Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump explains why mail voting merits a lawsuit in Nevada but praise in Florida

President Donald Trump, vote by mail, absentee voting

President Trump praised GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis for building "a great infrastructure" for Florida mail-in voting.

Saul Loeb/Getty Images

The Trump campaign has put its lawyers where the candidate's mouth is — although, all of a sudden, not where it is all the time.

President Trump's re-election team sued late Tuesday to block the delivery of a mail-in ballot to every voter in potential battleground Nevada this fall. The lawsuit was filed just hours after Trump created one of the most whiplash-inducing moments of the campaign. After making baseless accusations dozens of times that easy voting through the mail guarantees a rigged election, he encouraged every voter in Florida — but only Florida, the biggest purple state — to find a stamp and vote from home.


In a tweet Wednesday, Trump asserted the situations in the two states were fundamentally different — both logistically, which is highly questionable, and, he conceded, politically:

"Nevada has ZERO infrastructure for Mail-In Voting," he said, disregarding that the state's primary in June was conducted almost entirely by mail. "It will be a corrupt disaster if not ended by the Courts. It will take months, or years, to figure out. Florida has built a great infrastructure, over years, with two great Republican Governors. Florida, send in your Ballots!"

Voting by mail looks guaranteed to surge this fall because of the intensifying coronavirus pandemic, even in states that have not already made that process easier. For months, Trump has claimed that expanded remote voting will make it easy for fraudsters to steal his second term, an unprecedented presidential rattling of the democratic process.

There is essentially no evidence to support his fear, but polling has shown many more Republicans believe the president than Democrats — a situation that has many GOP operatives worried that Trump's own sowing of doubt could assure his defeat.

The federal lawsuit, in which Trump was joined by the Republican National Committee and the Nevada GOP, says Nevada's new procedures for the fall election will make "voter fraud and other ineligible voting inevitable."

The plaintiffs claimed "a vital interest in protecting the ability of Republican voters to cast, and Republican candidates to receive, effective votes in Nevada elections and elsewhere," And, their suit said, "Major or hasty changes confuse voters, undermine confidence in the electoral process and create incentive to remain away from the polls."

Trump first threatened to sue on Monday, just before Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the measure, which his fellow Democrats in control of the Legislature cleared over the weekend. In addition to mandating an absentee ballot be delivered to all 1.6 million active registered voters, the law decrees that ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 will be counted if they're delayed in the mail as long as a week, and envelopes with unclear postmarks will be tabulated if they arrive three days late. Until now, ballots had to be in hand by Election Day, the rule in about two-thirds of the states.

The law also eases restrictions to allow party operatives to pick up and deliver the ballots of others — a practice, in place in about a dozen states, that Republicans label as "ballot harvesting" and say is ripe for abuse.

The suit derided those provisions as "head-scratching" because they were enacted after the June primary.

The highest-ranking Republican in Nevada, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, was the one who decided to proactively mail out ballots for that primary, a first in the state. And she told lawmakers in Carson City that she found no evidence of fraud. But she opposed the new law because of its ballot collection provision.

Nevada, with six electoral votes, Minnesota (10) and New Hampshire (4) are the states won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 that the Trump campaign has planned to contest.

Complicating matters has been Trump's effort to distinguish between the mail voting he disdains and absentee voting, which he says is fine by (and used by) him. The two terms are widely viewed as synonymous. In Florida, like most states, for example, no excuse is required to request an absentee ballot — and about one-third of all votes in recent elections have been mailed in using those forms.

"Whether you call it Vote by Mail or Absentee Voting, in Florida the election system is Safe and Secure, Tried and True," Trump tweeted Tuesday. "Florida's Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail!"

The president was perhaps referring to a recent settlement in which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis ceded little ground to plaintiffs seeking easier paths to voting.

Recent polling suggests that Trump winning re-election without Florida's 29 electoral votes is increasingly implausible. The state's elderly population, which tilts decidedly to the GOP, has been especially reliant on absentee voting.

Eight other jurisdictions also plan to deliver mail ballots to all registered voters this fall. Hawaii, Colorado, Oregon, Utah and Washington planned to do so before the pandemic. Vermont, California and the District of Columbia decided to do so this summer.

Last week, he even suggested delaying the election rather than relying on so much more mail voting. The president does not have the power to do that, and the idea was immediately shot down by the Republcian leaders in Congress, which does have the power.

Claim: Michigan illegally sent absentee ballots to voters. Fact check: False

BENSON RESPONDS AFTER TRUMP THREATENS FUNDINGChiara Vercellone, Medill School



Michigan did not send ballots to registered voters like President Trump said. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, who has encouraged all voters to vote by mail for all elections held this year, announced Tuesday all 7.7 million registered voters would receive applications to vote by mail in the August primary and November general elections.

Responding to the president, Benson noted that her office was sending applications, not ballots, "just like my GOP colleagues in Iowa, Georgia, Nebraska and West Virginia." The applications sent out, Benson said, ensure "that no Michigander has to choose between their health and their right to vote."

In a similar tweet, Trump also accused the state of Nevada's election officials of sending mail-in ballots to voters. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske, a Republican, announced registered voters would start receiving mailed absentee ballots to vote for the primary, held predominantly by mail.

Claim: Nevada​ illegally mailed absentee ballots to registered voters. Fact check: False

Secretary of State Barbara CegavskeKelly Cannon, Medill School



Nevada allows any voter to vote absentee by mail. Like in many other states adapting to carrying out elections amidst a global pandemic, Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske declared the upcoming primary would be carried out by mail due to the coronavirus. A federal judge recently ruled that conducting the primary election by mail ballot was lawful in rejecting an injunction to block Nevada's primary.

President Trump's tweet suggests voting-by-mail is fraudulent, despite a lack of evidence to support the claim. In a press release responding to Trump, Cegavske, a Republican, said Nevadans "have been voting by mail with no evidence of election fraud" for over a century, including members of the military, citizens residing outside the state, voters in designated mailing precincts, and voters requesting absentee ballots. Cegavske said all 17 counties have established processes and procedures in place for safe and secure mail-in voting. Research shows voter fraud with mail-in ballots is rare and even with the increase in mail voting over time, fraud rates remain "infinitesimally small," according to the Brennan Center.

The tweet also seems to suggest that Trump has the legal authority to "hold up funds" to the state of Nevada for carrying out its upcoming primary by allowing all voters to vote by mail. No such legal authority exists.

The statements made here are alike to those in another tweet Trump wrote, which levied substantially similar claims about the state of Michigan. Trump falsely accused Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson of illegally mailing out absentee ballots to 7.7 million Michiganders for the state's primary and general elections.

Claim: Vote-by-mail ballots will create a rigged election en California. Fact check: False

President Trump headshotSara Wilson, Medill School

President Trump tweeted another claim about states "illegally" sending ballots or absentee applications to voters. His series of tweets about California specifically say that Gov. Gavin Newsom is sending ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there," suggesting that people who aren't citizens are voting en masse.

Newsom issued an executive order on May 8 to send every registered voter — not anyone living in the state — a vote-by-mail ballot for the Nov. 3 election. People can still vote in person if they want.

Voter fraud in the United States is very rare. An analysis from a team of investigative journalists found 491 instances of absentee voter fraud between 2000 and 2012. "Mail ballot fraud is incredibly rare, and legitimate security concerns can be easily addressed," according to experts from the Brennan Center.

There is also little evidence that undocumented immigrants are voting in California or elsewhere. David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research, told Politifact in 2018 that "There's zero evidence of even dozens, let alone millions, of non citizens voting in this or any other election."

Claim: Voters in New Mexico are being sent multiple absentee ballots. Fact check: False

US official ballot for absentee voterSam Cabral, Medill School


Charlie Kirk is conflating the issue mentioned in the photo he himself shared. As the post in the attached photo states, the household in question has received several applications to request a mail-in ballot for the upcoming election, but not ballots themselves, as Kirk falsely states.

Ahead of the state's June 2 primary election, officials in New Mexico are urging eligible voters to cast ballots by mail to reduce the risk of coronavirus transmission. Voters have responded in kind with a massive increase in requests submitted, and thousands of ballots have already been completed and returned.


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