In this video from Healing Race, Andre and Todd reflect on their conversation in the first episode, discussing the parallels between Black and Jewish histories of discrimination and hate and how they think about those histories when it comes to our country today. Andre asks Todd about times when he’s felt fears for his own safety and relate his stories to his experience as a Black man in this country.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter in the Oval Office at the White House on May 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker
Are President Trump’s Economic Promises Falling Short?
May 09, 2025
President Donald Trump was elected for a second term after a campaign in which voters were persuaded that he could skillfully manage the economy better than his Democratic opponent. On the campaign trail and since being elected for the second time, President Trump has promised that his policies would bolster economic growth, boost domestic manufacturing with more products “made in the USA,” reduce the price of groceries “on Day 1,” and make America “very rich” again.
These were bold promises, so how is President Trump doing, three and a half months into his term? The evidence so far is as mixed and uncertain as his roller coaster tariff policy.
Economic growth. After a chaotic month of on again, off again tariffs and a turbulent stock market, many Americans are dismayed that the nation’s gross domestic product—the measure of all goods and services produced by the economy—actually shrank in the first three months of the year. But rather than indicating a struggling economy, it may have been a byproduct of companies front-loading the purchase of imports in anticipation of the tariffs to come. Imports get subtracted from GDP for accounting purposes, so this may end up being a short-term trend. In the meantime, all the imports have led to a surge in the trade deficit, which hit a record $140 billion in March–the exact opposite of the Trump administration’s tariff policy goal.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Reflecting the volatile climate of conflicting signals, Goldman Sachs raised its recession probability forecast to 45%. Yet, later that same day, after President Trump announced a 90-day tariff pause, Goldman Sachs walked back its prediction. Uncertainty is in the air, everywhere you look.
Prices and inflation. Here too, the trend is toward more uncertainty and conflicting signals.. Donald Trump said, “We’re going to get the prices down. Groceries, cars, everything.” But the average retail price of eggs in the grocery store increased from $4.95 in January to $6.22 in March, a 26% increase. Paradoxically, though, wholesale egg prices—the amount grocers pay to suppliers—have dropped since Trump took office. The real question is: will that wholesale egg decline ever translate into relief for consumers? Currently, we simply don’t know.
Meat and poultry prices have risen over 9% compared to a year ago, tripling the rate of inflation (though prices have fluctuated somewhat by locality). Prices for coffee, seafood, fruit and vegetables, and cheese and nuts are predicted to rise due to the uncertainty and volatility of the White House tariff policy, causing businesses to freeze their production and investment plans.
David Dennison, director of operations at the Original Pancake House restaurant chain in suburban Washington, D.C., said costs have already increased by more than 20% on food items such as oranges, peppers, avocados, and tomatoes.
President Trump also promised to bring down the price of gas fuel through his enthusiastic embrace of a “Drill, baby, drill” policy. Yet, so far the price of gas has increased slightly from $3.018 per gallon in December to $3.171 in April, about a 5% increase. But paradoxically again, the price of crude oil has dropped by nearly 25% since early January. However, due to a lag in the price at the gas pump, it’s not clear which way retail prices ultimately will go.
While many prices are up, again somewhat paradoxically, the rate of inflation has dropped to 2.4%, marking a six-month low. But as President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris found out the hard way, everyday people don’t care much about the rate of inflation, which is the rate of price increases. They care about the price levels themselves—what they are actually paying in the grocery store or at the gas pump.
The White House can be cheered a bit by the fact that the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI) decreased by 0.1%, marking the first monthly decline since May 2020. But it had increased twice as much the month before. With so much uncertainty and volatility, it’s hard to know which way the CPI will continue trending. Once the full impact of tariffs hits—either actual or the effects of policy uncertainty—most experts predict that prices will climb. President Trump pretty much admitted as much with his comment that children might have to spend a “couple bucks more” on dolls.
Unemployment. One positive sign for the Trump economy is that the unemployment rate so far has held steady at a very low 4.2%, despite White House attempts to fire many workers at various federal agencies. Changes in unemployment rates tend to lag behind the broader economy, except during a catastrophe like a pandemic or war, so it’s possible that Trump’s executive orders and other actions might show impact in the coming weeks.
Wages. Additionally, the Trump economy is benefiting from an increase in real average hourly wages from March 2024 to March 2025 by 1.4% (and by 0.3% from February to March alone). But that is still way lower than the rate of inflation, so workers might not be noticing the increase. And Trump can’t really claim much credit since most of that increase came when Joe Biden was president. The average work week actually declined during the past year by 0.6 percent, so the wages in people’s pockets don’t reflect much of an increase.
In all these areas, there has been more uncertainty than clarity, and the verdict about future trends is still out.
The stock market has fallen…
One thing is for sure: the stock market’s gyrating roller coaster has been giving millions of investors financial vertigo. The S&P 500, a broad stock market gauge, dropped 18.9% between its Feb. 19 peak and its April 8 low, before partly bouncing back in the succeeding weeks. The S&P 500 is still five percent lower since Trump’s inauguration in January. So far, this has been Wall Street’s worst start to a new presidential term in 51 years.
…and so has the dollar.
The U.S. dollar has also lost about nine percent of its value since Trump took office. Investors in U.S. Treasuries and America’s debt have hesitated amidst the ongoing uncertainty, with bond prices fluctuating along with the value of the dollar. Currency investors instead have loaded up on more of other currencies and commodities, such as the euro, yen, Swiss franc, and gold. In short, investors are registering their pessimism about the Trump administration’s policies by dumping the dollar, so this is a trend worth watching to see how it develops.
If this decline in dollar dominance continues, it could force the U.S. government to pay much higher interest rates to service the national debt. That could well increase the chances that the federal government, at some point, would be forced to enact either tax hikes or cuts to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (which the Republican Congress is already trying to figure out how to cut).
The Federal Reserve recently voted unanimously to keep interest rates unchanged as officials brace for the impacts of the tariffs, and to “wait and see” if they will stoke higher inflation and slower growth. Fed Chair Jerome Powell said that it’s “not at all clear” what the central bank should do next, since the uncertainty about tariffs has become pervasive among businesses, which has in turn resulted in stalled investments and hesitation in economic planning. Some companies have put expansion plans on hold due to the unpredictability of trade policy.
The tumult of tariffs.
The sudden imposition of on again, off again high tariffs has introduced an unsettling level of uncertainty and turbulence into the U.S. and global economies. The tariffs have disrupted global supply chains, making it harder for businesses to forecast profitability. While some countries have responded with reciprocal tariffs, others have opted for negotiations, adding another layer of unpredictability. The White House’s yo-yo tariff war has left longtime trade allies, as well as competitors, bewildered and unsure of America’s trustworthiness as a trade partner. With tariffs on China reaching up to 145%, many firms have had to pause orders from China, increasing the odds that they will soon run out of inventory for certain goods and materials.
Just last weekend, new tariffs of 25 percent on imported auto parts took effect. That’s in addition to a previous tax of 25 percent on imported cars. In early May, business leaders said they are struggling to forecast their business and investment outlook because of the lack of clarity on trade policy. More companies have warned that they will have to pass on higher costs to consumers as they pay more to import finished goods and spare parts into the U.S. Despite the recent stock recovery, “The damage to economic momentum has already been done,” said Mike Sanders from Madison Investments.
Different economists have contrasting views on these weighty matters, and the White House insists that a degree of short-term pain is necessary to bring long-term gain. But The Economist magazine predicts that “America will be a country with shabbier roads, older airports and more dated factories.” The Trump administration’s tariff strategy is a huge gamble, and the verdict is still out on its ultimate impacts.
Consumers react, Trump’s favorability declines.
Amidst this uncertainty, Americans are increasingly worried about the direction of the Trump economy. For the first time since 2001, a Gallup poll found that more than half of Americans say their financial situation is getting worse, and President Trump’s approval ratings are declining. In a CNN/SSRS poll, 66% of Americans said they are pessimistic (29%) or afraid (37%) about the economy, with just 34% feeling enthusiastic or optimistic. Donald Trump’s 100-day approval rating is the worst for a U.S. president in 80 years. Even small businesses that had high hopes for Trump’s second term show declining confidence.
Perhaps to counter the darkening public mood, the White House has begun taking steps to try and hide the new economic reality from the American public. Recently, President Trump tried to claim that the price of gasoline is the “lowest in years,” which several media outlets, including Fox News, debunked as far from accurate. And an Amazon.com subsidiary announced that, in the interest of transparency, it would begin publicly posting how much tariffs will personally cost each of its customers on every product. But the Trump administration decried that as a “hostile and political act,” and President Trump reportedly called billionaire Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder, and demanded that Amazon cease these efforts. Amazon complied.
Meanwhile, Trump has started to make excuses for the economy’s volatile performance. On the one hand, he takes full credit for private-sector growth that started right after his November election. But then he frequently blames the previous president, Joe Biden, for the current slowdown and high prices. In a recent interview with NBC, the president deceptively boasted, “The good parts are the ‘Trump economy’ and the bad parts are the ‘Biden economy’.”
But it’s not quite that simple. David Sanger, New York Times national security correspondent, said President Trump is facing a fundamental timing problem over his tariff strategy. “It will take years,” said Sanger, “for the huge investments he predicts will flow into the United States to unfold and bring about the industrial renaissance he has promised.” For example, the timeline for constructing a new semiconductor fabrication plant in the U.S. can take five years. But the economic pain of the tariffs has already started and will increase in the months ahead. “What is at stake,” wrote Sanger, “is a question of fundamental competence on an issue that [Trump] has always used to define himself.”
With 44 months still left in Donald Trump’s second term, it’s too soon to predict the ultimate fate of the Trump economy, or whether President Trump will succeed in revitalizing US manufacturing. As Yogi Berra once famously said, “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” But the White House still has many months to try and right the leaky ship, and the clock is ticking.
Steven Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote, and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Closeup of Software engineering team engaged in problem-solving and code analysis.
Getty Images, MTStock Studio
AI Is Here. Our Laws Are Stuck in the Past.
May 09, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) promises a future once confined to science fiction: personalized medicine accounting for your specific condition, accelerated scientific discovery addressing the most difficult challenges, and reimagined public education designed around AI tutors suited to each student's learning style. We see glimpses of this potential on a daily basis. Yet, as AI capabilities surge forward at exponential speed, the laws and regulations meant to guide them remain anchored in the twentieth century (if not the nineteenth or eighteenth!). This isn't just inefficient; it's dangerously reckless.
For too long, our approach to governing new technologies, including AI, has been one of cautious incrementalism—trying to fit revolutionary tools into outdated frameworks. We debate how century-old privacy torts apply to vast AI training datasets, how liability rules designed for factory machines might cover autonomous systems, or how copyright law conceived for human authors handles AI-generated creations. We tinker around the edges, applying digital patches to analog laws.
This constant patching creates what we might call "legal tech debt." Imagine trying to run sophisticated AI software on a computer from the 1980s—it might technically boot up, but it will be slow, prone to crashing, and incapable of performing its intended function. Similarly, forcing AI into legal structures designed for a different technological era means we stifle its potential benefits while failing to adequately manage its risks. Outdated privacy rules hinder the development of AI for public good projects; ambiguous liability standards chill innovation in critical sectors; fragmented regulations create uncertainty and inefficiency.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Allowing this legal tech debt to accumulate isn't just about missed opportunities; It breeds public distrust when laws seem irrelevant to lived reality. It invites policy chaos, as seen with the frantic, often ineffective, attempts to regulate social media after years of neglect. It risks a future where transformative technology evolves haphazardly, governed by stopgap measures and reactive panic rather than thoughtful design. With AI, the stakes are simply too high for such recklessness.
We need a fundamentally different approach. Instead of incremental tinkering, we need bold, systemic change. We need to be willing to leapfrog—to bypass outdated frameworks and design legal and regulatory systems specifically for the age of AI.
What does this leapfrog approach look like? It requires three key shifts in thinking:
First, we must look ahead. Policymakers and experts need to engage seriously with plausible future scenarios for AI development, learning from the forecasting methods used by technologists. This isn’t about predicting the future with certainty but about understanding the range of possibilities—from accelerating breakthroughs to unexpected plateaus—and anticipating the legal pressures and opportunities each might create. We need to proactively identify which parts of our legal infrastructure are most likely to buckle under the strain of advanced AI.
Second, we must embrace fundamental redesign. Armed with foresight, we must be willing to propose and implement wholesale reforms, not just minor rule changes. If AI requires vast datasets for public benefit, perhaps we need entirely new data governance structures—like secure, publicly accountable data trusts or commons—rather than just carving out exceptions to FERPA or HIPAA. If AI can personalize education, perhaps we need to rethink rigid grade-based structures and accreditation standards, not just approve AI tutors within the old system. This requires political courage and a willingness to question long-held assumptions about how legal systems should operate.
Third, we must build in adaptability. Given the inherent uncertainty of AI’s trajectory, any new legal framework must be dynamic, not static. We need laws designed to evolve. This means incorporating mechanisms like mandatory periodic reviews tied to real-world outcomes, sunset clauses that force reconsideration of rules, specialized bodies empowered to update technical standards quickly, and even using AI itself to help monitor the effectiveness and impacts of regulations in real-time. We need systems that learn and adapt, preventing the accumulation of new tech debt.
Making this shift won't be easy. It demands a new level of ambition from our policymakers, a greater willingness among legal experts to think beyond established doctrines, and broader public engagement on the fundamental choices AI presents. But the alternative—continuing to muddle through with incremental fixes—is far riskier. It’s a path toward unrealized potential, unmanaged risks, and a future where technology outpaces our ability to govern it wisely.
AI offers incredible possibilities but realizing them requires more than just brilliant code. It requires an equally ambitious upgrade to our legal and regulatory operating system. It’s time to stop patching the past and start designing the future. It’s time to leapfrog.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Keep ReadingShow less
Why We Must Revive Decency
May 09, 2025
Is our common sense of decency dead? Today in America, it certainly can feel that way.
Deportations of two-year-old children. Food bank funding cuts that leave thousands hungry. Culture wars that envelop city council and school board meetings. The continued coarsening of our daily interactions, even among family and close friends.
Indecency abounds. Are we really okay with where we are headed as a country—as people?
It would be easy to use this topic to stake out a political position or call out a particular leader. But I believe the notion of decency implicates all of us. We all play a role here; we are all needed. We simply cannot move forward together if we continue to sacrifice, set aside, or trample on decency. All we’re left with is a slow demise into the abyss of manipulation, duplicity, and haranguing—even different strains of evil.
Decency is a universal value for a reason. Take any major world religion. Christianity says, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Islam notes, “None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Judaism asserts, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Not religiously inclined? Consider the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights, which opens by saying, “Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world.” Or consider our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which gets at the same essential truth when it proclaims, “All men are created equal.”
Let’s be clear. When I talk of decency, I am not referring to mere civility, politeness, or political correctness. Major religions have something different—indeed, something deeper—in mind. So, too, our founding document.
Civility is about manners. About upholding decorum. About using certain language so as not to offend. But decency deals with how we exist in community together and what the implications are for living in a shared society. Where civility often settles for inoffensive talk, decency demands behavior that demonstrates the innate humanity of our fellow Americans. It comes from a belief in the innate goodness of individuals and the intrinsic value of every individual.
I believe we face some fundamental choices. Will we commit to making decency non-negotiable in our daily interactions and efforts or not? Will we seek to uphold it in our political and civic culture or not?
I am not suggesting that you demonize others for being indecent or come out swinging against those who travel in indecency. We cannot root out indecency with more of the same. What I am asking is for you to step forward—in your social circles, your organization, your community—and exhibit decency through your very words and actions. Decency requires that we demand more of ourselves and more of others.
This means insisting that each of us will be seen and heard. That each of us will have our dignity upheld; this is non-negotiable. That no one will be left out or left behind. That empathy is valued and cruelty is rejected. That we will take care of one another, even amid our differences.
On these matters, we must draw a clear line and be consistent and resolute about what we are absolutely and unequivocally for.
Is decency dead? Not yet. But it must be revived, and each of us must step forward to do it. Starting now.
Rich Harwood is the president and founder of The Harwood Institute.
Keep ReadingShow less
Global Lessons, Local Tools: Democracy at Home and Abroad
May 08, 2025
Welcome to the latest edition of The Expand Democracy 5 from Rob Richie and Eveline Dowling. This week they delve into: (1) Deep Dive - Inviting 21st century political association; (2) Australian elections show how fairer voting matter; (3) International election assistance on the chopping block; (4) Checks and balances and the US presidency; and (5) The week’s timely links.
In keeping with The Fulcrum’s mission to share ideas that help to repair our democracy and make it live and work in our everyday lives, we intend to publish The Expand Democracy 5 in The Fulcrum each Friday.
If you want to suggest a pro-democracy idea for coverage in The Expand Democracy 5, please use the contact form at Expand Democracy.
Deep Dive: 2, 4, 6, 8… Let’s Associate! ⚡
In the spirit of our constitutional framers’ call for the ongoing pursuit of a more perfect union, our democracy is strongest when its tools and mechanics evolve with the times. A major question is how our party system will evolve. Unanticipated by the framers, parties quickly emerged and were dominant by the 1830s. Those parties organized more fluidly without the regulation of a government-printed ballot and could pursue tactics like fusion cross-nominations. Eventually, incumbent office-holders adopted rules and regulations, making the Democratic and Republican parties the only viable ones, leading to the seemingly entrenched two-party system we have today.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
However, most younger Americans aren’t buying it—see the chart below illustrating the yawning gap in preference for registering as unaffiliated among young voters compared to older ones. Younger people are used to real choices, and don’t like either overly limited choices or being pigeon-holed. In this era of fierce partisanship that is tearing our nation apart, we need new models of association to dissolve the current political binary – likely one that is more transitory and responsive to change than a European multi-party system, with a full embrace of independent voters and candidates, as well as allowance for meaningful difference within the parties.
A simple structural tool to allow more political association is the ballot itself. In Washington State, candidates have the power to indicate their association with 18 characters following the word “Prefers.” Most indicate the major parties, but there are intriguing variations that suggest a greater connection to organized movements within a major party that might endorse candidates - like “MAGA Republican”, “Free market Republican", “Working families Democrat”, “Pro-choice Democrat”, “Problem solver", and so on. Building on this idea, FairVote a decade ago created a policy brief based on UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf’s proposal that ballots in nonpartisan elections could allow candidates to list a proven endorsement – from the mayor, say, or a strong neighborhood association. I’d like to see that idea extended to any ballot where it’s hard to distinguish candidates, such as crowded primary fields.
We should explore additional tools to enhance association in ways that encourage people to work together politically. Mobile voting must still prove it can meet election integrity standards, but if established, could easily incorporate 21st-century tools such as friend groups sharing their voting decision and easy ways to click on links to videos from candidates, endorsers, and nonpartisan fact-checkers—all tactics that also could be developed alongside continuing to vote on paper. Bottom line: I suspect we’ll be moving away from our traditional understanding of rigidly defined parties even as parties play a key role in bringing voters and representatives under common umbrellas.
Stay tuned for additional ideas, and feel free to send us your suggestions by messaging Team@ExpandDemocracy.org.
[Source: Unite America, 2024]
Australia's election showcases the impact of fair voting 🎬
On May 3rd, Australians cast ballots in a national election. With the tally still ongoing, the left-leaning Labor Party has won a sweeping victory over the conservative Coalition. Women surged in representation, winning nearly 60% of Labor’s seats and possibly will end up with an overall majority of seats in the combined House and Senate.
Ranked choice voting played a huge role. On average, more than five candidates contest every Australian house seat without talk of “spoilers.” RCV showed that the MAGA-like approach of the conservative coalition generally reached a support ceiling below 50%, with this Australian television graphic indicating that 12 seats might have shifted from Labor and independents to the conservative coalition without RCV. Notably, the independents (projected to end up with 11 seats) almost all first won their current seats with “comeback” RCV wins as well.
[Source: The Project]
On the flip side, Labor is winning a landslide majority with only a third of the first choice. The less powerful Senate uses the proportional form of ranked choice voting, and there, the results are quite reflective of all voters’ first-choice preferences. As always the case, rules matter.
[Source: Australia Broadcasting Corporation]
International Election and Democracy Assistance Reeling ⚡
Many are shocked by the scale, speed, and absence of a democratic process in the Trump administration’s attack on the federal workforce and government functions. One particular consequence is on the United States' role in supporting pro-democracy conversation and activity around the world. That work may not have always been perfect, but its loss will be deeply felt. The National Endowment for Democracy in 2024 “made over 1,900 grants across 91 countries, totaling $286 million,” as it explains in its annual report.
That funding has been slashed, including to subcontractors. According to Linda Robinson of the Council on Foreign Relations, “Since its arrival in office, the Trump administration has halted 92 of 95 programs of the International Republican Institute, according to its president, Dan Twining. The institute has closed all 64 of its offices abroad and fired up to 85 percent of its staff. National Democratic Institute President Tamara Wittes testified that 93 of its 97 awards were terminated, three-fourths of its offices closed, and about 1,000 people fired.”
For a sage voice on global democracy and the impact of such cuts, visit the Carnegie Endowment’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, including this recent analysis by Thomas Carothers and Oliver Stuenkel: How Will the Second Trump Administration Affect Global Democracy.
Checks and Balances and Presidential Power
Although Donald Trump has taken exerting presidential power to a whole new level, it is, in fact, an extension of a disturbing trend of a delegitimized Congress ceding its power—due in no small part to the “people’s house” falling deeply short of any sense of accountability to voters and full representativeness of American pluralism. The sweeping voter approval of term limits in the 1990s should have been a warning sign to Congress to review its rules. Instead, its short-term political self-interest in incumbent protection has led to a long-term loss of power.
Jack Goldsmith, a former assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, has an insightful essay in the New York Times on We Have to Deal with Presidential Power. Here’s an excerpt:
“Yet it is important to recognize that many of Mr. Trump’s efforts to expand the powers of the office build substantially on the excesses of recent presidencies. The overall pattern of presidential action over the past few decades reveals an escalation of power grabs that put the country on a terrible course even before Mr. Trump took office again. The presidency needs reform, and Americans must consider ways — however implausible they may seem in the context of today’s politics — to get there…
“A more important but much steeper path runs through Congress. It is hard to overstate how much the decline of a responsible Congress is the cause of presidencies run amok. There are many good reforms on the table to reorganize Congress and campaign financing in ways that induce the legislative branch to play a more serious role in policymaking and oversight. The hard part, the fundamental hurdle, is getting a dysfunctional Congress to adopt them.”
Below are three relevant links:
- Georgetown University’s Modernizing Congress project
- Civic Salon’s A Strategic Guide for Organizing Civil Society Field Hearings that “provides a practical approach to addressing concerns about presidential overreach by leveraging Congress's capacities”
- FairVote’s resources on the Fair Representation Act that is the best single proposal I know for changing how voters elect - and experience - Congress.
Timely Links
We close The Expand Democracy 5 with notable links, including followups to recent topics.
- “New Republican majority on the NC elections board replaces the executive director”: North Carolina’s Republican legislature pushed through legislation last year allowing for a partisan takeover of the state board of elections. It has now ousted its long-term director and career election official, Karen Brinson Bell, and replaced her with the House speaker’s counsel, who has no election official experience.
- How Will Ranked-Choice Voting Work in the N.Y.C. Mayoral Primary?”: The New York Times uses excellent visuals to show the round-by-round impact of ranked choice voting in the Democratic mayoral primary in 2021. While emphasizing the 140,202 voters who backed trailing candidates and did not rank one of the two finalists, it misses the story of the nearly 318,00 voters who had their vote count in the final instant runoff due to RCV - and turned a 9% lead for Eric Adams into a razor-thin win of 0.5%.
- “Judge halts parts of Trump’s overhaul of US elections, including proof-of-citizenship requirement”: “A judge... blocked the Trump administration from immediately enacting certain changes to how federal elections are run, including adding a proof-of-citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form…But the judge allowed other parts of Trump’s sweeping executive order on U.S. elections to go forward for now, including a directive to tighten mail ballot deadlines around the country..In a 120-page decision on Thursday, she said the plaintiffs had proven that the proof-of-citizenship requirement would cause their clients irreparable harm and go against the public interest, while the government had offered ‘almost no defense of the President’s order on the merits.’ Accordingly, she granted a preliminary injunction to stop the citizenship requirement from moving forward while the lawsuit plays out.”
- Does Mixing Civic Assemblies and Participatory Budgeting Make Either Process Better?: From the invaluable National Civic Review in its Spring 2025 issue: “In September 2022 New York City residents were introduced to The People’s Money, the first citywide participatory budgeting process. The People’s Money allows every New Yorker to have a say in how to spend a part of the city budget. It is a process built on many years of participatory budgeting in NYC and in communities across the U.S. But it is also a process that had never been done before citywide. How could we create a program that allowed all New Yorkers to have their voices heard and have a meaningful say in how to spend part of the city budget?”
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More