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.

Addressing Gun Violence in the Wake of the Christchurch Shootings Implications for New Zealand and the United States

On March 15, in Christchurch, New Zealand, a gunman killed fifty people in two mosque attacks. After the shootings it was revealed that the perpetrator bought his weapons in accordance with New Zealand law. It was clear that New Zealand’s gun policies were not enough, leading Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to announce changes just days after the shootings. In response, many people celebrated Ardern and encouraged the United States to follow New Zealand’s lead.

Currently, New Zealand’s gun laws require a background check and a minimum age of only 16, or 18 to purchase semi-automatic weapons. The process for earning a firearms license includes a background check, a gun safety lecture, and a thirty-question test. In addition, “Two referees, including one spouse or parent, must be able to attest to an applicant's suitability to carry a gun in an interview with police. An arms officer from New Zealand Police will also pay a visit to their home to inspect security of the guns.” Despite these requirements, a report in 2017 showed that “43,509 people applied for firearms licences, and 43,321 were granted” during that year. For reference, that means 99.5% of applications were successful. Furthermore, “Among developed nations it stands alone with the United States as the only two countries without universal gun registration,” and a person is allowed to purchase any number of guns after receiving their license.

After the attacks, Prime Minister Ardern took little time to declare that the laws would be changed. All five of the weapons used by the Christchurch attacker were bought legally — two of which were semi-automatic. Prime Minister Ardern announced that access to these military-style weapons will require a police permit, which will be extremely difficult to attain. She continued, “We will also ban all assault rifles. We will ban all high-capacity magazines. We will ban all parts with the ability to convert semi-automatic or any other type of firearm into a military-style semi-automatic weapon.” Further efforts include implementing a buyback program in which the acquired weapons will be destroyed. Although some people may view the changes as drastic, Prime Minister Ardern claimed that the cabinet is “absolutely unified.”

In light of these announcements, the conversation stretched from New Zealand to across the globe. Although there was some backlash, the overwhelming majority praised Prime Minister Ardern. New Zealand journalist Eric Young commented, “@jacindaardern has done an extraordinary job representing our nation, our pain and our resolve.” New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also praised Arden’s actions, “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market. This is what leadership looks like.” On the other hand, NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch argued that New Zealand is “an entirely different country that doesn’t have the right to bear arms as a cornerstone of its constitution, in addition to numerous state laws.” While the second amendment gives people living in the United States the right to bear arms, there is debate over whether that includes military-style weapons.

In the United States, “Federal law does not require background checks for private sales. It would not require background checks for transfers between family members or for temporary use of a gun.” In February 2019, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would require background checks on all firearm sales. The bill is unlikely to reach the Senate floor, but if it if it is passed President Donald Trump said that he would veto it. In addition, a federal ban on bump stocks went into effect in March of 2019. Bump stocks allow semi-automatic weapons to function as a fully-automatic weapon and they have been used in a number of attacks, such as the 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Although the bump stock ban is progress, it should be noted that it is one of the only effective pieces of federal legislation regarding gun control that was passed in the last several years.

Meanwhile, gun deaths in the United States have reached a record high. Vox reported that more people died from gun violence than car crashes in 2017. However, those in favor of gun control have been faced with extreme pushback. For example, Florida Senator Marco Rubio claimed that many “view banning guns as an infringement on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens that ultimately will not prevent these tragedies.” The National Rifle Association (NRA) is also a big contributing factor as to why the United States does not have satisfactory gun control. According to Cameron Kasky, a March For Our Lives co-founder, “the second we want to put common-sense resolutions on these assault weapons, the NRA will say they are trying to steal every single one of your guns, and people believe them.” New Zealand also has a National Rifle Association, but they are considering a name change to avoid association with the United States organization.

New Zealand’s current situation shows that compromises can be made in order to keep people safe. As Prime Minister Ardern stated, their country’s reforms are not being made to infringe on anyone’s freedoms. Instead, they “are directed at making sure this never happens again.” She also emphasized her belief that most gun owners will agree that change is necessary. In other countries, gun control has proven to save lives. For instance, after a mass shooting in Australia, a ban on semi-automatic weapons was implemented. Since 1996, they have had no mass gun deaths and “Researchers concluded gun control laws theoretically prevented 16 mass shootings in Australia.” In addition, the United Kingdom’s buyback program and strict gun control laws may explain why it has one of the lowest levels of gun deaths among industrialized nations. Statistics show that gun control laws generally lower the gun-related death toll.

In 2016, deaths related to gun violence were at “a rate of 1.87 per million people” in New Zealand as opposed to “106 deaths per million” in the United States. While New Zealand’s leadership announced significant changes only six days after Christchurch, the United States has yet to properly respond to Parkland, Las Vegas, Orlando, and the alarming amounts of daily gun-related deaths. It is estimated that each day in the United States, 318 people are shot and 96 of those people die. Clearly, something needs to change in order to end this epidemic.

The Need For Scholarly Education and Efficient Promotion Within Police Departments

The current police officer promotion system is based on rank, seniority, and test scores. These factors determine where an officer is ultimately placed to serve. Most police departments do not consider an officer’s previous experiences within their new location when making assignment decisions. The system also does not provide sufficient officer training and education on the vital background knowledge needed about the precincts they will patrol. Officers are often placed wherever there is an opening, even if they lack interest, experience, or insight within the area. This problem in the promotion and police training system is an impactful one. Police officers are responsible for protecting members of the distinct communities that they are assigned. To effectively do so, they must have a comprehensive understanding of the community’s culture and the particular challenges that they may face. Officers need to be better equipped to work in the environments that they patrol; improved training and education based on scholarly research will allow officers to protect and support community members in a more sensitive, capable manner. In turn, this will likely lead to stronger relationships with the community, and improved perceptions of police officers, and the law in general. Additionally, crime rates will likely drop due to better policing tactics, case closures will increase, and community trust in police will rise.

The book Ghettoside, A True Story of Murder in America by Jill Leovy, is a commentary on how police officers and specialized units, like gang and homicide units, do not understand the communities they serve. It shows how, within our current systems, there exists a lack of knowledge about the unique needs of the diverse citizens that officers are enlisted to protect. Left without proper training and understanding, promoted officers simply bring their previous experiences in other placements to their new assignments. This makes it difficult for police to effectively do their jobs, as officers treat a new situation with the same approach they used in their last community. Not understanding the specifics of each placement can also exacerbate police-community relationships in areas with high minority populations and strong police presence. When this occurs, it is important to look at the ways new officers, detectives, specialized unit officers, and other command staff get their information about the communities they serve.

This is why more effective promotion and training programs should be implemented in departments, specifically those in major cities like the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in Washington D.C. The current system of promotion in MPD consists of a test, an oral board, and a hypothetical scenario. Officers do not get a choice in where they go and often do not have prior experience in that specialty or precinct. As it currently stands, MPD officers receive twenty-four weeks of academic and physical training. The focus of the academy is to learn the basics of police work and prepare cadets for patrol duties. This includes two weeks of intensive firearms training, a week of civil disturbance training, vehicle skills, and survival skills. At this time, the academy does not cover training on the diverse communities found in Washington D.C.’s seven police districts. If the academy does not educate its officers on the variety of residents and cultures that exist within the city, they cannot be expected to consider these nuances when they are involved in specialized units. These aspects are critical to effective policing in the current climate of increased police violence and shootings, decreased trust from the public, and the creation of the Black Lives Matter Movement. Therefore, great effort should be put into reforming the manner in which officers are prepared for new job placements.

Beginning in the early 1900’s, the notion that police officers should be better educated became an important topic in police reform. This focus coincided with the early start of the reform era of policing in America. The goal of the reform effort was to reduce misconduct, corruption and inefficiency through training, standards, technology and education. Since that time, scholarly, on-going education has become one of the central elements in more effective and comprehensive policing. This belief, that scholarly, complex education is universally accepted as the benchmark of success, began to take hold in the expectations for reforming American policing.

Even with this newfound interest in scholarly reform, research shows that police academy training has not changed much in the last twenty years. Training needs to move away from traditional policing and incorporate more community-based skills. New training methods should emphasize problem solving, decision making, and interpersonal skills. A study conducted in 2001 found that the police training academy has a positive impact on new officers’ attitudes towards community policing. However, the positive attitude was found to dissipate over time as the officers moved to their assigned locations and were exposed to the new work settings and organizational culture. It is important to reassess officer knowledge not only to ensure they know all skills and information necessary, but also to update them on new insights within their area of work. Finally, research shows that it is important for the officers’ supervisors to reflect the same values and skills needed for community policing. The superiors in each department must also engage in the training and review sessions in order to set an example for their officers. Most importantly, in order to truly improve officer performance where it is needed, these programs must strive to achieve a successful application of knowledge from the classroom to the field.

Unfortunately, research shows that the programs currently implemented in police departments do not rely on evidence-based practices and research as a guide to success. Instead, these programs reinforce police status quo and do not challenge officers to gain a more intelligent, holistic understanding of the citizens and areas they serve. In Washington D.C. there are a myriad of communities and diverse groups that expand across the District, each having their own unique characteristics. MPD must integrate information specific to these communities into new education practices so that officers can learn to address crime while staying sensitive to the culture and challenges of the people they are tasked with protecting. Not taking a broader approach to education creates a disconnect between classroom training and the kind of practical implementation that actually makes a difference. When police training is grounded in scholarly education and research, it gives departments the skills necessary to create strong relationships with community members so that they can work together to reduce crime.

A well-rounded police training program should be taught by scholarly faculty, with the focus on making police education more intellectually demanding, broad, and complex. Needless to say, policing has not seen this type of education implemented and instead research has shown that police education is not taught by scholarly faculty and is anything but intellectually challenging. Across the board, scholars, police commissioners, activists, and policymakers agree that better education and training for officers is a necessity that must be implemented immediately to address the current issues that plague modern policing.

To improve officer performance, this policy proposal is based around the promotion system and more effective training for candidates after their placement is decided. There is a need for specific training for officers as they are promoted to specialized areas. Officers will be required to complete a certain amount of training hours before starting work in the community, as well as yearly reviews with updated information. Before this policy can be started, a training curriculum must be created, and funds need to be gathered and distributed amongst trainers and curriculum developers. Once resources are accumulated, this policy can, and should, be implemented immediately.

When it comes time for an officer to promote within a police department there is an almost uniform system in which individuals move up the ranks. Across the country, police departments promote based on an officer’s time on the job and performance on the tests required for the new placement. Usually this consists of a different test for becoming a Sergeant, Detective, Lieutenant and Captain. This process may also include an oral board, hypothetical situation, or peer review. Once an individual has completed the test, they are placed on a list that ranks each candidate available for promotion from highest combined score to the lowest. When a position opens in any unit, the first name on the list is assigned to the new position and so on.

When individuals have been assigned to their new placements they will likely move to a different location, as most promoted positions are not in the same district or office where they previously worked. Usually this means officers also get new shift times and may work hours they never have before. When these changes are made and finalized they have no say in the matter; it is strictly up to administrators. Police officers are often thrown into these new situations with little training or preparation. Most of their education is achieved on the job, through practice in their new role, and from those who held positions before them. This approach has left officers without adequate training and the tools they need to best serve the communities they are assigned.

In this proposed policy, the new system for promotion would enable candidates to pick their top three placements when filling out their written test. Candidates could have their names placed, only on, the list for each of their three desired placements. Here they would be ranked in the same manner they were in the previous system, but this time they would have a better chance of being promoted into one of their chosen specialties or units. Making this change would provide a sense of performance accountability to officers in these placements because they ultimately selected where they would like to go. This ownership would reduce the mentality of simply punching into their jobs and leaving as soon as their shift is over. Instead, individuals would work where they want and, in theory, will be more passionate about the assignments and people they are serving. This would also mean that officers that may want to work in areas that do not require a lot of effort, or feel they can’t handle serious and disturbing cases, could therefore choose assignments aligned with their abilities and desires. This would be a critical step in making specialized units more efficient.

After new candidates have been placed on their three chosen promotion lists, and have been selected to serve in an open position in one of their desired specialties, the next step is to educate them on their new units. Since many officers, detectives, and other higher ranking officials get sent to new positions that they have never worked in before, they should have a basic understanding of the communities and cultures within their new service area. This type of training does not currently exist on a wide scale and is something that is vital to effective policing and positive community relations. This proposal would introduce new training, achieved through the introduction of a thirty-hour classroom curriculum that all new candidates would take before making a full transition to their new promotions. This new training would consist of in depth lectures and presentations covering information on how to better serve the specific communities they will work in and the types of crimes associated with those communities.

These classes would be taught by outside scholars, either from the community or local universities, and would discuss the circumstances unique to specific neighborhoods. At the same time, attention will be brought to the issues caused by policing these areas and address ways in which legitimacy and respect could be improved. This classroom curriculum would also cover the particular specialties these individuals will be working in, such as gangs, homicide, or sexual violence. Topics could cover anything from ways to sensitively deal with victims or witnesses, or how to properly and effectively work a case to completion. Candidates should also be tested, in written and oral form, and required to get passing grades, to prove they have learned the information and can successfully implement it in the field. This is a timely process and it seems unlikely that these individual would be able to complete all thirty hours, so a minimum of twelve hours, or two six hour courses, must be required before they can begin working in their new assignment. The remainder must be completed within six months of taking their new position.

A cost benefit analysis of this proposal highlights many different aspects that should be considered when implementing the policy. First, the most impactful cost of this proposal comes down to money. Funds will be needed to pay for the creation of the curriculum and training guidelines for the program. Police departments will need to spend time finding someone who is qualified and willing to create a training course. This person will need to be paid to develop the new curriculum, as well as the basic cost of materials. Additionally, capable instructors must be paid for the time spent training officers during the initial thirty hours, as well as for the yearly review sessions. When it comes down to it, the most substantial financial cost of this program is that money will be spent on education rather than somewhere else within the police department. Another cost of this program is the time officers spend during training instead of policing. Trainees will need to be paid to sit in a classroom for thirty hours initially and six hours yearly. This means that additional officers will need to be paid to police the streets, in place of the ones going through training.

Despite the financial costs of this program, there are many benefits. First, police officers will be more qualified and have a better understanding of the issues facing their specific assignment location. The component of the policy which allows officers to list their top three assignment areas will result in officers being more invested in the area they are assigned to because they have a say in the matter. This will also weed out the officers who do not really care about helping the community. Officers who are not concerned with learning about the environment they are assigned to aren’t likely to be willing to sit through thirty hours of training. This will decrease the number of officers who move up in rank but do not have a stake in the community they are supposed to serve.

Another benefit of this program is that it could potentially increase police legitimacy. If officers have a better understanding of the culture of their community, they will be better equipped to foster meaningful relationships with community members. Police officer safety while on the job will also increase because they will be more prepared for the environment they work in. When residents see officers solving problems that they see as issues, they will be more likely to respect the officers and the local police in general. One benefit of this could be higher rates of case closure due to improved community relationships. Community members will be more willing to speak with and help officers regarding cases in their neighborhood. As a result of this increased legitimacy and better community relations, the crime rate of the specific areas may also decrease.  Officers will be able to solve crimes more efficiently with the assistance of local residents.

The current police training system is outdated and focuses on traditional police tactics. There is a growing need for knowledgeable officers who understand the areas they are assigned to police. The present system places officers based on rank, seniority, and test scores. Officers are given little to no training specific to their location after they are given their assignments. This policy focuses on implementing a training course designed to teach newly promoted officers about their specific locations and community contexts. The thirty-hour course will help the officers to develop skills to more efficiently solve issues facing their community. The officers will have a better understanding of the community’s culture and be capable of forming lasting relationships with the residents. Yearly reviews will refresh the officer’s knowledge and provide insight to new information related to their location. Scholarly education and training improves the officers’ safety and ability to do their jobs with a better understanding of the environment they work in. Police are tasked with protecting and serving the public; they are given rights by the public that are not afforded to any other community agency and for that reason they are held to higher standards. When an institution holds that much power an investment should be made in the training required to achieve its highest potential.Through stronger communication and appreciation of the community, crime rates could potentially decrease while case closures increase.

The Willing and Able: Combatting Homophobia and Stigma in American Blood Donation

In April 2016, my ex-boyfriend and I went to an on-campus blood drive at our high school a few days after we had each had sex with each other. I had been able to donate blood in spite of my personal sexual activity several times before, so I did not believe that this time would be different. I was wrong. Both of us were deferred for a year on the basis that we were a sexually active, monogamous, protection-using gay couple.

For my ex-boyfriends and myself, along with countless other gay and bisexual men across the United States, this anecdote is not unique. In 1983 and 1992, the Food and Drug Administration issued standard-setting recommendations to blood centers to defer sexually active gay men indefinitely from donating, even if the sex was protected and monogamous. In 2015, the FDA revised these recommendations by shortening the deferral period to one year. While some activists and health organizations heralded the revision as a victory, many individuals still believe that the revision does not go far enough. The Food and Drug Administration’s 2015 revision of its earlier recommendations for blood donation is deeply flawed because the recommendations utilize weak scientific and medical reasoning, they codify homophobia, and they continue to fail to save the lives of potential blood recipients. In order to resolve the issues with the Food and Drug Administration’s blood donation recommendations, the United States should acknowledge its potential role in promoting human rights, follow the example of other countries such as Argentina and Russia as possible models for activism and policy change, and facilitate norm realization in other countries.

Before dissecting the problems within the Food and Drug Administration’s 2015 revised version of the 1992 blood memorandum, it is necessary to first analyze the original 1983 recommendations in order to evaluate the flawed foundation of the current recommendations. In 1983 the FDA published their report, “Recommendations to Decrease the Risk of Transmitting Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) from Blood Donors,” that recommended the indefinite deferral of several specific groups of individuals. Among these groups, two groups of “persons at increased risk of AIDS” are defined as “persons with symptoms and signs suggestive of AIDS” and “homosexual or bisexual men with multiple partners.” The first definition is problematic because, as outlined throughout the report “HIV and the Blood Supply: An Analysis of Crisis Decisionmaking,” several leading American health organizations, including the FDA, utilize an illusory correlation when referencing the prominence of AIDS among gay men. Essentially, multiple organizations argue that because there is a high rate of AIDS among gay men, gay men must be at an increased risk or predisposed to transmitting AIDS to others. Following this logic, the FDA outlines the standard operating procedures. In this way, major health organizations such as the FDA cemented the idea that same-sex sexual activity was “suggestive of AIDS,” thus laying the groundwork for the codification of homophobia and stigma through blood donation rhetoric and bureaucracy.

Defining persons “at increased risk of AIDS” as “sexually active homosexual or bisexual men with multiple partners” highlights one of the major disparities between the original 1983 recommendations and the 2015 revised recommendations. Here, the FDA provides an important specification that would not be sustained in future blood donation recommendations; in order for someone to be considered at increased risk, they had to be both homosexual or bisexual and sexually active with multiple partners. Under this definition, a gay man in a monogamous, sexual relationship, regardless of whether or not the sex was protected, would still be eligible to donate blood. Although these provisions in no way represent a perfect understanding of the nature of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), they do demonstrate a primitive understanding that sexual contact with multiple people may play a key factor in the catalyzing the rapid transmission of AIDS, and that same-sex sexual activity alone may not explain rapid rates of transmission or increased risk among individuals.

What scientists now know is that the transmission of AIDS is much more nuanced than sourcing from scapegoated and disenfranchised groups such as queer men, intravenous drug users, sex workers, immigrants, and hemophiliacs. As the United States Department of Health and Human Services highlights in a fact sheet addressing myths surrounding AIDS, “only certain body fluids – blood, semen, pre-seminal fluid, rectal fluids, vaginal fluids, and breast milk – from a person who has HIV can transmit HIV”. Findings such as these help to explain the prevalence of AIDS among each of the aforementioned groups. Rather than each of these groups being predisposed to contracting or transmitting AIDS due to their lifestyles or behaviors, the likelihood of contraction or transmission is determined as a deviation from an otherwise safe practice. For example, intravenous drug users are not predisposed to contract or transmit AIDS because they use drugs, but rather because they may use unsterile needles with traces of other people's’ bodily fluids still on them. Similarly, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention points out in a 2017 fact sheet titled “HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men,” “most gay and bisexual men get HIV through having anal sex without condoms or medicines to prevent or treat HIV.” The high rate of transmission, then, is not due to same-sex sexual activity itself, but rather unprotected sex. With this nuanced and  scientifically validated understanding of the causes of AIDS transmission, it should  seem that the FDA would revise its recommendations accordingly to allow for sexually active gay men that have exclusively protected sex to donate blood.

In fact, this assumption is only partially true. In its 2015 “Revised Recommendations for Reducing the Risk of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by Blood and Blood Products,” the FDA recommended to all blood donation facilities, among other things, that the indefinite deferral of sexually active gay people be reduced to one year. Claiming to have revised their previous recommendations on the basis of responding to new scientific evidence and accusations of discrimination and homophobia, the FDA adjusted its position back to its core 1983 recommendation regarding donors engaging in same-sex sexual activity. The 1983 recommendation reads, “until the AIDS problem is resolved or definitive tests become available, [sexually active homosexual or bisexual men with multiple partners] should refrain from blood donation because of the potential risk of recipients of their blood.” Despite discoveries in the ensuing decades that AIDS was transmitted through bodily fluid exchange rather than lifestyle or identity, the FDA failed to alter its tone in its 2015 revised recommendations: “Defer for 12 months from the most recent sexual contact, a man who has had sex with another man during the past 12 months.” In contrast with the original 1983 recommendations, the concept of frequent sexual activity with multiple partners has seemingly become irrelevant. Additionally, even in light of the groundbreaking scientific discoveries detailing AIDS as transmissible only through the exchange of bodily fluids, the FDA claims that the use of protection is not a factor in its report: “Throughout this guidance the term ‘sex’ refers to having anal, oral, or vaginal sex, regardless of whether or not a condom or other protection is used.” This is the only mention in the 29-page report of the use of protection, one of the biggest factors, as stated earlier, in limiting the transmission and contraction of AIDS. If one utilizes the early and frequent use of protection, honestly answers blood donor questionnaires, has their blood subjected to screening, and takes responsibility to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections (STI), the risk of a blood recipient receiving an infected unit of blood is limited to less than a one in 500,000 chance (“HIV Transmission Through Transfusion – Missouri and Colorado, 2008”).  With the chance of receiving an infected blood unit proven to be so miniscule, and the subsequent continuation of the deferral of gay men adding to climate of homophobia and stigmatization, it is irrational to continue the twelve-month deferral of gay men from donating blood in the United States.

While many activists and grassroots organizations have already successfully argued against the continuation of the arbitrary deferral recommendations, little traction has been gained since 2015 because of the lack of a clear path to alternative legislation. Grassroots organizations such as the Gay Men’s Health Crisis, Blood is Blood, and Banned4Life have each worked tirelessly to progress the agenda of allowing gay men to donate blood, uninhibited and without fear of discrimination, by organizing community blood drives, providing resources for HIV testing, and lobbying for policy change. These organizations help to catalyze public sentiment in the United States in favor of revising the 2015 recommendations, but they still fail to offer concrete alternative solutions.

Taking a cue from other countries that have allowed gay men to donate blood without a sexuality-based deferral, United States health organizations such as the FDA, can borrow scientific models for sustainable policy change. Of over a dozen countries that have eliminated the deferral of gay men based on their sexuality, two primary alternatives exist. The first, as used by countries such as Spain, Italy, and Russia, assesses individuals based on their sexual behavior, namely, whether or not they have been using protection during sex, and whether they are having sex with multiple partners, rather than their sexual orientation. Thus far, not one of these  countries has experienced an increase in the number of AIDS infections via blood transfusions, indicating that this policy is a successful alternative. The second alternative, as utilized by countries like Argentina and Peru, uses the same strategy as the first alternative, but additionally connects the policy change to the progression of queer rights in those countries. For countries with more conservative views towards their queer population, such as the United States under the Trump administration, the first alternative may prove more suitable, while countries with more outspoken support for their queer communities may opt for the second alternative.

Through the work of grassroots organizations and pressure from the international community, the United States Food and Drug Administration will hopefully revise its recommendations and allow for queer people to freely donate blood to save lives. Perhaps then, the United States can begin to reclaim some of its former reputation as a champion of human rights by setting a precedent for blood donation rights around the world.

Expanding Our Definition of Meat: Changing perceptions of alternative protein sources for potential benefits

Introduction

I’m vegetarian. I’m vegan. These are two statements that can mean very different things to different people.  For some, being a vegetarian or vegan means giving up animal products in order to save the lives of other living creatures. For others, it means eating a healthier or “cleaner” diet in order to obtain a certain weight-loss goal or body image. And in some cases, these statements can be heard with resentment or negativity, incorporating another meaning to vegetarianism and veganism that’s tied with an undesirable social context.

However, it is agreed that choosing to follow a vegetarian and vegan diet is so much more than simply giving up meat or only eating vegetables. A vegetarian diet excludes the consumption of animal meat (including any livestock, seafood, and wild animals), but can include the consumption of some animal byproducts, such as milk and cheese. A vegan diet, meanwhile, excludes the consumption of all animal meats and by products, including gelatin and honey. Vegan diets have also been referred to as “total vegetarian.”

Recently vegetarian eating behavior rose in popularity, almost as much as participation in the vegan lifestyle; between 2014 and 2017, there occured a 600% increase of the number of people in the United States who identified as being vegan. The reasons that more and more people have chosen to consume a meatless and/or no-animal-product diet are numerous, complex, and many are justifiably sound. It’s common to associate vegetarianism, veganism, and meat-selective diets with the ethical desire to avoid killing animals unnecessarily or with religion. But the rise in choosing an exclusively or almost exclusively plant-based diet over a diet that includes meat and animal products is linked to environmental, health, and economic benefits. These benefits have been thoroughly researched and examined for legitimacy with an abundance of scientific data as support.

Yet there is still a strong negative social response to veganism and vegetarianism. While most people in contemporary culture avoid “open expressions of prejudice towards racial outgroups,” many people feel that they can be openly prejudice towards vegetarians/vegans. Most of this prejudice is voiced in the form of social media, especially online memes, to represent non-vegetarians’ exasperation over vegetarian and vegan lifestyle choices. Stereotyping, exaggeration, and misunderstanding have all contributed to anti- vegetarian and vegan discourse, discrediting and diminishing many of the positive benefits these diets can provide. One of the main criticisms of meatless diets is the assumption that one cannot get sufficient protein from non-animal sources, or alternative protein sources. This assumption illustrates the fundamental lack of understanding and nutritional education of many people, especially in the United States. However, the negative perception of vegetarianism and veganism has been, and can continue to be, changed as new health related research, plant-based products, environmental concerns, and economic justifications provide a more holistic understanding of these diets. Changing consumers’ perceptions about alternative protein sources that are essential parts of vegetarian and vegan diets may lead to better public and individual health outcomes, environmental sustainability, and more economically affordable food options.

Today’s Meat Consumption Culture and Perceptions of Vegetarianism

Although vegetarianism and veganism is on the rise, it is sound to say that the consumption of meat will continue to grow as well. In 2004 the average American consumed 203.2 pounds of meat per year, which translates to over half a pound of meat per day. The meat industry continued to grow and strengthen its production capabilities throughout the decade until the economic shock of the Great Recession reduced Americans’ consumption of meat to 186.6 pounds a year in 201. Now, the average consumption of meat per person in the U.S. is creeping back up to 200 pounds per year and is expected to reach 219 pounds a year by 2025, according to the USDA Economic Research Service.

Indeed, even with the rise in meat-less and meat-restricted diets, Americans in general are demanding and eating more meat. There are several speculations for why this is, such as the idea that meat consumption has been a fundamental part of the “American” diet since the early settlement period. Increase in meat consumption can also be correlated with the steady increase in United States’ GPD over the past 50 years, offering the idea that as Americans generate more wealth they can afford to eat more meat. However, an increase in meat consumption is strongly correlated to other, more harmful, trends related to Americans’ health and environmental destruction. As Americans are eating more meat, they’re also increasing rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes among other weight related health problems.. Meanwhile, the food industry has contributed to a quarter of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions with 80% of that are linked to animal meat and livestock production. These massive livestock production farms are housed on huge areas of land that are depleted of their original and natural vegetation and create 3 times more animal waste than the amount of human waste the entire U.S population creates per year.

Yet with all of this data that emphasizes the disadvantages, an understatement for sure, of Americans’ current meat consumption habits, there are still strong negative perceptions of vegetarian and vegan diets. Unsurprisingly, an experimental survey to explore prejudices against vegetarians, found that individuals who enjoy beef tend to have to “anti-vegetarian prejudices”. This result emphasizes the sociological need that people have to distance themselves from groups who they disagree with. Simply put, people who eat meat really enjoy eating meat and it bothers some people that vegetarians and vegans don’t eat meat. And that is one of the fundamental reasons why there is resistance to vegetarianism and veganism: people enjoy and take great pleasure out of purchasing, cooking, and eating meat. Animal meat is delicious and high in protein so it leaves people feeling full and satisfied, so of course it would be difficult for a lot people to give up.

But what if we could change the perception and concept of “meat” to more than strictly animal products? There is an emerging market in the food industry that has been developing plant-based food products meant to resemble, taste like, and ultimately be able to replace meat as alternative protein sources. Beyond Meat, one of the leading companies, has already created and is now actively selling plant-based “meat” products that are changing how people view being vegetarian and vegan.  

Changing Perceptions of Alternative Protein Sources and the Potential Benefits

Beyond Meat is a company based in El Segundo, California that was founded in 2009 with the mission to “create mass-market solutions that perfectly replace animal protein with plant protein”. The company’s desire to use plant-based proteins to replace meat-based proteins is aimed to improve global and environmental health, decrease the demand for mass livestock production farms, and conserve natural resources. The company recognizes that to achieve this goal it must appeal to more consumers than just vegans and vegetarians. Alexandra Sexton thoroughly analyzes and the way in which the Beyond Meat company creates, markets, and justifies its products in pursuit of its mission.

One of the main concepts that Sexton focuses in her study is how the Beyond Meat company curates the experience of purchasing, preparing, and consuming its product to reflect almost identically the experience one has with the meat equivalent. Sexton argues that the experience, or the “non-stuff”, plays a strong role in the perception, categorization, and enjoyment of what we eat. This is particularly true with how we perceive meat and meat consumption. Culturally, socially, nutritionally, and psychologically speaking, foods that are labeled as “meat” have a very different process of being prepared than those that we would traditionally label as “non-meat” or plant-based. However, through her research and experience with Beyond Meat, Sexton shows that this distinct perception between meat and non-meat can be challenged by utilizing the experience and “non-stuff” of the food itself.

Sexton performed field work analysis of the actual Beyond Meat product and carefully describes the entire experience. She first describes her trip to the local Whole Foods where she walked to the refrigerated meat section of the store and picked up a package Beyond Meat “chicken strips” that are shelved just a few feet away from real, raw chicken breasts. When she opened the package back in her kitchen to prepare a meal with the Beyond Chicken Strips, she carefully describes the texture, consistency, and smell of the strips prior to cooking. Although they did not have a distinct smell, Sexton was surprised to find that when she “broke” a strip in half, it shredded like real cooked chicken meat would. At this point she emphasized her visceral reaction of preparing the Beyond Chicken; up until this point she had had the same experience she would have had with real chicken strips. The only significant difference was that she saved time from not having to worry about the health risks with actual raw chicken. While cooking her Beyond Chicken strips in a sauté pan with onions, spices, and coconut milk to make a “chicken” coconut curry, she reported that the “sounds and smells of the dish” were almost identical the what she had experienced while cooking the same dish but with real chicken. When she ate her meal she reported that although the chicken strips did not contribute largely or combat with the overall flavor of the dish, she said that “[if] I had not known they were plant-based I would have quite likely passed them off as pre-cooked conventional chicken pieces from the supermarket”.

It is at that crucial moment, the culmination of the entire process of preparation and consumption, where Beyond Meat can change one’s perception of what is meat. Based on Sexton’s, and many others’ experience with this alternative-protein product, there is reason to reconsider what we think of as “meat.” If this product looks like meat, is sold in the same grocery store location as meat, cooks like meat, smells like meat, tastes like meat, and even has the same texture as meat can it be considered meat? A follow up question would then be: Why not? Just because the Beyond Chicken strips do not come from an actual chicken and are in fact made of mostly soy protein isolate and pea protein isolate , can they not be considered meat? Ultimately, it is up to each individual consumer to decide that. Nevertheless, the Beyond Meat company has been able to capture the experience one has with meat and mimic it with a product that contains only plant-based protein. In the same way that we accepted the endless types of cakes, pizzas, soups, and many other foods with large varieties, perhaps we can include plant-based protein products in our “meat” category.

The potential benefits for substantially changing Americans’, if not other high meat-consuming countries’, perceptions of meat to include alternative protein sources from plant-based products are profound on both the individual and global level. First, increasing people’s intake of nutrient-dense vegetables from plant-based protein products while decreasing the amount of fatty meats will lead to more nutritious diets and curb the obesity epidemic. With the country’s current eating habit, Americans on average consume daily 2 to 5 ounces of meat more than the American Heart Association recommends to avoid heart disease from high saturated fat and cholesterol intakes. Meanwhile, the average American eats less than 60% of their daily recommended amount of nutritious vegetables.

Secondly, eating a more plant-based diet will also save people economic costs both at the grocery store and in weight-related medical bills. Plant-based protein is more cost efficient to produce as it only requires the farming of plants instead of clearing land, raising, feeding, maintaining, slaughtering, and packaging the meat of livestock. If Americans were to shift towards a predominantly vegetarian diet, the country could save up to $735 billion per year on groceries, medical bills, and other costs related to meat production and consumption. The greater affordability of mass-produced plant-based products would also help people with low-income obtain more nutritious forms of protein.

Thirdly, reducing the consumption of animal meat due to an increase consumption of plant-based protein sources would dramatically reduce the negative effects the livestock industry has on the environment. A vegetarian diet produces 76% less greenhouse gas than a diet that regularly consumes red meat and requires a fraction of the water waste used to produce red meat products. Additionally, reducing the size and quantity of livestock farms and replacing them with a healthy rotation of plant crops would help preserve the land. The land that is used for mass livestock farms becomes depleted and destroyed by animal waste that traps large quantities of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. Using more land for alternative protein crop production instead of livestock could also create a more efficient and sustainable method of food production to feed the world’s growing population. Research from National Geographic reveals that only 55% of the world’s crop production goes to feeding people while the rest goes to feeding livestock or is turned into biofuels and industrial products. The world population is expected to grow to 9 billion people by 2050, but the world’s harvestable land mass cannot expand to sustain our current meat production rates. Whether or not we voluntarily switch to more plant-based diets, we may not have a choice in the very near future.

Potential Challenges and Concluding Remarks

Even with clear, tangible benefits, there are many challenges that can hinder the process of changing perceptions of meat to include alternative-protein sources to reduce animal meat consumption. One of the most substantial challenges is that current plant-based protein sources meant to mimic and replace animal meat products are not perfect. Even with the many positive reviews of Beyond Meat’s products, there are still strong critiques and criticism that highlight the products flaws. The main ones comes from scrutinizing the ingredients list of any of the Beyond Meat products. Although the Beyond Chicken strips were made mostly of water, soy protein isolate, and pea protein isolate, it also contains “natural flavoring”, maltodextrin, and “0.5% less of dipotassium phosphate”. Chemicals like these in processed foods draw skepticism and concern from consumers who would call this not a ‘natural’ product. However, since this is a new and emerging industry, there is great potential for future innovation from other alternative protein companies with similar missions to that of Beyond Meat.

Another substantial challenge is the fact that it’s hard to give up animal meat products. It is culturally ingrained for many Americans that meat is not only a necessity in daily diets, but is hailed as a proponent of the ‘American Dream.’ People may resent Beyond Meat products because it’s not the “real thing” and of course cannot compare them to a thick-cut, perfectly grilled, medium-rare steak that’s chard ever so slightly on the outside and satisfyingly chewy on the inside. But the point of Beyond Meat is not to attempt to make plant-based “meat” take on every aspect of beef meat; the point is to provide another option for meat products. Plant-based meat is different from beef meat as chicken meat is different from pork meat as lamb meat is different from fish meat, etc.

The growing shift towards eating more plant-based diets can be interpreted as a positive sign. People are becoming more informed and aware of how their consumption habits affect both their individual health as well as the health of the planet. One of the best parts about being human is our love for cooking, eating, and sharing food. Shifting towards our eating habits and changing our perception of meat should not be considered as “giving up” an aspect of our diets, but a celebration of even more diverse protein sources to come.

The Pragmatic, the Exciting, and the Uncertain: Hillary Clinton's Infrastructure Proposal

In late November 2015, the Clinton campaign announced plans to pursue an increase in federal infrastructure spending by $275 billion over 5 years, a plan the campaign calls “a major down payment on a stronger America”. Though comments concerning the plan have been largely muffled on the campaign trail by emphasis on the historical achievement of her mere nomination, email scandals, and the bewildering aura of her Fall challenger, Clinton did state in late May her intention to send “a comprehensive infrastructure proposal to Congress in her first 100 days in office”. Presumably, the inclusion of the plan in the agenda of her first 100 days signifies the status of this issue as a top priority for Clinton, and something she seems willing to bet her legacy on should she have the pleasure of serving.

Which is an issue, because while the plan is appealing rhetorically, it features a worrying lack of detail. While the Clinton campaign claims that the plan will be fully paid for, it only mentions “business tax reform” as its method of payment, without any specifics concerning which particular taxes will change, the manner in which they will change, or how reforming the business tax code will capture an extra $275 billion over 5 years. Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is generally accepted in the economic community that “business tax reform” is a worthwhile policy goal, as it is much more efficient to simply tax people’s incomes if you’re looking to tax them. That being said, if a President Clinton finds herself facing a Republican Congress next Spring, the likelihood of her presiding over revenue positive tax reform is dubious.

However, once one gets past the unclear method of payment, the Clinton campaign’s plan starts to get interesting. Of the original $275 billion sticker price, $250 billion will be set aside for direct infrastructure investment via conventional tax and spend methods. General repair is a major part of this spending—as the campaign vows to “fix and expand our roads and bridges”, oversee maintenance projects on various pipelines, dams, and levees, and address the “pothole tax”. But the biggest emphasis seems to be on new projects with an eye on efficiency and new technology. Not only does the plan call for the construction of new airports and air traffic control systems, expansion of public transport options with an emphasis on higher capacity passenger rail systems, and “initiating the upgrades of the at least the 25 most costly freight bottlenecks by the end of her first term”, but the plan also articulates a desire for investment in clean energy via attention to the development of a “smart” electrical grid, creating space for non-gasoline fueling stations, and ensuring that “the federal government is a partner in delivering clean and affordable energy”. The Clinton campaign even commits itself to ensuring that, by 2020, “100 percent of households in America will have access to affordable broadband that delivers world class speeds”. If all this was not enough, the campaign assures voters that this infrastructure plan will involve to creation of thousands of “good paying, middle class jobs – paying well over the national median” in order to make it happen.

And according to economists at large, all of this is pretty good stuff, as infrastructure investment in general has shown to have a positive relationship with economic growth (though the magnitude of this relationship is still up for debate). Specifically, economists will be generally be favorable to the idea of repairing roads to address the “pothole tax”, allowing money that would otherwise be allocated to car maintenance to flow into consumption that is utility positive, raising social welfare. Additionally, while not a public good by definition, clean energy is generally considered a type of good which is chronically underprovided by the market due to the typically large up-front costs and low rates of return, meaning that third party intervention is needed to capture the gains in welfare that are not realized when it is underprovided. Also, Clinton’s plan to connect 100 percent of Americans to high quality broadband is another provision of her plan that is likely to score points with labor economists, as lack of internet access is one of many things that have been cited as holding potentially capable workers from realizing their maximum income potential.

But perhaps the most interesting part of Clinton’s plan is the allocation of $25 billion as a seed fund for an independent, government owned infrastructure investment bank, both because the design and role of the bank lacks detail and precedent, but also because it could potentially offer a more permanent solution to infrastructure neglect in the future. The Clinton campaign states that the bank will exist to “provide loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of credit enhancement” to fund investment in “complex multi-modal projects like freight and port improvements, and in projects to modernize our energy, water, broadband, and transportation systems in urban and rural communities”. The bank will do this by issuing “special ‘super’ Build America Bonds”, building upon the structure of a program that lived and died within Obama’s first term. The campaign also mentions that the bank will be a “one-stop-shop” for state and local governments, municipalities, and project sponsors to secure the capital and expertise needed to see through infrastructure projects that have been vetted and approved by the bank’s “bipartisan review board”.

Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, the campaign leaves out many of the technical details of the bank’s creation and operation schemes that would be useful in imagining what exactly the bank would look like and how it would operate. Currently, the Build America Transportation Investment Center (BATIC), the keystone of the July 2014 executive action Build America Investment Initiative, considers itself a “one-stop-shop” for expertise in infrastructure projects. The BATIC does not, however, issue credit itself, but rather walks applicants through the process of securing private loans or applying for financing via the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, administered by the Department of Transportation, which provides long-term, flexible financing for highway and transit projects at below market rates, allowing communities easier access to funding for certain infrastructure projects.

Considering that the Clinton campaign has explicitly stated that the infrastructure bank will serve as a “one-stop-shop…to utilize federal resources and expertise in developing infrastructure projects”, it is most likely that a President Clinton will look to combine the efforts of both the BATIC and TIFIA programs to create a single source of both expertise and federal credit for infrastructure projects. Creating a new bank on its own would simply duplicate the responsibilities of these existing programs, and dissolving the BATIC and TIFIA offices in order to create her new bank seems to be an unnecessarily roundabout way of bringing the bank into existence.

Regardless of the exact specifics of the creation scheme, it does appear that the capability of Clinton’s infrastructure bank does, to some extent, already exist within multiple programs. That should not, however, necessarily discourage their synthetization into a single entity that both counsels and finances future infrastructure projects, as advocates have noted that the ability for a bank to cut across offices to get expertise and financing options to clients allows for a more efficient process in getting projects off the ground. It should also be noted that the current BATIC and TIFIA programs are concerned with highway and transit projects, and that if the Clinton campaign’s direct spending agenda is any indication, the infrastructure bank will be tasked with financing projects far beyond repairing roads and laying down new railroad tracks.

The bank’s capability could potentially go beyond simply synthesizing the current capabilities of various offices however, as the campaign has suggested that the bank would have the authority to issue “‘super’ Build America Bonds”. The original Build America Bonds (BABs) were a part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that allowed state and local governments to reduce their borrowing costs when funding infrastructure projects, making it easier to finance projects via loans as opposed to traditional tax and spend methods. The program ended on December 31, 2010, though the Department of Transportation is still on the hook for paying interest on both the 10 and 30 year bonds that were part of the program. The campaign’s use of the adjective “super” to describe their version of the BAB program suggests that the campaign looks to reinstate and expand the issuance of BABs through the infrastructure bank, but is silent as to just what this expansion would look like. Perhaps a Clinton Presidency would look to simply issue more of these bonds, or perhaps focus on issuing longer term bonds with higher sticker prices to raise more capital up front for projects today. Unfortunately, we can do little more than speculate as to how the campaign plans to supersize the BAB program of the past, but we can be reasonably sure that the campaign looks to create an institution that uses an expanded form of BABs to help finance infrastructure projects in periods of inaction in Congress.

And the political advantages of being able to fund infrastructure investments with only the implicit approval of Congress should not be discounted, and they are doubtlessly a major point in favor of the bank’s existence. Assuming that it is adequately funded, the bank holds the potential to continue nationwide infrastructure investment irrespective of infrastructure investment’s political popularity. When the Clinton campaign highlights the need to “improve the way we invest in infrastructure”, this bank is what they are talking about. With the establishment of this bank, the Clinton campaign looks to address not only the neglect of past decades, but the potential neglect to come in future decades as well.

However while the potential to bypass Congressional inaction may certainly be appealing in the case of infrastructure investment, it must be stressed that there is little to no precedent for this kind of institution in the world. The closest example of a nationwide infrastructure bank like the one the Clinton campaign seems to be describing is The Infrastructure Bank Plc in Nigeria. The bank is tasked with “providing financial solutions to support key long term infrastructure projects”, much like the Clinton campaign’s proposal, but is majority privately owned, with federal, state, and local governments, as well as the Nigeria Labour Congress as individual minority shareholders. Additionally, the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) launched on Christmas Day 2015, and while it also is focused on providing expertise in and financing infrastructure projects in Asia, it has 57 countries as members/shareholders, and 20 members who are not in Asia. Again, while the goals of the AIIB are analogous to the Clinton campaign’s proposed bank, it does not appear as though its modus operandi will be comparable.

Additionally, and perhaps more worryingly, the details that the campaign offers pertaining to the practical operation of the bank are largely nonexistent, and big questions loom over the proposal. The campaign has stated that the bank will be headed by “a bipartisan board of highly qualified directors”, who will presumably influence or even make the final decisions as to which projects get funded and which do not, but does not offer suggestions as to how it plans on selecting and properly vetting candidates for the banks board of directors. The campaign also mentioned that applicants must be able to demonstrate that projects are in the “public interest”, but does not define “public interest” or clarify how one might differentiate between projects that are or are not in “public interest”. Even further, the campaign is silent as to how the bank or its directors would be held accountable for selecting projects that are in the “public interest”. Even basic concerns of equity are not addressed by the campaign, as it offers no explanation as to how local municipalities who are cash-strapped or have poorer credit are expected to benefit from this new bank, leaving the bank’s operation scheme open to criticism of only benefiting well-to-do communities that can better afford infrastructure investment, but may not need it as much.

Nevertheless, from an economic perspective, there’s a lot to like from what we do know of the Clinton campaign’s proposal, and this shouldn’t be discounted by the disappointment that may come from the proposal’s more unclear areas. Given Mrs. Clinton’s statements concerning the status of this proposal as a top priority of her presidency, it should certainly be expected of the American electorate to challenge Mrs. Clinton over the next few months to clarify details concerning her plans to pay for the proposal and of the infrastructure bank’s creation and operation schemes, in order ensure that the campaign is putting forth a thorough and realistic plan that can immediately be acted upon in a Clinton Presidency. While the buffoonery of her Fall challenger may cause some to simply accept Mrs. Clinton’s proposal as satisfactory by virtue of not being utterly ridiculous, this should not preclude a proper vetting process in which the viability of Mrs. Clinton’s proposal is put on trial by the American public. As it stands, no matter how enticing the potential of the plan may seem, the mystery surrounding key details should keep enthusiasm grounded, and the jury still out.