Issue One is the leading cross-partisan political reform group in Washington. We unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system. We believe we are uniquely positioned to seize this historic opportunity and win bold, national political reforms — to strengthen ethics laws, reduce the influence of big money on politics, modernize elections and end the pay-to-play culture in Washington. Our Reformers Caucus of more than 200 Republican and Democratic former members of Congress, Cabinet officials, and governors is the largest bipartisan coalition of its kind ever assembled to advocate for solutions to fix our democracy.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Two young students engaging in STEM studies.
Getty Images, Kmatta
Education is Key to Winning the AI Revolution
Mar 27, 2025
As the Department of Education faces rounds of layoffs and threats of dissolution, prompted by the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), it is urgent to rethink and rededicate efforts to strengthen, broaden, and enhance STEM education from early childhood through post-secondary programs.
In order to realize the promise of an AI-driven future, technology and education leaders must address the persistent gaps between supply and demand for all highly skilled technical workers in the U.S.
This follows the recent activity of Elon Musk announcing the launch of the latest version of his company xAI's Grok model, South Korea banning downloads of Deep Seek, and President Donald Trump's promise of the $500 billion Stargate Project to create thousands of U.S. jobs. The urgent importance of OpenAI for this country is undeniable.
While some experts focus on the potential human job losses associated with the overall integration of AI tools, it is rewarding to see that the promise of Stargate and more recognizes that people will be the engine of the new economy. To do so, however, it is urgent to build the human infrastructure necessary to support this future work.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports a projected job growth in the U.S. for information security analysts of 33 percent from 2023 to 2033, with nearly 181,000 jobs in this field in 2023. In 2024, there were reportedly 457,433 openings “requesting cybersecurity-related skills,” CyberSeek reports, with 83 qualified workers for every 100 jobs. These job numbers are indicative of the larger tech workforce.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
During his first term, Trump established the Presidential Cybersecurity Education Award in 2019 under his Executive Order on America’s Cybersecurity Workforce. The U.S. Department of Education administers this award that honors the work of primary and secondary educators who are preparing students to effectively navigate a cyber-enabled world.
Even as the administration talks of dismantling and distributing federal education dollars under the Department of Education to state houses, it is necessary to maintain a unified standard for STEM education. American competitiveness requires that all students who will comprise the workforce and will lead the nation forward have the strategic skills and competency to innovate in the future. It is not sufficient to simply leave the future to chance.
Rather, the DOE needs to remain to establish the framework for the national priority of digital sciences and tech advancement by implementing a unified message and guidance on AI to make cybersecurity and all technology a national priority.
Federal and state policymakers, educators, advocates, and tech leaders must guard against the propensity for individual states to set different standards that may unduly disadvantage some students. STEM education from primary through higher education must have national policies to make sure there is a level of consistency across states.
In 2023, The White House came out with the National Cyber Workforce & Education Strategy, outlining objectives, steps, and outcomes for resources, training, recruiting, retention, and advancement of the U.S. cyber economy. Updated last year, the strategy outlines the need for lifelong investment in cyber skills, leading to a citizenry equipped with digital literacy and computational skills. This is the ideal approach and needs to be enforced.
Workforce developers must also take full advantage of programs to upskill and reskill existing employees as they leverage internal labor markets to fulfill workforce needs.
Recent workforce studies point to a lack of supply. However, some experts question the nature of the need. There is an oversupply for some roles, an undersupply of others, and a disconnect between the expectations of employers and candidates. Employers question if the talent pool is weak or if they are seeking over-credentialed candidates. This may be unrealistic so that new employees can’t easily fulfill their roles.
The barriers to a robust talent pool for a competent cybersecurity workforce include insufficient resources in education from primary to secondary to higher education, potential restrictions on H-1B visas, and new policies on diverse candidate hiring.
Cybersecurity is a rapidly blooming field with the global market valued at $190.4 billion and expected to grow to $248.5 billion in 2028, research shows. Despite decades of work to produce a workforce of sufficient quality and quantity, our own research shows that positions continue to be unfilled.
To be successful in the evolving cybersecurity workforce—and the entire evolving tech workforce—individuals need to be able to create arguments, do research, analyze data, experiment, think critically, and employ scientific reasoning so that they will adapt successfully with the skills they need.
An innovative and creative future tech workforce depends on a community of critical thinkers with varying points of view, experiences, backgrounds, and voices. When there is an assault on sources of expertise and intellectual knowledge due to certain identities of race, gender, or ability, the value assigned to individuals becomes less about what they know and more about who they represent.
Serving as executive director of the Shahal M. Khan Cyber and Economic Security Institute at American University, I directly see the need for the responsibility of training the future tech workforce with a fair and just path of entry, growth, and advancement. This mission goes beyond politics and transcends the term limits of any administration.
The U.S. is certainly among the top global leaders in the practice of cybersecurity and digital innovation in terms of education, policy development, and implementation. America is expected to generate the most revenue globally in cybersecurity by the end of 2025, with a sum of $88.25 billion.
The projected tech job growth in the U.S. is from six million jobs in 2024 to 7.1 million jobs in 2034, according to the Computing Technology Industry Association's 2024 State of the Tech Workforce.
With new projects emerging, the possibilities seem limitless. The time to educate for the future is now.
Diana l. Burley, PhD, is Vice Provost for Research and Innovation, Professor of Public Administration and Executive Director, Khan Institute for Cyber and Economic Security at American University.Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
- YouTube
Defining the Democracy Movement: Stephen Richer
Mar 27, 2025
The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
Stephen Richer is the former Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, and a current Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy at the Ash Center at Harvard University.
For the last four years, Stephen was responsible for voter registration, early voting administration, and public recordings in Maricopa County, Arizona, the fourth-largest county in the United States.
Stephen gained widespread acclaim in many corners and scorn in others for his efforts to defend the results of the 2020 presidential and 2022 midterm elections. A committed Republican, Stephen stood up to many in his party, including President Trump, who pushed fraud narratives and conducted dubious audits. Additionally, Stephen worked tirelessly to convert election denialists, promoting extreme transparency, including frequent comprehensive tours of the election facility.
Probably because of his efforts to advocate for elections, Stephen lost the Republican primary in Maricopa in 2024. However, he is staying in the game, continuing to lead efforts to reform and improve elections and serving as an active member of the pro-democracy field.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
I have gotten to know Stephen as a friend and colleague and am inspired by his work to put principles above party and his own career. At the same time, he is sober about the challenges ahead for democracy, having lost his job because of his efforts.
His advice for the field is both needed, and he is also struggling for the best road forward, as we all are now. His main reflections included:
- A collective action problem has only gotten worse for Republicans: There is often a stated need from those in the pro-democracy field for Republicans to continuously and vigorously speak out against President Trump and his authoritarian tendencies. Stephen did, becoming a pseudo-celebrity for his pro-democracy activities, and lost his seat to a recorder who has espoused election denialist rhetoric.
As Stephen noted, this “is a very serious collective action. Every single person elected official on the Republican right over the last 5 years can tell you that there have been plenty of people who have said, this is not my cup of tea. I wish this would all go away. This is nonsense, but if anyone who sticks their neck out, it just gets whacked off immediately, either they get targeted online, or if they get primaried.”
This is a big problem, but there’s no easy solution. As Stephen went to observe: “The most frustrating thing to me was the number of higher profile elected Republicans, former elected Republicans who privately would sing my praises, thank me for doing the right thing but then wouldn't say darn thing publicly, or would even endorse some of the people who were my detractors."
It's easy to say that Republicans should speak out. However, the associated action is more complicated when they lose or get targeted.
- There is a need to pick battles right now: A ton of action is coming out of the federal government. Stephen urges pro-democracy actors to be judicious as they pick their battles. The distinction between opposing Trump and advocating for democracy is a challenging but important endeavor.
As Stephen notes, “The pro-democracy movement needs to figure out its messaging better, and I still think that a lot of people are carrying on as if it's just politics as usual..But at the same time, we need to separate some of that messaging from just messaging (focused on I don't like Donald Trump. So therefore, I'm going to criticize him for everything, because I do think that there's a decent amount of eye rolling from the average American. If you consistently say democracy is under attack, or we have a constitutional crisis every single day…We need to study what actually resonates with Americans. And then we need to let them know when those things are happening, and we need to remind them that those things are happening.”
- Pro-democracy should not be confused as espousing all progressive policies: Stephen is a Republican who has placed principles above party loyalty. But that should not be confused with Stephen supporting all progressive policies. There is sometimes a dangerous tendency to assume that all Republicans who speak out against dangerous tendencies in their own party are on board with all priorities on the left.
Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
SUGGESTIONS:
Defining the Democracy Movement: Andy Moore
Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Rev. F. Willis Johnson
Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig
Keep ReadingShow less
A wooden cut-out of a home.
Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi
Together, We Must Repair a “House Divided”
Mar 27, 2025
“My Father’s house has many rooms…” John 14:2-3
Lately, I’ve been seeing everything through a political lens whether I want to or not. So, it didn’t surprise me that a Biblical verse at a recent memorial service got me thinking about then-Senator Abraham Lincoln’s 1858 speech about a “House Divided.”
I hear the verse to mean there’s space for everyone, which is true of the United States as well. Our nation was built on the idea that everyone—regardless of creed, nationality, race, political belief, or any other factor—can find a place here, contribute to their communities, and thrive. We’re a blend of people who lived here before anyone crossed the Atlantic and numerous waves of immigrants, each bringing unique cultures and beliefs. Some came willingly, some under force. Some came as a first choice, some as a last hope. No matter how we arrived, there was room in this massive house.
We may not always understand or like what’s going on in other rooms of this house but there is room. We may be annoyed by the music blaring from down the hall but there is room. We may disagree on how to remodel areas of the house but there is room.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Unfortunately, we’re now seeing cracks in the very foundation of our shared house.
Some don’t want to believe there’s a problem. Others may see this as normal for such an old house. And then there’s a group that sees people taking a chainsaw to the structures that uphold our house and is sounding the alarm.
As the cracks increasingly show, here’s the deal: we MUST address threats to our structural integrity even as we continue to live in the house.
What does that mean?
It means we all still need clean water, healthy food, health care, education, and physical safety and we need to fix our foundation. If you’ve ever repaired a foundation, you know it’s a massive job.
Understandably, people are feeling demoralized, scared, numb, or angry, to name a few responses over the past several weeks. I’ve heard others question how they can keep working with a long-term focus when there’s short-term urgency.
The answer is we need both. We need people working on issues like clean water, healthy food, health care, education, and physical safety to keep focused on those issues. And while they work to support people in all our rooms, we need many others to fix the foundation.
This is why I’m heartened by the growing number of people who are setting aside differences to do just that. I’ve attended several summits and conferences lately that, quite honestly, just weren’t happening eight years ago. In the past, we would have been too busy arguing over who belongs where or what people have the right to do in their respective rooms to have a productive conversation.
Now, people from across the political spectrum are literally gathering in the same room to attend to our foundation. As just two examples, the Principles First Summit brought together people who described themselves as Republicans (including some CPAC attendees), never-Trumpers, Libertarians, Independents, Democrats, and former MAGA members. We all agreed that people vote based more on hope than hate, that policy is more important than PR, and that collaboration is far preferable to chaos.
Across the country, Braver Angels is bringing people of all political stripes together to have tough—but respectful—conversations and rebuild our civic muscle. That includes a five-part debate series asking “Is President Trump making America great?” The organization, including through these debates, helps people see themselves in their role as citizens, which Supreme Court Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter described as “the highest office” in a democracy.
Why are we all coming together rather than retreating to our various rooms? Because we know if we don’t defend the foundations of democracy today, we won’t have the freedom to disagree over other issues tomorrow.
At Principles First, we heard from four police officers who were attacked on January 6 as they protected everyone from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Marjorie Taylor Greene. My heart hurt as they described the experience and the aftermath, one noting, “I expected better from Members of Congress who were running for their lives and only made it out because we risked our lives.” Instead, several of those members would name check the officers on national media one day and say “Thank you, officer” the next.
Yet, those officers carried on with their duties, knowing they were protecting the foundation of this country. They focus on their role, not individual members, noting “that seat, God willing, will exist 100 years from now. This is not about the person; it’s about the institution.”
The rest of us must do the same. This house has many rooms and many needs, including now in our foundation. There’s a role for all of us in protecting this house.
Piper Hendricks is the founder and CEO of Stories Change Power. Piper supports hearts and minds that need to reach hearts and minds. Through Stories Change Power, she equips people who want to make a difference in their neighborhoods, communities, and country. Stories Change Power provides the tools, strategy, and network to be an effective, empathetic, and trusted advocate for a just and peaceful world for everyone - no exceptions.Keep ReadingShow less
Should the Occupational Safety And Health Administration Be Abolished?
Mar 27, 2025
Recent legislation reintroduced in Congress has sparked renewed debate about the role of federal workplace safety regulations in America. The Nullify Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act, commonly known as the "NOSHA Act," proposes the complete elimination of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal agency responsible for ensuring safe and healthy working conditions across the United States since 1970.
The bill, originally introduced in 2021 and recently reintroduced by Arizona Republican Congressman Andy Biggs, consists of just two substantive sections. Its purpose is clear and direct: "The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 is repealed. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is abolished."
This straightforward proposal has generated strong reactions from both supporters and critics, revealing fundamental differences in perspectives on federal regulation, state authority, and workplace safety.
Read the full IssueVoter analysis here.
The Case for Abolishing OSHA
Proponents of the NOSHA Act, led by Congressman Biggs, argue that the federal agency represents government overreach into matters that should be handled at the state level. In his announcement of the original bill in 2021, Biggs stated: "OSHA's existence is yet another example of the federal government creating agencies to address issues that are more appropriately handled by state governments and private employers."
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The constitutional basis for this argument centers on states' rights and limited federal powers. Biggs has emphasized his "constitutional concerns about the federal regulation of private workplaces," suggesting that the agency's authority extends beyond what the Constitution permits. He believes that "Arizona, and every other state, has the constitutional right to establish and implement their own health and safety measures, and is more than capable of doing so."
Another critique raised by NOSHA supporters relates to the perceived inflexibility of national standards. In a video explaining his stance, Biggs specifically mentioned OSHA's approach to regulating work in hot weather as an example of "one-size-fits-all" standards that disadvantage states with warmer climates. "It makes no sense to set a uniform national standard for heat," he argued, suggesting that local and state authorities would be better positioned to create appropriately tailored regulations.
The timing of the original bill's introduction in 2021 was not coincidental. It came during a period when OSHA was enforcing COVID-19 vaccination measures under the Biden Administration, which required large employers to either mandate vaccination or implement masking and testing protocols for unvaccinated workers. This policy was eventually withdrawn after being blocked by the Supreme Court.
The Case for Preserving OSHA
On the other side of the debate, organizations like the National Consumers League (NCL) have expressed strong opposition to the bill, arguing that it would endanger worker safety across the country. NCL CEO Sally Greenberg did not mince words in her assessment: "This bill would be a catastrophic step backward for worker safety in this country. Repealing OSHA would put workers at great risk by dismantling the very protections that have helped reduce workplace injuries and deaths for over 50 years."
Supporters of OSHA point to the agency's track record since its inception. When OSHA was established in 1970, approximately 14,000 workers died on the job annually. By 2023, that number had fallen to 5,283 fatal work injuries, despite a much larger workforce. According to the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, almost 700,000 lives have been saved by OSHA's safety standards since the agency was established.
David Michaels, who served as assistant secretary of labor for OSHA from 2009 to 2017, warns in Time that abolishing the agency would create "a race to the bottom" in workplace safety standards. Without federal requirements, companies might prioritize cost-cutting over worker protection, especially if their competitors do the same. "What would be the impetus to protect workers from [dangerous] exposures?" Michaels asks.
While 22 states or territories currently operate federally approved OSHA State Plans, critics of the NOSHA Act note that these exist within a federal framework. Current law requires that state plans be at least as effective as federal OSHA policies. Without this federal baseline, there's no guarantee that states would maintain robust worker protections.
Michaels notes that even with federal oversight, state implementation can sometimes fall short. He cites Arizona's own history of conflicts with federal OSHA standards, including differences in fall protection requirements for residential construction workers.
The NCL also raises concerns about equity in workplace safety, suggesting that without OSHA, "it will be the most vulnerable—low-income and minority workers—who will bear the brunt of dangerous rollbacks." The organization also highlights OSHA's role in enforcing child labor laws and protecting young workers from dangerous conditions.
What are the States Doing?
There are a number of related bills currently making their way through legislatures around the country. To see them, go to the NOSHA Act and click on SIMILAR BILLS.
Michigan's SB 0049 seeks to modernize the state's own Occupational Safety and Health Act by making technical changes and aligning civil penalties with federal standards. Oregon's HB 3778, sponsored by Republicans in this very blue state, goes further in effectively eliminating the state's independent workplace safety regulatory framework and prohibiting the adoption of rules more stringent that federal OSHA standards. Democrats in red Kentucky ironically aim to do something similar with HB 803 which repeals safety and health standards that were previously capped at federal levels and included an exemption for public employees. Nebraska attempts to remove administrative burdens for employers with LB 397 which eliminates provisions related to workplace safety committees, effectively removing the state's existing framework for proactive workplace safety oversight and consultation and eliminating state-level workplace safety resources.
Finding Common Ground?
The debate over OSHA's future reflects broader political discussions about federalism, regulation, and the proper role of government in protecting citizens. While the NOSHA Act has been reintroduced, it currently lacks cosponsors, suggesting limited congressional support at present.
Some observers might wonder if there's middle ground to be found – perhaps reforms that address concerns about regulatory overreach while maintaining essential protections for worker safety. Could more flexible implementation of standards address Biggs' concerns about "one-size-fits-all" approaches without abolishing the agency entirely?
For now, the NOSHA Act represents one position in an ongoing national conversation about regulation, federalism, and the balance between worker protection and business autonomy. As we continue this conversation, the experiences and safety of American workers hang in the balance.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.
IssueVoter is a nonpartisan, nonprofit online platform dedicated to giving everyone a voice in our democracy. As part of their service, they summarize important bills passing through Congress and set out the opinions for and against the legislation, helping us to better understand the issues. BillTrack50 is delighted to partner with IssueVoter and we link to their analysis from relevant bills. Look for the IssueVoter link at the top of the page:
IssueVoter Bill of the Month (March 2025): Should the Occupational Safety And Health Administration Be Abolish was first published on BillTrack50, and was republished with permission.
Stephen Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More