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.

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.

Trumpism and Immigration

This election has seen the deterioration of civil discourse and the proper exchange of ideas come to a boiling point. Statements issued by President Trump, Republicans, and Democrats have been shortened and maimed into brash statements that seem to only serve as a means for garnering attention. Trump is particularly guilty of this. A study by PolitiFact revealed that 75 percent of Trump’s statements turned out to be mostly or entirely false while the other 25 percent turned out to be half true or mostly true. This leaves us with a grand total of exactly zero fully true statements of all that were analyzed. The following analysis seeks to empirically illustrate the likely effects of various policies offered by Mr. Trump and his base.

The Wall

The construction of a wall along the Mexican border has been one of the most publicized and discussed policy proposals Trump has issued. The logistics of building this mammoth wall are far beyond anything Mr. Trump has ever attempted. Fortunately, structural engineer Ali F. Rhuzkan has done some work for us by doing research into the logistics of this proposal.

Some of the more striking observations that Mr. Rhuzkan makes are as follows:

• “This wall would contain over three times the amount of concrete used to build the Hoover Dam.”

• “Such a wall would be greater in volume than all six pyramids of the Giza Necropolis.”

• “That quantity of concrete could pave a one-lane road from New York to Los Angeles, going the long way around the Earth.”

• “We could melt down 4 of our Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and would probably be a few cruisers short of having enough steel.”

Rhuzkan’s wall model

I implore anyone reading this article to imagine all of the good that could be done with the money and materials that would go into making this wall. The funds could be used for programs to prevent the crime that Mr. Trump accuses undocumented immigrants of committing, shoring up our national debt, providing attorneys to refugees escaping violence, perhaps even for investing in foreign development to avoid the need for immigration in the first place.

Aside from the logistical and monetary realities of building this wall, it would tarnish our international reputation and harm our relationship with Mexico, a close regional ally. A wall between our two nations would send a message of indifference and hatred. It is hard for two cultures to learn from and respect one another through a barrier of cold steel and cement.

Another issue the wall creates is that it does not solve the underlying humanitarian issues surrounding immigration. The reality of the situation is much different than that which the political sphere has been discussing recently. Nowadays, immigration from Mexico has largely declined, with more Mexicans going back to Mexico than coming to the United States. However, a large portion of those coming to the United States are fleeing violence from Latin America and Mexico. These types of immigrants are not looking to sneak into the United States or steal jobs, but they are surrendering at the border. Many (roughly 38%) of these types of immigrants are women and children. No wall is going to stop these refugees from coming, and pretending they do not exist is not going to help their plight.

Deportation

Donald Trump has put his weight behind a deportation plan and, although he has backpedaled after his inauguration, the risk of him changing his mind further remains. Under Trump, 11 million undocumented immigrants could be deported. Among the reasons offered as justification are the costs to taxpayers, crime, and welfare abuse. More cynically, Trump has been quoted speaking to fellow Republicans saying that they should not pass comprehensive immigration reform simply because immigrants do not typically vote Republican.

Before moving into the issues with this plan, I would like to point out a contradiction regarding Trump’s reasoning for deporting immigrants. He has made broad statements claiming that immigrants come to America to take American jobs, but on the other hand claims that immigrants need to be stopped because they are abusing our welfare system. These two claims imply that immigrants are so hard working that they steal our jobs, but they are so lazy that they are feeding off our welfare system.

Aside from these issues with the deportation plan, like organizing a deportation force in the 21st Century to round up and forcibly remove 11 million human beings from this nation, there are significant economic consequences connected to this policy.

The sudden deportation of this many immigrants would leave a gaping labor shortage in our economy. The industries that immigrants work in are specific to immigrants (as shown in figure 2) and the loss of labor skills would leave certain industries bankrupt of labor with no one to fill the gap. Not every unemployed person in this nation is looking for any job, they will not settle for these low skill jobs.

Immigrant distribution across industries

The Washington Post illustrates a specific example of this labor shortage that would occur in California, Nevada, Texas, and New Jersey. The article states, “[E]ven if every unemployed American in those states took an undocumented worker’s job — wildly unlikely, given that most Americans are unwilling to do the dirty jobs filled by many immigrants — it would still leave hundreds of thousands jobs unfilled.” In California, undocumented workers range anywhere from a third to half of the agricultural workforce. Deporting these immigrants would affect about half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in America and cripple California’s farming industry.

Deporting 11 million immigrants would provoke massive international displacement. Dictators and extremists cause humanitarian exoduses, not those with democratic principles.

Regardless, all of this fear mongering over immigrants is in vain. On top of the evidence already presented, plenty of other studies have shown the benefits of immigration for host countries. I sifted through examples from Miami to Great Britain, but I settled on a  scenario from South Africa published in Foreign Policy magazine to illustrate my point.

Before the end of apartheid in the early 1990s, black South Africans had their citizenship revoked and were exiled to quasi-nation states called Bantustans, cut off from white South African society. Before apartheid fell, white South Africans were afraid, as many in America are today, of what would happen when the barriers fell and the black South African population (9 times that of the white population) flooded the labor market. To put this into perspective, this would be the same proportion as the entire population of Brazil, China, and India simultaneously immigrating to the United States. The result was unlike anything anyone expected. Household incomes for both black and white South Africans doubled between 1993 and 1994. This type of economic situation has repeated itself as well. When the EU lowered labor migration restrictions between European countries Portuguese immigrants rushed to Denmark for work. This left both Denmark and Portugal with a more than 2% GDP increase rather than economic collapse.

The above examples illustrate that immigrants are complementary workers to native populations. They get more work done faster, and they do not simply come and take jobs. They create more. More jobs and more wealth. This is a statistic that Donald Trump should look into. Instead of building a wall to block out immigrants and silence their cries for help, we should be building bridges to help those in need and allow them to contribute to our economy. Instead of deporting 11 million immigrants, we should be granting them a path to citizenship so they can continue to contribute to our economy and be allowed to pay taxes.

Conclusion

The Mexican border wall and broad deportation plan are the extreme end of President Trump’s policy statements on immigration. His administration has backpedaled from some of these claims, but the possibility of a partial implementation, or reversal of policy remains. My hope is that the aforementioned policy proposals have been placed in sufficiently clear light regarding their actual effects on the U.S. population and economy.

Will Doves or Hawks Fly? An Analysis of Democratic Policies in the Levant

In 2011, the streets of Cairo were teeming with political, financial, and religious fervor—with Egyptian President Mubarak at the root of discontent. Young protesters led by the Muslim Brotherhood and pro-democratic groups such as the “Tamarod” movement, took to Tahrir Square to oust a dictator representing three decades of Egyptian strife under secular autocracy, a militant ruling party, and economic strain. While uncertainty loomed in Tahrir Square, discord loomed in the White House Situation Room. Obama and his administration were bereft of time—with the choice of opting for “the right side of history” with young, pro-democracy protestors, or with a decades-old status quo embedded in the Mubarak regime. Answering the pleas of his advisors, President Obama chose to support the rebels. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—the current 2016 Democratic Presidential frontrunner -- unsuccessfully advocated siding with Mubarak based on the rationalization that supporting an unstructured, youthful revolutionary movement would not be any less than naïve. The rebels represented change and renewal, but Mubarak represented years of American investment, relative stability, and guarantee of U.S. access and provision.

Such a decision is congruent with Clinton’s so-called “hawkish” foreign policy agenda—yet scholars, critics, and constituents alike are still scratching heads in regards to Clinton’s strict theoretical framework. Many point to former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State as an oscillation between neo-conservatism and liberalism in international affairs. Clinton’s opponent, Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders, staunchly falls within liberalism, yet is misunderstood in his policy projections. In the largest and arguably, most historic presidential election this country will witness, the media machine has detracted voters from dissecting Hilary’s ideological direction or Sander’s exact foreign policy agenda. In this piece, I seek to dissect Clinton’s and Sanders’ theoretical identities and visualize their policies in the most precarious geopolitical hotspot of the 21st century: the Levant region.

Neo-con, Realist, or both? Assessing Hillary’s Ideological Conundrum

Advisor Jeffrey Bader once remarked that Clinton is “not an ideological person, she’s a deal-maker.” The ambiguity that surrounds the exact identity of Clinton’s foreign policy has been the subject of widespread speculation in this election. Her extensive record appears to be a conjectural blend of realist, idealist, and neo-conservative policy selections. As a New York Senator, she voted yes for intervention in Iraq. In her “pivot to Asia” as Secretary of State, she sought a role for the United States in territorial disputes in the South China Sea. She has angered Jewish voters when she has remained neutral with Israeli-Iranian tensions, while acknowledging Israel’s pivotal role as an American ally in the Middle East, and even proposing support of Iranian democratic attempts at a 2016 appearance at AIPAC. Public perception has suggested that Clinton reflects all three ideological identities of realism, liberalism, and neo-conservatism. Yet, when we arrange her record comprehensively, we will discover that Clinton is unapologetically neo-con in every crease and corner of the fabric that is her foreign policy agenda. Clintonism will champion hard power over soft, politics of preconditions, shoe-leather diplomacy, and operating from a position of strength. Is Hillary the next Kissinger? No, but expect a hybridized version of Kissinger, Kagan, and Robert Gates. Hillary will exemplify her appreciation of using clout of diplomacy, but realizes militarized strength may be necessary to sit parties at the table in the first place.

To compare the Democratic candidates, one must comprehend Clinton’s appreciation for statecraft abroad, while Sanders focuses on the American state itself; external reformation runs divergent to internal reconstruction. Clinton and Sanders both exercise caution when flexing their foreign policy muscle, yet differ in nature. Clinton sees the military as a valuable mechanism, while Sanders sees it as a potential deterrent. Clinton practices caution in the calculation and execution of hard power initiatives, keeping her cards close to her chest. Yet in retrospect, she keeps a maximalist thirst for an American militarized footprint across the world. Secretary of Defense Gates recalls Clinton favored 40,000 boots on the ground when he advised 30. After all, Clinton’s education in the world of foreign policy began not in her tenure as Secretary of State or even as First Lady, but as a freshman New York Senator on the Committee on Armed Services, where she developed a great appreciation for American military capability. Sanders on the other hand, is more cautious in foreign policy. He voted against intervention in Iraq and champions that decision as representative of his strong anti-interventionism. Many have compared Clinton’s foreign policy as a continuation of the Obama Administration, such as non-intervention in Syria, but in fact it is Sanders that would replicate “skeptical restraint” best. While critics have pointed to Sanders as immature in foreign policy and avoidant of the topic altogether, they must explore Sander’s liberal logic of policies he has already presented on debate floors across the country. To understand Sander’s global strategy is to understand his domestic platform. His policies abroad are anchored to his economic strategy to alleviate collegiate debt, combat Wall Street, and improve social welfare programs; the United States cannot pour money into carpet-bombing the Islamic State that drains taxation at home, nor expend resources fighting for democracy in Iran or Egypt when democratic ideals are endangered at the expense of the corporate machine.

Visualizing the Levant

The Levantine region of the Middle East has become characterized by regenerative, endless conflicts, ruptures in the ethnic and religious foundations, and proxy interests intersecting in Iraq and Syria. Civil wars are incubated within civil wars—spurred initially by democratic fervor and devolving into foreign manipulation of rebel factions to install puppet leadership. These conflicts are consequential; it is fuddled, it is not simplistic enough to characterize with theory alone. A presidential candidate who claims to contextualize a policy strategy in all corners of this conflict is lying, but a candidate that can produce a doctrine America can commit to, is integral in the Democratic race. Senator Sanders has accomplished this, publicly advocating commitment to non-intervention in the Middle East. Clinton’s stance tethers its “globocop” approach to combatting the swath of violent non-state actors, bloodthirsty dictatorships, proxy interests battling from the Gulf, and militarized “aid” from China and Russia. To Clinton, Putin has no business fighting in Syria. To Bernie, neither does the United States.

Clinton mutually supports an Israeli state and Palestinian forces, yet shies away from the high dive board when pursuing the hunt for a two-state solution like presidential predecessors have done, believing the timing is not ripe in 2016. Senator Sanders additionally will pivot towards the acknowledgement of the right for a Palestinian solution, playing what he called an “even-handed role” in the interaction between Israelis and Palestinians. While Sanders is Jewish, he has shied away from proclaiming himself a Zionist. Sanders has proven to be tactical when approaching the Palestinian question; he wholeheartedly supports the Israeli right to exist, but does visualize an emerging landscape of a new Middle East. Does this make Sanders a realist on Israel? Possibly. It is not clear whether Sanders will pursue a two-state solution, but it’s clear he will not isolate the Palestinians, as have previous administrations. With both candidates, the world will see an American presidency that will re-balance its allegiances in the Gaza Strip.

The question of Syria has deeply characterized the foreign policy agenda of the Obama Administration, and will quite possibly plague the remainder of the twenty-first century. The Syrian Civil War is a tumultuous blend of civil war, proxy interests, terrorism, and underlying cultural and religious tensions—remnants of colonialism and the 1917 Sykes-Picot Agreement. Both Sanders and Clinton understand that any future policy decision in Syria should represent the American people’s aversion to intervention, yet nips the humanitarian strife in the bud. Such a policy has posed presidential politics in a state of flux; Senator Ted Cruz advocated carpet-bombing campaigns, Trump called for the elimination of local gas sources, and many other candidates have called for the eradication of ISIS before approaching the Syrian Civil War. To evaluate the stances of the two Democratic frontrunners, one must first question what beast the candidates will encounter first: Assad or ISIS? Clinton has chosen ISIS, opting to place a larger American presence in the region, surpassing Obama’s authorized 50 Special Operation Troops. The former Secretary of State has advocated the preparation and training of Syrian Sunni and Shiite rebels to fight in Syria, believing they would be a “psychological boost to the opposition” that would back American enemies into a dark corner. Mrs. Clinton sees it necessary to unite under a common international enemy, and then seek regime change with the dismantling of Assad in Damascus. Senator Sanders, on the other hand, has chosen to avoid what he calls a “never-ending quagmire” between American boots on the ground and ISIS fighters, and additionally has not supported a no-fly-zone in Syria. Clinton’s threaded short-term strategies starkly contrast with Sander’s isolationist long-term vision of the struggle with ISIS. While Clinton sees it necessary for the American struggle to incorporate international cooperation, Sanders finds it necessary for the fight to be a globalized one. Sanders has called for an international coalition to combat the Islamic State, emulating the Jordanian King Abdullah's plan to build a coalition of Muslim nations on the ground, while remaining international powers carry airstrike campaigns and economic measures to cut off the blood-flow of the Islamic State.

Looking Towards The Future

The presidential strategies in Syria best reflect two very contrasting tones set in the Levant region. Clinton’s neo-conservative approach and foreign policy chops will utilize hard and soft power to promote democratic, American ideals in fluctuating political systems. Under a Clinton administration, Hawks will predominately fly over the Levant—a product of the former Secretary of State’s step-by-step strategizing, teaming diplomatic strength with military muscle to accomplish infrastructural stability and political peace in the Levant. Sanders will, by contrast, engage the global arena in coalition building and aversion to on-the-ground intervention. His foreign policy decisions will reflect that of his domestic platform, illustrating the Senator’s long-term vision of a cooperative and welcoming United States in the international community. As Levantine conflicts have begun to pour into the political, economic, and cultural borders of Turkey, the Balkans, and Europe, the world holds its breath as candidates assemble policy projections for such a delicate region. While running within the confines of the Democratic Party, this race is showcasing candidates that will envision two very different faces of the Levant Region in the next four years to come. Doves may fly, but under the shadow of hawks.