Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Playing the long game for a civically engaged democracy

Opinion

The Constitution

The Constitution

zimmytws/iStock via Getty Images

Cambell is executive director of Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement, which describes itself as a community of funders that invest in the sustaining elements of American democracy and civic life.

Tuesday is Constitution Day, a federal commemoration of the day in 1787 when delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed their document laying the foundation of our government and the hope for "a more perfect union."

That hope persists as our democracy grapples with faltering public trust, deepening partisanship and division.

For those of us who work in civic engagement, the reality of these obstacles has prompted — alongside hope — a flurry of debate about how to respond and speculation about what will come next.


Our nation faces great challenges. But the solution lies in that very phrase: "our nation." Our democracy faces a reckoning because many Americans struggle to identify with those words and connect them to a vision of what civic life is and can be. They don't feel our democratic structures and systems represent them and don't feel the sense of ownership, responsibility and commitment that drives civic action. That disconnect has reverberated across our democracy.

Standing at the intersection of civic engagement and philanthropy, I see several opportunities for funders to take strides toward a healthy and robust representative democracy.

For many, civic engagement equates to voting, voter engagement, political reform and advocacy. For PACE, civic engagement includes all those. But it also includes service, leadership development, deliberative dialogue, charitable giving and more — actions that help us self-govern in civil society.

Most importantly, it's the feeling that ties all those actions together: the desire to be part of something bigger than yourself. It's a sense of responsibility to a community, and that sense of commitment requires a sense of connection.

This sense of connection seems to be growing — notice last year's historic midterm turnout and continued flourishes of activism among Americans — but reinforcing it will take time and intention. Expanding our definition of civic engagement is a necessary first step, because it's in this sense of responsibility to something bigger that democracy's roots to begin to grow.

In the 19th century, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that "voluntary associations" were unique to our young democracy and held the power to create organic connections. In short, when you allow people to associate freely in everything, they end up seeing the universal connections in their actions — the unique ways in which people can accomplish what they aim to achieve, then feel inspired to do more. People see how change happens by being part of it.

This reflection is supported by civic engagement data which shows that engagement begets engagement. Whether volunteering for the PTA or mentoring a young person, low-barrier civic engagement has the power to improve your quality of life and the lives of those around you. Volunteers are more likely to find jobs than those who don't serve. Communities with high civic health have better economies. Sense of purpose and connection correlate with positive physical and mental health, personal happiness and satisfaction.

Such small-scale actions can be the most meaningful way to get people in the habit of democracy — by building the sense of ownership, trust and connection that civic engagement requires. People who see themselves in all aspects of community life feel they have a responsibility to act. And that sense of belonging and commitment makes civic engagement — and healthy self-governance — possible.

But another truth is that it's easy to distrust, and avoid altogether, that which you don't see yourself in. And if people don't trust — and therefore don't participate in — government, the possibility of a representative democracy falters. Instead, we'll have a democracy only for the people who show up.

Voter mobilization and fair elections are part of the solution but they tell part of the story. We should expand the mechanisms for meaningful engagement by investing in more robust ways for people to engage with elected officials — activities like participatory budgeting, citizens assembly or initiative reviews, participation in public meetings and advocacy as well as marches and rallies. Participating in politics and engaging with government beyond the ballot box is the only way to ensure our government is representative of our voices. That's step two.

Both steps presume people have the skills and support they need to be effective civic actors. Which leads to step three: civic learning, the range of experiences to prepare for informed and engaged participation in civic life and the democratic process. These experiences can occur in classrooms, or out of school and at all stages of life. What's important is that they happen — and that all Americans have access to them.

Young people with access to robust civic learning opportunities are much more likely to become civically engaged as adults. But there are stark disparities in access to civic learning, many along lines of race and income. As a result, our nation's civic education system risks reinforcing inequities dividing our society.

Democracy is a process, not just an outcome. It's also a skill, and it's our responsibility to ensure young people have the tools to build that skill, as well as the knowledge and dispositions that go with them. Ensuring strategic support of civic learning opportunities that build knowledge as well as skills can ensure informed and effective civic engagement. It also has the potential to create a pathway to equity and opportunity so young people may begin to heal what divides our nation.

This political moment has created urgency and concern as well as a tremendous opportunity. Our democracy has proven resilient throughout history, but we have to double down on our commitment to self-governance in order to see that resilience persist. It is our responsibility to make sure the voices that participate represent the voices, experiences and perspectives of all members of our diverse democracy. All Americans need to see themselves in all aspects of civic life, feel a responsibility to act, have the right to do so and have the skills to support them. Democracy is not a given; it is created, every day, by all of us.


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