A poster in the Hariri building student lounge caught my eye last semester—a basic spelling error on display at an institution that prizes intellectual excellence. It’s a small thing (maybe), but once I noticed one iteration of carelessness, I started seeing it everywhere.

I call it slop: anything created without respect for the end-user. It’s not about price—Icebreakers gum delivers thoughtful utility in durable packaging at low cost, while premium Rosslyn apartments charge high-rent while offering brick wall views. It’s not about speed either—some fast-casual restaurants operate beautifully, while McMansion Hell chronicles the grotesque results of slow, meticulous construction across suburban America. Slop is a distinct lack of care woven into products, services, presentations, and content.

The puzzle is this: slop shouldn’t exist in a free market. Consumers should reject substandard goods; producers shouldn’t want to deliver them. So why does slop not only persist but proliferate?

The Business Case for Slop

Customers today differ profoundly from those of even a decade ago, shaped by two converging forces: economic habits and social fragmentation.

American household debt has surged 55% in ten years, reaching $18.39 trillion. Credit card accounts have increased 50% while the population grew only 6.4%. We’re more willing than ever to consume now and pay later—if at all. Meanwhile, 29% of households are single-person, double the rate from 65 years ago. Roughly half of U.S. adults report loneliness, with the highest rates among young adults. This erosion of connection has consequences: trust in others has dropped from 45% in 1972 to 30% in 2016. We’ve replaced traditional support systems with streaming services, doom scrolling, and YouTube rabbit holes.

These shifts create what Thorstein Veblen called “the leisure class”—consumers who prioritize conspicuous consumption and visible non-productive time. This changing customer has allowed four forces to build and sustain markets for slop.

Logo culture dominates modern marketing. Products aren’t sold on quality or materials; they’re sold on status. When did you last see an ad highlighting shirt stitching? Financial services don’t promote claims processing rates—they promote mascots. Capital One has “the Capital One Bank Guy”; Geico has “The Geico Gecko”; State Farm boasts “Jake from State Farm”. Advertising moves metrics, so firms treat it as investment. Strong brands obscure weak products.

Social proof has migrated from the backyard fence to the online feed. Decisions that were once binary have grown in complexity to account for hundreds of alternatives, supported by thousands of reviews. This data overload induces analysis paralysis, leading to simplification: consumers look for a 5-star rating and conclude “if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for me.” I’ve seen expectant mothers copy and paste an entire registry. Tim Wu calls this the “Tyranny of Convenience”—homogeneity masquerading as choice.

Price sensitivity trumps all other values. Half of U.S. consumers consider price the most important purchasing factor. And we’ve abandoned Maslow’s hierarchy: 82% of Americans aged 19-34 have health insurance, but 90% subscribe to a streaming service that has less impact on their bottom line. We’re looking more closely at the price tag than we are at the product.

Technology sustains slop through three mechanisms. First, specialization turns everyday objects into black boxes we can’t evaluate—I don’t know how my phone works, and manufacturers hide complexity behind screens. This creates information asymmetry ripe for adverse selection. Second, online shopping eliminates tactile evaluation and interpersonal cues while making returns inconvenient—58% of shoppers keep unwanted items to avoid the hassle of returns. This “cheap-and-easy” equilibrium lets low-cost producers scale while “buy it for life” remains niche. Third, and most powerfully, social media monetizes attention. Engagement-driven models reward novelty, outrage, and clickbait regardless of enduring value. As Edward Tufte observed, only two industries call their customers “users”: illegal drugs and software.

Slop at Scale

For those of us committed to fixing the problem, things will get worse before they get better. Within months, we’ll experience what Adobe calls “personalization at scale”. A sneaker commercial that is universally today will soon be rendered hundreds of ways for different micro-segments. This will make effective advertising even more effective, perpetuating slop through fractured communities, increased leisure appetite, and information asymmetry.

More troubling: the sheer volume of AI-generated content will usher in “the age of digital doubt.” For the first time, people will justifiably question the authenticity of what they see online. Forty-two percent of adults have already fallen for entirely false articles. When we can’t establish shared reality, how do we hold civic discourse? How do we make data-driven decisions?

This isn’t dystopian speculation. It’s where current trends lead.

Three Forces to Counter Slop at Scale

Litigation and legislation. Copyright lawsuits against AI companies are active and multiplying. U.S. copyright law still requires a human actor, creating opportunity to establish rigid structures for AI’s future. Legislation protecting consumers from deepfake manipulation and requiring disclosure of AI-generated content—like the European Union AI Act—can re-establish shared reality.

A return to humanism. As automation spreads, the business case for local, authentic goods and services will grow. Being able to tell a story about a hand-carved sofa from the 1970s will demand a higher willingness to pay than it will today. As Matthew Crawford wrote in Shop Class as Soulcraft, skilled tradespeople have something irreplaceable: “the building stands, the car now runs, the lights are on.”

Logging off. People will deliberately choose to log off as digital fragmentation drives them toward authentic relationships in school, work, and community. This may explain rising church attendance among Gen Z men despite no increase in religious affiliation—they’re seeking connection, not necessarily conviction.

What We Can Do

We’ll continue encountering slop. To safeguard our time, trust, and finances, we need an action plan.

Limit marketing exposure. Americans see 4,000-10,000 ads daily—more than any culture in history. That marketing will soon increase in effectiveness. Conduct a financial audit to track purchases prompted by advertising. Use that baseline to curb impulse buys.

Develop a consumption philosophy. Define what you value—where to indulge, economize, and avoid. When every dollar in your budget has a purpose, slop purchases become exceptions, not defaults.

Notice your environment. Exercise the muscle of observation. As you run errands, look at products, buildings, billboards—how well do offerings serve end-users? This sharpens your ability to avoid “good enough” slop.

For businesses, the opportunity is clear: use technology to strengthen human relationships, not replace them. Imagine AI that lets children hear stories in a grandparent’s voice, or AI-assisted urban design helping towns revive main streets. Maintain moments where craft and care are visible—there’s enduring demand for experiences made by people. Trader Joe’s exclusively uses employee checkout with no plans to automate, codifying their commitment to human connection. While not universally applicable, the principle matters: efficiency at the expense of health, productivity, and quality of life is not an objective good.

Finally, stop humanizing AI. Systems should not have names or be called “companions” or “assistants”—they’re language models. ChatGPT shouldn’t have a “thinking” caption because it isn’t thinking; it’s processing. Precision in terminology reduces hype and places technology in proper cultural context.

If this sounds pessimistic, that’s not my intent. But urgency is appropriate given the speed at which slop permeates our culture. This week, many people are excitedly downloading the latest app—a decision I’d liken to lighting that first cigarette, blissfully unaware of compounding consequences.

Slop has always existed, but shifting demographics, incentives, and technologies have increased its prevalence. Progress will come from disciplined consumption, designs that make quality observable, and business models that prize human connection alongside efficiency. Recommitting to objective truth, personal discipline, and community norms is how we move the market back toward durable value.

Together, we will stop the slop.

As I boarded my plane back to Washington, D.C., I couldn’t help but feel a sense of discontent. It had been the first weekend I was home in over a month and a half, and I had so many things I wanted to do: see my friends and family, take my dog for a walk at our favorite park, eat at my favorite restaurants, and more. But after just one day off, it felt like I had barely made a dent in this list.

I couldn’t help but wonder – is such a short break normal? The answer: no. Boston College, a similarly rigorous Jesuit university, gave students two days off. Yale University gave its students three days off, and the University of Notre Dame students enjoyed a five day break. Those numbers don’t even include weekends which add additional time for students to relax and have a true break from the stress of college life.

Georgetown’s fall break, which they refer to as the “Mid-Semester Holiday,” fell on October 13th this year, nearly eight weeks into the fall semester, which is followed by Thanksgiving break six weeks later. Over a span of fourteen weeks, students only have one day off. This is a disproportionate break for such a long time of uninterrupted work, especially for an academically rigorous and challenging school such as Georgetown.

One of the major benefits of a break is not just the temporary pause of rigorous schoolwork, but also an opportunity to connect with family and friends from home. A study conducted by the University of Auburn found that students who frequently visited home, on average, reported 9% better mental health scores than students who did not visit home. This reveals that time spent with family at home is linked to stronger mental health for students. This comes at a time when mental health is more important than ever, especially as the suicide rate has increased by 37% over the past two decades; suicide is now the second leading cause of death for individuals between the ages of 10 and 24.

Unfortunately, traveling home is not feasible for many Georgetown students. Traveling home can be extremely expensive for a break of any length, especially for international students who live thousands of miles away. Sometimes, it can be equally expensive and time-consuming for domestic students. This traveling also carves away at the already little time that Georgetown students have for our break, not to mention the frequent delays and cancellations that come with flying and traveling. Julia Chu (MSB’29) described some of these challenges to me, “I would say the whole traveling process takes around a whole day and sometimes a little more. I feel because of that, this short length of fall break is really challenging for me and my family.”

These challenges cause many students to decide not to travel home, costing them time that could otherwise be spent with friends and family. For Jillian Altherr (CAS’29), the financial challenges posed a major challenge in being able to travel home, “it’s a question of sacrificing finances or a much-needed recharge away from campus.” This lack of time to relax leads many students to feel burnt out and demotivated.

However, even for students who stay on campus during the break, the one day off doesn’t provide enough time to refresh and get anything substantial completed. Altherr emphasized the value of an extended break: “just to have a day to spend with friends without worry about academics would greatly help.”

Ultimately, the current state of Georgetown’s “Mid-Semester Holiday” is unsustainable for both students and professors who deserve a longer break. In a day where academic and social stressors are constant, a longer break would be greatly appreciated.

One of Georgetown’s core values is cura personalis – care of the whole person. Extending our fall break for just a few more days would further embody this principle by recognizing that the hard work and dedication students put towards their education are dependent on adequate rest, time with loved ones, and space to recharge mentally and emotionally. Extending fall break would not only honor cura personalis, it would give students the rest they deserve. It’s time for students to start this conversation, whether through student government, petitions, or dialogue with the administration, and hold the University accountable in honoring its commitment to care for the whole person

.

The Georgetown University Ukrainian Society (GUUS) was founded by Ukrainian Georgetown students who believed in building a community and creating a space for the culture to thrive overseas, in the wake of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Andrii Sendziuk, a founding member and former president of the Society, who passed away in September 2025, after his graduation in May, spearheaded the student branch of the Ukraine Action Student Summit in collaboration with the American Coalition for Ukraine.

GUUS hosted the second annual Ukraine Student Action Summit (USAS) at the Georgetown campus from April 4 to 6, furthering Sendziuk’s passion for collaborative student advocacy. The event featured a diverse range of panels and expert guest speakers, providing participants with valuable insights into various issues, including Ukrainian advocacy in education, on Capitol Hill, and within other student organizations.

USAS focuses on facilitating networking between student activists, fostering conversations, and bringing together people from different areas of advocacy, such as journalists, lawyers, activists, and students. One unforgettable panel was called: “Modern War,” and it featured a conversation with two Ukrainian defenders.

The soldiers, Vladyslav Sobolevskyi and George Kuparashvili, serve in the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Vladyslav Sobolevskyi is a Deputy Commander of the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Sobolevskyi’s career spans critical roles in high-pressure environments, where his leadership and tactical acumen were instrumental in key defense operations. George Kuparashvili is a Lieutenant Colonel and Commander of the 354th Mechanized Regiment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. He served in the Main Intelligence Department of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense (2022–2024), overseeing combat training for the 3rd Assault Brigade during pivotal defensive operations. Kuprashvili has extensive combat experience, including a deployment with the UN’s Kosovo Force (KFOR), anti terrorist operations in the Caucasus, and service in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2010. Since joining the Ukrainian Armed Forces in 2014, he has leveraged his global exposure and hands-on operational expertise to pioneer modern defense strategies and effectively safeguard national security.

They attended the conference at Georgetown as part of the Snake Island Institute Delegation to the US to raise awareness and share their experiences on the front lines fighting against Russia. They said that international support is necessary, and they do not wish to mobilize foreign troops; they urge other countries to continue supporting them, and they will fight the Russians themselves.

Commonly, long-term conflicts lead to war fatigue, and headlines move on to breaking news and fresh gossip. However, the Ukrainians do not have the luxury of reading news headlines from their phones; they experience the violence daily. This is why it is critical to create space, such as USAS, for defenders and first-hand witnesses to remind people that thousands of miles away, people are dying every day to protect not only Ukraine's borders, but also the Western World.

The defenders gave unique insight into what it is really like to be in the thick of the war for years. Their perspective focused on Europe’s diminishing role on the global stage, which may lead to instability and increase the possibility of more armed conflicts in the region.

Another central point was the unique environment during wartime that creates an unprecedented industry for software and hardware development. The soldiers defined what armed conflicts look like as modern war shifts away from first-hand action and towards greater use of drones. Many small businesses have sprung up in Ukraine that create specific elements that can be used on the front lines, and their future after the end of the war is uncertain. It is possible that they will be consolidated and bought by larger firms when the demand drops. Additionally, demand for new military technologies in Ukraine has boomed.

Sobolevskyi and Kuparashvili agree that they “do not want civilians to fight, but the professional army is dying, and however many years they will continue to fight depends on who is willing to help [Ukraine].” They also provided technical expertise on which type of ammunition is most effective and how the military industry complex operates within Ukraine. “We need to be able to use the weapons we are given.”

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has relied on any weapons and assistance it can get from international partners. Sometimes, countries use this as a unique opportunity to field-test new technologies and weapons systems that require specific training. Although these resources are desperately needed at the front, required training periods and expertise for new weapons can delay field use and cost Ukraine precious time. Since Ukraine’s front lines offer a unique opportunity for combat testing new weapons, companies view this as a win-win situation; however, there are no guarantees that it will work or be effective.

Global cooperation is now more critical than ever, following three years of war. Foreign countries not only send millions of dollars to uphold Ukraine's society and economy, they are also invaluable when training troops. Since military trainers teach soldiers tactics from experience gained in other wars, such as American military officers who previously served in Afghanistan or Iraq, or Georgian soldiers who battled Russia on their home turf. Additionally, volunteers from all over the world have come to fight for Ukraine, bringing diverse backgrounds and knowledge in techniques that can strengthen Ukraine’s own army.

An often-repeated question of the conference was: “When will the war be over?” Although this is a very complex question, Sobolevskyi said, “We have never actually ended the war with Russia; it has lasted hundreds of years. Right now, we just need to outlast them.” Since the establishment of Kievan Rus, conflict has persisted in the area, continuing into the 21st century.

Ukrainian troops are depleting, and the widespread use of drones is making it more difficult and dangerous for those remaining to fight. There are mass casualties and a decreasing population. The best outcome for the Ukrainians would, of course, be to reinstate the borders that were established before 2014. Still, right now, the highest priority for all of Ukraine is not to let people forget or get desensitized to the war.

The conference concluded with a consensus among participants that, while Ukraine did not breach international agreements to initiate the war, the only thing that can end the war is absolute security guarantees. There is no point in suggesting a “peace” deal that only favors the aggressor. The only viable future for Ukraine is independence and membership in a security alliance that acknowledges Ukraine’s crucial role and strategic location as a buffer between democracies and authoritarian regimes.

Unique perspectives, such as those presented at the conference, from individuals in action and on the front lines, as well as expert commentary and testimonies, are the very principle of a summit like UASS. Events such as this highlight not only the importance of bringing outside perspectives from ongoing conflicts, but also honoring the legacy of the Hoyas that came before us, like Sendzuik.

On Ivy Day, as acceptance and rejection emails flooded inboxes across the country, Lucas Lee—a bright, driven Korean-American student at a prestigious private high school in Andover, Massachusetts, didn’t receive any Ivy League acceptances, and took his own life.

His death sent shockwaves through academic communities, but for many students who have navigated the relentless pressures of elite education, the tragedy felt eerily familiar. Lucas's story is just one of many, pointing to a growing phenomenon of the dangerous obsession with academic prestige, the fragile connection between achievement and identity, and the suffocating silence around mental health in competitive academic environments. For international students, however, these challenges can be even more pronounced. Adjusting to a new culture, managing visa requirements, and meeting high expectations add layers of complexity—yet their struggles frequently remain overlooked in campus conversations.

The Anatomy of Pressure

At Lucas's school, Phillips Academy, and others like it, where a notable proportion of graduates attend Ivy League institutions, excellence isn't just encouraged—it's mandatory. College decisions become public currency, a metric for students’ value. In such a competitive environment, falling short of the highest tier doesn't just mean disappointment—it can feel like existential failure.

This pressure comes from multiple, intersecting sources. In many immigrant families, academic achievement represents repayment for parental sacrifice and can feel like a precondition for acceptance. As Terry Lin (SFS’26), an international student from Shanghai, China, observed: "In some cases, parents interfere aggressively... They make the calls, not the students." Even when love isn't explicitly conditional, the emotional calculus often suggests otherwise.

The school environment amplifies this pressure through constant comparison. Natalie Fung (SOH’26), an international student from Hong Kong, described how "it felt like everyone had this invisible scoreboard above their heads—who got into what school, who didn't, who failed." The message is clear: there's no acceptable alternative to winning, in the eyes of your parents, your peers, and your school.

Cultural expectations add another layer. For many Asian-American students, as Sun Ma, a third-year student attending Bentley College, noted, the first question after graduation is always "Where are you going to college?"—never "How do you feel about your options?" In this environment, education becomes more than an opportunity among many, which could lead to a successful life. It is the default next step, whether or not it feels right for the individual student

"I'm not surprised [about Lucas Lee],” shared Victoria Han (MSB’26) from South Korea, who attended high school in the United States, observing common extreme pressure within Korean American communities to attend Ivies. "My friend hid her college signing day because she was embarrassed [about] not getting into Ivies."

When Achievement Is Identity

In high-pressure academic environments, success stops being something students do and becomes who they are. Vinusha Narapareddy (SFS’ 26), an international student from India, explained this clearly: "You attribute a lot of your self-worth as a kid to your grades. Even how you choose your major is shaped by fear of uncertainty." Many students default to “safe,” prestigious paths—medicine, law, finance—not out of passion, but fear: fear of disappointing parents, missing ‘top-tier’ careers, or being dismissed for choosing ‘soft’ disciplines.

This merging of self and achievement is reinforced everywhere. Families may unintentionally tie affection to performance. Schools celebrate outcomes over growth, leaving students wondering who they are without their accolades. Cultural narratives often present elite education as the only valid path, dismissing other forms of success.

The danger is profound. When achievement equals identity, rejection isn't just disappointing—it's devastating. As Susan Huang (SOH’26), from China, reflected: "He probably viewed academic excellence as such a great part of his identity... So when he lost that, his whole identity crashed."

The Cost of Silence

Behind the perfect GPAs and impressive résumés, many high-achieving students struggle with anxiety, depression, and isolation. Yet few speak openly about it.

Families, often influenced by cultural norms, may discourage emotional vulnerability. Schools prioritize college counseling over mental health support. Cultural stigma leads students to hide their struggles, fearing they'll shame their families or appear weak.

"Everyone knew it was at the back of our minds," Vinusha said, "but people didn't even mention it. I don't know what's worse—openly talking about it or just dealing with it on your own." This silence creates a dangerous cycle: pressure mounts, struggles stay hidden, and students feel increasingly alone. This is the environment in which Lucas Lee received his Ivy Day rejections.

A Way Forward

Lucas's death was a tragedy, but it doesn't have to be meaningless. Students, educators, and families can work together to build a healthier approach to success.

Breaking Generational Cycles
Change begins with awareness. Those who have endured academic pressure must consciously choose different paths for future generations.

"I understand when some parents say, 'Oh, I never directly told them they need to be successful in academics,'" Susan said. "But being passive when they fail already contributes to what a kid feels."

Natalie added: "It has to start from our generation... or else it's just gonna end up in a cycle." This isn't about rejecting hard work, but expanding definitions of success beyond narrow, inherited expectations.

Redefining the College Narrative
For many students, college is presented as a default, not a choice. Few are encouraged to question why they're pursuing higher education in the first place. This may lead to future burnout, career disillusionment, and identity crises.

Nooria, a high school senior who fled Afghanistan with her family in the 2010s, shared her realization that college is just a transactional relationship - we're paying for access to opportunities. The real value isn't in the prestige of acceptance, but in what you gain: skills, connections, and better career prospects. “Don't romanticize the admissions process - it's ultimately a business arrangement where we're the customers investing in our futures.”

Sun came to a similar understanding that college does not and should not be perceived as a marker defining an individual’s skills and worth. "There's a difference between being good at school and actually being capable,” he said.

Ema Eguchi (SFS’27), an international student from Japan, offered a crucial framework, distinguishing between "Achievers" (focused on outcomes and validation) and "Explorers" (driven by curiosity and process). "College should be approached more like an Explorer," she suggested. "If you see it as a destination, every rejection feels like a failure. But if you see it as part of an exploration, then even detours have value."

Building Resilient Self-Worth
The most vital change involves developing identities that are not tied to external validation.

"You need to manage your expectations," Lin advised. "If I get in, I get in. If I don't, that's not the end of life." He spoke from experience, having faced his own crisis after being waitlisted for a transfer. "Everyone wants to be the best, but there is a cost—you suffer a lot of mental pressure. I've learned to find a position I'm comfortable with."

Sun redefined what true success looks like: "We think being a hero is winning everything, being perfect, going to Harvard. But maybe being a hero is choosing your own path, even if it's not glamorous. Maybe it's saying no to what everyone else wants for you, and still trying your best."

Conclusion: A New Definition of Success

Lucas's story forces us to confront difficult truths about our education system and cultural values. But it also points toward hope—if we're willing to make changes.

We must create spaces where struggle can be voiced without shame. We need to celebrate multiple paths to meaningful lives. Most importantly, we must teach students that their worth isn't contingent on acceptances or grades.

As Lin put it simply, "You are not your GPA. You are not your rejection. You just do what you do, and that'll be all."

In 2025, Turkey faces mounting anti-government protests, drawing parallels to Bangladesh’s unrest the previous year. In 2024, Bangladeshi students led an “anti-discrimination” movement against a perceived unjust quota system. The protests overthrew the regime, bringing an interim civilian government to power as Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled to India

In March 2025, pro-democracy, anti-government protests erupted in the Mediterranean nation of Türkiye. Protests hinged around a central issue: Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s administration, which observers have called undemocratic, had arrested a high-profile opposition leader poised to rival Erdoğan. Istanbul’s Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu was arrested by Turkish judicial branch authorities on corruption charges on Mar 19.^.

The anti-government protests in Türkiye have drawn in diverse segments of Turkish society, including supporters of Imamoglu, the Turkish youth, the socialist left and the nationalist right. These groups have different ideological backgrounds but similar reasons for protesting: Erdoğan, who has been in politics since the early 1990s and president since 2014 has become an authoritarian, and has reduced Turkey’s secular spirit and democratic laws.

Initial reactions to the arrest were mixed. While the Erdoğan administration denied any government involvement or influence over the judiciary, European leaders and parties called the arrest a politicized and anti-democratic move. Human rights NGOs and the United Nations have condemned the arrest, as well as the use of excessive force by police forces on the protestors.

The belief that the arrest was a political move by the Erdoğan administration stems from the fact that Imamoglu had led Erdoğan in presidential opinion polls for months. Moreover, Imamoglu’s party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) beat Erdoğan’s Justice and Development (AK) Party in a shock local election result in 2024. Additionally, the timing of the arrest gives more credence to the politicized arrest theory: Imamoglu was arrested only four days before he was set to be designated as the opposition party’s presidential candidate.

Authorities in Istanbul have banned the protests and closed some roads “to maintain public order” and prevent any “provocative actions that may occur.” Yet, the protests, which have continued since the initial arrest, show no signs of slowing down. Protestors have organized public rallies, economic boycotts, and calls to embargo goods associated with the Erdoğan administration are continuing. While the protests have been largely peaceful, the government has conducted a crackdown. Nearly 2,000 people have been detained with 300 of them jailed pending trial.

President Erdoğan said in a speech that authorities "would not allow public order to be damaged," and vowed not to "give in to vandalism or street terrorism."

The Turkish political apparatus has also started cracking down on freedom of the press, arresting at least seven journalists who were covering the protests. Reporters without Borders reports that 90% of the national media in Türkiye is controlled by the government. Meanwhile, US-based nonprofit research organization Freedom House labelled Türkiye as “not free” when it comes to internet and media freedom, citing several laws created by Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party that " increase surveillance and censorship and criminalize online speech.” All these factors indicate the depreciating press freedom and democratic rights in the Mediterranean nation.

Meanwhile, Özgür Özel, the current leader of Imamoglu’s Republican People’s Party, has stated that he will keep fighting to free Imamoglu and others who were arrested on what he considers illegitimate charges. To that end, Özel has promised a new protest in a different city every weekend, as well as regular demonstrations in Istanbul, Imamoglu’s home city. Additionally, he also called for presidential elections to be moved up from 2028 to “at least November” of this year, threatening Erdogan’s position.

The Georgetown Review reached out to a student with roots in Turkey, who had the following to say:

"Georgetown, where open dialogue and civic engagement are core values, really highlights the contrast with what’s happening back home in Turkey. Seeing my peers here speak freely makes me reflect on how essential- and fragile-those freedoms are for my own country."

The name of the student has been retracted to protect their anonymity.

Protests continue in Turkey as the country challenges authoritarianism and continues to fight for a democratic future.

BROADER IMPLICATIONS:

These recent developments in Türkiye carry significant geopolitical weight. Türkiye, a NATO member country, is formally allied with the United States, and hopes to acquire European Union (EU) membership.

On April 9, 2025, the European Parliament argued that Türkiye’s accession process must remain on hold. The Parliament opined that Europe does not believe in cutting corners when it comes to democratic values and highlights that the Turkish government has not done enough to fix its non-democratic tendencies. The Parliament, which voted 48-3 (with 23 abstentions) in favor of pausing Türkiye’s accession process, specifically mentioned the recent crackdowns on political dissent in Turkey related to Imamoglu’s arrest. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) held that EU membership is tied to upholding certain standards on the freedom of speech and assembly, having stable, democratic institutions, and the rule of law. Moreover, the Turkish opposition questioned Erdoğan on whether the Imamoglu arrest was sanctioned by the United States.

Türkiye has emerged as a significant player in European, Middle Eastern, and African affairs under Erdoğan and today plays a significant role in shaping the future of these regions. Its future will have spillover effects that bring geopolitical change to these parts of the world.

On March 9, 2025, thousands of Nepalis gathered in Kathmandu to welcome former King Gyanendra. Nearly two decades ago, Maoist rebels and pro-democracy protestors ousted King Gyanendra in 2008, paving the way for Nepal to become a democratic republic. The spectacle of chants, banners, and celebratory crowds wasn’t merely a nostalgic display but a striking referendum on the country’s democratic experiment. For many, the overwhelmingly positive public reception of the monarch's return symbolized not a longing for royal rule, but disillusionment with a political system that has repeatedly failed to deliver.

Nepal’s transition to democracy was supposed to usher in an inclusive governance, stability, and reform era. However, the promises of participatory politics and responsive institutions remain largely unfulfilled.

Democratic Transition & Its Promise

This moment marked the end of a brutal decade-long civil war that claimed over 17,000 lives and destabilized the nation’s political core. Nepal’s democratic journey began in earnest after the 2006 People’s Movement, culminating in the Comprehensive Peace Accord between the government and the rebels. After the formal abolishment of the monarchy in 2008, Nepal formed its first Constituent Assembly comprising a body of elected representatives. They were entrusted with drafting a new constitution to reflect the aspirations of a diverse and deeply stratified society.

The promise of this transition was significant: to establish a representative system that would rectify centuries of marginalization faced by ethnic minorities such as the Madhesi population of the southern plains, as well as lower castes and women. Federalism was embraced as a mechanism to decentralize power, ensure inclusion, and foster local governance.

Yet, even as elections were held and institutions restructured, the optimism that animated the early years gradually gave way to fatigue. The promise of meaningful change remained unfulfilled for many, especially those who had hoped democracy would address deep-seated socio-economic inequalities and exclusion. Frequent coalition collapses, corruption scandals and constitutional crises have only deepened the disillusionment.

Structural and Institutional Failures

Two decades after its democratic transition, Nepal’s political system remains extensively fragile. Since 2008, Nepal has cycled through 13 governments in 16 years, most collapsing due to unstable coalitions, internal rifts, and opportunistic power-sharing.

The 2008 Constituent Assembly abolished the monarchy but produced a deeply divided legislature. Its failure to draft a constitution led to fresh elections in 2013. The 2015 Constitution marked a democratic breakthrough, introducing federalism, secularism, and provisions for inclusion and representation. However, it also triggered violent protests among ethnic minorities, who saw several key clauses as discriminatory and a betrayal of their long-standing demands for autonomy.

Hopes for a stable government rose in 2017 with a solid leftist victory. Yet by 2020, factional infighting between Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli and Pushpa Kamal Dahal culminated in Oli’s controversial move to dissolve parliament, a decision later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

In 2022, another convoluted seven-party alliance returned Dahal to power despite his party winning just 32 parliamentary seats out of 275. The instability persisted into 2024 when Dahal abruptly dropped the Nepali Congress in favor of another party, the UML (Unified Marxist–Leninist). A new power-sharing deal then saw K.P. Oli return as prime minister This cycle of fractured coalition and realignment leading to persistent instability in the country has created a sense of disillusionment with the democratic project in Nepal.

Meanwhile, corruption remains deeply entrenched. In 2024, Nepal’s score on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index slipped to 34, placing it 107th globally. The government has been repeatedly rocked by scandals. One shocking incident was a fake refugee scam where politicians and bureaucrats attempted to smuggle Nepali citizens abroad. This resulted in the arrest of former home and deputy prime ministers in 2023.

Public Disillusionment and the Rise of Royalist Sentiments

Widespread disillusionment with Nepal’s democratic experiment has fueled a resurgence of monarchist nostalgia, no longer dismissed as relics of the past but increasingly embraced by many as symbols of stability and national unity.

Despite increased electoral freedoms, voter turnout has declined, and trust in political parties continues to erode. According to the Asia Foundation’s 2022 survey, only 44.3% of respondents believed Nepal was moving in the right direction—down from 65.6% in 2020. This disillusionment is especially pronounced among youth, who comprise nearly half the population but remain sidelined from leadership.

Amid this vacuum of trust, royalist sentiment has re-emerged. Former King Gyanendra Shah’s public appearance earlier last month attracted massive crowds in Kathmandu. Chants of, “Bring back the monarchy,” echoed across the city. The outpouring, covered primarily by outlets like Al Jazeera, resembled a coronation more than a symbolic appearance, signaling public fatigue with republican politics.

Yet Pragyan Acharya, a Nepali national and recent graduate of Georgetown University in Qatar, now a researcher at the university's Office of Grants and Research Compliance, argues that this royalist resurgence cannot be explained by domestic political dysfunction alone.

“Situating Nepal’s democratic discontent solely within national boundaries is myopic,” he says, “Much of the recent energy for royalist and reactionary forces in Nepal is shaped by regional ideological currents especially the rise of Hindu nationalism in neighboring India and uprising against the corrupt system in places like Bangladesh.”

His observation helps frame the Kathmandu rally on March 9 as more than a rejection of ineffective governance but also as part of a broader transnational wave of conservative and traditionalist revivalism sweeping through South Asia.

It is also evident in the recent performances of the royalist parties like the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP). In the 2022 elections, the RPP secured 14 seats its strongest showing in two decades by campaigning for a Hindu kingdom and constitutional monarchy. Their rhetoric resonates particularly in rural areas where state neglect is deeply felt.

While memories of authoritarian monarchy remain, growing numbers now juxtapose royal rule with today’s fractured, corrupt republic. As 62-year-old Amrit Thapa put it during the March 2025 rally:

Nepal’s own transition from a Hindu kingdom to a secular federal republic, while incomplete, faces pressure not just from within, but from shifting ideological winds beyond its borders.

Regional Dynamics and International Implications

Nepal’s democratic disillusionment unfolds within a shifting regional landscape shaped by the growing India-China rivalry. As faith in the democratic system wanes, the country’s geopolitical alignment is increasingly in flux.

India has long been Nepal’s closest partner, bound by geography, trade, and cultural ties. But relations have frayed in recent years amid boundary disputes and perceived Indian interference. Kathmandu’s 2020 release of a new map claiming Kalapani and Lipulekh areas which is now under Indian control intensified tensions, reflecting Nepal’s desire to challenge India’s traditional influence.

This has opened the door for China to gain influence in Nepal. Since joining the Belt and Road Initiative in 2017, Nepal has seen a sharp rise in Chinese engagement. A standout example is the proposed $2.75 billion Trans-Himalayan Railway linking Kathmandu with Tibet, with ground surveys now underway. Chinese firms have also become key players in Nepal’s hydropower sector, expanding Beijing’s influence while helping Nepal tap into its vast energy potential. These moves signal China’s growing economic and strategic footprint in the Himalayan republic.

Political instability has made Nepal more susceptible to foreign leverage. Both China and India now court parties and leaders to secure their interests. India, while maintaining its traditional ties with the Nepali Congress, eyes the rise of Hindu royalist narratives with caution, while China has deepened ties with leftist parties particularly the Communist Party of Nepal. However, neither country supports a return to monarchy as both view it as a potential source of regional instability and diplomatic unpredictability.

But this competition between India and China presents a delicate opportunity for Nepal as well. For example, in 2024 China revived long-stalled Belt and Road Initiative projects in Nepal, including the famous trans-Himalayan railway. India, wary of growing Chinese influence accelerated cross-border rail connectivity and energy cooperation initiatives to reassert its traditional foothold. For Nepal, this geopolitical tug-of-war may yield short-term benefits but without a coherent long-term strategy, it risks deepening external dependencies and further polarizing its internal politics.

Nepal’s current unrest is no longer just a symbolic reckoning. Following former King Gyanendra Shah’s arrival in Kathmandu on March 9, pro-monarchy demonstrations intensified. On March 28, clashes between protesters and security forces resulted in two deaths and numerous injuries. Protesters vandalized properties, looted businesses, and engaged in violent confrontations with police, leading to over 100 arrests. This heavy-handed response has only deepened public anger, highlighting the nation’s ongoing political and social challenges. As Pragyan observed,

The answer to this moment is not a return to monarchy but a renewed commitment to democratic reform. To rebuild trust, Nepal must deliver on its founding promises: justice, accountability, and inclusive governance. Otherwise, the crisis of faith may become irreversible.

It is frequently held that two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product (GDP) growth indicate a recession.

The United States’ last major recession was during the 2008 financial crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. entered a brief recession but managed to escape it in merely two months, making it the shortest recession on record due to substantial amounts of government stimulus. Since then, the U.S. economy has recovered much quicker than other developed economies. However, things have changed since President Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025.

President Trump’s agenda for his second term in office includes the use of trade restrictions such as tariffs on trade partners of the United States, targeting Canada, Mexico, and China, among other countries. These tariffs have triggered fears of a recession in the U.S, since tariffs reduce employment, reduce labor efficiency, and make goods more expensive. Although public opinion over recession and tariff fears is split across party lines, more than 50% of all Americans are concerned about both issues. A Guardian poll conducted in early March found that 90% of Democrats, 69% of independents, and 57% of Republicans are worried about tariffs. The same poll also concluded that 89% of Democrats, 75% of independents, and 65% of Republicans are worried about a recession.

Various economic statistics related to consumer confidence and business environment are also rapidly deteriorating in the United States. According to Apollo Academy, consumer sentiment is at its lowest point since mid-2022, when COVID-19 was at its peak. Unemployment expectations have also been at their highest since the 2008 financial crisis. A record number of consumers believe that business conditions are worsening.

Some experts and banks concur that the chances of a U.S. recession in 2025 are high. J.P. Morgan’s Chief Economist said on March 9, 2025, that the chances of a recession were at 40%. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers warned that the chances of a recession are about 50%. Moody Analytics’ Chief Economist placed recession chances at 35%, citing Trump’s newly imposed tariffs.

President Trump’s response to these concerns has been continued support for tariffs. He states that the economy is in a “period of transition” and that he “hates to predict things like that,” referring to a recession. President Trump claimed that he is focused on building a strong country and cannot be looking at the stock market.

President Trump’s agenda is aimed at bringing manufacturing back to the United States and reducing foreign trade deficits. . Since the U.S. is the largest consumer of goods and services worldwide, the President believes he can use the leverage of the American market to encourage countries to invest and build in the U.S. However, there are also counterarguments of reduced competitiveness, reduced choice of goods and services, and the creation of a captive market. Since tariffs disincentivize the purchase and use of foreign goods, domestic producers can lessen product quality to cut costs. Since consumers have no other choice but to buy these goods, the variety of goods available to them decreases, and their quality of life is reduced.

President Trump’s tariffs also have implications for geopolitics. The Trump administration has made it clear that it sees China as a threat. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has described China as a “totalitarian threat to America’s influence on the world stage.” Trump’s tariffs on China are shaping up to be an attempt to stop Beijing’s rise on the world stage, to increase U.S. economic independence from China, and to enter the manufacturing space as a competitor to China.

Unsurprisingly, Beijing is not backing down from a challenge to its manufacturing dominance China has hit the U.S. back with tariffs, primarily on food imports from the United States. It also added 15 American companies to its export control list, hindering their use of Chinese equipment.

Beijing has signaled that it is ready to confront the United States. The Chinese Embassy in the United States’ account on X made a post saying, “If war is what the U.S. wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end.” Additionally, Reuters reported that Chinese Communist Party Officials met on February 28, 2025 and promised to take steps to prevent and resolve any external shocks to the Chinese economy.

We reached out to Adithya Kashyap (CAS ‘28), a member of The Strategem Initiative, a policy and international affairs club at Georgetown, and he gave the following statement:

With China closing in on the United States in critical fields like artificial intelligence (AI) and electric vehicles (EVs), this escalation is a sign of increased competitiveness.

A related concern is the status of Taiwan under the new U.S. administration, which has pursued a more isolationist foreign policy than its predecessor. Within two months of President Trump’s inauguration, there have been significant developments. First, the new administration has been adamant (through tariff threats) that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), seen by some as the biggest motivator for the U.S. to defend Taiwan, move its production to the U.S. If production is domestic, the U.S. has less incentive to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attack. TSMC has agreed to invest in the U.S., although they officially deny that this is due to U.S. political pressure. The U.S. has also reaffirmed that it seeks to maintain Taiwan’s status quo and opposes unilateral changes.

In total, the potential 2025 United States recession brought about by President Trump's assertive tariff policies has considerable ramifications on both domestic United States economic stability and international geopolitics. The expected economic slump concerns United States consumers and businesses while fueling the United States-China rivalry at the same time, since countries disillusioned by the U.S. may look to Beijing as an alternative. With these two countries engaging in reciprocal actions, the world economy experiences higher uncertainty levels. This geopolitical and economic rivalry defines US-China ties and the world order now and for the foreseeable future. The scale goes all the way down to individuals because of price and job market fluctuations that result out of national policy changes.

As part of its 3-billion campaign, “Called to Be,” Georgetown University has been expanding its presence in downtown Washington, D.C., aiming “to expand our university’s impact in service to the common good.” Beyond the Law Center, established in 1971, recent expansions include the School of Continuing Studies at 111 Mass Avenue NW (2021), the 55 H Street graduate residence building (2022), the McCourt School of Public Policy’s move to 125 E Street (2024), and the acquisition of 77 H Street NW for a residential building with retail space.

While these developments may enhance students’ experiences and Georgetown’s programs, they also raise a critical issue: gentrification.

According to the National Institutes of Health, gentrification refers to a process where “central urban neighborhoods…experience a reversal, reinvestment, and the in-migration of a well-off middle- and upper-middle-class population.”

While it can increase property values and reduce crime rates, it often leads to residential displacement and the erosion of social networks, disproportionately impacting poorer, long-term residents. Georgetown’s expansion, through purchasing buildings and attracting new businesses, risks further disrupting existing communities.

D.C.’s History as “Chocolate City”

Washington, D.C. has long been known as the original “Chocolate City,” a term referring to its status as a majority-Black urban center and its cultural and political significance of the civil rights and Black Power periods. African American residents made up around 67 % of the city’s population in 1968. This Black-majority constituency influenced D.C.’s political landscape, including its exclusion from statehood – rooted in fears among white elites of perceived Black “domination” over the city’s economic and political systems.

Despite economic and social progress over time, Black residents have largely been left behind, driven out by rising costs and diminished economic opportunities. A 2024 Georgetown University report found a stark racial wealth gap: $240,120 gap in wealth between the median Black/African American and white household. This disparity is compounded by racial segregation, with white population concentrated in the western parts of the city and Black populations predominantly in the east.

Georgetown’s History of Gentrification

Even before the term “gentrification” was coined by sociologist Ruth Glass in 1964, D.C. had already experienced significant demographic changes. Georgetown neighborhoods underwent drastic transformation during the 1920s and 30s as white professionals moved into previously working-class areas, renovating older homes.

In the mid-20th century, as D.C. faced population decline, policymakers focused on real estate development with projects such as the new convention center, Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Metro. This led to a new wave of gentrification in Foggy Bottom and Capitol Hill during the 1950s and 1960s, where developers purchased “slum” properties at low prices, renovated them, and sold them to wealthier newcomers. The displacement of the 1970s was especially severe, with escalating rents, rising property taxes, and predatory real estate practices forcing low-income residents out of their neighborhoods.

Georgetown University’s Impact on Gentrification Today

What occurred in Georgetown’s neighborhoods decades ago now risks being repeated in downtown areas where the university continues to expand. Georgetown’s presence can drive up property values and rents, making housing less affordable for long-term and lower-income residents. The influx of students and university-affiliated individuals can also shift the local commercial landscape toward business catering to wealthier customers – such as high-end cafes, restaurants, and boutiques – displacing small, local businesses.

Georgetown’s Center for Social Justice has attempted to address housing insecurity and gentrification through staff-run programs and over 40 student organizations. Programs such as HOME (Homelessness | Meals | Education) collaborates with local nonprofits to support services through student volunteers, fundraising events, and advocacy.

However, while these efforts are valuable, the scale of the problem requires more structural measures to ensure affordable housing and equitable economic opportunities. Universities across the U.S. – such as the University of Chicago, University of Illinois, Drexel University, and University of Pennsylvania – have also been identified as contributors to gentrification, particularly in Black communities. Factors like green places and public transit further exacerbate these trends, making neighborhoods more appealing to wealthier newcomers while driving up living costs.

A Path Forward

Some universities have begun addressing their role in gentrification through community partnerships and investments. For example, Columbia’s construction of its Manhattanville campus in Harlem involved a $578 million investment toward local construction firms owned by people of color, generating more than 1,500 construction-related jobs. Under a city contract, Columbia committed to providing $20 million for affordable housing, $4 million in legal housing assistance, $20 million to the Harlem Community Development Corporation, and $76 million for community benefits.

Georgetown University’s mission statement emphasizes “our commitment to justice and the common good” and “live generously in service to others.” To uphold these values, Georgetown must take structural efforts to support the surrounding community and raise awareness about the unintended consequences of its expansion.

While universities have the power to revitalize communities, they must also recognize their capacity to harm. By actively working to mitigate the negative impacts of expansion and prioritizing genuine partnerships with affected communities, Georgetown University can help create a more just and equitable community.

As proposals for peace talks circulate in global news, there is fear that Ukraine and Russia may never come to an agreement. Just to be clear, a ‘deal’ does not mean an aggressor that illegally invaded an independent country should receive concessions, but turning Ukraine into a state dictated by nuclear weapons, which has no leverage to bargain with. One of the fears growing among Ukrainians is what cities might get swept into this unfair deal.

My hometown, Odesa, is a beautiful city with rich culture and character. Unfortunately, as one of the largest Russian-speaking cities in Ukraine, its rich history and niche identity have made it a target. A key distinction should be noted: native citizens are very proud of Odesa’s own identity. Although they speak Russian, the port city was first settled by the Greeks, then the French, and the most influence came from the Jewish population. One in three Odesians is ethnically Jewish. Odesian slang is consumed with Yiddish influence. Another important detail is that Odesa has previously quelled separatist movements and has transitioned schools, universities, and all official activity to Ukrainian. The main factor, the language, is also transitioning from Russian to Ukrainian. When we look at the more profound history and craft a more detailed analysis, it becomes clear that Odesa never was and never will be a Russian city.

Politicians can always debate the identity of this city, but I think there are no better character witnesses than the natives of my beloved home. I had the privilege to conduct interviews with three women from my hometown, Viktoria, Tetiana, and Anna. After asking them a series of questions, here is what they had to say:

Tetiana, born and raised in Odesa, has a PhD in political science. She grew up in a Russian-speaking family but attended school and university taught in Ukrainian. She wholeheartedly believes that she, just like Odesa, is 100% Ukrainian. She has no desire to see Ukraine join Russia, nor does she feel that surrendering Odesa to Russia would lead to any kind of peace.

As an expert in political science and international relations, she comments, “Unfortunately, it might be the case that peace agreements will only be possible with a de facto succession of certain territories. However, it would be the same case as with Latvia and Lithuania during the USSR regime, where the rest of the world did not accept and recognize these territories as Russia officially. Russia cannot remap and change borders just because it said so. If they are given that jurisdiction, that would create a dangerous worldwide precedent allowing other aggressors to overpower world maps.”

Tetiana also believes that Ukraine should not commit to a peace deal without absolute security guarantees or the acceptance of Ukraine into the West officially. If not, “we will keep succeeding and succeeding. The goals haven’t changed since the Long Telegram and Russia does not understand “peace” talks and ceasefires. We conclude that the Russians will not follow the ceasefire based on their historical record regarding Crimea in 2014. Russia did not respect the Budapest Memorandum and violated all signed and ratified peace agreements.

There is no question that Ukraine’s sovereignty has been threatened. Ukraine kept silent and failed to respond after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Donbas and Crimea in 2014 had emboldened the Kremlin to renovate a more advanced army and act more aggressively. We will not let dictators succeed our land.

If Odesa became part of Russia, Tetiana would not stay because “succeeding Odesa from Ukraine would result in political hunting of Ukrainian nationals. Russia would probably prosecute those Ukrainians who have worked in Ukraine or other Western European states. It won’t matter if your work was political or bureaucratic; you would have been working for [Russia’s] enemy regardless.” If Tetiana returned under Russian occupation, she would be the very first to be labeled as dangerous. Intellectuals and teachers are the first targets of occupation. Among her peers, nobody would accept or support Odesa joining Russia as part of the peace deal because “Odesa is historically a Ukrainian city. Evidence of this is the transition after the 2014 invasion, when 30% of the population transitioned from Russian to Ukrainian. After the full-scale invasion, about 60% of Odesian citizens switched to speaking Ukrainian.”

Another perspective is offered by Viktoria. Viktoria is from a Russian-speaking family and studied in a Russian school (class of ‘79) and university (graduated in ‘83), where she finished her degree as a freight forwarder, a very high-demanding position back in the Soviet era. Viktoria’s family has lived in Odesa for generations, and she considers herself Ukrainian. When asked if she wanted Odesa to join Russia, her answer was simple: “No.”

She later elaborated that “Odesa should not join Russia, nor does it want to. We fought back against separatists in 2014 when the full-scale invasion was launched. We went to the beach [on the Black Sea], and when Russian vessels were coming in, people started to dig up sand and barricade the beach and cover all of our statues with sandbags. We love our city and we will do everything we can to protect it from the Russians for as long as we need to.”

Unfortunately, some people in her circle are content with Odesa joining Russia. Still, it’s a small minority of the population. Viktoria states that

Viktoria went home for New Year's in December 2024. She told me that her Russian and Belarusian friends have started learning Ukrainian because they don’t feel comfortable speaking the language of an invader.

My last interviewee is Anna. She has a masters in political science, and she founded a charity dedicated to empowering individuals experiencing war trauma and displacement. Anna grew up in a Russian-speaking family, attended a school that was taught in Russian, but went to a university that was taught in Ukrainian.

“After the 2014 invasion, our professors came in and asked the class if anyone had any opposition to learn in Russian. If someone did, the professor would teach in Ukrainian.”

She considers herself Ukrainian and believes that “Odesa is part of Ukraine and we feel Ukrainian. To us, the Russians are invaders, and it would be a tragedy for us to surrender to them.”

I asked Anna when she was last in Ukraine, and she answered that it was 2022.

Hopefully, these different perspectives and generations will offer some insights into what the actual citizens of Odesa think. When news articles publish information and propose various solutions to the war, they forget who they are bargaining with. This is my home, and no signed paper will ever make it Russia. Yes, there is a minority in my city that thinks just because most of us know Russia means we are Russian, but they are gravely mistaken. Do not trust the propaganda in the media, and do not believe any ‘referendums’ that Putin claims to pass in the occupied region. Odesa remains a target and is constantly bombed. We are a Jewish city; we are a culturally filled port city that is beautiful and unique. There is no “freeing us”; we are free and part of the independent Ukraine. We will remain so, no matter what is written down and passed under the facade of “peace”. There is no peace living next to Russia. Just ask around.

On Monday night, Department of Homeland Security agents arrested Badar Khan Suri, a postdoctoral researcher in Georgetown’s Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding (ACMCU) outside his Rosslyn home. According to a DHS webpage, he is now being held at a detention center in Louisiana.

Suri is an Indian national who was studying in the United States on a J-1 student visa, living in Rosslyn with his wife, Mapheze Saleh (GRD ‘26), an American citizen. According to DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLoughlin, Suri was publishing “Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media” and had personal connections to Hamas. A 2018 Hindustan Times article profiling the couple said that Saleh’s father was a political advisor to Hamas. Khan Suri’s X profile appears primarily to advocate for human rights in Palestine, not to call for support for Hamas. His last activity was from May 2024.

The Georgetown community has largely expressed support for Khan Suri. Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) and Zeytoun, the graduate student organization advocating for decolonization in Southwest Asia and North Africa, posted an open letter on Instagram, saying “the struggles at home and abroad are interconnected: also this week, we witnessed the abduction and detention of a Georgetown faculty fellow, Badar Khan Suri.” They called for his immediate release. The post also stated: “we stand against the repression of free speech and academic freedom.”

Khan Suri’s department, the ACMCU, also published a statement, saying that Khan Suri was “arrested in the context of a campaign by the Trump Administration to destroy higher education in the United States and punish their political opponents.”

In an email first sent first to SFS faculty and subsequently to SFS students, Dean Joel Hellman reaffirmed the legality of Suri’s visa, and said that he was “not aware that Dr. Suri has engaged in any illegal activity, nor has he posed a threat to the security of our campus. He has been focused on completing his research.” Dean Hellman also expressed concern for Suri’s welfare and implications for free speech on campus.

Congressman Don Beyer, who represents Virginia’s 8th District, including Rosslyn, published a statement on Thursday asserting that “Suri's detention is a clear violation of his constitutional rights, and he must be released.” He also said that the arrest was “a blatant attack on the First Amendment.”

The arrest, in conjunction with the arrest and deportation of other Palestinian rights activists, notably including Mahmoud Khalil and Rasha Alawieh, seems to threaten repercussions for any student expressing support for Palestinian rights or opposition to the Israeli government on American campuses. This could be the goal of the Trump administration’s policies. In January 2025, the White House published a fact sheet titled “President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism,” which said that the Department of Justice would take aggressive action to “protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.” The fact sheet also promises to “quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”

Normally, a J-1 visa may be revoked if the holder violates the travel rules of their visa, engages in unauthorized employment, fails to maintain valid healthcare, changes their J-1 sponsor, or is convicted of a crime. The Department of Homeland Security did not publicly cite any of these as reasons for the revocation of Suri’s visa.

Rather, it appears that he was arrested and his visa was revoked using a rarely-used provision of US immigration law, which allows the secretary of state to classify a non-citizen as a threat to American foreign policy and revoke their legal status. This appears to be the mechanism through which both Mahmoud Khalil and Badar Khan Suri were arrested. This means that although Badar Khan Suri has not committed any crimes, the administration believes he poses a threat to American security by virtue of his vocalization of support for Palestinian rights.

On Thursday, Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Khan Suri could not be deported, pending a further decision from that court. Nevertheless, the events of the last week will hit close to home for other Hoyas living here on student visas, and aims to frighten Americans away from speaking out on Palestine and other sensitive issues. This is a sobering and alarming indication for the future of free speech on campus, and it is critical that students and faculty maintain their support for Khan Suri, and refuse to be censored.

Traversing through the current political climate can be disheartening and demotivating for students who aspire to make impactful change. During these critical times, organizations such as the North American Invitational Model United Nations (NAIMUN) serve as important opportunities for youth to exercise their political voice by teaching them important interpersonal and advocacy skills.

The Georgetown International Relations Association, Inc., a nonprofit, student-run organization, organizes the conference that brings high school students from across the nation and overseas to experience a simulation of the real UN environment. Participants learn to represent countries and draft UN resolutions in a professional environment. For example, the students take on roles in a General Assembly or Crisis Committee.

Oftentimes, students who participate in the Model United Nations conference throughout high school are eager to continue this journey in college. Two seniors at Georgetown, Jaskee Kaur Thakral, a biology major in CAS ‘25, and Anagha Chakravarti, majoring in international politics SFS ‘25, found their interest in diplomacy and advocacy in high school MUN.

Kaur Thakral says, “Being involved in Model United Nations in high school was a meaningful experience. Whether competing or putting on conferences, I developed such a plethora of skills that have been crucial in shaping me to be who I am today.”

Echoing the principles of NAIMUN: “Diplomacy through education,” Anagha Chakravarti testifies that “Chairing different committees in NAIMUN for the last four years has been the most meaningful part of my Georgetown experience. The committee topics are relevant to my field of study… and I can exercise critical thinking, leadership, and professionalism, which are important skills.”

The skills participants and facilitators learn at NAIMUN, as well as the networking opportunities, can shape their futures and benefit them greatly. Even though Kaur Thakral is a biology major, her highschool participation gave her experience in staffing and attending conferences in college and enjoying it even more. “To witness and help high schoolers engage with complex, nuanced, but incredibly relevant real-world topics in committee can sometimes be a tough task, but ultimately a very impactful and rewarding one. You have the opportunity to be involved in their journey of finding their passions and interests, and the privilege to watch them grow. It will forever be one of my most memorable experiences at Georgetown.”

This year, delegates faced two subtopics at NAIMUN LXII: Topic A: Implications of the Military-Industrial Complex for Conflict and Topic B: Maritime Piracy in the Middle East and North Africa. Participants were assigned countries, and made speeches for and against disarmament policies in the modern world. Given the current conflict increase on a global scale, more delegates argued for defense and security over arms racing and increased production. Since the conference takes place over around four days, the topic of discussion is decided through a vote among the student delegates. Unfortunately, the second topic was not chosen to develop further.

Studies today show a 65% increase in global conflict since 2021. Not only does the safety and future of Europe depend on Ukraine’s stability, but conflict is also aflame in Palestine, and tensions are rising between China and Taiwan. All these are critical in maintaining some form of global stability. Global cooperation is essential, or countries risk repeating the same mistakes we have seen in history two world wars. The US pulling its support for Ukraine and pressuring them into giving concessions echoes negotiations over Czechoslovakia in 1938, and a potential ceasefire agreement in Palestine and the rebuilding of Gaza echoes the Partition of the British colony of India into India and Pakistan. Only time will tell if the future will defy pessimistic predictions or propel us into an unstable time never seen before. However, one thing is certain: the next generation of leaders is our future.

The valuable skill set and cooperation techniques gained at NAIMUN and similar MUN conferences are what will guide our emerging leaders. NAIMUN is a place of opportunity and an essential extracurricular activity that teaches real life, history, and responsibility. Programs such as this conference should be a societal priority, ensuring future generations have an opportunity to lead, connect, and grow in an educationally stimulating environment.

On January 20, 2025, just hours after his inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” (“Defending Women”). The order mandates that federal agencies recognize only two sexes–male and female–based on “immutable classification,” excluding gender identity from legal and policy considerations. The order purports to protect women from men self-identifying as women who intrude on “intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women.”

The order directs federal agencies to enforce binary definitions of sex across all documents and communications, remove existing promoting gender ideology, prohibit the use of federal funds for such initiatives, and require that all single-sex spaces be designated strictly by biological sex rather than gender identity.

How might this executive order impact society and the Georgetown community? The effects of this executive order are already being felt within the Georgetown LGBTQ+ community. GU Pride, a central hub for LGBTQIA+ students, expressed concerns that the order could intensify social and institutional barriers. By enforcing binary sex classifications, the order could force transgender individuals to disclose their identities in everyday situations, such as at the DMV, emergency rooms, voting centers, traffic stops, and banks – potentially exposing them to discrimination and harassment. “Our civil protections are being eroded,” the organization added, emphasizing that growing legal and social restrictions further discourage closeted transgender students from living authentically and create additional obstacles for those already struggling to find acceptance and security.

For some students, the order has also reshaped their career aspirations, particularly for those considering federal government jobs. GU Pride noted that the order, along with other recent measures, signals a workplace environment increasingly hostile to LGBTIA+ employees, making them feel unsafe pursuing public-sector careers.

Legal Implications and Feasibility

Professor Tricia Hoefling, who teaches courses on gender, law, and the Constitution at the Georgetown capitol campus and in the Women and Gender Studies Program, offers insights into the order’s legal viability.

“Executive orders do not always have the force of law” but can signal an administration’s priorities, Hoefling explained. A key legal question revolves around Section 3(f) of the order, which directs the Attorney General to counter the application of Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) – a Supreme Court decision that ruled LGBTQ+ employment discrimination falls under the “sex” discrimination under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, the administration’s attempt to reinterpret federal law through executive order may face legal challenges.

“Historically, the courts have given great deference to the executive branch’s interpretations of the law, which changed last year with the Loper case,” Hoefling noted. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) allowed federal courts greater authority to review and reject agency interpretations. While the Trump administration can articulate its interpretation, the courts are not bound to follow it.

Impact on States and Schools

The order’s effects on the state policies will vary. While states often look to federal guidelines for direction, they are generally not required to adopt them. However, they are constitutionally bound to comply with Supreme Court rulings, which have the potential to limit or expand the order’s reach.

A key case to watch is the United States v. Skrmetti, currently before the Supreme Court. The case examines whether bans on transgender medical procedures for minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its outcomes will likely shape future legal battles over transgender rights by signaling which direction the Supreme Court’s stance on the issue and whether it will take action to protect transgender rights. Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU and National Urban League, have already filed lawsuits challenging the order “Defending Women,” through which we can further see the Court’s approach and feeling of the issue.

Effects on Georgetown University

While Georgetown does not have an official record of self-identified transgender athletes, national sports organizations and schools have begun shifting policies on trans athletes in response to the order. Specifically, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) revised their stance on transgender athlete participation, publishing a statement that a student athlete assigned male at birth may not compete on an NCAA women’s team, while no formal regulation has been set for participation on NCAA men’s teams.

The order’s provision enforcing single-sex bathrooms raises concerns about campus facilities. Georgetown has all-gender restrooms across its Hilltop and Capitol campuses, but it remains uncertain whether federal enforcement will impact these spaces. While higher education institutions are less likely to face immediate scrutiny, K-12 school districts–such as Denver Public Schools–have already been targeted for investigation over restroom policies.

A more direct impact on Georgetown could come through federal research funding. The university receives grants from the Department of Education, Department of State, and Department of Defense, among others. Although individual students’ gender identities are unlikely to affect financial aid eligibility, research on LGBTQ+ and gender-related topics could face funding cuts if they are considered to “promote gender ideology.” As Georgetown grants do not primarily come from federal grants, the extent of the impact of this aspect of the order remains unclear, though budget cuts in certain fields are possible

Despite these challenges, Georgetown is expected to uphold its Jesuit values, including cura personalis – care for the whole person – by keeping diversity requirements and commitment to diversity and inclusion.

Professor Hoefling emphasized that while the order introduces uncertainty, it does not override Supreme Court precedents, such as protections for transgender employees under Bostock. However, it underscores the administration’s ideological stances on gender and may portend future actions in pursuit of the goal. “This order is intended to create confusion and… reinforce traditional gender norms,” Hoefling said. “But courts will hold the Trump administration accountable if they try to act outside the law.”

She also expressed optimism about the public response, drawing parallels to the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973). After Dobbs, citizen-led ballot initiatives in 10 to 11 states resulted in strong protections for abortion rights, with more than three-quarters of them deciding to keep abortion rights. “I believe people will step up to protect transgender rights and women’s rights.”

As legal battles unfold, the full ramifications of the executive order on the Georgetown community and American society remain uncertain. However, its impact on federal policy, education, and civil rights is already taking shape, setting the stage for a debate on gender identity and legal recognition in the US.

The recent crackdown on DEI initiatives by the Trump administration has far-reaching political, social, and cultural implications for millions of Americans. It also reveals deeply entrenched disagreements over the principle of equity and fairness in American society and the dangerous politicization fueled by social media and political tropes. We’ve long been aware of these divisions, but they have now become central to debates in politics, education, and everyday life.

What is DEI?

While the pursuit for equity can be traced back to the 1960s and policy initiatives were advanced during Obama administration, the official effort to institutionalize DEI initiatives in the federal government and catalyze substantial changes in organizational policy and hiring process in the private sector began with President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 13985, which aims to “pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all.”

DEI stands for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Diversity refers to the representation of different identities (race, gender, etc.) in social, cultural, and professional settings, Equity refers to ensuring “consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals.” Inclusion refers to creating environments where diverse individuals feel valued.

The project of creating more diverse, equitable, and inclusive spaces is highly disputed in American politics today: “underserved communities” that have a particular shared characteristic have been, as stated in a Biden administration’s White House statement, “systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life.”

Supporters view it as a necessary effort to correct systematic disempowerment and discrimination to create a leveled playing ground for all Americans in their personal, professional, and social pursuits, where opponents, including President Donald Trump, regard it as violations of meritocracy and discrimination against specific populations.

Current Development

President Trump's EO 14151 of 1/20/2025 mandated the rollback of all DEI initiatives in federally funded American organizations, requiring them to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, environmental justice offices, and positions, all equity action plans, equity actions, initiatives or programs, equity-related grants or contracts, and all DEI or DEIA performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.”

While several Fortune 500 companies have already ended or reduced their DEI initiatives as of January 13, 2025, the Executive Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” signed seven days later is posed to accelerate these efforts and catalyze other companies to join the reversal. Some companies will maintain their DEI initiatives unless a court ruling or law requires changes. The Attorney General’s report, due by May 21st, may clarify what constitutes illegal discrimination beyond existing case law.

Source of the Controversy

Critics of DEI initiatives say that DEI is both discriminatory, illegal, dangerous and performative. First, DEI initiatives immorally discriminate against white males and merited individuals (aka. reverse racism). Second, the Supreme Court Decision that banned affirmative action rendered all DEI programs illegal. Third, DEI programs are dangerous because they admit unqualified individuals based on their minority identity solely. Fourth, DEI initiatives are mere performative gestures with no tangible social or economic benefits.

Insights from the DCA Plane Crush

The political and public reaction to the recent plane crash at the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) exemplifies the misperception that DEI programs hire unmerited individuals, thereby posing threats to public safety and the general productivity and welfare of governmental agencies. While the DCA crash was significant due to its severity and the number of casualties, it has caught public attention at such a magnitude due to the politicization of political figures like President Trump and Elon Musk who claimed the tragedy was caused by unqualified pilots who were admitted based on DEI.

The National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation of the causes of the incidents points to a mix of human errors and circumstantial challenges with some unanswered questions remaining as of February 14, 2025. The long, complex investigation to clarify the combination of factors contributing to the crash gave leeway to different hypotheses and theories. From one side, prominent politicians blamed DEI for introducing unqualified individuals into the aviation industry. This accusation has invited criticism of being insensible and irresponsible exploitation of tragic events to advance political rhetoric against DEI practices. On the other hand, the argument that Trump’s administration is responsible for systematic understaffing that purportedly led to the crash is also flawed at best.

Jim Wang (SOH’ 26), who has been a licensed private pilot since 2023, contends that the incident is simply not related to politics and should not be politicized as either an attack on DEI by Republicans or criticism of federal staffing and funding cuts by Democrats.

DEI initiatives are not helping individuals bypass necessary qualifications or receive special treatment in high-stakes fields, such as aviation.

For example, when airlines hire pilots, their decisions are based purely on experience and flight hours. "All commercial pilots, including those with an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, have to go through extensive training," Wang shared. "After the 2009 accident (Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo, New York, due to pilot error and fatigue, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground), regulations became even stricter—the number of hours before one can even qualify as an airline transport pilot has increased from 250 to 1500 hours."

These regulations are designed to ensure pilots have the skills to handle high-pressure situations. It’s a very rigorous process with strict rules that must be followed. If someone isn’t highly experienced or doesn’t meet the standards, they simply won’t get certified.

“If anything, it can sometimes be harder, not easier,” Wang remarked. “I even know of some examiners who have biases, but at the end of the day, if a pilot meets the requirements and passes the tests, they should be certified.”

The rigorous certification requirements have created challenges for people from marginalized communities interested in the field. As of 2020, black women are significantly underrepresented in the U.S. aviation industry, making up less than 1% of all professional pilots, with fewer than 150 holding key certifications.

On the other hand, the argument that Trump’s administration is responsible for systematic understaffing is flawed at best. External shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the issue that has existed since the late 20th century. It began with the first-ever labor union for Traffic Controllers — Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) — formed in 1968. They led a 1981 strike, prompting President Reagan to fire over 11,000 controllers and permanently ban them from federal employment. The mass firing created long-term staffing shortages, with waves of retirements continuing to strain the FAA’s ability to maintain a stable workforce.

While understaffing deserves attention, the staffing level at the time of the January 29 crash was within acceptable regulatory range. The occurrence of a once-in-a-decade incident does not constitute sufficient evidence that staffing level is the ultimate culprit of this major aviation tragedy.

Given the strict skill and practice requirements for receiving a pilot license in the aviation industry, licensing under qualified pilots is unlikely. In light of this, politicians who claim that DEI is responsible for tragedies such as the DCA plane crash are not only irresponsible and reckless but also guilty of intentionally misrepresenting to stoke public sentiments for political gains. Those who respond to such allegations with other political attacks are no better by fueling the irrational and unproductive politicization.

DEI in the Military

The DEI controversy has influenced daily operations in federal agencies and the private sector while also having a significant impact on the military.

Professor Matthew Hawks, who is a retired U.S. Navy officer with 30 years of service in submarine warfare and engineering and served as an assistant professor at the U.S. Naval Academy. He specializes in operations research and data analysis and currently teaches at Georgetown University. The views shared below are his own and do not reflect the official views of the Department of Defense.

Before diving into the current controversy, Professor Hawks observed that many have focused on the racial diversity element of DEI and often overlook the impact they have on women, the disabled, and other marginalized communities.

“Diversity was not solely referring to visual racial differences or things like that, but also gender differences."

Drawing on his experiences and observations, he attests to the tangible positive impact of commitment to diversity, inclusion, and fair representation in the submarine force and the Navy as a whole.

Initially, he says, the “Risk Rule” extended women's combat exclusion to bar their participation in any non-combat unit where the risks of exposure to combat were equal to or greater than the combat units they supported. After President Clinton lifted the restriction in 1994, allowing women to serve in all positions in the military except for direct ground combat roles, female enrollment at the Naval Academy grew.

“Eventually, the percentage of female students at the Naval Academy increased from about 8% to 30%,” said Professor Hawks. “When I returned as an instructor, this was a significant change—not just in the overall atmosphere of the campus, but also in reducing gender isolation and broad generalizations about female midshipmen.”

The submarine force remained closed to women until 2010 due to logistical concerns. While no women have commanded submarines yet, they are nearing that milestone.

Professor Hawks highlighted the power of framing. "What I've seen most successful is when things are talked about in the sense of removing barriers to performance and having equal standards across the board."

Some critics object to this line of reasoning, saying that DEI is a way to reverse historic discrimination and attack white males and other privileged groups.

Pointing out “framing” matters, however, does not disprove that systematic efforts are needed to address historical disadvantages and discriminatory practices.

The challenge facing efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion today is a feeling that it is inevitably a zero-sum game, where only a particular group of people benefits at the expense of another. Creating an entire department or distinct roles dedicated solely to DEI—such as establishing DEI divisions led by specialized personnel—can unintentionally create a "passing the buck" mentality, where the responsibility for fostering inclusivity is shifted to a separate group rather than embraced by the entire organization.

The Effectiveness of DEI Practices Presents Significant Challenges

The perception of an uneven playing field—where two candidates compete and one is less qualified but is selected due to representation or equity considerations—can create mistrust. Even if this had only happened a few times, it can be amplified, leading to skepticism about the system.

Therefore, while there are some misled beliefs about the intention of DEI efforts, many of the objections against it come from the lack of proven outcomes and sustainable changes in the programs. DEI fatigue is a common phenomenon due to the repeated failure to meet targets with limited resources and tremendous institutional inertia.

Meanwhile, more diverse representation in leadership has seen limited progress. Despite decades of recruitment efforts, Black representation in managerial roles remains low, at just 7% in 2021, despite making up 14% of employees. Women also face challenges in leadership, despite evidence of their effective leadership styles.

Despite the widespread prescription of DEI trainings, they often fail to change bias or reduce prejudice. And consequently, attract criticism and discontent.

That being said, the mission of DEI to provide equitable opportunities and eliminate discriminatory practices due to implicit or conscious biases in recruiting, promoting, or resource-allocating processes remains one that we should fight for collectively as a society. Rather than eliminating such effort, research and policies should see room for improvement that brings more if not all stakeholders on board and deliver tangible results.

What’s Next?

To move forward effectively, we must depoliticize DEI initiatives. It requires focusing and highlighting the core purpose of removing barriers to performance that serve all in the system rather than as a zero-sum game. Only with a shared understanding and vision, we can begin to have dialogues and implement programs that benefit every stakeholder.

A more impactful approach focuses on enhancing fairness and equity through meaningful, rather than performative, measures. This includes adopting a merit-plus strategy, which upholds merit-based standards while acknowledging and addressing bias.

By centering initiatives on fostering a culture of dignity and respect for all individuals, rather than solely pursuing numerical diversity targets, we can build a more inclusive and high-performing environment that benefits everyone.

Since the collapse of Somalia’s central government in 1991, the country has become a focal point of regional instability, piracy, terrorism, and geopolitical competition. One of the Horn of Africa’s most volatile states has once again emerged as a litmus test for the efficacy of U.S. counterterrorism strategies, especially as extremist groups like Al-Shabaab and the Islamic State Somalia Province (ISS) exploit political fragmentation to expand their reach. In January 2025, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), in coordination with Puntland (an autonomous territory in Somalia) conducted airstrikes in northern Somalia that killed a senior ISS attack planner and several other operatives with al-Shabaab concurrently launching an offensive in central Somalia aimed at disrupting key infrastructure and reinfiltrating strategic areas. This article examines how recent U.S. airstrikes reflect broader strategic shifts in counterterrorism policy, analyzing their effectiveness in degrading terrorist capabilities and the challenges they pose for long-term regional stability.As global powers recalibrate their strategic priorities in Africa, Somalia remains a critical battleground where the fight against terrorism intersects with maritime security, regional stability, and great-power competition.

These operations emphasize the evolving nature of U.S. counterterrorism strategy in the region, which increasingly relies on precision drone strikes to disrupt transnational terrorist networks while minimizing American military footprints, which is a turnaround from previous strategies.

Somalia’s fractured governance, persistent extremist threats, and complex regional dynamics mean that these strikes carry implications far beyond their immediate tactical gains.

The United States’ counterterrorism involvement in Somalia began in the early 1990s. The infamous 1993 Black Hawk Down incident, when 18 U.S. soldiers were killed during a failed operation against a Somali warlord, led to a sharp decline in U.S. engagement.

However, the 9/11 attacks reshaped U.S. strategic priorities, bringing Somalia back into focus, due to its ungoverned spaces that provided fertile ground for terrorist organizations. The establishment of AFRICOM in 2007 further institutionalized America’s military engagement on the continent, aiming to counter terrorism and enhance regional stability.

Al- Shabaab, a jihadist group which emerged in the mid-2000s is central to U.S. counterterrorism concerns in Somalia.. Following Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia in 2006 to crush the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), an Islamic group that had ended warlord control in Mogadishu, al-Shabaab (a splinter armed youth group from ICU emerging from the insurgency) gained prominence by positioning itself as a nationalist resistance force in opposition to foreign intervention, gaining popularity by capitalizing on local grievances and political instability.

In 2012, al-Shabaab formally pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, aligning its objectives with the global jihadist movement. The group’s ambitions extend beyond Somalia, posing regional threats by conducting attacks in Kenya and Uganda, most notably the 2013 Westgate Mall attack and the 2015 Garissa University massacre. Al-Shabaab’s enduring resilience, with more recent terrorist attacks in Kenya in 2019 and 2022, relies on its ability to exploit clan divisions, extort local populations, and embed itself within Somalia’s social fabric.

More recently, the Islamic State Somalia Province (ISSP) has emerged as a rival extremist faction to al-Shabab’s dominance, complicating the security landscape for Somali and international forces.For example, on February 1, 2025, U.S. forces conducted airstrikes targeting ISSP operatives in Somalia. President Trump emphasized that these strikes neutralized threats “hiding in caves” and sent a strong message to ISIS and other adversaries on social media: “WE WILL FIND YOU, AND WE WILL KILL YOU”.

The legal foundation underpinning U.S. military operations in Somalia, particularly drone strikes, is grounded in the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Passed by Congress in the aftermath of 9/11, the AUMF grants the president broad authority to use force against those responsible for the attacks and their associated forces. In the years since, however,this mandate has been expansively interpreted to justify actions against groups like al-Shabaab, which was designated as an al-Qaeda “associated force” in 2016. The AUMF’s lack of temporal or geographical limits effectively authorizes a perpetual, global counterterrorism campaign. This legal elasticity has allowed successive administrations to conduct drone strikes in Somalia without seeking congressional approval.

Critics argue that such expansive use of the AUMF amounts to a “boundless forever-war,” raising concerns over transparency, accountability, and the potential for civilian casualties. Proponents, however, contend that the drone strikes authorized by the Authorization provide a precise and effective means of eliminating high-value targets while minimizing U.S. military casualties.

The Obama administration sought to refine the AUMF framework but ultimately continued to rely on it extensively in Somalia and elsewhere, with the Biden administration even redeploying troops to Somalia in 2022. The Trump administration, both during its first term and currently, has embraced an aggressive counterterrorism posture, as evidenced by recent operations targeting ISSP militants.

On Jan. 1, 2025, AFRICOM, in coordination with Puntland authorities, targeted ISSP positions in the Cal Miskaad mountains, Puntland’s rugged northern region. The Cal Miskaad mountains serve as ISSP’s primary logistical hub. AFRICOM reported that the strike killed multiple ISSP operatives, including a senior attack planner, though the precise identity remains unconfirmed. The strikes involved Carrier Air Wing 1 aboard the USS Harry S. Truman, marking a notable deployment of U.S. naval airpower. AFRICOM also conducted a follow-up strike in the Gholis mountain range in Puntland, killing additional ISSP militants on February 1, 2025. Lastly, AFRICOM conducted another airstrike in northeast Somalia on February 16, 2025, killing 16 ISIS-Somalia militants, including two senior bomb-makers, and destroyed a bomb manufacturing facility.

These strikes represented a three-fold tactical success: first, by eliminating key militant leaders and disrupting ISSP operations; second, by bolstering Puntland’s ongoing counteroffensive against insurgents; and third, by weakening foreign fighter networks. By aiming for ISSP leadership—believed to oversee IS’s East African al-Karrar office, a crucial financial and logistical hub for IS networks across Africa and the Middle East—the U.S. disrupted ISSP’s ability to coordinate regional operations. U.S. officials estimate that the January 1 strike will set ISSP back by at least six months, particularly in its role as a global logistic node.

The strikes also bolstered Puntland’s ground offensive, which led to the destruction of ISSP outposts, weapons manufacturing sites, and drone stockpiles. Notably, Puntland forces seized armed commercial quadcopter drones, which, according to local officials, have previously emerged from unregulated smuggling supply lines from Yemen via the Gulf of Aden.

Lastly, ISSP includes 80% foreign fighters, many funneled through Puntland’s port capital, Bossaso. Puntland security forces, in the backdrop of this offensive, have detained hundreds of suspected foreign operatives and undocumented individuals and shut down ISSP-linked financial accounts, significantly disrupting ISSP’s recruitment and financing mechanisms.

Despite these tactical gains, two key factors could limit the long-term strategic impact of this operation: the potential for ISSP resurgence and fragmented governance in Somalia. The Cal Miskaad mountains provide ISSP with natural defensive terrain, enabling militants to retreat and regroup, and enhancing their mobility. ISSP could reconstitute from the recent strikes, and resume global operations relatively easily, threatening regional and international security. Also, Puntland’s self-reliance in counterterrorism operations complicates broader U.S. goals after Puntland severed ties with Somalia’s federal government in 2024. Such political fragmentation creates governance vacuums that ISSP could exploit.

The African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), which succeeded the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISON) on January 1, 2025, comprises 11,900 personnel, including soldiers, police, and civilian support staff. The troop contributions are as follows: Uganda provides 4,500 troops, Ethiopia contributes 2,500 troops, Djibouti supplies 1,520 troops, Kenya offers 1,410 troops, and Egypt contributes 1,091 troops. However, the lack of coordination between the Somali and Puntland governments risks undermining AMISOM’s mission. For example, Djiboutian forces under AMISOM have cooperated with Somali troops in Hiiraan to counter al-Shabaab, but there is no concurrent coordination yet in Puntland. .

American airstrikes in Somalia have significantly reshaped regional security dynamics. Kenya and Ethiopia have heightened border security and surveillance efforts in response to the increased threat of cross-border retaliation and militant infiltration by al-Shabaab. Djibouti, home to the U.S. military’s Camp Lemonnier, remains strategically crucial but is wary that intensified American military actions could trigger retaliatory attacks or disrupt maritime shipping routes. Meanwhile, China and Russia are capitalizing on evolving U.S. engagement; China has established its first overseas military base in Djibouti, while Russia is deepening relations with African countries like Sudan to leverage geopolitical opportunities created by shifts in U.S. military posture.

The shifting security dynamics in Somalia highlight the need for smart, sustained U.S. engagement. Recent airstrikes against ISSP operatives show that precision drone warfare can disrupt terrorist networks without risking American lives on the ground, but tactical victories alone are not enough. With Somalia’s fractured politics, and extremists ready to exploit governance gaps, the U.S. must adopt a clear-eyed, focused approach. Containment—not costly nation-building—should drive strategy, backing local and regional partners only when it serves core American interests. At the same time, as China and Russia ramp up their influence in the Horn of Africa, U.S. strategy must also prioritize America’s broader geopolitical position through targeted aid and stronger regional alliances

.

Historical Context

In the 1940s and 1950s, Japan and South Korea were devastated by the Second World War and the Korean Civil War respectively. In the post-war era, both countries allied themselves with the United States, as a defense against threats from the Soviet Union and North Korea. Through its influence, the United States was able to effectively establish strong security guarantees with both Japan and South Korea, attaining significant physical troop presence in Asia.

Japan’s post-war Constitution was written primarily by Americans and focused on peace in the wake of its crimes duringWorld War II. In the new constitution, Japan gave up its military, eliminating war as a means of settling international disputes. For Korea, political institutions were modelled largely after the United States and the country received copious amounts of American economic aid.

Despite both countries’ assurances of protection from the United States, South Korea took a aggressive approach to developing its military due to the North Korean threat, while Japan largely remained demilitarized due to its constitutional obligations.

Geopolitical Change

However, there have been developments in the intervening decades. While Soviet interests are now different (as Russia), China has become a major world power and North Korea has leveled up its military. With the sour history between the Asian powers, Japan and Korea are wary ofChina’s ascent to power.

China today is an economic powerhouse and has a highly advanced military, which dwarfs Korea and Japan. These shifts in regional power dynamics have spurred significant policy discussions in Tokyo and Seoul, particularly in light of recent provocations by North Korea and evolving U.S. foreign policy.

In light of this, Japan and South Korea have proposed significant remilitarization and closer ties to the United States.

According to New York Times writer Choe Sang-Hun, South Korea has long considered pursuing a nuclear program a taboo, as it is contrary to Washington’s wishes. However, there is a growing desire in South Korea for self-reliance, especially in the face of Donald Trump’s inward focus on the United States.

Similarly, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in October 2024 called for the creation of an ‘Asian NATO’ and said that the U.S. should rethink its nuclear strategy in opposition tothe Russia-China-North Korea axis that has formed in East Asia.

Both Japan and Korea possess the economic capabilities, human capital, and physical resources to develop nuclear weapons, according to the PIR Center and War on the Rocks.

These security concerns are inherently related to the re-election of President Donald Trump and his ‘America First’ agenda. President Trump’s election promises included a reduction in foreign aid and promised disengagement and withdrawal from world politics. This isolationist stance worries American allies in close proximity to China.

The Georgetown Review reached out to John Severini, a PhD student at Georgetown University with a background in military research, on the feasibility of Japanese and Korean nuclear weapons.

Severini is of the opinion that a “major international shake-up” would be required for Japan and South Korea to reform their perspective on nuclear norms, and develop nuclear programs. He said that while some conditions already exist for this, the countries do not yet possess a concrete reason to pursue such a policy change.

Recent Developments

On January 13, 2025, Japan and South Korea’s foreign ministers held a meeting to discuss developing security challenges. The meeting was reportedly in response to North Korea’s recent missile tests and closer alliance with Russia, and China’s maritime claims in the South and East China seas. Just a week prior to the meeting, North Korea had conducted missile tests while US Secretary of State Antony Blinken was visiting Seoul.

With the recent political upheaval in South Korea, the government change in Japan, and the inauguration of Donald Trump, a new era of uncertainty looms over East Asia.

Public sentiment in both nations highlights contrasting attitudes toward nuclear development. In Japan, strong anti-nuclear sentiment persists, with approximately 75% of citizens supporting disarmament treaties like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Conversely, South Korean public opinion show increasing support for indigenous nuclear development, with recent polls indicating that over 70% favor acquiring nuclear weapons. If either country were to pursue nuclear armament, it could trigger a regional arms race involving China and North Korea while undermining global non-proliferation norms. Such a move would also risk alienating their key ally, the United States, and invite significant economic and diplomatic repercussions.

Additionally, U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent remarks referring to North Korea as a "nuclear power" have sparked concerns in both Tokyo and Seoul. While South Korea has rejected any recognition of North Korea as a legitimate nuclear state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Trump’s comments suggest a potential shift in U.S. policy that could undermine long-standing denuclearization efforts. This has raised alarms about the reliability of U.S. commitments to regional security.

In response to these challenges, Japan and the United States announced new guidelines on December 26, 2024, to strengthen nuclear deterrence. These guidelines reportedly include provisions for closer communication between Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and U.S. military leadership regarding the use of nuclear force. This marks a significant step toward integrating Japan into U.S. strategic planning, reflecting Tokyo’s growing concerns about its security environment.

South Korea and Japan remain cautious about constant developments in East Asia as they seek to ensure self-defense without alienating their closest ally, the United States. The question remains whether these nations will continue relying on U.S.-backed security guarantees or take more drastic steps toward self-reliance amidst an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape. Their decision could be critical in triggering or preventing an arms race in East Asia and causing immense diplomatic fallout.

Pakistan-Afghanistan: A Strained Relationship on the Brink

In 2024, Pakistan witnessed its deadliest year in nearly a decade, with over 3,000 people killed in terrorist attacks. The majority of these attacks were attributed to Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant group based in Pakistan’s northwestern tribal regions but accused of using Afghan territory for refuge. Tensions reached a boiling point in December 2024 when Pakistan launched airstrikes inside Afghanistan, targeting alleged TTP hideouts. With continuing border skirmishes, Afghanistan’s growing ties with India, and Pakistan’s ongoing security crisis, it is difficult to predict where the Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship will be at the end of this year.

From Mujahideen to Taliban: Pakistan’s Afghan Strategy

Pakistan’s active involvement in Afghanistan dates back to the 1980s Soviet-Afghan War when it became a key patronizer of the Afghan Mujahideen fighting Soviet forces. The Taliban later emerged from one of these Mujahideen factions. The Taliban later emerged from one of these Mujahideen factions. With U.S. and Saudi backing, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) trained and armed Mujahideen fighters, contributing to the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 after nearly a decade of conflict.

However, post-war Mujahideen factions descended Afghanistan into a civil war, which lasted more than a decade, till the end of the last century. The Taliban emerged in 1994, named after the Pashto word for ‘students,’ as many of its early members were Pashtun students.

Within two years, the Taliban captured Kabul and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Though Pakistan denies any involvement, reports suggest ISI patronized the Taliban to secure influence. Pakistan was also one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban government in the 1990s.

Following 9/11, Pakistan’s alliance with the U.S. brought a massive aid windfall but also severely strained its ties with the Taliban. As Pakistan provided logistical support for the U.S.-led War on Terror, many pro-Taliban Islamist groups became increasingly radicalized, leading to the rise of large-scale terrorism in Pakistan for the first time.

After the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, Pakistan hoped for improved relations with the Taliban. However, tensions escalated over various conflicting issues.

Enduring Disputes in Pak-Afghan Relations

For decades, Pakistan and Afghanistan have remained entangled in disputes over territory, water resources, and refugee issues.

The Pakistan-Afghanistan border, known as the Durand Line, was drawn in 1893 and remains the most contentious issue. While Pakistan insists it is an internationally recognized boundary Afghanistan refuses it, arguing it was a colonial-era imposition and expired with British rule. Islamabad supported the Taliban during the Afghan civil war, hoping for their recognition of the Durand Line, but to this day, the Taliban dismisses it as a “hypothetical line.” The border also divides Pashtun communities, creating lasting resentment over their forced separation.

An anonymous Pakistani third-year Georgetown student from a Pashtun background, describes the impact: “Our families live just a short distance apart on both sides of the border, yet we cannot visit them without a permit. Recently, the process has become even more restrictive.”

Beyond territorial disputes, water rights and migration issues add to tensions. The Kabul River flows from Afghanistan into Pakistan, vital for 20 million people. Afghan dam projects like the Shahtoot Dam have raised concerns over reduced downstream water flow, exacerbating tensions without a formal water-sharing agreement.

Meanwhile, the Afghan refugee crisis remains a point of contention. Pakistan has hosted millions of Afghan refugees, with 1.35 million still registered. However, citing economic and security concerns, Islamabad intensified crackdowns on undocumented refugees in late 2023, arguing they should return post-war. The Taliban strongly opposed the move, calling it ‘unacceptable behavior’, further straining ties.

The Rise of TTP and Pakistan's Security Fallout

While historical disputes continue to strain relations, it is the resurgence of Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and escalating militancy that have pushed Pakistan and Afghanistan into the most recent confrontations.

The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 forced many Taliban fighters into Pakistan, seeking refuge in rugged border regions where difficult terrain and strong Pashtun tribal networks made it nearly impossible for Pakistani authorities to control the influx. The U.S. launched drone strikes targeting Taliban fighters, which often resulted in civilian casualties, fueling resentment and further strengthening support for the Taliban.

Amid this instability, several Islamist militant factions emerged, viewing Pakistan as a U.S. ally complicit in their persecution. In 2007, these groups merged to form the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), also known as the Pakistan Taliban, aiming to impose strict Sharia law and overthrow the Pakistan government.

The Pakistani Georgetown student, reflecting on the TTP’s rise, said:

Since its formation, the TTP’s terrorist attacks have targeted both military personnel and civilians, resulting in thousands of deaths. The most devastating attack occurred in December 2014, when TTP gunmen stormed a school in the Pashtun majority province’s capital Peshawar, and massacred 130 schoolchildren marking the deadliest terrorist attack in Pakistan’s history.

Pakistan’s Miscalculated Taliban Strategy

Believing that a Taliban-led Afghanistan would help contain the TTP, Pakistan under Imran Khan’s premiership (2018-2022) actively supported the Taliban’s return to power. His government repeatedly framed the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan as a foreign intervention, and when the Taliban seized Kabul in August 2021, Khan hailed it as “breaking the shackles of slavery.”

However, Pakistan’s expectations quickly unraveled. They alleged that the Taliban government provides TTP with safe hideouts inside Afghanistan. Kabul always denied such claims. Pakistan tried negotiating with the TTP in 2022, but the talks collapsed.

Since then, attacks by TTP have increased on an unprecedented scale. In 2024 alone, Pakistan lost 3,000 lives, including 2,546 civilians in terrorist attacks, making it the deadliest year for Pakistan in a decade. Most of the attacks were perpetrated by the TTP.

Pakistan’s military operations have proved ineffective against TTP militants, who, according to Islamabad, easily flee to Afghanistan. To curb cross-border militancy, Pakistan has attempted to fortify the border by constructing a fence along the Durand Line, but the Taliban strongly opposes this effort.

On Dec. 21, 2024, TTP militants stormed a Pakistani security outpost, killing 16 soldiers. On Dec. 25, Pakistan responded with cross-border airstrikes in Afghanistan’s Patakia district, reportedly killing at least 46 people, including civilians.

While Pakistan claimed the targets were TTP hideouts, the Taliban government stridently denied and promised to retaliate. Three days later, they claimed to attack Pakistani military installments but few details were disclosed.

TTP, Taliban, and Pakistan: A Fragile Standoff

The Taliban’s reluctance to take action against the TTP is a result of a complex reality. Experts argue that any move against TTP could fracture Taliban unity and allow more extremist groups like Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) to expand. The Taliban’s stance mirrors Pakistan’s past strategy, where Islamabad dismissed Afghan and U.S. demands to curb Taliban activities within Pakistani borders.

For Pakistan, airstrikes inside Afghanistan serve multiple objectives—dissuading TTP operations, signaling strength to the domestic audience, and giving the Afghan Taliban a strong message that they would not hesitate to cross the border. However, continued military action risks deepening anti-Pakistani sentiments among Afghans and further alienating Pakistani Pashtuns.

The Uncertain Future

Since the December 2024 airstrikes, Pakistan-Afghanistan relations have sharply deteriorated. Notably, on the same day Pakistan launched the strikes, a Pakistani diplomatic envoy was in Kabul for negotiations. The Taliban condemned the attack as a violation of Afghan sovereignty, stating that conducting airstrikes while engaging in diplomatic talks reflected Pakistan’s insincerity in resolving the issue.

Tensions have further escalated in early 2025, with increased border skirmishes between Afghan and Pakistani forces. Their busiest Torkham border crossing has been closed since February 21 due to a dispute over constructing a border outpost. On March 3, Afghan and Pakistani border forces exchanged heavy fire at the crossing, resulting in the death of an Afghan soldier.

Even beyond the TTP insurgency, Pakistan now alleges Afghan involvement in broader security threats. Citing the deadly March 11 train hijacking by Baloch separatists, Islamabad claimed that the hijackers contacted handlers in Afghanistan for instructions. Meanwhile, Pakistan has accelerated the deportation of Afghan refugees, adding another layer of diplomatic strain. Security conditions remain precarious as TTP attacks and clashes with Pakistani forces persist without any sign of de-escalation.

At the same time, the Taliban has strengthened ties with India, Pakistan’s regional rival. On Jan. 8, 2025, India's foreign secretary met with Afghanistan's acting foreign minister in Dubai, marking their highest-level diplomatic engagement since the Taliban takeover. During the meeting, Afghanistan explored utilizing Iran’s Chabahar Port for trade, clearly signaling its intent to reduce dependence on Pakistani trade routes. As a landlocked nation, Afghanistan has long depended on Pakistani seaports.

This underscores Afghanistan’s intent to minimize its strategic reliance on Pakistan, aiming for greater policy freedom. Thus, Afghanistan may adopt a more assertive stance against Pakistan in the coming days.

Pakistan-Afghanistan relations remain fragile, shaped by historical disputes, security threats, and shifting alliances. Pakistan continues to accuse the Taliban of backing the TTP, while the Taliban’s defiance hinders any resolution. Meanwhile, Kabul’s growing ties with India further complicate the conflict. Without meaningful dialogue and cooperation, long-term stability remains uncertain.

Foreign Aid Crisis

President Trump has launched many controversial executive orders since his inauguration, relating to immigration, climate change, oil exploration, etc. On Jan. 20, 2025, he signed an Executive Order calling for a 90-day pause on new foreign aid programs. The aim is to ensure all U.S. foreign aid programs are consistent with U.S. foreign policy. On Jan. 24, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a directive that went even farther, effectively freezing operations at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the U.S. government's lead provider of nonmilitary foreign aid. This directive halted the creation of new USAID projects, and discontinued ongoing work. On Jan. 29, Secretary of State Marco Rubio approved a waiver of the pause for life-saving humanitarian assistance during the review period. Nevertheless,, 90 percent of the foreign aid programs were halted and under review. This shocking order was unprecedented and greatly impacted U.S. domestic and foreign policy.

Triggers of the crises

USAID was founded by President John F. Kennedy in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. For more than sixty years, USAID has provided assistance to developing countries across multiple sectors, responded to natural and man-made disasters with humanitarian assistance, and contributed to U.S. political objectives in post-conflict and strategically important settings.

Ostensibly, halting work at USAID is part of an effort to cut waste and boost efficiency.

However, Trump’s attacks on aid are not about cutting waste or making the government more efficient; they’re about using blunt force to fulfill Project 2025’s pledges to put an end to U.S. foreign assistance spending in service of the President’s agenda. “Not when it comes to fraud. If there’s fraud, these people are lunatics,” Trump said when asked about his capacity to exact major changes to USAID. “We just want to do the right thing. It’s something that should have been done a long time ago.”

With the Trump’s reelection, many USAID staff and international development experts anticipated directional shifts, but were surprised by the head-on effort to abolish the agency. The sudden halt on foreign aid instigate intensive debate in the development field, posing enormous impact both in domestic and abroad.

Domestic Impact

By Jan 27th, about 60 senior employees received an email putting them on administrative leave and they were escorted out of the building.. “Then I just heard sobbing,” said Kristina Drye, 31, a USAID speech writer. Thousands more of the 14,000 worldwide workforce were then cut. Drye continued: “One day a person would be sitting beside you and the next day they were gone.”

President Trump's executive order has directly led to a cut of staff worldwide who are working in the U.S. foreign aid industry, leaving fewer than 300 workers out of thousands.

Georgetown Alumni have also been affected by this chaotic moment And the Georgetown Community is working hard to support those alumni.

Professor Steven Radelet, the Donald F. McHenry Chair of the Global Human Development Program commented on this current issue. Professor Radelet used to serve as the chief economist in the USAID and had a plethora of experience in the development field worldwide.

Global Impact

Foreign aid has always been a vital demonstration of American soft power worldwide. The executive order threatened U.S. diplomatic and defense interests around the world in many ways.

For example, USAID gave more than $38 billion in non-military aid to Ukraine between 2022 and 2024, ensuring its economy and institutions will remain resilient after the war. The funds provided are monitored in real-time by a Special Inspector General dedicated to Ukraine.

In the Middle East, USAID supports counterterrorism efforts: in Syria, USAID programs contribute to the containment of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, also known as ISIS. In Lebanon, assistance advances the long-called for rebuilding of a civilian government without Hezbollah. In war-ravaged Gaza, U.S. aid addresses immediate humanitarian needs and enhances prospects for a long-term cease-fire.

The halt of the foreign aid also further cedes American global leadership to China. While Washington reassesses its commitments, China is pressing ahead with long-term strategic investments that deepen its economic and political foothold. For instance, between 2013 and 2021, Beijing invested $679 billion in global infrastructure—nearly nine times the $76 billion the United States provided during the same period. Many of China’s investments in global health, climate, disaster relief, and science benefit people the world over, Americans included. And in these areas, the United States should seek to collaborate, not retreat. This ongoing foreign aid crisis will be a determinant factor for the geopolitical order in the future.

With President Trump now in office, citizens of the United States are left wondering how free speech will be affected.

On January 7th, Mark Zuckerberg announced that fact-checking functions on Meta platforms would be removed. Meta’s holdings include Facebook and Instagram, which both have more than 2 billion users. A significant change to Meta platforms consists of the removal of fact-checking. Fact-checking will be replaced with “community notes,” like on Elon Musk’s X. X, previously known as Twitter, has a system where: “Contributors can leave notes on any post, and if enough contributors from different points of view rate that note as helpful, the note will be publicly shown on a post.”

After acquiring X, Musk reinstated President Trump’s previously suspended account that featured infamous Tweets like “It's freezing and snowing in New York--we need global warming!” and “Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!” Now that President Trump’s X account is back, it remains to be seen whether or not he will use it now that he is back in office or exclusively favor his platform, Truth Social.

Some may question Meta’s sudden change in policy. However, Zuckerberg has a long history of not curbing speech, even when it led to an insurrection on January 6, 2021: “The company’s internal research over several years had identified ways to diminish the spread of political polarization, conspiracy theories and incitements to violence but that in many instances, executives had declined to implement those steps.” Zuckerburg’s statements align with Facebook’s planned $1 million donation to Trump’s 2024 inaugural fund, which could explain the shift away from media censorship. Trump commonly advocates for less restriction of free speech on social media, allowing him to voice opinions that may be considered controversial. Other companies like Amazon and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman also donated.

A more shocking turn of events occurred the night of Jan. 18, 2025, when U.S. users received a message on their feed stating that “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately that means you can’t use TikTok for now.”

This announcement was followed by: "We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office.” There is no precedent for a social media platform endorsing or thanking a politician in this way. Although President Trump tried to ban TikTok himself in the final weeks of his first term, this issue came under discussion this month with Trump’s warning on Aug. 6, 2020, that TikTok should be acquired by a US company, citing ByteDance’s ties to the Communist Chinese government. However, opponents argue that restricting people’s use of specific applications violates the Due Process Clause of the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution and is politically charged manipulation to influence the sale of an independent company.

Some argue that TikTok has showcased content from Gaza after the escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict and platformed the Black Lives Matter movement and other political campaigns more than any other social media due to specific algorithm coding. After the ban was lifted on January 19, 2025, many U.S. users claim that the app feels different. Users report no content featuring the People’s March in protest of Trump’s itinerary taking place in D.C. over inauguration weekend and Live videos. TikTok could be implementing algorithmic changes due to the current censorship of certain searches like “Trump Election Fraud.” Users accessing the app in the US cannot see any results, unlike other countries or VPN users. In order to circumvent this, some users are beginning to misspell hashtags or use the term “winter boots” to post content that flies under the censorship radar and spreads information about immigration, tips on getting a passport, etc.

52% of US adults who use TikTok use it as a news source, including 45% of young adults ages 18 to 29, which covers the exact age of Georgetown University’s student body. Georgetown University organizations like the New Student Organization (NSO) and Georgetown Recreation use this platform to share information and engage with the student body, testifying to the many student GU users are on the app. Although not all GU students use TikTok as their primary news source, many students are on the app and would be affected by the censorship present when trying to gain information directly related to potentially fact-checked content.

After Trump’s 90-day executive order to prevent the TikTok ban from going into effect, we may regain full access to TikTok, or it will be banned or sold to a U.S. beneficiary aiding in homogenization of American media. X and META are investing in Trump’s campaigns, and the Republican party is nominating underqualified individuals to office.

However, the US is not the only country that is considering implementing stricter measures. On May 15, 2024, the EU Commission opened formal proceedings against Meta under the Digital Services Act in response to the change to their fact-checking structure: “The Commission is concerned that the systems of Facebook and Instagram, including their algorithms, may stimulate behavioral addictions in children, as well as create so-called 'rabbit-hole effects.'”

The EU is primarily concerned with how the change affects minors, which mirrors a possible universal shift favoring more internet protection and regulation. Social media allows unregulated speech, which does not benefit those in charge. Unregulated speech can affect other age groups, not just minors. Without fact-checking and strict opposition to harmful rhetoric, minority groups can be stigmatized and criticized. The U.S. is headed toward an unpredictable era where young men are radicalized through podcasts such as Joe Rogan’s, and more women are dying after the loss of reproductive rights. Online communities can act as echo chambers and disconnect users from outside opinions.

What Happened?

The wildfires around Los Angeles that began on Tuesday, Jan. 7, represent one of the most severe environmental disasters in the city’s history. As of Jan. 17, nearly 14,000 personnel have been deployed, alongside the use of 1,400 fire engines and 84 aircraft, to contain the fires. The fires have already claimed 29 lives and caused catastrophic damage across the region.

As of January 27, the fires collectively destroyed at least 12,000 structures and burned more than 37,800 acres, according to Cal Fire.

While these numbers highlight the scale of destruction, they fail to capture the deeply personal impact on those who call these areas home.

For Georgetown students from LA like CC Mesa (SFS’ 26) and Sarah Fritz (CAS’ 26), the fires have brought emotional and psychological stress. Mesa, whose family narrowly avoided evacuation, has been focused on supporting friends more directly affected in the area. Fritz described the stress of learning the flames were approaching her family home, forcing her parents to evacuate.

"I still have The New York Times fire tracker open on my phone and have been updating it since that Wednesday morning because they provided live updates,” said Fritz.

Emotional Hardships

The severity of the fires and the gravity of the situation for people living in LA is felt in almost every corner of the nation.

"At this point, every single person knows someone who's lost a home,” said Mesa. "The scale is such that, even though Georgetown students are at this kind of removed angle, the impact is undeniable."

To Hoyas whose hometown has been ravaged, juggling being informed, supporting loved ones, and processing personal loss has been a struggle.

Many individuals have experienced a sense of removal or separation, unable to directly assist while others suffered.

“I can see these images, send support, and relate to it as someone from the place, but not being able to take any kind of discernible action—other than donating—feels hard.” Mesa said, “And even then, it's like, what do you donate to? So many people have been affected.”

"Every time I opened Instagram in the days after the fire, there was a new story from a friend—sometimes people I hadn't spoken to since elementary school—sharing that their houses were gone,” Fritz recalled. “GoFundMe campaigns were everywhere, which was such a sobering thought because it’s so difficult to imagine not having a home to go back to."

Despite the deep emotional and psychological toll and distress over systemic shortcomings, Angelenos expressed hope and resilience, as well as comfort from numerous support of their community.

“A lot of people here at Georgetown have reached out just to check in on me and ask how my family is, which I appreciate. It has really demonstrated how strong the Georgetown community is,” Mesa shared.

Causes of the Fires

As the community recovers from the shock of the unexpected disasters, the question of “why” remains. While wildfires have long impacted California on a semi-regular basis, climate change has amplified their intensity in recent years.

"You can never say that climate change is the sole cause of these disasters, but it is clear that climate change sets the stage, and as it affects more places, it will increase the frequency of disasters,” said Professor Bartley, a faculty member at Earth Commons and the Department of Sociology.

He pointed out that climate change creates a "whiplash effect,” which refers to the rapid and extreme shifts in weather patterns that create contrasting conditions over a short time.

Rising temperatures, prolonged droughts, and rapid shifts between wet and dry periods create ideal conditions for wildfires. UCLA researchers estimate that unusually hot weather in 2024 contributed to 25% of the dry conditions fueling these fires.

While the LA fire was not uniquely devastating or unexpected compared to the 2023 Hawaii wildfires and recent Canadian wildfires, the difficulty in containing them, in spite of the massive capacity, experience, and resources of the LAFD was shocking.

Anger and frustration with delayed governmental actions and inadequate preparedness for a recurring natural disaster have been brewing.

"Because we have fires every year, it just makes me feel kind of dismayed that the fire department is still underfunded or not taken nearly as seriously or as necessary for public safety,” Mesa contended, citing recent cuts in the fire department budget and staffing level.

Understanding the causes of these fires reveals not only the environmental risks but also the deeper challenges facing communities as they navigate the aftermath.

Sociopolitical Implications

The wildfires have also exposed inequities in recovery efforts. While wealthier communities may have resources to rebuild, middle- and lower- income neighborhoods face greater financial challenges, including rising insurance costs as they look to prepare for future disasters. Addressing these disparities will require inclusive policies that prioritize both sustainability and equity.

When asked about her views on the socioeconomic dimension of the incident, Fritz emphasized that even for wealthier individuals, losing a home is a deeply traumatic experience, regardless of financial privilege.

"People online say, ‘Oh, it’s fine because they’re rich, and they’ll rebuild.’ But that discounts how traumatic and heartbreaking it is to lose your home, your memories, and your possessions. Money doesn’t negate that experience”, she said.

Mesa agrees, sharing that while there is a wealth dimension to it, many people's places of employment and livelihoods are also gone. “To me, [the wealth angle] just seems empty."

However, Mesa calls attention to the issue of skyrocketing housing prices due to fire and natural disaster insurance price surges. Even though people might not lose their homes to the fire, she shared, many will struggle to afford to continue living there. While wealth does not shield families from the effects of the fire, it does enhance their ability to sustain living in a place like Los Angeles.

Professor Bartley observes that the problem of insurability is not unique to California. Many coastal areas, including Florida and New York, also face the same problems.

“Surely this will change where people can live, but we cannot simply tell people to relocate," he argued. "When the market is unable to guarantee insurance on its own, we need governments to step in, as they do with government-backed flood insurance.”

Adapting to—not just preventing— the consequences of climate change requires more government action and coordination between the public and private sectors.

Next Steps

Los Angeles is almost out of the woods. As of Jan. 29, The Palisades Fire is 96% contained, Eaton Fire is 99% contained. The Hughes Fire fueled by the return of the Santa Ana winds on the 22nd threatened millions’ physical safety and emotional well-being but is now 98% contained.

Addressing both immediate recovery and long-term prevention is essential. Both Mesa and Fritz believe that systematic reforms and initiatives like improving emergency response systems, advocating for climate-resilient policies, and raising public awareness are crucial steps forward.

Successful implementation of these initiatives is often obstructed. General persistence of “Ignorance is bliss" attitudes, according to Mesa, delay collective action on climate change. For Fritz, efforts to combat climate change in California—such as promoting electric cars and investing in renewable energy—often carry unintended consequences, including pollution from manufacturing facilities and potential tax increases.

“Raising awareness about fire prevention, climate change, and its measurable impacts is essential, particularly in a large, populous state like California,” Fritz emphasized, noting the complex trade-offs these efforts impose on different communities.

Professor Bartley highlights that we can all do more individually to drive meaningful change in the environmental sphere. In addition to reducing our consumption of red meat and using less oil-based transportation, we can vote and communicate in ways that prioritize climate action.

Discussing climate change is crucial because even those who acknowledge its reality and the need for action often avoid addressing it. This avoidance stems from emotional distress and the difficulty of thinking and talking about the issue in concrete, actionable terms.

“Building our capacity to talk about this issue not only makes us more serious about it but also more comfortable and better at working together on constructing a solution,” he explained.

Conclusion

The Los Angeles wildfires remind us that behind the statistics are real lives forever changed. As Hoyas, we can contribute by fostering awareness, supporting meaningful policy changes, and offering emotional support to those affected.

“Just show kindness,” Mesa said. “at the end of the day, it's a city. It's people's businesses. It's people's workplaces. It's people's homes.”

On December 29, 2024, Jeju Air Flight 2216, an international passenger flight from Suvarnabhumi Airport in Bangkok, Thailand, to Muan International Airport in Muan County, South Korea, tragically ended in disaster. The Boeing 737-800 encountered a bird strike to both engines, leading to a complete loss of power and hydraulic systems during its final approach to Muan. This prompted the pilots to issue a mayday alert. The captain executed a go-around, (a flight procedure in which an arriving aircraft aborts its landing procedure and returns to the landing queue). However, during the second landing attempt, the landing gear failed to deploy, and the plane belly-landed far beyond the normal touchdown zone and overran the runway. This combination of disasters was fateful for those on Flight 2216.

The aircraft consequently collided with the approach lighting system and crashed into a berm housing, a concrete structure that supported an antenna array for the airport’s instrument landing system. All 175 passengers and four of the six crew members on board were killed in this accident. Miraculously, the two surviving cabin crew members, who were seated at the rear of the plane, were rescued with injuries after their section of the fuselage detached during the crash.

Further investigation

The black box was immediately recovered after the crash. Investigators, who were determined to uncover what caused this fatal tragic, suspected that the loss of hydraulic power played a crucial role in the crash as these systems are responsible for operating key flight surfaces—movable components on the wings, tail, landing gear and other structures that allow pilots to control the aircraft's movement and maintain stability by directing airflow. With hydraulic power unavailable, the landing gear could not be deployed, and the flight crew lacked sufficient time to manually lower it using the gravity extension system.

“What we know is that the aircraft crashed into a solid barrier containing navigational aids (ILS localizer), after which the plane exploded.Had the localizer equipment been located in a more frangible (breakable) structure or further away from the runway, the aircraft could have impacted the barrier differently and possibly not exploded.” Said Umar Ahmed Badami, a Georgetown student who’s also an FAA-certified commercial pilot.

This devastating accident is the deadliest involving a South Korean airline since the 1997 Korean Air Flight 801 crash in Guam and has become the deadliest aviation disaster on South Korean soil, surpassing the death toll of the 2002 Air China Flight 129 crash, which claimed 129 lives. The incident also marks the first fatal accident in Jeju Air's 19-year history, casting a shadow over the airline’s previously unblemished safety record.

Another Boeing Disaster

Over the past few years, Boeing has had a troubling series of malfunctions with their airplanes. This is the third fatal crash of Boeing 737 Max since 2018. On October 29th, 2018, Lion Air Flight 610 crashed into the Java Sea shortly after departing from Jakarta, resulting in the deaths of all 189 passengers and crew on board. Investigations identified issues with the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS), which was designed to enhance aircraft handling but malfunctioned due to erroneous sensor data, leading to an uncommanded nose-down attitude. On March 10th, 2019, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed near Addis Ababa shortly after takeoff, killing all 157 individuals aboard. Similar to the Lion Air incident, a failure in the MCAS helped cause the crash leading to a global grounding of the 737 Max fleet. Both accidents pointed out the fatal design flaw of the MCAS system of the airplane.

Boeing's safety risks have been looming since as early as 2011. At the 2011 Paris Air Show, Boeing and Airbus competed with each other head to head. Airbus won the race.

Airbus introduced A320-NEO (New Engine Option), a more fuel efficient version of its stalwart A320. More than 200 A320-neo were sold at the Air Show. Buyers include American Airlines, United and Delta which placed enormous pressure for Boeing to respond. Boeing soon started to renovate the 737 to catch up. In 2019, Airbus displaced Boeing as the largest aerospace company by revenue due to the Boeing 737 Max groundings, pulling in revenues of US$78.9 billion and US$76 billion respectively. In order to close the sales gap with Airbus, Boeing minimized the cockpit renovation to reduce the training cost for pilots. This is clearly a safety degradation in the aviation industry. Since then, Boeing has sowed the seeds of future failure, along with hundreds of lives and families. Till now, there is no clue in the aviation industry showing that Boeing is working hard on returning to its excellency in the past.