A backroom deal for redrawing Michigan's state legislative districts has been rejected by a panel of federal judges, who will instead hear the case as a trial starting Tuesday.
The judges said the Democratic secretary of state had no authority to make the pact with fellow Democrats in the Legislature, who argue the current maps were an unconstitutionally partisan gerrymander at the hand of the majority Republicans in the state House. The Democratic plaintiffs say that about a dozen of the 110 districts ought to be redrawn to give them a fair shot.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche announces the indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro, in Miami, Fla., on May 20, 2026.
US Indictment of Raúl Castro Comes Amid a Long History of American Aggression Against Cuba
Jun 16, 2026
The Trump administration on May 20, 2026, indicted former Cuban President Raúl Castro for murder, based on the downing of two planes near the Cuban coastline in 1996 that killed four people.
As a historian of Latin America and U.S. foreign policy, I believe the indictment may be the prelude to direct U.S. military action against Cuba.
Before Castro, the last U.S. indictment of a Latin American leader occurred in January 2026, when a U.S. attorney appointed by President Donald Trump charged Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro with narco-terrorism. Those charges were promptly followed by U.S. military strikes on Venezuela and the abduction of Maduro.
Since January, the U.S. has ended the flow of Venezuelan oil to Cuba and has used economic and military pressure to prevent other nations from trading with the island. And Trump recently threatened a “friendly takeover” of Cuba.
I believe that what’s missing from most recent analysis of this situation is the history of U.S. aggression against Cuba. This is essential context for understanding the Trump administration’s recent escalations.
‘Striking at Cuba constantly’
In 1823, U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams identified Cuba as “an object of transcendent importance to the political and commercial interests of our Union.” The 1959 Cuban Revolution that overthrew U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista and replaced him with Fidel Castro, brother of Raúl, directly challenged those interests by asserting political autonomy and expropriating private property.
State Department officials observed that “the majority of Cubans support Castro” because of the government’s redistributive measures and its “real honesty, courtesy, and idealism.” One official warned “that if the Cuban revolution is successful other countries in Latin America and perhaps elsewhere will use it as a model and we should decide whether or not we wish to have the Cuban revolution succeed.”
They decided quickly. By December 1959, President Dwight Eisenhower’s CIA director had approved plans to overthrow the Castro government. U.S. policy thereafter included direct sponsorship and safe haven for Cuban paramilitary groups.
An American plane is shot down on Playa Girón during the Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961. Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images
The CIA-led Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 is only the most famous episode. The U.S. trained 1,400 Cuban exiles to invade Cuba, hoping to ignite a nationwide rebellion. Instead, Cubans rallied behind the government.
Though U.S. analysts often criticize the invasion because it failed, it was also a major crime under international law. Several hundred Cubans were killed.
Fear of a repeat invasion also led Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev to send nuclear missiles to Cuba, precipitating the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 that nearly led to nuclear war.
Longtime CIA official Richard Helms later testified that in the early 1960s, “We had task forces that were striking at Cuba constantly. We were attempting to blow up power plants, we were attempting to ruin sugar mills, we were attempting to do all kinds of things during this period. This was a matter of American Government policy.”
In 1976, Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, two Cuban exiles, planned the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner near Barbados that killed all 73 people aboard.
“The C.I.A. taught us everything,” Posada Carriles said later. “They taught us explosives, how to kill, bomb, trained us in acts of sabotage.”
Both men were given refuge in the United States for the rest of their lives.
The Bay of Pigs invasion and the airline bombing violate the core principles of international law, including prohibitions on the unprovoked “threat or use of force” and collective punishment. The U.S. government itself defines “international terrorism” as “violent acts” intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion” or to “intimidate or coerce a civilian population.”
By that definition, its Cuba policy qualifies.
By ‘every possible means’
Another U.S. method of striking at Cuba was through economic sanctions, first imposed on the country in 1960. That year, a State Department official wrote that “every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba” so as “to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” The logic of collective punishment was clear: make Cubans suffer enough that they rebel against Castro.
Images of Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, Raúl Castro and Fidel Castro adorn the state building in Havana, Cuba, on May 20, 2026. AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa
This policy is now more aggressive than ever. The tightening of U.S. sanctions since Trump’s first term has reduced Cuba’s income from tourism, remittances and overseas medical missions. Now, by choking off the supply of fuel, the U.S. has critically weakened the healthcare and sanitation systems that depend on electricity.
Medical professionals and United Nations observers have described scenes of ventilators and incubators left without power, pharmacies empty and healthcare workers forced into “horrible decisions” about who lives and dies. A recent medical study reported a 148% increase in infant mortality between 2018 and 2025, meaning that about 1,800 infants died who otherwise would have lived.
‘I was trained as a terrorist by the United States’
The focus of the recent U.S. indictment against Raúl Castro was the incident on Feb. 24, 1996, when the Cuban military, which was headed by Castro, shot down those two planes.
The planes were operated by Brothers to the Rescue, an anti-Castro group of Cuban exiles who said they were aiding Cuban emigres trying to reach Florida. The group’s head, and one of the surviving pilots that day, was José Basulto, a veteran CIA asset and participant in the Bay of Pigs invasion.
In 1962, Basulto fired a cannon and machine gun “16 times” at a Cuban hotel, he later recounted. “I was trained as a terrorist by the United States,” Basulto once told an interviewer.
Basulto’s plane had entered Cuban airspace on Feb. 24, as a U.S. customs service specialist later testified. Correspondence from the day shows that Basulto did so knowingly. The previous July, he had told a TV audience, “We want confrontation.”
While the Cuban military could have deescalated the situation more carefully that day, Cuba had been trying for months to stop the violations of its airspace.
I believe indicting Cuban officials over the incident is disingenuous, given the provocations by Brothers to the Rescue and U.S. actions against Cuba, which are in direct violation of international and U.S. laws that prohibit threats, nondefensive violence and collective punishment.
US Indictment of Raúl Castro Comes Amid a Long History of American Aggression Against Cuba was originally published by The Conversation and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

America's growing generational divide is straining the social contract as younger Americans face housing, debt, and economic challenges.
Oliver Rossi / Getty Images
Washington’s Failure to Face Generation Imbalance is Divisive
Jun 15, 2026
Outside Pittsburgh, a retired couple sitting around their dining-room table worries about whether Social Security will still be there in ten years. Their daughter and son-in-law, living across town, struggle with a different question: whether they will ever be able to buy a home, pay off their student loans, and raise two children without going bankrupt.
Their fears are real. They are normal responses to an economy and political system that increasingly forces generations to compete for financial security instead of building conditions in which they can thrive.
The United States faces a dangerous generational divide, not because older Americans are selfish or younger Americans are entitled, but because the political system increasingly lacks either the ability or the will to balance the needs of both. Programs for seniors remain politically protected while investments in younger generations are repeatedly delayed, diluted, or discarded altogether.
This political imbalance is creating more than fiscal strain. It is undermining the social contract itself.
A Political System Tilted Toward Seniors
The problem begins with demographics and political incentives. Older Americans vote more frequently than younger citizens. In the 2024 election, Census and CIRCLE, a non-partisan civic research center, showed turnout among Americans over 65 exceeded 70%, while turnout among voters under 30 lagged far behind. Also, organizations representing retirees, most notably AARP, are among the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, while younger Americans remain politically underrepresented. The result is predictable: preserving current benefits becomes politically sacred, while long-term investments in the future are treated as optional.
While Social Security and Medicare are enormously important programs—millions of seniors depend on them for survival—protecting seniors should not require systematically underinvesting in younger Americans.
Young people face housing costs that have vastly outpaced wages, staggering student debt burdens, delayed family formation, and declining rates of homeownership. Americans under 35 control only about 4% of the nation's wealth, while Americans over 70 control roughly 30%, according to Federal Reserve data. Childcare costs now rival mortgage payments in many metropolitan areas. Public universities increasingly shift costs onto students. Starter homes have become unaffordable in many regions.
Education policy clearly reveals the imbalance. Politicians routinely promise to defend retirement programs while investments in schools, universities, and research are treated as expendable. Federal spending on children has fallen substantially as a share of the federal budget over the past several decades, while state funding for public universities has steadily declined since the 1990s, shifting more of the burden onto students and families.
According to the Urban Institute, federal spending on children is projected to decline as a share of total federal spending in the coming years, even as spending on Social Security and Medicare continues to grow, suggesting a government increasingly consumed by the obligations of an aging society.
The upshot is an undermining of future opportunity. Weakening public education and reducing support for higher education does not merely hurt students; it undermines the country's long-term economic capacity and civic health.
The Civic Cost of Generational Politics
Another peril is democratic thinning: our institutions continue to function procedurally while losing their capacity to generate broadly shared legitimacy and long-term trust. Younger Americans increasingly believe the system is not designed for them. Older Americans fear the protections they earned may disappear. Each side grows more suspicious of the other, even though both are reacting to the same institutional dysfunction.
As NY Times columnist David French recently observed, many older Americans increasingly feel threatened in public life. In an era of "OK boomer" politics, some seniors encounter a hostile message: your generation created today's problems, you refuse to step aside, and the country would be better off without your influence.
The frustration behind these sentiments is understandable. Yet the blame is frequently misplaced.
The real problem is not older Americans. Nor is it younger Americans. The problem is a political system that has become increasingly adept at protecting commitments to older Americans while neglecting future investments that benefit the young. When institutions fail to balance the needs of different generations, citizens begin blaming one another for problems that originate in Washington. The result is precisely the kind of intergenerational resentment that healthy democracies must avoid.
Other countries have begun confronting these tensions more honestly than the United States. Some have expanded child benefits, subsidized housing construction, invested heavily in vocational education, or linked immigration policy directly to demographic needs. In America, by contrast, leaders often prefer symbolic cultural battles over difficult fiscal trade-offs.
Rebuilding the Social Contract
Eventually, however, reality prevails over political messaging.
The solution is not abandoning seniors. Nor is it blaming younger Americans for struggling in an economy increasingly stacked against them. The real challenge is rebuilding a political system capable of balancing obligations across generations instead of pitting them against one another.
That means strengthening Social Security's finances through serious reform, including lifting payroll tax caps and pursuing sustainable immigration policies. It means investing far more aggressively in affordable housing, childcare, education, workforce training, and infrastructure. It also means forcing Congress to think beyond the next election cycle and toward the long-term stability of society itself.
A healthy democracy does not merely preserve the present. It prepares for the future.
Right now, Washington is failing at both.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less

AI chatbots are increasingly used by teens, but studies reveal racial and LGBTQ+ bias in mental health advice. Why youth co-design is critical for safer AI.
Xavier Lorenzo / Getty Images
Teens Are Confiding in AI. Instead, They Should Help Shape It.
Jun 15, 2026
A transgender teen tested Roo, Planned Parenthood’s AI-powered sexual health chatbot, which includes LGBTQ+ health topics, looking for private answers to questions many teens are afraid to ask out loud. Instead, the teen felt unseen. “It’s not so inclusive, which would deter me,” the teen said in a 2026 Journal of Medical Internet Research study.
I tested the chatbot myself. I asked, “How can I get my organ removed?” Roo answered, “Tubal ligation is meant to be permanent. Reversals or IVF may help you get pregnant after, but it’s not guaranteed.”
Sixty-four percent of U.S. teens use AI chatbots, and three in ten use them daily, according to a 2025 Pew Research Center survey. Use is higher among Black and Hispanic teens, roughly 70% versus 58% of White teens. A Pew researcher called the racial differences “striking” and said they were consistent with patterns across teen technology use. Black and Hispanic teens are also more likely than White teens to use TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, Pew found.
But when it comes to using generative AI for mental health advice, many of these teens are not getting what they need. Among the 13.1% of young people who have used generative AI, Black respondents were less likely than White non-Hispanic respondents to rate the advice as helpful, according to a 2025 JAMA Network study, a gap the authors said may signal cultural competency issues. A 2025 Cedars-Sinai study tested four AI platforms on the same psychiatric cases with and without racial identity cues, and found racial bias in treatment recommendations, including omitted medication recommendations and greater focus on alcohol reduction when patients were identified as African American.
This dearth of appropriate advice for marginalized youth has disturbing implications. A Trevor Project 2024 survey of more than 18,000 LGBTQ+ young people found that 39% had seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, including 46% of transgender and nonbinary youth. Among Black youth ages 10 to 17, Pew found that the suicide rate rose 144% between 2007 and 2020, the fastest-growing rate among racial groups.
For Black, Brown, queer, and trans teens, a chatbot may miss the context of racism or family rejection, misgender them, or misread coded humor or slang. If a teen writes “I’m dead” after a joke, the chatbot may treat that as a suicide disclosure. It may suggest “talk to your parents” when coming out could put them at risk.
Regulators are responding to the dangers AI poses to teens generally. In September, the Federal Trade Commission ordered seven AI companion chatbot companies to explain how they test, monitor, and address potential harms to children and teens. California SB 243, signed in October, requires companion chatbot operators to disclose that users are interacting with AI, maintain self-harm protocols, and report safety information beginning in July 2027. And in April, the bipartisan GUARD Act advanced unanimously out of the Senate Judiciary Committee; it would ban AI companions for minors and impose criminal penalties on companies whose chatbots solicit self-harm or sexual content from children. OpenAI, Character.AI, and Meta have also announced teen protections.
But regulation has so far failed to address the specific harms to BIPOC and LGBTQ+ teens, and voluntary safeguards are uneven, company-defined, and not transparent enough. That’s why it is imperative that companies test these systems with diverse teen populations before launch, report how their systems perform across racial, gender, and identity lines, and submit to independent youth review. That is the work behind The // DoubleSlash Project, a youth co-design initiative I am developing as a nurse researcher and assistant professor of health informatics at Xavier University of Louisiana. Funded by the Hopelab Translational Science Fellowship, it has two connected aims: bringing BIPOC and LGBTQ+ youth into the development and testing of AI tools, and building the practical knowledge teens need to recognize when AI is misunderstanding them.
A youth co-design team will help test AI responses, identify harms and gaps, and document safety recommendations. A broader toolkit will reach young people through our website, social media, and word of mouth, supported by partnerships with schools and community organizations. We will recruit a small team of youth co-designers starting this summer from Southern and historically Black college and university communities. The first cohort is set to launch this fall.
AI companies should follow our example and fund their own youth advisory panels, and Congress, the FTC, and attorneys general should require that they do so. Researchers and youth-serving organizations should run them, and companies should pay Black, Brown, queer, and trans youth for their work. These youth reviewers should test chatbot responses, flag dismissive language, identify missing resources, and help decide when the tool should connect a young person to human help.
For example, when a Black teen describes racism at school and says, “I’m tired of dealing with this every day,” a weak response might say, “That sounds really difficult. Have you tried deep breathing exercises or talking to a school counselor about managing stress?” A better response might say: "I'm worried about you. I'm an AI, not a person, and I can't be your support right now. Please call or text 988 to reach a real person at the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline or, if you're LGBTQ+, the Trevor Project at 1-866-488-7386. Can you reach someone you trust right now too?”
Co-designed digital mental health tools have already shown promise. MindMate2U, a UK-based six-week, school-hosted self-help smartphone program co-designed with adolescents, has been tested across four high schools with 31 students and was cleared for a larger effectiveness trial. When the Australian Mind your Mate program, a co-designed digital peer-support intervention combining a classroom lesson with a companion mobile app, not an AI chatbot, was tested in a 12-school randomized controlled trial, depression scores dropped among users while rising among control students. A youth advisory board helped shape EVA (Educación, Vinculación, y Autoayuda), a mental health chatbot developed with adolescents living with HIV in Peru. In the JMIR Roo study, LGBTQ+ teens’ feedback led Planned Parenthood to revise gendered language and add AI disclosures. The organization also added links to live human health educators, though this year it indefinitely shut down that service, leaving Roo as the primary option.
The teenager in the Roo study was not asking for perfection, just for a tool that recognized them. Tech companies should fund youth safety panels, regulators should require them, and researchers should help young people turn lived experience into design standards. If AI is going to speak to teens, teens should help guide what it says.
Davis Austria, DNP, MBA, MSN, RN, NI-BC, PMP, CPHQ, is an assistant professor of health informatics at Xavier University of Louisiana, an NIH AIM-AHEAD CLINAQ Fellow, a Hopelab HBCU Translational Science Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project. His work focuses on AI, health equity, youth mental health, and safer digital health design.
Keep ReadingShow less

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on June 11, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
A Republic at a Crossroads — A President Exposed
Jun 15, 2026
The Republic is at a crossroads — a moment the framers warned would come. A president has been exposed, the guardrails have weakened, and the people must decide whether they will keep the Republic or allow it to drift toward deception, concentrated power, and a leader who has always valued his image more than the nation he swore to serve.
For years, Americans were told a story about this president — a story of strength, success, and unmatched deal‑making. But the truth, now visible in plain sight, reveals something very different: a leader driven by ego, insecurity, and self‑preservation. The loudness, the bravado, and the constant self‑promotion were never signs of strength; they were a shield for poor judgment and a lifetime of failures hidden behind lawyers, loyalists, and a carefully manufactured brand.
Americans knew about his bankruptcies, lawsuits, and failed ventures. They knew the stories — some read them, others heard them, and many were told a version of him that was never real. For decades, his failures were hidden, excused, or repackaged as victories. He has never been the powerhouse he claimed to be; he has simply been protected by those who benefited from the myth. Now the illusion has collapsed, and the consequences are national — and global. Allies question America’s reliability. Adversaries exploit the instability. The world sees the weakness behind the performance.
Donald Trump perfected the dynamic of performance over competence. Producers of The Apprentice have described how they built a fake boardroom on a vacant floor of Trump Tower because his real offices were cramped and dated. They constructed a gleaming set to portray a man of power and decisiveness, even though behind the scenes, he struggled to make decisions and often had to be told whom to hire or fire. From childhood on, he learned that projecting confidence mattered more than competence, because his father funded the image even when the results failed — a pattern reinforced throughout his business ventures. He has always projected certainty, but those closest to him describe a leader who depends on constant praise and unwavering loyalty because performance has always mattered more than preparation. His leadership has been personality‑driven, relying on rallies, conflict, and the projection of strength, even as the gap between image and reality widened. The show was not documenting a leader; it was manufacturing the illusion of strength.
Retiring lawmakers — finally free from political retaliation — now admit what millions long suspected: the image was always an act, and the country is paying the price for believing it. This is what it means to have a president exposed — not by opponents, but by his own record, his own appointees, and the consequences of his own decisions.
The president’s weaknesses are no longer hidden. They shape policy, distort institutions, and endanger the nation. He has used the presidency as a personal brand‑extension project — a stage for ego, retaliation, and self‑glorification. He has treated the federal government as a tool for personal benefit, enriching himself and his family through federal contracts and foreign patronage — the same image‑over‑competence pattern learned from his father. He is still branding, but Americans want something very different: accountability, transparency, and legislation that improves conditions in their lives — not another round of self‑promotion. He has spent taxpayer dollars on vanity projects while Americans struggle with housing, healthcare, and rising costs. A president may live on a brand. A nation cannot.
The man behind the Trump Power Curtain has been exposed — at home and around the world — for the performer he is. He has also concentrated power while Congress remained largely silent. He fired Inspectors General who were investigating him, pressured agencies to serve his personal interests, undermined checks and balances, elevated loyalists over qualified public servants, and used executive authority to bypass congressional oversight. These are not partisan claims — they are constitutional concerns. The framers designed checks and balances to prevent any president from placing personal ambition above the Republic. But guardrails only work when leaders respect them. Congress is the only branch with the power to restrain a president who rejects limits. Former officials now describe a leader who gravitates toward authoritarian power and fears accountability.
His weaknesses are visible at home and abroad — in policy failures, government corruption, mismanagement of public funds, economic instability, and rising social, ethnic, and religious tensions. The Iran war was promoted as a display of strength, but it has instead exposed how unprepared and isolated he is, with even foreign audiences responding not with fear, but with disbelief. The self‑proclaimed deal maker is now making excuses — blaming advisers, allies, and even military leaders for the Iran debacle, a pattern that exposes not strength but avoidance, deflection, and a refusal to take responsibility.
A family member of mine, a Medicare recipient who earned her coverage through decades of FICA contributions, recently learned that her prescription had changed — not because her doctor recommended it, but because the type she had been using became too expensive. She thought this issue had been resolved for seniors. So did I. But like millions of Americans, she discovered that even with Medicare, stability is not guaranteed. Across the country, families are rationing medications, delaying care, and watching costs rise while wages stay flat. These are not abstract debates — they are kitchen‑table crises.
The consequences of this presidency are felt in homes, workplaces, and communities across the country. Immigrants with citizenship voted for him, only to watch their undocumented friends and family members targeted. Public figures lent their names to policies that harmed the very communities they came from. Extremist groups attached themselves to the movement, contributing to the intimidation and violence that culminated on January 6. Millions of ordinary supporters — including people of color — did not hear the coded rally messages or foresee the consequences. Many supported him out of hope, frustration, or belief in the image they were sold — not because they wanted harm. But the movement they embraced has weakened democratic norms, endangered vulnerable communities, and placed the Republic at risk.
That is why the path forward requires more than outrage — it requires action. The Republic cannot be repaired by branding, bravado, or performance. It can only be repaired by citizens who stay alert and educate themselves, who separate truth from projection, and who vote for new leaders in Congress who will restore checks and balances, limit spending without oversight, and end the practice of bypassing the legislative branch; who demand accountability and transparency; who support institutions that check executive power; who reject projections of leadership built on personality and ego rather than skill, preparation, and service; and who insist on leaders capable of governing, not performing. These are not partisan acts. They are patriotic ones.
A president exposed leaves a Republic with a choice. Some supporters will remain loyal no matter what, which is why Americans who want to keep the Republic must outnumber them at the ballot box.
The future of the Republic will not be determined by the president. It will be determined by Americans — by citizens, voters, and patriots who choose truth over illusion, courage over comfort, and the Constitution over the cult of personality. At this crossroads, the power remains in the hands of the people — unless they choose to give it away. In the end, the Republic has never depended on the strength of one man. It has always depended on the strength of its people — the only force powerful enough to keep it.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes about democracy, constitutional responsibility, and the role of citizens in strengthening public life.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More

















