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

Coalition of Nonprofits, Research Institutions Fight Against Proposed Cuts at CDC Injury Center

News

Coalition of Nonprofits, Research Institutions Fight Against Proposed Cuts at CDC Injury Center

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Getty Images, sshepard
Ismael M. Belkoura
By Ismael M. BelkouraMay 29, 2025
Ismael M. Belkoura
See More Writings by author

WASHINGTON–Shayna Raphael started promoting infant safety 10 years ago after her daughter Claire passed away due to an unsafe sleeping environment at her daycare.

The Claire Bear Foundation, which Raphael created with her husband, teaches parents about unsafe products. But first, they need the data about which products endanger babies. They rely on a little-known agency at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Injury Center. The center collects most of the data used to keep people safe from injuries and death.

For instance, over the last several years, the Injury Center compiled data that led to a CDC recommendation against swaddling babies in blankets that are weighted.

A study referenced by the CDC found that soft bedding, including weighted products, increased the chances of suffocation 16-fold.

“When there are products that have been part of an injury or death that are reported, either through public health reports or autopsies, that goes into the CDC system,” Raphael said.

Despite the Injury Center’s importance, the Trump administration has targeted the agency in the recent wave of federal cuts.

In early April, the Trump Administration cut about a third of the Injury Center’s staff. A couple of weeks later, a leaked budget proposal for the Health and Human Services Department—first reported by the Washington Post and leaked by Inside Medicine—called for nearly 30% budget cuts at the Injury Center. According to the proposal, funding for programs ranging from firearm death and drowning prevention to traumatic brain injury research would be discontinued.

“In essence, what we're doing right now is taking off our seatbelt before we crash,” said Sharon Gilmartin, the executive director of Safe States Alliance, a nonprofit organization that works to strengthen practices of injury and violence prevention.

Over the last couple of weeks, local, state, and federal supporters of the Injury Center pushed back.

The Keep America Safe Coalition, a coalition of over 40 health organizations across the country, came together to advocate for the Injury Center's survival.

Under the leaked draft proposal, the Injury Center would be transferred to a newly created agency, the Administration for a Healthy America, which was announced in March. According to the draft, the Injury Center’s proposed budget for 2026 would be around $550 million, a decrease from around $760 million in 2024. A Health and Human Services spokesperson said the leaked document is pre-decisional and that no final decisions have been made.

Programs relating to suicide prevention, opioid overdose prevention, domestic violence and rape prevention, and the National Violent Death Reporting System would remain at the Injury Center.

According to the Safe States Alliance, 52 congressional representatives and 12 senators had signed letters expressing support for the Injury Center as o f May 15. None were Republicans.

One of the Injury Center’s congressional supporters, Rep. Gwen Moore, D-WI, said, “Any ‘restructuring plan’ that leaves state and local authorities without support to reduce preventable deaths and survivors of abuse without the resources they need must be abandoned,” in an email to the Medill News Service.

At congressional hearings on May 14, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy indicated that any proposed cuts would eliminate waste and consolidate programs and centers to improve efficiency.

When asked about the Injury Center specifically, a Health and Human Services spokesperson redirected Medill News Service to President Donald Trump’s “skinny” budget proposal.

Although President Trump's administration has yet to release the full budget proposal, a redacted “skinny” budget was released in late April. In the “ skinny” budget, every single agency within the Department of Health and Human Services would see some sort of budget cut, with the CDC losing $3.5 billion less than it is currently allocated.

The “skinny” budget failed to specify which programs within the agencies would be cut or defunded.

The proposed budget and staffing cuts were not the only signs of an unstable future for the Injury Center. In last year’s budget appropriations process, House Republicans targeted the center for elimination.

“That was kind of our first indication that there was an effort afoot by some lawmakers, by some policymakers, to target the Injury Center,” said Paul Bonta, the director of Government Relations at the Safe States Alliance.

The Injury Center has played a crucial role in funding for injury prevention at the local level on acute health risks, ranging from firearms to falls by the elderly. These programs would be cut under the leaked budget proposal.

“All of the things that the Injury Center works on, most of them are preventable,” said Chrissie Juliano, executive director of the Big Cities Health Coalition. Juliano said, “So, we should be thinking about how can we best prevent those things and making changes where needed, but not breaking it all and then figuring out later how to rebuild it.”

There were more than 48,000 firearm-related deaths in 2022, according to the CDC.

The Big Cities Health Coalition, a member of the Keep America Safe Coalition, includes health officials from 35 of the country’s largest cities.

The Claire Bear Foundation, which is also part of the coalition, values the Injury Center’s data collection and research on adverse childhood experiences.

Research into adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse, violence, and unstable home situations, looks at reducing and researching traumatic events occurring in minors from birth to 17 years of age.

Under the leaked proposal, research on adverse childhood experiences would be cut from the Injury Center. Raphael said any cuts to research could have consequences for infant safety.

“These cuts, along with what’s already happened to [the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development] and other federally supported programs, make it even harder to identify and address risk factors, leaving families with fewer resources to help keep their babies safe,” Raphael said.


Ismael M. Belkoura is a graduate journalism student with the Medill News Service at Northwestern University. He specializes in health, business and legal reporting.


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