Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Election aid in limbo as talks open on next big virus relief package

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and President Donald Trump

President Trump in the Oval Office on Monday with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Neither has signaled support for more funding to help states hold safe elections.

Pool/Getty Images

As negotiations intensify on the final major coronavirus relief package before November, a last-ditch if somewhat optimistic lobbying push is underway to get hundreds of millions for safe and comprehensive elections into the bill.

Top administration officials spent much of Tuesday at the Capitol, laying out President Trump's opening bid to congressional leaders of both parties. While his proposed payroll tax cut, school funding and aid to state and local governments will get headlines, there's also a looming clash over aid for states to conduct the general election.

Trump is emphatically opposed to expanded voting by mail, falsely claiming it's a proven incubator of substantial election fraud. But many Republicans in Congress say that, since a surge of absentee voting is inevitable because of the pandemic, they should help election administrators pay for equipment, supplies and people who can assure the voting is perceived as comprehensive and the results accurate.


The Republican position on the money could become plain Wednesday at a Senate hearing on election preparations chaired by Roy Blunt of Missouri, the member of the GOP leadership who is running point on the issue. He's signaled he's willing to support more election aid, so long as no federal mandates are attached, but has not said how much.

Adding pressure on the issue, half a dozen prominent former Republican administration officials urged Congress on Monday to spend what it takes to assure a reliable election — arguing that doing otherwise would endanger the country.

"American elections, the bedrock of our democracy, face two extraordinary challenges this year: Covid-19 and combating foreign interference. While these twin challenges are first and foremost a test of our democracy, they are also a threat to our national security," they wrote in a letter also signed by more than two dozen other career diplomats, national security leaders and former senior Democratic officials.

"Hostile foreign actors like China, Iran and Russia seek to cast doubt on the integrity of our electoral systems," they wrote, "by exploiting fear and confusion around the voting process. Failing to make sure that all citizens can vote safely and securely will only give them material to further erode faith in our democratic system."

The majority Democrats included $3.6 billion in the relief package the House passed in May, which experts and advocates say would cover all the anticipated costs. But the overall size of that measure topped $3 trillion, an amount that seems destined to shrink in negotiations over the next two weeks. The White House's initial offer is about $1 trillion.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would almost certainly have to endorse whatever amount Blunt might cite as a counteroffer for smooth balloting. McConnell, for example, signed off on the $400 million Congress delivered to election officials in March, an amount they said was welcome but wholly inadequate.

Blunt has arranged for a receptive audience at the hearing he's convened as chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee, which has jurisdiction over election law. The two main witnesses are conservative GOP secretaries of state in reliably red states who have nonetheless lobbied publicly for more help — Mac Warner of West Virginia and Tre Hargett of Tennessee.

One-quarter of ballots arrived in the mail in the 2018 midterm election. Experts say that share is sure to double and could nearly triple nationwide, no matter what the states do or don't do to get ready, as people do what they can to avoid standing with strangers in long lines in enclosed spaces.

Tabulating the unprecedented ocean of mail, which could arrive especially slowly given the Postal Service's beleaguered state, could cause similarly unprecedented delays after Nov. 3 in producing conclusive results — and those delays would stretch much longer unless election officials can arrange for more people and equipment in time.

The group of former national security leaders who wrote Congress was assembled by the Brennan Center for Justice, one of the most prominent among the mostly progressive civil rights and good-government advocacy groups lobbying for the money.

GOP signers included former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and two former Homeland Security secretaries, Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff. Democratic signers included former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and John Kerry, former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and former national security advisor Susan Rice, who's now on Joe Biden's shrinking list or running mate options.

A separate group of 31 left-leaning groups, meanwhile, has launched an intense round of grassroots campaigning for the funding — including digital advertisements, text messaging and community outreach designed to press allies of the groups' to importune their own senators.

"We're running out of time. Failing to pass this funding is not only an abdication of responsibility, but a clear attempt to suppress the vote in the middle of a pandemic," Sean Eldridge, president and founder of Stand Up America, said in a statement. "The Senate must act this week."

It was the coalition he assembled that had demanded McConnell and other Republican leaders cut short their July recess to start working on the new recovery package. That call went unheeded, but Congress and the White House are under pressure to reach agreement by the start of August. That's when the special pandemic unemployment benefits will otherwise run out — and when lawmakers are supposed to leave the Capitol for as long as five weeks, in part because of the two now-minimized presidential nominating conventions.


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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