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
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) worker screens passengers and airport employees at O'Hare International Airport on January 07, 2019 in Chicago, Illinois. TSA employees are currently working under the threat of not receiving their next paychecks, scheduled for January 11, because of the partial government shutdown now in its third week.
Getty Images, Scott Olson
Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down.
Apr 01, 2026
House Republicans reject clean bill to open shut-down DHS agencies (March 28 update)
House Republicans (and three Democrats) rejected the Senate's clean bill to end the shutdown late Friday night. Instead, the House passed a different bill that fully funds every agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but for only 60 days with the knowledge that this short-term continuing resolution will not pass in the Senate.
Both chambers are out until April 13 so the shutdown is expected to last until then at least. Hope that no major weather disasters occur before then because FEMA is one of the DHS agencies out of commission (though some of its employees may be working without pay). It's possible that air travel security lines won't get worse since the President signed an Executive Order authorizing DHS to pay TSA workers. New DHS Secretary Mullin says paychecks will start to go out as early as Monday. How long can this approach continue? Unknown. Leaving aside the questionable legality of repurposing funds in this way, DHS may not be willing to keep paying TSA from these other funds long-term.
The Senate proposal to end the shutdown didn't contain specific rest-of-year funds for the immigration agencies ICE and CBP, or for that matter any of Democrats' prior demands for immigration enforcement reform. Congress gave ICE and CBP $75 billion dollars last year in the reconciliation bill, more than enough to carry the agencies for a few years without the specific yearly appropriation that House Republicans now demand, which is why those agencies aren't shut down but the rest of DHS, like TSA and CISA are. So it's unclear what House Republicans are really after other than appearances.
Instead, the impasse will drag on for no one knows how long.
Other legislative activity last week
This has been, measured by bills that passed, a highly productive week for Congress.
All of the bills listed on the House's Weekly Schedule for the week of March 23-27 passed. Many were by voice vote. You can see everything that got some kind of action this week at this variation of our Legislation Advanced Search. You want to look at the second column which tells you what happened (example: Passed House, Senate Next or vice versa) and the date.
None of the bills voted on by the House will become law until addressed by the Senate, but still, it's been a while since everything they intended to hold a vote on got a vote and even longer since they all passed.
The Senate's bill to fund DHS
Because we get our data from Congress and there's always a slight delay, the biggest item of the week, the Senate's bill for nearly complete funding of the Department of Homeland Security, isn't showing up yet on that Advanced Search (at least as of the morning of March 27).
But it did happen! At a little after 2am Eastern time on March 27, the Senate passed a funding bill that excludes ICE and parts of CBP by unanimous consent.
Unanimous consent is basically what it sounds like. No Democrat or Republican stood in the way of passing it.
The bill does not contain any of Democrats' prior demands for immigration enforcement reform.
This would not instantly resolve the massive lines at airports. Over 500 TSA agents are reported to have quit. So, even if all agents who've been calling in sick rather than work without pay come back, there's still going to be a shortage of TSA workers for some time.
The President announced yesterday that he would, by Executive Order, have TSA agents paid the paycheck they've missed. It's not clear if this is even legal.
It went to the House next where it was rejected, as noted at the top.
More coming on a major ethics violation
Programming note: we will be writing separately about yesterday's (March 26) Adjudicatory Hearing covering Rep. Cherfilus-McCormick's (D-FL20) ethics investigation.
The immediate effect is that the Ethics Committee says they believe she violated nearly all of the items listed in the Statement of Alleged Violations. They say they will decide on a recommendation for action to the full House when they return from the April recess.
Nope. Nevermind. Some DHS agencies still shut down. was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Amazon’s court loss over Just Walk Out highlights a deeper issue: employers are increasingly collecting workers’ biometric data without meaningful consent. Explore the growing conflict between workplace surveillance, privacy rights, and outdated U.S. laws.
Getty Images, Deagreez
The Quiet Rise of Employee Surveillance
Mar 31, 2026
Amazon’s loss in court over its attempt to shield the source code behind its Just Walk Out technology is a small win for shoppers, but the bigger story is how employers are quietly collecting biometric data from their own workers.
From factories to Fortune 500 companies, employers are demanding fingerprints, palmprints, retinal scans, facial scans, or even voice prints. These biometric technologies are eroding the boundary between workplace oversight and employee autonomy, often without consent or meaningful regulation.
Everyone has to weigh data privacy decisions. Delete social media accounts for data privacy or be isolated from friends and family? Do a retina scan at the airport or risk being the uptight person who slows down security check?
But the questions are becoming way more existential, particularly as they invade the workplace. Workers now have to ask a totally different question: Forfeit data or forfeit income?
Because there’s no federal employment law that gives people the option to consent to biometric collection and use, employers can require employees to undergo scanning systems and other biometric applications.
This legal gap exists because, out of the 20 states with privacy laws that regulate private data collection, some still exclude data collected in employment contexts. So, biometric data protection is largely based on where employees live and work, workers’ rights firm Outten & Golden says.
This patchwork of legal protections is worsened by minimal regulation on corporate data collectors. Right now, companies only provide notices about their data collection and use of personal information: Notice and Choice. In this paradigm, people are shown tons of company privacy terms, but the density and legal jargon of those documents leave people bewildered.
And notices do not wholly cover the frontier of consent. As former Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection Samuel Levine stated back in 2019, “Even if we read the policies and understood them, we can hardly exercise choice given how much we rely on digital services, and the lack of competition in many markets.”
A 2023 Pew study backed up Levine’s statements, showing that 67% of Americans don’t understand and 73% believe they have little to no control over what companies do with their data. Clearly, most Americans are making uninformed decisions about the data they give up just to earn a living.
Now, combine that with no option to consent at all, and workers are being strong-armed into funneling their biometric data into a black box. Faced against the risk of being fired or staying unemployed, it becomes a no-brainer decision. Yet the ease of that decision is not a reflection of how much people actually value their personal data.
In a 2025 IPSOS poll, biometric data ranked fourth (32%) in the types of data believed to be most important to keep private. Only financial, health, and credit card usage data ranked higher.
Given this, employers should allow workers the option to indicate these privacy values through choice. Instead, the only two exceptions to bypass surrendering biometrics are religion or disability. That these are the only “outs” tells us that legislators either aren’t aware of, or don’t care about, the privacy preferences of everyday people.
Employers’ reasons for mandating biometrics include building security, tracking employee time and attendance, machine activation, and authenticating users. Because of this, privacy statutes have carveout defenses tied to security, fraud, and crime prevention.
Ironically, corporations’ interest in security stomps out employees’ right to secure their own data. As noted by the Wyoming Law Review in 2024, current case law ignores how an intrusion or breach of employee biometric data opens people up to limitless invasions of privacy in their personal lives.
This should not be the case. States and the federal government should enact laws that eliminate employment contracts that make biometric data a condition of employment. Given existing dubious consent practices, a new form of choice should become normalized: opt in or opt out.
Faith Wilson is a Public Voices Fellow on Technology in the Public Interest with the OpEd Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
a person is casting a vote into a box
Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash
Primaries Are Already Shaping the 2026 Election – Here’s What We’re Seeing So Far
Mar 31, 2026
Primary elections are already underway across the United States, and this year’s contests are giving early clues about what voters may prioritize in the general election.
Several states have recently held high-profile primary races that could influence the balance of power in Congress over the next two years, in both state-wide and local elections. Many of these races involve open seats or competitive districts, making the outcomes especially significant as parties prepare for November.
One trend political analysts are watching closely is turnout. Historically, primaries typically attract far fewer voters than general elections, with data suggesting a national average of around 20%; however, early data from this year’s elections to-date suggests a slight uptick in participation, depending on the issues and candidates on the ballot. In Chicago, for example, youth turnout in the 2026 primary increased compared with the last midterm primary. Larger turnout percentages have been mostly favorable to Democratic candidates, a trend that has been observed in both statewide and local elections.
A shining example of this trend is Democrat Emily Gregory’s recent win in Florida, where she flipped House District 87, a legislative district that includes President Trump’s own Mar-a-Lago. Previously, the 87th District was represented by Republican Mike Caruso, who won by 19 percentage points in 2024. In the shocking victory, Gregory edged out her competitor, Jon Maples, by 2.4 percentage points.
While the results suggest that Democrats have more momentum in the primaries currently, it is still too early to know whether these trends will hold over the course of election season; in addition, it remains uncertain if this year’s higher yield of voter turnout will signal a permanent change in the public’s relationship with primary elections.
Another factor shaping this year’s primaries is the growing influence of money and emerging industries in politics. New political action committees tied to the artificial intelligence industry have already spent millions supporting candidates in congressional primaries, highlighting how technology policy is becoming a major campaign issue.
At the same time, some races are revealing divisions within political parties themselves. In several states, competitive primaries are turning into debates over ideology, strategy, and which candidates are most likely to win in November. This can be seen in Maine, where Democrats are worried tensions between members of the party may upset their chances of ousting long-time Senator Susan Collins (R) in the November election. While contentious primaries may draw more voters in, remaining tensions can also make it more challenging for the eventual nominee to garner collective support come the general election.
All of this helps explain why it is important to pay close attention to primaries. They don’t just decide who advances to the general election; they can also signal where the political landscape in the United States may be heading next.
- YouTube youtu.be
Britton Struthers-Lugo is a journalist and visual storyteller. She currently works as a Digital Content Producer across The Fulcrum and The Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Attendees hold signs advocating for voting rights and against the SAVE America Act at a rally to outside the U.S. Capitol on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Heather Diehl
The Senate Was Meant to Slow Us Down—Not Stop Us Cold
Mar 31, 2026
The Senate is once again locked in a familiar pattern: a bill with clear support on one side, firm opposition on the other—and no obvious path forward.
This time it’s the SAVE Act, framed by its supporters as a safeguard for election integrity and by its opponents as a barrier to voting access. The arguments are well-rehearsed. The positions are firm. And yet, beneath the policy debate sits a more revealing truth: in today’s Senate, the outcome of legislation is often shaped long before a final vote is ever cast.
That is not a quirk of the moment. It is a reflection of how the institution now works.
The United States Senate was never designed to move quickly. In fact, it was designed not to. The framers of the Constitution feared sudden swings in public opinion. They had seen what happens when passion outruns judgment. So they built a second chamber meant to slow things down—a place where legislation would be debated more carefully, where smaller states would have equal footing, and where elected officials would serve long enough terms to think beyond the next election cycle.
In simple terms, the House of Representatives was meant to reflect the will of the people. The Senate was meant to refine it.
Two senators per state ensured that California and Wyoming would stand as equals in one chamber of government. Six-year terms insulated senators from the daily winds of public opinion. Staggered elections prevented abrupt political reversals. All of it was intentional—designed to introduce friction into the system.
And for a long time, that friction worked.
The Senate slowed legislation. It forced negotiation. It demanded broader agreement. But it did not bring the machinery of governance to a halt.
That’s where the modern filibuster enters the story.
The filibuster, contrary to popular belief, is not part of the Constitution. It evolved over time as a quirk of Senate rules, eventually becoming a tool that allows a minority of senators to extend debate indefinitely unless 60 members vote to end it. In theory, it reinforces the Senate’s original purpose: it gives the minority a voice and encourages broader consensus.
In practice, however, it has become something else.
Today, the filibuster is no longer a rarely used tool of last resort. It is routine. It is expected. It is built into the process itself. Legislation does not need 51 votes to pass the Senate—it effectively needs 60 votes to move forward at all.
That shift changes the balance.
When combined with equal representation for states regardless of population, it allows a relatively small portion of the country to block legislation supported by a broader national majority. What was once a safeguard against overreach now functions, at times, as a standing veto.
And yet, it would be too simple to say the system is broken.
Because the original concern still holds. Majorities can be volatile. Public opinion can swing quickly. Policies rushed through in one moment can be regretted in the next. The Senate’s role as a stabilizing force remains essential.
The real question is not whether the Senate should slow things down. It should.
The question is whether it should be able to prevent action altogether.
Right now, the Senate too often operates on the wrong side of that line.
This is not a partisan problem. Both parties have used—and defended—the filibuster when it suits them, and both have criticized it when it stands in their way. That alone suggests the issue is structural, not ideological.
The uncomfortable truth is that the Senate has become so effective at stopping bad ideas that it is increasingly unable to advance good ones.
That may feel safe in the short term. But over time, it carries its own risks.
The framers feared both majority tyranny and institutional failure. They designed a system that balanced energy with restraint, action with deliberation.
What they did not design was a system where action becomes the exception rather than the rule.
There is no easy fix. Eliminating the filibuster entirely would invite the volatility the Senate was meant to guard against. But preserving it in its current form risks something else: a slow drift into irrelevance, where debate replaces decision and process replaces progress.
Somewhere between those extremes lies the balance the Senate was meant to strike.
Slowing the country down is not the same as holding it in place.
And if the Senate cannot rediscover that distinction, it may find that the institution designed to steady the republic has instead left it stuck.
Joe Palaggi is a writer and historian whose work sits at the crossroads of theology, politics, and American civic culture. He writes about the moral and historical forces that shape our national identity and the challenges of a polarized age.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More