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: Respectful confrontation and fierce civility

Ask Joe: Respectful confrontation and fierce civility
Joe Weston
By Joe WestonMar 10, 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

Joe’s book, Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, launched on March 9, 2023.

Dear Joe,

I have enjoyed your articles. I like that you approach everything from a human place. It seems we’ve stopped doing that. I wanted to know though why you are so focused on odd titles of your work? Respectful Confrontation, Fierce Civility? What about something like compassionate conversations or something like that?

Intrigued

Hey Intrigued,

I love your response! I received your response a while back, but I decided to save it for this week because I thought it would be appropriate to respond to you in the week of the launch of my new book, Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace. We had our launch yesterday on March 9th with a special one-day discounted price of $.099 for the pre-order of the ebook; but for The Fulcrum readers I’m extending it one more day. Feel free to purchase if you are interested.

Yes, I think things would be easier for me if I used less provocative phrases, but while I believe that there are many great models of communication that focus more in that direction, I personally think we need approaches that can meet and stand up to the level of volatility, agitation and sometimes violent ways we are currently treating each other without adding to the aggression or noise. Bullying and niceness are not going to solve our current challenges; a fierce level of cooperation will.

I guess this quest starts with me growing up in a volatile family situation. There was a lot of fighting and arguments. And I saw very clearly, even as a boy, that it wasn’t leading us anywhere productive. I had to learn at an early age how I could be authentic, get my voice heard and needs met, and still stay in alignment with my core values.

Without knowing it, we get pidgeon-holed into polarizing categories. What I mean by polarizing, is that when we don’t take the time to investigate, we only think we have two options. The tough “guy” OR the nice “guy,” the bully OR the pushover. We see it in our political discourse, in movies and cartoons. We get limited to only this OR that, and we get stuck, being forced to choose one or the other.

Being stuck in these unintentionally self-assigned roles, we perpetuate these patterns that have led to an increased breakdown of civil discourse and any hope of finding new solutions to our problems. If that is the case, until we break out of these patterns, we get more aggressive, or apathetic and cynical.

Both Respectful Confrontation and Fierce Civility create a kind of tension that breaks us out of these patterns. By unifying these seemingly polarizing approaches, we open the door to more than two options. Suddenly we increase our choices in how we approach situations; the more choices we have, the more power we have.

These phrases are designed to make us a little uncomfortable in order to wake us up out of habitual patterning. It’s only in the uncomfortable moments that we can get back to presence, connection and the capacity to access our creativity. Notice I say uncomfortable and not unsafe. We all know too well how unsafe moments or traumatic events can get us activated in a new way. Think of events in your life, or global events, like September 11th or the Covid-19 pandemic. These moments certainly woke us up out of our daily habitual routines; it caused us to think and evaluate how we were currently doing things and forced us to find new ways to engage with ourselves, others and the world. But staying in states of trauma is not a good long-term strategy.

When we can train ourselves to not be overly respectful or confrontational but an exciting moment-to-moment balance of the two, when we can approach the challenges of our lives with a dynamic interplay of both fierceness and civility, we call ourselves and others to a level of presence and connection that can be transformational. We create a necessary friction that somehow alchemizes our conversation and interactions in a way that inspires, uplifts and challenges one another to be our best selves.

This is not easy; it has taken me years to harness and embody the skills and strategies necessary to both achieve and maintain this, even in challenging conversations and with people who hold different views. But I truly believe that our world is calling all of us to upgrade our current communication skills and strategies to bring about lasting change. Both methods of mine give practical guidance on how to achieve that.

The seeds of our solutions to our personal and global problems already exist, Intrigued, ready to spring forth with vibrant life. We just need a way to engage that cultivates and ensures that they take root, grow and thrive, and doesn’t continue to stomp any hopes for a better future into the ground. We need a model of communication that brings us back to our hearts, ensures that we set clear boundaries and take care of ourselves, where we step into a level of boldness that nurtures and protects the best of who we are as human beings.

Let’s be uncomfortable,

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