Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Organizing for collective impact: Prepared for anything, more effective at everything

Organizing for collective impact: Prepared for anything, more effective at everything
Klaus Vedfelt/Getty Images

Christen is a lawyer, a senior officer in the Navy Reserve JAG Corps, a seminarian, and a member of an independent Critical Connections team catalyzing inter-movement community and capacity building among democracy and civic health-promoting organizations to achieve collective impact. All stated opinions are his own and do not represent the positions of the U.S. Navy.

This is the fourth in a series of articles analyzing how the democracy ecosystem can prepare to support and facilitate a mass movement.


On March 31, 2022, not long after Russia invaded Ukraine, attendees at a Unite America Brewer Fellows reception were asked to discuss how partner nations were able to respond so quickly and effectively to help Ukraine. The conclusion was that the relationships that had been formed between Ukraine and partner nations through joint capacity building and rehearsed interoperability enabled them to be prepared for the invasion.

The question then is how can these lessons learned from Ukraine be applied to promoting democracy and civic health in the U.S.?

While threats to American democracy are less obvious than a potential Russian invasion, the American political and social environment is constantly changing in often unforeseeable ways, leading to both crises and opportunities. As a result, the advice of legendary UCLA men’s basketball coach, John Wooden, is salient: “You must proceed with the knowledge that unforeseen events will occur and the absolute belief that some of those unanticipated occurrences will provide opportunity…if opportunity comes and you are not prepared, it may not come again.”

Pre-Existing Relationships

Since 2012, I served with and for NATO and partner militaries for approximately five years in Italy, Afghanistan, and Bahrain. Despite U.S.’ relationships at the highest political levels with NATO and Ukraine being fairly tumultuous during this time period, I never saw the polemical political environment degrade daily collaborations at the staff level. Members of the Department of Defense, the State Department, and various other U.S. agencies were consistently building relationships and working closely and developing joint capacity with partner nation counterparts.

Because of the numerous conversations, meals, collaborations, and shared experiences they already had, effective working relationships across countries and staff levels were in place well before the crisis. As a result, when Russia invaded, staff neither needed to frantically search for points of contact and their contact information nor introduce themselves for the first time.

These pre-established relationships should have significantly decreased countries’ response time while positively contributing to the overall effectiveness of their response to aid Ukraine.

Pre-established relationships can similarly impact the preparedness of the inter-movement community of democracy and civic health-promoting movements. Analogous to Ukraine’s partner states, the inter-movement community has numerous independent yet interdependent fields or “neighborhoods,” like structural reform, bridging divides, and civic education to name a few. At a recent inter-movement community forum, Todd Connor, co-Founder and CEO of Veterans for Political Innovation, insightfully observed that “the right time to build the coalition is before you need the coalition.” Said another way, meaningful, cross-neighborhood relationships must be established in advance of democracy’s next crisis or opportunity.

The challenge, however, is that awareness of other neighborhoods and their efforts is first needed to grasp the opportunity potential of cross-neighborhood relationships.

As discussed in a previous article, a critical mass of at least 12 million Americans is required to transform American democracy. Once the critical mass is achieved, the next challenge is maintaining it long enough to enable societal diffusion of pro-democracy norms and to coerce or co-opt political power brokers to enact policy change.

If the inter-movement community is unable to coalesce and cohesively facilitate the actions of the critical mass quickly enough, then momentum can quickly dissipate, sliding citizen participation back below the tipping point. While making ad hoc, cross-neighborhood connections is theoretically possible, pre-existing relationships increase the likelihood that the inter-movement community can coalesce before momentum is lost. Since research has found immense value in weak connections, not all relationships have to be particularly strong or intense, they just have to be formed.

While more cross-neighborhood relationships are being established every day, insufficient relationships currently exist to enable rapid, cohesive mobilization of the inter-movement community.

A second takeaway from Ukraine is that relationships between leaders are good but meaningful cross-organizational and cross-neighborhood relationships across all organizational levels is better. Relationships between staffs are often the glue between organizations and neighborhoods. Egos, personality conflicts, pressures from stakeholders, and the transitory nature of individuals lowers the likelihood of effective activation of community relationships in times of crisis or opportunity if all relationship-building eggs are put into the leader’s basket. In other words, leaders should encourage staff to develop relationships too and not attempt to own all organizational relationship-building.

Joint Capabilities and Practiced Interoperability

Partner nations were also able to quickly provide support to Ukraine because they had meaningfully worked together before. Prior to the invasion, NATO, Ukraine, and partners collaborated in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and frequent joint exercises – essentially a combination of inter-country scenario based planning and simulated joint tactics rehearsal – together.

As a result, participating countries had opportunities to develop joint capabilities and to practice and assess interoperability (the ability to work together across countries or other units of organizing). They were able to learn how to effectively work as a cohesive team and communicate with each other, including overcoming cultural, linguistic, and technical challenges. Additionally, they should have identified individual and combined strengths and weaknesses, thereby enabling finding solutions to vulnerabilities before the invasion.

With established joint capabilities and rehearsed interoperability, NATO and partner countries were better prepared to know what Ukraine lacked, to listen to what Ukraine wanted, and to coordinate assistance.

Although the threats and opportunities are different, the inter-movement community must similarly start by developing interoperability capabilities, such as funding for joint efforts and platforms for communicating, de-conflicting and coordinating efforts, and co-amplifying unified strategic messaging.

The inter-movement community must then practice collaborating using these interoperability capabilities. In a perfect world, the inter-movement community would host a large-scale, scenario-based simulation analogous to a joint military exercise to practice and assess interoperability. Barring that, cross-neighborhood efforts can be strategically designed to similarly practice and assess interoperability, which, Connor observes, is when organizations “discover who their important partners will be.”

Preparedness Breeds Resilience

The lack of preparedness for the pandemic by many governments and organizations revealed the importance of resilience – the "capacity to absorb stress, recover critical functionality, and thrive in altered circumstances."Although Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was somewhat foreseeable, a future president's attempt to dissolve congress akin to what recently happened in Peru, the coalescence of the “ missing mass pro-democracy movement,” the sudden pooled donation of $20 billion to strengthen American democracy, or any other unforeseeable, game-changing circumstance could occur any time. Practiced adaptability, goal and activity embeddedness, collaboration, pre-established relationships, rehearsed interoperability, and joint capabilities will prepare the inter-movement community to not just respond but to collectively thrive in any unforeseen situation like this.

Fortunately, collective preparedness is no less valuable even if these extreme scenarios do not happen. How much more effective is a local campaign to change democratic structures or reduce polarization when organizations across several neighborhoods are able to rapidly pool their expertise and resources? When the inter-movement community is prepared for collective impact, the entire ecosystem becomes more effective at everything.

In the words of George R.R. Martin, we are the knights of summer, and winter (or opportunity) is coming. Now is the time to prepare. Feel free to email Christen here to discuss how you can promote preparedness.


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