Sensible gun laws, a safer environment, campaign finance reform, affordable access to health care, and many other progressive priorities are supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. But they aren't the law of the land. That isn't an accident. Republicans know they don't enjoy popular support. So, keeping certain people from voting is at the heart of their election strategy. We have to fight voter suppression, but we can't just play defense anymore. iVote is going on offense to fight to expand access to voting to ensure more people vote... because if everyone voted our democracy would finally reflect the will of all its people.
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 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
High school and college students will take over the airwaves on the first and third Saturday in Arkansas in the revival of the PHAT LIP! You(th)Talk Radio show
avdyachenko/Adobe Stock
Radio Show Gives AR Students a Voice
May 20, 2025
A groundbreaking radio show from the early 1990s is returning this weekend in Arkansas. The PHAT LIP! You(th)Talk Radio show will be back on the airwaves Saturday on KABF 88.3 FM Community Radio in Little Rock.
The show, produced by Washitaw Foothills Youth Media Arts and Literacy Collective, features young people ages 16 to 24.
Director Kwami Abdul-Bey says the broadcast gives teens and young adults a chance to express their feelings about a variety of topics.
"We want all young people involved in the conversation, so you'll be hearing what they have to say particularly as it has to deal with civic engagement and electoral justice," he said.
The show will air from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. the first and third Saturday of each month, and is also available on KABF.org and through the Shortwave Relay Service.
The talk show is funded by a three-year grant. Some of the topics the students want to address are medical and student debt and funding cuts for social programs.
Jasmine Serrano, a show host, is a junior at Jacksonville High School in Jacksonville, and said she got involved with the project after speaking to members of the Arkansas Legislature.
"In society, we always look at the adults and we always look at the older folks and generations, but we don't really take the time to pay attention to how the current policies and societal perceptions are impacting youth," Serrano explained.
When Abdul-Bey started the original show in 1994, he said it was in response to a documentary that painted Arkansas youth in a bad light. His seventh-grade social studies students wanted to combat the negative stereotypes. He noted the name of the show reflects the music of the times.
"One of my favorite hip-hop artists back in the 1990s was Fat Lip from Digable Planets," he continued. "And 'pfat' at the time was something that was cool, something that was vital as far as the culture was concerned. And 'lip' just means you talk too much."
Radio Show Gives AR Students a Voice was originally published by the Public News Service and is republished with permission.
Freda Ross is a producer at the Public News Service, with more than 40 years of experience in radio broadcasting, reporting and journalism.
Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration depicting the U.S. Constitution and Government.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing
Following Jefferson: Promoting Intergenerational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
May 19, 2025
Towards the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson became fatalistic. The prince and poet of the American Revolution brooded—about the future of the country he birthed, to be sure; but also about his health, his finances, his farm, his family, and, perhaps most poignantly, his legacy. “[W]hen all our faculties have left…” he wrote to John Adams in 1822, “[when] every avenue of pleasing sensation is closed, and athumy, debility, and malaise [is] left in their places, when the friends of our youth are all gone, and a generation is risen around us whom we know not, is death an evil?”
The question was rhetorical, of course. But it revealed something about his character. Jefferson was aware that Adams and he—the “North and South poles of the Revolution”—were practically the only survivors of the Revolutionary era, and that a new generation was now in charge of America’s destiny.
That reality confounded him. On the one hand, Jefferson retained ideas about the proper path forward for America (which involved a pastoral utopia and an educated, mostly democratic populace). But on the other hand, he knew that his time had passed and that, by right, his children’s generation should decide the country’s future. One of his most famous political beliefs was that a present generation of citizens still beholden to a prior, or dead, generation is just another form of tyranny. “The earth belongs to the living,” he wrote to James Madison in 1789, “the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
For Jefferson, generations represented important markers. And they were distinct. The Revolutionary generation was different from the Federalist generation, which was still different than the Antebellum Generation. They were so dissimilar that Jefferson thought it only just and right that each generation ought to sit down and write its own Constitution. Let each present people shape the national destiny in their own image, he argued.
The sage of Monticello wouldn’t be surprised then to learn that generations today are no more akin. The “Greatest Generation”—those born at the beginning of the 20th century—embodies values, beliefs, opinions, and attitudes that barely resemble those expressed by members of “Gen Z” or the “Alpha Generation.” Their relative worldviews are unrecognizable. The most prominent values offered by the Gen Z community are social justice, authenticity, environmental sustainability, digital literacy, and an entrepreneurial spirit. But what values are offered by the Greatest Generation? Those include duty to one’s country, sacrifice for the common good, and work ethic.
The problem is that these distinctions often lead to misunderstandings. Indeed, torch bearers from one generation rarely appreciate the priorities of torch bearers born in a different time. How often have we heard older Americans say that younger generations are privileged and lazy, that they don’t understand what it takes to maintain this fragile democratic republic? And how often have we heard younger generations accuse older Americans of being “out of touch”? The damage that emerges from generalizations like these contributes to the country’s political rancor. Animosity and distrust are a byproduct of generational misunderstanding.
To combat that, we want to try something unique. Hoping to spark dialogue across differences, we offer readers a series of essays we’re calling, “Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-generational Understanding through Constitution-making.”
The five-part series begins with artificial intelligence. Utilizing ChatGPT, we have generated seven Constitutions, each reflecting the priorities, beliefs, values, positions, and actions of a distinct generation. In short, we’ve become generational constitutional framers (with the help of AI). We asked the chatbot to draft these individual constitutions to include all the design features Americans have come to love: preambles, political branches, distributions of power, individual rights, amendment procedures, ratification processes, and so on. What the generative AI program delivered was seven comprehensive and lengthy constitutional charters, some as many as forty pages long. Our series will compare these fascinating—and deeply revealing—constitutions.
Each month, starting in June, we will contrast a different element or component of the seven constitutions. Beginning with preambles (June), we will subsequently consider political institutions (July), bills of rights (August), amendment procedures (September), and, finally, ratification requirements (October). We will ask the same questions along the way: How do the seven constitutions differ, and how have the articles, clauses, and sections evolved over time? What do they say about the generations that “wrote” them? What do we, as Americans, learn from reading constitutional texts that are written and shaped, influenced and inspired, by individuals who lived through very different historical moments? How can we more effectively—and more civilly—speak to each other across generations? And, ideally, how can we work together, as citizens and sovereigns, to collectively and peacefully realize “a more perfect union?”
Jefferson was no different than others, then and now, in assuming that only the wise elders of the polity could craft a constitution. But he and his revolutionary co-conspirators could never envision an America made up of seven generations simultaneously. Our task in understanding each other, therefore, is exponentially more difficult. So, as we try to bridge our differences—across all intersectional identities—let us give each generation its own constitutional voice, and then see if we can’t find common ground and common purpose. Jefferson would admire that.
Beau Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair in Government at Skidmore College.
Prairie Gunnels just successfully, and with honors, completed her first year at Skidmore.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More