Both political parties and candidates are already using artificial intelligence. Where is the technology at this stage, how is it being used and how might generative AI impact elections and politics?
Anthony Sowah and Jeff Berkowitz join this episode to answer these questions and help us go beyond the hype cycle to understand what AI is and what it might become.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the Justice Department March 14, 2025 in Washington, DC.
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
How many legal actions have been filed against the Trump administration since January 2025?
Since January 2025, over 186 legal actions have been filed against the Trump administration. These lawsuits challenge various executive orders and actions, including immigration policies and the use of the Alien Enemies Act. For example, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell alone has filed 11 lawsuits targeting issues like birthright citizenship and federal worker firings.
What is an amicus brief and how many have been filed against the Trump administration so far?
An amicus brief, or "amicus curiae" (Latin for "friend of the court"), is a legal document filed in appellate courts by individuals or entities who are not directly involved in a case but who have a vested interest in its outcome. These briefs provide additional information, arguments, or perspectives to assist the court in making its decision.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
As for the Trump administration, numerous amicus briefs have been filed against its actions, particularly challenging executive orders and policies. For example, a coalition of 20 state attorneys general recently filed amicus briefs opposing executive orders that target law firms that represented clients or causes disfavored by the Trump administration. Additionally, hundreds of law professors submitted an amicus brief against the administration's actions on Big Law. The exact total number of amicus briefs filed against the Trump administration is difficult to pinpoint but they have been a significant tool in legal challenges throughout its tenure.
Are the 186 actions taken against the administration extremely high compared to former Presidents in the first 100 days?
The 186 legal actions against the Trump administration in its first 100 days are notably high compared to previous presidents. For example, during President Biden's first 100 days, there were fewer than 50 lawsuits filed against his administration. Similarly, President Obama faced around 30 legal challenges in the same timeframe. This surge in litigation reflects the contentious nature of Trump's policies and executive orders.
How many of the 186 legal actions have been adjudicated and how many are in favor of the Trump administration and how many are against it?
Out of the 186 legal actions filed against the Trump administration since January 2025, four cases have been adjudicated so far. The outcomes have been mixed, with two rulings favoring the administration and two rulings against it. The remaining cases are either ongoing or awaiting decisions.
How many Supreme Court rulings have gone for and against the Trump administration in 2025?
In 2025, the Supreme Court issued several rulings involving the Trump administration.
Are there any estimates at this point as to how many current cases will go to the Supreme Court and if so when?
Several additional legal challenges against the Trump administration are expected to reach the Supreme Court. For instance, the court has already agreed to hear oral arguments on May 15 regarding restrictions on birthright citizenship. Additionally, emergency applications related to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have been filed and the Supreme Court has issued temporary rulings in some cases.
The timeline for other cases depends on how quickly lower courts resolve them and whether the Supreme Court decides to grant certiorari.
What happens if the President defies a ruling of the Supreme Court?
If a president defies a Supreme Court ruling, it can trigger a constitutional crisis. The judiciary relies on the executive branch to enforce its rulings, as the courts themselves lack enforcement power. In the event of defiance, several outcomes could unfold:
Such a scenario has historical precedents, such as President Andrew Jackson's famous defiance of a Supreme Court ruling in the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia. While rare, defiance poses risks to the balance of power and the integrity of democratic governance.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Across the country, families are prevented from accessing safe, stable, affordable housing—not by accident, but by design. Decades of exclusionary zoning, racial discrimination, and disinvestment have created a housing system that works well for the wealthy but leaves others behind. Even as federal cuts to public housing programs continue nationwide, powerful, community-rooted efforts are pushing back and offering real, equity-driven solutions led by local voices.
Historically, states like New Jersey show what’s possible when legal advocacy and grassroots organizing come together. In 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Mount Laurel ruling established that every municipality in the state has a constitutional obligation to provide its fair share of affordable housing. This landmark legal ruling reshaped housing policy and set a national precedent. Today, organizations like Fair Share Housing Center continue to defend and expand this right, ensuring that local governments are prohibited from using zoning laws to exclude working-class families or people of color.
Nationally, organizations like the Grounded Solutions Network are also leading the housing justice fight through community land trusts (CLTs), which help keep homes affordable by removing them from the for-profit housing market. In a CLT, a non-profit organization owns the land and the homeowner owns the building, ensuring that the home remains affordable for future generations, even as neighborhood prices increase.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Community development financial institutions (CDFIs)—like the Four Bands Community Fund—are expanding access to homeownership in reservation land and Indigenous communities that have been long excluded from conventional financial systems. CDFIs operate in urban, rural, and tribal communities nationwide. They are mission-driven lenders that provide loans, financial services, and support to individuals who are often overlooked by big banks. They invest in communities based on relationships and people, not just credit scores.
These are not one-size-fits-all solutions, but they are grounded in a shared belief: that housing is not a privilege. It is a human right, and essential for a healthy, equitable future.
We know the impact of these resources firsthand because they helped us secure the futures of our families.
Fair Share Housing Center, Grounded Solutions Network, and Four Bands Community Fund helped us secure not just physical shelter, but emotional security. They allowed us to provide a sanctuary where our children could heal, grow and feel safe, and they enabled us to achieve our dreams of homeownership.
Through these experiences of loss and recovery, we understand that stable housing is foundational to everything else. Home is the space where memories are built and family traditions are created. Housing enables individuals to maintain steady employment, access healthy food, and lay the groundwork for building generational wealth. Above all, housing is health.
The connection between housing and health is not abstract. People living in overcrowded or unstable housing are more likely to experience asthma, chronic illness, and poor mental health. Children who move frequently or live in unsafe conditions are at higher risk for developmental delays and emotional stress. Pregnant women who face housing insecurity have worse birth outcomes. When housing falls apart, so does public health.
Stories of housing security achieved through local solutions despite systemic challenges are being written all the time. Across the country, families are building stability through grassroots programs that work. But instead of supporting these models, the federal government is walking away from its responsibility to ensure that housing is accessible to all.
Federal funding for housing programs is being slashed at a time when more families than ever are struggling to keep a roof over their heads. Recent cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are projected to result in the elimination of tens of thousands of rental assistance vouchers and significant reductions in homelessness prevention programs. These choices aren’t just bad policies, they are a direct attack on the people who need support the most.
Community-centered housing justice groups like Fair Share Housing Center, Grounded Solutions, and Four Bands need investment. Community-based housing initiatives are often underfunded, overlooked, or burdened by red tape, even though they deliver real, measurable results. Meanwhile, billions of dollars are funneled into programs that benefit private developers or maintain the status quo. If policymakers are truly committed to solving the housing crisis, then it is time to fully invest in what’s working and trust the communities doing the work.
Our journeys are featured in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Housing Justice docuseries, “From Hope To Home.” Through these three short films, we share our own stories, and the stories of others like us, to lift up the real people behind the housing crisis and the grassroots solutions making a difference. These films aim to inspire viewers—not just to be moved, but to be motivated.
Access to housing should never be up for debate. It’s health care. It’s safety. It’s education. It’s the foundation for good jobs, stable families, and thriving communities. It’s time the policies reflected that truth. Let’s get to work.
Pope Francis is being remembered for his reformist stance that both challenged conservative elements within the Catholic Church and resonated with progressive movements. The 88-year-old Argentina-born pontiff passed away on Monday following a series of health complications.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church often shared his perspectives on various societal issues, including the relationship between faith and democracy. His tenure as pope was marked by a commitment to social justice, human rights, and the dignity of all individuals, which naturally intersects with democratic ideals.
In a social media message last December, marking Human Rights Day, Pope Francis again pleaded for governments "to listen to the cry for peace of the millions of people deprived of their most basic rights due to war," which, he said, "is the mother of all poverty."
While visiting the headquarters of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (DPIHD) on September 20, 2024, Pope Francis called for a fight against social injustices, reiterating his proposal for a Universal Basic Income and higher taxes for billionaires.
He warned that if there are no just policies ensuring access to land, housing, and fair wages, “the logic of material and human waste will spread, paving the way for violence and desolation.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
“Unfortunately,” he added, “it is often the wealthiest who oppose the realization of social justice or integral ecology, out of pure greed.”
During an annual Roman Catholic Church convention on social affairs last year, Pope Francis expressed concerns about the state of democracy, highlighting that many individuals feel excluded, particularly the poor and vulnerable, who are left to navigate challenges on their own. He remarked, "It is evident that democracy is not in good health in today’s world," criticizing the growing polarization and partisanship observed in society.
Pope Francis likened ideologies to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, stating that while they can be appealing, they ultimately lead individuals to deny their true selves. He pointed out that this "crisis of democracy" is a shared issue affecting various countries worldwide.
Francis clashed repeatedly with President Donald Trump in recent years.
During the 2016 election, Pope Francis expressed strong criticism of Donald Trump's campaign proposal to construct a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian," Francis said.
Trump, who aggressively courted evangelical Christian leaders and voters during his campaign, fired back immediately, saying, "For a religious leader to question a person's faith is disgraceful," reported NPR.
In February, amidst the second Trump administration's efforts to tighten immigration policies, Pope Francis issued a rare public criticism of the president's approach. In a letter addressed to U.S. Catholic bishops, he referred to the mass deportation program as a "major crisis."
Francis wrote, "The act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness."
President Trump announced he will attend Pope Francis' funeral, marking what would be his first international trip during his second term in office.
Editor's Note: Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. He is the publisher of the Latino News Network and a trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Children on a museum tour with a guide.
President Trump proposed eliminating the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) and the entire staff was laid off on March 31, 2025. This is not the first time he suggested this as a cost-saving measure. His proposal was rejected in 2019, and it must be rejected again. The IMLS only accounts for 0.0046% of the federal budget, yet its impact is significantly greater, benefitting 1.2 billion people per year.
The IMLS supports a network of nearly 125,000 libraries and over 35,000 museums across all 50 states, in addition to the critical work they do in supporting the education and training of library and information students and professionals. As a professor of Information Sciences, I know how important the IMLS mission is and how important their funding is to communities across the country. I see its benefits to my students every single day.
Our libraries and other cultural heritage institutions are part of what makes America special—one might even say great. School and public libraries in communities across the country make literature and information accessible, as well as offer essential public services and support, including children's literacy programs and access to tax forms, and even serve as emergency communication hubs during natural disasters. Whether you simply have childhood memories of visiting museums on field trips or borrowing books or have made these cultural heritage institutions a part of your life in the longer term, libraries and museums offer so much to so many different people. The fact that libraries are everywhere and for everyone sets America apart from the rest of the world as exceptional in providing and prioritizing these resources.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Generations of philanthropists have understood this, with many of the wealthiest Americans in history endowing and supporting libraries and museums. From the Carnegies to the Astors, to the Gates and Waltons today, they have recognized the importance of museums and libraries, donating to provide resources that support these institutions for generations. In doing so, they cement positive legacies to their communities and the public.
They are not the only people who have recognized that giving yields dividends and esteem. Presidents who build us up are remembered as great leaders. People liked Ike and history looks favorably on President Dwight D. Eisenhower for investing in America's highway system. As President Theodore Roosevelt said, "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are;" as a lover of nature and with the power of the presidency, he offered future generations an incomparable national parks system. What will President Trump offer as a legacy?
In terms of what you can do, call or email your Senators and Representatives asking them to support IMLS and push back on this punitive cut. The American Library Association and American Alliance of Museums both offer scripts if you are not sure what to say. What matters is that you make it clear that libraries and museums in your communities are important to you as a constituent and to the country. As a parent who shares my lifelong love of reading and curiosity about art and culture with my daughter, I want to give her and future generations a better world with more opportunities. A world where if they learn and work hard, they can succeed. Libraries and museums play a key role in preserving and realizing that American Dream.
Support for libraries means that summer reading curricula for elementary students, book clubs, and programs for retirees can continue. Support for museums and archives means that American history can be preserved and cultural heritage can be protected. Support for IMLS means that educational programs can continue to train library and information science professionals and that curricula can be modernized. Please stand up for our libraries and museums.
Madelyn Sanfilippo is Assistant Professor in the School of Information Sciences, a Public Voices Fellow and a member of the 24-25 OpEd Alumni Project sponsored by the University of Illinois, and an Editor for Cambridge Studies on Governing Knowledge Commons.
