Most Americans, across the political spectrum, agree that moneyed interests have too much influence over politics in the United States, yet the Supreme Court has made it difficult to do anything about it.
On this episode of "Toppling the Duopoly," host Shawn Griffiths and Jeff Clements, president of American Promise, discuss overcoming partisan the barriers to approving a 28th Amendment that could reduce the influence of big money.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 04, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Trump is speaking about the early achievements of his presidency and his upcoming legislative agenda.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress, emphasizing that his administration is “just getting started” in the wake of a contentious beginning to his second term. Significant themes, including substantial cuts to the federal workforce, shifts in traditional American alliances, and the impact of an escalating trade war on markets, characterized his address.
In his speech, Trump highlighted his actions over the past six weeks, claiming to have signed nearly 100 executive orders and taken over 400 executive actions to restore “common sense, safety, optimism, and wealth” across the country. He articulated that the electorate entrusted him with the leadership role and stressed that he was fulfilling that mandate.
During the lengthy address, which lasted an hour and 40 minutes, Trump defended his administration’s strategies, including a pointed acknowledgment of billionaire advisor Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency task force (DOGE) for their contributions to the significant reduction of the federal government’s size.
"Tariffs are about making America rich again and making America great again,” Trump remarked while acknowledging, “There’ll be a little disturbance, but we’re OK with that. It won’t be much.”
Trump asserted a strategy of reciprocal retaliation regarding tariffs, stating, “Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them.” He maintained that the new tariffs would stimulate economic growth and create jobs despite warnings from economists that such policies could negatively impact consumers and exacerbate inflation. Hours earlier, he initiated a trade conflict with three of the United States' major trading partners, which led to a downturn in financial markets. The U.S. established 25% tariffs on goods imported from Mexico and Canada, increasing the previous levy on Chinese products to 20%.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Mr. Trump remarked, "The media and our allies in the Democrat Party repeatedly stated that we needed new legislation in order to secure the border. However, it appears that all we required was a new president." He highlighted his administration's efforts regarding border security and immigration, claiming it to be "the most sweeping border and immigration crackdown in American history."
Trump also touted other controversial actions taken by his administration, including renaming the Gulf of Mexico, designating English as the official language of the US, and prohibiting trans women from competing in women’s sports. “Our country will be woke no longer,” he stated.
He also mentioned ongoing efforts to “reclaim the Panama Canal” and reiterated his intention to take control of Greenland, saying, “One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”
The speech contained several inaccuracies and misleading statements, such as a claim about centenarians aged “110 to 119” receiving Social Security benefits.
Additionally, Trump attributed the rising price of eggs to his predecessor’s energy policies while promising that his “National ENERGY Emergency” plan would promote increased domestic drilling. He remarked, "Joe Biden especially let the price of eggs get out of control—and we are working hard to get it back down."
While egg prices did reach record highs during Biden's administration, it is important to note that the administration implemented various measures to address the bird flu outbreak, a significant factor contributing to the increase in egg prices.
Click HERE to read CBS News fact-checking of Trump's address to Congress.
Past presidents have typically used their first major speeches to reach across party lines and appeal to critics. In contrast, Trump labeled Joe Biden as the “worst president in American history” and suggested that new tech investments would not have occurred had Kamala Harris won the 2024 election.
“Why not join us in celebrating so many incredible wins for America?” Trump challenged Democrats, many of whom remained expressionless in the chamber.
The president received sustained applause from Republican members while facing jeers from Democrats. Throughout the address, several Democrats exited the chamber, and others silently protested with handheld signs.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a first-term senator from Michigan, delivered the Democratic rebuttal to President Trump's speech before Congress. In her remarks, Slotkin accused Trump of increasing costs while advocating for what she termed an “unprecedented giveaway to his billionaire friends.”
She stated, “For those keeping score, the national debt is going up, not down. And if he’s not careful, he could walk us right into a recession.”
To watch Sen. Elissa Slotkin's response, click HERE.
To watch President Donald Trump's speech, click HERE.
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.
An illustration of a deconstructed dollar bill.
Earlier this year, President Trump imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, claiming they would fix trade imbalances and protect jobs. However, instead of helping American workers, these tariffs act as hidden taxes; they drive up costs and feed inflation. While average Americans bear the brunt of higher prices and lost jobs, the wealthy are insulated from the worst effects.
Many economists assert that tariffs are stealth taxes, that is, the burden is not distributed equally—while corporations may adjust by diversifying suppliers or passing costs along, working households cannot escape higher prices on essential goods like groceries and electronics. Analysts estimate these tariffs could add $1,250 to the annual cost of living for the average American household—a substantial burden for families already struggling with inflation. Additionally, according to the well-regarded Tax Foundation, the tariffs are projected to reduce GDP by 0.5% and result in the loss of approximately 292,000 jobs.
Tariffs are hitting the retail industry particularly hard. Major chains like Walmart and Target predict that consumers will soon pay more for their items. Walmart CFO John David Rainey stated that despite the company’s best efforts to keep prices low, additional costs will be passed along. Essential products—such as household staples, electronics, and clothing—are likely to see some of the steepest price hikes. While some corporations may absorb limited losses, consumers, especially those in lower-income brackets, will suffer the most.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
High tariffs will likely lead to trade wars in which there will be no clear winners. Taking the past as a guide, tariffs have often led to retaliatory measures, and these trade conflicts can inflict serious damage on American workers. Manufacturing, agriculture, and retail industries are particularly vulnerable as trading partners turned enemies impose countermeasures. The steel and aluminum tariffs of 2018, for example, resulted in significant job losses in downstream industries that relied on imported raw materials. Analysts warn that this new wave of tariffs could force businesses to downsize, relocate, or shut down altogether, leaving countless American workers unemployed or facing wage stagnation.
While working families strain under the burden of higher costs, some industries and individuals stand to make large profits. Some domestic manufacturers, especially in protected industries like steel and agriculture, will see increased demand due to reduced foreign competition. However, not all domestic industries will enjoy this boost. As pointed out, many sectors of the economy will experience severe disruption. Large corporations with diversified supply chains can offset losses while passing costs onto consumers. Meanwhile, wealthier individuals, whose portfolios often include stocks in protected industries, may even profit from market shifts caused by tariff policies. The end result? A further widening of economic inequality, where those at the top remain insulated from the financial hardships that tariffs impose on ordinary Americans, while countless American workers find themselves out of a job. Additionally, the government stands to collect substantial revenue from these tariffs, which some argue will be used to fund tax cuts that disproportionately benefit higher-income individuals rather than offering meaningful relief to struggling households.
Economists warn that tariffs could hinder economic growth by restricting trade, raising costs, and reducing consumer spending—the primary driver of the U.S. economy. Historically, trade wars have shown that tariffs result in countermeasures, hurting American exports. A study by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that the 2018-2019 U.S.-China trade war resulted in a net loss of 245,000 American jobs. Additionally, Forbes reported that the tariffs led to declines in stock prices, productivity, and consumer well-being, further exacerbating the economic downturn. The current wave of tariffs risks repeating this cycle, exacerbating inflation and slowing economic momentum at a time when the economy is already facing significant headwinds.
Rather than the risky strategy of high tariffs, a more nuanced approach is warranted. This approach would entail using targeted tariffs on specific goods associated with unfair trade practices, exemptions for essential consumer products, incentives for diversifying supply chains, and strengthening trade agreements with allies.
To be clear, a less aggressive tariff policy reduces but does not eliminate the risks of inflation, retaliation, and economic disruption. In addition, new administrative burdens, lobbying pressures, and uncertainty for businesses and consumers create new complications. A moderate approach, while it avoids the extreme damage of broad tariffs, does not completely escape the economic and political costs of protectionism.
In the final analysis, while these tariffs aim to give domestic industries a boost, they impose substantial financial burdens on American workers and consumers, risking a deeper economic divide between the wealthy and working Americans. If left unchecked, these policies could accelerate income inequality, shifting the economic balance further in favor of those with the resources to navigate and exploit the system.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
An individual applying for a program online.
In 1922, the U.S. Navy identified asbestos as the most efficient material for shipbuilding insulation and equipment production due to its heat resistance and durability. The naturally occurring asbestos mineral was also the most abundant and cost-effective material on the market. During the difficult WWII years, asbestos became critical to the U.S. Military, especially for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force: shipping and shipbuilding were essential, and parts of the military aircraft and incendiary bombs also contained asbestos.
Even as demand exceeded supply, in 1942, a presidential order banned the use of asbestos for non-military purposes until 1945. The application of asbestos-based material by the Military continued to increase until the 1970s when its carcinogenic nature came to light, and the use of asbestos started to be regulated but not banned.
Certainly, warfare is, in large part, the reason for the extensive application of asbestos and asbestos-caused malignant conditions among veterans. The issue concerns all veterans who were exposed to asbestos dust during their service years and might have asbestos fibers in their lungs, as asbestos-related conditions—such as mesothelioma, lung cancer, and asbestosis—can take between 20 to 50 years to start showing symptoms. The long latency period is also the reason why the number of asbestos-caused deaths in the U.S. has been increasing in the past decades. Everyone exposed to asbestos fibers is at risk of getting ill. However, veterans are disproportionately affected. This is well illustrated by medical reports, which show that about one-third of mesothelioma patients are veterans. Mesothelioma is a deadly and aggressive cancer that is exclusively caused by asbestos exposure.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Timely and appropriate diagnosis is the only option to find suitable treatment, alleviate symptoms, and prolong life expectancy when it comes to conditions caused by asbestos contamination. Unfortunately, the misdiagnosis of asbestos illnesses, especially mesothelioma, is far too common in the U.S. According to a 2019 medical study, about 14% to 50% of mesothelioma diagnoses are incorrect. The problem could be solved by having a national database enlisting military members with known and supposed asbestos exposure during their service years. Such a database would be an excellent tool for veterans' referrals to regular and specialized medical check-ups. We plead with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) to consider urgently setting up such a registry.
While the decline in the number of veterans is primarily because the overall veteran population is aging and many pass away, illnesses—such as respiratory conditions and cancers—substantially contribute to this process. That is why it is essential that veterans diagnosed with a malignant condition stemming from asbestos exposure file claims with asbestos trust funds set up by bankrupt manufacturers or apply for disability compensation and possibly free health care from the VA.
Asbestos-linked diseases are now presumptive conditions in the PACT Act.
Veterans with known and unknown asbestos exposure must attend regular health check-ups and specialized screenings, such as chest X-rays, CT scans, or breathing tests, even if they do not experience symptoms. Only a timely discovery allows treatment to slow the progression of an asbestos-related disease, alleviate pain, and prolong life expectancy. It’s especially critical in aggressive conditions such as mesothelioma and lung cancer. Mesothelioma is especially hard to diagnose because its initial symptoms resemble more common lung disease. Lung cancer is the second most common cancer in the U.S., and similar to mesothelioma, its symptoms first show when the cancer is at an advanced stage, considerably reducing veterans’ survival odds.
Manufacturers were aware of the hazards posed by asbestos years before its use started to be regulated, and they exposed millions of service members to its danger by hiding the truth from the military. Policymakers are trying to compensate now for the harm caused. The disability compensation application process with the VA has been more straightforward since 2022, since the passage of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act (PACT Act). Asbestos and asbestos-related illnesses have been added to the list of presumptive conditions, and more than 1.4 million veterans have been approved for benefits nationwide thanks to the Act.
Having a disability, especially at an older age, is an enormous burden—not only mentally and physically, but financially, too. Veterans should claim what is rightfully theirs and offered by the VA’s disability compensation program, its asbestos trust funds, and the PACT Act. More information is available at https://www.va.gov/resources/the-pact-act-and-your-va-benefits/.
Cristina Johnson is a Navy veteran advocate for Asbestos Ships Organization, a nonprofit whose primary mission is to raise awareness and educate veterans about the dangers of asbestos exposure on Navy ships and assist them in navigating the VA claims process. For more information, please visit our page.
President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump arrive for the inauguration ceremony in the U.S. Capitol rotunda in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 2025.
With all the attention deservedly on President Trump and what he intends to do with his defiant return to the White House, there’s a more than good chance we’ll spend the next four years consumed once again by all things Trump.
There’s already been a dizzying amount: a giant raft of executive orders; attacks on a constitutional amendment; his threats to invade sovereign nations; a seeming Nazi salute from one of his biggest surrogates; his sweeping Jan. 6 pardons; his beef with a bishop; his TikTok flip-flop; his billion-dollar meme coin controversy; scathing new allegations against one of his Cabinet picks; unilaterally renaming a body of water; a federal crackdown on DEI; promises of immigration raids across major cities. All this in just the first three days of Trump’s second term.
And this may be his greatest trick — getting not only his own fans and supporters to obsess over him, but his critics and opponents, too.
He does that by flooding the zone — he is never not talking, posting, pointing fingers, ranting, raving, and keeping us all in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
The problem with that is that so much gets missed. For Republicans, that often inures to their advantage, as they get to slip significant policy changes past an unsuspecting public, or bury bad news under the pile of Trump’s ever-mounting detritus.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
But for Democrats, four more years of Trump distractions could mean they miss yet another opportunity to fix their own house, and mount a serious and convincing challenger to end what could be 12 more years of Republican rule in Washington.
They need to find their Ronald Reagan.
Trump’s first term was marked by unprecedented chaos, and Dems admittedly got lured into Trump’s expanding web of distractions. While they busied themselves with investigations and hearings in order to make Trump as weak a president and candidate in 2020 as possible, they weren’t as focused on identifying and cultivating a Democratic candidate, a Democratic message, and Democratic policies that could deliver a fatal blow to the Trump era once and for all.
Over the course of Trump’s first term, his approval rating was never above water, fluctuating between a low of 35% and a high of 49%. After a term marked by civil unrest, incompetence, moral and ethical failures, conspiracy theories, extremism, mismanaging COVID-19, and overseeing Republican losses in the House and the Senate, America was decidedly tired of Trump’s ineptitude and self-destructiveness.
Joe Biden emerged from a crowded 2020 Democratic primary and a general election not with a political mandate but with a collective sigh of relief — he was elected to turn the page on Trump, and then (hopefully) pass on the torch to a younger, fresher, forward-looking Dem.
That, as we know, did not happen. Not only didn’t Biden want to pass the torch, but Democrats didn’t seem to want to architect a winning platform of dynamic messages and successful policies to keep their existing coalition and attract new voters.
Instead, they stuck with old messages that largely centered around Trump: he’s anti-democratic, he’s a convicted felon, and he’s going to end access to abortion.
They also boasted of demonstrably failing policies, insisting the economy was strong as hell, the border wasn’t a crisis, and crime was down.
Without a candidate, messages, or policies that transcended Trump, Democrats were once again playing Trump’s whack-a-mole game.
Instead of finding their own Ronald Reagan, an enormously popular president who not only transformed the conservative movement and the Republican Party, but America and in fact the world, Dems found a Jimmy Carter — a well-intentioned man whose messages and policies nevertheless inspired little confidence in the party.
Instead of setting off 12 years of party control like Reagan did, Dems eked out just four, and now risk finding themselves in the political wilderness.
Democrats must find their Reagan now — a candidate whose utility isn’t just to temporarily sideline Trump but vanquish him and his would-be successors for good.
Who that might be is both an open question and a problem. Democrats’ abject failures in places like California, New York and Chicago shine an ugly spotlight on some of the party’s biggest faces and worst policies. Other boldface names are either too old or too extreme. Identity politics, egos, and intraparty disagreements could easily get in the way.
Democrats must rebuild their party with new faces and new ideas, winning policies and inspiring messages.
For many of us, the next four years under Trump feel like an eternity. But for Democrats, they’ll come and go in the blink of an eye. What they do with that time will change history — possibly forever.
S.E. Cupp: Where is the Democratic Party’s Ronald Reagan? was originally published by the Tribune Content Agency and is shared with permission.S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
