Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

America’s youth shows how to defend freedom

America’s youth shows how to defend freedom

Students walked out of area schools to gather at the Tennessee State Capitol building in protest to demand action for gun reform laws in the state on April 3, 2023 in Nashville, Tennessee.

Photo by Seth Herald/Getty Images

Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor and Chief Assistant City Attorney in San Francisco who writes on national affairs. He has argued and won cases in the Supreme Court of the United States and of California.

Neither youth nor the vote is wasted on the young. Events this month from Tennessee to Wisconsin to Pennsylvania have proven that young people will fight for their freedoms and rights, including the right to be safe.


As Republican state legislatures respond with youth-vote suppression laws, there are pathways open to citizens seeking to ensure a democratic future for Generation Z. More on that in a moment.

First, let’s look at their recent activism. This month, the threat of being shot in school launched student walk-outs and a protest for gun safety inside the statehouse in Tennessee. Those actions followed the shooting deaths of three children and three adults at Nashville’s Covenant School on March 27.

The students’ protest prompted a virtuous cycle: Three Democratic legislators joined the demonstrators; the Republican House majority reacted by expelling the two legislators who were black; then, with the whole world watching, a week later, the Tennessee Assembly’s majority backpedaled in humiliation and accepted the two expelled members’ reinstatement.

Republican Governor Bill Lee reversed course and signed an executive order aimed at strengthening background checks for gun buyers. Reinstated legislator Justin Jones poetically pronounced that “truth crushed to the ground will rise again.”

Then there’s Wisconsin. On April 4, the threat to women’s reproductive freedom drove young people to the polls in unprecedented numbers to vote for Janet Protasciewicz, the pro-choice candidate. Her election secured a 4-3 majority in favor of abortion rights.

The college student vote "was unlike anything that's ever been seen in a spring election,” according to Teddy Landis, an organizer for Project 72 WI, whose mission is to turn out young voters. The Washington Post reported about an illustrative county, Eau Claire, where the highest turnout was in the ward where the upper campus of the University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire resides. Protasciewicz received 87 percent of the vote in that ward.

A day before in Pennsylvania, more than 150 high school students walked out of their classes in College Park, [h]olding signs reading ‘Stop Banning Books,’ [and] ‘Books Aren’t Obscene, Censorship Is.’ They were protesting a policy the Perkiomen Valley School Board was considering that targets “sexualized content” in library books, a right wing talking point meant to appeal to parents.

Book-banning would seem an uncomfortable fit with the School District’s Mission Statement: “We cultivate an inclusive community of learners, empowered to grow intellectually, socially, emotionally.”

To borrow from Newton’s third law, for every hypocritical adult action, these kids have an equal and principled youth reaction.

As Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote, “America’s young people — the ones who left their classrooms last week . . . in Nashville to plead for real action against gun violence, the ones fighting book bans in their schools and speaking out for radical action on climate — are the bravest and boldest generation this nation has seen in some time.”

Trump strategists like KellyAnne Conway have taken note: “I’m really concerned . . . that the left becomes a turnout machine with young people.”

The GOP’s current pro-gun, anti-abortion, pro-censorship course will never attract college students, so in Ohio and Idaho, they have adopted laws intended to suppress their vote. Similar legislation is pending in at least 11 other states, including Florida.

The effort is organized. As The Guardian reports, the conservative Heritage Foundation and its political arm “have spent tens of millions of dollars promoting their own model bills that impose strict restrictions on voting.”

Citizens mobilizing is the antidote to such antidemocratic measures, and we’ve seen it from young people demonstrating in Tennessee and Pennsylvania and voting in Wisconsin. Efforts to lay the groundwork for more pro-democracy action on the ground are already underway.

This month, the nonpartisan organizations the Civics Center and Open Democracy “held a training to teach students and school staff how to organize a voter registration drive ” in New Hampshire. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) has founded a national organization called “Democracy Summer” which “teaches high school and college students state-of-the-art tactics in voter registration and political organizing.”

Many say that we, the elder generation, have squandered our democratic heritage. While our national norms and traditional beliefs about government are surely under challenge, those working hard to preserve democracy understand that you can’t wring your hands and roll up your sleeves at the same time.

For all citizens who care about passing the torch of rights we were handed participation in and support for nonpartisan efforts like those of Project 72WI, the Civics Center, or Open Democracy are surely welcome. We can back Gen-Z in helping to ensure that our freedoms have not been wasted on us and are there for those taking the reins of America’s future.


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