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

Bringing it home

Bringing it home
Getty Images
Lisa Swallow
By Lisa SwallowApr 17, 2023
Lisa Swallow
See More Writings by author

Lisa K. Swallow is the co-founder and executive director of Crossing Party Lines, a national nonprofit creating an open dialogue between Americans with dissimilar ideologies. She has developed a series of workshops teaching the concepts, skills, and techniques for having civil, respectful conversations with people who view the world differently. Listening with a curious open mind is the cornerstone of her work.

Ask any of your friends or family members why America is polarized these days and they’re likely to give you answers ranging from social media or cable news to politicians. Or, they may accuse the other side as being duped, ignorant, or just not listening.

The fact is they are wrong, or at least only partially right. We’re polarized because that’s the way God made us. Humans are hardwired to organize people into “us” versus “them” and to see the world in terms of safe versus dangerous, win versus lose. This hardwiring is a survival mechanism made possible through a set of structures in our brains that process information before the rational parts of the brain have access to it. Politicians, cable news, social media, and the rest use this mechanism to foment distrust of the other side and generate fervor and loyalty, but they couldn’t succeed without it.

This survival mechanism, which is referred to by terms such as the limbic system, lizard brain, primitive brain, or reactive brain, came in very handy during the Stone Age. Imagine you were being threatened by a Sabre-toothed tiger. Would you want to take time to ask whether the beast is friendly or not, then analyze your options to choose the most effective response? Or would you want to run as fast as your legs would let you? Better yet, what if your brain could divert all available blood and hormones to your legs, giving you the energy you needed to run faster than might otherwise be possible?

That last option is what the limbic system does for us. It identifies threats to our survival before our rational brain is even aware of them, then shifts us into “fight or flight” mode, flooding our bodies with neurochemicals that throw us into a frenzy and divert all available resources from non-essential body parts to our extremities. We would have become extinct long ago if we hadn’t been equipped with such a mechanism!

Yet, some might say our limbic system has passed its expiration date. Having evolved in more dangerous, less complex times, it cannot distinguish physical dangers from threats to our ideas, beliefs, or identity.

That may seem like no big deal, but our limbic system is overactive these days, shifting us into fight or flight merely because we’re talking to someone whose political views run counter to our own. We’re slaves to our limbic systems, responding to simple things like the sight of a MAGA hat or pro-life sign with fear, anger, distrust, and sometimes violence.

While many of us believe we can reason our way out of political or ideological fight or flight, studies show that isn’t how the brain works. In fight or flight, the limbic system diverts resources away from the rational part of the brain to itself, essentially turning off our ability to reason. We shift to relying on instinct and habit, responding by replaying old thoughts rather than generating new ones.

Understanding the role the limbic system plays in creating and maintaining the divisions that are tearing our country apart is key to finding ways to address those divisions. The limbic system operates by comparing the current situation to memories of past situations. When it encounters sights, sounds, words or ideas that are new or different, or resemble past threats, it responds out of instinct or habitual behaviors. By creating new memories and developing new habitual behaviors, we can influence both what the limbic system interprets as threat and how we respond to threats. The goal is not to keep us from reacting to actual threats. It is to allow us to show up as our most rational selves when we choose to.

At present, there are over 500 organizations working to reduce toxic polarization in America today. Collectively referred to as bridging organizations, each, in their own way, is helping us tune up our limbic systems by creating new memories and new habitual behaviors. Consider the following experiences offered by bridging organizations:

·Observing courteous, intelligent debate.

·Participating in civil, respectful political conversations.

·Watching films or documentaries showing deep friendships between people with differing political views.

·Working with neighbors from all walks of life to clean up our highways.

Each of these positive experiences creates new memories our limbic systems can compare against when assessing whether something we see, read, or hear is a threat.

Consider workshops that teach active listening, communications skills, or techniques for finding common ground with people who see the world differently. With practice, any of these new skills can become habitual behaviors.

During this week of April 17-23, over 100 bridging organizations will offer you hundreds of opportunities to start tuning up your own limbic system during the National Week of Conversation. They may not describe their events as limbic-system tune-ups, but now that you understand the true cause of polarization, you’ll know that’s what they are doing. For best results, shop around until you find the types of events that you enjoy the most, because tuning up your brain is not a once-and-done activity. You’ll need to create a lot of new memories and practice your new skills until they become habits. Over time, though, you’ll have refitted your limbic systems for the new millennium.

Latest news

“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

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

Read More

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
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026