JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

USRESIST 2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #6: Colorado

There are ten congressional seats up for the 2026 election in Colorado. All of the state’s eight U.S. House of Representatives seats and one U.S. Senate seat. The Democratic Party currently holds four of the eight House seats and both U.S. Senate seats in a state that has trended Democratic of late.

read more

Montana Youth Return to Court to Block Laws Weakening Climate Protections (Environment Policy Brief #186)

A group of young activists from the landmark Held v. Montana case filed a new challenge against recent state laws. The filed petition challenges several statutes passed by Republicans that threaten the activist group’s victory in the Montana Supreme Court in 2024. According to the group, the new changes are violations of the state’s guarantee of a “clean and healthful environment.” The youth plaintiffs are preparing for a renewed legal fight and highlighting that climate harms are a constitutional issue.

read more

The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #224)

Latin America’s shift towards the political right has continued following the recent elections in both Chile and Honduras. In Chile the election of the far-right Jose Antonio Kast marked the country’s most significant shift rightward since the former Chilean dictator, Agusto Pinochet. The election of Kast now makes three neighboring South American states formerly at odds, Argentina, Bolivia and Chile, firmly in control by the rightwing and all seeking closer relations with the United States. In Honduras the Trump backed candidate, Nasry Asfura has been declared the winner after a more than two week long vote count left those in the small Central American country in suspense. Following the election results, the opposing Liberal Party candidate, Salvador Nasralla refused to concede and alleged interference in the election process by the United States after President Trump conditioned continued aid to the country on whether the right-wing candidate won. Trump also pardoned the former Honduran President found guilty of trafficking drugs to the United States.

read more

Arizona (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #3)

There are ten federal seats up for election in Arizona in 2026. All nine of Arizona’s U.S. House of Representatives seats and one of two Senate seats. Arizona’s Federal congressional delegation reflects its status as a pivotal battleground state. Multiple House districts and a Senate seat are held by Democrats in a state that has historically leaned Republican.

read more

The Final Bill: The Economics, Ethics, and Ecology of American Death Care

Death in the United States has evolved from a community-centered rite into a sprawling, multi-billion-dollar commercial sector often dubbed the funeral industrial complex. With approximately three million Americans dying annually, a figure projected to rise as the baby boomer generation ages, the logistics of disposition have become a pressing socioeconomic challenge. For decades, the default American way of death involved embalming, heavy metal caskets, and concrete vaults, a practice that is historically an anomaly and environmentally taxing. However, economic pressures and shifting cultural attitudes have catalyzed a massive transition toward cremation. In 2024, the cremation rate surpassed 61 percent, with projections suggesting it will exceed 80 percent by 2045.

read more

Trump’s AI Executive Order and the Federal–State Power Struggle (Technology Policy Brief #161)

The Federal-State battle over AI regulation has heated up after President Trump signed an executive order on Dec. 11 that blocks states from enforcing their own regulations on artificial intelligence. The order seeks to create a “single national framework” for AI. However state lawmakers, tech experts, and civil rights organizations are worried about what this means for the country. Many believe that federal regulations could slow down America’s competitiveness in the global AI race and will have serious implications for national security.

read more

Breaking the Chains: Niger’s Pivot from Neocolonialism to Sovereignty (Foreign Policy Brief #224)

The July 2023 military takeover in Niger, led by General Abdourahamane Tchiani and the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP), marked a significant setback for democratic governance in the Sahel. However, the removal of President Mohamed Bazoum must be viewed not merely as an isolated authoritarian power grab, but as a catalyst for a profound geopolitical realignment. In the two years since the coup, the CNSP has systematically dismantled long-standing security frameworks, resulting in the expulsion of French forces in late 2023 and the complete withdrawal of United States military personnel and the closure of key drone bases by September 2024.

read more

The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #223)

Ukraine’s government has agreed to the core parts of a peace deal  brokered by the Trump administration to end the now nearly four year long war. US officials have been meeting with both the Russians and Ukrainians in order to secure an end to the war. The plan was presented as a 28 point peace plan but upon revision by the Ukrainian side has been revised to a 19 point peace plan that no longer includes items such as amnesty regarding acts committed during the war. Ukraine as part of the deal has agreed not to increase the size of its military and will not join NATO under the updated plan.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Arizona (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #3)

Arizona (2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #3)

2026 Democratic Primary Preview Series Brief #3 | Ryan Dulaney | 12/30/2025

  • Announced Arizona Democrat Senate Candidates: Ruben Gallego

  • Announced Arizona Democrat House Candidates: Amish Shah, Marlene Galán-Woods, Brian del Vecchio, Daniel Lucio, Rick McCartney, Jonathan Treble, Eric Descheenie, Jonathan Nez, Yassamin Ansari, Blake Bracht, Brian Hualde, Chris James, Elizabeth Lee, Evan Olson, Justin Poff, JoAnna Mendoza, Jonathan Buma, Samantha Sevenson, Adelita Grijalva, Jillian Barfield, Maria Flores, Bernadette Greene Placentia, Jessie Martines, Keith Lara, Danielle Sterbinsky, Camelia Ward

There are ten federal seats up for election in Arizona in 2026. All nine of Arizona’s U.S. House of Representatives seats and one of two Senate seats. Arizona’s Federal congressional delegation reflects its status as a pivotal battleground state. Multiple House districts and a Senate seat are held by Democrats in a state that has historically leaned Republican.

Arizona’s political landscape has changed over the past two decades. Previously a deep red state in federal races, it has become increasingly competitive, especially in densely populated areas of the state. The Democratic support in presidential elections has steadily increased. Republicans retain strength in more rural districts, while Democrats have made inroads in urban areas such as Maricopa and Pima counties, leading to newly contested House and Senate races.

The state’s population of roughly 7.4 million people, has a median age of 38, and is concentrated primarily in metropolitan areas, particularly around Phoenix and Tucson. This urban-suburban core has been the centerpiece of Democratic gains, while rural communities remain more conservative. These demographics, combined with concerns over affordability, healthcare access, immigration, and reproductive rights, are expected to shape the 2026 federal contests.

Arizona’s primary election is scheduled for August 4, with the general election on November 3.

Democratic Primary Candidates (House + Senate)

U.S. Senate

Sen. Ruben Gallego is the Democratic incumbent, elected to the U.S. Senate in 2024. He previously served a decade in the U.S. House before winning the Senate seat by narrowly defeating a Republican opponent. Gallego represents a statewide Democratic presence in a closely divided state. His tenure in both the House and Senate, combined with his background as a Marine Corps veteran and Latino leader, positions him as a central figure for Arizona Democrats heading into 2026.

Status: Incumbent — expected to seek re-election.

Which population groups support? Donor support?

  • Latino voters, veterans, urban and suburban Democrats
  • Strong institutional Democratic donor support, labor unions, national party-aligned PACs

Why he might win?

  • Incumbency advantage
  • Proven statewide electoral coalition
  • Strong name recognition

Why he might lose?

  • Narrow partisan margins statewide
  • Republican turnout surge in a midterm environment

Key election variables

  • Maricopa County suburban margins
  • Latino turnout levels
  • National political climate

Chances of winning: Moderate

U.S. House — Democratic Primary Fields

AZ-01

Open or competitive seat with a crowded primary.

Amish Shah – Former state legislator and 2024 candidate, running again with a focus on issues like healthcare and affordability.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Suburban Democrats, healthcare-focused voters; some carryover donor support
  • Why he might win? Prior district-wide exposure; policy clarity
  • Why he might lose? Vote splitting in a crowded field
  • Key election variables Primary turnout, consolidation
  • Chances of winning: Moderate

Marlene Galán-Woods – Democratic candidate with local civic engagement experience.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Community activists, local Democratic groups
  • Why she might win? Grassroots appeal
  • Why she might lose? Lower name recognition
  • Key election variables Voter familiarity
  • Chances of winning: Low–Moderate

Brian del Vecchio, Daniel Lucio, Rick McCartney, Jonathan Treble – Additional Democratic candidates who have filed or announced intentions to run.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Limited, mostly small-donor or activist support
  • Why they might win? Fragmented field
  • Why they might lose? Limited resources and visibility
  • Key election variables Field consolidation
  • Chances of winning: Low

AZ-02

Eric Descheenie – Former Arizona state representative focusing on rural infrastructure and community investment.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Rural and tribal voters
  • Why he might win? Legislative experience
  • Why he might lose? Competition from higher-profile challenger
  • Key election variables Tribal turnout
  • Chances of winning: Moderate

Jonathan Nez – Former Navajo Nation president emphasizing tribal advocacy and regional economic development.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Native American voters, tribal leadership networks
  • Why he might win? Strong executive leadership record
  • Why he might lose? Limited appeal outside core base
  • Key election variables Coalition expansion beyond tribal voters
  • Chances of winning: Moderate

AZ-03

Yassamin Ansari – Democratic incumbent representing this urban district, seeking re-election with an emphasis on urban policy issues.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Urban progressives, institutional donors
  • Why she might win? Incumbency in a safe Democratic district
  • Why she might lose? Low probability primary upset
  • Key election variables Progressive turnout
  • Chances of winning: High

Sandy Cano-Bravo – Democratic primary challenger.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Grassroots activists
  • Why she might win? Anti-incumbent sentiment
  • Why she might lose? Incumbent strength
  • Key election variables Primary turnout
  • Chances of winning: Low

AZ-05

Suburban district with multiple Democratic contenders:

Blake Bracht, Brian Hualde, Chris James, Elizabeth Lee, Evan Olson, Justin Poff — A field of Democratic candidates signaling interest but without an established frontrunner.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Limited; mostly early-stage or grassroots
  • Why they might win? Low-turnout dynamics, late consolidation
  • Why they might lose? Lack of clear frontrunner or funding
  • Key election variables Turnout, candidate withdrawal
  • Chances of winning: Low–Moderate (collectively)

AZ-06

Competitive swing district:

JoAnna Mendoza – Veteran and former public service professional; emphasizes cost-of-living and economic issues.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Veterans, working-class voters
  • Why she might win? Compelling biography
  • Why she might lose? Swing district volatility
  • Key election variables Suburban swing voters
  • Chances of winning: Moderate

Johnathan Buma – Former FBI agent focusing on accountability and national security experience.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Law-and-order voters, moderates
  • Why he might win? National security credentials
  • Why he might lose? Crowded primary
  • Key election variables Message resonance
  • Chances of winning: Moderate

Samantha Severson – Academic and policy-oriented candidate

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Policy-focused voters
  • Why she might win? Issue depth
  • Why she might lose? Lower visibility
  • Key election variables Voter awareness
  • Chances of winning: Low

AZ-07

A strongly Democratic district:

Adelita Grijalva – Democratic incumbent who won a special election and is running in the regular cycle.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Progressive voters, Latino communities
  • Why she might win? Safe Democratic seat, incumbency
  • Why she might lose? Unlikely primary challenge
  • Key election variables Turnout
  • Chances of winning: High

AZ-08

West Valley district with a small Democratic field:

Jillian Barfield, Maria Flores, Bernadette Greene Placentia, Jessie Martines — Democratic candidates running in a Republican-leaning district.

  • Which population groups support? Donor support? Limited Democratic base
  • Why they might win? Favorable national environment
  • Why they might lose? District partisanship
  • Key election variables GOP turnout
  • Chances of winning: Low

AZ-09

Mixed partisan suburban district:

Keith Lara, Danielle Sterbinsky, Camelia Ward — Democratic candidates focusing on healthcare, education, and housing affordability.

    • Which population groups support? Donor support? Suburban Democrats, educators, healthcare advocates
    • Why they might win? Issue alignment with suburban voters
    • Why they might lose? Fragmented primary field
    • Key election variables Suburban turnout
    • Chances of winning: Moderate
The Final Bill: The Economics, Ethics, and Ecology of American Death Care

The Final Bill: The Economics, Ethics, and Ecology of American Death Care

Economic Policy Brief #91 | Inijah Quadri | December 26, 2025

Policy Issue Summary

Death in the United States has evolved from a community-centered rite into a sprawling, multi-billion-dollar commercial sector often dubbed the funeral industrial complex. With approximately three million Americans dying annually, a figure projected to rise as the baby boomer generation ages, the logistics of disposition have become a pressing socioeconomic challenge. For decades, the default American way of death involved embalming, heavy metal caskets, and concrete vaults, a practice that is historically an anomaly and environmentally taxing. However, economic pressures and shifting cultural attitudes have catalyzed a massive transition toward cremation. In 2024, the cremation rate surpassed 61 percent, with projections suggesting it will exceed 80 percent by 2045.

This shift is not merely a matter of preference but of necessity for many. The costs associated with traditional burial have skyrocketed, often leaving families with bills exceeding $10,000 for a single service. Consequently, “funeral poverty” has emerged as a silent crisis, with recent surveys indicating that one in three Americans now borrows money to cover end-of-life expenses. Simultaneously, the physical landscape of death is fracturing. The United States contains close to 100,000 active and inactive cemeteries, a number that fluctuates as older, often family or church-run graveyards are abandoned due to lack of funds or changing demographics. Who bears the responsibility for these spaces—particularly those historically segregated and neglected—remains a murky legal and ethical question, often leaving the history of marginalized communities to be erased by nature or development.

Analysis

The modern American approach to death is defined as a tension between the sacredness of grief and the cold logic of the market. The industry has seen significant consolidation, with large corporations and private equity firms acquiring independent funeral homes, often retaining the original family name to maintain a façade of local ownership while raising prices. This commodification exploits the emotional vulnerability of grieving families, who are less likely to price-shop or negotiate. The result is a system where dignity is effectively means-tested. For the wealthy, perpetual care and elaborate monuments are guaranteed; for the poor, the options are increasingly limited to direct cremation or reliance on crowdfunding.

Environmentally, the standard American funeral is an excess of resource consumption. Each year, traditional burials inter millions of feet of hardwood, tons of steel and concrete, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of embalming fluid—a known carcinogen—into the earth. While cremation is often touted as the greener alternative, it too has a significant carbon footprint, requiring high energy usage and releasing mercury and other particulates into the atmosphere. This ecological reality has spurred a small but growing “green burial” movement, which advocates for returning the body to the earth in a biodegradable shroud or container, without chemical preservation or concrete liners. This method aligns closely with many traditional Jewish and Muslim practices, which have long prioritized swift, simple burial in plain wood or cloth, unintentionally offering a model for both ecological sustainability and economic restraint.

The crisis of cemetery maintenance further reveals the systemic inequalities embedded in our death care infrastructure. While “perpetual care” funds are legally required for many modern commercial cemeteries, thousands of older, inactive graveyards fall through regulatory cracks. This neglect is disproportionately visible in African American cemeteries, which have historically been denied the public support and tax dollars afforded to white or Confederate cemeteries. The erasure of these sites is not just a failure of landscaping but a deletion of history—one that recent legislative efforts, such as the African American Burial Grounds Preservation Act, seek to address by supporting documentation and preservation. Grassroots efforts are emerging to reclaim these spaces, viewing them not just as repositories of the dead but as vital archives of community and lineage that the state has failed to protect.

Ultimately, the privatization of death care has created a landscape where the final act of a human life is dictated by profit margins and zip codes. Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach: stricter antitrust regulation to curb corporate price-gouging, increased transparency in pricing, and public investment in the restoration of abandoned cemeteries as cultural heritage sites. It also demands a cultural shift towards “death positivity,” encouraging open conversations about end-of-life wishes and the reclaiming of funeral rites by families and communities, rather than outsourcing them entirely to commercial entities.

Engagement Resources

  • Funeral Consumers Alliance (https://funerals.org/): A nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting a consumer’s right to choose a meaningful, dignified, and affordable funeral. They offer monitoring of legal trends and provide resources to help families avoid funeral poverty.
  • Green Burial Council (https://www.greenburialcouncil.org/): The standard-setting organization for green burial in North America, offering certification for funeral homes, cemeteries, and products that meet rigorous environmental and ethical standards.
  • Black Cemetery Network (https://blackcemeterynetwork.org/): A national network connecting researchers, descendants, and volunteers working to preserve and reclaim historic Black cemeteries, ensuring these sacred sites and their stories are not lost to erasure.
  • The Order of the Good Death (https://www.orderofthegooddeath.com/): A death acceptance organization that advocates for funeral industry reform and promotes open, honest conversations about mortality, including the “death positive” movement.
  • National Home Funeral Alliance (https://www.homefuneralalliance.org/): An organization that educates and empowers families to care for their own dead, promoting home funerals as a legal, safe, and culturally restorative alternative to the commercial funeral industry.
Trump’s AI Executive Order and the Federal–State Power Struggle (Technology Policy Brief #161)

Trump’s AI Executive Order and the Federal–State Power Struggle (Technology Policy Brief #161)

Technology Policy Brief #161 | Jason Collins | December 21, 2025

Summary

The Federal-State battle over AI regulation has heated up after President Trump signed an executive order on Dec. 11 that blocks states from enforcing their own regulations on artificial intelligence. The order seeks to create a “single national framework” for AI. However state lawmakers, tech experts, and civil rights organizations are worried about what this means for the country. Many believe that federal regulations could slow down America’s competitiveness in the global AI race and will have serious implications for national security.

ANALYSIS

Trump cites the use of 50 different regulatory regimes adopted by different states as a reason for the new regulations. To change this, his order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) within 30 days. The task force’s responsibility is to challenge state AI laws. Within 90 days of the order, Trump has ordered the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other advisors, to evaluate and publish an evaluation report on state AI laws. Focus will be on laws deemed to conflict with federal priorities like minimizing regulatory burden on AI developers, protecting national security and preventing what Trump called “ideological bias” in AI models.

The rationale behind the order was to update what Trump called a “patchwork” of regulations, which he felt hampered the progress and made compliance more challenging. In the order, Trump had written, “My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State ones.” He added, “A carefully crafted national framework can ensure that the United States wins the AI race, as we must.”

In addition to addressing compliance challenges, the order seeks to correct state AI laws that Trump believes embed ideological bias in models and will impact 159 AI laws. This year has seen a large increase in new AI laws adopted by multiple states. According to a NYU State Technology Policy report, 46 states have enacted their own AI regulatory laws, which are now in the crosshairs. States like California and Colorado have some of the most comprehensive AI laws, which are now under threat. For example, the Colorado AI Act aims to protect people from algorithmic discrimination. State lawmakers have slammed the order, saying it weakens protections against algorithmic bias, reduces oversight of surveillance technologies, and undermines state authority. Some critics worry that the order could allow big tech companies to evade accountability.

Julie Scelfo, from the advocacy group Mothers Against Media Addiction, said in a statement that “Stripping states from enacting their own AI safeguards undermines states’ basic rights to establish sufficient guardrails to protect their residents.”

Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone, whose recent AI law was referenced in the order, has no plans of stopping state AI regulation. Titone said, “States have rights to put policies in place that we feel are in the best interest of our constituents. The Constitution allows that … no executive order can legally stop us from doing that, and it will be challenged in court.”

The National Conference of State Legislatures took a stance against the order, and 280 state lawmakers sent a letter to Congress protesting it. The order has also sparked debate within the Republican Party, as members are divided over the path forward. Figures like Vice President JD Vance push for a lighter touch framework, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been vocal in his support for state-level regulation.

As state-level resistance grows, legal experts predict that the battle for AI-governance will be pushed into the courts for the Supreme Court to decide.

This isn’t the first attempt to prevent states from regulating AI. In July, Congress had blocked Republicans’ attempt to do the same thing, and some lawmakers believe the same could happen again. But for now, state governments, technology companies, and advocacy groups will have to face prolonged uncertainty as the scope of federal authority is tested.   

Engagement Resources

Breaking the Chains: Niger’s Pivot from Neocolonialism to Sovereignty (Foreign Policy Brief #224)

Breaking the Chains: Niger’s Pivot from Neocolonialism to Sovereignty (Foreign Policy Brief #224)

Foreign Policy Brief #224 | Inijah Quadri | December 14, 2025

Policy Issue Summary

The July 2023 military takeover in Niger, led by General Abdourahamane Tchiani and the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP), marked a significant setback for democratic governance in the Sahel. However, the removal of President Mohamed Bazoum must be viewed not merely as an isolated authoritarian power grab, but as a catalyst for a profound geopolitical realignment. In the two years since the coup, the CNSP has systematically dismantled long-standing security frameworks, resulting in the expulsion of French forces in late 2023 and the complete withdrawal of United States military personnel and the closure of key drone bases by September 2024.

Concurrently, Niger has pivoted toward a new model of regional autonomy. In September 2023, Niger joined Mali and Burkina Faso to form the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), a pact designed to prioritize mutual defense and internal sovereignty over traditional Western partnerships. This shift culminated in the three nations’ formal exit from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in January 2025. While the rejection of democratic norms and the shift away from ECOWAS are concerning, they signal a deep-seated frustration with the status quo. The region remains volatile, but these developments underscore the urgent need to understand why long-standing US and Western engagement failed to secure stability or win the hearts and minds of the Nigerien people.

Analysis

The events in Niger serve as a critical wake-up call for Western policymakers.  Popular support for the CNSP suggests that the previous democratic arrangement was failing to deliver tangible benefits to the average citizen. For decades, Niger has been integrated into Western economic and security architectures—most notably through uranium exports to France—yet its population remains among the poorest in the world. The CNSP’s recent moves to reclaim control over mining assets, including the revocation of Orano’s operating licenses, resonate with a public that perceives a disconnect between their country’s resource wealth and their own economic reality.

From a US security perspective, the loss of Air Base 201 in Agadez, among other military bases in the region, is a strategic failure that demands introspection. The United States invested millions (possibly billions) of dollars into these installations to project power and counter terrorism. Yet, despite this massive expenditure of tax dollars and a decade of operations, violent extremism in the Sahel metastasized rather than receded.

This creates a painful paradox: The US presence was viewed by many locals not as a partnership for development, but as a militarized occupation that offered little in the way of economic uplift. By prioritizing a “security-first” approach over holistic economic development and governance, US policy inadvertently created a vacuum that the military junta has filled with populist rhetoric and new alliances.

The Niger  junta’s pivot toward Russia—evidenced by the arrival of military instructors and agreements for nuclear energy cooperation—is a direct challenge to American influence. However, dismissing this merely as “malign Russian influence” ignores the agency of African nations. Niger is seeking partners who they believe will offer better terms or more immediate security results. The failure of the “War on Terror” model in the Sahel suggests that without addressing root causes like poverty and lack of opportunity, military assistance alone is insufficient to sustain a democracy.

The lesson is clear: Democracy cannot just be a slogan; it must deliver results. The pivot in Niger is not simply anti-West, but a rejection of a policy framework that failed to improve the lives of Nigeriens. If the United States and France wish to champion democracy and counter the influence of authoritarian rivals like Russia, they must offer a value proposition that goes beyond drone bases and security assistance. Future engagement must respect Nigerien sovereignty while offering genuine economic partnerships that benefit the population, proving that democracy is the most viable path to prosperity.

Engagement Resources

  • Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research (https://thetricontinental.org/): A global research institute that produces dossiers and analysis on the Sahel’s struggle for sovereignty, offering a perspective grounded in the needs of the working class and the Global South.
  • Peoples Dispatch (https://peoplesdispatch.org/): A media project providing extensive coverage of the Alliance of Sahel States, offering on-the-ground reporting that counters mainstream Western narratives regarding the coups in West Africa.
  • Black Agenda Report (https://www.blackagendareport.com/): A news and analysis outlet that consistently critiques US imperialism in Africa, providing detailed commentary on the role of AFRICOM and the political economy of the Sahel.
  • Pan-Africanism Today (https://panafricantoday.com/): A secretariat coordinating solidarity with African struggles, which has organized conferences and webinars connecting the movements in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso with broader anti-imperialist networks.
  • Urgences Panafricanistes (https://urpan-official.com/): An NGO led by Kemi Seba that campaigns against the CFA franc and French neocolonialism, playing a significant role in the civil society mobilization that supported the expulsion of foreign troops.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #223)

The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #223)

Foreign Policy Brief #223 | Abran C. | December 15, 2025

President Zelenskyy addressed the Swedish Parliament on Monday morning. www.president.gov.ua

Picture1

Ukraine Peace deal?

Ukraine’s government has agreed to the core parts of a peace deal  brokered by the Trump administration to end the now nearly four year long war. US officials have been meeting with both the Russians and Ukrainians in order to secure an end to the war. The plan was presented as a 28 point peace plan but upon revision by the Ukrainian side has been revised to a 19 point peace plan that no longer includes items such as amnesty regarding acts committed during the war. Ukraine as part of the deal has agreed not to increase the size of its military and will not join NATO under the updated plan.

However, the main criticism of the proposed plan is the legitimation of Russian control over captured Ukrainian territory in Dobas and does not have popular support from Ukraine or its European allies. European officials have called for the inclusion of a demilitarized zone and the inclusion of an article of defense for Ukraine similar to NATO’s article 5 which calls for mutual defense of all members. The Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskky recently stated as part of whether he would accept succeeding territory to Russia, “Are we considering giving up any territory? We have no legal right, under Ukrainian law, under our constitution, under international law, and honestly, we have no moral right, either”. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that Ukrainian troops must withdraw from Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region or Russia would seize it, rejecting any compromise over handing captured territory back to Ukraine and throwing a wrench in any prospects for peace that require concessions from the Russian side over captured land.

Picture2

Escalating tensions between the US and Venezuela

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro addresses a crowd flanked by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello (left) and his wife Cilia Flores during a rally in Caracas, Jan. 23, 2025.

Pedro Rances Mattey/Anadolu/Getty 

Amid the buildup of US military forces in the Caribbean the Trump administration has now moved to designate Cartel de los Sols as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) with Nicolas Maduro as the head. The new designation by the Trump administration is thought to be another indication that the administration is seeking to conduct strikes inside of Venezuela. Secretary of War/Defense Pete Hegseth recently said the FTO designation “gives more tools” to the Defense Department and “gives options” to the President.

The “Cartel de Los Soles” or Cartel of the Suns is a term used to describe groups within Venezuela’s armed forces implicated in a wide range of criminal activities, including gasoline smuggling, illegal mining, drug smuggling and other corruption schemes. It has only recently been used to describe an official formal drug cartel. Labelling an organisation as a terrorist group gives US law enforcement and military agencies broader powers to target and dismantle it. Over the last few days the Trump administration has declared the skies over Venezuela closed and airlines have halted flights in and out of the country. The Maduro government has criticized the moves by the US and dismissed drug trafficking accusations. Venezuela’s foreign ministry stated that it absolutely rejected the designation, which it describes as a “new and ridiculous lie”. Last week for the first time the US seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela and President Trump has repeatedly raised the likelihood of US military intervention in Venezuela.

Picture3

Deadly Floods in Asia

A drone view of an area hit by deadly flash floods following heavy rains in Palembayan, Agam regency, West Sumatra province, Indonesia [Willy Kurniawan/Reuters]

Catastrophic floods and landslides have hit multiple countries leaving over a thousand dead and hundreds more missing. Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Thailand have all been affected, with over 800 people reported missing and more than 1,400 declared dead. In Indonesia, the worst-hit country, washed-out roads and collapsed bridges have left rescuers struggling to reach some of the hardest-hit areas in North and Western Sumatra. Though unlike middle income countries such as Indonesia or Thailand, Sri Lanka has been less able to react to the floods devastation. Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister, Harini Amarasuriya, met with diplomats from the region to appeal to them to support the country’s relief and reconstruction efforts. Countries such as India, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates have launched efforts to provide aid.

Three Typhoon storms hit the region in quick succession, Typhoon Koto which moved from the Philippines towards Vietnam, Cyclone Senyar, a rare storm that spun up in the narrow Strait of Malacca and lashed Indonesia, Malaysia, and southern Thailand and Tropical Cyclone Ditwah, which crossed Sri Lanka and India’s south-east coast. All of these storms in unison cause the massive flooding and loss of life witnessed in recent days. Water temperatures are reported to be warmer than normal in the region, warmer ocean temperatures provide more energy for storms. Climate scientists expect the frequency and ferocity of these storms to be a new normal.

Picture4 

Congo-Rawanda peace deal

U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he hosts the signing ceremony of a peace deal with the President of Rwanda Paul Kagame (L) and the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Felix Tshisekedi (R) at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, DC, on Dec. 4, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds—AFP/Getty Images

Last week, President Donald Trump hailed a “historic” peace deal dubbed the “Washington Accords for Peace and Prosperity” between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. The deal brokered by the US and Qatar is a reaffirmed commitment to a US brokered deal signed in June which itself had failed to quell fighting. The two nations have had brewing conflicts over the past 30 years, but the violence sharply escalated in early 2025 after Rwanda-backed M23 rebels seized large parts of mineral-rich eastern DRC. The Trump administration has spearheaded talks between DR Congo and Rwanda, hoping that resolving the fighting would allow the US to increase investments in the resource rich region. However, even after the signing of the deal deadly clashes have marred efforts to begin implementing the terms of the agreement. The United States has accused Rwanda of fueling the instability and continued fighting. More than 400 civilians have been killed following the recent surge in fighting as the Rwanda-backed M23 armed group continues its offensive in South Kivu province in the eastern DRC.

Picture5

Australia social media ban for minors

The teen social media ban will come into effect for some platforms today. (ABC News: Lindsay Dunbar)

Australia has become one of the first countries in the world to ban social media platforms from allowing children 16 and under from having accounts. While the law officially kicks in on December 10, Meta has already begun removing Instagram, Threads and Facebook accounts in order to comply with the new law. At the time of writing, the law applies to only ten major sites and platforms Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Kick and Threads. These companies, should they fail to comply with the removal of underaged accounts, would face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars or $33 million USD.

The companies have been provided with a number of options for determining the age of users, the most common being an online scan of a users ID such as a drivers license. The Australian eSafety Commissioner will be sending the 10 platforms notices on Dec. 11 demanding information on the numbers of accounts removed. The Malaysian government has followed suit and said it would also ban social media accounts for children younger than 16 starting in 2026. Additionally the European Commission, France, Denmark, Greece, Romania and New Zealand have all also expressed interest in setting a minimum age for social media.

An Analysis of the California – Texas Re-Districting Fight (Civil Rights Brief #249)

An Analysis of the California – Texas Re-Districting Fight (Civil Rights Brief #249)

Civil Rights Brief #249 | Rod Maggay | December 9, 2025

Policy Summary: After the State of Texas’ approval of a re – drawn state congressional map that would be used in 2026 to give them five more likely Republican districts, the State of California decided to respond.

California and Governor Gavin Newsom (D)  placed on the 2025 state ballot Proposition 50, known as the Election Rigging Response Act. Since California uses an independent re – districting commission to draw its congressional and state legislative districts, it couldn’t simply have the state legislature pass a bill for a new map and have it signed by the governor like in Texas. The Election Rigging Response Act first re – affirmed its commitment to continue using an independent re – districting commission for future elections. However, the bill authorized a temporary situation where the Legislature would be permitted to re – draw the state map. The new map would make and add the same number of Democratic leaning districts that Texas allowed in their new map – in this case five. The Act was then placed on the ballot for approval from California voters. On November 4, 2025, the act was approved overwhelmingly – 64% voted yes to temporarily allow the Legislature to re – draw the map while 36% voted against. For the upcoming 2026 mid – term elections California would be using a re – drawn map that will likely give it five more Democratic leaning districts.

That was not the end of the re – districting war between the two states.

After the Election Rigging Response Act was approved by California voters, the California Republican Party filed a lawsuit in California to block implementation of the act and the new map. The Department of Justice intervened to become a plaintiff in the lawsuit. That case is now set to be heard in early 2026.

While in Texas, the situation took an unexpected turn. On November 18, 2025 the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas barred the use of the newly re – drawn Texas congressional map and ordered the state to use the prior state legislative district map. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. On December 5, 2025, the Court in an unsigned opinion agreed to temporarily pause the order from the federal district court, in effect allowing Texas to use their newly drawn map for the upcoming 2026 mid – term elections.

Policy Analysis: The twists and turns during the re – districting war have seen head – scratching comments and an unlikely twist that weakens Texas’ rationale for re – districting while strengthening California’s efforts to push back on Texas’ efforts.

Attorney General Pam Bondi responded to California’s Proposition 50 by calling it “a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process.” Additionally, DOJ responded to California’s efforts with “we will stop your DEI districts for 2026.” The Department’s intervention in the California lawsuit to prevent implementation of Prop. 50 also claimed that the California map was re – drawn to favor one race over another. These comments are questionable with a closer examination of the facts.

First, for the Attorney General to call Prop. 50 a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights while mocking the democratic process is non – sensical. California did not initiate this re – districting war – Texas did by re – drawing their maps first in a year when it didn’t have to. Texas only did so at the behest of President Donald Trump because of his rumored fears about being impeached. California even made efforts to not go through with their re – districting efforts – with Proposition 50 only going into effect if Texas did and with Governor Newsom calling Texas officials to let them know that they didn’t have to go forward with re – districting. If there was any alleged power grab or mockery of the democratic process,  that likely is the fault of Texas and not California. And the claims of DEI and race as a motivation is even more non – sensical. California had no racial motivation to re – draw their maps and even the Supreme Court acknowledged that in their December 5 order written by none other than Justice Samuel Alito. The Justice wrote that it is “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.” The Supreme Court here is unquestioningly rebuking the AG and the DOJ’s claims of racial motivation in the re – drawing of the California map and calling it exactly what it is – a partisan reason. For senior government Trump officials to get the motivation to re – draw the map completely wrong questions whether they are truly aware of how this re – districting war is playing out or are trying to mislead citizens.

Finally, the decision by the Supreme Court in the appeal of the El Paso district court decision on December 5 likely may have weakened the Republicans’ lawsuit in California while strengthening California’s legal defense of Proposition 50. The Republicans and DOJ claim in their lawsuit that California re – drew their map with the intent of depriving racial minorities of equal representation in Congress. However, the facts demonstrate that the only reason California put forth Proposition 50 was to counter Texas’ purely partisan reason to re – draw their state map. The proposition even had an escape clause that re – districting in California would only go forward if Texas did. The stated purpose of the proposition in ballot materials was to counter Texas which demonstrates that the bill was designed for partisan purposes and not race. There is no hint of race as being a factor at all. Even Justice Alito called California and Texas efforts “for partisan advantage” which is permitted under law. So, Texas and DOJ’s lawsuit in California to block Prop. 50 has essentially been undermined, no less than with words from the Supreme Court. It is difficult to argue that Prop. 50 had a racial motivation when all the facts demonstrate otherwise. And California gets a boost as their legal defense of the case against it puts their efforts on the right side of the law – that they crafted Proposition 50 for permitted partisan reasons and not racial terms.

These cases are likely not the last word on this re – districting battle as the case in California is still scheduled for a full trial as well as likely appeals to the Supreme Court. Not to mention that there are other re – districting battles going on in other red and blue states that have not been determined yet.

Should Transgender Athletes be Allowed to Compete? (Foreign Policy Brief #225)

Should Transgender Athletes be Allowed to Compete? (Foreign Policy Brief #225)

Foreign Policy Brief #225 | Reilly Fitzgerald | December 3, 2025

Policy Summary

Recently the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has been considering the idea of altering their policies on inclusion of transgendered athletes in the Olympic Games. Currently, and since 2004, the IOC’s rules have allowed for each nation’s federation to determine inclusivity of transgendered athletes (or not to include them). In the history of the Olympic Games, there has only ever been one transgender athlete compete and it was New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard (Olympic weightlifting); and a transgender athlete has NEVER won a medal in the Olympic Games.

 The proposal is seeking a uniform policy that the IOC would apply across all Olympic competitions, taking power from each federation’s ability to determine who is, or is not, included in an Olympic delegation. The IOC has yet to decide on whether or not to move this policy forward; however, it is heavily reported across all media platforms that this policy will become real. It should be noted that this policy only seems to be applicable to women’s sports as it aims to target transgender athletes and potentially test athletes to confirm their gender as females.

This Brief describes the background and history of the challenging issue of testing for transgender athletes.

Background

Gender identity and sports has become a household topic both in the United States and abroad. In the United States local, state, and federal policymakers, including the President, have weighed in on the issues; some states have even passed legislation either targeting  or promoting inclusion in sports. Based on reporting from The Hill, in December 2024, the NCAA President Charlie Baker told the US Senate that there were ‘ less than 10 transgender student-athletes in the NCAA (out of over 500,000 student-athletes)..

The International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) Dr. Jane Thornton has spoken about some early research findings that are pointing toward a physical and competitive advantage for transgender athletes who transitioned after experiencing male puberty, even after suppressing testosterone in their bodies, according to The Ministry of Sport. This is furthering the desires of the IOC’s president, Kirsty Coventry, who is calling for a more uniform and blanket policy for the inclusion, or rejection, of transgender athletes in the Olympics. Currently, each nation’s sporting federations get to decide whether or not to include transgender athletes in their nation’s delegations. The IOC’s potential shift in policy would make it so that each federation would have to follow one policy and not have the freedom to include these athletes.

The policy shift is one that would encourage further testing and scrutiny of transgender athletes to confirm their gender. Some sporting federations are already conducting tests to confirm gender. The International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS) has been utilizing cheek swabs and blood testing to verify gender in their ski and snowboard competitions. The International Boxing Association (IBA) is also conducting testing of their own; however, there has been controversy regarding their practices. The IBA is a Russian-led association, and they were at the forefront of the Imane Khelif case. Khelif was disqualified from the 2023 World Championships after tests supposedly revealed XY chromosomes and higher levels of testosterone; however, the IOC cleared her to compete in the 2024 Paris Olympics, and these results were never officially revealed. The IBA did not reveal their testing methods. The timing of the disqualification came just a few days after Imane Khelif defeated Russian boxer Azelia Amineva, who had been undefeated before their fight. This is just one example of the use of gender confirming testing, or supposed testing, being used against athletes in unethical ways.

World Athletics, which oversees track and field events globally, instituted new rulings this summer ahead of the World Athletics Championships in Tokyo in September. The rulings required all female athletes to be subjected to genetic testing to confirm the presence of XY chromosomes, suggesting that it would detect whether an athlete was male or female genetically. It appears to be a ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ test; however, according to the BBC some countries have outlawed genetic testing for non-medical reasons. This type of law and ban in countries like France and Norway have meant that athletes from these countries must conduct these genetic tests abroad, and not within the borders of their own countries. This decision was sparked by champion athlete Caster Semenya’s gender being questioned due to her successes. She was determined to be an athlete who was born with “differences in sex development” (or DSD). Semenya always competes as a female due to externally having female reproductive organs, but also has internal testes.

This has been called into question in the past too, in 2016’s Olympics in Rio, all three podium finishers in the women’s 800m were athletes with DSD (Disorders of Sexual Development)conditions (and Semenya won gold at that race), according to the BBC.

History

The idea of gender confirmation testing in athletics is not a new concept. Women’s sports was brought into the Olympic Games in 1924. By the 1950s and 1960s, concerns regarding doping and gender fraud became more prevalent (oftentimes, these rumors were based on visual stereotypes). The 1936 Olympics in Berlin had several issues related to gender.  In the 100 meters, Helen Stephen defeated Stella Walsh (Stanisława Walasiewicz). Helen defeated Walsh in the 100 meter dash. A Polish publication accused Helen Stephens of being a man due to her impressive performance. Olympic officials carried out a physical examination to confirm Helen’s gender as a female, and it was confirmed, and she was awarded her medal. However, Stella Walsh was killed in the 1980s in a shooting in Ohio; and the autopsy revealed that she had a genetic condition with “ambiguous genitalia” known as mosaicism. Mosaicism is a condition that is created when a single egg is fertilized and creates an error when cells begin to divide. It should be stated that Walsh’s gender identity, that she lived with her entire life, was female.

After the 1936 Olympics, gender testing continued to evolve. In the 1960s and 1970s, physical exams were commonplace across all international sports; ironically, one competitor was disqualified, at the 1967 Pan-American Games in Winnipeg, for not having large enough breasts to be considered feminine. Physical exams were as invasive, at times, as they sound; they ranged from a hands-off examination, to a physically manipulative exam, and other methods all of which were humiliating and degrading. Chromosomal testing became quite popular after being introduced at the 1968 Winter Olympics in Grenoble, however, a false positive was not an uncommon occurrence. In a 2010 study  Vanessa Huggie  wrote “this test for chromosomal sex does not necessarily map on to physiological or phenotypic sex, which are the only kinds of sexual identity that confer a sporting advantage (and there are many confounding conditions, as people can be born with just one or three or more sex chromosomes …”

The organization that led the charge in the 1940s for more gender testing was the International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF). The IAAF was insistent on conducting more tests to sort out cases of accused gender fraud. By the 1980s, the IAAF dropped its usage of chromosomal testing and genetic tests for physical examinations. All testing was dropped by 1992 due to new urine tests for doping control, and the idea that minimal clothing in sports would help reveal one’s gender. By 1999, the IOC ended the requirement for any blanket testing policies, and the 2000 Olympics in Sidney were the first to be done since 1936 without gender confirmation testing.

The goal for the IOC now is to create a blanket gender testing policy  for the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. President Trump has been one of the most ardent supporters of policies limiting or erasing the participation, of transgender athletes in sports at all levels; and has even called for more testing by the IOC ahead of the 2028 Games. President Trump has also made mention of Title IX , a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination, as his means of ‘protecting women in women’s sports’ while excluding and perhaps discriminating against transgender athletes.

 Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers around the country have fought to create more inclusionary policies. California, currently, allows transgender athletes to participate in sports through the high school level; and their policy is based on gender identity rather than genetics. The Olympics in LA in 2028 are going to be a contentious one to watch on this issue as the stage is being set for inclusive California to be hosting the Olympics which, under the IOC, may very well end the inclusionary practices that have been in place since 2000.

Conclusion

The American people also seem to have moved closer toward President Trump’s positioning on this issue with a recent Pew Research Center poll showing that 66% of Americans believe that transgender athletes ought to participate on sports teams, or in sporting divisions, that match the sex that was assigned to them  at birth. This positioning though seems to lack nuance that historical perspective may provide such as stories like Stella Walsh whose own gender was a bit more complicated than just “male” or “female.”

Though a decision has yet to be made, it does seem that the IOC is interested in repeating history by bringing back these gender confirmation tests – even though there are decades worth of false positives, mixed results, and conflicting bodies of evidence in the research literature. It seems unfair and hypocritical that this policy is only regarding women’s sports and does not appear to be an expectation on the men’s side of the Olympics. There is a lot that is going to be decided in 2026 as we move closer to Los Angeles 2028; but the IOC would be wise to review some of their own history and decisions.

Engagement Resources

  1. Testing sex and gender in sports; reinventing, reimagining and reconstructing histories (Heggie, 2010) –https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3007680/#:~:text=For%20men%20there%20is%20no,the%20phrase%20’sex%20testing
  2. Pew Research Polls – https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/
  3. Decision to Abolish Gender Testing at Sydney Olympics Supported By Yale Physician (Yale School of Medicine, 2000) – https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/decision-to-abolish-gender-testing-at-sydney-olympics-supported-by-yale-physician/
Is Trump trying to dig up the ocean? And what does the rest of the world think? “Seabed Mining” (Environment Policy Brief #185)

Is Trump trying to dig up the ocean? And what does the rest of the world think? “Seabed Mining” (Environment Policy Brief #185)

Environment Policy Brief #185 | Charlie Sweeney | December 12, 2025

In keeping with the administration’s bull-in-a-China-shop approach to the environment, foreign policy, tariffs, and just about every other domestic and international issue, the Trump team now wants to dig up the bottom of the sea.

Though it might sound more like a dystopian science fiction film premise— enormous machines crawling across the seafloor, scooping up mineral-rich rocks, sending clouds of sediment drifting for miles, smothering deep-sea life, changing water chemistry, leaving deep trench-like scars on the seabed that remain visible decades— this could be reality with the Trump administration’s new seabed mining initiative.

In late April 2025, the president signed a directive telling federal agencies to “unleash” America’s offshore mineral resources. The bold language calls for the relevant US government apparatus to take an active lead in deep-sea exploration and encourage private companies to get into the game.

Trump’s seabed mining EO tells NOAA to get permits moving faster, pushes the Interior Department to map offshore areas where valuable metals might be found, an extreme break with the current international agreements governing exploitation of the sea bed in international waters.

The idea is familiar, and in keeping with Trump‘s single-minded pursuit of the building blocks of our modern technological economy— minerals needed for batteries, electronics, and the defense industry, which are often processed in China.

Trump’s seabed mining EO defies established convention, acting unilaterally despite long-standing international agreements protecting the seabed from commercial exploitation until fully fleshed-out guidelines can be agreed upon by the international community.

From the administration’s point of view, waiting for years of international negotiation is too slow, so the United States should act first. That includes the possibility of approving mining in waters outside the US’s EEZ (exclusive economic zone).

Not surprisingly, alarms went off around the world.

Foreign governments, scientists, and ocean advocates reacted immediately. China warned that no nation should treat the deep seabed as its own property. The International Seabed Authority — the body that oversees activity in international waters — said American permits issued outside its system could undermine decades of work.

Environmental groups went further. Many see the policy as a reckless push to open a barely understood ecosystem to industrial extraction. They point to research showing how long damage can last.

One of the sharpest criticisms came from Earthjustice, which called the policy “a life raft for an untested, opaque industry that science is telling us poses enormous threats to ocean ecosystems for little gain.”

Private mining companies have taken notice. A Canadian firm, The Metals Company, has already begun discussions with U.S. officials about exploiting a swath of the Pacific, a move that drew intensive protests from island nations, environmental groups, and deep-sea ocean life researchers.

What are the rules in place, and how does Trump’s EO circumvent those protections?

The current international system for decades has held that the deep seabed beyond national borders be treated as a shared trust — the “common heritage of mankind.”

International rules were created through the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which established the International Seabed Authority.

That body has issued exploration licenses, but it has never approved commercial mining. Final rules for full-scale operations are still being negotiated.

Today, dozens of countries and many corporations support a moratorium or pause until more science is done. They argue the risks are too great, and recovery is too slow.

Deep-sea animals are slow-growing, fragile, and often found nowhere else on Earth. If we scrape them away, the wounds may outlast us.

Engagement Resources

How low will he go? President Trump’s penchant for debasing himself undermines U.S. Credibility (Elections & Politics Brief #201)

How low will he go? President Trump’s penchant for debasing himself undermines U.S. Credibility (Elections & Politics Brief #201)

Elections & Politics Brief #201 | Nicholas Gordon | December 15, 2025

Summary

If you were new to President Trump’s Oval Office press conferences with world leaders, you might have found his meeting with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) on Tuesday, November 18, to be an astonishingly low moment for a U.S President. As though determined to debase himself and weaken U.S. credibility, Trump dismissed U.S. intelligence findings linking the crown prince to the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, while savagely attacking the reporter who asked about it. And, per usual, Trump went out of his way to denigrate past presidents and brag about himself ad nauseum.

The moment was grim, and all too familiar. Time and again, Trump subjects his Oval Office guests to degrading behavior—from ambushing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to presenting false claims of “white genocide” to the South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. The pattern makes a mockery of the office and undermines the American people. It’s beyond time for Republican leaders to show respect for the citizens they serve by taking a stand against Trump’s Oval Office depravity.

Analysis

Last February, President Trump hosted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in an Oval Office meeting which quickly soured, setting the tone for the egregious encounters that followed. Zelenskyy, visiting with the aim of forging a minerals deal that would help ensure further U.S. support as he defends his country against the ongoing Russian war, instead found himself ambushed by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. In their attack on the leader of a U.S. ally, Trump and Vance accused Zelenskyy of failing to show proper gratitude for U.S. aid. The American leaders then took turns berating and humiliating Zelenskyy, calling him disrespectful and pointing out that Ukraine was losing soldiers on the battlefield. This dismal exchange came on the heels of Trump wrongly accusing Ukraine of starting the war, when in fact Russia invaded Ukraine more than three years ago. After being tossed from the Oval Office and having his subsequent events in Washington canceled, Zelenskyy showed grace and diplomacy, thanking both the administration and the American people.

In May, Trump ambushed President Ramaphosa with false claims of “white genocide” and “land seizures” during another disastrous meeting that rivaled the indignity of Trump’s ambush of Zelenskyy. Deeply misinformed by debunked race-based conspiracy theories, Trump played a video showing rows of white crosses lining a rural road, and claimed, “These are burial sites right here. Burial sites. Over a thousand of white farmers.” But Trump was dead wrong. The crosses do not mark graves. The clip depicted a protest against the murder of a white farming couple in 2020.

“Have they told you where that is Mr. President?” Ramaphosa asked calmly. “I’d like to know where that is, because this I’ve never seen.” Trump responded, wrongly, “These people are officials, and they’re saying ‘kill the white farmer and take his land.’”—and brandished a copy of a random blog post he asserted was about “white farmers being burned.” The image on the blog post was in fact from the Democratic Republic of Congo, not South Africa.

Ramaphosa was praised for his composure and diplomatic skill in handling Trump’s bullying and false allegations, while Trump was widely denounced for his bigotry and ignorance. “There is criminal activity in our country,” Ramaphosa explained, expertly modulating his tone and content to meet the comprehension level of his deluded interlocutor. “People who do get killed unfortunately through criminal activity, are not only white people. The majority of them are black people,” Ramaphosa said, in a statement backed by facts.

Following the meeting, Rep. Yvette Clarke wrote on social media, “The president’s ignorance of history and reality is an embarrassment to our nation. South Africa’s Black population was subjugated, segregated, and murdered for decades. Trump and Musk can lie and cry all day, but their hoax has no comparison to the brutality of Apartheid.”

And yet, it gets worse

Sitting with the crown prince—a man with a growing list of human rights abuses—Trump sunk to new lows. When  ABC News reporter Mary Bruce asked MBS about his alleged involvementin the murder of Khashoggi in 2018, Trump savagely attacked Bruce. “You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter,” Trump said. “Your crappy company, your news is so fake we should look at that. The way you ask a question with the anger and meanness is terrible. You ought to go back and learn how to be a reporter.” Accusing Bruce of “insubordination,” Trump stated that the crown prince knew nothing about Khashoggi’s murder. “A lot of people didn’t like that gentleman you’re talking about. Whether you like him or didn’t like him, things happen,” said Trump, who has a history of trashing U.S. intelligence conclusions in favor of tyrants.

If undermining the U.S. intelligence community and the free press, two pillars of democracy, were not enough, Trump then took his customary potshots at his presidential predecessors and boasted about his voting numbers, all of which comments were utterly out of context. After claiming that “Obama treated Saudi very badly,” and “Biden didn’t have any idea where the hell the country was,” Trump turned to his guest and asked, “Does Trump blow them all away?” Smiling sheepishly, the crown prince replied, “We’ve worked with all presidents.” Later, apropos of nothing, Trump stated, “I won Indiana by record numbers. I won many states by record numbers.” While the crown prince’s smile oozed embarrassment throughout the meeting, it’s unclear whether he was smiling because he got away with murder or because of Trump’s vulgarity. Perhaps both.

Conclusion

Americans want their president to do well. We want Trump to honor the democratic principles that the world looks to United States to uphold. But by constantly attacking our allies, reporters, intelligence agencies, and past U.S. presidents—often while siding with dictators and serial human rights’ abusers—Trump undermines and disrespects the very people he was elected to serve and protect. Ironically, for a president obsessed with trying to project strength and emulate a strongman, Trump personifies weakness and insecurity in his Oval Office behavior. Republican leaders who have been complicit in Trump’s act for a decade by kowtowing to his demonstrable falsehoods and abject racism need to hold him accountable to a higher standard of leadership if we hope to restore U.S. credibility.

Engagement Resources:

  • org
    • A nonprofitthat “aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics by providing original research on misinformation and hoaxes.”
  • The Hoover Institute
    • A public policy think tank that “seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind”
  • The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)
    • An independent, nonprofit foundation “dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world.”
The Need for a US Technology Policy 

The Need for a US Technology Policy 

USRESIST NEWS GROUP OP ED

It is a  technological age, but America lacks the semblance of a policy to regulate our use of technology. We have so far failed to develop policies to help assure us that our economic and social well-being is not being picked apart by our use  of  unregulated technological platforms.

 The US has  enacted  regulations that more or less effectively guide our use of mass media communications; why not technology? Is it in part because of the enormous  power that technology companies hold in our economy; because of their lobbying efforts? because our politicians are frightened of losing funding support from technology billionaires?  Because of fears that regulating technology also would be a violation of free speech?

Whatever the reasons, we at USRESIST NEWS believe our country needs to  take greater action. The abuses that technology causes have begun to outweigh their benefits. We propose that Congress and the administration take immediate action and enact policies to regulate our use of technology. Such policires would cover the following issues. 

1.Regulating cell phone use by children

The major focus for regulating the use of technology by children , mainly cell phones, has been at the school and classroom level. While major federal legislation has yet to be enacted, a great many US states have put in place legislation banning cell phone use. As of late 2025, a majority of U.S. states—at least 37—have enacted laws or policies that ban or restrict student cellphone use in schools to improve academic focus and mental health.

The push for these laws is largely bipartisan, driven by a growing consensus that cell phones are a major source of academic distraction and contribute to youth mental health problems. Research suggests that bans can lead to improved test scores and increased social interaction among students.  For example, a  proposed Danish law would give victims, who are primarily girls and women, removal and compensation rights.

At the Federal level some, including the Department of Education, believe that cell phone use  is a matter of local control, and does not come under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction. However, there recently has been an encouraging initiative at the federal level. The Focus on Learning Act is  bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and Tim Kaine The Act  aims to: (a)require the U.S. Department of Education to study the effects of cell phones on academic performance, mental health, and other student outcomes; and (b) create a pilot program to award grants to school districts that implement cellphone-free policies. The Focus on Learning Act has yet to be passed and is currently being reviewed by a Senate Committee. However policy like this would go a long way to helping our country  identify what best practice is in relation to the disruptive use of cell phones in schools.

  1. Banning the promotion of hate speech and violence

Technology is used to promote hate speech and violence through platforms like social media, which can amplify aggressive language and ideologies that lead to offline harm. This includes online harassment, which can escalate to physical violence, and the creation of deepfakes or other manipulated content that spreads disinformation. The ease of online communication allows hateful ideologies to find and connect like-minded people, creating a sense of normalcy around prejudice and potentially leading to radicalization.

So far the Federal government has done little to regulate the use of online hate speech. There have been no effective efforts to establish digital governance that include principles of transparency and algorithmic accountability to prevent violence. Many politicians take refuge in the belief that efforts to curb online hate speech are a violation of first amendment (freedom of speech rights). However,  it is useful to recognize that the use of 21st century online communications is much different than face to face proclamations. A message posted on the Internet can indiscriminately reach large numbers of people across the world some of whom may be motivated to react violently or in self-destructive ways

.The European Union provides an example we could learn from. It has implemented significant legislative initiatives, most notably the Digital Services Act (DSA), which impose a duty of care and due diligence obligations on large online platforms to mitigate systemic risks like the dissemination of illegal content, including hate speech. The EU also established a Code of Conduct on countering illegal hate speech online in partnership with tech companies, which led to commitments to review and remove illegal content quickly.

  1. Protecting the right to privacy

In the US the lone  existing federal technology privacy law is outdated. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 was an early attempt to protect digital communications but is now considered outdated given modern technology. Lawmakers and civil liberties advocates are pushing for a federal privacy law specific to emerging technologies like facial recognition, or broader legislation that addresses general data collection practices.

A new “Facial Recognition and Biometric Technology Moratorium Act” has been introduced in (but not yet passed by) the U.S. Congress. It seeks to ban federal law enforcement from using such technologies and withholding funds from state and local agencies that do. There are also ongoing discussions about a federal “Delete Act” to allow consumers a one-step mechanism to have data brokers delete their information.

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is worth looking at. It is considered one of the world’s toughest privacy laws. It broadly prohibits data collection and use by default unless it falls under specific legal exceptions. The EU has also introduced the AI Act, which places restrictions on certain high-risk AI and biometric technologies.

The need for a new regulatory agency

We also believe there is a need for a Federal Technology Commission  — a new agency that can carry out Congressional mandates in the three areas targeted above and help ensure the safe, effective and equitable use of information and education technologies. Given the common use of algorithms and other technology tools, there is wisdom in having a single agency oversee efforts in all three areas. Existing agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communication Commission, already have extensive agendas that would limit their abilities to serve in this new capacity.

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest