Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump Must Take Proactive Approach to AI and Jobs

Trump Must Take Proactive Approach to AI and Jobs

Build a Software Development Team to Running Your Business Growth. Software Engineers on the project discuss a database design workflow and technical issues in a tech business office.

Getty Images//Stock Photo


Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly disrupting America’s job market. Within the next decade, positions such as administrative assistants, cashiers, postal clerks, and data entry workers could be fully automated. Although the World Economic Forum expects a net increase of 78 million jobs, significant policy efforts will be required to support millions of displaced workers. The Trump administration should craft a comprehensive plan to tackle AI-driven job losses and ensure a fair transition for all.

As AI is expected to reshape nearly 40% of workers’ skills over the next five years, investing in workforce development is crucial. To be proactive, the administration should establish partnerships to provide subsidized retraining programs in high-demand fields like cybersecurity, healthcare, and renewable energy. Providing tax incentives for companies that implement in-house reskilling initiatives could further accelerate this transition.


To ensure inclusivity, community technology centers and libraries equipped with online courses could be deployed in rural and underserved areas, helping workers across the country adapt to the evolving economy.

AI disproportionately affects regions reliant on clerical and manufacturing jobs, exacerbating local economic hardships. Establishing “economic diversification zones” in these communities—offering tax breaks, grants, and infrastructure investments—would attract growth-oriented industries such as advanced manufacturing, green energy, and technology startups, fostering broader economic resilience.

Rural areas, however, face a bigger challenge: they are among the least served by technology infrastructure, including high-speed internet. This digital divide limits access to the tools and resources necessary to participate in emerging AI-driven industries, putting these communities at risk of being left further behind. Many of these areas form the backbone of the Trump administration’s voter base, making their inclusion in the AI economy both an economic imperative and a political necessity. Without targeted investments to bridge this gap, rural regions may miss out on the opportunities AI could bring, compounding existing economic disparities.

Displaced workers often face unemployment and financial instability. Expanding benefits to include income-based retraining and extending coverage duration would offer essential relief. Decoupling healthcare from employment could also reduce stress and uncertainty. Meanwhile, portable benefits—allowing retirement and healthcare coverage to follow workers across jobs—would mitigate career-transition risks and bolster economic resilience.

Employers in emerging industries often struggle to fill vacancies despite high unemployment in declining sectors. The Trump administration must facilitate partnerships between educational institutions, labor unions, and employers to align training programs with industry needs. Apprenticeships and internships in fields like AI and machine learning could provide workers with on-the-job experience.

Micro-credentialing programs—short, specialized training modules—would allow displaced workers to transition into new roles without requiring full degrees, ensuring a faster and more efficient shift to growing industries.

Barriers such as inadequate childcare, eldercare, and inflexible work arrangements disproportionately affect women and low-income families. Subsidizing childcare and eldercare could enable more individuals to pursue retraining and employment. Encouraging remote work and flexible scheduling would expand opportunities for workers in rural areas and those with caregiving responsibilities.

The integration of AI and automation into the workforce represents both a challenge and an opportunity. By investing in retraining programs, economic diversification, and robust social safety nets, the Trump administration could empower workers to navigate this transformative period.

However, given the administration's policy direction, which deprioritizes investments in social safety nets, workforce retraining, and regional economic development, it is unlikely that these comprehensive changes will be pursued. Without a significant shift in priorities, many of the most vulnerable workers will face the full brunt of automation-driven job losses without sufficient support. This stark reality underscores the urgent need for a forward-looking strategy to address these issues head-on. Ironically, this burden will fall most heavily on the administration's strongest source of support—rural communities and blue-collar workers—further deepening the challenges they face.

Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.


Read More

Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

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.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a person standing alone on a platform and looking at speech bubbles.

A bold critique of modern democracy and rising authoritarian ideas, exploring how AI-powered swarm digital democracy could redefine participation and governance.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

The Only Radical Move Forward: Swarm Digital Democracy

We are increasingly told that democracy has failed and that its time has passed. The evidence proffered is everywhere, we are told: Gridlock, captured institutions, performative elections, a public that senses, correctly, that its voice rarely translates into real power. Into this vacuum step dystopic movements like the Dark Enlightenment and harder strains of Right-wing populism, offering a stark diagnosis and an even starker cure: Abandon the illusion of popular rule and return to forms of authority that are decisive, hierarchical, and unapologetically exclusionary. They present themselves as bold, clear-eyed, rambunctious, alive, and willing to act where others hesitate. And all to save the world from itself.

But this framing depends on a sleight of hand: It assumes that what we have been living under is, in fact, democracy, and that its failures are the failures of democracy itself. That is the first mistake.

Keep ReadingShow less