JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Ukrainian Refugees and American Citizens Mistakenly Ordered to Leave the U.S. Within Seven Days
In early March, 2025 Reuters reported that the administration of Donald Trump was planning to deprive about 240,000 Ukrainian refugees of their legal status by terminating humanitarian programs. According to the Reuters sources, the decision was expected in April. In response, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt dismissed the report on X, calling it “more fake news” and stating, “No decision has been made at this time.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration has already begun revoking parole status for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, who had been living in the U.S. under temporary humanitarian programs. The administration said cases would be reviewed on “a case-by-case basis.”
The Department of Justice Voting Section’s Shift In Priorities
A number of news outlets have recently reported that the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division Voting Section has changed their mission statement and its priorities.
Trump’s Plan for the Middle East: What’s at Stake for the Palestinians?
The situation in Gaza and the West Bank has deteriorated sharply since October 7, 2023. Gaza faces unprecedented devastation, while economic strangulation and security clampdowns in the West Bank have created intolerable conditions for daily life. Over 400 permanent Israeli checkpoints now divide Palestinian communities across the West Bank, severely disrupting movement, trade, and human dignity.
The Growing 2025 Anti-Trump Protests: Hands Off, No Kings Day, and More
In just over 100 days of Trump 2.0, a reinvigorated Democratic opposition has taken shape. AOC and Bernie have been headlining rallies across the country. Cory Booker broke the record for the longest filibuster in Senate history. Beto O’Rourke is back on the road, holding town halls across Texas. Together, along with others, they’re making it clear: the fight is on. These examples all show how Democrats are fighting against the actions of the Trump administration, raising awareness around the authoritarian tendencies of the administration, & importantly testing the waters for potential runs.
Israel’s Use of AI in Gaza Sparks Protest at Tech Companies in the U.S.
The Israeli military uses Artificial Intelligence to find and target Hamas fighters, but with a civilian death toll estimated at 52,000, critics allege the system is not reliable and may even be providing cover for widespread bombing and ethnic cleansing. And that US companies are complicit.
American Policy in Africa: US Retreats as China Advances
On 22 April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed plans to reorganize the State Department with the justification of increasing efficiency, rooting out ‘radical political ideology’, and delivering Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The details of the plan focus on reducing the size of the State Department and its budget over time: consolidating regional bureaus and embassies, shutting down redundant offices, and ending non-statutory programs that the administration determines to be irrelevant to American interests.
Old Growth Forest Policy Made at the 19th Hole
Through an Executive Order issued March 1, 2025, there is to be an expansion of American timber production that meets goals to achieve “sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty.” Approximately 100 million acres, the equivalent of 60% of our national forests, are to be within earshot of a chainsaw. In so doing, the Trump administration declares this a “new era” in national forest management. Legally protected forest land and parts of old growth forest are slated be part of the expanded production.
The Trump Administration and the University Communities: Part 1, Funding Suspension
In April 2025, the Trump administration escalated its efforts to reshape American higher education by suspending billions in federal grants to elite universities — including Harvard, Columbia, and others — accused of promoting “critical race theory,” “transgender ideology,” and other Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This move is part of a broader campaign to reorient education policy around conservative cultural values and dismantle what the administration frames as liberal dominance within academia.
A Primer on Political Interest Groups
Political interest groups play a central role in shaping policy in the United States. From corporate-funded lobbying arms to grassroots-driven caucuses, these groups influence electoral outcomes, legislative priorities, and public discourse. Their power lies in their ability to mobilize voters, fund campaigns, and set political agendas, often behind closed doors. The disproportionate influence of wealthy donors and elite organizations has made representative democracy more vulnerable to manipulation, with policies reflecting corporate interests rather than the public good. Understanding these interest groups is essential not just to map where power lies, but to challenge it.
Ukrainian Refugees and American Citizens Mistakenly Ordered to Leave the U.S. Within Seven Days
Ukrainian Refugees and American Citizens Mistakenly Ordered to Leave the U.S. Within Seven Days
In early March, 2025 Reuters reported that the administration of Donald Trump was planning to deprive about 240,000 Ukrainian refugees of their legal status by terminating humanitarian programs. According to the Reuters sources, the decision was expected in April. In response, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt dismissed the report on X, calling it “more fake news” and stating, “No decision has been made at this time.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration has already begun revoking parole status for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, who had been living in the U.S. under temporary humanitarian programs. The administration said cases would be reviewed on “a case-by-case basis.”
One such program, Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), allowed American citizens to sponsor Ukrainian refugees displaced by Russia’s 2022 invasion. Approximately 240,000 Ukrainians are currently residing in the U.S. under this initiative. An additional 20,000 Ukrainians who entered the U.S. through Mexico early in the war were also granted parole, which provides temporary work authorization and protection from deportation.
On April 3, many Ukrainians legally residing in the U.S. under humanitarian parole received alarming emails from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stating their parole had been revoked and that they must self-deport. The messages declared, “It is time for you to leave the United States,” and warned that their parole would expire in seven days. The letter further threatened: “Do not attempt to remain in the United States — the federal government will find you.”
The notifications sparked panic and fear, especially as the war in Ukraine continues. Russian forces still occupy parts of the country and regularly bombard civilian areas. Since the war began on February 24, 2022, all civilian air travel to and from Ukraine has been suspended.
It is not known exactly how many people received such letters, but among them were also Russian political refugees under humanitarian parole, permanent residents, and even some US citizens. One of them was Nicole Micheroni, a 40-year-old U.S. citizen and an immigration attorney from Massachusetts. Nicole told MSNBC that the Department of Homeland Security sent her the notice telling her that “it is time for you to leave the United States…If you do not depart the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal from the United States.” Another U.S. citizen, Carmen Bello, an immigration attorney from the Boston area, told NBC Boston that she, too, received a notice of parole termination obligating her to leave the country.
The next day, DHS issued a follow-up email to recipients acknowledging the error and stating that “no action will be taken” and “the terms of your parole as originally issued remain unchanged at this time.”
Despite the retraction, fear and confusion linger among people who fled their country where a devastating war still continues taking human lives every single day. Milena, a mother of three from eastern Ukraine, now lives in New Jersey under humanitarian parole. Her hometown has been seized by Russian forces, and she has no home to return to. Her husband remains in Ukraine, fighting with the national army. Milena has been working in a local store in NJ for nearly three years, paid taxes, and supported her three kids. Her eldest son, Eugene, a high school senior, was recently accepted to college that he is eager to start in August.
Milena is one of those who received the DHS deportation email ordering her and her children to leave the U.S. within 7 days. “What should we do?” she asked tearfully. “Our neighbors in Ukraine, an old couple who were unable to escape from the town, wrote to me that Russians have moved into our apartment. We have nowhere to go back to. My children still suffer from nightmares and still need therapy. The youngest still wets the bed from the trauma caused by horrors we experienced when we fled the town under fire. We thought we were safe here and the suffering is behind for my kids. What awaits us now?”
During his campaign, President Trump claimed he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, bragging about a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet after three months in office, the war continues unabated, with Russian shelling intensifying and no de-escalation in sight. Trump’s approach appears more focused on meeting Kremlin demands than seeking a fair resolution, potentially forcing Ukraine to surrender territory and resources.
Refugees like Milena, who were granted legal entry, work low-wage jobs that Americans do not hurry to take. They support the U.S. economy by paying taxes, renting houses, and contributing as consumers. Now, they are being used as pawns in Trump’s political games.
While the Trump administration seeks to reduce refugee numbers, other countries recognize their value. A report by Poland’s National Development Bank (BGK) found that Ukrainian immigrants—Poland’s largest immigrant group at 1.5 million—contributed more in taxes than they received in benefits. Ukrainians now comprise about 5% of Poland’s workforce and accounted for €3.6 billion in tax and social contributions in 2024, boosting GDP growth by up to 2.4%.
In contrast, the Trump administration appears to overlook the contributions of refugees to the U.S. economy. Today, more and more Americans, and even some of Trump’s supporters, face the reality and begin to question the consequences of his policies. Many fear that the promise to “make America great again” is instead ruining the constitution and the entire foundations of law, democracy, and economic stability with the speed of a pen stroke.
Engagement Resources
- Citizen who was ordered to leave the U.S. in 7 days says she’s heard nothing from federal officials, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/citizen-ordered-leave-us-dhs-rcna201451
- Ukrainian refugees mistakenly told they must leave US in email mix-up, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/ukrainian-refugees-us-email-00273926
- Trump administration accidentally tells Ukrainian refugees they must leave U.S. immediately, citing an “error”, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-accidentally-tells-ukrainian-refugees-they-must-leave-u-s-immediately-citing-an-error/
- Ukrainian immigrants have “positive impact on Poland’s GDP and budget”, finds report, https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/03/15/ukrainian-immigrants-have-positive-impact-on-polands-gdp-and-budget-finds-report/
The Department of Justice Voting Section’s Shift In Priorities
The Department of Justice Voting Section’s Shift In Priorities
Civil Rights Policy Brief #243 | Rodney A. Maggay | May 7, 2025
A number of news outlets have recently reported that the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division Voting Section has changed their mission statement and its priorities.
After Harmeet Dhillon was ratified by the U.S. Senate (by a 52 – 45 vote) to become the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice, new mission statements were sent out to a number of sections in the Civil Rights Division. While the Civil Rights Division’s voting work has historically been focused on ensuring that marginalized voters were not discriminated against in their efforts to vote and that race was not used as a factor in drawing districts and implementing voting procedures, the Division will now shift away from those priorities. The Division will now focus on pursuing cases to ensure “elections [are] unmarred by fraud, errors or suspicion.” The new mission statement also adds that the Division will enforce President Trump’s latest executive order on elections titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”. However, that order has been challenged with a lawsuit and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar – Kotelly has granted a preliminary injunction to pause implementation of the executive order until the legal issues are resolved at trial.
Policy Analysis: The news of the change in the mission statement of the Civil Rights Division’s voting rights efforts is significant and not in a good way.
The Civil Rights Division’s core functions were to enforce the nation’s civil rights and voting laws, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One tenet that underscored both Acts was its focus to eliminate discrimination against people of color in the use of facilities, education and access to federally assisted programs. Notably, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about voting rights which were expanded the next year with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act continued the theme of prohibiting discrimination by attempting to bar discriminatory voting laws and procedures used by states, many of them in the South. It was these two laws that were primarily being enforced by the Civil Rights Division.
Now, that priority is being changed under the Trump Administration. Instead of pursuing and bringing cases that see communities of color and other groups encountering barriers to vote, the Division will now pursue cases that might suggest “fraud, errors or suspicion.” This is key because this aligns with one of President Trump’s biggest complaints – that American elections are not secure and caused him to be robbed of the 2020 presidential election. However, President Trump’s complaints about 2020 and a stolen election have been consistently proven false by experts and scholars. But with this new shift in the priorities of the Division’s Voting Section, President Trump is now given a fresh opportunity to continue to peddle his false election lies. Furthermore, the Division will now be tasked with looking for problems in voting that are exceedingly rare and nearly non – existent (fraud, non – citizens voting in significant numbers). These efforts will take away from the efforts to prevent discrimination in certain voting districts around the country and allow states and districts to implement discriminatory voting procedures without having to face pushback from the federal government. The government will have less power to investigate the obstacles minority communities face when trying to vote and instead be tasked with investigating other less pressing matters.
While the change in the mission statement is a big signal of the change in the Division’s priorities, there were other incidents that predicted this change was coming and was imminent. For the last month, the Department of Justice has slowly and quietly withdrawn and shut down active voting rights cases that were brought under the Biden Administration. With 29 cases still active, that number is expected to decrease dramatically in the next few months as government attorneys petition to withdraw the cases. Additionally, the section voting chief and five managers in the unit were reassigned from their voting rights work to positions in a complaint adjudication office handling inter – employee complaints. It was an unusual decision because of the wealth of expertise these persons had in voting rights law. And finally, the move to the Civil Rights Division to investigate fraud was unnecessary because the few fraud cases that did arise were investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ’s Criminal Division. There was no need to move those cases to the Civil Rights Division. These events signaled the change that was coming and the election lies that the Trump Administration wants to pursue despite minimal evidence of election fraud to the contrary. LEARN MORE,
Engagement Resources
Democracy Docket – DOJ lawyers explain their concerns in Division’s shift in priorities.
The Guardian – review of the removal of the DOJ Voting Unit’s leadership personnel.
Trump’s Plan for the Middle East: What’s at Stake for the Palestinians?
Trump’s Plan for the Middle East: What’s at Stake for the Palestinians?
The situation in Gaza and the West Bank has deteriorated sharply since October 7, 2023. Gaza faces unprecedented devastation, while economic strangulation and security clampdowns in the West Bank have created intolerable conditions for daily life. Over 400 permanent Israeli checkpoints now divide Palestinian communities across the West Bank, severely disrupting movement, trade, and human dignity.
Despite these conditions, one truth remains unshaken: Palestinians—whether in Gaza or the West Bank—have no desire to leave their land. This reality, inconvenient to many within Israel’s current far-right government, underscores a political deadlock that refuses to break.
The trauma of October 7 sent a profound shock through Israeli society. Understandably, it silenced voices once open to coexistence and the two-state vision. However, the pain of that day—and the suffering that followed—does not negate the existence of over 5.5 million Palestinians living under Israeli control (directly or indirectly, including Gaza). What long-term political solution can possibly ignore this fact?
When President Trump floated the idea of relocating Gaza’s population to other countries, Israel’s leadership—particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition—no longer disguised this policy of demographic displacement. It moved from whispered strategy to public agenda. Meanwhile, despair is rising in the West Bank, and many who can afford to leave are doing so. But mass exodus is not the solution—nor is it realistic.
Neither the Jewish people are returning en masse to Europe or the U.S., nor are Palestinians willingly leaving their homeland for Egypt or Jordan. Both nations are bound to the same land, locked in a shared and inescapable reality—two peoples whose futures are intertwined, not separable.
So where does this leave Trump?
Despite his polarizing image, Donald Trump retains considerable leverage over the key players: Israel, the Arab Gulf states, and the pro-Israel political class in Washington. If he can use this leverage—not merely to impose, but to broker—he might help deliver what no one else could: a sustainable peace rooted in realism, not illusions.
Palestinians are not looking for handouts. They are seeking dignity and self-determination. There is a real and growing desire, especially among the educated and professional classes in Palestine and the diaspora, to rebuild—to turn Gaza and what remains of the West Bank into a hub for innovation, technology, and regional cooperation. But this requires a viable, demilitarized Palestinian state that is allowed to function—not as a threat, but as a partner.
In an interview decades ago, the iconic Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish once told an Israeli journalist: “Being occupied by the Jewish people is what made us known to the world—and what made us suffer the most.” The world still sees Israel through the moral lens of post-Holocaust survival. But true security for Israel cannot be built in isolation from its neighbors—especially not in a region that is culturally, digitally, and economically interconnected.
If Trump wishes to leave behind a legacy of global impact, a serious, pragmatic push for a sovereign Palestinian state—supported by the Gulf, safeguarded by the U.S., and recognized by Israel—is the only path forward. This would be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. It is difficult, but not impossible. Especially for a dealmaker who understands power, pressure, and performance.
The Middle East doesn’t need another plan. It needs the will to act—and the courage to include Palestinians in shaping their future.
The Growing 2025 Anti-Trump Protests: Hands Off, No Kings Day, and More
The Growing 2025 Anti-Trump Protests: Hands Off, No Kings Day, and More
In just over 100 days of Trump 2.0, a reinvigorated Democratic opposition has taken shape. AOC and Bernie have been headlining rallies across the country. Cory Booker broke the record for the longest filibuster in Senate history. Beto O’Rourke is back on the road, holding town halls across Texas. Together, along with others, they’re making it clear: the fight is on. These examples all show how Democrats are fighting against the actions of the Trump administration, raising awareness around the authoritarian tendencies of the administration, & importantly testing the waters for potential runs.
Beyond the high-profile players, we’ve seen grassroots activism rising from the ground up. Protests like Hands Off!, most recently May Day, & the coming No King’s Day planned to counter Trump’s military parade on his birthday are a few examples of how citizens are making their voices heard across the country.
These protests are unfolding at a national level from New York to L.A. & even in deep red areas like Lubbock County in Texas. The protests respond to a wave of alarming developments: authoritarian behavior from the administration, the integration of billionaires like Elon Musk into governance, the erosion of civil liberties, the lack of due process for individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the crackdown on campus free speech. They have surfaced issues that often fly under the radar for everyday Americans not glued to the news. They also have provided places for people to channel their fear, uncertainty, & anger into action & guidance for party leaders. While these organic movements have had their share of struggles we have seen the resistance persist providing a sustainable & meaningful way for people to express their grievances & fight back against Trump’s policies.
Analysis
Protests like Democracy has No Kings, Hands off!, May Day, & the counter No Kings Day protest have arisen through organizations like 50501, Indivisible & organically with local organizations. With engagement up & a constant feed of materials from the Trump administration there is no end in sight for these protests across the country.
The protests have largely had general purposes & calls to action that appeal to a broader group of people. With rally cries like “Hands off!” or “No Kings” these protests are able to speak to multiple issues at once & do not get bogged down in the weeds of policy issues. In terms of success or impact we have seen a consistent drop in Trump’s approval rating & shortened honeymoon period relative to historical trends. It is hard to say these are solely because of the protests, but it is reasonable to suspect that they play a role. One key indicator of success is the shrinking of Elon’s presence in the administration. The No Kings protests specifically went after Musk & the influence of elites in the administration. Musk announced that he would be stepping back in his role with DOGE & focusing more on Tesla & Space X after his stocks & sales fell. Additionally, Musk’s failed influence in the Wisconsin special election proved useful for Democrats despite the millions Musk threw at the race. While it’s hard to say these protest played a singular role in these outcomes, they have definitely made an impact. The attention, media, & engagement brought by the consistent use of protest in response to Trump’s agenda is something that will continue to pay dividends over time.
While these protests have made an impact they have also faced some scrutiny. Critics against the movement have criticized the lack of coherent messaging & messy organization. While these initial protests may have been a bit sloppy & unfocused, they have allowed for organic messaging to arise. By being broad these protests have allowed for citizens to be heard & lead the messaging of the protests. Instead of elites deciding the messages & being out of touch, these protests have served as trial ground for messaging & inform leaders what the people want them to focus on.
Engagement resources–
- 50501: A protest movement organizing nationwide actions against the Trump administration.
https://www.fiftyfifty.one/ - Political Revolution: A political action committee dedicated to progressive grassroots activism
https://pol-rev.com/ - Protest Sign Ideas: Here is a Reddit link affiliated with 50501 where you can discover ideas for protest signs
https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jkpz02/fun_impactful_protest_sign_ideas/
Israel’s Use of AI in Gaza Sparks Protest at Tech Companies in the U.S.
Israel’s Use of AI in Gaza Sparks Protest at Tech Companies in the U.S.
Technology Policy Brief #148 | Mindy Spatt
The Israeli military uses Artificial Intelligence to find and target Hamas fighters, but with a civilian death toll estimated at 52,000, critics allege the system is not reliable and may even be providing cover for widespread bombing and ethnic cleansing. And that US companies are complicit.
Analysis
The use of Artificial Intelligence has changed the way Israel’s war is being waged by dramatically increasing the number of “targets” identified by the Army. The Israeli Defense Forces gather data from cell phone messages, satellite imagery, drone footage, and seismic sensors. In one report, an unnamed Israeli Defense officer said AI can suggest 200 targets in 10-12 days, a huge change from the human-led effort that took almost a year to find 50-100 targets.
But how reliable are those targets, presumably Hamas fighters rather than medics, aid workers, and journalists, hundreds of whom have been killed?
Israel estimates roughly 20,000 of the 52,000 dead in Gaza are Hamas fighters. Hamas says the number is smaller. Israel has often exaggerated the number, including in an example below. Regardless, the targeting seems wide, some advocates allege, deliberately so.
While the IDF has its own AI system, it is increasingly relying on American companies. Google’s contracts with the Israeli government have been the subject of employee protests for years. ( see Technology Policy Brief # 97 Google Cloud’s AI Conference Draws Protestors). Now, attention has turned to Microsoft.
In January, the investigative news site Drop Site released an in-depth report based on leaked documents proving that Israel’s use of Microsoft’s cloud services and artificial intelligence substantially increased after October 7. It also uncovered $10 million worth of contracts between the IDF and US companies.
Another report by the Associated Press “uncovered exclusive details about how Israel was using commercial AI models from U.S. tech giants in its war.” AP’s reporting also “linked AI-driven targeting to the wrongful killing of civilians, including a Lebanese family with children.”
One unnamed intelligence officer told AP that AI translations between Hebrew and Arabic can be incorrect and lead to incorrect targeting.” Additional problems identified in the report included faulty data and flawed algorithms. The report described an incident where a family had deliberately had their small children play outside their home in Gaza before evacuating, so the drones would show the Israelis that there were children in their car. Just the same, an Israeli airstrike hit it directly, killing all three of the small girls.
According to AP, “the day after the family was hit, the Israeli military released video of the strike along with similar videos and photos. A statement released said Israeli fighter jets had struck ‘just over 450 Hamas targets.”
Back in the US, a speech by Microsoft CEO Musta Suleyman at the company’s 50th anniversary celebration was interrupted by Ibtihal Aboussad, who shouted, “Mustafa, shame on you. Fifty thousand people have died, and Microsoft powers this genocide in our region.” A second protester, Microsoft employee Vaniya Agrawal, interrupted a later part of the event. Both were fired.
Over at Meta, Saima Akhter said reports of censorship of pro-Palestinian content led Meta staff to question upper management about the practice. Akhter claims her activism on the issue led to her firing.
Commentator Lucy Suchman, writing for the nonprofit AI Now Institute more than a year ago believes “The evidence from Gaza, where, as of this writing civilian casualties have surpassed 25,000 including over 10,000 children and destruction of roughly 70% of Gaza’s buildings and critical infrastructure, the gospel of AI-enabled precision and accuracy has now been revealed as a pretext for the acceleration of unrestrained and criminal acts of killing.”
Engagement Resources
- Lucy Suchman, The Algorithmically Accelerated Killing Machine, Jan. 24 2024
https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/the-algorithmically-accelerated-killing-machine - Questions and Answers: Israeli Military’s Use of Digital Tools in Gaza, Sept. 10, 2024,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/10/questions-and-answers-israeli-militarys-use-digital-tools-gaza - Noah Sylvia, The Israel Defense Forces’ Use of AI in Gaza: A Case of Misplaced Purpose, 4 July 2024,
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/israel-defense-forces-use-ai-gaza-case-misplaced-purpose - Michael Beisecker, Sam Mednick and Garrance Burke, As Israel Uses US-Made AI Models In War, Concerns Arise About Tech’s Role In Who Lives And Who Dies, Feb. 18, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-ai-technology-737bc17af7b03e98c29cec4e15d0f108
American Policy in Africa: US Retreats as China Advances
American Policy in Africa: US Retreats as China Advances
Foreign Policy Brief #199 | Damian DeSola | May 1, 2025
On 22 April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed plans to reorganize the State Department with the justification of increasing efficiency, rooting out ‘radical political ideology’, and delivering Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The details of the plan focus on reducing the size of the State Department and its budget over time: consolidating regional bureaus and embassies, shutting down redundant offices, and ending non-statutory programs that the administration determines to be irrelevant to American interests.
This has become another step in the isolationist doctrine of the administration, and in real terms is a major retreat of the United States from the world stage. Vast implications of this policy and the realities it will induce can be discussed, but this article will focus on how the retreat will alter one of the current great power struggle’s battlegrounds, Africa.
Battleground Africa
From a grand strategy perspective, the United States is in retreat from the continent, as an autocratic China aggressively advances into the position of altering neo-colonial order over Africa. Meanwhile, the people of Africa suffer. The reignition of great power tensions has once again placed African people and land at the center of the conflict.
The United States is removing its commitments to developing democracy and providing aid. As gray as much of American policy in Africa was, the reductions in malaria, HIV, and famine were undeniable positive impacts coordinated by US international aid. Without this aid coupled with foreign policy that drops all pretense of promoting human rights and democracy, African nations and peoples will come to expect a hardnosed and indifferent United States as the current administration’s policies develop. Furthermore, the disappearance of the complex infrastructure used to prevent famine and disease will be difficult to immediately replace even by China, leaving hundreds of thousands in extremely dangerous living conditions.
China
Countering the United States as the other major player in this modern scramble for Africa is China. For decades, the Chinese have implemented a long-term strategy to assert their influence over the continent. Once a silent actor in the Cold War, they now openly pursue an aggressive agenda of debt traps and coerced concessions. Under the auspices of foreign development and economic partnerships, China has succeeded in accumulating massive amounts of debt from African governments. By providing loans, material, manpower and more to develop nation-changing infrastructure for countries like Kenya, Ethiopia, and Zambia, China negotiates the rights to African mines, natural resources, and access to infrastructure to pay off the accumulated debts. China has also invested educational, military, and political resources to achieve influence over the targeted nations.
To conclude, it is becoming increasing certain that the conditions of stability, sovereignty, and security across Africa will deteriorate in the near and mid-term future. It is still uncertain what the US administration’s definable policy in Africa will look like. Perhaps what has been said here and much more has been considered and the State Department and US military will take steps to implement a complex and informed strategy. However, it suffices to say that the consolidation and reduction of funds for projects and diplomatic outposts won’t create a conducive environment for nuanced African policy.
Old Growth Forest Policy Made at the 19th Hole
Old Growth Forest Policy Made at the 19th Hole
Environment Policy Brief #180 | Todd J. Broadman | May 5, 2025
Through an Executive Order issued March 1, 2025, there is to be an expansion of American timber production that meets goals to achieve “sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty.” Approximately 100 million acres, the equivalent of 60% of our national forests, are to be within earshot of a chainsaw. In so doing, the Trump administration declares this a “new era” in national forest management. Legally protected forest land and parts of old growth forest are slated be part of the expanded production.
Though the timber production order is framed as an emergency, that definition is not met under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), nor does it follow the decision process as defined by Congress – only the deputized branch that regulates a particular land parcel has authority to begin the process of opening or closing a forest to logging. Those details though, are not stopping the executive office from an attempt to sidestep environmental laws as well as declare emergency fire risks.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) falls under the Department of Agriculture, and its Secretary, Brooke Rollins, and is enthusiastically following Trump’s directives in declaring a forest health emergency – one that spans 80% of forests managed by the USFS. She aims to increase logging in national forests by some 25%. Meanwhile, there was an attempt to fire over 3,000 USFS employees. That too made its way from the Oval Office to Brooke Rollins. (That order was overturned recently by the Merit Systems Protection Board and those employees are reinstated with backpay).
Underlying the Executive Order is the belief that job creation, economic growth, and national self-reliance must be the primary considerations in forest management policy. In addition to the imposition of this value system, the safety of Americans has been woven into the justification in so far as increased logging reduces fire risk. As with oil and other natural resources the assumption is that there is an “abundance” of trees, “more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs.” In that sense, national security adds further implied support. The Order goes as to say that leaving forests wild, and not acting to log, has actually degraded fish and wildlife habitats.
There is agreement amongst forestry scientists that selective logging, particularly in the West, can improve overall environmental health. Due to decades of logging and fire suppression, where there used to be millions of acres of old-growth trees, there are now dense stands of smaller trees, brush and other tinder. There has been an increase in insect infestations and droughts.
As with drilling deep for oil, the economics of harvesting smaller trees often does not pay off. In the timber industry, forest management practices designed to reduce the quantity, arrangement, and continuity of combustible materials such as dead wood, underbrush, and small trees, is known as “fuel treatment.” And fuel treatment combined with the opening-up of tracts with larger trees could change this equation and make it economically feasible for logging companies, and even then, only if lumber firms have employees and mills capable of these larger harvesting operations.
Industry lobbyists like the Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC), are thrilled with the initiative, and say they want to see logging on federal lands double. “The President’s Executive Order rightly recognizes that our National Forests are undermanaged and can do a lot more to meet the demand for lumber in the US,” they said, echoing the justifications Trump deployed. In addition to the FFRC, the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), a corporate lobbyist for the lumber industry in western states claimed the directive was “long-overdue” and said the timber industry is poised to contribute to “economic revitalization.” In line with industry sentiment, in a memo to USFS field managers, Secretary Rollins, instructed the field to disregard National Environmental Policy Act regulations and to fast-track timber production.
Former timber industry (Idaho Forest Group) executive and Trump loyalist, Tom Schultz, was recently appointed US Forest Service Chief.
Aside from legal challenges, there are practical hurdles that must be overcome in order for increased logging to take place. There is a severe labor shortage in the industry. In Oregon, the Malheur mill closed its doors due to a labor shortage, prompting Bruce Dausavage, President of Ochoco Lumber to remark: “The way we currently stand, I don’t believe the President’s procedures will help.” The labor shortage is not confined to the lumber mills. There are shortfalls of skilled foresters, biologists, and other USFS workers who create and manage complex timber projects. This at a time when the Trump administration has and will continue to cut staff.
One of the prominent issues that will be challenged in court and one that directly impacts lands open to logging is the ESA and its definition of “harm.” The term as written includes habitat protection. The administration contends that harm ought to be defined as “affirmative act directed immediately against a particular animal,” rather than indirect harm coming from habitat destruction. Dave Owen, an environmental law professor at the University of California, San Francisco, says that the “shift here would be to say that just habitat modification that is detrimental to a species, even if the detriment is fairly direct, is not encompassed within the word ‘harm’.” On this issue of what constitutes harm, Noah Greenwald of Biological Diversity says, “There’s just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live, yet the Trump administration is opening the floodgates to immeasurable habitat destruction.”
ANALYSIS
New protections were granted to “carbon-rich” trees in national forests – those tree stands more than a century old – under the Biden administration. Rollins predecessor Tom Vilsack had a very different view of our natural inheritance. “At the end of the day, it will protect not just the forests, but also the culture and heritage connected to the forests,” he said. According to Andy Stahl, executive director at the nonprofit Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, the most valuable timber are old-growth trees located in wet rainforests of the Pacific Northwest. A three decades long agreement halted almost all logging of these trees. Industry watchers are following this closely to see if the administration is able to make any change at all to current protections.
In order to make good on his political promises, Trump has created an emergency in our national forests. Many experts contend that this is an attempt to confuse the public, similar to the emergency invoked to locate and deport immigrants. This follows a pattern of apply emergency powers to seize control of decision-making from the Oval Office. As Rollins directed, another ploy will be for the USFS to shorten their review process and the pushing through of approvals. These moves though are sure to be litigated.
To enhance the economics of domestic timber sales, Trump has imposed a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican lumber imports, a move applauded by U.S. lumber companies as a way to protect domestic producers from foreign competition and unfair trade practices. The President has requested a plan from the Secretary of the Interior and Agriculture with a target number for the annual amount of timber (in millions of board feet) per year to be sold from Federal lands managed by the BLM and USFS. In his gusto to cut down trees he asks that these agencies “revise or rescind” all existing regulations that would prevent attainment of the target.
A seasoned attorney in environmental and natural resource law, Murray Feldman, a partner at Holland & Hart LLP in Boise, Idaho, called this Executive Order an “aspirational statement.” He pointed out that there is no emergency to be substantiated. Emergency declarations normally apply to human health risks and this order falls far short of demonstrating that kind of risk. This is yet another change that is rightly to be made in the legislative branch of government, not the executive. Feldman explains that “If the Administration wants to remake timber policy on the federal lands, it needs to go the branch that has plenary authority over those lands and work there to implement any change it may seek. It cannot do so simply by issuing an Executive Order.”
Like so many other Executive Orders, this one was done by subverting Constitutional authority. As with the deportation of immigrants, Trump knows the courts will rule against him and wants action to take place before litigation begins and judges rule to stay the Order. And although there is merit in thinning certain forest stands to improve forest health and enhance fire prevention, his specific “board feet” targets make plain a different agenda. The judicial branch is sure to see through this charade.
USRESIST Resources:
https://amforest.org/ is a regional trade association whose purpose is to advocate for sustained yield timber harvests on public timberlands throughout the West.
https://climate.mit.edu/ informs and empowers the public on this complex issue of climate change.
https://elpc.org/ is the Midwest’s leading environmental legal advocacy organization.
The Trump Administration and the University Communities: Part 1, Funding Suspension
The Trump Administration and the University Communities: Part 1, Funding Suspension
In April 2025, the Trump administration escalated its efforts to reshape American higher education by suspending billions in federal grants to elite universities — including Harvard, Columbia, and others — accused of promoting “critical race theory,” “transgender ideology,” and other Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This move is part of a broader campaign to reorient education policy around conservative cultural values and dismantle what the administration frames as liberal dominance within academia.
Analysis
The suspension of grants marks an unprecedented federal intervention into institutional academic governance. Officials claim these elite institutions receive outsized federal support while simultaneously promoting ideologies that “undermine traditional American values.” Internal memos suggest these actions are aligned with efforts to curb race and gender-focused curricula, remove DEI offices, and defund research perceived as ideologically biased.
Universities, however, argue that such moves are political retaliation aimed at chilling academic freedom. Columbia University issued a statement calling the action “a dangerous abuse of power,” while Harvard has joined a coalition of institutions preparing legal challenges. Faculty and students across affected campuses have staged protests, emphasizing the role of DEI programs in fostering inclusion and advancing civil rights research.
Conservative groups praise the crackdown as a long-overdue correction of what they see as liberal indoctrination, while liberal advocates warn it sets a precedent for political censorship and erodes the independence of U.S. higher education.
Stance
The Trump administration’s decision to suspend federal grants to elite universities like Harvard and Columbia has far-reaching consequences that extend beyond the immediate financial hit. For universities, the loss of billions in research funding threatens to dismantle entire academic departments, particularly in the social sciences, humanities, and public policy — fields already under scrutiny for their perceived ideological leanings. Faculty hiring, graduate student support, and major research initiatives could all face steep cutbacks, impacting not only the institutions themselves but the broader intellectual and policy landscape in the U.S.
For students, especially those from historically marginalized groups, this crackdown on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs could translate into reduced access to support services, mentorship opportunities, and campus initiatives designed to create safe, inclusive environments. The rollback risks isolating LGBTQ+ students, racial minorities, and first-generation scholars — many of whom rely on these programs for success and retention in competitive academic environments.
At a national level, these actions may damage America’s global standing in higher education and innovation. Elite institutions often drive cutting-edge research that influences policy, technology, and science around the world. Undermining their funding in the name of ideological realignment not only stifles academic freedom but also weakens the U.S. in the global knowledge economy. Most alarmingly, it sets a precedent: that the federal government can and will financially punish educational institutions for the views they allow to be explored — a direct challenge to the principles of free thought and open discourse that define democratic education
I strongly oppose these federal actions to defund elite institutions based on ideological litmus tests. Universities should remain places of open inquiry, liberal learning, and robust research, not targets for political power plays. While accountability is important, efforts that silence academic work on race, gender, or identity marginalize both scholarship and the students these programs support. This strategy is not just about trimming budgets — it’s about reshaping the intellectual landscape to mirror a narrow political worldview.
The growing polarization in education is a mirror of deeper national fractures. But punishing intellectual hubs for not aligning with federal ideology is not the solution — it’s a threat to democracy itself.
Sources for Information:
- The Chronicle of Higher Education – https://www.chronicle.com
A nonpartisan source for academic news, policy analysis, and trends. - Pew Research Center: Education & Society – https://www.pewresearch.org
Provides data and analysis on public opinion and trends in higher education. - Inside Higher Ed – https://www.insidehighered.com
Offers a balanced, in-depth view on faculty issues, administrative changes, and government policy in academia.
A Primer on Political Interest Groups
A Primer on Political Interest Groups
Political interest groups play a central role in shaping policy in the United States. From corporate-funded lobbying arms to grassroots-driven caucuses, these groups influence electoral outcomes, legislative priorities, and public discourse. Their power lies in their ability to mobilize voters, fund campaigns, and set political agendas, often behind closed doors. The disproportionate influence of wealthy donors and elite organizations has made representative democracy more vulnerable to manipulation, with policies reflecting corporate interests rather than the public good. Understanding these interest groups is essential not just to map where power lies, but to challenge it.
Analysis
MAGA Republicans represent the authoritarian nationalist wing of the GOP. Rooted in Trumpism, this faction promotes xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and white grievance politics while rejecting democratic norms. Its adherents embrace voter suppression laws and oppose LGBTQ rights, reproductive freedom, and climate action. MAGA Republicans rallied behind the January 6 insurrection and continue to spread disinformation about election integrity. Their legislative focus includes opposing aid to Ukraine, attacking trans rights, and banning abortion at the state level. Figures like Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Matt Gaetz exemplify this faction’s direction.
Traditional Conservative Republicans support tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, and an expansive military-industrial complex. While often distancing themselves from the more explicit extremism of MAGA figures, they enable the same corporate-friendly, anti-labor agenda. They oppose universal healthcare, climate justice, and wealth redistribution. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney exemplify this faction. Their legislative priorities include corporate tax cuts and weakening environmental protections. Though less incendiary in tone than MAGA Republicans, their policies reinforce inequality and block transformative progress.
The Lincoln Project Republicans, or Never Trumpers, broke with the GOP over Trump’s authoritarianism but remain wedded to neoliberalism and U.S. empire. They champion military spending, free trade, and incrementalism while rejecting fascistic rhetoric. Figures like Liz Cheney and the Lincoln Project PAC seek to restore a pre-Trump GOP but fail to challenge systemic racism or corporate dominance. Their support for Biden-era centrism reflects an effort to preserve the status quo.
Evangelical Christians operate as a powerful religious bloc aligned closely with Republican politics. Their agenda centers on outlawing abortion, opposing LGBTQ rights, and promoting Christian nationalism in public education and law. Their influence led to the fall of Roe v. Wade and the rise of anti-trans legislation across numerous states. Leaders such as Franklin Graham and organizations like the Family Research Council push policies that criminalize bodily autonomy and suppress civil rights. This is a type of religious authoritarianism that is incompatible with pluralism and human rights.
Traditional moderate Democrats operate as defenders of neoliberal capitalism and incremental reform. They prioritize maintaining institutional stability and market-based solutions over structural change. Leaders like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi often align with corporate donors and resist bold policies like universal healthcare or significant fossil fuel divestment. Their legislative priorities include expanding the Affordable Care Act and marginal increases to minimum wage laws. These centrists act as barriers to transformative justice and maintain an inequitable status quo.
Progressive Democrats advocate for social and economic justice within the confines of the Democratic Party. They support Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, tuition-free public college, and strong labor protections. Figures such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Elizabeth Warren challenge neoliberalism and corporate influence in government. Their legislative priorities, including the PRO Act and the Green New Deal resolution, reflect efforts to redistribute power toward working-class and marginalized people.
Libertarians are anti-statist capitalists who oppose government intervention in both economic and personal affairs. While occasionally aligning with leftists on issues like surveillance and foreign intervention, they reject collective solutions to inequality. They advocate for privatizing social services, ending environmental regulations, and eliminating taxes. Figures like Rand Paul and the Cato Institute push for radical free-market reforms that entrench corporate power and erode public infrastructure. From a far-left perspective, libertarianism represents the ultimate capitulation to capitalist domination disguised as freedom.
Independents represent a varied group of voters and politicians who reject formal party affiliation. Some lean centrist while others embrace anti-establishment populism. Their priorities are diverse, but many support electoral reforms like ranked-choice voting and open primaries. Figures such as Bernie Sanders and Jesse Ventura have used independent status to critique the two-party system. Independent politics seems to offer a potential path to challenge corporate duopoly, though cooptation remains a risk.
Political Caucuses within Congress organize around shared identity or ideology. The Congressional Black Caucus promotes racial equity, criminal justice reform, and voting rights protections. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus advocates for immigration reform and economic justice for Latino communities. The National Women’s Caucus fights for reproductive rights, equal pay, and protections against gender-based violence. The LGBTQ Caucus pushes for non-discrimination legislation like the Equality Act. These caucuses elevate marginalized voices within institutional politics, though their effectiveness often hinges on the broader party’s willingness to adopt their priorities.
Political Action Committees (PACs) are fundraising arms that allow interest groups to channel money into campaigns and lobbying. Corporate PACs dominate both parties, funding candidates who prioritize deregulation, military spending, and austerity. On the right, PACs like the NRA’s Political Victory Fund push pro-gun extremism. On the liberal side, PACs like EMILY’s List support pro-choice Democratic women. Despite their differences, both types of PACs reinforce the role of money in politics. These PACs epitomize a broken system where financial clout determines policy outcomes, demanding public financing and strict limits on campaign contributions.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
- OpenSecrets (https://www.opensecrets.org/): Researches campaign finance data and lobbying influence across the political spectrum.
- Common Cause (https://www.commoncause.org/): Organizes against voter suppression, gerrymandering, and money in politics.
- Public Citizen (https://www.citizen.org/): Advocates for campaign finance reform and corporate accountability.
- Center for Media and Democracy (https://www.exposedbycmd.org/): Investigates corporate influence on politics and exposes front groups.
- Move to Amend (https://movetoamend.org/): Campaigns for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood and overturn Citizens United.
Danger in Economic Uncertainty: A Lesson From Trump’s Tariff Policies
Danger in Economic Uncertainty: A Lesson From Trump’s Tariff Policies
The dust is still being settled a month after the U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day.” He was never coy about his desire to wield tariffs to achieve his geopolitical goals. Both in his previous administration and on the campaign trail, he promised that they are the way to rebuild American manufacturing and repair trade imbalances.
However, between the worst stock sell-off since the pandemic and the reactions from decades-old allies and partners, Trump’s tariffs have widely destabilizing. The uncertainty that it is forcing businesses to operate under will only further hurt the American economy.
In response Trump has retreated from his initial effort to post huge tariffs on all countries. However, he has retained his 10% universal tariff while also deciding that a trade war with China (complemented with a whopping 145% total tariff rate) was the right move.
Since then, exceptions have been granted to certain industries and Trump has claimed that over 200 trade deals are in the works with other countries, although he hadn’t given specifics about any of the deals other than saying they will finish negotiations over the next month. It’s even unclear if the U.S. and China are having negotiations regarding their trade war, as Trump and Chinese officials contradict each other.
Analysis
It is widely understood by economists that uncertainty is bad for business; it makes businesses more reluctant to hire and invest, and leads to lower sales on top of the actual price that tariffs extract from importers. If they don’t know how the future is going to look, why forgo having flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances?
This uncertainty, coupled with the pace at which Trump makes these policy pivots, is making business leaders looking into the long-term are wary of making the normal long-term investments that stimulate the economy. Expanding locations, placing bulk input orders from abroad, hiring more staff; all of these moves, which generate economic activity, start getting second-guessed by business owners.
Companies that import the materials for their products also are about to face widespread supply chain disruptions. The tariff price in many cases will get passed onto the consumer, but in many cases, the imports might not happen at all, because the tariffs are simply too high. Even just receiving foreign materials will be impacted, as the Los Angeles port expects a 35% drop in cargo from Asia starting in May.
While it is certainly true that there are big name companies that have announced huge investments into the U.S. moving forwards, namely Apple’s $500 billion pledge over the next four years, those investments will take a long time to bear any fruit. The global economic landscape can change drastically between then and today, as Trump himself has shown.
“We will have to pull every lever we have in our arsenal to mitigate the impact of tariffs,” said Procter & Gamble’s Chief Financial Officer, Andre Schulten, on a media call with Reuters. His company is waiting on stability to make any changes, because those decisions often have “a lead time of multiple months, sometimes years and reversing them has similar lead times.”
And that hesitation doesn’t just affect domestic companies. Foreign companies looking to invest in the U.S. are hitting the pause button, eyeing how demand and inflation in the U.S. are going to be affected with tariffs constantly looming.
By taking the U.S. down this road, Trump is tying a tourniquet around the investment from both abroad and at home that could be key in what Trump claims he wants to do: bring back American manufacturing. While some major companies are pledging investment in the U.S., the smaller business owners who Trump claims to be looking out for are being thrown onto their back foot by his tariffs and his manic policy backpedals.
Until these tariffs are stabilized, and the Trump administration remembers that economic ambiguity is contractionary, the American economy will begin to lose its premier position, and the doorway for a new economic order that rips the U.S. off of its pedestal inches further and further open.
Engagement Resources
- The International Monetary Fund is a global organization that offers policy advice, research data, and financial assistance to over 191 nations.
- The Peterson Institute for International Economics is an independent, nonprofit think tank that focuses on researching the global economy.
- The Global Business Alliance is a non-profit that advocates for international companies investing in the U.S., and tracks the current tariff landscape.