Latest Foreign Policy Posts

The goal for the IOC now is to create a blanket gender testing policy that would specifically for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. President Trump has been one of the most ardent supporters of policies limiting the participating, or erasing the participation, of transgender athletes in sports at all levels; and has even called for more testing by the IOC ahead of the 2028 Games. President Trump has also made mention of Title IX , a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination, as his means of ‘protecting women in women’s sports’ while excluding and perhaps discriminating against transgender athletes. Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers around the country have fought to create more inclusionary policies. California, currently, allows transgender athletes to participate in sports through the high school level; and their policy is based on gender identity rather than genetics. The Olympics in LA in 2028 are going to be a contentious one to watch on this issue as the stage is being set for inclusive California to be hosting the Olympics who may very well end the inclusionary practices that have been in place since 2000.

In political discourse, the language of peacemaking is often employed for its potent rhetorical value, yet the terms used can obscure the reality on the ground. A critical distinction must be drawn between a ceasefire and a peace settlement. A ceasefire, or an armistice, is a military and temporal arrangement. It is an agreement to stop active hostilities, to put down the weapons, often temporarily and along existing lines of control. It is a pause. It does not resolve the underlying political, economic, or social grievances that ignited the conflict. A peace settlement, by contrast, is a comprehensive political and legal resolution. It is a formal treaty or agreement that ends the state of war by addressing the root causes—such as sovereignty, borders, justice, and security guarantees—and attempts to build a framework for a new, sustainable relationship.

Since early September, the United States has carried out at least 14 strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. The US has now deployed fighter jets, warships and thousands of troops to the Caribbean. The military buildup in the region is the largest since 1994 when the United States sent two aircraft carriers and more than 20,000 troops into Haiti to take part in “Operation Uphold Democracy.”

During my trip across Europe a week ago, I spoke with people from different countries — ordinary men and women I met along the way. I asked each of them whether they feel safe in their country today and whether they expect a war.

Saudi’s investments in sports, in particular, has been labeled “sportswashing” and a way for the Saudi Arabian government to increase its publicity and popularity in the world while also maintaining a regime that violates human rights. Their move into new sectors and industries has also been a part of their Saudi Vision 2030 program which aims to diversify their entire economy away from traditional fossil fuels (which has propped their economies for decades) and transition into a post-oil world. Is the move to purchase EA a new moment of economic diversification, or is it more in the way of “sportswashing”? The answer isn’t totally clear.

On August 15, after his meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump said it had been “a great and very successful day in Alaska.” In phone calls with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, European leaders, and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, Trump added that his talks with Putin had gone “very well.” He later wrote: “It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement, which oftentimes does not hold up.”

Relatives of people killed by Israeli fire while they were waiting to receive humanitarian aid mourn outside al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City. Photograph: Anadolu/Getty Images

Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has shifted in tone, language, and substance: Washington has openly embraced Israeli priorities while sidelining Palestinian rights and claims. What had long been presented as a balancing act—security guarantees for Israel paired with a rhetorical commitment to Palestinian statehood—has become a policy that favors one side almost exclusively.