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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

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

Does My Vote Still Matter?

Does My Vote Still Matter?
white and red heart sticker
Photo by Dan Dennis on Unsplash
Roselyn Gonzalez
By Roselyn GonzalezJul 07, 2025
Roselyn Gonzalez
See More Writings by author

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

We asked Roselyn Gonzalez, a recent graduate of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and a cohort member with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share her thoughts on what democracy means to her and her perspective on its current health.

Here’s her insight on the topic.

Civic responsibilities, such as citizen-initiated proposals, allow voters to bypass their state legislature. But what happens when representatives adamantly undermine their constituents by drastically altering voter-approved measures? As a Nebraskan, I am one of many voters who feel as if their government is not working in their best interest.

Notably, the state has a unicameral legislature, which was implemented in 1934 when voters approved a constitutional amendment. Among many reasons Nebraskans decided to adopt the structure was to minimize legislative gridlock, a situation where the legislative process stalls because lawmakers cannot agree.

During Nebraska’s 2025 legislative session, voter-approved initiatives were heavily debated, despite receiving an overwhelming amount of support. Ballot Measure 437 was approved by 71% of voters, allowing the use of up to five ounces of cannabis for medical purposes, and Measure 436 received a 75% approval rate, obligating businesses to offer paid sick leave. If a business has at least 20 employees, it must allow up to seven days of leave. If the company has fewer than 20 employees, the allowed leave is five days.

But several paid sick leave benefits were rolled back, and medical marijuana is still unregulated because our legislators couldn’t work together.

“It’s pretty clear an effort to undermine, at least in part, if not entirely, the verdict that the Nebraska voters came to,” said political consultant Ryan Horn. “Politically, that’s kind of a dangerous game.”

While we are seeing active developments towards the regulation of medical marijuana, there are barriers in the way of breakthroughs: the implementation of the new committee of The Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, current lawsuits, and the possibility that the Department of Health and Human Services will be contracted to partner with the commission which is problematic. The citizen-led ballot was a way to divert from DHHS.

Notably, the health agency has strongly opposed legalization for years. They have the potential to derail the intent of the cannabis measure.

On the other hand, the paid sick leave initiative is set to take effect on October 1, 2025; however, it has been drastically altered. One example is the modification of waiting periods for paid sick leave. The measure initially stated that employees would be able to use accrued paid sick leave, but it was later modified to allow paid sick leave after 80 hours of consecutive employment.

Voters disapproved of this.

It’s essential to note that Nebraskans have consistently voted for Republican candidates. The support levels of these measures would not be high without Republican votes. Although we are in a period of political polarization, this is not about which party you align with – our representatives are working against us.

“Republicans vote for these things a lot,” said Horn, referring to progressive ballot initiatives despite affiliation with the Republican party. “You don't win 60% of the vote in Nebraska without winning a lot of Republican votes.”

In 2022, citizens voted to raise the minimum wage by $1.50 each year through 2026. By 2027, the minimum wage is scheduled to increase in line with the cost of living.

The initiative was brought into question during this legislative session. Again, threatening direct democracy.

Alarmingly, this is not exclusive to my home state. Many other states are facing a similar fate, with some approving efforts to make it harder for voters to have the opportunity to change laws. In 2026, Utah citizens will have to choose to require ballot initiatives to receive at least 60% of the vote if the law calls for tax increases. Currently, the state’s constitutional amendment requires a simple majority vote for a law to be enacted. Utah Senate President Stuart Adams argues that if citizen-led initiatives are not regulated, it can destroy the state.

In Missouri, the legislature voted to repeal paid sick leave after voters approved it. Just a month after it was passed, the lawmakers acted quickly to reverse the measures.

The exhaustion voters are experiencing is causing citizens to disengage from politics. Overwhelmed by national politics, it's hard to keep up with what's going on in your home state. The local media coverage is scarcer than ever; there is no megaphone to sound the alarm. There are still ways to have your voice heard. Don’t back down; it is up to us to hold our representatives accountable.

Pushing the legislature can start in many ways; one way to begin is by holding citizen assemblies, a group of citizens selected randomly from the state’s population. The goal is to increase public engagement, sort of like jury duty, but for ordinary people. Initiatives that would be considered are not disclosed until the members are chosen.

Often, citizen-led ballots allow for too many initiatives, which can overwhelm voters; citizen assemblies can help regulate the number of measures on a ballot. Additionally, public hearings on an initiative can provide full transparency before it is presented to legislators. As a result, these tools can help strengthen direct democracy, and the structure can help fulfill the goal of injecting citizen control into the democratic process.

Roselyn Gonzalez is a recent graduate of the University of Nebraska–Lincoln with over three years of experience in multimedia journalism. She’s a passionate photographer and politics enthusiast, and most of her time is spent behind a lens or reading up on public policy. Her work focuses on stories about social issues, civic engagement, and underrepresented voices.


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