JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Blue States Initiate Legal Pushback After Administration Overturns Endangerment Finding (Environment Policy Brief #190)
Federal climate regulation is at risk as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescinded the 2009 “endangerment finding” on February 12, 2026. The EPA called the engagement finding “the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.” States like California and Wisconsin, as well as several organizations, are preparing for a legal battle that could eventually reach the Supreme Court, which could take years. They argue that the U.S. could be left with far less ability to regulate emissions at a national level.
Dangers lurk as Zeldin repeals EPA’s endangerment finding (Environment Policy Brief #189)
Scientists first suspected a link between greenhouse gases and climate in the mid-19th century. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize in chemistry with calculations in 1897 that linked burning coal to global warming. From that time onwards, scientists took up studying this linkage with better tools, more resources, and coordination.
Trans Athlete Case Faces Uphill Battle in SCOTUS (Social Justice Policy Brief #186)
The Supreme Court is currently debating whether or not trans athletes should be able to compete in girls and women’s sports. SCOTUS is hearing a case challenging state-level laws that ban trans women and girls from competing in sports that align with their gender identity. The current case involves two different arguments involving trans female athletes who were barred from competing on sports teams that align with their gender identity.
JD Vance Blames the Victims (Elections & Politics Policy Brief #203)
Long before Vice President JD Vance shrugged off the killings of American civilians Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis, he had already established his brutal pattern of showing remorselessness for the victims. But with the senseless and savage killings of Good and Pretti, Vance has gone even lower to actively blaming the victims, and pushing baseless claims about them to absolve their killers.
Trump Government Suspends Childcare Funds for Five Democrat-led States (Social Justice Policy Brief #187)
Social Justice Policy Brief #187 | Yelena Korshunov | February 23, 2026 About 170 years ago, Frederick Douglass proclaimed that “it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”Few would argue with the idea that a child growing up in a family in...
The Beijing Summit: Global Capital, Nationalist Rhetoric, and the Future of U.S.–China Coexistence (Foreign Policy Brief #227)
As the global community enters the second quarter of 2026, the geopolitical landscape is dominated by the upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, scheduled for the first week of April in Beijing. This meeting follows a period of extreme volatility in bilateral relations that defined the first year of the second Trump administration. Throughout 2025, the relationship was characterized by a reignited trade war, with the United States imposing aggressive reciprocal tariffs that at times reached triple digits on Chinese imports. These measures were met with targeted Chinese retaliation, including boycotts of American agricultural products and export controls on rare earth minerals. However, a significant turning point occurred in October 2025 during a meeting in Busan, South Korea, where both leaders agreed to a one-year trade truce. This temporary reprieve rolled back the most punitive levies and led to a resumption of Chinese purchases of American soybeans and energy, providing a fragile stability that the April summit seeks to formalize and extend.
A Proposed Billionaire Tax Divides Democrats in California (Health & Gender Policy Brief #185)
A proposed billionaire tax authored by a powerful healthcare workers union could go to the voters in California if the sponsors can collect the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. Even before it has, powerful politicians and tech billionaires are divided, some supporting it, others organizing against it and willing to spend millions to do so.
President Trump’s Odd Proposal to “Nationalize” U.S. Elections (Civil Rights Policy Brief #250)
On February 2, 2026 President Donald Trump stated in a podcast interview that Republicans in a number of states should take over elections in their states in order to protect the political party. He then added that elections in the United States should be “nationalized” and run by the Federal Government rather than the current setup where elections are run by individual states.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Indiana (Brief #12)
Indiana can be considered a relatively safe Republican stronghold. Both the senators from the state are Republicans, and only 2 of the 9 representatives are Democrats. This year, neither Senator Todd Young nor Senator Jim Banks are up for election, but the house is a different story. All nine seats are up for grabs in theory, although most seats are drawn in a way that all but ensures the current party makeup from changing. That didn’t stop President Donald Trump from trying, however, as late last year he urged the state of Indiana to redraw its congressional districts to unseat incumbent Democrats Frank Mrvan of the 1st district and André Carson of the 7th district. Despite a Republican-supermajority in the Senate, a Trump vow to primary Republican holdouts, and anonymous bomb threats, the measure failed and the maps remained unchanged.
Dangers lurk as Zeldin repeals EPA’s endangerment finding (Environment Policy Brief #189)
Environment Policy Brief #189 | Todd J. Broadman | February 25, 2026
POLICY
Scientists first suspected a link between greenhouse gases and climate in the mid-19th century. Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize in chemistry with calculations in 1897 that linked burning coal to global warming. From that time onwards, scientists took up studying this linkage with better tools, more resources, and coordination.
Building on more than a century of research, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) arrived at a formal conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. While this is also the conclusion of countless international bodies, the EPA is authorized by Congress to focus its resources on impacts within U.S. borders. In 2009, the EPA issued what is known as the “endangerment finding.” That finding says that greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels harms the U.S. public. Specifically, under the U.S. Clean Air Act, Congress legally obligates the EPA to act when public health and welfare is endangered.
In the face of this scientific research and these conclusions, on February 12, 2026, E.P.A. Administrator Lee Zeldin, officially overturned the endangerment finding, boasting that this action is the “single largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.”
Even as the EPA, as a whole, has supported the endangerment finding and has implemented rules in line with the finding over the last 17 years, Lee Zeldin and his appointed lieutenants at the EPA, have their own political agenda to follow. The EPA’s rules have included the regulation of pollutants, for example, from light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. With the stroke of Zeldin’s pen, the EPA now has no legal basis to enforce those rules.
A lawsuit contesting the ruling have already been filed. It is expected the decision that follows will make its way to the Supreme Court who will rule on this EPA decision. If the Court upholds Zeldin’s decision to remove the endangerment finding, then the EPA will no longer have legal grounds to create and enforce rules that regulate greenhouse gases. Congress would then have to act and establish laws that would resemble the rules that the EPA are now enforcing, in effect legislating U.S. climate policy.
Should the Court uphold the EPA repeal, the EPA will continue to regulate pollutants other than greenhouse gases such as ozone, and the very dangerous nitrous oxide which is a by-product of chemical manufacturing. Even so, coal-fired and natural gas power plants, as well as virtually all combustion engine vehicle exhaust – the primary contributors to global climate change – will be outside of their legal jurisdiction to regulate.
Among Zeldin’s key influencers, there is Stephen Miller who once led American First Legal and as an Advisory Board member of the Heritage Foundation who published Project 2025. Over one-half of Trump’s Executive Orders have been lifted directly from Project 2025. As AP reporter Matthew Daly confirms, “The directive to reconsider the endangerment finding and other EPA rules was a recommendation of Project 2025.” Overhauling greenhouse gas claims and associated social costs also come from the same playbook. Since Zeldin walked into his EPA office, he has overseen the reduction of approximately 4000 staff and has an explicit 65% budget reduction goal.
Gina McCarthy, who headed Climate Policy under President Joe Biden, said of Zeldin’s repeal of the endangerment finding: it was “the most disastrous day in EPA history.” EPA must now take on the reluctant task of airbrushing its website of statements like “Greenhouse gas emissions have increased the greenhouse effect and caused the earth’s surface temperature to rise. Burning fossil fuels changes the climate more than any other human activity.” As one insider remarked, whereas “earlier rollbacks of individual rules were like removing plates, forks, and glasses one by one, repealing the endangerment finding is more like gathering the tablecloth and carting everything away in one go.”
ANALYSIS
This decision to repeal the endangerment finding is in line with the administration’s contention that the collective science behind global warming is a hoax. Similarly, Trump used the term “green new scam” to describe funding for clean energy and infrastructure under Biden. 8 billion in clean technologies grants under the Inflation Reduction Act have already been cancelled. (This action is under litigation). The tax code has even been modified to limit clean energy tax credits. What this means is that all bets have been placed on short term economic gains derived from fossil fuel production.
This policy sets the U.S. apart from the number one contributor to greenhouse gas emissions: China. Even though China still relies heavily on coal to power its electric grid, their policies going forward recognize global warming science and support their investments in clean technologies. Their three-year action plan to double the capacity of electric vehicle charging stations will extend their vehicle charging network to 28 million stations by 2027. While currently 10% of China’s cars on the road are EV, beginning in 2025 50% of all their new car sales are EV. This is in sharp contrast to the U.S. where EV sales are down to under 6% of total car sales. Mostly due to the removal of EV tax incentives and policies that incentivize gas guzzling alternatives.
Essentially, the Trump administration has decided to turn its back on nearly two decades of scientific evidence in support of the endangerment finding. Brian Lynk, with the Environmental Law & Policy Center, highlights the contradiction, stating that “the [EPA] agency cannot credibly claim that the body of work is now incorrect.” Georges Benjamin, who heads the American Public Health Association goes further: “This repeal has no basis in law, science or reality, and human health is at extreme risk.” EPA Administrator Zeldin’s response? “This is the only way that they [the administration] can drive a stake through the heart of climate religion.”
A lawsuit has been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit arguing that the endangerment finding repeal is illegal. The lawsuit cites the Massachusetts v. EPA case of 1999. In that case, Massachusetts (and other states) had petitioned the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. The EPA had refused citing that they lacked statutory authority. In a 5-4 decision, the Court said the EPA does have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as air pollutants under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. If the Supreme Court does take up this latest challenge, there will be arguments (from the EPA) challenging the EPA’s authority to “issue a scientific determination” on greenhouse gases.
USResist Resources:
- https://salatainstitute.harvard.edu/ Harvard’s Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability develops and advances durable, effective, and equitable solutions to the climate change challenges confronting humanity.
- https://legal-planet.org/ fills a unique space by bridging the worlds of law and policy, but also by translating the latest developments in a way that’s understandable to a mass audience.
- https://www.ncelenviro.org/ empowers a nonpartisan network of legislative champions to protect, conserve, and improve the natural and human environment.
Trans Athlete Case Faces Uphill Battle in SCOTUS (Social Justice Policy Brief #186)
Social Justice Policy Brief #186 | Katie Lever | February 19, 2026
Context: The Supreme Court is currently debating whether or not trans athletes should be able to compete in girls and women’s sports. SCOTUS is hearing a case challenging state-level laws that ban trans women and girls from competing in sports that align with their gender identity. The current case involves two different arguments involving trans female athletes who were barred from competing on sports teams that align with their gender identity.
The two cases raise debates about whether or not trans women athletes have biological advantages over cisgender female athletes. Much of the debate centers around the differences between male and female puberty and how it impacts athleticism long after one’s teenage years, as well as differences in bone density, muscle mass, and lung capacity among cisgender male and cisgender female athletes.
However, trans athletes have been competing in women’s sports at both the collegiate and professional level for decades and have more or less, been middle-of-the-pack athletes. Take Fallon Fox, the MMA fighter who never won a major fight in the women’s category. Natalie Fahey, a former swimmer who competed for Southern Illinois University, began transitioning during her collegiate career, and, in the middle of her transition, still only edged her female counterparts while competing as an exhibition swimmer. Similarly, Juniper Eastwood, a former distance runner for Montana University, saw a similar trajectory. Although she won a conference title in the 1,500m in the women’s category, her 3,000m, 5,000m, and 6,000m times all dramatically decreased, edging her out of even placing at meets.
There’s also Lia Thomas, the Penn swimmer who won a national championship in 2022. However, Thomas also placed fifth in other events, tying with cisgender athlete Riley Gaines, who has used her loss to become a political pundit in the aftermath of her collegiate career. Johanna Harper, a masters runner who competed in the women’s category as a trans athlete, and who now studies trans biology, also noted that her times didn’t improve dramatically as was once predicted, and that, upon looking at the USATF age-grading tables, realized “that I was just as competitive as a 48-year-old woman as I had been as a 46-year-old man.” The British Journal of Sports Medicine, which Harper contributes to, has also published several studies challenging or disputing hormonal advantages of transwomen in women’s sports, and suggests that longer periods between the start of hormone replacement and return to athletic competition in women’s sports to ensure that testosterone-related advantages are mitigated.
So, in spite of common belief and sexist messaging, there is compelling evidence to overturn state bans on trans participation in women and girls sports.The policy implications will likely complicate the outcome of the current SCOTUS case.
Policy Analysis:
Title IX was a groundbreaking legislation that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at federally-funded educational institutions. The majority of high schools and colleges in the United States. Athletic programs fall under Title IX because they are also recipients of federal funding and are seen as extensions of their overarching educational programs.
Title IX is a fairly straightforward law, but the verbiage used in it raises some questions about the extent of its coverage. Particularly, the word “sex” as used in Title IX clashes with its application in other areas of law. For instance, Title VII, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace, uses the term “sex” differently than in Title IX. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court ruled that in the workplace, the term “sex” also applies to sexual orientation, which extends more protections to LGBTQ individuals beyond just sex assigned at birth. Past Democratic administrations have treated “sex” as broader, but its broader definition is only legally codified in Title VII.
The term “sex,” as it is used under the Trump administration, is related to biology only, and keeping “men” out of women’s sports has been a huge selling point of the Trump administration. Under a conservative-majority Supreme Court, it is likely to stay that way. The shifting legal interpretation of the term “sex” combined with a lopsided SCOTUS, almost guarantees that trans rights in sport will face an uphill battle moving forward.
JD Vance Blames the Victims (Elections & Politics Policy Brief #203)
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #203 | Nicholas Gordon | February 19, 2026
Summary
Long before Vice President JD Vance shrugged off the killings of American civilians Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minneapolis, he had already established his brutal pattern of showing remorselessness for the victims. But with the senseless and savage killings of Good and Pretti, Vance has gone even lower to actively blaming the victims, and pushing baseless claims about them to absolve their killers.
The profoundly uncharismatic vice president faces a much graver problem in his political future than his lack of personal appeal: Vance’s on-the-record support for the men who kill vulnerable American civilians will never go away.
Analysis
Vance warms to vigilante killers of protesters and a homeless man
In 2021, Vance defended Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year old who shot and killed two protesters and wounded a third during the city’s Black Lives Matter protests, in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In an interview with Newsmax, Vance said that Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of all charges, “made good decisions and decided to be a positive force in his community.” Vance’s fondness for the killer disgusted many on the left who viewed his comments as dangerously inflaming racial bias and encouraging vigilante violence and white supremacy.
At the same time, Vance’s stance delighted many on the right, who see Rittenhouse as a symbol of white self-defense and gun rights. Some conservatives, however, saw the danger of championing a teenage killer. But regardless of one’s view of the verdict, the fact remains that Vance described Rittenhouse’s killings as an example of “manly virtue,” while offering no words of support for the Americans who were killed
In 2024, Vance’s support for vigilante killers continued with Daniel Penny, a 24-year old Marine veteran who choked an unarmed homeless man named Jordan Neely to death on the New York subway. While Neely had become agitated on the train, witnesses said that Penny went too far, stating that they feared he would kill Neely. After a video of Penny fatally choking Neely for five minutes emerged, Penny was charged by the Manhattan district attorney’s office with manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. When Penny was acquitted of homicide charges, Vance invited him to the Army-Navy football game, providing him with a spot in Trump’s suite. Vance wrote on X, “Daniel’s a good guy, and New York’s mob district attorney tried to ruin his life for having a backbone. I’m grateful he accepted my invitation and hope he’s able to have fun and appreciate how much his fellow citizens admire his courage.”
Again, Vance showed no sympathy for the man who died.
Vance blames the Victims, while hiding behind false assertions
In the immediate aftermath of the killing of Renée Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross, Vance rushed to blame the victim while absolving the ICE agent. Vance claimed that Ross had “absolute immunity” from prosecution and deserved a “debt of gratitude” from the public, before a legal investigation of the case had been conducted. Rather than showing any semblance of compassion for the victim, Good, or for her grieving family, Vance, along with numerous Republican leaders, called her a “domestic terrorist” and a “deranged leftist” who was murdered in “a tragedy of her own making.” Yet, the fatal shooting of Good—a 37-year-old mother of three and an accomplished poet who was last seen smiling in her SUV and saying “I’m not mad at you dude.” to the ICE agent—sparked peaceful protests, candlelight vigils, and an outpouring of grief and anger across the United States.
Just 17 days later, Alex Pretti was killed by two federal agents identified as Jesus Ochoa and Raymundo Gutierrez who fired ten shots at Pretti while he was kneeling on the ground. Again Vance refused to express sympathy for the victim, refusing to apologize for the wrongful killing of Pretti by federal agents. But Vance went further: he reposted false allegations on X made by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, labeling Pretti as “an assassin” who “tried to murder federal agents.”
Instead of acknowledging that the agents who killed Pretti should be investigated, Vance amplified false claims that Pretti showed up with “ill intent” at a protest beforehand. When questioned about pushing the inaccuracies, the reptilian Vance, in his craven parroting of the president, doubled-down rather than showing any accountability, attacking the press for reporting factual accounts of the tragedy.
A never-Trumper caves to racism and hate-mongering
Contradictory facts rarely constrain the Trump administration from asserting their cynical, false narratives. American lives lost on American soil under deeply questionable circumstances scarcely warrant nuanced analysis from Trump and his sycophants. But then, while Trump may very well lack the mental and emotional tools for an empathetic analysis—as psychologist Dan P. Mcadams has observed, Trump is “incapable of describing an inner psychological life or of identifying traces of reflection, emotional nuance, doubt or fallibility.”—what makes Vance worse is that he might have the tools for empathy, but refuses to use them. Before his descent into the bowels of MAGA’s racist extremism, Vance wrote a reflective memoir on his impoverished upbringing, and once compared Trump to Hitler.
Polls show Americans feel strongly that Trump has gone too far with his immigration policies. Yet as Trump continues his unilateral federal intervention in American cities, stoking fear, tension, and confusion among American citizens, the next tragedy is not hard to imagine. It’s unknown when or where it might occur, but one thing is certain: JD Vance, the likely MAGA heir and Republican presidential nominee in 2028, will champion the killer, not the vulnerable American citizen who is the victim. Voters should hold him accountable for that.
Trump Government Suspends Childcare Funds for Five Democrat-led States (Social Justice Policy Brief #187)
Social Justice Policy Brief #187 | Yelena Korshunov | February 23, 2026
About 170 years ago, Frederick Douglass proclaimed that “it is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”Few would argue with the idea that a child growing up in a family in financial need requires additional support to become a strong, healthy, and happy adult.
However, on Tuesday, January 6, the Trump administration decided to withhold funding for programs that support low-income families with children in five Democratic-led states—California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York—citing concerns about fraud. No specific details or evidence regarding the alleged fraud were provided.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which regulates and funds the programs, stated that it had “identified concerns that these benefits intended for American citizens and lawful residents may have been improperly provided to individuals who are not eligible under federal law.” As a result, HHS announced it would complicate access to funding by requiring the affected states to submit additional documentation before receiving funds.
HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill said that “families who rely on child care and family assistance programs deserve confidence that these resources are used lawfully and for their intended purpose.”
According to Reuters, the withheld funds include $7.3 billion from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides cash assistance to low-income families with children, and nearly $2.4 billion from the Child Care and Development Fund, which helps make child care more affordable for working parents. HHS also froze the five states’ access to $869 million in Social Services Block Grant funding. All three programs are overseen by the Administration for Children and Families, an agency within HHS.
The New York Post reported that these programs serve as lifelines for some of the neediest Americans:
- The Child Care and Development Fund subsidizes daycare for low-income households, enabling parents to work or attend school.
- TANF provides cash assistance and job training, helping families afford necessities such as diapers and clothing while supporting employment.
- The Social Services Block Grant, though smaller, funds a range of essential social service programs.
“These resources support families in need and help them access food and much more. If true, it would be awful to see the federal government targeting the neediest families and children this way,” said a spokesperson for the Colorado governor’s office.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul strongly condemned the decision. “We’ll fight this with every fiber of our being, because our kids should not be political pawns in a fight that Donald Trump seems to have with blue-state governors,” she said.
On January 8, Governor Hochul announced an unprecedented investment aimed at delivering affordable, universal child care for children under five across New York State. The initiative includes a partnership with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani to provide free child care for two-year-olds in the city, as well as expanded funding to strengthen the existing free 3-K and Pre-K programs for all families, regardless of income. “$110 million in new capital funding to open hundreds of new childcare centers. Now all of this groundwork was important, it’s still important. But when I announced we’re going to begin on a path to universal childcare I said, ‘This has to go first’ … And today we’re turning that foundation into a concrete, multi-year roadmap that’ll ultimately deliver universal childcare for every single New York family statewide regardless of their income. Every child will have the same opportunity. We get the same head start. And no working parent will have to sacrifice their paycheck and career to make sure their babies and toddlers have an opportunity to grow and thrive,” stated Hochul.
All five affected states jointly sued the Trump administration, challenging the decision to withhold funding. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan. Since then, HHS didn’t comment on the case. When the Illinois attorney general sued the Trump administration over the freezing of $1 billion in child care funding for the state, he said the action was taken without any substantive accusations or evidence of fraud. He also accused the administration of making unreasonable and burdensome demands for documentation, arguing that the requirements disproportionately targeted Democratic-led states. A temporary restraining order issued by Judge Arun Subramanian of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is set to expire on January 23. The parties are now preparing to argue in court that the administration’s decision to freeze the funds was unlawful and that its demand for years’ worth of documentation as a condition for releasing the money is unreasonable and politically motivated.
On Friday, February 6th, Judge Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a longer-term injunction for the duration of the lawsuit. Following the federal court decision, the anti-poverty funds will continue flowing to five states targeted by the Trump administration. However, the uncertainty over funding for vital programs — including subsidized child care and child welfare systems — still remains as the court case continues.
Engagement resources
US suspends funds for needy families in five Democratic-led states ,https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/07/trump-childcare-family-assistance-suspension
Five states sue over Trump freezing $10 billion in childcare, family assistance funds
Governor Hochul Announces Investments to Deliver Universal Child Care for New
Federal Judge Allows Lifeline Benefits to Continue in States Targeted by Trump, Granting Low-income Families Reprieve, https://imprintnews.org/top-stories/federal-judge-allows-lifeline-benefits-to-continue-in-states-targeted-by-trump-granting-low-income-families-reprieve/270817
The Beijing Summit: Global Capital, Nationalist Rhetoric, and the Future of U.S.–China Coexistence (Foreign Policy Brief #227)
Foreign Policy Brief #227 | Inijah Quadri | February 15, 2026
Policy Issue Summary
As the global community enters the second quarter of 2026, the geopolitical landscape is dominated by the upcoming summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping, scheduled for the first week of April in Beijing. This meeting follows a period of extreme volatility in bilateral relations that defined the first year of the second Trump administration. Throughout 2025, the relationship was characterized by a reignited trade war, with the United States imposing aggressive reciprocal tariffs that at times reached triple digits on Chinese imports. These measures were met with targeted Chinese retaliation, including boycotts of American agricultural products and export controls on rare earth minerals. However, a significant turning point occurred in October 2025 during a meeting in Busan, South Korea, where both leaders agreed to a one-year trade truce. This temporary reprieve rolled back the most punitive levies and led to a resumption of Chinese purchases of American soybeans and energy, providing a fragile stability that the April summit seeks to formalize and extend.
The policy framework currently guiding Washington has shifted away from the “Great Power Competition” narrative that dominated the previous decade. The 2025 National Security Strategy instead prioritizes “reciprocal” economic and technological competition. While the rhetoric of an ideological crusade has been tempered in favor of transactional deal-making, the underlying tensions remain acute. The U.S. continues to pressure Taiwan to increase its defense spending to unprecedented levels, while simultaneously navigating complex negotiations over artificial intelligence and semiconductor supply chains. For Beijing, the April talks represent an opportunity to project its role as a stabilizing force in a turbulent world, contrasting its “community with a shared future” with what it characterizes as the chaotic protectionism of the American hegemon. The stakes of the meeting involve not only the extension of the trade truce but also the potential for a new “G2” era where the two superpowers manage the global order through direct, elite-level bargaining.
Analysis
From a structural perspective, the upcoming Beijing summit serves as a theater for the reconciliation of nationalist capital interests rather than a genuine effort toward global peace or labor solidarity. The “trade war” and the subsequent “truce” are mechanisms through which the ruling elites of both nations attempt to manage the inherent contradictions of globalized capitalism. For the Trump administration, tariffs are less about protecting domestic workers—who continue to face the brunt of inflationary pressures—and more about asserting leverage to extract concessions that benefit specific sectors of American industry. This transactional approach treats geopolitical flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea as chips on a poker table, demonstrating a disregard for the self-determination of local populations in favor of high-level strategic alignment. The demand for Taiwan to allocate ten percent of its GDP to defense is a stark example of how militarism is weaponized to fuel the American military-industrial complex under the guise of security.
Beijing’s participation in this rapprochement is equally calculated. President Xi’s emphasis on “common development” and “mutual respect” masks the reality of a state-capitalist system that is struggling with its own internal economic contradictions, including a cooling property market and demographic shifts. By positioning China as the “anchor of stability,” the CCP aims to exploit the perceived decline of American institutional capacity and the fraying of traditional Western alliances. The move to reduce export rebates on solar panels and batteries earlier this year suggests that China is willing to use its dominance in green technology as a tool of economic coercion, mirroring the very protectionism it critiques in Washington. The summit is likely to result in a “soft landing” that preserves the profits of multinational corporations and state-owned enterprises, while the working classes in both the U.S. and China remain vulnerable to the whims of executive orders and automated supply chain shifts.
The focus on technological competition, particularly in the realm of AI and semiconductors, reveals the true frontline of 21st-century imperialism. The U.S. efforts to restrict Chinese access to advanced chips, while simultaneously enticing Taiwanese semiconductor giants to invest hundreds of billions in Arizona, represent a desperate attempt to maintain technological hegemony. This creates a fragmented global digital order where technology is used for surveillance and control rather than the collective benefit of humanity. The April talks will likely avoid addressing the root causes of global inequality or the climate catastrophe, focusing instead on market access and intellectual property protections that serve the interests of the billionaire class. Without a fundamental shift toward internationalism that prioritizes the needs of the global majority over the strategic vanity of two competing empires, the Beijing summit will most likely remain a temporary patch on a deeply fractured and exploitative global system.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research (https://thetricontinental.org/): An inter-institutional body that promotes critical thinking and provides analysis from the perspective of the Global South on imperialism and economic sovereignty.
Qiao Collective (https://www.qiaocollective.com/): A diaspora Chinese media collective challenging the “New Cold War” and providing leftist critiques of U.S. interventionism in Asia.
Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) (https://ips-dc.org/): A progressive think tank that offers deep analysis on global inequality, militarism, and the need for a more just U.S. foreign policy.
Monthly Review (https://monthlyreview.org/): An independent socialist magazine that provides long-form Marxist analysis of global political economy and the contradictions of modern capitalism.
CodePink: Women for Peace (https://www.codepink.org/): A grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end U.S.-funded wars and occupations and promote diplomacy over militarism.
Labor Notes (https://labornotes.org/): A media and organizing project that focuses on cross-border labor solidarity and the impact of trade policies on working people globally.
A Proposed Billionaire Tax Divides Democrats in California (Health & Gender Policy Brief #185)
Health & Gender Policy Brief #185 | Mindy Spatt | February 13, 2026
Summary
A proposed billionaire tax authored by a powerful healthcare workers union could go to the voters in California if the sponsors can collect the requisite number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. Even before it has, powerful politicians and tech billionaires are divided, some supporting it, others organizing against it and willing to spend millions to do so.
Analysis
Silicon Valley’s ultrawealthy tech billionaires are in a frenzy over how to protect their assets from a proposed California ballot measure that would tax their billions, some even pulling up stakes and moving to states they perceive as friendlier to the outrageously wealthy. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, a union representing more than 120,000 healthcare workers, is advocating for a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued over $1 billion, including businesses, securities, art, collectibles, and intellectual property.
The tax would mostly go toward making up the shortfall in the state’s healthcare budget caused by Trump’s cuts in funding for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies. Ten percent would be allocated to public K-14 education and food assistance programs.
An estimated 240 billionaires live in the Golden State, more than in any other state. Their number has grown recently due to the booming AI industry centered in the Bay Area. Their combined wealth is reportedly $2.1 trillion. That is almost as much as the combined wealth of all 54 countries in Africa, although the continent holds 30% of the world’s mineral resources needed for the electronics that drive billionaire wealth, it only nets 10% of the wealth it generates. Potential tax bills if the initiative goes into effect range from less than $50 million all the way to $13 billion.
The tax is dividing democrats in California, especially its two likely presidential contenders. Congressman Ro Khanna, whose district includes Silicon Valley, where many tech billionaires are based, is a progressive democrat who has already come out in favor of the one-time tax. Governor Gavin Newsom, whose national ambitions are well known, as are his deep ties to the tech industry, strongly opposes the tax, saying it would result in billionaires leaving the state and loss of tax revenues.
According to California’s Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance, the impact of the initiative, should it be voted into law, would be a “temporary increase in state revenues” that “probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years. There also would be an ongoing decrease in state income tax revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars or more per year.”
Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page have reportedly purchased homes outside of California and have also donated millions to efforts to kill the proposal, along with investors Peter Thiel, Ron Conway, David Sacks, and others. A newly formed political action committee called Building a Better California will deploy funds to back anti-proposal candidates and other initiatives across the state. The group, which has 501(c)(4) nonprofit status, has already raised $35 million, led by a $20 million donation from Brin.
Proponents of the billionaire tax insist that the fear of “ultra-wealth flight” is unfounded, pointing to studies showing continued wealth growth in Massachusetts and Washington state after they raised taxes on high earners. And not all billionaires are opposed. NVIDIA’s Jensen Huang, who lives in the Bay Area, told Bloomberg TV. “I’m perfectly fine with it.” And SEIU has picked up support from the influential Teamsters union. Still getting the initiative to the ballot will be a struggle with the states’ wealthiest and most powerful forces uniting against it.
Engagement Resources
California Billionaire Tax Act, SEIU-UHW, https://www.seiu-uhw.org/ca-billionaire-tax-act
California’s 2026 Wealth Tax Fight: Who Supports And Who Opposes The Ballot Measures, John Mulholland, Jan. 27, 2026,
https://pro.stateaffairs.com/ca/taxes/californias-tax-revenue-soars-fueled-by-booming-tech-industry
President Trump’s Odd Proposal to “Nationalize” U.S. Elections (Civil Rights Policy Brief #250)
Civil Rights Policy Brief #250 | Rod Maggay | February 13, 2026
Policy Summary: On February 2, 2026 President Donald Trump stated in a podcast interview that Republicans in a number of states should take over elections in their states in order to protect the political party. He then added that elections in the United States should be “nationalized” and run by the Federal Government rather than the current setup where elections are run by individual states.
The United States Constitution provides in Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations[.]
After President Trump’s proposal to “nationalize” elections, a number of officials from both sides of the aisle came forward to disagree with the President’s proposal. Ohio State House Speaker Matt Huffman, a Republican, was clear in that he disagreed with the President and said that Ohio has done well in running elections in their state. Another Republican, U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune from South Dakota did not approve of the proposal, calling it a “constitutional issue.” Democrats were nearly united in their opposition. All twenty – four (24) Democratic governors released a joint statement where they condemned the President’s call to “nationalize” elections and characterized the President’s comments as an open call to rig future elections. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer released a statement on social media stating that the U.S. has a “long, proud history” of decentralized federal elections and that because of this “America remains the longest running representative democracy in the world.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Donald Trump’s suggestion to nationalize elections in the United States goes against what the U.S. Constitution provides. Based on the text of Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1 the Constitution places the power to conduct elections – the times, places and manner of holding elections – clearly with each individual states. The clause even points out that this power applies to the elections of each state’s Senators and Representatives. The times, places and manner clause is directed to the details of running an election that a state legislature must decide – the hours a poll will be open for on election day and the places where polls will be set up in for the day such as local schools, local homes and apartment complexes and fire stations.
States also are entrusted with other details such as the number of poll workers at each poll location, how received ballots will be transported and how ballots will be tallied once received. Because there are so many small details in having an election, it does not seem practical to have the Federal Government be the one to issue regulations that would apply to every state and the thousands of counties that comprise the country. Situations in Hawaii could differ from Nebraska and from Florida. It would seem more prudent to follow the command of the Constitution where each state is in charge of the “times, places and manner” of having elections so as to have people who are more familiar with the county decide what is best since they are the ones who live and work in the county.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune was correct when he framed his disagreement with the President over this issue as a “constitutional issue.” Control over how elections are conducted are set out in the Constitution explicitly, and have worked remarkably well for almost two hundred fifty (250) years and so for the President to try to change it is a proposal that is not needed at this time.
That begs the question as to why the President is offering this proposal. His comments on the podcast show clearly that the President wants to make these changes because of his desire to protect the Republican Party. If the President’s motivation to try and contradict the Constitution is for partisan reasons than his proposal should be rejected outright. The Constitution is a document that serves all Americans regardless of their political beliefs audit should not be changed to give one political party an advantage over another but this is what President Trump wants. It was refreshing to see Republicans finally stand up to Trump on this issue as state Republican leaders and national Republican leaders pushed back on what they clearly saw as a foolish attempt by this President to meddle with how elections are run. Especially when it is well known that the President still holds a grudge on not winning the popular vote in 2016 and losing the election in 2020.
At its worst, his proposal does seem to be an attempt to set up a situation where elections could be more easily rigged if elections are no longer de – centralized to each state as is the current situation. Some reports have suggested that having all fifty (50) states in control of elections makes it harder to hack into fifty different election systems which is why Mr. Trump would prefer elections fully controlled by the Federal Government. But with bipartisan opposition to Mr. Trump’s nationalized elections proposal, there is at least some pushback to Mr. Trump making his proposal seem like a long shot for the moment. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Common Cause – non – profit group’s review of Republicans who have made statements opposing President Trump’s plan to nationalize elections.
NPR – National Public Radio’s interview with David Becker of Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) on Trump’s statement to nationalize elections.
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Indiana (Brief #12)
2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series: Indiana | Nate Iglehart | 2/5/2026
Indiana can be considered a relatively safe Republican stronghold. Both the senators from the state are Republicans, and only 2 of the 9 representatives are Democrats. This year, neither Senator Todd Young nor Senator Jim Banks are up for election, but the house is a different story. All nine seats are up for grabs in theory, although most seats are drawn in a way that all but ensures the current party makeup from changing. That didn’t stop President Donald Trump from trying, however, as late last year he urged the state of Indiana to redraw its congressional districts to unseat incumbent Democrats Frank Mrvan of the 1st district and André Carson of the 7th district. Despite a Republican-supermajority in the Senate, a Trump vow to primary Republican holdouts, and anonymous bomb threats, the measure failed and the maps remained unchanged.
The state has fared pretty well over the past few years. It boasts a relatively low cost of living and a low cost of doing business, as well as having a low state-level amount of debt. However, it has ranked increasingly poorly in areas such as net migration, public health, and environmental safety. Those latter two issues have generally played slightly better for Democrats, but even then, most districts outside of the 1st and 7th lean red by hefty margins. That being said, if the special election in Texas was indeed a canary in the coal mine, there are a couple of districts that could be up for grabs. The primary elections will take place on May 5, 2026, with the general elections on November 3.
For starters, those 1st and 7th will more than likely remain safe Democrat seats, with Mrvan and Carson both popular, well funded, and in blue districts. While the Cook Political; Report places all seven Republican districts as safely Red, I think that the race in the 5th district, represented by Republican Victoria Spartz since 2021, is a flippable seat. The district is only +8 for Republicans, and while the funding gap is sizable, funding alone may not save a candidate with only one term under her belt and a blue wave looking increasingly likely. Out of the 9 races, these are the names to look out for:
- District 1: Frank Mrvan
- District 2: Jamie Decio
- District 3: Phil Goss and Kelly Thompson
- District 4: Drew Cox
- District 5: Jackson Franklin and Deborah Pickett
- District 6: Cinde Wirth and Raymond Alt
- District 7: André Carson and George Hornedo
- District 8: Mary Allen
- District 9: Jim Graham and Tim Peck
Most Competitive Districts for Democrats
The most competitive districts for Democrats in Indiana include Indiana’s 1st Congressional District (IN-1) and its 5th Congressional District (IN-5). The 1st was widely considered a battleground district in 2024, and while Mrvan has gained ground each election, it is still seen as only a blue district by 1 percentage point. Perhaps time and Mrvan’s popularity will keep it blue, given its urban makeup and location close to Chicago. Democrats know this is an important seat to hold, given the million dollars they’ve helped Mrvan raise, and local pundits don’t think the seat will change red. A good defense here will be a reassuring win for Democrats across the state.
The other competitive district, Indiana’s 5th Congressional District (IN-5), is one where Democrats can go on the offensive instead. Incumbent Republican Victoria Spartz is popular but not wildly so, the district only leans red by 8 points, and some of her challengers have good experience running here. This district encompasses much of the northern suburbs of Indianapolis, including the cities of Carmel, Noblesville, and Fishers, while other population centers include Muncie, Kokomo, Anderson, and Marion. The district is predominantly white and is the wealthiest congressional district in Indiana, as measured by median income. For the Democrats, leaning on Trump’s endorsement of Spartz is a good move, alongside hitting her on her high staff turnover and allegations of a difficult working environment. Spartz also has pushed for fiscal responsibility, and her inability to reign in government spending is a notable weak point on her resume. While it is unlikely, if the Democrats were to flip a seat in the state, it would almost certainly have to be this one.
Most Competitive Indiana Democrats in 2026
Frank Mrvan: IN-1
Frank Mrvan, 56, is the incumbent representative for this district since 2021. Previously, he served as a mortgage broker and pharmaceutical sales representative, before entering politics in 2005 as the township trustee for North Township, Indiana. During his time in Congress, he has sought to protect reproductive healthcare, grow the regional economy, and protect the steel industry. Mrvan also serves as the Vice-Chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus and is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. This election cycle, his platform has not changed much. Mrvan wants to protect reproductive healthcare, grow the local economy, protect public education, protect laborers, and lower healthcare costs. His focus on the labor and manufacturing industries in this district, which encompasses Gary, Indiana, as well as almost all of the Indiana side of the Chicago metropolitan area, is a good move. As a result of this makeup, the district leans heavily blue, and has not elected a Republican representative in almost a century. Mrvan’s $1,419,470 war chest will certainly also help him overcome whatever Republican candidate wins the primary. Additionally, his strong party-line voting record and high participation in Congress mean he will not lack support from Democrats in a Democrat-heavy district. It is almost certain that Mrvan will win the primary and the general election, barring some major news.
Recent Interviews:
Regionally Speaking | US Congressman Frank Mrvan | From the Region to Capitol Hill
- D. Ford: IN-5
J.D. Ford entered the Indiana Statehouse in 2018, flipping a long-held red district in the process. So far, his focuses have been on affordability, healthcare, and equality. The last point is particularly important to Ford, as he is Indiana’s first and currently only openly LGBTQ+ state legislator. He sits on many committees: Education and Career Development, Elections, Ethics, Family and Children Services, Health and Provider Services, Local Government, and Rules and Legislative Procedures. All of this legislative experience is his only professional experience, following his bachelor’s in criminal justice and political science and his master’s degree in education from Purdue University Northwest. His focus will play well in this district, where its wealthier suburban voters are more tuned into national trends. Ford’s funding numbers aren’t available yet, but if he is able to gain ground quickly, he can become the favorite in this district and look to upset Spartz.
Deborah Pickett: IN-5
A former Army reservist and policy researcher, Deborah Pickett is also looking to unseat Spartz in this district. Pickett earned a bachelor’s degree from Skidmore College in 1981, and her career experience includes working as a community advocate and researcher with the Center for Integrative Development and the Hudson Institute. Much of the research experience revolved around education projects before shifting to trade policy and international economic studies. All of this experience has crafted a Democrat with a very moderate and well-researched platform. Alongside defending democracy, government welfare, and the environment, Pickett is heavily focused on investing in a well-trained and well-equipped military that works to protect the strong trade and humanitarian alliances Pickett wants the U.S. to engage in. This may end up being a bit of a gamble. With affordability a big issue, she seems to sideline it a bit, and while that is less of an issue with a richer district, it signals a focus more on policies that benefit the nation and not primarily the district. If voters think she will forget about them, they may not back her. This, combined with a paltry $6,645 raised so far means she has an uphill battle. But her military focus will likely play well with some disillusioned Republicans and independents, and Democrats will likely vote for her nonetheless in a general election. If she manages to win the primary, Pickett would be in a solid spot to make this a tight race.
Jackson Franklin: IN-5
Jackson Franklin is a Staff Sergeant in the Indiana Army National Guard, having served as a combat medic since 2019 and deployed to Kosovo in 2023. After the military, Franklin worked as an EMT and as a policy advisor for many local campaigns. But now he wants to emulate his idol, Bernie Sanders, and is pushing for a progressive vision of the country. His platform hits many of the hallmarks of a progressive: universal right to housing, universal healthcare, universal basic income, nationalizing the pharmaceutical and fossil fuel industries, protecting democracy, legalizing cannabis, and taxing the rich. This will be a fascinating race to watch if Franklin wins the primary, because it will be a true test of progressivism in a red district. But for the primary, he will have a bit of work to do. He already has raised $16,778, more than Pickett, but his youth at 25-years-old and his lack of true government experience will make many older voters hesitate. Plus, progressivism in a red district is a big risk. However, the fact that he raised that much money without corporate donors is a testament to some level of local support. Additionally, while many voters will be turned away by his talk of nationalizing industries, his focus on universal services could still be appealing in a district that is wealthier than average but not rich. With Ford taking the standard establishment route and Pickett taking the moderate route, Franklin’s progressive path will provide a great lab for Democratic planners to look at how popular these policies are.
Engagement Resources:
- Ballotpedia- serves as an initial go-to for candidates & races at all levels:
- Cook Political Report- CPR evaluates races by competitiveness:
- The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization focused specifically on state government, policy, and elections: Indiana Capital Chronicle
Asylum Cooperative Agreements Draw Questions from Judges As More Applicants are Removed
Immigration Policy Brief #193 | Mindy Spatt | January 28, 2026
Summary
The Trump administration has revived a policy of entering into Asylum Cooperative Agreements with secretive terms that violate the right of a person physically present in the US to seek asylum. The policy isn’t a new one; Trump did it in his first term, but it’s being used much more extensively now, alarming judges and advocates and frightening asylum seekers.
Analysis
The first Trump administration began eliminating the right to seek asylum in the United States by signing Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs) with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These are meant to derail asylum claims by immigrants going through the legal process to seek asylum from violence or persecution in the United States, by sending the applicants to other countries before their claims are heard, ostensibly to seek asylum elsewhere.
After a Congressional report documented the abuses resulting from the agreements, the Biden administration quickly withdrew from them. Now they are back, speciously labeled “safe third country” agreements, and are being deployed against asylum seekers who, when attending routine court hearings, can have their applications completely derailed by a motion by the Department of Homeland Security to “pretermit” them to another country or countries to pursue their asylum claims.
Pretermitted asylum seekers can be sent to the same area they are fleeing from, Central America in many cases, or countries they have no connection to, including Ecuador and Uganda. For example, Guatemalans could be “removed” to Honduras, theoretically to apply for asylum there; Hondurans could similarly be sent to Guatemala.
At a recent immigration court session in San Francisco, a government attorney made pretermit motions in many of the cases. The judge expressed concerns about the terms of the agreements, including how many asylum seekers can be removed to each country and how robust the asylum procedures are in the countries named in the motions to pretermit. The government attorney immediately responded that the Board of Immigration Appeals has already approved the practice, and the rules don’t permit immigration judges to deny the motions on the basis that they need more information. Judges are severely limited in their authority over motions to send asylum seekers to “safe” third countries.
While the judge’s questions remain unanswered, there’s no reason to think the agreements will provide more benefits than they did in the past. Which was none at all. Hundreds of Honduran and Salvadoran families were subject to the Guatemalan ACA from late 2019 to March 2020, before the COVID pandemic ended the practice. When the democrats were back in power, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee released an investigation that found that not a single asylum seeker transferred from the United States had received asylum in Guatemala, and that individuals had been “subjected to degrading treatment and effectively coerced” into returning to their home countries.
Georgetown University also criticized the practice in a report entitled Dead Ends: No Path to Protection for Asylum Seekers Under the Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement. It concluded that Guatemala did not meet the standards for a “safe third country” and that the rights of asylum seekers were being violated regularly by both U.S. and Guatemalan officials.
For those subject to an ACA, there is no requirement that a person have even passed through the third country before being sent there, let alone have any connection to it. Reportedly, DHS attorneys are being told by the White House to seek dismissal of all Spanish-speaking asylum applicants
There are very few ways for asylum applicants to challenge such motions, especially if the respondents are appearing without an attorney, as is the case in the majority of cases. Judges in San Francisco often give asylum seekers 3 months to try to find an attorney and to gather evidence as to why they would face persecution, danger or a serious threat if they were sent to any of the three countries suggested by the government, usually Guatemala, El Salvador, or Ecuador. In most cases, a person or their family or a close associate had experienced persecution, violence or threats there.
In the past, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were among the top countries from which asylum was granted, with almost 4,000 applications approved from these countries in 2018 alone. The problems that would cause a person to flee one country are equally present in each of the other two, but that is not relevant to the claim of fear. This is especially true of the continuing threat of gang violence in the region; Guatemala recently declared a national state of emergency to address gang violence.
With that, sending people back to these nations appears to violate the United States obligation under international law to avoid “refoulment,” the practice of forcibly returning refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to violence or persecution. That is, of course, unlikely to deter the Trump administration from doing so.
Engagement Resources
Deportation with a Layover
Failure of Protection under the US-Guatemala Asylum Cooperative Agreement
Monitoring The Human Cost Of The U.S. Government’s Forced Third
Country Transfer Agreements, Website launched December 5, 2025,
https://www.thirdcountrydeportationwatch.org
Along with carbon emissions, U.S. climate accords go up in smoke
Environment Policy Brief #186 | Todd J. Broadman
POLICY
A year ago, at the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term as President, he signed Executive Order 14199, requesting a “government‑wide review” of all international intergovernmental organizations, conventions, and treaties that the United States formally supports. That review resulted in a signed a memorandum on January 6th of this year that specifies that the U.S. formally withdraw from 66 “organizations, conventions, and treaties.” Included in the 66 are the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other important climate treaties. In all, the U.S. withdrew from 31 UN bodies.
Given that Trump considers man-made climate change a hoax, this recent directive is a bureaucratic formality. The official reason for U.S. non-participation? These agreements “undermine America’s independence and waste taxpayer dollars on ineffective or hostile agendas.” An early example was the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement which took effect January 27, 2026. Yet another climate change agreement that preceded the Paris Agreement, one that pledged U.S. support for climate change activities in developing countries, has also been exited.
Given that the U.S. is the second largest carbon emitting country (behind China), there are troubling implications. Domestic policies that maximize oil production are being pursued along with trade and investment policies that favor overseas mineral and oil extraction. Acquiring mineral-rich foreign territories by force or the threat of force is also an implemented strategy. GNP growth is still tightly linked to a reliance upon carbon-based energy. Withdrawal from global treaties is also consistent with the U.S. being the globe’s largest exporter of crude oil and petroleum by-products – exporting more than even Saudi Arabia.
While 27% of carbon emissions are from China, the U.S. is responsible for 13% and is sending a clear message to other UNFCCC and IPCC member states that regardless of its global climate impacts, the U.S. acts alone, independent of other states and does so solely in support of its own national interests. In the face of this bold exit, the U.N. insists that the U.S. has a “legal obligation” to pay its fair share of membership dues essential to fund agency operations. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres publicly announced he regretted the decision.
The U.S. had been contributing 20% of the UN’s budget. There are consequences for no longer paying dues. Under Article 19 of the UN Charter, the U.S. will lose its vote in the General Assembly. Not much of a consequence though, given that the U.S. has been acting independently of most UN protocols. The U.S. will though, maintain its pivotal seat on the Security Council.
Within the framework of the UNFCC, the legal basis for carbon emission limits, there was good reason to believe that emission reduction targets would be met. Developed countries, led by the U.S., must report on greenhouse gas emissions and changes to domestic energy policies. The UNFCC was signed in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush and ratified by the Senate. Once again, the U.S. has chosen to isolate itself. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, “once the withdrawal takes effect one year from signing, the United States will be the only country not engaged in the UNFCCC.”
With international agreements reduced to scraps of paper, the question arises as to what domestic obligations will be adhered to. Very few. Back in 2009, the EPA put in place a new set of standards based on years of evidence pointing to climate change – known as the “endangerment finding.” Like the international “scraps of paper,” Trump wants to rip-up that finding and does not want any environmental standard to impede growth and energy production.
Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director and Lead Economist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, concludes that “withdrawal from the global climate convention will only serve to further isolate the United States and diminish its standing in the world following a spate of deplorable actions that have already sent our nation’s credibility plummeting, jeopardized ties with some of our closest historical allies, and made the world far more unsafe.”
As if there must be some immediate payoff to continue membership with these international organizations, Marc Rubio countered with “there is little to nothing to show for it,” concluding that “it is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people.” When asked why, Rubio added that the organizations were “mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful and poorly run.”
ANALYSIS
This pulling away from world conventions and treaties ushers in a new, multi-polar geopolitics, variously called the Trump Doctrine or “Donroe” Doctrine. He no longer has interest in a liberal international order with the U.S. modeling a global vision of a better world. Multilateral commitments, free trade interdependence, and international law are viewed as constraints on U.S. freedom.
This executive action to withdraw from international treaties is in line with other global actions and serves to further isolate this country. The idea of solidarity and cooperation to make life on earth sustainable for future generations is no longer a collective undertaking. The link between burning fossil fuels and long-term value of human rights has been severed. The larger scope of the administration is to distance itself from any “progressive ideology,” a government that has the right and freedom to make its own rules and answer to no one because of its military might.
Also important to note are the UN programs that the U.S. will continue to support. These include UNICEF and the World Food Program (WFP), albeit with 90% budget cuts for each organization. The U.S. will continue its support of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
“He’s just taken a bazooka and blown the whole thing apart,” says Nina Schwalbe, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for Global Health Policy and Politics. She used the image of a tree cut down to describe Trump cutting ties to the World Health Organization. “Now he’s cutting down the whole forest,” she concluded.
USResist Resources:
https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/ helps senior civil servants around the world to meet global challenges by building their expertise, knowledge and connections.
https://sustainabilityonline.net/ aims to provide current news, insights, and opinions from the business world regarding sustainability in all its various applications.