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

Power v. rule of law

Opinion

Power v. rule of law
Getty Images
Debilyn Molineaux
By Debilyn MolineauxJun 21, 2023
Debilyn Molineaux

Debilyn Molineaux is the catalyst of JEDIfutures.org , a global initiative that helps people imagine and create just, equitable, dignified, and inclusive futures. She is best known for her pioneering work in civic innovation, having co-founded Bridge Alliance, Living Room Conversations, and National Week of Conversation. She formerly acted as co-publisher for The Fulcrum. Across these efforts, Debilyn has brought together unlikely allies to co-create solutions for democracy, governance, and social transformation.

Her work lives at the intersection of strategy, systems change, and spirit. A long-time practitioner of personal and collective growth, she brings a deep commitment to the inner dimensions of change that are often overlooked but essential to transformation. Debilyn speaks of the “interstitial spaces” — the connective tissue between people, institutions, and movements — where new possibilities take root.

She also hosts the podcast Terrified Nation, which helps audiences move from fear and despair into courage and action. Her voice is sought by impact investors, changemakers, and visionary leaders who want to align resources, imagination, and human growth toward a thriving future for all.

See More Writings by author

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Power is a tool – it can create new innovation or destroy a culture. When we are empowered, we have the capacity and ability to do something effectively. Who has the power to fix democracy? The U.S. Constitution sets up a power-sharing rule of law to mitigate the consolidation of power by monarchs and oligarchs.

There are two sets of laws that people live by. The first are the primordial Laws of Power. These are the rules of the jungle; eat or be eaten. The second set of laws undergird a democratic society; a mutual agreement to live by the Rule of Law. These two sets of rules are in absolute conflict with each other. The Rule of Law is a relative newcomer, where the Laws of Power can be traced back through human history. I propose that the Rule of Law was developed to thwart the Laws of Power and level our playing field. The Rule of Law is a prerequisite for pluralism to survive and flourish in a democratic republic.

I’ve been listening to the 48 Laws of Power. It’s a 25 year old book that resonates today as a dystopian social game, increasing human cruelty and suffering, while privileging a few. Yet still, these laws are widely used by people who seek power. Chronicling conflict throughout human history, the book shares lessons that can inform how the game of power is played. In the game of power, domination over others is the measure of success. And like any good read, it filters my view of the world in a new way. Everywhere I look I see elements of the Game for Power which is fueling the breakdown of our societies, worldwide. To be clear, I do not like this book about the game of power.

The game of power does not lead to peace and contentment. It leads to power. Power to do what? That depends on who holds it. This is where the Rule of Law is more helpful.

Personally, I reject a philosophy or society that is based on the Laws of Power as outlined by author Robert Greene. Yet I see aspects of his work in the world around me, including every authoritarian regime on the planet. Freedom for all is only possible if we mutually follow the Rule of Law earnestly.

My interest in the Laws of Power is to quickly identify and thwart the tactics and power moves that do not serve the public or humanity. These are the laws exploited by psychopaths and sociopaths, con artists and cult leaders. It’s one of the most requested books in prisons; subject to book bans. And yes, I’ve used some of these tactics myself; it made me feel ill. It is the game of domination, where the will of a few is forced upon all is a primitive form of governance. Do not fool yourself; if you compete in the Game of Power, you are sowing the seeds of our collective destruction.

Ultimately, a collaborative and cooperative society is healthier and more sustainable for all humans. This means electing steward leaders as outlined in our representative democracy. We the People, by adhering to the Rule of Law, strengthen our democratic practice. In general, the Rule of Law in the United States still functions. If We the People fail to believe in evidence, sworn testimony and jury verdicts, the authoritarian tendencies in those among us are strengthened.

One of the many reasons the Laws of Power are so effective, is that the dehumanization of others is central to the game. Division and isolation of “enemies” are tactics. We have a loneliness epidemic in the United States and other western countries. If you want to see the results of “winning” the game of power, you only need to look around you at what isn’t working for We the People. And in this new age of artificial intelligence, dehumanization of others may emanate from despots and autocrats and also from machines.

For example, when examining the tactics of former President Trump, he clearly prefers the Laws of Power to stay dominant in “the game.” For instance, we’ve seen him deploy:

  • Law 6: Court Attention At All Cost
  • Law 12: Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm Your Victim
  • Law 17: Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
  • Law 21: Play a Sucker to Catch a Sucker - Seem Dumber than Your Mark
  • Law 27: Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cult Like Following
  • Law 32: Play to People’s Fantasies

Let’s be honest here. Trump uses most of the 48 Laws of Power. I picked those that seemed most obvious to someone who is not in the MAGA community.

To preemptively negate power-seeking through politically motivated investigations, there are DOJ policies to follow. According to the Code of Federal Regulations, a special counsel must have “a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making,” as well as “an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies.” to fulfill his or her mandate to investigate and possibly prosecute an individual. This certainly gives the individual significant power and they will undoubtedly be accused of playing politics. Not every special counsel finds corruption. This is how it should be.

From media coverage, it appears that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation is also using the more subtle Laws of Power, such as:

  • Law 3: Conceal Your Intentions - no leaks to the media
  • Law 4: Always Say Less Than Necessary - let the facts speak for themselves
  • Law 9: Win Through Your Actions, Never Through Argument - act through the court, not the media
  • Law 22: Use The Surrender Tactic: Transform Weakness Into Power - allow Trump to continue making public appearances and speak about the case
  • Law 29: Plan All The Way To The End - allow the courts to do their job, scenario-planning all the possibilities.

Smith’s success very well might come from refusing to play the game of power in a way that Trump would win. Instead, he chips away, point by point, using the rule of law.

How might we employ the Rule of Law in healthier and more equitable ways? If the U.S. Constitution was drafted to defend common people from the Laws of Power, how might we better enact and live into that intention?

One way would be to embrace a multicultural, pluralistic society. To actively engage in our communities despite our disagreements. Democracy is the process by which we settle our differences and live peacefully. Without the Rule of Law, the game of power will reassert itself. As we have lived through these last few years. It’s harder to engage and debate and argue. But it’s even harder to regain democratic values once an authoritarian has “won” the game of power.

Let’s thwart the power-games by believing in and upholding the Rule of Law.


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