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

Democracy is not an option- it is the only pathway protecting life itself

Democracy is not an option- it is the only pathway protecting life itself
Getty Images
Frances Moore Lappé
By Frances Moore LappéNov 07, 2023
Frances Moore Lappé
See More Writings by author

Lappé is the author of the three-million copy book, “Diet for a Small Planet,” and 19 others, many focusing on themes of “living democracy”—suggesting a government accountable to citizens and a way of living aligned with the deep human need for connection, meaning and power. In 2017, she co-authored with Adam Eichen, “Daring Democracy: Igniting Power, Meaning, and Connection for the America We Want,” focusing on the roots of the U.S. democracy crisis and how Americans are creatively responding to the challenge. Frances is co-founder of Oakland-based Food First, Vermont-based Center for Living Democracy (1991-2000), and the Cambridge-based Small Planet Institute, which she leads with her daughter Anna Lappé.

Our country lives at a time of great peril and great promise. Multiple crises challenge both the U.S. and the world. The survival of our country, our species and our planet are at stake.

The problem is that the people with the solutions often don’t have the power to implement them; and the people with the power are often unaware that solutions exist.

However, solutions do exist. Today, we offer you the second in a series of essays on critical issues of our time as an introduction to the Solutions Summit 2023 broadcast from the U.S. Capitol where solutions will be brought to the attention of decision makers at every level. This live Zoom broadcast runs from November 6th - 16th, and is free and open to those who register. Please register here.

Explore with us the first of a series of essays on key subjects to be explored at The Solutions Summit.

We gather in a historic moment, one filled with terrifying threats from climate chaos to intra-state conflict—and even greater possibilities.

But no problem. If we identify the root cause, the most intractable problems can be solved. So…let us identify the tap roots of today’s distress.

First is the failure of so many societies, including many democracies, to meet the deepest human needs. And what are these needs? At least three: personal power, meaning larger than oneself, and connection with others. These needs run so deep that when not met constructively, humans often resort to domination and blaming.

So, what have we learned throughout history about the conditions proven to meet these needs positively?

Three conditions stand out:

● The wide dispersion of power so that no one remains powerless.

● Transparency in decision making.

● A culture of mutual accountability in which it’s understood that, since we are all connected, we are all responsible.

And what do these conditions add up to? Democracy.

Thus, my big claim: Democracy is the only form of governance positively aligned with our nature. Yet, for 17 years democracy—measured in political rights and civil liberties - has been deteriorating worldwide. Fortunately, last year saw the narrowest decline.

How do we best respond to democracy’s urgent call? For one, we make clear that democracy is not a dull duty. It is a thrilling way of life. It isn’t simply a particular set of rules. It is a way of life meeting essential needs.

Today, many Americans feel down about our country. Satisfaction with our government has reached a new low. Americans also worry about a weakening economy, polarization, and our widening wealth gap.

The solutions require that we flip pessimism’s paralysis into fuel for action.

Freedom House, founded by Eleanor Roosevelt, ranks our democracy 60th. We could think: Whoa, all those nations are doing better, so there’s proof we can, too! We can translate a negative ranking into evidence for hope.

However, sustaining essential hope demands a courageous democracy movement. In 2021, remember the success in the House passing the omnibus For the People Act before it died in the Senate.

Progress requires building awareness and energy. We can all spread the word that, yes, the power of money in our election is undermining democracy. However, key states and cities are showing us the way by embracing public financing, including the long-running programs in New York City, Arizona, and Connecticut to newer ones in the District of Columbia and Denver.

Two stories I love: Maine’s clean election law enabled waitress Deborah Simpson to gain office and ultimately chair the House judiciary committee and later allowed Chloe Maxmin, —in her twenties,— to make it into the Maine Senate where she has spearheaded key environmental legislation.

Plus, in Los Angeles and New York City small donors provide most candidate funds; and in the last decade a dozen jurisdictions have launched or strengthened programs.

And gerrymandering? In Michigan, young Katie Fahey—starting with one social media post about gerrymandering in 2016—triggered a grassroots campaign that made Michigan a national leader in tackling gerrymandering.

Each of us can spread the news and build Americans’ commitment to defang Super Pacs. Success requires funding transparency, fair districting, automatic-voter registration, as well as public financing. Reforms like these ultimately awaken enough Americans to enable reversing Citizens United.

My point is simple. We can do this. Proof is plentiful, both here and abroad. But perhaps the message I most want to leave with you is this: Our journey for democracy is not a burdensome duty. It is a life enhancing journey. It’s not a “you should” but a “we can.”

And in this spirit, democracy does require one thing above all-- courage: For to believe others can change, we must experience ourselves changing. And that means doing what we thought we could not do.

So, I keep in sight the wise advice of Eleanor Roosevelt: “Do one thing every day that scares you.” So, as we take risks democracy let us reconceive our pounding hearts as our own inner applause cheering us on!

Resources:

    1. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/conflict-trends-global-overview-1946-2022
    2. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2023/marking-50-years
    3. https://news.gallup.com/poll/165371/americans-satisfaction-gov-drops-new-low.aspx
    4. https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores?sort=descℴ=Total%20Score%20and%20Status
    5. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/public-campaign-financing-bright-spot-shadow-citizens-united; https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2017-0015/html?lang=de
    6. https://michiganadvance.com/2023/10/16/michigan-earns-high-marks-on-redistricting-in-new-report-with-room-for-improvement/

    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