JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Kenyan Debt Problem: A Tightrope of Austerity (Foreign Policy Brief #211)
On 19 July 2025, the Kenyan activist Boniface Mwangi was arrested under suspicion of “facilitation of terrorist activities during the June 25, 2025, protests.” He was released on 21 July on a KSh 1m personal bond ($7,723). He was charged not for terrorism, but for possession of two tear gas canisters and a single blank 7.62 bullet. This is not the first time Mwangi was arrested by Kenyan authorities, nor the first time a Kenyan journalist or human rights activist was arrested by federal authorities for similar reasons.
Current Abortion Laws and Their Challenge to Bodily Autonomy (Health & Gender Policy Brief #180)
Before the overturning of Roe v. Wade on June 24th, 2022, concerns were raised about the potential effects and consequences it would have on reproductive rights. After the overturning, those concerns have come into fruition, and have not only affected the rights to an abortion, but also the rights to bodily autonomy.
An Energy Sector Stuck Between a Lump of Coal and a Hard Place (Environment Policy Brief #181)
Coal is not going away anytime soon; it remains the dominant source of the world’s electricity. 15% of U.S. electricity is fueled by coal. Globally, it is forecasted that carbon in the form of coal will still contribute 22% of power generation by 2040. In China and India, the reliance upon coal is significantly higher, almost double that of the U.S. and Europe. And for good reasons: it is the most economical, stable, and reliable power source.
TikTok vs. U.S. Government: The Battle Over Data Privacy and Platform Ownership (Technology Policy Brief #153)
The clash between TikTok and the U.S. government centers on national security and data privacy concerns tied to its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. TikTok, with around 170 million American users, faces a federal mandate under the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed April 24, 2024, requiring it to divest its U.S. operations or face a nationwide ban effective January 19, 2025. The Supreme Court upheld PAFACA in TikTok v. Garland on January 17, 2025, finding it constitutional and not in violation of First Amendment rights.
Profits and Protests at Palantir (Technology Policy Brief #152)
Palantir Technologies’ data tracking software and Artificial Intelligence tools are playing a huge role in the ICE sweeps plaguing communities throughout the US, sparking a national day of protests and concerns over a revolving door between the company and key government agencies.
Current Efforts to Change State Education Curricula (Education Policy Brief #205)
Recent changes to state laws and policies reflect conservative efforts to remove what they consider “divisive concepts” regarding race and gender. South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, and Utah have now joined 21 other states attempting to modify or eliminate curricula considered by many on the right to promote progressive concepts they say have direct, negative impacts on students.
Nigeria’s Resource Curse (Foreign Policy Brief #209)
Those who have a casual understanding of history or geopolitics may react agreeably to the concept: the greater abundance of natural resources a country has the more well-off the people of that country will be. Unfortunately, for Nigerians, the opposite is their reality. The abundance of oil in Nigeria, along with their colonial history, has resulted in a “resource curse,” a theory posited by contemporary international relations scholars. Nigeria now finds its economy reliant on the export of oil and renting their oil fields to multinational corporations (MNCs), leading to a commodity industry based on corruption and wealth centralization.
The Art of the Heel: The Deadly Effects of Trump Abandoning the Iran Nuclear Deal (Foreign Policy Brief #208)
The Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is an accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in 2015. Under its terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its weapons-making facilities to international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief worth billions of dollars. Since the United States’ withdrawal from JCPOA in 2018 under President Trump, Iran has expanded its nuclear program, breaching its commitments to the agreement, including resuming uranium enrichment and violating limits on nuclear materials. While the JCPOA remains legally valid, Iran’s violations of the agreement’s terms have thus far thwarted negotiations to revive it or to forge a new deal with the Trump administration. Foreign diplomacy analysts and Israeli officials have identified Trump’s backing out of the deal as a costly blunder that has fueled both Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and rising instability in the middle east.
Zohran Mamdani’s Campaign Has Been A Wake-Up Call. Who Is Following His Lead? (Elections & Politics Brief #188)
The Democratic primary for the New York mayoral race was seen as a “perfect storm”, “clearly a rebuke”, and a surprise to many onlookers. In it, self-proclaimed democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani managed to pull off a stunning and decisive victory over establishment Democrat and former governor Andrew Cuomo. As Mamdani began gaining steam in the latter weeks of the campaign, the mayoral race began to be seen as a litmus test for the future of the Democratic Party.
Trump’s Tech Ventures Positioned for Top Profits (Technology Policy Brief #151)
Technology Policy Brief #151 | Mindy Spatt | July 1, 2025
The Trump organization has dropped any pretense of avoiding conflicts of interest. Instead, it is blatantly cashing in on Trump’s presidency in every conceivable way. At the top of the list is tech, with both Trump and his wife selling digital currencies and a new Trump mobile phone on the way. An additional bonus is that Trump has a great deal of power over the agencies that oversee these industries, and Congress is doing nothing to stop him from taking advantage of it.
Analysis
With the Trumps coming up with new ways to profit off the presidency every day, it was no surprise that Eric Trump recently announced a new venture in the family’s ballooning cryptocurrency portfolio.
Bitcoin mining uses a network of computers to verify Bitcoin transactions. Profits are made through the computers that are rewarded for their “work” with, what else, Bitcoin! And, the icing on the cake, it is the perfect investment for a climate change denier. Bitcoin mining is oddly named since, unlike actual mining, it involves no physical labor at all. The computers do the work and need massive amounts of electricity to do so. It is an energy-intensive endeavor that doesn’t deliver benefits like light, refrigeration, or manufacturing. It adds to the emissions in our air simply in the service of higher profits off of investments in “coins” that likewise have no physical existence.
Trump’s memecoin has already received a big presidential boost. Trump recently threw a gala dinner at his Virginia golf club for the top holders of his memecoin. They paid, collectively, $148,000 for the privilege. The $TRUMP memecoin had been sinking in value and was worth next to nothing until Trump offered a private dinner to the top 25 buyers of his product. Prices went up quickly, as did Trump’s profits.
Those profits can be maximized under the terms of legislation recently approved by the Senate. The National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act)
limits the issuance of payment stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency issued by Trump’s World Liberty Financial, to “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” and qualifying foreign issuers. Either state or federal authorities could approve permits, and foreign issuers would have to use a US-based intermediary. In both cases, Trump would have enormous influence over any competitors seeking to enter the market.
It is a given that most republicans will rubber stamp all of Trump’s legislation. But in this case, although some democrats objected to the bill, 18 democratic senators voted in favor, even though there was nothing in the bill that addressed Trump’s glaring conflicts of interest. The bill, introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) and co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), goes to the House of Representatives next.
Trump’s profit-making ventures as President don’t stop there. There are golf courses, resorts, watches, and soon a Mobile phone in Trump’s favorite color, gold. Phone service, like the airwaves, is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, which Trump has weaponized to launch investigations of media outlets he believes have challenged or insulted him, and in some cases, is suing.
As President, he has many ways to destroy his business competitors. Despite Tim Cook’s attendance at his inauguration- with a $1 million contribution- Trump recently rebuked Apple for making its phones in India, and threatened the company with a 25% tariff. He promises his phone will retail for $500 and be “built in the United States.” Commentators all say it is impossible to manufacture smartphones from all US-made parts; at best, the phones could be put together domestically with imported parts.
The presidency looks to be the most successful business venture of Trump’s entire life. In March of this year, Forbes estimated Trump’s net worth at $5.1billion, which is more than double what it was the year before. And this is only the beginning.
Engagement Resources
- Bitcoin Mining Increases Levels of Air Pollution Harmful to Human HealthBy Maya Brownstein, April 24, 2025https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/bitcoin-mining-increases-levels-of-air-pollution-harmful-to-human-health/#:~:text=Bitcoin%20mining—the%20process%20through,Chan%20School%20of%20Public%20Health.
- Tracking Electricity Consumption From U.S. Cryptocurrency Mining Operations, February 1, 2024, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61364
- Crypto Bills Surrender to Trump’s Crypto Corruption Press Release: Crypto Bills Surrender to Trump’s Crypto Corruption, June 17, 2025https://www.citizen.org/news/crypto-bills-surrender-to-trumps-crypto-corruption/
Going to War for Human Rights? (Foreign Policy Brief #206)
Foreign Policy Brief #206 | Abran C | July 2, 2025
With Israel and Iran now having engaged in a direct war, trading attacks on each other’s cities, and the US carrying out attacks inside Iran, there’s a high chance that the US could be dragged into a full on war. It’s a prospect that is causing fear in many in the United States, but also being pushed for by others. Regime change has come up as one of the goals of the war and there are those in the US who are in favor of going to war and overthrowing the Iranian government.
Once again, not only is an enemy nation baselessly a short-way away from a nuclear weapon that they would obviously be compelled to use immediately, but the government is oppressive to those that live under its rule and Americans must fly across continents to liberate them. Women, ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community would apparently welcome American/Israeli forces invading and overthrowing their government.
Now of course, this is not to say the Iranian government is not oppressive, one would only need to look at the recent sweeping public protests that erupted across Iran in response to the death of Mahsa Amini in custody of Iran’s morality police in September 2023. Iranian authorities after suppressing the protests adopted an even more draconian law that further targeted the rights of women and girls, imposing the death penalty, flogging, prison terms and other severe penalties to crush ongoing resistance to compulsory veiling, according to a 2024 report by Amnesty International. Many more examples could be given and presented by this point alone proves that the egregious situation for women in the country is true.
There is no question that in Iran women are less free than men in society and other minority communities or dissidents to the government’s policies do live under religious authoritarian rule. However, that is not a justification for overthrowing a government of a sovereign nation, and especially one in a region that has already seen multiple governments toppled and then thrown into instability. The argument over different oppressed groups in Iran is being used primarily to manufacture consent for the US to go to war. Even as the IAEA recently made statements that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, the facts proved irrelevant when faced against the argument that because Iran is run by an evil regime it clearly needed to be invaded. Only recently and very quickly have many media pundits, commentators, and politicians come to care about the well being of various groups in this foreign country.
Take this excerpt from an article published in Politico, written by Mathias Döpfner, titled “Iran’s Target Isn’t Just Israel. It’s Us”. The article seeks to make the claim that the US should go to war, with a section stating “In Iran, women are systematically oppressed and abused. Homosexuals are murdered. Those who think differently are imprisoned and tortured.”
Another example, from a journalist that has gained notoriety over the last few years covering events in the Middle East, Pierce Morgan, who on a recent episode of his show Pierce Morgan Uncensored, interviewed Iranian Professor Mohammed Marandi. While interviewing the professor, he read a list of repressive aspects of Iranian society, stating “women face severe restrictions when it comes to marriage, women banned from certain professions… Lgbt people suffer systematic discrimination and violence… authorities censor the media… it doesn’t sound like a great place to visit” he said.
Chris Cuomo on his podcast took aim at both Bernie Sanders and AOC for making statements against going to war with Iran, saying “If you’re a feminist how do you not decry the fact that Iran would jail you for how you speak, for how you dress?… they would slaughter your LGBTQ plus constituents.”
On the popular morning talk show The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a republican former White House director of strategic communications said, “Let’s remember too, the Iranians literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don’t adhere to basic human rights,”.
These arguments in other contexts are wholly justified and should be made, people regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race should not be made to live in fear or as second class citizens in any state around the world. However the arguments are being presented now not out of genuine concern but are the same claims used to launch and sustain decade long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The mental leap from having issues with a country’s domestic and social policies to then suggest that they then can only be solved through regime change by our armies overthrowing and occupying the country is outrageous.
There are numerous other examples of government oppression and oppression of minorities from all across the globe. For example, in 2024 Peru classified transgender identities as ‘mental health problems’. In 2023 Uganda passed one of the world’s harshest anti-gay laws. The law states that “a person who promotes homosexuality commits an offense and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.” It also requires Ugandans to report suspected homosexuals or violations of the law to the authorities. In Saudi Arabia, one of Donald Trump’s most closely allied foreign partners, women only gained the right to drive in 2018 and are still subjected to strict male guardianship laws. We must also not pay mind that different states in the US have varying degrees of discrimination towards the LGBTQ community and that there is currently a nationwide hunt in the United States by masked agents for both documented and undocumented people of a particular ethnic group with many being sent to a detention facility in Central America with no due process.
Under the arguments made by those listed and others in the media that cite Iran’s treatment of various groups, all of the above-mentioned countries should have their governments toppled. An obviously ridiculous suggestion, which if not only for the hardship it would create within those countries, for the damage it would do to an already unstable international system. If we seek to ameliorate the situation of women, ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ community and others in Iran and elsewhere, we could do so through uplifting their voices internationally. Funding projects and encouraging journalism, education, diplomacy and more through international programs like those cut by the Trump administration. We should offer refuge to those fleeing oppressive regimes and not close our borders or implement travel bans to any and all nationals escaping said “evil regimes”. There are numerous ways to help and none of those should include invading and occupying those we claim to seek to protect and liberate.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #205)
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #205 | Abran C
A projectile hit buildings on Friday as the Israeli Iron Dome air-defense system fired to intercept missiles over Tel Aviv. Credit… Leo Correa/Associated Press
Israel-Iran war and ceasefire deal
For over 12 days Israel and Iran exchange strikes after their long-time conflict hit a flashpoint following Israel’s surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear program and assassination of Iranian leadership. The attack kicked off a sequence of events that has left hundreds reported killed and put the United States at risk of being dragged further into the war. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that Iran has been enriching higher amounts of uranium and in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. While also confirming that the agency had not found “any proof” of an effort to develop a nuclear weapon by Iran.
The statements in the report have been used as a justification for the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israeli and US officials. Iran has since announced that the country is planning to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and suspend cooperation with the IAEA. Israel itself has never signed onto the treaty, and is widely believed to have at least 90 nuclear warheads and materials to create hundreds more. Following the Israeli strikes the United States carried out attacks against three Iranian nuclear sites, Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Iran’s response to the US strikes soon after were a wave of missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the headquarters of the US Central Command and the largest US base in the Middle East. Following the bombings US President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Iran and pressured both countries into ending their attacks. For the ceasefire is in place but it is uncertain and unlikely that it will permanently cease hostilities.
Colombia confirms that it has been accepted into the New Development Bank, known as the “BRICS bank,” which it applied for in May in China. Credit: Juan Diego Cano / Presidency of Colombia.
Colombia joins the BRICS Development Bank
Last month Colombia was accepted as a new member of the New Development Bank, also known as the “BRICS bank”. The bank acts as the central development bank for the economic bloc led by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It is similar to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and aims to mobilize resources for infrastructure and development projects in emerging and developing countries. Colombia had requested membership into the institution earlier this year, amid tensions with the United States over President Trump’s tariff war and Colombia’s acceptance into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.
The country’s entry into the bank does not, however, mean Colombia is now a member of the BRICS economic bloc. Rather, it means Colombia can access resources and financing for diverse projects. Its entrance into the BRICS financial sphere does however point to the bloc’s growing relevance and rival to the existing global financial institutions.
Members of the M23 rebel group are seem after the opening ceremony in Goma, North Kivu province, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, April 7, 2025.
DR Congo and Rwanda sign peace agreement
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed an agreement aimed at stopping the conflict in eastern DRC, according to a joint statement from the two countries and the United States Department of State. The deal, mediated by the US and Qatar, provides for the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of armed groups and the return of refugees and internally displaced people. The deal also gives the US government and American companies access to critical minerals in the region.The decades-long conflict escalated earlier this year when M23 rebels captured swathes of mineral-rich territory in eastern DRC. Amnesty International has criticized the deal, stating that the recent peace agreement signed between the DRC and Rwanda fails to address justice for the victims of serious crimes by not including any provisions aimed at holding their perpetrators to account.
Rwanda, which is widely believed to fund and support the M23 militants, denies the claims and insists its military presence in the region is a defensive measure against threats posed by armed groups. Several months ago, the United States launched a major mineral deal in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Washington’s deepening diplomatic and economic involvement in the region is aimed at securing US access to the region’s mineral wealth. Thousands of people have been killed in Eastern DRC and hundreds of thousands more have been displaced after the conflict intensified earlier this year.
Photograph: EPA Jun 16th 2025|NUUK https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/16/emmanuel-macron-flies-in-to-show-his-support-for-greenland
Macron visits Greenland
While on his way to the G7 summit in Canada last month, French President Emmanuel Macron stopped in Greenland, where he conveyed European solidarity and support for the Danish autonomous territory targeted by US President Donald Trump. Macron warned that Greenland is “not to be sold” nor “to be taken”. The French president, who voices his opposition to Trump’s ideas more often than other European leaders, has positioned himself as an integral voice in Europe amid Trump’s threats to annex territory and pull support from Ukraine as it continues to fight against Russia’s invasion.
Polls indicate that the vast majority of Greenland’s 57,000 inhabitants want to become independent from Denmark, but do not wish to become part of the United States. Unlike Denmark, Greenland is not part of the European Union but is on the list of Overseas Territories associated with the bloc.
How Elon Stays in Business (Economic Policy Brief #89)
How Elon Stays in Business
Elon Musk’s corporate empire—Tesla, SpaceX/Starlink, X, Neuralink and the Boring Company—has become a single, privately steered ecosystem whose combined annual revenues now rival the GDP of a midsize nation. Each firm draws on distinct revenue streams—regulatory credits, Pentagon launch contracts, advertising, venture capital and municipal subsidies—but all are ultimately propped up by public largesse that socializes risk while privatizing profit. Understanding these flows is therefore a prerequisite for anyone that seeks to tax extreme wealth, curb monopoly power, and defend worker and planetary interests from a billionaire who is simultaneously a supplier, regulator-lobbyist and media gatekeeper.
Analysis
Tesla’s first-quarter 2025 results reveal how fragile its flagship business has become. Automotive revenue fell to $13.9 billion, a 20 percent year-on-year decline, while net income collapsed 71 percent to $409 million. The difference between loss and profit was $595 million in zero-emission regulatory credits—an indirect taxpayer transfer that now exceeds the company’s quarterly earnings from car sales. Meanwhile, the energy-generation and storage division delivered a record $10.1 billion in 2024 revenue and $2.6 billion gross profit, signalling that stationary batteries, not cars, are keeping Tesla’s cash flow positive even as cobalt and lithium extraction costs remain externalized onto the Global South.
SpaceX has quietly overtaken Tesla as Musk’s real engine of accumulation. Independent estimates put 2024 revenue at roughly $13.1 billion—$8.2 billion from Starlink subscriptions and $4.2 billion from Falcon launches—placing the company on track to eclipse NASA’s human-spaceflight budget this year. Starlink’s growth is accelerated by Pentagon, NOAA and NASA contracts that insulate SpaceX from market risk, while a permissive FCC spectrum regime effectively hands Musk monopoly rents over the orbital commons.
X (formerly Twitter) illustrates the downside of Musk’s leverage strategy. Advertising income slid to $3.14 billion in 2024, a further 5 percent drop after the post-acquisition exodus, and mobile-subscription revenue has yet to break the $250 million mark—woefully insufficient to service $13 billion in acquisition debt. The platform’s dwindling cash flow has pushed management toward litigation threats against advertisers and looser content moderation, externalizing the social cost of disinformation while failing to restore the bottom line.
Neuralink remains speculative, surviving on successive venture rounds rather than operating income. Its June 2025 Series E brought in $650 million at a $9 billion valuation, even as FDA inspection records and whistle-blower testimony describe “objectionable” animal-testing conditions and rushed surgical schedules that jeopardize both workers and subjects. Profit here is contingent on fast-track regulatory approvals and prospective military contracts, leaving labor and bioethics risks to be borne by public institutions.
The Boring Company, valued on paper at about $7 billion, exemplifies hype as revenue. Its Vegas Loop earns only modest ticket sales while relying on tax-increment financing from local authorities. Nevada OSHA cited the firm for eight serious safety violations in 2024, and civil-engineering reviews continue to question whether single-lane tunnels can ever match true mass transit capacity. In effect, the venture functions as a conduit for land speculation and political access rather than a standalone profit center.
Across the portfolio, one pattern dominates: profits are privatized, while losses and externalities—regulatory credits, defense contracts, ecological damage and labor risk—are socialized. Confronting “Muskism” therefore means treating these firms as an integrated power bloc ripe for antitrust action, windfall-profit taxation; and strict public-utility oversight, rather than as isolated tech successes.
Engagement Resources
- Institute for Local Self-Reliance (https://ilsr.org/): Advocates for decentralized, community-driven economic development. Offers analysis of corporate concentration and local alternatives in energy, broadband, and transit.
- Public Citizen (https://www.citizen.org/): A nonprofit watchdog organization focusing on corporate accountability, government transparency, and consumer rights. Includes campaigns related to Tesla, defense contracts, and federal subsidies.
- Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/): A progressive think tank producing data-driven research on labor markets, corporate profits, and policy impacts. Regularly examines wage inequality and tax policy in sectors dominated by tech giants.
- Open Markets Institute (https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/): Dedicated to promoting competitive markets. Publishes investigations into monopolistic practices and advocates for antitrust enforcement—especially relevant to firms like SpaceX and Tesla.
- Tax Justice Network (https://taxjustice.net/): Provides global research and advocacy around tax avoidance and wealth concentration. Useful for understanding the revenue implications of public subsidies and corporate structures like Musk’s.
- Labor Notes (https://labornotes.org/): A media and organizing resource for labor activists. Tracks union activity and working conditions, including in high-tech industries and contractor-heavy firms like Neuralink and The Boring Company.
AI Regulation: Who’s Up to the Challenge? (Technology Policy Brief #150)
AI Regulation: Who’s Up to the Challenge?
Technology Policy Brief #150 | Inijah Quadri | June 16, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the discipline of designing computer systems that can perform tasks normally requiring human cognition—pattern recognition, language generation, planning—by learning statistical relationships from large data sets. Modern AI works by training vast machine-learning models on petabytes of text, images, audio, and code and then applying those models to new inputs to produce predictions or content; it now powers everything from chatbots and fraud detection to medical imaging and autonomous drones.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic topic: chatbots write school essays, algorithms screen renters, and synthetic voices flood voters’ phones. The Biden-Harris administration took its first swing at nationwide rules with the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI Executive Order of October 30, 2023, which instructed federal agencies to protect civil rights and worker safety when deploying AI systems. In March 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) turned that order into binding rules—every agency must name a Chief AI Officer, publish risk assessments, and refuse any “high-impact” system that endangers rights or safety. Three months ago, however, OMB issued Memo M-25-21, promising faster procurement and “American-made AI” while trimming several earlier guardrails, a move cheered by industry and eyed warily by civil rights advocates.
While these memos include privacy protections such as restricting use of government data in training, mandating transparency documentation, and more, they generally favor a pro-innovation posture and allow more flexibility. In contrast, Europe’s landmark AI Act outright bans social scoring (assigning reputational or risk scores to individuals based on aggregated personal data) and real-time biometric surveillance (automated identification or tracking of people through biometric traits such as faces, voices, or gait) and enforces up to a seven-percent-of-global-revenue penalty for non-compliance, signaling a standard that U.S. protections risk failing to match. Unless the United States matches those standards, U.S. workers and consumers will be left with weaker protections even as U.S. companies scramble to meet tougher foreign rules.
Analysis
From a progressive standpoint, the policy debate is fundamentally about who controls AI’s future—public institutions or dominant technology firms. A recent Federal Trade Commission report confirms what many feared: cloud giants are consolidating exclusive access to compute power, data, and distribution—all at once. Without stronger merger rules or public-sector compute resources, market concentration will deepen and independent research will be priced out.
Civil rights advocates contend these trends have grave social implications. The Leadership Conference reports that AI systems are reinforcing redlining and racial profiling, and it advocates outright bans on biometric surveillance rather than mere transparency. Other leading thinktanks recommend halting law enforcement use of facial recognition and limiting opaque algorithmic scoring processes.
Workers are also organizing around AI. For example, the Writers Guild now prohibits studios from using generative text tools to reduce writers’ pay or take away credit, setting a much welcome precedent. Irrespective, since the OMB relaxed several safeguards in its April 3, 2025, Memo M-25-21—allowing agencies to fast-track “American-made AI” purchases if developers self-certify baseline privacy and civil-rights tests—pressure has been offset from many AI firms. Indeed, a recent CRS analysis confirms that the United States still lacks a comprehensive federal statute, leaving agencies to patch gaps piecemeal.
A January FTC study of cloud-AI equity deals documents how the same three giants lock frontier developers into exclusive compute and distribution contracts, warning of a looming “compute cartel.” The leading U.S. frontier-model developers are OpenAI (partnered with Microsoft), Google DeepMind, Anthropic (backed by Amazon and Google), Meta AI, and Cohere. Each depends on hyperscale cloud providers—Azure, Google Cloud, and Amazon Web Services—to rent the thousands of specialized GPUs needed to train and serve cutting-edge models. Start-ups gain similar access through credit programs and joint go-to-market deals, so the developer ecosystem is tightly coupled to cloud infrastructure. Conversely, AI workloads have become the main engine of cloud-provider revenue growth, making the relationship symbiotic: state-of-the-art AI needs elastic, low-cost compute, and the clouds need AI demand to keep their data centers full.
States are sprinting to plug the gap: Colorado’s SB 24-205 imposes an affirmative duty on any “high-risk” system to prevent algorithmic bias starting in 2026, and at least 28 states adopted AI measures this year alone. Industry is fighting back, though. House appropriators are introducing rules that try to ensure states do not enforce new AI rules for a decade. Progressives have sketched an alternative path: the bipartisan TEST AI Act would turn the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Energy Department testbeds into a public audit regime, making risk assessments much more transparent. Coupled with an antitrust crackdown on the “compute cartel,” this triad could transfer power from monopolies to the public and ensure the next generation of algorithms serves people—not profit.
Engagement Resources
- Center for AI and Digital Policy (https://www.caidp.org/): A non-profit that promotes democratic values in AI and digital governance. Offers briefings on global AI regulations and ethical deployment.
- AI Now Institute (https://ainowinstitute.org/): An interdisciplinary research center studying the social implications of artificial intelligence. Focuses on bias, labor impacts, and regulation.
- Algorithmic Justice League (https://www.ajl.org/): Works to raise awareness about algorithmic bias and advocate for equitable AI systems, especially in surveillance and hiring.
- The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (https://civilrights.org/): A civil rights coalition pushing for policy reforms, including a ban on biometric surveillance and safeguards against algorithmic discrimination.
- Public Knowledge (https://www.publicknowledge.org/): Focuses on balancing innovation and consumer protections in digital policy, with specific positions on AI, privacy, and antitrust issues.
It Is Not an Invasion: How Undocumented People Got Here, Where They Live, & Why They Stay (Immigration Policy Brief #145)
It Is Not an Invasion: How Undocumented People Got Here, Where They Live, & Why They Stay
Immigration Policy Brief #145 | Morgan Davidson | June 25, 2025
According to estimates from Pew & the American Community Survey, there are between 10.5 & 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. For perspective, that’s fewer—by about 2 million—than the population of the L.A. metro area. On the one hand, that’s a large number; on the other, it’s far from an invasion in a country of 340 million people.
So, how did we get here? What has that number looked like over the last 20 years?
If you watch FOX, you probably believe most, if not all, of these people came into the country under Joe Biden. But the numbers don’t support that. The estimated 10.99 million in 2022 is only slightly higher than 10.51 million in 2020 & nearly identical to 10.49 million in 2005. Over the past 20 years, the undocumented population hasn’t dropped below 10 million & hasn’t exceeded 12 million.
The reason we don’t see massive swings is that most undocumented people have lived in the U.S. for over a decade. Contrary to what Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Elon Musk & others claim, people are not coming to America in droves, radically shifting the population by the millions.
This population is the product of decades of economic shifts, foreign policy decisions, & a dysfunctional immigration system.
Analysis
America’s immigration system didn’t fall apart overnight; it’s been dysfunctional by design for decades. Three major laws helped shape today’s reality.
The 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act scrapped the old national origin quotas but introduced strict caps on immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time. That created long waitlists for countries like Mexico & those in Central America, a backlog that still exists.
The 1986 Immigration Reform & Control Act (IRCA), signed by Reagan, legalized nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants. It promised tougher enforcement in exchange, but that mostly meant increased border security, rather than real accountability for employers or reforms to the legal system. The undocumented population kept growing.
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) made the situation even more challenging. It expanded deportation grounds, imposed the 3-year & 10-year reentry bans, & laid the groundwork for today’s massive deportation system. It didn’t reduce undocumented immigration; it just made the system more punitive.
In short, these laws didn’t stop undocumented immigration. If anything, they locked in a status quo where people could come here to work, but not stay legally. But legal changes only explain part of the picture. Economic forces are the engine behind most migration. After NAFTA took effect in 1994, small-scale farmers in Mexico were unable to compete with U.S. agricultural imports. Many lost their livelihoods, triggering one of the largest waves of migration in modern history. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy was booming in sectors like construction, agriculture, hospitality, & elder care; all industries that rely heavily on low-wage labor with few protections.
Add in the massive wage gap between the U.S. & countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, & it’s not hard to see why people leave. For many, working an informal job in the U.S. still means earning five to ten times more than they would back home. When you add instability, violence, corruption, & climate disruptions into the mix, it’s not just an economic issue; it’s an existential one.
There’s also a persistent myth that undocumented immigrants all crossed the border illegally. In reality, roughly 40 to 50% of undocumented people came here legally & overstayed a visa. While border crossings have surged at certain moments, such as in the 1990s post-NAFTA boom or more recently in 2021, when asylum seekers arrived in large numbers from Central and South America. Those are waves, not the whole picture. Many of the people being labeled as “new arrivals” actually arrived years ago & have been here since, quietly living, working, paying taxes, & building families.
All of this explains why the number of undocumented immigrants has held relatively steady over the last 20 years. Despite constant political noise, most of these people aren’t “pouring in” recently; they’ve been here. They’re the product of decades of economic shifts, U.S. foreign policy, & an immigration system that can’t meet the moment.
Where people are & Where people came from
By the numbers, the top states with undocumented populations are California, Texas, Florida, New York, & New Jersey. That shouldn’t be surprising. These states offer a mix of large urban centers & sprawling agricultural or rural areas, places where undocumented immigrants can find work, whether in construction, food service, or farming.
Most undocumented people still originate from Mexico & the Northern Triangle countries: Guatemala, Honduras, & El Salvador. However, in recent years, there has also been a rise in migrants from South America, especially Venezuela, as well as from Asian countries such as China, India, the Philippines, Nepal, and Vietnam.
Some right-wing commentators have seized on the growing number of Asian migrants, particularly Chinese nationals, to stoke fears about national security threats. But the reality is far more familiar. Many of these migrants are fleeing authoritarian regimes, seeking political asylum, & often see the U.S. as a haven that aligns more with their values than the governments they’re fleeing.
In fact, these migrants are more likely to turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents, not sneak in, because they want to begin the asylum process through official channels. They’re not unlike the Cuban refugees who once fled Castro’s regime, looking to the U.S. for political safety & opportunity.
Why people stay & What keeps people here
As of 2021, the average undocumented immigrant has lived in the U.S. for over a decade, a fact that directly contradicts the narrative pushed by outlets like FOX or figures like Trump. These aren’t people who just arrived. Many have U.S.-born children, creating mixed-status families & deep community ties. That also makes them more likely to overstay visas, rather than risk leaving & being unable to return.
At the same time, militarization at the border has had an unintended consequence: it’s made undocumented immigrants more likely to stay permanently. Once someone makes it into the country, they’re less likely to leave, not because they don’t want to visit home, but because crossing back has become so dangerous & expensive. If they leave, they may not be able to return at all.
Crackdowns have also fed the rise of human smuggling networks. As enforcement has tightened, cartels & smugglers have stepped in to profit off desperation, charging migrants thousands of dollars for what they claim are safer crossings, though often, they’re anything but. The result is a system where fear, family, & policy traps keep people here in the shadows, not a wave of new arrivals, but a long-established population with nowhere else to go.
The policy problems don’t stop at the border. We’ve seen failed attempts at comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, 2013, & now 2024. Decades of gridlock in Congress have left us with a system built for a world that no longer exists, rooted in problems that date back to the 1960s, yet still shape the present.
Undocumented immigrants aren’t new, & they’re not going anywhere. They’re a long-standing, deeply rooted part of American society. They work, raise families, pay taxes, & contribute to their communities every day.
If we’re serious about fixing this, it’s going to take more than more agents or higher walls. It requires a full rethinking of legal migration, economic reality, & basic human dignity.
Engagement Resources
- Pew Research Center – What We Know About Unauthorized Immigrants Living in the U.S.
A concise, data-driven primer updated in July 2024 that breaks down the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in America.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ - 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
No Capital Gains Tax in Texas: What It Means for Businesses and Residents (Economic Policy Brief #88)
No Capital Gains Tax in Texas: What It Means for Businesses and Residents
In 2025, the Texas Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6), placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for the November 4, 2025, election. If approved by voters, the amendment would permanently prohibit Texas from ever imposing a tax on individuals’ net capital gains. While Texas already does not levy a personal income tax, including on capital gains, this measure would codify that policy into the state constitution, preventing any future changes without a subsequent constitutional amendment. If passed, the law will take effect on January 1, 2026. This move is part of a broader strategy to maintain Texas’s reputation as a low-tax haven and a pro-business environment. It aligns with other economic developments, including recent federal and state-level updates to labor laws such as the expanded overtime protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which will also impact the Texas workforce beginning in 2025.
Analysis
Texas’s current lack of a personal income tax has long served as a magnet for high earners, investors, and businesses. Codifying this approach through HJR 6 ensures future legislatures cannot reverse this policy without going through the arduous process of another constitutional amendment.
Assuming it passes, the amendment will provide long-term financial predictability for investors, entrepreneurs, and business owners, particularly in sectors like real estate, finance, and technology. These stakeholders benefit from knowing that future capital gains—realized or unrealized—will not be subject to state tax, incentivizing investment and asset retention within Texas.
For residents, especially those with growing investment portfolios or planning for retirement, this could represent significant long-term savings. The law complements new labor developments like the expanded overtime eligibility set to take effect nationally in 2025, which will increase wages for lower- and middle-income workers. Together, these changes create an economic environment where upward mobility could be supported through both wage protection and tax shielding for long-term investments.
However, critics warn that the capital gains amendment primarily benefits the wealthy and could widen inequality. They argue that while higher earners receive greater tax advantages, the state risks limiting future policy flexibility—particularly in areas like education funding and infrastructure. Additionally, the federal overtime law’s increased payroll obligations for businesses could offset some of the tax savings realized through capital gains protections.
Texas’s proposed constitutional ban on capital gains taxes reflects a deep commitment to economic conservatism and low taxation. While the benefits are clearest for high earners and business owners, there are meaningful implications for broader economic stability and growth. When paired with updated labor protections such as expanded overtime eligibility, the policy may create a nuanced landscape: tax relief on long-term wealth accumulation alongside wage growth for working-class Texans. Nonetheless, this measure must be met with continued scrutiny to ensure it does not further entrench wealth inequality or strip future policymakers of tools needed to respond to fiscal challenges. Texas’s leadership must balance tax freedom with strategic investments that uplift all residents—not just those with capital gains to protect.
Engagement Resources
- Texas Public Policy Foundation
A conservative think tank that supports HJR 6 and promotes limited taxation and economic growth.
https://www.texaspolicy.com - Every Texan (formerly Center for Public Policy Priorities)
Offers policy research and advocacy focused on tax equity, labor protections, and economic justice.
https://everytexan.org - S. Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division
Provides detailed information on new overtime eligibility and compliance standards under FLSA.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd
Project 2025 and Federal Influence Over K-12 Curricula (Education Policy Brief #204)
Project 2025 and Federal Influence Over K-12 Curricula
Education Policy Brief #204 | Steve Piazza | June 11, 2025
Although President Trump campaigned by keeping distance between himself and Project 2025, it is clear that his agenda since his inauguration has run parallel to the movement in many areas, including education.
In no more than two months into his presidency, the President issued an Executive Order, Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, calling for the elimination of the Department of Education (DOE) in order to give control of schools to the states and local education agencies. This is right in line with Project 2025’s philosophy.
While the executive branch is not legally permitted to completely eliminate the DOE, the department, like many other governmental agencies, has experienced staff reductions and policy reform has begun.
Another power the DOE itself does not have is mandating state curriculum. That authority already lies at the state and local level, as per the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3403(b), and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a).
But some of the changes called for by Project 2025 have indirect implications for curricular reform, many of which are presently being realized.
Policy Analysis
The intentions of Project 2025 regarding governmental reform are clearly presented in A Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a 900-page document published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation. Like other administration departments targeted, the DOE has undergone scrutiny and is presented as an obstacle to the general welfare of U.S. citizens.
In the opening sentence of the analysis of the DOE, the document states on page 319, “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” The future of education, the authors believe, relies on the states untethering from any federal level interference and being able to themselves determine what changes are needed in schools.
Specified changes include such areas as student discipline, school choice, and parental involvement. But it also directly addresses specific areas of the curriculum that need to be affected. As early as page 5, the document demands that “the noxious tenets of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country.”
And one way that this can be enforced is through funding incentives, particularly the threat of withholding money from those states not complying.
Yet, even prior to Trump’s election to a second term, some states had already begun to make curricular changes that reflect this spirit of Project 2025. Over 20 states now have passed laws to restrict curricula that may include gender and race concepts that are determined divisive. This means that specific language and concepts are being avoided in the classroom, and that even books have been removed from classrooms and school libraries. Many of these actions have been challenged in court, but the spirit of reforms which coincide with Project 2025 initiatives, whether intentional or not, remains.
And now with the Trump Administration in place, states’ litmus test of curricular attacks seems to be over, and the attention has turned mostly to less incendiary issues. According to the National Governors Association, these six areas will be the focus of educational themes in 2025: funding, technical education, teacher training, achievements, early childhood, mental and physical being, and cell phone usage. A seventh item, school choice, is more controversial, but it’s been on the table for some time.
All this is to say is that the states can now rely on the federal government to divert the attention of social issues in curricula from the states and take the heat so they don’t have to. So, if and when curricular choices are made at the state and local level, they would not so quickly or easily find their way to mainstream attention. People must search deep into state departments of education and local resources to find out for themselves what’s actually being mandated to be taught.
The ongoing issue remains that many of the restrictive efforts encouraged by the federal level will have implications beyond the loss of financial support. Critics look at this as a means to side step federal law that protects civil rights of individuals. Proponents look at it as a means to reform schools along ideological grounds.
Indeed, the courts may determine how much the Trump Administration has influence over how curriculum development plays out. One thing is certain: it has had an impact on the way that educational policy is being discussed. This includes what is being taught, and how it has become highly politicized to the point that educators are fearing retribution for speaking out professionally on what works best for their students.
Time will tell what any forthcoming state laws inspired by Project 2025 will directly mandate which K-12 subjects are to be taught and what concepts need to be removed. It’s already begun at the college and university level, where legislation passed earlier this year in Florida, Utah, and Ohio require graduation requirements to include Western Civilization-centered courses with specified readings and drop any courses having to do with race and gender. Analysts agree that similar action is expected for elementary and secondary school curricula. If this does happen, Project 2025 has the momentum to outlast what its name implies.
Engagement Resources
Ballotpedia offers a comprehensive list of links to state education departments and the corresponding state content standards for each.
The revamped U.S. Department of Education site reflects many of the tenets of Project 2025.
2026 World Cup and President Trump’s Policies (Foreign Policy Brief #203)
2026 World Cup and President Trump’s Policies
Foreign Policy Brief #203 | Reilly Fitzgerald | June 6, 2025
The United States and its neighbors have long had a successful, and peaceful (mostly) existence. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have had free-trade agreements; entered into military alliances together; fought in wars together. However, since the inauguration of President Trump, these relationships have been tested – dramatically. The White House has called for Canada to become the “51st State”; the United States has changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America”. Publicly, President Sheibaum and Prime Minister Carney, of Mexico and Canada, respectively, have criticized President Trump and his policies both from afar and in-person.
The idea of a North American World Cup has been in the making for years, having been chosen by the 68th FIFA Congress in 2018. What was once expected to be a great display of three countries and their relationship with one another, is perhaps heading to be a dramatic mess due to policies coming out of the White House.
Also the Trump Administration’s most recent ban on travel from Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, Haiti, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, Eritrea, Sudan, and Yemen, will most certainly have impacts on the major sporting tournaments that are upcoming in the United States through the rest of his administration (if this remains in effect). The upcoming sporting events being held in the United States during Trump’s term, include the CONCACAF Gold Cup this summer in the United States and the 2026 FIFA World Cup being hosted between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and then the summer of 2028, the Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
Analysis
Trump’s most recent executive order, a travel ban, does make an exception for “any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State”. However, it is unclear as to how this provision will play out with the sheer volume of fans and supporters likely to attend these major events and the wait times for visas to enter the United States.
This summer the team most impacted by any of these bans will be the Haitian National Team as they will be participating in the CONCACAF Gold Cup, which is a soccer tournament for North and South American teams and the Caribbean nations. Haitian refugees and immigrants have been victims of President Trump’s, and his supporters, false claims used to spew hatred and fear; this particularly culminated in the claims that Haitians were eating cats and dogs in Ohio right before the 2024 Presidential Election. This summer is also the FIFA Club World Cup competition in the United States, and that is expected to bring in about 3.5 million spectators to the United States.
Next summer’s World Cup is estimated to bring in over 6.5 million spectators to the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Iran has already qualified to participate in the World Cup, and will be expected to travel to North America for this event. Though, it seems the athletes and coaching staff will be able to come to the United States for this tournament; it remains to be seen what will happen with the families of the players, and the fans of their national team who should be able to travel to matches during the tournament in the United States. However, this could be tricky for Iranian fans due to the nature of the relationship between the American and Iranian governments.
The travel ban is most likely going to have a significant impact on the ability of spectators and fans to go to the United States during any of these massive sporting events (though could potentially still see matches in Canada and Mexico). The travel ban executive orders from the Trump Administration clearly states that the Secretary of State will have a significant role in this process of admitting or rejecting visa applications for athletes, coaches, and fans to come to the United States. According to Yahoo News, the State Department has promised to reduce the wait times for visas. Some countries are experiencing very high wait times for visas to the United States, such as Colombia which has a wait time of about 700 days, and Turkey’s wait time which is around 500 days as well. Both of these country’s teams will be present for the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Some countries have more reasonable wait times, like Brazil which has a wait time of about one month. There are about 43 countries in the world that qualify for the Visa Waiver Program, which the State Department says it “enables most citizens or nationals of participating countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa.” The make-up of these countries is mostly European countries (about 30 of the 43), Israel, Qatar, Australia and New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Taiwan, and Iceland. The Visa Waiver Program will make it easy for many fans to access the venues in the United States for the World Cup, but it ought to be noted that fans from other countries will face challenges getting visas for the tournament.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has demanded that FIFA begin to examine alternatives to having the United States host the World Cup. HRW believes that the Trump Administration’s policies towards immigrants, LGBTQ+ communities, attacking free speech, and more, are grounds enough for FIFA to find an alternative to the United States as one of the three hosts. HRW has pointed out, according to Politico, FIFA’s own legislation says its role is “to promote the protection of human rights”. Andrea Florence, the Director of the Sports and Rights Alliance said last year to Amnesty International that “Before it awards any tournament, FIFA must ensure binding human rights agreements that fully protect workers, local communities, players and fans, including safeguarding against abuse and discrimination of racial and religious minorities, women and LGBTI people.”
Major sporting events around the world have drawn criticisms over the selection of host nations. One only has to go back to 1936 to see Nazi Germany host the summer Olympics – which anyone would agree is insane to consider. In modern times, Russia has hosted the Olympics and the World Cup (2014 and 2018, respectively). Brazil was under scrutiny for abuses in the lead up to hosting the World Cup and Olympics (2014 and 2016, respectively). Qatar hosted the most recent World Cup in 2022, with plenty of reported human rights abuses. Amnesty International has already reported on the risk for human rights issues with the 2030 World Cup being hosted by Spain, Portugal, and Morocco. The United States should have been a no-brainer to hosting the World Cup and upholding the values of international sporting competitions to value human rights and the rule of law. Now, it is much less clear.
Engagement Resources
- Executive Order – https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/restricting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-other-national-security-and-public-safety-threats/
- Human Rights Watch Letter to FIFA President – https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/06/letter-fifa-re-human-rights-responsibilities-2026-world-cup
- Playing a Dangerous Game? (Amnesty International) – https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/06/global-fifa-must-protect-human-rights-by-securing-binding-safeguards-from-2030-and-2034-world-cup-bidders-new-report/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBefore%20it%20awards%20any%20tournament,%2C%20women%20and%20LGBTI%20people.%E2%80%9D
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part II (Social Justice Policy Brief #175)
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part II
Social Justice Policy Brief #175 | Valerie Henderson | June 16, 2025
Presidential pardons are a constitutionally granted power, intended to serve as instruments of mercy, justice, and healing. But under President Donald Trump’s second term (2024–2025), this power has again been wielded as a political tool, continuing a controversial legacy from his first term. The recent wave of pardons reflects a continuation—and escalation—of Trump’s willingness to use executive clemency to reward loyalists, pardon convicted political allies, and whitewash wrongdoing linked to his political movement.
Trump has already granted or signaled clemency for several individuals connected to the January 6 Capitol attack, corporate allies under white-collar investigations, and conservative media personalities with criminal convictions. These moves have further intensified scrutiny over the fairness and integrity of the presidential pardon system
Analysis
The most recent pardons in Trump’s second term have raised significant concerns about corruption, obstruction of justice, and abuse of executive authority. Among them:
- Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers respectively, received commutations or full pardons after being convicted for seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6 insurrection.
- Peter Navarro, a former Trump adviser convicted of contempt of Congress, was granted clemency despite ongoing appeals and public refusal to cooperate with investigations into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
- Steve Bannon, who was previously pardoned by Trump for fraud-related offenses in his first term, received a second clemency for contempt of court following his refusal to comply with subpoenas related to election interference.
- NBA YoungBoy, a popular rapper with a significant following among young Black Americans, was pardoned on weapons charges, with Trump using the announcement as a media spectacle to posture as a supporter of Black communities.
These actions defy bipartisan public criticism and continue to bypass standard review procedures traditionally handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. The pattern is consistent: Trump leverages the pardon process not as an act of justice but as a political tool—shielding loyalists and manipulating public perception.
While some pardons of individuals from marginalized communities may appear benevolent, they are often deployed as political cover—token acts meant to distract from a broader reality of justice inequity. The selective clemency of Black figures, particularly entertainers or nonviolent drug offenders, is rarely backed by systemic reform efforts and instead serves to generate media buzz and create a false narrative of inclusion.
Trump’s second-term pardon spree is a disgraceful abuse of constitutional authority. These are not acts of mercy—they are favors for cronies, extremists, and lawbreakers who advance his personal vendettas and political goals. His so-called support for marginalized individuals, such as pardoning a few high-profile Black men, is nothing more than performative politics. It is strategic tokenism—an attempt to appear racially inclusive while simultaneously empowering systems and actors who harm communities of color. These pardons have disproportionately shielded individuals whose actions directly harmed communities of color, the rule of law, and the peaceful transfer of power. For marginalized communities that are routinely over-policed and under-protected, these political pardons are a cruel reminder of a justice system that is anything but equal. We must call these acts what they are: political protection rackets wrapped in media theater. They erode the rule of law, reward corruption, and send a dangerous message that power, loyalty, and spectacle outweigh accountability and equity. Trump’s actions continue to push the limits of executive abuse and endanger the very foundations of a free society.
Engagement Resources
- Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Investigates and exposes corruption, including misuse of presidential powers. Offers policy proposals to improve transparency and accountability.
https://www.pogo.org - Protect Democracy
Nonpartisan organization focused on preventing executive overreach and defending democratic institutions, including reforming the pardon process.
https://www.protectdemocracy.org - American Constitution Society (ACS)
A progressive legal organization researching structural reforms to limit unchecked executive power, including the reform of clemency authority.
https://www.acslaw.org