Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Voting rights advocates press Biden to do more than deliver speeches

President Joe Biden

President Biden on Tuesday called for passage of voting rights legislation.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

President Biden on Tuesday decried the wave of GOP-backed voting restrictions as a "21st century Jim Crow assault" on American democracy. But "good government" groups want to see the president do more than give an impassioned speech.

While advocates were pleased by Biden's use of the bully pulpit to promote the need for broad election reforms, they said his address fell short of providing tangible steps forward. Biden once again called on Congress to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, but did not acknowledge the fact that the Senate filibuster remains a huge impediment to either bill's enactment.

In the first seven months of his presidency, as well as during his presidential campaign, Biden has been an ardent supporter of voting rights, ending partisan gerrymandering and curbing dark money in politics. But Biden has done little to take these issues beyond talking points — something reform advocates have repeatedly implored him to do. Even during the primary campaign, Biden offered far less for specific reforms than his opponents proposed.


On Tuesday afternoon, at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Biden spoke about how Americans turned out to vote in record numbers during last year's election, despite the raging coronavirus pandemic. But instead of celebrating that, the president said, there has been a continued attack on the election's integrity, despite no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

"No other election has ever been held under such scrutiny and such high standards," Biden said. "The Big Lie is just that: a big lie."

"Time and again, we've weathered threats to the right to vote in free and fair elections. And each time, we found a way to overcome. And that's what we must do today," Biden continued. "As soon as Congress passes the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, I will sign it and let the whole world see it."

But the president neglected to mention how Congress will pass either bill with the filibuster still intact and Republican in unified opposition. Last month, Senate Democrats brought the For the People Act to the chamber floor for a procedural vote, but Republicans refused to debate the bill.

The Voting Rights Advancement Act has not yet been introduced in this Congress. On Wednesday, more than 160 companies — including Amazon, Google, Facebook and Starbucks — signed a letter to Congress urging them to introduce and pass the VRAA "because the freedom to vote is everyone's business."

Following Biden's speech on Tuesday, Wade Henderson, interim president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the president and Vice President Harris must do everything in their power to ensure the For the People Act and the VRAA become law, "even if that means supporting the change of archaic Senate rules to protect our freedom to vote."

"If the Senate can bypass the filibuster to send core elements of the American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan to President Biden's desk, it ought to be able to do the same for anti-corruption legislation that protects the freedom to vote, breaks the grip of big money in politics, and ends gerrymandering," said Karen Hobart Flynn, president of Common Cause.

RepresentUs, a prominent democracy reform organization, noted that Biden also failed to mention an important deadline that is fast-approaching. On Aug. 16, the Census Bureau is expected to deliver redistricting data so states can start the mapmaking process. However, 35 states are at "high or extreme risk" of partisan gerrymandering, which the For the People Act bans.

Additionally, RepresentUs criticized Biden for only mentioning the sweeping reform package "sparingly" since his joint address to Congress in late April. The group's analysis of the Biden administration's public statements found just six presidential speeches or statements and four tweets from the @POTUS account that mention the For the People Act.

"Although the president promised to 'fight like heck with every tool at my disposal for its passage,' his public-facing advocacy for the bill is largely limited to a handful of tweets and short references in statements," RepresentUs noted in its analysis.

Other reform advocates want to see less talking and more direct action from the president.

"The president and his administration must move beyond speeches and begin actively lobbying Congress to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonprofit campaign finance reform group.

Biden has flexed his presidential powers once already. In March, he issued an executive order promoting voting access. The directive asks federal agencies to evaluate how they can, within their purview of the law, encourage voter registration and participation.

But on Tuesday, Biden made no mention of this executive order, which Valencia Richardson, an attorney for the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, found surprising. Her organization has sent letters to six federal agencies outlining recommendations and best practices for promoting voting access.

"By putting the onus almost entirely on Congress to defend voting rights, President Biden downplayed the more active role that the administration could play in facilitating access to voter registration and voting," she said.


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