Vice President Harris meets with civil rights leaders and consumer protection experts to discuss the societal impact of AI.
Vice President Harris convenes a meeting to discuss the societal impact of AI
The White House
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.
Getty Images, Richard Drury
Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger
Sep 15, 2025
Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.
This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.
When conservatives express outrage, liberals dismiss them as bigots and racists. When liberals protest, conservatives roll their eyes at the alleged virtue signaling. We celebrate when our adversaries get upset because their anger means our side is winning. As researchers studying morality and political behavior, this trend is deeply concerning to us—not because people are too emotional about politics but because too many dismiss their neighbor’s emotions instead of seeing the genuine moral intuitions they reflect.
Outrage is a moral alarm—a signal that something is unfair, unjust, or harmful. Deeply tied to morality, outrage guides us to protect the vulnerable from harm. We don’t just process injustice intellectually; we feel it.
Nor is moral outrage just for show: new science shows that outrage is less about posturing than genuine perceptions of harm. People express this anger because they perceive a threat to themselves or others. Outrage is a social emotion that spreads through groups to help us collectively restrain or punish those who threaten the social order. For example, everyone in your HOA gets upset when one neighbor is too lazy to mow their lawn, and ticks spread.
Historically, a whole community might share the same fears of obvious threats like murderers, thieves, or the spread of famine or plague. But in today’s conditions of relative safety, questions of harm and moral culpability are more ambiguous. Yet we feel just as outraged about the harms we see today as our forebearers might have, even when our neighbors might not see harm in the same place that we do.
Take the debate over book bans. When conservatives push to remove books from school libraries, they see it as protecting children from harm—exposure to ideas they believe are dangerous. When liberals fight book bans, they likewise see it as protecting children from harm—censorship that restricts access to important ideas. Both sides are morally motivated and trying to stand up for the vulnerable. They just disagree about who the real victims are.
If outrage is about harm, why do we treat it like a joke? We dismiss the other party’s outrage because we see them as an outgroup—people who are outsiders, not like us, and less and less like fellow citizens. And as contemporary American politics becomes increasingly bifurcated into separate discourse communities—with wholly different media diets, civic institutions, and values—it becomes difficult to even understand why people on the other side feel the way they do. It’s tempting to conclude that their concerns don’t matter. After all, they’re the enemy. Who cares what they want?
But dismissing the other side’s outrage is a dangerous mistake. There’s always a kernel of truth in the other side’s perceptions of harm, even if we disagree over which harm takes precedence. For example, liberal outrage highlights the importance of bodily autonomy for issues like access to abortion, while conservative outrage over bodily autonomy touches issues like vaccine mandates. Both reactions are valid and point towards a moral commitment shared by all sides of the political spectrum. Neither position should be dismissed on the basis of which party sounded the alarm.
So what do we do? First, take outrage seriously. Instead of rolling your eyes at the other side’s anger, ask yourself: What harm do they see? Instead of assuming they’re just looking for attention or trying to score political points, try to understand what they think is at stake.
Second, don’t get outraged about outrage. Meta-outrage—being mad that the other side is mad—just escalates division. If someone is outraged about something you find trivial, don’t assume they’re irrational. Ask questions to see the harm they see.
Finally, focus on conversations, not battles. Studies show that when people feel heard and respected, they’re more willing to listen in return. Ask “Why does this issue matter so much to you?” That question can shift a conversation from combative to constructive.
Outrage isn’t the problem; it’s an important part of human nature that helps us protect the vulnerable and aim at a more just society. Dismissing it, however, is a problem. The more we treat the other side as outgroup members whose anger is a joke to be memed, the more we’ll close our eyes to the areas where we agree. These areas are more substantial than we think.
Polling from the Independent Center shows that voters of all stripes want to see politicians working across the aisle. To do that, we’ll have to take each other’s views, including outrage, more seriously.
Kurt Gray is author of the recent book Outraged: Why We Fight about Morality and Politics. He’s a professor in Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he directs the Deepest Beliefs Lab and the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding.
Lura Forcum is president of the Independent Center, a nonprofit organization of political independents. She is a consumer psychologist and a former professor of marketing.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
"We don't need to tear down the Constitution. We need to breathe new life into it, reclaiming it as a living promise rather than allowing it to become a weapon in partisan warfare," writes Dr. Paul Zeitz.
alancrosthwaite/iStock/Getty Images
The Hidden Hinge of History: A Refreshing Look at the Constitution on Its Day
Sep 15, 2025
Constitution Day is September 17. In his Constitution Day Conversation with Fulcrum Contributor Rick LaRue, leading constitutional scholar and advisor Richard Albert places the document in a refreshing as well as reflective light. He teaches at the University of Texas at Austin, is a prolific author, and actively serves the field’s participants around the world, from students to governments. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Rick LaRue: Before tackling some contemporary challenges, a background question: In the main, constitutions shape governance and protect rights. The U.S. Constitution originally focused on the former and has mostly advanced the latter through amendments. How does this compare internationally?
Richard Albert: The U.S. Constitution contains many fewer rights than constitutions around the world. Modern world constitutions generally also contain economic, social, and cultural rights—like the rights to housing, health care, education, and a clean environment—but the U.S. Constitution contains none. It is a stark contrast that has caused many to argue that the U.S. Constitution should be modernized to protect 21st-century rights in its text, rather than only in its interpretation. Even U.S. state constitutions protect more modern rights than the U.S. Constitution. That does not mean Americans have no rights under the Constitution, but they have to look elsewhere to find most of them, starting with judicial opinions and legislative enactments.
RL: There is a lot of noise as well as legitimate concern about the current administration's behavior constitutionally. Is there a "noisier" topic that you think doesn't deserve the attention?
RA: There is no credible evidence that President Donald Trump will seek a third term. Yet many in the media are sounding the alarm about that possibility. Perhaps less attention could be paid to that? But there is a legal pathway—without amending the Constitution—for President Trump to serve a third term: the Republican ticket prevails in 2028; the Republicans also take the House and elect President Trump as Speaker, a post anyone can hold; and then the elected president and VP resign, enabling the next-in-line Speaker to assume the office.
RL: Have we been experiencing a constitutional crisis already, or have we yet to reach that point?
RA: More than anything else, this is what I hear from my students: they are profoundly worried about the state of democracy. They wish there were something they could do. I advise them to consider getting involved in politics, at any level of government, whether national, state, or local. I tell them they have the power to build the society in which they wish to live. Because it is true: no one can deny that politics today are generating enormous pressures in law and society. But we are not in a constitutional crisis. The Constitution is resilient and adaptable, more so than any other constitution ever written. History has proven that the Constitution can endure virtually anything. The Electoral College deadlock in 1800, the Civil War, two world wars, court-packing threats, and so much more. Elsewhere in the world, similar episodes have led to new constitutions. But not here. The Constitution remains.
RL: Which leads to my next question about constitutional change. James Madison feared it while Thomas Jefferson wanted it to occur regularly, even once per generation. What should we take from this living disagreement?
RA: The great debate on the optimal frequency of constitutional change was very well captured in an exchange of letters between these two Founders. Jefferson argued that “no society can make a perpetual constitution.” He believed that every generation should write a new constitution, roughly every 20 years. Madison disagreed. He wanted the Constitution to endure as the centerpiece for a stable regime.
There is a middle ground between Jefferson and Madison. Fourteen state constitutions require voters to answer a simple ballot question every 10, 16, or 20 years: Do you want to hold a new constitutional convention? If the people vote “yes,” a new convention must be held. (Rhode Island was the last to do this, in 1986.) If the people vote “no,” that sends a strong, “re-ratifying” statement of approval for their state’s current constitution.
Imagine if this option were available for the U.S. Constitution. It would empower the people to seize the reins of their constitutional future, whether under the current Constitution or a new one altogether.
RL: What topic would you pick to benefit from formal constitutional change (amendment), if you had to choose just one?
RA: How about setting an age limit for the president and Congress? Overwhelming supermajorities of Democrats (76%) and Republicans (82%) support an upper age limit for all federal elected officials. A maximum age requirement would also bring symmetry to the Constitution, given that it contains minimum age requirements for these officials—the president (35), senators (30), and representatives (25).
RL: Which feature that was left out of the Constitution would you have advocated to be included had you been at the 1787 Convention?
RA: The Framers should have included a rule on how to “edit”—amend—the document. The choice to append amendments sequentially at the end of the original text was not made until the First Congress debated what to do with the Bill of Rights. Since then, all amendments have been detached from the founding text. This creates a clear demarcation between the Constitution and amendments to it. James Madison recommended merging new amendments directly into the text of the Constitution, blending new texts with the old. Had he won this battle, the Constitution would not be the same today. It would look different aesthetically. More importantly, it would have generated different applications and interpretations in law. Edward Hartnett wrote an excellent article on this underappreciated twist of history!
RL: If there is one area of misunderstanding about the Constitution that you wish could be cleared up, what would that be?
RA: The U.S. Supreme Court is powerful, but it does not have the last word on the meaning of the Constitution. Any ruling of the Court can be reversed by a constitutional amendment. This is not just a theory—it has happened several times in American history. Of course, it is difficult to amend the Constitution. But if the people and their elected representatives are sufficiently displeased, they can overrule the Court.
RL: What point would you make to clarify for citizens why the Constitution matters to their lives today?
RA: Akhil Amar is right: the U.S. Constitution is the hinge of human history. The world is different—not just different, but better—because of it. Democracy exists on a large scale because of the Constitution’s impact at home and its influence abroad. Popular sovereignty is now the central governing principle that sets the expectation for constitutional states around the world. And rights and freedoms abound because of the revolutionary example set by the United States. Of course, the country was mired in abhorrent contradictions at its founding. But changes in law and society have made amends, with more work still to do. The trendline of the history of the world points toward expanding rights, democratizing government, and deepening the rule of law—and it all began with the enactment of the U.S. Constitution.
RL: Thank you, Richard. Happy Constitution Day!
Read the complete conversation.
Rick LaRue writes about constitutional electoral structure and amendments at Structure Matters.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care
Sep 15, 2025
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?
The Big Beautiful Bill imposes federal work requirements for Medicaid for the first time. Starting January 1, 2027, most able-bodied adults must work, volunteer, or attend school for at least 80 hours per month to maintain coverage. Exemptions apply to seniors over 65, pregnant women, and parents of children under 14—but caregivers of older dependents or those with disabilities may not qualify for exemptions, making the policy more restrictive than prior state-level waivers.
Previously, work requirements were only allowed through state waivers and were often blocked or reversed by courts or federal agencies. The new law nationalizes and tightens these rules, adding complex reporting requirements and frequent verification deadlines. Analysts warn this will likely lead to coverage losses, especially among low-income workers, caregivers, and those facing logistical barriers like unreliable transportation or internet access.
Does Medicaid still cover gender-affirming care? No. The bill bans Medicaid funding for gender transition therapies, including hormone treatments and surgeries.
How does the bill change retroactive Medicaid coverage? The Big Beautiful Bill reduces the retroactive Medicaid coverage window from 90 days to 30 days, significantly limiting the timeframe in which past medical expenses can be reimbursed.
What is retroactive Medicaid coverage? Retroactive coverage allows Medicaid to pay for medical bills incurred up to three months before a person formally applies, as long as they would have qualified during that time. For example, if someone is hospitalized in January but doesn’t apply for Medicaid until March, retroactive eligibility could cover those January and February bills—assuming they met income and asset requirements then.
This provision has historically served as a safety net for low-income individuals facing sudden illness, injury, or hospitalization before they could complete the complex Medicaid application process. By shortening the window to just 30 days, the bill reduces flexibility for patients and providers, and may leave more people with unpaid medical debt during critical health events.
Can states still impose fees or assessments on healthcare providers—like hospitals, nursing homes, or clinics—that help states fund their share of Medicaid costs, and if not, how will this impact costs for Americans?
Under the Big Beautiful Bill, states are prohibited from establishing new provider taxes or increasing existing ones. These taxes have historically been levied on hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers, and they have been a key mechanism for states to generate revenue that qualifies for federal Medicaid matching funds. By restricting this tool, the bill limits states’ ability to finance their share of Medicaid, especially during economic downturns or budget shortfalls.
What changes affect the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and how will this impact child care costs for Americans?
The Big Beautiful Bill imposes a series of constraints on CHIP, including a reduction in retroactive coverage from 90 days to 30 days, and a 10-year moratorium on new eligibility and enrollment regulations. It also freezes modernization efforts that would have expanded access and streamlined enrollment for children in low-income families.
Additionally, the bill penalizes expansion states that cover lawfully residing immigrant children under CHIP, potentially forcing up to 17 states to drop coverage or absorb higher costs. These changes could lead to coverage losses, increased administrative burdens, and reduced flexibility for states to respond to child health needs.
While CHIP itself doesn’t directly subsidize child care, its erosion can have indirect financial consequences:
- Families losing CHIP coverage may face higher out-of-pocket medical expenses, reducing disposable income available for child care.
- Children without coverage may experience delayed care or untreated conditions, increasing the need for specialized or emergency child care.
- States may redirect funds from child care subsidies to offset CHIP-related shortfalls, especially in expansion states facing penalties.
In parallel, the Big Beautiful Bill expands dependent care tax credits, raising the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit from 35% to 50% of qualified expenses, and increasing Dependent Care Assistance Plan limits from $5,000 to $7,500. These provisions may offer partial relief to families—but only for those who qualify and can navigate the new tax structures.
How does the bill impact ACA Marketplace subsidies and enrollment?
Special enrollment based on projected income is eliminated. Annual income verification is now required, and repayment caps for excess tax credits are removed.
Can undocumented immigrants access ACA subsidies under the new law?
No. The bill bars undocumented and temporarily documented immigrants from receiving Affordable Care Act tax credits.
What reforms target Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs)?
The bill introduces pricing transparency and regulatory oversight to potentially reduce PBM influence and lower prescription drug costs.
How is Medicare fraud detection enhanced?
$25 million is allocated to the Department of Health and Human Services to deploy artificial intelligence for identifying and recovering improper Medicare payments.
Will Medicare funding be affected by deficit triggers?
Yes. Automatic sequestration provisions could reduce Medicare reimbursements if federal deficit thresholds are exceeded.
What support is provided for rural hospitals?
Closed rural hospitals may reopen under the Rural Emergency Hospital (REH) designation, expanding access in underserved communities.
What is the projected impact on health insurance coverage?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, up to 13.7 million Americans could lose health coverage by 2034, including 7.8 million from Medicaid alone.
How much federal healthcare spending is cut?
The bill reduces direct healthcare reimbursements by an estimated $910 billion over the next decade.
David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Attendees hold candles during a candlelight vigil and prayer event for Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025 in Seattle, Washington.
(Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)
America Needs a Concerted Campaign Against Political Violence
Sep 14, 2025
Condemning the abhorrent assassination of Christian nationalist leader Charlie Kirk is fundamental and insufficient.
The only way to pull back from the heightening potentials for political violence in America is to mount a concerted, multifaceted campaign against it – and the hyperpolarized intolerance that is producing it. That will require leadership of politicians, religious and civic leaders, as well as influencers, and entertainment and sports celebrities.
I’ve seen the horrible effects of political violence in Africa, Asia, the Balkans, and Latin America as I worked with democracy activists in multiple countries, and it is clear that if the Americans do not act now, violence on a greater scale will come.
Utah’s Republican Governor Spencer Cox, speaking at a press conference immediately after Kirk’s murder, put it dramatically: “We just need every single person in this country to think about where we are and where we want to be, to ask ourselves: Is this it? Is this what 250 years have wrought on us? I pray that that’s not the case.”
No matter what one thinks of the anti-immigrant, anti-choice, anti-gay, and related doctrine aimed at “saving Western civilization” that Charile Kirk professed, his murder is a tragedy. No matter how strongly one believes in that doctrine or in its antithesis, there is no justification for his or any other political killing. That is not just a matter of individual soul-searching; it is a matter of the political culture that we create and demands we make as a society.
Governor Cox referenced the political killings of a Minnesota Democratic state legislator and her husband and the violent attempt against Pennsylvania’s Democratic Governor earlier this year, as well as the attempted assassination of President Trump at a 2024 campaign rally. Sadly, they are not the only such events over the last few years that must be seen along with innumerable threats against individuals and political gatherings. Plus, the deadly January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol casts an indelible shadow over our political landscape.
We must all ask what political violence could be next and what must be done to prevent it.
Unfortunately, unlike past presidents who called for national unity in the face of political violence, President Trump and key members of his administration, immediately following Charlie Kirk’s murder, fostered further division, blaming the left for the killing and threatening a political crackdown. Social media posts calling for arresting elected Democrats and banning the party and – even more dramatically declaring “war” – feed off such crackdown threats even as disgusting celebratory posts about Kirk’s murder feed anger. Antidotes to intolerance and hatred are urgently needed instead.
Governor Cox, at a press conference on September 12, calling for sanity over violence, offered a stark choice:
"We can return violence with fire and violence. We can return hate with hate. And that's the problem with political violence, is it metastasizes, because we can always point the finger at the other side, and at some point we have to find an off-ramp, or it's going to get much, much worse. These are choices that we can make."
Thus far, those who exert outsized cultural influence in the U.S. have remained silent or spoken once and then moved on. If we are to ramp down the heightened potentials for large-scale political violence, let alone find an off-ramp, Americans have to raise our voices now and call on political, religious, and cultural leaders to do so.
Even more, they and we need to sustain a chorus that pulls away from violence – otherwise, its attraction may well become much stronger. So, sing out no matter where you stand politically, and demand that leaders raise their voices from the mountaintops.
Pat Merloe provides strategic advice to groups focused on democracy and trustworthy elections in the U.S. and internationally. He is a long-time resident of Washington, D.C.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More