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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

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

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Putting the action in urban rural action

Putting the action in urban rural action
Getty Images
Tom Cassara
By Tom CassaraJul 04, 2023
Tom Cassara
See More Writings by author

Tom Cassara is a recent graduate of Gettysburg College working to build peace and prevent targeted violence. In his free time, Tom enjoys reading, writing, singing, cooking, and playing Dungeons & Dragons.

Action. That is the one noun I’ve felt has been missing from my life for quite some time. As a recent student at a liberal arts college, I had high hopes of being able to change the world someday, but those hopes were always relegated to the “someday.” Sure, I helped people out here and there when I could. I tried to be a good person, but while I was a student I did not have much time to get involved on a regular basis to help create change. Joining Urban Rural Action changed that.

I first heard about the organization from one of my mentors, Tracie Potts, who connected me to Joe Bubman, the executive director of Urban Rural Action. I’ve learned much from Joe in the span of a few months and I look forward to learning more from him as I continue working with the organization. Joe is dedicated to the work and his kindness invites others to participate in the group setting, which is especially important when considering the sometimes awkward nature of political conversation.

The program I participate in is called Uniting to Prevent Targeted Violence (UPTV), which is centered around preventing targeted violence in four Pennsylvania counties: Adams, Dauphin, Franklin, and York. Targeted violence is defined as “[i]ntentional physical violence against a pre-identified target based on their perceived identity or affiliation, whereby the act is intended to intimidate or coerce or generate publicity about the perpetrator’s grievance” (URAction). To achieve this goal, Urban Rural Action has pulled together 28 community members from all four counties, ensuring that a diverse population of local voices is heard. It is clear to me that Urban Rural Action as an organization believes in a bottom up approach, where listening and helping is valued more than telling and directing.

As a participant in the UPTV program, I have been able to engage in community oriented work, bridging those awkward gaps, the moments of silence when people aren’t quite sure what to say. Over the course of each session, I have grown as a communicator, community member, and friend.

During session one we tackled introductions and met with our community partners for the first time. Each county has a community partner, a local organization dedicated to the specific issue being addressed. Though we are all focused on the broader goal of targeted violence prevention, each community has specific needs, and our responses must be tailored to those

needs. For example, Adams County, my group, is focused on de-escalation and mediation, while the York County group is focused on suicide prevention. Each community partner helps us narrow the focus inwards, helping the community with its specific needs, acting as an additional bridge point between the participants and Urban Rural Action.

I walked away from the first session with a great big smile on my face. It was a warm day, especially for February, and I remember thinking to myself, “I’m just so glad that I can be part of this.” I was able to meet Co-Director Kira Hamman for the first time that day, who much like Joe and the rest of the team, was incredibly warm and welcoming. Leaving session one I was so very ready for session two.

During session two we met with the Mayor of York and discussed the needs of his community. It was clear he cared deeply for the people of York. We also met with Jordan Garza, a DHS official who instructed us in understanding the Pathways to Targeted Violence through useful policy models. As a Public Policy major, the usefulness was immediately clear as I could go back to the classroom and use this in my research. This intersection between my studies and the action I’d been seeking was heartening, and gave me hope for my ability to create change in the future.

Session three was focused on media literacy and problem tree analysis. Though there was some tension in the room surrounding truth and media narratives, we were able to navigate the tension well as a group, thanks largely in part to Joe and Kira. The group as a whole is working in good faith, and it seems everyone recognizes that dynamic. Session three helped me remember that not everyone I work with will agree with me, and that's ok. What is important to me is that we are all working together toward a common goal, and that we are all working in good faith.

We also met in our county groups to work out each respective county’s core problem. This was the first time we really sat down to think about what direction we wanted to take our project in. Being in that space for the first time in our program, where we had to make a decision, tripped us up a bit. I grew frustrated as my momentum faltered, and my locomotive-like drive came screeching to a halt. I just wanted to fly and I felt we were getting stuck. Here I learned a lesson; we couldn't just press onward forever, at some point we had to stop and consider. We had to plan. Then from that plan, we could get to the action. This lesson is key to the work. The action I’ve so desperately wanted cannot be all there is. Action without thought is recklessness, and thought without action, what I had already been doing, is just playing. I was attempting to jump between poles, when in reality I needed to merge the two.

After session three, we had two more full cohort sessions, where we continued to grow and learn as a community of problem solvers. I was unable to attend session five, as my college graduation was the same day, but the team was so eager to help that I was able to catch up quickly.

We’ve since transitioned to having meetings within our county groups, and with that transition comes a great deal of freedom. At first, URAction was the focus. As we got to know each other and built our connections, we needed a central body to glue us together. Now that the glue has dried, the bonds strengthened, we have been given a great deal of freedom to explore our projects. Though we have all this freedom, Joe, Kira, and the rest of the URAction team still provide guidance and assistance when we need it. We are truly experiencing the best of both worlds. The grassroots part of the initiative has really taken off and I am so happy to see where it leads.

The program has given me more hope for the future, both for the country and my own. If so many people are willing to come to the table, maybe we can continue to build tables across the nation. More tables mean more conversations, and more conversations mean greater understanding. If we can understand each other, we can grow together. Unity is our goal, kindness and care are the bricks and mortar, and the projects are the process of turning those materials into that bridge to the other side.


Latest news

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

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

“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

Read More

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
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
© Copyright 2026