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

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

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

Nearly every battleground state is at risk of election denialism interfering in 2024

It is still not too late to change that.

Nearly every battleground state is at risk of election denialism interfering in 2024
Getty Images
Brian Hinkle
By Brian HinkleAug 28, 2023
Brian Hinkle
See More Writings by author

Brian Hinkle is the Senior Voting Policy Researcher at the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) and oversees the Democracy Maps program.

Former President Trump is campaigning for re-election. Disinformation continues to run rampant on social media. Large portions of the country still doubt valid election results. Sound familiar? Signs point to 2024 being a redux of 2020.

In addition, the recent indictments charging former President Trump and others with a conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election, among other crimes, highlights both the continuing threat of the election denial movement as well as a potential path for states to hold these bad actors accountable.

The good news is that states can act before the 2024 elections to fill gaps in laws that allow election denialism to undermine democracy. Now is the time for states to pass laws to prevent 2024 from being a repeat of 2020’s election denialism crisis.

The need for action by lawmakers is urgent: More than two in three American voters -- 157 million people -- live in states with at least a moderate risk of election denialism jeopardizing future elections, as shown in the Movement Advancement Project’s National Election Denial Risk Index. What’s more, 29 million voters live in a state with a high risk of election denialism.

The key threats that result from election denialism are far-reaching and are pushing our democracy to the brink of chaos or even collapse. Those threats include election deniers infiltrating election offices, interference in standard post-election processes, harassment and violence targeting nonpartisan election officials, restricting voting rights, and more.

Analysis from the National Election Denial Risk Index currently shows that five battleground states are still at moderate risk of being impacted by election denialism: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. In the last presidential election these states had slim margins of victory, making policies to defend against election denialism all the more important to ensure our elections are free from interference.

The good news is that three battleground states now fall in a lower risk category of being impacted by election denialism: Michigan, Nevada, and Pennsylvania.

At the beginning of the year Michigan was the only lower-risk battleground state. Nevada joined this lower-risk category when it enacted a law to protect against insider threats to elections by making it a crime to facilitate unauthorized access to voting equipment. Pennsylvania’s improvement is the result of new protections against election-related disinformation which make it a crime to spread false information related to the time, place or manner of elections.

At its core, election denialism is a rejection of democracy. Similarly, the nature of a republic requires that free and fair elections are a cornerstone of U.S. democracy–not a rigged system where politicians can overturn the will of the voters and the legitimate results of an election. Not only does election denialism further erode public trust in elections and institutions, but it feeds into a broader set of threats to our democracy.

So what are these rising threats and what can be done to counter them?

Threat 1: An ongoing core threat is election deniers who undermine the public’s trust with false narratives of fraud and then offer so-called “solutions” that infringe on democracy and restrict voting rights. Legislation like statewide voting rights acts provide critical protections so that all eligible voters can participate in democracy by prohibiting racial discrimination in election administration and ensuring consistent elections procedures across all local jurisdictions.

Currently, only seven states have a statewide voting rights act. Even more, federal voting legislation like the Freedom to Vote Act would result in a dramatic shift in ensuring a stronger democracy nationwide.

Threat 2: To counter election deniers infiltrating the system, states can implement stronger policies for nonpartisan election administration as well as measures to counter insider threats. Forty-one states routinely conduct truly independent, nonpartisan audits after an election, which allows states to ensure accurate vote counts. However, only 13 states go even further to ensure the accuracy and integrity of election results with risk-limiting audits, which use statistical methods to ensure even stronger verification of vote results.

Threat 3: The ultimate goal of the rising harassment and violence against election officials is interfering with election results. Ways to bolster against this threat are enacting laws to protect election officials, increasing funding for elections to ensure security measures, and other proper infrastructure. Currently 11 states have laws to specifically protect election officials.

Threat 4: In the last two election cycles we saw numerous attempts to subvert legitimate election results by interfering in post-election processes. States can protect against this by limiting partisan involvement in post-election procedures, increasing penalties for election subversion, and limiting frivolous recount requests. When election administration is properly conducted by nonpartisan professionals, election results are protected against insider threats.

Threat 5: Among the insidious threats jeopardizing our democracy is rampant disinformation that plants doubt in the minds of American voters. To answer this growing threat, policymakers can implement transparency measures to help increase voter confidence.

For example, most states have secure voting technology available for the majority of votes where voting machines use voter-verifiable paper ballots to allow the voter to verify their choices. These systems prevent hacking and security breaches. However, 13 states still do not have these secure voting systems available for the majority of their voters. Two of those states – Georgia and Nevada – are battleground states and could improve public confidence in election results by upgrading their systems in advance.

To be sure, election denialism is a widespread phenomenon requiring varied approaches. And state policymakers have the power to take meaningful steps to address the problem. Policy solutions can prevent new surges of election denialism in 2024 – and these must take precedence in next year’s legislative sessions.

While the claims of election deniers didn’t ultimately upend our elections in the 2022 midterms, election deniers still pose serious threats to our democracy which need to be addressed in advance of the presidential election. By enacting legislation to protect voting rights, insulating election administration systems from partisan actors, protecting election officials acting in good faith from threats, and taking measures to increase voter confidence, our democracy can be protected, preserved, and even further strengthened.


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