Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Messaging Outweighs Deal-making in Democrats’ ‘Good Government’ Package

David Hawkings
By David HawkingsDec 18, 2018
David Hawkings
See More Writings by author

If the ambitious "good government" legislative package put forward by the House Democrats was on a fast track to enactment, there'd be less urgency to launch The Fulcrum. But because the bill has no such bright prospects, there will be plenty for us to cover for the indefinite future.

The legislation's sweeping objectives – limit the influence of money on politics, ease access to the ballot box and intensify government ethics – reflect the aspirational themes of many advocacy groups assembled under the banner of "political reform."

Having gained 40 seats to reclaim the House majority in January, the Democrats will have more than enough muscle to push their bill halfway through the Capitol. But then it's set to come to a full and lasting stop on the doorstep of the still-Republican Senate, one of many measures that seem destined to show brief signs of life before dying in the newly divided Congress.

Thirteen Senate Republicans, or one quarter of their number, would have to cross Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and join the Democrats in order to advance the bill over a GOP leadership filibuster. That isn't even a remote possibility at this point. In fact, the bill is unlikely to make it anywhere near even a preliminary test vote.

The House bill is "not going to go anywhere in the Senate," the Kentucky Republican declared the day Congress returned for its post-Thanksgiving lame-duck session.

The most powerful House Democrats understood this even before McConnell said it so plainly. But they have decided to press ahead anyway, promoting their policy wishes without any cross-party compromise. As such, the bill has all the hallmarks of what's known in Washington as a political messaging measure – one that will help define the two parties differently from now until the next election almost two years from now.

A collection of provisions that might draw a measure of bipartisan support has been lashed to "poison pill" proposals that, while galvanizing the Democrats in salivating enthusiasm, makes the GOP collectively nauseated.

Some Democrats, though, are open to breaking the package apart so some provisions with Republican supporters have a shot at air time in the Senate – understanding full well that would doom the most far-reaching provisions, including a restoration of the heart of the Voting Rights Act and language to squeeze "dark money" out of campaigns.

Dozens of incoming first-year House Democrats campaigned on a platform to "fix" the political system. Not only do they want to make good on those vows, but they want to do so quickly to persuade voters they'll tackle other hot-button issues – from gun control to health care — without being beholden to big donors.

"These are transformative reforms that we're putting forward," said Rep. John Sarbanes of Maryland, the leadership's major domo for the effort. "It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a bold, proud declaration to the American people, 'We get it, we hear you.'"

The legislation is going to be designated HR 1 as something of an honorific, signaling its symbolic primacy in the eyes of the newly empowered Democratic majority. (HR 1 in the current, Republican-run Congress was a bill to revamp the tax code that morphed into the 2017 Trump tax cut.) But the name does nothing to convey any place at the head of the legislative calendar; there's no guarantee, at this point, the package will be the first piece of legislation put before the House in the new year.

In fact, it has not even been formally introduced and is still subject to alteration before the 116 th Congress convenes on Jan. 3. But, at this point, these are the principal provisions:

Voting Rights

  • Reinstates a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013. Known as Section 4, the provision set the ground rules for determining which parts of the country have such a bad record of racial discrimination in voting that every decision to do with elections in those states or counties should be subject to federal approval, or "preclearance." The effect would be to end several restrictive voter ID laws that states, mainly in the South, have imposed in the five years since the court ruling.
  • Requires states to eliminate the role of their legislatures in House redistricting and create independent commissions for drawing congressional maps.
  • Enacts a nationwide system that would automatically register all U.S. citizens, after they turn 18, to vote whenever they conduct business with any government agency, such as renewing a driver's license or showing up for jury duty.
  • Mandates regular federal investigations into the security of voting systems against interference by foreign entities, with funding to help states upgrade their election hardware and software.

Campaign Finance

  • Creates federal subsidies for House and Senate candidates, through which the government would contribute $6,000 for every $1,000 raised in relatively small donations from individuals.
  • Increases public disclosure requirements for non-candidate political expenditures, including at the end of TV ads. (The aim is to shed light on the surge of "dark money" unleashed by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling that independent campaign spending is a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.)

Ethics

  • Requires major party nominees for president to make public their most recent three years of tax returns within a month of securing their nominations.
  • Limits first class air travel by members of Congress and the executive branch.
  • Bans the use of federal funds to settle sexual harassment claims against members of Congress.
  • Prohibits members of Congress from receiving bonus payments from their former employers and from serving on boards of for-profit enterprises.
  • Bolsters the oversight authority of the Office of Government Ethics.
  • Increases congressional oversight of foreign lobbying.
  • Creates the first binding ethical code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.

Correction: This article was updated to properly describe the bill's campaign finance provision targeting dark money.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

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
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026