Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Now's the time for a cross-partisan push to stop future abuse of presidential power

Donald Trump

Some of the proposals in PODA respond directly to vulnerabilities in presidential power exploited by the Trump administration, according to Dayton and Lindgrensavage.

Joe Raedle/Getty Image

Dayton is a policy advocate and Lindgrensavage is a counsel at Protect Democracy, a nonprofit group advocating for policies that "prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government." Dayton once worked for a GOP House member and Lindgrensavage for a Democratic senator.


Imagine this: The conduct of the previous presidential administration has crystallized the need for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority as a check on the executive branch.

The year is 2021, to be sure. But it was also 1974. In the wake of the Watergate scandal, lawmakers of both parties acted to address weaknesses in federal laws and government institutions that Richard Nixon had either created himself or exposed.

Nearly half a century later the Protecting Our Democracy Act, a package of good-government reforms first proposed by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California in September, aims to take similar steps toward restoring guardrails on executive power. The legislation is on course for a reintroduction in the House this month.

To raise awareness about the bill and advocate for its passage, experts from half a dozen democracy reform advocacy groups from across the political spectrum have written pieces touting its various virtues. These will appear in the Opinion section of The Fulcrum in coming weeks.

These individual analyses do not constitute an endorsement of the full package. What they demonstrate in combination, rather, is how the multifaceted measure draws from ideas proposed by Republicans and Democrats alike — and how Congress' constitutional prerogatives, not ideology, explain why they fit together.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act, which also goes by the acronym PODA, tackles a dozen different topics:

  • Limiting the president's pardon power.
  • Extending the deadline for prosecuting former presidents and vice presidents for federal crimes before or during their time in office.
  • Enforcing the constitutional ban on presidents using the office to enrich themselves.
  • Boosting enforcement of congressional subpoenas.
  • Reasserting Congress' power of the purse.
  • Mandating disclosure of contacts between the White House and Justice Department.
  • Strengthening protections for inspectors general.
  • Strengthening protections for federal whistleblowers.
  • Ensuring the Senate's say in confirming executive branch officials.
  • Bolstering enforcement of the Hatch Act.
  • Preventing foreign interference in elections.
  • Clarifying federal prohibitions on foreign assistance to campaigns.

Some of the proposals respond directly to vulnerabilities in presidential power exploited by the Trump administration, treating those abuses as lessons from which the need for reform must be learned.

It will remain difficult to hold future presidents accountable for violating the Emoluments Clause, the Constitution's ban on presidential profiteering, or attempting to sway the independence of the Justice Department, for example, without Congress creating mechanisms to guarantee such accountability.

Some of the proposals have a history of bipartisan backing — or began as Republican ideas. The provision to strengthen congressional control over the allocation of federal funds, for example, resembles a bill by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah that the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee approved last year on an 11-2 vote. And improving protections for inspectors general and federal whistleblowers has been a longstanding priority of the most senior GOP senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa..

The Protecting Our Democracy Act meets this current moment in two important ways.

First, it is the right response, and it is similar to a past, successful response in the aftermath to a similar period in our history. After Nixon's resignation, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers understood how his behavior had exposed weaknesses in the system of checks and balances that constrains presidential power, and they responded by enacting laws such as the Privacy Act and the Inspector General Act.

The parallels to today are now widely acknowledged by experts on the right, left and center. Trump "has revealed that the presidency is due for an overhaul for accountability akin to the 1974 reforms," Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, told the New York Times. (He and a White House counsel during the Obama administration, Robert Bauer, have come up with their own set of ideas for recalibrating the balance of power.)

Second, PODA responds to increasing numbers of lawmakers asking why their branch is so ineffective relative to the executive and the judiciary. Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a frequent observer of this development, spent part of his time during last month's confirmation hearing for Attorney General Merrick Garland offering his views.

"I think it's a mix of overreach by Article II and underreach by Article I," he said, adding that it's not "as if everything that's wrong is chiefly outside the Congress, because I think we're probably chiefly to blame."

The Protecting Our Democracy Act gives Congress an opportunity to retake some of its authority and live up to its responsibility.

Ensuring the proper checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches is an ongoing obligation of Congress. But it hasn't kept pace in recent years with the expansion of presidential power or deterred presidents of both parties from exceeding — even abusing — their authority.

This House bill is a big first step on the path to catching up. The fact that Democrats are going to introduce this package when the president is a member of their party should not escape notice. Nor should the repeated instances of Republicans who have voiced concerns and floated measures about the relationship between the president and Congress. The opportunity to bring Republicans and Democrats together to act is now.

Read More

Presidential Incapacity and the Limits of the 25th Amendment

Lynn Schmidt explains how a strong 25th Amendment would protect the presidency itself "by ensuring smooth transitions and public confidence in executive leadership..."

Getty Images, Pool

Presidential Incapacity and the Limits of the 25th Amendment

The authors of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution established and explained the complete order of presidential succession, as well as a series of contingency plans to fill any executive vacancies. It was written as a response to the weaknesses found in Article II after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and what was learned about the inadequacies related to presidential illnesses and hospitalizations.

It feels like the time is not only right but needed for another updated response.

Keep ReadingShow less
Examining Florida’s Controversial New Immigration Bills: SB 2-C and SB 4-C

On February 13, 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law two major immigration enforcement bills: Senate Bill 2-C (SB 2-C) and Senate Bill 4-C (SB 4-C).

Metin Ozer on Unsplash

Examining Florida’s Controversial New Immigration Bills: SB 2-C and SB 4-C

On February 13, 2025, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law two major immigration enforcement bills: Senate Bill 2-C (SB 2-C) and Senate Bill 4-C (SB 4-C). Introduced by Senator Joe Gruters and co-sponsored by Senator Randy Fine, these bills build upon Florida’s ongoing efforts to increase state involvement in immigration enforcement. Florida’s immigration laws come amid rising state-federal tension over immigration authority, particularly in states led by Republican governors.

SB 2-C includes initiatives relating to funding, cooperation with federal immigration agencies, and law enforcement infrastructure. SB 4-C introduces provisions that criminalize entry and reentry into Florida by undocumented immigrants and create new state-level immigration-related offenses. This brief explores the major provisions of Florida’s SB 2-C and SB 4-C, analyzing the legal, political, and humanitarian arguments for and against their enforcement.

Keep ReadingShow less
The State of Health in America: A Political and Scientific Crossfire

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Finance Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on September 04, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The State of Health in America: A Political and Scientific Crossfire

At the heart of the Trump administration’s health agenda is a dramatic reorientation of public health priorities. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declared during a Senate hearing last week:

“We at HHS are enacting a once-in-a-generation shift from a sick-care system, to a true health care system that tackles the root causes of chronic disease.”

“Make America Healthy Again” has been met with both praise and fierce resistance. Republican Senator Mike Crapo supported the initiative, saying:

Keep ReadingShow less
When Politicians Pick Voters: Why Gerrymandering Is Undermining Democracy

An image depicting a map of a district with unusually shaped boundaries, highlighting how areas are divided in a non-compact or fragmented way.

AI generated

When Politicians Pick Voters: Why Gerrymandering Is Undermining Democracy

The partisan fight to draw maps that determine how Americans are represented has entered a dangerous spiral. Texas is racing ahead with a mid-decade congressional redraw designed to lock in additional seats after President Donald J. Trump called upon state lawmakers to find five seats. California’s leaders responded in kind to offset the Texas map, but will hold a special election in which voters must decide whether to put aside the state’s Congressional maps drawn by an independent redistricting commission for the next three election cycles. Other states are openly weighing similar moves. But this “map wars” logic is dangerous, and voters from all backgrounds stand to lose as districts harden into safe seats and politicians’ accountability to voters further withers.

Large majorities of Americans say that gerrymandering — which lets politicians pick their voters instead of the other way around — is unfair and a problem. When politicians and party insiders draw their own districts, the maps can be engineered to protect incumbents, not voters. As a result, gerrymandering contributes to the erosion of public confidence in elections. It lessens people’s sense that change can happen, and reduces the ability of voters to hold leaders accountable.

Keep ReadingShow less