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

Politics informed by faith, religion and spirituality

The intersection of church and state
KingWu/Getty Images
Debilyn Molineaux
By Debilyn MolineauxFeb 09, 2022
Debilyn Molineaux

Debilyn Molineaux is the catalyst of JEDIfutures.org , a global initiative that helps people imagine and create just, equitable, dignified, and inclusive futures. She is best known for her pioneering work in civic innovation, having co-founded Bridge Alliance, Living Room Conversations, and National Week of Conversation. She formerly acted as co-publisher for The Fulcrum. Across these efforts, Debilyn has brought together unlikely allies to co-create solutions for democracy, governance, and social transformation.

Her work lives at the intersection of strategy, systems change, and spirit. A long-time practitioner of personal and collective growth, she brings a deep commitment to the inner dimensions of change that are often overlooked but essential to transformation. Debilyn speaks of the “interstitial spaces” — the connective tissue between people, institutions, and movements — where new possibilities take root.

She also hosts the podcast Terrified Nation, which helps audiences move from fear and despair into courage and action. Her voice is sought by impact investors, changemakers, and visionary leaders who want to align resources, imagination, and human growth toward a thriving future for all.

See More Writings by author

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

This week, we are asking you, our readers, to reflect on this question, and share your responses with us:

During our turbulent and challenging times, how does your faith, religion or spirituality inform your politics?

I don’t normally weigh in on these questions, preferring to ask thoughtful questions and then maintaining a respectful silence to hear your views. However, this question feels particularly poignant for me, since I’m in a Buddhist exploration of the Sacred Warrior practice. But I didn’t start here. And my path has been anything but straight.

My early life was spent in the Southern Baptist church. On Sundays I would spend time with my grandmother, who did not approve of or like my stepfather. It was our special time together. I would attend Sunday school as she worked in the church office, then we would attend the service together. It was the hellfire and brimstone style of preaching. I spent most services reading my Bible, the children’s living Bible version. The stories were more compelling than the angry man on the dais. And, of course, we stopped at McDonald’s after church, buying extra french fries to eat on the way home.

My grandmother provided the first implement in my spiritual tool box: a connection to others who loved me as I was.

As a teenager, I attended a different Southern Baptist church with my high school sweetheart. We were both baptized in the church and I was … disappointed. The baptism had not erased my doubts or led to feelings of inclusion, which was my (immature) expectation. After drama with my family, I left home, left the church and struck out on my own. I entered my angry years, becoming an atheist for a time.

The second tool in my spiritual tool box was boundary setting.

As my mom and I worked on improving our relationship, she invited me to a church she found helpful. It was a new thought faith — now called the Centers for Spiritual Living — where I quenched my longing for spiritual community. But as a friend quipped, “It’s like an Amway meeting for God.” I burned out with the continual improvement required to be “growing on the edge.” I decided I was “good enough for now” and left the church.

The third tool in my spiritual tool box was self-acceptance.

Over the next 10-15 years, I was “unchurched.” At the same time, I felt deeply connected to my many communities and my work, and faithful in my self-growth. I attended many workshops aimed at personal growth or self-actualization, all of which presented new spiritual tools for me to use. During this period, I acquired:

Eventually, I found myself longing for a faith community, where we could practice and discuss the ethical and moral dilemmas. I started Judaism conversion classes. Nearing completion, I saw a widening schism in the congregation between the conservative, pro-Israel and progressive, pro-humanity members. I did not convert, as I (mistakenly) believed it wasn’t my conflict.

My spiritual tool box was still missing tools when I entered my political life. After running for office (the first and only time), I felt shunned by my friends who were disinterested in politics or making the world a better place. I no longer fit with a material-driven mindset. This is when I began to be a bridger between different partisans, faith communities, social groups and more.

After several more years in the spiritual wilderness, dabbling in eastern philosophy, women’s groups, meditation, yoga, shamanic journeys and other practices where I found connection, I attended my first meditation retreat. The retreat used the Tibetan traditions ( Mahāyāna) of Buddhism, but was informed by Western psychology, indigineous rituals and shamanism.

I added a tool of non-attachment, while remaining grounded in strong, life-centered values.

All of my spiritual tools are aspects I use daily for the inevitable transformation of our political culture. The template of a healthy political culture is already inside us. It is a culture where we:

  • Connect instead of conquer.
  • Are sovereign and interdependent.
  • Love others as we love ourselves.
  • Focus on what we want.
  • Act with curiosity towards new and different people, ideas, cultures.
  • Trust in each other that “we’ve got your back” as we evolve our social contract that in turn, informs our politics.

I am in a Sacred Warrior class to explore — and co-design — a curriculum for 21st century life, based on the ancient, time-proven values and practices that were developed centuries ago for a different culture and lifestyle. The tools I’ve accumulated provide the means. Regardless of our faith, religion or spiritual practice, we all must provide the will to use our faith in healthy and uplifting ways.

Thank you for your attention and for reading this column. Your take on how your faith, religion or spirituality has informed your politics is greatly appreciated and I look forward to reading every answer.

Tell us how your faith, religion or spirituality inform your politics by Thursday at 9 a.m. ET. We will publish a selection of reader submissions on Feb. 11.


Latest news

A person's hand holding a stamp above a vote deposit box.
Democracy

When Rivals Converge: Electoral Influence Beyond the Cold War

A display entitled 'The Dirty Business of Slavery' at the President's House on August 9, 2025 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Democracy

Trump's Perversion of U.S. History

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room
Ethics & Leadership

Marco Rubio is the only adult left in the room

Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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
© Copyright 2026