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

A Lesson from History as Trump Seeks to Return America to its Expansionist Past

A Lesson from History as Trump Seeks to Return America to its Expansionist Past

A helicopter view of Tasiilaq East Greenland.

Getty Images / Christine Zenino Travel Photography
Joel Zapata
By Joel ZapataJan 16, 2025
Joel Zapata
See More Writings by author

As Donald Trump prepares to retake the presidency, his rhetoric is increasingly centered on reviving American expansionism. He wants the United States to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal, has called Canada “the 51st state,” threatened Mexico with military incursions, and aims to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.”

On January 7th, Donald Trump Jr. landed in Greenland to shoot video content for digital media, signaling the incoming administration’s interest in the mineral-rich Danish territory. The president-elect wrote on social media, “Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland. The reception has been great. They, and the Free World, need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

When asked at a Mar-a-Lago press conference whether he would rule out the use of military forces to take Greenland and the Panama Canal, Trump answered, “ I’m not going to commit to that.” Trump went on, “it might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country,” and “we need Greenland for national security purposes.” To the territory’s people, who are mostly Indigenous Greenlandic Inuit, Trump had a message: “we’re going to treat you well.”

As a historian of U.S. expansionism and the U.S.-Mexico border, I have studied how such ambitions have come at a great cost—to Americans, their neighbors, and Indigenous populations.

In 1845, President James K. Polk embraced a similar vision for territorial expansion. He supported Texas annexation—then controlled by pro-slavery Anglo American settlers that had declared independence from Mexico, which prohibited slavery. Intending to expand the United States, Polk sent U.S. troops across the Nueces River, the historical boundary of Texas, southward towards the Rio Grande. Polk insisted the Rio Grande was the actual boundary between the United States and Mexico. After Mexican troops attacked American troops within territory Mexico considered its own, Polk asserted “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory, and shed American blood upon the American soil.” He successfully pressured Congress to declare war. The U.S.-Mexico War (1846-1848) became the United States’ first full-scale invasion of another nation state.

Politicians, journalists, and popular writers justified the war with interventionist propaganda, depicting the United States as a force for enlightenment and economic development. They even framed the United States as protecting Mexican people against Native American hostilities, arguing Mexico had not been able to subdue Indigenous people in its northern territories. In the language of the time, Sen. Robert Walker (D-Miss.) helped set the discourse in 1836, declaring that Anglo Americans were invited to settle in Texas to “defend the Mexicans against the then frequent incursions of a savage foe.”

By land and sea, the United States conquered Mexico and occupied its capital for the better part of a year. But we should not overlook that, for the United States the war resulted in one of the highest casualty rates of any conflict. Of the 79,000 soldiers who served, over 16 percent lost their lives in battle or due to disease. With more than eight percent of soldiers abandoning their posts, the U.S.-Mexico War also had the highest desertion rate of any American conflict.

For Mexico, the war was catastrophic. At least 25,000 Mexican people—mainly civilians—died. In the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war, Mexico ceded 55 percent of its claimed national territory, what is now the U.S. Southwest and more.

The treaty’s Article XI did stipulate that the United States would prevent Native American raiders from entering Mexico. But guarantees to subdue Indigenous populations and bring peace to Mexican people proved hollow.

After the war, Native American resistance intensified, challenging the United State’s ability to govern its newly claimed lands and borders. On newly American-claimed soil, populations that were now Mexican Americans engaged with Navajos in a cycle of raids and counterraids in New Mexico. In Texas, Comanches and Mexican Americans continued to attack one another. Native Americans also continued southward raids deep into Mexico, freely crossing the new border. The United States could not live up to its promises of peace or its treaty obligations. It could not better the lives of Mexican people or mount sufficient force to subdue Native American populations that fought to maintain their independence.

The United State’s inability to fulfill its treaty obligation revealed the limits of American power. Expansion did not bring stability or prosperity to occupied lands; instead, it often left further chaos.

As Trump seeks to restart American expansion, Americans should grapple with the past. Expansionism often overextends the military and comes at the cost of life for both the occupiers and occupied. As history shows, threatening, or worse, invading Greenland, Panama, Canada, or Mexico risks straining U.S. military capabilities and provoking resistance. The United State’s first invasion of another nation-state plainly demonstrates that American expansionism is a cautionary story from our past. It is up to us to ensure it remains so.

Joel Zapata is an Assistant Professor of History at Oregon State University and a Public Voices Fellow with The Op-Ed Project.


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