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

Nikki, the rabbit

Nikki, the rabbit

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley speaks during a campaign event in the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm College on February 17, 2023 in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Lawrence Goldstone
By Lawrence GoldstoneFeb 23, 2023
Lawrence Goldstone
Goldstone, a freelance writer, is the author of “On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights.”
See More Writings by author

Goldstone is the author of the forthcoming "Not White Enough: The Long Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment."

Nikki Haley’s announcement that she was entering the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination should have evoked cheers among party leaders. Here was a non-white woman just over fifty, the daughter of immigrants with a compelling, up-by-the-bootstraps life story, who had become the United States’ first female Asian American governor. Haley is articulate, personable, less extreme than many other potential candidates, and, in addition to serving as South Carolina’s chief executive, she also represented the United States in the United Nations.

Who better to help a party widely accused of racism and misogyny to improve and expand its appeal?

Haley is more than aware that running as an anomaly can turn what would have been weaknesses into strengths. “We’re ready to move past the stale ideas and faded names of the past. And we are more than ready for a new generation to lead us into the future,” she exclaimed, touting herself as the candidate who could restore greatness to a nation that was “on a path of doubt, division, and self-destruction” and “of fading patriotism and weakening power.”

“Stale ideas and faded names,” was a bold statement, since anyone vying for the Republican nomination has an additional worry beyond the standard problems of raising money, getting the message out, and persuading voters that they are the best person to embody and promote conservative values. Under normal circumstances, Haley could have expected a withering assault from Mr. Stale Ideas and Faded Names himself, Donald Trump, the same prospect that has kept other, more weak-kneed challengers on the sidelines.

But Trump’s attacks have yet to materialize. Even more surprising, he seemed to welcome her into the race. As he wrote on Truth Social, “Nikki has to follow her heart, not her honor. She should definitely run!” Although he was gibing Haley for previous statements that she would not go against him, to say that this was a mild attack by a man totally lacking any sense of decency is an understatement. Even subsequent ripostes by Trump minions, calling her “just her another career politician,” are hardly up to the standards of a man who once blamed tough debate questions on a woman’s menstrual cycle.

The fact is, Trump does want her to run. More than that, he needs her to. Trump is desperate for a wide field in the primaries and would benefit enormously from a challenger who represents no real threat and to whom he can appear, by his standards, almost chivalrous.

Polls evaluating potential Republican candidates, while unreliable at this point and subject to vast swings, nonetheless make it clear that Trump’s chances of winning the nomination are far better in a diffuse field than in a head-to-head contest with Ron DeSantis. In a recent Monmouth University poll, for example, DeSantis beats Trump 53-40 if they are the only two in the race, while in a Morning Consult poll that included a dozen potential candidates, Trump thumped DeSantis 47-31. Although each poll has its own methodology, Trump has fared worse mano a mano with DeSantis in almost all of them.

In addition, Haley may have the potential to draw more votes away from DeSantis than other potential rivals, such as the two Mikes, Pompeo and Pence, or fringe entrants like Ted Cruz or Chris Christie. In a Yahoo News/YouGov poll, while DeSantis has a 45-41 lead over Trump head-to-head, “In a hypothetical three-way match-up, Haley effectively plays the spoiler, attracting 11% of Republicans and Republican-leaners while DeSantis’s support falls by roughly the same amount (to 35%), leaving Trump with more votes than either of them at 38%.”

And so, Trump’s reaction to Haley’s announcement was muted and is likely to remain so. Party leaders, on the other hand, although they will be loath to say so publicly, were likely none too pleased with Haley’s decision.

It has become an open secret that many Republicans dread the idea of Trump gaining the 2024 nomination. With him both the titular and spiritual leader of the party, Republicans have underperformed in three consecutive national elections, losing the presidency and the Senate and barely taking back the House, despite subterranean approval ratings for President Biden.

Once considered apostasy, some, such as Mitch McConnell, ethically challenged in his own right, have publicly called for a different presidential nominee in 2024. McConnell, who would give a body part to again be majority leader, is particularly aggressive about calling for change. Republicans need to pick up one, perhaps two Senate seats in 2024 if he is to achieve that aim, and under normal circumstances, he would be a heavy favorite to do so.

Seats in Montana, Ohio, and Arizona, and perhaps West Virginia, Nevada, and Wisconsin could easily flip red if Republicans nominate reasonable candidates, even if they are hard right. But in the last two Senate cycles, Trump has forced a series of laughably poor candidates on the party, some of whom seemed barely literate. Almost all lost. With Trump at the head of the ticket, that debacle may well repeat. (Kevin McCarthy should be aware of a similar risk, but in addition to other shortcomings, he lacks McConnell’s savvy.)

Despite the one poll that shows her at 11%, Haley does not crack 10% in any other. In addition, her profile, while perhaps appealing to a large segment of Republicans will be an impediment with others—the racist and misogynist labels did not come out of nowhere, after all.

In other words, Nikki Haley’s chances of actually winning the nomination are minimal, something of which she cannot help but be cognizant. Other than a lightning-in-a-bottle strategy, it is useful to try to divine her motivation for joining the race.

In another kind of race, middle distance running, when one or more of the entrants is trying for a world record, they will often ask someone with no chance of winning but with a good shorter distance speed to enter as the “rabbit.” It is a thankless task, running hard early only to finish last, the only reward for which is the gratitude of the real runners.

Gratitude in a mile race might be a couple of dollars sent the rabbit’s way. In a presidential race, the reward could be greater, perhaps the chance to live at the Naval Observatory, the official residence of the vice president, or to occupy the big office at the Department of State.


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