Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What we mean when we use words like sedition and insurrection

Rioters storm the Capitol

Pro-Trump rioters breached Capitol security and stormed the building Wednesday.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

From the moment a pro-Trump rally turned into an anti-democracy riot at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, we have heard the repeated use of terms like sedition and insurrection. But as we know, words matter.

So The Fulcrum asked Doron Kalir, clinical professor of law at Cleveland State University's Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, to help turn legal definitions into language everyone can understand.


Sedition

"In essence, sedition occurs whenever two or more people conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to oppose by force its authority. The criminal prohibition against sedition appears in 18 U.S.C. (U.S. Code) § 2384, and carries a penalty of up to 20-year imprisonment. Interestingly, the law contains specific language against conspiracies to use force in order to 'seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority' of the government."

Insurrection

"An insurrection occurs whenever an organized and armed uprising takes place against the authority of the United States. The criminal prohibition against insurrection can be found in 18 U.S.C § 2383, which states that 'whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States ... or give aid or comfort thereto' shall be subject to up to 10 years in prison. Interestingly, the act adds that that person shall also be "incapable of holding any [Federal] office."

Treason

"Treason is the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, either by making war against it or by materially supporting its enemies. The criminal prohibition against treason can be found in the U.S. Constitution, Art. III § 3 ('Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.'). According to U.S.C. § 2381, treason can be punishable by death, and in any event no less than five years' imprisonment. Again, a person convicted of treason cannot serve in public (federal) office."

25th Amendment

"The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1967. It was adopted in part due to lessons learned following the Kennedy assassination. The amendment has four parts, the last of which is of interest today. It allows the vice president, together with a majority of the Cabinet members, to author a 'written declaration (attesting) that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.' When such a letter is sent to the House and the Senate, 'the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.' The section continues to explain what happens afterwards, but due to the short time that remains for the current administration, that is likely moot. That section of the 25th Amendment has never been used, and no vice president has ever been declared an 'Acting President.' Again, to trigger this section, a majority of Cabinet members — all of whom are nominated by the sitting president — have to agree to declare him as 'unable to discharge' his duties. That is not likely to happen anytime soon."

Other terms that have been used — like banana republic, coup, and putsch — may be fun to say but have no legal definition.


Read More

AI chip
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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

The History of U.S. Prevention Through Deterrence: Effective Border Policy or Humanitarian Risk?

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
A microphone in the foreground and a crowd, blurry in the background.

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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less
Meeting, handshake and business people with deal in office for funding approval and success.

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

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.

Keep ReadingShow less