Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump likely to win tax returns fight in California, but battles continue elsewhere

Tax returns

A new law that requires candidates in California to provide their tax returns before being allowed on the ballot appears likely to be rejected by the state Supreme Court.

Tim Boyle/Getty Images

The legal battle to pry loose President Trump's tax returns appears to be headed to defeat in the California Supreme Court, while numerous other efforts continue to move forward.

According to reporting by the Sacramento Bee, a majority of the justices on Wednesday appeared to side with Republicans challenging the new state law that would force Trump to release the last five years of his tax returns in order to get on the 2020 primary ballot.

During oral arguments, several of the justices aggressively questioned an attorney representing Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

"Where does it end? Do we get all high school report cards?" asked Justice Ming Chin, according to the Bee.

If the court strikes down the law (it has 90 days to reach a decision), the state could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Trump was the first presidential candidate — and now president — to refuse to release his taxes since the 1970s.

Other states are considering laws similar to California's. In addition, four committees of the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives have subpoenaed Trump's tax returns and so has the Manhattan district attorney, also a Democrat. Trump is fighting all of those demands.

A provision requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns was included in HR 1, the comprehensive political reform legislation that passed the House in March. The bill was the centerpiece of the Democrats' agenda when they took over the House in the 2018 election. It passed on a partisan vote but is unlikely to be considered in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, a federal judge said Wednesday that the House Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee had a "really strong argument" in their lawsuit seeking Trump's federal tax returns. They filed the suit after the Treasury secretary and the head of the IRS refused to turn over Trump's tax returns.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden urged Congress and the president to resolve the dispute outside of court.

Read More

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

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.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting maps

Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.

Context: in the news

In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )

Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.

Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.

Keep ReadingShow less