Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Our shared humanity and collective responsibility

Opinion

Our shared humanity and collective responsibility
Getty Images

Rothberg leads Einhorn Collaborative, a nonprofit foundation dedicated to addressing America’s growing crisis of connection by advancing the science and practice of empathy, mutual understanding, and relationship building in the United States. She leads a dedicated team that comes together around a shared question: How can we live and work together in ways that both embrace our differences and nurture our shared humanity?

In a conversation with Eboo Patel on his podcast, journalist Amanda Ripley described high conflicts as “whenever you see contempt, disgust, violent rhetoric, and action… and more personally, you can feel it internally.” I felt a sense of clarity when I heard this description. Maybe that is why I have had trouble finding the words when people ask me the seemingly simple question: How are you?


Over the past months, we have seen versions of high conflict play out in the U.S. on social media and college campuses, as well as in our workplaces and the halls of Congress, in response to the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israeli civilians and the ongoing war and humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Israel.

In the wake of such profound ruptures in communities across our country, as Executive Director of Einhorn Collaborative, a non-profit foundation working to build social connection and cohesion for well over a decade, I have received many messages from friends, family, and colleagues asking what it will take to continue to bridge divides at this moment, against a societal backdrop of heightened ostracization, “othering,” and the absence of belonging felt by many Americans.

Answering this question has become increasingly challenging, and I am sure I am not the only one feeling that way. You may be wrestling with this question, too, and I want you to know that you are not alone.

In moments of such wrestling, especially when the hurt feels so close, it's important to find ways to take a step back and ask ourselves a bigger question, such as “What is our collective responsibility at this moment?”

David Einhorn, Trustee and Founder of the foundation where I work, beautifully answered this question in a recent letter to Cornell students, written on the heels of protests and violent antisemitic threats on campus. He looked to our next generation as the possibility and hope we need to build a more pluralistic society, where people of different backgrounds and beliefs work together to build community, find belonging, and draw upon their differences to solve shared problems.

Here is a short excerpt of David’s letter, and I encourage you to read it in full in The Cornell Daily Sun:

"The value of diversity does not come from huddling with your own group. Rather, it comes from engaging with those who are different from you. The whole community benefits when you make that effort to engage. Whoever the ‘they’ is, they proudly wear the same Cornell sweatshirts you do.

Even on contentious issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you may be surprised by the common beliefs, values, hopes, and fears that you share with someone from a different background, life experience, and perspective. No matter where we live or what faith we practice, we all want to be free from bigotry and hatred. We want to contribute positively to our communities and provide for our families. We want to see our loved ones come home safely at night. And we want to live lives of meaning, with myriad opportunities that help each of us flourish and thrive.

As you confront the crisis of hyper-polarization and divisions at Cornell, I ask that you see the inherent humanity and dignity in all people, especially those with whom you disagree. This creates a campus culture that enables us to build trust and relationships across lines of difference, repair ruptures, and bridge divides."

I can’t help but think that David’s message to and belief in Cornell students can be applied to every facet of our lives today: in our homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces, as well as on our school campuses. Even if you did not go to Cornell, I hope you can see yourself in David’s letter. Let it inspire you to do the greatest good for yourself, the people you love, and the people with whom you fundamentally disagree.

As we have seen in the past month and throughout our history, international conflicts, no matter how far away, have the potential to further polarize the American public and inflame underlying threats of violence. Even though social connection and social cohesion in our country may be harder to achieve in this new context, our shared work of fostering trust among Americans and repairing the social fabric is much needed now.

It will take time to rebuild relationships, empathy, and understanding for many who are affected by the recent events, and it will require all of us. I’m grateful to many of our partners and field-leading organizations like Citizen University, Braver Angels, Interfaith America, Resetting the Table, More in Common, BridgeUSA, Constructive Dialogue Institute, and Millions of Conversations that are meeting the moment with urgency by providing support and resources to communities experiencing rupture and heightened divisions.

In the last few weeks, I keep returning to pieces written by the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks. I came upon one quote that has since stayed with me, “The world we build tomorrow is born in the stories we tell our children today.” As I put my children to bed each night, holding them a bit tighter and longer these days, I tell them fables like the one about a lion and a mouse and why acts of kindness, no matter how big or small, are never wasted.

When we see ourselves reflected in another human being, we see that our survival and well-being are inextricably linked. May this be our guiding light as we navigate such darkness.

A version of this article was originally published in the Einhorn Collaborative’s newsletter.


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