JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Nigeria’s Resource Curse (Foreign Policy Brief #209)
Those who have a casual understanding of history or geopolitics may react agreeably to the concept: the greater abundance of natural resources a country has the more well-off the people of that country will be. Unfortunately, for Nigerians, the opposite is their reality. The abundance of oil in Nigeria, along with their colonial history, has resulted in a “resource curse,” a theory posited by contemporary international relations scholars. Nigeria now finds its economy reliant on the export of oil and renting their oil fields to multinational corporations (MNCs), leading to a commodity industry based on corruption and wealth centralization.
The Art of the Heel: The Deadly Effects of Trump Abandoning the Iran Nuclear Deal (Foreign Policy Brief #208)
The Iran nuclear agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is an accord reached between Iran and several world powers, including the United States, in 2015. Under its terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its weapons-making facilities to international inspections in exchange for sanctions relief worth billions of dollars. Since the United States’ withdrawal from JCPOA in 2018 under President Trump, Iran has expanded its nuclear program, breaching its commitments to the agreement, including resuming uranium enrichment and violating limits on nuclear materials. While the JCPOA remains legally valid, Iran’s violations of the agreement’s terms have thus far thwarted negotiations to revive it or to forge a new deal with the Trump administration. Foreign diplomacy analysts and Israeli officials have identified Trump’s backing out of the deal as a costly blunder that has fueled both Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and rising instability in the middle east.
Zohran Mamdani’s Campaign Has Been A Wake-Up Call. Who Is Following His Lead? (Elections & Politics Brief #188)
The Democratic primary for the New York mayoral race was seen as a “perfect storm”, “clearly a rebuke”, and a surprise to many onlookers. In it, self-proclaimed democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani managed to pull off a stunning and decisive victory over establishment Democrat and former governor Andrew Cuomo. As Mamdani began gaining steam in the latter weeks of the campaign, the mayoral race began to be seen as a litmus test for the future of the Democratic Party.
Why The Birthright Citizenship Rule Is Still Valid Today And What Comes Next (Civil Rights Brief #245)
On the first day of his second presidential term, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order No. 14160. This executive order is popularly known as the birthright citizenship executive order which purports to make changes to the Birthright Citizenship rule embodied in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. That rule declares, with modest exceptions, that children born within the geographic territory of the United States are instantly granted United States citizenship. That constitutional rule was later affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark. However, with the ongoing national debate on immigration and immigrants in the United States, President Trump made a campaign promise to abolish the rule in order to try and stem the flow of immigrants from Latin American and South American countries to the United States.
A Hick-Lib’s Rebellion: Kyle Rable, No Kings!, & the Fight for West Texas (Elections and Politics Brief #187)
I sat down with Kyle Rable to learn more about the No Kings! protests. Kyle is a new father, a Ph.D. candidate in History at Texas Tech, a U.S. Army Reserves Captain, a card-carrying union member, & self-described “hick-lib”; he is running for Congress in Congressional District 19 against Jodey Arrington. Kyle serves as Secretary for the Lubbock County Democrats and helps organize protests in Lubbock.
Ranked Choice Voting is On the Rise. How does it work and why is it popular? (Elections & Politics Brief #186)
Elections & Politics Brief #186 | Nate Iglehart | July 5, 2025 The most important aspect of democracy is being able to vote for who represents you in government. Without that ability, democracy gives way to less accountable forms of governance. However, this core...
The Sudanese Civil War (Foreign Policy Brief #204)
Across the world conflicts are raging, and in their paths leave levels of humanitarian crisis that reach peaks never seen in human history. One of these lesser reported upon conflict regions has the largest humanitarian crisis in recorded history: Sudan.
Trump’s Tech Ventures Positioned for Top Profits (Technology Policy Brief #151)
The Trump organization has dropped any pretense of avoiding conflicts of interest. Instead, it is blatantly cashing in on Trump’s presidency in every conceivable way. At the top of the list is tech, with both Trump and his wife selling digital currencies and a new Trump mobile phone on the way. An additional bonus is that Trump has a great deal of power over the agencies that oversee these industries, and Congress is doing nothing to stop him from taking advantage of it.
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.
A Hick-Lib’s Rebellion: Kyle Rable, No Kings!, & the Fight for West Texas (Elections and Politics Brief #187)
Elections and Politics Brief #187 | Morgan Davidson | July 6, 2025
I sat down with Kyle Rable to learn more about the No Kings! protests. Kyle is a new father, a Ph.D. candidate in History at Texas Tech, a U.S. Army Reserves Captain, a card-carrying union member, & self-described “hick-lib”; he is running for Congress in Congressional District 19 against Jodey Arrington. Kyle serves as Secretary for the Lubbock County Democrats and helps organize protests in Lubbock.
Our discussion focused on the No Kings! protests, specifically coming on the heels of the movement’s success, going back to Trump’s birthday & counterprotests to the military parade. It is estimated that there were over 5 million protesters across more than 2,100 locations. In Lubbock alone, there were over 600, estimated by LPD, to have engaged in the protests in the deep-red Trump+40 county. We discuss the behind-the-scenes organizing, impact, implications, future, and even touch on immigration, given my other work here at U.S. Resist News.
Kyle is running against Rep. Arrington, who is a key Trump ally & instrumental in passing the “Big Beautiful Bill” that guts Medicaid, & rural health care, which are key to the people in District 19. In Texas, it is crucial to have energetic challengers up & down the ballot to incumbent Republicans who have taken Texans for granted for too long. Mr. Arrington can rely on a war chest of upwards of $ 2 million and on PACs to fund his campaign. My friend, Kyle Rable, needs our help. Please visit https://www.rableforwesttexas.com/ and consider making a donation or sharing his information to help us give power back to West Texans, not special interests in D.C.
Analysis
One of the things I was interested in was how a place like Lubbock gets involved in these large national movements, particularly those that are aligned with the left. Don’t be mistaken, Lubbock has a metropolitan population of over 360,000 people. That said, the people here revel in the rural makeup of West Texas and have deeply conservative beliefs. Kyle mentions people like Doreen, who first reached out about the protests emerging from the 50501 movement. Then, he and others, such as Kim Gonzalez, a community organizer and member of the Texas Democratic Executive Committee, were able to help make things happen.
This grassroots organization in Lubbock gets into the roots of how movements like this & other No Kings! protests emerge nationally. While the rallying cry is at the national level through things like 50501, it takes members of the local community to organize & rally others without outside funds or assistance. These things start at the local level and get connected to the national level after the effort and organizing have occurred.
This localized approach is key to the movement’s goals in Lubbock. When I asked Kyle about the purpose behind organizing these protests in Lubbock, a big part of it is awareness. Kyle says- “People in West Texas feel alone & don’t like what they see” in reference to the current administration’s policies. Rable continues- “There are no blue dots in West Texas,” and that “There’s people who don’t know there is a community.” In the Red Sea, that is CD 19, raising awareness, showing people that there is a community, is a key component of these protests. With candidates like Kyle & organization by local advocates like Kim, the blue dots that are missing in West Texas should begin popping up, helping people find community, get involved in their localities, & hopefully start getting people to run up & down the ballot.
One critique I keep seeing about the protest movements is that they are too broad. Even those on the left, like Tommy Vietor of Crooked Media, were critical of the Palestinian flags at the protests in L.A. surrounding the actions of ICE, which led to the deployment of Marines by President Trump in a U.S. city. When I asked Kyle how he would respond to similar critiques, he mentioned that “In the 60’s & 70’s change didn’t just happen on one pinpoint issue”. He highlights how the fight for civil rights tied itself to other movements like workers’ rights & ending the war in Vietnam. Rable says, “When you have a big coalition like the Democrats have, you have to offer room”. He continues- “It can be arguing for the end of Tyranny from the Trump administration to the end of bombing Palestine & those are intrinsically related I believe & that’s why there is room for everyone at those protests.”
One thing I was interested in asking Kyle about was the branding of the No Kings! protests. Given his background in History, he was quick to tie it back to core ideas of the founding & why it resonates nationally & in red areas like Lubbock. He mentions that the AI image Trump released of himself dressed as a King with the White House posting on X, “LONG LIVE THE KING!” Given the imagery & the policies emerging from Washington, it isn’t hard to see what people do not like about this administration across the nation & in deep West Texas, which Rable notes is quite different from the swamp in D.C. that Trump & Arrington roll around in. On a personal note, Rable says he likes the historical ties & that “I’m not going to bend a knee; I bend a knee to God & not much else.” This blend of patriot, believer, & activist is why I believe that Rable is right for West Texas.
When asked about the long-term goals of the protest movement, whether that’s a cultural shift or purely aimed at the 2026 midterms, Rable mentions that it can be both. He says we need to have hard discussions where people can come together & say we don’t like what we see happening & demand better. Kyle says, “The most American thing you can do is protest your government, in my opinion.” In terms of shifts at the leadership level, Rable goes on to say, “We need people who actually want to represent their constituents, not billion-dollar pacts.” These cultural shifts will shape 2026 & beyond if these movements can achieve them. Electing leaders like Rable, rather than politicians like Arrington, is key to giving power back to the people, not special interests.
That said, can these movements actually bring about these changes? I asked about possible impacts we have seen or should be aware of. For instance, we have seen that Elon Musk has taken a step back from the Trump administration & even attacked the President on his social media platform X. Additionally, we have seen Trump’s approval rating take hits since the No Kings! protests started. Rable says he thinks that these protests have a direct negative effect on Musk’s influence & Trump’s approval, saying, “its a net positive to change a President’s opinion, if you can, through protests” linking the possibility to historical examples with LBJ & Nixon.
Those examples tie into Rable’s response to a question I posed about what he would say to those who feel discouraged with the political process, feel that protests don’t work, or that change doesn’t happen fast enough. Rable mentions that it is important to get out there to show others the positive impacts protests can have, the change they can make, & further build that community just like others in the past have done. Further, he says, “if you are frustrated with the pace, not only should you protest, but you should go down to your local parties” and find ways to get involved, from volunteering, attending local meetings, serving as a precinct chair, to running yourself.
Shifting to immigration, I was eager to ask Kyle about this. Immigration & Trump’s immigration policies are key to the protest movements around the country. They are also key to my work here & to West Texans in Kyle’s district. I asked about his stances, policy-wise & philosophically. Rable says- “Our immigration system is flawed… & needs to be revamped”. Like all Americans, Rable has a family history with immigration. His family came from Italy & Poland to the U.S. & some of them served in the armed forces. Rable acknowledges that a country needs a strong border but that this nation “was & still needs to be built by immigrants”. Rable highlights the challenges facing people getting here legally from time to money & that under the current administration, the challenges have only gotten more difficult. Philosophically, Rable leans into his Catholic roots, saying- “there is no stranger in the land that you are if you are a christian & therefore the person who is your neighbor is your neighbor regardless of status.” Again he highlights the need for reform in the process highlighting that we need workers & that we need to make it easier not harder for these people to get here. He speaks to the humanness of these people that are often left out of right-wing discussions on immigrants, highlighting that these people are people & not these evil caricatures found on FOX. Rable says, “Anyone that is a worker is my brother & sister.”
When asked for final comments, Kyle reiterated his commitment to fighting for the working class & West Texans. Specifically, he says- “I’ll reimphasize the need for us all to consolidate & realize the most important things to uplift workers & the working class. Expanding access to medicare, medicaid, social security, & the VA because at the end of the day the best way to help America is to help a worker. If you are a card carrying AFL-CIO member, you are my brother & sister. If you are an immigrant working any job you’re my brother & sister and we need to refocus on that. Also, you need to get involved with your local party. If you can, you should run for something regardless of what it is because it’s time that West Texas, all of Texas, has someone to vote for with a D next to their name.”
If you enjoyed getting to know Kyle and his work in Lubbock or simply want to help fight against Trump’s agenda, please consider visiting his website, making a donation, or getting involved. My friend, Kyle Rable, is up against big money and deep-rooted power, but he’s not running alone. Even something as little as $5 or $10 helps him get around West Texas and get his message out. Again, you can check out his page here- https://www.rableforwesttexas.com/.
Engagement Resources
- 50501: A protest movement organizing nationwide actions against the Trump administration.
- https://www.fiftyfifty.one/
- Rable for West Texas: This is a link to Kyle’s candidate site, specifically, his donation page!- https://www.rableforwesttexas.com/donate
- Protest Sign Ideas: Here is a Reddit link affiliated with 50501 where you can discover ideas for protest signs
- https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jkpz02/fun_impactful_protest_sign_ideas/
Ranked Choice Voting is On the Rise. How does it work and why is it popular? (Elections & Politics Brief #186)
Elections & Politics Brief #186 | Nate Iglehart | July 5, 2025
The most important aspect of democracy is being able to vote for who represents you in government. Without that ability, democracy gives way to less accountable forms of governance. However, this core part of democracy is also one that can come in many different ways, each of which can drastically impact how candidates run their campaigns.
Ranked choice voting (RCV) is one such way that has been gaining a lot of traction in recent years. In comparison to the current “first-past-the-post” system, in which each vote is cast once and the candidate who gets a plurality of the votes (or in America, over 50%) wins, RCV presents an alternative method of choosing leaders.
Recently, it has received a lot of attention via its use in New York City’s mayoral election, in which the previously unknown democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani managed to pull off a surprise upset of former NY governor Andrew Cuomo alongside a wide range of other candidates. But there are certain quirks and outcomes of that election that are worth diving into.
Analysis
First, it is important to look at how RCV actually works. Instead of simply choosing to vote for one candidate, RCV requires the voter to rank the candidates in order of preference. For example, in a 5 candidate race, there would be five spots to rank the candidates in.
In the first round, each candidate is ranked on how many first place votes they received. If they have over 50% of the first place votes, that candidate wins outright (similar to first-past-the-post). However, if no candidate has that, then the candidate with the least amount of first place votes is eliminated, and the ballots that had that candidate ranked first now get counted to whoever they had ranked as their second preference. This process continues until a candidate has over 50% of the voters’ preferences supporting them.
For a clearer graphic explanation, the city of Fort Collins, Colorado, has a great video example. But the Democratic primary for the New York mayoral race gave a real-life example of why RCV is gaining steam.
One of the more interesting aspects of the NY mayoral race was that it allowed for a broader range of candidates. Normally, in American elections, there is an effect called the “spoiler effect”. When an outside candidate enters a two-person race, they draw voters away from the candidate with the most similar views. Often, that leads to the last candidate, who didn’t have their votes siphoned, winning, with the outside candidate having “spoiled” both their chances and the similar candidate’s chances of winning.
This has led to tactical voting in the U.S. where voters often back who has the best chance to win and to prevent a specific candidate from winning. As a result, outside parties and candidates often have an incredibly hard time winning elections because they aren’t seen as viable AND they would siphon support from a candidate who has a better chance to beat the worst-case candidate.
The NY mayoral race tempered this effect with RCV allowing voters to have a 1st preference of a candidate who isn’t mainstream, while allowing them to then have backup preferences to dilute tactical voting. With this freedom to choose, New Yorkers saw candidates ranging from the democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani and pro-labor progressive Jessica Ramos to moderates like Michael Blake and pro-charter school investor Whitney Tilson.
RCV also allowed each candidate to focus on specific issues more intensely, whether that be specifically tackling homelessness, affordability, or early childhood education, which has served to make policies regarding those issues more thought-out and solid, as the candidates have to run a campaign based heavily on that platform.
There’s another positive outcome from embracing RCV; cordial and amicable campaigns. As mentioned before, having a list of preferences allows voters more freedom to choose, but it also allows campaigns room to bypass the (unfortunately) common practice of attacking their fellow candidates.
If two candidates have very similar policies, like Brad Landers, Michael Blake, and Zohran Mamdani did, they can acknowledge that they agree on many things and even go so far as cross-endorsing each other. It effectively tells voters, “we like each other a lot, and if one of us isn’t likely to win as the votes get tallied, put this other candidate next so that we can still tackle the issues we agree on”.
Save for Andrew Cuomo, who was attacked from all sides in a debate, the campaigns in the mayoral race had far more upbeat and policy-forward atmospheres, which stands in stark contrast to the presidential elections over the past few cycles.
All of this, between a wide range of candidates, policy-forward campaigns, and amicable campaigns, has come together to showcase one final aspect of RCV that the NY mayoral race revealed: it got younger voters out to the ballot box.
For the first time in recent memory, 25- to 34-year-olds turned out in the highest numbers, with 21% of the total votes and voters under 40 represented 40%. Additionally, there was a significant jump in first-time voters this year. With disillusionment in politics pervasive, especially among young people, RCV gave them a way to find a candidate who aligns with their values while also having an actual chance of winning. These candidates often fall outside of traditional Democrat or Republican circles, and it seems more freedom of choice has led to more civic engagement.
However, there are short-comings of RCV that are important to note.
For starters, the number of candidates and complexity of voting (relative to filling in just one bubble normally) can be confusing for voters while also making mistakes in filling out ballots more common, leading to those ballots being discounted. Another factor is that multiple rounds of ballot tallying takes longer and is more expensive, and it has raised concerns of transparency between rounds.
But even with these downsides, RCV is beginning to spread across the country. Nine states, beginning with Maine in 2018, already use RCV, although six only use it for the military and citizens living overseas. It’s also used in local and city elections in another 17 states with more states considering legislation to adopt RCV including Washington D.C.
On the flip side, 13 states have banned RCV in local elections, and the current political juggernauts will likely be disinclined to pursue it on account of it diluting their power and influence towards smaller parties. But with the momentum growing, it seems unlikely that RCV won’t continue to spread at the local and state levels.
Engagement Resources
- FairVote is a nonprofit organization that is a proponent of both RCV and the Fair Representation Act.
- Fair Elections Center is a litigation and election policy nonprofit who keeps a database of legislation related to elections
- Many states, including Maine and Virginia, have FAQ’s regarding their RCV policies in order to help voters and legislators understand the voting system.
The Sudanese Civil War (Foreign Policy Brief #204)
Foreign Policy Brief #204 | Damian DeSola | June 27, 2025
Introduction
Across the world conflicts are raging, and in their paths leave levels of humanitarian crisis that reach peaks never seen in human history. One of these lesser reported upon conflict regions has the largest humanitarian crisis in recorded history: Sudan.
The Sudanese Civil War has been raging since 15 April 2023 with little sign of a potential ceasefire or peace agreement. Meanwhile, millions find themselves displaced and in need of humanitarian assistance, hundreds of thousands facing food insecurity, and thousands more are being subjected to sexual violence and genocide. It is the goal of this USRESIST Brief review the main actors in this conflict and bring to forefront the massive humanitarian needs of the Sudanese people.
The War
The main actors boil down to two major groups seeking to gain control over Sudan: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The former is the official government’s military, while the latter is a paramilitary group established by the government.
Leading the SAF is President of Sudan General of the SAF Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Al-Burhan played a major role in representing the military in the transitional government that replaced President Omar al-Bashir, the 30-year sitting head of state, in 2019. His role allowed him to consolidate power away from civilians and placing himself at the top of Sudan’s governance.
The RSF is led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemedti. He is also the chairman of the recently established Government of Peace and Unity, a parallel government meant to consolidate power in RSF held territory and establish legitimacy. The RSF was established in 2013 by the Sudanese government to fight rebellion in the Southwest of Sudan. Eventually, the RSF became a powerful entity and a personal paramilitary organization for President al-Bashir.
After al-Burhan’s consolidation of power, the RSF was placed below the SAF and was poised to have it integrated into the regular military. The spark that ignited hostilities was the SAF’s attempt to disperse RSF forces across Sudan as part of integration efforts. General Hemedti and the RSF viewed these actions as an immediate existential threat and took up arms against the military. The war is ongoing and the SAF has made gains over the RSF, but analysts believe that neither side has the capacity to defeat the other outright. Paradoxically, both sides still seem to believe that there are further opportunities to achieve strategic victories over the other.
The international community has attempted to facilitate negotiations between the SAF and RSF, but efforts quickly broke down. On January 7th and 16th of 2025, the US announced sanctions against Hemedti and al-Burhan respectively. The announcement aimed at punishing the military leaders for obstructing peace talks and democratic transition, as well as committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Arab Emirates and Iran have armed the RSF and SAF respectively. Both nations have denied these reports even as shrapnel recovery and analysis prove otherwise.
The Humanitarian Crisis
As a result of this civil war, the people of Sudan are enduring extreme humanitarian distress. As previously mentioned, the United Nations and the International Rescue Committee (IRC)have declared the crisis to be the worst in recorded history. UN experts have also said that the humanitarian and diplomatic support for Sudan is dismal and insufficient for the prevention of further conflict and the reduction of the crisis. The IRC reports that 30.4 million Sudanese are experiencing humanitarian crisis while 14.6 million Sudanese have been displaced. The IRC states that it is “the largest and fastest displacement crisis in the world.”
According to the World Food Programme, Sudan is on the verge of “becoming the world’s largest hunger crisis in recent history”. They report that 24.6 million Sudanese face acute hunger, 637,000 are at catastrophic levels of hunger, and that famine has been confirmed in 10 areas of Sudan.
Mounting evidence of genocide collected by the United Nations and other organizations points to attempts at ethnic cleansing across Sudan. On 7 January 2025, US Secretary of State Blinken announced that members of both “SAF and the RSF had committed war crimes.” Furthermore, that “the RSF and allied Arab militias had committed crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.” The RSF in particular is found to be committing widespread killings in the West Darfur region of Sudan, with a particular aim at wiping out non-Arab communities in the region. Recently, the UN reported that the RSF killed over 100 people at an internally displaced peoples camp.
Sexual violence in Sudan, technically termed Conflict Related Sexual Violence (CRSV), is also reported as part of these ethnic cleansing activities. The UN reports that the conflict has disproportionately affected women and girls with crimes of “rape, sexual slavery, abduction, and other brutal forms of violence.” There have also been cases of sexual violence against boys and men. CRSV against non-Arabs has increased, and evidence shows these targeted assaults are attached with goals of producing “Arab babies”.
Conclusion
Little is being done by the international community to prevent further atrocities or reduce the humanitarian crisis happening before our eyes. Western policy or media has very little interest in seeking awareness or attempts at reducing human suffering in a nation of 50 million people. The United States is ignoring the situation, as the Trump administration has reduced funding for international humanitarian aid and has recently proposed reduction in funding for the investigation of war crimes.
Your writer hopes you keep the Sudanese people in mind as you consider the status of our world today and consume the corporate media that prefers your mind focused on the wars they care about.
Engagement Resources
Trump’s Tech Ventures Positioned for Top Profits (Technology Policy Brief #151)
Technology Policy Brief #151 | Mindy Spatt | July 1, 2025
The Trump organization has dropped any pretense of avoiding conflicts of interest. Instead, it is blatantly cashing in on Trump’s presidency in every conceivable way. At the top of the list is tech, with both Trump and his wife selling digital currencies and a new Trump mobile phone on the way. An additional bonus is that Trump has a great deal of power over the agencies that oversee these industries, and Congress is doing nothing to stop him from taking advantage of it.
Analysis
With the Trumps coming up with new ways to profit off the presidency every day, it was no surprise that Eric Trump recently announced a new venture in the family’s ballooning cryptocurrency portfolio.
Bitcoin mining uses a network of computers to verify Bitcoin transactions. Profits are made through the computers that are rewarded for their “work” with, what else, Bitcoin! And, the icing on the cake, it is the perfect investment for a climate change denier. Bitcoin mining is oddly named since, unlike actual mining, it involves no physical labor at all. The computers do the work and need massive amounts of electricity to do so. It is an energy-intensive endeavor that doesn’t deliver benefits like light, refrigeration, or manufacturing. It adds to the emissions in our air simply in the service of higher profits off of investments in “coins” that likewise have no physical existence.
Trump’s memecoin has already received a big presidential boost. Trump recently threw a gala dinner at his Virginia golf club for the top holders of his memecoin. They paid, collectively, $148,000 for the privilege. The $TRUMP memecoin had been sinking in value and was worth next to nothing until Trump offered a private dinner to the top 25 buyers of his product. Prices went up quickly, as did Trump’s profits.
Those profits can be maximized under the terms of legislation recently approved by the Senate. The National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act)
limits the issuance of payment stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency issued by Trump’s World Liberty Financial, to “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” and qualifying foreign issuers. Either state or federal authorities could approve permits, and foreign issuers would have to use a US-based intermediary. In both cases, Trump would have enormous influence over any competitors seeking to enter the market.
It is a given that most republicans will rubber stamp all of Trump’s legislation. But in this case, although some democrats objected to the bill, 18 democratic senators voted in favor, even though there was nothing in the bill that addressed Trump’s glaring conflicts of interest. The bill, introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) and co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), goes to the House of Representatives next.
Trump’s profit-making ventures as President don’t stop there. There are golf courses, resorts, watches, and soon a Mobile phone in Trump’s favorite color, gold. Phone service, like the airwaves, is regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, which Trump has weaponized to launch investigations of media outlets he believes have challenged or insulted him, and in some cases, is suing.
As President, he has many ways to destroy his business competitors. Despite Tim Cook’s attendance at his inauguration- with a $1 million contribution- Trump recently rebuked Apple for making its phones in India, and threatened the company with a 25% tariff. He promises his phone will retail for $500 and be “built in the United States.” Commentators all say it is impossible to manufacture smartphones from all US-made parts; at best, the phones could be put together domestically with imported parts.
The presidency looks to be the most successful business venture of Trump’s entire life. In March of this year, Forbes estimated Trump’s net worth at $5.1billion, which is more than double what it was the year before. And this is only the beginning.
Engagement Resources
- Bitcoin Mining Increases Levels of Air Pollution Harmful to Human HealthBy Maya Brownstein, April 24, 2025https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/bitcoin-mining-increases-levels-of-air-pollution-harmful-to-human-health/#:~:text=Bitcoin%20mining—the%20process%20through,Chan%20School%20of%20Public%20Health.
- Tracking Electricity Consumption From U.S. Cryptocurrency Mining Operations, February 1, 2024, https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61364
- Crypto Bills Surrender to Trump’s Crypto Corruption Press Release: Crypto Bills Surrender to Trump’s Crypto Corruption, June 17, 2025https://www.citizen.org/news/crypto-bills-surrender-to-trumps-crypto-corruption/
Going to War for Human Rights? (Foreign Policy Brief #206)
Foreign Policy Brief #206 | Ibra Castro | July 2, 2025
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.
Once again, not only is an enemy nation baselessly a short-way away from a nuclear weapon that they would obviously be compelled to use immediately, but the government is oppressive to those that live under its rule and Americans must fly across continents to liberate them. Women, ethnic minorities and the LGBTQ community would apparently welcome American/Israeli forces invading and overthrowing their government.
Now of course, this is not to say the Iranian government is not oppressive, one would only need to look at the recent sweeping public protests that erupted across Iran in response to the death of Mahsa Amini in custody of Iran’s morality police in September 2023. Iranian authorities after suppressing the protests adopted an even more draconian law that further targeted the rights of women and girls, imposing the death penalty, flogging, prison terms and other severe penalties to crush ongoing resistance to compulsory veiling, according to a 2024 report by Amnesty International. Many more examples could be given and presented by this point alone proves that the egregious situation for women in the country is true.
There is no question that in Iran women are less free than men in society and other minority communities or dissidents to the government’s policies do live under religious authoritarian rule. However, that is not a justification for overthrowing a government of a sovereign nation, and especially one in a region that has already seen multiple governments toppled and then thrown into instability. The argument over different oppressed groups in Iran is being used primarily to manufacture consent for the US to go to war. Even as the IAEA recently made statements that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, the facts proved irrelevant when faced against the argument that because Iran is run by an evil regime it clearly needed to be invaded. Only recently and very quickly have many media pundits, commentators, and politicians come to care about the well being of various groups in this foreign country.
Take this excerpt from an article published in Politico, written by Mathias Döpfner, titled “Iran’s Target Isn’t Just Israel. It’s Us”. The article seeks to make the claim that the US should go to war, with a section stating “In Iran, women are systematically oppressed and abused. Homosexuals are murdered. Those who think differently are imprisoned and tortured.”
Another example, from a journalist that has gained notoriety over the last few years covering events in the Middle East, Pierce Morgan, who on a recent episode of his show Pierce Morgan Uncensored, interviewed Iranian Professor Mohammed Marandi. While interviewing the professor, he read a list of repressive aspects of Iranian society, stating “women face severe restrictions when it comes to marriage, women banned from certain professions… Lgbt people suffer systematic discrimination and violence… authorities censor the media… it doesn’t sound like a great place to visit” he said.
Chris Cuomo on his podcast took aim at both Bernie Sanders and AOC for making statements against going to war with Iran, saying “If you’re a feminist how do you not decry the fact that Iran would jail you for how you speak, for how you dress?… they would slaughter your LGBTQ plus constituents.”
On the popular morning talk show The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin, a republican former White House director of strategic communications said, “Let’s remember too, the Iranians literally throw gay people off of buildings. They don’t adhere to basic human rights,”.
These arguments in other contexts are wholly justified and should be made, people regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race should not be made to live in fear or as second class citizens in any state around the world. However the arguments are being presented now not out of genuine concern but are the same claims used to launch and sustain decade long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The mental leap from having issues with a country’s domestic and social policies to then suggest that they then can only be solved through regime change by our armies overthrowing and occupying the country is outrageous.
There are numerous other examples of government oppression and oppression of minorities from all across the globe. For example, in 2024 Peru classified transgender identities as ‘mental health problems’. In 2023 Uganda passed one of the world’s harshest anti-gay laws. The law states that “a person who promotes homosexuality commits an offense and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twenty years.” It also requires Ugandans to report suspected homosexuals or violations of the law to the authorities. In Saudi Arabia, one of Donald Trump’s most closely allied foreign partners, women only gained the right to drive in 2018 and are still subjected to strict male guardianship laws. We must also not pay mind that different states in the US have varying degrees of discrimination towards the LGBTQ community and that there is currently a nationwide hunt in the United States by masked agents for both documented and undocumented people of a particular ethnic group with many being sent to a detention facility in Central America with no due process.
Under the arguments made by those listed and others in the media that cite Iran’s treatment of various groups, all of the above-mentioned countries should have their governments toppled. An obviously ridiculous suggestion, which if not only for the hardship it would create within those countries, for the damage it would do to an already unstable international system. If we seek to ameliorate the situation of women, ethnic minorities, the LGBTQ community and others in Iran and elsewhere, we could do so through uplifting their voices internationally. Funding projects and encouraging journalism, education, diplomacy and more through international programs like those cut by the Trump administration. We should offer refuge to those fleeing oppressive regimes and not close our borders or implement travel bans to any and all nationals escaping said “evil regimes”. There are numerous ways to help and none of those should include invading and occupying those we claim to seek to protect and liberate.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review (Foreign Policy Brief #205)
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #205 | Ibra Castro
A projectile hit buildings on Friday as the Israeli Iron Dome air-defense system fired to intercept missiles over Tel Aviv. Credit… Leo Correa/Associated Press
Israel-Iran war and ceasefire deal
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.
The statements in the report have been used as a justification for the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israeli and US officials. Iran has since announced that the country is planning to pull out of the non-proliferation treaty and suspend cooperation with the IAEA. Israel itself has never signed onto the treaty, and is widely believed to have at least 90 nuclear warheads and materials to create hundreds more. Following the Israeli strikes the United States carried out attacks against three Iranian nuclear sites, Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. Iran’s response to the US strikes soon after were a wave of missiles at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the headquarters of the US Central Command and the largest US base in the Middle East. Following the bombings US President Donald Trump declared a ceasefire between Israel and Iran and pressured both countries into ending their attacks. For the ceasefire is in place but it is uncertain and unlikely that it will permanently cease hostilities.
Colombia confirms that it has been accepted into the New Development Bank, known as the “BRICS bank,” which it applied for in May in China. Credit: Juan Diego Cano / Presidency of Colombia.
Colombia joins the BRICS Development Bank
Last month Colombia was accepted as a new member of the New Development Bank, also known as the “BRICS bank”. The bank acts as the central development bank for the economic bloc led by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. It is similar to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and aims to mobilize resources for infrastructure and development projects in emerging and developing countries. Colombia had requested membership into the institution earlier this year, amid tensions with the United States over President Trump’s tariff war and Colombia’s acceptance into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.
The country’s entry into the bank does not, however, mean Colombia is now a member of the BRICS economic bloc. Rather, it means Colombia can access resources and financing for diverse projects. Its entrance into the BRICS financial sphere does however point to the bloc’s growing relevance and rival to the existing global financial institutions.
Members of the M23 rebel group are seem after the opening ceremony in Goma, North Kivu province, in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, April 7, 2025.
DR Congo and Rwanda sign peace agreement
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have signed an agreement aimed at stopping the conflict in eastern DRC, according to a joint statement from the two countries and the United States Department of State. The deal, mediated by the US and Qatar, provides for the disengagement, disarmament and conditional integration of armed groups and the return of refugees and internally displaced people. The deal also gives the US government and American companies access to critical minerals in the region.The decades-long conflict escalated earlier this year when M23 rebels captured swathes of mineral-rich territory in eastern DRC. Amnesty International has criticized the deal, stating that the recent peace agreement signed between the DRC and Rwanda fails to address justice for the victims of serious crimes by not including any provisions aimed at holding their perpetrators to account.
Rwanda, which is widely believed to fund and support the M23 militants, denies the claims and insists its military presence in the region is a defensive measure against threats posed by armed groups. Several months ago, the United States launched a major mineral deal in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Washington’s deepening diplomatic and economic involvement in the region is aimed at securing US access to the region’s mineral wealth. Thousands of people have been killed in Eastern DRC and hundreds of thousands more have been displaced after the conflict intensified earlier this year.
Photograph: EPA Jun 16th 2025|NUUK https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/06/16/emmanuel-macron-flies-in-to-show-his-support-for-greenland
Macron visits Greenland
While on his way to the G7 summit in Canada last month, French President Emmanuel Macron stopped in Greenland, where he conveyed European solidarity and support for the Danish autonomous territory targeted by US President Donald Trump. Macron warned that Greenland is “not to be sold” nor “to be taken”. The French president, who voices his opposition to Trump’s ideas more often than other European leaders, has positioned himself as an integral voice in Europe amid Trump’s threats to annex territory and pull support from Ukraine as it continues to fight against Russia’s invasion.
Polls indicate that the vast majority of Greenland’s 57,000 inhabitants want to become independent from Denmark, but do not wish to become part of the United States. Unlike Denmark, Greenland is not part of the European Union but is on the list of Overseas Territories associated with the bloc.
How Elon Stays in Business (Economic Policy Brief #89)
How Elon Stays in Business
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. Each firm draws on distinct revenue streams—regulatory credits, Pentagon launch contracts, advertising, venture capital and municipal subsidies—but all are ultimately propped up by public largesse that socializes risk while privatizing profit. Understanding these flows is therefore a prerequisite for anyone that seeks to tax extreme wealth, curb monopoly power, and defend worker and planetary interests from a billionaire who is simultaneously a supplier, regulator-lobbyist and media gatekeeper.
Analysis
Tesla’s first-quarter 2025 results reveal how fragile its flagship business has become. Automotive revenue fell to $13.9 billion, a 20 percent year-on-year decline, while net income collapsed 71 percent to $409 million. The difference between loss and profit was $595 million in zero-emission regulatory credits—an indirect taxpayer transfer that now exceeds the company’s quarterly earnings from car sales. Meanwhile, the energy-generation and storage division delivered a record $10.1 billion in 2024 revenue and $2.6 billion gross profit, signalling that stationary batteries, not cars, are keeping Tesla’s cash flow positive even as cobalt and lithium extraction costs remain externalized onto the Global South.
SpaceX has quietly overtaken Tesla as Musk’s real engine of accumulation. Independent estimates put 2024 revenue at roughly $13.1 billion—$8.2 billion from Starlink subscriptions and $4.2 billion from Falcon launches—placing the company on track to eclipse NASA’s human-spaceflight budget this year. Starlink’s growth is accelerated by Pentagon, NOAA and NASA contracts that insulate SpaceX from market risk, while a permissive FCC spectrum regime effectively hands Musk monopoly rents over the orbital commons.
X (formerly Twitter) illustrates the downside of Musk’s leverage strategy. Advertising income slid to $3.14 billion in 2024, a further 5 percent drop after the post-acquisition exodus, and mobile-subscription revenue has yet to break the $250 million mark—woefully insufficient to service $13 billion in acquisition debt. The platform’s dwindling cash flow has pushed management toward litigation threats against advertisers and looser content moderation, externalizing the social cost of disinformation while failing to restore the bottom line.
Neuralink remains speculative, surviving on successive venture rounds rather than operating income. Its June 2025 Series E brought in $650 million at a $9 billion valuation, even as FDA inspection records and whistle-blower testimony describe “objectionable” animal-testing conditions and rushed surgical schedules that jeopardize both workers and subjects. Profit here is contingent on fast-track regulatory approvals and prospective military contracts, leaving labor and bioethics risks to be borne by public institutions.
The Boring Company, valued on paper at about $7 billion, exemplifies hype as revenue. Its Vegas Loop earns only modest ticket sales while relying on tax-increment financing from local authorities. Nevada OSHA cited the firm for eight serious safety violations in 2024, and civil-engineering reviews continue to question whether single-lane tunnels can ever match true mass transit capacity. In effect, the venture functions as a conduit for land speculation and political access rather than a standalone profit center.
Across the portfolio, one pattern dominates: profits are privatized, while losses and externalities—regulatory credits, defense contracts, ecological damage and labor risk—are socialized. Confronting “Muskism” therefore means treating these firms as an integrated power bloc ripe for antitrust action, windfall-profit taxation; and strict public-utility oversight, rather than as isolated tech successes.
Engagement Resources
- Institute for Local Self-Reliance (https://ilsr.org/): Advocates for decentralized, community-driven economic development. Offers analysis of corporate concentration and local alternatives in energy, broadband, and transit.
- Public Citizen (https://www.citizen.org/): A nonprofit watchdog organization focusing on corporate accountability, government transparency, and consumer rights. Includes campaigns related to Tesla, defense contracts, and federal subsidies.
- Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/): A progressive think tank producing data-driven research on labor markets, corporate profits, and policy impacts. Regularly examines wage inequality and tax policy in sectors dominated by tech giants.
- Open Markets Institute (https://www.openmarketsinstitute.org/): Dedicated to promoting competitive markets. Publishes investigations into monopolistic practices and advocates for antitrust enforcement—especially relevant to firms like SpaceX and Tesla.
- Tax Justice Network (https://taxjustice.net/): Provides global research and advocacy around tax avoidance and wealth concentration. Useful for understanding the revenue implications of public subsidies and corporate structures like Musk’s.
- Labor Notes (https://labornotes.org/): A media and organizing resource for labor activists. Tracks union activity and working conditions, including in high-tech industries and contractor-heavy firms like Neuralink and The Boring Company.
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