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

America needs a cross-national approach to counter authoritarianism

America needs a cross-national approach to counter authoritarianism
Oliver Helbig / Getty Images
Yordanos Eyoel
By Yordanos EyoelMay 11, 2023
Yordanos Eyoel
See More Writings by author

Yordanos Eyoel is the Founder and CEO of Keseb, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization building an ecosystem for cross-national learning, collaboration and innovation to advance inclusive and resilient democracies.

In September 2022, American headlines blasted the results of a new poll: an equal proportion of Democrats and Republicans had indicated that U.S. democracy was “in danger of collapse.” It was touted as a rare moment of convergence in an otherwise highly polarized political climate. Yet, the poll did not explore what people meant by democracy, surfacing a much larger question about the country’s collective vision or lack thereof for its system of governance.

From its inception in Athens, dēmokratia was designed for a homogenous group of people with similar racial, social and economic privileges. Yet, with its inherent values of individual choice and collective voice, democracy offers the most compelling vision and a system of government for human flourishing. This is especially salient for multiethnic and pluralistic societies, the testbeds of “the great” experiments in diverse democracy, as the renowned democracy scholar, Yascha Monk, discusses in his recent book. While there have been varying degrees of success across diverse countries, achieving a truly inclusive model of democracy that equitably protects and honors the dignity and rights of all members of society has yet to be fully actualized.

Although difficult to sustain, democracy builds its foundations on diversity and on the contest of ideas in the political space. Today, this very idea of diversity within a democracy has become a ubiquitous wedge issue that has fueled authoritarian, ethnonationalist and xenophobic movements in the U.S. and across the globe. While all nations need a unified vision and narrative about who they are, the existential question of national identity is uniquely difficult yet momentous for diverse democracies.

Last year, 8 out of 10 people resided in a country that is not fully free. With democracy at a critical inflection point, it is imperative to open the aperture of analysis beyond a single country in order to uncover patterns and levers to reverse democratic erosion.

Four former colonies - Brazil, South Africa, India and the United States - which represent 25% of the world’s population collectively, offer critical insights that can deepen our understanding of the crisis facing diverse democracies. These countries surface immediate priorities for pro-democracy civil society intervention, particularly for practitioners and philanthropists.

The newly released report, Defending and Strengthening Diverse Democracies by Keseb, a nonpartisan, pro-democracy nonprofit organization highlights five drivers of recent deterioration of democratic ideals, culture, and systems across Brazil, India, South Africa and the United States. These drivers are: (1) economic change and persistent or deepening inequality, (2) rapid demographic changes, (3) dysfunctional and unregulated information ecosystems, (4) cooperation between opportunistic populist leaders and political elites, and (5) cross-border learning and solidarity by authoritarian movements and leaders.

Over the next several years, innovation will be vital to the success of pro-democracy civil society organizations in resisting democratic regression and enabling their countries to realize the full promise and potential of truly inclusive and diverse democracies. This requires civil society organizations to access a range of support, including robust financial and human capital, leadership development, national and transnational platforms to exchange knowledge and tactics, and peer learning and support networks.

While the number and nature of pro-democracy civil society organizations differs across the four countries due to factors including differing legal frameworks, degrees of political freedom, and funding environments, Keseb's analysis has surfaced four immediate opportunities for philanthropy and practitioners in Brazil, India, South Africa, and the United States:

1. Immediately bolstering multi-year investment in targeted efforts to:

a. Promote free, fair and trusted elections;

b. Build a leadership pipeline for representative government;

c. Combat mis- and disinformation; and

d. Cultivate informed, empowered, and engaged citizens and voters.

2. Embracing issue intersectionality and re-envisioning what it means to be a “democracy organization.” Many organizations, often grassroots ones, are employing issue-based, intersectional organizing strategies in areas such as climate justice, racial equity, and economic empowerment that are in reality moving the needle in strengthening democracy, but often are not considered “democracy” organizations. There is a unique opportunity for philanthropy to break down the siloing of issues and help civil society organizations reinforce their issue-based work where it intersects with democracy.

3. Shifting insufficient and reactive philanthropy that perpetuates fragmentation among practitioners: The impact of pro-democracy civil society organizations is hampered by two mutually reinforcing dynamics:

a. Election-anchored philanthropic capital flow that creates a “boom and bust” effect. For example, overall U.S. democracy funding to civil society organizations dropped by 50% from 2020 ( US $2.5 billion) to 2021 ( US $1.3 billion); and

b. Fragmented and narrowly specialized pro-democracy organizations, often creating a divide between national and local groups and grassroots and grasstops efforts.

4. Building an inspiring collective narrative for sustaining democracy to combat the appeal of authoritarianism, particularly among disillusioned citizens for whom democracy has failed to deliver its promise of economic security.

In today's reality, threatened by a transnational authoritarian movement, it is no longer sufficient to support national pro-democracy efforts in isolation. This is particularly important for Americans to recognize - we have as much to learn from the world as we have to contribute to it. We have to develop transnational pro-democracy ecosystems that can significantly accelerate learning, collaboration and innovation by civil society organizations and leaders.

The mega experiment of diverse democracy is under threat. This is the moment to galvanize and build solidarity across borders to give rise to an inspiring, inclusive, and resilient 21st century democracy in the U.S. and globally.


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