Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Meet the reformer: John Opdycke, hoping to put voters in a new kind of open mind

Open Primaries President John Opdyke
John Opdyke

After six years as president of Open Primaries, John Opdyke is a few months from the biggest test of strength in the group's history: Floridians will vote in November on a referendum to permit all voters (including 3.7 million not registered as Republican or Democrat) to participate in state primaries — which proponents see as transformative for promoting more consensus-building candidates and breaking the two-party hold on almost all political power. Opdycke's career has been spent helping outsiders compete in elections since the 1990s, when he first raised money for the small-party Rainbow Lobby and then the forerunner organization of the National Reform Party. He then spent 15 years on the senior staff of Independent Voting. His answers have been edited for clarity and length.

What's democracy's biggest challenge?

Over many years, and for complicated reasons, the role of the people and the position of the political parties has gotten out of whack. Voters are too often seen as merely the consumers of a political product, not the creators of it. The parties have morphed from private associations into quasi-governmental monopolies. This is a formula for gridlocked incompetence at best and broad social decline at worst.


Describe your very first civic engagement.

I ran for secretary of my third grade class, in the Chicago suburb of Evanston, in 1978. I gave a speech to my classmates asking for their votes. Philip Hackbarth just threw lollipops to everyone in the auditorium. He won in a landslide. Later that year, I met Muhammad Ali. My aunt was campaign treasurer for Bob Wallace, a liberal banker running for Congress as an independent. Ali had endorsed Wallace and I got to go to the endorsement press conference, the highlight of which was my 5-year-old brother Jesse punching The Champ in the leg. How these two events fit together I have no idea.

What was your biggest professional triumph?

Helping Mike Bloomberg get elected mayor of New York in 2001. Today, people know him as a global philanthropist and Democratic Party megadonor. But 20 years ago he was a 40-to1 long shot, a progressive innovator who bypassed the corrupt Democratic machine and ran a Republican/independent fusion campaign. He won by 35,000 votes against Mark Green, a career Democrat who was supposed to win in a cakewalk. The Independence Party — I was treasurer at the time — got him 60,000 votes on our ballot line. We were a plucky upstart band of independents and we were Mike's margin of victory. It was electrifying.

And your most disappointing setback?

An aborted effort to enact open primaries and dark money disclosure ballot measures in Arizona in 2016. We failed to structure the campaign properly, and it fell apart. It was humiliating.

How does your identity influence the way you go about your work?

I'm a progressive independent. Independents are the largest and fastest growing segment of the electorate — but, like Rodney Dangerfield, we get no respect. Most pundits insist we are all secret partisans. Hogwash. Being an independent shapes how I approach everything. I'm not trying to protect one party and attack the other. I like working with people who see the world differently than I. I've done a lot of organizing in the black community and believe strongly that if our reform movement doesn't build authentic bridges to communities of color it doesn't have a future.

What's the best advice you've ever been given?

It's from a book I edited a decade ago, "Talk/Talk: Making (Non) Sense of an Irrational World." One of the authors, Fred Newman, said, "I don't tackle history. History tackles me." I think about that quote every day and try to live by it. What it means is don't allow your ego, ambition or desire to win blind you to how things work. There's a bigger process.

Create a new flavor for Ben & Jerry's.

Marshall Fields of Dreams, a combination of Marshall Field's Frango Mint ice cream and malt powder. In other words, a mint chocolate malt.

What's your favorite political movie or TV show?

"Bulworth," the 1998 satire about a California senator's campaign, for its honest absurdity. And "When We Were Kings," the 1996 documentary about the heavyweight championship fight between Ali and George Foreman, for showing the magical connection and power between inspirational leaders and ordinary people.

What's the last thing you do on your phone at night?

I fantasize about getting rid of my phone altogether. Why do we swear by these things?

What is your deepest, darkest secret?

Pre-Covid, I performed and directed improv at the Castillo Theater in Manhattan. I love improv. I recently started playing around with improvised freestyle rap and am now a graduate of Lin Manuel-Miranda's Freestyle Love Supreme Academy. I'm also working on an improv-inspired screenplay about a fantasy news program called "I agree." Imagine if every sentence on Fox and MSNBC started with the words "I agree!" (I said it was a fantasy.)


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