JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Going to War for Human Rights? (Foreign Policy Brief #206)
With Israel and Iran now having engaged in a direct war, trading attacks on each other’s cities, and the US carrying out attacks inside Iran, there’s a high chance that the US could be dragged into a full on war. It’s a prospect that is causing fear in many in the United States, but also being pushed for by others. Regime change has come up as one of the goals of the war and there are those in the US who are in favor of going to war and overthrowing the Iranian government.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #205)
For over 12 days Israel and Iran exchange strikes after their long-time conflict hit a flashpoint following Israel’s surprise attack on Iran’s nuclear program and assassination of Iranian leadership. The attack kicked off a sequence of events that has left hundreds reported killed and put the United States at risk of being dragged further into the war. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that Iran has been enriching higher amounts of uranium and in breach of the non-proliferation treaty. While also confirming that the agency had not found “any proof” of an effort to develop a nuclear weapon by Iran.
How Elon Stays in Business (Economic Policy Brief #89)
Elon Musk’s corporate empire—Tesla, SpaceX/Starlink, X, Neuralink and the Boring Company—has become a single, privately steered ecosystem whose combined annual revenues now rival the GDP of a midsize nation.
AI Regulation: Who’s Up to the Challenge? (Technology Policy Brief #150)
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the discipline of designing computer systems that can perform tasks normally requiring human cognition—pattern recognition, language generation, planning—by learning statistical relationships from large data sets. Modern AI works by training vast machine-learning models on petabytes of text, images, audio, and code and then applying those models to new inputs to produce predictions or content; it now powers everything from chatbots and fraud detection to medical imaging and autonomous drones.
It Is Not an Invasion: How Undocumented People Got Here, Where They Live, & Why They Stay (Immigration Policy Brief #145)
According to estimates from Pew & the American Community Survey, there are between 10.5 & 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. For perspective, that’s fewer—by about 2 million—than the population of the L.A. metro area. On the one hand, that’s a large number; on the other, it’s far from an invasion in a country of 340 million people.
No Capital Gains Tax in Texas: What It Means for Businesses and Residents (Economic Policy Brief #88)
In 2025, the Texas Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6), placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for the November 4, 2025, election. If approved by voters, the amendment would permanently prohibit Texas from ever imposing a tax on individuals’ net capital gains.
Project 2025 and Federal Influence Over K-12 Curricula (Education Policy Brief #204)
Although President Trump campaigned by keeping distance between himself and Project 2025, it is clear that his agenda since his inauguration has run parallel to the movement in many areas, including education.
2026 World Cup and President Trump’s Policies (Foreign Policy Brief #203)
The United States and its neighbors have long had a successful, and peaceful (mostly) existence. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have had free-trade agreements; entered into military alliances together; fought in wars together. However, since the inauguration of President Trump, these relationships have been tested – dramatically. The White House has called for Canada to become the “51st State”; the United States has changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America”. Publicly, President Sheibaum and Prime Minister Carney, of Mexico and Canada, respectively, have criticized President Trump and his policies both from afar and in-person.
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part II (Social Justice Policy Brief #175)
Presidential pardons are a constitutionally granted power, intended to serve as instruments of mercy, justice, and healing. But under President Donald Trump’s second term (2024–2025), this power has again been wielded as a political tool, continuing a controversial legacy from his first term. The recent wave of pardons reflects a continuation—and escalation—of Trump’s willingness to use executive clemency to reward loyalists, pardon convicted political allies, and whitewash wrongdoing linked to his political movement.
AI Regulation: Who’s Up to the Challenge? (Technology Policy Brief #150)
AI Regulation: Who’s Up to the Challenge?
Technology Policy Brief #150 | Inijah Quadri | June 16, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) is the discipline of designing computer systems that can perform tasks normally requiring human cognition—pattern recognition, language generation, planning—by learning statistical relationships from large data sets. Modern AI works by training vast machine-learning models on petabytes of text, images, audio, and code and then applying those models to new inputs to produce predictions or content; it now powers everything from chatbots and fraud detection to medical imaging and autonomous drones.
Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic topic: chatbots write school essays, algorithms screen renters, and synthetic voices flood voters’ phones. The Biden-Harris administration took its first swing at nationwide rules with the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI Executive Order of October 30, 2023, which instructed federal agencies to protect civil rights and worker safety when deploying AI systems. In March 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) turned that order into binding rules—every agency must name a Chief AI Officer, publish risk assessments, and refuse any “high-impact” system that endangers rights or safety. Three months ago, however, OMB issued Memo M-25-21, promising faster procurement and “American-made AI” while trimming several earlier guardrails, a move cheered by industry and eyed warily by civil rights advocates.
While these memos include privacy protections such as restricting use of government data in training, mandating transparency documentation, and more, they generally favor a pro-innovation posture and allow more flexibility. In contrast, Europe’s landmark AI Act outright bans social scoring (assigning reputational or risk scores to individuals based on aggregated personal data) and real-time biometric surveillance (automated identification or tracking of people through biometric traits such as faces, voices, or gait) and enforces up to a seven-percent-of-global-revenue penalty for non-compliance, signaling a standard that U.S. protections risk failing to match. Unless the United States matches those standards, U.S. workers and consumers will be left with weaker protections even as U.S. companies scramble to meet tougher foreign rules.
Analysis
From a progressive standpoint, the policy debate is fundamentally about who controls AI’s future—public institutions or dominant technology firms. A recent Federal Trade Commission report confirms what many feared: cloud giants are consolidating exclusive access to compute power, data, and distribution—all at once. Without stronger merger rules or public-sector compute resources, market concentration will deepen and independent research will be priced out.
Civil rights advocates contend these trends have grave social implications. The Leadership Conference reports that AI systems are reinforcing redlining and racial profiling, and it advocates outright bans on biometric surveillance rather than mere transparency. Other leading thinktanks recommend halting law enforcement use of facial recognition and limiting opaque algorithmic scoring processes.
Workers are also organizing around AI. For example, the Writers Guild now prohibits studios from using generative text tools to reduce writers’ pay or take away credit, setting a much welcome precedent. Irrespective, since the OMB relaxed several safeguards in its April 3, 2025, Memo M-25-21—allowing agencies to fast-track “American-made AI” purchases if developers self-certify baseline privacy and civil-rights tests—pressure has been offset from many AI firms. Indeed, a recent CRS analysis confirms that the United States still lacks a comprehensive federal statute, leaving agencies to patch gaps piecemeal.
A January FTC study of cloud-AI equity deals documents how the same three giants lock frontier developers into exclusive compute and distribution contracts, warning of a looming “compute cartel.” The leading U.S. frontier-model developers are OpenAI (partnered with Microsoft), Google DeepMind, Anthropic (backed by Amazon and Google), Meta AI, and Cohere. Each depends on hyperscale cloud providers—Azure, Google Cloud, and Amazon Web Services—to rent the thousands of specialized GPUs needed to train and serve cutting-edge models. Start-ups gain similar access through credit programs and joint go-to-market deals, so the developer ecosystem is tightly coupled to cloud infrastructure. Conversely, AI workloads have become the main engine of cloud-provider revenue growth, making the relationship symbiotic: state-of-the-art AI needs elastic, low-cost compute, and the clouds need AI demand to keep their data centers full.
States are sprinting to plug the gap: Colorado’s SB 24-205 imposes an affirmative duty on any “high-risk” system to prevent algorithmic bias starting in 2026, and at least 28 states adopted AI measures this year alone. Industry is fighting back, though. House appropriators are introducing rules that try to ensure states do not enforce new AI rules for a decade. Progressives have sketched an alternative path: the bipartisan TEST AI Act would turn the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Energy Department testbeds into a public audit regime, making risk assessments much more transparent. Coupled with an antitrust crackdown on the “compute cartel,” this triad could transfer power from monopolies to the public and ensure the next generation of algorithms serves people—not profit.
Engagement Resources
- Center for AI and Digital Policy (https://www.caidp.org/): A non-profit that promotes democratic values in AI and digital governance. Offers briefings on global AI regulations and ethical deployment.
- AI Now Institute (https://ainowinstitute.org/): An interdisciplinary research center studying the social implications of artificial intelligence. Focuses on bias, labor impacts, and regulation.
- Algorithmic Justice League (https://www.ajl.org/): Works to raise awareness about algorithmic bias and advocate for equitable AI systems, especially in surveillance and hiring.
- The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (https://civilrights.org/): A civil rights coalition pushing for policy reforms, including a ban on biometric surveillance and safeguards against algorithmic discrimination.
- Public Knowledge (https://www.publicknowledge.org/): Focuses on balancing innovation and consumer protections in digital policy, with specific positions on AI, privacy, and antitrust issues.
It Is Not an Invasion: How Undocumented People Got Here, Where They Live, & Why They Stay (Immigration Policy Brief #145)
It Is Not an Invasion: How Undocumented People Got Here, Where They Live, & Why They Stay
Immigration Policy Brief #145 | Morgan Davidson | June 25, 2025
According to estimates from Pew & the American Community Survey, there are between 10.5 & 11 million undocumented people living in the United States. For perspective, that’s fewer—by about 2 million—than the population of the L.A. metro area. On the one hand, that’s a large number; on the other, it’s far from an invasion in a country of 340 million people.
So, how did we get here? What has that number looked like over the last 20 years?
If you watch FOX, you probably believe most, if not all, of these people came into the country under Joe Biden. But the numbers don’t support that. The estimated 10.99 million in 2022 is only slightly higher than 10.51 million in 2020 & nearly identical to 10.49 million in 2005. Over the past 20 years, the undocumented population hasn’t dropped below 10 million & hasn’t exceeded 12 million.
The reason we don’t see massive swings is that most undocumented people have lived in the U.S. for over a decade. Contrary to what Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Elon Musk & others claim, people are not coming to America in droves, radically shifting the population by the millions.
This population is the product of decades of economic shifts, foreign policy decisions, & a dysfunctional immigration system.
Analysis
America’s immigration system didn’t fall apart overnight; it’s been dysfunctional by design for decades. Three major laws helped shape today’s reality.
The 1965 Immigration & Nationality Act scrapped the old national origin quotas but introduced strict caps on immigration from the Western Hemisphere for the first time. That created long waitlists for countries like Mexico & those in Central America, a backlog that still exists.
The 1986 Immigration Reform & Control Act (IRCA), signed by Reagan, legalized nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants. It promised tougher enforcement in exchange, but that mostly meant increased border security, rather than real accountability for employers or reforms to the legal system. The undocumented population kept growing.
The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) made the situation even more challenging. It expanded deportation grounds, imposed the 3-year & 10-year reentry bans, & laid the groundwork for today’s massive deportation system. It didn’t reduce undocumented immigration; it just made the system more punitive.
In short, these laws didn’t stop undocumented immigration. If anything, they locked in a status quo where people could come here to work, but not stay legally. But legal changes only explain part of the picture. Economic forces are the engine behind most migration. After NAFTA took effect in 1994, small-scale farmers in Mexico were unable to compete with U.S. agricultural imports. Many lost their livelihoods, triggering one of the largest waves of migration in modern history. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy was booming in sectors like construction, agriculture, hospitality, & elder care; all industries that rely heavily on low-wage labor with few protections.
Add in the massive wage gap between the U.S. & countries like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, & it’s not hard to see why people leave. For many, working an informal job in the U.S. still means earning five to ten times more than they would back home. When you add instability, violence, corruption, & climate disruptions into the mix, it’s not just an economic issue; it’s an existential one.
There’s also a persistent myth that undocumented immigrants all crossed the border illegally. In reality, roughly 40 to 50% of undocumented people came here legally & overstayed a visa. While border crossings have surged at certain moments, such as in the 1990s post-NAFTA boom or more recently in 2021, when asylum seekers arrived in large numbers from Central and South America. Those are waves, not the whole picture. Many of the people being labeled as “new arrivals” actually arrived years ago & have been here since, quietly living, working, paying taxes, & building families.
All of this explains why the number of undocumented immigrants has held relatively steady over the last 20 years. Despite constant political noise, most of these people aren’t “pouring in” recently; they’ve been here. They’re the product of decades of economic shifts, U.S. foreign policy, & an immigration system that can’t meet the moment.
Where people are & Where people came from
By the numbers, the top states with undocumented populations are California, Texas, Florida, New York, & New Jersey. That shouldn’t be surprising. These states offer a mix of large urban centers & sprawling agricultural or rural areas, places where undocumented immigrants can find work, whether in construction, food service, or farming.
Most undocumented people still originate from Mexico & the Northern Triangle countries: Guatemala, Honduras, & El Salvador. However, in recent years, there has also been a rise in migrants from South America, especially Venezuela, as well as from Asian countries such as China, India, the Philippines, Nepal, and Vietnam.
Some right-wing commentators have seized on the growing number of Asian migrants, particularly Chinese nationals, to stoke fears about national security threats. But the reality is far more familiar. Many of these migrants are fleeing authoritarian regimes, seeking political asylum, & often see the U.S. as a haven that aligns more with their values than the governments they’re fleeing.
In fact, these migrants are more likely to turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents, not sneak in, because they want to begin the asylum process through official channels. They’re not unlike the Cuban refugees who once fled Castro’s regime, looking to the U.S. for political safety & opportunity.
Why people stay & What keeps people here
As of 2021, the average undocumented immigrant has lived in the U.S. for over a decade, a fact that directly contradicts the narrative pushed by outlets like FOX or figures like Trump. These aren’t people who just arrived. Many have U.S.-born children, creating mixed-status families & deep community ties. That also makes them more likely to overstay visas, rather than risk leaving & being unable to return.
At the same time, militarization at the border has had an unintended consequence: it’s made undocumented immigrants more likely to stay permanently. Once someone makes it into the country, they’re less likely to leave, not because they don’t want to visit home, but because crossing back has become so dangerous & expensive. If they leave, they may not be able to return at all.
Crackdowns have also fed the rise of human smuggling networks. As enforcement has tightened, cartels & smugglers have stepped in to profit off desperation, charging migrants thousands of dollars for what they claim are safer crossings, though often, they’re anything but. The result is a system where fear, family, & policy traps keep people here in the shadows, not a wave of new arrivals, but a long-established population with nowhere else to go.
The policy problems don’t stop at the border. We’ve seen failed attempts at comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, 2013, & now 2024. Decades of gridlock in Congress have left us with a system built for a world that no longer exists, rooted in problems that date back to the 1960s, yet still shape the present.
Undocumented immigrants aren’t new, & they’re not going anywhere. They’re a long-standing, deeply rooted part of American society. They work, raise families, pay taxes, & contribute to their communities every day.
If we’re serious about fixing this, it’s going to take more than more agents or higher walls. It requires a full rethinking of legal migration, economic reality, & basic human dignity.
Engagement Resources
- Pew Research Center – What We Know About Unauthorized Immigrants Living in the U.S.
A concise, data-driven primer updated in July 2024 that breaks down the estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in America.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ - Bipartisan Policy Center’s Immigration Reform Proposals: Explore balanced approaches to immigration policy that prioritize security, economic growth, and humanitarian concerns.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/topics/immigration/ - ACLU Know Your Rights: The ACLU outlines the rights of Immigrants in the U.S.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
No Capital Gains Tax in Texas: What It Means for Businesses and Residents (Economic Policy Brief #88)
No Capital Gains Tax in Texas: What It Means for Businesses and Residents
In 2025, the Texas Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6), placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for the November 4, 2025, election. If approved by voters, the amendment would permanently prohibit Texas from ever imposing a tax on individuals’ net capital gains. While Texas already does not levy a personal income tax, including on capital gains, this measure would codify that policy into the state constitution, preventing any future changes without a subsequent constitutional amendment. If passed, the law will take effect on January 1, 2026. This move is part of a broader strategy to maintain Texas’s reputation as a low-tax haven and a pro-business environment. It aligns with other economic developments, including recent federal and state-level updates to labor laws such as the expanded overtime protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which will also impact the Texas workforce beginning in 2025.
Analysis
Texas’s current lack of a personal income tax has long served as a magnet for high earners, investors, and businesses. Codifying this approach through HJR 6 ensures future legislatures cannot reverse this policy without going through the arduous process of another constitutional amendment.
Assuming it passes, the amendment will provide long-term financial predictability for investors, entrepreneurs, and business owners, particularly in sectors like real estate, finance, and technology. These stakeholders benefit from knowing that future capital gains—realized or unrealized—will not be subject to state tax, incentivizing investment and asset retention within Texas.
For residents, especially those with growing investment portfolios or planning for retirement, this could represent significant long-term savings. The law complements new labor developments like the expanded overtime eligibility set to take effect nationally in 2025, which will increase wages for lower- and middle-income workers. Together, these changes create an economic environment where upward mobility could be supported through both wage protection and tax shielding for long-term investments.
However, critics warn that the capital gains amendment primarily benefits the wealthy and could widen inequality. They argue that while higher earners receive greater tax advantages, the state risks limiting future policy flexibility—particularly in areas like education funding and infrastructure. Additionally, the federal overtime law’s increased payroll obligations for businesses could offset some of the tax savings realized through capital gains protections.
Texas’s proposed constitutional ban on capital gains taxes reflects a deep commitment to economic conservatism and low taxation. While the benefits are clearest for high earners and business owners, there are meaningful implications for broader economic stability and growth. When paired with updated labor protections such as expanded overtime eligibility, the policy may create a nuanced landscape: tax relief on long-term wealth accumulation alongside wage growth for working-class Texans. Nonetheless, this measure must be met with continued scrutiny to ensure it does not further entrench wealth inequality or strip future policymakers of tools needed to respond to fiscal challenges. Texas’s leadership must balance tax freedom with strategic investments that uplift all residents—not just those with capital gains to protect.
Engagement Resources
- Texas Public Policy Foundation
A conservative think tank that supports HJR 6 and promotes limited taxation and economic growth.
https://www.texaspolicy.com - Every Texan (formerly Center for Public Policy Priorities)
Offers policy research and advocacy focused on tax equity, labor protections, and economic justice.
https://everytexan.org - S. Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division
Provides detailed information on new overtime eligibility and compliance standards under FLSA.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd
Project 2025 and Federal Influence Over K-12 Curricula (Education Policy Brief #204)
Project 2025 and Federal Influence Over K-12 Curricula
Education Policy Brief #204 | Steve Piazza | June 11, 2025
Although President Trump campaigned by keeping distance between himself and Project 2025, it is clear that his agenda since his inauguration has run parallel to the movement in many areas, including education.
In no more than two months into his presidency, the President issued an Executive Order, Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, calling for the elimination of the Department of Education (DOE) in order to give control of schools to the states and local education agencies. This is right in line with Project 2025’s philosophy.
While the executive branch is not legally permitted to completely eliminate the DOE, the department, like many other governmental agencies, has experienced staff reductions and policy reform has begun.
Another power the DOE itself does not have is mandating state curriculum. That authority already lies at the state and local level, as per the Department of Education Organization Act, 20 U.S.C. § 3403(b), and the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7907(a).
But some of the changes called for by Project 2025 have indirect implications for curricular reform, many of which are presently being realized.
Policy Analysis
The intentions of Project 2025 regarding governmental reform are clearly presented in A Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a 900-page document published in 2023 by the Heritage Foundation. Like other administration departments targeted, the DOE has undergone scrutiny and is presented as an obstacle to the general welfare of U.S. citizens.
In the opening sentence of the analysis of the DOE, the document states on page 319, “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” The future of education, the authors believe, relies on the states untethering from any federal level interference and being able to themselves determine what changes are needed in schools.
Specified changes include such areas as student discipline, school choice, and parental involvement. But it also directly addresses specific areas of the curriculum that need to be affected. As early as page 5, the document demands that “the noxious tenets of “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” should be excised from curricula in every public school in the country.”
And one way that this can be enforced is through funding incentives, particularly the threat of withholding money from those states not complying.
Yet, even prior to Trump’s election to a second term, some states had already begun to make curricular changes that reflect this spirit of Project 2025. Over 20 states now have passed laws to restrict curricula that may include gender and race concepts that are determined divisive. This means that specific language and concepts are being avoided in the classroom, and that even books have been removed from classrooms and school libraries. Many of these actions have been challenged in court, but the spirit of reforms which coincide with Project 2025 initiatives, whether intentional or not, remains.
And now with the Trump Administration in place, states’ litmus test of curricular attacks seems to be over, and the attention has turned mostly to less incendiary issues. According to the National Governors Association, these six areas will be the focus of educational themes in 2025: funding, technical education, teacher training, achievements, early childhood, mental and physical being, and cell phone usage. A seventh item, school choice, is more controversial, but it’s been on the table for some time.
All this is to say is that the states can now rely on the federal government to divert the attention of social issues in curricula from the states and take the heat so they don’t have to. So, if and when curricular choices are made at the state and local level, they would not so quickly or easily find their way to mainstream attention. People must search deep into state departments of education and local resources to find out for themselves what’s actually being mandated to be taught.
The ongoing issue remains that many of the restrictive efforts encouraged by the federal level will have implications beyond the loss of financial support. Critics look at this as a means to side step federal law that protects civil rights of individuals. Proponents look at it as a means to reform schools along ideological grounds.
Indeed, the courts may determine how much the Trump Administration has influence over how curriculum development plays out. One thing is certain: it has had an impact on the way that educational policy is being discussed. This includes what is being taught, and how it has become highly politicized to the point that educators are fearing retribution for speaking out professionally on what works best for their students.
Time will tell what any forthcoming state laws inspired by Project 2025 will directly mandate which K-12 subjects are to be taught and what concepts need to be removed. It’s already begun at the college and university level, where legislation passed earlier this year in Florida, Utah, and Ohio require graduation requirements to include Western Civilization-centered courses with specified readings and drop any courses having to do with race and gender. Analysts agree that similar action is expected for elementary and secondary school curricula. If this does happen, Project 2025 has the momentum to outlast what its name implies.
Engagement Resources
Ballotpedia offers a comprehensive list of links to state education departments and the corresponding state content standards for each.
The revamped U.S. Department of Education site reflects many of the tenets of Project 2025.
2026 World Cup and President Trump’s Policies (Foreign Policy Brief #203)
2026 World Cup and President Trump’s Policies
Foreign Policy Brief #203 | Reilly Fitzgerald | June 6, 2025
The United States and its neighbors have long had a successful, and peaceful (mostly) existence. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have had free-trade agreements; entered into military alliances together; fought in wars together. However, since the inauguration of President Trump, these relationships have been tested – dramatically. The White House has called for Canada to become the “51st State”; the United States has changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America”. Publicly, President Sheibaum and Prime Minister Carney, of Mexico and Canada, respectively, have criticized President Trump and his policies both from afar and in-person.
The idea of a North American World Cup has been in the making for years, having been chosen by the 68th FIFA Congress in 2018. What was once expected to be a great display of three countries and their relationship with one another, is perhaps heading to be a dramatic mess due to policies coming out of the White House.
Also the Trump Administration’s most recent ban on travel from Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, Haiti, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Myanmar, Eritrea, Sudan, and Yemen, will most certainly have impacts on the major sporting tournaments that are upcoming in the United States through the rest of his administration (if this remains in effect). The upcoming sporting events being held in the United States during Trump’s term, include the CONCACAF Gold Cup this summer in the United States and the 2026 FIFA World Cup being hosted between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, and then the summer of 2028, the Olympic Games in Los Angeles.
Analysis
Trump’s most recent executive order, a travel ban, does make an exception for “any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the Secretary of State”. However, it is unclear as to how this provision will play out with the sheer volume of fans and supporters likely to attend these major events and the wait times for visas to enter the United States.
This summer the team most impacted by any of these bans will be the Haitian National Team as they will be participating in the CONCACAF Gold Cup, which is a soccer tournament for North and South American teams and the Caribbean nations. Haitian refugees and immigrants have been victims of President Trump’s, and his supporters, false claims used to spew hatred and fear; this particularly culminated in the claims that Haitians were eating cats and dogs in Ohio right before the 2024 Presidential Election. This summer is also the FIFA Club World Cup competition in the United States, and that is expected to bring in about 3.5 million spectators to the United States.
Next summer’s World Cup is estimated to bring in over 6.5 million spectators to the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Iran has already qualified to participate in the World Cup, and will be expected to travel to North America for this event. Though, it seems the athletes and coaching staff will be able to come to the United States for this tournament; it remains to be seen what will happen with the families of the players, and the fans of their national team who should be able to travel to matches during the tournament in the United States. However, this could be tricky for Iranian fans due to the nature of the relationship between the American and Iranian governments.
The travel ban is most likely going to have a significant impact on the ability of spectators and fans to go to the United States during any of these massive sporting events (though could potentially still see matches in Canada and Mexico). The travel ban executive orders from the Trump Administration clearly states that the Secretary of State will have a significant role in this process of admitting or rejecting visa applications for athletes, coaches, and fans to come to the United States. According to Yahoo News, the State Department has promised to reduce the wait times for visas. Some countries are experiencing very high wait times for visas to the United States, such as Colombia which has a wait time of about 700 days, and Turkey’s wait time which is around 500 days as well. Both of these country’s teams will be present for the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
Some countries have more reasonable wait times, like Brazil which has a wait time of about one month. There are about 43 countries in the world that qualify for the Visa Waiver Program, which the State Department says it “enables most citizens or nationals of participating countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa.” The make-up of these countries is mostly European countries (about 30 of the 43), Israel, Qatar, Australia and New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Taiwan, and Iceland. The Visa Waiver Program will make it easy for many fans to access the venues in the United States for the World Cup, but it ought to be noted that fans from other countries will face challenges getting visas for the tournament.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has demanded that FIFA begin to examine alternatives to having the United States host the World Cup. HRW believes that the Trump Administration’s policies towards immigrants, LGBTQ+ communities, attacking free speech, and more, are grounds enough for FIFA to find an alternative to the United States as one of the three hosts. HRW has pointed out, according to Politico, FIFA’s own legislation says its role is “to promote the protection of human rights”. Andrea Florence, the Director of the Sports and Rights Alliance said last year to Amnesty International that “Before it awards any tournament, FIFA must ensure binding human rights agreements that fully protect workers, local communities, players and fans, including safeguarding against abuse and discrimination of racial and religious minorities, women and LGBTI people.”
Major sporting events around the world have drawn criticisms over the selection of host nations. One only has to go back to 1936 to see Nazi Germany host the summer Olympics – which anyone would agree is insane to consider. In modern times, Russia has hosted the Olympics and the World Cup (2014 and 2018, respectively). Brazil was under scrutiny for abuses in the lead up to hosting the World Cup and Olympics (2014 and 2016, respectively). Qatar hosted the most recent World Cup in 2022, with plenty of reported human rights abuses. Amnesty International has already reported on the risk for human rights issues with the 2030 World Cup being hosted by Spain, Portugal, and Morocco. The United States should have been a no-brainer to hosting the World Cup and upholding the values of international sporting competitions to value human rights and the rule of law. Now, it is much less clear.
Engagement Resources
- Executive Order – https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/06/restricting-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-united-states-from-foreign-terrorists-and-other-national-security-and-public-safety-threats/
- Human Rights Watch Letter to FIFA President – https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/06/letter-fifa-re-human-rights-responsibilities-2026-world-cup
- Playing a Dangerous Game? (Amnesty International) – https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/06/global-fifa-must-protect-human-rights-by-securing-binding-safeguards-from-2030-and-2034-world-cup-bidders-new-report/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CBefore%20it%20awards%20any%20tournament,%2C%20women%20and%20LGBTI%20people.%E2%80%9D
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part II (Social Justice Policy Brief #175)
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part II
Social Justice Policy Brief #175 | Valerie Henderson | June 16, 2025
Presidential pardons are a constitutionally granted power, intended to serve as instruments of mercy, justice, and healing. But under President Donald Trump’s second term (2024–2025), this power has again been wielded as a political tool, continuing a controversial legacy from his first term. The recent wave of pardons reflects a continuation—and escalation—of Trump’s willingness to use executive clemency to reward loyalists, pardon convicted political allies, and whitewash wrongdoing linked to his political movement.
Trump has already granted or signaled clemency for several individuals connected to the January 6 Capitol attack, corporate allies under white-collar investigations, and conservative media personalities with criminal convictions. These moves have further intensified scrutiny over the fairness and integrity of the presidential pardon system
Analysis
The most recent pardons in Trump’s second term have raised significant concerns about corruption, obstruction of justice, and abuse of executive authority. Among them:
- Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers respectively, received commutations or full pardons after being convicted for seditious conspiracy in connection with the January 6 insurrection.
- Peter Navarro, a former Trump adviser convicted of contempt of Congress, was granted clemency despite ongoing appeals and public refusal to cooperate with investigations into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
- Steve Bannon, who was previously pardoned by Trump for fraud-related offenses in his first term, received a second clemency for contempt of court following his refusal to comply with subpoenas related to election interference.
- NBA YoungBoy, a popular rapper with a significant following among young Black Americans, was pardoned on weapons charges, with Trump using the announcement as a media spectacle to posture as a supporter of Black communities.
These actions defy bipartisan public criticism and continue to bypass standard review procedures traditionally handled by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney. The pattern is consistent: Trump leverages the pardon process not as an act of justice but as a political tool—shielding loyalists and manipulating public perception.
While some pardons of individuals from marginalized communities may appear benevolent, they are often deployed as political cover—token acts meant to distract from a broader reality of justice inequity. The selective clemency of Black figures, particularly entertainers or nonviolent drug offenders, is rarely backed by systemic reform efforts and instead serves to generate media buzz and create a false narrative of inclusion.
Trump’s second-term pardon spree is a disgraceful abuse of constitutional authority. These are not acts of mercy—they are favors for cronies, extremists, and lawbreakers who advance his personal vendettas and political goals. His so-called support for marginalized individuals, such as pardoning a few high-profile Black men, is nothing more than performative politics. It is strategic tokenism—an attempt to appear racially inclusive while simultaneously empowering systems and actors who harm communities of color. These pardons have disproportionately shielded individuals whose actions directly harmed communities of color, the rule of law, and the peaceful transfer of power. For marginalized communities that are routinely over-policed and under-protected, these political pardons are a cruel reminder of a justice system that is anything but equal. We must call these acts what they are: political protection rackets wrapped in media theater. They erode the rule of law, reward corruption, and send a dangerous message that power, loyalty, and spectacle outweigh accountability and equity. Trump’s actions continue to push the limits of executive abuse and endanger the very foundations of a free society.
Engagement Resources
- Project on Government Oversight (POGO)
Investigates and exposes corruption, including misuse of presidential powers. Offers policy proposals to improve transparency and accountability.
https://www.pogo.org - Protect Democracy
Nonpartisan organization focused on preventing executive overreach and defending democratic institutions, including reforming the pardon process.
https://www.protectdemocracy.org - American Constitution Society (ACS)
A progressive legal organization researching structural reforms to limit unchecked executive power, including the reform of clemency authority.
https://www.acslaw.org
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part I (Social Justice Policy Brief #174)
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part I
The presidential pardon is a constitutional power granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It allows the President to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment. While originally intended to offer clemency as a form of mercy or to correct miscarriages of justice, the use of pardons has evolved—and at times, been weaponized for political purposes.
Historically, presidents have used the pardon power to heal national divisions, such as President Gerald Ford’s controversial pardon of Richard Nixon, or to correct injustices in the federal justice system. However, recent administrations—particularly Donald Trump’s—have drawn criticism for politicizing this executive tool.
Analysis
During Trump’s first term (2017–2021), his use of the pardon power was notable not just for its frequency, but for the profile and connections of those he pardoned. Unlike previous presidents who often relied on recommendations from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Pardon Attorney, Trump frequently bypassed that process.
Trump issued high-profile pardons to individuals such as:
- Joe Arpaio, former Arizona sheriff convicted of criminal contempt for racial profiling, seen as a nod to his anti-immigrant base.
- Roger Stone and Paul Manafort, Trump allies who were convicted during the Mueller investigation.
- Michael Flynn, former national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
- Charles Kushner, father of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, convicted of tax evasion and witness tampering.
These pardons were criticized for rewarding loyalty and shielding allies from accountability, raising alarms about abuse of power. Many legal scholars and former federal prosecutors warned that such actions undermined public trust in the impartiality of justice.
As Trump has begun his second term (2024–2025), there are mounting concerns about how he will wield the pardon power again. With open investigations into his political allies and continued rhetoric about the “deep state” and a “weaponized” justice system, there is widespread speculation that he will continue using pardons as political tools. Early signs include suggested clemency for convicted January 6 rioters and possible preemptive pardons for individuals under current federal scrutiny.
The broader concern is that Trump’s approach to pardons undermines the original purpose of clemency as a tool for compassion and justice, instead using it to reward loyalty, protect political allies, and punish perceived enemies. Trump’s use of presidential pardons is a gross distortion of a constitutional power meant to offer mercy, not reward political allegiance. His first-term pardons showed blatant favoritism, a disregard for the justice system, and a willingness to undermine legal accountability. As his second term unfolds, his pardon strategy appears not only self-serving but actively dangerous—eroding democratic institutions, emboldening corruption, and sending a clear message that loyalty to power is more valuable than the rule of law. The presidential pardon should be a solemn act of justice. Under Trump, it has become a transactional weapon, used to shield loyalists, inflame political divisions, and bypass accountability. This is not justice—it is authoritarianism disguised in constitutional legitimacy.
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center for Justice
Conducts research and advocacy on abuse of executive power, including the reform of presidential pardon practices.
https://www.brennancenter.org - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Tracks and reports on corruption and ethics violations in government, including politically motivated pardons.
https://www.citizensforethics.org - Pardon Power at DOJ
Official portal providing background on the federal clemency process and historical records of presidential pardons.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon
The Role of the Judiciary Against The Other Branches of Government – A Historical Background (Civil Rights Policy Brief #244)
The Role of the Judiciary Against The Other Branches of Government – A Historical Background
Just this week a number of reports have surfaced that detailed President Trump’s frustration with the Supreme Court and both the federal and state level judiciary in general.
In private, it has been reported that the President is frustrated with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett who he appointed to the Supreme Court in 2020. In addition, the President has also expressed concern about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the other two justices he appointed to the Supreme Court during his first term. The basis of President Trump’s grievances are that the justices are not sufficiently supportive of his policy agenda. The President is reported to be angry that the justices, specifically Justice Barrett, have voted against the Administration in a number of the court’s rulings.
Prior to the President’s inauguration in January, Justice Barrett (along with Chief Justice John Roberts) joined a ruling that allowed the President to be sentenced in his hush money case in New York. In March, Justice Barrett voted with the majority to reject the Administration’s plan to freeze payments of foreign aid. And in May, Justice Barrett recused herself from the Oklahoma Catholic charter school case. Since she was not participating in the case – because of personal ties she had with the plaintiffs who brought the case – the remaining eight justices heard the case and issued a ruling. The case came out to a 4 – 4 tie. Since there was no majority or plurality opinion the lower court ruling from the Oklahoma Supreme Court was allowed to stand which had ruled using state funds to fund Catholic charter schools unconstitutional. Justice Barrett was blamed because if she had not recused herself she could have cast the deciding fifth vote that could have overturned the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Justice Barrett’s votes in these rulings against Trump Administration initiatives have sparked a backlash against her and has helped fuel the anger of not just the President but from those who identify as MAGA and those who support many MAGA supported policies. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: While the Trump Administration’s criticisms and attacks on the judiciary are ongoing, the central premise of his frustrations – that the Supreme Court and the judiciary are not fully supportive of his policy agenda – is completely flawed and unsupported by the historical record.
Since just about the beginning of this nation, the idea that the judciary/judicial department could render an act by the legislative or executive branch void has been generally accepted. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention where the Constitution was being drawn up, delegate Luther Martin stated, “As to the constitutionality of laws, that point will come before the judges in their proper official character. In this character they will have a negative on the laws.” During another point during the convention, delegate Gouvernor Morris expressed a similar sentiment when he stated, “A law that ought to be negatived will be set aside in the judiciary department.”
These ideas continued and were expanded on during the debates that were held for the ratification of the Constitution by the individual states. In Pennsylvania James Wilson published a speech where he wrote, “If a law should be made inconsistent with those powers vested by this instrument in Congress the judges, as a consequence of their independence, and the particular powers of government being defined, will declare such law to be null and void[.]” At the Connecticut Ratification Convention in 1788, Oliver Ellsworth proclaimed, “If the general legislature should at any time overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges . . . will declare it to be void.”
And finally, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, two of the leading minds on constitutional affairs during this era helped solidify the idea that the judiciary could strike down unconstitutional acts undertaken by the legislative or executive branches. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton wrote that the duty of the judicial branch “must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void.” And in one of his most famous quotes James Madison said that the proper role of the courts was to act as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.”
What history is showing to us is that the judiciary is not to act as a rubber stamp to a president’s policy agenda. Nor should courts be deferential to a president’s actions as Vice – President J.D. Vance has himself suggested. History is showing us that this Administration’s attacks on the judiciary are horribly misguided and have no place in their attempt to twist the constitutional role of the courts in order to implement their policy agenda. More than 200 years ago, the Founding Fathers envisioned a constitutional role for the judiciary that would act as a check on the bounds of the legislative and executive branch. When Justice Barrett or any other justice or court disagrees with this Administration, that disagreement emanating from the courts demonstrates that the courts are properly exercising their judicial power as the Founding Fathers intended.
Engagement Resources
- Constitution Annotated – historical background on judicial review.
- National Center for Constitutional Studies – origin of judicial review.
Trump’s Big Beautiful Gifts to Artificial Intelligence Companies (Technology Policy Brief # 149)
Trump’s Big Beautiful Gifts to Artificial Intelligence Companies
Technology Policy Brief # 149 | By Mindy Spatt | June 10, 2025
In his first few days in office, Donald Trump announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank to invest in growing the US’s AI infrastructure and rescinded former President Joe Biden’s executive order requiring safety submissions from AI developers. His big, beautiful bill showers much more money in the industry, and aims to eliminate state oversight or regulation of AI companies as well.
Analysis
The version of Trump’s budget bill passed by the House of Representatives would completely end the ability of states to regulate AI or even draft regulations for the next 10 years. The AI provisions were severely criticized by advocacy groups, democrats, and even some Republicans. A group of 40 state Attorneys General, both Democrats and Republicans, said in a press release, “Imposing a broad moratorium on all state action, while Congress fails to act in this area, is irresponsible and deprives consumers of reasonable protections.” California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta was one of the signatories. His state is currently considering 30 laws that wouldn’t pass muster under Trump’s proposal, laws designed to mitigate the discriminatory impacts of AI, better evaluate the use of AI in government services, and additionally analyze harmful effects.
“While artificial intelligence can have enormous benefits for consumers, it also presents special challenges…” said Grace Gedye, policy analyst at Consumer Reports. “This incredibly broad preemption would prevent states from taking action to deal with all sorts of harms, from non-consensual intimate AI images, audio, and video, to AI-driven threats to critical infrastructure or market manipulation, to protecting AI whistleblowers, to assessing high-risk AI decision-making systems for bias or other errors, to simply requiring AI chatbots to disclose that they aren’t human.”
Also at risk are rules related to AI’s use in political campaigns and elections. More than 20 states have enacted laws to address election misinformation and manipulation made easy by new AI tools. In the last presidential election, misinformation was rampant, and inflammatory content was often found to be fake. AI can create false images and false depictions of events, voting problems, and even election interference.
While the bill squeaked through in the House of Representatives, the AI provisions are meeting resistance in the Senate. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) defended her state’s right to protect artists from deepfakes, saying, “Tennessee passed the ELVIS Act, which is like our first generation of the NO FAKES Act, [and] we need those protections….”
The bill doesn’t make any provisions for victims of AI mistakes, even when the federal government is responsible. The two million Texas Medicaid patients who were kicked off the program or denied coverage might find it ironic that, while eliminating consumer protections, the bill allocates $25 million in contracts with AI companies to detect and recoup Medicare fraud. The money for fraud prevention is pennies when compared to other provisions of the bill, which include billions of dollars in AI contracts with the Pentagon and Homeland Security.
A provision being floated by Senate Republicans walks the ban back a bit, saying only states that don’t regulate AI would be eligible for federal broadband funding. Even if that amendment is accepted, it’s not likely to satisfy critics like The Center for Democracy and Technology, which has warned against eliminating regulatory oversight, saying“The resulting unfettered abuses of AI or automated decision systems could run the gamut from pocketbook harms to working families like decisions on rental prices, to serious violations of ordinary Americans’ civil rights…”
The group is urging rejection of the regulatory provisions under Congress’s Byrd Rule, which prohibits budget reconciliation bills from being padded with “extraneous matters” that have no direct impact on the federal budget, an elimination process known as a Byrd bath.
Engagement Resources
- These Hidden Provisions in the Budget Bill Undermine Our Democracy, by Eric Kashdan, June 6, 2025,https://campaignlegal.org/update/these-hidden-provisions-budget-bill-undermine-our-democracy
- Consumer Reports opposes AI state preemption language in House budget reconciliation bill, May 12, 2025, https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-reports-opposes-ai-state-preemption-language-in-house-budget-reconciliation-bill/
- Tracker: State Legislation on Deepfakes In Elections https://www.citizen.org/article/tracker-legislation-on-deepfakes-in-elections/
- Throw the AI Regulations Ban out with the Byrd Bath Water by Travis Hall, May 20, 2025 https://cdt.org/insights/throw-the-ai-regulations-ban-out-with-the-byrd-bath-water/
The Future of Student Loans in Trump’s Presidency (Education Policy Brief #203)
The Future of Student Loans in Trump’s Presidency
Education Policy Brief #203 | Naja Barnes | June 4 , 2025
Since Trump’s attack on the Department of Education, there has been some confusion surrounding the future of student loans. During the Biden Administration, there were discussions on a $20,000 loan forgiveness plan for each borrower, but that has since been struck down by the Supreme Court. Since then, there have been no discussed plans of mass loan forgiveness, but instead, mandatory loan repayments will be enacted.
The U.S. Department of Education has not collected defaults since 2020, during the pandemic. However, on May 5th, 2025, the Department resumed collections on defaulted student loans. Confusion has again begun to rise as discussions on loan repayment become more frequent, surrounding: Who will have to repay come May 5th, what is the default status on student loans, what will the effects be, and what are the different statuses of student loans?
Analysis
May 5th, 2025, was the start of the mandatory collection of defaulted student loans. If a borrower misses a payment, they are delinquent, but if a borrower has not made a payment for 270 days (120 days for private loans), they would be considered in default. Being in default with student loans could affect other aspects of a borrower’s life, such as their credit score and wages. There are options to help avoid automatic deductions from wages for a borrower in default. One option is a referral to a federal debt collection service, another is to make payments and to reach out to federal debt relief programs to arrange a payment plan. If none of those options are chosen by a borrower in default, involuntary collections are made through garnished wages.
How often borrowers make payments depends on how borrowers choose to repay their defaulted loans. An option is to pay the defaulted loan in full. However, the two main ways to get out of default are by loan rehabilitation and loan consolidation. Loan rehabilitation is a one-time process to remove defaulted status from a borrower’s credit history. Borrowers must make nine voluntary, uninterrupted payments over 10 months. Borrowers will have to contact their loan servicer and agree in writing to make the payments. The payment amount will be set by the loan servicer, and documentation of the borrower’s income is needed. Loan consolidation allows borrowers to combine multiple federal student loans into one loan with a single monthly payment, but borrowers will have to pay any future interest on the higher balance.
Student loan borrowers in forbearance or deferment will not be held to mandatory debt collections. Being in default with student loans is different from being in a state of forbearance and deferment. Forbearance and deferment allow a borrower to temporarily suspend payments while interest still accrues, but they differ. Forbearance is a temporary pause or reduction in student loan payments due to financial hardships. Some other eligibility criteria for forbearance are serving in AmeriCorps, serving in the National Guard, or working as a teacher. Deferment is a temporary pause in loan payments due to specific circumstances such as enrolling in school, serving in the military, undergoing cancer treatment, or experiencing economic hardship. Both are temporary solutions that might give a borrower extra time to create a plan on how to repay their student loan debt.
Conclusion
Not every student loan borrower will be forced into mandatory debt collection on May 5th, 2025. Borrowers whose student loans are in default will be faced with garnished wages if they fail to pay their student loans or arrange a payment plan. Borrowers in forbearance or deferment will not be susceptible to garnished wages. However, being in forbearance or deferment is only a temporary solution, as interest most likely will continue to accrue. In any instance of default, forbearance, or deferment, the borrower will most likely still need to complete the payment of their student loans.