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

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

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

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

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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Chris Christie says, "I’ll know it when I see it"

Chris Christie says, "I’ll know it when I see it"
Getty images
David L. Nevins
By David L. NevinsJun 14, 2023
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins serves as publisher of The Fulcrum. Additionally, Nevins serves as co-founder and Board Chairman of the Bridge Alliance. Nevins brings business acumen, vision and a tireless this-must-and-can-be-done zeal to the burgeoning movement to bridge divides to transform the political process. As a business leader, Nevins excels at building bridges between people and organizations from the right, left and center for civilized conversation and then action. He co-founded the Bridge Alliance because, as he says, “No matter how well managed and how well funded anyone organization is, significant political reform will not happen without an alliance to further collaborative interactions. Together we can and will raise the collective impact of all.” He is a member of the Aspen Institute Society of Fellows, with a focus on the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, he established and continues to work with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program at Penn State University. Nevins graduated with honors in economics from Penn State in 1969 and received an M.B.A. in finance from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971.
See More Writings by author

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Chris Christie’s decision to run for the Republican presidential nomination is of particular interest to me. This is not because he is the only Republican candidate to date who is unapologetic in calling out the former president for unacceptable behavior, nor because I think Christie has a chance of winning. Rather because of the perspective after a one-on-one discussion the two of us had in the summer of 2019.

I attended the Aspen Institute's annual Ideas Festival in June 2019. The festival is a weeklong event where people from all over the world cross-pollinate their fields to discuss their unique accomplishments and dedication to improving their communities while making advances within their field of work.

One of the featured speakers was Chris Christie and I remember the evening well as he was interviewed by Jeff Goldberg, The Atlantic’s Editor in Chief before a packed crowd at the Hotel Jerome in downtown Aspen.

With the upcoming presidential election of 2020 on everyone's mind, plus the added fact that Christie was then a supporter of President Trump, the event was of great interest to everyone. Goldberg started the conversation bluntly inquiring what Christie saw in Trump that other people don’t see.

Christie responded: “I’ve known him for 17 years so my perspective is a bit broader than most. But, let me start off by saying this, elections are not about who you want to vote for. Elections are about who you’re left to vote for. To be clear, Donald Trump was not my first choice for president.” Jokingly, he added, “I was.”

Christie went on to make it clear that, “Trump was not my first choice to be president,” but justified his support by saying, “Here’s our choice- we sit on the sidelines and do nothing or we can try to make him better.”

Goldberg wasn’t satisfied with the answer and continued to probe Christie if his opinion has changed since 2016, given the opportunity to witness Trump's behavior the last three years. Christie responded by saying, “no, he’s no different now, he’s not changing” and then went on to justify his support by detailing the litany of what Christie considered to be good policy that Trump had gotten through Congress or unilaterally mandated through executive action, which warranted his support.

The questioning continued on many subjects related to Trump's questionable character or lack thereof, including his perceived racial slurs and other incendiary remarks since 2016. Christie deflected the questions with the defense of Trump that I have heard so often, outlining that he doesn't necessarily “like some of his antics” nor “condone his character flaws” but he endorses him because he agrees with his policies.

I find this Kabuki dance interesting especially given that Republicans focus on family and religious values. I took exception to much of Christie’s rationale that evening in Aspen for supporting President Trump but wasn’t called upon during the question and answer period.

Fortunately, the very next evening I attended a small dinner event that Christie and his wife attended. The interview of the previous night was still very much on my mind and so after dinner I had a chance to speak to Christie alone as the guests mingled and I brought up the Goldberg interview of the previous night.

I communicated to Christie my inference from the evening that he found many things about President Trump to be abhorrent but nothing at this juncture had risen to the level that he would throw his support to another candidate.

He seemed to agree with my assessment and so I continued:

“So based on what I heard you say last night, am I correct that if Trump's behavior became so bad, and he did something that reached a given threshold in your mind you would not only denounce the action but you would withdraw your support from him.”

Christie thought for a moment and said, “Yes.”

That surprised me so I asked what that threshold would be and, being the adept politician that he is, he had the perfect, crafty politician non-answer:

“David, do you remember the Supreme Court ruling about pornography in 1964 and what Justice Potter Stewart said?”

I am not particularly well versed in the SCOTUS ruling minutia so I admitted that I had no idea what Christie was referring to and asked him to explain.

“Stewart in explaining what pornography is said this: ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ and so David I can’t say now what the line is with Trump, but I’ll know it when I see it.”

I was taken aback by the answer but I let it go. Since that evening, I’ve thought considerably about Christie’s answer in relationship to Trump's comments in Charlottesville about there being good people on both sides, or when he attacked a Gold Star family with unsubstantiated insults about this war hero being a member of the Muslim brotherhood, or the countless other childish insults he used and continues to use against anyone who disagrees with him on policy or anything else.

For the three years since that encounter, I’ve asked myself many times that if Christie and other Republicans haven’t seen it yet, will they ever see it and subsequently call out Trump's behavior? Finally after four years, Christie has finally seen it and knows what that disqualifying behavior is. Seemingly, it is the disregard for the rule of law that leads to insurrection and threatens our national security.

On Fox News Christie depicted Trump as “as a juvenile who should be sent to his room, not White House.”

Well I guess he now knows it because he’s seen it.

In other speeches Christie has stated that January 6th and Trump's total disregard for the rule of law put him over the edge and stated last week that Trump is "A lonely, self-consumed, self-serving mirror hog and is not a leader." At one point last week he delivered a mocking impression of Trump claiming he would build a southern border wall at Mexico's expense and said Trump, more than Biden, was to blame for the country's failed immigration policy.

Trump still has a commanding lead in what has become a crowded pack of more than a half dozen Republican presidential candidates; the question remains whether Republican primary voters, like Christie, will finally know it when they see it.

I have my doubts.


Latest news

“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

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

Read More

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
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026