The National Conference on Citizenship (NCoC) is dedicated to strengthening civic life in America. We pursue our mission through a nationwide network of partners involved in a cutting-edge civic health initiative, our cross-sector conferences and engagement with a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations interested in utilizing civic engagement principles and practices to enhance their work. Connecting people for the purpose of strengthening civic life is our goal. At the core of our joint efforts is the belief that every person has the ability to help their community and country thrive.
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
Recommended

A pole with a sign that says polling station
Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash
Elks, Rotarians, and Both Party’s Lust for Control
Jun 25, 2026
When it comes to the issue of open primaries, DSA true believers like Brad Lander in New York and MAGA mouthpieces like Governor Abbott in Texas sing from the same hymnal: open primaries invites mischief and party raiding. If we let independents vote we’d get pandemonium. Democracy needs guardrails, and political parties need integrity. You wouldn’t want Elks voting in Rotarians’ elections would you?
There is a certain logic to it. Except Abbott, Lander and all their fellow partisan warriors have it completely backwards.
And now we have the data to prove it.
New polling from Open Primaries and the Independent Voter Project of 1300 registered Democrats in NYC revealed something astonishing: 40% of registered Democrats do not consider themselves to be Democrats. 40%. They register to vote as Democrats simply to be able to vote in the primary election, the only election that matters in the Big Apple.
Among Hispanic New Yorkers, only 1 in 3 Democrats are actual Democrats!
The numbers are astonishing. And very revealing. When you force people to join a private political organization in order to vote in a public election, don’t be surprised if you end up with a political party of reluctant registrants, not true believers. And the “party raiding” that politicians use to scare voters away from open primaries is actually going on in closed systems! On a huge scale.
We've known for years that independents join parties in order to vote - now we have the hard evidence. But what the numbers don't tell is what it feels like to be forced by your own government to join a political organization you don’t believe in just to be able to cast a ballot. A group of us sat down with MSNOW last week to discuss exactly that.
- YouTube youtu.be
Closed primary elections are a huge manipulation. They force voters to lie to vote and exclude those unwilling to do so.
But New York and 15 other states remain entrenched, so we have to keep building pressure to let all voters vote.
I never thought anyone would write this, but Texas is hellbent on following New York’s example. The GOP now has Governor Abbott’s blessing to move ahead with their legal challenge to the state’s open system. And the Democrats are mute, as per usual. Within a year or two, Texas (arguably the state with the most independent culture in America) will have a fully closed system in which independent voters will be categorically excluded. The results will be terrible for Texas.
The political parties are private organizations. And they are incredibly powerful. They do not need government protection. If anything, we, the people, need the protection from the parties! They want to gerrymander us out of existence and keep us out of primaries, where all the action is.
Open systems that give people full access don’t invite chaos and manipulation. Party-controlled systems do. And until we pry control of our democracy from the grip of private organizations, chaos will dominate.
John Opdycke is the president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.
Keep ReadingShow less

man in black jacket holding black dslr camera
Photo by Jana Shnipelson on Unsplash
Storytelling Is Foundational to Keeping Our Democracy Intact
Jun 25, 2026
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
We asked Daniela Mattson, a student at the University of Southern California and a Fulcrum Fellowship cohort member, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.
As a young Mexican female storyteller entering the journalism profession, the future and prosperity of my industry seem more fragile than ever.
I have spent the last six years developing my skills as a journalist and writer, yet I find myself wondering whether all the work I have done will lead to a stable, celebrated career in a country where freedom of expression continues to be under attack.
One of the fundamental aspects of learning to be a journalist is understanding the importance of the press and its influence on American society and democracy at large. The years I spent in school taught me that democracy keeps those in power in check and that people can shape the country they wish to live in through elections and freedom of speech.
Despite this, storytelling and freedom of expression seem increasingly threatened in recent years. Through the defunding of public media, the spreading of disinformation, deepfakes, and false news, it can be easy to feel that the integrity and safety of the press, a fundamental piece of democracy, is facing serious threats.
Nevertheless, I continue to believe that storytelling is key to upholding our democracy and has tremendous power to share the truth and uplift the voices of those who do not normally have the chance to speak up. Storytelling and upholding freedom of expression, especially for underrepresented voices, are fundamental to keeping our democracy from falling through the cracks of our nation’s foundation.
Freedom of the press has been a key part of American democracy and identity. But only recently has this freedom been weakened by attacks on news publications, broadcast channels, and journalists. Largely stemming from President Trump’s 2024 election, a series of attacks on the media has made it more difficult for journalists to continue reporting to the public.
Without federal support for public media and the press, it is harder for those in power to be held accountable and for journalists to do their jobs and investigate the truth for their readers.
There is no denying that a threat to freedom of the press and free expression has been under attack in recent months under the Trump administration, and that journalists and press outlets continue to struggle.
Apart from news organizations themselves, individual journalists have faced mounting threats to their safety and ability to report freely. The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker reported that in 2025, over 30 journalists were detained or arrested while covering protests. In 2026, many journalists who attended immigration protests against the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement were either physically assaulted with rubber bullets and pepper spray or detained, according to the Associated Press.
In March, NPR reported that a judge called out Trump for violating free speech by cutting funding for NPR, calling it “unlawful” and “unenforceable.”
These actions by the federal government in the last two years represent the growing divide between the government and the press, weakening the bond that they both play a crucial role in upholding democracy in America. However, there is not just one side to the ongoing debate between the press and the government, which is working to provide less support.
While many support the press and the role of journalists, it has become increasingly difficult for journalists to earn public trust, leading to a press where many doubt its integrity. While there are challenges within the press itself, particularly in avoiding inaccuracies and limiting the voices of marginalized groups, journalists remain the cornerstone of truth-telling.
The criticisms of the media and journalists are part of the freedom of speech we enjoy in America, and, if anything, there should always be conversations about how the media and journalists can improve the accuracy and ethics of their reporting. That said, without the press and journalists to begin with, the country would lose the foundation for the stories and perspectives that help shape change or incite action among Americans.
To keep journalists and storytellers safe and able to continue doing their jobs, and to help the media stay afloat during a turbulent time for the press, there must be collective action toward a solution. Local representatives and federal officials must advocate for further legislation that protects the press and journalists, and provide the funding necessary to support news outlets.
We must resist the efforts to defund the media through public protest and support young storytellers through local government initiatives, writing workshops, or educational programming. By prioritizing funding for existing press institutions and providing more opportunities for those entering the field, we could enter into a future where the press continues to strengthen democracy and brings new perspectives and voices to the forefront.
I have been lucky enough to feel comfortable publishing and reporting on topics that are important to me and that I feel the need to share with audiences. I feel lucky for the opportunity to report on communities I care about, and have platforms that allow me to share my reporting.
However, not every journalist feels this same level of safety. We must continue to fight for the right to write and tell stories freely to educate and amplify the voices of those without a platform, and to keep Americans informed. Further, we have to ensure the press remains intact and funded, so that journalists can continue to inform the public.
To uphold democracy, we must fight for the ability to continue telling stories without fear of censorship or repercussions, and with the support of elected officials and Americans.
Democracy cannot continue without journalists. But most of all, it cannot continue without genuine efforts to keep this fundamental freedom alive.
Daniela Mattson is a bilingual multimedia journalist who prioritizes diverse storytelling in my reporting.
Keep ReadingShow less

boy in gray shirt using black laptop computer
Photo by Thomas Park on Unsplash
Keeping Kids Safe Online?: Understanding the Debate Over AI Age Verification
Jun 25, 2026
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
- AI age verification is an emerging technology designed to estimate users’ age. It can be less accurate for certain groups and will likely require ongoing investment to remain effective.
- Those in favor of AI age verification say that it is simply the modern digital equivalent of real world measures that prevent minors from accessing adults-only products and services, such as ID checks and security guards.
- Critics of AI age verification cite technological shortcomings, concerns over data privacy and free speech implications, and the presence of systemic biases as reasons why AI age verification is not a suitable tool to keep minors safe online.
- As of February 2026, 25 U.S. states, the U.K., Australia, and Spain have laws requiring age verification, suggesting a rapidly growing global trend which will have lasting consequences for safety, anonymity, and data privacy on the internet.
Why is AI Age Verification Suddenly Everywhere?
In an article recently published in Tech Policy Press, Meg Leta Jones and Clare Morrel say that, “2026 is poised to be the year age verification changes the internet as we know it.” But how did we get here? What is AI age verification? How does it work? And what does it mean for the future of the internet?
In recent years, largely in response to whistleblower testimony, federal lawmakers have tried to update the U.S. approach to child internet safety through bills such as the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) and the App Store Accountability Act, which seek to prevent minors from being exposed to harmful content. Despite bipartisan support, both have failed to become law, in significant part due to concerns that they would amount to censorship, undermining rights to privacy and free speech. This has left states to implement their own legislation.
In the U.S., the current influx of age verification legislation began with a Louisiana law, introduced in 2022, which requires age verification though government ID or transactional data to access websites on which more than a third of the content is deemed adult in nature. Early age verification laws followed this trend and were narrowly focused on sites with a substantial amount of mature content, such as dedicated pornography providers, but many states have since passed much broader laws targeting social media platforms and app stores. Now, half of U.S. states as well as several countries including the U.K., Australia, and Spain have age verification laws. Although these laws do not explicitly require that companies use age verification strategies that rely on AI, platforms such as YouTube, Discord, Roblox, TikTok, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, and Apple’s App Store have chosen to do so. Since many of the largest and most popular websites and apps have opted for AI age verification, these methods will be the focus of this brief.
What is AI Age Verification and How Does It Work?
The 2 major types of AI age verification techniques are Facial Age Estimation and Social Graph Age Estimation. With Facial Age Estimation, an AI model analyzes image data of a user’s face to determine their approximate age. . This technique is used by Roblox, which requires users to submit a video of their face or a copy of their ID before they can use chat features. On the other hand, Social Graph Age Estimation analyzes an individuals’ behavioral patterns such as search history, watch history, and watch time. TikTok takes this second approach, using a model that assigns accounts a score between 0 and 1 using a “combination of profile data, content analysis, and behavioral signals” to identify accounts belonging to those under 13. YouTube uses a combination of these methods. First a model analyzes “multiple behavioral factors, including what kind of videos the user searches for, the categories of videos they watch, and how long the account has been active.” If the model falsely determines that a user is underage, they then have the option to upload a photo for facial analysis. Other options include verification via credit card or ID.
What Problems is AI Age Verification Trying to Solve?
In 2026, it is undeniable that the internet has become a key facet of most Americans’ daily lives, and that includes children and teens. From 2011 to 2023, the percentage of teens with smartphones rose from 23 to 95 percent. Meanwhile, from 2015 to 2023, the percent of teens who said they were online almost constantly nearly doubled, going from 24 to 46 percent. This shift has not come without consequences.
For example, reporting shows that the majority of children now encounter pornography by the age of 13 with most saying they did so on social media Additionally, while the research is inconclusive, internal studies by social media platforms have shown that their usage can be detrimental to minors’ mental health. These factors could be part of the reason that, according to The Heritage Foundation, “Roughly 70 percent of parents say parenting is more difficult today than 20 years ago and that technology and social media are the top two reasons for increased difficulty.”
Notably, children themselves are also unhappy with their online experiences. A workshop run by Public Knowledge found that despite being aware of the fact that their feeds are being precisely tuned by algorithms designed to keep them engaged as long as possible, minors consistently described a pattern of losing unintended time to the endless scroll of social media in a way that impeded with their ability to complete necessary tasks. Furthermore, they reported the desire for “a fundamental shift in how platforms, apps, and websites behave – changes that encourage [them] to better regulate their own behavior.”
Those in favor of AI age verification see it as a means to keep minors safe from explicit content and exploitative algorithms. They argue that far from being overreach, it is simply the high-tech solution necessary to meet our high-tech moment, playing the same role as the ID checks or security guards that keep minors from entering a casino or buying cigarettes offline.
What Problems Does AI Age Verification Create?
Opponents of AI age verification cite 3 major categories of concerns: technological shortcomings, free speech and data privacy issues, and systemic biases. AI age verification is accurate for the majority of users. This may create the impression that the technology behind it is well established and has no notable issues, but the reality is that AI age verification is technologically immature and struggles in ways that are particularly relevant to its role in enforcing internet safety standards for minors. Reuters analysis of an AI age verification trial connected to Australia’s social media ban for individuals under 16, describes “high accuracy for people over 19” but for those “up to three years on either side of the cut-off…system uncertainty is higher.” It also notes that, “users aged 16 had an 8.5% chance of being estimated as underage.”
Additionally, most AI age verification systems are easily circumvented through the use of a VPN, a technology which is well-known and commonly used by young people, including teens. It is possible that these technological problems will be resolved in the future. However, the future brings its own challenge in the form of model drift. Model drift causes AI models to become less accurate with time as the input they are evaluating from the real world becomes less like their training data.
Beyond technical limitations AI age verification also raises free speech and speech concerns. The ability to be anonymous is an important part of maintaining the right to free speech. This is especially true for people like journalists and abuse survivors. If large sections of the internet require that someone submit their face or ID to participate, digital anonymity as we know it could disappear. There is also the possibility that platforms may begin broadly removing content in response to the spread of age verification laws. As the Open Technology Institute puts it, “if an online operator believes it cannot verify the ages of users with certainty, it may be inclined to censor or restrict what content is available for all users—or even suspend services within a state entirely—to avoid legal action and liability.” This would have a chilling effect on free speech. These concerns are a key reason why, in the U.S., many age verification laws are facing legal challenges on vagueness and First Amendment grounds, with some being overturned.
There is also the matter of data privacy. When models make mistakes, users have to submit sensitive personal documents to correct them, which makes this information vulnerable to hackers. For example, Discord’s AI age verification partner was breached, exposing “government ID photos of about 70,000 global users,” and the resultant user backlash has been so intense that Discord is now delaying the global rollout of their age verification system from March to the latter half of 2026. As AI age verification becomes more widespread, this problem is likely to get worse because, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, “the more places personal data passes through, the higher the chances of it being misused or stolen.”
At the intersection of technological limitations and data privacy concerns, is the problem of systemic biases. These biases mean that marginalized groups are more likely to be misclassified by age verification and to face additional barriers complying with them. Forbes and The Guardian (figure 1) report that age verification models are significantly less accurate at classifying racial and ethnic minorities as well as women. This is well supported by existing research. LGBTQ individuals and people with disabilities, particularly the 100 million worldwide with facial differences, are also more likely to be misclassified due to their underrepresentation in training data.

Figure 1: AI Age Estimation Inaccuracies by Race
Furthermore, many members of minority groups will find themselves unable to correct a classification mistake as a result of lacking the necessary documents. For example, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, 18% of Black Americans do not have a driver’s license, 43% of transgender Americans lack documentation with the right name or gender, and people with disabilities are more likely to have expired IDs. This creates a two-sided problem. On one hand, many members of marginalized groups will be incorrectly misclassified without a way to fix it, while those who can (and choose to) submit additional personal information will disproportionately bear the burden of any data breaches.
Where Will AI Age Verification Go From Here?
AI age verification is a rapidly evolving emerging technology, as such predicting the future is difficult. Depending on how it holds up in the courts, it could quietly fade away, losing out to a better, more accurate, less invasive method of keeping kids safe online. It could also expand, as Forbes suggests, to night clubs and concert venues, no longer simply imitating real world protection mechanisms, but replacing them. It remains to be seen if, in 10 years’ time AI age verification will be looked at as a slapdash means of addressing deeper structural problems with the modern internet that having negative consequences not only for minors, but all users trying to maintain agency over their attention, or as the beginning of a truly digital first approach to child safety that permanently reshapes online communication and commerce.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is AI age verification legal?
The legal fate of AI age verification is complex and currently unknown. Many age verification laws are facing challenges in court, with some being overturned for being overly broad and threatening First Amendment rights.
- Does my state have an age verification law?
An up to date list of U.S. States with age verification laws can be found: here.
- Will AI age verification only impact children?
No, AI age verification will impact everyone who uses platforms that implement it including adults, particularly those who are close to the selected age threshold and more likely to be misclassified as a minor.
Keeping Kids Safe Online?: Understanding the Debate Over AI Age Verification was first published by ACE and republished with permission.
Shane Johnson is a recent graduate of the University of Cincinnati.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















A view of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 25, 2026. President Donald Trump jolted Republicans during a fiery appearance at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, scrapping a housing bill signing ceremony and clashing behind closed doors with a party rebel who challenged him over the Iran war. Trump had been expected to sign the bipartisan housing.
Only Trump doesn’t care about housing
It was August 15, 2024. Then candidate Donald Trump stepped out of his Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club’s columned clubhouse to a gaggle of reporters. He was flanked by tables of groceries and signs showing the rising cost of food. Also on one of the tables was a dollhouse, meant to represent the equally alarming rise in housing prices.
It was a speech about the economy, the single most important issue of the 2024 election cycle, full of promises that went right to the heart of Americans’ anxieties. While former President Joe Biden and then Vice President Kamala Harris were contorting themselves to posture a good economy that just needed more time to recover from the pandemic, Trump was preying on voters’ very real fears of unaffordable gas, groceries, and homes. It was obviously a winning message.
In that speech, Trump promised, “We’re going to open up tracts of federal land for housing construction. We desperately need housing for people who can’t afford what’s going on now.”
As of mid-2023, there had been a housing shortage of nearly four million homes, according to the National Association of Realtors. Americans all over the country were either priced out of buying new homes due to low inventory, trapped in their existing homes by sky-high mortgage rates, or facing exorbitant rent hikes thanks to corporate investors buying up rental properties. Americans needed help, and Trump promised it.
Cut to March of 2026, when Trump reportedly told House Speaker Mike Johnson, “No one gives a sh*t about housing.”
That kind of thinking may explain why Trump this week suddenly announced he was canceling a signing ceremony for the bipartisan “21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” a housing bill co-sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott that passed the House 358-32 and was approved in the Senate on Monday.
Trump instead demanded Congress pass the SAVE America Act, his controversial election grievance bill that doesn’t have enough Republican support to get passed in the Senate.
It’s just the latest in a line of policy self-owns where Trump has seemingly intentionally made life more difficult for Republicans hoping to keep their majority. Despite midterm elections occurring in the midst of a blistering economy and an unpopular war, they were surely hoping the housing bill would give them something — anything — to brag about when they returned home to their districts.
And very much to the contrary, Americans do give a sh*t about housing. According to a recent survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a whopping 79% say the cost of housing is extremely or very important to them. Eighty-three percent say Congress should take action on the issue — like it just did. Eighty-nine percent say the House and Senate need to work together to pass affordable housing legislation — like they just did. And 63% say they would be more likely to vote for a lawmaker if they helped pass legislation to build more affordable homes and lower housing costs — like they just did.
There aren’t many issues that unite Americans like housing does, and very few bipartisan policy wins Congress can point to, and yet, Trump is holding that bill hostage in order to get his pet project — which doesn’t even have the support of his own party — pushed through.
If you’re trying to make sense of something so nonsensical, as I’m sure many Republican lawmakers are, it’s certainly sad but not actually all that complicated. Trump said what he needed to get reelected and then promptly abandoned his promises in order to pursue his own self-interests, even if those interests are bad for Republicans and bad for voters.
That’s just the kind of guy he is.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.