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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

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

Trans women in sports is not a fairness issue, it’s a political one

Opinion

Trans women in sports is not a fairness issue, it’s a political one
Getty Images
Paul Swearengin
By Paul SwearenginJun 23, 2023
Paul Swearengin
See More Writings by author

Swearengin is an author, emotional & spiritual well-being coach, podcaster and content creator through his social media presence as Unconventional Pastor Paul. He talks religion and politics at times joined by his wife Ashley, a former elected official and community leader. Find him at Pastor-Paul.com.

The issue of trans women competing in women’s athletics has stirred up intense conversation - and 556 pieces of proposed legislation across forty-nine American states. But is this truly a fairness issue, as some can logically argue? Or is it political culture rhetoric crushing a chance to "love our neighbors"?

I'm a fan of women's athletics. I was a sportscaster in the 90's when federal enforcement of Title IX forced colleges to provide fair athletic opportunity for females. History has borne out the positive impact of that legislation. Yet, the numbers simply don't support the narrative that trans women are the new threat to those hard-earned athletic opportunities.

Save Women's Sports, an anti-trans organization, identified only five transgender athletes competing on school girls teams for grades K-12 in 2022. Estimates say maybe as few as a dozen trans females are competing in women’s collegiate athletics. That's a total of seventeen athletes. Is that number worth the hub-bub of more than five-hundred pieces of legislation, including one in the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives?

The irony here is that those who are now championing this legislation to "save women's sports" are of the same ideology of those who opposed Title IX enforcement, categorizing it as “taking money away from the boys when girls don't even want to play.” That hypocrisy, and the sheer volume of legislative actions, tell us this is a political culture war issue. And since, sincere-hearted people can think they are caring for women, we must speak up of how that support is being used for a bevy of rights-crushing laws that include everything from criminalizing parents who offer gender affirming health care to their children (as well as a few states attempting to eliminate that care for adults) to legalizing trans discrimination in employment, housing and basic human rights.

"Doesn't an athlete who went through male puberty present a physical danger to biologically female athletes?"

Perhaps, yet few can point to actual instances where a trans woman has caused a severe sports injury specifically due to birth gender differences. My limited research shows that by far the most serious injuries in women’s sports happen in cheerleading, where no interpersonal violence occurs at all. The greatest threat of serious injury or even death in women's sports is a softball from the bat or arm of a bio-born woman.

The sad part of this is that sports has been so groundbreaking through people like Jackie Robinson, Billie Jean King and Tiger Woods. Yet, the arguments of fairness have persisted through the ages to exclude marginalized people from sports and to ostracize groups of them.

Many proclaimed it unfair that "pretty Chrissy Evert" had to compete against that "muscular" Martina Navratilova - a thinly veiled homophobic shot at the skillful and powerful Navratilova. Similar words have been spoken about Serena Williams or Britney Griner, as well men like football player Jim Brown or college superstar hoopster Patrick Ewing. We must take caution in allowing anecdotal stories of genetically caused unfairness to be used for exclusion, all the while knowing that injuries are an unfortunate and largely unavoidable component of sports, as well as genetic differences for all gender identities.

Righting wrongs always carries a cost. Accepting trans female athletes will inevitably squeeze some women out of college athletic scholarships. Were it my daughter that lost a scholarship to a trans woman I can honestly say we’d grieve the loss, but also know that our sacrifice for the affirmation of the humanness of nearly two-million Americans is worth the cost. In nearly every human spiritual tradition, there's a version of the Christian edict to “love your neighbor as yourself” and in each of these religious traditions “love” carries a cost. Trans women are more likely to self-harm than almost any other people group in our country. Shouldn't a "pro-life" be willing to sacrifice to keep others alive?

And the numbers will be very small. Remember, these are not men throwing on skirts and saying, “I’m a female athlete now.” The transition of genders takes long months of care and hard work through the red tape of the American healthcare system. The idea that males are going to transition simply to get a scholarship in female athletics costing women hundreds of scholarships is patently absurd.

As for loving our trans neighbors, it may be that Utah's Republican Governor Spencer Cox said it best:

"I struggle to understand... and the science is conflicting," Cox wrote as he described why he vetoed an anti-trans athlete bill that had come to his desk. "When in doubt however, I always try to err on the side of kindness, mercy and compassion."

Cox went on to explain that the bill was addressing four kids out of 85,000 Utah school aged athletes (only one of whom was playing girl’s sports).

"Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something," Cox continued. "Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few. I don’t understand what they are going through... But I want them to live. And all the research shows that even a little acceptance and connection can reduce suicidality significantly... I hope we can work to find ways to show these four kids that we love them and they have a place in our state."

The next day, the Republican dominated legislature overrode Cox's veto and banned trans athletes from participating in girl's sports. I guess they don't consider trans people to be their "neighbors".

The fury over trans athletes is not a fairness issue. It's political people demonizing a people group in order to acquire political power - and I have 556 legislative receipts to prove it.


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