Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The case for the 4th, from a part-time American

Opinion

The case for the 4th, from a part-time American
Getty Images

Flora Roy is a former intern at Made By Us and the Smithsonian and Emerson Collective’s Leadership for Change program. Originally from Berlin, she is a rising junior at the George Washington University majoring in Geography and Political Science.

As a French German, national days were never a prominent part of my cultural upbringing. Back home, the only time you’ll see a German flag on someone’s house is during a World Cup summer. Celebrating our national heritage, particularly with the vibrancy Americans do, is simply not part of our cultural fabric. Germany’s historical association with the Nazi regime has shaped a more reserved approach to expressing national identity compared to the overt displays of patriotism often seen in the United States. During my first week in the U.S., I went to a hockey game and my hat was snatched off my head by my neighbor when I didn’t have the cognizance to do so during the national anthem. While seemingly ever-present in the American psyche, displays of American patriotism explode around July 4th, very much like the dazzling fireworks that accompany these displays. It took me a while to understand why.


Of course, I understood the connection between July 4th and America’s founding. Everyone knows the textbook story in which the thirteen colonies removed themselves from British control:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We fast forward, annual barbecues and pool parties all around. But, in reading Frederick Douglass’ “What, To the Slave, Is Fourth Of July”, I found a deeper significance behind the importance of the day that strays deeply from current themes of celebration. In an almost unnerving way, this to me encapsulated every reason to mute the superficial July 4th celebrations I often see in search of more reflective considerations. While the spectacle of fireworks or the joy of backyard grilling might evoke a sense of nostalgia or tradition, I couldn’t help but cast judgment through my own unlearned eyes on whether such festivities truly encouraged the necessary introspection and critical examination of America’s complex history.

May he not hope that high lessons of wisdom, of justice and of truth, will yet give direction to her destiny? Were the nation older, the patriot’s heart might be sadder, and the reformer’s brow heavier…There is consolation in the thought that America is young…Cling to this day—cling to it, and to its principles, with the grasp of a storm-tossed mariner to a spar at midnight.

On one hand, Frederick Douglass’ perspective is stained with angst and frustration, citing the shortcomings of America’s independence. And on the other hand, said angst is largely secondary to the jovial celebration in the modern American conscience. The historical enigma in this case cannot be ignored. Nor should it be. The 4th is a jointly celebratory and somber historical reference point.

While the 4th is overtly historical, other countries celebrate national holidays in a way that aligns with their contemporary narratives. Germany celebrates its unity to remember the strength of its diverse communities and emphasize the inequalities that remain. France’s national holiday commemorates the beginning of the French Revolution, which continues to shape the country’s societal discourse. Other nations commemorate their hard-won independence from colonial rule, a testament to their ongoing struggles against neocolonialism and the enduring challenges posed by external influences in a way that emphasizes the arduous historical path to present strengths, which paves the way for continued success in the future.

I failed to see how the U.S., a hegemon of such strength, needed to publicly bathe itself in toasts to its invincibility. With new data showing record low levels of patriotism and national pride among young Americans, maybe the fourth has lost its luster; becoming more akin to a generic, celebratory summer day.

Contemplating an alternative national holiday for the United States, such as Constitution Day or the day of the signing of the Civil Rights Act, raises the question of whether it would genuinely promote the kind of reflection raised by Frederick Douglass’ book on the fourth. Adjustments such as these would allow the continuance of genuine celebration balanced by a greater sense of meaningful appreciation. However, I began to imagine that Americans would most likely celebrate those days in the same way they celebrate July 4th. If we celebrated July 2nd as a national holiday to remember the signing of the Civil Rights Act for example, there would still be fireworks, hotdogs, and pool parties. Recently recognized as a federal holiday, even long-standing Juneteenth traditions have become more diluted through mainstream commemoration. Even Thanksgiving, built on a myth, is another excuse to enjoy a meal together with listless afterthoughts to the origin of said celebration. The significance of July 4th thus lies not in the specific historical event it commemorates, but in the broader themes of resilience, and the pursuit of the rights that it represents.

What makes July 4th remarkable is the collective spirit of joy and celebration that permeates American society on this day like no other. Americans seemingly relish being in a good mood, which is something they clearly do so well on July 4th. This day may now be about leisure and celebration but it’s also about remembering that rights, freedoms, or even present joy are hard-won and worth delighting in. The U.S.'s identity is not rooted in land, ethnicity, or religion but in ideals, making it crucial to have a day dedicated to exalting these ideals.

However, when Americans become aware that some of these ideals clash with reality, confronting the discrepancies becomes vital. How might a national holiday do that?

Although German and French holidays may not be celebrated with the same intensity as July 4th, a sense of national pride still exists. Surprisingly, studies have shown that both Germans and French exhibit a higher level of pride in their country compared to Americans, who are more likely to experience feelings of shame. On the other hand, France’s general inclination towards color-blindness and Laïcité allows it to conveniently evade discussions on neocolonialism or racial injustice. Until recently, Germany even prohibited dual citizenship for certain immigrants, painting German nationality as an exclusive identifier. Both German and French national pride remain conciliatory, hindering even the acknowledgment of wrongdoings.

Western Europeans often like to believe that systemic racism and related issues are exclusive to the United States, primarily attributing them to the country's history of slavery and segregation. They tend to overlook their own participation in this history of slavery and the fact that at a minimum the U.S. actively confronts these challenges. In fact, even its celebrations reflect this openness and dialogue. Culturally, July 4th serves as an opportunity for Americans to openly engage in conversations that might be avoided in other countries.

I personally admire that rather than imposing a single, uniform way of commemoration, this day encourages diverse conversations that contribute to the construction of a more inclusive and just society, both within the United States and beyond. It fosters a sense of ownership among Americans, suggesting that the celebration is not dictated by a predefined nationality, but rather a collective responsibility. These exchanges of ideas and discussions remain vibrant and relevant throughout the year, but the significance of the July 4th itself cannot be overstated.

When 4th of July rolls around yet again, my hope is that in between the splashes of poolside cannon balls, we all understand that celebratory relics such as this stem from an appreciation for America’s need to further set its sights on progress. American born or not, the case for the 4th is not in the celebration; it is in what it symbolizes.


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