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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

Chicago braces for Trump immigration crackdown

News

Chicago braces for Trump immigration crackdown

Mother and her little son waiting for boarding in the airport.

Getty Images//Keiferpix
Calvin Krippner
By Calvin KrippnerFeb 05, 2025
Calvin Krippner
See More Writings by author

Amidst a new wave of immigration reform measures by the Trump administration that is set to put an initial focus on Chicago, nonprofits and community organizations are working to protect and advocate for those with varying levels of immigration status throughout the city.

The Latino Policy Forum is a Chicago-based non-profit organization created in 1988 and dedicated to increasing the quality of life for Latinos in Chicago and throughout Illinois. The organization uses a model called “acuerdo,” which translates to “agreement”. It is based on the idea that community organizations, which are connected to the everyday needs of immigrants, have input when defining the organization’s agenda.

A main priority of the Forum has been promoting integration, which they believe to be woefully absent in recent immigration reform and national policy debates. The Forum promotes integration by pushing for policy changes that increase civic engagement and participation, education, language, socio-economic consideration, social integration, and local municipal support amongst immigrants.

However, this new wave of measures has shifted the focus of the Forum towards a preparation approach since these measures are being implemented on the federal level, and the Forum remains left in the dark as to what to expect in the days, weeks, and months ahead.

José Marco-Paredes is the Vice President of Civic Engagement at the Latino Policy Forum. Marco-Paredes has an extensive background as a political reporter in Spain and says his passion for this work comes from a desire to build bridges between journalists and nonprofits.

Marco-Paredes says the Forum is working to keep its ear on the ground by connecting with community organizations like The Resurrection Project. Right now, one of their main priorities is to inform immigrants on how they can prepare for and respond to ongoing immigration enforcement measures through the Know Your Rights Campaign.

He says the vast majority of their current efforts consist of getting this information to those who are the most difficult to reach and ensuring that the information they receive is accurate and does not sow further fear in the community.

Currently, TikTok and social media sites are filled with waves of information about varying levels of incoming immigration measures and rumors of ongoing raids.

Laura Mendoza is a leading community organizer for The Resurrection Project based in Chicago, Illinois. She is currently working on the ground to promote transparent information regarding the Know Your Rights Campaign to undocumented community members.

“So people, in general, are just scared. They're confused about what they can actually do in situations, and what are the ways to protect themselves and their families,” said Mendoza. “A lot of parents have questions about their kids, you know, and what actions they can take to protect them or to have things in place [that protect them].”

The general feeling of fear and confusion is a significant reason for the Know Your Rights Campaign. Mendoza says the campaign helps to better inform people on how they should interact with law enforcement in certain situations and to know what specific rights one has, regardless of immigration status. On top of this campaign, Laura and those working at The Resurrection Project must answer many questions from concerned community members.

“Like the possibility of you obtaining a guardianship document, you know, assign somebody to be able to take care of your child in the event of you being detained,” is one example Mendoza noted.

Another common topic of conversation is the protection of assets.

“So, what do you do with your house, with your car, with your accounts?” said Mendoza. “You know, we know that immigrants have been in the U.S., have been in Chicago for a really long time, the average is, like, 20 years. I've been in Chicago for 30 years. These are people's lives at stake.”

An important part of Laura’s work with The Resurrection Project is communicating necessary information through the community navigator network.

Laura says those who are primarily doing the work of community navigators consist of women in their 40s who are involved in the schools, churches, and vital institutions within the community. By going door to door and speaking with as many people as possible, she says this is an effective way to get necessary information out through people who can be trusted within the community.

“We train them on, you know, up-to-date news, and they are the ones that are really going out there,” said Mendoza. “They are in the community, they're giving presentations, they're talking to their neighbors about it.”

So far, Laura says there has not been a substantial increase in the amount of detentions that have taken place, but there has been an increase in the amount of attention given to those detentions.

“The administration has said that anyone who is undocumented is in danger, and I definitely think that’s the case… it is difficult to say what the pattern of enforcement will be,” said Mendoza.

Another aspect of the work being conducted by The Resurrection Project is preparing for what happens when detentions begin to increase and how to prepare for those proceedings if they believe some have violated the rights of those detained.

“So if somebody does find themselves in deportation proceedings, we're able to provide them with justice assistance and how to think through and plan,” said Mendoza. “And, you know, sometimes it’s something as simple as they might need a document, and it can be overwhelming to figure out some of these institutions. We would be able to help too. If they want to go public and talk about their case, why they were detained, and why they're fighting to stay, we would be able to help with that.”

In looking towards the future, Marco-Paredes believes there are opportunities to foster productive conversation regarding integration and immigration enforcement measures.

“You were asking if we can work with the new administration,” said Marco-Paredes. “I think that cannot be off the table, right? There has to be an openness to have discussions around what are some of the solutions to the challenges that the country and that the state is facing, and you will not hear us say we're not open to have discussions, but these discussions have to come from an honest approach, and we won't compromise on anything that can go against the community and impoverished folks.”

While the uncertainty of what is to come remains the common thread on the ground in Chicago, people like Laura Mendoza of The Resurrection Project remain hopeful that the Know Your Rights Campaign can prevent the worst by informing people on how to protect themselves best using their Constitutional rights.

“We are part of it… we are part of the solution,” said Mendoza. “We're not just there to be told what the solution is.”

Calvin Krippner is a solutions-based, investigative journalist who studied at the Northwestern Medill School of Journalism. His work brings to light and analyzes solutions to complex issues in various communities, and he extends local analysis to wider societal trends.


Latest news

“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

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

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
© Copyright 2026