Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Virginia election: Do key issues trump scandal?

Virginia elections signs for Susanna Gibson, David Owen and Dan Schmitt
Campaign signs stand along the parking lot of Virginia's Echo Lake Elementary School on Election Day (Nov. 8).
Esther Frances/Medill on the Hill

Mason is a graduate student for Medill on the Hill, a program of Northwestern University in which students serve as mobile journalists reporting on events in and around Washington, D.C.

VIRGINIA – 7-year-old Colton Owens laid on the ground outside his elementary school and played with his mother’s shoelaces. It had been a long day of errands, flu shots and now, voting.


When his mother, Stephanie Owens began to answer a question, he chimed in with a list of names, the candidates he learned from television ads: Susanna Gibson, Siobhan Dunnavant and David Owen. Although Colton isn’t old enough to vote, he seemed to have given the advertisements more attention than many in Virginia’s 57th Delegate District, a suburban area northwest of Richmond.

“I see the ads just to know who is running pretty much, but that's about it. I don’t pay attention to the rest of that stuff,” Owens said.

Owens was selecting between Susanna Gibson and David Owen to serve as her representative in the state House of Delegates. The race made national news after recordings of Gibson and her husband performing sex acts on a streaming site called Chaturbate were leaked by an unnamed Republican operative to The Washington Post in September. For a race that received national attention for a sex scandal, few voters seemed focused on those videos or the ads and media stories about them, instead prioritizing the issues at stake, such as abortion access. Although Gibson lost, the margin was less than 3 percentage points, or just 715 votes, in a district that was considered competitive.

“It shouldn't really be a surprise that she [Gibson] didn't lose in a landslide because we're in a time where women, especially in this state … felt like abortion rights, access to abortion, access to reproductive rights were at risk,” said Dr. Jatia Wrighten, assistant professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth University. “I think that this is also playing in favor to Susanna Gibson and her right to privacy, her right to her body, the right to do what she wants in terms of sexual behavior.”

Gibson described the leaks as “the worst of gutter politics” but she and Owen, her opponent, largely avoided addressing the issue before the election. Afterward, she explained the reason for her silence.

“A lot of people say, ‘Well, why didn't you speak out?’ Because I didn't want to give it oxygen. If I spoke out, if I did something, it would keep it in the news and in the media,” Gibson told Medill News Service in an interview two weeks after the election.

Owen stated he was unaware of the videos until they were leaked and was focused on his own campaign.

Fellow Democratic candidates said the scandal didn’t play a big role in the local elections.

“The vast, vast majority of people I have met had not mentioned it to me,” said Democratic candidate for the Henrico Board of Supervisors, Stephen Rast. “I honestly don't think it impacted the local elections too much. Once this story came out, she decided that she wasn't going to be campaigning with the rest of the Democratic ticket in the area anymore.”

Gibson’s campaigning did shift dramatically following the leaks, but rather than a conscious step from the party, she described it as concern for her family and mental health.

“It wasn't necessarily that I distanced myself from the Democratic Party, it's that I couldn't get up off the floor for about a week, I would lay down on my bathroom floor and not be able to get up. It was absolutely horrific and something I would never wish on my worst enemy,” said Gibson.

By October, Gibson was back on the trail, knocking on doors. Then, in late October, thousands of voters received GOP mailers with explicit content warnings that contained censored screenshots and quotes from the videos.

Some voters arrived at the polls without knowledge of Gibson’s videos but said if they had known, it would not have altered their vote.

After being told a brief rundown of the scandal, Lauren Cash, a voter whose priorities were abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, said, “I guess I'm more open-minded, but I don't think that would have really necessarily affected my decision as long as the values were kind of in line.”

Top on many voters’ minds was abortion. Virginia is currently the only southern state that has not imposed abortion restrictions since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. Governor Youngkin repeatedly expressed interest in tightening the current legislation from 26 weeks to 15 weeks with exceptions for incest, rape and to save the life of the mother.

Voter Michael Jenkins said one issue drove his vote.

“Abortion. I have two daughters…. As a man, it's just not my right to say whether someone can or can't have an abortion,” said Jenkins.

Siobhan Dunnavant, a Republican candidate for Virginia’s 16th District Senate seat, which includes parts of the 57th House District, responded to questions about Gibson by saying that her mother had taught her, “if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.”

Women remain underrepresented in politics across the country. According to the U.S. census, Virginia has a female population of 50.5%, but women make up only 30% of the Senate and 34% of the House after Tuesday’s election.

“I have really been floored by how different a woman's voice is in the legislative process, and how diversity is such an important part,” Dunnavant said.

The AP recently highlighted four Virginia candidates who were accused of violence against women. Of the four, Tom Garrett, R, was the only winner. He won his race for delegate in the 56th District with 89% of the vote.

Garrett previously represented Virginia in the U.S. House of Representatives for one term but opted not to run in 2018 to pursue alcoholism treatment. In 2019, his wife filed for divorce, citing a list of allegations including violence and abuse. Garrett has denied these claims. These accusations received some local coverage but did not reach the level of national attention that Gibson’s story did.

“Those men can commit horrific acts of violence, hitting someone with their car [Matt Fariss], strangling them [Garrett], and that is not considered nearly as bad as what I did with my husband,” Gibson said.

Gibson believed the response to the leaks reflected the sexism in society.

“Revenge porn is really rooted in the idea that men are in charge of, or own women's sexuality, that men are entitled to someone else's body and can use it as a weapon to control them,” Gibson said. “I think it's really like our misogynistic and patriarchal culture and our understanding of sex, that essentially views women as morally and ethically painted for something that the man then is praised for.”

Another female politician faced similar criticism in 2019.

California Democrat Katie Hill, a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, resigned after nude photos revealed she had been in a polyamorous relationship involving her former husband and a campaign staffer.

Hill lost her lawsuit against the Daily Mail and two journalists alleging that they violated California’s revenge porn laws. Still, Gibson is pursuing a similar suit.

“I want to make sure that this person who shopped around those illegal pornographic images is found and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” Gibson said.

A lawyer who specializes in Virginia's revenge porn law, Lee E. Berlik, said a successful outcome for Gibson seemed unlikely based on Virginia’s relevant statutes 18.2-386.1 and 18.2-386.2.

“As I understand it, she arranged for the photos and video to be taken of her willingly,” said Berlik, founder and managing member of BerlikLaw, LLC.

Under Virginia law, it would be important to show that the videos were posted without her consent, he said.

“Consent really is misunderstood. People say, ‘Oh, she put this out there. What does she expect?’ No. Incorrect. I did not,” Gibson said. “I consented to a group of people seeing something for a moment in time, I did not consent to that being recorded videos played over and over and over again, splashed across the Internet and across the world. They are two very different things.”

Gibson had begun working with Delegate Marcus Simon, a lawyer who helped create Virginia’s current revenge porn laws, to make Virginia’s legislation align with Illinois’.

“In Illinois, it doesn't matter what the intent was,” Gibson said. “If someone commits nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, that is all that would be needed.”

As for whether the leaks played a role in Gibson’s loss, Gibson said she doesn’t think so. But she worried that her experience could deter other women from running for office.

“As more women step up to run for office, … there are going to be very few of us that don't have some kind of explicit content on our phone, on an ex’s phone, on our spouse's phone, on our computers, on the cloud,” Gibson said. “This will continue to happen over and over and over again if we allow it to and will only further discourage women and younger people from stepping up and running for office. We have to make sure that it doesn't remain acceptable.”


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