Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Helping bridge the gaps among young adults

Laura Chen is a Co-Founder of Civic Synergy, a political depolarization organization for young adults. She is a recent graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a current Coro Fellow in Public Affairs.

Lake Dodson studies Political Science, East Asian Studies, and Global Security at the University of Mississippi. Lake’s previous writings on nuclear weapons deterrence have been published by Harvard. His main areas of research are East Asian Relations and nuclear energy.


Starting an organization aimed at bringing politically opposed young adults into a room to create policy solutions was terrifying - but a mix of mind-opening conversation and facilitated collaboration has helped each of our groups build captivating proposals so far.

By the time I graduated high school and entered my first year of college, I had seen two of the four longest U.S. government shutdowns in history. Growing up in this era of increasing partisan gridlock, distrust, and even hatred was disheartening. I wondered how our democracy could function when we couldn’t talk to each other and share ideas. After the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a couple of other MIT students and I had a question: can we bring young people together, across political divisions, to tackle our most pressing challenges?

The answer was daunting - it was tied to the very roots of our democracy. Two years after starting Civic Synergy, an organization focused on political depolarization among young adults, our work has answered a resounding yes to that question. We are proud to say our journey has become one of hope, discovery, connection, and learning.

Civic Synergy empowers young adults with the skills and opportunity to bridge political divides in service of solving the pressing challenges of our time. Politically diverse teams of 5-7 participants, from around the country, formulate and present policy proposals to members of Congress at the end of a 6 week program. During the first session, each team participates in a Living Room Conversation around the topic at hand. These are open-source, guided conversations proven to build understanding to bridge divides. The Living Room Conversations organization seemed to start with the same question I wondered about - how can we get people to talk to each other in the first place? For the past two programs we’ve run, our cohorts have gotten to hear from John Gable from AllSides and Joan Blades from Living Room Conversations and then have broken out into teams for their very own conversations.

The program starts with these conversations to help participants connect as humans and to begin to build trust, which is a key building block for teams’ collaboration. One participant, Lake Dodson, reflects on his experience:

When starting my first-ever meeting with Civic Synergy, I had initially thought that the “Living Room Conversation” was simply a form of breaking the ice, but it was clear that the Living Room Conversation was more thought out and developed, asking more in-depth questions about everyone’s core beliefs. I especially enjoyed the questions posed to us in our Environmental Cohort. Hearing everyone’s opinions on hot-button issues like self-driving cars or responsible energy production was very helpful in assessing where one person’s interests end and where another begins. I was immediately interested and drawn into this open style, seeing it as a way to work smarter, faster, and with a greater amount of autonomy.

I remember when we were talking about energy production, I spoke at length about the benefits of nuclear energy, specifically using Thorium instead of Uranium or Plutonium. While the other members of my group heard out my views, others would add to my points by asking about how my ideas would affect low-income communities or governmental policy. It was very promising to see that my more scientific/economic perspectives were being built-up or challenged by volunteers who were more concerned about sustainability, society, or any other points of view that filled in the gaps. Since those first few meetings, my interest in energy, specifically nuclear, grew. In fact, I have recently been invited to Vienna, Austria to speak on behalf of Thorium at an international nuclear energy conference.

Thanks to Civic Synergy, I was able to discuss the issues which were most important to me with an equally enthused group of people who gave me constructive criticisms that added to my approach. I remember a specific instance of this happening when I discussed green energy with a fellow participant. She was very adamant about using forms of renewable energy like hydroelectric, thermal, and wind, while I was skeptical of those forms, saying that they all either produce more pollution than expected, are unreliable for consistent energy, or do not produce enough energy to be worth the costs. By the end of our discussion, we agreed to propose support for residential solar panels for small-scale energy production, while nuclear power plants could provide large-scale energy production. These conversations and debates allowed us to be direct with each other and have all voices heard while creating our proposal for the member of Congress we presented to.

The Living Room Conversation helps our participants learn about each others’ background and experiences that shape their views, and notice similarities or differences from their own. From there, with a facilitator’s help, participants have a strong base to collaborate and innovatively design new solutions that meet each of their interests, across the political spectrum.

Over the last two years, 85 participants have gone through Civic Synergy’s collaborative leadership program, like Lake. Written reflections from participants, full of hope and discovery, have empowered the leadership team, now made up of 90% program alumni, to continue and improve the program. For both those running the program and those going through it, the importance of stewarding democratic leaders with conflict resolution skills to reach across the aisle has never been clearer.


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