Former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte Goes to the Hague

The former president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, is currently standing trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for crimes against humanity. He faces charges related to thousands of extrajudicial killings and widespread human rights violations committed during his infamous war on drugs. Duterte’s arrest has been seen as the beginning of a new era for the Philippines, focused on upholding human rights and rule of  law. Yet, despite his bloody presidency, Duterte remains quite popular in the country. Duterete’s trial comes during a time of highly divided domestic politics and a rapidly changing nation. What impact will these trials have on the country? 

Rodrigo Duterte is a rather controversial figure in the Philippines. Before becoming president, Duterte was the long-serving mayor of Davao City, where he built a reputation for being tough on crime. He was nicknamed “the Punisher” for admitting to being linked to death squads, and he maintained that he had no qualms about killing criminals. This behavior should have been almost appalling to voters. However, in 2015, political analysts found that criminality was one of the biggest fears among Filipinos. Therefore, Duterte’s belligerent approach to criminals made him quite popular, and he was elected President, though this came as a shock to many. 

He served as the Philippines’ President from 2016 to 2022. During this time he led a massive campaign against drugs, leading to the death of thousands of alleged drug dealers and addicts. Despite his violent handling of drug issues in the country and sexist comments, Duterete still maintained popularity among the public. Most notably, he was able to deliver on his bold and violent promises against drugs. 

Duerte’s presidency was characterized by violence, human rights violations, disdain for the US, and democratic backsliding. His campaign against drugs led to violent confrontations with the police and extrajudicial killings. It is believed that Duterte’s war on drugs led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos. Many of the victims' families  claimed that the victims were often  not involved in drug-related activities but simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The killings were often indiscriminate and occurred outside of the legal framework. Those accused of participating in the drug industry were essentially executed without due process. Despite international and domestic outrage, Duterrte stood by his stance and said he would “never, never apologize for the deaths”

The current situation regarding Duterte’s arrest stems from a complex political situation in the Philippines, particularly the recent falling out of the Duterte and  Marcos families, two of the Philippines political elites. The current President, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., believed that it was necessary for Duterte to be sent to ICC, in a new era for the Philippines. However, in the process he was able to get rid of a powerful political rival. One wonders how much of his motivation is truly about justice for the victims.  

Duterte was arrested on March 11, after arriving in Hong Kong to start a campaign tour. The ICC issued a warrant for his rest following the extrajudicial killing carried out under his leadership from about 2011 to 2019. However, the ICC can not prosecute any crimes after 2019, because, rather conveniently, in 2019 the Philippines pulled out from the ICC. Following the arrest, Duterte’s children, including Sara Duerte, who is the nation’s current vice president,  filed a petition with the Philippine Supreme Court challenging the arrest. However, this was unsuccessful.  Despite this, Duterte is confident that the ICC has no case against him. 

The impact of the arrest on the Philippines is hard to predict. Currently, Duterte continues to enjoy national popularity to this day, with news of his arrest sparking outrage and demonstrations among his supporters. Many people believe that he saved the country from criminals and drug cartels, while others are appalled by his human rights violations. Making him a rather divisive figure. Analysts are divided on whether the arrest will make Duterte a martyr in the eyes of the nation or if his supporters will eventually lose interest and the unrest will die down. The current Filipino political landscape is shaped by the rivalry between the Duterte and Marcos families. If Duterte becomes a martyr, it could benefit his political allies, while Marcos would gain from his discreditation. Sounds like something out of a TV show.

While Duterte's arrest signals a possibility of justice and consequences for the human rights violations he oversaw, what the actual outcome or impact on the Philippines' political landscape remains to be seen. I suppose, for now, all we can do is watch and see how this unfolds.

Hey, Ho, Western Civ Has Got to Go

I am not sure that many in my generation are aware of protests at Stanford in the late ‘80s demanding that its required introductory course in “Western Culture” be replaced with more “cultural diversity,” or the works of ethnic and minority thinkers, which would make perfect sense considering that I have neither seen nor taken a course in Western Civilization. In fact, for our generation and, I would assume for the one directly preceding us, we have been encouraged to take courses in exactly the opposite - that is teaching that promulgates the idea that there is nothing exceptional about Western Civilization.

While witnessing the disastrous meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelenksy after the US sided with Russia at the UN, I was envious of previous generations who grew up with leaders whose both foreign and domestic policy was shaped around ambitious but firm principles - principles that balanced societal compassion with individual dignity. These two ideas, in my opinion, formed the bedrock of all post-World War II policy. It was the combination of societal compassion and individual dignity that encouraged leaders to combat socialism, maintain economic liberty, advocate self-determination, and defend democratic government - both at home and abroad. It is true that these principles often led to over ambition - as exemplified in the burgeoning of the welfare state bureaucracy at home and failed military campaigns abroad from Vietnam to the Middle East, but the reality is that these principles have produced all that is beneficial to the modern world: relative peace, economic prosperity, and a rules-based order that defends human rights. 

The harsh truth is that these principles are uniquely Western. They are all the legacy of an ancient tradition rooted in, one must assume Christianity, but nonetheless the idea that the world can be improved - improved to be more fair, to be more peaceful, and even to be more equal, diverse, and inclusive. They are of the same culture that produced three of the primary accomplishments of the modern world - the scientific method, representative government, and free markets - all of which are why the West advanced to such an extent that it has been able to enforce such ideas around the world for the past seventy-five years. 

However, despite being beneficial to the entire world, the values of Western Civilization are not shared by the entire world, and if their benefits are to be conferred on humanity, they must be enforced. Such is what the American-led West has done since the last world war. The only problem is that a civilization is only inclined to enforce the benefits of its values on the rest of the world at cost, if it truly believes it is a unique civilization, and that that civilization is indeed exceptional.

Stanford’s, along with many other universities,’ Western Culture class was replaced with “Culture, Ideas, and Values,” jargon one may confuse with IDEAs in Action or some other general education requirement today here at UNC. The irony of course is that only in the West would a civilization denounce its own history in favor of others. It is a beautiful thing, until the very fabric that defines that civilization unravels as a result. My freshman year at UNC, I was required to take Ideas, Information, and Inquiry: Borders and Boundaries, in which we were taught that enforcing borders between Palestine and Israel or Turkey and Greece are antithetical to humanity because such borders were not enforced in ancient Egypt and Persia - a very fascinating qualification considering that both Egypt and Iran enforce very strict borders today. 

And thus, today, the rest of the world watches as Europe roils in domestic political turmoil, and the United States abandons our allies in Europe and security partner in Ukraine for a transactional relationship with Russia. 

But why not? There is nothing exceptional about the West. Why take risks to defend democracy? There is no culture to be maintained as positively unique. Why defend such ambitious ideals? There is no reason because they, supposedly, do not exist. There is no such thing as the moral idealism or exceptionalism that permeates the West and its affiliates. There is only the realism and existentialism that permeates the rest of the world - a transactional world. To defend Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression may be risky or ambitious, but to do so is to reinforce the values of the West. To not do so is to denounce those values, and without values, there is no civilization. To water down this historical change in ideology to merely a “shift in decades-long foreign policy” is exactly the problem. Thus, for those wondering how we arrived at this point in history, or how we are to save NATO and the rules-based international order from Trumpian ideology, we cannot have our cake and eat it too. We must reject what our parents accepted to save what our grandparents defended. Otherwise, we cannot be surprised when “hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go.”

Norway Day in My Life

Photo by Zoe Schruckmayr.

I have been on exchange abroad in Bergen, Norway studying comparative politics this semester. While this may not be typical JFAC content, I wanted to share a day in my life!

I chose the University of Bergen because of the amazing exchange agreement UNC’s Center for European Studies (CES)  has with UiB’s Comparative Politics department (SAMPOL). As a global studies student with a concentration on Western Europe and the EU, the opportunity to take a semester of classes based solely on these topics has been very immersive. Also, the CES provided me with an incredibly generous living stipend, roundtrip airfare, and reimbursement for my visa fees which has been such an anxiety reliever when managing my finances! 

While a typical DIML varies, I thought it would be fun to describe a day when I have class and am busy!

I live in student housing about 20 minutes outside the city by train. Bergen is Norway’s second-largest city, but the train system has only two lines so it’s very easy to navigate! While I could have lived closer to the city, I decided against that because my housing community is where all the other international students live. This was such a great decision! In my apartment, I have six other flatmates. Coming from Spain, Hong Kong, France, Belgium, Kenya, and Alaska it’s been amazing to live with people who have such different lived experiences.

The Norwegian education system is very different compared to the U.S. A full course load at UNC equals two courses in Bergen, so I only have classes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. While this may seem nice, my entire grade comes from the 10-hour final exam which is completely nerve-racking!

On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, I get to class around 10 for my two-hour lecture. Since class attendance is not mandatory, it is interesting to watch class sizes ebb and flow depending on the week. It is very typical to have a 15-minute break in the middle of class. At this time, many students go to the cafe and buy waffles with jam or bolle (buns) as a mid-lecture treat. They are so delicious!

The University is spread across part of the city and almost all academic buildings have cafes, so I typically wander around after class until I find an intriguing place! While Norway is an incredibly expensive country, student discounts are almost everywhere. I typically grab a coffee and sandwich and work for a while. 

Bergen is surrounded by seven mountains, and one of my favorite pastimes is hiking! Although it is the rainiest city in Europe, I have learned to embrace the saying “There’s no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing.” Since the seven mountains are accessible by public transit, there is no excuse to not be outside. 

My favorite mountain to hike is Fløyen, and my investment in a good waterproof backpack makes it super easy to go straight from class to the trailhead. Norway has something called the right to roam which essentially means that it is completely legal to explore anywhere in the country on the condition you practice good environmental stewardship. I’ve stumbled on some amazing fjords, landscapes, and lakes because of this freedom! 

Depending on the day, after my hike, I like to grab a hot dog from Trekroneren. They are super affordable and you can choose from many different meat options and toppings. My personal favorite is reindeer with fried onions and jam. I realize it may be a controversial order, but don’t knock it till you try it!

After a good dinner, I walk through the city and then take the train back to my apartment. I have recently learned to knit and that is my favorite thing to do in the evening.

Studying in Bergen has been an incredible experience and has really forced me to slow down and enjoy life. I believe the exchange agreement between CES and SAMPOL goes until 2026 and I would totally recommend Bergen for all nature lovers and people interested in Western Europe!

Tariff Confusion: What’s Going On With Trump’s Economic Policy?

What an interesting week it has been for economic policy. Tariffs were threatened, introduced, delayed, and threatened some more. It’s not clear exactly what the end goal is for the Trump administration, and many on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the potential impact on American consumers and exporters alike. As of March 8th, here’s how the situation stands:

The sweeping 25% tariffs imposed on imports from Mexico and Canada were suspended just two days after they were announced, as markets suffered due to the confusion. However, President Trump denied that market reactions influenced his decision to suspend tariffs., instead citing the protection of American farmers and carmakers. This suggests that Mr. Trump is aware of the damage that these tariffs could cause, and yet a second round of tariffs is still in the works for April 2. 

The back and forth, stop and start nature of the Trump administration’s decision making is being touted as a powerful negotiation tool, to stop the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigration into the country. And to a certain extent, this has been effective. Mexico has sent busted fentanyl laboratories, sent the National Guard to the border, and even agreed to have major cartel leaders extradited to the US. Whether this amounts to actual results remains to be seen, but an effort is certainly being made. 

The other defined goals of the tariffs are shakier, and possibly even contradictory. If Trump wants companies to produce more of their products in the US, then consumers will buy more American-made goods. This is logical. But if consumers are buying domestic, the tariffs will generate less revenue. Countries will simply import fewer products if American consumers aren’t buying them. 

There are also many lessons to be learned about tariffs from Trump’s first term. When tariffs were levied on China, economic studies showed that Chinese companies simply passed most of the costs on to consumers. American companies and manufacturers that use imported materials will also face higher costs, meaning that unless they too increase prices for the American market, their profit margins will suffer. Not to mention that the targets of tariffs will likely impose retaliatory tariffs on American exports, just as Canada has already done: a 25% tariff was imposed on Canadian electricity exports, affecting 1.5 million American households. 

In terms of tariffs as a means for national security, decoupling from supply chains in foreign countries actually makes sense. But if this were a legitimate goal for the Trump administration, why would he want to get rid of the CHIPS and Science Act? This act by the Biden administration represented a strategic investment in America's technological independence—bringing semiconductor manufacturing back to U.S. soil precisely to protect against geopolitical vulnerabilities involving Taiwan. 

Yet Trump's position creates a perplexing contradiction: while claiming to champion American manufacturing for national security, he seeks to dismantle the very legislation that successfully attracted semiconductor manufacturer TSMC's historic $100 billion investment. His theory that tariff threats alone will accomplish what substantial subsidies already have defies economic reality. Without the subsidies that offset America's higher labor costs, these companies would simply pass tariff expenses to consumers rather than relocating production. This fundamental misunderstanding of market dynamics not only threatens a critical defense industry but illustrates the flawed reasoning behind the broader tariff strategy. 

Concerns over the fentanyl crisis and national security might be valid, but they don’t warrant disrupting historically friendly trade relationships with neighbors and allies. Especially when considering the harm that trade wars have caused in the past, the Trump administration should consider a more nuanced approach to trade that doesn’t harm American consumers and exporters.

Coercion and Crackdown: The US-Mexico Relationship under Trump

As of March 7, Trump’s ultimatum to Mexico to charge the country with 25% tariffs if they didn’t crack down harder on organized crime and drug cartels resulted in a one-month exemption for products as part of the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. 

This marks the second time Trump has threatened hefty tariffs on Mexico, the first being on February 1. These tariffs represent attempts to economically coerce Mexico to stop the flow of fentanyl and migrants over the US-Mexico border. While fentanyl deaths have slowed in the past year along with the number of border crossings, Trump’s declaration in Congress on March 4 highlighted his intentions, as he stated that “the cartels are waging war on America, and it’s time for America to wage war on the cartels.”

Cartels in Mexico dominate the manufacturing, import, and distribution of fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth in the US. Fentanyl, the synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times more potent than heroin, is cooked inside seemingly ordinary kitchens in seemingly ordinary houses. The ease of production marks the saturation of fentanyl in the US, with this form responsible for nearly 70% of the US’s 107,000 drug overdose deaths in the past year. Cartels, along with fentanyl trafficking, often engage in extortion, migrant smuggling, oil and mineral theft, prostitution, and the weapons trade. They use their profits to bribe judges, police, and politicians to look the other way and use threats to coerce officials into cooperation.

The crackdown on drug cartels marks a shift for Mexico, whose previous president had a “hugs, not bullets” approach to crime in the country that attempted but failed to address the root causes of criminality while avoiding violence. Current President Claudia Sheinbaum, however, has proven her willingness to utilize confrontation and soldiers to stop the cartels. Earlier in her presidency, soldiers and cartel gunmen engaged in a series of battles that led to dozens of deaths. 

On February 27, after Trump’s initial tariff threat, Sheinbaum illustrated her desire to handle the cartels on her own terms, without US assistance. Sheinbaum deployed 10,000 national guard troops to the US-Mexico border, launched an anti-fentanyl advertising campaign, and prioritized arrests of top criminal leaders. This historic crackdown led to the extradition of 29 criminal leaders to the United States, among them some of Mexico’s most infamous drug traffickers. 

In response to Sheinbaum’s actions, Trump postponed the tariffs and praised Sheinbaum, stating that he postponed the tariffs “as an accommodation, and out of respect for President Sheinbaum.” Compared to the rhetoric surrounding Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, or “Governor Trudeau,” as Trump likes to call him, this more agreeable relationship he has with President Sheinbaum is certainly one to monitor carefully.

The Trump Administration has also stepped up its efforts to curb fentanyl production and smuggling. One shift prioritized the drug cartels by designating some of the most prolific Mexican cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations, or FTOs. This designation places the drug cartels on the same level as Hamas, ISIS, and Boko Haram and also permits new funds to expand operations, such as intelligence gathering or military force, to combat the FTOs. 

These actions have had devastating effects on the cartel members, with operation shutdowns, lab relocations, and a series of arrests and seizures of fentanyl. In response to these changes, cartel operatives have started scaling down their operations and laying low to avoid suspicion. Many others are preparing to invest in equipment that detect American government drones. Despite the changes and crackdown, cartels have a long history of surviving efforts to dismantle them, such as by creating splintering groups as the number of cartels increases and shrinking the size of each operation. 

Current and future policy direction for dealing with the cartels is not simple, nor is it universally agreed upon. Inside the Trump Administration itself, differing opinions exist on Mexico’s involvement in the fight against the cartels. While Trump wants Mexico to handle the issue, Mexico’s alleged government entanglement with cartels makes both potential cooperation and unitary action difficult. Similarly, Sheinbaum has not simply rolled over and given in to Trump’s demands. She has noted that while the drugs may come from Latin America, it is American consumers who demand and buy them. 

This back-and-forth tariff cycle throughout North America puts the economy through a whirlwind, with the Mexican peso weakening during the latest episode. If Trump is not satisfied with Steinbaum’s progress on dealing with the cartels byApril, and he follows through with the tariffs, Mexico could slip into a recession. While Trump and Steinbaum have made their moves, the future is hazy, and we’re left to speculate how the tariffs and the crackdown unfold in the next few weeks. 

When Reckless Texting Becomes a National Security Threat

We've all done it—sent a text to the wrong person. Maybe it was an embarrassing typo or a message meant for a friend that landed in your peer’s messaging log. Awkward, sure. But what if that message contained classified military plans?

That’s precisely what happened when top U.S. officials, including the Vice President, mistakenly sent details of planned airstrikes in Yemen to a journalist. Not over a secure government network, but on a commonly used messaging app.

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. has ramped up airstrikes against Yemen's Houthi rebels. His administration has been open about this strategy—Trump himself declared, "We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective." So, the airstrikes themselves weren’t the shock. The shock was how the world learned about them.

The Atlantic released excerpts from the Signal chat on Monday, offering a glimpse into private discussions among top officials as they deliberated on U.S. military strikes against Houthi targets. Despite significant downplay by included officials and members of the current administration, the chats reveal specific timing of launches, information that is often heavily guarded as means of protection and security. It is information that, had it been leaked, would have allowed adversaries to flee. 

The fallout was immediate. CBS reports that Israeli officials were "furious," since some of the leaked intelligence reportedly came from an Israeli human intelligence source on the ground. The breach didn’t just compromise military operations—it fractured trust with one of our closest allies.

And yet, no one has been held accountable. Many former military officers, active-duty troops, and outraged civilians have taken to the media, pointing out major flaws rooted in hypocrisy. If they’d leaked lower-level information, they’d be court-martialed, fired, or imprisoned. Kevin Caroll, Army veteran, former CIA, and former DHS member, states, "What typically happens in a spillage as serious as this is they're immediately fired.” Top-level officials being exempt from any sort of accountability sets a toxic double standard. 

So what does this leak mean for national security? For America's standing in the world?

It means that, once again, reckless communication has compromised sensitive information. It means that one of our closest allies is questioning our ability to safeguard intelligence. And it means that those in charge—leaders entrusted with decisions of war and peace—are discussing military operations on the same kind of app we use to text our friends.

This isn’t just a lapse in judgment. It’s a warning sign. If our government’s top officials can’t even keep their Signal chats secure, should we trust them with the security of an entire nation?

Indonesia Joins BRICS, But What Does this Mean?

On January 7th, Indonesia joined BRICS, making it the first Southeast Asian nation to do so. This is a significant shift for Indonesia, which in recent years has remained largely neutral and worked to strengthen relations with both the western and eastern countries. However, Indonesia’s current President, Prawbowo aims to increase Indonesia’s role as a leader on the global stage. Yet will Indonesia be successful in foraging its place outside of the spheres of the west and east,as it has done before, or will it get caught in the cross-fire?

To begin, we first must quickly understand what BRICS is. BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa– a group of nations who came together to counter Western global influence and give emerging economies more of a voice in international economics. In 2023, the block expanded to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The primary goal of this group is to help its members increase their economic development. However, BRICS also includes several countries which have had or currently have rather frayed relations with the US and the west. Now, what does this have to do with Southeast Asia?

China and the US have been vying for influence in Southeast Asia leaving the nations of the region to walk a fine line between maintaining relations with both superpowers. However, Indonesia joining BRICS is a big move, which could be a source of concern for the west.  In particular, Indonesia seeks to buy cheaper oil from Russia, citing this as an opportunity to help propel Indonesia’s economic growth. However, this would be concerning for the west which has aimed to pressure Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine through tariffs on oil. Yet if Russia continues to find new markets for its oil such as India and now Indonesia, Russia will be able to go around these tariffs and are less likely to succumb to international pressure. With the Ukraine war having been ongoing for the past three years and the recent talks of the end of the war from President Trump and other European leaders, the west will be keen to have countries such as Indonesia to align with its tactics. 

While joining BRICS could potentially sour relations with the West, there is also a great opportunity for Indonesia to help improve its economy and help contribute to a more prosperous and stable Southeast Asia. Additionally, Indonesia also seeks to join OECD, showcasing its continued plan to build connections with both the west and east. In an increasingly polarized world, where countries seem to be more at opposition than in collaboration, could countries such as Indonesia, which has a hand in both bowls, be the answer to fostering global cooperation?

Europe Cuts the Cord on Russian Gas but What Comes Next?

On January 1st, the last land gas pipeline connecting Russia and Europe directly stopped flowing. The pipeline, which went through Ukraine, allowed Russian state-controlled energy giant Gazprom to transport natural gas to central Europe.

This halt comes as the five-year-old contract allowing Gazprom to utilize the pipeline ended. Signed before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the contract was upheld for its full validity with Ukraine announcing it had no plans to renew. So how did this impact Europe?

In short, Europe was not heavily impacted by the closure of the pipeline. The brunt of the impact occurred in 2022 with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In response to the invasion, Western Europe among other individual countries placed a plethora of sanctions on Russia targeting a wide variety of industries and people. Russia in its retaliation, through claims of technical and maintenance errors with the pipelines, reduced and halted the flow of gas to Europe. This created an energy crisis in Europe and forced its countries to find new energy outlets.

Europe compensated for this loss by changing its main importers of gas. In 2021, 40% of the gas imported by the EU came from Russia. Flash forward to 2023, and only 8% came from Russia with a primary import emphasis coming from Norway and the United States. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also prompted a stark shift towards renewable energy alternatives. In 2023, clean energy solutions received 10 times the investment money from Europe when compared to fossil fuels. These two efforts combined allowed Europe to adjust its energy consumption throughout the crisis surprisingly well. 

The closing of the gas pipeline last month holds somewhat of a symbolic meaning because the majority of Europe was minimally impacted by its shut-off. Only Moldova has faced real struggles with the line closing and Austria has had to compensate more than others to find solutions for their gas needs. The separation of Europe and Russia through the pipelines’ closing demonstrates Europe’s ability to not be bound to Russia and display its competencies as an entity that can stand for itself.

A question presents itself though, as U.S. relations with Europe, Ukraine, and Russia shift under new governments, will Europe’s continued reliance on gas from the U.S. remain a viable alternative for its energy needs?

Bolsonaro’s Indictment Tests Democracy in the Region

Photo by Michelle Guimarães from Pexels.

After losing the 2022 presidential election to current President Lula da Silva, former Brazilian President Bolsonaro has been indicted with a scheme that threatens Brazil’s democracy. The plan included annulling the vote, dissolving the judicial system, strengthening the military, and even assassinating President Lula da Silva. The Attorney General indicted 33 other individuals, some of which included high-ranking government members, like the defense minister and national security advisor. 

Brazil’s democratic peril—evidenced by Bolsaro’s plans, claims, and his supporters who stormed government buildings in Brasilia in 2023—is reminiscent of Trump supporters attacking the U.S. Capitol in January 2021 after Joe Biden had won the election. In fact, Bolsonaro claims that the judicial system is being weaponized, another parallel between Bolsonaro’s politics and Trump. There is a fear that Trump might attempt to exert influence in Brazil in favor of Bolsonaro. 

With the charges filed, what comes next is up to Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes (who was also targeted in Bolsonaro’s scheme), as he will weigh the strength of the arguments to determine if the case will move onto a trial. Should this case move to trial, it is expected to be lengthy. If convicted, Bolsonaro could face a sentence that could last decades. 

Brazil’s democracy, which until this point had remained relatively strong after a dictatorship from 1964-1985, is once again under threat. The indictment, a fierce political divide between Lula da Silva and Bolsonaro’s supporters, and next October’s general elections (elections in which Bolsonaro cannot legally participate in) delicately position the democracy in one of the most influential countries in Latin America. Bolsonaro, Trump, Mieli (Argentina), Maduro (Venezuela), Ortega (Nicaragua), and Bukele (El Salvador) all represent right-wing populism, to varying extents, and some also represent complete democratic backsliding. Only time will tell if democracy in the Americas will be upheld, or if Brazil’s democracy will erode like many other countries in recent years. 

Serbian Student Protests Continue to Gain More and More Momentum

What began as student-led protests could lead to large-scale changes in Serbia. In November 2024, a concrete canopy outside the city of Novi Sad’s railway station collapsed, killing 15 people. The tragedy has sparked a wave of student-led protests to demand more government accountability and less corruption and has resulted in “the biggest protest movement in Serbia in years.”

These protests started as 15-minute road blockades to honor the 15 lives lost in the collapse and spread from Novi Sad across the country. The blockades turned into occupations of public university buildings as a result of attacks on the vigils and the lack of response from authorities. On January 28th, students in Belgrade organized a 24-hour occupation of a central intersection that was copied in other major Serbian cities. 

There was a solidarity created not only among the students leading and attending these protests but also with community members across Serbia, signaling a greater desire for government accountability. 61% of Serbians support the blockades and protests and tens of thousands of people gathered in over 200 towns and cities over the past three months to protest. Community members provided students with meals, hundreds of taxi drivers gathered to drive students from Novi Sad to Belgrade, and citizens of Kragujevac opened their homes to around 700 students who came into town to protest. Citizens across Serbian society joined the students in attempts to demand more from their government.

While the protests started as targeting the potential corruption in construction contracts and transparency about how the collapse occurred, it has evolved into a demand for greater government accountability and political change. As the protests have continued on for months, some concessions have been made by the Serbian government to satisfy protesters without fully giving into their demands. Serbian President Vučić has stated that he has met the demands of the students (publication of documents, justice, dismissal of charges for those arrested, and greater funding for higher education), but the protests are still ongoing. In reality, the government has only declassified a handful of documents related to the collapse and the independence of the recent investigation has been called into question, further fueling the protesters’ cause. In January, in addition to the resignation of Novi Sad mayor Đurić, Prime Minister Vučević became the highest-ranking government official to resign as a result of the protests. However, the protesters do not see these attempts by the government as meaningful change. They want to see prosecutions, not false attempts at reform.

Mass protests in Serbia have not been uncommon in recent years. Until this recent wave of protests across the country, the Serbian government has been able to quiet previous demonstrations by framing their issues as isolated to certain groups or populations or painting protesters negatively, which has limited participation in previous protests. However, this strategy has no longer worked with this recent movement. The protesters’ demands for truth and accountability are widely felt across Serbian society and these protests have gained mass following as a result. Despite attempts by the government to suppress the protesters, such as through random arrests and accusations that student protesters are working with foreign intelligence agencies, they have only mobilized more people from across Serbian society. The demonstrations have grown into the largest protest movements in the country since the fall of former Serbian president Milošević in 2000 and some have even considered it Europe’s largest student-led movement since 1968.

Perhaps even more remarkable, these protests demanding transparency and garnering popular support are a unique phenomenon in the backdrop of a global shift towards the right seen in places like the United States and Germany. Within Serbia, they are posing a real threat to Vučić and his government’s rule and may also, in time, have a substantial impact on Serbia's governance moving forward.

Strategic Ambiguity and Stability in the Taiwan Strait

Taipei, Taiwan. Photo by Vas on Unsplash.

The Taiwan Strait has long been a flashpoint of tension, but in 2025, the stakes are higher than ever. With President Donald Trump back in the White House, China’s military posturing in the region escalating, and Taiwan bracing for what some predict could be an imminent invasion, the world is watching anxiously. The U.S. remains caught in a delicate balancing act—maintaining its long-standing policy of "strategic ambiguity" while arming Taiwan against a potential Chinese assault. But as Beijing intensifies its rhetoric and military maneuvers, the question remains: Is war inevitable?

Taiwan’s struggle for self-determination is nothing new. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), led by President Xi Jinping, has consistently asserted that Taiwan is a breakaway province that must, sooner or later, be reunited with the mainland—by force if necessary. "Taiwan's sovereignty and independence belong to its 23 million people, not the People's Republic of China," declared Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te earlier last year, reinforcing the island’s defiant stance against Beijing’s claims.

China’s aggressive actions have escalated dramatically. In the past month alone, Beijing has conducted large-scale military drills around the island, sent warplanes near Taiwanese airspace, and issued fresh warnings against "foreign interference." This belligerent behavior isn’t just about Taiwan—it’s also a direct challenge to U.S. influence in the region. Will Washington back its implicit promises to Taiwan, or will it hesitate in the face of a potential military clash with China?

President Trump’s return to office has introduced new uncertainties to the conflict. Since he was elected, Trump has imposed a 10% Tariff on all Chinese imports, Taiwan is contemplating a multi-billion dollar arms purchase from the US, and the US has removed the statement “We do not support Taiwanese independence” from the State Department’s bilateral fact sheet on Taiwan. These actions constitute at least a slightly more assertive US policy in the region contributing to heightened tensions. 

The core issue in this conflict is a classic “commitment problem”—the challenge states face in making credible promises to avoid future aggression. For China, Taiwan represents unfinished business, and its growing military power has emboldened its ambitions. Meanwhile, the U.S. must weigh the risks: failing to act could embolden China, but a firm commitment to Taiwan could push the region toward a catastrophic war.

The shifting military balance adds to this uncertainty. For decades, the U.S. Navy dominated the Pacific, but China’s rapid military expansion has significantly narrowed the gap. Analysts warn that Beijing’s naval capabilities could soon rival Washington’s, meaning America’s ability to deter Chinese aggression is under strain.

Several potential scenarios loom. China may calculate that U.S. hesitation gives it the perfect opportunity to seize Taiwan, leading to a military confrontation. Alternatively, fearing China’s rising power, the U.S. may shift away from "strategic ambiguity" and explicitly commit to defending Taiwan—a move that could provoke Beijing into aggressive action.

This conflict is no longer just a regional issue; it has evolved into a global flashpoint with widespread implications. The decisions made in Washington, Beijing, and Taipei in the coming years will determine whether tensions remain contained or escalate into one of the most significant conflicts of the 21st century.

Norway’s Government Collapse: What Led to the Political Crisis and What’s Next?

Last month Norway’s government collapsed. So what happened?

For some background, Norway is an incredibly wealthy nation with humongous amounts of oil. It is not a member of the European Union (EU), but it is a part of the European Economic Area (EEA). The EEA and Norway’s participation in the agreement allows the country to be a part of the single/internal market that other EU countries operate within. The EEA is crucial for Norway as 80% of the country's exports go to the EU. 

That being said, many Norwegians have an overwhelmingly negative view of the EU. In January, Jonas Gahr Støre, Norway’s Prime Minister and member of the Labour Party, wanted to implement three EU energy directives. This did not go over well with his coalition group the Centre Party who hold primarily Eurosceptic beliefs. They were so against implementing these three directives that they essentially quit the government. Støre lost eight of his cabinet members with the separation, leaving roles like the minister of defense, justice, and finance vacant. The Centre Party holds a strong belief that cooperation with the EU threatens Norway's autonomy. Furthermore, the Party's resignation leaves large gaps in Norway’s governmental framework and the Labour Party will now govern until elections are held again in September. 

So what does the Norwegian Labour Party stand for? 

The Norwegian Labour Party is the largest political party in Norway and is much more open to cooperation with the European Union. They believe in the prioritization of EU-Norway relations as they fear that a trade war between Europe and the US is on the horizon. Also, renewable energy sources are something that the party advocated for making the three EU energy directives something the Labour Party supports. 

Despite being the new governing power and potential for change, it is unclear whether or not the Labour party will be able to take much political action in the coming months. On one hand, the Labour Party does not have the majority in parliament and also does not take the lead in opinion polls compared to its right-wing counterparts. On the other hand though, since the exit of the Centre party, voter support for the Labour Party is the highest compared to the other 10 other parties represented in parliament.

Norway’s political uncertainty has the potential to bring about new change and different approaches to cooperation with the European Union, something that has not been deeply explored in quite some time.

Global Econ-Insights #5: Spanish Success

Thus far, each issue of this publication has been solely focused on the economic downfalls of foreign countries. Recession, inequality, growth inhibition—all have restricted the financial success of nations across the globe. But now, it is time to adopt a more optimistic approach to the economic state of the world—and find examples that represent the best ways of mitigating fiscal repercussions. In this issue, we look towards the recent drop in Spain’s unemployment rate. 

As of January 2025, Spain’s unemployment rate has fallen to the lowest that it’s been since 2008. Keep in mind that this was the same year during which the U.S. itself was greatly suffering from an economic recession. However, 17 years later, it seems that Spain’s financial evolution has been of a much more distinguished nature than most other Western countries. According to the National Statistics Institute, the unemployment rate has recently fallen to 10.61% from 11.21% in the previous quarter, whereas in 2008 it was 10.36%, despite economics forecasting that it would fall to 11.1% this year. When it comes to specific measures of employment, it is important to recognize that Spain has added a whopping 468,000 new jobs to its labor force just this year alone. This puts Spain on track to achieve a 2.5% increase in GDP this year in a manner of economic growth that no other large European country has ever done in recent history. In fact, Spain’s fiscal acceleration has resulted in France and Germany inhibiting their own progress. 

When analyzing examples of such blatant economic success like this one, it is crucial that we deduce which industries are relevant. In the case of Spain, more than 90% of the new employment in its labor market has been in services, causing a large boom in the tourism industry. The ultimate impact of this rampant increase in Spanish tourism has been a significant reduction in income inequality across the country, causing great damage to the existing effects of inflationary shocks. These findings come from CaixaBank Research, which has tracked the evolution of wage inequality in Spain over time. During the pandemic, wage inequality in Spain was significantly increasing, However, in the post-pandemic era, Spain’s wage inequality has traveled in the complete opposite direction, serving as a platform for adding new employees to the workforce and plummeting the unemployment rates. In the time that Spain has countered its own rampant inequality, such an inequitable division of labor has only become amplified in the U.S., Germany, and France, proving that Spain has been primarily alone in its newly successful economic endeavors. 

However, while Spain has indeed demonstrated great economic progress and made it easier to imagine a lucrative future in store for itself, it still needs to work on its integration of foreign workers into the makings of its labor market. Doing so will be the key to advancing Spain as a country from its current state of anticipation to a peak economic breakthrough. At the moment, 78% of foreigners in Spain are of working age as opposed to just 63% of the natives, yet foreign workers account for only 16% of the labor force, with particularly only 3.2 million of workers being foreigners. 8% of foreign workers have unverified contracts whereas only 1.7% of native workers do. This once again goes to show and prove how foreign workers are put at a great disadvantage in the Spanish labor force and that even though the country itself may currently be maximizing its economic efficiency, it still has much to improve on in terms of its economic equality. 

Student Activism in the Anti-Corruption Movement

Student activism has long been a driving force for social and political change worldwide, and Serbia is no exception. Over the years, university students have played a crucial role in advocating for transparency, justice, and systemic reforms in response to government corruption and institutional failures. Their efforts have become particularly significant in light of recent events, such as the silent protest in Niš, held to honor the victims of the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse. This tragic incident has ignited a renewed call for accountability, with students at the forefront of Serbia's growing anti-corruption movement.

The tradition of student activism in Serbia can be traced back to the 1968 protests against the communist government, a movement that mirrored similar uprisings across Europe. In the 1990s, student demonstrations became instrumental in challenging the fraudulent electoral practices of Slobodan Milošević’s regime. The 1996-97 protests against electoral fraud and the massive 2000 demonstrations that led to Milošević’s ousting were watershed moments in Serbia’s political history. These movements established a foundation for youth-led civic engagement and a culture of resistance against corruption. In recent years, Serbian students have continued to challenge systemic corruption, particularly in response to mismanaged public infrastructure projects and political misconduct. The Novi Sad railway station collapse is only one of many instances where government negligence has resulted in serious consequences, prompting students to mobilize in the fight for transparency and reform.

Serbian student activists employ a variety of methods to sustain their movement and amplify their message. Their strategies include peaceful protests, social media campaigns, collaborations with civil society organizations, legal advocacy, and international engagement. One of the most effective forms of protest in Serbia has been peaceful demonstrations. Silent protests, such as the one in Niš, serve as powerful acts of remembrance and civic responsibility. Additionally, marches, sit-ins, and public vigils have become key tactics in sustaining momentum for the movement. Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have also played a crucial role in mobilizing support. These digital tools enable activists to quickly organize events, spread awareness, and counter government-controlled narratives in state-run media. By utilizing social media, students ensure that their movement reaches a wider audience, both nationally and internationally. Moreover, Serbian student activists frequently collaborate with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and independent journalists to investigate and expose corruption. These partnerships provide them with the resources and expertise needed to effectively document misconduct and push for legal accountability. Another significant strategy is legal advocacy. Some student groups have pursued legal avenues by filing complaints against corrupt officials and lobbying for policy reforms that promote transparency. Through legal action, they put direct pressure on government institutions to uphold the rule of law and protect democratic principles. Lastly, Serbian student activists engage with international human rights and anti-corruption organizations to draw global attention to their cause. This international spotlight increases pressure on the Serbian government and amplifies the movement’s demands for justice and reform.

The persistence of student activism in Serbia has led to tangible societal changes. One of the most significant impacts is the increased public awareness of corruption and government accountability. Public discourse on these issues has intensified, forcing political leaders to address concerns that might have otherwise been ignored. In some cases, sustained student-led protests have resulted in high-profile resignations and policy changes. Government officials implicated in corruption have been forced to step down, and certain policies have been revised in response to public outcry. Furthermore, the movement has contributed to a surge in civic engagement among Serbian youth. More young people are becoming politically active, voting, and participating in advocacy efforts beyond traditional protest methods. This increased involvement signals a shift toward a more engaged and informed electorate. Additionally, institutions such as universities, media outlets, and watchdog organizations have intensified their scrutiny of government actions. The efforts of student activists have played a crucial role in fostering a culture of accountability within these institutions, strengthening democratic norms in Serbia.

Despite their successes, Serbian student activists face significant challenges. State repression remains a major obstacle, as government authorities often attempt to suppress dissent through intimidation, arrests, and media manipulation. The state-controlled media frequently attempts to discredit activists, portraying them as troublemakers rather than legitimate advocates for change. Another challenge is the risk of political co-optation. Some movements lose momentum when their leaders are absorbed into the political system, diluting the movement’s objectives. Maintaining independence and resisting co-optation is crucial for the long-term effectiveness of student activism. Despite these challenges, the persistence of Serbian student activists offers hope for a more transparent and just society. Their resilience in the face of adversity signals a broader shift in public consciousness, one that demands accountability and upholds democratic values. As they continue to challenge corruption and advocate for systemic reforms, their movement has the potential to shape Serbia’s political future for generations to come.

Student activism in Serbia has a long and rich history of advocating for transparency, justice, and political reform. From the overthrow of Milošević to present-day protests against corruption, students have played a central role in holding the government accountable. Through peaceful demonstrations, social media mobilization, legal advocacy, and international engagement, they have successfully brought attention to pressing issues and influenced political discourse. While challenges such as state repression and political co-optation persist, the student movement remains a vital force in Serbia’s fight against corruption. Their efforts have already led to increased public awareness, resignations, and policy changes. As they continue their activism, they represent not only the voice of the present but also the hope for a more democratic and accountable Serbia in the future.

Hope on the Horizon

New York Times opinion columnist Bret Stephens has recently published an article with which I tend to agree, to say the least. It’s titled “A Day of American Infamy,” and I suggest that you take a look at it: it speaks to what I can assume has been on most of our minds recently. He begins the article with a powerful example, from the dark days of World War II, when our timeless ally, Britain, faced an existential threat in the bombs unleashed by Nazi Germany: 

“If [Franklin] Roosevelt had told [Winston] Churchill to sue for peace on any terms with Adolf Hitler and to fork over Britain’s coal reserves to the United States in exchange for no American security guarantees, it might have approximated what Trump did to Zelensky.”

If you’re like me, and have found yourself asking “What just happened?” after reading just some of the choice news articles published these last few weeks (see: when the United States of America joined the despots of the world, among them Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and Israel in a UN vote against a “Comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in Ukraine”), this is the answer: the United States government has sold out an ally to the lowest bidder: Vladimir Putin, a bloodthirsty autocrat lying to our president through his teeth. 

All of this would be less shocking if Trump’s positions weren’t so wandering and inconsistent. In a visit to the White House, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, bringing flattery and an opportunity for a state visit with King Charles III, managed to get it out of Trump that American backing of Ukraine would be “an honorable thing to do,” even walking back his ridiculous claim that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a “dictator without elections” (“Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that. Next question.” He said). This, of course, coming after weeks of bashing the embattled Ukrainian president with attacks both within the Oval Office and without. 

To those readers who are struggling to find hope, I myself have considered joining you. We are living in times that do indeed rhyme with those deadly years of 1939-1945. But research into historical precedent has brought enlightenment, with tidings of what could be, at the very least, a better time of this administration ahead for all of us.

I’m referring to the 2026 midterm elections, in which dozens of seats in the United States Congress will be up for grabs in districts across the country. Data over many years and many elections tend to reveal that, on average, the incumbent administration’s party loses 25-28 seats in midterms, with unpopular presidents standing to lose even more. Donald Trump is uniquely unpopular outside of his base. In 2018, even with a relatively strong economy, Trump led his party into a wipeout, losing 40 House seats. His core supporters remained fanatically devoted, to be sure, but the broader electorate—especially suburban voters and independents—recoiled from his relentless chaos, corruption, and extremism.

There is no reason to believe 2026 will be any different. Trump has shown that he will govern in 2025 as he did before—by battering institutions, gutting environmental regulations, provoking international crises, and treating NATO like an afterthought—and his party will suffer the consequences. The backlash will be swift, and the Republican majority in Congress will likely be shattered.

This will not eliminate the threat Trump poses, however. The president has made stunning use of (arguably autocratic) executive orders to shove through otherwise unpopular legislation, among which came numerous heavy tariffs on American allies, and the bizarre orders to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and Denali, the tallest mountain in America, back to Mount McKinley. His star-studded cast of vaccine-denying, amoral, totally professionally and morally unqualified cabinet picks, too, will continue to represent a dangerous threat to American democracy. But the administration has begun to show cracks in its policies even just about 6 weeks into the game. Guantanamo Bay has been emptied of the migrants the administration promised to imprison there; Aid funding has been ordered resumed; the threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico have been paused, and refugee admissions have been ordered continued. 

Normal Americans who will not tolerate autocracy in this country must continue to put up the fight against American tyranny, but now they have something to look forward to: the possibility that as soon as next year, Democrats could retake the House and Senate, and block the autocratic legislature that threatens to take hold of our government. 

The Two Sides of Paul Kagame

In January of 2025, the rebel group M23—supported by regular Rwandan soldiers—entered Goma, the DRC’s eastern metropolis. A patchwork of rebel militias cover Eastern Congo, but rarely do they attack regional centers with armored vehicles, drones, and surface-to-air missiles. In Goma, M23 looks more like a professional army. The Rwandan support for M23 comes from Rwanda’s long standing president, Paul Kagame.

Kagame’s domestic policies have earned him an impressive reputation. Since taking power in 2000, Kagame has ruled as a strongman but is building an impressive resume. Under his leadership, Rwanda became one of the consistently fastest growing economies on earth. Rwanda has the highest proportion of women in Parliament out of any country. Kagame’s leadership has lowered child mortality by 70%, developed a national health insurance program, and defused the ethnic rivalries that led to the 1994 genocide. Rwanda now lays claim to Africa’s first smartphone company, is the host of the NBA’s offshoot Africa Basketball League and has recently entered negotiations to become the first African country to host a Formula 1 race.

Kagame’s immense domestic progress has led him to develop strong ties with the West. He is a frequent attendee of conferences in Davos and Paris, is a favorite target for foreign aid, and has strong support from the US. Consequently, 70% of Rwanda’s central government is funded by the OECD. 

Simultaneously, Kagame’s foreign policy horrifies onlookers. Political opponents often flee the country. Kagame has been accused of using state intelligence to terrorize exiled political figures. Since coming to power in 1994, he has sponsored two wars against the DRC, including the Second Congo War, known as the “Great War of Africa.” Now, after years of backing the rebel M23 group in Eastern DRC, he looks poised to do so again.

Kagame’s support for M23 and mobilization of troops across the border has a turbulent precedent. Rwandan-backed wars in the DRC have twice toppled the DRC’s president, pulled in a dozen other countries, and has now received a rare condemnation by the United Nations Security Council.  (If China, Russia, and the United States agree on something, it's generally pretty serious.) If international opinion towards Kagame sours, particularly that of his OECD supporters, Rwanda will struggle to maintain its prosperity.

The international community’s reaction to Rwanda’s de facto seizure of Goma could put Kagame in a difficult position. Kagame’s standoff with the international community dares them to intervene and sanction one of Sub-Saharan Africa’s brightest examples of development, a regional beacon of stability, and a reliable partner.

Simultaneously, internationalism is struggling. The closure of USAID heralds a global lean towards isolationism, and a tiny country like Rwanda may see its river of foreign investment turn into a trickle. If foreign investment is slowing, Kagame is betting on Rwanda’s military to secure his country’s future. Africa’s great lakes region (which Goma is built on the shores of) is home to some of the world’s richest deposits of coltan, gold, and tin. (Rwanda has mysteriously become a large gold exporter, despite mining little gold domestically.) If Rwanda’s reliance on OECD aid is murky, Kagame believes that the DRC’s critical minerals could be the next best option.

The Price of Peace: Ukraine's Sovereignty Hangs in Balance

Editor’s note: This article was submitted on February 15, 2025.

In February of 2022, Russia launched a military incursion into Ukraine that many at the time, including the US government, thought would make quick work of the Ukrainian military and seize Kyiv within days. But while a solid chunk of territory is now occupied by Russian forces, the invasion has largely been a failure for Putin. By some miracle, Kyiv is still standing three years later. 

This “miracle” is thanks to a variety of contributing factors, including strong political and military leadership from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, home field advantage for the Ukrainian military, shockingly incompetent and under-provisioned Russian soldiers, and valuable strategical assistance from NATO. But the most crucial factor of Ukraine’s defense? The financial, military, intelligence, and humanitarian assistance from the US. Now, with Donald Trump once again at the wheel of US foreign policy, this all may come crashing down. 

In a “lengthy and highly productive” phone call with Putin, Trump and the Russian President came to the agreement that negotiations to end the war will take place “immediately”, without mentioning Ukraine or Europe at all. Zelenskyy was informed of the call soon after, but it still played right into European fears that they would be left out of negotiations. Pete Hegseth, for his part, isn’t doing much to reassure the Europeans either. The newly confirmed Defense Secretary stated during a defense conference in Brussels that it was “unrealistic” to expect Ukraine to recoup its pre-invasion borders, and that Europe, not the US, should provide the “overwhelming” share of funding for Ukraine’s protection. No public concessions of sovereignty have been made by Zelenskyy, but he has recently said that Ukraine would be ready to negotiate on the condition that it do so from a position of strength. 

So what does this mean? For one, the Kremlin is surely rejoicing. The US has the capacity to keep Ukraine in the war, but Europe would struggle mightily without US support. “Spend more on defense” has been the constant refrain from the American right, but the problem is that most NATO countries don’t even spend enough to protect themselves, let alone Ukraine. If they were to increase spending, it would probably go towards their own defense first. Because of this, the US cutting aid to Ukraine would be a massive Russian victory. 

There’s also the issue of the power imbalance facing Ukraine should they take a seat at the negotiating table now, while Russia controls nearly ⅕ of Ukrainian territory. If Trump truly does not care about Ukrainian sovereignty, then it makes sense why he wouldn’t want them in NATO – Ukraine would just be one more country that the US is obligated, not just allowed, to defend and protect. Trump surely knows that Russia would not simply just agree to give back their occupied territory, so it begs the question: what does Russia lose from negotiating now, and what does Ukraine gain? The answer is nothing and not much, respectively. Yes, the war would be over and the bloodshed would stop, but that’s no guarantee of an end to Russian aggression. 

The signaling from the US is extremely pro-Russian, which is not only just a change of pace for our European allies, but also a warning to Ukraine: the American appetite for war is waning. The way the war stands now, Ukrainian security won’t be guaranteed through peace talks, especially without NATO membership or the participation of other European countries in the negotiations. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like the current US administration has any issue with this, which may end up putting all of Europe at risk, if it wasn’t already. 

When Aid Disappears

The Fallout of Dismantling USAID

So What?

For some, the dismantling of USAID might feel like the grand victory of a long-overdue reckoning. For others, it’s a heartbreaking loss of an agency that embodies America’s global generosity. And for most? They’re simply indifferent.

We’ve all heard the familiar refrain: America gives too much. Too much aid, too many resources, too much of our tax dollars to people far from home. But in all that noise, have we really stopped to ask: What is USAID actually doing? And what happens when the force behind billions in global development and humanitarian assistance is suddenly pulled apart? 

On January 20, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid”, which ordered a 90-day suspension of foreign assistance to assess the efficiency of the programs, as well as their alignment with American values. Just over a month later, the order’s fallout has had tremendous consequences. 

Healthcare clinics across the globe have been forced to shut their doors on patients who once relied on USAID support. Overnight, programs that delivered clean drinking water simply stopped. A large faction of USAID funding is spent on healthcare programs overseas. Communities that depended on these programs are now defenseless against crises like disease and malnutrition. And while some might read this and think, “That’s far away, that’s someone else’s problem”, the reality is that in our globally interconnected world, the collapse of globalization and interconnectedness, the collapse of foreign healthcare systems and economies “can reach the US faster than ever”. The collapse of international development, an initiative spearheaded by the United States, will have everlasting implications for society. 

So what?

So, the children who once received life-saving vaccines are left vulnerable. So, the communities that once had clean water now face the resurgence of preventable diseases. So, the fragile economies that USAID helped stabilize begin to crumble, fostering cycles of poverty, displacement, and conflict. And so, whether we acknowledge it or not, the ripple effects of this dismantling will find their way back to us—through public health crises, economic instability, and the erosion of American influence on the global stage.

Trump and Tariffs, Tariffs and Trump

In the weeks that have followed President Trump's inauguration, the public has been bombarded with various announcements and changes regarding domestic and foreign policy. It has been overwhelming and concerning. One such decision which has raised debate is his apparent love of tariffs. 

Tariffs are widely misunderstood by the general public and become a “buzzword” that politicians throw around to appease voters. So let’s quickly look at how tariffs work. Tariffs are taxes on import goods and are often thought to help alleviate competition of foreign goods in the domestic market. In truth, there are several benefits to tariffs. Tariffs are typically used to protect specific domestic markets. These domestic markets are protected for numerous reasons such as national security concerns or combating monopolization of an industry in a foreign country. However, tariffs also have some negative effects. For starters, there are many misconceptions about who pays for the tariffs. Trump has stated that the foreign country will pay for it. The actual cost will most likely fall upon the American economy. The burden will fall on consumers if retailers increase their prices to offset the high import costs. Meanwhile, American companies that rely on imported materials for manufacturing have to reduce the amount of capital they have for other business investments, harming the overall American economy. Imposing a tariff on imports can also increase the value of the American dollar, which makes American exports more expensive and less attractive in foreign countries. So as we can see tariffs are not always effective and even have the possibility of harming the economy. So why is Trump such a big proponent of them?

President Trump has long promised to use tariffs to help raise the country’s revenue, balance out trade, and apply force to foreign countries. For example, his short-lived tariffs on Mexico and Canada were largely to put pressure on the US’ neighbors on issues such as illegal immigration and drug trafficking. However, if the threat of tariffs successfully makes a country agree to the US demands, then the question of how to raise US revenue still remains. In fact, the tariffs are predicted to have an adverse effect on the economy. The tariffs on Canada and Mexico were found to reduce long-run GDP by 0.3 percent while the tariffs on China would reduce the GDP by 0.1 percent. Trump’s goals with these tariffs seem rather contradictory. They feel more as if to prove he is following through with his campaign promises rather than enacting lasting benefits for the nations. On February 10, Trump imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum imports. Now this move could see an increase in steel prices and jobs, but these gains would be offset by the losses in the manufacturing sectors that rely on steel for production. In fact, in 2018, Trump’s tariffs led to a loss of 75,000 manufacturing jobs. 

The most recent headline in Trump’s love of tariffs– on Thursday, February 13, trust signed his plans for reciprocal tariffs on US trading partners with the goal of starting new trade negotiations and bringing manufacturing back to the United States. In the coming weeks, reports on each individual country will be produced and tariffs will be customized for each nation. However, there is the fear that countries might retaliate with their own tariffs, putting American consumers and businesses in an uncertain position. Reciprocity-based tariffs drastically altered the US trade policy as well as violated the W.T.O.’s non-discrimination for trade. What is also worrisome is Trump appears to be pushing through with this trade policy with seemingly little regard for the US and its international relations. If US trade partners feel threatened by these tariffs then this further sours relations and will ultimately weaken the US’ global power and reputation. 

Tariffs are an economic strategy that has been used by policymakers for years. If used in the short term and focused on targeting specific industries, they can be very effective. However, Trump’s rapid announcements of various tariffs feel overwhelming and alarming with the potential of widespread consequences for both the economy and US global relations. It continues to push the country toward uncertainty, leaving us to wait and see how these policies will unfold.

Trump’s Federal Freeze: The Policy, The Politics, and The People Affected

On Monday, January 27, 2025, at 5:00 PM Eastern Time, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a sweeping directive that sent shockwaves through federal agencies, state governments, and millions of Americans who rely on federally funded programs. The memo, signed by Acting OMB Director Matthew J. Vaeth ordered an immediate temporary freeze on all federal grants, loans, and financial assistance programs–a move that was justified as a review princess to ensure its alignment with the Trump administration’s policy priorities. 

Within 48 hours, the White House rescinded the freeze, but by then, the damage had already begun. Medicaid portals malfunctioned, child care centers struggled with funding, and states braced for economic instability as federal payments stalled. 

Although the freeze was short-lived, it signaled a broader shift in the Trump administration’s approach to federal funding–one that prioritizes ideological battles over essential services. By halting aid programs tied to health care, child welfare, and anti-poverty initiatives, the administration made its stance clear: government assistance would only flow to clauses that align with Trump’s agenda. This abrupt decision left agencies scrambling for clarity, raising concerns about the long-term stability of federal funding. 

The implications of this policy shift extended beyond immediate funding concerns. Legal experts questioned whether the administration had the authority to unilaterally halt congressionally approved financial assistance, while advocacy groups mobilized to challenge the move in court. State governments, many of which rely on federal freeze for nearly half of their budget, faced mounting pressure to fill the gaps left by the freeze. 

At the same time, economists warned that even a brief disruption in federal spending could have ripple effects across industries that are dependent on government contracts and funding systems. Ranging from healthcare providers to local food banks, the uncertainty surrounding future federal allocations left essential services in a limbo. 

But where does that leave us, America as a nation? 

The White House’s response to the backlash only deepened the confusion. While the administration insisted that the freeze was never intended to be permanent, officials failed to provide clear guidance on how agencies should proceed. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that the directive had been misrepresented by the media and that the goal was to simply eliminate waste and inefficiency. However, the abrupt nature of the freeze which was then followed by an equal sudden reversal of it raised valid concerns about whether the administration had fully considered its own policy impact before implementing it. 

Legal challenges quickly mounted. Advocacy groups like Democracy Forward, along with a coalition of 22 state attorneys general, filed lawsuits arguing that the freeze violated congressional authority over federal spending. A federal judge temporarily blocked the measure, stating that the administration had not provided a legal justification for its actions. While the White House hoped that rescinding the memo would put an end to these challenges, legal experts warned that the case could set a precedent for how future administrations handle federal funding. 

But beyond the courtroom battles, the fallout extended to communities across the country. Nonprofits that rely on federal grants to support housing assistance, food programs, and healthcare initiatives faced immediate uncertainty. In several states, local officials scrambled to reallocate resources to prevent service disruptions, fearing that future federal aid could be just as unpredictable. 

The instability also rattled financial markets, as investors grow wary of how the federal government might handle spending priorities moving forward. Economists noted that even a brief pause in federal payments could have long-term effects, particularly in industries that rely on government contracts. Businesses involved in infrastructure projects, education grants, and public health initiatives suddenly faced the prospect of delayed or lost funding. 

As the dust settles, one question remains: Was this a temporary misstep, or a sign of what’s to come?