Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Winning GOP strategy in 2024 – back to business with immigration reform

Winning GOP strategy in 2024 – back to business with immigration reform
zkolra/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Neil Hare
By Neil HareJan 30, 2023
Neil Hare
See More Writings by author

Neil Hare is the President and CEO of GVC Strategies, a former VP of Communications at the US Chamber of Commerce and a long-standing member of the Chamber’s Small Business Council. The views expressed here are his own.

The recent GOP attacks on the business community, including its leading advocacy group the US Chamber of Commerce, arguably contributed to a poor showing in the 2022 midterms and is not the answer for success in the presidential and congressional elections in 2024.

The main policy targets for these attacks include business endorsements of Democratic candidates in the midterms, “wokeness” in corporate strategy and support for free trade and immigration reform. Fear mongering on these topics has yielded positive results in rallying some of the GOP base, but most Americans take as much pride in our free enterprise system as they do in democracy and our military, so overall trashing it is a losing message.

One key area for the GOP to flip the script is on meaningful immigration reform. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex), is attempting to introduce a bill that would empower the Homeland Security Secretary to unilaterally bar all undocumented migrants from entering the United States if he deems it necessary to reestablish “operational control.” The so-called Border Safety and Security Act of 2023 is opposed by some Republicans who believe it would prevent legitimate asylum seekers, including children whose lives are in danger, from entering the country. In addition to Republicans opposed to the bill, it would be dead upon arrival in the Democrat controlled Senate.

So why should the GOP embrace meaningful immigration reform that would garner bipartisan support and more votes? Perhaps, a bit of history may prove illustrative regarding the last Republican president to win reelection, President George W. Bush. Due in part to the controversy surrounding his election, Bush understood how important the support of the business community was for him to overcome doubts about his legitimacy. And, one of the first issues he wanted to tackle of key importance to American business – immigration reform.

In the summer of 2001, Bush was considering a proposal to grant permanent legal residence status to approximately 3 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States. To highlight the importance of this issue, Bush’s first state visit was with Mexican President Vincente Fox, where immigration reform was on top of the agenda. On September 7, 2001, Bush hosted Fox at the White House for his first formal state dinner. The dinner concluded with an, unannounced, fireworks display from the Ellipse that startled many DC residents, wondering ironically if the capital was under attack. And, four days later it was.

The attacks of September 11, 2001, derailed Bush’s plan for an immigration overhaul, as he led the country into war to avenge the death and destruction heaped upon our country. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan created heightened security and border controls, but did not completely quash Bush’s desire for immigration reform. After winning reelection in 2004 (the only Republican to do so since Reagan), Bush again supported a measure to grant 12 million illegal immigrants legal status and to allocate $4.4 billion for more border enforcement. In June of 2007, the Senate failed to pass the bill, as Bush could not rally fellow Republicans who considered “amnesty” a reward for illegal immigration and unacceptable. The following year Democrat Barack Obama was elected President.

Today, immigration reform remains a top priority for the business community. The December 13, 2022 National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) Small Business Optimism Index showed that while 32% of businesses reported that inflation was their biggest problem, 44% also stated that they were unable to fill open positions. The unemployment rate in December was an historic low of 3.5%. While there are many reasons for the current worker shortage, an outdated and ineffective immigration policy is certainly one of them. From small business to the Fortune 500, and sectors from agriculture, construction, health care, retail and restaurants, business supports comprehensive immigration reform.

Republicans can and should still argue for enhanced border security and even earmark funds for building a wall, something the Democrats should accept as long as American companies get the contracts. But maybe instead of a wall we need security checkpoints like we have at airports. Due to the war on terror, we have the technology to document and track all people coming into our country whether by land, air or sea. It is time to figure out how to make those seeking to come and work in our country legal immigrants and not “illegals.” Congress can increase visa caps, create new visa categories and establish a path to legality and citizenship for out of status immigrants. Without the demagoguery, the answers are well within bipartisan reach.

The numerous Republican candidates running for president in 2024 should go back to the successful messaging of being the party of lower taxes, less regulation, free trade and the rule of law. Further, go back to the party that supports American businesses by listening to them and pursuing the policies they need to succeed – like immigration reform that brings more workers into the country. Whether it is large public companies fulfilling a fiduciary duty to shareholders or small businesses supporting their communities, the American business community is about creating jobs, bolstering our economy, and solving problems, and it will support candidates that bring answers and not fear. That message is a recipe for success for either party to embrace.


Latest news

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

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, 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 Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026