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

Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics looks for help

Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics looks for help

From Washington Post on Aug. 4, 2020: The U.S. Olympics & Paralympic Training Center in Colorado Springs

Matthew Stockman/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Howard Gorrell
By Howard GorrellJun 07, 2023
Howard Gorrell
See More Writings by author

Howard “Howie” Gorrell attended 13 of the last 14 Deaflympics since 1969 and is a 2004 recipient of the USADSF Jerald M. Jordan Award, given to those who exhibit leadership and continuous participation toward the goals of the Deaflympics.

In front of more than 600 participants of the Project Play Summit in Colorado Springs on May 17, Co-Chair Dionne Koller said that her newly-formed group, the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics (CSUSOP), is the 2020’s version of the President’s Commission on Olympic Sports (PCOS), which led to legislation in 1978 called the Amateur Sports Act (ASA).

Subsequently they attended the United States Olympic and Paralympic Museum reception that evening. They roamed four floors by peeping at the exhibits and artifacts dedicated to U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes.

Several participants asked the museum guides where the PCOS exhibit was located. The red-faced guides told them there was no exhibit but led them to an artifact display case at the deep end of a jetty off the top floor's main space. They were puzzled after seeing only one sentence with 29 words referring to PCOS.

Twenty-nine words in through the gleaming new $96 million, 60,000 square foot museum! That sentence reads, “The Amateur Sports Act, which originated from recommendations by Gerald Ford’s Presidential Commission on Olympic Sports, was implemented due to conflicts among U.S. amateur sports organizations regarding Olympic representations.”

Earlier, Koller said, “There’s no way to do that without looking at the original act and accounting for the fact that this is not the 1970s anymore.” She paused, “I think it’s really important to have an understanding of history, where we’ve been, where the sport was at the time, but also where we are today in sports.”

This Summit was held sixteen months after the Colorado Springs Gazette article titled, “ On the trail of display errors at the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Museum, ” which tells what I discovered inside the museum.

The participants mentioned above read the corrected blurb. The original read, “The Amateur Sports Act arose from concerns about conflicts among U.S. amateur sports organizations regarding Olympic representations.”

My commentary tells you that, according to Mike Harrigan, a former PCOS director, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) had never once held a seminar for its member organizations on the letter, spirit, and intent of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978 (ASA) under which they operated.

While Congress was in the process of legislating another bill to reform the USOC, Harrigan wrote the underlying causes of what went wrong in his 2018 piece for Sports Business Journal:

  1. The USOC failed to properly oversee national governing bodies as required by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978.
  2. The USOC failed to understand certain portions of the Act.
  3. The USOC failed to educate its members and Congress on its contents.
  4. The USOC's "culture" since the late 1980s ignored everything in its legislative mandate except the goal of winning Olympic medals.

Sadly, the USOC gave Congress an unbelievable false fact about the Deaflympics. On June 24, 2003, Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation presided over testimony regarding the ongoing efforts to reform the USOC. He asked Dr. Harvey W. Schiller, former USOC Executive Director, "Can you explain why the Paralympics should be part of the current USOC structure, and why the Deaflympics remain excluded?"

Schiller testified, "Recognizing that this is a continuing sensitive issue, it was our understanding that, based upon previous competitive opportunities, that the organization that represents the deaf athletes had adequate representation within the organization as it stands." He paused, "The Paralympics itself is the organization that determines which disabled sports are part of it or not, and as you know, there are continuing arguments as to the technical requirements that could allow and have allowed in the past deaf athletes, the hearing impaired, to perform and compete in regular competition, and we didn't see at this particular time any need to specifically identify that group."

Frustrated president of the USA Deaf Sports Federation, Bobbie Beth Scoggins, told ESPN, “I have been to USOC and disabled sports meetings, countless meetings where the Deaflympics was literally ignored, accorded only a nod as might be afforded to a stepchild. We were often isolated from the decision-making and funding process."

In contrast to the 2021 Tokyo Summer Olympics, in which the International Olympic Committee validated 19,664 media accreditations, there were only two journalists at the Summit: an Associated Press reporter and a Gazette reporter. Several newspapers ran the A.P. article on May 18, "Olympic reform panel starts work: 'Opportunity to think big'" I learned that it was the first publication to use the CSUSOP since my commentary on March 28, "Deaflympians battle for sport & awareness." Since then, no media has yet written more about the CSUSOP.

Being a former at-large member of the USOC Handicapped in Sport Committee, I emailed a massive message to over 175 news editors on April 10 to persuade them to cover more about the function of the CSUSOP. Also, I requested them to consider writing about the USA Deaflympians' ongoing plea for Congress to include the Deaflympics in the program of the U.S. Olympics and Paralympic Committee (USOPC). Unfortunately, no paper has accepted my request.

In response to my email, USOPC CEO Sarah Hirshland was afraid I was disappointed in the outcome. However, she encouraged me by writing, "I know the CSUSOP are well aware of the fragmentation and resource challenges that plague sport in our country and I'm hopeful they might find some ideas to help."

Mike Harrigan is correct that the public must help Congress and the USOPC solve their problems. You and your athletic friends must submit your public comment to the Commission on the State of U.S. Olympics and Paralympics by July 31.


Latest news

A person's hand holding a stamp above a vote deposit box.
Democracy

When Rivals Converge: Electoral Influence Beyond the Cold War

A display entitled 'The Dirty Business of Slavery' at the President's House on August 9, 2025 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Democracy

Trump's Perversion of U.S. History

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Ethics & Leadership

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room

Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
© Copyright 2026