In this edition of How to Win Friends and Save the Republic from the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers, Rob Richie, CEO of FairVote, discusses his organization, where he finds his passion for democracy reform, and how Ranked Choice Voting faired in the Democratic primary for the New York City mayor's race.
On America’s anniversary, a call for young innovators to embrace AI, drive prosperity, and lead through the new U.S. Tech Corps initiative.
Just about 250 years ago, young Americans risked everything to fight for a better future--one in which their loved ones, neighbors, and progeny could exercise individual liberty and collective prosperity. Their fight for democracy was regarded by many as a fool’s errand. People aren’t to be trusted. Only the enlightened should govern. Top-down, tyrannical approaches to governance were the only path forward.
But the American people rallied behind an optimistic vision and refused to accept the status quo. Where’s that spirit of liberty and commitment to building a better future today?
It’s fitting that as the nation celebrates an important anniversary, we’re once again in a position that demands a new generation of founders. Young Americans today are in that rare historical position of having the opportunity and means to redesign tired systems, expand the scope of individual autonomy, and drive economic prosperity. AI and related emerging technologies have made change inevitable. The only question is who will drive that change and in which directions.
AI is an imperfect tool, yet it is the greatest disseminator and generator of knowledge that humankind has ever created. Its most boring use cases—consolidating information, distilling patterns, spotting errors, and generating novel ideas—have transformative potential when deployed in proper contexts. These AI use cases have already increased human flourishing. Hospitals have reported that doctors equipped with AI have cut down on charting time--spending more time with patients and improving care. Schools have documented AI tutors accelerating literacy gains as the nation still recovers from the immense learning losses incurred during the pandemic. New startups are opening the garage doors and looking for new employees to help create the next big thing.
These AI stories rarely make headline news. If sex sells, then pessimism profits. Diffused benefits such as marginal, yet meaningful improvements to the basics of a good life don’t make for clickbait. Instead, AI coverage by the New York Times, for example, tends to suggest that acceptance and adoption of AI is the surest path to a dark future. Here are a few recent headlines: “The A.I. Disruption We've Been Waiting for Has Arrived,” “A.I. Isn’t Coming for Every White-Collar Job. At Least Not Yet.,” “People Loved the Dot-Com Boom. The A.I. Boom, Not So Much.”
It’s no wonder that many Americans have developed a fear of AI. Supposedly trustworthy and objective sources of news are unquestionably adding a subjective, doom-based lens to their AI coverage. Such framing robs people of their autonomy and agency. Regardless of the substantive content of those articles, it’s no secret that many of us are headline-readers—plenty of people share articles online without ever reading more than the first paragraph. The framing of the story can be its most consequential contribution to popular discourse. By tipping the scales away from reasoned analysis of AI’s pros and cons, such coverage turns the American people into passive actors in an era that will be won by people with a high degree of agency, curiosity, and grit.
Thankfully, young people have a new means to escape the predominant anti-tech narrative. The Peace Corps has officially launched the U.S. Tech Corps. Here’s a summary of the new program:
The Tech Corps deploys technologists to support last-mile adoption of American AI. The Tech Corps leverages the Peace Corps' existing infrastructure while turbocharging the Peace Corps' historic mission of promoting world peace and friendship by working with communities in host nations to meet their needs for trained individuals. The Tech Corps creates a new pathway for service-minded technologists to serve in the Peace Corps and support AI adoption across sectors such as health, education, and agriculture.
This is a chance to receive practical AI training, to put that training to productive use, and to increase adoption of a tool that is wonderfully boring in the vast majority of its use cases, yet incredibly capable.
The first set of U.S. Tech Corps volunteers will require the same fierce commitment to optimism, risk-taking, and building that defined our nation’s founders. These volunteers will return with proven AI experience that can spark necessary changes at home. What an incredible opportunity.
Ask not what AI can do for you – ask how you can use AI to benefit humanity.
That’s the opportunity that’s on the table for young Americans today. Will you seize it?
Kevin Frazier is a Senior Fellow at the Abundance Institute, directs the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law, and is an Affiliated Research Fellow at the Cato Institute.
President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump used the longest State of the Union address in U.S. history on Tuesday night to argue that Americans are already experiencing “a turnaround for the ages” thanks to his agenda. But moments of disruption inside the House chamber and reactions from lawmakers afterward suggested Democrats and even some Republicans dispute his claims.
Trump’s address offered a snapshot of how the White House is trying to frame the economy heading into an election year. The administration sought to present easing inflation, falling prices, and rising wages as settled facts.
“He talked about affordability and how everything is cheaper now — beef, vegetables, gas, automobiles — none of which is true,” Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., told reporters on her way out of the chamber.
Throughout the address, Trump repeatedly argued that inflation is no longer a defining economic problem. He said inflation is “plummeting,” arguing that after one year in office, Americans are already benefiting from lower everyday costs, including groceries, gasoline, and housing.
“After just one year, I can say with dignity and pride that we have achieved a transformation like no one has ever seen before and a turnaround for the ages,” Trump said.
Recent inflation data showed some cooling, but prices continued to rise. According to the latest Consumer Price Index, headline inflation eased from 2.7% in December 2025 to 2.4% in January 2026, indicating that price increases were slowing rather than outright falling. Core inflation, which excludes food and energy, remains elevated, underscoring that many household costs are still rising, just at a slower pace. Still, slower inflation does not translate into lower prices, particularly for goods and services that surged during the peak inflation period.
The White House reinforced the president’s message during the speech. At 9:37 p.m., while Trump was addressing Congress, the administration released an article declaring that “Trump is delivering real relief” and “reversing Biden’s economic disaster.” The release closely mirrored the president’s remarks, signaling a coordinated effort to frame the economic moment as one of improvement rather than transition.
Inside the chamber, Democrats reacted skeptically to that portrayal. Some visibly shook their heads as Trump listed examples of falling prices. The pushback reflected a broader dispute over whether aggregate economic indicators align with voters’ lived experiences.
After the address, Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., said the president’s description of affordability did not match what she hears from businesses and families in her district. Small business owners continue to report the risk of closure due to higher costs, she said.
Questions about credibility extended beyond domestic policy. When Trump claimed to have ended eight wars during his time in office, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., shouted that the statement was false. The president was referring to the Cambodian-Thai border crisis, which escalated into a direct armed conflict on July 24, 2025.
That tension resurfaced later in the speech when Trump turned to Russia and Ukraine. While he said he was working to bring an end to the war, he did not explicitly name Russia as the aggressor. The omission drew visible reactions from both parties, particularly given that the address coincided with the fourth anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
“He did not call out who is the aggressor and say that we stand with Ukraine,” Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told reporters in the Capitol's National Statuary Hall.
Criticisms were also raised inside Trump’s party.
“If I had to pick two items of the speech that were on the bad side, that would be one of them,” Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., told reporters in the Capitol.
The economic and foreign policy moments underscored the stakes of the address in an election year. Public opinion data suggests he faces a skeptical electorate. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 61% of Americans disapprove of the way Trump is handling his job as president. A separate CNN/SSRS poll conducted in mid-February showed a similar pattern, with 63% disapproval
The same CNN/SSRS survey found that 57% of Americans said the economy and cost of living were the issues they most wanted Trump to address in his State of the Union.André Hiroki covers business for Medill on the Hill.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn how by clicking HERE.
A photo of Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is displayed as U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on February 11, 2026 in Washington, DC.
The Epstein files are spelling trouble for elites everywhere.
The 3.5 million emails released recently by the Department of Justice concerning Jeffrey Epstein tell a tale of powerful men, and some women, committing terrible crimes with complete impunity. No wonder people are calling for removing them from power—including President Donald Trump.
Some of the hundreds mentioned have already been fired or resigned from their high positions across the globe, including former Prince Andrew, Peter Mandelson, Larry Summers, Brad Karp, Kathryn Ruemmler, Jack Lang, Thorbjørn Jagland, Ahmed bin Sulayem, Casey Wasserman, and more. This sure is the right thing to do. These people should be held accountable. But stopping there will only prolong the problem.
As a political theorist, I’m struck by the view of power that informs how many talk about the Epstein scandal of sex trafficking more than 1,000 minors and women who have come forward. The discussion is about power as a property, like money, that people either have or don’t. Those who have it can wield their power over those who have little or none. If this is what power is, then of course the goal is to take it away from those who use it for bad.
But what if power isn’t that kind of thing?
My own work draws heavily on the work of the French philosopher Michel Foucault, who argued that power isn’t something we have but something we do. Power is a lot more like playing ice hockey than it is like having money.
As millions watch the Olympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026, the aim in ice hockey is to get the puck into the goal, which would be easy enough were it not for other players trying to keep the shooter from scoring. They have a lot of ways to do so, from dispossessing the player of the puck, moving into its trajectory, putting a player in the goal to block the puck, or disrupting the opposing team’s focus with heckles and taunts.
It’s not having the puck that makes one a powerful player, but what they can do with it—and what they can do in relation to other people on the ice who have aims and interests that are in tension with the player playing the puck.
Foucault contends that power is very much like that. It’s not that some have it and others don’t, but that everyone is trying to influence others and evade being influenced. Just as in ice hockey, the positions of defense, center, wings, or goalie are products of the dynamics of the game, so in life, relations of power create a place for us in society. The goalie doesn’t exist before or outside of the game; they exist because the game creates that role.
Thinking of power in this way, it’s clear why it might be difficult to take it away from all those embroiled in the Epstein affair. Power might not be the kind of thing that can be given or revoked. And even if it is possible to cast out the creeps, there will always be more creeps to take their place in pursuit of money, connections, glamour, and the thrill of forbidden sex.
Especially the thrill of forbidden sex.
Some commentators have expressed surprise that the Epstein fallout has been so much more subdued in the United States than in Europe—a sign, they say, that Europeans still have a sense of shame.
But is it really so surprising that a culture with a reputation for prudishness, where Republican lawmakers want to investigate a Super Bowl halftime show for featuring “disgusting and pornographic filth” while dragging their feet on the Epstein files, is particularly challenged at confronting sexual depravity?
Foucault, who lived from 1926 to 1984, argued that sexuality is completely central to who we are but that this hasn’t always been the case. Sure, people have always sought pleasure and reproduced sexually. But they didn’t think of themselves as sexual beings whose every behavior—from smoking to nail biting to chewing on pens—is thoroughly sexual.
Yet at the same time as everything became sexualized, sex was shunned from daily language and social life. In the U.S., sexual terms and “dirty” words are bleeped on TV, purportedly sexual images are blurred in movies, and breastfeeding in public is at best frowned upon.
But all that taboo just makes sex more interesting. If sex is repressed, Foucault claimed, then transgressing that prohibition seems powerful and liberating. Perhaps this is why many look on with obscene fascination, as more and more lurid details come out. Being made involuntary voyeurs in this ghastly spectacle is repulsive, to be sure, but it also offers a glimpse of power and freedom, of the sheer possibility of doing what is forbidden.
Certainly, all those implicated in Epstein’s criminal operation must be shamed, shunned, and criminally prosecuted. But no amount of political or organizational resignations, royal ousters, expressions of contrition, and criminal prosecutions will rid the world of the Epstein class. People like this exist because the relations of power we inhabit create the kinds of people who ruthlessly seek wealth, influence, and the rush of transgression. It will take more than going after reprehensible individuals to change that.
With U.S. political representatives now having access to the Epstein files, it is time to act. The question is how we want to play this: try to score some goals or play a different game instead.
Verena Erlenbusch-Anderson is an associate professor of philosophy and political science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project.
Rainbow Beach cleanup effort.
Plastic pollution, so evident along Great Lakes shorelines – is increasingly found in the water and fish. Peer-reviewed studies have detected microplastics—tiny fragments shed from consumer products, industrial waste, and synthetic clothing—in Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes.
The findings raise urgent questions about what everyday plastic use is sending into the lake and the millions of people who rely on it.
Conventional and advanced water treatment significantly reduce microplastic concentrations before water reaches consumers. Studies show granular media filtration and ultrafiltration can remove over 97% of particles larger than 2 µm, though small amounts remain. A global review found that standard treatment plants typically remove 70–90% of microplastics ≥ 1 µm, indicating that while treatment is highly effective, it does not fully eliminate microplastics from finished drinking water.
Scientists say plastic entering the Great Lakes is increasing, driven by single-use packaging, industrial pellets, tire wear, wastewater, and synthetic fibers released in laundry cycles.
Microplastics persist in treated wastewater, and many lakefront communities, such as Milwaukee and Toronto, discharge it into the lakes. Chicago, which reversed the course of the Chicago River, is the exception - it floods and sends sewer overflows into Lake Michigan.
While researchers are still working to understand the full human health implications, early evidence links microplastics to inflammation, endocrine disruption, and neurological effects. Studies show the particles can cross biological barriers—including the blood-brain barrier—and even the placenta.
Donna Kashian, a professor of biological sciences at Wayne State University, said there is “almost nothing untouched” by microplastics anymore, including drinking water and the air people breathe.
“We’re just at the cusp of learning the impacts of microplastics on human health,” Kashian said. “You consume about a credit card’s worth of microplastics a day. Research now supports and indicates it is causing neurological effects. For people with dementia or Alzheimer's, it can be triggering and make those situations a lot worse. And it's possible there's even a root cause for some effects.”
In aquatic ecosystems, the smallest particles pose the greatest concern. Timothy Hoellein, an aquatic ecologist at Loyola University Chicago who began measuring plastics in Illinois waterways more than a decade ago, said microplastics can pass through the digestive systems of crayfish and fish, causing physical damage and inflammation. If small enough, they can move beyond the gut into other tissues.
“Plastic litter is everywhere. It's increasing. It's very long-lived, so on the scale of our lives, lifetimes, it's a permanent feature of the environment,” Hoellein said. “It has some negative impacts on the organisms and the environment.”
Because microplastics are tiny, widespread, and do not biodegrade for centuries, removal is extremely difficult. That reality has shifted attention toward prevention.
Rebecca Rooney, Canadian co-chair of the International Joint Commission’s Science Advisory Board, helped lead a recent report calling for coordinated, basin-wide monitoring of microplastics in the Great Lakes. The report urges standardized sampling to enable comparisons among studies and recommends designating microplastics as a “contaminant of mutual concern” under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement—triggering coordinated U.S.–Canada monitoring and public reporting.
“We are producing more plastic than ever before, and we know that it's getting into our waterways, and we know that it's ending up in our drinking water, that it's posing a threat to fish,” Rooney said. “Some of the highest microplastic concentrations ever found in fish in the world were found in the Great Lakes in Lake Ontario. And so we know that it's getting into our food source. We know that it's not easy to get rid of once it's there. We really need to focus on sort of source control and working in a coordinated way to prevent microplastics getting into the environment in the first place.”
Rooney’s team developed a risk assessment framework based on hundreds of studies examining how microplastics affect species such as clams, fish, and crustaceans. One concentration threshold would protect about 95% of species; a lower benchmark, under 70,% would signal serious ecological concern if exceeded. Separate research suggests that concentrations in parts of the Great Lakes are already high enough to harm animals, including reduced feeding efficiency that can impair growth and reproduction.
Studies show microplastics are already widespread in the Great Lakes at levels that can harm aquatic life. Research found an average of 43,000 plastic particles per km² in surface water, with hotspots like the Detroit River reaching nearly two million particles per km²
A comprehensive review by the University of Toronto and the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development found that nearly 90% of water samples collected over the past decade exceed concentrations linked to potential harm to wildlife. These synthetic particles can physically fill the guts of small organisms, reduce nutrient uptake, and transfer up the food chain, signaling a pressing need for source control and pollution reduction.
For Rooney, the most effective solution is source protection—stopping plastics before they enter the lakes. That includes preventing larger plastics from breaking down into fragments and addressing direct sources such as synthetic clothing fibers shed during washing, which can pass through wastewater treatment plants without proper filtration.
“The most important step is source protection. If we stop plastics from entering the environment in the first place—whether that’s litter that breaks down into microplastics or fibers shed from our clothing during washing—we can significantly reduce what ends up in the Great Lakes,” Rooney said. “Simple actions like installing washing machine filters, managing waste responsibly, and joining local cleanups can make a real difference.”
Advocates argue the issue extends beyond litter. Andrea Densham, senior policy advisor with the Alliance for the Great Lakes, said the region both consumes and produces plastic and petroleum products. Communities near manufacturing facilities face what she calls a “cumulative impact,” exposed to industrial toxins such as styrene - an oily by-product of petroleum and natural gas - as well as plastic production materials and plastic waste.
Plastic is not a single material but a category of polymers combined with chemical additives that give products color, flexibility or heat resistance. Those additives can leach into water or organisms. Production can also release PFAS and pre-production pellets known as “nurdles” into waterways, where they are ingested by fish and birds.
“Microplastics do not biodegrade in timescales that are relevant to us humans and so and they're very difficult to remove, they're very difficult to remediate,” Densham said. “Plastic is actually a really challenging item to recycle, as compared to metal or glass or paper, because of all the additional chemical components.”
Because cleanup is so difficult, policy solutions are gaining traction. Advocates are pushing extended producer responsibility laws that require manufacturers to take responsibility for the waste their products create. Others are calling for bans on certain single-use plastics.
For Rooney, those items are “low-hanging fruit.”
“I mean, that seems to me like a pretty low-hanging fruit—like we don’t really need plastic straws and plastic cups and plastic bags,” Rooney said. “Given how brief the period of time you actually use a straw is versus how long it’s going to last in the environment, it seems silly that people are talking about reversing bans on single-use plastics. These are some of the easiest things we can do to prevent plastics from getting into the environment.”
As scientists continue studying the long-term health impacts, one fact is clear: plastic entering the Great Lakes does not simply disappear. It persists in water, wildlife—and increasingly, in us.
Jack Austin is a journalist covering energy, pollution, public health, and sustainability, with a particular focus on environmental accountability and the communities most affected by ecological harm. He is currently pursuing a master’s at the Medill School of Journalism, specializing in Health and Environmental Reporting.
The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. Learn how by clicking HERE.
Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift