Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Faith-based communities have a role to play in strengthening democracy

Faith-based communities have a role to play in strengthening democracy
Getty Images

Sofi Hersher Andorsky is Vice President for Strategy and Communications of A More Perfect Union: The Jewish Partnership for Democracy, an effort to mobilize the American Jewish community to protect and strengthen American democracy.

There is an old joke about making decisions in the Jewish community: three people, 10 opinions. And that is how it is inside houses of worship, schools, and faith institutions across America, as they routinely meld the diverse opinions as they do the work of negotiating, compromising, forging consensus, and fostering a sense of purpose. The same is true of other faith-based spaces; connected by a shared identity and a commitment to a shared future, diverse people make meaning, celebrate, plan, and make decisions together. The outcomes don’t always satisfy everyone, but a commitment to the overall vision – and to each other – keeps the community together.


Indeed, at a time when democratic norms and institutions in the United States are under attack, and amidst a rise in extremism that has fueled violence against minority faith communities nationwide, the faith-based community has often shown how regular community engagement can sustain civic connections, connections that grow stronger in times of crisis. With American democracy in a state of fragility, the experience of faith-based communities make them essential leaders in the work of strengthening democratic culture in this country.

At A More Perfect Union, we sought to test this proposition. In 2022, we launched the Jewish Partnership for Democracy, a cross-ideological, cross-sector network of Jewish organizations working together toward a stronger, more democratic future. We work with Jewish institutions of all types and sizes to channel our community’s distinct capacities into concrete actions that support democracy. We help our partners assess their existing assets – trust, infrastructure, engaged members, personal networks, staff expertise, capacity to compromise and a long-established commitment to education and civic engagement – and bring them to bear in new ways.

We’ve structured our efforts around four strategic priorities that are designed to be mutually-reinforcing and nonpartisan: expanding opportunities for civic learning; cultivating the practice of democracy; promoting ideological pluralism; and ensuring free, fair, safe and accessible elections. Within these priorities, we encourage partners to design specific commitments that engage their community in the most meaningful and appropriate way for them – and we provide support, technical assistance, education, and access to resources, including funding.

Our work is inclusive, action-oriented, and pro-democracy. It does not support any particular party or policy agenda. Instead, it recognizes that a healthy liberal democracy is an essential precondition for the pursuit of policies that matter to communities. We can work together to ensure a vibrant democracy while advocating – sometimes in opposition to one another – for different policy outcomes based on our distinctive values. Like democracy itself, our approach envisions a shared future and supports a framework for civic action, but empowers individual communities to engage in the ways that are most meaningful, effective, and realistic for them.

We’ve seen from new and existing efforts how this approach can bear fruit. From initiatives that develop journalism programs at Jewish parochial schools, to synagogue study groups that analyze American historical documents, to convenings for “democracy dinners” during Shabbat (Judaism's day of rest from Friday to Saturday evening of each week), Jewish organizations across the country have taken impressive steps to strengthen democratic culture within our community. Yet often, these initiatives are operating in isolation – without the support and amplification they deserve or the opportunity to share what they've learned with peers who would be eager to replicate or adapt it.

At A More Perfect Union, we’re working to elevate and share these actions, promoting opportunities for engagement and building a sense of common purpose. We see ourselves as “connective tissue,” ready to learn from our partners and help connect Jewish institutions to great organizations around the country that are providing expertise, programs, civic learning curricula, volunteer opportunities, depolarization support, gathering spaces, and other ways to protect and strengthen American democracy. In fact, we’re building a database of partners doing democracy-related work – and if that sounds like you, we invite you to get in touch.

Of course, while our collective impact model is focused on the Jewish community, it is equally applicable to other faith- or identity-based populations. The Faith In/And Democracy initiative at PACE (Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement), the One America Movement, and Aspen’s Religion & Society Program, and Civic Spirit have already done important work to bring together faith groups for democracy, but more is possible.

We’re confident that this model is adaptable to other communities across the country. We’re eager to learn from others across the pro-democracy ecosystem and to amplify and extend the norms and principles that faith communities already employ in order to achieve a more resounding impact on our democracy. Whether as conveners of a collective impact organization or as one of its partners, faith-based institutions and associations have the ability to elevate their civic efforts and fortify our shared future.

The work that faith communities already do – to educate, compromise, forge consensus, and move forward – is central to the functioning of American democracy. With their help and their leadership, we can elevate our national community and build a stronger democracy together.


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