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

Climate adaptation needs to be locally led; tech can help

Climate adaptation needs to be locally led; tech can help
VICTOR de SCHWANBERG/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY
Kelly Bryan
By Kelly BryanJan 05, 2023
Kelly Bryan
See More Writings by author

Bryan is U.S. regional director at Village Capital which helps to support solutions for social, economic, and environmental challenges around the world.

The mounting challenges rising from climate change can seem insurmountable at a global level. But there is hope when one examines the local level – entrepreneurs and community leaders leveraging lived experience and emerging technologies to build more resilient and financially healthy futures.

As we saw from Hurricane Ian in Florida or the California wildfires, natural disasters are occurring at an increasing pace, and not slowing down anytime soon. It’s already apparent that cities and smaller municipalities are simply not prepared to deal with the effects – from power shortages to a lack of health care workers to breakdowns in the food system.

As federal, state and local government leaders scramble for solutions, we are seeing social entrepreneurs leverage technology for disaster resilience. The idea of technology supporting disaster resilience is not new. One common theme that’s emerging is technology that empowers communities to protect themselves from the consequences of climate change — that is, to build community resilience from the ground up.

Here’s some of the innovation that we’re seeing.

Mobile solar power and connectivity for local response teams

Low-income communities tend to be struck the hardest in times of natural disaster, literally rendered powerless due to a lack of infrastructure. Los Angeles-based SolarFi is one startup with a solution. SolarFi has created the Bliss Pod, an energy-autonomous, mobile, flexibly designed solar pod with WiFi. It is well-suited for deployment in post-disaster impact zones, incorporating both satellite and cellular connectivity, and offering affected citizens and first responders access to device charging stations and internet connectivity.

SolarFi allows local government agencies, NGOs, and even volunteer groups to be more efficient and safer during their response efforts. Having connectivity in the face of uncertainty creates a lot of reassurance. Response teams will have a stable location to work from and those impacted by disaster have a safe place to go to.

Rapid financial aid, crowdfunded

Mutual aid has taken off during recent disasters. But these campaigns are often ad hoc and not sufficient. Meanwhile, existing aid services like the Red Cross lack infrastructure for specific in-kind donations. When the aftermath of a disaster moves from disaster relief to recovery, usually about 30-days post-disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other local/state government agencies) act more like a bank. For those who are uninsured, the bureaucratic process can take one to two years or more.

Rebuildee is an in-kind crowdfunded donation platform for disaster recovery to aid people in rebuilding and refurnishing their homes after a disaster. The New York-based startup provides a community-led approach to the rebuilding and disaster recovery process through its mobile marketplace, where contributors donate money to people who have recently experienced a natural disaster, and that money is then earmarked for specific household items, such as furniture or appliances, that people have requested. The company is agile and highly scalable, helping communities skirt bureaucracy and providing additional recovery channels in affected communities. It will help underinsured and uninsured populations rebuild after a disaster with immediate assistance.

The startup launched its product in late fall, and saw 30 sign-ups in just the first month. In the past few days, the team has already received multiple contributions for items that users who are rebuilding after a disaster have requested, proving the platform is already serving a significant unmet need in the wake of natural disasters.

Climate change reporting from the ground up

Communities need better data and coordination to make climate investments. Currently, the data used to model risk impacts is inaccurate, ground-truthing modeled data is costly, and ad hoc and resident participation is mandated, but inadequate, inefficient, and inequitable.

New Orleans-based ISeeChange is working to change that. The startup helps local communities and partners work together to study and address climate challenges in their own neighborhoods and cities. Projects are typically led by cities, engineers, educators, researchers and local organizations. They build infrastructure, conduct research, create solutions, increase climate literacy and more.

ISeeChange is already creating an impact throughout the United States. In Florida, ISeeChange decreased response times during Hurricane Ian, Tropical Storm Eta, and the recent PTC1 flood. It was also able to generate over $20 million in stormwater infrastructure capital as a result of the data gathered through collaboration with Miami-Dade County and nearly 152,000 residents in low-income neighborhoods.

In New Jersey, its solution enabled 10,000 residents in coastal towns to prove that moderate rains and tides combined to cause significant flooding. Importantly, thanks to insights from ISeeChange, the city of New Orleans is currently reallocating nearly $5 million in flood infrastructure to low-income New Orleanians. Through insights and data that ISeeChange gathered, it was able to prove that the National Weather Service under-alerts low-income neighborhoods about heat risks in New Orleans. This could lead to saving lives and improving conditions in future heat waves.

Protection from blackouts, increased grid resiliency and energy efficiency

With the growing number of natural disasters and increased energy demand on the grid, solutions are needed that help utilities manage peak load and shift the supply to cleaner sources, reducing the carbon dioxide emission spikes often associated with these events.

Birmingham-based startup Moduly is addressing these challenges. Moduly’s smart energy solution, called the Moduly HomeKit, is a battery module that plugs into any wall outlet, without the need for professional installation. The Moduly HomeKit stores energy when the electricity rate is low and reuses it to meet consumer electricity needs during high-rate hours, saving customers money on their electricity bills. In addition, Moduly accumulates and stores energy to act as a generator when a customer loses power. Moduly’s adapters can also share and manage the energy usage of other devices in the home, including solar panel systems and EV chargers.

Moduly’s solution reduces the risk of blackouts through its management capabilities during hours of peak demand, all while allowing users to be more energy efficient as well as integrate the clean energy devices that are already in their home — reducing carbon dioxide emissions. This solution not only increases the resiliency of individuals in the face of natural disasters — but it emphasizes sustainability and energy efficiency as well.

These are all exciting innovations — but there is still a lot that needs to go right for them to gain traction and scale to communities around the country (and sometimes the world). As we’ve seen time and again at Village Capital, “tech for good” startups often rely on deep community partnerships — with NGOs, local governments, activist groups and more — to succeed.

For civic leaders who want to support this kind of innovation, we suggest focusing resources on building partnerships with early-stage companies whose founders have lived experience of the problem at hand. When a founder has lived experience, they intimately understand the needs of the community they are serving. These founders also tend to bring new, creative solutions to alarming problems caused by climate change and can even identify areas to prevent further damage, cost or loss of life. These solutions could not only protect cities but improve livelihoods and build out thriving communities.

To help make our communities safer, we need to support locally led solutions. And as a matter of justice, those responsible for the climate crisis — including large corporations, fossil fuel companies, wealthy countries and politicians — need to act now.

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