The fate of our Democracy is on the ballot this fall. Get the inside story on how a coalition of Democrats, independents and Liz Cheney Republicans can combine forces to stop the Trump faction from winning big offices in swing states and gaining control of future elections. The media treats the 2022 campaign like the rerun of a traditional mid-term election where the in-party takes a shellacking and loses control of Congress. But smart voters know the stakes are much higher than that this year.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Oleksandra Matviichuk, head of the Center for Civil Liberties, holds the Nobel medal at the Kyiv railway station on December 18, 2022 in Kyiv, Ukraine.
(Photo by Yevhenii Zavhorodnii/Global Images Ukraine via Getty Images)
Does Donald Trump Deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
Aug 01, 2025
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sparked widespread debate Thursday by calling for President Donald Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize.
Leavitt asserted that Trump merits the prestigious recognition, citing his role in negotiating peace deals and ceasefire agreements across six major international conflicts. However, the wars in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip are still ongoing.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump last month that he recommended him for the award, handing the American leader the letter he said he sent to the Nobel committee.
Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program
U.S. officials have long labeled Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. In June 2025, intelligence reports suggested Iran was accelerating efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In response, Trump authorized targeted U.S. airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities, which were described as “totally obliterated”. The strikes were followed by stern warnings against retaliation, and while Iran did launch a limited strike on a U.S. base in Qatar, no casualties were reported.
Supporters argue that Trump’s decisive action:
- Prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- Averted a potential regional arms race.
- Reinforced U.S. deterrence without triggering full-scale war.
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) cited these actions in his formal nomination letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, praising Trump’s “bold, decisive actions to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions”.
Brokering Peace Between Iran and Israel
Just days after the strikes, Trump announced a ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel, ending weeks of open conflict that had threatened to engulf the Middle East. The ceasefire, brokered with U.S. involvement, was hailed as “extraordinary” by commentators and foreign leaders alike.
Netanyahu called Trump “a peacemaker in one country and one region after the other”. The ceasefire remains intact, despite early skepticism about its durability.
A Broader Peace Agenda
Trump’s recent efforts build on his earlier diplomatic initiatives:
- The Abraham Accords (2020), which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations.
- De-escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan.
- Attempts to mediate ceasefires in Ukraine and Gaza.
While critics question the sustainability and motives behind these deals, proponents argue that Trump’s “peace through strength” doctrine has yielded tangible results in some of the world’s most volatile regions.
A Divisive but Impactful Nomination
Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize multiple times, but has never won. This year, however, his candidacy has gained traction, with endorsements from lawmakers, tribal nations, and foreign governments, including Pakistan.
Critics across the political and academic spectrum are voicing strong opposition, questioning both the merit and motivations behind the endorsements.
"Nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is like entering a hyena in a dog show,” said Emma Shortis, a senior fellow at RMIT University, in a panel of experts convened by The Independent. “There is no peace in Gaza, and Trump’s approach to diplomacy is transactional, not transformative.”
Even some who initially nominated him—like Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Merezhko—have withdrawn support, citing inconsistency and a lack of genuine commitment to peace.
Betting markets reflect the controversy. While Trump remains a top contender with odds as high as 32% according to some sportsbooks, critics argue that the surge in support is politically driven rather than based on substantive peacebuilding.
Nobel Peace Prize Criteria
According to Alfred Nobel’s will and the Nobel Committee’s interpretation, the Peace Prize is awarded to individuals or organizations that have made:
- Fraternity between nations
- Abolition or reduction of standing armies
- Promotion of peace congresses
Over time, these have expanded to include:
- Human rights advocacy
- Diplomatic negotiation
- Humanitarian work
- Efforts toward nuclear disarmament
So while Trump’s name is in the mix, whether he “deserves” the prize is a deeply polarizing question.
Whether or not the Nobel Committee awards him the prize, Trump’s actions have reignited debate over what constitutes peace in the modern era. Is it diplomacy alone, or can military deterrence and strategic pressure also qualify?
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
"The stakes of AI policymaking are too high and the risks of getting it wrong are too enduring for lawmakers to legislate on instinct alone," explains Kevin Frazier.
Getty Images, Aitor Diago
Avoiding Policy Malpractice in the Age of AI
Aug 01, 2025
Nature abhors a vacuum, rushing to fill it often chaotically. Policymakers, similarly, dislike a regulatory void. The urge to fill it with new laws is strong, frequently leading to shortsighted legislation. There's a common, if flawed, belief that "any law is better than no law." This action bias—our predisposition to do something rather than nothing—might be forgivable in some contexts, but not when it comes to artificial intelligence.
Regardless of one's stance on AI regulation, we should all agree that only effective policy deserves to stay on the books. The consequences of missteps in AI policy at this early stage are too severe to entrench poorly designed proposals into law. Once enacted, laws tend to persist. We even have a term for them: zombie laws. These are "statutes, regulations, and judicial precedents that continue to apply after their underlying economic and legal bases dissipate," as defined by Professor Joshua Macey.
Such laws are more common than we’d like to admit. Consider a regulation requiring truck drivers to place visibility triangles around their rigs when parked. This seemingly minor rule becomes a barrier to autonomous trucking, as there's no driver to deploy the triangles. A simple, commonsense solution, like integrating high-visibility markers into the trucks themselves, exists, yet the outdated regulation persists. Another example is the FDA's attempt to help allergy sufferers by requiring sesame labeling. Rather than simply labeling, many food producers responded by adding sesame to more foods to avoid non-compliance, a comical and wasteful regulatory backfire.
Similar legislative missteps are highly likely in the AI space. With Congress declining to impose a moratorium, state legislatures across the country are rapidly pursuing AI proposals. Hundreds of AI-related bills are pending, addressing everything from broad, catastrophic harms to specific issues such as deepfakes in elections.
The odds of any of these bills getting it "right" are uncertain. AI is a particularly challenging technology to regulate for several reasons: even its creators aren't sure how and why their models behave; early adopters are still figuring out AI’s utility and limitations; no one can predict how current regulations will influence AI's development; and we're left guessing how adversaries will approach similar regulatory questions.
Given these complexities, legislators must adopt a posture of regulatory humility. States that enact well-intentioned regulations leading to predictable negative consequences are engaging in legislative malpractice. I choose these words deliberately. Policymakers and their staff should know better, recognizing the extensive list of tools available to prevent bad laws from becoming permanent.
Malpractice occurs when a professional fails to adhere to the basic tenets of their field. Legal malpractice, for instance, involves "evil practice in a professional capacity, and the resort to methods and practices unsanctioned and prohibited by law." In medicine, doctors are held to a standard of care reflecting what a "minimally competent physician in the same field would do under similar circumstances."
While policymaking lacks a formalized duty of care or professional conduct code, we're not entirely without guidance. A related concept, though less familiar, offers a starting point: maladministration.
Maladministration encompasses "administrative action (or inaction) based on or influenced by improper considerations or conduct," indicating when "things are going wrong, mistakes are being made, and justifiable grievances are being ignored." While typically applied to administrative agencies and politicians, as the creators of such systems, they bear responsibility for anticipating and correcting these mistakes.
Given the inherent difficulties of regulating AI, policymakers should, at a minimum, demonstrate consideration of three key tools to reduce the odds of enacting misguided regulations. These tools align with core democratic values, ensuring policy promotes the common good.
First is experimental policy design via randomized control trials (RCTs). Legislators shouldn't assume one best way to test AI models or report their training. Instead, they should build experimentation into legislation. Some labs might follow steps A, B, and C, while others follow X, Y, and Z. The legislature can then assess which provisions work best, ideally transitioning all regulated entities to superior practices or amending the law. This fosters innovation in regulatory methods.
Second are sunrise clauses. These delay enforcement until prerequisites—basic conditions of good governance—are met. Unlike a simple future effective date, a true sunrise clause imposes a checklist: Is the implementing agency staffed and funded? Have regulated entities been consulted? Do stakeholders understand compliance? In AI policy, these questions are urgent. Enforcing complex laws before infrastructure exists is inefficient and undermines legitimacy. A sunrise clause ensures laws "land" effectively, demanding competence before policy becomes an enforceable rule. This promotes transparency and accountability.
Third are sunset clauses. If sunrise clauses delay a start, sunset clauses enforce an end unless actively renewed. This is critical for fast-evolving technologies. A sunset clause builds in mandatory reassessment: "This law expires in two years unless renewed." This isn't laziness; it’s disciplined humility. AI regulation shouldn't outlive its usefulness, and sunset clauses ensure laws earn their permanence, preventing outdated assumptions from locking in.
The stakes of AI policymaking are too high and the risks of getting it wrong are too enduring for lawmakers to legislate on instinct alone. While action bias is human, embedding it in law is neither excusable nor sustainable. At this early, uncertain stage of AI development, policymakers have a rare opportunity: to regulate with foresight, humility, and discipline.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Keep ReadingShow less
Build America With Energy Abundance: A Bipartisan Path to Prosperity
Aug 01, 2025
We, here at Washington Power and Light, (washingtonpowerandlight.org, not a public utility, rather a D.C.-based virtual think tank founded by an iconic software developer and an economic policy geek) contend that pragmatism is the new radicalism. Romantics and fanatics now dominate the agenda-setting of the two major political parties.
That’s ending.
Washington Power and Light’s main focus is on good energy policy. We observe that energy abundance is the real root of the policy tree, the big unlocker of equitable prosperity. Abundant energy yields national energy, food, water security, and, finally, abundant good jobs. This means rising per capita real GDP, which supply-side 1.0 increased from $30,000/year in 1979 to $70,000/year now.
Energy austerity, by contrast, brings famine, poverty, and even scarcity-driven war. Meanwhile, across the board, increasing our standard of living—and the quality of life as well as our civic and political functionality—is determined by pragmatism.
Not by zealotry or dreamy, holier-than-thou aspiration.
Let us remind you, dear reader, of the largely forgotten corollary to the most vivid line of Barry Goldwater’s 1964 presidential acceptance speech: “… moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” We consider that the word moderate, implying restrained, is a misleading epithet for the new ethos.
Pragmatism is—and we propose to make it—the new radicalism. Call us radical pragmatists.
We are not making up the implications for abundance. As we have elsewhere written, Prof. Paul Romer won a Nobel Prize in economics for demonstrating that much of increased prosperity comes from innovation: Research and Development.
Some of the best of which have been, should be, and surely again will be federally funded. (Hello, DARPA invented the Internet!)
The subtitle of Saul Alinsky’s magnum opus, “Rules for Radicals,” is “A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals”. Note in passing, Alinsky was never a communist (an accusation of which he was fully exonerated by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI). Nor, as revealed by Alinsky’s life and writings, was he even a socialist.
Paraphrasing Alinsky’s subtitle, we offer a Radical Primer for Realistic Pragmatists. No militant declaration of doom!
Rather, the opposite.
The late economist Herbert Stein coined an unrepealable natural law of politics: "I have tried to comfort people who worry about this (the twin deficits) by propounding Stein’s Law which is that if something cannot go on forever, it will stop."
And as our political crystal ball clears, it is becoming vivid that the era of fanaticism and romanticism—at least as applied to energy policy—is, indeed, stopping. How so?
Because both fanaticism and romanticism are political losers.
As Roger Pielke Jr. and Ruy Teixeira at the radically pragmatic American Enterprise Institute recently wrote:
- “The relationship between voter opinion, scientific assessment, and media narrative is poorly understood, thereby reinforcing the current extremely partisan and tribal public discussions about energy and climate.
- The public’s views and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s scientific analysis differ in important respects from the narrative that has come to dominate the mainstream media and public discourse on climate and energy.
- The public broadly supports an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy policy and does not generally support a rapid elimination of fossil fuels. Instead, they support increased domestic production of fossil fuels.
- The public is most interested in the cost and reliability of the energy they use and the convenience and comfort of their energy-using products. They are unwilling to sacrifice much at all financially to address climate change or significantly change their consumer behavior.”
They conclude:
“What people want—and need—is abundant, cheap, reliable energy. Therefore, if what you are advocating appears to have little to do with that goal and in some ways undermines it, no amount of rhetoric about a roasting planet and no amount of effort to tie every natural disaster to climate change is likely to generate the support needed for what is sure to be a lengthy energy transition.
There are some signs that some climate advocates have recognized that the narrative is out of step with the broader public’s views. Jody Freeman, a counselor for energy and climate change for President Obama, observes, “There’s no way around it: The left strategy on climate needs to be rethought. We’ve lost the culture war on climate, and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement.”
Our findings suggest that climate change policy, in the end, must be embedded in and subordinate to the goal of energy abundance and prosperity. In other words, as energy abundance is pursued, efforts to mitigate climate change should be undertaken within those boundary conditions, rather than climate change being pursued as the paramount goal and with energy abundance limited by pursuit of those goals. The approach recommended by the narrative has things exactly backward.
It’s time to replace the narrative with something that makes scientific, political, and economic sense.”
AEI, which scores center right, is by no means alone. The abundance agenda, a.k.a supply-side progressivism, is gaining solid traction among Democratic Party thought leaders, influencers, and officials.
Behold, the House of Representatives has conjured the Build America Caucus. Per a press release issued last May by Rep. Josh Harder:
Today, more than a dozen bipartisan members launched the bipartisan Build America Caucus, a first-of-its-kind effort in Congress to advance pro-growth policies. While momentum for the abundance agenda has grown in cities and states, this caucus marks the first coordinated push to bring that vision to Capitol Hill. The caucus includes nearly 30 members from across the ideological spectrum, many of whom hold key committee assignments, putting the group in a strong position to pass meaningful legislation. Rep. Josh Harder will serve as Chair.
The Build America Caucus will prioritize:
· Unleashing American energy through permitting and transmission reform.
· Making housing affordable by incentivizing states and cities to build more homes.
· Speeding up American infrastructure projects by streamlining requirements and cutting red tape.
The Build America Caucus at its most recent count? 17 Democrats and 11 Republicans. QED. They are on the right track and are right to prioritize the unleashing of American energy abundance for, as Bastiat showed over 200 years ago in “That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen”, they prove cognizant of all the lost, ghost jobs in all the ghost factories, those never built:
“Thus we learn, by the numerous subjects which I have treated, that, to be ignorant of political economy is to allow ourselves to be dazzled by the immediate effect of a phenomenon; to be acquainted with it is to embrace in thought and in forethought the whole compass of effects.”
Policies that provide energy abundance?
After many years of yearning, expressed by bipartisans of both parties, a convergence between Abundance Democrats and Equitable Prosperity Republicans is beckoning, optimally beginning with good abundance energy policies. If enough thoughtful readers will vocally cheer their elected officials to become radical pragmatists, perhaps the policy fulcrum now will at long last find its lever in a new abundance agenda.
Jeff Garzik was one of the core developers with Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin Block Inc.
Ralph Benko serves as co-founder and general counsel to Washington Power and Light. He is the co-founder and general counsel for F1R3FLY.io and has worked in or with three White Houses, two executive branch agencies, and the Congress as well as many political and policy institutes.
Keep ReadingShow less
Migrant Children: Political Pawns in U.S. Border Policy Debate
Aug 01, 2025
WASHINGTON — Republicans have warned against the sex trafficking risks migrant children face when illegally crossing the southwest border. Democrats have countered that their concerns lie in hypocrisy.
“Democrats are standing with survivors, while Republicans are shielding abusers,” said U.S. House Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa, referencing President Donald Trump’s efforts to block the full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Lee, the Democratic ranking member of the Federal Law Enforcement Subcommittee, and fellow Democrats Wesley Bell (Missouri), Lateefah Simon (California), and Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts) staged an unexpected walkout during an unrelated July 23 hearing.
The whereabouts of thousands of migrant children are unknown
The congressional hearing underscored how both parties have used migrant children as vessels in their border policy narratives.
The subcommittee was conducting an oversight review of the findings from a March 2025 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General, which found that unaccompanied children illegally crossing the southwest border are often lost and forgotten upon their release from federal custody.
More than 448,000 unaccompanied children — those under 18 who arrived without a parent or guardian — were transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services between 2019 and 2023. By law, HHS has custody of and provides care for UACs, who are under 18 and have no parent or legal guardian in the U.S. to care for them.
"Our review found that DHS lacked the ability to monitor or reliably determine the location of unaccompanied children after transfer to HHS," DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari testified. "As a result, children have been released into situations where they are unaccounted for or placed at risk."
The report found that around 31,000 unaccompanied migrant children are still unaccounted for after being released from federal custody, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement unable to monitor their whereabouts. Some sponsor addresses were left blank or incomplete, and roughly 43,000 children missed their court hearings.
Department of Homeland Security Inspector General Joseph Cuffari testifies before a congressional subcommittee on Wednesday, July 23, 2025. The focus of the hearing was a March 2025 report his office conducted on unaccompanied minors crossing the border.
Partisan blame game
Republican members focused their criticism on officials in the Biden administration. One GOP lawmaker even asked whether DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas' policies amounted to child endangerment or abuse. They cited children being placed with non-relatives in gang-controlled neighborhoods, run-down apartment complexes, and dilapidated motels.
Democrats, upon their return after the walkout, redirected the conversation to abuse inside U.S. detention centers.
Lee said Trump’s border policies “leave children at greater risk of trafficking and exploitation.”
“I expect my Republican colleagues to care about this because their constituents certainly care about child sex trafficking, whether it's through the immigration system like this hearing alleges, or by a U.S. citizen facilitating other powerful U.S. citizens,” Lee said, again alluding to Epstein.
Although the hearing had nothing to do with Epstein, it coincided with a federal judge’s decision in Florida denying a Trump administration request to release related grand jury transcripts.
She filed a motion to subpoena the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files.
“Speaker (Mike) Johnson is helping Donald Trump block the release of all the files relating to child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. If you want to take a stand against child trafficking, let's do it together,” Lee said.
U.S. Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., speaks with reporters in the halls of the Capitol after she walked out of a congressional hearing on Wednesday, July 23, 2025. She and fellow Democrats have called on Republicans to release the full Jeffrey Epstein files.
'Political pawns’
“People might think this is about political gamesmanship. It's not,” Pressley said to a gaggle of reporters in the halls of the Capitol.
Migrant children have been leveraged in partisan fights for years, while the core issues remain unaddressed, various organizations and policy experts have said.
“Across the country, children are the latest victims of inhumane deportation practices that are ripping them out of their schools and communities. We will not just stand by while children are locked up and used as political pawns, and we will do everything in our power to defend children’s freedom, dignity, and rights,” said Leecia Welch, Deputy Litigation Director at Children’s Rights, in a statement in May.
Non-governmental entities have called on politicians for years to take action instead of verbal sparring.
“Pediatricians and other advocates for child health should demand a new direction in immigration policy that stops the use of children as pawns,” a group of medical professionals wrote in a 2018 study titled “Children as Pawns of US Immigration Policy.”
About 27,000 unaccompanied children have attempted to cross so far this year, compared to around 90,000 at the same time last year, according to Customs and Border Protection data.
Ashley N. Soriano is a graduate student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism in the Politics, Policy and Foreign Affairs specialization.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.
Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More