Social media takes a lot of heat for spreading disinformation, but Francesca Tripodi thinks we should look more closely at another fixture of our browsers: search engines. On this episode of "Civic Genius" we learn more about how the same forces that shape our social media diets also drive the information we find when we search online, and how we can boost our own media literacy.
The Oscars have always been political, but this year, it promises to be one of the most politically charged awards shows in recent memory. It arrives at a time when the White House's dismantling of DEI programs and mass deportation raids have sent a ripple effect through all facets of American life, including Hollywood.
This is why the Dolby Theater, home to the 97th annual Academy Awards, will be the stage for two competing visions of America: one in which artists, not politicians, shape the culture and another in which the presidency seeks to define it.
At the center of it all is Netflix's cartel musical Emilia Pérez, the most nominated film at this year's Oscars. Directed by French filmmaker Jacques Audiard and loosely based on Boris Razon's 2018 novel Écoute, the film follows a feared Mexican cartel leader, played by Spanish trans actress Karla Sofía Gascón, who orchestrates their own disappearance to transition and start a new life as a woman.
Lauded by festivals for its artistic vision but criticized by others for misrepresenting Mexican culture, Emilia Pérez has become alightning rod at the intersection of art and politics. If Karla Sofía Gascón, the film's star, becomes the first openly trans actress to win an Oscar, or if the film takes Best Picture as the first Spanish-language film to do so, it would be a direct rebuttal to a White House actively targeting transgender rights and undocumented Mexican immigrants.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This tension between culture and politics, Hollywood and Washington, is nothing new. Politicians have leveraged pop culture to tap into passionate fan bases and cultural conversations to gain clout for decades. At the same time, celebrities have used their platforms to inspire and shape policy from afar. But today, we're witnessing a complete collapse of those fiefdoms, where the distinction between the two has all but vanished.
Take, for instance, President Donald Trump's recent ousting of the Kennedy Center's leadership and assuming a 'tastemaker-in-chief' role, serving as the new chairman of America's premier cultural institution, in an attempt to dictate what kind of art is deemed 'American.'
Further blurring the lines between art and politics is the possibility of actor Sebastian Stan winning a Best Actor Oscar for portraying Trump in the film, The Apprentice while Trump himself watches from the White House. It's surreal, meta-commentary at the moment we're living in, where politics is entertainment and entertainment is politics, making it impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.
Meanwhile, award shows like the Oscars, Grammys, and Kennedy Center Honors double as political stages for artists looking to speak truth to power. Jane Fonda, for instance, received the Lifetime Achievement Award at this year's Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Awards and delivered a speech calling for resistance against divisive politics, saying, "Empathy is not weak or woke... woke just means you give a damn about other people."
Similarly, Richard Gere was recently honored with the International Award at the 2025 Goya Awards in Spain. In his acceptance speech, he criticized the political climate in the United States, referring to President Donald Trump as a "bully" and a "thug" and stating that the U.S. is "in a very dark place."
The Oscars have long been a cultural barometer, where every speech, montage, win, or snub is dissected as commentary on the state of American culture. But what's different now is the speed and intensity of the response. In an era in which a sitting president can react in real-time on social media and enact policies through executive orders, the Academy Awards are no longer exclusively Hollywood's biggest night — they have become a metaphorical tribunal where the industry's choices face instant scrutiny from the highest levels of power.
With Mexico's borders and trans rights policed and politicized and a president looking to dictate artistic expression, this year's Oscars will show how politicians and celebrities use pop culture to influence public perception and shape national identity. A win for Emilia Pérez would serve as both a cultural statement and a direct challenge to Trump's policies, reinforcing Hollywood's commitment to diversity. It would affirm that stories centered on trans identity and Latino narratives deserve recognition at the industry's highest level.
Regardless of who wins or loses, the entertainment industry cannot separate itself from this political moment. When we hear, "And the Oscar goes to...," the answer will reveal more than just a winner. It will ultimately reveal where America's national identity is headed.
Jack Rico is an entertainment journalist, TV host, and media pundit with over two decades of experience covering Latinos in media and entertainment. Recently featured on ABC News' primetime special "Latinos in Hollywood" and co-host "Brown & Black" on CUNY TV, a limited television adaptation of our Webby-nominated podcast.
An illustration of AI chat boxes.
When Vice President J.D. Vance addressed the Paris AI Summit, he unknowingly made a strong case for public artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure. His vision—of AI that empowers workers rather than displaces them, enables small businesses to compete with tech giants on a level playing field and delivers benefits to all Americans—cannot be achieved through private industry alone. What's needed is nothing less than an AI equivalent of the interstate highway system: a nationwide network of computational resources, shared data, and technical expertise that democratizes access to this transformative technology.
The challenge is clear. The National AI Opinion Monitor reveals a stark digital divide in AI adoption: higher-income urban professionals increasingly leverage AI tools to enhance their productivity, while rural and lower-income Americans remain largely locked out of the AI economy. Without intervention, AI threatens to become another force multiplier for existing inequalities.
The solution lies in a federal-state partnership that brings AI capabilities to Main Street. Here's how "Main Street AI" could work:
The federal government would establish a $100 billion matching grant program over five years for states to build local AI capacity. States would qualify for funding by meeting specific criteria:
First, they must establish an AI infrastructure authority with a governing board that includes representatives from small businesses, labor organizations, educational institutions, and community groups. This ensures local stakeholders have a voice in determining how AI resources are deployed.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Second, states must commit to a minimum 30% match of federal funds and demonstrate a plan for the long-term sustainability of their respective AI organizations. The federal contribution would be structured on a sliding scale, with higher matching rates for rural states and those with lower per capita incomes.
Third, states must develop comprehensive plans for four core components: computational infrastructure, data commons, workforce development, and energy resources. Given the staggering resources required to acquire these essential ingredients, they could enter into regional compacts with surrounding states.
The computational infrastructure component would create regional AI computing centers, typically housed at state universities or community colleges. These centers would provide cloud computing resources at subsidized rates to qualifying small businesses, researchers, and public agencies. Think of it as an AI library system, where local enterprises can "check out" computing power to develop and run their own AI applications.
The data commons would establish secure repositories of high-quality, annotated datasets relevant to local industries and challenges. A farming state might prioritize agricultural data for precision farming applications, while a coastal state might focus on climate and weather data for resilience planning. Residents would share this information with the understanding that resulting AI tools would be tailored to their needs and that the state would act as a responsible steward of their data.
Workforce development programs would combine traditional computer science education with practical AI training. Community colleges would offer AI certification programs designed in partnership with local employers. Mobile training units would bring AI literacy programs to rural communities, ensuring that technological advancement doesn't leave anyone behind.
The energy component would incentivize the development of renewable and reliable power sources to support AI computing needs, addressing both environmental concerns and the substantial power requirements of AI systems.
Consider how this might work in practice. Take Wisconsin, where dairy farmers struggle to compete with industrial-scale operations. Through the state's AI infrastructure authority, a cooperative of small dairy farmers could access computing resources to develop AI systems for herd health monitoring and milk production optimization. The local data commons would provide historical agricultural data to train these systems, while workforce programs would train farmers and their employees to use and maintain the technology.
These aren't mere hypotheticals. Several states have already begun experimenting with similar initiatives on a smaller scale. In North Carolina, the North Carolina Biotechnology Center has established a pilot program providing AI resources to local biotechnology startups. In Georgia, Illinois, New York, Ohio, and Colorado, select community colleges will develop novel programs for students to learn critical AI skills thanks to Complete College America, a nonprofit focused on increasing postsecondary attainment across the U.S. In Oklahoma, 10,000 residents will go through an AI essentials course at no cost thanks to the State’s support.
The federal program would accelerate, scale, and expand these efforts while ensuring that benefits reach beyond current tech hubs. By requiring states to meet specific criteria for funding, it would create accountability while allowing for local adaptation. The matching requirement would ensure state buy-in while the sliding scale would help level the playing field between wealthy and poor states.
This approach directly addresses the concerns Vice President Vance raised in Paris. It creates a pro-worker growth path by emphasizing augmentation over automation. It levels the playing field by giving small businesses access to resources currently monopolized by tech giants. It ensures all Americans benefit by embedding AI development within local communities and economies.
Critics might argue that this represents unnecessary government intervention in a thriving private market. But history shows that transformative technologies often require public investment to reach their full potential. The interstate highway system didn't eliminate private transportation companies—it created new opportunities for them while ensuring universal access to automotive transportation. Similarly, a public AI infrastructure wouldn't compete with private AI companies but would instead expand the market for AI applications while ensuring broader participation in the AI economy.
The question isn't whether America needs a public AI infrastructure—it's whether we'll build one before the opportunity for widespread AI development slips away. Vice President Vance has articulated the right goals. Now it's time for concrete action to achieve them.
The flurry of Presidential Executive Orders attracted plenty of data-based checks in the media. The bad propaganda, rollbacks, and a dip in the President’s approval rating may have been avoided if the US Constitution mandated the Whitehouse to do similar checks before initiating the Executive Orders.
Mandating data-based checks on executive orders ensures that decisions made by the President are rooted in evidence and have a clear, justifiable basis. Data-based checks would ensure that executive orders are issued only after they are scrutinized on their merits, impact, and alignment with the public interest. These checks help prevent orders from being issued on personally or politically motivated priorities or unsubstantiated claims.
One of the recent Presidential priorities has been Generative AI (GenAI). My mentee, a high school senior, and I recently presented a study using GenAI on the correlation of sexual assault crime rates with statutory stringency at a reputed conference. GenAI infrastructure, like Large Language Models (LLMs), can help with data-based checks for executive orders.
LLMs like ChatGPT can analyze statutes, case law, and public opinion pieces like this one to assess the legality and alignment of an executive order quickly. By parsing through large volumes of legal documents, AI can identify precedents, flag conflicts, and offer predictions on the potential legal outcomes of a given executive order. GenAI could predict the effects of a policy across various sectors of governance.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Checks and balances are a core principle of the functioning of a democratic government. It is not in the interest of the people at any time for the executive orders of one person to bypass the legislative process. Favoring narrow interests is not aligned with the spirit of democracy. We need a constitutional provision to prevent the executive from undermining or overriding Congress’s role in lawmaking. Life can become unimaginably difficult if the Police Department Sherriff, for instance, starts issuing far-reaching orders, regardless of the law of the land, based on personal agendas, whims, and vendettas. As was once popularly said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Democracy is finally answerable to the people, their representatives, and the judiciary in the short term. The executive branch of the government, as the name indicates and as enunciated in Article II of the constitution, is meant to execute the orders passed by the legislative wing.
An interim executive order may be necessary when the legislature is not in session or for other urgent reasons, but that needs to be ratified by the Congress within a specific time or it lapses. This may not have been incorporated into the Presidential form of government, but it is never too late to change something for good. In a true democracy, both legislative chambers should have the power to review, amend, or oppose executive actions.
The economy grows as more and more people join its core echelons. People are the most important economic resources at all times. When countries not as developed as the USA are willing to take even criminals deported from the USA, it is unfortunate that we are unable to utilize even better-qualified people to our advantage.
Data will prove that lack of manpower is bound to increase Americans' costs. For instance, before the pandemic, deep cleaning my home using Amazon service, which is no longer available now, cost $127.99. Cleaning teams are now demanding $500 for the same service. The current onslaught on immigration may raise that price tag much further.
Even minor regulations often go through a public comment period. Surprisingly, executive orders that have a wide-reaching impact are allowed to be enforced unilaterally. The current pandemonium at the helm of affairs is indeed a wake-up call for change.
Vishnu S. Pendyala, Ph.D., MBA (Finance), teaches machine learning and other data science courses at San Jose State University and is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. Opinions expressed are his own and not those of his employer or any other entity that he is affiliated with.
When Congress passed PAFACA (Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications), they should have considered the consequences. They apparently didn’t.
With approximately 170 million users, what did politicians think would happen when TikTok actually went dark? Did Congress consider the aftermath? President Trump is trying hard to find a way to keep TikTok from going dark permanently, but he likely won’t succeed.
Given that PAFACA demands applications (Apps) owned/controlled by foreign adversaries be banned, there’s nothing short of ByteDance selling its interest in TikTok to satisfy the current law. There are no halfway measures. According to the law, countries like China cannot hold ownership of apps doing business in the American market.
The question: Will ByteDance sell TikTok? Why should they? Moreover, did Congress think the Chinese would acquiesce to PAFACA? It is worth pointing out: The nexus for PAFACA came from the CIA.
Testifying before Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency warned politicians that companies such as TikTok, which are owned by foreign adversaries, pose a threat to national security. Congress bought it hook-line and sinker.
Still, given the number of users who would be adversely impacted by a shutdown of TikTok—one must ask: What was Congress thinking? Was it all about anti-Chinese sentiment and the coming election?
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The seminal question: What if politicians voted against anti-Chinese legislation? Effectively, those politicians would have faced massive criticism as being Chinese sympathizers, possibly costing them their respective elections.
So, the safe vote was to support anti-Chinese legislation—and damn any future consequences. For those politicians, the future consequences are now at hand. It was inevitable that PAFACA would eventually take effect. However, at the time of the vote, there weren’t any real-world consequences, at least not until TikTok went dark on January 19th.
Oddly, President Trump, who has access to the same CIA threat assessment, has pitched a joint Chinese/American ownership proposal. The President doesn’t see Chinese ownership as the threat the CIA does.
Once TikTok went dark, even temporarily—PAFACA became REAL. There’s no going back. Politicians must now face the aftermath of their anti-Chinese vote.
Dan Butterfield is the author of 11 E-books written under Occam’s Razor by Dan Butterfield. A list of publications: “Cultural Revolution,” “Prosecutorial Misconduct,” “Benghazi—The Cover-Up,” “The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming,” “Treason,” “11 Days,” “First Premise,” “GOP’s Power Grab,” “Guilty,” “Comey’s Deceit,” and “False Narratives.”
