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

Uniting for effective governance: How Gen Z and millennials came together for a National Week of Action

Uniting for effective governance: How Gen Z and millennials came together for a National Week of Action

Rep.-elect Matt Gaetz (R-FL) (L) talks to Rep.-elect Rep.-elect Sara Jacobs (D-CA) (C), Rep.-elect Joe Neguse (D-CO) (R) and other Democratic members-elect in the House Chamber during the third day of elections for Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 05, 2023 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
Layla Zaidane
By Layla ZaidaneApr 25, 2023
Layla Zaidane

Layla Zaidane is the President and CEO of the Future Caucus. A nationally recognized expert on youth engagement, Layla has been featured in outlets including Forbes, The Washington Post, New York Times, U.S. News and World Report, Refinery29, The Huffington Post, and McClatchy.

See More Writings by author

Layla Zaidane is the president and CEO of the Millennial Action Project.

The most effective lawmakers are the ones who know how to work well with others. This might seem simple, but in a time of intense disagreement and polarization, it can be a forgotten truth. Over the last two decades, our politics has been defined by partisanship and gridlock. It has boosted the careers of some politicians in the short term, yet that style doesn’t deliver results for real people over the long term. But good news: a few weeks ago, young lawmakers across America joined together to publicly buck the trend of performative partisanship and demonstrate that a better way to make policy is possible.

Through Millennial Action Project (MAP)’s network of local chapters, called Future Caucuses, Gen Z and millennial lawmakers are already building bridges and working on policy solutions together. Elected officials ranging from progressive to conservative are a part of these effective groups, and today we count 34 Future Caucuses and 1,600 young lawmakers as a part of this movement.

Every year, MAP hosts a National Week of Action to catalyze action among members of the Future Caucus. It’s a week dedicated to mobilizing young lawmakers from all corners of the country — in Congress and in state legislatures — to showcase examples of good governance, and build a new narrative around what effective collaboration looks like.

This past March, young lawmakers nationwide led the most successful Week of Action yet. Throughout the week, MAP launched a new Future Caucus in the state of Delaware; named new Future Caucus leadership in PA, NC, MA, AL, and CT; spotlighted young members of Congress pioneering this work; and showcased via list upon list the critical bipartisan legislation that these incredible young leaders are achieving.

Moments like the Week of Action not only demonstrate the power of a rising generation of legislators to transcend political polarization — it offers a much needed reminder to the young elected officials leading this work that they are not in this alone. It’s a critical part of ensuring a healthy democracy — but don’t just take my word for it, hear for yourself from the young lawmakers themselves!

“Never before are the decisions that we make today going to impact the younger generations more than in our history,” said Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT). “That’s why we have to be at the table, because it's our future on the line. We have to find these bipartisan solutions so they are lasting.”

“It’s incredibly important for us to have young people at the table,” said Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-CA). “You don’t have to be older to make a difference. You don’t have to wait. We need you, we need your voice. We have incredible challenges in our country right now, and we are going to need everyone working together to be able to do that.”

“We’ve grown up with technology, we watched 9/11, many of us got out of college (me!) and high school during a recession, we nearly all have student loan debt… the system has been broken for most of our lives,” said Del. Kayla Young (D-WV). “ We are willing to fight for our states and a country that wants to fix it.”

“Youth does not equal inexperience. If you have a vision and a voice, run. Be respectful of other perspectives, but don’t be afraid to provide your own, ” said Rep. Thomas Kutz (R-PA). “ Long-term sustainable change requires bipartisan support. It does no good for anyone to shut out the other side entirely and have it undone when majorities and executives change parties. This is especially true in Pennsylvania where we have a one-seat margin in the House!”

Rep. Leonela Felix (D-RI) shared that she seeks to transcends polarization “By listening empathetically, building friendships and coalitions beyond political ideologies and helping my community stay informed about the issues they care about through various mediums like social media, emails, newsletters… ”.

“Young candidates (and young elected officials) offer a fresh perspective on the issues facing our society today, and they’re often much more willing to work across the aisle to accomplish a mutual agenda,” said New York Young Republicans during the National Week of Action.

“Childcare is a big one where I see bipartisan support for reforms: parents are desperate for quality care that doesn't cost their entire paycheck, entrepreneurs need their employees to have reliable care, and anti-bureaucrat types want to eliminate burdensome regs and paperwork,” said Rep. Jackie Chretien (D-NH).

“I think the perspective is different. Gen Z and Millennials want to solve problems and move forward to new challenges. I find older generations are more dogmatic and looking to win a fight,” said Rep. Tanner Magee (R-LA) on the value of young people in public service.

“I believe in bipartisanship. I wanted to be a leader who makes a point to work across the aisle but also knows when to stand for KS HD 10 values,” said Rep. Christina Haswood (D-KS). “The MAP helps us create space and uplifts the voices & issues of our generations.”

“When you reach across the aisle, you are able to get feedback on ideas from people who might approach a problem in a different way. When you discuss and debate the specifics, you'll end up with a stronger piece of legislation,” said Asm. Jared Gandolfo (R-NY).

Young people possess the key to break through partisan gridlock. In a time where campaign season is right around the corner and working across party lines typically slows down, we have seen just the opposite. The National Week of Action was a powerful reminder that young people are capable of so much, and when we can help them build a path forward together, anything is possible.


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