Reform Elections Now is a nonpartisan organization of professionals concerned about the current political dysfunction that prevents government from working to solve the nation's biggest problems. We feel election reform is the key. Our mission is to facilitate election reform through education and engagement, with practical solutions that will enhance informed discourse, increase voter participation and motivate better representation by our elected officials. In addition to preparing 'white papers' on various reform initiatives, we hold monthly sessions open to all on timely relevant topics.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections
Aug 21, 2026
The Trump administration has expended significant resources trying to meddle in elections ahead of the midterms. This coordinated campaign includes attempts to limit who can vote, wrestle away states’ authority over elections, and undermine public confidence in election outcomes. So far, virtually everything the administration has tried has been blocked by courts, failed in Congress, or simply fizzled out.
Currently, the administration is 0–21 in its court cases seeking to amass state voter data. In dozens of states, election officials from both parties have refused to turn over their complete voter rolls, which contain confidential personal information, to the Justice Department. Federal courts from Arizona to Maine have thrown out the department’s lawsuits, ruling that the federal government lacks the power to force states to hand over this data on a mass scale.
Both of Trump’s executive orders aiming to overhaul election rules have also failed in court. The first one purported to require people to show a passport or another document proving citizenship to register to vote using the federal voter registration form. Several courts have blocked the policy. The second executive order would have the U.S. Postal Service refuse to deliver the mail ballots of voters who aren’t on new, ill-defined lists that states and USPS would be asked to create. In June, a court prevented it from taking effect. (The Brennan Center represents parties in lawsuits against both executive orders.) These cases are on appeal, but courts have consistently held that the Constitution gives the president no authority to regulate elections.
In a separate case, a court ruled that the administration may not expand the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, a federal database, to comb through state voter rolls for potential noncitizens. This is an important ruling because the program is incomplete and likely to incorrectly flag citizens for removal from the rolls. Voting by noncitizens is already illegal and extremely rare.
The administration’s losses extend beyond the courtroom. In the halls of Congress, President Trump has consistently demanded passage of the unpopular SAVE Act — legislation that would require Americans to show a passport or birth certificate in order to register to vote. If passed, the bill could block tens of millions of eligible American citizens from voting. So far, that effort remains stalled in the face of nationwide public opposition.
Another prong of the administration’s attack on elections is to demonize and prosecute election officials who refuse to go along with its schemes. The Justice Department recently sent a letter threatening jail time for officials in states that don’t tighten their voting rules under the guise of preventing noncitizens from casting ballots. The secretary of homeland security also claimed that officials who didn’t follow the administration’s instructions to remove voters from the rolls could go to prison. The point of these threats is to intimidate election officials into voluntarily enacting the policies Trump can’t get passed in Congress or approved by courts.
Attempted prosecutions of political adversaries have failed in other contexts. The administration shattered prosecutorial norms to charge New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey. A judge threw out the charges and rebuked the lawyer (one of Trump’s former personal lawyers who had no criminal law experience) who brought them, while another judge found she may have committed misconduct. Comey now faces a second prosecution over arranging seashells into the pattern “86 47,” which prosecutors say is a threat to Trump (the 47th president). That, too, seems likely to fail, and his lawyers have accused prosecutors of making false statements to obtain warrants.
The crumbling of the cases against James and Comey shows the emptiness of Trump and his allies’ similar threats against election officials. They promised to prosecute those who dispute his election lies, yet they have no cases with a serious chance of ending in a conviction. That’s not to say this tactic has no impact — defending against even a baseless prosecution can be extremely costly and stressful — but prosecutions based on conspiracy theories aren’t resulting in convictions.
One place where the administration is trying to forge ahead with this tactic is in Fulton County, Georgia. In January, FBI agents seized documents from election offices on the basis of debunked claims of fraud in the 2020 election. Reports indicate that Trump spoke to the agents after they conducted the raid, an unprecedented occurrence, which suggests the mission was politically motivated. All known evidence refutes the notion of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, and most likely this, too, won’t prove the salacious allegations.
Last month, Trump gave a speech on elections that underscored his desperation for a win before the upcoming midterms. After promising to reveal “shocking” information about the 2020 election being “rigged,” Trump instead merely repeated years-old conspiracy theories and claimed vague “intelligence” showed “vulnerabilities” in election systems.
Trump’s losses in the battle to take over elections don’t mean there hasn’t been collateral damage. False claims about inadequate election security have been a driving factor in states enacting well over a hundred voting laws during the last five years. Every time Trump cries foul or demonizes election workers, it causes more Americans to question legitimate election results. Nor is the fight over elections over. Trump and his allies may try increasingly aggressive maneuvers before or after Election Day, such as seizing voting machines or refusing to certify results — even though those tactics are against the law.
During Trump’s second term, the courts, election officials, Congress, and the people themselves have shown the strength to stand up to a president who wishes to trample the election system and cement his power. In the months to come, we must keep up the fight.
The Trump Administration Is Losing Its Fight to Take Over Elections was originally published by the Brennan Center and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

Peptides like BPC-157, MOTS-c and Semax are surging in popularity despite limited human evidence. Here’s why FDA regulation, research and safety matter.
skaman306/Getty Images
Millions Using Unapproved Peptides as FDA Debates Regulation
Aug 20, 2026
Peptides, the short chains of amino acids that help regulate biological functions, have become the latest obsession in health, fitness, and longevity.
Online clinics and wellness influencers promote them as ways to heal injuries, reduce inflammation, improve metabolism, sharpen thinking, and slow aging.
Today, these substances are part of a growing gray market. A recent Forbes report estimates millions of Americans are injecting unapproved peptides, often purchased from suppliers in China whose manufacturing quality, purity, and contents are difficult to verify.
Federal regulators now face a milestone decision: whether six popular — but experimental — peptides should be made available through licensed compounding pharmacies, which customize medications for patients based on physicians’ prescriptions.
The financial stakes of this decision are substantial. If the FDA authorizes them, analysts at Leerink Partners estimate that telehealth sales of these peptides could approach $2.2 billion in 2027.
The FDA Debate: To Authorize Or Not
Last month, the Food and Drug Administration’s Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee narrowly recommended adding six experimental peptides — BPC-157, KPV, TB-500, MOTS-c, Epitalon, and Semax — to the Section 503A Bulks List. This designation identifies ingredients that pharmacies can use to prepare compounded medications.
The committee’s recommendation drew scrutiny for two reasons. First, FDA staff cited insufficient evidence about the safety and effectiveness of the six peptides. Second, at least six newly added members had ties to peptide-related businesses or medical practices, which prompted FDA officials to raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
No decision date is set. It could be days or months before a final ruling.
Why ‘Yes’ Or ‘No’ Isn’t The Right Answer
The central problem is that whether the FDA approves or rejects the advisory committee recommendations, Americans won’t know whether these peptides are effective or safe. Scientific research is needed to answer both questions.
If the peptides improve health, more patients would benefit from using them. If they are ineffective or dangerous, people need to be warned.
Neither the previous administration nor the current one has created a credible way to generate those answers. Under the Biden administration, regulators effectively barred these peptides from being sold in the United States. That policy, along with stepped-up enforcement against suppliers and pharmacies, did not eliminate demand. Large numbers of Americans continued obtaining the peptides online from gray-market and overseas sources.
The Trump administration, with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. among the most prominent supporters of peptides, appears poised to move to the opposite extreme by permitting broad access through licensed compounding pharmacies.
Either way, doctors won’t have sufficient research data to determine whether to recommend these peptides or limit their use.
What The Six Peptides Do (And Don’t Do)
There are thousands of biological and synthetic peptides. Many occur naturally in the body and act as chemical messengers, influencing metabolism, inflammation, reproduction, and other physiological processes.
More than 100 peptide drugs are currently FDA-approved in the U.S., including insulin and GLP-1 drugs for diabetes and obesity.
For the six peptides now under final consideration by FDA leadership, public enthusiasm has advanced much faster than the science:
1. BPC-157 is promoted for gastrointestinal conditions, injury recovery and tissue repair.
2. KPV is marketed for inflammation, wound healing, and skin conditions.
3. TB-500 is promoted for healing muscle and tendon injuries.
4. MOTS-c is marketed for metabolic health, weight loss, exercise performance, and healthy aging.
5. Epitalon is promoted for sleep and longevity, including claims that it lengthens telomeres.
6. Semax is promoted for migraines, cognition, and neurological conditions.
Across all six, high-quality human evidence remains limited. Much of the available research consists of animal studies and limited human trials without control groups. As a result, patients can’t determine whether their benefits will outweigh their risks.
A Better Federal Strategy
Supporters of FDA authorization point out that Americans already use these substances. Acquiring them through physicians and regulated U.S. compounding pharmacies would be safer than relying on gray-market suppliers.
Critics argue that expanded access would encourage far more Americans to use products, despite uncertainty about their benefits and long-term risks.
The FDA won’t resolve these competing concerns with a simple yes-or-no choice. If it authorizes these substances, the best path would be to pair that decision with a federally coordinated research program.
The NIH could lead a one-year research effort, with FDA and CDC contributing regulatory and safety-surveillance expertise.
- People already using the peptides would continue receiving them if they agreed to submit data on their health and any adverse events.
- New patients would gain access under a scientific double-blind research protocol. Researchers would conduct controlled clinical trials of individual peptides for specific medical uses (with appropriate comparison groups to evaluate efficacy and short-term safety).
- At the end of one year, the FDA could review the findings and decide whether to continue the research expectations and expand or restrict access based on the data.
Although a one-year program would not answer every question, particularly about rare or long-term risks, it would generate far more evidence than exists today.
This type of approach has precedent. The federal government has previously linked access or coverage for certain treatments to participation in research when important questions remained unanswered. Medicare, for example, used “coverage with evidence development” for certain Alzheimer’s treatments, requiring qualifying patients to participate in approved studies.
Companies that stand to profit from expanded access to peptides should help finance the research. That principle also has precedent: pharmaceutical and medical-device companies already pay FDA user fees that support product review and certain post-market safety activities.
Both Democratic and Republican administrations have failed to resolve basic questions about the safety and efficacy of the six peptides. The best path now is to pair regulated access with scientific research.
Robert Pearl, the author of “ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.
Keep ReadingShow less

How tax cuts, deregulation and weakened unions helped shift the U.S. from the postwar Great Compression to today’s Great Divide—and examine the Gomory-Baumol corporate tax proposal as an alternative.
Guido Mieth/Getty Images
Affordability Crisis: From The Great Compression to the Great Divide
Aug 20, 2026
Trickle-down policies facilitated the transition from the mid-20th century "Great Compression “characterized by low-wage inequality and strong labor unions—to the "Great Divide" by shifting the economic focus from mass purchasing power to capital accumulation through massive tax cuts and deregulation.
The Great Compression
Following World War II, the United States experienced an unprecedented period of economic egalitarianism. Propelled by the G.I. Bill, the rise of powerful labor unions, and a heavily progressive tax code, the income gap between the wealthiest Americans and the working class shrank dramatically.
During this era, the economy heavily subsidized upward mobility. A single-income household could comfortably afford a starter home, a vehicle, and higher education without incurring generational debt. The post-war consensus was rooted in the idea that productivity growth and wage increases moved in lockstep.
During the Great Compression (Mid-1940s to the late 1970s), heavy progressive taxation, strong labor unions, and robust minimum wage policies actively reduced inequality. High marginal tax rates (often around 80%) kept executive compensation in check, while strong unions and a surge in demand for moderate-skilled labor allowed the bottom 90% of earners to experience wage growth that kept pace with economic productivity. During this era, homeownership, higher education, and healthcare were widely accessible on a single middle-class income.
However, the stagflation of the 1970s paved the way for supply-side economics. This "trickle-down" philosophy was built on the premise that slashing top marginal tax rates and easing corporate regulations would unleash private investment, ultimately generating widespread job creation and tax revenues.
The Great Divide
The Great Compression reversed in 1980, marking the beginning of the Great Divide (often called the Great Divergence). Policy shifts, including sharply lowered top marginal tax rates and capital gains taxes, financial deregulation, and weakened union protections, led to explosive income and wealth gains for the top 1%, while median wages stagnated. Between 1979 and 2022, the top 1% doubled their share of national income.
This hollowing out of the middle class severely damaged baseline affordability:
The Productivity-Wage Gap: From 1979 to the present, U.S. worker productivity has soared by over 83%, but median wages have increased by only about 29%. Workers are producing vastly more value but receiving a shrinking share of it.
Soaring Essential Costs: Prices for housing, higher education, and childcare have dramatically outpaced wage growth. The burden of essential living expenses has skyrocketed. The cost of living dominates public concern, with items like electricity (up 21% since 2020), healthcare, and groceries stretching family budgets to the breaking point.
Systemic Market Constraints: Modern affordability is heavily exacerbated by corporate consolidation and restrictive zoning laws, which severely limit the supply of housing and healthcare while inflating everyday expenses.
Housing and Real Estate: Home prices have doubled relative to annual household incomes since the 1950s. Over ten million American households, roughly 25% of all renters, spend more than half of their monthly income just on rent. The housing shortage—estimated at up to ten million units—has led to fierce competition, with institutional investors exacerbating the scarcity of entry-level starter homes.
Debt-Driven Lifestyles: As housing prices were bid up by high earners, middle-class Americans took on higher levels of household debt just to maintain a traditional standard of living.
The Wealth Gap: The divide is starkly visible in asset ownership. While the upper tiers of society have built unprecedented net worths through soaring equity and real estate markets, a significant portion of the population lives paycheck to paycheck, relying on debt just to maintain a baseline standard of living.
The erosion of the middle class is traceable to the affluent reshaping political and economic structures in their favor. Addressing this crisis requires shifting the economic paradigm. One such paradigm shift is a corporate tax proposal by Ralph Gomory (American applied mathematician and former IBM executive), developed alongside economist William Baumol. The Gomory- Baumol tax proposal centers on using a sliding-scale corporate income tax to reward companies that create high-value-added jobs within the United States, aimed at realigning corporate profit-seeking motives with national economic health, specifically fighting offshoring and boosting domestic productivity.
Productivity-Indexed Corporate Tax Rates
Rather than charging a flat corporate tax rate, The Gomory- Baumol proposes tying a company's federal income tax rate directly to its value added per full-time equivalent (FTE) domestic employee.
High Value-Add: Corporations that yield high productivity and high-paying jobs in the U.S. would receive a sharply reduced tax rate.
Low Value-Add: Corporations relying heavily on low-productivity work or offshored functions would face a significantly higher corporate tax rate.
Revenue-Neutral Implementation
The proposal is structured to be revenue-neutral for the federal government. It does not intend to raise or lower the overall corporate tax burden on the macro economy. Instead, it shifts the financial burden away from domestically innovative companies and onto companies that fail to invest in the U.S. workforce.
Realigning Corporate Incentives
The foundational objective of this tax plan is structural reform. The authors maintain that modern corporate boards are legally bound to maximize shareholder value, which often mandates offshoring jobs to lower costs. By altering the tax code, their proposal makes it in the direct financial interest of corporate directors to invest heavily in the skills and output of domestic workers.
Hugh J. Campbell, Jr., CPA, is a Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) professional and a student of W. Edwards Deming, the American statistician often credited as the catalyst for the Japanese economic miracle after WWII.
Keep ReadingShow less

USA and China trade relations, cooperation strategy. US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.
Getty Images
What Does the China–U.S. Trade Truce Mean for American Industry?
Aug 20, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
What Happened at the May 2026 Trump-Xi Summit?
The May 2026 Trump-Xi summit signaled a continuing peace period in the ongoing United States and China trade war. Prior to the summit, both countries stated intentions to reinforce strategic cooperation and strengthen bilateral trade through a comprehensive trade deal. Major discussion points included the imposed tariffs from the United States, the reciprocal tariffs from China, core minerals, the Iran war, relations with Taiwan, and the U.S.’s domestic industries.
The Timeline of the U.S. and China Trade War
In 2018, the United States implemented Section 301 and Section 232 tariffs under the first Trump administration. Tariffs are a tax on imported goods and services from foreign countries. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows for tariffs on a foreign country deemed to have discriminatory trade practices. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows for tariffs on goods or services deemed a threat to national security. The U.S. Office of the Trade Representative initiated an investigation into China’s trading practices in August 2017. They claimed there was intellectual property theft and a surplus of Chinese goods in the U.S. consumer base. China reciprocated the tariffs with their own on American imports.
Moving forward, the Biden administration maintained the tariff policies, and enacted additional tariffs. They found that China was practicing discriminatory practices through another Section 301 investigation in 2024. Tariffs were expanded to additional Chinese goods, such as semiconductor chips and electric vehicles. Under the Biden administration, the tariffs impacted $18 billion of Chinese imported goods.
Protectionism has been a central focus of the second Trump administration’s economic and international trade strategy. The administration implemented significant tariff hikes in 2025 and 2026, with many goods facing a 50 percent tariff. Additionally, the Trump administration rescinded the de minimis exception. This means imports valued under $800 are no longer exempt from import duties.The Trump administration then moved forward, placing a baseline tariff of 10 percent on all Chinese imports.
In October 2025, President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping met in Busan, South Korea. For 100 minutes, they agreed on various trade negotiations, such as combatting the fentanyl crisis and China resuming purchasing American soybeans. Both leaders agreed to continue the truce of the trade war and extend the peace period.
Have U.S. Industries Benefited?
Some argue that tariffs support U.S. industry, and specifically manufacturing. The implementation of the tariffs intends to protect domestic markets from overexposure to cheap Chinese goods, which threatens the valuable domestic manufacturing industry. Investigations by the United States concluded China was involved in discriminatory economic practices, especially intellectual property theft. This theft includes pirated software, illicit acquisition of technology, and imitation of manufacturing designs. Reports claimed that these practices cost the United States an estimated $600 billion annually. These losses have weakened the domestic industry by reducing innovation and employment. The protectionist policies support U.S. industry by reducing foreign interference and limiting intellectual property theft, reducing costs for domestic firms and workers.
The May 2026 Trump-Xi summit is expected to benefit U.S. industries, as trade negotiations have supported the expansion of U.S. industry into China’s markets. Key industries, such as agriculture, aircraft machinery, and manufacturing are expected to see gains. Additionally, the summit allowed for continued discussion of reducing trade tensions. These discussions motioned the charter of two trade institutions: the U.S.-China Boards of Trade and Investment. The implementation of these trade organizations, along with other discussions held during the summit, supports the expansion of U.S. industry.
Have U.S. Industries Been Harmed?
Arguments against the imposed tariffs claim the action was confrontational and unconstitutional. The implementation of the 2018 tariffs was criticized for its unilateral aggressiveness, which incited the trade war. Moreover, the imposed tariffs by the United States are reciprocated by China, decreasing U.S. exports. There have also been critiques claiming U.S. industries and manufacturing have not benefited from the tariffs. Research suggests that, while imports of Chinese goods have decreased, domestic reliance is not filling the gap. Rather, imports from other international partners have increased, alongside U.S. firms offshoring manufacturing in other countries.
Figure 1: Yale Economic Growth Center, 2024
Research shows that the costs of the trade war fall back onto U.S. manufacturing. The Budget Lab at Yale finds that the consumer prices of both core and durable goods have increased by 1.5 percent. These results are based on tracking price increases of consumer goods from January 2025 to April 2026 at the time of writing. U.S. importers bear the costs of tariffs; in an interview with NPR, U.S. manufacturer Dan Digre discusses shifting the manufacturing of speakers to China as a result of tariffs increasing costs for his business.
Summit Conclusions and Future Developments
Following the May 2026 Trump-Xi summit, there have been both satisfied and dissatisfied perspectives. It is still up for debate if the goals of the summit have been fulfilled.
Some who were satisfied claimed that both countries seemed to reach a consensus, working towards building a relationship of “constructive strategic stability.” They argue the cooperation between the two countries points to future developments in healthier competition and stability, as well as other mutual benefits.
Comparatively, those who were dissatisfied argued that the main goal of the summit, finalizing a joint comprehensive trade deal, was not achieved. They also argue there were inconsistencies in the two countries’ takeaways from the summit. These uncertainties further question how a resolution between the two countries could boost U.S. industry in the future.
There is uncertainty on the imposed tariff policies following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in February 2026. The court ruled that the imposed Section 301 tariffs under the IEEPA were unconstitutional, on the grounds that the IEEPA does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs. Additionally, the decision argued the United States’ current “peacetime” conditions do not warrant invoking the IEEPA. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered refunds of the unconstitutional tariffs. These decisions seemingly put China in a leveraged position in negotiations.
As of June 2026, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has proposed an alternate strategy under Section 301 related to the foreign use of forced labor. Following this proposal, the USTR will move to impose up to 12.5 percent tariffs on over 60 countries. This follows an investigation that began in March 2026, after the previous Supreme Court ruling.
Following the May 2026 Trump-Xi summit, the negotiations proposed a landscape where U.S. industries can thrive by expanding into Chinese markets and building stronger domestic reliance. However, with no joint trade agreements and economic pains from the trade war, U.S. industries and firms have no concrete solution to growing trade imbalances and rising costs.
What Does the China–U.S. Trade Truce Mean for American Industry? was first published by ACE and republished with permission.
Kylie Maddox is a recent graduate of the University of South Carolina and received a Bachelor of Arts in political science.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















