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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

Muddied last time, No Labels wades back into presidential race

President Donald Trump

Donald Trump was combative at the No Labels convention in New Hampshire four years ago and still won its "problem solver" label.

Darren McCollester/Getty Images
David Hawkings
By David HawkingsNov 01, 2019
David Hawkings
See More Writings by author

No Labels, one of the most prominent nonprofits focused on bolstering bipartisanship in Washington as the prime cure for the ailing democracy, is wading in to the presidential race this weekend.

And it's hoping the effort goes better than last time, when the group helped propel candidate Donald Trump with its seal of approval as a "problem solver" and took it on the chin from most all the other forces in the world of democracy reform.

Nothing approaching that sort of endorsement is in the offing Sunday afternoon, when 1,200 voters are expected at a No Labels gathering in New Hampshire but only a handful of second-tier and iconoclastic presidential candidates are expected to make pitches for their support: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland and motivational author Marianne Williamson among the Democrats and former Gov. Bill Weld of Massachusetts the only Republican.

Organizers will conduct a straw poll of attendees at the end of the day, with the balloting not limited to those who have traveled to Manchester. The result could offer a small clue about which candidates are positioned to capture the nation's small but potentially dispositive clutch of centrist voters not loyal to either major party, the sort No Labelsattracts.

"No Labels believes the candidate who can best articulate their ability to be a 'problem solver' will ultimately capture the imagination of the public," the group said in announcing the gathering.

The president will not be there. When he attended the group's gathering in New Hampshire four years ago, he was roundly criticized by attendees for a combative 40-minute address focused on running down his GOP rivals, denigrating the Democrats and trumpeting the virtues of winning hard-knuckled negotiations rather than collaborating. While he promised to become "much less divisive" in the future, he then added: "Always remember this: I never start anything. I simply counterpunch."

Nonetheless, he was one of the five GOP presidential candidates to get labeled as a "problem solver" a few weeks before winning the state's first-in-the-nation 2016 primary, a victory that accelerated his march toward the Republican nomination.

Although by that time his candidacy was already known best for such combative and polarizing ideas as a border wall and a ban on Muslims entering the country, he and the others earned the No Labels blessing by signing a pledge promising to push bipartisan legislation that would assure the solvency of Medicare and Social Security through the end of the century, balance the federal budget by 2030, make the country "energy secure" by 2024 and create 25 million jobs over a decade.

Since winning the election, Trump has put his weight behind no efforts to address any of the first three challenges. So far in his presidency the economy has created about 6 million jobs, but many economists steer clear of crediting the president's signature 2017 tax cut.

The four-part pledge was widely ridiculed by most of the other similarly well-known and well-funded democracy reform groups. They contend No Labels wrongly puts too much emphasis on electing and promoting people in the ideological middle — wrongly believing that's the magic formula for sopping up the partisanship, divisiveness and incivility that have clogged the capital's policymaking wheels.

Instead, the other groups say systemic changes, mainly to reduce the influence of money in politics and boost competitiveness in legislative elections, are the best way to restore the policy-making system to good working order for the long haul.

Still, No Labels has claimed some significant wins since enduring all the criticism for its role in the rise of Trump.

The next year it created an organization of congressional allies, dubbed the Problem Solvers Caucus, which takes pains to keep its membership precisely equal among Democrats and Republicans. The group used its muscle to extract some changes in House rules this year designed to promote more bipartisan legislation. The most important is a procedure allowing bills sponsored by two-thirds of members (guaranteeing support from plenty in both parties) a floor vote even if the leadership doesn't like the legislation.

Last month No Labels released its set of "bold ideas to rebuild our democracy," including term limits for Supreme Court justices and a return of "earmarks," the line items dedicating spending for parochial projects that members were long allowed to insert in spending bills — on the assumption all the members who had won earmarks would vote for the underlying budgets and thereby ensure shutdowns would never happen.

This month the groups plans to publish "101 Nonpartisan Solutions to All the Issues that Matter," which seeks to educate the voters of 2020 in a non-polarizing way on the big issues of the day, from health care and gun control to climate change and transportation.


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