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

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

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

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Green dreams deferred: The Supreme Court rulings will inhibit diversity in environmental fields

Opinion

Green dreams deferred: The Supreme Court rulings will inhibit diversity in environmental fields
Getty Images
Rosanita Ratcliff
By Rosanita RatcliffAug 10, 2023
Rosanita Ratcliff
See More Writings by author

Ratcliff is a former special education teacher and is a justice advocate with over 20 years’ experience. She is an ambassador for the Ann Arbor City Council’s A2Zero Carbon Neutrality Plan, serves on Ann Arbor’s Commission on Disability Issues (CODI), and is a Vice-Chair of the The Washtenaw County Democratic Party’s Communications Committee. Ratcliff is a Fellow at the OpEd Project.

In a series of seismic shifts that could echo for generations, the Supreme Court's recent decisions on student debt relief and affirmative action have placed sizable roadblocks on the path to socioeconomic mobility for marginalized communities. These rulings are more than just a hiccup in the pursuit of education equity; they are potential derailments of aspirations in fields like environmental justice, environmental engineering, public health, and climate science.

When the Supreme Court shot down President Biden's ambitious student loan forgiveness plan, a crucial financial lifeline was yanked away from those who, despite economic hardships, dared to dream of a higher education. For those who aspire to contribute to fields such as environmental justice and climate change adaptation – sectors which require specialized, often costly, education – the financial burden of student loans can be prohibitive.

Some might suggest that Pell grants or public service loan forgiveness programs are sufficient alternatives. However, these programs have blind spots that make them less effective for certain demographic groups. It leaves out the large number of middle class racial minorities and perpetuates the stereotype that Black or Brown equals poverty. Furthermore, public service loan forgiveness programs often mandate working for nonprofits, where wages may not be competitive or a job may not even be feasible depending on the students’ major.

In response to these issues, the Biden administration introduced the Saving on a Valuable Education ( SAVE) plan in 2022 as a backup if the Supreme Court ruled against student loan forgiveness. This income-driven repayment (IDR) plan aims to provide more manageable monthly payments and broader loan forgiveness than previous models. The SAVE plan calculates payments based on their definition of disposable income (AGI - 225% of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guideline amount for your family size) rather than the previous formula of AGI - 150% of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guideline amount for your family size.

However, while the SAVE Plan is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, it's crucial to recognize that it, too, may fall short of providing a comprehensive solution. Under the SAVE Plan, a $0 monthly payment applies to those earning less than 225% of the Federal Poverty Line ( FPL), which currently translates to roughly $32,000/year for a single person or $17/hour. While this might appear generous, it's hardly sufficient considering the costs of housing, food, and other necessities. It’s also quite low if a job requires a university degree. Many starting salaries in the nonprofit sector and early-career stages in climate fields surpass this income level, thereby excluding these individuals from the full benefits of the plan. Consequently, this threshold should be raised to at least 400% FPL (approximately $54,000 for a single person) to truly benefit those with middle incomes and provide them with a more manageable repayment structure.

Despite the benefits of these grants and repayment plans, there's a critical oversight: the looming specter of compound interest on student loans, which can stretch a 5-10 year commitment into a 15-20 year financial burden. Graduating at 25, many individuals continue repaying loans well into their 40s. This burden directly influences life choices, such as where to live, what transportation to use, the choice between fast fashion outfits and sustainable fabrics, and more.

Simultaneously, the Supreme Court's decision to curb affirmative action in college admissions threatens to stifle the very diversity within our academic institutions and, by extension, sectors that require such higher education. This ruling shakes the very foundations of innovation and progress that a diverse student body brings.

To be sure, while HBCUs have been suggested as a solution to this ruling, many are underfunded and cannot afford to waive or lower tuition, and a significant proportion are private institutions, meaning students still accrue hefty debt burdens. Although a crucial part of the educational landscape, HBCUs mainly cater to African American students, leaving other marginalized communities without an equitable education solution.

To navigate this intricate landscape of financial and educational inequity, we need broad-based, systemic solutions. The U.S. Department of Education must increase funding to underfunded HBCUs, switch student loan repayments from disposable to discretionary income, increase the earnings threshold to 400% FPL, dramatically lower or eradicate interest rates on student loans, include climate-related fields in forgiveness programs, increase debt forgiveness for AmeriCorps members, and elevate the income threshold for Pell Grants to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level to help more families not incur debt.

The Supreme Court's rulings form a formidable barrier to environmental justice. They make it challenging for marginalized individuals to access the necessary education and resources to make their mark in environmental fields, undermining our collective fight against climate change.

Our society needs a diverse cadre of bright minds in the environmental justice and climate change adaptation fields now more than ever. But to achieve this, we must clear the path for everyone, regardless of their background, by reconsidering how our laws and policies shape the opportunities available to marginalized communities. The fight for environmental justice is not just about the climate – it is about equity, diversity, and the future of our world.


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