Newsrooms are shrinking, hedge funds are buying up local papers and clickbait is shaping more and more what you know about the world. What the heck is happening to the news business — and what does this spell for the future of democracy? Journalism professors Jay Rosen and Nikki Usher say the internet isn’t all to blame: Journalists, they argue, need to get more creative about who they reach, what they cover and how they fund their work.
A 3D generated image of modern vehicles with AI assistance.
Let’s be honest: does driving feel safe anymore? Ask anyone navigating the daily commute, especially in notoriously chaotic places like Miami, and you’ll likely hear a frustrated, perhaps even expletive-laden, "No!" That gut feeling isn't paranoia; it's backed by grim statistics. Over 200 people died on Travis County roads in 2023, according to Vision Zero ATX. Nationally, tens of thousands perish in preventable crashes. It's a relentless public health crisis we've somehow numbed ourselves to, with a staggering cost measured in shattered families and lost potential.
But imagine a different reality, one where that daily fear evaporates. What if I told you that the technology to dramatically reduce this carnage isn't science fiction but sitting right under our noses? Autonomous vehicles (AVs), or self-driving cars, are here and rapidly improving. Leveraging breakthroughs in AI, these vehicles are increasingly outperforming human drivers, proving to be significantly less likely to cause accidents, especially those resulting in injury. Studies suggest that replacing human drivers with AVs could drastically cut road fatalities. Even achieving just 10% AV penetration on our roads might improve traffic safety by as much as 50%, with those gains likely to grow exponentially as the technology becomes more sophisticated and widespread.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The benefits extend far beyond preventing crashes. Many AVs are electric or designed for fuel efficiency, promising cleaner air. They can reduce frustrating traffic congestion by communicating and coordinating movement. Perhaps most profoundly, AVs offer the potential for unprecedented mobility and freedom for millions—the elderly who can no longer drive safely, people with disabilities who face transportation barriers, or even just reclaiming hours lost to stressful commutes.
Given this potential, you'd think we'd be rolling out the red carpet for AVs. Private companies are certainly betting big, pouring billions into research and development. Fleets of robotaxis are already operating, albeit cautiously, in cities across the country such as Austin, Miami, and San Francisco. Yet, the transformative leap—widespread adoption that truly moves the needle on national safety statistics—remains frustratingly out of reach. Why the delay?
Ironically, the biggest roadblocks aren't primarily technological anymore. They are political, regulatory, and societal. We currently face a chaotic mess of differing state and local AV regulations—a regulatory traffic jam that makes large-scale deployment a nightmare. How can a car designed to cross state lines operate effectively if the definition of "driver" or the rules for operation change every few hundred miles? This regulatory uncertainty chills investment and forces companies into limited, geographically constrained testing, which slows down the learning process that is essential for improving AV safety and reliability across all driving conditions. Add to this a healthy dose of public skepticism that is often fueled by unfamiliarity and fear that is amplified by a media focus on glitches rather than the millions of safely driven miles.
This is precisely where government leadership becomes critical. And I argue it's not just a good idea; it's a constitutional obligation. The federal government has a fundamental duty, rooted in the Constitution itself, to actively promote technologies that significantly advance public safety and well-being.
This duty isn't theoretical; it's embedded in the very DNA of our nation. The Constitution's Preamble explicitly states a core purpose to "promote the general Welfare". This wasn't just hopeful rhetoric. The Founders drafted the Constitution because the previous government under the Articles of Confederation was demonstrably ineffective—unable to manage national defense, economic stability, or even internal order. They intentionally created a stronger federal government capable of tackling big, collective problems for the common good. This implies what some scholars call a "right to effective government"—a right to expect our government to use its powers competently to protect us and improve our lives, especially when individual or market actions fall short.
Protecting citizens from widespread, preventable harm like mass traffic fatalities falls squarely within this duty. We've seen the government fulfill this role before. Remember the fight over seat belts? Initially appearing in the 1930s, they faced decades of resistance from manufacturers arguing that "safety didn't sell" and from public pushback against the mandates. It took years of advocacy and eventual government action—federal standards pushing states to enact laws—to make seat belts ubiquitous. The delay undoubtedly cost countless lives. Today, nearly 375,000 lives have been saved since 1975 thanks to those belts.
Federal inaction on AVs today risks repeating that tragic history, sacrificing safety on the altar of regulatory timidity. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the explicit authority to set Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) to protect the public from "unreasonable risk". It’s time they used that authority to create clear, uniform, national standards for AVs, providing the roadmap that the automotive industry needs.
Now, let's acknowledge the real concerns surrounding AVs. Data privacy is paramount—cars packed with sensors could collect vast amounts of personal information. We need robust regulations to ensure this data isn't misused or exploited. The transition will inevitably impact jobs, particularly in trucking and transportation, requiring proactive policies for worker retraining and support. Ensuring equitable deployment is vital, so AV benefits can reach rural communities and lower-income individuals, not just affluent city dwellers. Environmental impacts also need careful management to ensure that AVs lead to a net reduction in emissions. These are serious challenges requiring thoughtful, proactive policy responses that are developed *alongside* AV deployment, not as barriers to it. They do not, however, outweigh the moral imperative to prevent tens of thousands of deaths each year.
We face a clear choice. We can continue down the current path, accepting the horrific and largely preventable toll of human driving errors as well as allowing fragmented regulations and unfounded fears to stall progress indefinitely. Or, we can embrace the promise of AV technology and demand our government fulfill its most basic constitutional obligation: to act effectively to safeguard our lives and promote general welfare. This requires decisive federal leadership now—setting clear national standards, facilitating safe and widespread testing to build public trust, and creating policies that manage the transition responsibly. The technology to save these lives is within reach. It’s time our policies caught up.
This is a summary of "A Constitutional Mandate to Adopt AVs," originally published in the Washington and Lee Law Review Online.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Humans are using laptops and computers to interact with AI, helping them create, code, train AI, or analyze big data with fast, cutting-edge technology.
Huiyan Li
WASHINGTON – During a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on April 9, Democratic representatives repeatedly raised concerns that President Trump’s new tariffs and attempts to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act would harm U.S. competitiveness in artificial intelligence (AI).
“Republicans constantly talk about winning the AI race, but the actions they’re taking may appear as if they're purposely trying to lose that race,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.).
The U.S. remains at the forefront of foundational AI research, largely driven by its innovative tech industry and ability to draw top talent from around the world. However, experts cautioned that this lead is fragile and the gap is closing.
The January release of the Chinese AI startup DeepSeek’s R1 Model challenged the U.S.'s long-standing dominance in AI development, as the model rivals the most recent American reasoning models at only a fraction of the cost.
Eric Schmidt, former Google CEO and chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project, stated that outcompeting China is not only an economic goal, but also a strategic imperative for America to “preserve American economic dynamism, military superiority, and global influence.”
Pallone, the ranking member of the committee, stated that Trump’s tariffs would increase the cost of materials the U.S. needs for the AI competition, such as steel and aluminum.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Starting last month, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on imports of steel and aluminum products from all countries, restoring Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act of 1962.
Higher material costs could drive up expenses for building data centers and the transmission infrastructure that supplies electricity to them. The experts said these facilities are essential, and more should be built to advance AI.
Tariffs are already affecting AI-related industries. U.S. memory chipmaker Micron Technology announced on Tuesday that it would raise prices on some products starting Thursday due to President Trump’s new tariffs.
Manish Bhatia, executive vice president of global operations at Micron, was also on the witness panel. When Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) asked him about the price increases, he responded vaguely, saying, “Tariffs are an evolving situation.”
David Turk, a former deputy secretary of the Department of Energy under the Biden administration, stated that the tariffs imposed by President Trump introduced an immense amount of uncertainty that could deter near-term investment in powering AI.
“Folks who are planning data centers want certainty. They want stability of policy so they can plan on the floor. Tariffs are absolutely the worst if you want to bring on additional data and additional energy for data centers,” said Turk.
Turk added that Trump’s pledge to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides tax incentives, grants, and loans for clean energy, could discourage energy investment and drive costs even higher.
“We also need to be honest with ourselves right now. The quickest power, the most affordable power to bring onto our grids, including for data centers, is renewables and storage,” said Turk.
In 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projected that 93% of new electricity capacity additions would come from renewable sources (solar and wind) and energy storage.
As the U.S. prioritizes meeting the surging energy demand driven by AI, Turk said it was the wrong time to make it more expensive to bring new electricity online, urging Congress to retain these important tax grants and loan tools.
Some Republicans disagreed.
“We are not going to do it with renewables because we just don’t have the time to build all you have to build out, including the transmission lines,” Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) said.
Palmer noted that a significant number of power generation facilities in the U.S. were shuttered and dismantled; however, the transmission lines from those facilities still remain. He suggested that the quickest way to meet energy demand would be to deploy small modular reactors that can be plugged into the existing transmission infrastructure.
Schmidt, former CEO of Google, agreed that small modular reactors could be a good solution. However, he stressed that none exist yet in America, and under the current regulatory structure, it could take 12 years to get one approved.
“We need a new program around much faster permitting for safer and safer fission and fusion nuclear SMRs as the correct path,” said Schmidt.
Huiyan Li is a reporter for Medill News Service covering business & technology. She is a journalism graduate student at Northwestern University specializing in politics, policy, and foreign affairs.
child holding smartphone
A new Netflix docuseries explores the unseen complexities and dark possibilities of child influencing in our modern internet age, raising urgent questions and highlighting the critical need for legal protections for kid influencers once their internet presence turns into work—a full-time job that, at times, financially supports their families.
Released last week, “Bad Influence: The Dark Side of Kidfluencing” shares how Youtube star Piper Rockelle—who began posting videos at eight years old and garnered 12 million subscribers and about 1.87 billion views—and her “Squad” of fellow pre-teen social media influencers worked and lived in a toxic environment under Rockelle's "momager", Tiffany Smith, and Smith's boyfriend, Hunter Hill.
The three-part exposé dives into the harsh, manipulative, and complex working conditions that “Squad” members experienced while working with Smith and Hill, who created a physically, mentally, and emotionally unsafe environment for the underage content creators.
In 2022, eleven former “Squad” members filed a complaint against Smith and Hill for “emotional, verbal, physical, and, at times, sexual abuse” when they were active members of the Squad. The child abuse lawsuit was settled in October 2024 for $1.85 million—incredibly short of the $22 million that was originally sought—with all parties specifically disclaiming any liability.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
All former “Squad” members who have spoken out are still intensely impacted by the trauma caused by Smith and Hunter, whether their online careers have been irreparably damaged and/or they are experiencing long-term post-traumatic stress. Attorney Matt Sarelson shared in the documentary that, “In many ways, a lawsuit is where justice goes to die.”
The viral series explains how managers of influencers have been able to circumvent child labor laws and protections put in place for children in the entertainment industry.
“These abuse allegations against Tiffany, which include battery and child labor violations, are not unique to the Piper Rockelle/Tiffany case,” Lorenz said in the series. “These are common forms of abuse that are rampant in the ‘kidfluencer’ industry.
Several culture experts have criticized the lack of connection between many political figures and pop culture, emphasizing the importance of understanding pop culture and acknowledging its significant impact on individuals and groups.
“‘Kidfluencing’ right now is the wild, wild west. I mean, there’s no regulations that keep these influencers safe,” said Brandon Stewart, Content Strategist, CEO of Brandon Studios
“It’s an unregulated frontier of the entertainment industry,” shared Attorney Jeremiah D. Graham. “When a child is treated like this, they shouldn’t have to go out and hire private attorneys in order to vindicate their rights.”
“The government has absolutely no appetite to implement any sort of meaningful regulations in this industry. They still treat this industry as a joke,” said Lorenz. “Lawmakers are often 70 to 80 years old. They don’t take this world seriously at all. They make fun of it. They mock it…And until we start taking this industry seriously until we start viewing influencing as labor, these kids are screwed.”
Legal Protections for Child and Teenage Influencers
Quit Clicking Kids, founded by Chris McCarty, who was featured in the docuseries, advocates for legislation that protects the well-being of child influencers. The initiative looks to expand protections for child actors to child influencers.
In 2022, McCarty worked with Washington State Rep. Emily Wicks (D) to craft and introduce HB 2023. The bill would require guardians to set aside a percentage of social media earnings for children featured in the content and, once they reach the age of 18, allow former child influencers to request the removal of content in which they appear. In 2023, the bill was reintroduced as HB 1627 by Washington State Rep. Kristine Reeves (D) with no changes.
“I think one of the biggest misconceptions is not seeing it as work, especially for the kids,” commented McCarty. “It is very much not a hobby for many of these influencers. It is a job. And in some cases, it’s the primary or even the only source of income for these families. That has the potential to place an undue burden on these children to create content.”
In 2023, Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) signed SB 1782 into law, making Illinois the first state to implement financial protections for child influencers.
In 2024, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed two bills that protect child and teenage influencers from financial abuse:
AB 1880 expanded the Coogan Law—which requires employers of child performers and creators to save at least 15% of their gross earnings in a trust, accessible once the child reaches adulthood—to also financially protect underaged content creators.
SB 764 requires that parents or guardians of minors featured in monetized online content set aside a percentage of their earnings in trust accounts.
Despite the growing call for legal protections, the pressing question remains:
How can we increase safety regulations to protect the entire well-being, not just the financial well-being, of child and teenage influencers?
Currently, advocates call for educating audiences and reforming internet culture to be more skeptical about child-centered content and to be more concerned for the well-being of children featured in monetized content. Others point to social media platforms, stating that it is their responsibility to rethink their business models and prioritize the safety of children.
“We really just need to educate people. We need to change the culture. We need to change norms around parenting,” stated Lorenz. “The fundamental problem is the business model of these platforms and these capitalist incentives.”
Belén Dumont is a freelance reporter and associate editor at The Fulcrum.
People working with AI technology.
In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, policymakers face a delicate balancing act: fostering innovation while addressing legitimate concerns about AI's potential impacts. Representative Michael Keaton’s proposed HB 1833, also known as the Spark Act, represents a refreshing approach to this challenge—one that Washington legislators would be right to pass and other states would be wise to consider.
As the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, I find the Spark Act particularly promising. By establishing a grant program through the Department of Commerce to promote innovative uses of AI, Washington's legislators have a chance to act on a fundamental truth: technological diffusion is essential to a dynamic economy, widespread access to opportunity, and the inspiration of future innovation.
The history of technological advancement in America reveals a consistent pattern. When new technologies remain concentrated in the hands of a few, their economic and social benefits remain similarly concentrated. On the other hand, when technological tools become widely available—as happened with personal computers in the 1980s or internet access in the 1990s on through today (though too many remain on the wrong side of the digital divide)—we witness explosive growth in unexpected innovations and broader economic participation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
HB 1833 wisely prioritizes several key elements that deserve particular commendation. The bill's emphasis on ethical AI use, risk analysis, small business participation, and statewide impact reflects a nuanced understanding of how to foster responsible innovation. By requiring applicants to share their technology with the state and demonstrate a clear public benefit, the program ensures that taxpayer investments yield broader societal returns.
The involvement of Washington's AI task force in identifying state priorities further strengthens the approach. This collaborative model between government, industry, and presumably academia creates a framework for ongoing dialogue about AI development—a far more productive approach than imposing rigid restrictions based on speculative concerns.
While regulatory frameworks for AI are necessary and inevitable, premature or excessive regulation risks several negative consequences. First, burdensome compliance costs disproportionately impact startups and smaller labs, potentially cementing the dominance of tech giants who can easily absorb these expenses. This would ironically undermine the competitive marketplace that effective regulation aims to protect.
Second, regulatory approaches that begin from a place of suspicion rather than a balanced assessment may perpetuate unfounded negative perceptions of AI. Public discourse already tends toward dystopian narratives that overshadow AI's transformative potential in healthcare, environmental protection, education, and accessibility. Policy should be informed by a complete picture—acknowledging risks while recognizing benefits.
Washington's approach appears to recognize what history has repeatedly demonstrated: innovation rarely follows predictable paths. The personal computer, the internet, and smartphones all produced applications and implications that their early developers could never have anticipated. By creating space for experimentation while establishing guardrails around ethical use and risk assessment, the Spark Act creates a framework for responsible innovation.
Other states considering AI policy would do well to study Washington's example. Rather than racing to implement restrictive regulations that may quickly become obsolete or counterproductive, states can establish programs that simultaneously promote innovation while gathering the practical experience necessary to inform more targeted regulation where truly needed.
The technological transformation unfolding before us holds tremendous promise for addressing long-standing societal challenges—but only if we resist the urge to stifle it before it has the chance to develop. Washington's legislators deserve recognition for charting a path that neither ignores legitimate concerns nor sacrifices the potential benefits of AI advancement.
In the coming years, the states that thrive economically will likely be those that find this balance—creating frameworks that promote responsible AI innovation while ensuring its benefits are widely shared. The Spark Act represents a promising step in that direction, one that merits both our attention and our support. The Senate should follow the House's lead in passing this important piece of legislation.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
S4 E13. Broken News
