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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Selling Out? The Rightward March of Black Elected Politicians

Opinion

Selling Out? The Rightward March of Black Elected Politicians

Two elected officials shaking hands.

Getty Images, shironosov
Nate Gilliam
By Nate GilliamApr 04, 2025
Nate Gilliam
See More Writings by author

Are Black American politicians fighting the fascism they fear or aiding its rise?

The second Donald Trump administration is doing pretty much everything it set out to do from Project 2025 without much resistance from the oppositional Democratic party—most notably Black elected officials.

The Black voting bloc is ostensibly the most progressive political bloc in the United States. Yet many Black politicians on all levels of government appear disconnected from the needs, desires, and aspirations of Black people.

Black politicians deserve support from their constituents if they are genuine fighters for the people. This chaotic political moment requires more than putrid opportunism and careerist tepidness.

In a symbolic gesture, construction crews in Washington D.C. recently set out to dismantle the Black Lives Matter Plaza as Mayor Muriel Bowser folded to Congressional Republican pressure.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) recently all but conceded political defeat in a press conference where constituents and Democratic strategists were pressing for an active response to what many call a f ascist assault of the new administration.

Democratic Sen. Ralph Warnock in Georgia helped pass the Laken Riley Act into law expanding the powers of the Department of Homeland Security and ICE under the Trump Administration. This bill was opposed heavily by organizations like the ACLU, The Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, and the American Immigration Council.

Also in Georgia, Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens continues to face deep criticism from activists and the community for his dogged support for “Cop City,” a police training facility that will specialize in preparation for urban warfare.

Fighting fascism requires a courageousness and creativity that is projected toward a more just and humane future for all. In fairness, there have been attempts at resistance.

At the recent State of the Union Address, Rep. Al Green from Texas disrupted Trump’s speech and was removed for it, breaking decorum but publicly showing his disdain for the administration.

In February, Rep. Ayanna Pressly at a rally to defend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau explained, “We are going to litigate, legislate, agitate and resist, because you are worth it. So we will see you in Congress, in the courts, and in the streets.”

The work of the Solidarity Budget in Seattle and different Participatory Budgeting programs expand on the imaginations and aspirations of communities beyond politicians’ campaign rhetoric.

From Participatory Democracy campaigns to grassroots think tanks that advocate for reparations, communities are imagining, dreaming, fighting, and creating a future that speaks to their wants and needs.

Yes, there are efforts and the creativity of Black elected officials will be stretched as the new administration battles the judiciary.

But recent history shows it is an ongoing challenge. In my hometown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, both the first Black Mayor, Cavalier Johnson, and County Executive, David Crowley, who are Democrats, lobbied to bring the Republican National Convention in 2024 to Milwaukee. In a completely foreseeable set of circumstances, the GOP won Wisconsin, a swing state, in the national election last year.

The RNC brought in thousands of police from jurisdictions all over the country, and out-of-state police killed a Black man at a Milwaukee park more than a mile away from the RNC perimeter. City officials promised the community that all non-Milwaukee law enforcement would be only within the perimeter of the convention.

During this time, Johnson and Crowley seemed to be busy working with Wisconsin Republicans on a shared revenue deal that bolsters the carceral state and specifically ends using sales tax raised funds for any DEI initiatives within the respective jurisdictions. It appears they did not consider the shared revenue plan from Democratic Governor Tony Evers which was financially twice as generous and didn’t have the harsh and racist restrictions on fund use.

More recently at his Black History Month speech at Gracie Mansion, New York Mayor Eric Adams likened himself to Jesus as he faced calls for his resignation, in light of the Department of Justice dropping his corruption case. Adams, a former New York Police Department cop, bizarrely took aim at “Negroes” who were critical of him as he compared himself to the biblical figure.

Late journalist Glen Ford coined the term “Black Misleadership Class,” which could be applied here. Gleaning from the historical genealogy of the Black Radical Tradition, Ford argues that there is a class of Black politicians and leaders who market themselves as being from and empathetic to marginalized Black communities only to use that social capital to sell them out for selfish and short-sighted gain, buffering themselves from criticism within the community.

Author and Princeton University professor Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor contends in her classic 2016 book, From #BlackLiveMatter to Black Liberation: “The utility of Black elected officials lies in their ability, as members of the community, to scold ordinary Black people in ways that white politicians could never get away with…Black elected officials’ role as interlocutors between the broader Black population and the general American public makes them indispensable in American politics.”

Disparities related to Black life expectancy, wealth accrual, and education are just a few issues that seem to not be serious priorities for all Black policymakers but are realities millions of Black people navigate daily.

While electoral politics has a popular hold on how the country understands democracy and politics generally in the US; many community members, organizers, and activists around the nation have worked hard to create more direct democratic processes that would mitigate the reliance on the disposition of individual politicians.

American politics today do not seem to be working for all people. The current massive national layoffs, ongoing economic downturn, and cuts to education, healthcare, and programs benefiting lower income families present harm to every American—and more acutely to Black Americans.

Black policymakers and leaders need to put the people they represent first connected to their desires for a healthy and prosperous future.

Nate Gilliam is the co-founder and director of Milwaukee Freedom Fund and a Public Voices Fellow of Transformative Justice with The OpEd Project.


Latest news

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

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

“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

Read More

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

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

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

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
© Copyright 2026