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

Doing the right thing the wrong way

Doing the right thing the wrong way
Dzmitry Dzemidovich /Getty Images
Pedro S. Silva II
By Pedro S. Silva IIFeb 20, 2023
Pedro S. Silva II
See More Writings by author

Silva is a globally minded leader, cross-cultural communicator, and advocate with extensive experience in a variety of sectors, including all things contributing to DEI.

Did you know that by doing the right thing the wrong way, you could do a lot more harm than good? You don't have to look any further than the many tone deaf ad campaigns that somehow still make it out in the world and see that if people leap before they look, they can make quite the embarrassing splash. Such is the case with many of the DEI+ initiatives in far too many organizations. It saddens me to see that something that could do so much good is falling short of its ideals for so many completely avoidable reasons. But, I've been around long enough to know that Friedrich Nietzsche wasn't wrong when he said:

“All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity.”

Mindful of this, I believe that DEI in many ways will have to DIE in order for a larger contingent of us to embrace the principles it is meant to elevate. And while the premature death of DEI+ doesn't have to be the evolutionary path we humans must take, history has shown that we rarely take the easier route, because that would mean that some folks would have to admit that they don't know what they are doing or aren't qualified to make the decisions they've been trusted to make. And well, there's nothing more un-American than saying, "Oops. My bad."

Qualified Immunity

Back in 2003, when I was trying hard to get transferred into the Office of Diversity and Inclusion in a previous work context, it was a White man who worked in the office who eventually came out and told me that I would never get hired in the office. When I asked him why, he said, "Because if we bring you in, you would be the only person qualified in this office, even more than the Director."

For months, he had seen me coming in the newly formed office on my lunch break reading articles, he had read my essay I wrote called "Crafted in Diversity" that told of my multi-race, multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-political background and how my life experience, self study, and pending Certification in Diversity Training Management had more than prepared me to work in that office. And every time I saw him, he engaged me in conversation and indulged my questions. He was a nice guy. But, it wasn't until I told him that I was about to graduate from my program that he broke it down for me that the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, where I had yet to see someone that was Black or a person of color, would never bring me in because the office was not "functional."

Of course, this was difficult to hear. But, even more so since there was no representation in the office that reflected my life experiences. At that point, I could have been discouraged. But, I pressed on because I do believe what many organizations profess about the value of diversity. Although, it has become increasingly apparent that many of these organizations have a long way to go toward practicing what they preach.

The same can be said for many of our “inclusive communities.” In 2006, I had the experience of trying to join a volunteer “diversity committee” in an affluent community I was living in temporarily. When I arrived at the meeting, they proceeded to express these same values. And, given that it was a volunteer role and I was the only Black or person of color in the room, I assumed I was a shoe in. And yet, when I called to follow up, I was told that they decided that the committee had all the people it needed. So, I had to wonder how it was possible that these homogenous teams were able to convince themselves that they knew how to value the diversity they wouldn’t even accept in their ranks. Was it me or was it something more systemic?

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not someone who thinks that White people or White passing people cannot be leaders in the ever-expanding realm of what qualifies as diverse. I have a friend who was preaching diversity back in the late 80s and early 90s when most people didn't know what he was talking about. And guess what? He was White and he still is. So, it's not that. But what does get me is how the demographics reflect the same patterns that created the need for diversity professionals in the first place.

The More Things Change... You Know the Rest

According to the same demographics, not only are most CEOs White, of those who are White and male, they make an average of $11k more a year than women and more than other races who hold the same or a similar position. Which, in some ways I find comical. But, I digress.

I am not as surprised by this as I probably should be. Nor am I offended. I've been around long enough and seen enough, that I am not surprised by much. And on more than one occasion, I have been able to predict relational outcomes in matters of diversity simply because, as my essay was titled, I was "Crafted in Diversity." I have been navigating these dynamics since age 2 and I know a systemic outcome when I see one. But besides that, many of our relational outcomes are predictable because most of our institutions are built on a manufacturing minded, tangible outcome based paradigm where most of our systems and processes are designed to minimize variation. And what is diversity if it isn't variation?

So when your business model is built on reducing or even eliminating variation in order to maximize productivity (output) and efficiency, it is highly likely that your organization's culture will reflect what you value most and discourage what you value least. Which, for many folks, whether consciously or unconsciously, makes more business sense than DEI+ does in this dominant paradigm. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a [person] to understand something, when [their] salary depends upon [them] not understanding it!”

Next week, The Fulcrum will share the final of my two part series where I discuss some insights from my 20-year experience working on DEI programs, my discovery of the many flaws that have impeded success, and how we move forward.


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