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

Don’t give up on democracy, fellow young voters

Opinion

Don’t give up on democracy, fellow young voters

"We have the power to unrig the system. Political apathy is not the answer," argues Amanda Shafer.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Amanda Shafer
By Amanda ShaferDec 09, 2019
Amanda Shafer
See More Writings by author

Shafer, a junior at the University of California, Berkeley, is the director of external affairs for BridgeUSA, a national, student-run organization seeking to depolarize college campuses and increase youth civic engagement.

Do you feel like your vote actually matters? I sure don't. Though I proudly registered two years ago on my 18th birthday at city hall in my Chicago suburb, and have voted in every single election since, I know my vote does not truly matter. It is a drop in a bucket in a safe district.

The reality is, most of our votes do not matter; 85 percent of House districts are not in jeopardy for the party that holds the seat. Millions are misrepresented by politicians they oppose. Candidates from third parties, who may be most representative of a district, are dismissed as "spoilers" ruining the election for the two-party duopoly. And safe districts encourage candidates to pull away from the middle to win primaries, but never move back in time for an assured victory in the general election.

We all know the troubles riddling the Electoral College — from granting a voter in Wyoming 57 times the voting power as a voter in California, to giving a single white voter the power of 1.05 voters but an Asian voter the influence of 0.58 of a vote. This system has grown horribly out of step with the wishes of the majority; three out of the five instances of a popularly elected candidate losing an electoral vote occurred in the past 16 years.

As young people flock to coastal urban areas, their votes matter less and less in "safe" states and districts. Despite "one person, one vote," gerrymandered House districts and the Electoral College clearly favor a particular kind of voter: rural, older and white, stacking our democracy against the increasingly young and diverse populace the millennial and Gen Z generations are creating.

Uncompetitive House races and a rigged presidential electoral system have contributed to political polarization, grinding governance to a standstill. Despite mounting crises — climate change, vast wealth inequality, ballooning student loan debt and unprecedented levels of gun violence, to name a few —- our politics has become polarized to the point of being ineffectual. Obstructionism has become a winning political tactic, leaving massive societal ailments to worsen.

Millennials and Gen Zers look at this disfunction and increasingly dismiss politics as impossibly gridlocked and incapable, fueling vast political apathy in the leaders of tomorrow. Older generations love pushing the narrative that "young people don't vote." But with a rigged, uncompetitive democracy and an impossibly polarized government, it's no wonder young people don't think the answer lies in government.

We, the young adults, should not discount government, though. We can and should aim to make democracy work once more. And democracy reforms should be an American issue, not a partisan one. Come 2020, millennials and Gen Zers will comprise the largest bloc of eligible voters, outpacing the long-dominant baby boomer generation. We have the power to engage with democracy and demand systemic change to address the crises our government is failing to act upon.

If we want to solve the issues defining our generations' struggles, we have to make our voices heard. We need to vote. We need to knock on doors for a candidate we support, or at the very least post Instagram stories about political issues we care about. If we want to enact change, we need to take our rightful seat at the long table of democracy and start advocating for ourselves.

At BridgeUSA, the leading multipartisan organization on college campuses, we work for students to actively engage with our democracy through the "bridge mindset." To mitigate polarization, we encourage students to explore ideas and learn to articulate their preferences through civil discourse. In doing so, we create empathetic young leaders excited to join the political process in productive ways.

Sharpening youth political engagement is certainly the first step. But once we begin to fulfill our civic duty as active citizens, we need to demand changes to make our democracy more democratic. A laundry list of effective reforms would be effective, and they can be boiled down to simply: Unrig our elections to make them more democratic.

Ridding the system of institutions that enable tyranny of the minority should be the first step. Since abolishing the Electoral College is a pipe dream, we should urge our state elected officials to embrace the interstate compact under which a state's electors are committed to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular vote. If states with a combined 270 of the 538 electoral votes do this, we can achieve a system where every individual vote does matter.

Our election maps are also hopelessly gerrymandered to favor the incumbent party that drew the lines. Just looking at Maryland, Illinois, North Carolina and Pennsylvania reveals the transpartisan appeal to ending this: Both parties use it to disadvantage the other, so both parties should have a stake in ending it to make our elections more competitive and ensure our representatives are truly representative of their states. Seventeen states have adopted independent commissions, or other innovative measures that remove power from legislators' hands, to draw their lines following the 2020 census. Hopefully more will follow.

American democracy, despite how broken and dysfunctional it is currently, can be saved. But it requires young people to engage the system and press for change. If not us, the older politicians who continue to benefit from the system will never concede power by altering it. We have the power to unrig the system. Political apathy is not the answer. As a generation, we must turn to peaceful activism and civic engagement to demand a government that listens to us and a democracy that works for every American.


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