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

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

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

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

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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Ask Joe: Cultivating our own resilience

Ask Joe: Cultivating our own resilience
Joe Weston
By Joe WestonMay 05, 2023
Joe Weston

Joe is an advice columnist, conflict resolution specialist, trainer, coach, advocate for lasting peace, and founder of the Fierce Civility Project.

See More Writings by author

Dear Joe,

I’ve been doing bridge-building and depolarization for a long time. I think I’m pretty experienced and knowledgeable about what works and what doesn’t work. You talk a lot about hope and say that we need to appeal to the heart.

While that all sounds good, when I look at the level of animosity and how entrenched people are in what they believe, do you really think that what you suggest would work? With so much advancing with AI (artificial intelligence) and how easy it is to manipulate information, is it really possible at this point to make a difference?

I’d like to believe that there is hope and a way out of this, but I don’t think it will come with being civil and appealing to the heart.

Realistic

Hello Realistic,

I appreciate your honesty, and you make a strong point. I have this discussion with many people, and my response includes me asking, “Is the current fighting, animosity, cynicism and extreme reliance on technology working? At this point, what other choice do we have than appealing to the hearts of those willing to do the work to shift how we are currently treating one another?”

I have seen and experienced with myself and others around the world with whom I’ve worked that where people or opposing groups might have thought there was no way out of dilemmas, new solutions surprisingly emerge that are inclusive, innovative, and sustainable. When we do the challenging work of first regulating our nervous systems so we are not in a reactive state, truly getting into our hearts and meeting people where they are and then giving others a chance to do the same, then unexpected things happen.

I would also offer that just knowing something doesn’t mean that we are actually implementing it. I have heard from others who have read my new book “ Fierce Civility ” or who know my work say to me, “I already know what you are suggesting we do. I don’t see anything new.” And yet I see these same people who say they already know how to approach people with dignity and respect talk about and treat “opposing” groups with cynicism, bitterness, indifference, othering, and self-righteousness – not what I would call qualities of the heart.

Knowing about something doesn’t equate to learning it. We can read a book about flying a plane, but I certainly wouldn't want to get in a plane that is being piloted with no skills behind it! Unfortunately, our data-driven world system is filled with an enormous number of information gatherers who haven’t learned very much. We all know people who should know better—meaning, they’ve gone to all the right workshops, listened to the smartest podcasts, read the bestselling books, earned impressive degrees, and analyzed the current big data; yet, despite their best intentions, they still manage to contribute – either actively or passively – to the polarization and breakdown of civil discourse.

Even with the best of intentions, we may have forgotten that accumulating information (no matter how much) and sharing opinions without making the effort to embody new skills changes very little. And that is what I am advocating for: in a world that is increasingly hostile, bitter and isolated, we need to get beyond our current ideas of what civility is and actually upgrade our capacity to communicate and engage with those who are different. It takes conscious effort to learn new skills and strategies that get us beyond a simple conceptualization of humanity, or settling for “agreeing to disagree.”

The Fierce Civility Approach is designed to take our ideas and aspirations and put them into tangible action. Skills-based learning, an intrinsic part of this approach, is very different from left-brain learning, like memorizing the laws of mathematics or physics. For a data-reliant culture that is programmed to get information quickly, it’s a challenge to slow down, gather information (learn it), then contemplate the data (understand it), and finally begin the longer process of experiencing it in the body, over and over, until it subtly transforms our viewpoints and behaviors.

We’ve done enough research to solve all of our world problems. We have enough proof on a daily basis in newspapers, the media and on the streets that more needs to be done to address the suffering of so many. Yet, for some reason, the facts and evidence are not creating the results we are working so hard to make possible.

In fact, I would say that because of where we are going with technology and AI, because it might be harder for us to distinguish between what is real and what is fake on our devices, because of the growing number of people who are suffering from loneliness and isolation, because of the ways in which the media, social media and the political system are relentlessly wearing us down and stressing us out, we need a stronger commitment to having daily practices of getting out of our heads and into our bodies and into our hearts. By doing so, we come back to our senses and approach challenges with common sense, courage and compassion.

We must make efforts to cultivate our own resilience, as well as truly connect with others from the heart and deepen and strengthen the relationships that empower and nurture us.

This is where I believe our hope resides, Realistic. I may not necessarily have optimism for what is unfolding, but I do have faith in the human spirit and what is possible when we align our thoughts and words with what we actually do.

From my heart,

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Make sure to c heck out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

Have a question for Joe? Send an email to AskJoe@fulcrum.us.


Latest news

A person's hand holding a stamp above a vote deposit box.
Democracy

When Rivals Converge: Electoral Influence Beyond the Cold War

A display entitled 'The Dirty Business of Slavery' at the President's House on August 9, 2025 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Democracy

Trump's Perversion of U.S. History

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Ethics & Leadership

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room

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
© Copyright 2026