Newsy's Vote Smarter 2020 series aims to answer your questions about the most unusual election in modern history. From early voting to counting ballots to staying safe at the polls, get all the information you need to successfully cast your ballot this year.
This video is being made available on The Fulcrum through our partnership with Newsy — "delivering news with the why."
Government Debt Ceiling - Capitol, Congress and Senate - Budget Package
On January 20, 2025, at the moment he takes the oath of office, President Trump will find himself between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the nature of his job, that he must carry out the laws of the land, including the spending of money on Congressionally approved programs. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution establishes one of the President’s core responsibilities – “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
The hard place is that on January 1, 2025, the 2023 suspension of the debt ceiling law expired. The ceiling is now 31.4 trillion dollars, while the debt is over 36 trillion. Trump 47 will be the first President to be constrained by the debt ceiling on day one. Starting January 1 and continuing from January 20, absent some action by Congress, every dollar spent will add a fraction of a dollar to the national debt, putting the President further and further out of compliance with the debt ceiling law.
Right now, there is a political opportunity, perhaps even an expectation, that now is our last, best opportunity to do something about government spending. The inherited debt ceiling creates an opportunity for Trump to fix the spending problem and bring America along with him in the effort.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many argue that a president can simply invoke the 14th Amendment, though that constitutional provision states that “the validity of the national debt shall not be questioned.” In other words, as I have previously argued,absent a complete breakdown of society and the federal government, it is not constitutionally possible for the U.S. to default. Thus, no invocation is needed. However, the debt ceiling is a valid law that any president must carry out in his executive role, as are the appropriation bills approved by Congress.
And thus, Trump will inherit a dilemma and an opportunity. Assuming Congress does not take action before his inauguration, Trump will be forced to choose between conflicting laws.
What will President Trump do? We know he fancies himself a bold leader willing to exercise his power to the fullest. So let me suggest one possibility. A day or two after his inauguration, he should speak to the American people on this issue from the Oval Office. He should inform the American public that with or without a debt ceiling, our current debt trajectory is not sustainable and must be addressed (ideally, he should take responsibility for the excessive COVID deficit of 2020 – but that will never happen). In doing so, he should also assure us, and indeed the global community (around 30% of our debt is held by foreign governments and investors), that the U.S. will never default on its debt because it is Constitutionally impossible for us to do so – and that we will pay our bills, we will pay the interest on our debt, and our debt will be repaid or refinanced without fail. He should express the achievement of a balanced budget by the final year of his administration as a priority.
He should then announce that, over the coming days and weeks, he will impound (refuse to spend) vast amounts of spending already appropriated by Congress. Ideally, the impoundment should be large enough that for some time, revenues actually exceed spending – not just a balanced budget but a surplus day-to-day that moves towards compliance with the debt ceiling. That may be a bridge too far in the short term.
Impoundment has a long history, starting with Thomas Jefferson. However, President Nixon abused the process, and Congress enacted the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in 1974. Though it was not a frequent campaign promise,Trump stated his intent to use impoundment once re-elected and claimed the 1974 restrictions were unconstitutional. You may also remember a specific impoundment implemented by Trump to withhold security aid to Ukraine in July 2019. He did so without a specific request to Congress and ultimately released the aid in September. This act was core to his first impeachment, not because it violated the 1974 law but because it was timed with his request of Ukrainian President Zelensky that he investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, then a strong contender to face Trump in the 2020 election, and his son Hunter Biden.
Current law requires the president to submit any impoundment proposal to Congress, and they must approve such a request before implementation. However, given the conflicting law circumstances, Trump should implement the impoundments immediately and ignore any rejection by Congress. He will be challenged, of course, and the issue will likely be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court, but it will still require months to settle the issue. Given the conflict between appropriation laws and the debt ceiling, any president would have the right and responsibility to pursue what he considers the best path until Congress (or the Supreme Court) fixes the conflict. [As a side note, I would expect SCOTUS to leave the impoundment restrictions in place, there being no specific provision for them in the Constitution. However, the debt ceiling may not pass muster. When Congress approves spending plans requiring debt, they essentially authorize the debt.]
In this scenario, Trump will need to prioritize spending (fundamental military and other national defense expenditures, Social Security payments, and Medicare payments should all be at the top). Meanwhile, specific and significant impoundments will need to be identified. This is a perfect role for his Department of Government Efficiency, in conjunction with cabinet department secretaries and their senior staff. It is beyond the scope of this essay to be specific in what can or should be impounded. The process of DOGE identifying them and the administration proposing them to Congress as permanent changes should be fascinating, illuminating, and educational.
In explaining his plans to the American people, he should acknowledge that this path will be disruptive. Many federal employees across all departments will be furloughed, and some will eventually be terminated. Programs that are important to some people will be suspended, some of them permanently. A dramatic decrease in federal spending will likely kick off a long-overdue recession. Many companies will be negatively affected directly and indirectly. The unemployment rate will increase. The stock market might not just drop but enter bear market status.
He should acknowledge to the American people that this will be painful and request their support and understanding in carrying out this important strategy in his effort to make America great again. If he went down this path, he would blame “the Swamp” and claim this was a necessary step in draining it.
What else will happen? The American people and their representatives will see the extent of government waste, fraud, and abuse. They will begin to understand the full scope of unnecessary federal spending. If there was a recession and a resulting bear market for stocks occurred, this could move more investors to the safety of Treasury debt, reducing interest rates and thus further reducing federal spending. If this happened, the inflation rate would likely come down dramatically. The Federal Reserve, seeing the reduction in inflation, will reduce its overnight interest rate to banks, incentivizing them to lend money to businesses large and small. The bond markets should be encouraged by the reduction in inflation and the potential movement to a balanced budget, and interest rates could come down accordingly. Lower interest rates will benefit everyone, including corporations, small businesses, and those seeking to buy a new home.
If mere movement towards a balanced budget is made, and President Trump's desired tax rate decreases are implemented, the markets will likely be enthused; the recession, though extremely painful, may be brief; economic activity could come roaring back; tax revenues might actually increase; domestic and foreign companies could see America as financially healthy for the long-term and thus the best place to build and grow their business; investment in new companies and technology could surge; manufacturing plants might be expanded and built with new high paying jobs being created; America could not just be great again but better than ever.
The next four years will be a roller coaster of ups and downs. Whatever approach we take, let’s hope we use this opportunity to dramatically change course, not just away from the rock and the hard place but onto a sustainable path. If Trump starts us on this road, it could be his greatest legacy.
David Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur, and political observer.
"Constructive engagement across political divides is a precondition for democracy. If we can’t talk with each other, we can’t govern ourselves as a nation – it’s that simple," reads the About section of the Civic Health Project (CVP). Its mission is to "deploy massively scalable solutions to America’s dangerous divisions so that our relationships, communities, and country can thrive. We advance pioneering approaches with massive potential to scale, mobilizing resources across technology, entertainment, movement building, and research domains."
Kristin Hansen is the executive director of the Civic Health Project. Hansen is dedicated to accelerating academics and practitioners' efforts to reduce polarization and improve civil discourse in our citizenry, politics, and media.
I had the chance to speak with Hansen on a recent episode of Fulcrum Democracy Forum (FDF). This program engages citizens in evolving government to meet all people's needs better. Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, FDF strives to share many perspectives to widen our readers' viewpoints.
You can watch the conversation by clicking on this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYF0Z3NS07c&t=1s
In addition to her role at CVP, Hansen serves on the advisory boards of AllSides, Business for America, and Listen First Project.
She also serves as a year-round lecturer in Strategic Communications at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Before her current work in civil discourse, Hansen held senior executive roles at Intel, IBM, and multiple start-up software companies.
She holds a BA in Political Science, an MA in International Policy Studies from Stanford University, and an MBA from the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Here are other Change Leaders who I had the opportunity to interview as part of the Fulcrum Democracy Forum series:
I am the Fulcrum's executive editor. As a journalist, I take a collaborative approach to paving the path forward to a more informed and engaged citizenry, fortifying the foundations of democracy.
President-elect Donald Trump before the bilateral talks in Paris, France, on December 7, 2024.
If Sam Daley-Harris ever retires, it won’t be any time soon. He confides, with a smile, that he just turned 78. And while that may seem fitting for an age when some of the most powerful politicians are octogenarians, his batteries seem to hold a better charge than most.
Success will do that to you, and Daley-Harris is among the most effective advocates and activists in the nation. That’s true, even though you probably haven’t heard of him.
I sat down with him via Zoom earlier in December. This wasn’t the first time. I have written before about the effectiveness of his “transformational advocacy” form of lobbying, which turns ordinary volunteers into mini-experts capable of talking to community, state and congressional leaders and to editorial writers. But this seems different, coming as it does near the dawn of a second Trump administration. He doesn’t flinch when I ask whether he will have to change tactics. When your underlying strategy is to develop lasting relationships with the people you lobby — relationships that last far longer than the issues of the day — there is no need to do much adjusting.
“The volunteer who is building a relationship over the last five years isn’t going to dump that relationship,” he said. “That’s their pipeline to change.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Call it the secret sauce for successful lobbying.
Years ago, Daley-Harris founded a nonprofit called “Results.” As I have written before, it’s an organization that lives up to its name, playing a key role in the decline in preventable child deaths worldwide from 40,000 per day in the early 1980s to 13,800 per day in 2021.
He outlines this in his book, “Reclaiming our Democracy,” which will be available in a new paperback edition Jan. 14.
Back in 2011, Results gave me an award for my reporting on issues related to global poverty and hunger. The organization has connected me numerous times with Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and current interim prime minister of Bangladesh, who established a microcredit program — giving small loans to the poor and teaching them how to start businesses — that has lifted thousands out of poverty.
But these aren’t the reasons I keep writing about Daley-Harris and others who lead the organization. It’s because of the way they quietly go about changing the world.
This formula, and Yunus’ method of incorporating capitalist methods in his fight against poverty, has resonated with Utahns over the years. It offers permanent solutions, not handouts.
And that seems to work no matter who is in the White House. Daley-Harris reminds me that, in 2019, the Trump administration had called for a 29% cut in federal funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS. Rather than give up, Results volunteers used the relationships they had built with members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, to their advantage. Those members of Congress signed letters of support that were sent to congressional leaders and Mike Pompeo, who was secretary of state at the time.
Instead of a 29% cut, the administration ended up signing a 16% increase.
Time will tell whether that momentum can continue in a Washington where Elon Musk is charged with making cuts that enhance government efficiency. Anyone who thinks clearly about the mounting national debt knows how important that effort is, no matter who is leading it, and what a mountain it would be to conquer. And yet, there are vast differences between cuts that eliminate waste and cuts that eliminate opportunities to save lives.
In any event, Results volunteers will keep making their case. As Daley-Harris’ book says, they will be “unreasonable.” Not hard to work with, but “profoundly, unshakably committed to a big vision.”
When they run into a public official who won’t support them, these volunteers are trained to ask, “What would it take to change your mind?” Then, “Could you say more about that?” And, finally, “Why do you think that is?”
Compare this to traditional advocacy, which may involve ineffective protests, form letters or petitions. Daley-Harris said only 3% of congressional staffers say form letters are effective, while 94% say the same about in-person visits from informed advocates.
That’s the secret sauce. Daley-Harris tells glowing stories of regular people who return from their first meeting with a member of Congress — something they never envisioned themselves having the courage to do — feeling a new sense of confidence and hope.
Many organizations merely ask for signatures on letters and monetary donations. Daley-Harris changes people.
When the subject returns to whether he ever will retire, Daley-Harris talks about how his mother lived to be nearly 101. “So, who knows?” he says.
But when it comes to transformational advocacy, the most important thing is keeping the recipe for the secret sauce alive.
How this activist will adjust to the Trump administration was first published on Deseret News, and republished with permission.
Jay Evensen is the Opinion Editor of the Deseret News.
President-elect Donald Trump speaks to the press following a meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC on January 8, 2025.
On Friday, Donald Trump’s status as a convicted felon was made official in the New York courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan. As he handed down a sentence of “unconditional release,” the judge delivered a stern rebuke to the president-elect.
The New York Times reported that Merchan “acknowledged that “the office of president carries with it a “legal mandate,” but that it does not take away from the seriousness of the jury verdict….’Donald Trump the ordinary citizen,’ ‘Donald Trump, the criminal defendant,’” the judge suggested, “would not be entitled to the protections of the presidency…him from the seriousness of the verdict.”
What happened in the Manhattan courtroom was made possible when, the day before, the United States Supreme Court turned down the president-elect’s request that it enjoin his sentencing. The same day SCOTUS ruled, the ultra-conservative Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals made headlines when it refused another of Trump’s requests.
It overturned the injunction issued previously by Federal District Court Judge Aileen Canon, preventing the public release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s reports on Trump’s stolen documents and election interference cases.
But as Politico noted, it “left in place an order from U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon — the judge in one of those cases — that in its current form bars Attorney General Merrick Garland from releasing the report through at least Sunday.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Like Politico’s treatment of the Eleventh Circuit ruling, other commentators rushed to throw cold water on any fleeting sigh of relief brought by the Supreme Court decision. For example, as Vox’s Ian Millhiser pointed out, “Even in this low-stakes dispute, four justices dissented. That suggests there is strong support within the Court for reading the July immunity decision very broadly.” And, looking to the future, Millhiser warned, “(I)f any one of the five justices in the majority should flip their vote, Trump will prevail the next time this dispute arrives on the Supreme Court’s doorstep.”
But, even as we acknowledge the limits of last week’s court decisions, we should be attentive to the reality that defending the rule of law in dark times is an inch-by-inch, yard-by-yard endeavor. Every inch or yard defended or taken is important, not just to the success of the endeavor overall, but to the morale of those leading the struggle and their ability to resist giving up in the face of long odds.
Sustaining that work requires both a long-term perspective and a short-term willingness to appreciate victories whenever they occur. We can learn that from other legal struggles, including the work of cause lawyers who battled racial segregation and those who have opposed the death penalty.
I’ll say more about that in a minute, but before doing so, let’s recall what the president-elect’s lawyers wanted the Supreme Court to do.
They urged the Court to “enter an immediate stay of further proceedings in the New York trial court to prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the presidency and the operations of the federal government."
They offered a preview of coming attractions along the way and reprised the president-elect’s talking points. They claimed that an appeal they would subsequently file would “result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”
They urged the justices to extend their notorious criminal immunity ruling to cover the president-elect. As they put it, “(A) sitting President, or President-elect, does not have to subject himself in any case to an individual judge’s case-by-case balancing of the burdens on the Presidency—an inquiry that itself violates the separation of powers and the Supremacy Clause.”
Trump wanted the Court to hold that “the New York trial court lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump—or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him.”
Four of the Court’s most conservative justices agreed. That’s the bad, but not surprising, news.
On the other hand, it is noteworthy and heartening that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Comey Barrett joined the Court’s three liberal justices in drawing a line in the sand. While lines in the sand don’t generally have great staying power, I think the New York Times’s Adam Liptak offered the right assessment in his reporting on the SCOTUS ruling.
In Liptak’s view, “(T)he 5-to-4 vote in the case… provided a vivid and telling snapshot of the court as it prepares to face a second Trump administration.” He suggested that Roberts’s “vote on Thursday was of a piece with the old Chief Justice Roberts, the one who cast the decisive vote in 2012 to uphold the Affordable Care Act…and the one who rebuked Mr. Trump when he went after a federal judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy.”
Liptak also highlighted what he called Justice Barrett’s “independent streak” and concluded that “A snapshot is just a moment in time, and it does not predict what the future will bring. But there is some reason to think that it will not be all smooth sailing for Mr. Trump.”
Not “smooth sailing” does not offer a lot of reassurance for people worried about what they see as the president-elect’s authoritarian tendencies and whether the Court will be up to the task of reigning them in. But they should not write it off.
They should learn from the long struggles of lawyers who, in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s, worked against incredible odds to secure civil rights for Black Americans. They should also attend to the experience of lawyers working to end America’s death penalty in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, at a time when public support for the death penalty was overwhelming, and courts were mostly hostile to their arguments.
One civil rights activist offers a valuable lesson for today’s advocates for the rule of law. "The persistence of a movement,” she rightly suggests, “comes down to the persistence of the activists." Michael Meltsner, an extraordinary activist, civil rights lawyer, and death penalty abolitionist, adds that such persistence requires remembering “a different time, one which will come back to us.”
Those comments are a reminder that action in the face of injustice is sustained by hope. As the Reverend Jesse Jackson advised an earlier generation of activists, “(H)ope, faith and dreams will help you rise above the pain. Use hope and imagination as weapons of survival and progress.”
That hope can only be sustained if we celebrate victories whenever they come.
In my research on death penalty lawyers who practiced from the mid to the late twentieth century, I heard much about that need. They often talked about the work of “redefin(ing) success.”
“Wins in terms of getting people off death row are very rare, and getting new trials are also very rare,” one lawyer told me. “So you set your sights keeping your client alive from stay to stay, getting through an execution date, keeping your client alive.”
Another said, “(T) the people I represent, they basically live their lives from stay to stay. They know the death penalty is not going to go away, so they live in 30-day increments. And you are successful every time you buy them an additional 30 days.”
In the struggle for justice, he observed, “You start looking at winning and losing in different ways.”
With that in mind, let those who are now in the trenches doing battle to save the rule of law treat last week’s SCOTUS and Eleventh Circuit decisions as “different” kinds of wins. Doing so will help sustain the necessary and arduous work that likely lies ahead for them and all of us.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
