JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
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.
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.
The Trump Administration and University Communities: Part II
Following the initial wave of federal funding suspensions, the Trump administration has intensified its campaign to reshape American higher education. The effort has moved beyond merely withholding grants and now seeks deeper operational control over elite universities. This expansion marks an unprecedented federal intervention into how universities govern themselves, raising alarms over the future of academic independence in the United States. The campaign has expanded into direct interventions at major institutions, citing issues ranging from anti-Semitism management to alleged ideological bias in curricula. Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the University of Michigan have become central battlegrounds in this escalating conflict, responding with legal challenges, public protests, and high-profile statements defending academic freedom.
Resistance is Not Futile: Upholding Civil Rights and Constitutional Norms to withstand Trump’s Autocratic Aims
In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has pursued a sinister goal of autocracy by relentlessly attacking any and all forms of opposition and repressing civil rights and liberties.
USResist News Magazine: April 2025 #2
We are pleased to send you the current issue of USRESIST SHARE—our bi-weekly magazine of the latest news Briefs by our Reporters. USRESIST SHARE is intended to deepen your understanding of today’s leading public policy and political issues. We hope you’ll enjoy and welcome your feedback.
Trump’s Bromance With Big Tech Hits Some Bumps
Tech billionaire support for Donald Trump is paying off in some of the expected ways, such as extraordinary access and deregulation. But Trump has wreaked havoc on the stock market, disappointed his crypto backers, and failed to save Mark Zuckerberg from a grilling at the Federal Trade Commission.
Social Media Platforms Pursue Hatred While Claiming to Promote Free Speech
Amid the current political unrest, citizens have voiced their concerns through social media. Voicing one’s differences of opinions without government interference is an American right, but that right has since been under attack.
How ICE Works (Immigration Policy Brief #144)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was created in 2003 as a component of the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration laws inside the United States and investigate transnational crime. Twenty‑two years later, the agency employs more than 20,000 personnel across more than 400 domestic and foreign offices.
Where Democrats can aim for the 2026 midterms: House Edition
Where Democrats can aim for the 2026 midterms: House Edition
Summary
After two months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, many voters and Congresspeople are already eyeing the 2026 Congressional elections. The November 3rd elections could mark a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s second term.
The House of Representatives is far more flexible than the Senate because all 435 of its members are up for election every two years. Its unique duties include initiating revenue bills, impeaching federal officials, and electing the President in the case of an electoral college tie.
This flexibility may allow the Democrats to win enough seats to gain a majority and mount a resistance to Donald Trump’s agenda. The razor-thin majority the Republicans have may be more easily flipped than in the Senate for a number of reasons including how the midterms generally favor the opposition party. However, there are still factors that could moderate the advantage that Democrats might have.
Analysis
The elections in the House of Representatives are very wide-ranging, as all 435 seats are on the line. Democrats currently control 213 and Republicans control 218, with 4 vacancies. A net gain of just 3 would give the Democrats a majority. But the Cook Political Report identifies 18 seats (10 blue, 8 red) that are likely toss-ups.
Democrat-held
- CA-13 Gray
- CA-45 Tran
- ME-02 Golden
- NC-01 Davis
- NM-02 Vasquez
- NY-04 Gillen
- OH-09 Kaptur
- OH-13 Sykes
- TX-34 Gonzalez
- WA-03 Perez
Republican-held
- AZ-01 Schweikert
- AZ-06 Ciscomani
- CO-08 Evans
- IA-01 Miller-Meeks
- MI-07 Barrett
- NE-02 Bacon
- PA-07 Mackenzie
- PA-10 Perry
Most of these races are in districts where the current representative won by minute margins, sometimes as small as 788 in Rep. Miller-Meeks’ case. But instead of going race-by-race and highlighting which ones are likely to flip, it would be more worthwhile to look at the trends that may decide control of the House come 2026.
Firstly, midterm elections often favor the party who’s not represented by the president. This also applies to the Senate, but it is doubly important for the House because of the sheer number of seats up for grabs. Since the Civil War, the President’s party has lost ground in the House in 38 out of 41 elections, and with an administration as divisive as Donald Trump’s, there is a very real possibility of a blue wave. Additionally, because the opposition historically gains ground, it means that the opposition incumbentsin toss-up races generally can hold onto their seat, meaning those 10 seats mentioned above may be ever so slightly harder to flip than the 8 Republican-held seats.
But while the Democrats may enjoy increased support due to being the opposition, midterms often mean a lower voter turnout that attracts older, white, and college-educated voters. While it is unclear the extent to which having a lower-voter turnout will help or hurt Democrats, older white voters will likely skew towards Republicans like they did in the 2022 midterms, with 57% voting Republican. When it comes to college-educated voters, they tend to vote Democrat across the board, with 56% voting blue in 2022. Whether the college-educated vote will cancel out the elderly white vote will only become clear as time goes on.
Finally, there are a wide range of Democratic representatives who are eyeing higher office or running for Senate seats. As a result, once safe Democratic seats could become far more uncertain races, and battleground races could become all the more competitive. For example, in Maine Democratic Rep. Jared Golden, who narrowly won his race, is reportedly eyeing a run at a Senate seat to challenge GOP Sen. Susan Collins, or to replace the current Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, who can’t run again due to a term limit.
In Michigan, Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, is also considering a run for the Senate after Sen. Gary Peters announced his retirement, while in Minnesota the same story is playing out with Democratic Rep. Angie Craig gunning for outgoing Sen. Tina Smith’s seat.
In some of these cases, there are Democrat candidates who are ready to step forward to the race’s starting line. But new faces on the block aren’t always loved by voters, especially in turbulent times like these when stability and experience are extra appealing.
While the Democrats likely have a better chance at gaining a majority in the House than in the Senate, it still will likely not be an easy road or even a large majority that they get. As time goes on, the picture will become clearer. But regardless of the outcome, the 2026 midterm elections will be far more consequential than normal.
Engagement Resources:
- Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the Center for Politics is a comprehensive, nonpartisan political analysis newsletter.
- Cook Political Report is another independent, non-partisan newsletter that analyzes U.S. elections and campaigns.
- U.S. Vote Foundation is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan public charity founded in 2005 that provides voting services and election data.
The Reasons We’ve Had a Department of Education
The Reasons We’ve Had a Department of Education
Education Policy Brief #200 | Valerie Henderson | March 31, 2025
Featured Photo: ABC News
Summary
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, operates to promote student achievement, ensure equal access to education, and enforce federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, the DOE controls policies related to federal financial aid, collects education data, and administers funding for education research. It notably manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs (support for low-income students), special education through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and oversees compliance with federal civil rights laws in educational institutions.
Over time, the Department’s scope has evolved, driven by landmark legislations such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, and subsequent reauthorizations, including No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).
Analysis
Historically, the DOE’s role has expanded significantly from its original mission. Initially intended as a support system for states and localities, it has increasingly influenced local education policy through conditional funding mechanisms. Federal initiatives such as Common Core standards adoption, Race to the Top grants, and the enforcement of standardized testing illustrate a shift toward increased federal involvement in local education policy.
Critics argue that excessive federal mandates may undermine local innovation and flexibility. While supporters claim the DOE’s role ensures consistency in quality and equity across states, particularly benefiting marginalized populations such as students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds.
Advocates for maintaining the DOE emphasize its pivotal role in safeguarding educational equity and civil rights. They argue that federal oversight is essential to ensure that all students, regardless of geographic location or socioeconomic status, have access to quality education. The DOE’s enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and support for underfunded schools through programs like Title I are cited as critical mechanisms for promoting fairness and addressing historical disparities in the education system.
Conversely, proponents of abolishing the DOE contend that education should be primarily a state and local responsibility, free from federal intervention. They argue that the DOE imposes one-size-fits-all mandates that stifle local innovation and burden schools with bureaucratic requirements. By eliminating the department, they believe that states and local communities would have greater autonomy to tailor education policies that best fit their unique needs and priorities.
Historically, federal funding accounts for only about 8-10% of total educational expenditures, yet these funds significantly shape local and state policy due to the conditions attached. Experts frequently debate whether such leverage ultimately enhances or constrains educational quality.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the dismantling of the Department of Education. The order instructs the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities.” While the executive order sets the framework for reducing the department’s functions, completely abolishing it would require congressional approval. The administration asserts that this move aims to empower states and local communities by reducing federal oversight and bureaucracy in education.
I do not support efforts to abolish the Department of Education, as doing so would significantly harm students who depend on federally mandated services, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds and children with disabilities. The Department plays an essential role in protecting civil rights, funding special education programs, and ensuring equitable access to education across all states. Without its oversight, local disparities in funding, quality, and inclusiveness would likely widen. While there is room for reform and improved collaboration with states, dismantling the DOE would strip away necessary protections and support systems that millions of students rely on daily.
Engagement Resources
- National Education Association (NEA)
Advocates for public education policies that strengthen public schools, enhance educational opportunities, and improve educator working conditions.
https://www.nea.org - Education Trust
Engages in research and advocacy aimed at closing achievement gaps and promoting educational equity across socioeconomic and racial groups.
https://edtrust.org - Center on Education Policy (CEP)
Provides nonpartisan, evidence-based research on public education, helping policymakers understand the implications of educational policies and practices.
https://www.cep-dc.org
A Fear-based Immigration Policy (Immigration Policy Brief #142)
A Fear-based Immigration Policy
Immigration Policy Brief #142 | Morgan Davidson | 4/1/2025
Featured Photo: Oregon Live
Summary
Trump’s mass deportation efforts remain ongoing across the U.S., capturing headlines with the arrests of student activists like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, and the deportation of alleged Tren de Aragua members/Venezuelans legally here on asylum, not to Venezuela but El Salvador, including a U.S. resident misidentified as a gang member. Despite the high-profile raids and fiery rhetoric, government data shows that deportations under Trump still lag behind levels seen under the Biden administration.
What’s changed isn’t just the volume—it’s the method, the message, and the consequences.
Analysis
The Trump administration is leaning into an aggressive legal strategy, reviving obscure wartime laws and dismantling long-standing humanitarian protections. A prime example, the Alien Enemy Act, an 18th-century law allowing deportations of nationals from enemy countries during war. But Congress hasn’t declared war, Trump is simply deciding who the “enemy” is.
Beyond that, Trump has paused resettlement for tens of thousands of vetted refugees, including 15,000 Afghans. He’s ended humanitarian parole for migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, leaving more than 500,000 people in legal limbo. His administration also launched a campaign to deport those accused of violent crimes—but less than half of the 8,200 arrested between January 20 and February 2 had any criminal convictions, according to ProPublica and the Texas Tribune.
Courts have tried to intervene, but Trump has openly called for the removal of “activist judges” and encouraged defiance of legal rulings. The message is clear: due process is optional when political spectacle is the goal.
And the scope of enforcement goes far beyond those with criminal records.
Khalil, a Columbia graduate, was accused of “activities aligned with Hamas” and detained—part of what Trump called the “first arrest of many.” Two more foreign-born academics at Georgetown and Brown have since been deported under vague homeland security concerns. These individuals are now thousands of miles from their families and lawyers, with no clear path to return.
Trump has also canceled a Biden-era program offering temporary legal status to migrants from four countries, urging them to “self-deport.” Advocates warn this leaves hundreds of thousands without time or legal means to stay, stuck in limbo as courts stall enforcement.
While deporting violent criminals enjoys broad bipartisan support, 97% of Americans back it, Trump’s approach is reckless and error-prone. The crackdown on alleged members of Tren de Aragua highlights how cases with public support are used to justify broader sweeps. Many deportees have been identified by tattoos with no gang affiliation—like “Family” or the autism awareness ribbon.
One case stands out: Kilmer Armado Abrego-Garcia, a Maryland resident with legal status, was mistakenly deported to CECOT, El Salvador’s notorious prison. ICE admitted the error but said the U.S. can no longer act, because Abrego-Garcia is no longer in custody. Meaning deportation can erase rights entirely.
This is not an isolated incident. Deportees are often dropped into unfamiliar countries with no safety net, no legal follow-up, and no recourse. NGOs like the American Immigration Council and Human Rights Watch report rising cases of abuse, extortion, and persecution, especially for those sent to unstable or hostile regimes.
This is no longer about immigration policy—it’s about power, ideology, and control.
We are watching a system that:
- Deports students for their politics.
- Sends refugees to prisons in countries they’ve never known.
- Abandons due process in favor of executive discretion.
- Ignores court orders to score political points.
So the question isn’t just what happens to immigrants when they’re deported. It’s- What kind of country are we becoming when we stop caring what happens to them at all? And more urgently, what kind of immigration system are we building when legal status, citizenship, and even human rights are conditional, temporary, and disposable?
Engagement resources–
- American Immigration Council: Explore how immigration policies affect families, the economy, and communities across the U.S. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
- 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/
- Texas Tribune’s Border Coverage: Follow in-depth reporting on Operation Lone Star and its implications for Texas taxpayers and National Guard members. https://www.texastribune.org/topics/border/
- Know Your Rights: The ACLU provides guidance for immigrants who have encounters with ICE here- https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
A Court’s Options To Enforce Compliance With Court Orders
A Court’s Options To Enforce Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Rights Policy Brief No. 239 | Rodney Maggay | March 26, 2025
Summary:
Under Rule 3.3 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, titled “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” a lawyer has a number of duties when dealing with a court of law. Rule 3.3(a)(1) states “A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer. Additionally, Rule 3.3(a)(3) provides “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. While these are model rules, each state has a version of these rules, including the section on “Candor Toward the Tribunal,” that all lawyers must abide by when dealing with a tribunal or court.
One of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises for his 2024 presidential election campaign was to deal with aspects of the United States’ immigration system. President Trump promised to deport illegal immigrants who had committed violent crimes while in the U.S. After members of a violent Venezuelan based gang were rounded up, the Trump Administration set up flights to send them to a special prison in El Salvador under an agreement with the country’s President. On March 15th, 2025 The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelans who were taken into custody because of the belief that the five were not members of the gang and that they would be irreparably labeled members of the group and unlawfully deported.
On Saturday, March 15th, 2025 at 9:40 AM, Judge James Boasberg issues a temporary restraining order preventing the government from deporting the five plaintiffs represented by the ACLU and Democracy Forward. At 4 PM, President Trump issues his order to deport the immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act which contradicted Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining order issued earlier that morning. Additionally, at a hearing at 5 PM Judge Boasberg questioned the government’s lawyer whether the Trump Administration planned to deport anyone in the next 24 to 48 hours. At 5:26 PM and 5:45 PM two planes believed to be carrying deportees take off from Texas. Around 6:45 PM, Judge Boasberg informs the government attorneys that “any plane preparing to take off with deportees or that is already in the air needs to turn around and return to the U.S.” No plane turns around and two planes eventually arrive, one in El Salvador and one in Honduras. The deportees sent to El Salvador will be housed in that country’s prisons. Those sent to Honduras were sent there first before being sent to Venezuela as the Venezuelan government has refused to accept direct flights from the United States.
On Monday, March 17th, 2025 at 5 PM a hearing is held in Judge Boasberg’s courtroom to determine “possible defiance” of the court orders he issued over the weekend regarding the deportation flights that arrived in Honduras. However, the hearing has taken an unexpected turn as Trump Administration attorneys have now tried to have Judge Boasberg removed from the case. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While the deportation of immigrants that may or may not have criminal records is a policy issue that offers competing arguments, the deportation flights to Honduras and El Salvador has gained national attention for technical reasons of a legal nature. Specifically, the incidents pose the question whether the Trump Administration and his lawyers that appeared in Judge Boasberg’s court openly defied the Judge’s orders regarding the departure of the planes.
As mentioned above in Rule 3.3 in the Model Rules of Professional Conduct lawyers cannot make a false statement to the court or offer evidence that the lawyer knows is false. Because of the timeline as compiled by the Associated Press (AP) it is not clear if the Trump Administration government lawyer has run afoul of this rule of professional conduct. But knowing that members of the Trump Administration had brought up the idea of not complying with a judge’s lawful order, discussion has centered around what recourse a judge may have to enforce their orders in the face of outright defiance by officials in this administration.
Courts and judges have a variety of options that they often use to enforce their orders when a party refuses to comply. The only problem is that many of those options become more complicated because the party that might not be complying are high – ranking officials of the Trump Administration and their attorneys which comes close to violating the separation of powers doctrine. In general, courts can use their contempt power, which is either criminal or civil in nature. A ruling holding a party in civil contempt allows a court to impose fines on a party, sometimes daily, in order to ensure ongoing compliance with a judge’s order. While this is common in ordinary civil cases, it might not mean much when a party like the Federal Government can afford to pay a daily fine and thus continue their disobediance of the court. A ruling of criminal contempt is a more punitive measure that is levied on a party. However, this option can become complicated because a ruling of criminal contempt would lead to a referral to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney to prosecute the party for the criminal contempt order. Because the referral would go to DOJ, they likely would not prosecute an attorney representing the Trump Administration. President Trump and/or Attorney General Pam Bondi would simply direct the department to not prosecute a criminal contempt order. This would be the likely scenario if a Trump Administration attorney openly defies a court order and what Judge Boasberg is grappling with at this moment regarding how to proceed in a possible defiance of his orders in the deportation flights cases.
One modest proposal that has not been mentioned much in the media is a possible personal sanctioning of the attorneys representing the Trump Administration. A court could punish an attorney by taking the drastic step of suspending the bar license of an attorney for ignoring a judge’s lawful order. This is considered an extreme option as attorneys are given wide latitude to make sometimes outrageous arguments. But if a judge senses that attorneys are not being honest and forthright with a court in order to intentionally delay or mislead a court then this option should certainly be considered. A lawyer who has his license suspended can no longer appear in court and would certainly affect a lawyer’s opportunity to make a living and affect his or her future job opportunities. No lawyer wants to have to explain to a future employer why he or she openly defied a judge’s orders. This option would have a deterrent effect on attorneys and could cause attorneys to be more cautious in their dealings with a court and maybe even be more forceful in counseling Trump Administration officials. As an example, lawyers who brought lawsuits on behalf of Trump regarding unsupported fraudulent 2020 elections claims – Rudolph Giulani, Sidney Powell and John Eastman – have all been disciplined with Giulani eventually losing his license and Eastman’s case still pending whether he should be disbarred. These lawyers have been punished but it has also deterred other lawyers from bringing any more 2020 election fraud claims to the courts. If disbarment can deter attorneys from disobeying court orders on behalf of Mr. Trump, then courts should seriously consider this option as Trump attorneys continue to make their case in various cases in tribunals around the country. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center for Justice – explanation of what courts have at their disposal to enforce their orders.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – background of the deportation flights lawsuit.
- This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Trump Administration Changes to the Civil Service
Trump Administration Changes to the Civil Service
Brief # 181 Elections & Politics | By Inijah Quadri | March 29, 2025
Summary
The United States federal civil service stands as the backbone of our nation’s governance, ensuring the implementation of public policies and the delivery of essential services. In recent years, however, this institution has faced unprecedented challenges, with political maneuvers threatening its foundational principles. Understanding the intricacies of civil service employment—including hiring and firing procedures, reporting hierarchies, rights, responsibilities, benefits, and the distinction between civil servants and political appointees—is crucial, especially as these issues have come to the forefront in today’s political climate.
Analysis
Hiring Process
Federal civil service positions are traditionally filled through a competitive process designed to uphold merit-based principles, a cornerstone of democratic governance. Vacancies are announced on USAJOBS.gov, the official federal employment portal, where applicants must meet specific qualification standards and often undergo rigorous examinations or assessments. This process is governed by Title 5 of the United States Code, which outlines the rules and regulations for federal employment. However, recent political interventions have sought to undermine this system. The Trump administration’s (during his first term) introduction of “Schedule F,” a classification that would strip certain federal positions of civil service protections, exemplifies such attempts to erode the merit-based hiring process.
Schedule F is a job classification within the excepted service designated for positions of a “confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.” Established by Executive Order 13957 in October 2020, Schedule F removed civil service protections from selected positions, allowing political appointees greater authority over hiring and firing. Although initially revoked by President Biden in January 2021, President Trump reinstated Schedule F upon returning to office in January 2025. Critics warn this threatens to further politicize the federal workforce by reducing impartiality and increasing vulnerability to politically motivated dismissals.
Termination Procedures
Terminating a federal employee has historically involved adherence to due process, ensuring protection against arbitrary dismissal. Supervisors are required to provide written notice detailing the reasons for termination, allow the employee to respond, and, in many cases, offer an opportunity for appeal. These procedures are rooted in reforms designed to prevent the patronage systems of the past. Disturbingly, the current administration has launched an aggressive campaign targeting probationary federal employees, those with less than two years of service who typically have fewer protections. While many of them have since been rehired, reports indicate that approximately 25,000 such employees were terminated within the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term, under the guise of reducing government size.
Major agencies affected include the Departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs. These dismissals were primarily carried out under directives from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), led by Acting Director Charles Ezell, instructing agencies to terminate probationary employees without extensive performance justification. Following legal challenges, federal courts ruled many of these firings unlawful due to insufficient notice and lack of proper authority, resulting in the ordered reinstatement of over 20,000 federal workers, who are currently on paid leave pending final appeals. These actions have led to significant disruptions in public services and have raised serious legal and ethical concerns about the administration’s commitment to fair labor practices.
Reporting Structure
Federal agencies operate under hierarchical structures where civil servants report to supervisors, who in turn report to higher-level officials. This chain of command ensures accountability and efficient decision-making within the agency. However, the recent politicization of the civil service threatens this structure. The administration’s push to convert career positions into political appointments undermines the stability and impartiality of reporting lines, leading to a workforce more susceptible to political pressures rather than dedicated to public service.
Determining Civil Service Staffing Levels
The allocation of civil servant positions within each federal agency is primarily influenced by Congress through the federal budget and appropriations process. While Congress does not typically dictate exact staffing levels, the funding provided in annual appropriations bills sets the financial parameters within which agencies operate. Agency leaders use this funding to determine staffing levels based on operational needs. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) oversees federal hiring practices, ensuring adherence to merit system principles and uniform staffing policies across agencies.
Rights and Responsibilities
Federal employees are entitled to various rights, including protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information, as enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They also have the right to due process in disciplinary actions and the freedom to join or not join unions. Responsibilities include adhering to ethical standards, performing duties efficiently, and upholding the public trust. Alarmingly, these rights are under siege. The administration’s attempts to bypass due process and target employees based on perceived political affiliations threaten the very fabric of our merit-based system, paving the way for a return to discriminatory practices and a culture of fear among public servants.
Benefits
Civil servants traditionally receive a comprehensive benefits package, including health insurance, retirement plans, paid leave, and life insurance. These benefits are designed to attract and retain a competent workforce dedicated to public service. However, the current climate of uncertainty, marked by arbitrary terminations and attacks on job security, jeopardizes these benefits. The erosion of protections not only demoralizes the existing workforce but also deters potential talent from considering public service careers, thereby weakening the government’s ability to serve its citizens effectively.
Distinction Between Civil Service Employees and Political Appointees
Civil service employees are career officials selected through a merit-based system, ensuring continuity and impartiality in government operations. They retain their positions across different administrations, providing stability and institutional memory. In contrast, political appointees are selected by the president or agency heads to implement the current administration’s agenda, with their tenure typically ending with the appointing authority’s term. This system is designed to balance the need for both stable governance and the implementation of elected officials’ policies. However, the current administration’s blatant disregard for this balance, through efforts to blur the lines between career civil servants and political appointees, threatens to politicize the bureaucracy and erode public trust in government institutions.
Policy Suggestion
In light of these troubling developments, it is imperative to enact robust legislative measures that fortify the merit-based principles of our civil service. Congress must pass laws that unequivocally protect federal employees from politically motivated dismissals and ensure that any attempts to reclassify positions, such as “Schedule F,” are subject to stringent oversight and approval processes. Additionally, strengthening the independence and authority of oversight bodies like the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is crucial to safeguard the rights of civil servants and maintain the integrity of public administration. Only through such decisive actions can we preserve a nonpartisan, effective, and just civil service that truly serves the interests of all citizens.
Engagement Resources
- USAJOBS (https://www.usajobs.gov/): The federal government’s official employment site.
- Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (https://www.opm.gov/) : Oversees federal human resources and provides policy guidance.
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (https://www.eeoc.gov/): Enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
- Federal Employee Education and Assistance Fund (FEEA) (https://feea.org/): Provides scholarships and emergency assistance to federal employees.
- National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) (https://www.narfe.org/): Advocates for federal employee benefits and provides resources.
Ukrainians Views on the Trump-Zelensky Meeting in the Oval Office
Ukrainians Views on the Trump-Zelensky Meeting in the Oval Office
Foreign Policy Brief # 196 | By Yelena Korshunov | March 31,2025
Featured Photo:
Many Ukrainians closely followed President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to Washington, where Ukraine and the United States planned to sign an agreement on rare earth metals. According to the American side, this deal was intended to pave the way for a ceasefire in Ukraine. However, a verbal spat between President Donald Trump, Vice President James Vance, and President Zelensky turned everything upside down. The conflict appeared to be premeditated by President Trump’s team. Millions of stunned and embarrassed viewers in the U.S., Ukraine, and around the world watched the broadcast as the meeting devolved into mockery, with ridiculing Zelensky’s lack of a suit followed by Vance’s rough abruption of Ukrainian President’s speech blaming him in a lack of saying “thank you”. Consequently, the agreement was not signed, and Zelensky left the White House early. Ukrainians’ opinions on the controversial meeting were divided; some criticized Zelensky’s behavior, while others fully supported him.
Zelensky’s closest allies—head of the Presidential Office Andriy Yermak, Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal, Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko, and head of the Servant of the People parliamentary faction David Arakhamia—commented on the visit and voiced their support for the president. They emphasized the importance of real security guarantees for Ukraine.
Andriy Yermak expressed gratitude to the American people for their support, writing on Telegram, “Security is not just a word. It is life. It is a future without sirens, without losses, without fear for those we love. Without real guarantees, war will return. It always returns to where there is a chance for a new attack.” He added, “We are grateful to those who stand with us, to those who understand that Ukraine is not just a point on the map. It is Minas Tirith [‘Tower of Guard’ or ‘Tower of Watch’ from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth], standing against evil.”
David Arakhamia echoed Yermak’s sentiments, thanking American people for their support and stating, “Our president is a rock, and few leaders in the world can match his fortitude. He genuinely wants to end this war, not settle for a temporary pause that may seem convenient to some.”
Ukrainian journalist Sergey Rudenko pointed out that Trump’s actions stemmed from his inability to fulfill promises to end the war in Ukraine. He said, “Trump lacks the strength to stand up to Putin or to deliver on his promise to end the war. What we witnessed on the evening of February 28 was a performance orchestrated by Trump and Vance. They didn’t want an agreement on mineral resources; they wanted a scapegoat for their failures. They chose Zelensky.”
Despite the failed negotiations, Ukrainian Prism Foreign Policy Council expert Sergey Gerasimchuk noted that Ukraine’s participation in talks provided leverage. “Ukraine can now reject any proposal, whether from Putin or Trump. Europe will undoubtedly be present at the negotiating table, as European leaders have consistently backed Zelensky’s stance on leadership and security. Neither the Kremlin nor the White House can ignore this support,” he told Deutsche Welle[a Germany’s international broadcaster and a news portal].
Maria Berlinskaya, head of the Center for the Support of Aerial Intelligence, acknowledged that many Ukrainians are weary of the war and might support any resolution, but she warned against this mindset. On Facebook, she cited Winston Churchill, saying, “He who chooses shame over war will ultimately face both.” She added, “It seems we refused to accept shame.”
Volodymyr Viatrovych, a member of Ukraine’s opposition faction ‘European Solidarity,’ praised Zelensky for defending the truth about the war. According to him, the White House preferred not to hear it. “Trump and Vance spread lies about the war, hoping Zelensky would publicly accept them. Fortunately, he did not. Truth is one of our most valuable resources,” Viatrovych posted on Facebook.
A recent poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found that 50% of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions under any circumstances, even if it prolongs the war. Conversely, 39% are willing to cede some territories to achieve peace and preserve independence.
Here are statements from Ukrainian survey participants:
- Anton from western Ukraine: “I am 30 years old and originally from a small town in the Kherson region, now under Russian occupation. My parents and brother escaped to Germany, but my grandparents refused to leave. I moved to western Ukraine after the invasion. I see a contradiction among people who want Ukraine to reclaim its territories but are unwilling to sacrifice themselves or their loved ones. I believe territorial concessions are inevitable. War devastates society, the economy, and institutions. Even in the best-case scenario, a hollow victory with a shattered nation would be no victory at all.”
- Katya from Kherson: “Giving up territories means abandoning hundreds of thousands of people who are waiting and believing in liberation.”
- Yana from Crimea: “I have lived under occupation for 11 years. Although I cannot leave, Crimea is my home. I hope it will be Ukrainian again, but I understand if the government makes concessions to save lives.”
- Irina from Odessa: “I hope America helps Ukraine end the war at any cost. Everyone is exhausted. There are barely any men on the streets, and missile strikes are constant. It’s terrifying.”
- Tatyana from Kyiv region: “Conceding territories is unacceptable. Russia is a terrorist state. Today it’s four regions; tomorrow it could be the whole country. The world’s passive response emboldens them.”
Meanwhile, on March 20, Russia’s government-run company Dom.RF published a list of cities where Russians could purchase homes under a preferential mortgage program. The list included Ukrainian cities like Kherson, Kramatorsk, and Sloviansk—locations not even under Russian control.
While the American President weakens alliances with Canada and Europe and removes sanctions on Russia, Moscow’s relentless shelling continues to destroy Ukrainian cities and claim lives.
Engagement Resources
- Zelensky describes Oval Office meeting as ‘regrettable,’ says he is ready to negotiate peace, https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/04/europe/zelensky-trump-argument-comment-ukraine-intl/index.html
- Read TIME’s Latest Interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskym https://time.com/7271480/zelensky-transcript-trump-white-house/
Zelensky ready to work under Trump’s “strong leadership”, https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c981p3dxnent
Where Democrats Can Aim for in the 2026 Midterms: Senate Edition
Where Democrats Can Aim for in the 2026 Midterms: Senate Edition
Brief # 180 Elections & Politics | Nate Iglehart | March 31, 2025
Featured Photo: Wisconsin Examiner
Summary
After two months into Donald Trump’s second presidency, many voters and Congresspeople are already eyeing the 2026 Congressional elections. The November 3rd elections could mark a pivotal moment in President Donald Trump’s second term.
The Senate in particular plays a very important role in checking the executive branch’s power. Between confirming appointments of federal judges, ratifying treaties negotiated by the president, and conducting impeachment trials, it plays a vital role in government.
On each of these fronts, President Donald Trump has been on the offensive; attacking federal judges, calling for their impeachments, and signing treaties with various foreign powers. If Democrats can retake control of the Senate in 2026, they will have a viable avenue to oppose Trump’s agenda outside of litigation.
Analysis
The Democrats currently control 45 seats, with 2 independent seats who often vote alongside them, to Republicans’ 53. They would need to control 51 seats, a net gain of essentially 4, for a majority due to JD Vance’s tie-breaking power.
Now, of the 100 seats in the Senate, there are 33 up for election this cycle, with 2 open due to special elections in Florida and Ohio. 13 of those seats are held by Democrats, with 9 in firmly blue areas. Of the remaining 4, Minnesota and New Hampshire lean blue, while Georgia and Michigan are considered complete toss-ups.
In Michigan, Democrat Gary Peters said he would not seek reelection in 2026, setting the stage for a tight race. Democrat Elissa Slotkin won the other Senate seat in 2024 by less than four-tenths of a percentage point, and Republican Mike Rogers, the runner-up who’s teased another run in 2026, represented the best showing in a Senate race by Republicans in Michigan since 1994. While the battleground state voted red in 2024, the race will still likely be exceedingly close in lieu of an incumbent who’s track record can speak for itself, especially as Pete Buttigieg and Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer have both passed on running.
Georgia’s seat is particularly interesting. Democrat Jon Ossoff won his very first term there last year by 1.4%, a mere 55,000 votes. Georgia has been a battleground state for the last two elections, voting blue in 2020 and then red by 2.2% in 2024. While Sen. Ossoff’s ability to win in a Trump-leaning state is impressive, his campaign seems to be taking a combative stance against the president. Billing himself as a bipartisan public servant the first time around, he has called Trump corrupt and said he is poisoning democracy more recently. His approach may galvanize disillusioned Republican voters to help secure Georgia, but it is too soon to tell.
In terms of offensive chances, most of the Republican seats up for grabs are in strongly red areas. But the Democrats are eyeing Maine, North Carolina, and Ohio.
While Maine voted blue in 2024, analysts say that Republican Susan Collins, who is seeking her sixth term and has been a perennial “white whale” of the Democrats, has a decent chance to retain her seat against two main challengers. Phillip Rench, a 37-year-old former engineer at Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is running as an independent, while Democrat Natasha Alcala is running on a platform focused on infrastructure, programs for veterans and the disabled, and elderly care. But between a possible blue wave and Sen. Collins’ sometimes tumultuous relationship with the GOP (she frequently crosses party lines and voted for Trump’s second impeachment), even Republican analysts have cited it as one of the 3 seats to defend in 2026.
North Carolina’s race showcases a wide range of challengers to Republican Thom Tillis, including Lara Trump, former Democratic governor Roy Cooper, and former Democratic congressman Wiley Nickel. Cooper is a popular challenger, having won the governorship in 2016 and 2020 while Trump was on the ballot, and is an accomplished fundraiser in a state that is losing faith in Sen. Tillis, who has a 25% approval rating.
Finally, in Ohio, Democrats are apparently lobbying former Sen. Sherrod Brown to run against Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed to the seat after JD Vance left for D.C. to become Vice President. Last year, Brown lost his seat by 3 points to Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno, a strong candidate in a slowly red-shifting state. Tim Ryan, a former Ohio representative, also has expressed interest in the Senate seat.
But at the end of the day, it is simply too far down the road to make any accurate predictions in any races. Even polls right before the elections can be off, as seen in the 2024 elections with the president, but also with the predictions of a “red wave” that never materialized in 2022. While only time will tell who gets the Senate in 2026, the races are shaping up to be wildly expensive and more important than ever.”
Engagement Resources:
- Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the Center for Politics is a comprehensive, nonpartisan political analysis newsletter.
- Cook Political Report is another independent, non-partisan newsletter that analyzes U.S. elections and campaigns.
- S. Vote Foundation is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan public charity founded in 2005 that provides voting services and election data.
Tangled Part 1: How Trump uses Machiavelli to Win An Election
Tangled Part 1: How Trump uses Machiavelli to Win An Election
Elections & Politics Brief #179 | By: Rudolph Lurz | March 26, 2025
Featured Photo by Salon.com
Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince provides a playbook for rulers to seize, hold, and consolidate power. Donald Trump’s second ascent to the Oval Office demonstrates that Machiavelli’s lessons are just as valid in 2025 as they were in 1515. The Prince is frequently summarized with the adage of “the ends justify the means”. Its power goes much deeper than that. Machiavelli does not specifically advocate for immorality. He stresses the need for amorality. A ruler should be primarily concerned with two things: the prosperity and security of his people. For a leader, there is no right or wrong. There is only what is necessary to secure wealth and safety. Machiavelli argues that the appearance of virtue is more important than being virtuous. However, when the time comes to advance the cause of the nation, the ruler must be prepared to do things that would be considered evil by outside observers. In short, most people might claim to want leaders who are honest, kind, virtuous, and temperate. History shows, even in 1515, that they support leaders who provide them with prosperity and security, regardless of their sins or personal flaws. As Machiavelli notes,
“As a prince is forced to know how to act like a beast, he must learn from the fox and the lion; because the lion is defenseless against traps and a fox is defenseless against wolves…Those who simply act like lions are stupid. So it follows that a prudent ruler cannot, and must not, honour his word when it places him at a disadvantage and when the reasons for which he made his promise no longer exist…Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are. And those few dare not gainsay the many who are backed by the majesty of the state. In the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no court of appeal, one judges by the result. So let a prince set about the task of conquering and maintaining his state; his methods will always be judged honourable and will be universally praised” (pp. 57-58).
Machiavelli also advocated for leaders to make use of the patriotic symbols, songs, and festivals of their states. The goal of using pageantry to consolidate power was simple. By tying one’s own image to the patriotic symbols of the country, princes could become synonymous with their states. In doing so, a successful prince could turn political opponents into traitors, and have his supporters fight for him with the fervor they normally reserve for their country.
Does this sound familiar? President Trump literally hugs the American flag at rallies. Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the U.S.A.” is the most popular anthem heard by his crowds. “U.S.A.!” chants resound through the arena, as if it were the Olympics instead of a political event.
President Trump was burned late in the 2020 campaign by security and prosperity concerns. He made both his primary punchlines in 2024. They will continue to be the stories in the 2028 campaign, unless the Democrats can finally find a response to a 500-year old power tactic.
Analysis
Former President Joe Biden misread his election victory in 2020 as a mandate for his vision for the country. In reality, President Trump was cruising towards re-election for a majority of the primary campaign. Unemployment was low, the economy was doing well, the leader of ISIS was dead, and the United States was winding down its involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Covid-19 and the civil unrest following the death of George Floyd completely changed the equation. Millions of Americans were sick. Thousands of Americans were dead. Unemployment surged to double digits. Riots ravaged major cities across the country as the nation burned, causing billions of dollars in damage.
President Trump suddenly crashed to 0-2 on the Machiavelli indicators.
The defeat of President Biden and Vice President Harris in the 2024 campaign could be traced to similar indicators. President Trump was more creative in his deployment of these attacks, because he had to rely on the perception of insecurity and poverty rather than the stark realities that sunk his 2020 re-election campaign. The S&P 500 rose 57.9% during Biden’s single term in office. Not as strong as the 66% growth from President Trump’s first term, but still respectable. Unemployment rates were at 4.1% at the end of Biden’s term.
If Americans used these statistics or solely viewed their 401K plans to gauge the strength of the economy, Vice President Harris might have been sworn into office on January 20th.
President Trump relied on inflation to attack President Biden and later Vice President Harris. Inflation was a global issue with complex roots as countries emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) noted these issues and also predicted a cooling of these inflationary trends in October 2024, declaring that the global war against inflation was “almost won”.
The populace is not logical, as Machiavelli recognized 500 years ago. Through consistent messaging, President Trump laid the inflation solely at the feet of the hapless Biden/Harris administration. It is still his tactic, even after re-taking the Oval Office. Trump noted as inflation began to rise again this February that he had nothing to do with it, and that the environmental and DEI measures instituted during the Biden Administration were the cause.
No matter what effect Trump’s tariffs have on inflation or consumer prices, any economic downturns will be placed on Joe Biden’s shoulders. It’s an absurd word scramble that normally includes terms like Bidenomics, DEI, Green New Deal, AOC, liberals, and woke.
Security was also used by President Trump to attack President Biden. Trump used immigration as his primary weapon. Monthly encounters of migrants at America’s southern border surged to 301,981 in December 2023, and were consistently over 200,000 per month for most of Biden’s term in office. Those monthly numbers were under 100,000 for most of Trump’s first term, with a high of 144,110 crossings reported in May 2019. President Trump frequently referred to these crossings as an “invasion” and used incidents like the horrific murder of Laken Riley to frame Biden as complicit in the violence caused by migrants.
President Biden and others on the left countered with statistics demonstrating that undocumented migrants were almost 40% less likely to commit crimes than native-born U.S. citizens. American voters were not comforted by these statistics. Any crimes committed by migrants were framed as preventable by Trump’s campaign. If the border was secure, and no migrants crossed, Laken Riley would be alive.
Monthly border encounters had already dropped to 107, 473 by August 2024. Violent crime fell by nearly 50% between 1993 and 2022. The Biden/Harris administration should have been on solid ground on Machiavelli’s indicators from The Prince.
I hope President Trump gave his communication team a set of steak knives. They successfully created the image of a bankrupt country overrun by violent criminals. Biden and Harris were complicit in America’s fall and only President Trump could fix it.
How does the Democratic Party move forward when even basic facts are now doubted by a large percentage of the electorate? They need to use Machiavelli’s playbook against President Trump and stop wasting airtime and bandwidth on things that people just do not value.
Safeguarding democracy should be important. Women’s healthcare should be important. The moral character of a leader should be important. The environment should be important.
Machiavelli demonstrates concretely that security and prosperity are paramount to whether a leader remains in power. Americans do not like President Trump. They voted for him anyway.
Democratic strategist James Carville has part of the answer. “It’s the economy, stupid” was the tagline Bill Clinton utilized to comfortably win elections. Carville recently noted that the Democratic Party lost the economic narrative, and with it the election. If it wants to win again, it must reclaim that message and make it resonate with the working class.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made several missteps as Kamala Harris’s choice for VP, but he was dead right on a crucial one late in the campaign. The Democratic Party must retake the flag, family values, and football. Trump has used Machiavelli’s playbook to imbue himself into the patriotic symbols of the country. His supporters view opposition as treason.
If the Democrats want to win again, they must untangle that web and separate Trump from Old Glory. They must tell MAGA Republicans, as Robert Redford’s character says at the end of the film, The Last Castle, “It’s not your flag.”
It belongs to all of us.
Every morning on my way to drop my kids off at school, I pass by a house with an American flag flying on a pole, and a Trump flag flying right below it. On windy days, those two flags become tangled.
Trump has tangled himself into the symbols that Americans love. For Democrats to win, they must win on the messages of prosperity and security. 2024 showed that we care about prices and security more than democratic traditions and morality. To win in 2026 and 2028, Democrats must untangle this mess and do a better job of showing how they would keep Americans safe and put a chicken in every pot.
There’s no excuse. The GOP’s Machiavellian playbook has an ending that can be seen from 500 years away. It’s time to use it against the party which has abused it.
Engagement Resources
- Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince: The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Prince, by Nicolo Machiavelli
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection Statistics: CBP Enforcement Statistics | U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Introducing Gulf of America – from the person who gave us Trump Tower (Environmental Policy Brief #178)
Introducing Gulf of America – from the person who gave us Trump Tower
Environment Brief #178 | By: Todd J. Broadman | March 26, 2025
Featured Photo by Guide of the World
For the last 475 years, the expanse of ocean from western Florida to southern Texas has been called the “Gulf of Mexico.” English geographer Richard Hakluyt referred to the “Gulfe of Mexico” in his work of 1589. With the stroke of a pen on February 9, 2025, the President of the United States signed Executive Order 14172 and renamed the body of water “Gulf of America.” In addition to “restoring American pride,” President Trump justified the name change by referencing territorial rights over much of the area and that those waters have “long been an integral asset to our once burgeoning Nation and has remained an indelible part of America.” Trump considers the Gulf a business asset.
Back in 2010, comedian Stephen Colbert offered the initial suggestion of a name change in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf saying that “I don’t think we can call it the Gulf of Mexico anymore. We broke it, we bought it.” He joked that a “Gulf of America fund” be initiated to help fund cleanup.
The name of the highest peak in North America for close to 1000 years had been called Denali by the native Athabaskan people. Denali means “the great one.” 120 years ago, a gold prospector named William Dickey, saw the great 20,310-foot mountain and named it McKinley after the then Republican presidential nominee and then Congress codified the moniker along with land designated as the McKinley National Park. In returning the mountain and National Park to their original Native names in 2015, President Barack Obama reflected that McKinley had “never set foot in Alaska.” Regardless of McKinley’s distant relationship to that significant landmark, President Trump, in one of the first acts on his return to the White House, issued an executive order restoring McKinley as the mountain’s official name. (The national park that surrounds it will remain Denali National Park).
In the minds of Americans, where symbols take on meanings, these name changes are intended to deliver potent messages. With the names Mexico and Denali which connote America’s historical embrace of plurality, the new administration is communicating that it is symbolically important to supplant that value with non-Native, non-foreign elements. Naming conventions in this sense are intended to reinforce American superiority both in ethical and subtle racial contexts. These tacit assumptions do make their way through to the public. As Nicole Hassenstab of American University explains, this is “a way to assert civilizational identities by selectively and symbolically valorizing certain historical heritages over others.”
There is the assumption that to name a thing you must first have knowledge of it. This knowledge conveys an interpretive authority. The renaming of Ayers Rock in Australia to its original Uluru or the city of Bombay back to Mumbai follows this line of reasoning, and is why the recent name changes imposed by Trump do not.
Following the executive order, Google made the decision to change the name on its widely used maps application. Many major media outlets refused to adopt the new moniker – at some cost. Associated Press (AP), the independent global news organization, chose to stay with the name Gulf of Mexico based on a uniformity of style and was promptly barred from the White House press corps. AP has sued and claimed that “it is essential in a democracy for the public to have access to news about their government from an independent, free press.” AP and other major news outlets see the move as a constitutional threat.
Amongst other news organizations adoption, as expected, follows editorial bias. Fox News and Breitbart enthusiastically made the switch to Gulf of America, as did Yellowhammer and 1819 News. Reuters and the New York Times line-up with AP. The Times explained that the gulf “is an international body of water that has been known as the Gulf of Mexico for several hundred years. We will continue to follow common usage in updating our style guidance like we have done in the past with other areas of the world.”
ANALYSIS
President Trump’s initiative for these symbolic changes is a personal one and is consistent with the naming of his business entities to build the Trump brand. Authoritarian leaders see this process “as a tool for constructing new notions of national identity and promoting certain historical narratives while denying, suppressing, or erasing others.” The historical narrative does not suit President Trump. That story begins in the 1550s with the Aztec culture and their named land Mexica and extended to the Gulf when early Europeans began mapping the area. The Gulf of Mexico was established as a maritime reference with the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) for about five centuries.
When AP executive editor Julie Pace made clear that the White House’s decision to bar them from the Oval Office is a First Amendment violation, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt insists that the Gulf of America is a “fact” and pretends there is no reasonable explanation “why news outlets don’t want to call it that but that is what it is.” In AP’s defense, the White House Correspondents Association added that there was an undercurrent of revenge in that the administration “publicly admitted they are restricting access to events to punish a news outlet for not advancing the government’s preferred language.”
Also lined-up in AP’s defense are Reuters, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. The latter justified their stance saying “the body of water is not solely within the United States’ jurisdiction and the name Gulf of America might confuse global readers.” The United Kingdom was typical of others in the international community in stating that they will not be using the name Gulf of America unless and until it becomes the common name across the English-speaking world, adding that Trump lacks the authority to make that change. USA Today/Gannett took a unique position planning to walk the fence-line between both terms: the “more common” Gulf of Mexico and the one used by the U.S. government. In a sampling of registered U.S. voters, the gauge of popular sentiment – according to Harvard CAPS, Harris Poll, and Marquette University – towards the change indicates that three-quarters of voters oppose the new moniker.
In summary, there is very little support to legitimize the Gulf of America from bodies within the U.S. and international bodies. The Trump administration made this move without diplomatic consultation of Mexico, Cuba, and other Mesoamerican and Caribbean countries who are directly implicated. The administration also failed to evaluate the impacts for the entire education field, public and private.
One wonders if the Gulf of America was chosen as a compromise over a preference for the Gulf of Trump. Is Mount McKinley but a brief segue to Mount Trump? The history in this regard is instructive: McKinley was first summited by Hudson Struck in 1913 and shortly thereafter Struck reflected on “a certain ruthless arrogance” that “contemptuously ignores the native names of conspicuous natural objects.” Which is another way of saying that packed into a name ought to be a deeper connection to a people, as well as the seldom seen trait in this current administration: humility.
Engagement Resources:
- https://en.wikipedia.org benefits readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge. Hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia consists of freely editable content.
- https://apnews.com/ founded as an independent news cooperative, whose members are U.S. newspapers and broadcasters, steadfast in our mission to inform the world.
- https://www.offshore-mag.com/ is a leading source of timely, actionable and relevant news and technical content for the offshore oil, gas and renewable energy industries.
Argentinian Resistance: Austerity’s Failures
Argentinian Resistance: Austerity’s Failures
Foreign Policy Brief #195 | By: Damian DeSola | March 20, 2025
Featured Photo by NPR
The Argentinian people have had enough. On 12 March 2025, the people of Buenos Aires took to the street to protests President Javier Milei’s policy of extreme austerity. The protesters showed anger at the weakness of their pension system exposed by these policies. In reaction, the government sent out police; senior citizens and soccer fans were then blasted with firehoses, teargassed, and shot with rubber bullets Ghastly images and videos have emerged of badly wounded protesters voicing their desperation to the riot police.
These protests have been occurring weekly, but the gathering on March 12th showed a new level of protestor and police violence. Over 120 protesters were detained, with 20 protesters suffering injuries. The administration blames the violence on “hooligans”, referring to soccer fans that had joined the pensioners in their protest.
Elected in 2023, taking office 10 December of the same year, Javier Milei ran on the idea of “chainsaw economics”, cutting government spending at an indiscriminate and rapid pace, as the solution for the massive inflation since the COVID-19 pandemic. In some ways, these policies have been a success. Inflation has steadily decreased to 66.9% as of February 2025, levels not seen since June/July 2022. Though, in February, reports show inflation modestly increased, as prices remained high. Argentina’s GDP growth also shows signs of improving, finally no longer maintaining a deficit, and has of recent officially escaped its recession.
These successes have come at a cost to the Argentine people. The Universidad Católica Argentina reports that although Argentinians now have more cash, the cost of public services, housing prices, and food insecurity have all increased from 2023 to 2024. Meaning that measurements of poverty based on held monies may have decreased from 56% to 33%, but poverty based on a variety of factors including purchasing power has overall increased from 39.8% to 41.6%. Furthermore, pensions have not kept up with these austerity measures, leaving 60% of pensioners receiving the minimum amount of $340 per month. Milei vetoed a bill in 2024 that would have increased pensions by 8%, a fraction of what is necessary.
President Milei has also been the target of ire from the Argentine people for his connections with a cryptocurrency scandal. When on 14 February 2025, the “memecoin” $LIBRA was opened for trading, Milei tweeted support for the cryptocurrency, causing the valuation to increase to over $4.5 billion. The initial investors that held the currency before Milei’s tweet sold their ownership once the value skyrocketed, causing a massive decrease in valuation to around $18 million.
Some have accused Milei of intentionally participating in a “rug pull”. This term is associated with short term crypto projects that seek to artificially increase the value of a new coin via the credibility of a major figure, like Milei, so that the initial investors see massive gains that are then cashed out upon, costing the later buyers all their investments.
The Milei government refutes this and claims that it is just a coincidence. They argue that the free expression of the president should not be scrutinized for supporting private activities, comparing the original tweet, that was taken down hours after these events transpired, to visiting a factory, framing it as not an explicit endorsement.
The Argentine judicial system is now seeking to arrest the US citizen Hayden Mark Davis, the principal architect of $LIBRA. There have also been calls to impeach Milei as a result of this scandal.
Analysis
The citizen protests are a result of the massive austerity measures that Javier Milei has taken since his election. While the initial results have shown promise in terms of inflation statistics and deficit control, the fact remains that much of this came at the sacrifice of popular social programs and vital regulations.
Javier Milei refers to his ideology with the fringe ultra-right label of “anarcho-capitalist”. The ideology itself is fascinating in the way one would find a meteor crater, interesting in its impact but nonetheless destructive. For proponents of the ideology and of Milei, destruction is a good thing, and it is no wonder that a chainsaw has become the symbol of this contemporary anarcho-capitalist movement.
An anarcho-capitalist like Milei, and some would say Elon Musk, values mass removal of regulations on companies as a way of stimulating economic growth. The ideology is in effect, neoliberalism accelerated to its absolute. Based on the concept that a free market can exist and that it is the most effective societal force to organize and distribute resources, an anarcho-capitalist seeks to remove any hinderances to the market to ensure its absolute liberty to fulfill what they see as its natural functions. In practice, this leads to removals of all labor protection laws, social safety nets, and of governmental regulations and their enforcement mechanisms. The ultimate expression of this ideology is in the name, anarchism, where no government exists, and society is entirely guided by the “free market.”
Milei claims that this period of economic turmoil will be overshadowed by the trickling down of wealth that comes with improved corporate investments. However, it is perfectly clear to anyone who can follow the past forty years of neoliberalist deregulation and assumptions of trickle-down economics that such returns for the working class will be minute. The country of Argentina will have a stable economy perhaps, but it will be at the sacrifice of the working class’s economic security and protection from exploitation of these newly enriched corporate entities.
The anarcho-capitalist ideology is guided by the interest of the corporate class that benefits most from these policies. In turn, social policies, like prohibiting abortion, reduction of women’s rights, climate change denial, anti-sex education, become mainstream and more likely to be implemented. From an economic standpoint, the support systems, like pensions that cost corporations’ money, are demolished wholesale on the pretext that retirees should have saved more or worked harder; the working class is blamed for their poverty.
Whether Milei genuinely believes that anarcho-capitalism is effective at governing society, that he is pushing these policies at the behest of corporate entities, or both, matters little. What matters is how the people perceive and feel about these policies; from what was seen on March 12th, they are not happy. They took to the streets and will keep doing so as these policies persist.
Engagement Resources
- Encyclopedia Brittanica explaining anarcho-capitalism
- HelpArgentina, a nonprofit organization that supports social programs across Argentina
- Journal of Democracy’s profile on Javier Milei