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

Don't take young people for granted in November

Opinion

young voter

Young adults, like Emma Parker of Denver, can be a formidable voting bloc this year.

Marc Piscotty/Getty Images
By Dakota Hall,
Dakota Hall
See More Writings by author
Tom Lopach
Tom Lopach
See More Writings by author
Sep 23, 2022

Hall is executive director at the Alliance for Youth Action. Lopach is the president and CEO of the Voter Participation Center.

During the 2018 midterm election, young people turned out and shattered records to make their voices heard, demonstrating the highest turnout in a midterm for young voters since the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1971. And in the Aug. 2 Kansas ballot referendum on abortion access, young people again showed up, voted and made a difference.

According to national polling conducted by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics earlier this year, young people are poised to yet again rise to the challenge and “match 2018’s record-breaking youth turnout in a midterm election this November.” And, the Alliance for Youth Action’s survey found that “the overwhelming majority of young people in these key states say they plan to get involved in the 2022 elections with 86% saying they will turn out to vote.”

But, the national polling also reveals an alarming sentiment. The survey from Harvard shows that 42 percent of young voters now say their vote “doesn’t make a difference,” up from 31 percent in 2018.

As leading civic engagement organizations, this sobering news captured our attention as well. But we can’t take young people for granted this election season. Not only are “there are an estimated 8.3 million newly eligible young voters for the 2022 midterm elections,” but issues affecting young people are front and center in the news. From access to abortion services to the future of our environment to jobs and the economy, there is certainly a lot at stake this election for young Americans.

That’s why it’s more important than ever that young people continue to be a formidable voting bloc this election season and make their voices heard.

But that turnout won’t happen without the work of organizations like the Voter Participation Center and the Alliance for Youth Action to empower and engage younger generations, while working to remove barriers to voting.

For example, the Voter Participation Center works to bring democracy directly to the doorsteps or smartphones of young people in the form of vote-by-mail and voter registration applications, in addition to other important voting information and reminders. The organizations also engage young people with mail as they turn 18 and can register to vote, as well as when they move and need to update their voter registration address. We are working to engage voters and see enthusiastic turnout in this election and beyond.

Twenty youth-led groups across 18 states in the Alliance for Youth Action network have been building trust and power with young people in their communities for years – and in some places over a decade. Youth organizers in the Alliance Network combat voter suppression in their states, fight for Black, Brown, Indigenous, and youth of color to have access to the ballot box, and mobilize Gen Zers and millennials to stand by their demands and vote in every election. For example, young people at Chicago Votes wrote and passed legislation to ensure individuals within Cook County Jail could register to vote and put polling locations within that jail. And youth organizers at Forward Montana, MOVE Texas, Engage Miami and more have worked to preserve on-campus access to the ballot in their states.

We must also remember that voting does make a difference. Voting is one of the best opportunities we have to shape the future of our cities, states, and our entire country – and ensure our lawmakers have the best interests of our younger generations at heart.

One vote can decide elections, even midterm elections. According to Ballotpedia, in 2018, “ 50 congressional races (five Senate and 45 House) were decided by less than a 5 percent margin.”

And according to researchers at Tufts University’s CIRCLE, “voting by young people has the potential to decide dozens of key 2022 midterm races across the country.”

Put simply: Voting matters. And we want to make sure young people know why.

Midterms don’t always get as much fanfare as presidential elections, but we want young people to know that they are just as important. This year, voters will select their representatives in competitive House races, as well as casting a ballot in close Senate, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state legislative and local races.

In the wake of landmark Supreme Court rulings, voting is the best way we can impact the makeup of the court. While we do not vote directly for Supreme Court justices, we do vote for the senators who confirm them. One third of all U.S. senators are up for re-election this November. And once confirmed, justices can sit on the bench for their lifetime and will be able to impact public policy for years to come.

Even once justices are confirmed, voting gives us the power to make decisions that reflect our values in the aftermath of their rulings. In the first ballot test of abortion since the Supreme Court overturned the precedents established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, primary voters in Kansas rejected an amendment that would have paved the way for banning abortion in the state. Youth organizers, like those at Loud Light, mobilized young voters to make their voices heard at the ballot box, making this win possible. During a usual primary election, only the most engaged citizens vote, with turnout ranging from 20 percent to 30 percent. In the Kansas primary, more than 47 percent of registered voters cast their ballots.

In some counties, there were huge increases in voter registration leading up to the election, which some attribute to the mobilization of voters ages 18-34 around the issue of abortion. Evident in the results is the reality that young voters have the potential to make a difference when it comes to the issues they care most about.

As for state races, legislators have the power to introduce laws to protect our democracy or anti-voter bills to dismantle democracy. That’s why we need to elect pro-democracy candidates who will introduce and pass laws to make access to voting easier.

And it’s not just legislators who are chosen in local elections. When Americans elect a mayor, for example, they are choosing who will be in charge of daily operations for their city, affecting land use, transportation policies, housing and much more.

That’s why we need young people to make a plan to vote today and, most importantly, cast their ballots this November.

At the Voter Participation Center and the Alliance for Youth Action, we will keep fighting to help ensure young people are able to make their voices heard in November.


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