JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Where Gerrymandering Comes From—and Where It’s Going (Elections & Politics Brief #193)
Gerrymandering began as a nineteenth-century power play in Massachusetts, when Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a state senate redistricting bill whose oddly shaped Essex County district reminded a newspaper illustrator of a salamander. The nickname stuck, and so did the tactic: drawing electoral district lines to advantage a party or faction and to weaken cohesive communities of interest.
USRESIST SHARE: August 2025 #1
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.
Law and Order or Overreach? When Soldiers Become Police (Immigration Policy Brief #191)
As summer draws to an end, President Trump is once again utilizing federal military forces for law enforcement, this time in the nation’s capital. In California, Trump cited immigration protests for the use of the National Guard & ultimately the deployment of U.S. Marines. Now we see the President citing crime & the inability of D.C. Democrats to stop it. President Trump’s coast-to-coast use of federal military force in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. during 2025 highlights the growing tensions between public safety, constitutional boundaries, and presidential power, raising critical questions about the future of American democracy and civil-military relations.
Immigration Report
USRESIST NEWS presents a special report on Immigration Policy. This report entails the immigration policy briefs by our news team over the last 6 months.
The Downsizing of Student Learning Assessments (Education Policy Brief #208)
As the Trump Administration carries out its crusade to reduce the size of government, one of the targets has been the Department of Education (DOE). The DOE is made up of a number of agencies and offices that have been severely impacted by these actions, one of which is the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
The U.S. Government Turns the Other Cheek to Resolving the Israel–Palestinian Conflict (Foreign Policy Brief #215)
Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has shifted in tone, language, and substance: Washington has openly embraced Israeli priorities while sidelining Palestinian rights and claims. What had long been presented as a balancing act—security guarantees for Israel paired with a rhetorical commitment to Palestinian statehood—has become a policy that favors one side almost exclusively.
Suggestions for the Democratic 2026 Mid-Term Platform
The 2026 mid-term elections offer the Democratic party an opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate. However, Democrats face an uphill battle challenged by Trump policies, anti-Democratic rhetoric, internal divisions, and political maneuvers such as re-districting. To address these challenges the Democratics need to articulate a political platform with issues that resonate with voters. While the need in every race is to prioritize concerns of local communities, a set of party-wide policy priorities that can be adapted to fit local needs would be helpful.
The Texas and California Re – Districting Fight Explained
At the end of July 2025 President Trump suggested that Texas should re – district (or, redraw) their state congressional map prior to the 2026 general election. Trump’s purpose in suggesting a redraw of the map was to add five more reliably Republican districts in Texas. This would likely give the Texas congressional delegation five additional members of the House of Representatives in Washington. Texas Governor Greg Abbott then called a special session of the Texas State Legislature to consider the issue and issue a new map ahead of the 2026 elections.
Duped by Putin for months on end, Trump must now hold the line on Russia (Foreign Policy Brief #212)
Trump’s egregious pre-election claim that he could “end the war in a day” between Russia and Ukraine has instead resulted in Russia’s huge surge of attacks on Ukraine and an increasing number of civilian deaths. While Trump often tries to deflect his responsibility for handling this war onto past U.S. presidents, he is now in fact the commander in chief and must take action to support an ally in Ukraine, help prevent further carnage, and demonstrate American democratic mettle vis-a-vis a ruthless dictator in Putin.
USRESIST SHARE: August 2025 #1
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.
Law and Order or Overreach? When Soldiers Become Police (Immigration Policy Brief #191)
Immigration Policy Brief #191 | Morgan Davidson | August 17, 2025
Summary
As summer draws to an end, President Trump is once again utilizing federal military forces for law enforcement, this time in the nation’s capital. In California, Trump cited immigration protests for the use of the National Guard & ultimately the deployment of U.S. Marines. Now we see the President citing crime & the inability of D.C. Democrats to stop it. President Trump’s coast-to-coast use of federal military force in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. during 2025 highlights the growing tensions between public safety, constitutional boundaries, and presidential power, raising critical questions about the future of American democracy and civil-military relations.
Analysis
The legal framework governing domestic military force is defined by the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act, but Trump’s recent actions reveal the ambiguity of these laws and their potential for executive overreach. The Posse Comitatus Act was signed by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1878 in response to the use of the military as law enforcement during Reconstruction following the Civil War. The act prohibits the U.S. military from enforcing domestic law or acting as law enforcement unless explicitly given permission by Congress or through the Constitution. The Insurrection Act allows the President to deploy military forces to act as law enforcement to “suppress insurrection & repel invasions”. While that wording may seem clear & the situation in D.C. fails to meet those requirements, we still see Trump deploy military forces to act as police in our nation’s capital. With a President eager to utilize military forces as law enforcement across U.S. cities, a complicit Congress, & a Supreme Court that continually affirms the expansion of executive power, it is no surprise to see the military used as police in 2 U.S. cities with Trump wishing to do the same in Chicago & New York.
Trump’s federalization of the California National Guard and deployment of Marines to Los Angeles marked a rare and controversial use of military force against civilian protests, sparking immediate legal challenges. In June 2025, Los Angeles became the first major U.S. city where Trump moved beyond threats and fully exercised federal control over state forces. Citing escalating immigration protests and unrest, Trump federalized the California National Guard and deployed about 700 U.S. Marines under Joint Task Force 51, with an additional 2,000 Guard members placed on standby. California officials immediately challenged the move. Governor Gavin Newsom sued in federal court, arguing that Trump’s order violated the Posse Comitatus Act and trampled on state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. A federal judge initially granted a temporary restraining order halting the deployment, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals quickly stayed the decision, allowing the Guard and Marines to remain under federal command while the case proceeded. The episode underscored the unsettled constitutional boundaries around domestic use of the military and deepened partisan divides, with Trump framing the move as decisive leadership while critics warned it amounted to an authoritarian show of force.
In August 2025, Trump declared a “Crime Emergency” under the D.C. Home Rule Act and placed the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control. He ordered roughly 800 National Guard troops into the city and brought in additional units from West Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio, raising the total force to well over a thousand. While the Guard was officially limited to logistics and support, reports soon surfaced that some units were preparing for armed patrols alongside local police. The deployment immediately drew resistance from city leaders, who noted that crime had already been trending downward and argued that federal intervention undermined D.C.’s fragile self-governance. Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, warned that the operation blurred the traditional line between civilian law enforcement and military force. Trump, however, defended the move as proof of his resolve to restore order in Democratic-run cities, and he openly suggested that Chicago and New York could be next.
Taken together, the Los Angeles and D.C. interventions illustrate Trump’s willingness to test constitutional limits, generating fierce opposition from state officials, courts, and civil rights organizations. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom immediately positioned himself as Trump’s foil, challenging the federalization of the National Guard in court and warning that the President had crossed a constitutional line. While the courts initially slowed Trump’s actions, the Ninth Circuit’s decision to stay the lower ruling underscored how fragile the guardrails truly are when judicial deference to executive power is the norm. In Washington, D.C., local leaders voiced similar outrage, but their ability to resist was even more constrained. By invoking the D.C. Home Rule Act, Trump sidestepped local autonomy almost entirely, demonstrating how the nation’s capital provides a unique venue for executive power to be flexed without meaningful checks. Civil liberties groups like the ACLU warned that these deployments set a dangerous precedent for the normalization of military involvement in routine law enforcement, a trend that could spread to other cities. At the same time, Trump’s supporters framed both interventions as proof of his strength and his willingness to do what Democrats could not or would not do: “restore order.” The result is a sharp divide in how Americans interpret the same actions, authoritarian overreach to some, decisive leadership to others, with the courts and political institutions increasingly reluctant or unable to resolve the tension.
The precedent set by Trump’s actions risks normalizing the use of military force as a domestic political tool, threatening the balance between civilian governance and military neutrality. By ordering Guard troops and even active-duty Marines into American cities, Trump has blurred the line between soldiers and police in a way that undermines long-standing democratic norms. The civil-military divide, a crucial pillar of American democracy, depends on the military remaining above partisan politics. Yet, Trump has repeatedly cast deployments in explicitly political terms, presenting them as proof of his ability to impose “law and order” where Democratic officials have failed. If left unchecked, these episodes could serve as ready-made blueprints for future presidents who might see military intervention in civilian affairs not as a last resort, but as an acceptable tool of governance. Each deployment chips away at the assumption that law enforcement is local and civilian-led, replacing it with a model in which federal power is backed by troops in uniform. The danger is not simply Trump’s use of force in 2025, but the possibility that his actions will erode constitutional guardrails and normalize the military’s role in policing American streets.
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center- Understanding Posse Comitatus Act: A good primer on the Posse Comitatus Act & its history.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained - Brennan Center- Understanding Insurrection Act: The Brennan Center explores, explains, & suggests reforms for the Insurrection Act.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained - Trump Threatens Other U.S. Cities with Use of Federal Military Force : CNN covers Trump’s future plans for other cities including Chicago, New York, & L.A.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/12/politics/trump-federalized-dc-crime-home-rule-act-hnk
Immigration Report
USRESIST NEWS presents a special report on Immigration Policy. This report entails the immigration policy briefs by our news team over the last 6 months.
The Downsizing of Student Learning Assessments (Education Policy Brief #208)
Education Policy Brief #208 | Steve Piazza | August 17. 2025
As the Trump Administration carries out its crusade to reduce the size of government, one of the targets has been the Department of Education (DOE). The DOE is made up of a number of agencies and offices that have been severely impacted by these actions, one of which is the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).
The IES, considered the evaluative and statistical arm of the DOE, is charged with, amongst other things, producing and reporting on the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, often referred to as the Nation’s Report Card). This enormous task is performed by one of the four agencies under IES, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
Such reductions have far reaching implications when it comes to assessing the progress of students across the country and in comparison to the rest of the world. More than record keeping, these analyses assist in the development of policy and decisions about funding to states and local education agencies nationwide. Not only that, relevant comparisons help identify disparities so that support finds its way to where it’s needed most.
Not coincidentally, it appears that the NCES missed their deadline for reporting this past year’s results, most likely since their staff of 800 is reportedly now just down to a handful due to the administration’s actions. The DOE says that the reports are going to be handled by another agency, but what has resulted for this round is a vague snapshot rather than an in depth view that is a valuable resource for states.
The effect this might have on student achievement is anyone’s guess, but having such statistics unavailable should be alarming to lawmakers and policy makers as they run head on into the complexity of basing decisions on incomplete data regarding student performance.
Policy Analysis
The extent of the danger in diminishing or eliminating the important work of national data collection on student assessment regarding performance and graduation is best understood in terms of what it does and does not provide.
The NAEP, issued periodically to grades 4, 8 and 12, provides comparative data on how students in the country perform as a whole. For example, the reporting shows that the average 2024 score for all students Grades 4 and 8 in Math have gone up or stayed the same as the previous cycles of testing (2022), while for Reading there’s been a decrease in scores for that time period. All of these are lower than from pre-Covid levels.
Drilling down even more reveals that states may or may not themselves be consistent across grade levels and subject matter. Again, using the most recent reporting year (2024), a state such as Massachusetts leads the country in each grade tested in Math and Reading, whereas Florida is near the top in 4th Grade Reading but is below the national average in the rest of the categories.
It will be interesting to see if these patterns remain the next time the NAEP is administered in 2026. There is already a bit of confusion on the NCES site as it states that Math and Reading assessments for 4th and 8th grade are scheduled for January, 2026, but then it goes on to says it’s also piloting new assessments for 4th, 8th, and 12th in public schools as its updating its testing frameworks. The reason for omitting private schools in the pilot is not provided, but it can only add to degrading the integrity of results.
The tracking of scores around high school graduation is more complicated since less secondary students take the NAEP as it’s voluntary. Still the comparison is available and can offer some insight. It should be noted that IES does not report on graduation exams because states are charged with setting standards and administering all tests, and states may drastically differ. At present, only six states have graduation exit exams: Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia. Massachusetts and New York have eliminated them or are in the process of doing so. Over all, this is a reduction of 18 states since 2013.
On a global scale, the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) provides valuable statistics on how U.S. students stack up against the rest of the world. For example, it can be useful to know the last time the PISA was given (2022), the U.S. showed a ranking of 31st in Math and Reading according to World Population Review.
NCES oversees the U.S. involvement with the PISA. And since each nation has differing approaches to educational governance, negotiating multiple international bureaucracies with deceased personnel is complicated enough. Also, Trump Administration actions cannot be blamed for the past test cycle’s one-year delay due to the pandemic, but after the unsteadiness of the current round of testing (already delayed since it was scheduled for Spring, 2025) and the recent decision to increase the time between future tests from every three years to four, the recent chaos created by the Executive Branch is most likely the cause.
The future of PISA might be unclear, but what is clear is that without it we cannot see if the U.S progresses beyond where it was in 2022. Again, reducing the amount of information available could artificially improve that ranking, but playing the statistics game is not the same as teaching students to progress in their ability to read or solve math problems. It’s vital the country knows that the U.S. has been slipping, and by not having these results it will be hard to measure where it stands.
Overall, whether the IES is in the business of reporting critical aspects of achievement or not, if these comparisons did not exist, or that results were incomplete or tampered down, states might find themselves going it alone and managing funds would become an exercise based on arbitrary decisions that could only lead to grumblings of more political inequities than already exist. Many students could even face an unrealistic understanding of where they rank particularly when they have an eye toward college.
There’s a reason independent agencies like these exist. Simply put, large amounts of useful data are still cumbersome. Neglecting to maintain a reasonable measure of containment via impartial yet scientific analyses makes it meaningless and subject to arbitrary conclusions that only muddle students’ rankings, home and abroad.
We have seen what happens when politics plays into the reduction and manipulation of available data. This should sound an alarm that students may grow up to be adults not even being able to understand how the weakened system has failed them.
Engagement Resources
FairTest provides information on testing best practices and works towards improving the benefits that student assessment may provide.
The Education Commission of the States provides a good overview of student testing here.
The U.S. Government Turns the Other Cheek to Resolving the Israel–Palestinian Conflict (Foreign Policy Brief #215)
Foreign Policy Brief #215 | Inijah Quadri | August 15, 2025
Under the Trump administration, U.S. policy has shifted in tone, language, and substance: Washington has openly embraced Israeli priorities while sidelining Palestinian rights and claims. What had long been presented as a balancing act—security guarantees for Israel paired with a rhetorical commitment to Palestinian statehood—has become a policy that favors one side almost exclusively.
For decades, Washington has treated Israel’s security as a core U.S. interest while promising a path to Palestinian self-determination. That approach rests on a stream of military aid set in a ten-year memorandum, emergency wartime funds and frequent weapons sales, and occasional political dialogue about a cease-fire and a two-state solution. After the war expanded out of Gaza (into Lebanon, Yemen and the West Bank)in late 2023, the United States briefly slowed a shipment of heavy bombs on humanitarian grounds but kept the larger pipeline open and later green-lit additional major packages. U.S. support also includes Israel’s layered air defenses: Congress provided roughly $4 billion in April 2024 to replenish Iron Dome and David’s Sling.
Diplomatically, the United States has leaned on its veto at the United Nations to block texts that demand an immediate, unconditional ceasefire, arguing that any deal must also address hostages and Hamas. A Qatar- and Egypt-brokered truce early this year did lead to hostage–prisoner exchanges, but it collapsed within weeks and the fighting resumed. At the Security Council, any one of the five permanent members can block a “substantive” resolution with a single negative vote; as of June 4, 2025, Washington has used that veto on Israel/Palestine matters roughly 50 times, including ceasefire texts on December 8, 2023; February 20 and November 20, 2024; and June 4, 2025, and a resolution on April 18, 2024 that would have advanced full U.N. membership for the State of Palestine. Since May–June 2024, several European states have recognized Palestine as a state—Spain, Ireland, and Norway on May 28, 2024, and Slovenia on June 4, 2024—while France has announced it will recognize Palestine in September 2025 and the United Kingdom has said it will move to recognize at the September 2025 U.N. General Assembly unless Israel meets conditions (cease-fire, more aid access, no annexation, and a renewed peace process); recognition increases diplomatic standing and typically upgrades missions to embassies but does not confer U.N. membership, which the U.S. vetoed on April 18, 2024.
Washington has also repeatedly convened or brokered negotiations—Madrid/Oslo (1991–1993), Camp David and Taba (2000–2001), Annapolis (2007–2008), and the Kerry talks (2013–2014); under Trump it unveiled the 2020 “Peace to Prosperity” plan and, since October 2023, has engaged in intensive shuttle diplomacy alongside Qatar and Egypt. Biden’s relationship with Netanyahu featured public friction (criticism of settlement expansion, a May 2024 pause on 2,000-lb bombs, and months without a White House invitation during Israel’s 2023 judicial overhaul), whereas Trump aligned closely with Netanyahu’s agenda (embassy move to Jerusalem, recognition of Israeli sovereignty on the Golan, reversal of the settlements legal stance) and in 2025 appointed an ambassador who shares Israel’s far-right rhetoric.
The 2018 relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem effectively recognized Israel’s claim to the city’s undivided capital, prompted closure of the stand-alone U.S. Consulate that handled Palestinian affairs, and led a small set of countries (e.g., Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay) to follow suit—moves Palestinians viewed as prejudging a core final-status issue. The current U.S. Ambassador to Israel is Mike Huckabee, a conservative evangelical and longtime supporter of West Bank settlement expansion; in June 2025 he stated that the United States is no longer pursuing an independent Palestinian state, frequently referring to the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria.”
Beyond Gaza, U.S. policy has tried to curb West Bank violence in fits and starts. The previous administration said settlement expansion conflicts with international law and created a sanctions tool against violent settlers; the current administration scrapped both the tool and the designations. It also revoked a White House memo that had added extra humanitarian-law checks to arms transfers. In parallel, Congress froze U.S. government funding to the U.N. agency that serves Palestinian refugees and has not restored it, forcing aid to move through narrower channels. Trump officials have also announced U.S.–Israel-run food distribution centers in Gaza and backed a “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” to operate limited aid hubs, but with UNRWA still frozen, these ad-hoc channels have delivered uneven coverage and protection for aid workers.
On August 22, 2025, U.N.-backed experts formally confirmed famine in Gaza City, projecting over 640,000 people at IPC Phase 5 (Catastrophe) by late September absent major access improvements; U.N. agencies attribute the crisis to man-made access constraints and have called for unhindered humanitarian access. Despite Israeli announcements easing some restrictions, aid groups reported as recently as August 20, 2025 that key shelter materials still were not being allowed in, underscoring persistent access barriers.
Analysis
US policy towards Israel has not shifted enough toward rights, law, and accountability. Security aid and weapon sales continue without binding, enforceable conditions. A brief pause on the largest bombs did not become a policy of consistent leverage tied to civilian protection, access for aid, and an end to collective punishment. Trump’s repeal of the humanitarian-law memoweakened oversight at the very moment when it was most needed. The same period saw the administration lift sanctions on violent settlers and remove designees, even as U.N. monitors recorded the highest monthly rate of settler attacks injuring Palestinians in at least two decades and repeated community displacements across the West Bank.
At the United Nations, the veto shield narrows nonviolent options and signals to Israeli leaders that there is little cost for rejecting ceasefire language supported by nearly every other member. That posture also sidelines Palestinian rights claims in global forums and delays pressure for a durable political settlement. It also blocked momentum on Palestinian membership, which—paired with clear commitments on security—could have anchored a political horizon instead of another cycle of indefinite “temporary” arrangements. On April 18, 2024, the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution recommending Palestine’s full U.N. membership; as of June 4, 2025, the U.S. also vetoed an immediate, unconditional, and permanent Gaza cease-fire backed by 14 of 15 Council members.
On the West Bank, Trump’s ending of the settler-violence sanctions and removing several names from the Treasury list stripped away one of the only U.S. tools aimed at curbing daily abuses under occupation. It tells perpetrators and the officials who enable them that Washington’s priority is political alignment, not equal protection under the law. Reversing the sanctions also undercuts earlier statements that settlement expansion violates international law.
Humanitarian policy remains piecemeal. With U.N. refugee-agency funding cut off by statute and not restored, needs of people affected by the conflicts in the region have only grown. A rights-first frame would restore and expand funding and pair it with protection for aid workers and civilians across Gaza, the West Bank, and the entire region. That restoration should include not only UNRWA but also robust, unimpeded operating access for neutral aid actors—including U.S. NGOs—so they can move food, fuel, and medical supplies at scale. U.S. funding to UNRWA was suspended in 2024 and remains frozen under U.S. law and subsequent executive action in 2025.
Policies toward a two-state outcome have diverged sharply: Biden reaffirmed two states and re-stated that settlements are “inconsistent with international law,” while Trump’s 2020 plan supported a demilitarized, truncated Palestinian state under extensive Israeli security control. In 2025, his envoy has said Washington is no longer pursuing an independent Palestinian state at all. Meanwhile, Israel’s governing coalition continues to depend on far-right parties led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose positions have shaped war policy; reporting in July–August 2025 highlighted their pressure for maximalist military objectives, and in August the court scheduled intensified testimony in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s long-running bribery, fraud, and breach-of-trust trial (with hearings ordered three times per week from November 2025).
Accountability is also seen to be being pulled in the opposite direction. Trump sanctioned officials at the International Criminal Court over their Israel-related work. A federal judge has recently blocked enforcement of these sanctions, but Trump’s action spotlights a double standard: Washington urges rule-of-law abroad while punishing those who try to apply it to an ally. A consistent, universal approach would support independent investigations, not suppress them. Legally, the “genocide” question is before the International Court of Justice in South Africa v. Israel: the Court has not ruled on the merits but has three times (Jan. 26, Mar. 28, and May 24, 2024) ordered provisional measures—including to prevent acts under the Genocide Convention, enable humanitarian aid, and, on May 24, to halt Israel’s offensive in Rafah—citing the risk to protected rights; U.N. experts have warned of a risk of genocide. Jimmy Carter’s major public critique focused on “apartheid” (2006), not on being the first to accuse genocide.
Cease-fire status as at now: Hamas has said it accepted a mediator-drafted proposal for a 60-day truce with phased hostage-prisoner exchanges and partial Israeli pullouts; Israel has not agreed, with Prime Minister Netanyahu saying talks would resume only “on terms acceptable to Israel” while authorizing operations to seize Gaza City.
The way forward is not mysterious. Make every weapons transfer contingent on verifiable compliance with humanitarian law and real-time access for aid. End the automatic U.N. veto and back an immediate, durable ceasefire tied to equal rights and freedom of movement for Palestinians. Restore UNRWA funding and support Palestinian statehood alongside security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. At the same time, remove administrative barriers so vetted U.S. and international NGOs can scale food, water, health, and shelter operations across Gaza and the West Bank without political interference. Without those shifts, U.S. policy continues to allow the conflict to continue rather than end it, and the human cost mounts.
Taken together, the Trump administration’s record shows a decisive break from prior U.S. rhetoric of “balance.” By embracing Israeli government positions, reversing even modest checks on settlements and arms oversight, and declaring the two-state framework defunct, Washington has signaled that Palestinian rights are not a priority. This shift in tone, policy, and language marks a clear departure from past administrations—and has entrenched rather than resolved the conflict.
Engagement Resources
- OCHA oPt (https://www.ochaopt.org/): The U.N.’s humanitarian coordination hub for Gaza and the West Bank, with situation reports, access analysis, and datasets.
- UNRWA (https://www.unrwa.org/): The U.N. agency delivering education, health care, and relief for Palestine refugees across the region, including Gaza and the West Bank.
- OHCHR — State of Palestine (https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/palestine): The U.N. human rights office monitoring and reporting on violations in the occupied Palestinian territory.
- Congressional Research Service (https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47828): Nonpartisan U.S. briefing on the conflict, U.S. policy, and options for Congress.
- ACRI (https://www.english.acri.org.il): The Association for Civil Rights in Israel, advancing civil and human rights for all under Israeli control.
Suggestions for the Democratic 2026 Mid-Term Platform
The 2026 mid-term elections offer the Democratic party an opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate. However, Democrats face an uphill battle challenged by Trump policies, anti-Democratic rhetoric, internal divisions, and political maneuvers such as re-districting. To address these challenges the Democratics need to articulate a political platform with issues that resonate with voters. While the need in every race is to prioritize concerns of local communities, a set of party-wide policy priorities that can be adapted to fit local needs would be helpful.
It is especially important that these the 2026 Democratic platform advocates policies that affect voters that have recently felt ignored by Democrats; for example, younger voters, workers, and those living in rural areas. This may require taking a more progressive, government intervention left-leaning stance.
The Democrats also need to steer clear of tit-for-tat politics, e.g. trying to reverse all of Trump’s Executive Orders (ignore most of them for the time being) and cast their messages in a positive light.
Here are some suggestions for issues that should be on this platform.
- Lower pocketbook Costs— Including lowering cost of groceries, rent subsidies, low-cost transportation, and health care
- Education Reform — Support the renewed interest in civics but how is it being taught
- Fight against oligarchy and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few; promote tax reform and the overturn of Citizens United.
- Support our allies on foreign policy issues; renew support for Ukraine and put pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza
- Denounce civil rights violations such as ICE raids and political violence and put forward a proposal for immigration reform.
- Increase support for the use of renewable energy and climate friendly policies.
- Support the regulation of information technologies, such as AI and social media.
The Texas and California Re – Districting Fight Explained
Civil Rights Policy Brief #247 | Rodney A. Maggay | August 16, 2025
The ongoing re – districting battle between the States of Texas and California was triggered by a suggestion from President Trump.
At the end of July 2025 President Trump suggested that Texas should re – district (or, redraw) their state congressional map prior to the 2026 general election. Trump’s purpose in suggesting a redraw of the map was to add five more reliably Republican districts in Texas. This would likely give the Texas congressional delegation five additional members of the House of Representatives in Washington. Texas Governor Greg Abbott then called a special session of the Texas State Legislature to consider the issue and issue a new map ahead of the 2026 elections.
Criticism of the plan was immediate. Texas state Democratic lawmakers decided to flee the state after Governor Abbott called a special legislative session for the legislature to draw a new Texas congressional map. Texas Democratic lawmakers left the state in order to deprive the state legislature of a quorum which would have prevented the chamber from taking action on this issue. Members of the media criticized the Texas proposal as a naked power grab that did nothing more than disenfranchise thousands of voters for blatantly partisan reasons. One article did suggest that the reasoning behind Trump’s proposal was to prevent his impeachment again should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives after the 2026 election.
California Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a counter to Texas’ redistricting efforts. Because California is reliably Democratic, Governor Newsom proposed that if Texas decides to proceed with redrawing their state congressional map prior to the 2026 election, then California would do the same and redraw its state congressional map. If Texas proceeded to add five more reliably Republican districts, then California would redraw their map, eliminate districts that have been traditionally Republican and add five reliably Democratic districts. Governor Newsom also said that California’s efforts to redraw their state congressional map would only move forward if Texas went ahead and decided to redraw their state map.
After Texas Democratic state legislators decided to end their self – imposed exile out of Texas and returned to the state, Texas Governor Abbott called a second 30 day legislative special session to consider the re – districting issue. That special legislative session began at noon on August 15th. Just the day before, California Governor Newsom announced the Election Rigging Response Act, a proposed California constitutional amendment that would allow California voters to vote in November whether to adopt changes in re – districting in response to the re – districting efforts going on in Texas. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The effort in Texas to redraw their state congressional map is unusual because of the timing. Historically, states only redrew their maps after the national census. The census is taken every ten years in years ending in zero. After the count is complete and the population of each state is known the number of representatives is apportioned among each state. Each state is guaranteed at least one seat in the House of Representatives and each state is given additional seats the larger their population. The final apportionment of House seats is what each state will have for the remainder of the decade. After ten years the process is repeated again with a new census. A state could see additional House seats or even lose a House seat depending on if the population in their state went up or down since the last census.
What is so unusual is that this redistricting effort is not happening after a national census but is instead happening mid – decade. Texas Republican legislators have been pressed on why they are going forward with re – districting now and they have given no sufficient justification, with one Texas GOP legislator saying simply, “Because we can.” The timing of the effort in Texas is just rife with problems, by disenfranchising current residents and potential new districts that likely discriminate against minority communities.
One positive from the situation in Texas is that it has seen Democratic states fight back and offer a myriad of options to counter the moves going on in Texas. New York has pledged to introduce a state constitutional amendment to allow mid – decade re – districting if Texas proceeds with their efforts. Wisconsin Democratic voters have already filed two lawsuits to try and redraw their state map for 2026. And in Maryland Democratic House Majority leader David Moon has promised to sponsor state legislation to re – district in response to Texas.
But by far the biggest challenge to Texas’ efforts have come from Governor Gavin Newsom and California. The Governor’s statements are no longer ordinary statements or statements devoid of details as to how California will counter efforts in Texas. Because California uses an independent re – districting commission to draw their maps every ten years, the state needed to get creative to allow the state to redraw their map mid – decade. The result is the Election Rigging Response Act. Under this act, California voters would vote in November to emphasize their support for the continued use of independent re – districting commissions to draw maps every ten years. But it would also allow an exception to re – draw prior to the 2026 election only if Texas goes forward with their efforts. The Governor even released a re – drawn California map that would add five more reliably Democratic districts showing what districts would be eliminated and what that would look like. This map even received support from the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC). As Governor Newsom has stated, “They do five seats, we do five seats.”
This situation is ongoing and could likely last through the end of 2025 since some states may have to put the issue to voters in special November elections. But the issue can also be easily resolved if Texas decides to back down, a possibility as some Texas GOP leaders, including Governor Abbott, have been uncomfortable with mid – decade re – districting. The fight continues.
Engagement Resources
National Democratic Re – Districting Committee (NDRC) – group working to promote fair maps and combat gerrymandering.
The Office of California Governor Gavin Newsom – statement from the Governor’s office with statements of support from other California leaders about re – districting.
PBS News – a listing of how other states – Republican and Democrat – are responding to Texas’ mid – decade re – districting efforts.
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.
Duped by Putin for months on end, Trump must now hold the line on Russia (Foreign Policy Brief #212)
Foreign Policy Brief #212 | Nicholas Gordon | August 13, 2025
Trump’s egregious pre-election claim that he could “end the war in a day” between Russia and Ukraine has instead resulted in Russia’s huge surge of attacks on Ukraine and an increasing number of civilian deaths. While Trump often tries to deflect his responsibility for handling this war onto past U.S. presidents, he is now in fact the commander in chief and must take action to support an ally in Ukraine, help prevent further carnage, and demonstrate American democratic mettle vis-a-vis a ruthless dictator in Putin.
Summary
Since President Trump’s inauguration last January, Russia has aggressively amped up its missile and drone attacks across Ukraine, often targeting civilian structures, including hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, and transportation hubs. Throughout these attacks, Trump has vacillated in his support for Ukraine, while kowtowing to Russia with repeatedly empty threats of sanctions. In February, after berating ally Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in an ugly, nationally televised White House meeting that was a disgraceful moment for American democracy, Trump paused U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. Months of failed peace negotiations followed. Meanwhile, Russia continues its relentless assault on Ukraine. An overnight attack on July 30-31 killed at least 31 civilians, five of whom were children, and injured 159 more people. Trump then condemned Russia’s military aggression on Ukraine and pledged to send more weapons to the country. He also reduced his previous 50-day deadline, which was set to expire in September, to 10 days for Russia to agree to a ceasefire or face new sanctions. Needless to say, that 10-day limit evaporated without Trump imposing any sanctions on Russia. Instead, Trump has gifted his buddy the war criminal Putin a face-to-face meeting in Alaska this Friday in a move that many analysts consider a diplomatic coup for Moscow. Enough is enough. A hardline stance from Trump on Russia is long overdue and should have come at the outset of his new administration.
Analysis
During the failed Russia—Ukraine peace negotiations in February and March, Trump was busy heaping praise on Putin in his customary fashion and making dangerously irresponsible false claims about Zelensky being a dictator and Ukraine having started the war. Following a severe Russian attack in April on the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv that killed over 12 people and injured 90, Trump himself finally admitted in a social media post that Putin continues to string him along, with no real intention of ending Russia’s war on the Ukraine. Though Trump’s post was rife with his signature belittling insults—hurled at various professionals and former U.S. Presidents—that do little other than convey Trump’s own insecurity and weakness, the post also showed an uncharacteristic and exceedingly rare self-acknowledgement of Trump’s fallibility in handling this international crisis. But such a hint of accountability on Trump’s part wouldn’t last long. Merely hours after a phone call with Putin in early July that Trump said did not lead to progress, Russia launched its largest number of drones and missiles at Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities since the beginning of the war in February of 2022. As Trump’s frustration with Putin and with his own inability to help bring an end to the war has grown in recent weeks, he has once again reverted to blaming past American presidents for allowing Putin to fool them and absolving himself of any such obtuseness in being ruthlessly duped by Putin for the last six months.
After resuming military aid to Ukraine, Trump told reporters, “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth.” Another part of the truth implicit in that crude statement and which Trump won’t acknowledge is Russia’s embrace of the TACO phenomenon: Trump Always Chickens Out. As the ongoing and intensified Russian attacks on Ukraine’s civilian life continue, the Kremlin is violently and unmistakably demonstrating its dismissiveness of Trump and his threats of sanctions. Why would the Kremlin be worried about Trump’s new threat when he has a well-documented, shameful history of fawning over Putin, and has done nothing to punish or even pressure Russia for its war crimes thus far? Moreover, why would U.S. allies have faith in Trump’s baseless claims of getting tough on Russia when he routinely undermines allies’ trust by flip-flopping on support for Ukraine and making inane statements that have no bearing on reality?
Speaking in Scotland recently alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Trump said that he is “disappointed in President Putin.” Well, the Ukrainian people have been disappointed in Putin’s genocidal attack on their country over the last three and a half years. The American people could be disappointed in a president who wrongly and repeatedly claimed he could stop a war in a day, but which war in reality has gotten tragically worse since he’s taken office. In late July, Trump threatened severe sanctions on Russia, with the possibility of secondary tariffs on countries that trade with Russia. Now, as Trump and Putin are reportedly heading into direct talks without Zelensky present but with Trump already babbling about “land exchanges” and Ukraine ceding territory to Russia, it’s more important than ever that Trump for once stands up to Putin and defends American democratic values, instead of showing pathetic deference to the Russian authoritarian leader over that of U.S. intelligence agencies, as he has done on the world stage in the past. To achieve any meaningful negotiations with the Kremlin in an effort to end the Russian war on Ukraine, Trump must now hold the line on Russia.
Engagement Resources:
- The Institute for the Study of War (ISW)
- A non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization that provides informed analysis of military affairs aimed at “improving the U.S.’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats”
- The Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR)
- Independent non-profit that supports local journalism in conflict zones “to promote human rights, justice, and combat disinformation and to strengthen the flow of credible information, enabling journalists and civil society to inform, educate and mobilize communities”
- The Council on Foreign Relations
- A nonpartisan, nonprofit organization founded in 1921 focused on U.S. foreign policy and international relations.
Peace Prizes and Bombs: The Theater of Trump’s Nobel Pursuit (Foreign Policy Brief #211)
Foreign Policy Brief #211 | Valerie Henderson | August 1, 2025
In the summer of 2025, President Donald Trump became the centerpiece of a surreal global spectacle: a campaign to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lauded Trump for supposedly brokering stability in conflict zones, and Cambodia’s deputy prime minister praised him for his role in a temporary ceasefire with Thailand. The White House eagerly embraced this narrative, touting Trump as a global peacemaker and repeatedly pointing to “six major conflicts” that he allegedly helped resolve.
The irony could not be starker. This wave of praise arrived just days after U.S. forces dropped the largest non-nuclear bombs in history on Iran, claiming to destroy nuclear sites. In the same week, international observers reported new civilian casualties in Gaza and an increase in regional tensions. For many critics, this nomination campaign was less about diplomacy and more about feeding Trump’s ego while providing political cover for authoritarian allies under fire for human rights abuses.
Analysis
The push to paint Trump as a peacemaker follows a familiar script: global leaders deploying flattery as a political currency. Netanyahu’s nomination of Trump comes at a time when he is under intense international scrutiny for alleged war crimes in Gaza and mounting political pressure at home. Publicly aligning Trump with “peace” reframes both leaders in a positive light and distracts from the realities of their policies.
Cambodia’s praise mirrors this transactional diplomacy. Trump recently offered tariff concessions and symbolic recognition in Southeast Asia, a move that coincided with Cambodia’s effusive Nobel recommendation. Such gestures appear more like political theater than a celebration of meaningful, sustained conflict resolution. Historically, anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, and past nominees have included notorious dictators. A nomination itself carries no merit without a demonstrated legacy of peace, which remains absent in Trump’s record.
Meanwhile, the global stage is not convinced. India publicly dismissed Trump’s claim of resolving long-standing tensions with Pakistan. Human rights organizations have condemned his administration for escalating military operations, expanding arms sales to conflict regions, and ignoring civilian harm in U.S.-supported operations. To frame these actions as peacekeeping is to rewrite the reality of ongoing violence.
This is not a story about diplomacy. It is a performance. International leaders are leveraging Trump’s craving for recognition to further their own agendas, from deflecting criticism at home to extracting concessions abroad. For Trump, the spectacle of Nobel nominations is an opportunity to reinforce his image as a world statesman, regardless of the on-the-ground consequences of his foreign policy.
My Opinion
The push to crown Trump a Nobel laureate is a masterclass in political theater and hypocrisy. Peace cannot be declared from a press podium while bombs fall in Iran and civilians in Gaza continue to die. Flattering world leaders and transactional ceasefires do not equate to meaningful diplomacy or justice.
Trump’s willingness to embrace this charade exposes the emptiness of his foreign policy approach. It is rooted in optics, not outcomes. Leaders like Netanyahu and Cambodia’s deputy prime minister are not honoring him as a peacemaker; they are exploiting his vanity for their own survival. Worse, the American public is left watching a dangerous narrative unfold in which mass violence can be rebranded as a path to peace if it earns the right photo op.
Awarding accolades for this behavior does not elevate diplomacy; it diminishes the meaning of peace itself. True statesmanship requires more than symbolic nominations and showy press releases. It requires a commitment to protecting human life, upholding human rights, and addressing the root causes of conflict. None of that is present in this administration’s actions. Instead, this moment stands as a sobering reminder of how global politics can bend toward ego and illusion, leaving real peace further out of reach.
Engagement Resources
- Council on Foreign Relations – Examines the dynamics of transactional diplomacy and executive overreach.
https://www.cfr.org - Human Rights Watch – Middle East Program – Monitors the civilian impacts of U.S. and allied military actions.
https://www.hrw.org/middle-east - Amnesty International – Global Human Rights – Provides ongoing reporting on war crimes and violations tied to foreign policy decisions.
https://www.amnesty.org/en
South Sudan: Oil and Matches (Foreign Policy Brief #210)
Foreign Policy Brief #210 | Damian DeSola | August 8, 2025
South Sudan is the youngest country in the world in terms of its autonomous foundation. Once part of Sudan, it achieved semi-autonomy in 2005 after years of brutal civil war as part of its now northern neighbor. Eventually, under referendum, the people of South Sudan voted for absolute autonomy in 2011, legally breaking away from Sudan.
However, even with this newfound autonomy, the fourteen-year-old country finds itself in the thralls of crisis. Within two years of gaining independence, the country fell to civil war after President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar rallied different parts of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) against each other. While the civil war ended with the 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement (2018 RPA), factionalism remains and is the basis for the reignition of conflict this year.
Economic Crisis
South Sudan finds itself in a difficult economic situation. In 2024, Global Finance ranked the country as the poorest in the world in terms of GDP-PPP. Of its 12.2 million people, about 7.7 million are considered food insecure, 2.3 million children are at risk of malnutrition, and two counties are nearing famine. Exacerbating the existing humanitarian crisis, refugees fleeing from the Sudanese Civil War (2023-present) into South Sudan reached over 1.1 million.
90% of government fiscal revenue is received through its oil industry, leaving the country entirely dependent on oil exports. Without economic diversification, shocks to the oil market can have dramatic consequences for the people of South Sudan. The main transportation for South Sudanese oil for export is through Sudan, and the Sudanese Civil War is causing disruptions. As a direct result of the war, the annual GDP of South Sudan dropped a staggering 27.6% from 2023 to 2024.
However, much of the failure in economic improvement falls on government mismanagement. A lack of government transparency in facilitating oil revenues through the state-owned Nile Petroleum Company display clear signs of internal corruption. The government’s fiscal mismanagement now leaves them stuck attempting to repay international loans, thereby losing trust with lenders and preventing further loans for debt restructuring.
However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a nine-month Staff-Monitored Program (SMP) this past June and is pending approval sometime in August. While not a golden ticket, the program offers South Sudan an opportunity to escape its financial woes in the short-term. As stated by the IMF, “Steadfast implementation of the governance and accountability reform agenda will be critical to addressing the country’s sources of fragility and creating an environment conducive to strong, diversified, and sustained growth and improved living standards. This includes the governance and transparency of oil-related investment programs.”
Escalating Conflict
Over the past three years, organized violence in South Sudan has steadily increased and reached a breaking point this past March. In a UN report, year-on-year violence increased 15%, the leading cause being community-based militias whose total victims were 80% civilian. These tensions were sparked by the arrest of opposition leaders, including President Salva Kiir’s main political and military opponent Vice President Riek Machar for “plotting rebellion”.
The UN also reports that the transitional government skirted requirements of the 2018 RPA by recruiting through the South Sudan People’s Defense Force (SSPDF) instead of training the nonpartisan Necessary Unified Forces (NUF). The NUF shows clear neglect, with only 7% of the planned deployment met as of October 2024. These actions demonstrate the transitional government’s disregard for the balance of power the 2018 RPA attempts to enforce. By ignoring these provisions, the government signals hard-power centralization and distrust of signing partners. Alongside economic turmoil, the course of events turned South Sudan into a powder keg.
Tensions boiled over this past March, as local clashes between government forces and militias turned into massive government airstrikes on opposition bases. Attacks have spread across South Sudan and have caused mass civilian casualties and are forcing displacement. The government is under scrutiny for violating international arms embargo provisions of the 2018 RPA by involving Ugandan forces in the escalating conflict. Amnesty International and the UNare calling for an immediate reimplementation of the arms embargo and the 2018 RPA. Since the deterioration of security conditions in March, the conflict remains ongoing as reported by the International Crisis Group. Clashes between various militias and government forces continue with no sign of potential peace talks.
Finding Elusive Peace
In its earliest years of sovereignty, the nation of South Sudan finds itself struggling to keep itself intact. With economic strife and rising conflict between armed groups, the people of South Sudan seem headed for continued low standards of living. The United Nations deems it absolutely necessary for intervention by international actors and organizations like the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development in preventing another Civil War.
In terms of economics, the IMF claims that, “The short- and medium-term economic outlook is moderately favorable and improving, contingent on a continuously improving security environment and political stability.” As mentioned, the security situation is worsening, but IMF projections still predict a bump in GDP in the coming half-decade. Whether or not this occurs remains to be seen, but one can hope that a confluence of international actors and organizations will aid this fledgling young country away from becoming a failed state.
Engagement Resources