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

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

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

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

The First Step

The First Step
Lance Kramer
By Lance KramerFeb 22, 2023
Lance Kramer
See More Writings by author

Lance Kramer is the producer of The First Step, a new documentary film about criminal justice reform and cross-party coalition building in action.

THE FIRST STEP is a new film that follows a bipartisan coalition who fought for unity on criminal justice reform and decriminalizing addiction amidst unprecedented partisan divides.

In making the film, we set out to document a rare story about cross-party coalition building in action, in which a unique alliance of progressive advocates from South Los Angeles, conservative advocates from West Virginia, justice-impacted community leaders, influencers, and elected officials from both parties came together to pass the First Step Act of 2018.

The journey to pass the bill — which has since brought more than 20,000 people home from federal prison early — also encountered significant challenges both within the reform movement and across party lines.

We sought to make a complex policy fight relatable through the personal stories of front-line advocates, and place viewers at the center of challenging conversations where people disagree directly and breakthroughs occur in real time.

After premiering the film at the Tribeca Film Festival and touring with the film to more than 40 regional film festivals across 30+ states over the past year, we are now on the cusp of releasing the film theatrically this month in more than 25 cities. The film will be shown in movie theaters across the country in partnership with dozens of national and local organizations dedicated to bipartisan criminal justice reform and bridge-building, including Dream.org, REFORM Alliance, and members of the Listen First Coalition.

Our hope is that by engaging politically, culturally, and geographically diverse communities in these screenings and facilitated conversations, the film can spur progress on additional criminal justice reform and provide a kind of roadmap for expanding bipartisan coalitions to address complex issues facing our country.

In this piece three members of the Listen First Coalition — Convergence Center for Policy Resolution, YOUnify and the Facing Project — share reflections on the film and what it means to the stakeholders they serve.

As an organization that has been bringing people of wildly divergent views together for more than a decade to facilitate breakthroughs on seemingly intractable issues, we welcome The First Step film’s contribution to these tough conversations. In our experience, when people come together to listen and learn from one another across their divisions, extraordinary things can happen -- from meaningful policy change to the lasting de-escalation of toxic polarization and a healthier democracy.

We’ve seen it happen on countless contentious issues: when we work together to understand each other’s core needs and recognize our shared humanity, we can find common ground and chart a path forward. It’s an approach that demands humility, deep listening, and a willingness to defy the toxic politics that so often pit us against one another.

Our work intersected with criminal justice issues on the recent Convergence Reentry Ready program, which convened people of opposing viewpoints to identify strategies for coordinating the corrections system, social supports, and economic systems to improve reentry success for incarcerated people. That collaborative dialogue took place over many months, resulting in a set of actionable recommendations that the group presented to lawmakers and leaders. We recognize the immense challenge that the filmmakers were up against – and the opportunities for breakthrough among unlikely allies.

With The First Step, America has an opportunity to see bridgebuilding in action, and the potential that it holds.

- David Eisner, president, Convergence Center for Policy Resolution

At YOUnify, where I serve as Director of Engagement, our reason for being is to help individuals and communities of every kind, build relational atmospheres conducive to solving the key challenges of our times. This is facilitated in many ways, but all with the aim of minimizing affective polarization and other factors that prevent us from activating the solutions to what are often very solvable problems. I cultivated my passion for this work throughout my career across multiple sectors–from the military to ministry–which brought me into intimate contact with people who on the surface are worlds apart. But, when engaged emerge as people with many shared values although they may pursue them differently. Chief among those values is the desire to experience a sense of freedom, a path to self-determination, and an opportunity to contribute positively to their families and community.

What I witnessed in this film was these desires juxtaposed with the idea that there are many prison systems in our nation. And not all of them have bars. There is the prison of addiction, the prison of marginalization, and there is the prison of hyper-partisan politics. However, acknowledging these different prisons does not in any way put these states of confinement on equal footing. And yet, it does demonstrate that the cherished freedoms that Americans profess to value are–to quote Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., ”caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” In other words, our freedoms are bound to one another. What this film captured in its essence is the untapped potential of the American citizenry when we look at a problem that affects the many and commit to creating a solution as One.

What we also see played out is what it takes to circumnavigate the trap of, as the French proverb expresses it, allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Much of the resistance to the act was because many people saw it as an imperfect policy with imperfect partners. However, the American vision is not to create perfect policies crafted by perfect people. But rather from imperfect people with imperfect perspectives work together to create a more perfect Union. I think it is important for people to watch this film as if we are looking over the shoulders of all those featured and get curious about what it took for them to work together to create a pathway for thousands to return home. And then ask ourselves, how do we do better? Because it is a long journey to Justice. And, as the title suggests, the passing of this act is just the first step.

- Pedro Silva, Director of Engagement, YOUnify

The First Step film confirmed what I and others in the bridge-building movement know to be true: real, substantive change doesn’t happen until unlikely allies sit across from one another at the table of life, practice deep listening and radical empathy, and act together knowing that the first steps of any journey may be bumpy but worth it.

While the film is centered on the work of #Cut50 and its high-profile founders, it’s anchored by the personal narratives of community leaders in South Los Angeles and West Virginia who, despite their differences, share the tragedy of addiction and incarceration between urban and rural America, and an unwavering commitment to bring home their loved ones. As the film unfolds, I was incredibly moved by their reluctance yet acceptance that transformation transpires outside of comfort zones, and the collective vulnerability when they crossed cultural and political lines to make it happen.

The work of The Facing Project encourages communities to create a more understanding and empathetic world through stories that inspire action, and we believe that stories are the most powerful tool for change. The First Step film shows the human condition in action and that stories not only bring us together but can provide freedom to thousands of people.

- J.R. Jamison, co-founder and president, The Facing Project

The First Step opened in select theaters nationwide on February 17. To find out more, visit: https://thefirststep.com/


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