Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Healing conversations about race

André Thomas is co-host of Healing Race, and founder of Fortnum Solutions where he has a background in project management and using technology to serve corporate strategy.

Todd Levinson is co-host of Healing Race and co-founder of MATR, a tech start-up looking to bring meaningful conversations to social media. He has a background in peacebuilding, policy and psychology.


In 1996, we met as college freshman roommates - one black, one white. And in the first 25 years of knowing each other, over 25 years of being close friends and talking about everything under the sun, we never talked about race.

Some will cherish our story as a testament to what can happen when two people live out their color-blind dream, seeing each other as equal human beings, beyond skin color, racial history and all. Others will say our story shows how much further we need to progress as a country, arguing that we should see our world through the lens of race and actively engage each other on racial issues because of our racial history.

Who is right? Our experience says both.

In 2021, we decided to record our first conversations about race and make them public so that others could see what an open, “real,” constructive conversation about race could look like, where no topic is off the table and no views are stifled or censored.

When Andre shared the regular fear he feels for his safety as a black man in America, it jarred my sense of complacency. Can you imagine being close friends with someone for 25 years and not knowing a deep fear they carry in their heart as they live each day of their life? In how many ways, at how many times, was I not there for him because I lived in ignorance of his racial experience?

However one might think of race as a construct and its policy implications, race still impacts hearts, minds, and lives. I learned that to neglect or avoid conversations about race in pursuit of the color-blind dream is actually to fail to fully see each other… even if our truest, most human selves, are so much deeper than a skin color could reveal.

Later, Andre shared that his bigger concern was not whether White Americans understood the issues facing Black Americans but that they might understand the issues and say, “So what?” It crystallized for me why the “black lives matter” phrase might resonate so much with black lives. Policies addressing black issues are not just about rectifying past wrongs or limiting current biases. They are ways to show that we care, that we see Black Americans as fully human and worthy of belonging, that we see their promise and want their potential to flourish into American Dreams too.

When Todd asked me to have a conversation about race, personal transformation was a distant thought. After agreeing, my personal remit was to stand up for my race and transform him, telling Todd about the psychological tensions Black Americans live with as we strive for a better future while reminders of a hurtful past are all around. And if he resisted, I was ready for a fight! There was one thing I wasn’t prepared for him to do: listen.

Often, we believe change occurs in grand moments. We wait for that one thing that will catapult us into the people we always knew we could be. Healing Race has taught me it’s the small acts, like Todd listening, truly listening, that alter souls… like when Todd heard out the fears I carry for my safety as a Black man without dismissing or denying my experience. I felt something shifting in my mind and heart during our conversation; and it scared me.

Would I become someone else, while exploring feedback from this white man, if I broke with my race about how “we” feel Black Americans have been treated in this country? Will I be “less Black” if I make intellectual concessions? With these questions keeping me up at night, I knew I could not expect more of this conversation than I was willing to give it.

Todd came to me heart in hand, wanting to know my truth, and evaluate the wisdom of my lived experience against his worldview. That feeling of acknowledgement melted me, causing me to loosen the reins on my beliefs about White people. In the past, it felt “right” to believe that all White people know the impact U.S. history has had on Black Americans. Righteous indignation used to swell in me to think they do it deliberately, holding us back from realizing our potential and prospering!

That is not to say there are not White people who want to perpetuate the limiting beliefs of a racist past. But not all White people. And I should not so cavalierly brand an entire group as such - similar to what Black Americans ask of our White citizens. I ceased using the word “racist” without true insight into a person’s heart. Healing Race is healing me! Our conversation presented me with a new reality: Black Americans can talk vulnerably with White Americans without being shut down or dismissed.

If we can’t talk openly and honestly about the hard stuff, we can’t solve the hard stuff… and we can’t grow closer as people and as a country. What stands between us and that future is a chasm of mistrust and fear, born from a history of transgressions, conflict, and being socialized into misconceptions about who those “others” are and what they believe about “us.” To reclaim that trust, we cannot simply demand it and expect it to magically appear; to build trust, we must earn trust. But how?

We diligently apply five habits to create open, transformative conversations. First, we are endlessly curious about each other, especially when we hear difficult perspectives - like when Todd wondered how much of our narratives about racial violence are vestiges of the past… or when Andre shared his belief that white people feel a psychology of ownership over black lives, carried forward from the times of slavery. We embraced these challenging moments and wanted to know more.

We then showed respect for what we heard. The goal was not to determine right or wrong, agree or disagree. We did not deny, dismiss, or object to each other’s experiences, feelings, or perspectives. The goal was to understand. And you cannot understand what you don’t accept as true to another’s experience.

We also practiced empathy and challenged each other. We found ways, times in our own lives, where we could relate to the basic human experiences being articulated so as to deepen our understanding. We followed the mental and emotional logic that we heard as if we lived it. And only then did we offer different experiences and perspectives that might expand each other’s thinking.

Too many times we settle for a kind of fake peace where we go along to get along. We sacrifice challenge at the altar of understanding. But understanding without challenge stifles mutual growth and leaves us stuck in our own limited narratives. We had no problem hearing alternative realities and challenging viewpoints because we knew our own views were given a fair hearing.

Finally, we strove for humility. Neither of us knows the whole of the experience of our shared world. So we cast off the instinct to be defensive, to “die to be right.” Todd hasn’t had his educational credentials, political knowledge, or intellectual habits questioned as I have. Andre hasn’t had the range of intimate relationships with white Americans that I’ve had. We each had to integrate experiences that we never had into our larger view of racial issues in our country.

This is the goal of the Healing Race show - to normalize and spread open, honest, good-faith conversations about race that break down the preconceptions, misconceptions, and fears that keep us from building deeper understanding, stronger bonds, and a shared future that we can all believe in and desire. We aim for a true reconciliation that breeds friendship, common cause, and a shared belonging to this great country we are blessed to live in… with all its faults and follies as well as its dreams and promise. This is all of our country and - right, wrong, or crazy - we have to learn to share it and make the most of it together.

We welcome you to join us as a viewer, a guest, a supporter… and most importantly, a fellow traveler who seeks out and leans into difficult conversations about race on this journey to finally healing race in our country. We also welcome you to our two National Week of Conversation events - where we will lay out how to have your own transformative conversations about race and we will watch and discuss some of the most compelling and provocative clips from our show. To learn more about how to get involved, email us at info@healingraceshow.com, and you can enjoy our conversations here.

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