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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

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

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Chicago South Siders impacted by air pollution can help shape future environmental policy

News

Chicago South Siders impacted by air pollution can help shape future environmental policy
factory chimney emitting smoke
Photo by Ria on Unsplash
Britton Struthers-Lugo
By Britton Struthers-LugoJan 08, 2025
Britton Struthers-Lugo
See More Writings by author

Communities in the southwest and southeast sides of Chicago impacted by the adverse effects of air pollution from truck traffic, warehouses, and factory operations have the opportunity to change their future. But what exactly are they experiencing, and how can they change it?

For the greater part of the last year, officials, including State Sen. Javier Cervantes (D-1) and 12th Ward Ald, Julia Ramirez and others from organizations such as the Environmental Defense Fund have been drafting Senate Bill 838. The bill aims to curb environmental injustices, such as air pollution caused by heavy truck traffic and industrial practices, that overburden Chicago’s Southwest and Southeast communities.

According to data distributed by the Illinois Environmental Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, exposure to pollution released from diesel trucks and buses can be deadly. While diesel vehicles only constitute 7% of the road traffic in Illinois, they are responsible for 67% of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and 59% of particulate matter 2.5 emissions in the air. High levels of NOx can produce foul smells, irritate skin and eyes, and damage respiratory airways. PM2.5 are microscopic solids or liquids that can enter your lungs and bloodstream. Both diesel pollution and PM2.5 have been linked to severe health conditions such as asthma, heart disease, and strokes.

A map of a city Description automatically generated

Air Quality and Health Index, Chicago 2020. January 2020. Credit: City of Chicago Air Quality and Health Report.

Community organizer and Executive Director of Neighbors for Environmental Justice, Alfredo Romo, says that maps, such as the ones above, illuminate the disparity of environmental impact:

“Once you put them side to side, you will see what environmental racism looks like, and you will see how much of the Southwest Side and the Southeast Side are becoming the black lungs of the city’s infrastructure. And that's what we're saying. You know, how can we pump the brakes on any more heavy industry coming in overburdened communities?” Romo said.

The passage of Senate Bill 838 is one way. While it would aim to monitor and control pollution caused by truck traffic and industrial practices, SB838 would also focus on increasing the transparency of trucking and warehouse practices in adversely affected communities by developing environmental policy that prioritizes them. As the language stands, much of the responsibility for action falls to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (referenced 41 times throughout SB838).

A truck with a tank on the side of it Description automatically generated with medium confidence

A screenshot from the Chicago Truck Data Portal, a study that counted truck density in adversely affected Chicago neighborhoods. May 17, 2023. (Credit: Center for Neighborhood Technology)

“The bill is crucial for addressing uncertainty about proper air pollution sources, improving the well-being of citizens disproportionately impacted by harmful pollution, and achieving our climate goals,” Cervantes said during the most recent town hall about SB838, held this fall.

With hope for SB838’s passage by early next year, those involved emphasize that this cannot be done without relying on the voices of residents of Southwest and Southeast Chicago. This sentiment is reflected in the current language of SB838.

In addition to its main goals of increased transparency and regulation, SB838 aims to amplify community voices by establishing a council where community members can directly contribute to policy solutions.

“Pollution is distributed unevenly, impacts overburdened communities disproportionately, and varies on a block-by-block basis;,” reads the first clause of Section 9.20. of SB838.

The council established under the SB838 amendment would be called the Health and Equity Advisory Council. The council’s main aims would be to,

“Make findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding environmental justice in the State and uses of federal funds provided to the State for environmental justice,” states the current language in SB838.

The makeup of the Council’s members is what makes this development unique and pressing for community members uniquely impacted by environmental injustices in Chicago. At least two voting members (of which there are currently nine proposed spots) are to be reserved for “ representatives of communities with heavy truck traffic.” There are also six proposed non-voting member seats on the Council, which, according to SB838, would be filled by representatives of community organizations,

“(A) one representative of a labor organization; (B) one representative of a statewide organization representing manufacturers; (C) 2 representatives of faith-based organizations; and (D) 2 representatives of health organizations.”

Members of the Council would share the responsibility of translating the lived experiences of Chicago Southsiders to guide future policy recommendations. While amplifying Southside voices is essential to the further development of SB838, those involved with the legislation emphasize that it has been a continuous challenge to get community members involved.

When it comes to lack of community involvement, Neda Deylami, lawyer and Vehicle Electrification Manager for the Environmental Defense Fund, said in November,

“I think that this comes up in every kind of environmental justice policy that I've personally been involved in or that I've witnessed. I think people are used to feeling disempowered.”

Romo of the N4EJ offered a different perspective from his years of experience doing community-based environmental advocacy as a resident of the Southwest Side.

“For one, we’re dealing with low-income communities. You know, Black and Brown and immigrant communities. When you really analyze those demographics, you will see that a lot of our people are working for these [trucking and factory] industries,” said Romo, “It’s very hard for them to push back on these industries because they do depend on them to put food on the table.”

Romo also cites language fluency as a challenge to involving the community in legislative development.

Despite these struggles, Romo and the N4EJ are continuing to canvas the Southwest and Southeast Sides to raise awareness of the environmental justice issues that plague these communities. They are not alone. Organizations such as the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization, Center for Neighborhood Technology, and Fish Transportation Group, Inc. are also working to collect data that validates people’s lived experiences.

Similarly, representatives and officials will continue to act as an open ear, hosting town halls and community events to better understand the unique needs of the Southwest and Southeast communities and inform the legislative development of SB838.

If you have experienced or been impacted by truck/air pollution in your job or neighborhood and would like to share your experience, please contact Neda Deylami at ndeylami@EDF.org. Your feedback and experiences are important to inform SB838 and shape future environmental policies.

Britton Struthers-Lugo is a reporter with the Medill News Service at Northwestern University, a freelance journalist, and a photographer.


Latest news

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

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

“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

Read More

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
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
© Copyright 2026