Third-Country Deportations: Illegal, Unethical, and Increasingly Common

via Live and Let’s Fly

Immigration has been a thematic cornerstone of the second Trump Administration, embodying the core traits of Donald Trump’s political second wind. Immigration enforcement, through the unyielding, unrepentant power of the executive branch, has become all-encompassing, legally dubious, and intentionally targeted at the most vulnerable among us. The mass deportation of undocumented migrants (and sometimes documented migrants with Temporary Protected Status) has become a central aim of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under Trump. 

A bizarre twist in this new immigration regime is the phenomenon of third-country deportations, where migrants are not deported to their country of origin or the country they most recently immigrated from, but rather a third, unrelated country. The intentions behind this move may at first seem confusing. What is the intended message in attempting to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man, to Uganda? Why send a group of Cuban migrants to Eswatini? Under the surface, these third-country deportations tell us a lot about both the symbolic and political power of deportations and the new ways in which powerful Western countries choose to address and manage immigration. The Trump Administration’s third-country deportations are an ethical wrong and a legal violation of domestic and international laws surrounding deportations and the treatment of migrants. Moreover, third-country deportations reflect a pattern of exploitation of weaker countries which further damages the credibility of Western powers and fails to address the deepening quagmire of global migration.

Starting early in Trump’s second term, the Administration began deporting undocumented American migrants, mostly from Central America but also hailing from areas as disparate as South Sudan, Cuba, and Vietnam. Infamously, a group of Venezuelan migrants were sent to CECOT, a maximum security prison in El Salvador notorious for its human rights abuses. On the African continent, the U.S. government struck deals with Uganda, Rwanda, Eswatini, and South Sudan in which they agreed to accept migrants. In theory, the policy, alongside other domestic immigration crackdown measures, is intended to deter asylum-seekers from seeking asylum in the U.S. and encourage self-deportation among migrants who are already in the U.S.

The third countries accept these deals for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that the Trump Administration has offered considerable monetary compensation for accepting immigrants. The Swazi government, for example, was paid $5.1 million to accept 250 migrants from the United States. The Trump Administration wields the stick in addition to the carrot; it has threatened to add the African countries who do not accept the migrants to its travel ban list, terminating the issue of visas for all of that country’s nationals. By using financial gain and diplomatic relations as a bargaining chip, the United States is exploiting smaller and weaker countries in the Global South because of its greater monetary and international power.

So far, at least 550 migrants have been deported to third countries. The migrants deported to third countries have been convicted of criminal offenses in the United States. Some of the migrants were already serving time in prison in the United States before their deportation. The conditions of the migrants once in the third countries are often brutal, and the information we have regarding their welfare is often murky. The migrants sent to Eswatini, for instance, were moved to its maximum security prison, known for its overcrowding and lack of resources. The deportees sent to Ghana have been deported again to their countries of origin after being detained in Ghana itself under reportedly “squalid” conditions. The deportees to Rwanda are reportedly being integrated into Rwandan society, rather than detained, but little information has come out about the results, and Rwanda has its own problematic human rights record under the regime of longtime President Paul Kagame. Deporting migrants to places that they are not from deprives them of their support system and legal representation, further cementing the inhumane conditions of third-country deportations.

Third-country deportations are not a new idea for the Trump Administration. During his first term, Trump attempted to deport third-country migrants to El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, and wanted migrants traveling through Central America to seek asylum there instead of arriving at the Southern U.S. border. Under U.S. law, third-country deportations are legal, but only under highly specific conditions. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows migrants to be deported to third countries, but only if their country of origin refuses to accept them (perhaps because of political reasons or for lack of a diplomatic relationship with the U.S.), the migrant requests a third-country deportation, deportation to their country of origin is unsafe for the migrant, or deportation to their country of origin is otherwise improbable. Because migrants are sent to countries where they may face human rights abuses while imprisoned or become vulnerable to other forms of persecution, Trump’s third-country deportations violate the protections afforded by the INA. The judicial system has pushed back against the Trump Administration’s policy, with Federal Judge Brian E. Murphy halting all third-country deportations that occur without first ensuring migrants’ safety in April. It can be further argued that Trump’s deportations are unconstitutional on the grounds that they violate migrants’right to due process. Rather than getting due process for their asylum cases in the U.S., these migrants are deported to countries where they lack legal representation and are unable to argue their asylum claims. 

Third-country deportations are also contested under international law. Under the 1967 UN Refugee Protocol, which the U.S. is a signatory to, a state is not allowed to deport a migrant to a place in which they would face danger, torture, or other forms of harm and persecution, in accordance with the principle of non-refoulment. The Refugee Protocol also prohibits “chain refoulment,” wherein a migrant is deported first to a third country and then to another country (such as their country of origin) where they might face torture or persecution. As mentioned, migrants have already faced human rights abuses while in detention in El Salvador and Eswatini, while being deprived of their legal right to an asylum claim. If these third-country deportations continue, migrants will continue to suffer and be deprived of their inalienable rights, while American immigration enforcement will remain unethical.

Third-country deportation is not only an American phenomenon. Starting in 2022, the United Kingdom (UK) government under Tory Prime Minister Rishi Sunak attempted to advance a bill to deport asylum seekers who cross the English Channel to Rwanda, with the intention of deterring future asylum seekers, similar to the policy of the Trump Administration. The proposal was, like its American cousin, quite costly; the UK government planned on paying Rwanda £240 million (~$324 million in US dollars) to take migrants and paying up to £150,000 (~$202,000) per migrant. This plan was found to be £63,000 (~$84,800) more expensive than simply keeping the migrants in the UK. The European Union (EU) has also looked into third-country deportation as a solution to its migrant crisis. 

Even as an anti-immigrant tide continues to wash across the West, the ethical and legal issues of third-country deportation should deter its use among Western governments. Third-country deportations both risk the lives and safety of migrants once deported and are demonstrably illegal under both national and international law. At their core, third-country deportations rest on an exploitative relationship between Western countries and less powerful countries in the Global South. The U.S. under Trump is using its outsized economic and diplomatic power in order to coerce countries like Eswatini or Ghana into accepting migrants. These countries are incentivized to take the deportation deals, lest they lose visa access or forgo much-needed funds or aid. These exploitative relationships echo the coercion, extraction, and exploitation of countries of the Global South under Western imperialism. Such exploitative policies among Western powers today will only sow the seeds of greater distrust towards the West among the Global South down the line, and ultimately erode the legal and ethical credibility of the West on the world stage. It is abundantly clear that third-country deportations endanger migrants, and it is imperative that Western countries seek sustainable, long-term immigration reform rather than exploitative, unethical, and ultimately hollow policies.

Meet America’s New Sheriffs

“President-elect Donald Trump and Kash Patel, his pick to lead the FBI, during the Army-Navy football game at Northwest Stadium in Landover, Md., on Dec. 14, 2024.” Doug Mills / The New York Times/Redux via NBC

The Trump administration would like you to know that there is a new sheriff in town. They invoke the trope frequently, from a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Facebook post praising President Donald Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem for deterring illegal immigration to a speech by Vice President JD Vance in which he lambasted European nations for their anti-hate speech laws. In Western films, where the trope originates, the archetypical “new sheriff” arrives in a frontier town ruled by corrupt or incompetent lawmen, deposes them, and establishes a new order that promises a truer form of justice. In the month since Trump returned to Washington, purges in every major part of the federal law enforcement apparatus have left it beyond doubt that a reordering is underway. However, the kind of justice that Trump’s emerging order will produce largely remains to be seen. The task of forging this order will fall to the new wave of conservative officials appointed to replace their mostly non-partisan predecessors.

To lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), America’s premier federal law enforcement agency, the Trump administration has appointed a pair of loyalists, Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino. Both have a skeptical relationship with the agency. Patel, an embittered former federal prosecutor, spearheaded the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee investigation into the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia. During this investigation, the CIA criminally referred him to the Justice Department (DOJ) after he allegedly disclosed classified intelligence related to the investigation to people without clearances. Patel was ultimately not charged with a crime. Patel has asserted that the FBI is part of the “deep state” and even proposed turning the bureau’s headquarters into a museum showcasing its crimes. Multiple FBI officials made Patel’s so-called “enemies list” of government officials supposedly part of the “deep state,” including former Directors James Comey and Christopher Wray. If anything, Bongino, a prominent right-wing podcast host, has been an even more virulent critic, arguing without evidence that the bureau hid information about the pipe bombs planted outside the Democratic and Republican National Conventions because they were part of an “inside job” to frame Trump supporters for the violence. 

Given their appointment of two men who hold the agency in contempt to its highest positions, it is unsurprising that the Trump administration has also sought to purge disfavored individuals from the bureau. Under the direction of Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, eight senior executives were fired, and an additional seven executive assistant directors (who had led the bureau's Criminal, Cyber, Human Resources, Information and Technology, National Security, Response and Services, and Science and Technology branches) were demoted. Bove, who previously served as one of Trump's personal defense attorneys, has also sought the names of all FBI agents who worked on cases related to the January 6th Capitol riot. That effort concluded with a legal agreement not to publicly reveal the names of agents who worked on those cases without giving them two days’ notice and the opportunity to contest the decision in court. Despite this seeming victory, one of the agents most strongly resisted Bove’s attempt to access the names, James Dennehy, was forced out not long after the agreement was signed. Dennehy, who led the FBI’s New York field office, had told his staff that he would “dig in” in response to the firings of senior FBI leaders. 

Retaliation against those who worked on Capitol riot cases has not confined itself to the FBI. The interim U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., Ed Martin, has overseen the demotion and firing of prosecutors who worked on cases related to the January 6th attack, as well as the forced resignation of a prosecutor who refused to freeze Biden-era environmental funds. Martin, who previously represented three Capitol riot defendants, recently referred to himself and those working under him as “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers”. Martin has expressed openness towards pursuing other political goals on behalf of the Trump administration, including threatening to prosecute Democratic lawmakers for statements that he argues are tantamount to incitement of violence. Martin’s office has sent legal threat letters to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Representative Robert Garcia (D-CA), accusing them of threatening violence against their political opponents. In particular, Schumer’s comments, in which he stated that Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch had “released the whirlwind” and “w[ould] pay the price” following a 2020 abortion-related case, caused a stir when they were made. Following condemnation from the American Bar Association, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Congressional Republicans, Schumer apologized on the Senate floor. Despite this widespread backlash, the letter from Martin was the first indication that Schumer might face legal consequences for his remarks, which likely do not meet the legal standard for true threats. 

Perhaps the most dramatic showdown between Trump’s appointees and the old order came in the Justice Department’s Southern District of New York (SDNY), an office with such a reputation for independence that it has been nicknamed “the sovereign district.” Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, once again serves as the administration’s chosen enforcer. Bove, a former SDNY prosecutor, has a complicated relationship with his old office, having been investigated there multiple times for allegations of abusive behavior towards his subordinates. The recent clash occurred after Bove ordered interim U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon to dismiss a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat, who was charged in September with accepting bribes from Türkiye. Sassoon, a registered Republican and member of the Federalist Society who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, refused to do so, instead accusing Bove of arranging a quid pro quo in a letter to his boss, Attorney General Pam Bondi. According to Sassoon’s account, Adams’ lawyers informed Bove that the mayor would only be able to assist the administration in conducting immigration enforcement if the charges against him were dropped. Sassoon then offered to resign if the Department of Justice was still unwilling to allow the case to go on. Bove responded with a blistering eight-page letter accusing Sassoon of insubordination, accepting her resignation, placing the line prosecutors working on the case on leave, and defending the decision to dismiss the case. Bove accused the prosecution of being politically motivated, echoing allegations made by Adams’ lawyers that the Biden administration had prosecuted him in retaliation for his criticism of their immigration policy. Bove also defended the idea that advancing the Trump administration’s immigration policy was a legitimate reason to drop the case. Following Sassoon’s forced resignation, seven other lawyers, comprising nearly all of the supervisors in the SDNY’s Public Integrity unit, resigned. One of them, Hagan Scotten, another conservative who clerked for Chief Justice John Roberts, accused the administration of choosing to dismiss the case without prejudice in order to use the threat of reopening the case as leverage against the mayor, calling any lawyer who would obey the directive to dismiss the case a “fool” or a “coward.” The morning after the mass resignations took place, Bove summoned the remainder of the Public Integrity unit to a meeting in which he informed them that he wanted a prosecutor from the unit to cosign the motion to dismiss. He then left the unit time to decide who would sign the motion. After a discussion in which the unit reportedly considered resigning en masse, Edward Sullivan, an experienced anti-corruption prosecutor who is nearing retirement, offered to sign the motion, supposedly to avoid a mass firing. The dismissal was filed just hours later. Around the same time, Eric Adams gave federal immigration agents access to the jail complex on Rikers Island, becoming one of the first public officials outside of the administration to accede to its demands under legal pressure. During the old order, the apolitical nature of America’s federal law enforcement institutions was assumed but rarely felt. Now that the officials who defined and defended these institutions are gone, the Adams case shows the consequences of their removal. 

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth became the latest Trump administration official to move against his department’s law enforcement apparatus with his firing of the top Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) for the Army, Air Force, and Navy. The JAG Corps forms the core of the US military’s criminal justice system, fulfilling a variety of roles from prosecuting and defending accused criminals to advising senior military leaders on the legality of their actions. It is this latter role that has earned them Hegseth’s ire. Hegseth, a consistent defender of American war criminals, blamed JAGs (derided in his book The War on Warriors as “jagoffs”) for imposing restrictive rules of engagement that he believes crippled the American war effort in Afghanistan. Hegseth has only just begun to replace the fired JAGs, recently appointing his personal lawyer, Timothy Parlatore, as a commander in the Naval Reserve JAG corps. Parlatore previously served as defense counsel for two Navy SEALs: Eddie Gallagher, who was demoted for photographing himself posing with a corpse, and another SEAL who was charged with sexual assault. In a letter to Congress, five former Defense Secretaries, including one former Marine Corps General James Mattis, who served during the previous Trump administration, have denounced the firings of the JAGs and other military leaders, condemning what they saw as the President removing constraints on his power. Their letter was hardly necessary. At a press conference a few days earlier, Hegseth had all but said as much, stating that the fired lawyers would have been “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”

Intent is often difficult to discern in the actions of the Trump administration, particularly as its reign remains in its early stages. However, Trump has shown a repeated tendency to appoint officials to the leadership of agencies that they have reason to despise. Kash Patel, who launched his career in conservative politics attacking the credibility of the Russia investigation, sees the FBI as a tool of the deep state. Ed Martin represented Capitol rioters imprisoned by the office he now leads. Emil Bove gutted the DOJ office where he had faced multiple investigations. Pete Hegseth, who had always chafed at the idea of men in suits telling men in boots how to fight, was given authority over the JAG corps. From the President down, a sense that they have been greatly wronged - and that retribution is necessary - pervades the Trump administration. Now that they have struck against their enemies in the government, nearly all of whom are either gone or on their way out, what comes next is unclear. What is clear is that the sheriffs of the old order are gone. The lawmen who run Washington now prize a single virtue: loyalty. Those who can’t get behind that had best be on their way.

Trump & Content Creators: The Sexist Entanglement that Targets Young Men

Credit: Nicholas J. Fuentes

Following Trump’s re-election, social media platforms witnessed an explosion of misogynist speech, centered on the virality of far-right misogynist and white supremacist, Nick Fuentes, who popularized the phrase “your body, my choice.”  In just the 24 hours following Trump’s re-election, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue reported a 4,600% increase in the posting of the phrases “your body, my choice” and “get back in the kitchen” on X. This is no coincidence. After Trump announced he was pursuing re-election in November of 2022, he dined with Fuentes at his Mar-a-Lago home, along with Kanye “Ye” West, who has come under intense scrutiny for his blatantly antisemitic posts and selling swastika merchandise on his Yeezy website. But while online sexism saw a massive, overt influx post-election, it’s simply the consolidation of more covert online trends that have been present for years, normalizing and disseminating misogynistic themes. This trend backwards into misogyny is not a mere apparition, but rather a corrupt and engineered manipulation to garner support for right-wing candidates. 

In recent years, “alpha male” online personalities have gained notable traction, such as self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate, and the aforementioned Nick Fuentes. The consequential harms of these sexist individuals holding platforms are exemplified by the media personalities themselves: both Tate and Fuentes now face charges for violence against women. 

Tate, during his peak popularity around 2022, peddled disgustingly sexist narratives to his audiences, including how rape victims must “bear responsibility” for their attacks, that women are men’s property, and how he prefers to date women who are 18 to 19 years old, so he can “make an imprint” on them. In 2022, Tate was arrested in Romania on charges of forming an organized crime ring, investigated for potential human trafficking and sexual intercourse with minors, as well as accused of sexual aggression charges in the UK in 2024.

Fuentes, on the other hand, considers himself a sexist, a white supremacist, and a proud “incel” (short for involuntary celibate). His wide array of deeply problematic claims include that rape is “so not a big deal,” and that women are too emotional to make political decisions, among other narratives that range from fascist to anti-semitic to homophobic. Fuentes faced battery charges for pepper spraying, shoving, and breaking the cell phone of a woman who knocked on the door of his Illinois home. He has now asked a Cook County judge to seal his records of the battery case.

The most alarming layer to this issue is the relationship between these individuals and our governing body. The Trump administration began pressuring Romania to lift the travel restrictions on Tate and his brother Tristan. Less than two weeks later, the travel ban was lifted and the Tate brothers flew from Romania to Florida, where they credited Trump for making them feel safe upon their return—although, the UK is currently considering submitting an extradition request on grounds of the brothers’ pending charges of rape and human trafficking. Similarly, Republican lawmakers have collaborated with Fuentes’ America First Foundation, with multiple members of Congress, including Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, former congressman Steve King, and Arizona Senator Wendy Roger, who have publicly appeared at his events. This comes in addition to the aforementioned dinner between President Trump and Fuentes prior to his re-election campaign. 

Trump’s 2024 campaign was devoted to collecting endorsements from popular male influencers and internet personalities such as Paul brothers Logan and Jake, TikToker Bryce Hall, streamer FaZe Banks, streamer Adin Ross, and so on. Podcast host and content creator Tana Mongeau claimed that she declined an offer of millions to endorse a presidential candidate and was made aware of a lengthy list of influencers that received and accepted similar offers. Mongeau implied that this was an offer to endorse Trump, stating that her views did not align with the candidate of the endorsement; she later publicly endorsed former Vice President Kamala Harris. Nonetheless, it seems as though Trump’s election strategy paid off, with the young male vote shifting significantly in Trump’s favor: 56% of young male voters say that they voted for Trump in 2024, compared to 41% in 2020. 

There seems to be quite a mutualistic relationship between these content creators and Trump: content creators gain more traction and popularity, Trump gains more votes. This relationship rides on one foundational idea that is exploited by both the media personalities and Trump: framing young men’s unhappiness and dissatisfaction to be a result of the deviation from “tradition” and classic gender roles, which calls for a sharp reversion to remedy the issue. This framework of blame provides a clear-cut explanation for the “male loneliness epidemic,” which describes the high levels of loneliness that men have been feeling in recent years. Yet in reality, women and men self-report loneliness at almost the same rates: 15% for women, 16% for men. So, why is there this consensus of higher male loneliness in the first place?

The issue lies in the patriarchy, of course. Through childhood development, those assigned male and female at birth are treated differently based on their perceived gender, from which they learn a schema of behaviors and traits associated with that gender stereotype. These are aligned with the typical patriarchal design, where boys are encouraged to play roughly and act tough, and girls are expected to play cooperatively and quietly. Through this socialization and reinforcement of toxic masculinity, boys have less opportunity to learn how to healthily feel, articulate, and cope with their emotions. Toxic masculinity is built on seeing anti-femininity and toughness as power, which also reinforces the idea that women are weak, less intelligent, and less capable due to their emotions. 

Along with this harmful and limiting gender socialization, screen time and smartphone usage have a positive correlation with rates of loneliness. This generation of young adults has grown up with near unlimited access to the Internet, and was isolated during a critical period of socio-psychological development over the COVID-19 pandemic. The key difference, generally speaking, is that girls have been more societally socialized into cooperative and emotionally supportive friendships where the barrier of toxic masculinity is not a common factor. Men don’t necessarily have fewer friends than women do, but less intimacy in those friendships. Seeking professional help and turning to close friends for support is far less common for men, likely due to the lasting stigma surrounding mental health and a fear of appearing weak. 

According to a famously cited study by a Harvard University psychiatrist who spent three decades tracking the health and mental wellbeing of 724 American men, men overwhelmingly see relationships as the key to a healthy and fulfilling life. The emphasis and pressure placed on romantic relationships being the necessary condition for men’s happiness becomes a self-reinforcing cycle of dissatisfaction; when the perceived key to happiness is supportive long-term relationships, the inability to emotionally connect with others presents a significant obstacle. It also places the entire burden of emotional labor upon the woman in the relationship (in the stereotypical heteronormative context), due to male friendships’ tendency to lack emotional depth and support. 

Additionally, self-reported “loneliness” seems to be conflated by many men with celibacy or singleness. This sort of thinking created the incel community that Fuentes is a proud member of: a population of men who have been unable to secure any sexual and romantic partners, and blame society and women for this perceived oppression against them. Feeling entitled to women and sex is inherently problematic, but this population is also particularly vulnerable to extremist and radical narratives due to their high levels of social isolation. In fact, teen boys that spend greater quantities of time socializing and engaging in political discussion online are the most vulnerable population to radicalization. The combination of these factors paints this population of young men as the ideal targets for politicians pushing right-wing agendas or alpha male influencer content, both of which promise a return to tradition and gender roles as the solution to their qualms— effectively scapegoating women rather than addressing the root of the issue. 

The practice of paying off influencers and content creators to sway their audiences' political opinions presents great potential for violating our democratic processes. Additionally, personalized algorithms have a high potential to create filter bubbles and echo chambers that can repeatedly push radicalizing or harmful content. The intertwinement of the media sphere and our current administration is already concerning, with the most prominent social media platforms bowing down to Trump’s administration; politicizing entertainment and weaponizing algorithms for political means is a threat to democracy. The explosion of sexism on media platforms should be taken seriously— the seemingly harmless entertainment content that viewers consume can socialize them into problematic beliefs, leading to a sense of normalcy in the face of bigoted policy changes, or swaying vulnerable populations towards radicalization. The consequences of ignoring this rapidly spreading phenomenon are severe, with dozens killed by incel-related attacks over the past decade. Without comprehensive action against this multifaceted issue plaguing our socio-political atmosphere, it’s clear that these widespread harms will continue to escalate. 

The Last Bastion of U.S. Democracy

Julia Nikhinson/Pool/Getty Images

In the month since his return to office, President Donald Trump has made extensive use of executive orders (EOs) to turn his campaign promises into reality. From signing an order pausing all foreign aid, to banning trans women athletes from participating in women’s sports, Trump has not shied away from testing the reach of the EO. Federal courts, however, have blocked a number of these measures, including the orders on birthright citizenship and Trump’s efforts to freeze federal funding. In response, Vice President JD Vance and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk have shown defiance to court orders, criticizing the supposed overreach by the courts and calling for the impeachment of justices who have halted Trump’s agenda. As calls have grown for Trump to ignore these warnings, some scholars warn that doing so could create a constitutional crisis. As such, it’s likely that the challenges from the executive branch may eventually fall into the hands of the Supreme Court. Luckily for those fearing the worst, the Court may be Trump’s biggest check in his second term.

The court hasn’t been particularly favorable to liberals in recent years, handing a series of detrimental decisions that overturned the federal right to an abortion, disposed of the Chevron doctrine, limited the EPA’s ability to mandate reductions in carbon emissions, and dismantled affirmative action. As such, many have grown pessimistic about the politicized nature of the court, worrying about upcoming decisions on racial gerrymandering, the ability of the government to regulate “ghost guns,” and gender-affirming care for minors. However, while the court isn’t going to make an ideological 180 in the next four years, they’re also not going to give Trump free rein to do whatever he wants.

For any given case, at least five justices will have to vote to uphold a federal court decision. Based on the ideological composition of the court–six conservative justices to three liberals–some may be quick to foretell doom. Don’t let the pessimists fool you, however–it’s a misnomer to say this is a 6-3 conservative court; it’s better characterized as a 3-3-3 court split between liberals, institutional conservatives, and hard-line conservatives. Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett–the Court’s institutional conservatives–have all shown a willingness to compromise. Throughout the 2022-2023 session, the justices agreed with members of the liberal bloc about 80% of the time in non-unanimous decisions. As such, the odds of them moving to uphold the Trump-restricting decisions of the lower-level courts–due to institutional concerns–are better than cynics may expect.

In any given case, liberal Associate Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor are surefire votes against Trump. The set of issues that the liberal justices see eye-to-eye with him on are few and far between. Among the conservative bloc, there are four justices who could reasonably make up the other two votes needed. Which two justices are most likely to break off is largely dependent on the issue, however.

On Trump’s budget tweaks, for example, the two conservative justices most likely to join the liberal justices in striking them down are Roberts and Kavanaugh. As several former secretaries of Treasury have pointed out, Roberts has previously written against executive overreach on financial affairs, arguing that “no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse.” Similarly, Kavanaugh wrote explicitly against it, saying that “Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds.” From cutting USAID to everything to do with Musk’s DOGE, expect the court to strike down these efforts to restructure the executive branch.

On a ruling regarding birthright citizenship, hardline conservative Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch could prove to be an unlikely ally for liberal justices. In April 2022, Gorsuch’s concurring opinion in United States v. Vaello-Madero called for the overturning of the Insular Cases, a set of rulings from the Spanish-American War asserting that constitutional rights do not fully apply to citizens of incorporated U.S. territories. Gorsuch’s decision to explicitly critique the rulings is noteworthy, and could signal that he may adopt a broad interpretation of jurisdiction (at least territorially) in a ruling on birthright citizenship. Similarly, the precedent-focused Roberts will likely vote in favor of birthright citizenship, a principle from the 14th Amendment that has been upheld in Dred Scott v Sanford and United States v Wong Kim Ark. 

Expect Gorsuch and the chief justice to once again come together for any ruling relating to same-sex marriage or LGBTQ+ rights. For Gorsuch, his majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, a 2020 case that ruled against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, may provide a preview on how he could approach similar cases that may arise in the coming terms. In his opinion, Gorsuch argued that “It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating ... based on sex.” This ruling, which Roberts joined him on, could provide a framework for how the two justices would treat similar cases of discrimination by Trump.

Additionally, while Roberts dissented in the original Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, which legalized same-sex marriage, his respect for precedent might motivate him to cast a vote to uphold the ruling, should a challenge come before the court. A defining feature of the chief justice is his ability to put precedent before ideology, as displayed in his vote to support upholding Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, but opposing the full overturn of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  

If the decision involves precedent or could impact the court’s credibility as an independent body insulated from political pressures, expect the institutional conservatives to step in. Roberts’ long-standing focus on the court’s credibility and legal integrity has been reinvigorated in recent years, with the chief justice reiterating the vitality of judicial independence in his 2024 end of the year report.

This sentiment seems to be echoed by Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who recently chose to recuse herself from a case involving her alma mater, Notre Dame. While not as much of an institutionalist as Roberts, Barrett has shown a respect for the court’s reputation, as well as a desire to not be seen as a political pawn who only serves to advance Trump’s agenda. In cases like Fischer v. United States, which dealt with the applicability of provisions in the Sarbanes–Oxley Act against participants in the January 6th insurrection, Barrett surprised observers by breaking with her conservative peers. Instead, she joined Sotomayor and Kagan in a dissenting opinion that called for a broader interpretation of the statute to prosecute individuals at the attempted coup d'état. Writ large, she was the most likely conservative justice to vote for a liberal outcome in the 2023-2024 term (a title that has historically belonged to Roberts). Beyond that, Barrett has voiced support for a binding ethics code for justices on the court. The move may be an indirect dig at fellow conservative Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who have come under fire for failing to disclose millions of dollars of luxurious gifts from Republican donors. As such, while Barrett voting with the liberal bloc is by no means a guarantee, it certainly isn’t out of the question.

Similarly, Kavanaugh has proven remarkably similar to Roberts, voting with him 95% of the time during the 2022-2023 term.  Kavanaugh voted with Roberts and the liberal justices to uphold a test to determine the existence of discriminatory voting rules in Allen v Milligan, and took a more liberal interpretation of the 4th Amendment’s usage of “seizure” in Torres v. Madrid. While both Kavanaugh and Barrett have broken with Roberts on key issues, such as abortion, they have relatively stayed in line, voting with him more often than they voted with any other individual.

The bloc has moved together to prevent potential executive power grabs before, such as in Moore v. Harper, where they voted against giving state legislatures unregulated power to set the rules for federal elections in their own states. Under a different interpretation, allowing state legislatures to have unchecked power over federal election laws could create a situation where states with Republican-controlled state legislatures hand over their electoral votes won by a Democrat (e.g. Kamala Harris) to a Republican (e.g. Donald Trump). This concept, known as the independent state legislature theory, raised concerns from some experts about the implications for American democracy. The bloc, however, recognizing the risk at stake, voted to reject the ideal. In similar cases that may bring into question the Court’s credibility, expect any permutation of Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh to join the Court’s liberals to uphold the lower court.

While Barrett and Kavanaugh have mostly followed Roberts and his respect for precedent, Gorsuch–who isn’t motivated by the same institutional concerns–has charted his own course, producing a number of distinctive opinions over the years. Although Gorsuch is a hard-line conservative, most frequently aligning with Thomas and Alito, he’s shown a willingness to break from Trump on hot-button issues like immigration, indigenous sovereignty, and (as mentioned) LGBTQ+ rights. In his nomination, he noted a willingness to break from the president if the law necessitates it. He also harbored disdain for political name-calling by a president to a justice following an unfavorable decision–a sentiment shared by Roberts. He exercised this independence, voting with Kavanaugh and the court’s liberal justices to have Trump release his tax records, much to the president’s chagrin. As such, while Trump appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, assuming the three’s loyalty to the president exceeds their legal integrity is a faulty speculation.

While Thomas and Alito could vote to solidify a unanimous decision, they don’t share the same institutional concerns that motivate Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, nor do they share the motivations behind Gorsuch’s track record of decisions. Instead, they tend to provide originalist decisions, adopting a stricter reading of the Constitution that usually bodes well for Republicans. That being said, as a whole, the Court is not as partisan as reporting makes it out to be, despite having a few high-profile, ideologically-bending decisions in recent years. Indeed, half of decisions in the 2022-2023 term were unanimous. Even polar opposites, like Sotomayor and Alito, have still ruled together in non-unanimous decisions more often than they did not. 

Furthermore, plenty of recent decisions have involved surprising majorities. Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co, which dealt with the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, had Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Jackson in the majority and Roberts, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in the dissent. Similarly, in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which discussed whether the Interstate Commerce clause could allow California to impose anti-animal cruelty standards on exporters from outside the state, had Sotomayor, Kagan, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett in the majority, and Roberts, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Jackson in the dissent. Only 8% of decisions from the 2022-2023 term were 6-3 across ideological lines. The depiction of the court as a solely political entity is wholly inaccurate.

As the president tests the limits of executive power, the Supreme Court may prove to be the ultimate check to Trump’s more radical and destructive impulses. While Trump appointed a third of the justices on the court, they aren’t his cronies, and will instead demonstrate a commitment–albeit a varying one–to the rule of law and preservation of credible institutions. As Trump rebuilds the government and redefines what it means to be president, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to be the safeguard that U.S. democracy needs to endure a second Trump administration.

Trump’s Ambitions to Purchase Greenland

Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images

In recent months, U.S. President Donald Trump has reignited efforts to acquire Greenland–much to the dismay of the island’s inhabitants. His interest in purchasing the Danish territory goes back to 2019, although this proposal was widely dismissed at the time as a joke. This time around, however, the president and high-level officials around him have made one thing clear: he’s deathly serious. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed what many Europeans have been fearing: that the new president’s interests are “not a joke.”  

While Trump’s interest in buying the Danish island has faced mockery, an American focus on the Arctic region is nothing new. In fact, it goes back to the nineteenth-century. In 1867, President Andrew Jackson purchased Alaska from the Russians. The signing of the Alaska Treaty made the U.S. an Arctic state, gave them access to the northern Pacific Rim, and removed Russian presence from North America. 

U.S. ambitions in the Arctic did not end there. In 1910, the U.S. ambassador to Denmark, Maurice Egan, proposed a three-way land swap: the U.S. would cede Mindanao–an island in the Philippines–in exchange for Greenland and the Danish West Indies; Denmark would, in turn, further exchange land with Germany. Furthermore, in 1946, officials offered to buy the island for $100 million in gold. These rejections did not deter American determination, however, and Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union only heightened military aspirations in the following years. Because of its location between the period’s superpowers, it had a unique geostrategic importance for the U.S. This recognition resulted in the 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement, allowing the U.S. to establish military bases on the island. The importance of the agreement lies in the fact that it is an explicit legal precedent that allows the U.S. to have influence within Denmark’s territory. This has enabled the creation of the Pituffik Space Base, a key mechanism in receiving early missile warnings.

To understand why this whole extravaganza is critical, it is insightful to look at the international balance of power. As geopolitical tensions rise between the global superpowers–the U.S., Russia, and China–the Arctic territory becomes increasingly paramount. Similar to Cold War interests, obtaining reach over Greenland is of large military benefit. Trump said to reporters from the White House, “Greenland is necessary not for us, it’s necessary for international security,” adding “you have Russian boats all over the place, you have China’s boats all over the place — warships — and they [Denmark] can’t maintain it.” Strategically, the administration’s standpoint is clear: it allows the U.S. to counterbalance against its rivals. 

In addition to military importance, the climate crisis has given the territory a greater economic security incentive for the U.S. A 2025 report found that the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than ever before. As the ice caps recede, new mineral deposits are exposed, providing access to Greenland’s rare earth elements (i.e., lithium, niobium, hafnium and zirconium). The urgency stems from the pressure to keep up with China and counter the threat posed by its dominance over the supply chain. Another economic incentive created by the melting ice caps is the creation of new shipping lanes in the Arctic. According to the Arctic Council, shipping increased 37 percent from 2013 to 2023. By revealing new routes, cargo ships have to travel shorter distances between population centers.

Trump’s calls haven’t been ignored by Denmark, its neighbors, or the Greenlanders whose future is at stake. The Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has made it clear that the territory is “not for sale” and that “Seen through the eyes of the Danish government, Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” This sentiment rejecting the Trump proposal is reflected in the constituency. According to new polling, 85% of Greenlanders are against joining the U.S. Many are even offended at the proposition. Aleqa Hammond, Greenland's first female Prime Minister said, "He's treating us like a good he can purchase.” 

But words are not enough to fend off the Trump administration and their expansionist ambitions. It was announced in late January that Denmark will divert 14.6 billion Danish crowns ($2.05bn USD) into security. Centered around the Arctic waters, the country will obtain three new ships, more long-range drones, and greater satellite capacity. In support, NATO has also discussed the prospect of sending troops to defend the state. Because Denmark is allied with NATO, Greenland is protected under Article V in the original North Atlantic Treaty–the Mutual Defense Clause. If the U.S.invades Greenland, they invade NATO, and all member states will come to Denmark’s defense. Some states, such as France, have even weighed the possibility of sending troops in response to Trump’s threats. 

Analysis (by Carmine Miklovis)

Seizing Greenland would be a miscalculation by the Trump administration. While the U.S. would decisively win any military or economic conflict against Denmark, the losses wouldn’t be on the battlefield; instead, the U.S. would be putting a stake through the heart of one of its most important alliances: NATO. 

A U.S. invasion of Greenland would be an unprecedented strategic blunder. Triggering Article V would pit the U.S. against nearly every single one of its closest allies. While Trump’s foreign policy is erratic, there’s some semblance of coherence that suggests that he wouldn’t go this far. Instead, it’s likely that Trump will attempt to pressure the Danish government through economic coercion. While Trump likely won’t outright sanction Denmark, he’ll use every tool in his arsenal to squeeze a favorable agreement out of them. Whether this will work as intended, however, remains to be seen. It’s unlikely that the president will impose steep tariffs on the entire alliance, given EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s promise to reciprocate any tariffs clashes with Trump’s domestic promise of lowering food prices. As such, the rest of the EU–who largely supports Denmark’s claim to Greenland–may be able to circumvent higher tariffs on the Danes.

This entire charade risks unnecessarily souring transatlantic relations at a time when the alliance is vital to U.S. interests. The more forceful Trump is in his rhetoric and actions, the more he will strain relations with its European allies. This move, along with the imposition of tariffs on the EU and the de-emphasis of NATO by Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in recent weeks, marks the Trump administration’s broader disregard for the alliance as a whole. While once pivotal to global security, the U.S. has made it clear that its priorities lie elsewhere–much to the dismay of its European allies.

Greenland can still serve the United States’ security goals without the U.S. adopting the island as a territory. Instead, if Trump wants to utilize the island for its strategic importance, he can do so by expanding the use of the island in NATO operations. He then could use the island to better position the U.S. in the Arctic without it serving as a point of contention with the nation’s most valuable alliance. Pivoting the focus could turn the issue from a source of enmity in the transatlantic alliance to a unifying force.

Perhaps negotiating favorable conditions for positioning U.S. troops on Greenland has been Trump’s goal all along, and this is just his roundabout way of achieving it. This unconventional path could allow him to tout a win to his base, telling them that he negotiated better conditions—albeit on something that would otherwise be easy to achieve. Perhaps Trump is testing the waters, seeing what concessions he can extract out of the EU. Maybe the U.S. is abandoning the alliance to chart its own course. Or maybe there is no grand strategy at all, and he’s just stirring trouble or seeking to achieve a tangible legacy driven by motives of self-interested glory. Regardless, if the U.S. obtains Greenland, Trump will be sure to claim the deal as a domestic political win. However, it would be a tremendous loss internationally and should be a serious consideration as he crafts his foreign policy vis-à-vis Europe. Thus, while this might garner domestic support, he could lose big in the international arena, and add pressure to the already splintering relationship between the United States and their European allies.

Global Health in Crisis: The Ripple Effect of The U.S. Withdrawal from The WHO

Evan Vucci/AP

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organization (WHO). Within the executive order, Trump cited the WHO’s mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, failure to adopt reforms (i.e. including Taiwan in proceedings and doing independent scientific investigations), failure to be independent from other states (namely China), and making the U.S. pay dues that are far too high. However, pandemics don’t care about nationalism. Abandoning the WHO does nothing but make the U.S. more vulnerable while alienating allies and weakening global disease response efforts. If the goal was to protect Americans, this move does the exact opposite—it’s reckless, shortsighted, and frankly, foolish.

Global health governance

The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) disrupts global health coordination and security by weakening international responses to public health crises. The WHO plays a central role in pandemic preparedness, outbreak response, and global disease surveillance, ensuring that countries share critical information and coordinate containment measures. By leaving the organization, the U.S. risks diminished access to real-time epidemiological data, medical research, and collaborative response efforts that are essential for mitigating future health threats. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, the WHO facilitated the rapid dissemination of information regarding the virus' spread and coordinated vaccine distribution efforts through COVAX (an international program aiming to expand access to COVID-19 vaccines). Without direct participation, the U.S. will face delays in obtaining crucial health data, reducing its ability to prepare for and respond to emerging outbreaks effectively. Additionally, this withdrawal could undermine global trust in the U.S. as a reliable partner in international health governance, weakening its influence in shaping health policies and emergency response strategies. Ultimately, this decision risks hampering both U.S. public health security and broader global disease response efforts, as pandemics and outbreaks require multilateral cooperation to contain and control. 

Financing WHO

As one of the largest contributors to the WHO, the U.S. has historically provided substantial financial support for global health initiatives, including disease eradication programs, vaccine distribution, and emergency response efforts. Without these funds, the WHO will struggle to maintain essential health programs (vaccinations, maternal and child healthcare, chronic disease appointments, etc), particularly in low-income countries that rely on its support for basic healthcare infrastructure and outbreak preparedness. The consequences of this financial instability will be severe. The WHO plays a critical role in coordinating immunization efforts, medical aid distribution, and epidemic response, particularly in regions with limited resources. The loss of U.S. funding will disrupt these programs, exacerbating global health disparities and weakening the world’s ability to respond to future pandemics. Reduced WHO capacity does not just affect other countries; it increases the risk of uncontrolled outbreaks that could easily spread across borders, ultimately threatening U.S. public health as well.

Eradication of disease/global health equity 

The WHO has been instrumental in combating diseases such as polio, HIV/AIDS, and malaria, coordinating international vaccination programs and treatment initiatives to limit the impact of the pathogens. The U.S., as one of the largest contributors to the WHO, has played a pivotal role in funding these programs. The withdrawal of U.S. support jeopardizes these critical initiatives, potentially leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases, particularly in low-income countries that depend heavily on WHO assistance. Moreover, the thawing of permafrost due to climate change poses additional risks. As permafrost melts, it can release ancient pathogens that have been dormant for millennia, potentially leading to new disease outbreaks. A well-funded, coordinated global health response is essential to monitor and address these emerging threats. However, the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO undermines such efforts, leaving the global community less prepared to handle these challenges.

Disease surveillance

The WHO facilitates international collaboration by coordinating research and disseminating vital information on disease outbreaks, such as tracking new COVID-19 variants. By exiting the organization, the U.S. not only forfeits access to this real-time data but also diminishes its role in contributing valuable health information, thereby weakening global efforts to monitor and control diseases. This disruption in collaboration hampers the ability of all nations, including the U.S., to respond effectively to public health crises. As noted by the American Medical Student Association, the withdrawal isolates the U.S. from a key global health body, diminishing its ability to influence international health policies and initiatives that directly affect the safety and security of its population. Moreover, the absence of the U.S. in the WHO's coordinated efforts could lead to delays in identifying and containing outbreaks, increasing the risk of widespread transmission. The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health emphasizes that withdrawing from the WHO would hamper national and international pandemic preparedness efforts, potentially leading to public health disasters.

Economic/global health consequences

Pandemics have massive economic consequences, from disrupting global supply chains to forcing costly government interventions. The COVID-19 pandemic alone caused trillions in economic losses, and stimulus measures such as direct payments contributed to inflationary pressures. By weakening the WHO, the U.S. increases the likelihood that future pandemics—like the ongoing spread of avian influenza—will last longer, cost more, and require even more drastic financial interventions. Failing to contain outbreaks quickly doesn’t just put lives at risk; it directly threatens economic stability at home and abroad.

Beyond economic fallout, withdrawing from the WHO also means the U.S. is no longer bound by international health regulations (IHR), which are critical during global health emergencies. The IHR framework ensures coordinated international responses to pandemics, mandating transparency and containment measures that prevent localized outbreaks from escalating into global catastrophes. Without these obligations, the U.S. could mishandle emerging threats, increasing the risk of uncontrolled outbreaks that could devastate both public health and the economy. By abandoning international health cooperation, the U.S. is choosing short-term isolation over long-term security—putting both lives and financial stability on the line.

Military/biodefense

The WHO serves as a critical platform for early warnings about infectious diseases, facilitating rapid information exchange and coordinated responses among member nations. By exiting the organization, the U.S. forfeits access to this vital intelligence, potentially delaying its awareness of emerging health threats and compromising its ability to implement timely countermeasures. This gap in early warning systems could lead to delayed responses to outbreaks, increasing the risk of widespread transmission and endangering public health.

Moreover, U.S. military personnel deployed overseas rely on WHO-led initiatives to combat endemic diseases in their regions of operation. The WHO's efforts in disease surveillance, vaccination programs, and health infrastructure support are integral to maintaining the health of service members. Withdrawal from the WHO jeopardizes these collaborative efforts, potentially exposing military personnel to higher risks of infection. While the U.S. Department of Defense has its own health surveillance and vaccination programs, these are often implemented in conjunction with WHO guidelines and support. The absence of WHO collaboration could lead to gaps in disease prevention measures, adversely affecting the health and readiness of U.S. forces.

Ironically, many service members who may support the withdrawal are the same individuals who will face increased health risks as a result. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey, 63% of veteran voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party. This not only undermines global health security but also directly endangers the well-being of U.S. military personnel, who depend on international cooperation to safeguard their health during deployments.

Modeling

The U.S. withdrawal from the WHO did not occur in isolation–it set a precedent for other nations to disengage from global health governance, further weakening international cooperation. Argentina, for example, has followed the U.S.’s lead and has withdrawn from the WHO, citing similar concerns to President Trump. This sets the stage for a potential domino effect, where countries begin prioritizing nationalist policies over collective health. The consequence is clear: a fragmented global health system wherein nations are isolationist and fail to track pandemics, diseases, and any type of healthcare-related data. This shortsighted nationalism ignores the reality that no country, no matter its power, can single-handedly end a pandemic. If more states begin to follow suit, the world will be at significant risk regarding future health emergencies, leading to higher mortality rates, prolonged economic disruptions, and general instability.

The Truth Behind the “Illegal Alien”: Debunking Anti-Migrant Talking Points

Image credit: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

In the past few weeks, President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, attempted to end birthright citizenship, suspended US refugee admissions, shut down the Biden administration’s immigration programs, and ordered for Guantanamo Bay to be prepared to house up to 30,000 migrants. Amongst this barrage of activity undertaken by President Trump, nothing exemplifies the US shift to reject its “melting pot” roots more than the intense influx of raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), paired with his consistent anti-immigrant rhetoric. The recent ICE raids have evidenced racial profiling, with American citizens being detained on the basis of their race or skin color, including indigenous American citizens of tribal nations. ICE has also been granted the authority by President Trump to apprehend migrants in or near schools, churches, and hospitals, prompting pushback from public schools. Sowed by claims of high crime rates from undocumented immigrants and stolen American jobs, the seeds of xenophobia have been planted quite deeply. But is there any factual basis to these anti-immigrant arguments? 

The extreme rise in anti-immigrant hate, discrimination, and administrative action necessitates an examination of the truth and facts on the topic. In an assessment of the common arguments against migrants in the US, there is little to no evidence supporting the claims of high crime rates, violence, and job-stealing. 

CLAIM: Migrants are criminals, murderers, terrorists, violent, etc. 

“Not only is Comrade Kamala allowing illegal aliens to stampede across our border, but then it was announced about a year ago that they’re actually flying them in. Nobody knew that they were secretly flying in hundreds of thousands of people, some of the worst murderers and terrorists you’ve ever seen,” said Trump at a news conference in Los Angeles, California on September 13, 2024.

FACT: Data indicates that immigration, including undocumented populations, is not linked to higher crime rates; in reality, the inverse is true. 

Studies have shown that immigration is not linked to higher crime rates. In fact, communities with greater immigrant population concentrations have been observed to have lower crime rates and increased levels of social connection and economic opportunity, which are factors indicative of neighborhood safety. 

Additionally, when it comes to claims of terrorism, a 2019 CATO Institute study examined terrorist attacks from 1975 to 2017 and found no association between immigration and terrorism. The study assessed terrorism’s relationship to immigration status, comparing native-born terrorism to foreign-born and undocumented migrants, and found that, in the 43-year period analyzed, there were 192 foreign‐​born terrorists and 788 native-born terrorists who planned, attempted, or carried out attacks on U.S. soil. The vast majority of attacks that were planned, attempted or carried out were made by native-born terrorists. Additionally, the chance of a citizen being killed in a terrorist attack by a refugee on U.S. soil is about 1 in 3.86 billion per year, and the chance of being murdered by an attack committed by an undocumented immigrant was found to be zero. 

Cases such as the tragic murder of Laken Riley have been wielded as examples and proof of this migrant-criminal generalization, despite their statistically unlikely nature. Native-born US citizens have been found to have significantly and consistently higher rates of violent crime in comparison to undocumented migrants, although these instances receive far less media attention. The case of Laken Riley in particular became a major campaign talking point for President Trump, who signed into law the Laken Riley Act in her honor. Ultimately leading many to overestimate the crime risks of migrants, specific cases like this have been utilized to continue the dissemination of the dangerous migrant narrative.  

CLAIM: Migrants steal American jobs and hurt the US economy.

“Virtually 100% of the net job creation in the last year has gone to migrants. You know that? Most of the job creation has gone to migrants. In fact, I’ve heard that substantially more than — beyond, actually beyond that number 100%. It’s a much higher number than that, but the government has not caught up with that yet,” said Trump in August of 2024.

FACT: Immigration helps boost the economy, and is not linked to higher American unemployment. 

The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2024 that immigration contributes significantly to economic growth, rather than stunting it. Economists believe that post-pandemic, the surge in immigration led to growth in the economy without contributing to price inflation. 

Furthermore, concerns about migrants stealing jobs from Americans have also been debunked. The rate of unemployment for US-born workers averaged around 3.6% in 2023: the lowest rate on record. The claim that more immigrants displace US-born workers is simply not factual, otherwise the unemployment rate would be significantly higher. The truth is that US-born workers have very low interest in labor-intensive and commonly agricultural jobs, which are then filled by migrants.

 Government data indicates that immigrant labor actually provides promotional opportunities for US-born workers, and that a mass-deportation event would cause costs of living to skyrocket. This is because immigrants tend to take jobs that are complementary to native-born workers, not acting as substitutes to them, but as supplements. Additionally, immigrants contribute not only to the labor supply, but to labor demand as well due to their consumption of goods and services. This is furthered by the entrepreneurial tendencies of many high-skilled immigrants; immigrants have been found to start businesses at higher rates than native-born workers, generating jobs and long-term economic growth. 

CLAIM: Migrants should just go back to their own country.

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came,” tweeted Trump in 2019, targeting progressive Democrat congresswomen who had been outspoken against his immigration stance. 

FACT: According to a study on those migrating to the US from Latin America and the Caribbean, nearly 73% have been victimized by violent crime in their home countries, many of which have been destabilized throughout history by US interventions. 

The largest population of migrants in the US is from Mexico, making up around 23% of the country’s total immigrant population. In 2022, a UN International Organization for Migration survey found that 90% of Mexican migrants fled due to violence, extortion, or organized crime. 

Similarly, undocumented immigration from the Northern Triangle (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) has been increasing steadily over the past 30 years. Looking at the US involvement in these countries, all three have been destabilized by past US intervention. 

During El Salvador’s 12 year long civil war from 1979 to 1992, the US government backed the repressive regime that dispatched paramilitary death squads against civilians. Post-war, El Salvador saw an explosion of gang violence across the country. Guatemala has been plagued by national instability for decades, which was largely exacerbated by a 1954 CIA-backed coup that triggered an armed insurgency. Guatemala has since faced decades of human rights abuses committed by its leaders. The 2009 Honduras coup was supported by US DoD officials, and led to an age of violence and instability in the country that's effects are still felt today. Post-coup, Honduras has faced extreme poverty, economic inequality, and gang violence. 

Additionally, studies have examined the distinct correlation between US firearm manufacturing and the rates of gun violence in Latin America and the Caribbean. The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives indicates that a large sum of guns recovered from crimes in El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico were manufactured in the US. The US remains one of the main legal firearm exporters to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and the US Government Accountability Office reported that these legal exports are often diverted to criminal networks.

Global migration has increased overall over the past few decades, hitting a record high in 2023. As of May 2024, over  120 million people have been forcibly displaced due to human rights violations, persecution, conflict and violence around the world, including 6.4 million asylum seekers.

CLAIM: They should just come into the country legally. 

“The current administration terminated every single one of those great Trump policies that I put in place to seal the border. I wanted a sealed border. Again, come in but come in legally,” said Trump in his speech at the Republican National Convention in July of 2024.

FACT: It’s not that migrants do not want to enter legally, but rather structural, institutional, and financial obstacles impede them from doing so.

Many migrants do want to come into the US legally. The process however, is extremely time-consuming and difficult to navigate. In the years following the outbreak of COVID-19 there has been a massive backlog in cases, amounting to 2 million pending cases in 2023— more than triple the amount from 2017. Partly due to understaffed immigration courts, the backlog means years of waiting for a case to be heard. Beyond shortages in immigration judges and staff, the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review has been found to have “longstanding workforce management challenges,” and “did not have a strategic workforce plan to address them,” according to the US Government Accountability Office. 

Additionally, immigrants and asylum seekers are five times more likely to win their case if they have a lawyer. Unfortunately, publicly-funded lawyers are not a right for migrants, and even if they were , there is a massive shortage in immigration lawyers to begin with, and they are often far too costly to obtain. To make matters worse, many migrants don’t speak English, and ICE provides little guidance on how to go about legal processes, and certainly not any translated versions of instructions or resources. 

THE BOTTOM LINE:

As Trump continues his flurry of anti-immigrant actions, it’s essential to remain vigilant to the facts and truth. We must work to see these baseless claims as what they truly are: hateful rhetoric, not factual arguments. Diversity in the US should be celebrated, not abhorred. Dehumanizing language should have no place in the US government, especially not in our highest office. Maintaining a high integrity of indiscrimination and empathy for one another is more necessary now than ever, especially in wake of Trump’s anti-DEI initiatives.

All of these actions are justified by Trump with claims of high levels of violence and crime committed by undocumented immigrants, often paired with extremely degrading language of animalistic and impure nature. The claims by Trump of migrants being “animals”, “not people”, and “poisoning the blood of our country” strikingly resemble the verbal dehumanization that precedes massive cultural violence and genocide. In his book Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler used the phrase “blood poisoning” as a way to criticize the mixing of races, and during the Rwandan Genocide Tutsis were commonly referred to as “cockroaches”. This sort of dehumanization is designated as the fourth of the ten stages of genocide. 

With the first flights full of deported migrants landing in Guantanamo Bay this past Tuesday, our full attention must be on the treatment of migrants, legality, and ethics of this detainment. Guantanamo Bay has repeatedly been subject to strong criticism by human rights groups for violating basic human rights, holding detainees without charges or trials, and violating the US Constitution; the implications of holding deported migrants at the facility are quite alarming, with high potential for human rights abuses obscured from the public eye.

The Trump Administration’s Oncoming Attack on Birthright Citizenship: What Does It Mean to Be an American?

Via Flickr

American birthright citizenship, and the associated rights and liberties, is core to the American experiment. The idea that someone born in the fifty states, regardless of their race, gender, status, or parents’ country of origin, is entitled to all of the freedoms, protections, and civic responsibilities that the United States has to offer, is an incredibly compelling one. American citizenship is intrinsic and inalienable. It has given us some of the nation’s best and brightest and created a distinct national identity; we can recognize our distinct ethnic, religious, or regional differences while living in the same communities, voting together, catching a football game, and so on. It unifies us – we are all “one America.”  It is what allows American communities to become cohesive and truly great; removal and separation breaks down the communities that make up our nation. It is this integral, compelling core value that is being challenged by recent executive orders by the Trump administration. 

Mere hours after being inaugurated again, President Donald Trump signed an executive order “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” In doing so, the Trump administration seeks to “protect” American citizenship by redefining birthright citizenship to require both parents of a child to, at minimum, be legal residents of the US (green card holders) or full citizens. Prior to this, any child born on US soil was granted birthright citizenship, regardless of their parents’ legal status or nationality. This principle was codified in the 14th Amendment, which was designed to overturn the court precedent established in Dred Scott v Sanford, the landmark 1856 Supreme Court case that denied African-American slaves American citizenship despite being born on American soil. It was further solidified in another SCOTUS case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, in which a Chinese-American born in San Francisco had been denied citizenship on the basis that his parents were Chinese nationals during the time of the Chinese Exclusion Act, even though his parents were considered permanent residents of the United States. Ultimately, in the case Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen, therefore establishing the precedent that the parents’ origin is irrelevant to the citizenship status of their child. Birthright citizenship applies in almost all cases, with children of foreign diplomats being the only exception, as they’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The question is, how does this executive order overturn years of legal convention?

It is that exact phrasing in the 14th Amendment, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (meaning the jurisdiction of the United States) that the Trump administration has used to justify the executive order. In essence, the executive order asserts that a child born to parents that are not in the United States legally or are in the United States temporarily (on a visiting or student visa) is therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but rather the parent’s country of origin. In other words, the administration has exploited the vagueness of the terminology to say that the US has no legal responsibility to someone whose parents do not hold permanent residence in the US. Executive orders, from a legal standpoint, are used to direct how the executive branch should enforce legal policy; often, they are used to enact policy that would otherwise be legislatively difficult, but it is still possible to legally challenge or prevent an executive order through the legislative and judicial branches. For the time being, a federal district court judge has blocked the order temporarily on the grounds that it is built off a bad-faith constitutional interpretation, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” But, the directive still holds political weight; it makes good on Trump’s political promises, yes, but it also establishes a more essentialist view on what it takes to be an American, especially in the context of the country’s changing demographics and rising rates of global migration. Moreover, it is an order that, while likely to be overturned, still inflicts fear in both his political opponents and any prospective migrants. 

Where do we go from here? Should the case go to the Supreme Court, there is a good chance that even the Trump-appointed justices break from the administration. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been shown to break rank in favor of logical and clear constitutional rulings, highly valuing her own conservative principles and not wanting to serve as a mere pawn to the Republican agenda. Chief Justice John Roberts places high value on judicial precedent; this is evident in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, in which he emphasizes judicial restraint and stare decisis. Justice Neil Gorsuch has also occasionally taken more diverse ideological stances, authoring the majority opinions in Bostock v Clayton County and McGirt v Oklahoma, opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and in support of the sovereignty of Native American lands. Something with this clear of a judicial precedent is unlikely to be overturned easily, but it is still a possibility; in recent years, the court has shown a willingness to overturn long-held precedent, especially given the recent decisions overturning Roe v Wade and Chevron v NRDC. More than that, however, this executive order has opened the political and ideological floodgates. The country is facing an intense, vehement reckoning over immigration, from the looming crackdown on irregular migration to the political battles over H-1B (work visa) recipients. Amid these political battles, we again ask, what is the meaning and value of American citizenship? Who deserves to be a citizen? This executive order may well be a step toward a narrower, more exclusive definition of what an American citizen is.

A Double-Edged Sword: AI, Journalism, and the Era of Trump

Moor Studio/Getty Images Plus

Artificial intelligence’s (AI) explosion in popularity has spanned nearly every industry, acting as a catalyst for rapid transformation across the makeup of many sectors. The media and journalism world is no different, adopting AI to increase efficiency and convert large sums of information into digestible outputs for the general public. Utilized to expedite transcriptions, facilitate content production and drafting, and assess audience analytics, AI has become a powerful tool for many journalists. However, the negative implications of AI implementation into journalism are twofold: replacing human journalists with machines, and compromising the integrity of journalism as a whole. Absent oversight or guiding standards, these developments could undermine the five values of ethical journalism—accuracy, independence, impartiality, humanity, and accountability—destabilizing the foundation of free and open media.

In terms of replacement, the field of journalism is experiencing a period of mass layoffs. Whether these layoffs are a result of AI’s growing popularity in the industry, or conversely, AI is being utilized as a means to lessen the load on short-staffed outlets, there is an undeniable relationship between the two. While some argue that AI is simply a supplemental tool in journalism, not a replacement mechanism, the phenomenon of automation bias across many various manifestations of AI remains problematic. The human tendency to over-rely on automation can completely overtake human decision-making for the sake of expediency and ease. For example, younger generations are losing the ability to read physical maps in favor of putting their full faith in navigation apps. This blind trust can lead to disastrous situations so common that they’ve earned their own moniker: “death by GPS.”  In journalism, automation bias can mean reporters spend less time verifying AI-generated content, inclined to trust it at face value despite generative AI (GenAI) needing significant human oversight due to its experimental nature. 

Additionally, layoffs in journalism disproportionately impact marginalized groups, specifically people of color and women. This issue of declining diversity in journalism mirrors the recent pushback against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives spearheaded by the Oval Office. The devaluation of marginalized voices is problematic in any context, but in the media field particularly, a reduction in perspectives can create an environment conducive for harmful misinformation and inaccurate representations. Replacing journalists with AI exacerbates the potential for extremely biased reporting, due to the fact that GenAI models are commonly known to amplify both racial and gender-based stereotypes. Without someone in the room to add their lived experience and nuance to the conversation, journalists may unknowingly perpetuate negative stereotypes or greenlight AI-generated content that does. 

Journalists are already fighting an uphill battle against AI-generated misinformation. Falsely generated AI news and deepfakes have made it increasingly difficult for journalists to verify facts in their reporting. These technologies have the power to sway public opinion and quickly spread false information during crucial times, such as crises and elections. AI’s use on both ends, for content creation and content verification, manufactures a cyclical media landscape dependent on AI. This becomes an epidemic of “platformization” of newsrooms, due to tech giants like Google and Microsoft selling newsroom AI products that can render publications completely dependent on Big Tech for their journalistic processes. Preserving the integrity of unbiased and truth-based reporting is becoming more and more crucial as social media platforms are overrun with unregulated misinformation. 

As previously mentioned, AI-produced outputs necessitate human oversight to catch any errors born from the nature of models trained on the Internet; troves of both factual and fake information live on the Internet, which ChatGPT and other GenAI models indiscriminately draw upon to craft their responses. With this comes an increased risk for AI to plagiarize sources without accreditation, unbeknownst to the journalist using the output for their own publications. GenAI is also known to “hallucinate” by creating and dispensing baseless information as fact; ChatGPT has even fabricated entire articles, and then tacked on the names of real reporters as the authors. When adopted into media environments, GenAI’s implementation muddies the world of credit attribution and factual integrity, while simultaneously pressuring journalists to prioritize speed over accuracy. Accelerating the processes of journalism with AI leads to higher competition to break stories first, which can reduce time spent on necessary fact-checking and verification.

The most recent developments regarding AI and journalism come from OpenAI; while already enmeshed with 19 popular news publishers, OpenAI is now moving to directly fund local Axios newsrooms enabled by OpenAI products. The partnership’s ultimate vision is an AI “super-system” that ascends beyond the one company, and would quality-control editing, create visuals for articles, and control distribution of articles. 

It seems this super-system is already materializing in some respect, with President Trump’s endorsement and partnership in the $500 billion AI infrastructure venture with a company called the Stargate Project. The partnership extends across borders, consisting of OpenAI, Oracle, Japan's Softbank, and the United Arab Emirate’s (UAE) MGX. This would fund massive AI data centers in the US, and supposedly generate hundreds of thousands of American jobs. However, the origin of the $500 billion is up for debate, with Elon Musk commenting that “they don’t actually have the money.” Alternatively, one source claims that the bulk of funding is coming from the technology arm of the UAE’s sovereign wealth fund. Such significant foreign funding in our media and content-producing sphere is cause for concern, especially when considering multiple countries’ attempts to meddle in US affairs in the past. 

President Donald Trump’s policy stance on AI remains consistent with his enthusiasm towards the Stargate Project, seeing as he just signed an executive order rescinding former President Joe Biden’s 2023 executive order that sought to establish guardrails and standards for AI usage and development. Biden’s extensive executive order touched on many aspects impacted by AI, requiring transparency from prominent AI developers, standards of safety and security created by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as well as stipulations pertaining to privacy, consumer protections, and civil rights. Trump’s executive order “calls for departments and agencies to revise or rescind all policies, directives, regulations, orders, and other actions taken under the Biden AI order that are inconsistent with enhancing America’s leadership in AI.” In other words, anything inhibiting or hindering the profit and expansion of the AI industry in the US is to be effectively eliminated. 

President Trump’s coziness with Big Tech presents another alarming layer to this issue. Trump is already in cahoots with Meta, Tiktok, and X, so the link between Trump, OpenAI, and newsrooms like Axios becomes particularly troubling. With the end of fact-checking across Meta platforms, and the rapid dissemination of misinformation on social media in general, the importance of reputable journalistic reporting is more essential now than ever. 

The implementation of AI into journalism must be done with intentional and careful considerations of the advantages and disadvantages of the tool, as well as clear guidelines for use and credit attribution. Transparency in how, when, and why AI is utilized must become the standard. Otherwise, we risk devolving into a period where reputable reporting is nonexistent or highly inaccessible. At a time of such heightened political tensions and ever-evolving current events, protecting the integrity of journalism must be a priority.

Ya es Tiempo de Aprender Otro Idioma: Expanding Access to Internationalized K-12 Education in the U.S.

“Why have we normalized that we are primarily a monolingual country – even though our nation has only become more multicultural, more interdependent with the rest of the world? Why is it that in 2023, in many school systems in our country, we treat our English learners as students with deficits – rather than assets in a globally competitive world?” These were the questions U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona asked at the National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) 52nd Annual International Bilingual and Bicultural Education Conference. While it is impossible to formulate a simple answer to these questions, it is clearer now in 2023 than any other time in the twenty-first century that school reform has become an overwhelmingly polarizing issue with little bipartisan agreement over policies, resource allocation, or school reform. In an increasingly competitive marketplace of education reform ideas, internationalized K-12 education finds itself moderately supported but ultimately neglected due to “more pressing” issues within the education landscape, such as COVID-related learning loss and addressing political polarization. One could argue that doubling down on Mandarin classes for middle schoolers who are grade levels below their expected math proficiency should be somewhere at the bottom of our most vital education reform ideas, but this could not be further from the truth. As demand for school reform grows and new education policies are rapidly proposed and implemented, expanding access to internationalized K-12 education must be prioritized by the federal government, state governments, and schools.
From learning loss recovery policies to school voucher programs, recent U.S. education policies aimed at fixing what has been broken have been prioritized over revitalization efforts. Policymakers look at “failing” inner-city schools and see an emergency that must be fixed rather than a hub of resilience, innovation, and multicultural expertise waiting to be plugged into our globalized society. Within a damage-centered framework, U.S. K-12 students have lost too much learning from COVID-19 to be focusing on much else beyond meeting basic grade-level requirements, and the best path forward is ensuring students “catch up” by focusing solely on literacy and math proficiency. This damage-centered framework would also lead us to believe increased family-school tension and polarization are irreparable, and the best path forward is a school voucher system that allows families and educators to self-sort into private schools most aligned with their views. As any educator will understand, however, there is rarely ever one right way to solve a problem, and the current zeitgeist of the 2020s calls for the prioritization of internationalized K-12 education policies that work to creatively and equitably address a myriad of issues including but not limited to COVID-related learning loss and polarization. To America, Dr. Cardona passionately called for the bringing in of a “new era of multilingualism,” and to students? “¡Ya es tiempo de aprender otro idioma!”

Conceptualizing Internationalized Education

Internationalized education can be described as “a process of incorporating international, intercultural, and global perspectives into different education contexts.” Framed as a necessary tool to sculpt young Americans into globally competitive citizens, internationalized education remains very popular in higher education institutions. Internationalized education materialized in the K-12 sector through the creation of private, internationally-minded schools. With the purpose of internationalized education being framed as primarily economic, policymakers and school leaders seemingly had little reason to support expanding access to internationalized education for poor students. International schools first came into existence with the goal of engaging in missionary activities and colonization, and while the restricted access of Black and Brown students to language classes and K-12 study abroad problematizes the claim that international schools have changed drastically from their exclusionary roots, internationalized curricula and programs can be seen in both private and public schools today. It is precisely this - the internationalized public school - that has the power to redirect the path that U.S. education reform is heading from deepening polarization and further inequities to a generation of multilingual, globally competent Americans. 

Access to dual-language immersion programs, K-12 study abroad opportunities, and instruction from educators with a global perspective not only increase economic outcomes and career opportunities for students but also help develop students’ social and emotional development in cross-cultural settings, reduce polarization, and increase a sense of belonging and excitement within school communities. Amid the growing implementation of school voucher programs and pressure on “failing schools” to increase test scores, refraining from incorporating internationalized education into public K-12 schools across the U.S. will only make our next generation of global ambassadors more homogenous. If the federal government, state governments, and schools work together to rapidly implement education policies that prioritize expanding access to internationalized education for all students, it is very likely that the most pressing educational issues of our time will be thoroughly addressed in the process.

Federal Policy Recommendations for Expanding Access to Internationalized Education

As the federal government navigates internationalized education reform, the priority must be well-informed but hands-off investments in public K-12 schools and making international partnerships. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how innovative and effective schools can be even in dismal circumstances. From Kansas’s use of COVID-19 relief funds to offset the cost of field trips to museums and historical sites to South Carolina using the funds to make school bus Wi-Fi a reality, it is evident that states have different needs and are most innovative when policies are imagined using a bottom-up approach as opposed to top-down. To expand access to internationalized education in public K-12 schools, the federal government should invest in well-informed but hands-off grant programs for state education departments to use within their public school systems. A competitive global education grant program, accompanied with comprehensive monitoring and evaluating practices, will give states the capital they need to ensure stronger multilingualism and global educational opportunities in public schools while still having the freedom to address their own state-wide or community-wide needs. Additionally, the federal government should prioritize working with other countries’ education ministries as well as international education organizations from other regions to connect states’ education department leaders with international perspectives and policy suggestions. These ideas can then be used to inform and inspire leaders at the community or city level to use grant funds for expanding globalized education access in ways previously not considered. Global cooperation between the U.S. Department of Education with other countries’ education ministries will set the foundation for comprehensive, globally-minded R&D on K-12 internationalized education initiatives in the U.S.

State Policy Recommendations for Expanding Access to Internationalized Education

State governments play an essential role in expanding student access to quality internationalized education in a public school setting. Moving forward, it is vital for states to not only implement education policies that address COVID-related learning loss but also policies that increase students’ global competency and language skills. While some may argue falling literacy and math proficiency scores are proof that language skills need to be put on the back burner for now, there is data that dual language immersion boosts proficiency in other subjects for both English-speaking and ESL students. Not only are other academic subjects bolstered but dual language programs increase friendship and cultural competency between students of different racial or cultural backgrounds and increase overall confidence. When states neglect language immersion for “failing” schools, they often end up barring predominantly lower-income Black and Brown students from the internationalized education that sets so many upper-income white students up for success at the collegiate and vocational level. State governments must prioritize education policies that incentivize private-public school collaboration to put public schools in conversation with international schools within their state. This can also look like incentivizing state colleges to work with local K-12 public schools to grow language immersion programs or allow for high school students to audit college courses on intercultural communication and global politics. Additionally, states should center internationalized education at the core of their teacher shortage efforts. This could look like teacher pipeline programs that incentivize bilingual adults or immigrants within the state to pursue a teaching role through lowered teaching requirements at public schools and a pipeline that leads to these teachers earning a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in education.

School Policy Recommendations for Expanding Access to Internationalized Education

At the school level, low-cost policies can still lead to high-impact results when it comes to making internationalized education a reality for all students. Dual-language programs have been extremely successful in providing English-speaking and ESL students the opportunity to hone their language skills, build cross-cultural friendships, and gain tutoring experience. School districts can also reward student engagement in cross-cultural contexts or with language programs through biliteracy or bicultural certificates. A certificate program could function in a cohort-based model with a lead teacher mentoring students seeking biliteracy in or outside the classroom. Other school policies could include investing in a more internationalized library, organizing dual language exchange programs for parents and teachers, supporting student efforts to obtain passports for study abroad, prioritizing the hiring of bilingual community members and family members when filling part-time school positions, emphasizing teacher professional development on bilingual students as assets not deficits or tools, and ensuring students on vocational or technical tracks can still engage in internationalized education through work with immigrant-owned businesses and professionals in the community.

Conclusion

From polarizing international events being broadcast everyday on the news to deepening disparities in graduation and attendance among students across the country, the current zeitgeist of 2023 can be used to implement successful and equitable expansion of internationalized K-12 education that has the potential to address COVID-related learning loss, fill teacher shortages, increase global cooperation, and reduce polarization. With school voucher systems becoming more commonplace across states and family dissatisfaction with public schools on the rise, it is vital that public school innovation and autonomy in addition to family-school engagement is incentivized and encouraged at the federal and state education policy level. Internationalized public education proves to be an overlooked but much-needed reform strategy that may look different in each school or state but could ultimately unify America’s students as they grow up in a world more globalized and interconnected than ever before. Upper-income private school students can no longer be the only young Americans engaging in internationalized education in 2023. A global education must be accessible to all students. With the right policies from the federal and state government in accompaniment with innovative school policies, teachers can confidently tell their students: “¡Ya es tiempo de aprender otro idioma!”

Life? Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Introduction

“Land of the free and home of the brave.” That’s how the United States describes itself. It prides itself on being a paradigm of human rights and individual freedom, founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It’s surprising how a country like this can become associated with authoritarian regimes with horrible human rights records such as China or Iran, yet its continued use of the death penalty demonstrates how its so-called commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness might not even include the right to life after all. 

International non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like the United Nations have called upon their member States to abolish the use of the death penalty, stating it violates the “right to life, liberty, and security of person” guaranteed by Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Despite the constant backlash throughout recent history, the United States continually uses the death penalty and defends it on the international stage. It is one of the only nations to still do so. Nations that have abolished the death penalty see this as a sign of ignoring basic human rights and group the United States’ human rights index with that of nations like Sudan and Iraq. To put it simply, the United States’ use of the death penalty hurts its diplomatic relations and reflects poorly on the nation’s values. 

Capital punishment’s role in United States foreign affairs is severely affecting its image on the world stage, given that much of the world is opposed to the death penalty. Gaining a fuller understanding of why many nations have abolished the death penalty, makes it easier to understand how the United States’ commitment to the death penalty has such strong implications on the international stage.

Historical Context

In “Death, Dissent, and Diplomacy: The U.S. Death Penalty as an Obstacle to Foreign Relations,” Mark Warren details foreign perceptions of the United States concerning its continued use of the death penalty. In 1971, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly reached the opinion that capital punishment no longer served as an acceptable exception to the right to life guaranteed in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many of the UN member states began adapting their legislature to reflect this new opinion. By the mid-90s, for example, a “commitment to abolition” of the death penalty became a requirement for membership in the Council of Europe and in the European Union. Meanwhile, the United States was making no such changes, and consequently starting some very rocky diplomatic relationships.  In 2001, the UN had taken notice of the United States’ static position on capital punishment and temporarily removed the United States from the UN Human Rights Council as a result. Later, in October of 2003, the forty-five nation Council of Europe, which contains many of the United States’ allies, stated that the United States’ “intractable position” towards the death penalty was “intolerable.”

The United States gained even more negative attention in 2004 when the International Court of Justice’s Avena decision declared the United States had, according to the 27th session of the UN Human Rights Council “failed to provide consular notification and access” to 51 Mexican nationals awaiting execution. Within the 27th session, the UN publicly rebuked the United States for this in 2014, stating that “the denial of the right to consular notification leads to the violation of due process and the execution of a foreign national deprived of his or her right to consular services constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life.” Later that same year, the UN Human Rights Council took a firm stance on the use of capital punishment in their annual report to the Secretary General, stating that they still have numerous concerns regarding the “lack of respect for relevant international human rights norms and standards in States where the death penalty is still imposed.” Despite the continual concerns expressed by the international community throughout recent history, the United States continues to use the death penalty as a form of punishment within its criminal justice system.

The Human Rights Perspective

A vast number of international organizations have repeatedly expressed negative opinions about the death penalty. Most people reference the human rights perspective, claiming the death penalty is a violation of human rights. However, abolitionist views towards capital punishment are just as easily justifiable for other reasons. Many anti-death penalty advocates use the often-discriminatory implementation as a key argument. Other proponents, especially the UN, use its implications on juvenile offenders as a reason for its abolition.

The human rights perspective is arguably the most common criticism of capital punishment. Dongwook Kim addresses this in her article “International Non-Governmental Organizations and the Abolition of the Death Penalty,” where she cites then Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki-moon’s 2012 statement that “The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights.” Aside from the views of the UN expressed by Kim, human rights NGOs use this perspective to promote the abolition of capital punishment. Amnesty International, one of the largest human rights NGOs in the world, calls the death penalty the “ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.” Amnesty International also claims that the death penalty impedes on “the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” which are both protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders, which is a direct violation of international law, is also a key argument against capital punishment. According to Amnesty, the United States is the only Western nation to report having used capital punishment on juvenile offenders since 1990, the other 9 countries being: China, Iran, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. Organizations like Amnesty, Kim argues are “key to the worldwide abolition of the death penalty for all crimes.”

Unfair or discriminatory implication of the death penalty is a well-known, although less common, argument against the use of capital punishment. Within the UN, human rights groups have expressed continued concern over the “lack of fair trial in death penalty cases in a number of States,” as stated in the 27th session of the Human Rights Council. Human rights NGOs, according to Kim, insist that capital punishment is used as a “social control tool” against the poor and minority groups. In the United States, for example, one is “22 times more likely to get [sentenced to death] if the defendant is Black and the victim is white.” The previously aforementioned Avena decision of 2004 also serves as an example of this. Amnesty International further elaborates on this topic, stating how capital punishment is often disproportionately used on those with limited access to legal representation. Additionally, social activist and New York University professor of law Bryan Stevenson argues that American use of capital punishment is “defined by error.” He states that one out of every nine people executed was later found to be innocent. Human rights activists often use the consistent errors found within American death row to further their point.

Role in US Diplomatic Relations

The United States’ continued use of the death penalty isolates it from the rest of the world. According to Daniel Baer, former United States Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, there are many different examples of the United States demonstrating a different viewpoint than the rest of the world. Out of the 30 member countries in NATO, the United States is the only one still using the death penalty. On top of that, more than 70% of the world’s nations have abolished or imposed a moratorium on capital punishment. The European Union, one of the closest and most important diplomatic relationships for the United States, has even banned the use of the death penalty in all member states. The United States is the only Western country to have carried out executions from 2013-2019. The United States, however, also emphasizes the importance of following global norms, with diplomat Stefanie Amadeo stating in an article from the New Yorker that “the United States is committed to complying with its international obligations” during her time as deputy representative to the UN Economic and Social Council. Despite assuring their aforementioned commitment to following along with the rest of the world’s views, the United States continues to demonstrate their inability to let go of the death penalty. 

The United States’ continued defense of the death penalty has led to some problems within the international community. In 1999, five years before the abolition of the death penalty in Turkey and fifteen years since their last execution, the Turkish government sentenced Abdullah Öcalan, a guerilla leader for the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, to death. Many, including the United States, saw this as a grossly unfair trial, and encouraged the Turkish government to undo Öcalan’s sentence. However, according to Warren, when the United States got involved, the Turkish government questioned the “authority of the United States to ask another country to forego the death penalty,” referencing its frequent use of capital punishment. While some countries (in this case, Turkey) have questioned the United States’ authority to criticize their implementation of the death penalty, some countries go a step further. According to international death penalty expert Mark Warren, some countries use the United States’ continual use and support of the death penalty to “legitimize their own appalling domestic practices.” Warren references Nigeria, who used this United States’ actions concerning capital punishment to support their 2002 ruling that adulterers will be sentenced to death by stoning.

Modern Values

When looking at it from this perspective, it is obvious that the United States’ continual usage of capital punishment makes it look out of touch and, as some would argue, barbaric. Using the death penalty isolates the country from modern views towards human rights. It puts the United States on the wrong side of a modern fundamental human rights issue.

The United States was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Using the death penalty blocks the right to life, and therefore that principle as a whole. If the United States cannot stay true to the very principle it was founded upon, how are other nations supposed to respect them? 

Moreover, by capital punishment, the US not only looks bad in comparison to other developed nations, but also reflects poorly on itself and its own values. Its history of defending the death penalty time and time again groups the United States with countries with atrocious human rights track records like Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran. As the New Yorker’s Lincoln Caplan puts it, the United States ranks with other nations “not in full compliance with their international obligations.”

Careful consideration of international law, modern human rights views, and the country’s founding principles makes it painfully obvious that the death penalty has no place in the United States. Historical evidence shows how the United States has continually used capital punishment to violate what many see as a basic human right, and, in the case of the Avena decision, to violate international law. Aside from that, the use of capital punishment groups the US with countries with terrible human rights track records like Iran, Russia, or Belarus. Overall, the usage of capital punishment makes the United States look outdated and barbaric. It does not represent the “modern” nation the founding fathers intended. Interacting with such a “barbaric” country represents other countries poorly, leaving the United States isolated on the diplomatic stage.

The Case for a Third Party

It is time to wake up from the American nightmare. Two corporate parties dominate politics in the United States– inefficient, polarized, and shunned by the masses of America. On one hand, the Democrats pay lip service to identity politics, preaching change for the oppressed while maintaining firm status quo policy positions. On the other, the Republican party continues to spiral into Trumpism, with radical right wing elements encroaching on the electoral territory of traditional conservatives. Meanwhile, issues such as climate change, housing, and healthcare continue to crush regular people, especially marginalized groups. Neither party represents the interests of the majority of society, and it is not possible to “reform” either party, as some progressive Democrats have suggested. The truth is, the two parties are different arms of the capitalist status quo, and to participate in the charade that passes for politics in the US is to give up hope for real change. What is necessary is a clean break from the Democrats and Republicans, the establishment of a new party which the masses of society can have faith in. This party must put forward a socialist program, a radical alternative to the piecemeal politics of the Democrats and the pseudo-fascism of the Republicans. 

To understand the necessity of a new party, one first must fully grasp the problems with the current system. At the core of the ineptitude of the two major American parties is their class makeup. Both parties are funded and controlled by a tiny minority of wealthy donors and politicians; the political elite. In the context of liberal democracy, this is perfectly acceptable because fundamentally, liberalism is capitalist ideology. As David Harvey argues, neoliberalism has become the hegemonic discourse of our time, justifying many of the injustices of capitalism through the logic of free markets and individual liberty. The political elite does the bidding of, and in many cases, overlaps with the economic elite of our society, the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie’s fundamental interests are to extract as much value out of working people as possible, and to keep the masses of people from overthrowing them. Through the lens of class analysis, it is clear that the two ruling parties will not present solutions to the contradictions of capitalism, and they will continue to defend the interests of the ruling class, giving as few concessions to workers as possible and concentrating as much wealth as possible in the hands of the few. The ruling parties are representatives of the interests of the ruling class, and they have been since the foundation of the United States. As Howard Zinn revealed in A People’s History of the United States, the revolution of 1776 was a bourgeois revolution which successfully took political and economic power from the British crown and put it in the hands of the American elite. The appeals to liberty, democracy, and other enlightenment ideals put forward by the so-called “founding fathers” were disingenuous at best, and complete lies at worst. Every major party that has risen and fallen in the period since the revolution has represented the interests of the elite of the time at the expense of the masses of society. In order to escape the downward spiral of capitalism, a new political formation is necessary, an organization through which the masses can exert their will. The two modern American parties are not capable of representing the interests of the masses, but it is necessary to analyze their recent behavior in order to understand the state of the ruling class. 

Donald Trump’s support from rural and white workers smacks of serious discontent with the status quo. This discontent is mirrored in more progressive layers of society by the Bernie Sanders candidacy. These populist candidates harnessed the rage of the masses at the material conditions of capitalism in order to propel themselves to electoral victory. The masses of America have become so rightly dissatisfied with the present state of things that they were willing to vote for candidates who promised radical change, even if the policies pursued by these politicians were ultimately detrimental to the interests of the masses. Both Sanders and Trump were opposed by large segments of their respective party elites, which reveals a divide between the political elite as a whole and the rank and file of their parties. “Anti-system” candidates have not gone away, but under the constraints of the modern party system, they can only serve as dissenters within the existing parties, and weak ones at that. Until there is a new party that can openly confront the capitalist system, politicians will continue to harness the discontent of the workers to increase their own political power, meanwhile, the country will continue to deteriorate as the parties put the interests of the ruling class above the concerns of the masses. For example, the resurgent labor movement proves that workers are looking for higher wages, better conditions, and more benefits, but neither party is aiding them because these goals contradict the interests of the bourgeoisie. This is the basis of the logic that a mass socialist party is viable in the United States. 

The fact that there is no mass party fighting for socialist policies is evidence of the stranglehold the bourgeoisie have over American politics. Critics of American socialism like Madison Gesiotto argue that America is too polarized for a mass party of any sort to emerge, but what is the actual nature of the divisions in our society? The issues that are presented as the most contentious in our society frequently stem from some variant of identity politics. This is true of debates over LGBT and women’s rights, immigration, and “critical race theory”. On the right, Republicans appeal to white voters with barely concealed racism and open xenophobia and other forms of bigotry, while on the so called left, a gentler form of identity politics allows Democrats to pose as the party of justice without actually following through on any progressive policies (Das). What both forms of identity politics conceal is the fundamental class contradiction of our society. Regardless of however one identifies, if a person has to work to live, it can be said with almost complete certainty that there is a set of desires that they share with every other working person. These include but are not limited to, reasonable working hours, wages that will support a comfortable life, stable housing, healthcare that won’t immediately result in bankruptcy, affordable education, and freedom to pursue one’s interests outside of the workplace. How many of these desires are met by the social, economic, and political institutions of the United States? When we look past the noise of the culture war, we realize that we are losing the class war. This is an affirmation of Noam Chomsky’s hypothesis that people can be kept passive and obedient if they are presented with lively debates in a narrowly confined spectrum of what is “acceptable” (Chomsky et al.). This is not to dismiss issues of identity as irrelevant or superficial–it is obvious that race, gender and sexuality, and other forms of identity are extremely prevalent to the experiences of huge layers of the population. But in order to actually address them, it is necessary to create a fighting party of the masses which will rise to meet the needs of the working class as a whole, and then work outwards to solve the systemic injustice which runs rampant in this country. The culture war is perpetuated not by the masses of people, but by the political elites, who understand that it is useful to divide the population to prevent it from uniting under a common banner.  A mass socialist party would directly combat this strategy, and is the first step towards the realization of a truly just and equitable society. 

For those who are serious about constructing a mass socialist party, the program of that party is of the utmost importance. The party should stand for the interests of all working people and oppressed groups to encompass as wide a range of interests as possible. First, come the social benefits that a civilized society should afford its citizens. Healthcare, housing, education, and work should be guaranteed to all people. Secondly, the party should fight hand in hand with the labor unions to raise wages and strengthen labor protections. Third, a socialist party should advocate for the nationalization of the key levers of the economy, including the banks, corporations, and financial sector, in order to distribute economic resources according to human need rather than profit. Finally, the party should advocate for action against systemic injustice and policies that will restore the wellbeing of marginalized groups as well as a strong response to the ecological crisis. The point of this program is not necessarily to achieve every proposed reform, but to illustrate for people the inadequacies of the American political system. The strength of such a radical platform lies in the inability of the ruling parties to accept it. When people realize that the policies they support through the mass party will not be accepted by the American government, they will realize the necessity of  revolutionary changes to our society. The party should not be a goal in and of itself, it should be a means towards the end of advancing the consciousness of the masses. 

Green New Champions

While fossil fuel companies and politicians often blame individuals for their carbon emissions and plastic straws, environmental issues are upheld by the lasting effects of industrialization and colonization and perpetuated by systems of oppression. As fires plague entire countries, global temperatures rise, and communities remain without clean water, government policy is the most efficient mechanism for change.

Countries such as Argentina, Poland, Indonesia, and Tanzania engaged in climate protests throughout the month of January. Coordinated events by Fridays for Future brought out protesters around the globe, and people spoke out with criticisms of various environmental policies. These continued into February, and Sweden, Peru, France, and Serbia were brought into the picture. On March 25th, over 700 youth climate strike protests took place worldwide, and one billion people took part in Earth Day this April. As stated by a supporter of the UK Extinction Rebellion Movement, “This has to be the biggest year yet for climate protest.” 

In 2019, Senator Markey and Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduced H.Res.109/S.Res.59. This resolution acknowledged human activity as “the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century” and climate change as a catalyst for mass migrations, wildfires, and deadly heat stress. It noted that there will be “more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100,” and moreover, BIPOC and low-income communities will be disproportionately affected. People, infrastructure, and industry will take a massive blow without major changes in policy, and with this in mind, 14 Senators and 101 Representatives officially recognized “the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” A new vigor was brought to the movement for environmental justice. 

The Green New Deal calls for supporting community projects, updating infrastructure, upgrading renewable energy sources, building energy-efficient power sources, investing in clean manufacturing, working with farmers and ranchers to decrease pollution by the agricultural sector, restoring biodiversity and natural ecosystems, cleaning up hazardous waste, and promoting international collaboration on climate issues. It includes a lengthy section about how jobs and education intersect with these environmental goals, and it recognizes a variety of equity issues. In the past few years, however, the Green New Deal has been criticized for being “too broad and not specific enough.” To dissolve any blurry areas and rejuvenate the energy behind the 2019 resolution, a new environmental pledge was released in March. 

The Green New Deal Pledge

The general idea of the Green New Deal Pledge is for officeholders to actively push for progressive climate legislation, organize their colleagues to join the fight, and publicly advocate for the Green New Deal. More specifically, there are nine bills beyond the Green New Deal Resolution that pledges must co-sponsor within six months of their swearing-in, and they must abide by a contribution policy.

That contribution policy is for each pledge-taker to “reject contributions of over $200 from oil, gas, and coal industry executives, lobbyists, or PACs,” and the essence of this standard is to ensure that political loyalties lie where they should: with the constituents. When Senators and Representatives are propped up by fossil fuel corporations, entire movements can stall. For example, Joe Manchin, who helped stall the Build Back Better Act, had “between $1.4 million and $5.8 million held in coal companies” in 2020. Taking it back to 2019, the “combined fossil fuel contributions to ‘no’ votes against [the] Green New Deal resolution” was over $55,000,000. As shown in the past few years, big oil, gas, and coal companies are responsible for regulating big oil, gas, and coal companies. In order to hold so-called “climate champions” accountable, the pledge requires officeholders to detach their strings. 

On the topic of fossil fuels, one of the bills that must be co-sponsored is the Keep It in the Ground Act, which “eliminates new fossil fuel production projects on federal public land and waters.” It prohibits the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from renewing or authorizing fossil fuel projects, but there are a couple of exceptions involving national security and specific legal restrictions regarding contracts. While the United States is highly reliant on fossil fuels at this point, policymakers must be conscious of the long-term effects. The use of fossil fuels results in land degradation, water pollution, and ocean acidification, and according to the International Energy Agency, no new fossil fuel projects can be implemented for the world to have even half a chance at reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. However, as Senate sponsor Jeff Merkeley stated, “affordable and reliable technology exists to gradually transition to clean energy and clean transportation.” His proposal would be a major win for progressives, and the planet.

Another bill listed in the pledge is the Environmental Justice for All Act, which would “address the disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of federal laws or programs on communities of color, low-income communities, or tribal and indigenous communities.” Notably, the infrastructure that distributes fossil fuels is often built in areas that impact communities with little socio-political power. For example, in regard to tribal and indigenous lands and resources, the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) near Standing Rock would contaminate the reservation’s sole source of freshwater; the Line 3 Pipeline would harm aquatic ecosystems; the Keystone XL Pipeline would have threatened ancestral homeland with dirty tar. Additionally, BIPOC and impoverished communities are often the ones most affected by chemicals and toxic materials. Flint, a city that had dirty water for years, is 57 percent African-American with 41 percent of the city under the poverty line—but although Flint is well-known, other communities are facing similar struggles. A journal article published by Nature Communications stated that “water hardship is spread unevenly across both space and society, reflecting the spatial patterning of social inequality due to settler colonialism, racism, and economic inequality in the United States.” Furthermore, when these communities are affected, it takes longer for the problem to be solved than wealthy, white ones, as evidenced by the degree of post-wildfire cleanup and rebuilding. Climate inequality is already prevalent in the United States.

The next bill, the Civilian Climate Corps for Jobs and Justice Act, would create a climate service program “to help communities respond to climate change and transition to a clean economy.” This Act would not only assist with the completion of federally-funded projects—reducing carbon emissions, transitioning to renewable energy, responding to climate disasters, and launching conservation projects—but it would promote equity. Over 5 years, 1.5 million Americans would each receive “compensation of at least $15 per hour, full health care coverage, and critical support services such as transportation, housing, and childcare,” and corpsmembers would be eligible for educational funding. Plus, the bill would include tribal sovereignty protections and funds, and career pathways would lead participants towards green sector jobs. As previously explained, addressing climate injustice is a major part of the environmental movement, and this bill would be a step forward on that front.

The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act would also create up to 240,000 union jobs per year while reducing annual carbon emissions to “the equivalent of taking over 1.2 million cars off the road,” and it would alleviate issues like “mold infestations, lead contamination, poor indoor air quality, and unsafe temperatures.” Additionally, the bill would reduce the costs of water and energy for residents while transitioning to energy efficient, zero carbon housing, and it would showcase how the economy and climate action can be positively intertwined. 

Another bill required through the pledge is the Green New Deal for Cities, which would have the Department of Housing and Urban Development fund projects by states, local governments, and Native American nations. To receive funding, the government must have a local Green New Deal program proposal that includes commitments such as working towards zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and the money would be for solutions to issues like climate adaptation, pollution, and conservation on family farms. Especially due to varying levels of familiarity with local issues and resources, it is critical for all levels of government to collaborate on environmental response. The Green New Deal for Cities would allow that to happen, and it would embolden a stronger network of advocates.

Next, the Farm Systems Reform Act would help give family farmers and ranchers a better chance within a system that favors multinational meatpacking companies. One key part of this bill would include strengthening the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 that regulates the meat industry “from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices.” The newer bill would “place a moratorium on large factory farms, sometimes referred to as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements.” To examine the broader picture, large CAFOs create massive amounts of waste—as much as 1.4 billion tons each year—and they are not required to upkeep a treatment facility for that waste. Large CAFOs also cause water pollution that harms not only the environment, but the health of rural communities, and “The overuse of medically important antibiotics by large CAFOs has led to the generation and spread of dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria.” Additionally, research has shown that air pollution stemming from animal agriculture causes 12,720 deaths in the United States per year. The industry has been accused of supporting profit over people, and this bill seeks to address that.

The Green New Deal for Public Schools Act would offer environmental and educational resources to children at public elementary and secondary schools, as well as Bureau of Indian Education schools. The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would provide grants to help convert their facilities into zero-carbon schools, and the Department of Education (ED) would award grants for hiring and retaining teachers and staff in high-need schools. The Climate Change Resiliency Program would be created under ED, helping to “increase the resiliency of public and BIE schools during climate change-related events, natural disasters, and public health crises,” and a similar grant program for state educational agencies would be established. This bill would also create the Office of Sustainable Schools within ED to carry out the administrative process of these tasks.

The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development and Generating Renewable Energy to Electrify the Nation’s Infrastructure and Jobs Act, more succinctly known as the BUILD GREEN Infrastructure and Jobs Act, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a substantial grant program for governments and other entities to invest in “electrified surface transportation infrastructure projects.” The bill outlines specific elements of maximum-sustainability projects, and it instructs the DOT to prioritize vulnerable communities and new outdoor areas. In terms of costs, grants must be at least $2 million, with certain exceptions, and a project “may not exceed 85% for planning, design, and construction purposes and 50% of the operation and maintenance costs of the project for its first 10 years.”

Finally, the End Polluter Welfare for Enhanced Oil Recovery Act is a short one, and the overall purpose is to eliminate “the use of carbon oxide as a tertiary injectant” and repeal the tax credit “for enhanced oil recovery costs.” The bill would decrease federal support for fossil fuel projects and remove a financial burden on American taxpayers. It would update royalty rates for oil and gas production, reoccupy royalties from offshore drilling, and reconstruct bidding and leasing practices for coal development on federal property. It would also help fund medical care for “tens of thousands working-class Americans” by maintaining the Black Lung Disability Fund. Within 10 years, the United States will “account for 60 percent global growth in oil and gas production,” but this legislation would help prevent more damage caused by special interests.

Responding to the Climate Emergency 

In 2022, there is irrefutably a climate emergency. The Green New Deal Pledge would create new leaders, or “champions,” of the environmental movement in the United States, and the bills themselves would affect not only Americans, but the rest of the world. While passing the original Green New Deal would be valuable, the health of our planet is declining exponentially, and we need specific steps to take as a united front. That is what the Green New Pledge is designed to do. 

Some people have said that passing the “Green New [Anything]” is far-fetched. However, almost 5 percent of Americans would “willingly participate in civil disobedience” to demand climate action, Data for Progress found that “More than 65 percent of likely voters support Green New Deal measures for cities, public housing, and school,” and already, 71 candidates and 22 elected officials are listed on the official website as having taken the Pledge with almost 50 groups as partners.As time goes on, an increasing number of people are understanding that their lives are on the line, and building a coalition committed to strong environmental advocacy is critical. Taking this Pledge is an expression of government responsibility and accountability, and ultimately, taking the greatest strides to protect this planet is not a “radical” path forward.

Food Apartheid and Indigenous Peoples

Settler-colonialism had, and continues to have, devastating consequences for Indigenous Peoples in the Americas. Colonization can be broadly defined as a “process by which a territory is settled by a group of people that has emigrated from another country or region and transformed the land” which “includes the displacement of people indigenous to that territory and treating them as second-class citizens ruled by the members of the foreign colonial group” (Sagaskie 102). Sagaskie expands upon this by adding that two significant facets of colonization are that, one, there is a conquered group who has lost their sovereignty to the invaders and that, two, there is an indigenous group that is considered to be inferior (102). However, while this definition includes the historically prevalent practice of colonization in pre-modern times, it does not truly encapsulate the experience of Indigenous populations as Western Europeans instituted a very specific form of colonization known as settler-colonialism. This type of colonization is distinct in that it “...functions through the replacement of indigenous populations with an invasive settler society that, over time, develops a distinctive identity and sovereignty.” Unlike classical colonization, settler-colonialism was unique in that “settlers' ' intended to stay through the elimination of Indigenous Peoples- additionally, this is not considered to be a singular event, but a perpetual process. Furthermore, settler-colonialism differs from other forms of colonization in that it is an inherently white supemacist act- the elimination of Indigenous Peoples is legitimated through racist logics that they are inferior and therefore brutality is not just justified, it is seen as necessary to protect the interests and identities of the settler state.

One feature of settler-colonialism in the Americas is its destruction of Indigenous Peoples’ food sources and traditional relationships to food. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, different nations, that span from what we now call Alaska to South America, had balanced food networks that involved intimate connections to their environment and cultures. It is virtually impossible to generalize the diets of Indigenous Peoples as they were as diverse as the regions they occupied (Sagaskie 103). Furthermore, their diets were dependent on the local resources that were readily available thus food staples were not necessarily fixed- however, there were foundational elements to Indigenous diets that are often referred to as the Three Sisters which consisted of corn, beans, and squash. The cultivation and consumption of these crops were integral to the diets of nations such as the Anishinaabe, Oneida, and Iroquois, though settler-colonialism increasingly made it difficult for Indigenous Peoples to harvest them; the United States actively attempted to undermine these practices through the forced removal of nations from their ancestral lands, destruction of crops, and severely limiting access to arable land (Sagaskie 103). These processes carried out by the settler government undermined the ability of Indigenous groups to access food; it is one such example of the US facilitating Indigenous genocide. The introduction of a new “meat” industry also contributed to the destruction of Indigenous food sources and, subsequently, their populations. The Spaniards, who were anxious to ensure their own survival, appropriated large amounts of land for grazing livestock; the vast numbers of livestock, many of which were new to the Americas, managed to destroy Indigenous croplands. The effects of this were severe: Indigenous Peoples became malnourished and not only starved to death, but also became more susceptible to European diseases as their immune systems were weakened. Ultimately, the settler-state’s ability to limit the food options of Indigenous Peoples, thus forcing them to consume European foods, and forcibly relocate them to remote reservations where they were expected to adapt to sedentary lifestyles, laid the foundation for high levels of food insecurity in the 21st century. Indigenous Peoples throughout North America are specifically subjected to food apartheid, thus affecting their ability to sufficiently access nutritional, quality, and culturally relevant food which further impacts their health and overall quality of life. 

What is food insecurity versus food apartheid?

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food insecurity “as a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life.” In addition to this definition, the Interagency Working Group on Food Security and Food Security Advisory Committee have established that there are two types of food insecurity: Type I includes “individuals or groups of people who do not have enough food to eat,” while Type II includes “individuals or groups who do not have enough nutritional and culturally appropriate food.”  The issue of food insecurity is compounded by various factors, however location is often perceived to be the largest barrier. The term “food desert” are geographical locations that lack affordable food of a good quality. However, the term is arguably inaccurate- it ignores the intentionality behind certain communities not having enough food that can be traced back to settler-colonialism and white supremacy. Many have argued that the term “food apartheid” is more valid as it examines the whole food system and the way it intersects with race, geography, and economic policy. Furthermore, while the term food desert hints at the geographic aspect of food insecurity, which is certainly important, it is not the only factor to consider. Since 2011, the federal government has spent approximately 500 million dollars to produce a higher amount of well-stocked grocery stores in low-income communities- however, food insecurity did not diminish with the presence of grocery stores alone. The USDA even reported that proximity to supermarkets “has limited impact on food choices” and “household and neighborhood resources, education, and taste preferences may be more important determinants of food choices than store proximity.” In other words, though mainstream discourse surrounding food insecurity has focused on the proximity to grocery stores, it  is not the only factor to consider- one must consider the actual income of the neighborhood’s residents, access to cultural food staples, and transportation. For example, the presence of a Whole Foods in a low-income neighborhood does not necessarily matter when the residents cannot afford Whole Foods prices. To further highlight this issue, a 2014 study conducted in two Philadelphia neighborhoods found that while the presence of new grocery stores may have improved the perception of food accessibility, there was not an increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. It is also important to consider whether or not SNAP recipients can even shop at local grocery stores as they are both limited in options and price. While food apartheid is mainly discussed within the context of communities in urban areas, Indigenous nations in the United States, particularly those who live on reservations, are also subject to food apartheid which has not only severely impacted their access to healthy, affordable foods, but it has also affected their abilities to maintain relationships to traditional food systems. 

Indigenous Food Access in the United States 

Native reservations are subject to some of the highest rates of poverty that can be further characterized through a lack of access to food and healthcare. Indigenous Peoples in the US have one of the highest poverty rates of any marginalized group: 35 percent of children live in poverty. In terms of actual food access, 1 in 4 Indigenous Peoples are food insecure, while Indigenous households are 400 percent  more likely than other US households to report not having enough to eat. This is largely due to a significant portion of Indigenous Peoples living in remote areas where supplies are scarce and incomes are inadequate due to a lack of job opportunities. When broadening the scope of the issue from individual households to reservations and/or counties, the uncompromising nature of food apartheid becomes even more apparent. At least 60 reservations experience food insecurity. Additionally, out of the 28 counties that are considered to have a majority Indigenous population, 18 of them have high rates of food insecurity. A-Dae Romeros-Briones, the Director of Programs of the Native Agriculture and Food Systems at the First Nations Development Institute, has argued that: “With the onslaught of settlements and later reservation and federal policies, Tribal Nations were forced into other areas of unfamiliarity through the reservation system. This forced relocation remains an underlying issue as Tribal Nations today are trying to cultivate their lands, learn their environments and adjust to the abrupt transitions. Imagine a thousand-year-old society moving suddenly and now forced to re-build.” The technologies of settler-colonialism have forced Indigenous Peoples to adopt sedentary lifestyles and access food through a system that is actively harming them. This continues to be apparent as the US government’s policies that are presented as “assistance” arguably generate even more harm. SNAP participation among Indigenous households is around 24 percent, which is nearly double that of the general population. The USDA’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations provides food commodities to Indigenous Peoples with low-income though the available foods have virtually no nutritional value and are high in fats and carbohydrates. As a result, Indigenous Peoples face higher rates of health issues alongside minimal accessibility to affordable and quality healthcare. Native communities have higher rates of Type II diabetes, which, due to inaccessible healthcare infrastructure, often leads to a higher rate of fatal cases.  Although the Indian Health Service (IHS) is the main healthcare provider for reservations, it is still not equipped to sufficiently help local communities; the private sector is not an option for most as there is poverty and high uninsured rates. The COVID-19 pandemic has only served to exacerbate these issues as Indigenous populations experienced a higher rate of cases and COVID deaths than any other group. Prior to the pandemic, more than 35 million people, including a high number of children, were living under food apartheid; this data actually reflects the lowest food insecurity rates in more than 20 years, yet the economic impacts of the pandemic have increased vulnerabilities. The disparities that have been produced and exacerbated by the pandemic are further proof of settler-colonialism’s perpetuity: Indigenous Peoples have higher rates of pre-existing conditions such as respiratory diseases, reservations have limited access to water which limits preventative measures, such as hand-washing, and poor health, and social distancing is difficult to maintain due to crowded living situations that are a result of impoverishment. 

The Navajo Nation is an extreme example of food insecurity as a result of food apartheid. Spanning 17 million acres across Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico, the Navajo Nation is the largest reservation in the US- it also only has 13 grocery stores. As a result, the average time for a resident to drive to a grocery store, assuming they have access to a vehicle, is three hours one-way. In a similar vein to other Indigenous nations pre-colonization, the Navajo people, otherwise known as the Dine, maintained an intimate relationship with the land and its various ecosystems as gardeners, hunters, and stewards- when the settler government of the US forcibly appropriated their land, subsequently displacing them, their livestock were killed and their fields were destroyed. Their way of life was permanently altered. Since the mid-1800s when the US forced the Dine on the Long Walk, where they were forced to travel to an internment camp at Fort Sumter, the Dine have had high rates of food insecurity with intentionally inadequate assistance from the federal government. Many Dine receive federal food benefits, such as SNAP, however, as previously mentioned, these are severely limited in their scope as Dine recipients are forced to buy unhealthy foods as they are the cheapest option. Artie Yazzie, a Dine, has said: “We have these big old thirst-busters that cost 60 cents, and three people can share it…So we’re going to go ahead and buy that instead of the $3 water or milk.” Artie has highlighted the crux of the issue: the nature of the food system accessible to Indigenous Peoples deliberately perpetuates insecurity and impoverishment. It exacerbates the conditions many Indigenous persons are subjected to which is having to purchase unhealthy food as it is both the cheapest, thus benefits last longer, and it sustains more family members than just one person. Another trend in the Navajo Nation that can be applied to other Indigenous communities is the disproportionate presence of convenience stores. A study conducted on 22 American Indian reservations in Washington State found 50 stores; when breaking that number down, these stores consisted of 25 convenience stores, 16 grocery stores, and nine supermarkets (O'Connell et al. 1).  O’Connell et al. assert that “nutrition environments on American Indian Reservations are characterized by few supermarkets and many gas-station type stores, moderate availability of fresh produce, and a reliance on off-reservation stores for regular or bulk shopping” (2). This observation is further compounded by the fact that 17 reservations do not have a supermarket on their reservation and the nearest locations are typically 10 miles away from the tribe’s headquarters (O'Connell et al. 1). In terms of the stores’ content, only about 38 percent of items on the checklist were available, with supermarkets having the most, though they are the least accessible, and convenience stores, which are the most prevalent, having the fewest (O'Connell et al. 4). Furthermore, dairy and sugar products are available in abundance, while fresh fruits and vegetables are the most difficult to find (O'Connell et al. 1). More specifically, eggs, white bread, and whole milk were the “most consistently available items” among all visited stores; eggs are the most consistent product in convenience stores which typically dominate reservations (O'Connell et al. 4). Distance also played a significant role in food availability: the average distance from tribal headquarters to the nearest supermarket on reservations, when one was available, was 5.3 miles, while the nearest off-reservation supermarket was typically 11.1 miles (O'Connell et al. 6). Thus it was incredibly important that one have access to a vehicle, though, of course, the difficulties of procuring vehicles in impoverished areas are more pronounced.

Indigenous Food Access in Canada

The US is not the only country in North America where Indigenous People are subjected to food apartheid and have limited access to food. In Canada, Indigenous populations also face higher levels of poverty and food insecurity. The country’s Constitution recognizes three groups: First Nations, which is a collective term for over 600 communities, Inuit, and Métis; approximately 4.9 percent of the population, which is equivalent to 1.67 million people, identify as being Indigenous. Out of three formally recognized groups, the First Nations make up the majority with a population of 900,000 individuals. Prior to settler-colonialism, the First Nations occupied a large territory where they harvested animals and plants for sustenance, as well as social, political, economic, and cultural reasons. However, in 1876, the settler government of Canada passed the Indian Act which established the existence of reserves, otherwise known as the Canadian equivalent of reservations; the purpose was to allocate small parcels of land for use by First Nations people, though they were in remote areas that were selected without consultation. The law’s passage was, simply put, a way to steal more land and protect settler-colonial interests. In present-day, almost half of First Nations people live on reserves that are mainly located in British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba. The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) reported that 28.2 percent of Indigenous Peoples living off of reserves are food insecure, compared to only 11.1 percent of white Canadians facing food insecurity. The First Nations Regional Health Study then reported that of the First Nations households that live on reserves, and in Northern communities especially, approximately half are moderately or severely food insecure; households with children are also disproportionately impacted. In a similar vein to Indigenous Peoples in the US, food insecurity compounds health disparities as well- only 37.8 percent of First Nations adults report that their health is excellent or very good, compared to 59 pecent of Canadians nationally. Furthermore, the disruption of traditional food practices, which historically entails the consumption of foods that prevent diseases, and reliance on unhealthy foods has led to an increase in diabetes. Despite the fact  that healthcare is socialized in Canada, First Nation communities experience lower quality care compared to non-Indigenous populations. 

One example of a First Nation experiencing food apartheid, is the Fort Albany First Nation in Mushkegowuk Territory along the Albany River in northern Ontario- although traditional food were still highly prevalent, the majority of food intake was derived from store-bought food (Skinner et al. 2). Traditional food practices and harvesting activities involve hunting, fishing, and gathering, though these activities are in decline due to an increase in barriers (Skinner et al. 2). The primary limitations for community members were the high cost of hunting and the proliferation of environmental issues thus their ability to hunt in specific areas were limited; the cost of fuel and hunting equipment has impacted the ability to hunt large land-based animals, game birds, and small game. As a result of decreased food access, food sharing amongst family and community members is common (Skinner et al. 7). While the Inuit are considered their own distinct Indigenous group, they experience similar problems, but due to their geographic location food insecurity is even worse. The Inuit occupy the Canadian Arctic and face food insecurity at three times the rate of First Nation and Métis populations. Furthermore, 69.9 percent of  households with at least one preschooler are food insecure. When households have at least one hunter, food insecurity becomes less prevalent though, similar to the Fort Albany First Nation, hunting has become increadingly more difficult due to the cost of gear and gas; as a result, many have to turn to the local markets which have exceptionally high prices for food that is low in nutritional value (Skinner et al. 6). Fruits and vegetables are typically more expensive than highly processed foods in northern markets which partially has to do with transportation costs; additionally, sometimes food is spoiled by the time it reaches several communities. In a survey concerning northern First Nations, 82 percent of people stated their store often or sometimes sold expired food. It is easy to imagine that the Inuit, who are extremely remote, face similar challenges. However, one significant challenge for Indigenous communities in Canada, especially if they still maintain traditional food processes, is climate change. The rise of global temperatures has impacted the migration patterns of animals, such as birds and caribou, on First Nation territories. It is also affecting their ability to successfully harvest food as unpredictable weather patterns and climatic conditions have impacted the growth of certain plants and have made the physical act of harvesting extremely more difficult. Climate change is also increasing the cost of certain store-bought foods as transportation becomes more difficult. While there are many converging forces that contribute to the Indigenous population’s food insecurity, the devaluing of Indigenous life by the settler government has paved the way for food inaccessibility and poor quality to be considered acceptable, despite the harm it causes. 

How can we protect food access for Indigenous Peoples?

Within the context of international law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, North American countries are in violation of a few key articles when considering food insecurity. Article II specifies that: “Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.” The disparities between non-Indigenous and Indigenous populations highlights the unequal treatment when it comes to food access- such disparities are arguably intentional on the part of settler-colonial governments whose entire existence is rooted in the devaluation of Indigenous People. Furthermore, when it comes to exercising their rights, such rights must also include maintaining their traditional and cultural ways of life, which includes sustainable food systems. This is further enshrined in Article 11, which states that: “Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs…” Article 11 should also be applied to food- this means that Indigenous Peoples need access to land, tools, and nutritional food. This also means that not only should there be more well-stocked stores within an accessible distance to Indigenous Peoples, it also means that their low-income status must also be addressed. However, while solutions need to undercut systemic issues that are economic and political in nature, one localized solution is to support food sovereignty. This concept was founded by the organization Via Campesina which is composed of Indigenous Peoples in Central and South America fighting for land ownership. The term encompasses the needs of Indigenous Peoples to eat “healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.” The concept of food sovereignty would allow Indigenous Peoples to control their own lands and food systems, which would not only help them access food, but it would be high in nutritional value thus diminishing reliance on settler food systems that produce and reinforce endemic health problems such as diabetes. While food apartheid is an intentional tool used by settler governments such as the US and Canada, Indigenous Peoples can find ways to subvert such harmful systems and not only survive, as they have been doing for generations, but to also thrive in a healthy, sustainable manner. 

References

O'Connell, Meghan, et al. “Food Access and Cost in American Indian Communities in Washington State.” NIH Public Access, 2011, pp. 1–10.

​​Sagaskie, Hunter Frederick. “The Impact of Colonization.” Michigan Sociological Review, vol. 33, 2019, pp. 101–114. 

Skinner, Kelly, et al. “Giving Voice to Food Insecurity in a Remote Indigenous Community in Subarctic Ontario, Canada: Traditional Ways, Ways to Cope, Ways Forward.” BMC Public Health, 2013, pp. 1–13. 

Climate Change & The Public’s Perception In The United States

In the United States, there is not a unified public perception of climate change. Despite the scientific evidence, there is debate over whether or not climate change is real, and if it is, whether or not humans are perpetuating it. Among the people who agree that climate change is existent and perpetuated by humans, there is still controversy about whether the burden lies on the government, corporations, or individuals to counteract it. However, the situation gets even more complicated. The public’s perception of climate change has been impacted by everything from the economics of a region to the deflection of guilt from large corporations, and at this point, some people are influenced by specific global leaders and political ideologies more than science.

As aforementioned, some people do not believe that climate change is real. This perspective is not rooted in science, so it has to come from somewhere else. Accordingly, the most common opinions of climate change have a correlation to certain ideologies. For example, in the United States, the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, has a history of denying the existence of climate change. Arguably the most prominent political figure in the country, President Donald Trump has called climate change a “hoax” and asserted that it was fabricated by China. He has also referenced “global cooling,” a belief dating back to the 1920s — although it was not a widespread view at the time — in order to denounce global warming. In the same statement, he claimed that nobody actually knows if global warming is a reality, despite the evidence offered by scientists.

When President Trump discussed the current California fires, he belittled them. It took him three weeks to finally acknowledge the fires at all, but once he did, he attributed them to a forest management issue. Despite mounting criticism on his climate change rhetoric, he has remained committed to his original opinion on the cause of the fires. In 2018, the last time California experienced devastating wildfires during President Trump’s term, he blamed forest management once again, discounting the role of climate change in the catastrophes. Even when evidence of climate change is extraordinarily conspicuous, President Trump will revert back to his initial stance on climate change: pure denial. When the American people and public figures accused him of ignoring science, all he had to say was “It’ll start getting cooler, you just watch.” He also insisted that other countries did not have the same problems, implying that climate change must not be real because it would be affecting the entire planet.

There is some merit regarding President Trump’s default to blaming forest maintenance mismanagement. Insufficient forest management does contribute to the problem; even California Governor Gavin Newsom has admitted that fact. However, the fires are getting exponentially worse, to the point that forest mismanagement can no longer account for these issues. In 2018 alone, 1.89 million acres of California burned. It was “the most destructive year in California history” — that is, until 2020. As of October 4, 2020, 4 million acres of state lands have gone up in flames, and California has already had “six of the 20 largest blazes in state history” this year. Additionally, if President Trump blames California’s inadequate forest management for the fires, he should comment on Oregon and Washington’s forest management as well. For that matter, he should mention forest management in Canada, a country that proves this wildfire problem is not unique to the United States.

Misinformation has been spreading around the internet, and just like President Trump, people on social media have implied that the impacts of climate change are constrained to the United States. For example, conspiracy theories about the fires have spread on TikTok. Certain videos include maps that show how the fires stop at the United States-Canadian border, and several influencers have used them to support their narratives that the fires are fake, they were started by the United States government in a big conspiracy, or they are a problem unique to the United States. However, as many people have pointed out, it was not a global or North American fire map; it was only a fire map for the United States. Yet, influencers, President Trump, and a portion of the American people have insisted that other countries never experienced the same measure of fires as the United States.

One other semi-common view is that climate change exists, and humans do not contribute to it. This is second in the order of President Trump’s five stances on the reality of climate change. He made his belief very clear: “I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer.” Given his status as the current leader of the GOP, it is not surprising to learn that members of his party align with his beliefs more than members of the Democratic Party. Pew Research Center found that “Republicans with a high level of science knowledge were no more likely than those with a low level of knowledge to say human activity plays a strong role in climate change.” Although it is unclear whether this view stems from the members of the party or the President — the chicken or the egg — it is certainly perpetuated by President Trump. 

On the other hand, politics around the globe has played a role in the public’s perception of climate change, and a scientific study by the University of Kansas showed how framing plays an impactful role in the media. According to the study, climate change is more politicized in richer countries than poorer countries, and the conversation in richer countries is more centered around “debate or argument about political approaches as opposed to proposing policy solutions.” It is advantageous to many groups to either claim that humans do not contribute to climate change or to affirm their stance that people are not a major contributing factor.

For those who do claim that people perpetuate climate change, there are several main beliefs: it is up to the individual, corporations, government, or a combination of the three to reduce its effects. Beginning with the individual, most of us probably know someone who brings a reusable straw in their bag everywhere they go. Although it is admirable, one must acknowledge that corporations have benefited from shoving this idea and other emphases on the individual down people’s throats. Even if everyone recycles and sticks to using reusable straws, some sources say that one hundred companies are responsible for seventy percent of greenhouse gas emissions. Taking that into consideration, many people believe that the mission to limit climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius is impossible without corporations and governments doing their part. Some corporations seem to agree and have taken measures to become more sustainable, such as Starbucks with their recyclable and strawless lids and the sustainability efforts by McDonald’s, but these actions are not enough to outweigh the damage by corporations as a whole. Many people have called for governments to sanction corporations so that they will not have a realistic opportunity to ignore the environmental costs, and others have advocated for other ways in which governments can counteract climate change.

In terms of public opinion regarding the effectiveness of climate policy, identifying with a political party in the United States is once again an indication of a person’s stance. According to Pew Research Center, 71% of Democrats and only 34% of Republicans said that policies to reduce climate change overall benefit the environment, while 43% of Republicans said they make no difference and 22% said they “do more harm than good for the environment.” However, a two-thirds majority of adults in the United States said that the federal government is not doing enough to reduce the effects of climate change. 

A multitude of people are actively pushing the federal government to do more. For instance, people have been advocating for the Green New Deal, a proposal to move the United States toward net-zero emissions by 2050. Renewable energy, new jobs with government-funded training in clean energy industries, an upgraded power grid, and modified transportation systems are just some of the proposed provisions. Others have urged the government to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. 

The criticism against the United States for its failure on climate action was particularly amplified when the decision was made to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. The United Nations Secretary-General called the decision a “major disappointment.” The New Zealand Climate Change minister gave a similar message, also conveying her opinion that the United States should be decreasing its dependency on fossil fuels. The spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry called the United States the “biggest destroyer of international environmental cooperation.” France, Italy, and Germany released a joint statement affirming their belief that the Paris Climate Agreement cannot be renegotiated. 

In the end, it is clear that there are many factors that cause such varied views on climate change within the United States. With the mixed signals from the government, international leaders, domestic leaders, the experience of each country, and corporations, it can be understood why the public’s perception of climate change is not necessarily based on science.

Fossil Fuel Independence

Many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have run on the platform of action on climate change, which has been one of the central topics that citizens have been advocating for across the globe. This goal is only possible if there is complete independence from fossil fuels. Elimination of coal, petroleum, and natural gas cannot be ceased overnight, and it will take effort from all parts of the world to collaborate on this issue.

Fossil fuels have become the center of discussion around the future of American environmental political discourse. In 2017, petroleum constituted 28 percent of American energy production. According to a 2019 Yale University study, a majority (53 percent) of Americans blame fossil fuel companies for global warming. “Climate science has found that the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) produced by fossil fuel companies is causing global warming.” Global warming is the cause of wildfires, droughts, flooding, and other dangers looming throughout the country. In California, deadly wildfires are ramping up, causing celebrity outcry and civilian displacement. Gerard Butler recalled a “Heartbreaking time across California,” after the Woolsey fire last year. The Los Angeles County Fire Chief Daryl Osby even recognized the impact of the situation, stating, “And as evident by the Camp Fire in Northern California -- which is larger than this, more structures have been lost than this, more lives have been lost -- it's evident from that situation statewide that we're in climate change and it's going to be here for the foreseeable future." The outcry has become increasingly perceptive. With the increase in attention by celebrity influencers, the younger generations have come out speaking about the climate crisis, its effect on the environment, and what it means for their future.

Climate strikes have sprung up among students and advocacy has reached new levels. Greta Thunberg, a sixteen-year-old activist from Sweden, started the Fridays for Future movement last year after a few years of striking on her own across the world. Fridays for Future is targeted at students, encouraging them to strike every Friday to demand action from their government. Greta started the movement by sitting in front of the Swedish parliament every school day, inspiring countries and students around the world to demand a solution to this overbearing threat to lives and futures. 

Greta is joining forces with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic United States Representative of the Bronx, New York, to create, introduce, and demand the Green New Deal, another hot topic featured in many of the presidential debates. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of fossil fuels in the United States and to “curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy.” Bernie Sanders, a 2020 presidential candidate endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez, has accused the fossil fuel executives of greed and causing the climate crisis. All three of these leaders have noticed the climate crisis and the root of the problem, but the action needed will need bipartisan support within the United States as well as global support, because this problem is affecting all of humanity. Incredibly, a sixteen-year old has set the foundation and information that will be a center focus in the new decade. Greta has inspired leaders across the globe to take action and plans, such as the Green New Deal, are in place, but the elimination of fossil fuels and conversion to wind, water, and solar (WWS) power will be a difficult transition.

Strikes have helped leaders see the necessity for the large-scale conversion to 100 percent WWS power, but another obstacle has emerged. Mark Jacobson from Stanford University explored the issue that the power grid holds, stating, “the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty,” is the greatest concern for achieving complete neutralization of fossil fuel power. While WWS is the ultimate goal for the global economy due to its safety, access, and cleanliness, utility and grid operators continue to find failures to accommodate wind and solar supplies.  

Jacobson has conducted a study to build a system that will test the long-term benefits of using only WWS power at low load loss and at a low cost. This is the first study to analyze long-term benefits. The system tests multiple variables on the ability of WWS installations in the United States, to further understand if a 100 percent WWS world can exist by 2050-2055. The results found that only 11 percent of the initial WWS power was lost during transmission in the 3D model system, supplies had matched the load causing zero to minimal load loss, and solar and wind power complemented each other seasonally. In his conclusion, Jacobson discussed that the social cost would be greater than expected, considering the improvements among heating and cooling systems and transportation systems in the United States. This study found that the overall load loss of the WWS power system is nothing, which means that the electricity-utility aspect of the system were balanced. For example, a pump stored heat and the current of the model converted electricity to heat. Reflecting upon Jacobson’s results, this study demonstrates that a 100 percent renewable energy system is possible.

Political leaders should be improving the funding WWS installations. Jacobson’s study conducted in 2015 was the first to test the long-term benefits of WWS power, yet this climate crisis has been emerging long before. The growth of renewable energy industries, such as the solar power industry, has skyrocketed within the past few years, yet the lack of skilled manpower in these industries is the biggest problem that they face. Global warming is still striking the world, yet global collective action to combat this issue is difficult to acquire due to the lack of agreement and perspective. This past summer the G20, the most well-equipped group to decide what the climate crisis means for the world, met. Unfortunately, the international body reached no consensus on the crisis. “Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, G20 leaders have been unable to reach an agreement on climate and have instead adopted a “G19+1” approach.” Most media implores the current administration to look at the bigger picture, but there has been no push to move the climate crisis to a top priority. More strikes have risen due to this lack of collaboration. 

If it is possible to contribute to a “no load loss,” renewable energy country, as Jacobson proved, the biggest threat to climate change is the lack of manpower and funding behind the WWS installations. This makes independence a current pipe dream due to the lack of governmental collective action. The action needed is dire, as Greta Thunberg mentions, and the need for the Green New Deal is necessary. 

Kissing Kissinger: The American Love of Foreign Policy’s Most Dangerous Mind

It is negligent to engage in a discussion of contemporary foreign policy without mentioning former Secretary of State Henry M. Kissinger. Kissinger, a Jewish refugee, became a household name during the Cold War era when he served as President Nixon’s secretary of state. Kissinger is considered by many contemporary scholars and politicians to be a leading statesman and one of the most well-known faces in the sphere of foreign affairs. Indeed, Kissinger’s tenure as secretary of state had a global impact still visible in countless countries. However, while Kissinger was an influential thinker, it is critical not to overlook his policies in the global south and how quickly he condoned acts of violence within these regions.

Henry Kissinger first came to the United States as a Jewish refugee after escaping Nazi Germany with the rest of his family. From his humble immigrant roots, Kissinger quickly rose to the center of US politics, serving as secretary of state and national security advisor under the administrations of Nixon and Ford, respectively. In 1973, Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize for his involvement in negotiating the ceasefire to end the Vietnam War. However, Henry Kissinger is perhaps best known for his work in opening up relations with China, and establishing a friendly rapport with one of the world’s emerging powers. His’s legacy extends far beyond his career as secretary of state. Indeed, Kissinger established a formidable reputation as a dramatic diplomat, and influenced diplomats within the Carter, Reagan, and Bush administrations. To this day, Kissinger is considered by many to be the leading voice in foreign policy analysis. While Kissinger’s influence has extended across continents and decades, not all of his actions resulted in the bettering of the world and the spread of so-called American ideals of freedom and justice. Although scholars excuse some of his more controversial policy decisions, saying that few policies stand the test of time, Kissinger’s policies and actions affected not just people in the past but also those very much in the present. To this end in addition to his impressive diplomatic career, Henry Kissinger also demonstrates how not to be a statesman.

Kissinger reached the height of his career during the Cold War - his reach far and widespread. In order to analyze the impact of his policies on a detailed level, it does not suffice to give a brief view of his involvement in different countries and regions. Rather, this analysis will focus on Kissinger’s impact within South America in order to give a more comprehensive explanation of who Kissinger and his beliefs really are. During the 1970s and 80s, fearing the spread of communism, the US government and the CIA helped back right-wing governments and organize military coups to oust leftist governments they felt posed a threat to U.S. interests.

In 1973, with funding and training from the CIA, Augusto Pinochet and Chilean military forces led a coup to overthrow the Salvador Allende, the first democratically-elected socialist leader. Throughout Pinochet’s bloody 17-year dictatorship, over 25,000 people were tortured and more than 3,000 were ‘forcibly disappeared.’ Kissinger, far from seeing Pinochet’s regime as a human rights concern, assured Pinochet that he “...did a great service to the West in overthrowing Allende.” In order to address the communist wave that was threatening to flood Latin America, Kissinger played a key role in green-lighting Operation Condor - a joint military operation with far-right dictatorships aimed at capturing and torturing political dissidents. Henry Kissinger did not play a observatory role within the dictatorships in Latin America, rather he was an active accessory to regimes that were responsible for murder, torture, and forced disappearances. In a memo from 1976, Kissinger urged Argentina’s military junta to act faster to establish government authority, “before U.S. opposition to its human rights violations gained momentum.” As secretary of state, Kissinger not only had the authority to approve US involvement in these coups, but to also further aid and encourage the individuals committing mass human rights atrocities.

Kissinger’s Latin American policy establishes him as de facto co-conspirator in the numerous coups d’etats and military dictatorships that quickly took root in Latin America. Immediately after the Argentine coup, Kissinger recommended increased security assistance. As a result, the US Congress approved 50 million dollars in security assistance to the junta, with an additional 30 million granted at the end of the 1967. Decades later, Kissinger refuses to cede culpability for the ramifications of his actions within the region. In a recent interview, Kissinger stated that “...when the charge of war criminal becomes an accepted form of discourse, the prospects of national cohesion disintegrate. Diplomacy loses its flexibility and strategy its force.” It is not always simple to rationalize past policies but in this example, Kissinger demonstrates that ethics and morality are desirable only as long as they don’t become a nuisance.

Latin America still faces the consequences of their dictatorships, visible in everything from social institutions to public policy. In Chile and Argentina, families still seeking justice for their murdered loved ones have been calling for decades for the prosecution of those at the top who allowed these atrocities to occur.  Ali Beydoun, of the Washington College of Law, brought forth a lawsuit against Kissinger on behalf of Chilean victims seeking reparations for wrongful deaths. While many academics still study and promote Kissinger’s ideas, many members of the global community have become outspoken in their characterization of Kissinger as a war criminal. Most famously, Christopher Hitchens wrote a book and produced a documentary entitled “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” where he explained the case for Kissinger to be charged for international crimes, among which war crimes, crimes against humanity, and conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture. Hitchens also went as far as to argue that Kissinger himself was directly involved in the kidnapping and murder of Chilean general René Schneider, one of the actions leading up to the military coup. Schneider’s family also attempted to sue Kissinger for his murder, but were also unsuccessful.

The primary issue in any analysis of the legacy and global impact of Kissinger is howto weight the value of both the good and bad he his policies and advise contributed to across several presidential administrations. Many continue to praise the statesman for his “opening” of China to the West as well as his role in the end of the cold war. Meanwhile, Kissinger’s fingerprints are clearly imprinted on the landscapes of Cambodia and Vietnam, as well as in the shadows of the thousands of persons disappeared under the military dictatorships in South America. The evaluation of whether Kissinger is inherently good or evil lies involves asking some of the hardest questions in the heart of politics, ethics, and world affairs -  what actors matter, whose lives have more worth, and to what extent is the West willing to justify the death of innocents as a just tradeoff for the winning of wars, the spread of democracy, and US global hegemony.

Freedom vs Equality: Considering the Relationship Between Campaign Finance Reform and the First Amendment

Campaign finance reform: a pillar of  debate in United States politics for over a century. For just as long, voters intensely debated this controversial topic. Scholarly discussion on nearly every aspect of reform increased in the years following the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971, and major amendments to it in 1974. Subsequent court cases altered or validated campaign finance laws to varying degrees. One of the most pressing questions arising from this legal ping pong is the ongoing debate over the constitutionality of limits on two pillars of campaign finance policy: contributions and expenditures.  The First Amendment is a keystone of American democracy, and viewpoints from different sides of the debate elucidate the relationship between the constitution specifically, the First Amendment, and campaign finance reform, beginning with scholarly work focusing on the landmark case Buckley v. Valeo, then progress through opinions post Citizens United v. FEC.  

The Federal Election Commission defines a contribution as “a gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value given to influence a federal election; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose,” and  an expenditure as “a purchase, payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit or gift of money or anything of value made for the purpose of influencing a federal election. A written agreement to make an expenditure is also considered an expenditure.”  In passing FECA in 1971 and it’s major amendments in 1974, Congress sought to limit the amount of money in politics – to level the playing field. They also attempted to halt ‘quid pro quo’ arrangements by limiting both contributions and expenditures. The 1974 FECA amendments came on the heels of Watergate, a time of heightened concern over the potentially corrupting nature of campaign contributions and fundraising.

In 1976, the Supreme Court heard Buckley v Valeo, which brought the First Amendment to the forefront of the campaign finance conversation. The case challenged the constitutionality of the contribution and expenditure limits set in FECA ’74.  In their decision, the Court equated money with speech, which is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. It also made a distinction between different levels of corruption, which they said may result from different amounts of contributions or expenditures. When a contribution is made, an exchange of money takes place therefore a higher risk of corruption is present, where expenditures are made independent of a campaign - people spend in isolation. Directly addressing the constitutionality in their opinion, the Court wrote,

“The Act's contribution and expenditure limitations operate in an area of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression in order 'to assure (the) unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people…The Act's contribution and expenditure limitations also impinge on protected associational freedoms.”

To conclude, the Court added, “although the Act's contribution and expenditure limitations both implicate fundamental First Amendment interests, its expenditure ceilings impose significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedoms of political expression and association than do its limitations on financial contributions.” In summary, it is acceptable to limit freedom of speech in giving money but not in how money is spent.  

The Buckley decision remains a cornerstone in the debate over the constitutionality of contribution/expenditure limits on both sides of the issue. During the 1980s, in the wake of Buckley, J. Skelly Wright, former Chief Judge of United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, calls the Buckley ruling a “serious obstacle in the path of our society's advancement toward political equality through law,” and a “vitally important and, in [his] judgment, tragically misguided First Amendment decision.” More specifically, Wright declares that in “equating spending with speech, the Court treated the First Amendment as a near-absolute in the sphere of political debate.” This is, of course, not an unchallenged opinion. Wright’s contemporary Martin Redish, a professor of law at Northwestern University, provides an opposing consideration of the Buckley case, concluding that the Court was right to strike down some of the limits set by FECA as “by limiting spending, such regulation decreases the flow of information which might produce better informed voters and thus undermines important First Amendment values.” Wright and Redish also disagree over what exactly the First Amendment protects.

A key part of the Buckley decision lies in the Court telling the government that it should not attempt to level the political playing field, which was one of the intentions of FECA. The Court famously states in their decision, “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” Opposing this, Wright believes “democracy is often shadowed by lopsided inequalities in campaign resources” and “the predominance of money comes at the expense of the ideals of liberty and equality that underlie our political system.” Redish is less certain on this point, providing a devil’s advocate stance on the matter, positing that “important values other than equality are at work in First Amendment analysis and that, on occasion, these values may even clash with the equality principle.”  He expands on this, with the idea that limits on contributions and expenditures with the intention of normalizing those with significant financial resources are:

“not necessarily unconstitutional, for the benefits of ‘purifying’ political campaigns and equalizing candidate access to the public may outweigh the resulting harms to free speech interests. The outcome of the conflict is, for present purposes, irrelevant. Whatever the outcome, the equality principle and the values furthered by free expression directly conflict...”

Redish notes this important idea that because the Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley equated money with speech, an intersection formed between freedom of speech and the equality principle.

Scholars continued to address this tension in the 1990s,  with Gary Stein proposing that “the theoretical conflicts [between First Amendment freedoms and reform efforts] are largely reconcilable…coexistence between the First Amendment and effective campaign-finance reform is constitutionally permissible.” Fred Wertheimer and Susan Weiss concur, citing that the Supreme Court “recognized this when it upheld the constitutionality of campaign finance contribution limits in Buckley.” Wertheimer and Weiss point to the Buckley opinion, which itself states it is “unnecessary to look beyond the Act’s primary purpose,” which is “to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption…in order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for the $1,000 contribution limitation.” In this case, the authors draw a comparison between a lack of corruption in politics and political equality.  The idea that while freedom is speech and speech is nearly unrestricted, preventing corruption will further political equality in the same way that restricting someone from yelling ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater promotes safety.

This argument for the constitutionality of contribution limits is partially echoed by David A. Strauss, who both reinforces and scrutinizes the validity of such limits based on their intended effects, saying that “in fact it is far from clear that campaign finance reform is about the elimination of corruption at all.” He further explains, “corruption-understood as the implicit or explicit exchange of campaign contributions for official action-is a derivative problem,” and therefore, “those who say they are concerned about corruption are actually concerned about two other things: inequality, and the nature of democratic politics.” In this analysis, the Court actually qualified government intervention to ‘level the playing field’ in the Buckley decision by limiting contributions on the basis of limiting corruption which Strauss views as an extension of inequality. On this thread, Strauss concludes that corruption “is not in itself an appropriate target of campaign finance reform,” because it is an outgrowth of inequality and interest group politics, and appropriate reform will seek to address these root issues.

An interesting counter to Strauss’ connection between corruption, equality and democratic politics is offered by lobbyist Scott Harhbarger, “the effort to end unlimited campaign contributions is a fundamental civil rights issue…we need to make it just as clear what we stand for: reclaiming our democracy.” In The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform, John Samples describes limits on contributions as a “reason for lamentation, not rejoicing.” He warns, “no one should exercise his or her First Amendment right to freedom of speech without advice from counsel, preferably one schooled in the intricacies of campaign finance regulation.” And leaves readers with his startling take on campaign finance laws, “In the United States, speech is no longer very free…” Samples delves deeply into the anti-limits ideal that money is speech, and speech must remain free:

“The First Amendment offers a classic statement of negative liberty: it enjoins the government from abridging individual freedom. It does not “empower” the individual to achieve some good. It does not give the individual the means to speak or to persuade others. It does not direct the government to use speech as a means to some social end.”

The recurring theme of the government overstepping to promote equality in the political arena is clearly present throughout Samples’ book.  

Samples devotes a considerable portion of the book to discussing the divergent Madisonian and Progressive schools of thought on the relationship between the First Amendment and campaign finance reform. Those on the Madison side favor no limits at all, but with full and immediate disclosure requirements, while Progressives advocate public financing of all campaigns and no private money allowed. The narrative Samples lays out is not unlike the current debate over the 2nd amendment and gun control laws.

The views of authors discussed to this point were all penned prior to the landmark case Citizens United v. FEC,  a ruling issued in 2010. As such, they focus heavily on the Buckley v. Valeo decision of 1976. The following selection of sources will also include analysis of the Buckley decision, but afford considerable allowance to the Citizens United case.

Citizens United v. FEC  incurred serious implications for scholars from all sides of the campaign finance reform arena. In the decision, while the Court denied corporations and labor unions the right to make explicit contributions, it does permit them to use treasury funds to finance independent expenditures. The holding is essentially that political spending is protected under the First Amendment as political speech, and therefore the government cannot restrict corporations and unions from exerting their right to free speech through limits on corporate/union independent expenditures.

In the wake of Citizens United, Floyd Abrams penned a novel in defense of the First Amendment. Abrams spent years arguing against restrictions on the Amendment, delving deeply into issues of campaign finance when he represented Senator Mitch McConnell in an unsuccessful challenge (by a 5–4 vote) to key elements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which they believed violated the First Amendment. He and Susan Buckley also submitted, during the 2010 Citizens United case, an amicus curiae (friend of the Court) brief on behalf of Senator McConnell to argue orally on his behalf. Abrams favors a broad reading of the First Amendment, “sometimes nearly absolutely so.” He repeatedly describes limits on campaign related finance issues as Congress, “turning political speech into a crime.”

Expanding on this ear-catching slogan, Abrams says, “political speech…has long been considered worthy of the highest degree of First Amendment protection.” It is, in fact, meant to do just that. Justice Elena Kagan summarized the argument Abrams and his colleagues made before the Supreme Court in 2010 as saying, “political speech is the highest form of speech under the First Amendment entitled to the greatest protection and that the courts should be wary of Congress regulating in this area in such a way as to protect incumbents to help themselves.”  In turn, Abrams cites Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision in another case, United States v. Automobile Workers, in which Kennedy wrote, “first Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy.” He continues this thread, “political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence… [the First Amendment] has its fullest and most urgent applications to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.” Following his broad analysis of the perils of campaign law infringing on First Amendment protections, Abrams moved on to specific areas of such laws which he believes pose the most concerning threats to freedom of speech.

Abram identifies limits on contributions by anyone, including corporations, and statutes restricting close-to-election speech as particularly worrisome. He calls for the public to carefully examine the cost of restrictions on political speech required for almost all proposed campaign finance reform, and the ‘inherent’ constitutional dangers they present. Abram expresses his bewilderment with public outcry following the Citizens United decision, “what I find inexplicable is the willingness of so many not even to acknowledge, let alone weigh, the powerful First Amendment interests at all.” He concludes his argument on the antagonistic relationship between the First Amendment and campaign finance reform by calling limits on political spending or speech as  “an approach which views the First Amendment as an impediment as opposed to a protection, as a disagreeable, painful limitation to be overcome, evaded or eluded rather than as a shield against the government.” This impassioned expression of his views is paralleled in enthusiasm, if not in opinion by Robert Post.

Post, a constitutional law scholar and former dean of Yale Law school, offers his novel in the form of two lectures, followed by commentary from fellow scholars, and concluding with Post’s response. The arguments proposed by Post within this work are particularly interesting because he refutes both pro-regulation claims that the First Amendment supports equality and anti-regulation views that the First Amendment lends itself only to the freest forms of speech. He devotes Lecture I to a detailed – and argumentative – analysis of the history of attempts at campaign finance reform. Post begins with the Buckley v. Valeo decision, in which he says the Court tried to “...split the difference...” between the two issues at hand: freedom of speech and electoral integrity. They did this by creating an proposing an “...arbitrary distinction…” between campaign contributions and independent campaign expenditures. Limits on the former were intended to protect electoral integrity, while restrictions on the latter were prohibited to safeguard freedom of speech. He warns that this compromise is quickly disintegrating, because it “lacks theoretical structure…there is little to stop the slide into chaos.” Post argues that this chaos arises from the fundamental question raised by campaign finance discussions; how does the country reconcile “republican tradition with…our commitment to discursive democracy.”  

Post explains that campaign finance Court cases where the juxtaposition of these two American ideals is painfully present, specifically Citizens United, the Court was “forced to choose whether the nation’s commitment to self-governance would be better realized through institutions of representation or through the discursive democracy established by First Amendment rights.” The Court chose the latter path, even though, according to Post, “we have been committed to structures of representation for far longer than we have aspired to democratic self-government.”

The Court’s decision to protect representation over discursive democracy is particularly thought provoking for Post. He observes that in Citizens United “the Court applied First Amendment doctrine as though it were a repository of abstract and categorical rules,” and that because the Court “never asked what these rules are designed to accomplish, it could not begin to explain how discursive democracy might be connected to the representative integrity that campaign finance reform seeks to sustain.” Post continues to address the ambiguity of the First Amendment and the possible relationship between political speech and electoral integrity in Lecture II.

Weaving an intricate web of analysis, Post lays out his argument for the proper role of the First Amendment in campaign regulation. He states:

“First Amendment rights do not ensure that each citizen can exercise equal influence on government action. The First Amendment does not protect direct democracy; within discursive democracy, public opinion should not be analogized to an initiative. The point of First Amendment rights is instead to guarantee that each person is equally entitled to the possibility of democratic legitimation.  First Amendment rights institutionalize the hope that affording each person the opportunity to participate in public discourse can create the ‘communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments’ between persons and their government that is the foundation of self-government.”

Post’s presentation of the First Amendment centers on the idea that meaningful – not equal – participation is at the core of what the amendment means. This is in direct contradiction with the views of researcher David Strauss, who was discussed earlier in this paper. However, Post’s view clearly explains why he so vehemently opposes the Citizens United decision that gave free speech rights to corporations; he believes the corporations would use such rights to make a profit, as opposed to individual citizens who may use their political free speech to make an ideological or political position. Perhaps the only author discussed to do so, Post’s writings on the First Amendment offer a hopeful tone for the path forward – for a plausible balanced relationship between the true meaning of the First Amendment and representative integrity, via proper campaign finance reform.

While the arguments of authors presented thus far accept the Constitution as written, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico penned a parallel plan. Udall describes the Buckley v. Valeo case as having “...laid the groundwork for  a broken system...” of campaign finance. He also condemns the Citizens United decision for putting “...the First Amendment rights of corporations  and other large organizations on par with those of individual citizens, opening the door to an unregulated influx of special interest campaign dollars.” Senator Udall advocates for an amendment to the Constitution, which he cautions should not be taken lightly.  However, he claims that comprehensive and viable campaign finance reforms will only be passed “...if there is a constitutional amendment which provides Congress with the authority to regulate all aspects of the campaign finance system.” Udall’s proposed amendment would not lay out the type of regulations passed by Congress of individual states, leaving room for debate, interpretation and change. He also discusses a more narrowly written amendment introduced by his colleague Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), which would address the issue of corporations having the same political speech rights as an individual person. Senator Udall holds that barring a constitutional amendment or reversal of the damaging Supreme Court precedent unlimited special interest money will continue to flood election campaigns, and influencing the outcomes of elections.

Over the course of this examination, the viewpoints of multiple scholars on the issue of campaign finance reform and the First Amendment have been examined. For the pro-regulatory side, J. Skelly Wright, Gary Stein, Fred Wertheimer and Susan Weiss Mane and Robert Post  argue for come form of regulations on campaign contributions and/or expenditures. Martin Redish, Scott Harshbarger, John Samples, Floyd Abrams argue degrees of the opposite: that such regulations are oppressive, illegal, and unconstitutional. Davis Strauss’ argument both viewpoints straddling a delicate and unique middle-ground, while Senator Tom Udall advocates a departure from the First Amendment the other authors all hold dear. All of these works exhibit the same obvious and deep respect for the First Amendment. Pro-regulation works tend to generally hold that the First Amendment supports equality in the political system, and that government intervention is necessary to preserve the integrity of America’s electoral process. Anti-regulation scholars broadly interpret money as speech, therefore validating the view that campaign contributions and expenditures are protected speech under the First Amendment.

Arguments continue in courts, classrooms and coffee-shops across the nation. Campaign finance is far from the only issue where clashing interpretations of the First Amendment lead to heightened tensions and legal uncertainty. Which side’s view will prevail? Currently, precedent backs the anti-regulation ideals money under the umbrella of protected political speech. However, it remains uncertain whether legislation or new court cases could pose a serious threat to this current interpretation.

Citizens United v. Our Democracy

In 2016, Secretary Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential candidate, was thought to wield specific political advantages over her Republican opponent Donald Trump. Secretary Clinton had the experience, she was more knowledgeable than Mr. Trump was in regards to the issues being discussed, some said she was more articulate, and Secretary Clinton raised a lot more money. Typically, a candidate’s advantage in campaign fundraising was always an indicator that they had more support from more people, they had more exposure, and had more power to sway the undecided and independent voters.  In the 2016 election, we learned that this is not always the case. Super PACs do not have complete sway power over the voters, but they do greatly influence the politicians in office.

In this day and age, campaign donations do not directly go to the campaign and candidate themselves. Since Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the floodgates opened and soft money barreled into our elections. Super PACs, through independent expenditures, send money towards media buys in hopes of advancing their candidate of choice or encouraging the public not to vote for another candidate. Since the Citizens United decision was held, we saw dramatic increases in independent expenditure spending and independent expenditure spending posited as a significant and unfair game changer in elections, but Super PACs are not having the affect many people thought they would have. We are now entering an era where independent expenditures by Super PACs only have a large impact over politicians and are not reflective of the people.

Secretary Clinton raised over $563 million dollars and independent expenditures spent over $231 million in support of her. Mr. Trump raised a little over $333 million, most of which ($66 million) was his own money, and he received $75.2 million from independent expenditures. The significant amount of money flowing into Secretary Clinton's campaign coffers led political experts to come to the conclusion that she would win. However, Donald Trump beat Secretary Clinton - even taking states that historically supported democratic presidential candidates.

Super PACs funnel an exorbitant amount of money into political campaigns in order to sponsor and advocate for and against specific candidates. While ads and media buys by independent expenditures may have some sway on the undecided and in swing states, Super PACs and their outreach in campaigns are not the ultimate decider in elections. President Trump and his campaign proves this. He won the election, yet independent expenditure spending for Secretary Clinton spent was $155,849,637 more than it was for President Trump. However, just because Super PACs aren’t the ultimate decider in elections doesn’t mean they do not have a great impact on our government. What we are seeing is Super PACs becoming the deciders in how the politician they are supporting will view particular issues.

When a politician receives most of their support from Super PACS, either directly or indirectly, they are going to be likely to view issues in the eyes of the Super PACs regardless of their constituents’ views. The issue of gun control exemplifies how Super PACs shape politicians' views on issues. According to a Gallup Poll taken in October 2017, 60% of people want stricter gun control laws. This poll also revealed that 96% of people asked support background checks - with 86% saying they support a universal system, 75% support a 30 day waiting period when purchasing a weapon, and 70% of people polled would support privately-owned guns to be registered with the police. With all this information and other information from other polling organizations that reflect similar  results, politicians would be jumping at the chance to put their name on a gun control bill or that the President would pass an executive order reflecting what the people want - but that is not what we are seeing.

Let’s look at everyone’s favorite lobbying group, the National Rifle Association. The NRA goes above and beyond, shelling out an exorbitant amount of money to defend the right to bear arms. The NRA's influence is felt not only through campaign contributions, but also through millions of dollars in off-the-books spending on issue ads. Lobbying expenditures for the National Rifle Association regularly exceed $1.5 million and increased from $3.2 million in 2016 to more than $5.1 million in 2017 and 2018. The organization's lobbyists frequently try to exert their influence over government agencies including members of Congress and they are consistently successful in doing so. In just 2018, the NRA lobbied for and against 283 bills concerning gun laws. Politicians, particularly Republicans in regards to this issue, are doing everything in their power to avoid the issue or appease public opinion by agreeing to small things because the money they receive through ad buys and media wants them to keep an anti-gun control stance.

The same can be said with Democrats as well, who receive a lot of support from Super PACs, like Priorities USA. In the 2016 election, Priorities USA acted as if they were Secretary Clinton’s actual campaigning team and they did more campaigning in states, like Pennsylvania, than Secretary Clinton did herself. Priorities USA actually broke fundraising records, raising over $175 million dollars in the 2016 election cycle. Priorities USA targeted swing states and battleground states, drafting specific pro-Clinton messages that would appeal to each state’s populations and needs. In a way this Super PAC did a better job than the Democratic Party did, yet it still didn’t work. States that Priorities USA targeted with big media buys didn’t swing in Clinton’s favor, contributing to her overall loss. A majority of people in states like Michigan, Florida, and Ohio - where a lot of those ads aired - voted for President Trump, clearly indicating that Super PACs’ ads did not do much to sway the voters. People in these states for the most part wanted to hear from the politician who was running for office. While voters wanted to hear from Secretary Clinton that she would meet their needs, it is possible that they didn’t respond well to hearing about it from an ad paid for by a Super PAC that wasn’t directly connected to Secretary Clinton herself.

The Center for Responsive Politics predicted that over $5.2 billion would be spent on the 2018 midterm elections, making it the most expensive midterm election ever by a wide margin. More than $4.7 billion was already spent by candidates, political parties and other groups such as PACs, super PACs and nonprofits a week before this year’s midterm elections. Prior to this election cycle, no midterm election had surpassed more than $4.2 billion in spending when adjusted for inflation. Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, postulates that “the significance of this election is clear. But whether it’s a blue wave or a red wave, one thing is certain: A wave of money is surging toward Election Day, much of it coming from the wealthiest donors targeting this year’s most competitive races.” Now that the midterms are over, the Center for Responsive Politics estimated that at least $5.1 billion was spent on this year’s midterm.

Established politicians align their views to those of Super PACs in order to receive their money and get away with it because they carry the incumbency advantage over opponents who barely have any visibility due to a lack of support from financially powerful Super PACs. It is too soon to see what kind of long term effect the 2016 election will have on the way politics is run in the country and how elections will function in the months and years to come. One thing, however, is clear. Super PACs do not have the sway many people believe they do. They are not representative of the population. Candidates’ ability to receive the benefit of ‘free media’ worth millions of dollars from independent expenditures does not mean they have the public support necessary to win an election. Voters have the power to control the election and it is politicians who have become hypnotized by Super PACs and what they believe those PACs can give them.

Advocacy in American Politics: Examining the Quality and Effectiveness of Lobbying in the Trump Era

The quality of the United States’ advocacy and lobbying practices, as well as the effectiveness of the profession’s role in policymaking, have become a recent subject of debate. The transition to the Trump administration has particularly served to amplify an ongoing criticism of the lobbying profession, particularly in regard to the influence of special interests and the economic elite. The quality of practice towards the end of a pluralist representative democracy and the profession’s ability to adapt was, and continues to be, scrutinized by the media, political pundits, and lawmakers alike. Ultimately, the quality of advocacy and lobbying practices within the United States is lacking, despite its effectiveness in adapting strategy and tactics to fit the unique political situation, particularly in response the growing distinction of partisan interests as well as congressional gridlock.

In measuring the quality of advocacy practices within the Trump administration, the standard that the Framers, particularly James Madison, envisioned for competing factions must be recognized. An “extended” republic, or a pluralist model of democracy, was proposed by Madison as the best defense against partisan factions, special interests, and a potential “overbearing majority.” This pluralist model ideally limits the influence of a singular dominate interest – the “tyranny of the majority:” a potential ill-effect of democracy addressed by Madison in Federalist No. 10 and later by Alexis de Tocqueville in his observation of American democracy. Ultimately, the standard of quality that contemporary advocacy practices should reflect is that of  Madison’s “extended” republic, with special interests remaining numerous and equally competitive within the policymaking process.  

The quality of contemporary advocacy practices, however, does not meet this standard of a well-functioning pluralist representative democracy. This concept is widely explored within political and sociological academia; one recent study conducted by Dr. Martin Gilens and Dr. Benjamin Page creates individual and comprehensive statistical models for four distinct theoretical perspectives of democracy. Gilens and Page measure the relationship between the policy preferences of average citizens, economic elites, and special interests and respective policy outcomes. The results suggest that organized interest groups maintain significant influence over the majority’s preference in the policymaking process, especially with the assistance of PAC contributions, lobbying expenditures, and membership. Moreover, this study reaffirms Madison’s argument that a domineering majority can be restrained as various interests in the United States compete for political influence. Yet, sociopolitical variables like money and organizational agency impede and conceivably discourage the open competition of interests. In short, today’s advocacy process fulfills the intent of a pluralist model of democracy, but the process is facilitated through an inequity of resources.

The inequity of monetary resources and organizational agency has led to an increased likelihood of ethical misconduct with contemporary advocacy practices. Indeed, these variables can influence how advocacy strategies engage in the policy-making process and influence their adherence to ethical standards. Attempts have been made, specifically by the American Bar Association, to limit the influence of financial contributions, “shadow” lobbying, and to emphasize organizational accountability by reforming the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA), which made significant strides in establishing transparent and ethical advocacy practices. The recommended reforms that target these key issues include the requirement for LDA registrants to specify specific public offices that are being targeted, as well as reporting all activities of the advocacy and partner entities. Yet, these reforms have faced setbacks, especially following the landmark ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 which lifted restrictions on campaign and advocacy donations. Nonetheless, the advocacy profession ideally fulfills the intent of a pluralist model of democracy with a competitive and level playing field for special interests.  

The role of special interests and their influence in the policymaking process has contributed to the negative disposition that the public has of lobbying practices, prompting notable responses from the Obama and Trump administrations. With the media’s reinforcement of a negative special interest narrative, both President Obama and President Trump crafted unique responses pertaining to ethics in order to reflect the public’s negative opinion on lobbying and corruption. For instance, both administrations established direct ethical standards by way of executive order, targeting gift bans and the “revolving door.” Even more pertinent is the Trump administration’s unorthodox structure, which creates indirect challenges for advocacy practices. Specifically, the Trump administration’s lack of intervention points/points of contacts, as well as the President’s frequent use of social media, mainly Twitter, as a platform to disrupt, veil, and shape his intentions, creates a dynamic and unpredictable environment to maneuver for advocacy practices.

Though the methods and strategies vary by organization, there are three distinct tactics that have proven effective within the Trump administration: (1) anticipating unpredicted outcomes, (2) isolating and targeting key players, especially through social media, and (3) emphasizing the player over the policy. Each of these tactics effectively counters some aspect of the Trump administration’s direct and indirect approach to impede the role of special interests and advocacy practices. Ultimately, the ability for advocacy practices to maneuver this political climate is noteworthy and illustrates the adaptability and effectiveness of the industry.

The intense partisan gridlock and the unpredictability of Trump’s style of governance has prompted organizations to anchor their advocacy strategies with administrative networks and the rulemaking process. Though Trump’s victory was not predicted within most academic circles, engaging with the Trump campaign and transition teams proved to be advantageous compared to strategies that relied on their established connections in presuming Secretary Clinton’s Beltway-insider victory. Moreover, the executive institution has grown in administrative authority and is uniquely comprised of appointed and hired officials with backgrounds in advocacy and special interests, such as the appointments of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. With the anticipated momentum of a unified government falling short on several legislative failures, strategies sought key administrative intervention points, despite facing difficulties with empty roles and a lack of appointments. Demonstrating network connections within the Trump administration displays to potential clients that an advocacy organization maintains control within an unpredictable administration. As such, strategies have been reallocating efforts towards the rulemaking process in an increasingly partisan and gridlocked environment.

Isolating and targeting key players through social media, especially Twitter, has become an increasingly utile strategy within advocacy. Though it is unclear whether President Trump’s Twitter habits are impulsive or calculated, the acute fixation on Trump’s tweets and other social media platforms provides publicity and the potential for earned media to promote targeted messages. For example, a coalition effort known as “Boot Pruitt,” which targeted EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, promoted a targeted Twitter-ad campaign to reach key public officials in areas that EPA and Trump administration heads frequent, like the White House, the EPA, and Trump’s private club Mar-a-Lago. In subscribing to the media effects model, in that the media takes on an agenda-setting role in the policymaking process, Trump’s usurpation of the conversation has now become a manipulation of the policy-making agenda. In adapting to President Trump’s governing strategy, advocacy groups can easily test, deploy, and reassess their messages, tracking them through polling, focus groups, or statistical data gathering software, to refined and better implement their issue campaigns. With the media’s, political pundit’s, and the public’s attention focused on social media, advocacy strategies have increasingly become centered on social media issue campaigns.

The most noticeable adaptation that advocacy practices have made in response to the Trump administration is how issue-oriented campaigns now focus on the key players as opposed to the policy. Rather than emphasizing an issue and anticipating the opposition’s arguments, targeted messaging now pinpoints key players within the policymaking and/or rulemaking processes, as opposed to specific policies. As it turns out, the Trump administration has a high tolerance for unpopular public officials and contentious issues, notably with Secretary of Education DeVos and EPA Administrator Pruitt. Rather than argue over policy provisions, advocacy organizations and coalitions, like “Boot Pruitt,” have targeted messages surrounding the player’s background, qualifications, and overall character, which can be measured through focus groups, benchmarks, and brushfire surveys. While these messages can vary, a successful campaign can dehumanize key players and render their policies unpopular and without support.

The state of advocacy and lobbying practices in the United States consists of several, yet surmountable, issues. In an ideal pluralist model of democracy, public competition between interests over policy preferences is undoubtedly encouraged. Advocacy strategies and tactics of the profession are rather effective in adapting to President Trump’s unorthodox administration. The ability for lobbying organizations to skirt professional norms and ethical codes, however, detracts from the demonstrated effectiveness of advocacy practices. It reaffirms the negative perception lobbying and strikes at the quality of the practices. In adapting strategies of network engagement, message targeting, and discrediting attacks, it is necessary to increase transparency and oversight of the industry in order to encourage an open competition of interests.