Ted Lasso cast members Jason Sudeikis, Hannah Waddingham, Brett Goldstein, and Brendan Hunt joined the White House Press Briefing with Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre earlier this week to talk about the importance of mental health and encouraging people to check in with their friends, family, co-workers and others to help support and take care of each other.
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
The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries
Getty Images
A Republic Under Strain—And a Choice Ahead
May 04, 2026
Americans feel something shifting beneath their feet — quieter than crisis but unmistakably a strain. Many live with a steady sense of uncertainty, conflict, and the emotional weight of issues that seem impossible to escape. They feel unheard, unsafe, or unsure whether the Republic they trust is fading. Friends, relatives, and former colleagues say they’ve tried to look away just to cope, hoping the turmoil will pass. And they ask the same thing: if the framers made the people the primary control on government, how will they help set the Republic back on a steadier path?
Understanding the strain Americans are experiencing is essential, but so is recognizing the choice we still have. Madison’s warning offers the answer the framers left us: when trust erodes and power concentrates, the Constitution turns back to the people—not as a slogan, but as a structural reality.
Americans are not imagining the strain. They are living it—in schools, hospitals, local agencies, and in the daily friction of navigating systems that once worked more reliably.
Across the nation, Americans feel the strain of weakened governance firsthand. Confidence in institutions has eroded—not through collapse, but through drift, a slow weakening of the guardrails that once kept the system in balance. People see the consequences daily: difficulty accessing services, rising costs, and strained agencies. What they sense is the erosion of norms that once anchored the Republic. Republics rarely fall in a single instant; they drift through a gradual loss of trust, a concentration of power, and growing silence from institutions meant to provide accountability.
This is a relevant and urgent topic because people see that the Republic is repairable—if leaders choose to act. What makes this moment painful is the belief that those with the greatest power to reduce strain are the least willing to step forward. Many leaders lived with hardship before entering public service, yet once in office, they appear insulated from struggles they once understood. They no longer face pressures of healthcare costs or financial insecurity—and that distance can erode empathy. People tell me that when leaders forget those realities, they also forget the oath they swore—to govern ethically, fairly, and in the spirit intended.
Much of the strain comes from the perception that the balance of power is shifting. Many believe the checks and balances meant to prevent any one branch from accumulating too much authority are no longer functioning as intended. Congress appears constrained by division and by political incentives that make compromise—once essential to governing—a liability. Experienced lawmakers are choosing not to seek reelection, raising concerns that the current climate discourages independent leadership and rewards conformity.
The nation has reached a divide in the road—a moment when Americans must decide whether to accept a slow weakening of the Republic or insist on the principles that have held it together for more than two centuries. One path leads deeper into drift: erosion of norms, weakened guardrails, and a future shaped by silence rather than accountability. The other demands something harder—a return to constitutional balance, renewed civic engagement, and leadership willing to place the Republic above personal or partisan interest.
This choice is not abstract. It is felt in the exhaustion families carry, the uncertainty communities voice, and the belief that the country is slipping away. The framers expected moments like this. They understood that when institutions strain, the people must decide whether to look away or step forward.
That responsibility begins with leadership. Leaders must do more than advance agendas; they must demonstrate humility, empathy, and a willingness to govern for the whole country. Strength in a Republic is not measured by dominance but by restraint—by the ability to collaborate even amid disagreement.
Yet today, political incentives often punish independence. Breaking with party lines can carry consequences, turning governance from negotiation into alignment. When lawmakers fear the cost of dissent more than silence, the system loses the friction that keeps it balanced.
But responsibility does not rest with leaders alone. Madison reminds us that the primary control on government is the people themselves. Citizens must re‑engage—not through outrage but through purpose. Balancing news intake helps Americans stay informed without becoming overwhelmed. Voting consistently, staying informed, and demanding accountability are not symbolic acts; they are the foundation of self‑government.
Citizens can also make fuller use of the institutions that remain—seeking assistance from public agencies, asking their senators and representatives for help navigating services, and insisting those institutions function as designed. Engagement is not passive; it is an expectation that systems built to serve the public remain accessible, responsive, and accountable.
Every time I speak with someone carrying that weight, I hear the same quiet truth: people feel pushed out of their own democracy. That feeling is not personal failure—it is structural neglect. People know the guardrails and institutions are still there; what they see is leaders refusing to enforce them, even when the public is asking them to.
That is why the ethic I taught for years still matters. RISE—Respect, Inclusion, Safety, and Empowerment—is more than a professional framework. It is a democratic one. Democracies thrive when people feel respected, included, safe, and empowered. They falter when those conditions disappear.
These four principles remind us that the way back from drift begins with how we treat one another and how we show up for the Republic. They form the foundation for the choices we must make now.
The choice ahead begins with reclaiming the habits of a participatory democracy. That does not require grand gestures, only consistent ones. It means refusing to surrender our voice, even when feeling unheard tempts us to step back. It means showing up in the local spaces where democratic power still lives—school boards, city councils, community forums, and conversations that shape public will. A Republic under strain strengthens when citizens stay present and engaged.
But citizens cannot carry this work alone. Institutions must meet the moment with the same clarity and courage we ask of the public. That begins with leaders who tell the truth, honor their oaths, and resist the temptation to consolidate power at the expense of the people they serve. When institutions model respect, inclusion, safety, and empowerment, they reinforce the conditions that allow democracy to function.
The choice ahead is not between parties or personalities. It is between drift and renewal, silence and accountability. Today’s strain is not simply political; it is constitutional. It tests whether leaders will honor obligations and whether citizens will exercise the responsibility Madison entrusted to them. A Republic survives only when its people insist it survives.
Benjamin Franklin was asked what had been created at the Constitutional Convention. His answer endures: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The United States is not collapsing, but it is under strain—not because of a single moment, but by a steady erosion of trust and responsibility. A Republic survives only when its people insist it must survive.
A Republic under strain does not have to be a Republic in decline. We can allow drift to continue, or we can insist on a different path—one grounded in participation, truth, and the belief that every voice still matters. The strain is real, but so is our capacity to rise. If we show up for one another and demand integrity from our institutions, the Republic will not falter. It will endure because its people did.
Carolyn Goode is a retired educational leader and national advocate for ethical leadership and civic renewal. She writes on governance, institutional trust, and democratic responsibility.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Debris from a missile‑struck home in Metula, Israel
Hugo Balta
Metula: A Border on the Brink
May 04, 2026
METULA — In the historic border town of Metula, the stillness of a fragile ceasefire is often punctured by the sounds of war drifting across the Lebanese border. After U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran in February, Hezbollah launched rockets and drones into Israel in early March in what it described as retaliation. Israel answered with a wave of airstrikes across Lebanon, and within days, Israeli forces had re‑entered southern Lebanon.
Founded more than 130 years ago, Israel’s northernmost community is famously surrounded on three sides by Lebanon. The town looks directly onto the remains of Lebanese Shiite villages that Hezbollah has used as launch sites throughout its campaign. Since October 8, 2023, enduring repeated barrages of anti‑tank missiles and explosive drones, leaving homes in ruins and most families displaced. Hezbollah began its attacks that day, calling it a “war of support” for Hamas following the October 7 assault in southern Israel.
Hugo Balta
Views of Metula, Israel, a border community encircled on three sides by Lebanon
<p>As a result of the sustained barrage, more than 60% of homes and municipal buildings were damaged or destroyed by anti‑tank missiles, suicide drones, and rockets between October 2023 and November 2024, leaving the community effectively transformed into a ghost town. Agricultural and tourism‑based livelihoods have come to a standstill, and many residents remain hesitant to return because of the ongoing threat of missile fire and the extensive destruction it has caused.</p><p>While many residents fled Metula, those who remain live on the edge of a ceasefire strained by daily violations. The Israel Defense Forces have carved out a six-mile-plus buffer zone deep inside Lebanese territory to push back Hezbollah’s forces, but the threat still feels close.</p><p>Among those who refuse to leave is Rami Rabinovich, an Argentine immigrant who points out the scars of war — collapsed roofs, shattered windows, charred garden walls — that now frame everyday life. He says Israeli forces firing at Hezbollah drones has become routine.</p>
Hugo Balta
Rami Rabinovich, an Argentine immigrant, stands beside a pane of bulletproof glass marked by strikes from both Lebanese and Israeli fire — a stark reminder of the tension that defines life in this border town
During my visit, the quiet of the hilltop town was repeatedly interrupted by low, distant booms from across the border. Rabinovich barely reacted. He said the explosions were almost certainly Israeli forces targeting Hezbollah drones — a sound many in the town have learned to fold into the rhythm of daily life. For him, it is not a warning but part of the constant background noise of a place living with war just beyond the fence.
The danger along the border is so immediate that residents often have no time to react — a reality Rabinovich underscored when he said, “The time elapsed between the moment a missile is launched from Lebanon and the moment it lands in Metula is zero. Often, the sirens sound after the missile has already landed in the Metula area.”
Rabinovich showed me a house that he said had taken four missile strikes in under an hour. It stands as a stark testament to what Metula has endured. The roof is completely gone, leaving the rooms open to the sun, wind, and drifting dust. Shards of glass cling to the window frames like broken teeth, and the walls—cracked, scorched, and pitted with shrapnel—trace the outline of what used to be a living room, a kitchen, a bedroom. Inside, only remnants remain: a collapsed doorway, charred furniture, and floors that lead nowhere. The house feels less like a damaged structure and more like a symbol of how the conflict has hollowed out daily life, leaving behind the shell of what once was a home.
Despite the devastation, people are slowly returning to Metula, determined to rebuild what was lost. Families who fled during the height of the attacks are now laying the groundwork for new beginnings, driven by resilience, a deep connection to the land, and a desire to restore a sense of normalcy.
"Many people come back because it is home, said Rabinovich. "Why did I return? Because it is home. This place, with a peace agreement with Lebanon, is a paradise."
People on both sides of the Israel–Lebanon border are living with the consequences of a conflict that has upended daily life, leaving families displaced, homes destroyed, and entire communities gripped by uncertainty. In southern Lebanon, civilians face their own waves of displacement, damaged infrastructure, and the fear that violence could escalate without warning.
The suffering is shared, even if the circumstances differ: parents trying to keep children safe, farmers unable to tend their land, and residents on both sides navigating the emotional and economic toll of a conflict they did not choose. It’s a reminder that beyond the political and military calculations, ordinary people are bearing the heaviest burden — and their stories deserve recognition.
For the people of Metula, the prevailing mood is one of cautious skepticism. While international mediators from the United States and the United Nations continue to push for a durable diplomatic solution, security remains a distant hope as the ceasefire teeters on the brink.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Coverage of this report was made possible in part with support from Fuente Latina.
Keep ReadingShow less
Sen. Josh Hawley addresses the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary during a debate over the AI chatbot regulation bill he introduced in October, known as the GUARD Act. April 30, 2026.
Wisdom Howell // Medill News Service.
Senate Committee advances bill banning AI companions for children
May 04, 2026
WASHINGTON—A bipartisan bill that would ban minors from using AI companions, require all chatbots to verify a user’s age, and allow AI companies to be prosecuted for harming children was unanimously advanced to the Senate floor Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. introduced “the Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act,” (GUARD Act) in October as the Senate’s response to the rise in cases of children being groomed and driven to commit suicide by chatbots designed to replicate human interactions known as AI companions.
“This has got to stop,” Hawley said after sharing testimonials from victims' families in attendance. “This should not happen in the United States of America. No amount of profit justifies the destruction of our families and our children.”
Since 2023, instances of minors committing suicide at the behest of AI companions and chatbots have increasingly drawn national headlines and lawsuits from victims' families against popular AI companion platforms like Character.AI are beginning to pile up in courts across the country.
The bill, which was passed by a 22-0 vote, differentiated AI companions from chatbots like ChatGPT, which has also been accused of influencing children to harm themselves.
Specifically, the act would institute a blanket ban on minors using any AI companion platform. Full stop. Chatbots would not be fully banned for kids.
The bill also would require AI companies to verify users’ ages and disclose their non-human status to users. The bill would impose criminal and civil penalties on companies that violate its terms.
Sen. Alejandro Padilla, D-Calif., chimed in to support the bill but raised concerns about users’ privacy during the age verification process.
“I just want to register some questions and concerns we have about potential privacy and security risks with the age verification component, and I think that’s one of the areas we can fine-tune,” he said.
Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in technology policy at the Cato Institute, shared those concerns in an interview following the meeting with Medill News Service, but clarified her organization does not support or oppose legislation.
“This would require everyone who is using an AI chatbot to pass some sort of age verification, which typically involves biometrics or government IDs,” she said. “Therefore, age verification becomes a form of identity verification. One can easily imagine how this would have a significant impact on anonymous speech, which can be incredibly important for any number of reasons, whether it is people that are engaged in political discourse or political dissent, or whether it's someone who is perhaps asking about a sensitive medical issue.”
Immediately after voting to advance the GUARD Act, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for revisions of the bill’s total ban on child chatbot access.
“I think there are applications where chatbots can be beneficial. In Texas, the Alpha School has produced extraordinary results using AI with kids,” Cruz said.
Cruz’s comments reflected a concern held by some policy analysts that the bill will hinder the next generation from mastering AI tools as AI becomes more ubiquitous in everyday life.
“We want to make sure that kids are okay in the space,” Aden Hizkias, associate policy director at Chamber of Progress, which opposed the GUARD Act, said in an interview. “But if a kid or a group of kids, or a generation, let's say, is unable to access these types of tools now as they progress exponentially, you're essentially cutting off a huge benefit for them and for the U.S. at large because there's an entire generation that's not going to have the skill set.”
Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who co-authored the GUARD Act, warned his fellow committee members to prepare for AI companies to lobby against the bill.
“Warning, we’re not done yet,” Blumenthal told the committee. “Others who have championed this kind of legislation know that (AI companies) will be relentless and tireless. Whatever they say publicly, they will be behind the scenes with armies of lawyers and lobbyists trying to fight us, mislead, and confuse.”
He added that the Tech companies would use core American principles to fight against the bill.
“We’re going to hear a lot about the First Amendment, free enterprise, and ‘trust us,’” he said.
Joel Thayer, a senior fellow for AI and emerging technology policy at the America First Policy Institute, has been researching the First Amendment implications of Congress regulating AI chatbots and said the government has a strong chance of defeating potential lawsuits from AI companies.
“I think that's where it's going to be a tough row to hoe,” he said.
He predicted that AI companies would try to emulate the First Amendment defense that was successful for social media companies. “I don’t think this is analogous at all, especially if you've engaged with the chatbot,” he said, “That’s the crux of it, that they have more of a diluted First Amendment speech interest here.”
The GUARD Act now awaits a debate on the Senate floor. The U.S. House of Representatives introduced a similar bill using the same name on Wednesday, the Guidelines for User Age Verification and Responsible Dialogue (GUARD) Act.
Wisdom Howell is a reporter for Medill News Service.
Keep ReadingShow less
Spring signals a time of renewal, at a time when our social and political spheres are divisive, we must tend to this optimism and enact the change we need to grow.
Getty Images, Cultura Creative
A Commencement Speech for Anyone Standing at the Edge of Becoming
May 04, 2026
Spring never asks. It shows up pushing green through dirt that barely gives, cracking open what winter froze, murmuring to everything stalled: try again. This is the season of robes and tassels, names called out, and the myth of completion. But commencement is never about being finished. It’s about giving yourself the nod to start over.
This isn't just for the Class of 2026. Not just for the ones gripping diplomas in echoing auditoriums and stadiums. This is for anyone who’s outgrown their old skin, anyone standing at the edge of a life that no longer fits, anyone forced to surrender what was to face what could be. Beginning again is messy. There’s no applause. Only the raw edge of a new beginning.
And what a time for it.
Headlines drag down hope. The economy squeezes households and dreams. Conversations have turned into battlegrounds. Nationalism cosplays as virtue, shrinking our sense of connection. A difference of background, belief, or culture is too often seen as a risk, not an invitation. All that noise, and you’re expected to step forward. It feels absurd. Like someone handing you a seed in the middle of a hurricane. But here’s the thing: storms don’t erase spring. They confirm it.
Truth told, you’re not stepping into certainty. You’re stepping into chaos. This world isn’t fixed. It’s contested—truth is debated, power is a performance, and identity is packaged before it’s understood. However, you’re not powerless. I dare encourage, you’re ready!
Not because you have every answer, but because you’ve learned to ask better questions. Not because you’re finished, but because you know the world you inherit isn’t the world you’re required to accept.
Respectfully, my generation grew up on the fiction that life runs straight. We were coached to simply follow the script, check the boxes, and we would land where we were meant to be. But life paths aren't straight. Often they bend, turn sharply, double back, sometimes flood, or lead to somewhere never expected.
Don’t confuse direction with destination.
You will change. Your ambitions, your priorities, your sense of what matters will shift with new truths, new heartbreaks, new love. That’s not failure. That’s transformation. I'm reminded of this story.
There was a young traveler, armed with a map so precise there was no room for wonder. Every inch mapped, every fork anticipated. One day, the road just ended. Not gently. It just stopped.
Standing there, furious, convinced something had gone wrong, the traveler finally looked up. There was no road, just a wild, living forest. No signs. No guarantees. Only possibility. The traveler put away the map. And stepped off the edge.
Maybe that’s you right now. Map in hand. Road vanished. If you listen, you’ll hear the question: What if this isn’t the end, but the first act of a new chapter? Moreover, stepping into the unknown isn’t just a poetic moment. Also, it’s a political one. How so? This world will name you before you name yourself. It will put you in boxes, flatten you into data, and sell you scripts about who you’re supposed to be. It’ll tell you your worth is your output, your voice is your volume, and your identity is your conformity. And if you’re not careful, you’ll believe it.
Guard your imagination. It’s sacred.
Imagination isn’t about escape. It’s about resistance. Dreaming of justice in a time of injustice isn’t naive—it’s urgent. Believing in community when division sells is not delusional—it’s daring. Insisting on dignity when degradation is easy, on compassion when cruelty is cheap, on truth when distortion is everywhere—this is backbone, not weakness.
It will cost you. Comfort. Approval. Certainty. But know this: avoiding the cost means avoiding meaning. You may wonder: What does starting over or beginning again actually look like? It isn’t always some grand reinvention. Most beginnings are silent. They happen alone, in the dark, as a promise to yourself: I won’t let what happened to me define what happens through me.
You’re not just in the world; you are a co-creator of the world.
Every act of integrity disrupts corruption. Every act of empathy disrupts apathy. Every act of courage disrupts fear. You don’t need permission to do this. You don’t need a title. You don’t have to be flawless. You just need to be authentically YOU! Real talk: change never comes from the crowd. It comes from the few who show up, again and again, living their values while the world spins out.
So celebrate the grind. The late nights, the early mornings, the people who held you up. Celebrate the fact that you made it. Yet, don’t mistake this moment for arrival. This is the threshold. Thresholds are sacred. They’re where we leave something behind and walk into what comes next—without any guarantees. So as you cross respective thresholds, remember to stay curious. Keep listening. Be brave enough to keep becoming.
And when the road ends—and it will—don’t panic. Pause. Look up. Fold the map. Step in. And begin again!
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More