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

The Trump trap

The Trump trap

Former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign event at the DoubleTree Manchester Downtown on Thursday, April 27, 2023, in Manchester, NH.

Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Lawrence Goldstone
By Lawrence GoldstoneMay 18, 2023
Lawrence Goldstone
Goldstone, a freelance writer, is the author of “On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights.”
See More Writings by author

Goldstone’s latest book is “Not White Enough: The Long, Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment.” Learn more at www.lawrencegoldstone.com.

For anyone who may have forgotten (or tried to forget), there was Donald Trump, that pied piper of the extreme right, again on full display for seventy-minutes in a town hall/campaign rally that CNN thoughtfully provided for him. Any American harboring illusions that the man had changed, even the teeniest bit, was disabused of that notion with the very first question.

Trump sat across from Kaitlan Collins, who like Hillary Clinton accepting the 2016 Democratic nomination, chose a white pants suit for the occasion. Then, with either false sincerity or genuine mental illness, he insisted yet again that he won in 2020 only to be done in by massive fraud that would have required hundreds if not thousands of conspirators to pull off, not one of whom has yet breathed a word about it. The crowd applauded. (The white suit did not seem to yield any better results for Collins than it had for Clinton.)

For the remainder of the event, Trump was, well, Trump, leaving all but his most fervent supporters wondering, also yet again, if he really believed his own fantasies or was he simply spewing out the vitriol his fans have come to demand, sort of like Frank Sinatra always needing to end a concert with “My Way.”

But the real fallout was directed not at Trump but rather at CNN, who was accused of providing a platform to likely the most dangerous man in America. The network was excoriated by virtually every other media outlet, including MSNBC, which took the opportunity to mention how much better the night would have gone if Rachel Maddow had been in the interviewer’s chair. (The idea that Maddow could have ridden herd on Trump any better than Collins, or anyone else for that matter, is almost as delusional as Trump’s millions of fake Biden votes.)

The most serious criticism, however, was that CNN had allowed Trump to salt the crowd, that the so-called “independent voters” were merely MAGAs in disguise, who, when coupled with the announced MAGA attendees, turned the town hall into the sort of braying, snickering spectacle that people generally associate with Christians being fed to lions.

CNN tried to strike back, assigning Anderson Cooper to provide a three-minute rebuttal in which he admitted, “I get it,” in response to the anger and outrage, and added that he would understand if there were those who would never watch the network again. But he also pointed out that Trump was far ahead of any Republican challenger, may well be their party’s nominee in 2024, and that the “audience that upset you is a sampling of about half the country.”

From there, Cooper defended CNN for demonstrating that “it can happen again—it is happening again,” and then he took a shot at his own audience by asking if they think “staying in your silo and only listening to the people you agree with is going to make [Trump] go away?”

As self-serving as Cooper’s recitation might have been, there was some truth in it. Casting aside that CNN got outmaneuvered, not because they put him on the air, but did so in a format that may well have made him appear far more popular than he actually is, sad to say, Americans do need to be reminded of who Donald Trump is and the morass into which he would happily cast the nation in his indefatigable pursuit of personal aggrandizement.

They need to be reminded that the country means nothing to him, nor do those sad, pathetic Americans who have been convinced by a low-end salesman that he cares about their welfare or their futures. Trump cannot even be called a “master salesman” since before he stumbled on this reservoir of angry, gullible followers, his business ventures had a habit of ending in a flurry of bankruptcies, lawsuits, and unpaid bills.

But what Americans need most to be reminded of is that Donald Trump cheapens everything he touches, ironic for a man who claims great riches. Even the gaudy, overdesigned, ridiculously expensive decor that dominates his real estate holdings somehow seems cheap, sharing a penchant for gold toilets with Saddam Hussein. That he has demeaned the political process is obvious, but he has done the same thing with his university, his business practices, his steaks, his ties, and his $99 collectible digital trading cards.

All this would mean little except that he has now dragged everyone else—and his country—down with him. Politics was always a pretty tawdry affair, but the current version has, like everything involving Trump, reached caricaturish lows.

Still, it is also important not to overstate the threat. Trump’s ascension is possible, but in no way imminent. Many on the left rue the renomination of Joe Biden because of his low approval ratings, advancing age, and the uncertainty about the ability of his current vice president to assume the job, but Republicans have the same problems, only worse.

Trump’s approval ratings are hardly stratospheric, he is only a few years younger, and whoever agrees to be his vice president, Kari Lake say, is anything but a good bet to inspire confidence. (Nikki Haley would have likely jumped at it if not for the damning verdict in Trump’s sexual assault trial. She may still be offered the post but will decline if she has even a scintilla of political moxie.) Republicans have the added burden of their candidate-in-waiting now officially recognized as a sexual predator who will almost certainly soon be a defendant in a series of trials that carry potential sentences of more than twenty years.

Ensuring that Donald Trump never again holds public office is vital, of course, but of equal importance is that Republicans free themselves from the trap Trump has led them into. Democrats, while not having to deal with Trump directly, still need to find a way to project strength without descending to the phony chest thumping that Trump seems to have made a necessary part of campaigning.

At the moment, both parties find themselves in the Trump trap. It will take a good deal of will, courage, and foresight to pull themselves out of it.


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