RepresentUs is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates for state and local laws based on model legislation called the American Anti-Corruption Act. It is a proposal to overhaul lobbying, transparency, and campaign finance laws. We bring together conservatives, progressives, and everyone in between to pass powerful anti-corruption laws that stop political bribery, end secret money, and fix our broken elections. We are a powerful movement of independents, progressives, and conservatives is building on America's long tradition of pursuing federal reform through the states.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
A person filling out paperwork relating to a lawsuit.
Getty Images, boonchai wedmakawand
The Legal Costs and Risks of Trump’s 328 Lawsuits
May 21, 2025
As of May 1 – 101 days into the Trump 2.0 administration – the highly credible Bloomberg News reported over 328 lawsuits have been filed against Mr. Trump’s executive orders, proclamations, and policy decisions and Cabinet members’ actions. On May 13, Fox News gave cameo details on 208 of the lawsuits; virtually all lawsuits are individually cited in a recent Litigation Tracker report, published by Just Security of the Reiss Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law.
The 47th president leads the pack with over 75 lawsuits filed against him, followed by at least 39 cases challenging unelected Elon Musk and his non-Congressional approved Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE). More than 40 other lawsuits over funding cuts and agency firings also mention DOGE.
Just Security notes that 21 lawsuits have been filed against the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice and 12 lawsuits reveal Linda McMahon’s Department of Education as the litigant. Legal challenges have been placed against each of the 21 Cabinet members’ respective endeavors. This news, in and of itself, lays bare the fact that the majority of our 100 Senators failed to do their due diligence in approving Mr. Trump’s nominees for Cabinet positions.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The volume of legal battles poses significant long-term risks to American democracy, let alone the cost to Americans like you and me who will have to pay attorney fees to defend Donald J. Trump, Cabinet members, and other officials’ actions.
On May 13, I asked three people elected to represent me (i.e., Iowans’ Sen. Chuck Grassley, Sen. Joni Ernst, and Rep. Ashley Hinson) to provide an “approximate cost that Americans will have to pay legal counsel to defend Trump 2.0’s 328 lawsuits filed to date.” No reply has been received from any of my elected delegates. So, there goes accountability by Congress to the electorate and representation by, for, and of the people, a core principle of a representative democracy.
You might like to know the average hourly rate for lawyers in the U.S. is $341 and a mere $462/hour for attorneys at law in Washington, D.C. (Clio Report, 2024).
A Perplexity AI research-based inquiry noted—as compared to more recent presidents like Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden—“The Trump 2.0 administration has faced an unprecedented volume of litigation.”
Lawsuits are not novel to Mr. Trump. According to a comprehensive review by USA Today, published nine years ago (July 7, 2016), Donald Trump has been involved in at least 4,095 lawsuits where he was the defendant. These include a wide range of civil and criminal cases, relating to business disputes, defamation, political campaigns, casinos, taxes, golf clubs, real estate, government investigations, and sexual abuse. And, Mr. Trump has filed a documented minimum of 1,600 lawsuits against other individuals and organizations. In summation, Donald John Trump has encountered at least 5,695 lawsuits in his lifetime.
Besides the cost of Trump 2.0-related lawsuits that you and I — one way or another — will pay for, the long-term risks to American democracy seem unending, and they include:
1. The Brookings Institution independent research group noted that if the Trump administration disregards court rulings and/or pressures the Department of Justice and/or Supreme Court to act politically, America’s revered checks and balances will be eroded along with our 250-year understanding of what democracy represents.
2. If Donald Trump and the Trump administration disobey a Supreme Court order, the following legal consequences are possible: civil contempt of court, criminal contempt of court, monetary fines, imprisonment, constitutional crisis, and impeachment as the president is constitutionally required to ensure the faithful execution of the laws.
3. Congress’s failure to counter funding freezes or unconstitutional orders is already destabilizing the separation of powers for now and future presidencies, ushering in — with their non-action — an authoritarian, dictatorship, and fascist-oriented country. Our do-nothing 119th Congress (Jan. 2025-Jan. 2027) is a disgrace!
4. A Harvard Law Review article claims lawsuits challenging voting rights will exacerbate public distrust in the electoral system, discouraging voter participation.
5. The Emory Law Journal reports that litigation used as a political strategy could deepen partisan division and stall critical legislative reforms.
6. The Brookings Institution, along with the Campaign Legal Center, cites that executive abuses will test our 535 elected delegates to the U.S. Capitol to see if they will or will not strengthen anti-corruption laws like closing Citizens United loopholes, protecting the 74 statutory and independent Inspector Generals, and clarifying judicial enforcement mechanisms.
The cost of defending Trump 2.0’s 328 lawsuits is unknown, but the long-term risks to democracy are frightening. The future of democracy to withstand the legal perils brought about by Mr. Trump and his Cabinet appointees lies in the hands of 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, 74 Inspector Generals, 94 U.S. District Courts, the Court of International Trade, the Supreme Court, and, most importantly … you and me.
Steve Corbin is a Professor Emeritus of Marketing, University of Northern Iowa and a non-paid freelance opinion editor and guest columnist contributor to 246 news agencies and 48 social media platforms in 45 states.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
What’s Democratic About Giving Tax Dollars to Private Schools?
May 21, 2025
Listen by clicking HERE.
Episode Summary
Public schools are essential for democracy—and they’re under attack. But the very policies being championed as their salvation may have a catastrophic impact on American education for generations. Public education advocate and historian Diane Ravitch unpacks how school choice policies like vouchers and charter schools are dangerous for democracy.
Diane Ravitch is a former assistant secretary in the United States Department of Education. She is the author of several books on the history and policy of American public schools. Her memoir, about her life as a leading public education reformer, will be published this fall. It’s called An Education: How I Changed My Mind About Almost Everything.
Alex Lovit is a senior program officer and historian at the Kettering Foundation. He hosts and executive produces the Kettering Foundation podcast The Context.
The Context is a podcast from the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, about the history, trends, and ideas shaping democracy in the United States and around the world. Every episode, host Alex Lovit, a senior program officer and historian with the foundation, interviews someone who has seen it all—scholars, politicians, journalists, and public servants.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office at the White House on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
Just the Facts: What Is a National Emergency?
May 20, 2025
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.
Has President Trump issued several executive orders based on national emergency declarations, and if so, which ones are they?
- National Energy Emergency: Declared on his first day in office, this order aims to fast-track oil and gas projects, but it's facing legal challenges from multiple states.
- Trade Emergency: Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on foreign trade, citing a national emergency caused by large trade deficits.
- Forest Logging Emergency: In March 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order declaring a national emergency to expedite logging on over 112 million acres of national forest land. The emergency designation allows logging projects to proceed with fewer regulatory hurdles, limiting challenges from environmental groups and local governments. Scientists and conservationists have raised concerns that this approach could actually increase fire risks rather than mitigate them.
- Immigration and the Southern Border: Trump has declared a national emergency at the southern border to justify his mass deportation efforts. His administration has invoked the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the removal of suspected gang members, particularly Venezuelan nationals. Additionally, Trump has confirmed plans to use military assets to assist with deportations under this emergency declaration.
Are any of the executive orders that invoke a national emergency facing legal challenges?
Several of Trump's executive orders that invoke a national emergency are facing legal challenges. For example, a group of small businesses has petitioned a U.S. court to block tariffs imposed under a national emergency declaration, arguing that Trump exceeded his authority. Additionally, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a coalition of attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against Trump's executive order declaring a "national energy emergency," alleging that it unlawfully fast-tracks fossil fuel projects while bypassing environmental protections.
There are multiple lawsuits challenging various executive actions, and a litigation tracker estimates that over 230 cases have been filed against Trump administration policies.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Have previous presidents ever invoked national emergencies for executive orders?
Many U.S. presidents have issued executive orders based on national emergency declarations. A few notable examples are:
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933) – Declared a national emergency to close banks temporarily, stabilizing the financial system during the Great Depression.
- Harry Truman (1950) – Declared a national emergency during the Korean War, allowing the government to mobilize resources for military production.
- Richard Nixon (1971) – Used emergency powers to impose wage and price controls to combat inflation.
- George W. Bush (2001) – Declared a national emergency after the 9/11 attacks, expanding surveillance and counterterrorism measures.
- Barack Obama (2009) – Declared a national emergency in response to the H1N1 flu pandemic, allowing hospitals to bypass certain regulations.
Has the Supreme Court in past history defined in some manner what a national emergency is?
The Supreme Court has ruled on cases that clarify what qualifies as a national emergency. One recent case, Feliciano v. Department of Transportation, addressed whether federal employees serving in the military during a national emergency are entitled to extra pay. The Court ruled that service during an emergency qualifies for differential pay, even if the service isn’t directly tied to the emergency.
Historically, the Court has weighed in on presidential emergency powers. Some examples are:
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – The Court ruled that President Truman could not seize steel mills during the Korean War, stating that emergency powers must be explicitly granted by Congress.
- Trump’s Tariff Cases (2025) – Several lawsuits challenge Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify tariffs. Courts are reviewing whether his emergency declarations meet legal standards.
Has the Supreme Court ever ruled against a president for the use of a national emergency as the reason for an executive order?
The Supreme Court has ruled against presidents who have invoked national emergencies to justify executive orders. One notable example is Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where the Court struck down President Harry Truman’s executive order to seize steel mills during the Korean War. Truman argued that the seizure was necessary to prevent a labor strike from disrupting steel production, which was vital for national defense. However, the Court ruled that the president did not have the authority to take such action without congressional approval.
More recently, legal challenges have emerged regarding President Donald Trump’s executive orders, including his “Declaring a National Energy Emergency” order, which has been challenged by multiple states for allegedly misusing emergency powers. Courts have also blocked various executive actions related to immigration and national security, questioning whether they were legitimate uses of emergency authority.
What is a primary court argument Trump has used to justify declaring a national emergency to justify some of his executive orders?
Trump has argued that his national emergency declarations are justified based on his executive authority, but courts are actively reviewing whether his claims hold legal weight. For example, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade recently questioned whether Trump had the authority to impose tariffs under a national emergency declaration, with businesses arguing that only Congress has the power to levy tariffs.
David Nevins is co-publisher of the Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow of a boy
Getty Images/mrs
Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard
May 20, 2025
Nothing is worth more than the life of a child.
—Pope Francis
Justice is not swift for anyone, and even less so for children. In Mexico, as in many other countries, children who are victims of crime must face not only the pain of what they have lived through but also institutional slowness that, far from protecting them, exposes them to new forms of harm. If we were to truly act on Pope Francis’s reminder that "nothing is worth more than the life of a child," then why doesn’t the judicial system operate with that same urgency?
Since January, a seven-year-old girl in Mexico, a survivor of sexual violence at her school, has been waiting for a federal judge to resolve an amparo, a constitutional appeal she filed requesting the right to participate in the criminal case against her aggressor in a protected and adapted manner. According to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico’s highest court), amparos must be used as urgent remedies when fundamental rights are at imminent risk. And yet, four months have passed with no resolution.
The judge argued that “all matters are urgent” and that “everyone has the right to equal treatment.” While this sounds neutral, it actually perpetuates injustice: treating the needs of a child victim of sexual abuse as interchangeable with those of any other adult litigant dilutes the principle of the best interests of the child, which is enshrined in the Mexican Constitution and in international treaties such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Although Mexico ratified the CRC more than 30 years ago, the country continues to violate it by failing to ensure that its protections are fully applied in day-to-day judicial practice. The existence of strong laws is not enough when courts, prosecutors, and institutions do not translate those rights into action. In international law, this lack of implementation is itself a breach of Mexico’s obligations. Meanwhile, the United States, while not having ratified the CRC, has adopted many of its principles into federal and state law, particularly in areas related to child protection and juvenile justice.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has made it clear: children have the right to a justice system adapted to their age, including prompt and priority attention, precisely because waiting can cause revictimization. It’s not just about legal deadlines—it’s about cumulative harm, prolonged fear, and the perception that what happened to them is not important enough for the state to act.
This is not an isolated case. As a lawyer working to protect the rights of children in Mexico, I see it all the time: delays in protective measures, in forensic interviews, in court decisions. Sometimes, months or even years pass before basic protections are implemented. During that time, children remain exposed to further harm.
And the legal consequences can be permanent. Many caregivers eventually give up on the process out of fear or exhaustion. When they do, cases are closed and impunity takes root. According to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), over 93% of crimes in the country go unreported or uninvestigated. For crimes against children, the number is likely even higher, due to fear, stigma, and lack of support.
This speaks to a larger truth: justice systems worldwide, including in Mexico and the United States, were designed by and for adults. When children are involved, they are often treated as exceptions or burdens. They are asked to recount traumatic experiences in detail, identify perpetrators, and repeat their testimony across different stages of the process. If they hesitate, contradict themselves, or forget which is developmentally normal, their credibility is questioned.
Meanwhile, official speeches echo the same message: “Children are a priority.” But they are not. Not when it takes more than four months to resolve a constitutional petition asking only that a child be allowed to participate safely in a judicial process. Not while protective measures go unenforced and case files sit untouched on desks.
States, not just Mexico, but everywhere, have a legal and ethical obligation to act with due diligence in cases of violence against children. This means preventing abuse, investigating reports, and prosecuting perpetrators quickly and effectively. It also means recognizing the emotional and developmental harm that judicial delays cause. Because when justice is too slow, it becomes another form of violence.
As Pope Francis wisely said, "nothing is worth more than a child's life." And yet, every day that passes without resolution in cases like this one is a practical denial of that truth. If we want judicial systems to be places of protection and not abandonment, we must prioritize children, not just in words but in law, policy, and action.
Daniela Torres, lawyer defending the rights of children and adolescents, is a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More