Silence can be excruciating, especially online. But when silence is intentional and reflective, says Essential Partners Associate Phoebe Sinclair, it can also be a powerful tool. Silence can make conversations—especially hard ones—more inclusive and meaningful.
Find out how to use silence to strengthen relationships, deepen belonging, and renew hope in your community.
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a federal law enforcement agency within DHS, received approximately $75 billion of the allocated $170.7 billion. This additional funding from the OBBBA paved the way for increased ICE enforcement and detention in the United States, which has led to controversy.
When passing the OBBBA, Congress used a special legislative procedure called the budget reconciliation process, which was established through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA). The CBA created the House and Senate Budget Committees, which hold responsibility for drafting an annual budget resolution. This resolution is a non-binding agreement that acts as a blueprint for federal spending, but does not become law or require the President’s signature. The CBA also established procedures that govern the congressional budget process.
The budget reconciliation process is an example of one of these procedures. It allows Congress to fast-track legislation that modifies existing law related to spending, taxes, or the debt limit, in order to ensure implementation of priorities laid out in the annual budget resolution. Specifically, the budget reconciliation process expedites legislation by only requiring a majority vote in the Senate, therefore avoiding the threat of a filibuster. This procedural advantage proved critical to the passage of the OBBBA, which cleared the Senate on a tiebreaking vote cast by Vice President J.D. Vance.
On a legal basis, the controversies surrounding ICE’s actions under the Trump Administration stem from different interpretations of the United States Constitution. In short, Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to authorize the spending of public money and raise revenue via taxation, known as the power of the purse, while Article II vests executive power in the President of the United States.
While the Constitution precisely lays out these distinct powers, tensions arise when they overlap. Recently, debate has sparked over how the executive branch allocates congressionally appropriated funds within ICE. In this debate, proponents of expanded executive discretion argue that since ICE is an executive agency under the DHS umbrella, the President has broad discretion to allocate funds within ICE. Comparatively, critics of expanded executive discretion argue that because Congress has the power of the purse, they have the authority to shape spending priorities and constrain how executive agencies spend the money allocated to them.
One prominent framework supporting expanded executive discretion is the Unitary Executive Theory, a constitutional law theory holding that the President of the United States possesses broad authority to direct and control the executive branch. Under this view, executive agencies are viewed as extensions of the President’s power rather than as independent actors.
Proponents of this theory argue that once Congress has appropriated funds to an executive agency, the President has the constitutional authority to determine how those funds are allocated. Because the OBBBA appropriated additional funds to the DHS, the Unitary Executive Theory has been used to justify President Trump’s discretion over how those funds are being allocated, a significant portion of which are directed towards expanded ICE enforcement, detention, and removal operations.
A contrasting framework of the United States Constitution rejects expanded executive discretion and emphasizes Article I of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress power of the purse, and establishes separation of powers. This viewpoint claims that executive agencies are not merely extensions of presidential power, but rather, institutions that must be constrained by statute.
Simply put, proponents of this framework argue that even though executive agencies operate within the executive branch, they ultimately exist because Congress creates them through law. Accordingly, proponents contend that because Congress creates these agencies and controls their funding, it should retain the authority to set spending priorities and impose constraints on how appropriated funds are used.
Supporters of executive discretion in funding agencies like ICE often cite Article II of the United States Constitution and the Unitary Executive Theory, which rose to prominence through Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent at the conclusion of the Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson. Scalia’s interpretation of Article II is that all executive power is vested in the President of the United States. Under this interpretation, the President is authorized to control the funding decisions that executive agencies make within statutory limits.
While Congress has the power of the purse, this position argues that an executive agency should not be obligated to balance its spending choices with what Congress desires, as the money has already been congressionally appropriated to it. Supporters of this view justify President Trump’s decision to expand ICE enforcement and detention priorities, interpreting that under Article II, the President has the power to allocate funds in an agency within statutory bounds.
In addition to the Unitary Executive Theory, individuals against limiting executive discretion and ICE’s power argue that the Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land, is a constitutional justification for the expansion of ICE enforcement and detention. This interpretation of the constitution challenges attempts from local and state governments to remove ICE agents from their jurisdiction. Supporters of ICE saw a legal win on February 2, 2026, when US district judge Katherine Menendez declined to halt Operation Metro Surge over a lawsuit filed by Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis against the DHS. In her ruling, Menendez indicated that Minnesota had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of proving a Tenth Amendment violation, and that halting ICE operations would prevent the Federal Government from carrying out constitutionally authorized duties.
On a moral level, individuals in favor of expanded ICE operations argue that increased enforcement directly improves national security and public safety. The DHS released information claiming that over the first six weeks of Operation Metro Surge, federal law enforcement arrested 3,000 criminal illegal aliens. The DHS further claims that this number includes, “vicious murderers, rapists, child pedophiles, and incredibly dangerous individuals,” therefore greatly benefiting public safety.
While opponents of expanded ICE enforcement and detention frequently cite the deaths of Alex Preti and Renee Good as examples of the drawbacks of expanded ICE power, The Heritage Foundation refutes this point. Heritage claims Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are to blame for these deaths due to their encouragement of anti-ICE protests and refusal to cooperate with DHS law enforcement. Heritage recommends that in order to improve public safety and maximize the effectiveness of ICE’s expanded operations, there should be an increase in workplace enforcement and targeted, unpredictable arrests.
Proponents of limiting executive discretion believe that the Unitary Executive Theory is a misinterpretation of the United States Constitution. One core argument is that while executive agencies serve presidential functions, they also do both quasi-legislative tasks, such as implementing policies and regulations that carry the force of the law, and quasi-judicial functions, including settling disputes within their agency. For these reasons, critics of the Unitary Executive Theory believe that Congress has the authority to protect executive agencies from political control.
The landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. The United States reinforces this view. This case holds that when an agency performs both quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Congress may limit the President’s authority to remove its officials, therefore directly preserving an executive agency’s institutional independence from political control.
Furthermore, critics claim that the Unitary Executive Theory reduces checks on the executive branch and weakens institutional independence, ultimately increasing the concentration of executive power. Because ICE performs functions that involve both rule implementation and case adjudication, critics argue that Congress should have imposed clearer statutory constraints on how the additional $75 billion in funding is directed and used. Instead, the OBBBA grants the executive branch broad discretion over resource allocation within the agency, raising constitutional concerns about whether Congress has adequately exercised its power of the purse or has effectively surrendered its spending authority to the President.
Proponents of limiting executive discretion often point to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as a major check on executive power. Passed in 1946, the APA governs how federal agencies create and enforce regulations, meaning executive actions must comply with its requirements. The 2024 Supreme Court case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo strengthened these limits by overturning the Chevron Doctrine and requiring courts, rather than agencies, to independently interpret ambiguous laws. This ruling is especially relevant to recent lawsuits challenging expanded ICE enforcement under Operation Metro Surge, as courts are now more likely to independently assess whether ICE’s actions exceed the authority granted by Congress, rather than referring back to the agency itself.
Critics of expanded ICE powers also raise significant due process, civil liberties, and economic concerns about the scale and scope of ICE operations. Of individuals booked into ICE custody in Fiscal Year 2025, only 5 percent had violent convictions, and 73 percent had no criminal convictions at all. With the White House targeting 3,000 arrests per day, opponents argue this enforcement goal will inevitably sweep up non-criminals, raising concerns that detention is being used as a tool of mass enforcement without regard to individual circumstances or public safety risk.
Under the current Trump administration, expanded ICE enforcement and detention operations have become a central issue, raising both moral and legal concerns. Proponents of executive discretion ground their legal claims in Unitary Executive Theory, stating that the President has broad authority to allocate funds within executive agencies. Supporters of ICE’s expanded operations argue that heightened immigration enforcement and detention significantly improve public safety. Conversely, proponents of limiting executive discretion ground their legal claims in Article I of the United States Constitution and Supreme Court precedents that limit executive power in allocating the specific use of funds within executive agencies like ICE. Critics of ICE’s expanded operations argue that they neglect due process and basic human rights.
Looking forward, these competing constitutional and moral arguments will continue to shape immigration enforcement, the broader landscape of United States governance, and ongoing debates over the correct balance of power between Congress and the executive branch.
Q: Who has the authority to spend the funding allocated to ICE and other executive agencies, Congress or the President?
A: Different interpretations of the constitution lead to different answers to this question. While some may believe that Article II of the United States constitution vests all executive power in the President of the United States, this view conflicts with the Power of the Purse given to Congress in Article I.
Q: Is the expansion of ICE enforcement legally justified under the Constitution?
A: There is no single agreed upon answer to this question. Arguments in favor of ICE expansion include the Unitary Executive Theory and the Supremacy Clause. In comparison, arguments against expanded ICE operations cite the APA, Impoundment Control Act, Supreme Court Precedents (Humphreys Executor v. The United States) and recent judicial cases, such as Loper Bright v Raimando — all of which look to limit concentrated executive power and place checks on the executive branch.
Q: Why is the expansion of ICE operations controversial on a moral level?
A: Arguments in favor of expanded ICE operations cite an increase in public safety. Arguments against ICE expansion cite the lack of overall immigration reform, as well as the neglecting of due process and civil liberties for individuals targeted by ICE.
Ronan Kiter is an ACE fellow.
The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration was first published by ACE and republished with permission
Zaila Avant-Garde on stage at the 30th Anniversary Bounce Trumpet Awards at Dolby Theatre on April 23, 2022 in Hollywood, California.
Every spring, as the Scripps National Spelling Bee captures national attention, we celebrate the brilliance of young spellers—children who command stages and spell words that even confuse adults. This time of the year makes me think back to when I was 9 years old, when I won my school’s spelling bee and advanced to the county competition. Standing in a large, crowded room, surrounded by what felt like hundreds of faces that didn’t look like mine, I whispered to myself: “I can’t do this.” Maybe I wasn’t supposed to be there at all.
So instead of showcasing my own brilliance, I committed self-sabotage by intentionally misspelling each word on the spelling test.
There have been only two Black winners in the 101-year history of the Scripps National Spelling Bee: Jody-Anne Maxwell in 1998 and Zaila Avant-garde in 2021. Scripps is not just a national contest—the contest attracts kids from across the world. And yet, only two Black children have ever won.
So it should come as no surprise that, as a child, I had a feeling that I did not belong at that competition. No one explicitly said, “You don’t belong here;” however, the message was subtle, implied, because of the absence of representation.
In adulthood, I learned these feelings of inadequacy are called imposter syndrome (also known as imposter phenomenon)—the persistent feeling that you don’t belong in spaces, even when you’ve earned your spot. Despite the truth, you feel you’ll be exposed as a fraud, that others will find out you’re not deserving of your accomplishments. While many people believe imposter syndrome develops in adulthood, research suggests that feelings of fraudulence can appear in childhood and adolescence. These feelings can be shaped by context—for example, by the racial and cultural makeup of a classroom, by whose achievements are celebrated, and by whose mistakes are remembered.
A lack of representation is not isolated to spelling bees. It reflects broader patterns in education, including the disproportionate underrepresentation of Black students in gifted and advanced academic programs. Despite three-quarters of Black students attending high schools offering almost a half dozen Advanced Placement (AP) courses, Black students have shown some of the slowest growth in AP participation. As opportunities to take AP courses expand, Black students are not gaining access, which reinforces the silent but deafening message that these spaces are not designed with them in mind.
Research shows that many students, particularly students from marginalized communities, have fewer opportunities to complete grade-level assignments and engage in rigorous instruction—the type of rigor that prepares them for AP courses. These disparities send powerful messages about who is expected to excel and who is not. These feelings of not belonging are also reinforced when students are the “only ones” in an advanced course, when their intelligence and abilities are questioned more than their peers’, or when success feels like an exception rather than the rule.
The absence of Black students in academically rigorous spaces is so loud that it was depicted in the 2006 film Akeelah and the Bee. In this movie, 11-year-old Akeelah Anderson is a Black girl from South Los Angeles who competes in the Scripps National Spelling Bee. The film resonates because it offers what’s rarely depicted: a Black child centered on a national stage for their intellectual prowess.
And despite a lack of representation, there are moments of breakthrough. Jody-Anne Maxwell and Zaila Avant-garde’s historic wins are two examples of what is possible. Their visibility also highlights how rare these moments are and how much work it takes for Black children to see themselves reflected in spaces of academic excellence.
When I think back to that day at the county spelling bee, I don’t think about the words I misspelled on purpose. I think about the moment before that—the quiet, whispered realization that I did not see myself reflected in that space, and my decision to step back.
But what that moment revealed is something I learned as an educator: students respond to the environments we create—environments that signal, in ways both obvious and subtle, who belongs. Building these spaces requires intention. It means expanding access to enrichment opportunities early. It means educators and mentors identifying and nurturing talent, sometimes when children do not recognize it in themselves. Because imposter syndrome is not perpetual feelings of self-doubt or an individual failing—it’s a response to environments that communicate who belongs and who does not.
To be sure, just because a Black child is in a homogenous environment does not mean they will never develop imposter syndrome. Imposter syndrome is not an internal individual failing—it’s contextual, shaped by the environments students move through and the messages those environments send about belonging. I attended an elementary school that was 98% Black, where my brilliance and ability were affirmed, and I was celebrated. Even still, it did not shield me from societal messages about who belonged.
When I advanced to the county spelling bee, I found myself in a space where I was one of a handful of Black students in the room. Instead of rising to the occasion (because I could spell the words), I intentionally misspelled words to avoid moving forward. That experience reflects a broader pattern: when students don’t see themselves in academically rigorous spaces, those spaces can feel out of reach. Affirmations are important, but are not enough. Students need to see themselves reflected in the spaces in which they are entering.
If we want more children to step onto spelling bee stages and into cognitively demanding spaces, we have to build environments where they never question whether they deserve to be there in the first place.
How positive male leadership is critical to the mental health and development of young men.
From the White House to Harvard to Buckingham Palace, 2026 has become a masterclass in how men should not behave. Donald Trump tweeted in expletives on a religious holiday, threatening to decimate “a whole civilization.” Larry Summers—one of the world's most powerful academics—resigned in disgrace from Harvard. Before that, Prince Andrew was arrested. This year alone, Bill Gates, George Mitchell, and other prominent men have been exposed for inappropriate, abusive, or generally shameful behavior.
In short, men aren't looking good right now—especially as role models for young men. Now more than ever, we need good men to step up for our boys.
Young men are in trouble. They are telling us that they feel more alone, depressed, and isolated than ever. They are not thriving in today’s society: Their grades are worse than girls’, they’re less likely to graduate high school on time, and they're less likely to enroll in college. Most worrisome of all is the rise in male suicide.
When boys grow up without experienced, grounded, consistent, accountable male guidance, we should not be surprised when concerning behavior becomes their norm.
Research shows that trusted adult men—fathers, friends, teachers, community members, and others—can make a difference. Decades of developmental science affirm that children—both boys and girls—benefit from the involvement of a warm, responsive father. A systematic review of 24 publications showed that father engagement reduced behavioral problems in boys and psychological problems in girls. Other studies show that boys with an engaged father were less likely to misuse substances and were better able to manage their stress well into adulthood. In fact, research group Child Trends argues that positive engagement with fathers is not just essential; it is critical for healthy development.
Fortunately for the 25 percent of U.S. children who don’t live with their dads, these benefits are not limited to fathers. They also come from adult role models, especially men. Research shows that a strong safety net made up of many trusted adults, including men, can fill the gap. For instance, one study found that high school seniors who had a trusted relationship with a non-parental adult had better mental health a year later. Overall, children benefit from a safety net that extends beyond their households.
Today, that safety net is provided mostly by women, from babysitters to teachers to school counselors. Their contributions are indispensable. But the imbalance points to a missed opportunity. Boys and young men need to see men in ordinary, everyday settings embodying a healthier version of masculinity.
What would that look like?
It would mean modeling emotional intelligence: listening with attention, communicating with clarity, and managing anger without violence. It would mean demonstrating respect—for women, for peers, for oneself—and valuing effort, responsibility, and care for others. Scholars of “positive masculinity” like Matt Englar-Carlson, Ph.D., director of the Center for Boys and Men, have long argued that these traits are not deviations from manhood but its most positive expression.
It would also mean changing how men engage with each other, especially younger men. According to a report by Next Gen Men, more than four out of five boys had someone they felt they could trust when they were having a tough time; but only 16% actually asked for help. The cultural expectation of self-reliance remains powerful. Adult men can begin to dismantle it by doing something simple and radical: asking, directly and consistently, “Are you okay?”—and offering help.
Finally, it would require visibility. Cultural norms are shaped not only by private behavior, but by what is seen and acknowledged. As Dr. Niobe Way, director of New York University’s Human Connection Lab, notes, “boy culture” often rewards emotional suppression and dominance while sidelining vulnerability and empathy. Yet research on social behavior suggests that positive expressions—care, accountability, kindness—are contagious when made visible. For instance, when people are exposed to positive, prosocial emotions in their social media feed, they tend to post more positively.
Visibility becomes contagious. Men need to make their good behavior and compassion visible because young people are watching. In what many are calling the Artemis II effect, the crew named their spacecraft Integrity and then lived it—modeling humility, connection, and trust as millions watched them make history. Their character mattered. According to Lawrence Kohlberg’s Development of Moral Thought, when young people see adults model integrity like taking accountability after making a mistake, showing care and affection with friends and family, and challenging disrespect to others when it happens, they then develop their own internal standards. We need to do more of this.
None of this ignores the reality that public trust in men has been shaken, often for good reason. Revelations of abuse and exploitation—from the #MeToo movement to the Epstein scandal—have forced a necessary reckoning. Some men may hesitate to step into mentoring roles out of fear or uncertainty. But retreat is not the answer. The need is too great.
Any honest conversation about gender must also recognize that young people experience identity in diverse and complex ways. Even so, the behavior of men—how they wield power, express emotion, and treat others—continues to exert a profound influence on the social landscape.
The question is not whether masculinity will shape our boys, but whether masculinity will be shaped by men willing to lead with character and integrity. In a time defined by the worst examples of male behavior, the most important act today may be for good men (the many out there!) to live in such a way that children never have to wonder what healthy masculinity looks like.
Claudia-Santi F. Fernandes, Ed.D., is an assistant clinical professor at the Yale Child Study Center. She is a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project.
Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.
The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.
But the more basic, functional, aspect of the problem is that the context has always been corporate interest v public interest. Corporations are structured in such a way that their only interest is the bottom line, how to constantly increase their profit, and so please their shareholders. There is no concern for the public good. That is the source of the problem. And that is what must be reformed. (See my post, "Making the Titans of Finance and Industry Accept Social Responsibility.")
People will say that it is the nature of the beast for corporations to be concerned solely with their bottom line. That is certainly true for the beast as it has developed, from the Robber Barons on. But there is nothing inherent in the idea of a corporation or capitalism that makes it inimical to factoring in a concern for the public good. The essence of capitalism is that control of the means of production and the distribution of products lies in private hands; that will remain unchanged.
My point is that we must rethink what a corporation is. What is its function in our economy and society?
Corporations are a creature of the law. We forget that businesses are entitled to the benefits of incorporation because they provide something of value … they are critical to the economic health of the country and their workers. They meet both economic and societal needs.
From this perspective, corporations exist to enhance the greater good. But from the perspective of their CEOs and shareholders, they exist to make them money. And so, unfortunately, as we have seen repeatedly since the industrial revolution, corporations have been mostly intent on making money and have done much that has had a negative impact on the greater good. Often with full knowledge.
The answer to this conundrum is to reform the laws governing corporate organization by restructuring corporate governance. The goal of this effort should be to make consideration of the greater good … the public interest as well as worker interest … an integral part of the corporate decision-making process.
I propose that this reform has four primary elements:
These requirements will engage corporations in a more healthy, long-term perspective, rather than the short-term one resulting from the current emphasis on stock price.
Most people currently involved in corporate management, most shareholders, and the broader market will most likely not react kindly to these proposed changes. They would involve both a major change in corporate culture and a likely reduction in the financial benefits that accrue to those running and investing in corporations.
But with the passage of time, with the emergence of a new generation of business leaders, these changes will become such a part of the corporate method that it will be hard to imagine that it was ever otherwise. This is the rational way to manage a business if it is to be not just productive but a good citizen of our society.
If we are to ensure that corporations work towards a goal that includes the greater good, then this reform has to take place.
Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com
Some MAGA loyalists have turned on Trump. Why the rest haven’t