Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: Securing top secret documents

Your Take: Securing top secret documents

With all the whirlwind media coverage about classified documents turning up where they should not, we asked our readers:

How might we provide a more secure process for documents marked classified, such that when administrations leave, they don’t accidentally or on purpose, take classified information with them?


We appreciate everyone who sent us their take. Overall, there was broad agreement that libraries handle checking in and checking out books, videos, etc. effectively, with due dates and fines. People asked why don't the archives, intelligence services and defense department meet this minimal level of record keeping? We heard from several former officials and government contractors with experience handling classified documents, noting that elected officials seem not to be bound by classified document basic protocol. Is it a training issue? Additionally, there is also some general agreement to review which documents become classified in the first place. When people working within the government stop to ask “should this be classified,” there is a strong tendency to do so, “just in case.” This might be an overabundance of caution to protect themselves, as well as the important information contained in the document.

Several people also suggested the use of RFID computer chips to track documents, which is intriguing to think about. Other sentiments fell into comparisons between alleged intentions between the two cases before the public. And others, like me, wondered how often this has happened, historically? Finally, one submission noted that we seem to handle classified documents amongst elected officials on an honor system. Unfortunately, given the lack of honor in our body politic today, it appears more rigor is needed.

Here are a selection of your takes, lightly edited for clarity and length.

As a former high-ranking government official, I did not have any problem identifying what was marked classified. I would suggest the following because I feel this is largely due (at least in Biden's case) to sloppy staff work. First, all staff handling these documents should be well-trained in records management requirements and procedures. Second, someone at Archives or the records lead at the White House should review and sign off on any release of documents to a private citizen who was formerly a president or other high-ranking official. Third, (National) Archives or another oversight organization should do periodic audits to ensure that the proper security and due diligence has been done with the documents. Lastly, Congress needs to take a look at the whole classification process. Government employees tend to err on the side of over classification to protect against disclosures of "sensitive" information. As a result, some material that shouldn't be classified is and gets the same treatment as material that actually is sensitive. As part of that Congressional review, a GAO audit of the current process should be done. ~Tony Trenkle

First, thank you for taking a preventive cut at this touchy subject. Your approach reminded me of my days as a Marine officer’s wife. When it was time to move we packed nothing except overnight bags and one box of papers (birth certificates, passports, insurance stuff, etc.) Granted, if there was trash in a waste basket it was packed as well, but if a representative of the Federal Archives were added to the mix, I don’t think there would be many mistakes. ~Jeanene Louden

While it seems to some that the following would be overkill, it seems that every document that is maintained in the administrative offices should be reviewed by archivists (whether a panel or employees of the National Archives, with the appropriate security clearances) before being packed up for transition to either a location selected by the exiting occupants or the National Archives. Classified documents would be subject to a more serious review, with a determination made as to whether they should remain classified or if they can be declassified. One way in which this process can be expedited would be to review classified documents annually and separate them out for maintenance in an appropriate secured site. The exiting occupants would need to sign off on the transition of the documents, and note that they are aware of the process and have complied with the requirements of the review. ~scmhughes

Our local library knows who has borrowed material, and when it is due to be returned. Why can't the GSA as well...? In the case of government documents, anyone who borrows that material must have proper clearance to see those documents. (Right?) Given that, is it so difficult for the GSA to know who has what documents? And why can't they simply give an outgoing administration a list of what's "due to be returned"? ~John Wright

Until science and funding catch up, better day-to-day accountability is a must! Including items flushed down a toilet. In the future, printable micro-chips and associated strategically placed detectors/alarms would help prevent human error. It costs money and takes extra time. Are we up to it? ~Roland Herwig

Perhaps we could learn a lesson from the library system in America. What if classified documents had to be signed out. The person who signed them out would be solely responsible for their security until they were returned, with sanctions applied if they were not. In order to be eligible to sign these documents out, you would need an access card, with various levels of access based upon your security clearance. Each copy of each classified document would have an individual Identification code, such as a bar or QR code. That way, if a document was discovered in an unsecure location, there would be a way to track exactly whose copy it was and hold them accountable. ~Jeffery S. Ward Sr.

I agree that there is a systemic problem here. Maybe there needs to be an officer in charge of the classified materials, especially very sensitive ones so they are not allowed to leave the White House or Pentagon or wherever that is supposed to be. Maybe when the President and VP leave office someone needs to specifically screen their belongings to make sure classified documents don’t leave. I wonder if this might be a problem in the military as well? ~Sheri Bortz

Based on my 36 years in the military, and 30 years as a DOD Civilian holding various security clearances and being involved in watching the "Classification creep," I suggest the question is beyond "how to secure" and must include discussion on WHO and WHICH various items are "Classified or Over Classified." The misuse of various pieces of the security apparatuses has played a large part in how "Black budgets" continue to spiral out of control. Adding to the problem has been the use of the "I Gotcha" (politics), enabled by the Media, and a loss of protection for whistleblowers. Tactics that give the appearance of a democratic process while actually avoiding discussing issues that could point to the hypocrisy and lack of a workable plan on ALL and behind both sides. ~Michael Marthaller

What is surprising about the handling of classified documents is the apparent lack of a strict protocol of custody. We seem to have some kind of 'honor system' that permits officials or staff to receive the material, remove it from the secure location, without any persistent daily routine or follow up on where it is stored, under what conditions, and who else is present when the material is being consulted. ~Robert Whitman


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