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

We the People billboard
Photo by Larry Alger on Unsplash
When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion
Feb 15, 2026
One of the most dangerous mistakes Americans are making right now is treating the threat to our democracy as a collection of daily outrages — the latest social media post, the latest threat, the latest norm broken. Those things are certainly bad, often stunningly so. But they are not the real problem. The real problem is structural, and it runs much deeper.
At his most charitable interpretation, Donald Trump does not think like an elected official operating inside a constitutional democracy. He thinks like a businessman. In that mindset, success is measured by dominance, efficiency, and loyalty. What produces results is kept; what resists is discarded. Rules are obstacles. Norms are optional. Institutions exist to serve the leader, not to restrain him. At present, this governing style is all about energizing perceived positives and minimizing perceived negatives. Increasingly, those “negatives” are people: immigrants, minorities, trans Americans, and the poor. The danger here is not just institutional; it is human. When checks and balances weaken, there are fewer brakes on policies that treat entire groups as costs to be managed rather than citizens to be protected.
That worldview, by itself, should not be enough to upend American democracy. The Constitution was not designed to depend on presidential restraint. It was designed to counteract its absence. The Framers built a system with three strong, independent branches of government precisely because they assumed ambition, ego, and self-interest would always be present. One outlier, no matter how loud or aggressive, was not supposed to knock over every apple cart.
That safeguard is now failing.
The Constitution is explicit about the division of power between the federal government and the states. Election administration, for example, is assigned to the states under Article I, with Congress — not the president — permitted to alter those rules by law. The president has no constitutional role in this arrangement. This structure has been reaffirmed repeatedly by the courts. Federalism is not a custom or a courtesy; it is the architecture of the system.
That is why Trump’s recent suggestion that elections should be “nationalized” matters so much. It is not just unconstitutional; it reveals an assumption that Congress is a subordinate body rather than a coequal branch. If the most fundamental expression of democratic self-government — how we vote — can be spoken of as something the executive and his political party might simply take over, then the guardrails are already being treated as optional.
What has changed is not the Constitution. What has changed is the behavior of those entrusted to enforce it.
Today, the executive branch does not merely influence the legislative branch; it has effectively subsumed it. A majority of lawmakers in the president’s party have aligned their political survival with his approval. Through campaign fundraising ecosystems, endorsements, primary threats, media amplification, and the distribution of political favors, loyalty to the president is rewarded while independence is punished. Oversight is recast as disloyalty. Resistance is treated as betrayal. Power now flows in a closed loop: if you help keep the president in power, he helps keep you in power — and the legislative branch itself disappears inside that transaction.
In essence, Congress increasingly behaves like the junior partner — a little brother — rather than a coequal branch. Hearings vanish. Subpoenas go unused. The power of the purse is rarely asserted. Statements and proposals that would once have triggered immediate constitutional alarms are met instead with silence, deflection, or enthusiastic support.
This is how separation of powers collapses in civics textbooks. Even more alarmingly, it is also how it collapses in real life.
The judiciary has offered only partial resistance. While courts remain independent in principle, they are slow by design and cautious by temperament. Many judges, including a significant portion of the Supreme Court, were appointed by the same president now pushing the boundaries of constitutional authority. That does not mean judges act out of personal loyalty. It does mean that ideological alignment, procedural restraint, and institutional reluctance often blunt the courts’ willingness to confront executive overreach head-on, especially when Congress refuses to do its job first.
The Constitution was designed to withstand the ambition of individual actors within a branch; it was not designed for a moment when an entire coequal branch would so willingly bend the knee. In that vacuum, power need not be seized. It simply accumulates. Authority concentrates. Boundaries blur. The public is conditioned to see “the government” as a single entity with a single leader, rather than a system deliberately engineered to force friction, disagreement, and restraint.
If this sounds abstract, Americans need only look abroad to see how it plays out. Hungary used to be a constitutional democracy with courts, elections, and formal checks on power. Over the past decade, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has not abolished elections or openly dismantled democratic institutions. Instead, he fused executive and legislative power through party loyalty, weakened independent oversight, packed courts, and steadily reframed the state as an extension of his political movement. Elections continued. Courts remained open. But the system’s internal resistance eroded, and with it went meaningful democratic accountability. Hungary did not fall all at once. It slid.
Seen through this lens, the true danger is not any one proposal to “nationalize” elections, deploy federal agencies provocatively, or disregard precedent. Those are symptoms. The disease is the erosion of the democratic underpinnings themselves — the quiet abandonment of the idea that power must be contested in order to remain legitimate.
The Framers assumed ambition would counteract ambition. What they did not anticipate was a political culture in which party loyalty would eclipse national loyalty, and in which defending the Constitution would be treated as a political liability rather than a civic obligation. A constitutional system cannot survive on parchment alone. It requires people in power who are willing to say no and to stand up for America — even when it is inconvenient, risky, or personally costly.
That willingness is now in dangerously short supply.
If Americans focus only on the daily spectacle, they will miss the deeper story. The greatest damage being done is not the noise of any given day, but the normalization of a system in which one branch leads, another follows, and the third hesitates. That is not a temporary imbalance. It is a structural shift — and once those habits take root, they are extraordinarily difficult to undo.
The Constitution has not failed us yet. But it is being asked to function without the human backstop it depends on. That, more than any headline, is the real crisis we should be talking about.
Brent McKenzie is a writer and educator based in the United States. He is the creator of Idiots & Charlatans, a watchdog-style website focused on democratic values and climate change. He previously taught in Brussels and has spent the majority of his professional career in educational publishing.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

An ICE agent holds a taser as they stand watch after one of their vehicles got a flat tire on Penn Avenue on February 5, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)
Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model
Feb 15, 2026
Donald Trump ran on a simple promise: focus immigration enforcement on criminals and make the country safer. The policy now being implemented tells a different story. With tens of billions of dollars directed toward arrests, detention, and removals, the enforcement system has been structured to maximize volume rather than reduce risk. That design choice matters because it shapes who is targeted, how force is used, and whether public safety is actually improved.
This is not a dispute over whether immigration law should be enforced. The question is whether the policy now in place matches what was promised and delivers the safety outcomes that justified its scale and cost.
What enforcement is optimizing for
In campaign language, “criminals” carried a clear meaning: people who commit violent acts, traffic drugs, or pose a direct threat to communities. That framing implied prioritization, judgment, and a focus on public safety.
Immigration law allows something broader. Most immigration violations are civil, not criminal. Under that legal framework, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can lawfully detain and remove individuals with no criminal conviction. That authority has existed for decades. What has changed is how enforcement success is measured and rewarded.
Reporting by Reuters documents that ICE field offices are operating under sharply increased daily arrest targets, in some cases tripling prior expectations. When leadership evaluates performance by arrest counts, behavior follows. Officers are rewarded for speed and throughput rather than for time-intensive investigations that require coordination, evidence development, and discretion.
This is not a failure of individual agents. It is the predictable outcome of a management system designed around numbers.
The dragnet in the data
Independent data reinforce this pattern. Analysis by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse shows that a majority of people held in ICE detention have no criminal conviction. Recent increases in detention have been driven largely by individuals without U.S. criminal records.
This does not mean the agency cannot distinguish between violent offenders and day laborers. It means the distinction is not central to how the system is currently run.
When removability becomes the dominant criterion and arrest volume the dominant metric, enforcement naturally expands outward toward low-risk, easily identifiable populations. The wide net is not accidental. It is efficient under the existing incentives.
Violence as a byproduct of scale
As operations have expanded, so have reports of aggressive tactics. Investigations by Human Rights Watch document heavily armed ICE raids in residential neighborhoods and workplaces, including the use of force against individuals with no violent history and minimal flight risk. These operations often involve rapid entries, broad sweeps, and limited differentiation among targets.
Federal courts are now examining whether some of these actions exceed constitutional limits, particularly when federal agents operate in public spaces or in conjunction with protest suppression. The pattern is structural, not anomalous. Large-scale enforcement conducted under time pressure and arrest targets increases the likelihood of mistakes, confrontations, and unnecessary escalation.
Here, violence is not the stated goal. It is a foreseeable consequence of enforcement designed for speed rather than precision.
The safety test that matters
If public safety is the objective, success should be evaluated against outcomes communities recognize as meaningful:
- Reductions in violent crime.
- Disruption of organized criminal networks.
- Improved cooperation between immigrant communities and local law enforcement.
- Lower rates of mistaken identity, excessive force, and community destabilization.
There is little evidence that mass civil arrests of nonviolent, nonconvicted residents advance these goals. Many law-enforcement professionals have long warned that broad immigration raids suppress crime reporting, erode trust, and make communities less safe.
Billions spent on detention beds, transport contracts, and rapid removals may increase deportation totals. They do not, by themselves, produce safer streets.
The policy gap
The central problem is not enforcement. It is a misrepresentation.
If the administration’s true objective is large-scale removals regardless of criminal history, it should defend that policy openly and on its own terms. That would be an honest debate.
Instead, the program continues to be sold as a public-safety initiative while being executed as a volume-based operation. The gap between promise and practice is not incidental. It defines the policy.
What alignment would look like
An enforcement strategy genuinely aligned with the “criminals, not families” pledge would look different:
- Performance metrics would heavily weight serious criminal convictions and de-emphasize civil-only cases.
- Funding would prioritize investigations, intelligence, and interagency coordination rather than detention capacity.
- Use-of-force standards would be transparent, auditable, and consistently enforced.
- Success would be measured by safety outcomes, not arrest totals.
None of this requires abandoning immigration enforcement. It requires aligning means with stated ends.
The bottom line
The United States is spending extraordinary sums on an enforcement system optimized for volume. The cruelty is not accidental, and neither is the inefficiency. Scale without precision produces both. The unresolved question is simple: if safety was the promise, why does the policy reward everything except making us safer?
Edward Saltzberg is the Executive Director of the Security and Sustainability Forum and writes the Stability Brief.
Keep ReadingShow less

selective focus photo of U.S.A. flag
Photo by Andrew Ruiz on Unsplash
As America Turns 250, It’s Time to Begin Again
Feb 15, 2026
I know so many people are approaching America’s 250th anniversary with a sense of trepidation, even dread. Is there really anything to celebrate given the recent chaos and uncertainty we’ve been experiencing? Is productively reckoning with our history a possibility these days? And how hopeful will we allow ourselves to be about the future of the nation, its ideals, and our sense of belonging to something larger than ourselves?
Amid the chaos and uncertainty of 2026, I find myself returning to the words of the writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin. Just as things looked darkest to Baldwin amid the struggle for civil rights, he refused to give up or submit or wallow in despair.
Instead, he wrote: “Not everything is lost. Responsibility cannot be lost; it can only be abdicated. If one refuses abdication, one begins again.”
This is the task before us today. To “begin again”—as individuals, as communities, as a nation. Today, we must begin the next 250 years. The good news is that people across our country are open, willing—and ready.
As I’ve crisscrossed our nation the past two years on a series of civic campaigns, I have witnessed a growing energy and hunger among Americans to rally around a new moral vision for our communities and society. This new moral vision includes:
- Reckoning honestly with our past while celebrating what makes Americans good and strong.
- Putting people—and a shared sense of humanity—at the center of everything we do.
- Establishing dignity and decency as foundational to a shared society.
- Focusing on our shared aspirations for connection, belonging, and mutual reciprocity.
- Coming together to take action on a set of shared concerns and issues that people are ready to work on together—like education and youth opportunities, senior care, affordable housing, mental health, and others.
- Restoring belief in ourselves and in our nation, and a practical path for doing so.
- Living a new patriotism.
- Starting locally.
The loudest voices would have us believe such a vision doesn’t exist and won’t anytime soon. They seek to win for their side at any cost. Even people of goodwill say a new moral vision is just a utopian idea, given the state of the country. But neither division nor despair will enable us to seize the next 250 years, or even make tomorrow better.
What’s more, this new moral vision is rooted in reality. Indeed, it emerged from my deep engagement with Americans over many years—across all types of communities and all political persuasions. I am convinced it holds the power to galvanize enough of us to “begin again.” It can help us engender a sense of belief that we can get things done together. And it offers us the opportunity to make pragmatic down payments toward moving this country forward.
Numerous communities are already rallying around this vision and making it real, including some you may least expect. Take Union and Logan Counties in Ohio. They’re in Jim Jordan’s congressional district, the co-founder of the House Freedom Caucus.
In each community, leaders and residents have come together over the past two years to create deep, lasting change on youth opportunities, senior care, homelessness, healthcare, and other issues. Importantly, they are working in ways that revive the civic culture of these communities by engaging people authentically, getting leaders and organizations to work together in new ways, creating stronger norms of interaction, establishing a stronger sense of shared purpose, and ultimately taking action on what matters to people.
Their efforts bring people together across political parties, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other identity markers that so often drive us apart.
This new moral vision is also being brought about in Alamance County, NC, likely the most divided place I have worked with in 40 years. And it is coming alive in Reading, PA, about a decade ago, declared the poorest community in America, which was once predominantly White and is now 70% Latino.
All across these United States, people are choosing hope over despair, healing over trauma, and progress over division. People are finding ways to reckon with our history while celebrating what makes America good.
We need to build on this by rallying more Americans to a new moral vision that helps us “begin again.” In doing so, we can forge a more promising start to our next 250 years.
Rich Harwood is the president and founder of The Harwood Institute.
Keep ReadingShow less

Leading Democratic contenders for Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District gathered Thursday, February 12, for a televised town hall on the Chicago Access Television Network (CAN-TV)
CAN-TV
Illinois 2nd District Candidates Meet Up in High-Energy Town Hall
Feb 15, 2026
Several of the leading Democratic contenders for Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District gathered Thursday, February 12, for a televised town hall on the Chicago Access Television Network (CAN-TV), offering voters a rare opportunity to hear their priorities side by side as the competitive primary enters its final month. The forum was moderated by The Fulcrum's executive editor and Latino News Network's publisher Hugo Balta and public health and emergency management expert Dr. Suzet McKinney, who pressed the candidates on the district’s most urgent needs and the kind of leadership they believe residents deserve.
Former Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr., Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, State Sen. Willie Preston, and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Commissioner Yumeka Brown took part in the discussion. State Sen. Robert Peters, another top contender, was scheduled to appear but excused himself due to being taken ill.
- YouTube youtu.be
The race has drawn heightened attention because the seat is open for the first time in more than a decade. The vacancy was created when U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly announced she would not seek reelection and would instead run for the U.S. Senate, prompting a crowded Democratic primary in a district where the nominee is expected to be the overwhelming favorite in November.
After candidate introductions, Dr. McKinney opened the evening by asking all candidates, “What do you believe the 2nd District needs from its next representative that may not be getting today?”
Donna Miller was the first to respond:
"I think that what we all need in this country is diplomacy. We all need to be not looking to fight. We need to be coming together. I look at leadership as a choice you make in your life to make sure that you're bringing value, ethics, and transparency to government. And that's what I would bring to the 2nd congressional district."
McKinney followed with tailored questions that pushed each contender to connect their experience to the district’s needs. To Jackson, she posed, “What would you do differently now that you did not — or could not — do during your previous service as Congressman?”
Jesse Jackson Jr. responded:
"What's really clear to me is that the district needs to be connected to the global economy. The Bishop Ford Freeway at eight in the morning, going north, is in a traffic jam, so is I-57. No one in Chicago or in the region is fighting to get to the South Side of Chicago and south suburbs. The next representative of the 2nd congressional district really has to find a way to alter traffic. To bring jobs to the South Side of Chicago and south suburbs. To connect the district to the global economy so that we can sustain ourselves."
Balta’s questions included the economy, poverty, and basic needs—issues that have long shaped life in the 2nd District. He asked the candidates, “The racial wealth gap remains wide in Illinois. What specific policies would you support to help families build wealth — not just income — through homeownership, savings, or retirement security?”
Yumeka Brown had this to say:
"As a resident of the Southland of Chicago, I have seen a major hit in property taxes, which has caused a lot of businesses not to want to come to the south suburban communities that are east of Harlem. I will bring federal dollars back to those communities to help support small businesses. I think that that is critical."
Balta then pressed the group on child well‑being, asking, “Child poverty has lifelong consequences for education, health, and earnings. What federal policies would you prioritize to reduce child poverty in this district?”
Willie Preston said:
"Some people in this nation had a 400-year start. It is not a surprise that they have greater wealth. We have to champion reparations. Every child in this nation should have a CD (certificate of deposit) put into their name. And we should be able to let that grow, and then when they're of age, turn that over."
Throughout the evening, candidates offered sharply distinct visions. Jackson emphasized economic revitalization and infrastructure investment. Miller focused on her experience managing county budgets equips her to negotiate at the federal level. Preston highlighted workforce development and the expansion of trade schools. Brown centered her message, calling for long‑term investment in community well‑being.
Reflecting on the significance of the event, Balta said, “Town halls like this give voters something they rarely get in a crowded primary: a chance to hear candidates engage directly with the issues that shape their daily lives. When people can compare visions in real time, they’re better equipped to choose the leader who truly understands their community.”
Ten Democrats are on the ballot overall, including Adal Regis, Eric France, Patrick “PJK” Keating, Sidney Moore, and Toni C. Brown. Republican Mike Noack is running unopposed in his party’s primary.
CAN-TV also hosted a Town Hall with the leading contenders in the 9th Congressional District. You can watch that debate by clicking Here.
Darrious Hilmon, Executive Editor at CAN‑TV, underscored the network’s mission, saying, "CAN TV's broadcast of the 2nd and 9th Congressional Towns are proof-points of our unwavering commitment to civic engagement, voter education, and ensuring that our communities have direct access to the information they need to participate fully in our democracy."
Illinois 2nd District Candidates Meet in High‑Impact CAN‑TV Town Hall Ahead of 2026 Primary was first published by the Latino News Network and was republished with permission.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network. He is often a guest and guest host of Chicago Newsroom 2.0 on CAN-TV.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















