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

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

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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Slovakia’s election deep fakes show how AI could be a danger to U.S. elections

Slovakia’s election deep fakes show how AI could be a danger to U.S. elections

Election ballot boxes are prepared in Tomasova, Slovakia

Getty Images
By David Levine,
David Levine
David Levine is an Election Integrity and Management Consultant, who works to ensure that eligible voters can vote, free and fair elections are perceived as legitimate, and election processes are properly administered and secured. He is also an election security adjunct professor at George Mason University, an advisory committee member for the Global Cyber Alliance's Cybersecurity Toolkit for Elections, an advisory council member for The Election Reformers Network, a member of the Election Verification Network, and a contributor to the Fulcrum. Previously, he worked as the senior elections integrity fellow at the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy, where he assessed vulnerabilities in electoral infrastructure, administration, and policies. And prior to that he was the Ada County, Idaho Elections Director, managing the administration of all federal, state, county, and local district elections for 25% of the state’s population. David’s engagements and publications focus on election access, trust and security, and the nexus between external threats from malign actors and the challenges democracies face in conducting free and fair elections. His work has been published and quoted in USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, Bloomberg Technology, The Hill, Business Insider, MIT Technology Review, BBC, EU Observer, and elsewhere. David received a BA from Haverford College and a JD from the Case Western Reserve School of Law, where he discovered his passion for elections. Since then, he has administered elections, worked with advocacy groups to improve the election process, and observed elections in the United States and many other countries.
See More Writings by author
Louis Savoia
Louis Savoia
See More Writings by author
Nov 28, 2023

Levine is the senior elections integrity fellow at the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy, where he assesses vulnerabilities in electoral infrastructure, administration, and policies.

Savoia is a program assistant for the Alliance for Securing Democracy at GMF, where he serves as the lead author of ASD's weekly newsletter, the Securing Democracy Dispatch.

In the days leading up to Slovakia’s highly contested parliamentary election, deepfakes generated by artificial intelligence spread across social media. In one posted by the far-right Republika party, Progressive Slovakia leader Michal Šimečka apparently “ announced ” plans to raise the price of beer if elected. In a second, more worrisome fake audio recording, Šimečka “ discussed ” how his party will rig the election, including by buying votes from the country’s Roma minority.

Although Šimečka never said those words, it is unclear how many of the millions who heard the recordings across Facebook, TikTok, and Telegram knew that, although Slovak language fact-checkers did their best to debunk the clips.

While it is difficult to assess whether the deep fakes manipulated Slovak voters’ choices—and to what extent—it is clear that artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to target elections and could threaten future ones. To protect its elections, the United States must learn from Slovakia and bolster its ability to counter AI-generated disinformation threats before November 2024.

The threat of falsified information is not new for democracies, but artificial intelligence is likely to only compound these existing problems, particularly in the near-term. Authoritarian adversaries like Russia, China, and Iran will exploit different types of artificial intelligence to magnify their influence campaigns, as the Department of Homeland Security’s 2024 Homeland Threat Assessment recently warned. With this technology becoming widespread, a greater number of actors are able—and, in some cases, have already begun—to create falsified audio and video material with a potentially greater ability to mislead voters than textual disinformation.

In hyperpolarized societies like the United States, AI-generated disinformation may undermine voters’ ability to make informed judgments before elections. Deepfakes that purport to show corrupt dealings or election rigging behind closed doors—like those seen in Slovakia—could increase voter apathy and undermine faith in democracy, especially for a U.S. audience already awash in baseless claims of election fraud. Finally, different kinds of AI tools, such as chatbots and deepfake images, audio, and video could make it harder for U.S. voters to reject content designed to be manipulative, which could raise questions about the legitimacy of elections, especially those that are closely contested.

There has already been acknowledgment of risks from artificial intelligence in the United States. The U.S. Senate Rules Committee recently held a hearing on AI-related threats to elections and bills have been introduced in both chambers to address disclosures in political ads. The White House published the blueprint for an “AI Bill of Rights” to govern the technology’s development and use. On the state level, bills continue to be proposed and passed on the matter.

However, there is still much more that can be done before the 2024 presidential election to safeguard the vote. First, the U.S. Congress should mandate that large social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok require labels on all AI-generated content and remove posts that fail to disclose this. Even if AI-generated content were to spread, users would be warned of its origin via a clear marking. Congress could learn from the European Union’s (EU) approach on this front. Earlier this year, the EU passed the Digital Services Act, a comprehensive regulation that mandates similar labels for deep fakes.

Second, political campaigns should pledge to label all AI-generated content in ads and other official communications. On the platform front, Google, and YouTube already require that ads using AI-generated voice and imagery be clearly labeled. Campaigns should also avoid using artificial intelligence to mimic a political opponent’s voice or likeness—as happened in Slovakia, but also in the United States, Poland, and elsewhere—as this portrays them as saying words or performing actions they did not actually say or do. In the longer term, the U.S. Congress should pass legislation requiring this sort of disclosure.

Lastly, journalists and newsrooms should develop clear guidelines on how to cover AI-generated content. This could be done, in part, by consulting with AI experts and building sources with people who audit AI systems, talking with academics who study the data, conversing with technologists who work at the companies who developed the tools, and meeting with regulators who see these tools through a different lens. Journalists could also try to look at the human data scooped up to train these models and the people who made choices to optimize them. Outlets should also seek to educate listeners about how to identify AI-generated content.

If Slovakia’s example is any indication, the United States and other democracies must take AI-generated disinformation seriously. An open information space is key to democracy, making it important to protect from this sort of willful manipulation.


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