Americans expect the Supreme Court to be nonpartisan, but was that always the case? In this episode of You Don't Have to Yell, historian Rachel Shelden discusses how Lincoln appointed his campaign manager to the Court, later expanded it for a pro-Union justice, and how voters thought this was all normal.
The nonprofit Facing History & Ourselves offers a mini-lesson for teachers about the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attack, designed for grades 6-12.
A New York bill would require schools to teach about the Jan. 6 insurrection.
The bill calls for all K-12 students to be taught about the event, with the state determining how best to incorporate the events into history classes. Since 2021, public opinion on the U.S. Capitol attack has dulled because President Donald Trump and his supporters have downplayed it since then.
Asm. Charles Lavine, D-Glen Cove, the bill's sponsor, said it is important not to whitewash the facts.
"The problem with whitewashing history is that students in those states are not going to learn to be the critical thinkers that we really need in order to confront the great dilemmas that will face us in the future," Lavine contended.
Though initial polls found people equated the Capitol attack with an attack on democracy, some polls show people approve of Trump's actions. Many groups have teaching tools so educators can accurately answer students' questions about Jan. 6.
While the bill is relatively new, it has garnered positive feedback. It is under review by the Assembly's Education Committee.
The bill comes several weeks after President Donald Trump pardoned everyone prosecuted for participating in the Jan. 6 attack. Polls show most people disapprove of the pardons.
Lavine acknowledged one challenge for the bill is finding an impartial way to teach about a politically polarizing event, adding it will be left to the state's education experts.
"Those are the members of the Board of Regents, in consultation with the state's Education Department, to make the determination about what is taught particularly in subject matters," Lavine outlined. "What this bill simply does is add to a list of major subject areas that should be instructed in our public schools."
Along with the Capitol attack, the bill also calls on teachers to educate students about patriotism, citizenship, civic education, values and America's history with diversity and religious tolerance. Lavine noted one goal of the bill is to ensure children learn about good and bad parts of history, from slavery and the Holocaust to the Irish potato famine.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
NY bill calls for K-12 teaching of Jan. 6 Capitol attack was originally published by the Public News Service and is shared with permission. Edwin J. Viera is a reporter and producer in North Tonawanda, New York.
In one of the most dramatic White House confrontations in recent memory, President Donald Trump’s meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky exposed a deepening rift between Kyiv and Washington.
Zelensky, seeking reassurances on U.S. support and a critical minerals deal, faced a blistering rebuke from Trump and his team instead. The spectacle underscored the mounting uncertainty surrounding America’s role in the Ukraine conflict and its long-term commitment to Kyiv. Zelensky’s visit was expected to reinforce economic ties and secure continued U.S. military aid. However, tensions flared when Trump accused Zelensky of being “disrespectful” and “not ready for peace.” Vice President J.D. Vance, a proponent of reduced aid to Ukraine, intensified the confrontation by questioning Kyiv’s gratitude.
As the exchange escalated, Zelensky pointed out that Russian President Vladimir Putin had repeatedly violated ceasefires, rendering diplomatic overtures futile. Vance countered that diplomacy was the only viable path to ending Ukraine’s destruction. The breaking point came when Trump bluntly told Zelensky, “You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.” The fallout was immediate. Zelensky’s planned joint press conference with Trump was abruptly canceled, and his security detail swiftly escorted him out of the White House grounds.
The friction between Trump and Zelensky is not new. Zelensky was an unwilling participant in Trump’s first impeachment saga in 2019 when Trump was accused of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for military aid. More recently, Trump has repeatedly questioned U.S. support for Kyiv, labeling Zelensky a “dictator without elections” and blaming Ukraine for the war—comments that have only widened the divide.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Zelensky has pushed back, accusing Trump of parroting Russian disinformation. His refusal to sign a critical minerals deal at the Munich Security Conference further irked the Trump camp, which had sought access to Ukraine’s vast rare-earth resources. The White House viewed this as yet another sign of Kyiv’s reluctance to align with U.S. economic interests.
Russia wasted no time in capitalizing on the rift. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev mockingly declared that Zelensky had finally received the “slap down” he deserved. Russian state media framed the episode as proof that U.S. support for Ukraine was waning, portraying Trump’s stance as a signal that Washington could no longer be relied upon as Kyiv’s steadfast ally.
The timing could not have been worse for Ukraine. Friday marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, a grim reminder that despite billions in Western aid, Kyiv remains locked in a war of attrition.
For Putin, the White House debacle was more than just a public relations win—it was a potential turning point in his long-term strategy to fracture Western unity.
While international reaction was mixed, Trump’s allies in the Republican Party backed him. Senator Lindsey Graham, once a vocal supporter of U.S. aid to Ukraine, defended Trump’s approach. “Most Americans watching today wouldn’t want Zelensky as a business partner,” Graham remarked on Fox News, reflecting a broader GOP shift away from unconditional support for Kyiv. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump’s stance, stating that he and Vance were “standing up for the American people.” Even Senator Marco Rubio, who reportedly sat stone-faced during the meeting, later praised Trump for displaying “the courage no president has shown before.”
European leaders were left unsettled. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had sought to reassure Trump of NATO’s commitment to countering Russian aggression. Macron flattered Trump’s negotiation skills, while Starmer extended an invitation from King Charles for a state visit. Their efforts now seem in vain, as Trump’s clash with Zelensky sent shockwaves through European capitals.
European nations, already anxious about Trump’s unpredictability, must now prepare for the possibility that Kyiv may need to fend for itself.
For Zelensky, the fallout presents a serious dilemma. With Trump signaling a potential U.S. pullback, Kyiv must reinforce its alliances elsewhere, particularly within the European Union.
Despite the tensions, Ukraine relies heavily on American military and economic aid, making it imperative to navigate Washington’s shifting political landscape cautiously.
For Trump, the Oval Office showdown was a calculated display of strength designed to appeal to his “America First” base while reinforcing his tough-on-allies stance. Whether this approach yields tangible diplomatic results remains to be seen. If anything, the meeting reinforced concerns that Trump’s foreign policy is driven more by personal grievances than strategic vision.
Meanwhile, Moscow is watching closely, waiting for the moment when Western unity fractures completely. If Friday’s Oval Office spectacle was any indication, that moment may not be far off.
In addition, Ukraine should explore diversifying its alliances beyond traditional Western partners. Strengthening ties with emerging powers such as India, Japan, and South Korea could provide Kyiv with alternative sources of support and investment. By fostering these relationships, Ukraine can reduce its dependency on any single ally and build a more resilient network of international partnerships. This approach enhances Ukraine's strategic position and signals to Moscow that Kyiv has a broad support base, making it more challenging for Russia to exploit divisions within the international community.
The path forward will hinge on whether European leaders can step into the vacuum left by the United States and whether Ukraine can withstand the mounting pressure from Moscow and Washington. If Macron and Starmer can forge a coherent European-led strategy, they may succeed in keeping Ukraine’s war effort viable. However, if Trump continues to undermine Zelensky while sending mixed signals to U.S. allies, the risk of a fractured Western response - and a weakened Ukraine - will only grow.
In the coming days, the world will be watching closely. Ukraine’s future hangs in the balance, and the choices made by Western leaders now will determine whether Kyiv can withstand this latest geopolitical storm or be forced into a settlement that undermines its sovereignty and security.
Imran Khalid is a physician, geostrategic analyst, and freelance writer.
NEEDS EDITING
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
Medicaid is a health insurance program that helps low-income Americans pay for medical care. It's a joint program between the federal government and the states.
WHAT IS THE TOTAL COST OF MEDICAID, AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET DOES IT COMPRISE?
In 2022, the total expenditure on Medicaid in the United States was approximately $824 billion. This accounted for about 19% of all healthcare expenditures in the country.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL NATIONAL HEALTHCARE COSTS IS MEDICAID?
Medicaid is a significant part of the federal budget, representing around 18% of the total national healthcare expenditure.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL US BUDGET IS MEDICAID?
Medicaid accounts for approximately 10% of the total US federal budget. This makes it one of the largest single expenditures in the federal budget, reflecting its critical role in providing healthcare to millions of Americans.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
WHO QUALIFIES FOR MEDICAID?
Medicaid eligibility varies by state, but generally, it covers several groups of people, including:
1. Low-income families: This includes parents and children who meet certain income criteria.
2. Pregnant women: Pregnant women with low income can qualify for Medicaid.
3. Children: Medicaid provides health coverage for children from low-income families.
4. Seniors: Individuals aged 65 and older who meet income and asset requirements.
5. People with disabilities: Individuals with disabilities who meet specific income and asset criteria.
6. Individuals receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI): Automatically qualify for Medicaid in most states.
7. Adults under 65: In states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, low-income adults under 65 may also qualify.
Each state has its specific eligibility criteria and income limits, so it's essential to check with your state's Medicaid office for precise information.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ALL MEDICAID COSTS ARE PAID TO NON-CITIZENS?
Non-citizens account for a very small portion of Medicaid spending. Less than 1% of total Medicaid spending goes to emergency care for non-citizen immigrants. This includes emergency services for undocumented immigrants and lawfully present immigrants subject to a waiting period for Medicaid eligibility.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL MEDICAID COSTS ARE PAID TO SENIORS?
Seniors and people with disabilities account for a significant portion of Medicaid spending. In 2021, approximately 51% of Medicaid's funds were spent on seniors and people with disabilities. This reflects the higher healthcare costs associated with these groups due to more complex healthcare needs and higher rates of chronic conditions.
DO YOU HAVE TO BE A DOCUMENTED LEGAL IMMIGRANT TO RECEIVE MEDICAID?
Yes, to qualify for Medicaid, you generally need to be a documented legal immigrant. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid, except for emergency services.
However, certain lawfully present immigrants, such as lawful permanent residents (green card holders), refugees, asylees, and others, may qualify for Medicaid if they meet specific eligibility criteria.
WHY DO PEOPLE OVER 65 RECEIVE MEDICAID WHEN THEY CAN RECEIVE MEDICARE INSTEAD?
Medicare and Medicaid provide health coverage but serve different purposes and populations.
Medicare is primarily for people aged 65 and older, as well as some younger individuals with disabilities. It covers services like hospital stays (Part A), outpatient care (Part B), and prescription drugs (Part D). However, Medicare has gaps in coverage, such as long-term care and some out-of-pocket costs.
Medicaid steps in to help fill those gaps for eligible seniors. Medicaid provides more comprehensive coverage, including long-term care services (like nursing home care) and additional support for medical expenses not fully covered by Medicare. This can be a significant benefit for seniors with limited incomes and resources.
So, while seniors can receive Medicare, those who qualify for Medicaid can benefit from its more extensive coverage, ensuring they get the care and support prescribed without facing financial hardships.
ARE THERE ANY STATISTIC ON HOW MANY UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS MIGHT ILLEGALLY BE RECEIVING MEDICAID?
Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for federal healthcare programs like Medicaid and Medicare. Due to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (PRWORA), undocumented immigrants are barred from accessing most federal benefits, including Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). They can only access emergency services, such as emergency Medicaid, if they meet all other Medicaid eligibility requirements2.
However, there are no specific statistics on how many undocumented immigrants might be illegally receiving Medicaid. The data available shows that undocumented immigrants consume only a small fraction of total health expenditures and contribute more through federal, state, and local taxes. Most undocumented immigrants do not have any health coverage apart from emergency care.
WHAT PERCENT OF TOTAL US HEALTH COSTS ARE EMERGENCY CARE VISITS NOT PAID FOR BY INSURANCE?
Emergency care visits not covered by insurance contribute significantly to healthcare costs in the United States. According to a report by the U.S. News & World Report, a substantial portion of emergency department visits are considered "avoidable" and could have been addressed by primary care providers. These avoidable visits add approximately $32 billion annually to national healthcare costs.
While specific percentages of total U.S. health costs attributed to uninsured emergency care visits are not readily available, it's clear that these visits represent a significant financial burden on the healthcare system.
All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.
A scientist analyzes a virus sample in a laboratory.
Ever watched the movie Contagion? Produced in 2011, this thriller tells the story of how a virus, brought to the U.S. by a woman who returns from a Hong Kong business trip, sparks a global pandemic. The film was inspired by the Nipah virus, one of over 200 known zoonotic diseases, meaning illnesses that originate in animals and can spill over to humans.
In the film, actress Kate Winslet plays the role of an Epidemic Intelligence Officer, a specialized scientist deployed on the frontline of a health emergency to track, monitor, and contain disease outbreaks. Her character embodies the kind of experts that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) abruptly sacked on Valentine’s Day at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.).
Established in 1951, the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) is a globally recognized, two-year epidemiology program that has trained over 4,000 “disease detectives,” who are equipped to respond to a wide range of public health challenges and emergencies. Once trained, these scientists are often hired by state or county health departments to strengthen local health systems in disease surveillance and to respond to public health emergencies. However, it remains unclear whether the “disease detectives” program may ultimately be spared, thanks to a President’s Day uproar from alumni of this globally recognized program managed by the C.D.C. But, regardless of which program is gutted, experts contend that the damage to global health security is already done.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“One of the main functions of CDC is international. For example, during the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, this agency was instrumental in containing Ebola in Nigeria,” shared Dr. Dennis Carroll, chair of the Global Virome Project and former director of the USAID’s Pandemic Influenza and other Emerging Threats Unit.
“Now that we have eliminated our foreign assistance and are prohibiting CDC from speaking and collaborating with WHO, our ability to control these events at their point of origin will be immensely compromised. Six months out, we're going to start seeing the consequences of not having a robust infrastructure, resources in place, and global coordination.”
Another critical program for global health security that saw at least 20 layoffs on Valentine’s Day was the Laboratory Leadership Service (LLS), a sister initiative to EIS, aimed at building the capacity of public health laboratory research. People trained through this program, launched in 2015, support rapid response to disasters and investigate emerging health threats. They help to detect harmful fungal infections, improve diagnostics and therapeutics for rabies, cholera and HIV (to name just a few), and re-establish lab operations after a hurricane or a tornado.
“Even though this program does not have the legacy of EIS, the competencies it builds are especially important in the early phases of an outbreak investigation when laboratories must work with speed and accuracy,” said Carroll. “If nothing else, during COVID-19, we witnessed how inadequate laboratory capabilities can put us behind the curve in terms of response.”
Under the premise of saving U.S. taxpayer’s dollars, Americans may be deprived of scientists trained to protect them against the spread of infectious diseases and food-borne illnesses, at a time when the country is facing multiple public health threats. Seasonal influenza is at an all-time high in America, with up to 23 million hospital visits for the flu and at least 370,000 hospitalizations, according to the CDC.
Americans are also facing outbreaks of Bird flu, tuberculosis, and measles. The CDC declared that the measles was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, thanks in part to an effective vaccine that became available in 1963. In 2024, 33 states reported 286 measles cases—most of them among unvaccinated people—and Texas is currently experiencing one of the worst measles outbreaks in the 21st century in America. Public health cannot be taken for granted. It is a long game that requires steady investments.
“Disrupting operations without a plan or vision on such a large scale inevitably introduces inefficiencies in places where speed protects the public’s health,” said Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, editor of Your Local Epidemiologist newsletter on Substack. “It often takes time to see the on-the-ground impact of high-level policy changes.” Though not policy changes per se, these layoffs are a sledgehammer to evidence-based public health initiatives.
Dr. Omer Awan, a physician and Forbes contributor, warns that firing frontline workers will cripple disease surveillance and endanger global health. Rapid response to emerging diseases depends on a well-trained workforce but eliminating specialists at the CDC weakens our ability to deploy investigators to hotspots and be ready for future pandemics. Fewer scientists dedicated to gathering and analyzing scientific data will hinder disease tracking and efforts to combat health disinformation.
Not to mention the issue of bioterrorism, or the intentional release of biological agents to cause harm to people, livestock, or crops. In 2001, letters with powdered anthrax spores were mailed in the United States, causing 22 infections and five deaths, according to the CDC. EIS officers were the foot soldiers of the government response in 2001. With increasing evidence that artificial intelligence may facilitate the accessibility of biological weapons, who will be our first responders in case of a bioterror attack?
Carroll says that most global health success stories reflect U.S. leadership and that without a robust infrastructure in place, and the resources to sustain it, we are in for a major wake-up call. “Be prepared for a virus that was on the cusp of eradication, like polio, to make a resurgence,” he added. “Forget about new emerging diseases. Think about those that are highly infectious and are making a comeback. I am also talking about the emerging threat posed by the highly pathogenic H5N1 Avian flu virus. If that breaks through, COVID-19 will look like a walk in the park. These actions are not about putting America first, they only ensure America will be last.”
Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist for the Fulcrum. Spadacini writes about social justice and public health.
