Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Your Take: Lying & honor (Part 2)

Your Take: Lying & honor (Part 2)

Several weeks ago in The Fulcrum, we shared this Your Take question with our community:

W hat is your take on how we restore honor when lying has become fashionable?


Bonus question: What would happen if we actually stopped lying to each other and to ourselves?

We were thrilled to have received so many thoughtful responses from our readers that we wanted to take this opportunity to share the second part of those responses this week. Letters below were edited for length and clarity:


I think this is a huge question. I think a lot of people are so entrenched in their beliefs that the truth doesn't matter to them. I also think this is even a deeper question of how we think about ourselves and our spirituality. I think we as a society are so focused on being or showing that we are happy, everything is good, and that we are good people that the truth gets lost if it comes in conflict with those types of self projection.

I used to be involved in various religious groups - Christian and more meditation practices with Hindu scriptures. I volunteered a lot of my time. They are good places and people but I noticed that there was a certain amount of suppression of anything that was not in alignment with the teachings and a downplay of all emotions. I think also the political correctness of our time has a lot of people censoring their true feelings whether they are right or wrong.

All of this is to say that if people are not honest with each other, how can they be honest with others? Without bearing witness to the good and bad parts of ourselves and acknowledging that we can be good people even with bad thoughts or emotions.

Also social media promotes a lifestyle of exaggerating and lying to look good. It seems everyone is pretending to be something that they are not and this seems to be encouraged rather than despised.

Being true to yourself no matter what others think seems to be rather out of vogue.

Until we as a society actually admire truth over fiction and promote realistic expectations of ourselves and others we will not be able to address this problem. I hope that the falsity that so many encourage and love gets to a maximum and people start to see through it and yearn for the truth again. The truth isn't always pretty and a lot of times it can shock our sense of who we are and what is important in this world.

I personally admire brutally truthful people. I admire the truth even when it goes against everything I believe. Because then I can wake out of my sleep and remember I am alive. The only truth is that change is the only constant in the world. But what changes and how is up to us. Whether we change for the better or worse depends on what we value. As long as we value falsity over truth and fiction over reality we are in trouble. But eventually every fantasy has an end and can't be sustained forever. ~Robert Barry


You're right about how lying has become or is becoming a new norm in certain contexts. Guess from whom we had that modeled to us over and over again? I think they say that Trump lied up to 30,000 times when he was in office (I could have that number wrong, but it was a very large number and he continues to do it. He’s still maintaining that the presidency was stolen from him!).

I'm reading a book right now that partially explains this phenomenon: "The Revenge of Power: How Autocrats are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century" by Moises Naim. If there is a social norm that is well accepted like 'not to lie,' a politician wanting to grasp power might use a strategy called 'norm busting,' like what Trump did over and over again. At first it feels/seems terrible, but eventually, we come to just accept it. We even come to expect it. Naim used Trump as an example in terms of lying, but he also gave the example of Duterte from the Philippines, who grasped that people were tired of gang violence around drug dealing on the streets. Duterte appealed to the populace wanting street crime to be cleaned up and he said he would take care of it. Well, he did by allowing the police to simply shoot to kill drug dealers, which actually was quite effective! It got rid of street violence right away. Duterte has hung onto power by using his norm-busting behavior in this way.

The book explains a lot about how norms can be broken easily by autocrats or potential autocrats. At first we are shocked by the behavior, but eventually it becomes old news and we just accept it as a new normal. Afterall we learn how to behave first by watching and modeling our parents. If our parents were to lie to us all the time, we would probably assume lying was okay and do it ourselves. Luckily, most of our parents taught us that lying wasn't a good thing. ~Linda Ellinor


Is the real question that we need to restore honor? I guess it would depend on what we mean by honor and is honor the real issue when one partakes in lying for one's own benefit? Is lying to hide from the truth as in self deceit or is it for the achievement of something that we don't deserve?

As a noun, honor can refer to "respect" as well as "adherence to what is right or conventional standard of conduct." As such both these meanings of the word could be applicable to the questions you raise. With either definition of honor the question to lie or not lie seems centered in what one wishes to achieve. It seems in the context of examples you present lying is intended to achieve a benefit to the liar versus the situation that would result in a benefit to the other or the greater good. It could also be intended to deceive the reality we live in so that life can be bearable for ourselves. Hard to know what it is for one to lie?

In the case of the football player, to not attempt to lie would result in the game being played within the rules that were applicable to the situation at hand. As such, that player would not pursue the advantage to him but would have ceded his need to have his way or desire to the game itself. In other words letting the consequence of the play be what it should be not what he wanted it to be. So the game as a system would be played out as intended. Alternatively, perhaps he lied so that he would have not had to face his own disappointment and as such wish what is to be what it is not and what is more acceptable to his world that he lives in.

In the case of the politicians, it seems the intent of the lie would again be to their advantage and not to a "truthful" description of what is. As such whatever the decision or moment they wanted to craft for the support of their action is the issue. To lie in their case would be to misrepresent the issues and as such attempt to get their way over [acknowledging] what is actually happening. This would also include self deception as trying to evoke a reality that they want to live in. In other words being truthful to what is happening and as such results in either a benefit of the other and not to themselves or a need to change their world view and then have to come to the acceptance that the world is not how they wish it to be. So not to lie is to accept what is. They either end up changing their understanding of reality if they were self-deluded or they end up holding their oaths of being servants of the people by their acceptance that they are not there to serve themselves. So their lying could be intended to distort the "truth" and live in the world they want and/or mislead others to believing that the situation or action in question should be decided for their benefit instead of the benefit the "truth" would bear out. ~Matthew Eckert

Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
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