Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

For the People Act falls victim to partisan dysfunction

Sen. Joe Manchin

Sen. Joe Manchin drove the final nail into the For the People Act's coffin.

Pool/Getty Images

When Sen. Joe Manchin's office told CNN this week that he opposes the For the People Act, the West Virginia Democrat struck a fatal blow to his party's signature legislation to overhaul the elections, redistricting, campaign finance and ethics rules.

From its debut in 2019, the legislation was considered a long shot at best and likely nothing more than a messaging platform for Democrats. That prediction -- the first article written by The Fulcrum -- has come to fruition two and a half years later as the parties avoided attempts at compromise and fought over congressional rules that stymied passage.


In March 2019, Democrats forced the bill through the House on a strictly party-line vote while knowing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was never going to allow a vote in the Republican-run Senate.

But after Joe Biden won the presidency and Democrats took control of a 50-50 Senate, the bill's backers thought they might have a real opportunity to enact the popular legislation (known to many as HR 1 and S 1). However, while the Democrats again won passage in the House (this time with one Democrat joining all Republicans in opposition), they still faced the daunting challenge of overcoming the Senate filibuster.

The chamber's rules allow senators to obstruct a vote by prolonging debate indefinitely. The only way to end the debate and move to a vote is to "invoke cloture," which requires 60 senators to vote in favor of ending debate and moving to a vote on the subject at hand. In recent years, cloture votes have become the norm for any partisan bill -- even without any senators actually engaging in a filibuster.

A number of Democrats have called for abolishing the legislative filibuster this year (the Senate previously ended the practice of filibustering presidential nominations) in order to pass the For the People Act. But two Democratic senators, Manchin and Arizona's Kyrsten Sinema, have said they oppose ending the Senate tradition. If both of them changed their minds, the filibuster could be abolished and only a bare majority would be needed to pass the For the People Act. (This last step could be achieved if all Democrats voted in favor and Vice President Harris broke the anticipated tie.)

With Manchin opposing the bill, there's no path forward.

So how did we get here?

First, the For the People Act has been a partisan play from the beginning. Democrats set it as a legislative priority and never invited Republicans to help craft or change the legislation. Of course, Republicans did not seek a meaningful role -- both sides dug into their deep-rooted positions with no room for compromise.

And then there's the filibuster, which for more than two centuries has been cited as a tool for preventing a majority from running roughshod over the political minority, helping the Senate cool any tempers flaring in the House of Representatives. In order to overcome opposition, senators were forced to reach a compromise accepted by both parties.

But opinions have shifted and some reformers have cited the filibuster as a leading cause of legislative dysfunction, saying one cranky lawmaker (or the minority as a whole) can gum up the works when a majority is trying to serve the people.

While the massive bill, which has demonstrated bipartisan support in polling, has nowhere to go, perhaps it could be scrapped for parts. Republicans might be willing to accept some components that prove popular among their constituents, as long as they can still say they are preventing a federal takeover of elections. But don't hold your breath.

Read More

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Rioters breach Capitol security Jan. 6

Win McNamee/Getty Images

Presidents can no longer be trusted with pardons

Ours is a system of “checks and balances.”

The president can do this or that, but the courts and Congress can put a stop to it (depending on the circumstances and relevant rules). When the courts rule that the executive branch can’t do something, Congress can write a new law saying the president can do it. When Congress passes a law the president doesn’t like, the president can veto it. Congress, if it has enough votes, can override the veto. And so on. The whole idea is to deny any one branch or person too much concentrated power.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene
Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images

Donald Trump vs. Marjorie Taylor Green?! Here's What MAGA Really Means

In an interview on Fox News, President Trump affirmed his support for H-1B visas. He argued that because the US lacks enough talented people, we “have to bring this talent” from abroad. His words sparked outrage among conservatives.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Trump’s staunchest loyalists, pushed back against Trump’s narrative. Greene praised US-Americans as “the most talented people in the world.” She even introduced legislation aimed at ending “the mass replacement of American workers” by the H-1B visa program.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South
person using black laptop computer
Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash

Trump's Deregulation Lure: A Wage Squeeze for the Global South

When Colm Kelleher, chairman of UBS, sat down with Scott Bessent in recent months to discuss uprooting the bank's headquarters from Zurich to New York, it was more than corporate maneuvering. It was a signal flare for the financial world under Donald Trump's second term. Bessent promised a regulatory bonfire that could slash compliance costs and open the floodgates for American finance. The reported talks underscore a broader shift: the United States is apparently positioning itself as the unassailable hub of global capital, drawing in institutions like UBS with tax breaks and lighter oversight. Yet this allure comes at a steep price for emerging markets, where wage growth is already fragile. What looks like a boom for American workers masks a quiet trap, one that could deepen the divide between rich nations and the rest.

Bessent's vision, laid out in private conversations and public hints, paints a picture of American exceptionalism reborn. He has warned of a "perfect storm" of inherited inflation and supply disruptions from the Biden years, now to be tamed by aggressive deregulation and targeted tariffs. In one recent interview, he blamed soaring beef prices on a mix of migrant-driven cattle issues and lingering policy failures, framing Trump's agenda as the corrective force. The rhetoric is folksy, but the policy is sharp: roll back rules that hobble banks, lure foreign firms stateside, and shield domestic industries with import duties. UBS's flirtation with relocation fits neatly here. Across the Atlantic, Trump offers relief: no more endless stress tests, faster mergers, and a friendlier tax code. If UBS moves, it could save hundreds of millions annually in regulatory overhead, funneling those gains into higher bonuses for its New York traders.

Keep ReadingShow less