall data-center electricity consumption is projected to nearly double, from about 485 terawatt-hours in 2025 to 950 TWh in 2030.
That growth makes regulation of AI's physical infrastructure increasingly important. AI requires enormous amounts of electricity, as well as land, water, transmission capacity and other resources. Regulation therefore needs to address environmental impacts and the costs imposed on communities.
But we should not respond by simply putting the brakes on AI.
The benefits of AI could be enormous. The challenge is to make sure those benefits are broadly shared while creating incentives for continued innovation. Regulation should address problems that markets alone may not adequately solve: the safety of increasingly capable AI, the distribution of its economic benefits, effects on workers and communities, and environmental impacts. At the same time, regulation should give developers clear rules, encourage competition and create public confidence in AI.
The current debate in Congress illustrates the difficulty.
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have proposed the AI Data Center Moratorium Act, which would impose a moratorium on new data centers until Congress establishes safeguards addressing AI safety, workers, electricity costs, environmental impacts and community interests. The proposal reflects legitimate concerns about the speed and consequences of AI development.
But a moratorium based primarily on data-center construction is a blunt way to regulate a technology whose risks can vary enormously.
A huge data center can be running relatively ordinary AI. A much smaller facility could be developing an AI system capable of sophisticated autonomous action.
Infrastructure size is not the same thing as AI risk.
A better approach would classify AI according to the risks created by what the system can actually do.
At the basic level are ordinary AI systems such as today's widely used chatbots and productivity tools. They can be enormously useful but generally operate under substantial human direction.
A second category would be more capable frontier AI systems with substantially greater reasoning, coding, scientific or other capabilities and correspondingly greater potential risks.
The third category is autonomous frontier AI: highly capable systems that can independently plan and act, interact with external systems and pursue objectives with limited human direction. This is where the question of meaningful human control becomes especially important.
The regulatory requirements should rise with the risk.
Some applications may need to be prohibited altogether. Others may require extensive safety measures during both development and deployment. Some could be developed with relatively few restrictions but require rigorous testing and safeguards before deployment. Low-risk AI could remain primarily subject to ordinary safeguards.
This is broadly consistent with the logic behind Europe's AI Act, which uses four levels of risk rather than treating every AI application alike. It also provides regulatory sandboxes and testing environments intended to allow innovation while addressing safety requirements.
The highest-risk systems deserve particular attention.
Sen. Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar have proposed the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, which would permanently prohibit the development and deployment of what they call artificial superintelligence and temporarily pause advanced AI development until a federal regulator establishes safety rules. The proposal also calls for international agreements to prevent superintelligence from being developed elsewhere.
The concern about losing human control deserves serious attention. But intelligence by itself is not necessarily the danger. A machine that is vastly more capable than humans could be extraordinarily beneficial if humans retain effective control over what it can do.
The danger begins when increasingly capable machines are given the autonomy, authority and access to act beyond meaningful human control.
That principle should have a particularly clear application to lethal force. AI systems should not have independent authority to select human targets or to make and execute decisions to apply lethal force against people. Humans must retain meaningful judgment and effective control over any system capable of applying lethal force. The United States should also work with other nations toward international agreements establishing the same principle.
This does not mean that AI could never be used in military or other dangerous environments. AI can assist humans in detecting threats, analyzing information and defending against attacks. The critical distinction is between AI assistance and AI authority.
Getting regulation right will not be easy. Rules that are too weak will fail to protect people. Rules that are too broad or inflexible could prevent beneficial applications, reduce competition and push development elsewhere.
That is why the debate needs to move beyond the language of “moratoriums” and “slowing AI.” Those words frame the choice as a conflict between safety and innovation, when that should not be the choice. A moratorium may be an appropriate response to an immediate and specific danger, but making “slowing AI” the objective risks putting those concerned about safety on one side and those who see AI as essential to innovation and national security on the other. We need to focus instead on how to meaningfully regulate AI—creating the safeguards necessary to protect people, communities and the environment while providing the conditions for AI to continue growing.
The question is: “How do we regulate AI so that safety, fairness and environmental responsibility reinforce rather than undermine innovation?”
Europe and China offer different experiences, not definitive answers. Neither demonstrates that regulation automatically makes AI grow faster. But both challenge the assumption that regulation must slow it down.
The United States should learn from those experiences and build a regulatory system designed not to stop AI's growth, but to make that growth safer, broader and more sustainable. This approach has the potential to bring together those concerned about AI's safety, economic and environmental consequences with those focused on innovation and growth. Finding that common ground is essential to achieving any of these goals.
Michael A. Soderstrand is a retired professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering and currently lives in Columbus, Ohio.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?
Oct 15, 2026
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.
Presidential Deterrence Policies
Presidential administrations since Prevention Through Deterrence’s inception reflect the same commitment to preventing and deterring illegal immigration, albeit with differing approaches to this goal.
In 2003, George W. Bush formed the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), charging it with enforcing immigration law within U.S. borders and investigating cases of undocumented immigration. His 2004 update of the National Strategic Plan also included anti-terrorist measures focused on preventing the flow of weapons and set greater precedent for the use of drones, drug detection, identity verification, and baggage checking at airports.
Barack Obama’s administration saw a 2012 update of the National Strategic Plan emphasizing data collection and analysis as tools for allocating Border Patrol Resources. Obama himself also expanded deportations by implementing family detentions as a measure to deter women and children from migrating. Joe Biden’s restrictions on asylum that expedited deportation processes and allowed asylum seekers to be denied if they traveled through third-party countries without also applying for and being denied asylum in those nations.
Donald Trump’s first term saw the institution of Zero Tolerance immigration policies which prompted increases in detention and deportation capacities, due in part to the fact that they didn’t differentiate between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants traveling through the border. During this current term, he has reiterated his commitment to Prevention Through Deterrence through initiatives that will build the border wall and increase punitive capacities for immigration law violations.
Why Do Proponents Support Prevention Through Deterrence?
Data from the White House Release presented in this graph indicates that immigration apprehension rates drop when the country implements stricter Prevention Through Deterrence measures. This effect has been observed throughout the 2020s with President Trump’s policies, which continue to produce encounter rates at new record lows. Internal CPB data places the November 2025 encounter rate at 30,367, 28% lower than the previous record low set only one month before. U.S. Border Patrol data has also consistently recorded an average of 10,000 encounters per month since Trump took office, 5% of the total observed during the Biden administration. Immigration CPB book-ins and detention have also dropped dramatically in 2026, falling from the high 10,000s and 20,000s during Joe Biden’s term to a range encompassing the low hundreds and 5,000s in President Trump’s second term. These declines demonstrate a consistency in the effectiveness of deterrence measures which is visible across other metrics.
Why Do Critics Oppose Prevention Through Deterrence?
International human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch argue that Prevention Through Deterrence measures breed incredibly high disappearance and death rates. Estimates range from 10,000 to 80,000 deaths caused by Border Patrol tactics, attributing these deaths to agency procedure funneling immigrants into terrain where they are exposed to harsh climates and die from lack of aid. Reporting of these deaths has also drawn criticism from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). In a study on reports of known migrant deaths, the office found that language used in these announcements “naturalizes” deaths by calling them “accidental” or “natural” and listing such causes as blunt force trauma or elemental exposure. Such reporting hides the role that government agents and infrastructure play in migrant injuries. 2019 data from the San Diego Trauma Center indicates that 441 out of 455 patients treated were injured from falling off the border wall, and the design of infrastructure like the Rio Grande River buoys–which use serrated metal plates to deter migrants from climbing through gaps–increases the risk of deadly injuries.
Prevention Through Deterrence policies also create conflict in communities within patrolled areas. The Texas-based Operation Lone Star has received direct criticism for causing increases in racial profiling among immigrants and deaths among both immigrants and National Guard members. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of traffic stops in Texas’ Latin communities has increased by 92%. In the first nine months alone, there were a total of 1,046 vehicle pursuits causing at least 30 deaths and 71 injuries to immigrants, law enforcement personnel, and U.S. citizens alike.
Figure 2: OHCHR Known Migrant Deaths Along the US-Mexico Border
Conclusion
Prevention Through Deterrence is an approach to border security which has drawn bipartisan support since its creation in 1994. It has been refined over the course of multiple presidential administrations and operates by tightening border security to create harsh conditions for illegal immigrants. While proponents of the policies see them as successful because of consistently reduced encounters at the border, opponents question the larger costs of these measures by pointing to patterns of enforcement-related deaths and violence in nearby communities. The debate has drawn questions about how to achieve true prevention of illegal immigration and the metrics used to assess its success.
Caterina Guerin is a non-traditional Ada Comstock Scholar at Smith College, majoring in Government with a concentration in International Relations and a minor in Korean.
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.
Keep ReadingShow less

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
Oct 14, 2026
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.
Former U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin addressed the convention by video, recognizing the importance of competitive independent candidates and the opportunity to shift political power beyond the two-party structure.
Other current and former officeholders shared perspectives on independent movement-building and governance, including Utah County Commissioner Amelia Powers Gardner; former Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey; and former U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who closed the convention with reflections on what independent candidates and political organizations need to win.
Among other speakers were John Opdycke of Open Primaries; Greg Orman, former independent U.S. Senate candidate and author of A Declaration of Independents; Lindsey Williams Drath, CEO of the Forward Party; Amanda Griffiths, vice chair of the Libertarian National Committee; Manu Meel of Bridge USA; Adam Brandon of the Independent Center; Ryan Rabah of Independents Win; Jennifer Esteban of United Independents and many more.
Ben Droz
Independence, Civic Integrity and Better Governance
A central theme of the convention was defining political independence as more than simply not being affiliated with a major party.
Presentations explored independence as a standard of representation: the ability of public officials to exercise independent judgment and serve constituents without undue influence from party leadership, major donors or special interests.
One framework introduced a second dimension to the conventional left-right political spectrum. While the horizontal X-axis represents ideological differences, a vertical Y-axis measures civic integrity, including transparency, accountability, ethical conduct, and resistance to corruption.
The framework offers a practical basis for cooperation among political leaders who may disagree substantially on policy but share an interest in improving the integrity of public institutions. In this sense, the independent movement can also be understood as a movement for corruption-free government and more accountable representation.
Author and former presidential candidate Marianne Williamson reinforced these themes in her keynote, emphasizing government's responsibility to prevent harm, reduce suffering, improve quality of life and steward the natural world.
A National Slate of Competitive Independent Candidates
One of the convention's central programs showcased the 2026 Independent Slate, which Independents Win PAC assembled after an extensive review of independent federal candidates to identify those that demonstrate both alignment with independent representation and electoral viability.
The seven-candidate slate includes Senate candidates Dan Osborn of Nebraska, Seth Bodnar of Montana, Todd Achilles of Idaho and Brian Bengs of South Dakota, alongside House candidates Kevin Kiley of California, Bill Hill of Alaska and Sarah Zabel of Idaho.
The presentation gave the national independent community a chance to hear from serious congressional campaigns as part of a coordinated slate, not as isolated candidacies. Polling in several of these races indicates meaningful competitiveness.
The candidates also illustrated a larger strategy discussed throughout the convention: developing an Independent Fulcrum Caucus in Congress.
In a closely divided House or Senate, a small group of independent legislators could hold consequential votes, negotiate across party lines and help form issue-specific governing coalitions without being institutionally bound to either major party. The strategy seeks to translate independent electoral victories into meaningful legislative influence.
Supporting the slate through November became an immediate priority emerging from the gathering. Readers can review the candidates and examine available polling at Independents Win.
Building Institutions Beyond Election Cycles
INC ’26 also introduced initiatives intended to address longer-term weaknesses in independent political infrastructure.
The Better Governance Institute presented its developing Independent & Corruption-Free Certification Program, intended to establish measurable standards for ethical public leadership. The framework addresses conflicts of interest, financial transparency, bribery, personal enrichment, misuse of public resources and other forms of political corruption.
A second initiative, Independent America, is developing a national organizing platform to recruit, equip, and coordinate independent organizers and local chapters. The objective is to create durable organizing capacity that persists between election cycles, rather than requiring campaigns and civic organizations to continually rebuild local infrastructure.
Independent America is preparing a national pilot for individuals interested in establishing local chapters and developing independent organizing capacity in their communities.
Both initiatives reflect an understanding that lasting political competition requires more than successful individual candidacies. It requires standards, leadership development, professional infrastructure and ongoing civic participation.
Relationships, Culture and Movement Coordination
Beyond the formal presentations, INC ’26 placed considerable emphasis on relationship building among stakeholders. Shared meals, breakout discussions, networking sessions, receptions, and a closing gala gave organizers, funders, candidates, and organizational leaders opportunities to build connections and explore collaboration.
The program also incorporated original artistic performances, including DPAK's movement anthem “Together We Rise,” Naia Kete's “Proud,” Isabella Braveheart's spoken-word performance “Patriot” and Sophia Life's “Power With.” These contributions explored civic identity, patriotism and the cultural dimensions of cooperation across a growing independent movement.
The gathering concluded with commitments to continue supporting independent candidates through November, strengthen cooperation through a United Independent Coalition and advance organizing and institutional development throughout 2027.
After November, the next major electoral milestone will be 2028, when the movement aims to field a stronger generation of competitive candidates, supported by more developed national infrastructure. The fifth Independent National Convention is planned for Washington, D.C., in September 2028.
The significance of INC ’26 will ultimately be measured by the outcomes that follow: electoral results, functioning partnerships, stronger institutions and sustained organizing capacity.
For now, the convention provided a substantive view of an independent political sector increasingly recognizing opportunities to coordinate its otherwise separate efforts. Whether those efforts develop into lasting political influence remains an open question, but the work underway across the movement is becoming more organized and interconnected.
Main-stage presentations and performances from INC ’26 will begin publishing free for public viewing within the next week. Visit IndependentNationalConvention.com to access the recordings as they become available on the INC ‘26 Content page.
Ben Droz
Christopher Life is the founder and CEO of United Independents and founder and executive producer of the Independent National Convention.
Keep ReadingShow less

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
Oct 14, 2026
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.
What stood out was not simply the agreements themselves. It was the range of people involved in reaching them — and how they got there.
These were not eight self-described moderates who saw immigration the same way. The Bristol group included a conservative helping a longtime undocumented family, a Trump supporter who opposed amnesty and a Democratic participant who worked with refugees. One participant had assumed the dialogue would attract “only moderates.”
Instead, another participant came away surprised that they had “agreed way more than they expected.”
Getting there had taken work.
Months earlier, on May 16 in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, the eight Bristol participants were among a larger, evenly balanced group who spent nearly five hours in a Braver Angels Common Ground Workshop. The model asks people with differing views to understand one another and identify Points of Agreement. An idea becomes a Point of Agreement only when every participant can support it.
Participants worked toward unanimous Points of Agreement on values, concerns and possible remedies, then brought them to Bristol for a face-to-face conversation with Fitzpatrick and Suozzi.
What emerged crossed familiar partisan lines.
Among the values participants unanimously identified were both “rule of law” and “respect for human rights and dignity.” Among their concerns were what they called “massive indiscriminate detention and deportation,” but also the financial burden on taxpayers.
The same complexity appeared in possible remedies. One paired agreement called for permanent residency — but not citizenship — for undocumented immigrants who had lived here at least 10 years and committed no crime, alongside “zero tolerance and enforcement with penalties for illegal immigration in the future.”
As that Point of Agreement was read aloud in Bristol, Suozzi’s eyes widened. The brief reaction captured something important. Constituents with sharply different views had reached unanimous agreement on a combination of ideas that did not fit neatly into the usual red-or-blue immigration debate.
Both lawmakers said they agreed with much of what the group had produced and discussed the obstacles to translating agreement into legislation and the value of more members engaging in this kind of constituent deliberation.
None of this means the workshop participants had discovered the answer to immigration, nor should these Points of Agreement be mistaken for a representative poll of the American electorate. But that is precisely what makes the exercise interesting.
Polling tells us what people think separately. Deliberation can tell us what people are capable of reaching together.
Participants had spent hours listening across disagreement, explaining the experiences behind their views, confronting tradeoffs and deciding what they could endorse together.
One participant said immigration had been “ripping us apart as a country.” Yet participants spoke afterward not only about unexpected agreement, but also about relationships they had formed with people across the political divide.
Through the Citizens Commission on Immigration, Braver Angels is applying this model at several levels. Nearly 50 Common Ground Workshops on immigration have taken place nationwide, engaging ordinary Americans in the work of finding areas of agreement across political differences.
The same approach is being used among national immigration leaders. For over a year, a couple dozen prominent advocates and experts from across the ideological spectrum — people who have spent decades on opposing sides of the immigration debate — have been meeting regularly through Braver Angels’ Immigration Policy Roundtable to better understand their differences and identify areas of agreement. That engagement has also moved into public settings, including a 2026 Braver Angels National Convention discussion featuring roundtable participants and other public conversations across the country.
Congress is the third part of the effort. Members are being invited to engage directly with constituents and national leaders who have already done the difficult work of listening across disagreement. The effort is intended to culminate in a Report to the Nation outlining immigration recommendations reflecting red-blue common ground from the grassroots and national work.
Bristol is not an isolated example. Similar constituent conversations have connected politically diverse Americans with lawmakers from both parties, including Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), Blake Moore (R-Utah), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) and Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.). Participants first identified Points of Agreement across political differences and then brought them directly to their representative.
Better conversations alone will not resolve the country’s disagreements over immigration. Genuine differences remain, and deliberation cannot — and should not — eliminate political conflict.
Citizens can do more than choose sides. They can listen, deliberate and search seriously for areas where agreement is possible. National leaders who have spent years opposing one another can do the same. And elected officials can engage not only with polls, advocacy organizations or the loudest voices in a debate, but with constituents and policy leaders who have already done the difficult work of listening across disagreement.
At the end of the conversation, one participant summed up the experience simply: “I’m leaving today more hopeful.”
Bristol raises a question worth considering: What might happen if more Americans had opportunities to deliberate across political differences, identify genuine Points of Agreement and then bring those agreements directly to their representatives?
Diego N. Sánchez is vice president of policy and strategy at the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a non-resident fellow at Cornell University’s Center on Democracy, and a member of the leadership team of the Braver Angels Citizens Commission on Immigration.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home