-
Turning Back The Planet’s Clock
By Hatim Husainy, Sustainability
Photo: Dmitry Makeev, CC BY-SA 4.0Climate Change is an extremely complicated problem.
The Earth is an extremely delicate system—it has many layers and each of them interact with the others in ways we are still not completely sure about. This means that, when there is an imbalance, even a small one, it creates a huge change in the planet’s weather, temperature, and biological systems.
The best example of this phenomenon is climate change. Carbon dioxide, or CO2, even at today’s elevated levels, makes up about .04% of the Earth’s atmosphere. (NASAa 2024)
This is a 50 percent increase from pre-industrial levels, and it has a huge impact on the Earth system.
This is not the only way we observe “small” changes having huge implications. We have accidentally been changing cloud formation over the sea for decades because of the sulfur we’ve been putting in fuels. Without sulfur, the fuels in ships now burn much cleaner, but with fewer clouds, the ocean is actually heating faster. Importantly, this truly doesn’t consider the emissions saved with clean-burning fuels, which still might make this change worth it even with the loss of cloud cover. (Harvey et al. 2024)
It is tempting to think of climate change as a problem that is mostly on the political and economic level. And while it may be true that the dynamics of humans have reached our hand to the heavens and put many lives at risk. Not just human lives, but many of the species of plants and animals that rely on a steady, predictable climate are now either at risk of extinction or will be soon. There is no time to make the wide-ranging political and economic realignment necessary to preserve the biosphere that exists today before it is too late.
And so, we must consider radical action. What changed once can be changed again. To understand what type of action might be needed, it’s worth returning to the engine driving the crisis: the greenhouse effect. In short, the Earth warms because gases like CO2 trap the heat energy that we get from the Sun, so when there’s an increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the planet gets hotter. (NASAb 2024)
Current climate “interventions” focus on reducing the amount of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. What these approaches tend to overlook is that even if we dropped to zero new emissions overnight, the acceleration of global warming would drop to zero but its velocity would remain. In other words, the amount of CO2 still in the atmosphere will keep the Earth heating long enough to cause biosphere-level collapse. The only way to find the time to develop technologies that can accelerate the process of getting CO2 back to preindustrial levels is to address the other part of the equation: decreasing the heat that Earth takes in from the Sun directly.
If we can alter the start of the equation by limiting the amount of energy that enters the Earth’s atmosphere, we can cool it down. This idea is described by scientists as solar geoengineering. Essentially, the particular mechanism is to create more clouds in the upper atmosphere so more sunlight is reflected. This could be accomplished by introducing more particles into the atmosphere—some scientists suggest sea salt for ease of access, while others propose sulfur dioxide because that is what has been proven to lower atmospheric temperatures when volcanoes throw large amounts of it into the atmosphere.
In comparison to making the hugely expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable resources, geoengineering is incredibly cheap, not just in terms of real dollars, but also human labour-hours and mineral resources. Climate change is a challenge that will take time and money to solve: we must research carbon-capture farming, crops like hemp, kelp, and algae, and retool the entire energy apparatus of the US. In comparison to the cost of these new energy infrastructures and other research and development, geoengineering is relatively cheap. For an estimated 2 billion dollars a year, we buy valuable time to make these changes. (Harvard 2018) Even the research and development would be relatively inexpensive, because it is less creating an entirely new scientific process and more “an exercise in the application of existing tools from aerosol science, atmospheric science, climate research, and applied aerospace engineering”. (Keith 2017)
Of course, such a valuable and far-reaching stopgap cannot be deployed focusing only on scientific and financial viability. We must also consider governance: who would be consulted on what the resting temperature of the globe should be? There are also important effects to consider when we are ready to stop—or if we are forced to.
The big question of governance is this: how do we get people to agree on what the earth’s temperature should be? Inherent to geoengineering is the ability to lower the Earth’s temperature; how far should we lower it? Some governments would massively benefit from an Earth warmer than preindustrial levels, much of the Siberian tundra may defrost at a sustained higher temperature. On the other token, cooling the Earth to cooler than pre-industrial levels would make desert reclamation easier in the Sahara or Mongolian desert (Davies 2025). Grant Davies argues that this is possible to agree on, as a global community, only under two conditions. First—countries need to gather in a process they see as fair, and arrive at a conclusion together—maybe agreeing on a temperature corridor that would be acceptable. Then, the countries that lose out in this arrangement would be compensated in order to maintain their buy-in. Ideally, this would be made easier by the already widespread process of carbon recognition that would need to simultaneously occur to make good use of the time we are buying. A “corridor” that keeps us within a tenth of a degree of preindustrial levels would do a lot of good. It would reverse somewhere between 150 and 400 years of global temperature rise in a matter of decades. This could be great—icebergs should cease to melt and perhaps even begin to grow again, ocean acidification would slow and coral reefs would have a chance to stabilize and recover, and total ecological collapse could potentially be avoided.
The other big worry that lies right between issues of science and governance is termination shock. If for some reason the geoengineering program were to suddenly grind to a halt, it would be a big problem. The rapid cooling we had carefully engineered would quickly become reckless warming as the Earth returns to a degree and a half hotter than pre-industrial levels. Termination shock is an issue we can avoid—maintaining true global buy-in would be a very important element, for there would be relatively few parties looking to sabotage a hypothetical geoengineering program. Additionally, implementing geoengineering as a temporary solution and not our long-term strategy would make us less dependent on it and enable creating a timeline to slowly roll the program back once we are at a net-negative energy infrastructure.
In addition to termination shock, there are other scientific barriers to be considered. The increased cloud formation might slow photosynthesis or induce new extreme weather events. Additionally, direct tampering with the Earth’s delicate systems of weather might destabilize critical forces like monsoon winds of atmospheric currents, which could create unprecedented droughts, floods, or endanger agricultural yields (Lazard 2025). The biggest scientific problem is the data gap. We have not run small or medium scale experiments; much of the current literature relies on natural experiments (like volcanic eruptions or the sulfur fuel discussed earlier) but that is relatively small scale in relation to what a global cooling effort would look like.
There are many other problems that climate scientists have raised with geoengineering, in both theory and practice. Some of these are argued by Mike Hulme in his book “Can Science Fix Climate Change?” (London School Of Economics 2014). Hulme argues that climate change is an important opportunity to reconsider how we view humanity’s place in the world, rather than simply determining a new science fix in order to not change our lifestyles (Hulme 2014). His arguments are less focused on the political and economic forces that create and exacerbate climate change more on the philosophical opportunity to reconsider the way we see secularism in our society and the postmodern “consensus.” He argues that climate change has resulted in a huge decentralization of thought—that, “Instead of the end of history, what we are witnessing is a flowering of the irrepressible diversity of human beliefs, ideologies and scepticisms” (Hulme 2014). That it is a moment for humans to reevaluate their views of their relationship with the natural world and the idea of nature, and reconsider how we live.
Much remains to be seen on the question of geoengineering. There are still big questions in science, the governance is still being built, and the societal question of what happens afterward remains unanswered (Woodwall Research Center 2023). Geoengineering (changing the atmosphere on the molecular level) is a big change to propose. There are big questions about knock-on effects. But we are already doing geoengineering. We have already manipulated the atmosphere on the molecular level, and we are seeing the knock-on effects of an atmosphere with more CO2 than it can handle. We live on a rapidly warming planet not because of human technology but in spite of it. We have renewable energy that is scalable and all the tools we need to build a carbon-neutral society. The time is running out for us to put our technology into practice before we are forced to consider more radical solutions. We wield an unthinkable amount of power over nature—that gives us a responsibility to protect it.
Hatim Husainy is a freshman from Smithtown, NY, studying political science. He is in the early phases of a research project on human rights in the Binghamton area. In addition to the Happy Medium, he participates in Moot Court, Model United Nations, and Citizens Climate Lobby. He plans to pursue law school after his undergraduate degree, and from there, he plans to save the world.References
Davies, G. (2025). Regulating geoengineering. Climate Technology and Law in the Anthropocene, 186–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.18323828.13
Harvey, C., Harvey, C., & News, E. (2024, August 14). Cleaned up shipping emissions have revealed additional global warming. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaned-up-shipping-emissions-have-revealed-additional-global-warming/
Hulme, M. (2014). Climate change and virtue: An apologetic. Humanities, 3(3), 299–312. https://doi.org/10.3390/h3030299
Keith, D. W. (2017). Toward a Responsible Solar Geoengineering Research Program. Issues in Science and Technology, 33(3), 71–77. https://doi.org/https://www.jstor.org/stable/44577362
London School Of Economics. (2014, November 5). Book review: Can science fix climate change? by Mike Hulme – LSE review of books. LSE Review of Books – the latest social science books reviewed by academics and experts. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2014/08/27/book-review-can-science-fix-climate-change-by-mike-hulme/
NASA. (2024a, October 22). The atmosphere: Getting a handle on carbon dioxide – NASA science. NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/
NASA. (2024b, October 23). What is the greenhouse effect? – NASA science. NASA. https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect/
Olivia Lazard. (2025). Geoengineering: Assessing risks in the era of planetary security. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
School of Engineering, H. (2018, November 28). Calculating solar geoengineering’s technical costs. Home Page. https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2018/11/calculating-solar-geoengineerings-technical-costs
Woodwall Research Center. (2023). (rep.). Solar Geoengineering Research & Governance. Falmoth, MA. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep55078
-
What’s at Stake: Binghamton Mayoral Race
By James Kang, New York Politics
In New York City, the mayoral race has taken a dramatic turn, with former governor Andrew Cuomo attempting to close the gap against Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani. Despite being a newcomer to politics, Mamdani’s sudden rise has rocked the New York City political landscape, as voters ponder the possibility of a Democratic Socialist for New York City Mayor.
However, just a few hours north in the city of Binghamton, another mayoral race reflects a similar sense of uncertainty as Republican incumbent Jared Kraham faces Democratic challenger Miles Burnett. Like Cuomo, Kraham emphasizes his experience as a primary reason to be the best choice for Mayor. In a similar vein, Burnett prioritizes a social media campaign and promotes a new approach to governance. With this in mind, let’s take a look at the candidates, listed in alphabetical order, and their policies for Binghamton.
Miles Burnett
Miles Burnett was born in a Southside family of union members, which contributed to his interest in community engagement and leadership. Before launching his mayoral campaign, Burnett served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for State Senator Lea Webb, where he worked to advance legislation and secure funding for the Southern Tier. Burnett also managed municipal budgets while working as an aide to New York City Council Member Andrew Cohen and led economic development projects as the Executive Director of a nonprofit organization. Additionally, when he was Executive Director, Burnett worked on improving public safety and sanitation initiatives. Burnett is currently pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Liberal Arts/Extension Studies (ALB) with a concentration in Social Sciences, a field of study in Government, and a minor in Sustainability at the Harvard Extension School. He is currently running as a Democrat and part of the Working Families Party (Burnett 2025).
Jared Kraham
Jared Kraham is currently Binghamton’s 51st and youngest Mayor. Before taking office, he served as Binghamton’s Deputy Mayor for nearly eight years. Kraham was born in a small-business family, which contributed to his first-hand experience of running small businesses and creating jobs. In college, Kraham earned a bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Broadcast Journalism from Syracuse University. Prior to his time as Deputy Mayor, Kraham’s experience reflected his passion for baseball. In high school, Kraham worked as a public announcer for the Binghamton Mets and he later secured funding for NYSEG Stadium when he worked for City Hall. During his time as Binghamton Mayor, Kraham focused on projects transforming properties and housing, while supporting law enforcement and other first responders to lower Binghamton’s crime rates. He is currently running as a conservative in the Republican Party (Kraham 2025).
Binghamton Police Chief
For context, Binghamton Police Chief Joseph Zikuski has resigned, which took effect on October 6. Zikuski, who has been Chief of the Binghamton Police Department since 2008, was investigated as a result of an incident involving his girlfriend in Johnson City on July 18. A video surfaced on Facebook showing Zikuski’s girlfriend Susan Rice arguing with a group of people, including two teenagers. Despite being off-duty, Zikuski was present and didn’t stop his girlfriend from committing acts of violence. As a result, Rice was arrested and “charged with endangering the welfare of a child, harassment, and trespass in the second degree.” As previously mentioned, an outside investigation was initiated by Mayor Kraham, but results haven’t been publicized. Additionally, until Binghamton appoints a new chief, acting Police Chief John C. Ryan is leading the Binghamton Police Department (WSKG 2025).
Thus, one of the concerns of the Binghamton public was the outside investigation and the appointment of a new Binghamton police chief. In response to these concerns, Burnett suggested considering four candidates who have taken the Civil Service Exam. He also highlighted that public opinion should factor into the appointment of the next chief. While Kraham shared Burnett’s sentiment, he did so with caution as he utilized Ithaca as an example to remind the public of the issues that can occur with the public appointing a police chief (WSKG 2025). Briefly, the Ithaca police chief “was selected after a search process involving interviews with representatives from the police department, the city’s Human Resources department, the Greater Ithaca Activities Center and the Community Justice Center” (The Ithaca Voice 2025).
Housing
Housing has been one of the most important issues associated with this election. After all, both candidates recognize that there is a housing crisis in Binghamton. For Burnett, he wants to make student housing providers pay their fair share, while holding absentee landlords accountable. Additionally, Burnett wants to establish affordable housing units while supporting first time homeowners. Burnett interconnects housing with homelessness and safety, proposing to fund emergency shelters and add more code enforcement officers (Burnett, 2025).
For Kraham, he believes that the COVID-19 pandemic has heavily impacted the housing crisis in various ways. During his tenure as Mayor, Kraham prioritized constructing affordable housing units in Binghamton and claimed that they would soon be open to the public. In addition to the project pipeline, Kraham wants to expand mental health resources in partnership with Broome County, but aims to partner with the state and federal governments as well. Kraham expresses his disapproval of the Trump administration and their shutdown of Community Development Block Grants (WSKG 2025).
Blue bags
Blue bags have been another primary issue associated with this election. For Burnett, he wants to keep trash collection public and collaborate with the Department of Public Works. Moreover, he addresses his plan to make trash collection easier and consistent while exploring waste management alternatives (Burnett 2025). For Kraham, he highlighted that the fairest, most environmentally-friendly method of trash collection would be to pay as you throw. Briefly, the pay-as-you-throw policy “charges people for the amount of trash they toss out” (World Economic Forum 2025). He also addressed that Binghamton had free recycling collection and yard waste, which saved taxpayers’ money (WSKG 2025).
Voting
The early voting period is from October 25 to November 2 and Election Day is on November 4. If you are registered in Broome County, you can visit the Broome County Board of Elections website for a full election list. Likewise, if you are registered in New York City, visit the New York City Board of Elections website for more information. All voters can visit Vote411.org to find personalized ballot information for wherever they are in the United States.
James Kang is a senior from Queens, New York, majoring in political science. After graduation, James plans to go to law school. During high school and going into college, James wrote articles and worked with representatives, such as Congresswoman Grace Meng of New York’s 6th district. During this past summer, James worked as an intern in the office of United States Senator Lea Webb of the 52nd district and Josh Riley, who is the Democratic candidate for New York’s 19th Congressional district. Outside of politics, James enjoys playing the piano and basketball.
References
Burnett, Miles. “Miles Burnett for Mayor.” Miles Burnett for Binghamton. https://www.burnettforbinghamton.com/.
Butler, Matt. 2025. “Ithaca Police Department Picks Cornell PD Head as New Deputy Chief.” The Ithaca Voice. https://ithacavoice.org/2025/09/ithaca-police-department-picks-cornell-pd-head-as-new-deputy-chief/.
Kraham, Jared. “Meet Jared: Jared Kraham for Mayor.” Jared Kraham. https://www.jaredformayor.com/meet-jared.
WSKG | By Celia Clarke. 2025. “Binghamton Mayoral Candidates Face off in Live WSKG Debate.” WSKG. https://www.wskg.org/regional-news/2025-10-16/binghamton-mayoral-candidates-face-off-in-live-wskg-debate.
-
The History and Modern Rise of Pronatalism
By Morgan Reed-Davis, Political Theory
The Trump administration has made it clear: it wants Gen Z to catch baby fever. At an anti-abortion rally in January, VP J.D. Vance said that he wanted “more babies” in America (The Columbus Dispatch 2025). In March, Trump dubbed himself the “fertilization president” and suggested a “national medal of motherhood” for women with six or more children (Stechyson 2025).
This pro-baby agenda comes as the U.S fertility rate hits a historic low of 1.6 children per woman (CDC 2025), which is half a child below the “replacement rate” needed to maintain a stable population. For some Americans, it reflects the skyrocketing cost of living, climate anxieties, and career ambitions that are delaying Millennials’ and Gen Z’s decision to have kids (McBain 2025). Others, including Trump officials, see low fertility as an existential crisis — proof of the loss of traditional values and of a looming economic collapse.
People who see it this way are “pronatalists.” Pronatalism means “pro-birth,” and argues that a stable, growing population is crucial for the economy and traditional family structure. On the surface, it makes sense. Fewer babies means fewer workers, hurting the economy; fewer babies means fewer families, which some consider the foundations of society. However, pronatalism also has a controversial history rooted in eugenics and white supremacy. As ‘pronatalism’ resurfaces in headlines and White House press briefings, it’s important to ask: what is the history of pronatalism? How does the current movement compare to the past? What does it mean for the future of America?
What is the history of pronatalism?
The movement’s rise is often predictable, almost like a math formula. Pronatalists equate declining birthrates, women’s empowerment, and rising immigration with the downfall of society.
The early 20th century saw a surge in pronatalism as immigration skyrocketed and traditional gender roles shifted. After the Industrial Revolution, one in five women entered the workforce, upending the old “rural family” ideal (Lovett 07). Millions of immigrants arrived in the U.S., reshaping U.S. demographics. Stanford sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross called this “race suicide” (Lovett 2007). He claimed that white families were “killing themselves” by not having enough children, letting immigrants destroy the “Anglo-Saxon character of America.” President Theodore Roosevelt agreed; He called motherhood a woman’s “patriotic duty” and condemned those who refused as “race traitors” (Lovett 2007).
Roosevelt’s influence led to significant policy changes. Congress passed restrictive immigration laws in 1907 and 1924, which limited immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe (Smithsonian 2020). In 1929, a law drafted by a white supremacist senator named Coleman Livingston passed, criminalizing Mexicans who crossed the border (Little 2025). These policies reflected the logic of white supremacy and eugenics, which is a pseudoscience that claims society could be “improved” through reproductive control, and had sweeping effects on the country and the globe. Mexicans, Asians, and Southern and Eastern and Southern Europeans were barred from entering the U.S., keeping the U.S. In America, over thirty states passed laws that allowed the forced sterilization of people labeled “unfit” or “feeble-minded,” and targeted poor, disabled, and racial minorities (Lovett 2007). Adolf Hitler later cited these laws as a model for Nazi racial hygiene policies, which led to the mass murder of six million European Jews (U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum 2020).
At its core, pronatalism has never been just about population growth; it has been about controlling who makes up the population and how to restrict certain people from society.
Pronatalism now
Similar to the 20th century, today’s pronatalist movement rose alongside debates about immigration and LGBTQ+ and women’s rights, which challenge the traditional family structure. The first (and second) Trump administration’s hardlined stance on immigration, the #MeToo movement, Obergefell v. Hodges – the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage – all preceded 21st-century pronatalism.
Except today, pronatalism falls into two broad camps: religious traditionalists and technocrats.
According to Lyman Sone, the director of the Institute for Family Studies, the moderate religious traditionalists want to “restructure society in a way that treats family goals as worthy” (Agudelo 2025). Moderates call for the government to prioritize family values and the sanctity of human life (Mosley 2025). They push for child tax cuts, paid maternity leave, a ban on pornography, and restrictions on IVF and birth control (Hagen 2025). To them, having children is not a personal choice but a civil duty, and it’s the government’s role to enforce it.
More extreme traditionalists, often white supremacists, link low fertility to cultural decay, advocating everything from selective breeding to “masculine culture” (Hagen 2025). They often spread far-right views such as the “great replacement theory,” which argues that white nations are being replaced by nonwhite immigrants (Miller 2025). For example, Kevin Dolan, organizer of an annual pronatalist conference called “Natal Con,” aims to “rehabilitate hierarchies of nature” through selective breeding. A woman who writes using the pseudonym Peachy Keenan argued that the movement should exclude parents who “raise children to be gender-neutral furries who want to join antifa one day” (Hagen 2025). Extreme protagonist groups tend to focus on who should have kids, targeting certain people while promoting their idea of the “right” family.
Technocrats, mainly in Silicon Valley, justify pronatalism through economics and genetics. Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), called the economic fallout from declining birthrates “the greatest threat to humanity” (Coggins, Madeline, and Fox News 2025). Musk has also urged for “smart people” to have children to “seed the earth” with higher intelligence (Mattioli 2025). Malcolm and Simone Collins, the couple at the head of the pronatalist movement, claimed to screen their embryos for intelligence to avoid having children “less privileged in IQ” then they are (Hegarty 2025). Tech-driven pronatalists often avoid race talk, but their language of IQ echoes the 20th-century eugenics’s exclusionary vocabulary; they imply that some people–“intelligent” people–are innately superior and worthier than others.
Several Silicon Valley tech investors have put money into fertility and embryo-screening start-ups. Musk has donated ten million dollars to the Population Wellbeing Initiative in Texas, which researches fertility and population growth (Hegarty 2025). Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase expressed interest in starting an embryo-editing company (Stein 2025). Companies like Orchid, founded by former Peter Thiel fellow Noor Siddiqui, scan embryos for neurodevelopmental disorders, mood disorders, and heart health (Orchid 2025). According to some scientists, embryo scans are a slippery slope; while the technology may prevent life-threatening diseases, there are serious concerns that it could be used to determine who should, and who should not, be born. When gene editing is funded by Silicon Valley elites whose intent may be to engineer a more “capable” population–is it possible to know that the technology will be used responsibly?
Where is it going?
Pronatalism is increasingly influencing law and policy.
Initiatives like the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which calls the well-being of the American family the “true priority of politics” (Vought 2025), and the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), shows that the movement is becoming institutionalized. As of October 2025, Project 2025 is 48% underway (Heritage Foundation 2025), while OBBB introduced “Trump Accounts,” which give each child born during Trump’s presidency $1,000 (The White House 2025). In October 2025, EMD Serono, a pharmaceutical company, struck a deal with the Trump administration to reduce the cost of IVF, aiming to facilitate more births among families. These moves are a part of the Trump administration’s pro-life agenda, appealing to that supporter base as well as members of his cabinet like JD Vance and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
However, some critics challenge the idea that Trump is pro-life for everyone. Trump has dismantled DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs that benefit women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, and disabled people in schools and the workplace; it’s a move that, according to UCLA history professor Alexandra Stern, is driven by the logic that “diversity and difference has been prized over excellence and human optimization” (Hagen 2025). Early in his term, Trump also signed executive orders etargeting immigrants and the LGBTQ community (which is known to challenges gender norms) under the slogan Make America Great Again, which mimics Roosevelt’s political strategy in the early 20th century (Executive Orders). To some Americans, these actions call into question Trump’s true intentions, if he, like the past, cares less about children but who has them.
The history of Pronatalism is a dark one. The hope is that history does not repeat itself.
Morgan Reed-Davis is a junior from Carver, MA double-majoring in English Literature & Rhetoric and Philosophy, Politics, and Law (PPL). After graduation, she plans to attend law school and one day fulfill her lifelong dream of having a pet rabbit. As a political theory reporter, Morgan is deeply interested in researching political rhetoric, the attention economy, and LGBTQ theory, among other things. In her free time, she enjoys crocheting/knitting, writing, reading, and hobby jogging.
References
Abby, Diamond. “The 1924 Law That Slammed the Door on Immigrants and the Politicians Who Pushed It Back Open.” Smithsonian Magazine, 19 May 2020, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1924-law-slammed-door-immigrants-and-politicians-who-pushed-it-back-open-180974910/.
Agudelo, Veronica. “Selective Gestation: The Racial Politics of American Pronatalism.” Columbia Political Review, Columbia Political Review, 10 June 2025, http://www.cpreview.org/articles/2025/6/selective-gestation-the-racial-politics-of-american-pronatalism.
Branigin, Anne. “Simone and Malcolm Collins Want to Make America Procreate Again – the Washington Post.” The Couple Who Want to Make America Procreate Again, 4 Feb. 2025, www.washingtonpost.com/style/of-interest/2025/02/01/malcolm-and-simone-collins-pronatalism/.
Coggins, Madeline, and Fox News. “Elon Musk Reveals What Keeps Him up at Night amid Ongoing Doge Mission.” Fox News, FOX News Network, http://www.foxnews.com/media/elon-musk-reveals-what-keeps-him-up-night-amid-ongoing-doge-mission. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.
The Columbus Dispatch. “Full JD Vance Speech at 2025 March for Life: ‘I Want More Babies in the United States of America.’” YouTube, Jan. 2025, youtu.be/23XJ2SqI8FA?si=PvIsMa2ga7etrUop.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “nuclear family”. Encyclopedia Britannica, 9 Sep. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/nuclear-family. Accessed 27 October 2025.
“Executive Orders.” The White House, The United States Government, http://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-orders/. Accessed 30 Oct. 2025.
Hagen, Lisa. “Who Are Pronatalists, the People Who Want Women to Start Having a Lot More Babies?” NPR, NPR, 7 Apr. 2025, http://www.npr.org/2025/04/07/nx-s1-5285445/who-are-pronatalists-the-people-who-want-to-women-to-start-having-a-lot-more-babies.
Hegarty, Stephanie. “The Pronatalists Who Believe Trump’s White House Is on Their Side.” BBC News, BBC, 1 Apr. 2025, http://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ypdy05jl9o.
Little, Becky. “How Border-Crossing Became a Crime in the United States.” History.Com, A&E Television Networks, 13 Aug. 2025, http://www.history.com/articles/illegal-border-crossing-usa-mexico-section-1325.
Lovett, Laura. “Economy of Sex: Edward A. Ross and Race Suicide.” Conceiving the Future: Pronatalism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890-1939, University of North Carolina Press, p. 78.
Lovett, Laura. “Men as Trees Walking: Theodore Roosevelt and the Conservation of the Race.” Conceiving the Future: Pronatalism, Reproduction, and the Family in the United States, 1890-1939, University of North
Mattoili, Dana. “The Tactics Elon Musk Uses to Manage His ‘Legion’ of Babies—And …” Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company Inc, 2025, https://www.wsj.com/politics/elon-musk-children-mothers-ashley-st-clair-grimes-dc7ba05c?msockid=2903d8765da36cba2754cef85c616dd7
Miller, Cassie. “Racist ‘replacement’ Theory Believed by Half of Americans.” Southern Poverty Law Center, 24 Jan. 2025, http://www.splcenter.org/resources/stories/poll-finds-support-great-replacement-hard-right-ideas/
McBain, Liam. “< Why Are People Freaking out about the Birth Rate?” NPR, NPR, 27 June 2025, http://www.npr.org/transcripts/nx-s1-5416788.
Mosley, Tonya. “What’s behind the ‘pronatalist’ Movement to Boost the Birth Rate?” NPR, NPR, 30 Apr. 2025, www.npr.org/2025/04/30/nx-s1-5382208/whats-behind-the-pronatalist-movement-to-boost-the-birth-rate.
“Products – Data Briefs – Number 535 – Month July 2025.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 24 July 2025, www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db535.htm.
“Project 2025 Tracker.” Project 2025 Tracker, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.project2025.observer/en. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.
“Pronatalism.” Cambridge Dictionary, 2025, dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pronatalism.
Stechyson , Natalie. “Trump Wants a Baby Boom. Here’s Why a ‘baby Bonus’ Probably Won’t Help Fertility Rates | CBC News.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 2 May 2025, www.cbc.ca/news/world/birth-rate-trump-baby-bonus-1.7523545.
Stein, Rob. “The Quest to Create Gene-Edited Babies Gets a Reboot .” NPR, NPR, 6 Aug. 2025, http://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/06/nx-s1-5493448/gene-editing-human-embryos-designer-babies.
“Trump Accounts Give the next Generation a Jump Start on Saving.” The White House, The United States Government, 29 Aug. 2025, http://www.whitehouse.gov/research/2025/08/trump-accounts-give-the-next-generation-a-jump-start-on-saving/.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC. “The Biological State: Nazi Racial Hygiene, 1933–1939.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2020, encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-biological-state-nazi-racial-hygiene-1933-1939.
Varney, Sarah, and Rachel Wellford. “A Look inside the Pronatalism Movement Encouraging Americans to Have More Children.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 30 July 2025, www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-inside-the-pronatalism-movement-encouraging-americans-to-have-more-children.
Vought, Russell, “Mandate for Leadership: A Product of the Heritage Foundation.” Mandate for Leadership | A Product of The Heritage Foundation, http://www.mandateforleadership.org/. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.
“Whole Genome Embryo Report.” Orchid, http://www.orchidhealth.com/. Accessed 25 Oct. 2025.
-
Commitments and Contradictions: Issues Underlying the Trump Administration’s Health Policy
By Alyssa Hazen, US Policy
The United States’ current health policy has undergone significant changes since President Trump took office. The Trump administration’s approach to health policy is marked by a mix of ambitious reforms and internal contradictions. Central to this dynamic is the tense debate surrounding the administration’s approach to vaccinations, coupled with Trump’s seemingly contradictory mission to Make American Healthy Again (MAHA).
In February, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed by the Senate to serve as the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy, a proponent of anti-vaccination, stirred up controversy upon his nomination by President Trump. He secured the secretarial position in a 52 to 48 vote, despite opposition from the left regarding his support for conspiracy theories on vaccinations and from the right for his expressed support for abortion rights (Simmons-Duffin 2025).
The most significant changes to US health policy taken by Kennedy have been in relation to his perspective on vaccines. In September, Kennedy appointed a federal vaccine committee called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) (Mandavilli 2025). The panel was hastily put together, with half of the committee members having been directly appointed by Kennedy himself, reflecting an ongoing effort to push through the administration’s vaccination policy. The panel voted unanimously to further limit access to Covid vaccines, recommending that only adults 65 and older receive the shot after discussing health effects with a health care provider (Mandavilli 2025). All other individuals from 6 months to 64 years could freely choose to receive the vaccine after consulting their provider. This restriction follows previous efforts by the Food and Drug Administration to authorize the Covid vaccine only for those 65 and older and those with underlying medical conditions, as well as efforts by Kennedy to remove children and pregnant women from the vaccine schedule in May (Stein 2025).
Kennedy champions these anti-vaccination policies as part of an effort to pursue the Trump administration’s goal to Make America Healthy Again (MAHA). Trump, who once endorsed the Covid vaccine and assumed credit for its development and implementation, has since adopted a new and seemingly contradictory position on vaccines. As part of the administration’s mission to reinstitute health standards, MAHA has sought to address the overmedicalization of children across the US. The administration suggests that children have been subject to over-prescription by medical professionals, which, despite the well intentions of physicians, can demonstrate consequences on a child’s health (White House 2025). This idea has forwarded the administration’s push to limit vaccinations for children, despite the risks that infections may impose. A new study has shown that children and teenagers are twice as likely to develop long Covid after a second infection (Belluck 2025). While it is not guaranteed that the Covid vaccine will make an individual immune to the disease, the study found that immunizations reduced long Covid risk in adolescents, through prevention of severe illness (Belluck 2025). The MAHA goal to limit vaccinations in children may prove to be contradictory to the mission of the movement itself, by putting children at risk of leading unhealthy lives through the restriction of immunizations.
This contradiction is further exemplified by the decision of the ACIP to restrict access to a combination vaccine that prevents measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, known as MMRV, in children four years and under (Apoorva 2025). The panel additionally voted to not allow a federal vaccine program to cover the costs of the vaccine. While this limitation aligns with the administration’s push to Make America Healthy Again by minimizing what the administration views as “medical overuse” in children by healthcare professionals and curbing “wasteful” spending in healthcare, it inadvertently puts children at risk for contracting diseases. Many public health experts and healthcare professionals fear that changes to the childhood vaccine schedule would lead to a resurgence in diseases that have since been vanquished (Apoorva 2025).
Although there are clear contradictions within the Trump administration, the president has remained committed to combatting the high cost of prescription drugs. In taking steps to achieve the administration’s goal to equalize the cost of prescription drugs between the US and other nations, the president plans to strike up a deal with pharmaceutical corporations. In a deal with Pfizer, a leading pharmaceutical company, the prices charged to state Medicaid programs would be lowered and the company would offer new drugs to the US at prices comparable to those that European countries pay (Robbins and Sanger-Katz 2025). In an effort to aid American families and increase affordability, Trump plans to introduce a website called TrumpRx. The website will allow Americans to purchase prescription drugs directly from manufacturers without the involvement of health insurance (Robbins and Sanger-Katz 2025). Through this program, the administration aims to fulfill its commitment of increasing accessibility and lowering the associated costs of health care for Americans.The Trump Administration’s healthy policy initiatives reflect a broader commitment to protect the American population, yet display clear contradictions between actions and stated goals. Efforts to limit access to vaccines in the interest of reducing medical overuse have been taken alongside acts to expand the affordability and accessibility of prescription drugs. The contrasting policies reflect the underlying issues and complexities of the administration’s health care agenda, as well as the broader difficulties of achieving effective policy in a politically divided environment.
Alyssa Hazen is a sophomore and political science major from Brooklyn, New York, as well as an Associate U.S Policy Reporter at Happy Medium. She plans on attending law school after graduating from Binghamton and hopes to pursue a career in corporate law. She is most interested in studying the intersection of politics and the environment. In her spare time, she enjoys reading and playing the guitar.
References
Belluck, Pam. 2025. “Long Covid Risk for Children Doubles After a Second Infection, Study Finds.” September 30 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/health/long-covid-children.html — 2nd nyt
Mandavilli, Apoorva. 2025. “Kennedy’s Advisory Panel Votes to Limit M.M.R.V. Vaccine for Children Under 4.” September 18 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/health/kennedy-cdc-vaccine-meeting-hepatitis-covid.html
Mandavilli, Apoorva. 2025. “Kennedy’s Vaccine Panel Votes to Limit Access to Covid Shots.” New York Times. September 19 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/19/health/cdc-vaccines-mmrv-hepatitis-b.html
Rebecca, Robbins, and Margot Sanger-Katz. 2025. “Trump Announces Deal With Pfizer to Sell Drugs to Medicaid at European Prices.” New York Times. September 30 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/30/health/trump-pfizer-trumprx-medications.html
Simmons-Duffin, Selena. 2025. “RFK Jr. confirmed as Trump’s health secretary, over Democrats’ loud objections.” NPR. February 13 https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/02/13/nx-s1-5294591/rfk-jr-trump-health-human-services-hhs-vaccines
Stein, Rob. 2025. “RFK Jr. says COVID shots no longer recommended for kids, pregnant women.” May 27 https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/05/27/nx-s1-5413179/covid-vaccine-children-pregnant-rfk-cdc#:~:text=%22I%20couldn’t%20be%20more,Kennedy%20Jr. – 2nd npr
The White House. 2025. The MAHA Report: Making Our Children Healthy Again. May https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-Report-The-White-House.pdf
-
Your labor market is bad: but you’re not alone
By Halina de Jong-Lambert, Economic Policy
Photo: Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, CC BY-SA 2.0The numbers don’t lie: the U.S. labor market is languishing. Sifting through the revised, retracted, and re-revised labor statistics of the past few months, a dispiriting picture emerges. There was a net loss of jobs in June, for the first time since the winter of 2020. (NPR, 2025) While economists recommend that the U.S. economy needs to add between 80,000 and 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with population growth, which it has generally been able to do in the past, employers added just 73,000 jobs in July and 22,000 jobs in August. (BLS, 2025)
Gaining a clear picture has been, unfortunately, complicated by a series of historic revisions of published numbers. On August 1st, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued a report, unprecedented in scale, revising jobs added for May from 144,000 jobs down to 19,000, and the same numbers for June from 147,000 jobs to a paltry 14,000. (The Hill, 2025) On September 9th, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued a stunning edit of the employment estimate for the twelve-month period ending in March 2025: they overshot the year’s numbers by 911,000 jobs. (BLS 2025)
Experts agree that recent college graduates, who are experiencing a 5.3% unemployment rate compared to the overall unemployment rate of 4%, are bearing the brutal brunt of the slowdown. When the authors of a recent report from the St. Louis Fed of Census Bureau and Labor Department wrote, “the traditional premium associated with higher education—at least for quickly landing a job—may be weakening,” they seemed to be confirming graduates’ worst fears. On the difference between the overall and college grad unemployment rates, they wrote, “this 1.34% percentage point increase represents more than just statistical noise; it reflects a significant shift in how the economy is absorbing newly educated workers.” (St. Louis Federal Reserve, 2025)
Significant media attention has been devoted to these job-hunting struggles among recent graduates, but there are daunting struggles in the non-college-grad labor market that have gone unrecognized. In a Financial Times article published in October, Columnist and Chief Data Reporter John Burn-Murdoch argued that past estimations of college graduates’ versus non-college-graduates’ employment statistics have overlooked an important distinction between the two groups. Traditionally, numbers for these two groups are compared across the same age ranges. However, a college graduate entering the workforce for the first time at 22 is significantly more exposed to hiring freezes and other labor market shocks than a 22-year-old non-college grad who has been in the workforce for 4 or more years. (Financial Times, 2025)
So, do we need to reevaluate the picture for non-college grads? Burn-Murdoch says yes. And when he reestimated the statistics accounting for different opportunities among college versus non-college grads, he found a shocking disparity. Among non-graduates, unemployment is up 2.4% in recent years, almost double the 1.2% increase for college graduates. According to Burn-Murdoch, “young people who haven’t been to university are actually having a much harder time.” (Financial Times, 2025)
New grads aren’t the only group facing a uniquely strong blow. Black women, who are disproportionately concentrated in lower-paying sectors like retail and services, often have their overall employment numbers tracked by economists and other experts as a kind of “canary in the coal mine.” They are one of the first groups to show signs of economic distress in periods of recession, and their unemployment numbers often rise first during poor labor conditions. (TIME, 2025)
During the Great Recession of 2008-2010, black women not only experienced the highest unemployment rates of any group, but they continued to experience job losses even after the economy was officially declared “recovered.” A similar pattern occurred during the recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. When their unemployment statistics rose to a painful 16.6%, there was soon after a steep rise in the national unemployment rate (though that only ever peaked at 10%). (TIME, 2025)
Today, the cycle has once again repeated. Black women were the first group to experience significantly elevated unemployment rates in Summer 2025, a spike of 5.1% in March and 6.7% in August. Due to a compounding of factors stemming from racism and sexism, black women are often the first to get hit by economic crises and the last to experience relief. (TIME, 2025)
So, how bad is everyone’s labor market in context? We’ve had worse unemployment rates in the past few decades, but that may be a contributing factor to the current situation. During the Great Recession of 2007-2009, peak unemployment was a staggering 10%. The economy experienced another significant shock from the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which triggered an unprecedented GDP contraction and subsequently the worst unemployment rate since the Great Depression. (Howstuffworks, 2025) This is a significant amount of economic shock across a roughly 17-year period, and according to the Minneapolis Fed, these shocks have taken their toll. In a recent research article on job vacancies, they cited as a warning with their estimations that increasing instability in “labor market series,” numbers like job-quit rate, finding rate, and hiring rate, stemming from the successive recessions since 2008, have made important labor market factors like “tightness,” or slowdowns in economic growth, harder to predict. (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2025)
One question keeps resurging in discussions of poor labor market conditions: can we blame AI? It can be tempting to pin recent job losses on a surge in automation and AI advancements. Economists at Goldman Sachs have estimated that 6-7% of all jobs can be replaced by AI, and with the ever-growing wave of new AI assistants and better models like Google’s Gemini 5, it seems to some like the line of causality is clear. (Investopedia, 2025)
Some of the fears are justified. At least two Federal Reserve Bank surveys indicate businesses are hiring fewer people because the work is being done by AI; a survey from the Dallas Fed of businesses found 10% said AI has decreased their need for workers. There is also evidence that the impact is concentrated among recent graduates. A Stanford University study found that in the jobs most vulnerable to AI, including software developers, employment for 22 to 25-year-olds has fallen 6% since Chat GPT launched in 2022.
However, past periods of rapid technological advancement indicate that there is room for optimism. Sixty percent of today’s jobs did not exist in 1940, and researchers Dong and Briggs attribute 85% of all job creation since then to technological advancement. This is the most ideal outcome: while rendering some jobs obsolete, enough new employment possibilities are created by AI and the new world we are hurtling towards that overall employment doesn’t take too big a hit. To what extent this becomes reality, overall, remains to be seen.
For new graduates, non-graduates, and economically vulnerable groups, the labor market remains murky. But one thing is certain — you’re not alone.
Halina, a Junior majoring in Economic Analysis and minoring in Political Science and Music from Manhattan, NY, is The Happy Medium’s Head Economic Policy Reporter! Her research interests include economic development and macroeconomic policy, sparked by her participation in Binghamton’s Source Project Program, where she examined a 2008 Universal Basic Income Study based in Otjivero, Namibia. She enjoys running, traveling, and binge-watching shows with her roommates, and hopes to one day work as a public sector economic analyst or economist for a Federal Reserve Bank or state Division of Budget.
References
Aspan, Maria, Scott Horsley, and Danielle Kurtzleben. 2025. “BLS Revision Shows Annual Hiring Was Overstated by 911,000 Jobs.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/09/nx-s1-5527000/bls-us-job-growth-numbers-revised.
Cooper, Marianne. 2025. “Rising Unemployment among Black Women Is a Bad Economic Sign.” Time. https://time.com/7315624/rising-unemployment-black-women-economy/.
Cox, Jeff. 2025. “Trump Fires Commissioner of Labor Statistics after Weaker-than-Expected Jobs Figures Slam Markets.” CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/01/trump-erika-mcentarfer-jobs-report-fired.html?msockid=3638572f5680667d35cc431857e76725.
“Current Employment Statistics Preliminary Benchmark (National) Summary – 2025 A01 Results.” 2025. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/prebmk.nr0.htm.
Horwich, Jeff, and Simon Mongey. 2024. “Fewer Openings, Harder to Get Hired: U.S. Labor Market Likely Softer than It Appears: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.” Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/fewer-openings-harder-to-get-hired-us-labor-market-likely-softer-than-it-appears.
Hyatt, Diccon. “Is Ai to Blame for the Lousy Job Market?” Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/ai-impact-on-jobs-numbers-11806190.
Lane, Sylvan. 2025. “Stunning Revisions Show US Added 258K Fewer Jobs than First Reported.” The Hill. https://thehill.com/business/5431805-us-job-growth-revised-downward/.
Ozkan, Serdar, and Nicholas Sullivan. 2025a. “Recent College Grads Bear Brunt of Labor Market Shifts.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/aug/recent-college-grads-bear-brunt-labor-market-shifts.
Taras, Zach. 2025. “10 Worst Recessions in U.S. History, Listed Chronologically.” HowStuffWorks. https://money.howstuffworks.com/worst-recessions-in-us-history.htm#pt9.
———. 2025b. “Recent College Grads Bear Brunt of Labor Market Shifts.” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2025/aug/recent-college-grads-bear-brunt-labor-market-shifts.
-
Third Parties and Strategic Voting
By Chase Quinn, Elections
Photo: ottawacitizen.comElections in the United States are dominated by a two-party system with Democrats on the centre-left and Republicans on the centre-right. Although there are other parties, they receive negligible amounts of support and often fail to win any significant elections. For voters who support third parties, elections can be frustrating, as it seems like there is no good outcome when casting a vote.
A possible solution to this is an idea known as strategic voting, sometimes referred to as tactical voting. Strategic voting occurs when voters cast ballots for candidates that would not otherwise be their first choice in the hopes of producing a better election outcome (The Center for Election Science n.d). For example, if you are a registered member of the Green Party, your first choice of candidate would be the Green Party candidate. Strategic voting occurs if you choose to instead vote for the Democratic candidate in the hopes of them winning the election and getting environmental protection laws passed. This can produce a better outcome for you because if you voted for the Green Party, your vote would have no effect and you’d be taking votes away from the Democrats, increasing the chances that the even less-preferred Republicans may win. If the Democrats win, they at least have some policy that you may agree with. To better understand strategic voting, however, we must first examine the way that our electoral system works.
Voting System Matters
The dominance of the two-party system in the United States is mainly due to how our voting system is structured. The United States uses single-member district elections, meaning that for each election, there is only one candidate that can win. We also use a first-past-the-post or “winner takes all” electoral system, meaning that whichever candidate gets the most votes automatically wins. This can be seen in the electoral college, where if a candidate wins the majority of votes in a state, they win all of the state’s electoral votes.
These factors contribute to a phenomenon known in political science as Duverger’s Law, which states that “…the statewide-plurality method of electing a president and governors, plus the single-member-district-plurality method of electing national and state legislators, have made “third” party growth unlikely” (Scarrow 1986).
Following this law, voters concentrate their support on two main parties: the party in the lead, and the second most competitive party that serves as the “opposition” to the leading party. Voting for a third party makes no rational sense because unless the party can gain enough support to become the main leading or opposition party, there is no chance that they will win the election. In lower level state and local elections some third party candidates do in fact win seats, but this is largely absent for presidential elections. The only recent exception to this was Ross Perot’s Presidential run in the 1992 election, where he won a historic 18.9% of the national vote as an independent. Despite his relatively high numbers for an independent, he won zero electoral votes and had no real chance of victory.
Policy Dimensions
In political science, a simple way of visualizing competition between different parties is to use what’s known as a “policy dimension.” In this case, the scale is a straight line, with points towards the left representing more left-leaning ideology and points to the right representing more right-leaning ideology. Points on the scale represent the political ideology of government policy.
The ideal outcomes of Democrats, Republicans, and the Green Party are all plotted above. Status Quo, represented by Q, is where policy currently resides. Ideal points are where different parties would prefer the status quo to be. The goal of each party is to get the status quo as close to their ideal policy point as possible. Moving the status quo closer to your ideal point means that the direction of government policy moves closer towards your preferred ideology. For simplicity, the status quo is placed equally distant between the ideal points of Democrats and Republicans. Note how the Green Party’s ideal point is much farther away from the status quo than those of the Republicans and Democrats.
Strategic Voting Visualized
To simulate how strategic voting works, we can use the policy dimension above. In this example, assume you are a member of the Green Party. You believe that the status quo is much farther to the left than the democrats or the status quo. You’d prefer to shift the status quo to the left, as close to your preferred policy point as possible.
There’s an important election coming up, and the race is closely tied between a Democratic candidate and a Republican. The Green Party is polling at barely 1% of the total vote. As much as you believe in the Green Party’s platform, you know that the voting system of the country makes it nearly impossible for them to win any significant amount of support. With this knowledge in mind, there are four choices you can make:
- You choose to vote for the Green Party anyway.
- You choose to vote for the Democratic Party.
- You choose to vote for the Republican Party.
- You choose to abstain and not cast a vote,
If you choose to vote for the Green Party, your vote is negligible due to lack of support and as a result has no effect on the election outcome. If you are dissatisfied with the choices presented to you and decide to not cast a vote, you also have no effect on the election outcome. This leaves two remaining choices. Voting for the Republican Party does not make sense, as your ideal policy preference is on the left of the dimension and you don’t want it to move further to the right. As a result, the remaining, most strategic decision is to vote for the Democratic Party because if they win, policy will at least shift leftwards and put the status quo closer to your preferred point. Assuming your vote is the deciding factor in the race, policy dimensions based on the two possible outcomes are shown below.
In this scenario, your vote results in a win for the Democratic candidate, shifting policy to the left. Although it is still considerably far away from your ideal point, it is the best outcome for you given the circumstances. In theory, if the status quo moves far enough left, the Green Party may actually be able to gain enough broad support to be a competitive party in the future.
In the case of a Republican victory, policy shifts to closer to the Republican ideal point. This increases the distance between the Green Party’s ideal point and the status quo, resulting in the worst outcome for you given the circumstances. With the current voting laws in the United States and the dominance of the two party system, a Democratic or Republican win are the only realistic outcomes to the election.
In real life, a shift of ideology either way means that the government is more inclined to pass laws and policy that align with that ideological shift. For example, if Republicans win and the status quo shifts to the right (Q3), the ideological stance of the government favors more right-leaning policies and vice versa. While policy might shift closer to the Republican ideal point, in reality it is highly unlikely that policy will ever reach their ideal point, as there are competing parties that are constantly attempting to shift policy closer to their own ideal positions.
Closing
For voters of third parties, elections in the United States can be troublesome. Voting for a third party candidate often means that your vote has no real effect, and as a result voters may feel that their voices are not considered in our democracy. Although strategic voting provides an alternative to this, it is by no means perfect. On paper, strategic voting can help move government ideology closer to a voter’s ideal point, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will benefit from it. Furthermore, it’s disheartening for voters to sideline their own true beliefs and vote for candidates that they wouldn’t support otherwise. Without significant reform to the voting system in the United States, however, it is unlikely that this will change in the near future.
Chase Quinn is a senior at Binghamton University serving as the elections reporter. He studied journalism at Hunter College for two years before transferring to Binghamton to pursue a bachelors in Political Science and Master’s in Public Administration. He was born and raised in the town of Pine Plains, New York. Post-college he plans to conduct research on policy and law and aims to work in the public sector. In his free time, Chase likes to read, spend time outdoors, create art, and make jewelry.
References
Scarrow, Howard A. 1986. “JSTOR.” Duverger’s Law, Fusion, and the Decline of American “Third” Parties. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1010076.pdf?refreqid=excelsior:dab6cb1be39076f0ad3d8db534c45b25&=&ab_segments=0/basic_phrase_search/control&=&origin=&=&acceptTC=1 (October 29, 2025).
Hurley, Meghan. 2015. “Strategic Voting Signs Surface in Ottawa Ridings | Ottawa Citizen.” Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/strategic-voting-signs-surface-in-ottawa-ridings (October 29, 2025).
“Tactical Voting Basics.” The Center for Election Science. https://electionscience.org/research-hub/tactical-voting-basics (October 28, 2025).
-
New Year, New Rules: The 2025 Laws That Are Shaking Up America
By Abigail West, U.S. Policy
Photo:This year, America saw a great deal of new laws passed addressing issues such as AI, abortion, guns, tariffs, and more. 2025’s new policies and regulations display the ideological divide across the United States; while California and New York move to regulate AI and protect abortion access, states like Florida and Texas double down on restrictions. The country’s legal landscape is shifting fast; with new policies determining whether a woman loses or gains access to reproductive healthcare, whether small businesses will struggle under new tariffs, and if factory workers will earn higher wages or lose their jobs under the Trump administration. This article analyzes the most significant laws of 2025, revealing America’s deep political divide over the values shaping the future of the nation.
Artificial Intelligence
In recent years, use of AI has skyrocketed, meaning that this new popular technology needs to be regulated before it spirals out of control. This year, all 50 states have introduced legislation regarding AI, with 38 states adopting around 100 measures combined in 2025.
In October 2023, the Biden administration released the Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence, which created standards for infrastructure and AI-enhanced cybersecurity. Additionally, the Executive Order acknowledged AI’s potential challenges, stating that AI should not “worsen job quality” and must “advance equity and civil rights,” as well as requiring AI models to watermark content so the public can distinguish what is AI and what is not. (The White House 2023)
In January 2025, Trump repealed this Executive Order. He claims this action was to encourage innovation in AI, but the lack of oversight could potentially lead to regulation concerns and large safety risks (Swain, Gyana. 2025). In May 2025, House Republicans brought forth a clause into the tax and spending bill, which would ban state AI laws for 10 years (Brown and O’Brien 2025). Over 100 nonprofit organizations, elected officials, and other groups opposed this proposal, and the Senate voted 99-1 to defeat this ban. Senator Ted Cruz stated in September 2025 that the proposal would return to Congress for further debate (Adragna 2025).
There have also been new state laws introduced protecting likeness, voice, and digital replicas from AI. In Arkansas, the Frank Broyles Protection Act was amended by HB 1071 to add protections for individuals whose likeness, photograph, or voice is reproduced for AI use (National Conference of State Legislatures 2025). Tennessee also passed the Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act (ELVIS), barring unauthorized AI simulations of a person’s likeness or voice. New Hampshire criminalized malicious deepfakes, and California enacted multiple laws last year regarding AI including the Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act (AB 2655) and the AI Transparency Act (SB 942, effective Jan. 2026) (The Updated State of AI Regulations for 2025 2025). These laws have sparked concern on how AI crosses the line of authenticity and consent. This signals a shift to a more human approach to AI regulation.
Abortion
This year, several states passed legislation either restricting or expanding abortion access. Several blue states like New York, Vermont, and Colorado passed laws allowing abortion medication providers to use practice names instead of real names on prescription labels to shield them from persecution.
In New York, the “Shield Law 2.0” was passed to strengthen existing protections from interstate persecution for New Yorkers who provide or receive reproductive or gender reaffirming care (Shield Law 2.0 – NYCLU 2025). The Pharmacist Prescription Bill (A9119) allows licensed pharmacists to prescribe and order certain medications for abortions or miscarriages after a risk assessment and deliver information to the patient (NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A9119 2025). Legislation in New York such as the Military Funding Bill (A928A)(“NY – A00928.” 2025), the Born Alive Survivors Protection (S577), and the Medication Labeling Bill (S36A)(NY State Senate Bill 2025-S36A 2025) were also all introduced this year, which reflects how the state’s agenda this year covers everything from healthcare to reproductive rights.
Red states are continuing to seek criminal penalties for abortion medication (MultiState 2025). In states with abortion restrictions, lawmakers are continuing to crack down on any access to care. The Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act, or HB 370 would criminalize abortion in most circumstances. As of July 2025, 12 states have a total ban on abortion with very few exceptions (Johnston and Livingston 2024). After the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022, women have had to travel across state lines to receive abortion healthcare. As a result, low-income women do not have adequate access to reproductive healthcare, which widens the healthcare inequity gap (Karam et al. 2024). There are a few sites that track state laws and new legislation on abortion, including the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Guttmacher Institute (KFF 2025; Guttmacher Institute 2025).
Gun Laws and Firearm Regulation
There have also been new laws passed regulating firearm use in various states. At the state level, Colorado has raised the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21 (Gun Law Trendwatch 2025), while Delaware is implementing a controversial “Permit to Purchase” law, which will go into effect in November. The “Permit to Purchase” law requires all individuals seeking to purchase a handgun to complete a firearms safety course, pass a background check, get fingerprinted, and submit an application to the Delaware State Bureau of Identification. New York enacted a ban on pistol converters, as well as a requirement for firearms dealers to post and distribute warnings about the dangers of gun ownership (Safer Streets 2025).
Marijuana and Cannabis Use
As of 2025, 24 states have legalized cannabis use for adults. 19 states that haven’t legalized the use of cannabis still jail individuals who have possession of cannabis (Marijuana Policy Project 2019). The Supreme Court recently took up the case U.S. v Hemani, which will come to a conclusion next year. The case examines whether individuals can carry a firearm while using an illegal drug (such as cannabis) (Ryan 2025).
In New York, a new state bill, A7998, authorizes retail cannabis dispensaries and nurseries to sell up to three immature cannabis plants per person for personal cultivation. This October, Pennsylvania voted 10-1 in favor of setting up a Cannabis Control Board in the Pennsylvania legislature. Wisconsin may also join Nebraska soon in legalizing cannabis, as three Republican lawmakers in the state introduced a bill in October to legalize medical cannabis (NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A7998 2025).
Minimum Wage
At the federal level, no new minimum wage legislation has been passed in 2025, leaving the nation-wide rate at $7.25 per hour. This rate has not increased since 2009 under the Fair Labor Standards Act (Miller 2025). Currently, more than 30 states have their own minimum wage laws. By the end of October, more than half of U.S. states will have raised their minimum wages above $14 (U.S. Department of Labor 2024).
The “Raise the Wage” Act of 2025 would raise the federal minimum wage to $17 per hour by 2030. It also proposes phasing out subminimum wages for tipped workers, workers with disabilities, and youth workers (Zipperer 2025). This proposed legislation would impact 22 million workers across the country, and it would provide an extra $70 billion annually in wages for the average affected worker.
Tariffs and International Trade Policy
Since the beginning of his second term, President Trump has been increasing tariffs on U.S. imports with all global trade partners. In order to enact these trade tariffs, Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Congress.Gov 2025).
In February, the U.S. entered into a trade war with Canada and Mexico. President Trump signed orders calling for 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada except for oil and energy, which were taxed at 10%. Both Canada and Mexico threatened retaliation with tariffs against the U.S. on American goods in March, and as of October, Canada is ready to take up trade negotiations talks with the U.S. when “the Americans are ready” (BBC 2025). The U.S. and Mexico are not formally in a trade war currently, but are still negotiating the threat of tariffs. Mexico was given a reprieve on tariffs of 30% or more until the end of October, giving time to strike a deal on negotiations.
In August, Trump imposed tariffs on dozens of other countries, with a baseline of 10% on imports from all countries. There is currently a 50% tariff on Indian and Brazilian goods, 30% on South African goods, 20% on Vietnamese goods, and 15% on Japanese and South Korean goods. China and the U.S. have agreed to a truce until November after threatening over 100% tariffs on each other’s goods (Clarke 2025).
From AI to abortion and tariffs, 2025 has shown us how divided America’s legal landscape has become. As debates over autonomy and how the government interprets rights continues, the United States faces polarization within the nation’s people. Will we progress as a country with this new wave of legislation, or will it expand the political divide?
Hi, my name is Abby West, I’m from Westchester NY, my role at HM is Associate Reporter-U.S. Policy. My majors are PPL and History, I am a sophomore, and I am on the pre-law track. I plan on going to law school after graduating early and pursuing an MBA. My research interests are in U.S. politics and policy, international affairs, and human rights. For my extracurriculars, you can find me on E-board for RENA Fashion Magazine and Binghamton Upcycle Project, as well as a part of Moot Court, Pipe Dream, the Food Co-Op, and working at Dick’s Sporting Goods. I also have my own political blog called ImpactInTen!
References
Adragna, Anthony. 2025. “‘Not at All Dead’: Cruz Says AI Moratorium Will Return.” POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/16/not-at-all-dead-cruz-says-ai-moratorium-will-return-00566369 (October 28, 2025).
Brown, Matt, and Matt O’Brien. 2025. “House Republicans Include a 10-Year Ban on US States Regulating AI in ‘Big, Beautiful’ Bill.” AP News. https://apnews.com/article/ai-regulation-state-moratorium-congress-39d1c8a0758ffe0242283bb82f66d51a.
Clarke, Jennifer. 2025. “What Are Tariffs, How Do They Work and Why Is Trump Using Them?” BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn93e12rypgo#.
“Gun Law Trendwatch: Where States Stand Halfway through 2025.” 2025. GIFFORDS. https://giffords.org/analysis/gun-law-trendwatch-where-states-stand-halfway-through-2025/.
Guttmacher Institute. 2025. “State Bans on Abortion throughout Pregnancy.” http://www.guttmacher.org. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-abortion-bans.
The White House. 2023. “Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence | the White House.” The White House. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/.
Johnston, Mindy, and Rick Livingston. 2024. “U.S. Abortion Rights by State | Britannica.” http://www.britannica.com. https://www.britannica.com/science/US-abortion-rights-by-state-2236312.
Karam, Shriya et al. 2024. “The Development of the Reproductive Healthcare Equity Algorithm (RHEA).” arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05542.
KFF. 2025. “Abortion in the United States Dashboard | KFF.” KFF. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/abortion-in-the-u-s-dashboard .
Marijuana Policy Project. 2019. “2019 Marijuana Policy Reform Legislation.” MPP. https://www.mpp.org/issues/legislation/key-marijuana-policy-reform/.
Miller, Barbara. 2025. “US Minimum Wage Increase 2025, Update Hourly Pay Rates Applicable for Everyone from October.” FFESP. https://ffesp.org/us-minimum-wage-increase-rates/.
MultiState. 2025. “States to Watch on Reproductive Health and Abortion Policy in 2025.” Multistate.us. https://www.multistate.us/insider/2025/5/22/states-to-watch-on-reproductive-health-and-abortion-policy-in-2025 (October 28, 2025).
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2025. “Artificial Intelligence 2025 Legislation.” Ncsl.org. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/artificial-intelligence-2025-legislation.
News, BBC. 2025. “Trump Says Canada Trade Negotiations ‘Terminated’ over Advert.” Bbc.com. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdjrlmd4pmeo.
“NY – A00928.” 2025. BillTrack50. https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1767044 (October 28, 2025).
“NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A7998.” 2025. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A7998 (October 28, 2025).
“NY State Assembly Bill 2025-A9119.” 2025. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A9119 (October 28, 2025).
“NY State Senate Bill 2025-S36A.” 2025. NYSenate.gov. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/S36/amendment/A.
“Presidential 2025 Tariff Actions: Timeline and Status.” 2025. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48549.
Ryan, Susan “The Week in Weed: October 2025 # 3 | JD Supra.” 2025. JD Supra. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-week-in-weed-october-2025-3-7528916/ (October 28, 2025).
“Safer Streets: Governor Hochul Signs Legislation Strengthening New York’s Gun Safety Laws and Announces 53% Decline in Shootings.” 2025. Governor Kathy Hochul. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/safer-streets-governor-hochul-signs-legislation-strengthening-new-yorks-gun-safety-laws-and.
“Shield Law 2.0 – NYCLU.” 2025. NYCLU. https://www.nyclu.org/resources/policy/legislations/shield-law-2-0 (October 28, 2025).
Swain, Gyana. 2025. “Trump Repeals Biden’s AI Oversight Order, Shifts Focus to Innovation-Driven Policies.” CIO. https://www.cio.com/article/3806594/trump-repeals-bidens-ai-oversight-order-shifts-focus-to-innovation-driven-policies.html.
“The Updated State of AI Regulations for 2025.” 2025. Cimplifi. https://www.cimplifi.com/resources/the-updated-state-of-ai-regulations-for-2025 (October 28, 2025).
U.S. Department of Labor. 2024. “Wages and the Fair Labor Standards Act.” U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa.
Zipperer, Ben. 2025. “The Impact of the Raise the Wage Act of 2025.” Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/rtwa-2025-impact-fact-sheet/.
Recommended reading
Wikipedia Contributors. 2024. “Regulation of AI in the United States.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_AI_in_the_United_States.
———. 2025a. “2025 United States Trade War with Canada and Mexico.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_trade_war_with_Canada_and_Mexico.———. 2025b. “Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Prenatal_Equal_Protection_Act.
-
Budgeting Knowledge: How Federal Grants Affect Universities and Science as a Whole
By Cooper Marko, Science and Technology
Higher education is one of our proudest aspects of America, and has been a crucial part of our identity since the founding of our nation. These Universities are one of the largest and most important producers of scientific research in the United States. They receive almost $60 billion towards research from the National Institute of Health (NIH) alone, towards researching topics like cancer, neurological disorders, and diabetes (AAAS 2025). Federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Energy (DOE) also contribute a large sum of money to universities for the advancement of science in the form of federal grants and contracts. Together, they totaled a staggering $300 billion to universities in 2024 (USAspending.gov 2025). This number might be astounding at first glance, and will likely raise some questions, but with some important context–and some research, the facts surrounding federal funding of universities and research are not as far-fetched as the numbers might seem.
Where does the money go?
Since President Lyndon Johnson’s signing of the 1965 Higher Education Act (HEA), the Federal Government has allocated funds towards universities and colleges as a way to make higher education more accessible and to provide the institutions with the funding and resources needed to succeed. These funds are allocated to different functions of the university, including instruction, research, student services, and grant aid to students. The distribution of these funds depends on the type of institution (public/private, 2/4 year), and the institutional mission (NCES 2023).
Other funding comes from federal agencies, such as the aforementioned HHS and DOE. These agencies often have sub-agencies like the NIH and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), both sub-agencies of HHS, which is where most of the research grants towards areas involving life science research are channeled through. In fact, over 55 percent of all federal funding towards research goes to life sciences, and this number jumps to 75% if engineering is included (USAfacts 2023). These channels for funding are then allocated to the various universities across the country. The funds are not evenly distributed, however. In fact, over one-third of the funding was spent by just twenty colleges, including household names like Johns Hopkins University, University of California, San Diego, and Columbia University to name a few (NSF 2023). The remaining institutions receive less than $500 million from the federal government, with our very own Binghamton University receiving under $65 million federally (Cohn 2025).
How does the money flow?
Federal funding is largely split into two types of funding: Grants and Contracts. Grants are funds that go towards public projects or services, and are authorized by federal law (Grants.gov). These are often given to universities for specific research topics, such as cancer or vaccine research. Contract funding functions as the name suggests: the Federal Government pays the institution in exchange for a good or service, much like how the Government contracts with private companies. Often the Federal Government will contract with a university for a product like a new technology or prototype, commonly with agencies like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DOD).
How have recent budget cuts affected universities?
President Trump has issued many executive orders aimed at freezing grants, specifically targeted towards health research, on things such as pathogens and other medical research (Stein 2025). These executive orders have had various effects, from decreasing the amount of funding federal agencies and departments can give as grants, and capping the indirect funds that federal programs like the National Science Foundation (NSF) can give out (Columbia Law School 2025).
Losing out on grants has cost a lot of programs across many universities to shut down, or limit their research capabilities. Some of these grant terminations stopped ongoing research, causing an outcry among the scientific community. Many have argued that it is a major waste of taxpayer money to slash funding from researchers who may already have results, but cannot publish their findings due to these cuts (Flannery 2025). These cuts have led to over 1,600 grants and over $1.5 billion to be cut, with states like New York, California, and Massachusetts being hit the hardest (Grant Witness 2025).
What is the greater impact of this?
Funding for research and the sciences has been an important part of America’s history since the signing of the HEA by President Johnson in 1965. Since then, various institutions have discovered important things about our world, and ways to fix problems around us. From medical marvels like Pacemakers, Insulin, and the Polio vaccine, all things that have saved millions of lives, to things like rocket fuel, plexiglass, and computers all came from universities and their research. While these funding cuts largely target the major institutions that receive a large bulk of the funding, it can also impact the smaller state schools and community colleges, ultimately making the fight for federal funding more competitive. These schools often give opportunities to people who otherwise could not afford or have access to research, and depend on the funding to stay afloat. Binghamton University has gained a lot of traction and prestige due to its impressive research programs and scientific innovation, and requires federal funding to support these programs. Currently, the NSF and other federal sources of funding are reviewing and terminating grants that no longer align with their mission. The NSF website describes these areas as “including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), environmental justice, and misinformation/disinformation.” (NSF 2025).
The future of federal research funding is unclear, and misinformation has never been easier to spread, as many government websites face funding cuts and cannot update their constituents. It is clear that knowledge and innovation is a key part of our identity as Americans, and higher education plays a large role in that, from the community colleges to the world-renowned universities. It is difficult to say what the next life-changing invention or treatment is to come, but what’s undeniable is the need for education. In the same way that the heart fuels the brain, our universities—and knowledge as a whole, need the heart of the nation to supply them with the means to stay afloat.
Cooper Marko is a Sophomore from Syracuse, NY, and is the Head Reporter of Science and Technology at Happy medium. He is majoring in Biology, and plans on going to medical school after his undergrad. He currently does microbiology research at Binghamton University, and plans on advancing this research into one day guiding public health policy. In his free time, he likes biking, playing baseball, and is an avid movie enjoyer.
References
“Binghamton University Secures Largest Grant in School History after Winning ‘Innovative Engines’ Competition.” 2024. WIVT – News 34. https://www.binghamtonhomepage.com/science-and-technology/binghamton-university-secures-largest-grant-in-school-history-after-winning-innovative-engines-competition/ (October 23, 2025).
Cohn, Jason. 2025. How Much Federal Funding Do Colleges and Universities Receive? Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/how-much-federal-funding-do-colleges-and-universities-receive (October 23, 2025).
Collier, Roger. 2017. “Massive Cuts to Science and Medicine in Trump Budget.” CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal 189(23): E812–13. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1095437.
“Dedicated to Assisting Academic Researchers throughout the Development, Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Their Intellectual Property.” http://www.ipadvocatefoundation.org/ (October 23, 2025).
“Federal Awards | Advanced Search | USAspending.” https://usaspending.gov/search (October 23, 2025).
Flannery, Mary Ellen. “Trump Cancels Federal Research Grants. What Are the Consequences? | NEA.” https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/trump-cancels-federal-research-grants-what-are-consequences (October 23, 2025).
“Grant Witness.” Grant Witness. https://grant-witness.us/ (October 23, 2025).
“Grants 101 | Grants.Gov.” https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grants-101.html (October 23, 2025).
“Higher Education Act of 1965.” https://www.uwyo.edu/stateauth/higher-ed-act.html (October 23, 2025).
“Higher Education Act of 1965—Table of Contents (as Amended through P.L. 117-103, Enacted March 15, 2022) | 2022-2023 Federal Student Aid Handbook.” https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2022-2023/appendices/appx-f-higher-education-act-1965-table-contents-amended-through-pl-117-103-enacted-march-15-2022 (October 23, 2025).
“Higher Education Research and Development (HERD) Survey 2023 | NSF – National Science Foundation.” https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/higher-education-research-development/2023#data (October 23, 2025).
“Historical Trends in Federal R&D | American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).” https://www.aaas.org/programs/r-d-budget-and-policy/historical-trends-federal-rd (October 23, 2025).
“How Universities Spend Billions in Government Funds.” USAFacts. https://usafacts.org/articles/what-do-universities-do-with-the-billions-they-receive-from-the-government/ (October 23, 2025).
“Mapping Federal Funding Cuts to U.S. Colleges and Universities.” 2025. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/mapping-federal-funding-cuts-to-us-colleges-and-universities/ (October 22, 2025).
“The NCES Fast Facts Tool Provides Quick Answers to Many Education Questions (National Center for Education Statistics).” https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75 (October 23, 2025).
“Public Health Service Act – NCI.” 2016. https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/overview/history/public-health-service-act (October 23, 2025).
Stein, Rob. 2025. “Trump Restricts Funding for ‘gain-of-Function’ Research — Calling It Dangerous.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/05/05/nx-s1-5267612/trump-gain-of-function-research-funding (October 23, 2025).
“Trump Administration Cuts $4 Billion from Medical Research Funding | Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.” https://climate.law.columbia.edu/content/trump-administration-cuts-4-billion-medical-research-funding (October 23, 2025).“Updates on NSF Priorities | NSF – National Science Foundation.” https://www.nsf.gov/updates-on-priorities (October 23, 2025).
-
Implications of U.S. Recognition of Somaliland
By Ameen Kimdar, U.S. Policy
In recent years, there has been increased buzz over the United States becoming the first UN member state to recognize the independence of the self-declared state of Somaliland. In March 2022, Somalilander leaders met with members of Congress and the Biden administration to lobby for American recognition of their aspirational state. Citing growing Chinese influence in the Horn of Africa and the success of Somaliland’s democracy as opposed to Somalia’s failed state, Somalilander has made the case for recognition on the grounds of guaranteeing stability and US influence in the region (Lawler 2022). Although they reached an agreement regarding cooperation on security-related issues, they fell short of recognition, and the issue has taken a more partisan nature, with the Republican Party maintaining a keen interest in Somaliland.
During his visit to the US, Somaliland’s president, Muse Bihi Abdi, spoke at an event held by the Heritage Foundation to argue in favor of American recognition. After this meeting, Congressman Scott Perry (R-PA 10th) and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) introduced legislation to improve relations with the fledgling state, and although neither bill became law, the latter passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with bipartisan support. (Scott 2021; Risch 2021).
Somaliland has once again entered the news cycle following the re-election of Donald Trump, and the intensification of Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Recognition of Somaliland is explicitly outlined in Project 2025, a blueprint for the Trump administration created by the Heritage Foundation. The document mentions increased Chinese influence in neighboring Djibouti as reason to recognize the state (Harper 2025). In November 2024, former British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson predicted imminent recognition of Somaliland under President Trump (Maddox 2024) and in January 2025, the US House Select Committee on the CCP urged the creation of a representative office in Hargeisa, Somaliland’s capital, to counter Chinese influence (Adegoke 2025). Most recently, Somaliland’s president Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi claimed that after talks with Trump, the East African state would receive its first diplomatic recognition from the US. Although the US has denied violations of Somalia’s territorial integrity, it would appear that the writing is on the wall for Somaliland’s independence. (Townsend 2025) But what is behind this unprecedented US support for a secessionist movement in Africa, a continent that has only ever seen three countries emerge from the territory of another, and what would be the implications for Africa, the Arab world, and the Somali civil war?
What is Somaliland and why does it want independence?
The Republic of Somaliland is an unrecognized but entirely self-governing state in northern Somalia, bordering Djibouti, Ethiopia and Somalia. The Somali people live across five de facto states, Somalia, Somaliland, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya. In spite of a shared language, religion, and history, Somali society is highly fractured across clan-lines. During the Scramble for Africa, the Somali territories were partitioned by the British, Italians, French, and Ethiopians. The modern-day Republic of Somaliland comprises the former British colony, and is populated by members of the Isaaq clan, one of the four major clans of Somalia. It had briefly existed as an independent state in 1960, gaining recognition from 35 sovereign states, but merged with the former Italian colony to form the Republic of Somalia after five days (Klobucista and Ferragamo 2025). Under the regime of Siad Barre, the government of Somalia promoted pan-Somali nationalism over clan loyalties, but many in the north felt marginalized by his regime. An influx of Ethiopian Somali refugees into Somaliland after the Ogaden War worsened tensions between the central government and Isaaq population. This refugee population numbered over one million, while Somalia’s population was a mere four million, meaning one in four Somalis were refugees. These refugees received preferential treatment from the government, and Ethiopian Somali militias began attacks on Isaaq Somalis. An independence war began in 1981 and was brutally punished in the Isaaq genocide of 1987. An estimated 200,000 civilians were killed by the government and allied militias, fueling the flames of secession. (Einashe and Kennard 2018).
Since the ousting of Siad Barre in 1991, Somaliland has been a de facto independent state. In sharp contrast to the chaos that has engulfed Somalia, Somaliland prides itself in its stability and democracy (Einashe and Kennard 2018). Recently, Somaliland has experienced some of the same clan-related problems its federal opponent is plagued with. Observers have expressed concern over the marginalization of non-Isaaq Somalis in Somaliland, particularly in the region of Las Anod, where a pro-federal government rebellion has taken control of much of the east (Freedom House). These rebels seek unification with Somalia’s Puntland state, but this situation has become more complicated due to new developments in Somalia’s civil war.
What is happening in Somalia and the Horn of Africa?
Somalia’s prolonged civil war has severely weakened the state and led many to label it as a ‘failed state’. The civil war has entered a more intense phase, threatening the existence of the federal government. Al-Shabaab, an Islamist rebel group with ties to Al-Qaeda, has waged an insurgency since an Ethiopian invasion removed a more moderate group known as the Islamic Courts Union from power in 2009. In recent months, Al-Shabaab offensives have resulted in the group taking control of large swathes of territory, surrounding Mogadishu (Jackson 2025).
Beyond its civil war, Somalia’s fragile federal system entered crisis in 2024 when proposals for constitutional reforms that would strengthen the presidency and introduce direct elections instead of clan-based elections were rejected by regional governments in Puntland and Jubaland. (Ali 2024) These regions have acted as de facto independent states, without a formal declaration of independence like Somaliland, taking the fight against al-Shabaab into their own hands (Levy 2025). In the meantime, Ethiopia, a long-time adversary of Somalia, took the opportunity to reach out to Somaliland in hopes of achieving sea access. A memorandum of understanding was signed in early 2024, in which Ethiopia would be granted Red Sea access via the port of Berbera in exchange for recognition. This move was strongly condemned by Somalia, calling it a violation of their sovereignty, expelling Ethiopian peacekeepers and turning to Egypt and Eritrea, Ethiopian rivals, for political and military support (Wafula 2024). All the while, Djibouti, a small, Somali-inhabited nation, has wielded disproportionate power due to its strategic location near the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, linking the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea. Djibouti is host to several foreign military bases, including the US and China, which have vied for dominance over the small but strategically valuable state (Vines et al. 2024).
What does the United States stand to gain from recognizing Somaliland?
The case for the US recognition of Somaliland is based on several components. Its highly strategic location and maritime significance are a leading argument among proponents for recognition, as it possesses a long coastline along the Gulf of Aden, where Houthi attacks on US shipping have demonstrated the need for an increased naval presence in the area. Somaliland has demonstrated its willingness to cooperate with foreign powers in exchange for recognition, and could act as a cheaper alternative to Djibouti for the US, which has exploited its importance by increasing lease prices on the US base (Ducharme 2025).
The US is not the only regional power that has considered cooperation with Somaliland for security in the Red Sea. The United Arab Emirates and Ethiopia, two close allies, have also expressed a similar interest. The UAE is no stranger to the war in Yemen, having illegally seized the island of Socotra in 2018 (Ardemagni 2023) and are the main backers of a secessionist movement in South Yemen (Al Jazeera 2020). With Emirati support, landlocked Ethiopia has begun the rebuilding of its navy, with sights on becoming a regional power in the Red Sea trade, concurrent with Dubai-based maritime conglomerates pursuing development and investment into the Port of Berbera (Bakir 2024). In the event of American recognition of Somaliland, the US would have no trouble in finding regional partners to follow suit.
A more concerning choice presented to Somaliland is the resettlement of Palestinian refugees from Gaza into the country in exchange for recognition, with similar offers being made to Morocco, Sudan, and Syria in exchange for American support (TOI Staff 2025). It is unlikely that the state would be willing to make such a deal, as the inflow of over 2 million refugees would spell disaster internally and make it a pariah in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Implications for Africa
Since the decolonization of Africa, only three countries have successfully seceded from another African state: Namibia in 1990 from apartheid South Africa, Eritrea from Ethiopia in 1993, and South Sudan from Sudan in 2013. The prospects of a state successfully seceding in Africa are low. In cases such as Biafra (Nigeria), Azawad (Mali), and Ambazonia (Cameroon), the African Union has cooperated in the prevention of allowing their fellow members to be partitioned into smaller states. As most African states are mutli-ethnic and artificial, they all have a shared fear of secessionist movements, and cooperate to block secession in other countries to avoid a potential domino effect that would bolster their own domestic movements.
As a result, the world’s foremost leading superpower enabling the secession of one region would likely embellish the secessionist movements across the rest of the continent, particularly Somalia’s other rebel states of Puntland and Jubaland. The US leading in its recognition would be unprecedented and would likely damage relations with the AU (Townsend 2025).
Implications for the Arab world and Israel
Although Somaliland has received significant support from the Emirates, other Arab countries are not as keen on the idea, most notably Egypt. Egypt has experienced major pressure from the US in recent years, due to water disputes with Ethiopia and neighboring Israel’s war on Gaza. Egypt has positioned itself as an ally of Somalia after the agreement between Somaliland and Ethiopia, replacing it as Somalia’s main African security partner. (Berman 2025). Egypt views its regional dominance as being threatened by Ethiopian and Emirati ambitions on the Red Sea and Houthi attacks on global shipping. Egypt, already frustrated by a lack of US support on Ethiopia’s Nile river dam, may feel slighted by the US taking its rival’s side once again in recognizing Somaliland. Egypt previously rejected a deal in which it would receive backing on the dam issue in exchange for accepting a Gaza resettlement plan (The New Arab 2025). Egypt finds itself in a rock-and-hard place where its regional dominance is threatened not only by its adversaries, but also by its allies. In the bigger picture, US recognition of Somaliland amidst the war in Gaza would likely stoke controversy and tension in the Arab world. Somalia, an Arab League member, has close political and economic ties to other Arab countries like Saudi Arabia. The US backing a partition of an Arab nation while blocking the independence of Palestine could be perceived as a symbolic insult and act of aggression to the Arab world. (Gulaid 2025).
Implications for Somalia
Relations between the US and Somalia have remained weak in the post-communist period due to a lack of centralized authority in the country. A proposal by the Somali government to offer the US control over a port and airbase in Berbera, a city that it has no control over, was ridiculed by Somaliland’s leadership, dismissing it as a desperate attempt to gain US support in reintegrating Somaliland (Ochieng 2025). The inability of the Somali federal government to combat al-Shabaab and pirates off its coastlines has continually frustrated American security experts. The infamous 1993 battle of Mogadishu, known as the Black Hawk Down Incident, was a major humiliation for the US military, resulting in the highest number of American fatalities since the Vietnam War. The Battle resulted in the withdrawal of UN forces from Somalia, and a reluctance to involve the US in African affairs, dubbed “Somalia syndrome” (Weiss 1995). The US has preferred a hands-off approach to Somalia, offering military support to regional allies without direct engagement. Decades after the disastrous US intervention, Somalia has failed to stabilize itself, only falling into deeper anarchy. If the US were to recognize Somaliland, it would signal the US pulling the plug on its faith in a united Somalia, in favor of cooperation with smaller Somali states. Regional states, frustrated by federal inefficiencies and motivated by clan loyalties, have seen success in combatting terrorism without the assistance of federal forces (Ardemagni 2023). Somaliland receiving a green light for independence could potentially set off a domino effect of secession from Somalia.
Recognition of Somaliland would be an unprecedented move by the US that would stoke tensions across Africa and the Middle East, rearranging power dynamics and triggering other secession movements. This Machiavellian approach to foreign policy risks fueling instability and undermining territorial integrity, potentially inviting greater involvement from other powers.
References
Adegoke, Y. (2025, January 17). US House committee calls for Somaliland office to counter China | Semafor. Semafor.com. https://www.semafor.com/article/01/17/2025/us-house-committee-calls-for-somaliland-office-to-counter-china
Al Jazeera. (2020, April 26). Yemen: What is the Southern Transitional Council? http://Www.aljazeera.com. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/26/yemen-what-is-the-southern-transitional-council
Ali, F. (2024, April 5). Fears of violence grow as Somalia scraps power-sharing system. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/apr/05/fears-violence-somalia-constitution
Ardemagni, E. (2023, December 5). Socotra archipelago: why the Emiratis have set their sights on the Arab world’s Garden of Eden. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/socotra-archipelago-why-the-emiratis-have-set-their-sights-on-the-arab-worlds-garden-of-eden-218848
Bakir, A. (2024). How Israel, Egypt, and the UAE view Ethiopia’s Red Sea deal. The New Arab. https://www.newarab.com/analysis/how-israel-egypt-and-uae-view-ethiopias-red-sea-deal
BBC. (2017, December 14). Somaliland profile. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115069
Berman, Z. (2025, January 2). Ignoring Ethiopian Concerns, Egypt Supplies Troops for African Union Mission in Somalia. FDD. https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/01/02/ignoring-ethiopian-concerns-egypt-supplies-troops-for-african-union-mission-in-somalia
Ducharme, J. (2025, May 16). Strengthening U.S. Influence: A Base in Somaliland. Orion Policy Institute. https://orionpolicy.org/reinforcing-u-s-power-in-the-horn-of-africa-the-case-for-a-base-in-somaliland/
Einashe, I., & Kennard, M. (2018, October 22). In the Valley of Death: Somaliland’s Forgotten Genocide. The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/in-the-valley-of-death-somalilands-forgotten-genocide/
Freedom House (Ed.). (2024). Somaliland: Freedom in the World 2025 Country Report | Freedom House. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/country/somaliland/freedom-world/2025
Gulaid Yusuf Idaan. (2025, March 19). Somaliland’s Diplomatic Gamble: Recognition, Risk, and the Palestinian Question. Modern Diplomacy. https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/03/19/somalilands-diplomatic-gamble-recognition-risk-and-the-palestinian-question
Harper, M. (2025, January 16). Why Somalilanders are smitten with Donald Trump. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3j1qn0499o
Jackson, A. (2025, June 3). Flailing State: The Resurgence of al-Shabaab in Somalia. War on the Rocks. https://warontherocks.com/2025/06/flailing-state-the-resurgence-of-al-shabaab-in-somalia/
Klobucista, C., & Ferragamo, M. (2025, January 21). Somaliland: The Horn of Africa’s Breakaway State. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/somaliland-horn-africas-breakaway-state
Lawler, D. (2022, March 22). Democratic, self-governing Somaliland pleads with U.S. to recognize independence. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2022/03/22/somaliland-independence-recognition-us
Levy, I. (2025, April 7). How the small autonomous region of Puntland found success in battling Islamic State in Somalia. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/how-the-small-autonomous-region-of-puntland-found-success-in-battling-islamic-state-in-somalia-251775
Maddox, D. (2024, November 19). Donald Trump set to recognise African state Somaliland, says ex-Tory minister Gavin Williamson. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trump-somaliland-new-country-gavin-williamson-b2648376.html
Ochieng, A. (2025, March 29). Somaliland hits out over Somalia’s offer to Trump of Berbera airbase and port. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d4dzq87rpo
Risch, J. (2021). S.3861 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Somaliland Partnership Act. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3861
Scott, P. (2021). H.R.7170 – 117th Congress (2021-2022): Republic of Somaliland Independence Act. Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7170?s=1&r=3&stream=world
The New Arab. (2025). Egypt rejects US quid pro quo over Gaza and Ethiopia dam. The New Arab. https://www.newarab.com/news/egypt-rejects-us-quid-pro-quo-over-gaza-and-ethiopia-dam
TOI Staff. (2025). Welcome To Zscaler Directory Authentication. Timesofisrael.com. https://www.timesofisrael.com/reports-morocco-2-disputed-somalia-regions-considered-as-destinations-for-gazans
Townsend, M. (2025, May 30). Exclusive: Somaliland president says recognition of state “on the horizon” following Trump talks. The Guardian; The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/may/30/exclusive-somaliland-president-says-recognition-of-state-on-the-horizon-following-trump-talks
Vines, A., Tugendhat, H., & Van Rij, A. (2024, January 30). Is China Eyeing a Second Military Base in Africa? United States Institute of Peace. https://www.usip.org/publications/2024/01/china-eyeing-second-military-base-africa
Wafula, I. (2024, August 30). Why Ethiopia is so alarmed by an Egypt-Somalia alliance. Bbc.com; BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg415vex37o
Weiss, T. G. (1995). Overcoming the Somalia Syndrome— “Operation Rekindle Hope?” Global Governance, 1(2), 171–187. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27800108
-
Politics Across Europe: Looking back at the Draghi Report after a year
By Eren Filizler, Foreign Affairs
The European Union (EU) is turning to new strategies to boost its global competitiveness, which has declined in recent years. The European economy has been hit hard by rising public debts following the pandemic and rising energy costs due to sanctions imposed on Russia following the Russia-Ukraine war. However, when you look at the big picture, the crisis Europe was experiencing was not due to these two events but rather to structural problems. Following the slowdown in production, demographic challenges, and the need for serious investments in green and digital transformation, European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen asked former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi to prepare a report on the future of Europe’s competitiveness in 2023 (European Commission 2024). It was hoped that this report would help safeguard the future prosperity of Europeans. Draghi’s report essentially served as a prescription for Europe.
The Draghi Report, published in September 2024, was a bitter pill to swallow for the European Union because it strongly emphasized that Europe’s old economic model was no longer sustainable. The report’s most significant point was that the EU’s growth strategy could no longer rely on the three key factors it had historically relied on: cheap Russian energy, unrestricted Chinese markets, and US security support (Steinberg and Bergman 2024). Europe must take precautions against geopolitical difficulties and bring about revisions to its structural problems. Draghi’s comprehensive 400-page report was presented more as a concrete action plan for the European Union than a report.
Details of the report:
The most striking point in Draghi’s report is that the European Union needs additional investment of around €750 billion to €800 billion to regain its competitiveness and halt its decline against the US and China. This corresponds to approximately 5% of EU GDP (European Commission 2024). This investment is almost twice the amount of Marshall Aid, which played a role in the development of European countries after the Second World War, in proportion to GDP (Harper 1998). This comparison clearly demonstrates how large the investment required is.
According to Draghi, Europe had to take major steps to ensure the financing of this huge amount. Inspired by the Next Generation EU (NGEU) model, which was implemented as a temporary recovery fund during the pandemic period and has a budget of €750 billion, Draghi suggested using common debt instruments for regular and long-term strategic investments (especially digital and green transformation projects) (European Commission 2024). This point in the Draghi report drew the most criticism, as the issue of joint debt is one of the most frequently debated and polarizing issues in the history of the European Union. Northern European countries, like Germany and the Netherlands, which generally implement tight fiscal policies, have consistently stated their opposition to joint debt. They see joint debt as Southern European countries burdening them with the consequences of loose fiscal policies. They argue that joint debt will prevent other European countries from implementing tight fiscal programs, and that the burden of debt will fall on the shoulders of northern countries, which implement tight fiscal policies (Moller-Nielsen 2024). Southern countries argue that structural inequalities within the European Union, and the lack of a common fiscal policy (fiscal union) despite the use of a common currency, have increased inequalities and that these inequalities should be closed through joint borrowing, thus demonstrating not only economic but also political unity through solidarity.
The Draghi Report identifies three areas for strategically directing investment. The first is the innovation gap. Europe lags significantly behind the US and China in areas such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced digitalization. The report recommends increasing R&D spending to boost innovation capacity and reducing the high regulatory costs, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). It also emphasizes revising the EU’s competition policies to address future competition and innovation, thus enabling it to compete with the US and Chinese giants. The report states that in the last 50 years, no company in Europe has been established from scratch and exceeded €100 billion in revenue (European Commission 2024)
Another gap was energy and decarbonization. Following the rapid cessation of cheap hydrocarbon supplies from Russia, electricity prices for industrial use in Europe have reportedly risen to approximately two to three times those in the US, and natural gas prices to four to five times those in the US. This situation is profoundly damaging the competitiveness of European industry, particularly in energy-intensive sectors, leading to a “high cost = high risk” equation (European Commission 2024). The report’s recommendations include prioritizing competitive energy access for energy-intensive users, developing a collective gas supply, and expanding long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs). It also stated that Europe’s energy system should be redesigned around strategic dependencies (critical minerals, imported gas, etc.), rapidly increasing renewable capacity, and integrating the transition away from fossil fuels into industrial strategy (European Commission 2024).
Mario Draghi’s report emphasizes that the Eurozone’s external dependencies now pose a serious security risk to growth, competitiveness, and freedom. For example, European Union countries are dependent on specific countries for critical raw materials. They are 100% dependent on China for heavy rare earth elements, 99% on Türkiye for boron, and 71% on South Africa for platinum (Mas 2025). Furthermore, 75-90% of wafer production in chip production originates from Asia—meaning a large portion of Europe has outsourced its chip fabrication (European Commission 2024). Draghi points out that these dependencies are not only economic but also strategic: external disruptions or supply constraints can seriously undermine growth and security in energy and industry, as well as in defense and critical technologies. It emphasizes that dependence on a single country, particularly for critical materials, is strategically dangerous and that dependence should be limited to a maximum of 65% (Mas 2025). The report notes that the defense industry across the EU is fragmented, with member states largely outsourcing their weapons systems, weakening collective defense capacity. For example, 75% of public procurement orders received in recent years came from non-European manufacturers (Soler and Genovese 2024).
Also, Draghi criticized the EU for being crushed by its own self-made bureaucracy, arguing that bureaucracy should be relaxed and bureaucratic costs reduced. He argued that Europe, like its rivals, needs dynamic bureaucracies and “better regulations.” He advocates not only for reducing regulations but also for using them effectively and efficiently (Berg et al. 2025).
After the report:
In January 2025, the Commission presented its “Competitiveness Compass,” a roadmap inspired by the Draghi Report and spanning the next five years. The Commission claimed that approximately 90% of the flagship initiatives in this Compass were directly based on Draghi’s recommendations. In just six months, 33 flagship initiatives and 14 legislative initiatives were adopted (European Commission 2025).
Regarding the innovation gap, the first of the three main axes highlighted in the report, the EU’s moves towards artificial intelligence were among the most highlighted topics at the conference. The Commission announced that it has invested €200 billion in this area to date and established five AI gigafactories (European Commission 2025). The increase in European supercomputer capacity, the success of pioneering AI startups like Lovable, and the rise of Mistral in the French AI market offer hope for the EU. However, the limited adoption of AI, particularly among SMEs, and the fact that the EU still produces a low number of core AI models compared to the US and China demonstrate that the process remains sensitive (Usta 2025). Also, over €100 billion mobilized through the Clean Industrial Deal on decarbonization, and €150 billion in financing has been secured through the SAFE (Security Action for Europe) initiative.
While these figures still don’t fully reflect the €750-800 billion investment recommended by the report, they do show that the report is being taken seriously. However, the gaps in implementation are relatively more striking. According to data from the think tank European Policy Innovation Council (EPIC), of the 383 articles in the report, only 43 (11.2%) have been fully implemented. A further 77 (20.1%) have been partially implemented, 176 (46%) are “in progress,” and 87 (22.7%) have yet to see any tangible action (Bulski 2025). Progress is uneven across sectors; there are relatively more implementations in areas of transportation and critical raw material supply, but key areas such as energy and digitalization are almost at zero full implementation level (Bulski 2025).
To sum up, the Draghi Report is among the most comprehensive evaluations of the European Union’s strategic and economic standing in recent years. The European Union has acted according to the report’s recommendations, implementing some of them into effect in the last 12 months. But at this crucial moment, when the Union’s economic and strategic independence are on the line, political disputes and conflicting interests within the Union have weakened the Union’s claim to unity and provoked controversy. The contradictions within the Union are made apparent by the fact that only about 11% of the recommendations have been fully implemented.
The Draghi Report was successful in redefining Europe’s problems as a structural and strategic crisis rather than as a series of short-term economic fluctuations. However, the institutional and political barriers to swift change are readily apparent in the continuation of fiscal fragmentation, the northern member states’ opposition to joint borrowing mechanisms, and Europe’s enduring reliance on outside energy and technology.
Whether or not European leaders will put aside their current national interests and demonstrate the unity, shared vision, and willingness to invest on the scale the report calls for will ultimately determine the Draghi Report’s long-term effects. In the face of the economic dynamism and strategic strength of its global rivals, the European Union runs the risk of continuing to be a “middle-tier” power, satisfied with only superficial and insufficient reforms. The failure of the post-Angela Merkel union to produce a strong leader and the “leaderlessness” it has found itself in will also make it difficult for the European Union to establish a strong will.
Eren Filizler is a senior-year student from Istanbul, currently pursuing a dual degree in Global and International Affairs at Binghamton University (SUNY) and Middle East Technical University (METU). While he is broadly interested in various areas of the social sciences, his main focus is on political economy. Outside of academics, Eren is an avid football enthusiast. He is also deeply interested in cinema, and his dream is to one day write and direct his own romantic comedies and dark comedy films
References
Berg, Aslak; Cornago, Elisabetta; Meyers, Zach; Scazzieri, Luigi; and Tordoir, Sander. 2024. Draghi’s Plan to Rescue the European Economy: Will EU Leaders Do Whatever It Takes? Policy Brief. Brussels: Centre for European Reform. https://www.cer.eu/publications/archive/policy-brief/2024/draghis-plan-rescue-european-economy.
Bulski, Krzysztof. 2025. “One Year After the Draghi Report: Europe Delivers Only 1 in 10 Promises.” EU Insider, September 8. https://www.euinsider.eu/news/one-year-after-the-draghi-report-europe-delivers-only-1-in-10-promises.
European Commission. 2024. The Draghi Report on EU Competitiveness: The Future of European Competitiveness – Report by Mario Draghi. Brussels: European Commission, 9 September 2024. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en.
European Commission. 2025. “The Draghi Report: One Year On.” European Commission (16 Sept). Accessed Oct 25 2025. https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report/one-year-after_en.
Harper, John L. 1998. “Lessons of the Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe.” The International Spectator 33(2) (April–June): 201-226. Accessed Oct 25 2025 https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/iai/iai_98haj01.html.
Mas, Nuria. 2025. “The Draghi Report Highlights That Productivity Must Be the Goal for Europe.” IESE Insight, January 10, 2025. IESE Business School. https://www.iese.edu/insight/articles/mario-draghi-report-europe-productivity/?utm_source=.
Moller-Nielsen, Thomas. 2024. “Draghi Report Splits German Government, Receives Pushback from the Netherlands.” Euractiv, September 10, 2024. https://www.euractiv.com/news/draghi-report-splits-german-government-receives-pushback-from-netherlands/.
Soler, Paula and Vincenzo Genovese. 2024. “Europe’s Fragmented Defence Industry Needs Coordination to Avoid Supply Crisis – Draghi Report.” Euronews, September 11, 2024. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/09/11/europes-fragmented-defence-industry-needs-coordination-to-avoid-supply-crisis-draghi-repor.
Steinberg, Federico and Max Bergmann. 2024. “The Draghi Report: A Strategy to Reform the European Economic Model.” Center for Strategic and International Studies Commentary, October 2, 2024. https://www.csis.org/analysis/draghi-report-strategy-reform-european-economic-model.
ThinkEPIC. 2025. “Draghi Observatory Implementation Index: Only 1 in 10 Measures Implemented.” ThinkEPIC, April 25. https://thinkepic.eu/draghi-observatory-implementation-index-only-1-in-10-measures-implemented/.Usta, Ahmet Emre. 2025. “Draghi Raporu’ndan ( ‘Avrupa’nın Rekabet Gücünün Geleceği’ Raporu) Bir Yıl Sonra: Stratejiden Uygulamaya Geçişte AB.” TÜDER (Tüketicinin Ve Rekabetin Korunması Derneği), 24 Eylül. https://www.turder.org/draghi-raporundan-avrupanin-rekabet-gucunun-gelecegi-raporu-bir-yil-sonra-stratejiden-uygulamaya-geciste-ab/
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Happy Medium 
You must be logged in to post a comment.