In the run up to the 2022 election, FiveThirtyEight tracked what every single Republican nominee for House, Senate, governor, secretary of state and attorney general said about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Thirty-five percent fully rejected Biden’s win and another 10 percent cast doubt on it. In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen Druke speaks with reporter Kaleigh Rogers about how candidates who denied the legitimacy of the 2020 election did in the midterms.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a signing ceremony at the Saudi Royal Court on May 13, 2025, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Getty Images, Win McNamee
Just the Facts: Trump’s Middle East Trip
May 21, 2025
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, we 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.
Are pro-Israel supporters of Donald Trump concerned about his recent trip to the Middle East?
The perspectives of Israel supporters of President Trump and the various deals he recently negotiated with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and other Arab nations vary considerably depending on who you talk to. Some may view these agreements as strategic economic moves that strengthen U.S. influence in the Middle East, while others may be concerned about potential security risks, particularly regarding sensitive AI chip technology, plus the long-term impact on Israel.
Reports indicate that Trump's administration has facilitated deals for U.S. companies to sell advanced AI chips to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, raising concerns among policymakers about the possibility of these technologies falling into the hands of adversaries like China. Additionally, Trump's growing diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia appear to be creating tensions with Israeli leadership, as he has prioritized relationships with Gulf nations over direct engagement with Israel.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
What deals has Trump specifically negotiated on his recent trip to the Middle East?
During his recent trip to the Middle East, Trump negotiated several high-profile deals focused on defense, aviation, and artificial intelligence. Here are some of the key agreements:
- Saudi Arabia:A $142 billion arms package, touted as the largest defense sale in history.
- United Arab Emirates:A $1.4 billion weapons sale and a partnership to build the largest AI data center outside the U.S. in Abu Dhabi.
- Qatar: A $243.5 billion investment agreement, with plans to expand it to $1.2 trillion. Qatar Airways also announced a record-breaking purchase of up to 210 Boeing jets.
Has Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu or anyone else in the Israeli government commented yet on any of the deals Trump made on his trip or on anything else about the trip?
Several Israeli officials have reacted to Trump's Middle East trip, particularly his decision to bypass Israel and engage with Arab leaders on key regional issues.
- Prime Minister Netanyahu has remained largely silent on Trump's deals.
- Far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated that bringing back hostages is not the most important goal, emphasizing that eliminating Hamas should be Israel’s priority.
- Israeli officials have expressed concern over Trump's potential nuclear deal with Iran, fearing it could undermine Israel’s security.
- Netanyahu’s government is also worried about Trump's direct negotiations with Hamas, which blindsided Israeli officials.
Trump's lifting of sanctions on Syria has also sparked criticism in Israel, as the move was strongly supported by Saudi Arabia but opposed by Netanyahu.
What are the possible political and social shifts that could come as a result of President Trump's visit to the Middle East?
Political Shifts
- U.S.-Israel Relations: Trump’s decision to bypass Israel and engage directly with Arab nations has raised concerns in Netanyahu’s government. His talks with Iran and Hamas have blindsided Israeli officials.
- Saudi Arabia’s Influence: With $600 billion in U.S.-Saudi deals, including a massive AI and defense partnership, Saudi Arabia is cementing its role as a regional powerhouse.
- Syria’s Reintegration: Trump’s lifting of sanctions on Syria and meeting with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa mark a dramatic shift in U.S. policy, potentially reintegrating Syria into the Arab world.
Social Shifts
- Arab-Israeli Relations: Trump’s push for normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia is complicated by the ongoing Gaza conflict and Saudi demands for Palestinian statehood.
- Iran’s Role: Trump’s cautious optimism about nuclear talks with Iran suggests a potential thaw in U.S.-Iran relations, which could reshape alliances.
- Public Sentiment: Arab nations welcome Trump’s economic diplomacy, while Israelis remain wary of his regional realignment.
Have any members of Congress who support Israel raised concerns about the trip?
Several Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns about Trump's Middle East trip, particularly regarding his negotiations with Iran, his bypassing of Israel, and his acceptance of a luxury jet from Qatar.
- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) warned that the Qatari jet gift poses significant espionage and surveillance risks.
- Sen. Todd Young (R-IN), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was not comfortable with Trump using the jet as his mobile command center, citing national security concerns.
- Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) stated that there would be “plenty of scrutiny” over the Qatari airplane deal if finalized.
- Republican senators are also privately voicing concerns about Trump’s business dealings in Qatar and the UAE, including a $5.5 billion luxury resort project and a $2 billion crypto transaction.
- Some GOP lawmakers have questioned whether Trump has done enough to include Israel in his negotiations with Iran and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Are there any reports that President Trump has made any business deals that personally benefit him or his family?
Reports indicate that Trump's Middle East trip included business deals that could personally benefit him and his family. Here are some specifics:
- Luxury Real Estate in Qatar: Trump's son, Eric Trump, signed a $5.5 billion deal to build a beachside ultra-luxury community and golf course in Qatar.
- Cryptocurrency Investments: The United Arab Emirates invested in World Liberty Financial, a crypto company in which the Trump family holds a major stake.
- Qatari Jet Controversy: Trump accepted a $400 million luxury Boeing 747 from the Qatari royal family, which will serve as Air Force One during his presidency and later be transferred to his presidential library.
- Trump Organization Expansion: Since Trump’s second term began, his sons have initiated several foreign deals, despite previous commitments to avoid new international business ventures.
These deals have raised concerns among ethics experts, who argue that they could violate the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has criticized the trip, calling it “more like a personal business venture” than a diplomatic mission.
David Nevins is co-publisher of the Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
What’s Democratic About Giving Tax Dollars to Private Schools?
May 21, 2025
Listen by clicking HERE.
Episode Summary
Public schools are essential for democracy—and they’re under attack. But the very policies being championed as their salvation may have a catastrophic impact on American education for generations. Public education advocate and historian Diane Ravitch unpacks how school choice policies like vouchers and charter schools are dangerous for democracy.
Diane Ravitch is a former assistant secretary in the United States Department of Education. She is the author of several books on the history and policy of American public schools. Her memoir, about her life as a leading public education reformer, will be published this fall. It’s called An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Almost Everything.
Alex Lovit is a senior program officer and historian at the Kettering Foundation. He hosts and executive produces the Kettering Foundation podcast The Context.
The Context is a podcast from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, about the history, trends, and ideas shaping democracy in the United States and around the world. Every episode, host Alex Lovit, a senior program officer and historian with the foundation, interviews someone who has seen it all—scholars, politicians, journalists, and public servants.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
Just the Facts: What Is a National Emergency?
May 20, 2025
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, we 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.
Has President Trump issued several executive orders based on national emergency declarations, and if so, which ones are they?
- National Energy Emergency: Declared on his first day in office, this order aims to fast-track oil and gas projects, but it's facing legal challenges from multiple states.
- Trade Emergency: Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on foreign trade, citing a national emergency caused by large trade deficits.
- Forest Logging Emergency: In March 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order declaring a national emergency to expedite logging on over 112 million acres of national forest land. The emergency designation allows logging projects to proceed with fewer regulatory hurdles, limiting challenges from environmental groups and local governments. Scientists and conservationists have raised concerns that this approach could actually increase fire risks rather than mitigate them.
- Immigration and the Southern Border: Trump has declared a national emergency at the southern border to justify his mass deportation efforts. His administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the removal of suspected gang members, particularly Venezuelan nationals. Additionally, Trump has confirmed plans to use military assets to assist with deportations under this emergency declaration.
Are any of the executive orders that invoke a national emergency facing legal challenges?
Several of Trump's executive orders that invoke a national emergency are facing legal challenges. For example, a group of small businesses has petitioned a U.S. court to block tariffs imposed under a national emergency declaration, arguing that Trump exceeded his authority. Additionally, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against Trump's executive order declaring a "national energy emergency," alleging that it unlawfully fast-tracks fossil fuel projects while bypassing environmental protections.
There are multiple lawsuits challenging various executive actions, and a litigation tracker estimates that over 230 cases have been filed against Trump administration policies.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Have previous presidents ever invoked national emergencies for executive orders?
Many U.S. presidents have issued executive orders based on national emergency declarations. A few notable examples are:
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933) – Declared a national emergency to close banks temporarily, stabilizing the financial system during the Great Depression.
- Harry Truman (1950) – Declared a national emergency during the Korean War, allowing the government to mobilize resources for military production.
- Richard Nixon (1971) – Used emergency powers to impose wage and price controls to combat inflation.
- George W. Bush (2001) – Declared a national emergency after the 9/11 attacks, expanding surveillance and counterterrorism measures.
- Barack Obama (2009) – Declared a national emergency in response to the H1N1 flu pandemic, allowing hospitals to bypass certain regulations.
Has the Supreme Court in past history defined in some manner what a national emergency is?
The Supreme Court has ruled on cases that clarify what qualifies as a national emergency. One recent case, Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, addressed whether federal employees serving in the military during a national emergency are entitled to extra pay. The Court ruled that service during an emergency qualifies for differential pay, even if the service isn’t directly tied to the emergency.
Historically, the Court has weighed in on presidential emergency powers. Some examples are:
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – The Court ruled that President Truman could not seize steel mills during the Korean War, stating that emergency powers must be explicitly granted by Congress.
- Trump’s Tariff Cases (2025) – Several lawsuits challenge Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs. Courts are reviewing whether his emergency declarations meet legal standards.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled against a president for the use of a national emergency as the reason for an executive order?
The Supreme Court has ruled against presidents who have invoked national emergencies to justify executive orders. One notable example is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where the Court struck down President Harry Truman’s executive order to seize steel mills during the Korean War. Truman argued that the seizure was necessary to prevent a labor strike from disrupting steel production, which was vital for national defense. However, the Court ruled that the president did not have the authority to take such action without congressional approval.
More recently, legal challenges have emerged regarding President Donald Trump’s executive orders, including his “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” order, which has been challenged by multiple states for allegedly misusing emergency powers. Courts have also blocked various executive actions related to immigration and national security, questioning whether they were legitimate uses of emergency authority.
What is a primary court argument Trump has used to justify declaring a national emergency to justify some of his executive orders?
Trump has argued that his national emergency declarations are justified based on his executive authority, but courts are actively reviewing whether his claims hold legal weight. For example, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade recently questioned whether Trump had the authority to impose tariffs under a national emergency declaration, with businesses arguing that only Congress has the power to levy tariffs.
David Nevins is co-publisher of the Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow of a boy
Getty Images/mrs
Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard
May 20, 2025
Nothing is worth more than the life of a child.
—Pope Francis
Justice is not swift for anyone, and even less so for children. In Mexico, as in many other countries, children who are victims of crime must face not only the pain of what they have lived through but also institutional slowness that, far from protecting them, exposes them to new forms of harm. If we were to truly act on Pope Francis’s reminder that "nothing is worth more than the life of a child," then why doesn’t the judicial system operate with that same urgency?
Since January, a seven-year-old girl in Mexico, a survivor of sexual violence at her school, has been waiting for a federal judge to resolve an amparo, a constitutional appeal she filed requesting the right to participate in the criminal case against her aggressor in a protected and adapted manner. According to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico’s highest court), amparos must be used as urgent remedies when fundamental rights are at imminent risk. And yet, four months have passed with no resolution.
The judge argued that “all matters are urgent” and that “everyone has the right to equal treatment.” While this sounds neutral, it actually perpetuates injustice: treating the needs of a child victim of sexual abuse as interchangeable with those of any other adult litigant dilutes the principle of the best interests of the child, which is enshrined in the Mexican Constitution and in international treaties such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Although Mexico ratified the CRC more than 30 years ago, the country continues to violate it by failing to ensure that its protections are fully applied in day-to-day judicial practice. The existence of strong laws is not enough when courts, prosecutors, and institutions do not translate those rights into action. In international law, this lack of implementation is itself a breach of Mexico’s obligations. Meanwhile, the United States, while not having ratified the CRC, has adopted many of its principles into federal and state law, particularly in areas related to child protection and juvenile justice.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has made it clear: children have the right to a justice system adapted to their age, including prompt and priority attention, precisely because waiting can cause revictimization. It’s not just about legal deadlines—it’s about cumulative harm, prolonged fear, and the perception that what happened to them is not important enough for the state to act.
This is not an isolated case. As a lawyer working to protect the rights of children in Mexico, I see it all the time: delays in protective measures, in forensic interviews, in court decisions. Sometimes, months or even years pass before basic protections are implemented. During that time, children remain exposed to further harm.
And the legal consequences can be permanent. Many caregivers eventually give up on the process out of fear or exhaustion. When they do, cases are closed and impunity takes root. According to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), over 93% of crimes in the country go unreported or uninvestigated. For crimes against children, the number is likely even higher, due to fear, stigma, and lack of support.
This speaks to a larger truth: justice systems worldwide, including in Mexico and the United States, were designed by and for adults. When children are involved, they are often treated as exceptions or burdens. They are asked to recount traumatic experiences in detail, identify perpetrators, and repeat their testimony across different stages of the process. If they hesitate, contradict themselves, or forget which is developmentally normal, their credibility is questioned.
Meanwhile, official speeches echo the same message: “Children are a priority.” But they are not. Not when it takes more than four months to resolve a constitutional petition asking only that a child be allowed to participate safely in a judicial process. Not while protective measures go unenforced and case files sit untouched on desks.
States, not just Mexico, but everywhere, have a legal and ethical obligation to act with due diligence in cases of violence against children. This means preventing abuse, investigating reports, and prosecuting perpetrators quickly and effectively. It also means recognizing the emotional and developmental harm that judicial delays cause. Because when justice is too slow, it becomes another form of violence.
As Pope Francis wisely said, "nothing is worth more than a child's life." And yet, every day that passes without resolution in cases like this one is a practical denial of that truth. If we want judicial systems to be places of protection and not abandonment, we must prioritize children, not just in words but in law, policy, and action.
Daniela Torres, lawyer defending the rights of children and adolescents, is a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More