Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lend a hand to ensure our elections stay safe, secure & trustworthy

Lend a hand to ensure our elections stay safe, secure & trustworthy

Volunteers help voters fill out and cast their ballots at the early voting location in the ballroom of the Sandy Spring Volunteer Fire Station on October 27, 2022 in Sandy Spring, Maryland.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Barbara Dyer is a Research Affiliate at the Institute for Work and Employment Research, MIT Sloan School of Management. Terry Gerton is the President and CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration. Both are Fellows of the Academy.

The elderly woman looked determined as she walked slowly toward the voter registration desk, her three-pronged cane punctuating her fortitude. She was there to vote, and nothing – not her age-weakened legs or her failing hearing – would get in her way. She was among the many voters we encountered as we worked the polls in the November 2022 elections.


Each of us served as a poll worker for the first time last fall, Barbara in the District of Columbia and Terry in Arlington, Virginia. We joined the ranks of the more than 775,000 poll workers who assist workers at the 132,556 polling locations across the nation. Troubled by reports of threats and harassment and the resulting decline in the numbers of poll workers, Barbara applied for the post of Registration Clerk. Terry served as an Election Officer, covering the check-in and ballot processing functions. We wanted to do our part as citizens and also see how the system works from the inside out.

Poll workers are part-time, temporary employees hired at the local level to assist voters during early voting and on Election Day. We didn’t know what to expect when we submitted our on-line applications, but we each received a quick reply confirming our registration and inviting us to attend a training workshop.

Barbara’s training at the D.C. Board of Elections with 25 other prospective Registration Clerks was intense. It included lots of information about set-up, equipment rules, protocols, tips, and tools for dealing with a range of situations – if this happens, you must do that, if that comes-up you must do this …nerve-wracking simulations, role playing, and finally a test. It was election worker boot camp! Fortunately, in addition to the site-based training, she was provided on-line training videos and a Vote Center Operations Manual for review. Terry’s training was similar, although without all of the registration technicalities – whew!

While we only worked for a short period of service, every locality and state have a full-time professional election staff that plans for and manages elections year-round. One employee at the D.C. Board of Elections told us about her job and why she chose this work. She said she started like us, helping at the polls, but it became something deeper for her. She told us that generations of people have fought hard – even died – to make it possible for her to vote. She is committed to doing her part to protect and preserve that right.

Sadly, many of her counterparts in other locales are making their exits. Free and fair elections are a prerequisite to democracy and those who secure our voting systems – from poll workers to chief election officers and state Secretaries of State – are essential in making sure those systems work.

Those voters arriving at our precincts were universally appreciative of the support. But numerous reports of hostility toward election workers across the country tell a different story. False claims of election fraud, repeated far and wide, follow a law of propaganda: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.” And, as increasing numbers of Americans come to believe false claims of rigged elections, workers in these systems become targets. Fortunately, predictions of violence at the polls did not transpire last November. But threats to election workers were real and consequential. Many were pushed to their limits and ultimately left their jobs.

We were lucky this time. But the issue did not vanish after last year’s relatively calm election. We must begin the steps now to ensure that our next round of elections, both at the local and national levels, are safe, secure and trustworthy.

First, we must ensure that we maintain both the professional election workforce and a strong pool of volunteers to manage and run our election system. The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) offers great resources to encourage and enroll volunteer poll workers. In fact, they recently hosted a roundtable on initiatives to enroll and retain poll workers across the country, including the Help America Vote College Program.

With $1 million in funding, this EAC grant program encourages student participation as poll workers or assistants, fosters student interest in the elections process, encourages state and local governments to use students as poll workers. The National Association of State Election Directors also ( NASED) offers resources and support for Election Directors at the state and local levels across the country.

Second, we must reconcile the fact that we will always have a decentralized elections system with complex and varying rules and procedures, with the imperative that the system be universal in its integrity. Federal law requires that every state have a chief election official to oversee the process, but beyond that, no two states are alike.

This very complexity can provide fodder for misinformation and disinformation about the trustworthiness of our election processes, but it also helps to make them more secure. Citizens can help to defuse these threats by learning more about the actions being taken to secure our elections. MITRE’s National Election Security Laboratory and the Center for Internet Security’s Election Security Tools and Resources are two of many reliable resources.

Thinking back on our experiences at the polls last November, we realized that we met more than 1,300 voters between us. They were people young and old; parents with children; working and retired; neighbors and folks from across town. First-time voters received standing ovations from all in the room. We were struck by the steady flow and diverse array of voters. And while they undoubtedly had differing views on candidates and issues, their common sense of purpose was unmistakable – they came to vote, and they believed that their votes matter.

The opportunity to participate so directly in democracy was exciting, incredibly rewarding, and habit-forming. We’re now hooked on volunteering for future elections – we hope you’ll join us!


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