What if we could reinvent the public square in the context of our elections so candidates can genuinely earn the attention to compete? At Pluribus we believe a more meritocratic and modern public square would: 1. Increase participation and informed decision-making by the electorate. 2. Lower the barrier to entry so there is greater competition and more diversity of candidates. 3. Increase prioritization of broad public interests.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
man using MacBook Air
Photo by Alejandro Escamilla on Unsplash
Nurturing the Next Generation of Journalists
May 08, 2025
“Student journalists are uniquely positioned to take on the challenges of complicating the narrative about how we see each other, putting forward new solutions to how we can work together and have dialogue across difference,” said Maxine Rich, the Program Manager with Common Ground USA. I had the chance to interview her earlier this year about Common Ground Journalism, a new initiative to support students reporting in contentious times.
A partnership with The Fulcrum and the Latino News Network (LNN), I joined Maxine and Nicole Donelan, Production Assistant with Common Ground USA, as co-instructor of the first Common Ground Journalism cohort, which ran for six weeks between January and March 2025.
The sessions integrated Common Ground USA principles of “campuses, which can model our nation’s highest ideals: coming together across differences to serve the common good,” and Solutions Journalism Network’s “to transform journalism so that all people have access to news that helps them envision and build a more equitable and sustainable world.”
Concepts like The Power Of Self Narrative, about how our lives can powerfully shape our resilience to challenges, and help others through their blind spots, resonated with cohorts like Maggie Rhoads, a student at George Washington University. “My problems as a journalist are often the same as others from across the country. Knowing this definitely makes me feel less alone in my reporting journey,” she said.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Maggie now writes regularly for the Fulcrum. I invite you to read her stories on how legislation and policy impact communities by clicking HERE.
Georgetown University student Alexis Tamm agrees. “I had an amazing experience as a member of the first Common Ground cohort! The program introduced me to solutions journalism very thoroughly,” she said. Solutions journalism is rigorous and compelling reporting about responses to social problems, which includes these key elements: response, insight, evidence, and limitations.
Instead of just highlighting the problems challenging a community, solutions journalism’s approach to news reporting explains how and why responses are working, or are not working. The goal is to present people with a truer, more complete view of these issues,
I am mentoring Alexis with an upcoming article that will be published on the Fulcrum, about a program helping formerly incarcerated individuals get the resources they need to integrate back into society properly.
Feedback collected at the end of the Common Ground Journalism initiative found that most students in the first cohort agree or strongly agree that Common Ground Journalism made them feel more comfortable reporting on minority perspectives and humanizing opposing political opinions.
I am happy to share that the Fulcrum and LNN will join the next session, which will begin in September! Students interested in applying can get more information and fill out a form by clicking HERE.
By reporting on diverse viewpoints and issues, journalism fosters public debate and encourages civic participation. That is why the Fulcrum is committed to mentoring students with valuable guidance and feedback, allowing them to navigate the challenges of journalism while fostering a deeper understanding of their responsibilities as journalists.
The publication has a longstanding relationship with Northwestern University's Medill on the Hill Program. Student journalists pitch stories about how democracy unfolds in Washington, D.C. Their quality reporting, often featured on the Fulcrum, provides valuable perspectives that widen our audience’s viewpoints.
Through that alliance, I met Atmika Iyer, a graduate student in Northwestern Medill’s Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs reporting program who is an intern with the Fulcrum this spring. Check out her work by clicking HERE.
Duke University student Bennett Gillespie will join the Fulcrum as an intern in June.
The Fulcrum has joined LNN and NPR’s Midwest Newsroom in sponsoring Jessica Meza from the University of Lincoln- Nebraska, as this year’s Hortencia Zavala Foundation Summer Intern. Meza will not only benefit from the coaching and visibility of three news outlets, but will work side by side with journalists in the Nebraska Public Media newsroom.
This summer, I will lead the first Fulcrum Fellowship, where five students from across the country will be trained in solutions journalism and complicating narrative techniques to produce stories that counter the one-dimensional narratives too common in mainstream media.
Nurturing the next generation of journalists is a collaborative effort that the Fulcrum takes seriously. After all, a well-informed electorate is essential for a healthy democracy, as it enables individuals to engage meaningfully in the political process.
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 an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Protestors shout slogans demanding an end to deportations on February 9, 2025, in New York City.
AP, Andres Kudacki
Trump Wants To Erase People. They’re Fighting Back.
May 08, 2025
In the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term in office, we have seen an American president attempting to swiftly and dramatically reshape our culture and our country, in an effort to redefine who and what makes America great.
He’s largely done this through a slew of executive orders that are not new laws, but directives that are already being followed and implemented by federal agencies, universities, state governments and school districts. But these orders are also being challenged in our courts, and in the court of public opinion, as millions of Americans have begun to take to the streets in protest of the Trump administration’s agenda.
At this milestone in Trump’s tenure, the politics of exclusion and erasure are defining his presidency.
“This was always about dismantling the multiracial freedom project,” said Brittney Cooper, author and a professor of women’s, gender and sexuality studies and Africana studies at Rutgers University. “We had some notable wins. This administration sees those wins as a series of historical missteps that they now have endless power to undo.”
There are consequences for the people on the receiving end of the president’s actions and rhetoric. Many Americans, including women, people of color and the LGBTQ+ community, are grappling with how Trump’s policies are transforming workplaces and institutions, setting new legal precedent and undoing established ones.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In January, I wrote about the Americans Trump and his administration are trying to leave out. These are the people I wanted to speak to at the 100-day mark of his presidency, to hear from them about why what Trump is doing matters, if it has changed their relationship to our democracy, and how his actions are already affecting their lives.
For more than a generation, My Brother’s Keeper has focused on reducing health disparities, particularly for people with HIV. Based in Ridgeland, Mississippi, the organization typically processes 8,000 tests a year for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) across the state, many for people without health insurance.
In the last month Dr. June Gipson, the CEO of My Brother’s Keeper, has received letters from both state and federal agencies informing her that her organization would lose millions in funding. She is now scrambling to figure out how to keep the tests available and affordable to the patients who need it, in a state that consistently has some of the highest STD rates in the country.
“We don’t want to leave the communities without any resources,” said Gipson. “We pivoted the last time Trump was in office. We know how to pivot. But now we’re just left scrambling because all the rules have changed. Unchecked STDs are going to be a huge problem for us, particularly in the South. This is not making America great again.”
For Gipson, the mental strain of the last several weeks — mourning the progress that could have been made with the federal funding that has now disappeared as she considers the toll this will take on the community — has been difficult personally and professionally.
“There’s so many conflicting and compounding issues,” Gipson said. “I can’t catch my breath and even talk to people about what’s happening. You don’t even know how something is affecting you, because every day there’s something else on top of you.”
Protestors march during a “Hands Off!” protest against President Donald Trump on April 5, 2025, in New York City. (ANDRES KUDACKI/AP)
Trans journalist Imara Jones wasn’t surprised to see all of the actions the administration has taken against transgender Americans, but she does describe the actual experience as “disorienting.”
“It’s one thing to know these things are going to happen; it’s another thing to experience them happening,” said Jones, the creator of TransLash Media. “It is reality-altering.”
Jones likened the swiftness and scope of the administration’s executive orders targeting the transgender community to the Supreme Court’s decision to end federal protections for abortion in 2022 and the chaos and uncertainty that was unleashed in the weeks and months since the decision.
“One day you largely assume you can get access to the health care you need. The next … it’s all in jeopardy. It’s this cascading impact on what you understand to be. It’s like a Dobbs ruling every other day.”
Cooper said Trump’s targeting of “wokeism”; taking aim at transgender Americans; attempting to ban pronouns; or scrap diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in government and society all point to a vision of “the most reductive, most limited, most basic version of America that we have been.” She pointed out that the rejection of “wokeness” in particular is a code word for embracing the vision of Black women.
“We have tried mightily to become different,” Cooper said. “The only purpose we serve in his imagination of the world is one where we are in service.”
Headed into the next phase of Trump’s presidency, there are already signs that not everyone is on board with his agenda, and that he does not have the mandate he has touted since his election to reshape the country in his image.
A Pew Research poll conducted this month showed Trump’s approval rating at 40 percent, down seven points from February. And more than half of Americans said he is setting too much policy via executive order.
Americans are showing up and speaking out at congressional town halls hosted by members of both parties, standing up for their neighbors as the administration attempts to deport immigrants they say are in the country illegally, and protesting in communities across the country.
After weeks of being horrified by headlines about the administration’s actions, Lora Weingarden decided to attend her first protest at the April 19 #HandsOff rally in Livonia, Michigan. The 64-year-old, who works as a lawyer for the state, said she is particularly concerned about the future of the rule of law in American democracy.
“As a lawyer, we’re trained in the Constitution,” Weingarden said. “We know what the rules are. There have always been consequences for defying the Constitution. If anyone gets away with violating a court order, we will live in a lawless society. I’m fearful we won’t recognize our country.”
She made a couple of signs, one reading, “WHERE IS THE DUE PROCESS?” and another, “GOP CONGRESS STEP UP — NOW!” Weingarden invited former colleagues, friends from her cardio drumming group, her tennis and pickleball teammates, and her husband to come along. She showed up with nine friends in tow.
“I want the public to know, I want the government to know that the regular people are not going to stand for what’s going on,” she said. “The more protesters we have, the stronger the message is.”
Weingarden described the experience of gathering with like-minded people, of hearing horns honking in support as people drove past the protest, as “exhilarating.” She plans to keep protesting.
“The message has to be loud and clear over time,” Weingarden said. “It’s not a hard thing to do. As citizens opposed to what’s going on, we have to band together to send a message.”
Whether the president sees them or not, these Americans are here, asserting their claim to what makes America great as participants in our democracy. Beyond resisting, they are fighting for recognition, for the right to be counted and not erased.
The lesson of these first 100 days: Theirs is a fight that is just beginning.
Trump Wants To Erase People. They’re Fighting Back. was originally published by The 19th and is shared with permission.
Errin Haines is the editor-at-large and founding mother at The 19th.
Keep ReadingShow less
While Pledging To Clean Up Toxic Chemicals, EPA Guts Hundreds of Environmental Grants
May 07, 2025
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration promised to combat toxic “forever chemicals,” while conversely canceling nearly 800 grants aimed at addressing environmental injustices, including in communities plagued with PFAS contamination.
In a court filing, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed for the first time that it intends to cancel 781 environmental justice grants, nearly double what had previously been disclosed.
Environmental justice advocates say the EPA’s pledge to combat PFAS rings hollow as it simultaneously slashes its budget, shutters key offices, and cancels hundreds of grants aimed at addressing pollution in low-income and vulnerable communities.
“I think it’s ironic that [the EPA] is positioning itself as justly enforcing its mission of protecting human health and the environment when they’re doing the antithesis of that,” said Amanda Cronin, a staffer in the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. “Environmental justice is truly about uplifting individuals, organizations and communities that experience environmental threats and disasters aggravated by the climate crisis.”
Cronin is one of roughly 450 EPA officials who were fired or reassigned by the Trump administration for working on environmental justice issues or diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“By cutting our office, they are directly harming their own voters,” she said. “Many people who voted for him and who support Republican members of Congress live in environmental justice communities and were either currently benefiting from or were about to benefit from the unprecedented grants our office provided.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Despite this, the agency outlined a series of actions to combat per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which are synthetic chemicals used in everything from non-stick cookware to water-resistant clothing. These toxic chemicals have been linked to cancer and other serious health issues. PFAS have been detected in the blood of 97% of Americans.
“I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards,” said EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in a statement.
The plan includes enhanced scientific testing, holding polluters financially accountable, and appointing a new official to oversee these PFAS efforts. However, the announcement lacked key details such as enforcement mechanisms or a timeline, adding to environmental advocates’ skepticism.
“I'm worried that it's a lot of talk without a lot of action,” said Corinne Bell, a senior attorney at the National Resources Defense Council. “I’d like to hear about how they plan on funding the plan they've released. What resources are they going to put behind creating additional science and testing methods? How will they ensure that drinking water plants have the money they need to install filtration?”
The same court filing that disclosed the number of canceled grants also noted that 377 grantees had already received termination notices.
“The EPA has already sent out formal notices to approximately 377 grantees,” Daniel Coogan, EPA deputy assistant administrator for infrastructure and extramural resources, said in the filing. “For the remaining approximately 404 grantees, EPA plans to issue notices within the next two weeks.”
The canceled grants were originally awarded under the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act through the EPA’s Environmental and Climate Justice Program. The program aimed to fund community-driven projects tackling pollution and health disparities. Many of these grants could help the communities dealing with the legacy pollution that Zeldin promised to help.
The cuts are part of a broader effort by the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), led by Elon Musk, to eliminate what it calls ideologically driven federal spending.
Adding to advocates’ concerns about the Trump administration’s PFAS initiative: the administration has not committed to defending a major Biden-era PFAS drinking water regulation in court. Finalized in April 2024, the rule set enforceable limits on six PFAS compounds. Utility companies sued to block the rule, arguing they shouldn’t bear the financial burden of cleanup.
Court records show the EPA twice requested delays in the case while the administration decides whether to defend the rule.
“New EPA leadership is in the process of reviewing the PFAS drinking water rule and the issues presented in the litigation in the current case around it, and developing its position on how to proceed,” said the EPA press office in an email to Medill News Service.
Finya Swai is an energy and environment reporter for Medill News Service, covering Capitol Hill and the White House. She is also a graduate student at Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism, specializing in politics, policy and foreign affairs.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn on May 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Andrew Harnik
Trump’s First 100 Days on Trial
May 07, 2025
100 Days, 122 Rulings
Presidents are typically evaluated by their accomplishments in the first 100 days. Donald Trump's second term stands out for a different reason: the unprecedented number of executive actions challenged and blocked by the courts. In just over three months, Trump issued more than 200 executive orders, targeting areas such as climate policy, civil service regulations, immigration, and education funding.
However, the most telling statistic is not the volume of orders but the judiciary's response: over 120 rulings have paused or invalidated these directives. This positions the courts, rather than Congress, as the primary institutional check on the administration's agenda. With a legislature largely aligned with the executive, the judiciary has become a critical counterbalance. The sustainability of this dynamic raises questions about the resilience of democratic institutions when one branch shoulders the burden of oversight responsibilities.
The Prosecution: Legal Challenges to Executive Actions
Upon returning to office, President Trump took an aggressive approach to executive authority, unleashing a tsunami of orders aimed at radically reshaping federal policy. This strategy, designed to implement changes swiftly, seems to potentially outpace legal challenges. Nevertheless, the judiciary has actively engaged in reviewing these actions, resulting in numerous injunctions and rulings that underscore the constitutional limits of executive power.
In one high-profile case, New Jersey v. Trump, the administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents was challenged and blocked. A federal judge found the order in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment, and the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court is pending.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In Dellinger v. Bessent, an executive order seeking to reclassify senior civil servants as at-will employees—effectively removing their job protections—was halted with a preliminary injunction. The court determined the order violated civil service laws and posed risks to the function of government.
Meanwhile, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump, the administration’s effort to freeze federal funding to institutions promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives was ruled an unconstitutional overreach. The court emphasized that policy disagreements do not justify infringing upon academic freedom and civil rights.
These cases illustrate a pattern of executive actions that the judiciary deems as overstepping legal and constitutional lines in the sand. The courts have thus far served as a vital check on the administration's expansive use of executive orders.
A Contemptible Congress
While the judiciary has actively engaged in reviewing executive actions, Congress has taken a more passive role. The passage of continuing resolutions (CRs) to avoid government shutdowns has inadvertently granted the executive branch increased discretion over federal spending. Unlike detailed appropriations bills, CRs extend existing funding levels without specific instructions, allowing the administration to redirect funds with minimal oversight.
This discretion has been utilized to withhold funding from programs such as climate research and DEI initiatives, aligning spending with the administration's priorities without new legislative mandates. The reliance on CRs, coupled with a lack of assertive legislative oversight, has contributed to an imbalance in the separation of powers.
Yet, even as the judiciary works to check the excesses of executive power, the legislative branch—the one designed by the Framers to be the first line of defense—has largely chosen to stand aside. If the courts have played prosecutor, Congress has spent much of its time playing the absent witness—sometimes unwilling, but just as often all too willing to let the executive branch redraw the lines it was supposed to defend. Nowhere has this been clearer than in the recent Senate vote over tariffs. The GOP-led Senate could have stood with the majority of American voters in disapproving the administration’s actions. Instead, it meekly acquiesced, declining to impose any limits on the president’s authority despite bipartisan concerns. The message was unmistakable: Trump’s consolidation of power would not face resistance from Capitol Hill.
A Test of Institutional Resilience
The first 100 days of President Trump's second term have tested the mechanisms of American governance. The judiciary has emerged as a central figure in maintaining constitutional checks and balances, responding to a surge of executive actions with rigorous legal scrutiny. However, the limited engagement from Congress raises concerns about the durability of this equilibrium. Sustaining a healthy democracy requires active participation from all branches of government and an informed public. If oversight becomes just the lonely burden of the judiciary, the system begins to tilt—slowly, but decisively—toward executive dominance.
The danger lies not in the temporary assertion of power but in the normalization of it. You don’t have to be a Constitutional law scholar to recognize that when checks and balances rely on a single branch to function, the republic risks becoming structurally unbalanced. The ongoing challenges underscore the importance of vigilance, accountability, and institutional courage in preserving the foundational principles of the republic.
This all begs the question: What is to be done? Congress must get off the sidelines and reassert its constitutional responsibilities, beginning with full appropriations bills that constrain executive discretion and meaningful oversight hearings that clarify the scope and limits of presidential power. Courts must continue to defend legal norms without being drawn into partisanship. But the broader task belongs to the public: to demand transparency, resist apathy, and reaffirm that no leader is above the law. Democracy, after all, is not self-executing—it must be defended, deliberately and continually, by those it serves.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More