JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Duped by Putin for months on end, Trump must now hold the line on Russia (Foreign Policy Brief #212)
Trump’s egregious pre-election claim that he could “end the war in a day” between Russia and Ukraine has instead resulted in Russia’s huge surge of attacks on Ukraine and an increasing number of civilian deaths. While Trump often tries to deflect his responsibility for handling this war onto past U.S. presidents, he is now in fact the commander in chief and must take action to support an ally in Ukraine, help prevent further carnage, and demonstrate American democratic mettle vis-a-vis a ruthless dictator in Putin.
Peace Prizes and Bombs: The Theater of Trump’s Nobel Pursuit (Foreign Policy Brief #211)
In the summer of 2025, President Donald Trump became the centerpiece of a surreal global spectacle: a campaign to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded Trump for supposedly brokering stability in conflict zones, and Cambodia’s deputy prime minister praised him for his role in a temporary ceasefire with Thailand. The White House eagerly embraced this narrative, touting Trump as a global peacemaker and repeatedly pointing to “six major conflicts” that he allegedly helped resolve.
South Sudan: Oil and Matches (Foreign Policy Brief #210)
South Sudan is the youngest country in the world in terms of its autonomous foundation. Once part of Sudan, it achieved semi-autonomy in 2005 after years of brutal civil war as part of its now northern neighbor. Eventually, under referendum, the people of South Sudan voted for absolute autonomy in 2011, legally breaking away from Sudan.
Trump FTC Deletes Click to Cancel Rule (Technology Policy Brief #154)
Few people are likely to miss the click-to-cancel rule. Consumers won’t, since they never had a chance to enjoy it, and businesses won’t because they hated it. The rule, which would have required all sorts of online businesses to make it easy for consumers to cancel unwanted subscriptions and memberships, was blocked by a federal appeals court just days before it was set to go into effect, a ruling that is unlikely to be appealed. Trump opposes consumer protections and is reshaping the FTC to carry forward his pro-business agenda.
The Cost of Neglect: Trump Has Left America Unprepared for Disaster (The Federal Response) (Social Justice Policy Brief #177)
As Texas reels from the July 2025 flood catastrophe, the conversation has shifted beyond the state’s borders. While Texas lawmakers have been quick to blame local officials, the reality is that federal emergency preparedness programs have also been gutted, leaving communities across the United States dangerously exposed. During Donald Trump’s second term, federal disaster mitigation funds, FEMA pre-disaster grants, and infrastructure resiliency initiatives have been slashed in the name of budget cuts and “government efficiency.”
The Cost of Neglect: The Price of Unpreparedness (The State Response)
The catastrophic July 2025 Central Texas floods left more than 135 people dead, including 27 children and staff members at Camp Mystic, a tragedy that has rocked the state and sparked a political firestorm. In the days following the disaster, Texas lawmakers publicly turned their ire toward Kerr County officials, accusing them of slow evacuations and communication failures. But behind the headlines and finger-pointing lies a harsher reality: Texas has systematically underfunded emergency preparedness, and local governments have been left scrambling with inadequate resources to face a crisis of this magnitude.
Third Party Possibilities
The United States is currently in the throes of a political transformation, one being driven mostly by President Donald Trump and his allies in the Republican Party. However, there is a part of this transformation that revolves instead around the opposition Democratic Party.
Quantity Over Justice: The Coming ICE Expansion (Immigration Policy Brief #190)
If you have been following the news surrounding Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” one of the provisions you would see is the $170 billion for immigration enforcement & border security. Of this $170 billion, approximately $75 billion represents an increase in funding to ICE, making it the highest-funded law enforcement branch of the federal government. The funding for ICE is intended to build more detention centers, aid in retention through bonuses, & expand the total number of personnel.
The New Wave of Progressive Politicians is Growing (Elections & Politics Brief #189)
It has been just over six months since Donald Trump ascended to the presidency, and he and his GOP allies have wasted no time or effort in pushing the United States as far to the right as it can.
Duped by Putin for months on end, Trump must now hold the line on Russia (Foreign Policy Brief #212)
Foreign Policy Brief #212 | Nicholas Gordon | August 13, 2025
Trump’s egregious pre-election claim that he could “end the war in a day” between Russia and Ukraine has instead resulted in Russia’s huge surge of attacks on Ukraine and an increasing number of civilian deaths. While Trump often tries to deflect his responsibility for handling this war onto past U.S. presidents, he is now in fact the commander in chief and must take action to support an ally in Ukraine, help prevent further carnage, and demonstrate American democratic mettle vis-a-vis a ruthless dictator in Putin.
Summary
Since President Trump’s inauguration last January, Russia has aggressively amped up its missile and drone attacks across Ukraine, often targeting civilian structures, including hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, and transportation hubs. Throughout these attacks, Trump has vacillated in his support for Ukraine, while kowtowing to Russia with repeatedly empty threats of sanctions. In February, after berating ally Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an ugly, nationally televised White House meeting that was a disgraceful moment for American democracy, Trump paused U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. Months of failed peace negotiations followed. Meanwhile, Russia continues its relentless assault on Ukraine. An overnight attack on July 30-31 killed at least 31 civilians, five of whom were children, and injured 159 more people. Trump then condemned Russia’s military aggression on Ukraine and pledged to send more weapons to the country. He also reduced his previous 50-day deadline, which was set to expire in September, to 10 days for Russia to agree to a ceasefire or face new sanctions. Needless to say, that 10-day limit evaporated without Trump imposing any sanctions on Russia. Instead, Trump has gifted his buddy the war criminal Putin a face-to-face meeting in Alaska this Friday in a move that many analysts consider a diplomatic coup for Moscow. Enough is enough. A hardline stance from Trump on Russia is long overdue and should have come at the outset of his new administration.
Analysis
During the failed Russia—Ukraine peace negotiations in February and March, Trump was busy heaping praise on Putin in his customary fashion and making dangerously irresponsible false claims about Zelensky being a dictator and Ukraine having started the war. Following a severe Russian attack in April on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv that killed over 12 people and injured 90, Trump himself finally admitted in a social media post that Putin continues to string him along, with no real intention of ending Russia’s war on the Ukraine. Though Trump’s post was rife with his signature belittling insults—hurled at various professionals and former U.S. Presidents—that do little other than convey Trump’s own insecurity and weakness, the post also showed an uncharacteristic and exceedingly rare self-acknowledgement of Trump’s fallibility in handling this international crisis. But such a hint of accountability on Trump’s part wouldn’t last long. Merely hours after a phone call with Putin in early July that Trump said did not lead to progress, Russia launched its largest number of drones and missiles at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities since the beginning of the war in February of 2022. As Trump’s frustration with Putin and with his own inability to help bring an end to the war has grown in recent weeks, he has once again reverted to blaming past American presidents for allowing Putin to fool them and absolving himself of any such obtuseness in being ruthlessly duped by Putin for the last six months.
After resuming military aid to Ukraine, Trump told reporters, “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth.” Another part of the truth implicit in that crude statement and which Trump won’t acknowledge is Russia’s embrace of the TACO phenomenon: Trump Always Chickens Out. As the ongoing and intensified Russian attacks on Ukraine’s civilian life continue, the Kremlin is violently and unmistakably demonstrating its dismissiveness of Trump and his threats of sanctions. Why would the Kremlin be worried about Trump’s new threat when he has a well-documented, shameful history of fawning over Putin, and has done nothing to punish or even pressure Russia for its war crimes thus far? Moreover, why would U.S. allies have faith in Trump’s baseless claims of getting tough on Russia when he routinely undermines allies’ trust by flip-flopping on support for Ukraine and making inane statements that have no bearing on reality?
Speaking in Scotland recently alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said that he is “disappointed in President Putin.” Well, the Ukrainian people have been disappointed in Putin’s genocidal attack on their country over the last three and a half years. The American people could be disappointed in a president who wrongly and repeatedly claimed he could stop a war in a day, but which war in reality has gotten tragically worse since he’s taken office. In late July, Trump threatened severe sanctions on Russia, with the possibility of secondary tariffs on countries that trade with Russia. Now, as Trump and Putin are reportedly heading into direct talks without Zelensky present but with Trump already babbling about “land exchanges” and Ukraine ceding territory to Russia, it’s more important than ever that Trump for once stands up to Putin and defends American democratic values, instead of showing pathetic deference to the Russian authoritarian leader over that of U.S. intelligence agencies, as he has done on the world stage in the past. To achieve any meaningful negotiations with the Kremlin in an effort to end the Russian war on Ukraine, Trump must now hold the line on Russia.
Engagement Resources:
- The Institute for the Study of War (ISW)
- A non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization that provides informed analysis of military affairs aimed at “improving the U.S.’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats”
- The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR)
- Independent non-profit that supports local journalism in conflict zones “to promote human rights, justice, and combat disinformation and to strengthen the flow of credible information, enabling journalists and civil society to inform, educate and mobilize communities”
- The Council on Foreign Relations
- A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1921 focused on U.S. foreign policy and international relations.
Peace Prizes and Bombs: The Theater of Trump’s Nobel Pursuit (Foreign Policy Brief #211)
Foreign Policy Brief #211 | Valerie Henderson | August 1, 2025
In the summer of 2025, President Donald Trump became the centerpiece of a surreal global spectacle: a campaign to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded Trump for supposedly brokering stability in conflict zones, and Cambodia’s deputy prime minister praised him for his role in a temporary ceasefire with Thailand. The White House eagerly embraced this narrative, touting Trump as a global peacemaker and repeatedly pointing to “six major conflicts” that he allegedly helped resolve.
The irony could not be starker. This wave of praise arrived just days after U.S. forces dropped the largest non-nuclear bombs in history on Iran, claiming to destroy nuclear sites. In the same week, international observers reported new civilian casualties in Gaza and an increase in regional tensions. For many critics, this nomination campaign was less about diplomacy and more about feeding Trump’s ego while providing political cover for authoritarian allies under fire for human rights abuses.
Analysis
The push to paint Trump as a peacemaker follows a familiar script: global leaders deploying flattery as a political currency. Netanyahu’s nomination of Trump comes at a time when he is under intense international scrutiny for alleged war crimes in Gaza and mounting political pressure at home. Publicly aligning Trump with “peace” reframes both leaders in a positive light and distracts from the realities of their policies.
Cambodia’s praise mirrors this transactional diplomacy. Trump recently offered tariff concessions and symbolic recognition in Southeast Asia, a move that coincided with Cambodia’s effusive Nobel recommendation. Such gestures appear more like political theater than a celebration of meaningful, sustained conflict resolution. Historically, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, and past nominees have included notorious dictators. A nomination itself carries no merit without a demonstrated legacy of peace, which remains absent in Trump’s record.
Meanwhile, the global stage is not convinced. India publicly dismissed Trump’s claim of resolving long-standing tensions with Pakistan. Human rights organizations have condemned his administration for escalating military operations, expanding arms sales to conflict regions, and ignoring civilian harm in U.S.-supported operations. To frame these actions as peacekeeping is to rewrite the reality of ongoing violence.
This is not a story about diplomacy. It is a performance. International leaders are leveraging Trump’s craving for recognition to further their own agendas, from deflecting criticism at home to extracting concessions abroad. For Trump, the spectacle of Nobel nominations is an opportunity to reinforce his image as a world statesman, regardless of the on-the-ground consequences of his foreign policy.
My Opinion
The push to crown Trump a Nobel laureate is a masterclass in political theater and hypocrisy. Peace cannot be declared from a press podium while bombs fall in Iran and civilians in Gaza continue to die. Flattering world leaders and transactional ceasefires do not equate to meaningful diplomacy or justice.
Trump’s willingness to embrace this charade exposes the emptiness of his foreign policy approach. It is rooted in optics, not outcomes. Leaders like Netanyahu and Cambodia’s deputy prime minister are not honoring him as a peacemaker; they are exploiting his vanity for their own survival. Worse, the American public is left watching a dangerous narrative unfold in which mass violence can be rebranded as a path to peace if it earns the right photo op.
Awarding accolades for this behavior does not elevate diplomacy; it diminishes the meaning of peace itself. True statesmanship requires more than symbolic nominations and showy press releases. It requires a commitment to protecting human life, upholding human rights, and addressing the root causes of conflict. None of that is present in this administration’s actions. Instead, this moment stands as a sobering reminder of how global politics can bend toward ego and illusion, leaving real peace further out of reach.
Engagement Resources
- Council on Foreign Relations – Examines the dynamics of transactional diplomacy and executive overreach.
https://www.cfr.org - Human Rights Watch – Middle East Program – Monitors the civilian impacts of U.S. and allied military actions.
https://www.hrw.org/middle-east - Amnesty International – Global Human Rights – Provides ongoing reporting on war crimes and violations tied to foreign policy decisions.
https://www.amnesty.org/en
South Sudan: Oil and Matches (Foreign Policy Brief #210)
Foreign Policy Brief #210 | Damian DeSola | August 8, 2025
South Sudan is the youngest country in the world in terms of its autonomous foundation. Once part of Sudan, it achieved semi-autonomy in 2005 after years of brutal civil war as part of its now northern neighbor. Eventually, under referendum, the people of South Sudan voted for absolute autonomy in 2011, legally breaking away from Sudan.
However, even with this newfound autonomy, the fourteen-year-old country finds itself in the thralls of crisis. Within two years of gaining independence, the country fell to civil war after President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar rallied different parts of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) against each other. While the civil war ended with the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement (2018 RPA), factionalism remains and is the basis for the reignition of conflict this year.
Economic Crisis
South Sudan finds itself in a difficult economic situation. In 2024, Global Finance ranked the country as the poorest in the world in terms of GDP-PPP. Of its 12.2 million people, about 7.7 million are considered food insecure, 2.3 million children are at risk of malnutrition, and two counties are nearing famine. Exacerbating the existing humanitarian crisis, refugees fleeing from the Sudanese Civil War (2023-present) into South Sudan reached over 1.1 million.
90% of government fiscal revenue is received through its oil industry, leaving the country entirely dependent on oil exports. Without economic diversification, shocks to the oil market can have dramatic consequences for the people of South Sudan. The main transportation for South Sudanese oil for export is through Sudan, and the Sudanese Civil War is causing disruptions. As a direct result of the war, the annual GDP of South Sudan dropped a staggering 27.6% from 2023 to 2024.
However, much of the failure in economic improvement falls on government mismanagement. A lack of government transparency in facilitating oil revenues through the state-owned Nile Petroleum Company display clear signs of internal corruption. The government’s fiscal mismanagement now leaves them stuck attempting to repay international loans, thereby losing trust with lenders and preventing further loans for debt restructuring.
However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a nine-month Staff-Monitored Program (SMP) this past June and is pending approval sometime in August. While not a golden ticket, the program offers South Sudan an opportunity to escape its financial woes in the short-term. As stated by the IMF, “Steadfast implementation of the governance and accountability reform agenda will be critical to addressing the country’s sources of fragility and creating an environment conducive to strong, diversified, and sustained growth and improved living standards. This includes the governance and transparency of oil-related investment programs.”
Escalating Conflict
Over the past three years, organized violence in South Sudan has steadily increased and reached a breaking point this past March. In a UN report, year-on-year violence increased 15%, the leading cause being community-based militias whose total victims were 80% civilian. These tensions were sparked by the arrest of opposition leaders, including President Salva Kiir’s main political and military opponent Vice President Riek Machar for “plotting rebellion”.
The UN also reports that the transitional government skirted requirements of the 2018 RPA by recruiting through the South Sudan People’s Defense Force (SSPDF) instead of training the nonpartisan Necessary Unified Forces (NUF). The NUF shows clear neglect, with only 7% of the planned deployment met as of October 2024. These actions demonstrate the transitional government’s disregard for the balance of power the 2018 RPA attempts to enforce. By ignoring these provisions, the government signals hard-power centralization and distrust of signing partners. Alongside economic turmoil, the course of events turned South Sudan into a powder keg.
Tensions boiled over this past March, as local clashes between government forces and militias turned into massive government airstrikes on opposition bases. Attacks have spread across South Sudan and have caused mass civilian casualties and are forcing displacement. The government is under scrutiny for violating international arms embargo provisions of the 2018 RPA by involving Ugandan forces in the escalating conflict. Amnesty International and the UNare calling for an immediate reimplementation of the arms embargo and the 2018 RPA. Since the deterioration of security conditions in March, the conflict remains ongoing as reported by the International Crisis Group. Clashes between various militias and government forces continue with no sign of potential peace talks.
Finding Elusive Peace
In its earliest years of sovereignty, the nation of South Sudan finds itself struggling to keep itself intact. With economic strife and rising conflict between armed groups, the people of South Sudan seem headed for continued low standards of living. The United Nations deems it absolutely necessary for intervention by international actors and organizations like the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in preventing another Civil War.
In terms of economics, the IMF claims that, “The short- and medium-term economic outlook is moderately favorable and improving, contingent on a continuously improving security environment and political stability.” As mentioned, the security situation is worsening, but IMF projections still predict a bump in GDP in the coming half-decade. Whether or not this occurs remains to be seen, but one can hope that a confluence of international actors and organizations will aid this fledgling young country away from becoming a failed state.
Engagement Resources
Trump FTC Deletes Click to Cancel Rule (Technology Policy Brief #154)
Technology Policy Brief #154 | Mindy Spatt | August 6, 2025
Summary
Few people are likely to miss the click-to-cancel rule. Consumers won’t, since they never had a chance to enjoy it, and businesses won’t because they hated it. The rule, which would have required all sorts of online businesses to make it easy for consumers to cancel unwanted subscriptions and memberships, was blocked by a federal appeals court just days before it was set to go into effect, a ruling that is unlikely to be appealed. Trump opposes consumer protections and is reshaping the FTC to carry forward his pro-business agenda.
Analysis
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved click to cancel in October 2024. It would have given consumers minimal rights that shouldn’t be controversial, such as requiring a customer’s consent before charging them for memberships, automatic renewals, and extensions of free trials into paid subscriptions. It would have made canceling subscriptions easier, more akin to the ease with which they can be started.
The rule was approved by the Biden FTC, and the Trump-appointed Commission is unlikely to press the issue, which on its face is a dispute over the financial impacts of the change, which, if over $100 million, would require a more robust regulatory analysis than the less than $100 category the FTC previously assigned to it.
In vacating the rule, the court said, “While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission’s rulemaking process are fatal here.
Fatal is pretty close to what former Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya warns Trump’s impact on the FTC will be. Bedoya, who was fired by Trump, accused Trump of trying to turn the FTC from a “fierce corporate watchdog” into “little lapdogs for his golfing buddies.”
Speaking at a “Fight Oligarchy” rally in Denver on March 21, Bedoya introduced himself as a sitting member of the Federal Trade Commission despite having been fired just three days earlier. Both Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, another Commissioner fired by Trump, have been vocal in their criticisms of the Trump administration.
Their firings upended the longstanding practice that sitting members of the FTC can be fired only for an extremely narrow set of reasons. Slaughter sued on that basis, and a federal district court ruled in her favor, but the administration won a restraining order on the district court’s order for her to be reinstated.
By law, there can only be three Commissioners from the same party.
The new chair of the FTC, Andrew Ferguson, was one of two republicans appointed by former President Biden. FTC Commissioners not of the president’s party are traditionally selected by congressional leadership of the other party, and Ferguson is a former aide to Senator Mitch McConnell. (The other Biden republican appointee still serving is Melissa Holyoak).
Ferguson appears to be on board with the Trump agenda. He has already dismantled the FTC’s diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, moved to consolidate his power at the agency, and removed several requests for public comment. Those requests are a cornerstone of the FTC’s process. According to the agency’s website, “Comments from the public help us learn about new technologies and business practices, consider diverse points of view, and improve the quality of our policy-making, law enforcement, and education efforts.
Trump’s first appointee to the Commission, Mark R. Meador, who previously worked at the FTC, the Department of Justice, and in private industry, was a visiting fellow at the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation’s Tech Policy Center. The two democratic seats remain empty.
Engagement Resources
To submit comments to the FCC, start here:
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments
FTC’s Click-to-Cancel Rules Would Make It Easier to End Subscriptions, PBS Newshour, Oct 22, 2024https://youtu.be/XPBgH1p4izM?si=DGWkDL8SwL3Y2Wmy
Why Washington And The Business World Are Freaking Out About Trump’s FTC Firings, Nate Robson, March 20, 2025 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/20/trumps-firings-could-break-the-110-year-old-ftc-00239807
Why the FTC’s Click-to-Cancel Rule Deserved Better, John Bergmayer, July 11, 2025, https://publicknowledge.org/why-click-to-cancel-deserved-better/
The Cost of Neglect: Trump Has Left America Unprepared for Disaster (The Federal Response) (Social Justice Policy Brief #177)
As Texas reels from the July 2025 flood catastrophe, the conversation has shifted beyond the state’s borders. While Texas lawmakers have been quick to blame local officials, the reality is that federal emergency preparedness programs have also been gutted, leaving communities across the United States dangerously exposed. During Donald Trump’s second term, federal disaster mitigation funds, FEMA pre-disaster grants, and infrastructure resiliency initiatives have been slashed in the name of budget cuts and “government efficiency.”
These cuts did not occur in a vacuum. The United States is facing a record-breaking year of climate-driven disasters from hurricanes in Florida to wildfires in California and the nation’s safety net has never been thinner. Texas’s tragedy is just the latest example of a larger pattern of federal neglect that disproportionately impacts marginalized, low-income, and rural communities.
Analysis
Trump’s second term has revived his long-standing approach to disaster management: reactive aid over proactive investment. In early 2025, the administration reduced FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program funding by 40%, arguing that states should shoulder the burden of preparation. Simultaneously, federal flood mapping initiatives and climate risk assessments were delayed or defunded, leaving vulnerable areas flying blind as storms and floods intensified.
These policy decisions are not neutral and they have human consequences. Rural counties, which often lack the tax base to invest heavily in emergency preparedness, rely on federal grants to modernize siren systems, build levees, and create evacuation infrastructure. Urban marginalized communities face a different but equally deadly risk: aging infrastructure, crowded housing, and limited political clout to secure federal attention before disaster strikes.
The July 2025 Texas floods perfectly illustrate this national crisis. When Kerr County’s rivers swelled and flash floods overtook Camp Mystic, the state’s weak preparedness collided with a federal government unwilling to prioritize prevention. Nationwide, other communities now face the same risk: Louisiana’s coastal parishes, California’s drought-scorched towns, and Midwest river communities are all one disaster away from tragedy.
My Opinion
The Trump administration’s disaster policy is a cruel political choice masquerading as fiscal discipline. By cutting pre-disaster programs and starving mitigation efforts, the White House has effectively gambled with American lives especially in communities with the least resources and the smallest political voices.
It is impossible to ignore that this strategy hits marginalized and minority populations the hardest. Low-income neighborhoods in Houston, Black communities in Louisiana, and tribal lands in the Midwest are often the last to receive aid and the first to bear the brunt of unpreparedness. Watching Trump take victory laps for “cost savings” while families bury loved ones is not just tone-deaf it is a national disgrace.
If America truly values the lives of its citizens, disaster preparedness must be treated as a national security priority, not a budget line to be trimmed for political points. Until federal leaders commit to proactive investment, tragedies like Texas’s July floods will not be rare. They will be the new normal.
Engagement Resources
- FEMA – Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC)
Information on the program’s purpose and current funding status.
https://www.fema.gov/bric - Disaster Accountability Project
National watchdog tracking government disaster preparation and response failures.
https://www.disasteraccountability.org - Union of Concerned Scientists – Climate & Resilience Program
Provides research and advocacy for climate disaster preparedness and equity.
https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/resilience
The Cost of Neglect: The Price of Unpreparedness (The State Response)
Social Justice Policy Brief #176 | Valerie Henderson | August 1, 2025
The catastrophic July 2025 Central Texas floods left more than 135 people dead, including 27 children and staff members at Camp Mystic, a tragedy that has rocked the state and sparked a political firestorm. In the days following the disaster, Texas lawmakers publicly turned their ire toward Kerr County officials, accusing them of slow evacuations and communication failures. But behind the headlines and finger-pointing lies a harsher reality: Texas has systematically underfunded emergency preparedness, and local governments have been left scrambling with inadequate resources to face a crisis of this magnitude.
Analysis
The floodwaters that ripped through Kerr County were indiscriminate, but the failures that compounded the tragedy were entirely man-made. Hours after the first flood warnings were issued, children were still at the riverside camp, and county officials struggled to communicate with remote areas because siren systems and redundant communications had never been funded. While state leaders rushed to blame county officials for the delayed evacuations, those same counties have repeatedly been denied grants for flood mitigation projects and warning systems, labeled “low priority” by the state just months ago.
This disaster lays bare a dangerous pattern in Texas governance. For years, the legislature has championed austerity over readiness, cutting or diverting millions from disaster mitigation programs. Local officials, often in rural counties most vulnerable to flash flooding, have been left to do more with less, relying on outdated communication systems and volunteer-driven emergency response teams. When tragedy strikes, the state’s response is not to acknowledge its role but to deflect blame downward, portraying local mismanagement as the primary culprit.
The reality is that Texas has treated emergency preparedness as optional, and the cost has now been measured in children’s lives. Political deflection may satisfy the evening news cycle, but it does nothing to rebuild washed-out bridges, restore trust, or prevent the next tragedy. True accountability would start with the same lawmakers who cheered budget cuts while the risk of disaster grew year after year.
My Opinion
The July floods were not only a natural disaster they were the predictable outcome of deliberate policy choices. Children at Camp Mystic and dozens of other Texans paid the ultimate price for a political culture that values budget optics over human lives. Watching lawmakers blame Kerr County after they themselves stripped the state’s disaster readiness to the bone is not just disingenuous; it is cruel.
Texas deserves leaders who recognize that floods, fires, and hurricanes are not partisan issues and that disaster preparedness is not a luxury. Until the state prioritizes funding for mitigation, early warning systems, and rural response infrastructure, Texans will remain at risk and families will keep paying the price for politicians’ short-sighted decisions.
Engagement Resources
- Texas Division of Emergency Management (TDEM) – Provides flood recovery updates and information on state-level disaster resources.
https://tdem.texas.gov - Every Texan (Policy & Equity Watchdog) – Tracks how budgetary decisions affect vulnerable communities in Texas.
https://everytexan.org - Disaster Accountability Project – Advocates for transparent disaster planning and prevention nationwide.
https://www.disasteraccountability.org
Third Party Possibilities
The United States is currently in the throes of a political transformation, one being driven mostly by President Donald Trump and his allies in the Republican Party. However, there is a part of this transformation that revolves instead around the opposition Democratic Party.
While American politics has always been a two party-system, those two parties have often evolved and morphed into newer editions, either through assimilating smaller parties or through complete rebrands. Third-parties have long struggled to gain a foothold in the political sphere, both because of the electoral college and because of the sheer financial and cultural power of a two-party system.
The Democrats themselves used to be the Republican Party in terms of its platform, and before that it was known as the Whig Party. Today, as the Democratic Party of the last century grapples with its place in politics, there are a handful of contenders out there who might be able to take advantage of this instability and become the new main opposition party.
Analysis
Firstly, there are a lot of hurdles to an actual third party entering politics. Outside of the pushback from the mainstream parties, who wouldn’t want their voters siphoned away, the process of becoming a federally recognized party involves getting an enormous number of signatures from citizens as well as a huge financial backing. It would also require skilled lawyers to navigate the intentionally complicated and restrictive state-by-state laws regarding third-parties.
But logistics aside, and with a record-high 43% of Americans identifying as independents, who are the main contenders? Broadly speaking, they can be split into two categories: those to the right of Democrats, and those to the left. Those to the right have far more media attention and financial backing, so they include some names that might be familiar.
The ever-present Libertarians are still around, despite their popularity having peaked in the early 2000s. They might be the most dug-in party on this list, with a policy platform that focuses on reducing government influence as much as possible and focusing on personal freedoms, alongside laissez-faire capitalism.
Libertarians stand to gain ground for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they are ingrained in American politics simply by being around for over 50 years. Secondly, with Donald Trump’s government swinging its weight around, attacking independent institutions and academia, the party could become a haven for voters who want to swing the pendulum of government influence the other way.
On the other hand, many libertarians lean Republican, so they may end up simply migrating over to the Republican Party. Additionally, as Trump has shown, welfare cuts are generally unpopular in the United States, and a party that wants the smallest government possible may not be appealing to those who recently lost access to Medicare and Medicaid.
Another option is the America Party, founded and touted by billionaire Elon Musk after his falling-outwith Donald Trump. It is his attempt to find support amongst disillusioned Republicans and Independents who want to remain on the right-end of politics while not being Republican. However, Musk thus far has taken no steps to formally found the America Party, and it likely was a knee-jerk reaction to rejection from MAGA.
However, his super PAC, which has already given millions to republicans ahead of the midterms and in previous elections, is still active. Last year, it gave $200 million to help elect Trump, so in lieu of a formal party, Musk could use his immense wealth to forge the Republican Party to his interests. Alternatively, he could instead turn to the left and mold the Democratic Party instead, but polling suggests he’d find more success drawing from Republican voters.
There are a handful of other parties on the right, like Andrew Yang’s Forward Party, although it hasn’t been up to much since its 2022 founding. If the Democrats decided to shift to the right, and assimilate one of these parties, it would represent a historical shift in America’s Overton Window, which is the range of policies that a country is willing to accept. However, the sheer influence of MAGA and Donald Trump has left little room for parties that are right-of-center to gain ground.
What is more likely for the Democrats to do is undergo a transformation that looks left instead of right. The parties to the left of the Democrats do have a chance of taking their mantle, as there is popular support for their policies, from taxing the wealthy to implementing free or subsidized transportation and reducing military and police spending. Zohranm Mamdani’s popularity in the New York mayoral race is a prime example.
His back-up party, should he have lost the Democratic primary, would have been the Working Families Party. The WFP has been around since 1998, coalesced around pocketbook issues and labor unions in New York, and now has chapters in 21 states, including California. They have recently endorsed a wide array of state and local candidates across the country, and their strong economic message paired with union representation could help them reach across the aisle and garner support from the right as well.
Interestingly, the WFP has recently clashed with the DNC, with union leaders demanding change from the Democrats, to no avail yet. There have also been union leaders quitting their D.N.C. posts in recent months as well. Allegiance among union members to the Democrats is both split and increasingly unpopular, but it also grants them a door into the ballot boxes of Democratic voters, as in many cases WFP and Democratic candidates cross-endorse each other. The WFP candidates also can run as Democrats first, and wield the party’s substantial election apparatus to get campaign support.
Another party that follows a similar framework is the Democratic Socialists of America. An explicitly left-wing organization that backs policies slightly more to the left of the WFP, they already have many candidates running for and in office across the country. However, like the WFP, they lack substantial support from the entirety of America, and have yet to truly be a political force.
This is in large part because democratic socialism, while less extreme than both socialism and communism, is immediately a massive negative marketing factor in America. While it is very popular with young voters, it is very unpopular with the older voting blocs, representing a massive hurdle to widespread support. The historical weight of socialism is still widely seen as destabilizing and an unknown that is a touch too scary to vote for.
DSA candidates also run as and cross-endorse Democrats, using their system to their own campaign’s benefits. But the real question for both the WFP and the DSA still is hard to answer.
Should they stay running their candidates under Democrat banners, and try to wield the Democratic establishment’s significant fundraising and campaign support to get their candidates into office, at the expense of their own party’s recognition? Or do they go it alone, and leave the old guard behind to keep enough distance from a party that is increasingly unpopular?
At the moment, none of these parties truly pose a substantial threat to the Democrats. The DNC is still the sole opposition party by a huge margin. But if Democrats run into trouble in the midterms from the left instead of the right, and those third parties manage to get at least 5% of the popular vote, they would become eligible for federal funding.
This would give them a foothold in the political world and give voters a sense that this new party can, in-fact garner decent support. If that happens, then it may slowly begin siphoning support away from the Democrats until they fully recover from their 2024 election loss.
Engagement Resources
- Vote Smart is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization researching every official’s and candidate’s voting records and policy platforms.
- Run For Something is an organization focused on fostering young and progressive campaigns across the nation.
- The Working Families Party and the DSA are both left-wing organizations fielding candidates in a wide range of local elections.
Quantity Over Justice: The Coming ICE Expansion (Immigration Policy Brief #190)
Immigration Policy Brief #190 | Morgan Davidson | July 24, 2025
If you have been following the news surrounding Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” one of the provisions you would see is the $170 billion for immigration enforcement & border security. Of this $170 billion, approximately $75 billion represents an increase in funding to ICE, making it the highest-funded law enforcement branch of the federal government. The funding for ICE is intended to build more detention centers, aid in retention through bonuses, & expand the total number of personnel.
This brief focuses on the latter part of that equation: the increase in ICE agents. With the money allocated & goals advanced by the President, ICE is expected to recruit 10,000 new agents in addition to the roughly 6,000 current deportation officers. Specifically, this brief addresses where these people will come from, how they will be trained, how they will be used, how they will be held accountable, & what, if any, need there is for an additional influx of ICE agents.
Analysis
Where will the recruits come from? The answer to this is multifaceted. ICE will target new recruits, both male & female, & seek to entice recent retirees back into the field with signing bonuses for both. This approach allows the agency, which started up in 2003 after the Homeland Security Act following 9/11, to return former employees & pick up fresh faces, but meeting the 10,000 new personnel goal will be challenging. ICE agents must be at least 21 & no older than 37 when they apply. Further, ICE agents can retire at any age with 25 years of service or at age 50 with at least 20 years of service.
Below is a sample job description with experience requirements for the lowest level deportation officers obtained from USA JOBS.
“As a Deportation Officer at the Entry Level you will work with more experienced officers to provide support and perform the following segments of work related to immigration investigation, custody, identification and location, arrest, prosecution and deportation:
- Assist with the apprehension of individuals that are accused of violating immigration or related laws;
- Assist with preparing investigative reports in sufficient detail and accuracy to support possible prosecution and/or administrative action;
- Perform law enforcement support duties such as taking fingerprints and photographs;
- Conduct routine interviews using various law enforcement methods and techniques (e.g., observation, interviews, document inspection, data analysis, etc.) to respond to a variety of immigration inquiries and complaints; and
- Document, transport, deport, and/or escort criminal and non-criminal migrants under the guidance of a more senior officer.
- Initiate both criminal and civil prosecutions and deport migrants to foreign countries as well as perform various aspects of custodial operations related to civil immigration enforcement.
Experience: Three (3) years of progressively responsible experience, one year of which was equivalent to the GS-4 level or above in the Federal government. The experience must demonstrate: the ability to analyze problems to identify significant factors, gather pertinent data, and recognize solutions; plan and organize work; communicate effectively orally and in writing; and deal effectively with others in person-to-person situations. OR-
Education: Successful completion of a full 4-year course of study in any field leading to a Bachelor’s degree. This education must have been obtained in an accredited college or university. One year of full-time undergraduate study is defined as 30 semester or 45 quarter hours; OR-
Combination of Education and Experience: Combinations of successfully completed post-high school education and experience may be used to meet total qualification requirements for GL-5 and will be computed by first determining the total qualifying experience as a percentage of the experience requirement; then determining education as a percentage of the education requirement; and then adding the two percentages. The total percentages must equal at least 100 percent.”
How will they be trained? Anyone who has started a new job or moved knows it takes time to get settled & up to speed in a new role & community. This transition is undoubtedly more pronounced when you need to pass firearms training, become familiar with the laws, pass physical tests, & become an officer of the law. Incoming ICE officers undergo rigorous training, including tactical, legal, & language courses that can take up to a year to complete. This training requires them to spend 20 weeks in Georgia before being assigned to a specific station. While this process sounds tedious, it is crucial that the enforcement agents are properly vetted & know what they are doing to avoid wrongful arrests, deportations, or deaths, as we have seen with the mass deportation efforts already & law enforcement historically.
It is important to note that between 2006 & 2009, ICE ramped up its hiring efforts & also lowered its hiring standards for two reasons. First, as discussed earlier in the context of retention, many current ICE employees will be reaching retirement age, either with 20 years of service at age 50 or with 25 years of experience, which will decrease the active number of ICE agents. Second, we will likely see the same process play out here, where the vetting & training process for recruits is reduced to some extent. This probable reduction in background checks & training for recruits will likely result in a similar increase in arrests for misconduct, as found by the Associated Press during the recruitment push with lower standards from 2006 to 2009. While ICE has yet to lower its hiring standards, the political pressure from the President & the challenges in hiring make the lowering of standards something to keep an eye out for & future problems that may cause.
How will they be used? The initial version of the increased funding specified that the new 10,000 employees would be utilized as deportation officers. The final Senate version retained the 10,000 number but expanded the scope of employment. We will focus on the deportation officers that the President initially wanted before branching out to other alternative avenues. According to ICE, a deportation officer is responsible for the “arrest, transportation, detention, case management and removal of undocumented aliens.” Primarily, these officers are used for arresting those here illegally & play a significant role in aiding the administration to meet their arrest & deportation quotas set out by the President. Detention & Deportation Officers play a similar role but also focus more on the research & legal side. They can arrest & transport detainees; however, they also do background research & make the case for deportation in court. Criminal Investigators also conduct research, but their focus is on organizations rather than individuals. Finally, Technical Enforcement Officers aid in the arrests of individuals, specializing in technology, surveillance, & interrogation. Trump’s insistence on the Deportation Officers, the most general of the four career paths, requiring less specific training, reveals that the focus is on a mass of officers to deport people rapidly, rather than recruiting more agents trained in specialized areas. Getting the right people matters less than getting the most people; the administration is focused on quantity over quality regarding arrests & deportations.
As noted above, ICE agents do have quotas of people to arrest. Starting in May of 2025, ICE sent out a quota of 3,000 arrests per day by agents. How does ICE target whom to go after and arrest? Initially, ICE began with known violent offenders & those who law enforcement had already encountered. As the quotas have been issued & increased, we have seen a decline in those with previous criminal records as ICE begins arresting people in mass. We know from the protests in L.A. that ICE agents have been patrolling areas frequented by immigrants, including areas like Home Depots, Lowe’s, & even court buildings where people go for their hearings & green cards. The administration has also resumed the arrests of people at their places of work, such as farms, hotels, construction sites & restaurants, after implementing a short pause due to concerns about how the mass deportation effort has impacted these sectors of the economy, which heavily rely on immigrant workers to fill these positions.
ICE is a national agency since it is part of the Federal government, but has a large regional footprint along border states in places like California, Texas, & Arizona. That said, ICE works across the country & will look to expand with the increased funding & future expansion. We see examples of this with “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida. Though Florida is not on the Mexican border, it is an allied red state & home to President Trump, making it a prime target for expansion given the political makeup of the state & loyalty to Trump.
ICE collaborates with Border Patrol but not with immigration judges. Both ICE and Border Patrol are components of the Department of Homeland Security. Border Patrol routinely transfers individuals it apprehends at the border to ICE for detention and potential deportation. Additionally, ICE and Border Patrol often operate jointly in certain areas and through task forces focused on transnational crime and immigration enforcement.
That said, while ICE personnel may appear in immigration court, often as witnesses or government attorneys representing DHS, they do not collaborate with immigration judges. ICE enforces immigration laws and conducts arrests, while immigration courts exist to provide individuals the opportunity to present their side of the story. Judges, who work for the Department of Justice, issue independent legal decisions based on the law and the evidence presented, separate from ICE or DHS influence.
How will they be held accountable? What accountability looks like will be handled by the courts & by us, the American people. From the top, Trump has repeatedly excused ICE’s wrongful detentions & deportations, ranging from sending people like Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador to challenging court orders rather than conforming. The Supreme Court so far has largely enabled the President & expanded executive power. Lower courts continue to challenge the unconstitutional aspects of Trump’s mass deportation agenda; however, they can only do so much & for so long. Outside of these avenues, accountability is largely up to the American people, who need to continue to voice their disapproval with Trump’s & ICE’s handling of the mass deportation. The people need to highlight cases where ICE oversteps & highlight stories about members of their communities who are swept up in these raids. The partnership between this administration, the makeup of Congress & the Supreme Court limits the checks coming from the executive, legislative, & judicial branches, leaving it up to the people to speak up & vote these enablers out of office.
Do we need these new ICE officers? Largely, the answer here is no. If you have read my pieces on immigration, then you know that I acknowledge that our immigration system is broken. That said, none of them have advocated for an increase in the number of ICE or Border Patrol agents. We need more judges in immigration courts to hear asylum claims & speed up the immigration process. The backlog is already egregious, & increasing arrests & deportations will only exacerbate this issue, leaving people awaiting their day in court stranded in places like Alligator Alcatraz & under less than ideal conditions. We need comprehensive immigration reform that allows people to flee violence to safety, allows workers to fill vital holes in the economy, & reunites people with their families. The administration’s approach terrorizes communities, tears apart families, & cuts people’s entitlements like social security.
Engagement Resources
- U.S. Government Accountability Office GAO: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress. Its primary role is to investigate how the federal government spends taxpayer money and to provide Congress and federal agencies with objective, fact-based information to improve government operations and save money. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106233
- Bipartisan Policy Center’s Immigration Reform Proposals: Explore balanced approaches to immigration policy that prioritize security, economic growth, and humanitarian concerns. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/topics/immigration/
- ACLU Know Your Rights: The ACLU outlines the rights of Immigrants in the U.S. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
The New Wave of Progressive Politicians is Growing (Elections & Politics Brief #189)
Elections & Politics Brief #189 | Nate Iglehart | July 24, 2025
It has been just over six months since Donald Trump ascended to the presidency, and he and his GOP allies have wasted no time or effort in pushing the United States as far to the right as it can.
Between attacking diversity and equity measures, the media, political enemies, environmental regulations, and labor protections, the right wing of American politics has operated without any meaningful setbacks or defeats from the Democrats. This has been in large part due to the current identity crisis that is plaguing the Democratic Party, which is still reeling from a crushing election loss last year that saw it embrace centrism over progressivism, to no avail.
But while the identity crisis continues, signs are growing that the future of the Democratic Party lies not in the past, focused on wooing independent voters with more conservative ideas with a liberal paint-job, but in embracing the new solutions being put forward by a new generation of leaders.
Analysis
Across the world, there has been a burst of support for far-right governments over the past few years. From Germany and France to Japan and Argentina, the far right is riding high across the world at the moment. But in most of these cases, there has been an interesting counter-balancing effect.
Left-wing and far-left parties have also seen electoral gains in many of the elections in which the far right also gained ground. Germany saw a massive membership surge for its left-wing party, while France’s left wing election support shocked onlookers. In Brazil, after far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro left office in 2022, the nation brought back leftist ex-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The United States has not been exempt from this trend, although the pendulum is now just beginning to swing back. With Zohran Mamdani’s primary win in the NYC mayoral election, the power of embracing progressive politics has been on full display.
In Minneapolis’ mayoral race, the Democratic Party has already begun testing the waters with new candidates. For the first time in 16 years, the party endorsed a candidate in the race. But to many people’s surprise, it wasn’t the incumbent Democrat Jacob Frey. Instead it was another young, Muslim, democratic socialist: State Senator Omar Fateh.
His main policies echo Mamdani’s, with a focus on an additional tax for affordable housing, rent stabilization, and a $20 minimum wage alongside protections for Uber drivers. While Fateh doesn’t have the scandal-ridden fields of opponents that Mamdani did, he still has an endorsement, momentum, and a platform that is popular at the moment. He also, importantly, has allies on the city council, where socialists hold 4 of the 13 seats.
City councils are becoming the testing labs for policies like these across the country. Another place that is seeing a left-wing surge is Portland, where voters elected 4 left-wing city councilors, a third of the whole council. Angelita Morillo, a Democratic Socialist, is one of them.
She is pushing for free garbage pickup, fareless buses and trains, government-run grocery stores with price control. Alongside her three comrades, she has consistently backed policies in line with those of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
These names are a handful of thousands running in races across the country. Organizations like the DSA have historically seen their numbers grow under Trump’s administration first term , and this time around they’ve has seen similar levels of rapid growth, much of which has been driven by new members in New York City after Mamdani’s popularity exploded. From Seattle and Detroit to Atlanta, the DSA has candidates in a host of races. And that is just one left-wing organization.
Fateh and Morillo are both newcomers to the scene, and their elections are just drops in a progressive wave flowing across the nation. But there are also progressives in office right now who have successful track records and the support of their constituents.
For example, Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, currently enjoys a 61% approval rating after four years tightening environmental standards and building affordable housing units. Even while some of her other policy goals, like rent control and a completely free public transportation system have stalled, she is seemingly still the choice in the mayoral race.
Another place that has seen successful progressive leadership has been Gabriel Sanchez, a House Representative in Georgia and the first Democratic Socialist lawmaker in Georgia history. He beat both the Republican candidate, winning over 60% of the vote, and the incumbent Democrat in the party primary by calling for a $20 minimum wage, statewide Medicare for All, and staunchly anti-Israel rhetoric.
While most of these election wins remain at the local level, a progressive wave is beginning to swell, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes a force in American politics. The Democratic Party now faces a pivotal choice: to either adapt to this new political reality and act to balance out the far-right federal government, or adapt to what seems to be the growing will of a people tired of politics-as-usual.
Engagement Resources
- Vote Smart is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization researching every official’s and candidate’s voting records and policy platforms.
- Run For Something is an organization focused on fostering young and progressive campaigns across the nation.
- The Working Families Party and the DSA are both left-wing organizations fielding candidates in a wide range of local elections.
The Democratic Push for the Release of the Epstein Files (Elections & Politics Brief #190)
There has been deep curiosity, unsettling truths, and controversies surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and the Epstein files. The public has been pushing for and putting pressure on the Trump Administration to release the documents. Democrats, however, are making efforts to disclose the Epstein files. On July 23rd, a House subcommittee voted 8-2 to subpoena the Department of Justice for the Epstein files.
Analysis
Jeffrey Epstein was a wealthy American financier who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. The Epstein files are Epstein’s documents, such as flight logs and contacts, depositions, images, videos of his victims, some minors, and also images and videos of child pornography. The flight logs had already been released online and are accessible to view along with the other documents that were released in the first phase of the Epstein files. There were also discussions about a potential client list that allegedly listed high-profile clients that Epstein had allegedly trafficked young girls to. However, according to the Department of Justice and FBI memo, it has been confirmed that the Department and the FBI found no evidence of a client list.
There are sealed files that have yet to be made public, which contain additional images, videos, notes, messages, and identifying information about the victims. These documents are what were voted on to be subpoenaed. To protect the victims, the House subcommittee has agreed to redact their names and personal information.
Engagement Resources
- White House under pressure to release documents from the Jeffrey Epstein case https://www.npr.org/2025/07/24/nx-s1-5477656/white-house-under-pressure-to-release-documents-from-the-jeffrey-epstein-case
- House subcommittee votes 8-2 to subpoena Justice Department for Epstein files https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-subcommittee-votes-8-2-to-subpoena-justice-department-for-epstein-files
- What are the Jeffrey Epstein files and will they be released? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/24/what-are-jeffrey-epstein-documents-trump
The House is looking into the Epstein investigation. Here’s what could happen next