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

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

Three practical presidential pledges to promote national prosperity

Three practical presidential pledges to promote national prosperity
Getty Images
James-Christian B. Blockwood
By James-Christian B. BlockwoodMay 31, 2023
James-Christian B. Blockwood
See More Writings by author

James-Christian B. Blockwood, a former senior career senior executive in Federal Government, is Executive Vice President of the Partnership for Public Service and a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration.

Though the 2024 presidential general election is more than a year away, primary races have already begun. Early polling results tend to influence messaging, and it seems the more provocative the talking points—those that move a candidate to one side of the political aisle and separate them from others—the better.

Recent Republican announcements offer the latest intrigue, as Ron DeSantis launches his candidacy uniquely via Twitter Spaces, and Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Asa Hutchinson previously announced their intentions to run as alternative candidates to former President Trump. The latter candidates pitching free-thinker, bootstrapped, and restore American values and greatness platforms, but all are vying to challenge President Biden, the current Democratic front runner.

Regardless of who emerges victorious in the primaries and, ultimately, the presidency, here are three practical pledges—perhaps lacking the drama prompting headlines on the debate stage but fundamental to a well-functioning government—our next president can commit to that will affect positive change in our nation’s prosperity.

Balance the Budget and Reduce the Deficit

Good governance and fiscal prudence matters, especially when our country’s gross national debt is nearing $30 trillion, and Congressional Budget Office projections indicate debt may reach 119 percent of gross domestic product by FY2033.

Americans expect elected officials to faithfully execute their constitutional obligation to make laws and pass budgets, but when they fail to do so, it impedes the government's long-term planning capability and erodes trust in our institutions. The president, critical to this process, all too often allows political brinkmanship to get in the way.

Hostage negotiations (which Democratic Presidential candidate Marianne Williamson called economic terrorism) and crisis management was in full effect over the debt limit (the borrowing restriction placed on the government). Failing to have raised it would have been catastrophic for the economy, and those receiving government services or aid would have likely suffered the most. Though raising the debt limit still poses real world consequences and keeps our government on the same unsustainable fiscal path we’ve been on for decades. Unfortunately, it seems managing crises is becoming the norm, as our government continues to try solving our most pressing challenges through patchwork and stopgap efforts—evident in this latest conciliation which purportedly includes a multi-year appropriation and extension of the limit.

We need a balanced budget. We need to dramatically decrease the nation’s budget deficit. We need a President committed to these two causes, one who works across government seriously reevaluating and tackling the most expensive categories of spending (national defense, Social Security, healthcare and interest payments), and exacts effective governance, long-term fiscal health, and security.

Promote the Federal Workforce and the Work They Do

Though views of the government are not necessarily favorable (only 37 percent of people believe the government helps people like them), remove partisan politics from the equation and focus on localized services, and the government generally delivers. Improving trust and changing perception starts with acknowledging that some grievances are warranted, committing to strengthening the civil service, and reinforcing it should never be weaponized or politicized, rather celebrated.

While often scrutinized and negatively portrayed, civil servants operate seamlessly in the background every day, even in the face of major crises, to help Americans live better lives. A successful president recognizes this, truly understands how (and how well) the federal government serves its people, and promotes the federal workforce and the work they do.

The Partnership for Public Service’s Service to America Medals highlight how federal employees are leading innovation and service delivery excellence. Some recent accomplishments include working with airports and airlines on new programs to identify and prosecute human traffickers, helping deploy insects as natural predators against other bugs that damage crops, and creating new cotton-based medical gauze for trauma and chronic wounds.

We need a federal workforce that feels valued and is exalted for their achievements. We need a president firm on expectations and accountability while also honoring and equipping our civil servants with the resources and support to be innovative, efficient, and responsive to public needs.

Champion Trust and Cooperation

A strong government requires strong leaders, especially at the highest levels, who are stewards of public trust and committed to public good. As campaign rhetoric intensifies, particularly around divisive issues, it becomes increasingly important to think about what happens after the country has voted for its next leader.

Presidential candidates have a responsibility to promote trust in our elections and, more broadly, in our institutions. As candidates, committing now to respecting the outcome of fair and free elections (to include the process for contesting, recounts and legal challenge before conceding) and adhering to a spirit of cooperation to share information with transition teams will go a long way to increasing trust and ensuring the best start to the next presidency.

We need an election process typified by candidates honoring outcomes and participating in an amicable transition. We need a president that will represent our entire country if elected and support their former opponents to the fullest should they not be.

A presidential candidate will surely be judged on technological savvy, geopolitical acumen, economic prowess, and moral compass. However, we should also look for our next Commander-in-Chief to commit to balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, promoting the work of those who serve us every day, and championing trust and cooperation—a commitment to Americans and our nation’s well-being.


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