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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

White Christian nationalism threatens US democracy

Opinion

White Christian nationalism threatens US democracy

Previous white Christian nationalist compound in 1992

Getty Images
Steve Corbin
By Steve CorbinAug 14, 2023
Steve Corbin
See More Writings by author

Steve Corbin is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the University of Northern Iowa

You may be among the 35 percent of Americans who have never heard the term “white Christian nationalism.” But, of those citizens who are knowledgeable of the concept, it carries a decidedly negative view. The belief is becoming more and more important to understand as cultural diversity, racism, immigration issues, political divisiveness and political candidate pandering is before us.

What is white Christian nationalism? Generally – according to the Southern Poverty Law Center – it “refers to a political ideology and identity that fuses white supremacy, Christianity and American nationalism, and whose proponents claim that the United States is a `Christian Nation.’”

Research conducted by the non-partisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) with the non-partisan Brookings Institution (BI), as well as a poll sponsored by Southern Poverty Law Center/Tulchin have the same conclusion: white Christian nationalism movement is a growing threat to America’s democracy. The far-right anti-government and religious rights movement of the 1990s is getting stronger and stronger and will play a major role in the 2024 local, county, state and federal elections.

During the Nov. 21-Dec. 14, 2022 time period, 6,212 Americans were asked by PRRI/BI for their reply to these five statements: 1) the US government should declare America a Christian nation, 2) US laws should be based on Christian values, 3) if the US moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore, 4) being Christian is an important part of being truly American and 5) God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.

Answers across all five questions were found to be highly correlated (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92) with a margin of error of +/- 1.6% at the 95% level of confidence. This is a take-it-to-the-bank research endeavor. Fifty-four percent of the GOP faithful are adherents of Christian nationalism vs. 23% of independents and 15% of Democrats. The PRRI/BI research notes five core attitudes are often associated with Christian nationalist beliefs: anti-Black, anti-Semitic (Jewish), anti-Muslim, anti-immigration and patriarchal adherence of traditional gender roles (husband is head of the household).”

Furthermore, research revealed “Christian nationalism beliefs are strongly correlated with support for QAnon, an extremist movement of the political right,” whose tenets include: “1) The government, media and financial worlds in the U.S. are controlled by a group of Satan-worshiping pedophiles who run a global child sex-trafficking operation, 2) There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders and 3) Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center offers a summary of the movement that should be a wake-up call to Americans: “White Christian nationalism is a key ideology that inspired the failed Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection and fueled multiple failed political campaigns in 2022 . . . however, white Christian nationalism remains a persistent and growing threat to U.S. democracy.”

Any person with a modicum of intelligence knows European colonists immigrated to America to escape religious persecution, expand their economic opportunities and live in a country where there was separation of church and state. Followers of the white Christian nationalism movement want to contradict the principles and norms of democracy and make America an authoritarian country.

Adherents of white Christian nationalism are the drivers of antidemocratic conspiracy theories and election denialism (SPLC, 2023) and possibly book banning, LGBTQIA denigration, “sanitized” black history curriculum, anti-female reproductive rights, gerrymandering and attacking diversity, equity and inclusion.

Currently there are 14 Republicans and three Democrats wanting to win the Nov. 5, 2024 presidential election. Hundreds of candidates will be seeking local, county, state and federal offices of power. Citizens must be vigilant and keep candidates who espouse any resemblance of white Christian nationalism out of public office.

Steve is a non-paid freelance opinion editor and guest columnist contributor (circa 2013) to 172 newspapers in 32 states who receives no remuneration, funding or endorsement from any for-profit business, not-for-profit organization, political action committee or political party.

Sources:

(PRRI Staff), A Christian Nation? Understanding the threat of Christian Nationalism to American democracy and culture, Public Religion Research Institute, https://prri.org, Feb. 8, 2023

Ashley Lopez, More than half of Republicans support Christian nationalism, according to a new survey, National Public Radio, https://npr.org, Feb. 14, 2023

Christopher Klein, Why did the Pilgrims come to America,? History, https://history.com, Nov. 13, 2020

Joe Wiinikka-Lydon, Emerson Hodges and R.G. Cravens, Old bigotries melded with new conspiracies burgeon white Christian nationalism, Southern Poverty Law Center, 2022: The year in hate and extremism, 2023

Kelefa Sanneh, How Christian is Christian nationalism,? The New Yorker, March 27, 2023

Michelle Goldberg, New York Times: Whose version of Christian nationalism will win in 2014?, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), https://doggett.house.gov, May 15, 2023

(Yale University’s Institute for Social and Policy Studies report), Understanding white Christian nationalism, Yale University/ISPS, https://isps.yale.edu, Oct. 4, 2022

Brookings Institution, Understanding the threat of white Christian nationalism to American democracy today, Brookings Institution, Feb. 8, 2023

Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons and Maggie Siddiqi, Christian nationalism is `Single Biggest Threat’ to America’s religious freedom; an interview with Amanda Tylor of the Baptist Joint Committee, The Center for American Progress, April 13, 2022

Peter Stone, Pro-Trump pastors rebuked for overt embrace of white Christian nationalism, The Guardian, May 1, 2023


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“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

Read More

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
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
© Copyright 2026