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: The power of feeling valued

Ask Joe: The power of feeling valued
Joe Weston
By Joe WestonMay 19, 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

Hi Joe,

I have a question that is more personal and not about societal change. I hope it’s ok to ask. I have a boss who shuts me down at meetings. He tends to let everyone else finish what they are saying (most of the team are men), but it seems when I share something, he loses patience.

I don’t know if he’s aware of it. I don’t know if I’m being paranoid. Should I say something? All I know is that I want to quit.

Any suggestions?

Shut down

Hello Shut Down,

First of all, yes! This is the right place for asking more specific personal questions around the themes of communication, conflict, relationship building and self-care, as well as larger issues.

I’m sorry to hear you are experiencing that and I hope I can offer some insights. Since I’m not getting the full context, nor your boss’s perspective, I can only respond based on your version of the story. That isn’t to imply that you might not be telling the truth; it’s simply acknowledging that it is virtually impossible for any of us to give a 100 percent accurate depiction of any issue or situation.

This is a common situation we often discuss in the world of leadership development. The overall reasons why someone may leave their job is not necessarily that they don’t like their work, but that they are unhappy with management or don’t feel valued. In my trainings on Resilient and Inclusive leadership, I quote former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O’ Neill: “Human beings have discretionary energy, and they would give it to you if you treat them with dignity and respect.”

In other words, when people feel valued and are acknowledged for the contributions they are making, the more likely they will invest more in the health and success of the organization. In order to create a work environment that is thriving, attention has to be paid to creating more safety and trust.

I bring this up as a way to set up how you might consider approaching your boss, Shut Down. The first thing to consider is would you feel safe discussing this with him? If not, then perhaps you can ask someone to join you in this conversation as support. Or you may conclude that this is not the best environment for you to feel satisfaction or fulfillment in your work.

If you decide to talk with him, ask yourself what your desired outcome would be. This is important because oftentimes we think we are going into these conversations with the best intentions for win-win solutions, but the wounded, unconscious parts of us just want the other to hurt in some way. This never leads to beneficial outcomes. Before you draw your conclusions, do an objective examination of the situation.

What is true in this situation is that you notice that he cuts you off when you are speaking. Until you ask, you don’t know for a fact what his intentions are. Is he purposefully shutting you down? Or is it an unconscious pattern that he does with all women? Is it a coincidence that he is doing it to you, a woman? Does he do it with others? And I would suggest you also take a moment to consider that maybe you are taking up too much of the meeting with your words? I’m not placing blame; I’m acknowledging the importance of delineating what is fact and what is interpretation, or accusation, or judgment.

I believe that it is impossible, and even aggressive, to try to change people, but you can support them, with patience and compassion, to modify their behavior. So, when you speak to him, I would suggest sticking to what can be verified and name the behavior: you notice when you are talking in meetings, that he cuts you off. Then give him a chance to respond. It is in this moment that you get a lot of important information. Based on his reaction, you will see if he is aware of his actions, or if he gets defensive or immediately apologizes, to name a few.

After this initial response, you will have an idea of how to proceed in the conversation. If he is still willing to hear your truth, then share with him how this behavior impacts you. You’ve already named it: you feel shut down. After sharing this, once again, give him a chance to respond.

If he is still open to hearing your truth, then let him know what you would need in these situations to feel empowered. If you didn’t feel shut down, what would you feel instead? And what would you need to feel this new way? Maybe inquire what your boss might need in these situations as a way to show interest in supporting him in shifting his behavior? By both of you expressing your needs, and both of you working together to help each other get your needs met, you create the space for new win-win solutions, feeling valued and respected.

This sounds easier than it is, Shut Down. My hope with my response is to support you in starting your process of analysis which could lead to some clarity on what your best options and actions could be for this situation.

Honor your authentic voice,

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