Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Shaping leaders for a unified governance

News

Shaping leaders for a unified governance
Millenial Action Project

Pamela Goldsmith is the Senior Communications Director at the Millennial Action Project.

In a convergence of young state lawmakers from across the country, Future Summit 2023, hosted by Millennial Action Project (MAP), galvanized nearly 70 promising young legislators, transcending partisan divisions to coalesce around a common goal — to shape the future of governance. Representing the expansive Millennial and Gen Z lawmaker community within MAP’s State Future Caucus Network (SFCN) — spanning 35 states, these emerging leaders gathered in Indianapolis, Indiana on the IUPUI campus for a transformative four-day event.


Empowering Leaders

In an era marked by political polarization and complex challenges, the annual Summit plays a pivotal role in collectively shaping the trajectory of policymaking for young legislators. Providing a vital platform for relevant discussions and collaborative endeavors, its impact extends far beyond its four-day duration, empowering this group of lawmakers to transcend party affiliations and focus on common ground.

Shared Vision Across Party Lines

During the recent Summit, Colorado state Rep. Jennifer Bacon, a Democrat, highlighted invaluable lessons she gained in recognizing the potential for bipartisanship amidst differing perspectives across party lines. She said her three-year journey in the legislature unveiled pivotal progress achieved in partnering with her conservative counterparts. Bacon says her approach has been a continuous effort to bridge divides. Recognizing the complexities inherent in addressing sensitive issues like qualified immunity for law enforcement, she opted to humanize herself and the experiences of her community saying, “I recognized the value of building camaraderie and relationships, and extended the courtesy of inviting colleagues to visit our district and also visited their districts in order to foster a deeper understanding.” She shared her elation at having the support of Sen. Byron Pelton, a Republican, and his Senate colleague, who co-sponsored a bill concerning offender eligibility for release from confinement — that successfully passed in June 2023. This legislation helped pilot a program aimed at cultivating skills for incarcerated individuals. Bacon says that the process of initiating important conversations and amplifying the voices of her constituents via committee discussions and testimonies proved effective, providing a gateway to continuing bipartisan conversations. She noted, they are almost there on many fronts —each significant step taken representing an inspiring move toward a more united political landscape.

It was precisely that spirit of finding commonality that propelled Arkansas Sen. Breanne Davis, a Republican, and Rep. Jamie Scott, a Democrat, to collaborate on a state bill they reflected on at the event. Their combined efforts culminated in the successful championing and passage of the CROWN Act, a crucial stride toward eradicating hair-based discrimination. The genesis of their partnership can be traced back to getting to know one another through a Future Caucus meeting, a testament to the Summit’s core ethos of fostering bipartisan connections. Moreover, the Arkansas Future Caucus declared the passage of 39 bipartisan bills enacted in 2023, all of which were sponsored by Gen Z and millennial members. They attribute this achievement to the concerted efforts of state legislators uniting to find common solutions, despite differing perspectives.

Welcoming lawmakers on day one, Millennial Action Project President and CEO Layla Zaidane reminded attendees, “Future Caucus offers an opportunity to untie your hands and not only reinforce belief in yourself, but to build trust with somebody new. Because when we work together, small actions lead to big changes in ways we never could imagine.”

Key Policy Issues: Small Actions, Big Results

Focusing on the essence of ‘Small Actions, Big Results,’ Future Summit set its sights on addressing an array of pressing policy matters, resonating with both millennials and the wider population. Energy and the environment, affordable housing, criminal justice reform, challenges and opportunities presented by AI technologies, and viable approaches to addressing complex societal issues were central topics under discussion. Policy areas reflected the ever-growing urgency for action on issues directly impacting the future of our society. Lawmakers engaged in constructive dialogue and identified common ground while sharing and generating ideas for bipartisan policy solutions.

Session Speakers

One of the Summit’s key sessions underscored the importance of leadership development and bridging differences through interactive exercises and case study discussions, guiding lawmakers in navigating political differences to increase cross-partisan policy making. Dr. Ted Johnson, Senior Advisor for New America's flagship US@250 initiative, Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld, Sr. Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rep. Casey Toof, of Vermont and Holly Wise, Manager of Solutions Journalism Network, led conversations on strengthening civic engagement and cultivating a more inclusive and representative political system.

Relevant exchange of views by other featured speakers and expert insights examined strategies to enhance transparency, safeguard voting rights, and empower marginalized communities in the decision-making process. Speakers encouraged participants to think beyond party lines, collaborate with those holding differing viewpoints and envision a collective future that transcends ideological divisions.

Future Caucus member, Kansas state Rep. Tory Blew, a Republican, said her Summit conversations with lawmakers centered on concerns over fuel tax and affordable housing across states. Commenting on the impact of widespread polarization in the state legislature, Blew said, “Oftentimes there is a commonality and agreement on different policies we’d like to see implemented on both sides; it’s just that the avenues in getting there are different.”

Additional speakers included Stan Wilcox, Executive Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at the NCAA, discussing strategies that facilitate constructive dialogue in a polarized political landscape; and state Rep. Dawson Holle (R-ND), the youngest elected lawmaker in the history of North Dakota at age 19. Securing his seat in the state’s 2022 election and shepherding several bills to passage over the past year, Holle took part in a panel exploring the drive behind increased participation of younger generations in the political process and the implications of their involvement. He discussed the importance of listening to constituents and understanding their needs.

In a session centered on cultivating brand identity, positioning, and storytelling, Julie Jensen, Founder & CEO of Jasper Advisors, imparted her insights and personal narratives drawn from her tenure at the helm of the Washington Football Team’s communications and public affairs functions during the team’s rebrand.

Transforming the Future of Governance

The hallmark of Future Summit and the Future Caucus Network is exemplified in its ability to bridge partisan gaps and unite young legislators from across the broad political spectrum committed to driving progress.

Zadaine believes the Future Caucus network is poised to reshape the trajectory of governance one policy at a time, saying, “Events like Future Summit are an important reminder that any one legislator who is doing the hard work of bridge building is not alone. Other young people have their back; MAP has their back and there are millions more people out there who want to see them succeed. Our job is to connect them to those tools, to those people, and to each other so they might transcend political polarization and find solutions to the problems they were elected to resolve.”


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