LETTER FROM THE EDITOR AND THE PRESIDENT
The world of politics is evolving rapidly, shaped by the forces of technology, globalization, and social movements. Today, more than ever, politics is intersectional, weaving together issues of race, gender, economy, climate, and more into a complex fabric of global discourse. This evolution is redefining how we understand governance, activism, and power—across borders and within the United States. At the forefront of this change are the dynamic ideas that question what politics was in the past, how it operates in the present, and where it is headed in the future.
At the Northeastern University Political Review (NUPR), we invite you to explore the ever-changing frontiers of American and global politics. As a student-run publication, we take pride in our team’s ability to push the boundaries of conventional political thought. Our contributors dedicate months to rigorous research and writing, resulting in well-crafted, thoughtful pieces that challenge expectations. With a commitment to intellectual depth and nuanced debate, our writers consistently deliver sharp, provocative content that sparks meaningful dialogue.
NUPR aims to publish work that not only informs but also inspires readers to reflect on and participate in political conversations of their own. By engaging with our publication, you are supporting intellectual curiosity, informed debate, and the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
Thank you for your creativity this semester—we’re excited to present your Fall 2024 magazine!
Anjali Aggarwal Editor-in-Chief
Zoë Goffe President
MEET THE TEAM
EXECUTIVE BOARD
Zoë Goffe, President
Anjali Aggarwal, Editor-in-Chief
Matthew Chavez, Design Director
Mary Beirne, Social Media & Marketing Director
Laura Weppner, Communications Director
Zoe Jagelski, Communications Director
Aishi Kapoor, Digital Director
Sangya Gupta, Treasurer
MISSION STATEMENT
Founded in 2010, the Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a non-affiliated platform for students to publish articles and podcasts of the highest possible caliber on contemporary domestic and international politics, as well as critical reviews of political books, film, and events. We aspire to foster a culture of intelligent political discourse, promote awareness of political issues, and provide a forum for students to discuss their views and refine their options. We hope to reflect the diversity of thought and spirit at Northeastern, including the dual ethic of academic and experiential education our school embodies.
EDITORIAL BOARD FOR MORE INFORMATION
Irena Zervas, Managing Editor
Gya Gupta, Managing Editor
Kennedy Little, Columns Editor
Alisha Werry, Magazine Editor
Claire Satkiewicz, Magazine Editor
Hannah Libelo, Magazine Editor
Isabelle Young, Magazine Editor
Jessica Gudin, Magazine Editor
Margaret Barnes, Magazine Editor
Mary Raines Alexander, Magazine Editor
Michelle Zhong, Magazine Editor
LAYOUT TEAM
Matthew Chavez, Design Director
Anjali Aggarwal, Layout Editor
Zoe Jagelski, Layout Editor
Veer Davé, Layout Editor
Amy Eng, Layout Editor
Check out our website at nupoliticalreview.org. Want to write for NUPR? Email nupreic@gmail.com Questions? Email nupoliticalreview@gmail.com
Magazines printed by Puritan Capital
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FEATURED
The Standard American Diet Must Die
Irena Zervas (10)
COLUMNS
Democrats Need a Union Revival
Anjali Aggarwal (16)
NATIONAL
Fresh for No One
Sincerely, America’s Grocery Problem
Emma Morgan (22)
A Thank-You Card to Immigrants
Galiah Abbud (26)
The Far Right’s Secret Weapon–The Next Generation
Priscilla Chan (8)
GLOBAL
The Rise of Authoritarian Populism
Alisha Werry (6)
Trump and the Deterioration of EU-US Relations
Laura Weppner (14)
Not All Men, But Enough Men
Su Shen Ooi (18)
Venezuelan Immigration Crisis in Chicago: How a Sanctuary City Has Struggled
Dario Nardini (24)
THE RISE OF AUTHORITARIAN POPULISM
ALISHA WERRY / ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES & POLITICAL SCIENCE, 2026
There’s no denying that the tendrils of authoritarian populism have been slowly strengthening their grip on the political institutions of democratic countries all over the world. Freedom House’s 2021 “Freedom in the World” report documented a sharp acceleration in the global decline of democracy since 2020, and found that the share of countries identified as ‘Not Free’ reached its highest level since 2006. Whether it’s individual political actors such as Javier Milei in Argentina, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, or entire political parties, such as the Sweden Democrats, authoritarian ideologies appear to be experiencing increasing popularity on a global scale.
Global right-wing populism is primarily driven by shifts in the nature of contemporary capitalism, and in particular by the ascendancy of neoliberal policies and backlash against progressive cultural shifts. These factors enable political leaders to take advantage of the resentment and anger people feel towards their political institutions, creating opportunities to seize power for themselves and their party.
Decades of unregulated capitalism and failures of globalization have severely impacted global workforces. Economic globalization and neoliberal policies have led to widening income inequality, declining living standards for lower and working class populations, and the erosion of welfare safety nets. These economic grievances create fertile ground for populist leaders to sow seeds of discontent with the establishment and make specious promises to prioritize ordinary citizens over global institutions and elites, evidenced by the increasing vote share for populists coming from economically marginalized communities. Another explanation for the surge of authoritarian populism, specifically in the West, is the cultural backlash theory, which holds that growing acceptance of socially progressive stances has prompted an intense reaction among more traditional populations, who feel
threatened and aggrieved. By examining how economic inequality and cultural backlash have impacted the aforementioned countries, we can better understand the mechanisms by which democratic institutions are subverted, paving the way for the pernicious rise of authoritarian populism.
Javier Milei, Argentina’s president elected in December 2023, is a former TV celebrity and far-right populist who skyrocketed to popularity through his radical claims and attention-grabbing antics. As a self-described “anarcho-capitalist,” Milei primarily campaigned on eliminating government health and education ministries and replacing the Argentinian peso with the US dollar. He also campaigned on social issues, using inflammatory rhetoric to attack reproductive rights and feminist movements and denying the existence of climate change.
Milei was able to capitalize on Argentina’s chronic inflation, economic instability, and political corruption, proposing radical economic stances and using anti-establishment rhetoric. His anti-government stance resonated with many Argentinians who felt alienated by traditional policies and institutions, and were angry at the government’s failure to put the country on a viable path to economic development. In the 2010s, Argentina saw a surge of feminist activism and mobilization, and over the past fifteen years there has been an increase in progressive legislation, including the legalization of abortion in 2020, that has led to significant expansion of LGBTQ+ and women's rights. Throughout Milei’s campaign, he spoke of declaring war on feminism, political correctness, and “cultural Marxism”.
In Italy, support for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her party, Brothers of Italy, has been on the rise since 2019. Brothers of Italy was formed in 2012 out of neo-fascist roots, and Meloni is a longtime politician known for her radical right-wing stances on LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and abortion. Meloni and her party have tapped into nationalist
sentiments, emphasizing Italy’s sovereignty and cultural identity while advocating for stringent immigration policies and a tough stance on crime.
Similar to Milei, Meloni took advantage of public dissatisfaction with mainstream parties and their perceived failure to address pressing issues such as immigration, economic stagnation, and decline of social cohesion. Populist support is typically strengthened by anti-immigrant attitudes, mistrust of national governance, and support for authoritarian values, all of which can be found in Meloni’s political style and leadership. Meloni also employs nativist and nationalist rhetoric to justify exclusionary immigration policies, prompting comparisons between her and President Trump, who similarly vows to restore a mythical past and uses inflammatory anti-immigration rhetoric.
In Sweden, the Democrat party was founded in 1988 from an extreme right-wing background and was viewed as morally and politically illegitimate by the public. They describe themselves as social conservatives with a nationalist foundation, opposing current Swedish integration and multiculturalism and advocating for stronger restrictions on immigration. The Sweden Democrats’ ascension to power has been noted as the end of Swedish exceptionalism—the idea that Sweden stood out both materially and morally. Their increasing popularity underscores the growing discontent among segments of the Swedish population that there is a perceived erosion of traditional Swedish values and identity. The Sweden Democrats’ trajectory, again, follows the broader trend of populist authoritarianism: societal disillusionment, identity politics, and dissatisfaction with established political elites.
The parties and political actors mentioned in Argentina, Italy, and Sweden have a shared emphasis on ethno-nationalism and the belief that elites favor internationalism and cosmopolitanism over the nation and interests of the people. The United States has also been slipping towards authoritarian populism in recent years. Freedom House cites erosion of democratic institutions, rising political polarization and extremism, growing disparities in wealth and economic opportunity, and partisan pressure on the electoral process as reasons for this shift, and issued a statement urging recommitment to democratic principles after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
Trump’s appeal has gone hand in hand with a decreasing trust in government and the rise of polarization; Milei, Meloni, Trump, the Sweden Democrat Party, and all other leaders of this kind claim to fix the perceived shortcomings of traditional governance structures and promise to bridge the gap between people and the political establishment, while actually seizing power for themselves and weakening democracy. Looking
into these countries provides some specific insight into how right-wing populists gain power and exemplify the larger shift towards authoritarianism worldwide.
In the face of these challenges, strengthening democracy requires a concerted effort to address underlying economic inequalities, bridge social divides, and restore trust in democratic institutions. Reversing the damage of neoliberal economic policy will require implementation of progressive policies aimed at decreasing income inequality and expanding social safety nets. Legislation such as the Inflation Reduction Act, passed under the Biden-Harris Administration in 2022, is a step in the right direction for the US economy.
The IRA set aside $369 billion in funding for climate and clean energy provisions and is focused on reducing inflation, addressing climate change, lowering healthcare costs, and improving tax equity. From a combination of private-sector investment and government support, the bill created 114,000 clean energy jobs in 2023, and is likely to have a sustained global impact both on reducing emissions and in favoring American industry through expanded domestic manufacturing capacity. While there have been some challenges in its implementation, it is representative of a resilient and equitable path to achieving U.S. climate and economic goals.
The complex drivers of the authoritarian populist surge require equally complex solutions. Strengthening democratic institutions will require structural changes to political systems to increase the accountability of elected representatives—such as making anti-corruption reforms—to help rebuild trust in government. Reducing polarization and pushing for coalition-building between political groups is another way to strengthen democratic norms and foster community building. Key measures to mitigate polarization include policies that limit the dissemination of misleading and false information on social media and news platforms, as well as structural electoral changes. Countries can implement proportional representation or switch to ranked choice voting, which has been shown to reduce negative campaigning.
Cooperation between local and national governments will be fundamental in rebuilding democratic institutions and restoring public faith in politics. An example of community building can be seen through integration plans in Germany that provide education and job support for immigrants, building a sense of unity and national pride that is not rooted in ethnicity or nativism. Proactive measures aimed at promoting inclusivity and safeguarding democratic values can prevent the rise of authoritarian populism and preserve democracy domestically and globally.
Young people have always been a driving force in American politics, historically leading the charge for progressive causes like climate action, criminal justice reform, and the rights of marginalized communities. Yet, recent years have seen an unprecedented surge in activism from young conservatives, focused instead on returning American politics and culture to its more traditional roots and thus pushing back against liberal reforms. This shift is no accident, but rather a strategic effort by conservative organizations to cultivate and mobilize a new generation of like-minded activists.
The catalyst for this new era of youth political activism dates back to the founding of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) in 1960. SDS marked the birth of the New Left, a movement that embraced a wide array of progressive causes including feminism, LGBTQ+ rights, neo-Marxism, drug policy reform, and the rejection of traditional American family values. Their confrontational tactics and widespread presence across American campuses instilled in young people a belief in their power to enact societal change.
However, it met a conservative counterpart in 1964, gaining momentum as the “New Right.” The landslide defeat of Barry Goldwater to Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 was a wake-up call for the Republican Party. Morton Blackwell, Goldwater’s youngest delegate and future youth director for Ronald Reagan, recognized the need for a structured approach to youth outreach. The realization that young conservatives needed training, not just mobilization,
led to the creation of institutions dedicated to fostering conservative ideology among the youth.
Founded by Blackwell himself, the Leadership Institute (LI) is one such institution, boasting over 200,000 alumni, including prominent figures like Mike Pence and Mitch McConnell. Another significant player is Turning Point USA (TPUSA). With a mission to “identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote freedom,” TPUSA has grown to include its presence on over 3,500 campuses and generate $40 million in revenue by 2020.
Such organizations have focused heavily on appealing to young people because they are at a stage of life when their views are still forming and more easily influenced. Recruiting efforts employ a combination of campus outreach, summer camps, and scholarships to engage high school and college aged youth. Many of these groups also provide financial incentives like college scholarships or stipends for advanced degrees. Organizations like The Heritage Foundation and Young America’s Foundation (YAF) even offer fellowships to students in law, economics, and political science. The financial support and mentorship provided by these groups are designed to instill conservative values into young minds early on, shaping their beliefs well into adulthood and into their professional lives.
The appeal of these conservative organizations lies in their charismatic leadership, divisive rhetoric, and their ability to promise to their audience a sense of
empowerment and community. Not only are these tactics highly effective, but they are also unfortunately reminiscent of cult indoctrination.
These strategies are particularly effective in the typically liberal environments of college campuses, where conservative students may feel marginalized. By framing these students as enlightened victims of liberal oppression and positioning themselves as a safe haven, conservative organizations bestow both a diagnosis and a cure, creating a powerful sense of belonging and purpose.
One notorious example is TPUSA's 2017 Affirmative Action Bake Sale, which priced baked goods according to the buyer’s race. By pricing the goods the lowest for Black and Native American students, the stunt was designed to mock affirmative action policies by suggesting they unfairly benefit students of color. Conservation organizations often employ provocative tactics to amplify a sense of victimization among conservative students, in the process fostering a dangerous us-versus-them mentality. Similarly, YAF taps into this sentiment by advertising on various social media platforms with the slogan, “Feeling out of place as a conservative at your school? YAF has your back!” By framing conservative students as a marginalized group on liberal-dominated college campuses, conservative groups give students a community to identify with, as well as a mission to "fight back" against perceived injustice.
The rise of conservative youth activism is generally a reaction to left-wing victories.
Mirroring the reverberations of the 1964 election, today’s conservative youth movements view themselves as a bulwark against a perceived liberal domination.
Unlike traditional on-campus efforts, today's conservative movement also harnesses the power of social media to target young people. YouTube, Reddit, and various other forums have become breeding grounds for right-wing radicalization, dubbed the “alt-right pipeline.” It begins innocuously, with users engaging with slightly edgy but harmless and mainstream content. However, algorithms designed to maximize engagement quickly lead them toward more extreme material. What starts as a casual interest in politically incorrect humor or controversial opinions can spiral into immersion in white supremacist propaganda.
One of the most troubling aspects of the alt-right pipeline is its appeal to those who perceive themselves to be alienated and marginalized, particularly young white men. Many are drawn in by the altright's offers of community and purpose, appealing to those who are searching for belonging. The movement often exploits young men’s feelings of insecurity regarding their social situations, turning them into anger and fear directed at perceived enemies. A common theme involves positioning minorities, women, and immigrants as direct threats to their social and economic standing. For instance, the altright heavily promotes a “white genocide” conspiracy theory that white populations are being systematically replaced by immigrants and people of color through
government policies on immigration and integration. They also accuse feminism of dismantling “biological” gender roles, weakening the traditional family unit, and eroding societal morals (like modesty), while also positioning men as victims of systemic bias. The constant exposure to such extremist content dehumanizes entire groups of people and distorts one’s sense of reality, convincing individuals that violent action is not only reasonable but necessary to “protect” their way of life. The pipeline leads to dangerous real-world consequences, often escalating into hate crimes and acts of violence.
In focusing on the most visible extremists, discussions about the alt-right pipeline often overlook the subtler ways in which echo chambers operate. The movement exploits not just latent prejudice and frustration but also the naivete and ignorance of its targets––anyone searching for identity and understanding in the digital age can fall prey to its dangerous rhetoric. As impressionable young people are drawn into online communities that offer a false sense of validation, they continually absorb extremist views that feel like paths to self-identity.
This manipulation is exacerbated by conservative activists and influencers who gain massive followings by building a cult of personality, relying on their charisma to draw loyal audiences that actively spread their message across platforms. Algorithms favor this high engagement and boost their content even further, allowing these figures to dominate social media and podcast spaces. Left-leaning
voices struggle to match this influence without similarly strong personalities or rallying messages, leaving a gap in counter-narratives. The internet, as a result, perpetuates a critical imbalance in political discourse.
As the internet continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important to recognize and address both the motives and strategies of the conservative youth movement. We must recognize that although there is nothing wrong with holding conservative beliefs, there is something wrong with certain organizations’ use of recruitment strategies that exploit the vulnerabilities of young people and undermine open discourse.
Educational institutions and community groups should additionally focus on enhancing media literacy and critical thinking skills to help young people recognize and resist manipulative tactics. And by providing spaces where individuals can find constructive ways to engage with political and social issues, we can offer an alternative to the divisive rhetoric often used by conservative extremists.
The future of political engagement depends on our ability to uphold ethical standards amidst the larger debate. The stakes are high, but with concerted effort towards critical thinking and empathy, we have the opportunity to redefine the narrative—one that prioritizes genuine dialogue over “winning.”
Pro-vegan documentaries are everywhere. Netflix alone features Seaspiracy, Cowspiracy, You Are What You Eat, the Gamechangers, and more. These documentaries offer a variety of perspectives on the benefits of veganism, emphasizing its health and sustainability benefits. Paired with an overwhelming number of studies, these documentaries might lead Americans to believe that veganism is the best diet for the well-being of both themselves and the planet. While to many people veganism appears to be a possible cure to the United States’ health and climate problems, one important factor is often overlooked: this would not be the case if the current American food system weren’t so deeply flawed. Our current food system makes a sustainable and healthy diet both inaccessible and expensive, and few are educated on its flaws. Veganism is not the best alternative, but it’s currently the only one because of a broken food system. In order to remedy this system, we must make the shift towards local farming and educate Americans on the foods they are consuming.
The Problem with the Standard American Diet
It’s undeniable that meat consumption is a primary driver of climate change. 14.5 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to livestock farming, which releases large amounts
of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere. Additionally, the average American consumes approximately 224.6 pounds of meat each year, triple the world average of 75.2 pounds. Given the incredibly high amount of meat consumption in the United States, it is impossible to deny the American connection to global greenhouse gas emissions.
In large amounts, animal products can also be unhealthy. Most European countries suggest consuming two servings of red meat and two servings of white meat a week to promote a healthy lifestyle. In contrast, the USDA recommends that Americans eat two to three servings of meat per day. While most Americans are trusting of the USDA, the reality of such a high recommended meat consumption dates back to the 1950s and 1960s, when the United States was attempting to grow in power and population. At this time, the health implications of high meat consumption had not been thoroughly studied, and meat was associated with high protein. This led federal organizations to promote its consumption under the assumption that it would promote population growth.
While protein is vital to human health, animal product consumption also has irrefutable downsides. There is a clear link between high consumption of red and processed meats with cancer, diabetes, and
heart disease. Processed meats in particular, contain added nitrates and nitrites that can cause cancer. Processed meats are also high in sodium and other additives, which can lead to high blood pressure and heart problems.
What is even more concerning to American health, however, is the use of antibiotics and hormones in meat. To keep up with the demand in the United States, meat producers keep large amounts of animals in close proximity to each other, pumping them with hormones to ensure that they can grow muscle, despite not having space to exercise. In order to ensure that disease doesn’t spread among these animals, they are also pumped with antibiotics. These hormones and antibiotics are linked to an increase in prostate and breast cancers, early menstruation in girls, and rapid weight gain. The overuse of antibiotics can also lead to “superbugs” in animals, which can cause serious illness in humans.
Before we consume animal meat, we must look at what the animals themselves are consuming. Instead of nutrient-dense greens and grains that they would consume in the wild or on ethical farms, these animals eat foods that in no way align with their dietary needs. For example, the diet of a factory-farmed cow consists of corn and soy grains, which not only lacks nutrients, but takes large amounts of chemical fertilizer and oil to produce.
Grass-fed beef, on the other hand, contains double the amount of Vitamin E and Omega-3 acids, which offer a variety of health benefits, such as promoting heart and brain health. However, meat is not the only animal product that can cause health problems. Farmed fish can be extremely high in mercury, which has high levels of bacteria and can be harmful to the nervous system over time. Additionally, dairy products with high fat contents can lead to cardiovascular disease. Ultimately, if animal productswereconsumedsparingly and didn’t contain antibiotics and hormones, many of these health problems would not exist.
Alternative Solutions to Veganism
To avoid the negative health and environmental implications of the American food system, many have turned to veganism. Veganism has been proven to promote weight loss, decrease risks of heart disease, lower risks of certain types of cancers, and manage diabetes. Nonetheless, this diet can also eliminate key macronutrients and micronutrients of many diets. Vitamin B12, for example, plays an essential part in red blood cell production, but is found most commonly in meat. Vegans can also struggle with protein intake and eating enough calories to fuel their bodies.
Veganism is far from perfect, but it’s the only alternative to a damaged food system. Americans wouldn’t need to turn to a diet associated with vitamin and calorie deficiency if it wasn’t the lesser of two evils.
Knowing the negative health habits associated with animal product consumption in the United States, it is also important to understand positive health habits that lead to high quality of life and good health worldwide. Blue Zones are areas of the world with incredibly low rates of heart disease and cancer, and relatively high life expectancies. The diets of people in these zones consist of large amounts of vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts. Interestingly, while this aligns with the diets of many vegans, animal products are consumed
in moderation in these areas. That being said, Blue Zones like Sardinia, Italy, and Ikaria, Greece are isolated from much of the world and obtain their animal products through local farming—which is far more sustainable and healthy than American meat consumption.
While veganism eliminates many of the health concerns that many Americans face, it does not eliminate all of them. The standard American diet contains a large amount of processed foods, which do not necessarily contain animal products. Ultraprocessed foods make up about 60 percent of the average American diet, and contain additives such as flavor enhancers, stabilizers, and preservatives. High consumption of these processed foods can be linked to obesity, hypertension, and breast and colorectal cancers. These diets are also nutrient sparse, as only one in ten Americans eat enough fruits and vegetables.
Moreover, the production of processed foods also has many negative environmental impacts. Processed food production has significantly impaired biodiversity in many areas, as the production of corn, oil, seeds, and soy take priority over the cultivation of the land’s natural crops. Processed foods also require the extra step of being developed in a large factory and shipped long distances, which adds to their carbon footprint. In a perfect world, the American diet would be nutrient dense, locally sourced, and low in animal products. Unfortunately, these ideals are unrealistic because of the American food system as it stands. The normalized mass production of animal products makes it virtually impossible to trace where these products come from and how the animal was raised, and sourcing these products from local farms is both inaccessible and expensive. A diet rich in unprocessed foods and nutrients
is also inaccessible and expensive, and this is exacerbated by the concept of food deserts. 18 percent of Americans live in these food deserts, which occur when there is limited or no access to a grocery store in a certain geographic region, and residents are forced to rely on fast food and processed foods to survive.
In marginalized or low-income communities, people do not have cars or access to reliable public transportation, and will likely buy less from supermarkets even if they have access. Beyond food deserts, processed foods are cheaper and last longer, which makes them more affordable. This means that a healthy and sustainable diet is only really a tangible concept for the American elite.
Countries outside of the US do not face the same food system challenges, with diets consisting of more nutrients, less meat, and less processed foods. In many European countries, there are stricter regulations on what can be sold and where it can be sold from. For example, in the European Union, while food is not necessarily sourced locally, many of the preservatives and chemicals used in the American diet are banned. The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) takes a more hands-off approach to testing ingredients than the European Food Safety Authority, as the FDA tends to allow ingredients unless proven harmful, whereas the EFSA requires any additives to be proven safe before being introduced into the market. There are also initiatives within the European Union to promote diets that are more sustain able and include less animal products. Culturally speaking, global cuisines are often far healthier than what Americans consume. This is arguably due to the fact that the standard American diet was developed as a means of increasing calorie and protein consumption for population gain, while many global cuisines were developed organically through years of utilizing their resources and farming locally.
Solutions to the Standard American Diet
Veganism offers the best alternative to the standard American diet as we know it right now, but it is not the best option.
Animal products are excellent sources of protein in moderation, and when paired with whole foods and fresh produce, are part of an optimal and sustainable diet. However, our current American food system makes this diet unattainable. Instead of selling these products from factory farms, American meat sellers must turn to local and
industry and disrupt consumer lifestyles. This means that it’s up to Americans to make this change for themselves. To do so, young Americans need a complete, amplified health education.
ethical farms, which are undoubtedly more expensive. Though costly, this will result in a decrease in the consumption of animal products amongst Americans and an increase in overall health and sustainability. Unfortunately, promoting local farms and rejecting factory farms has little legislative ground due to the fact that it would threaten the profitability of the meat
Current national health standards are extremely vague, stating that schools should promote “the adoption and maintenance of specific health-enhancing behaviors.” Language like this needs to be replaced with specific policy on nutrition education in schools. Additionally, while many health programs mention the importance of a balanced diet in some form, health education should reinforce the importance of a sustainable diet. Educating consumers on the health impacts of their consumption is key to creating healthier norms amongst Americans—and therefore to promoting the transition from factory farming to local farming. A comprehensive health education would also promote the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole foods, and highlight the negative impacts of processed foods. An overhaul of the way Americans think about and consume food is absolutely necessary. The American food system is killing people slowly, and it is bound to kill more indirectly through its contribution to the climate crisis. Currently, veganism is the best solution to this problem, but the reality is that veganism is only the best solution because of the American food system. An optimal food system should rely on local farming and whole foods whilst incorporating animal products in moderation, as proven by Blue Zones worldwide. The shift towards local farming and a society less centered around animal products will require time and education, but until then, Americans must learn to become conscious of their consumption and how it affects themselves and the world around them.
TRUMP AND THE DETERIORATION EU-US RELATIONS OF
Donald Trump is a controversial president—from both a national and global perspective. His stark rhetoric sparked a frenzy of international debates, leaving many to question the future of democracy. Researchers across disciplines have noted a significant shift in EU-US relations, despite the relatively stable alliance that existed following WWII. Both Europe and the US are global powerhouses, and their collaboration impacts countries worldwide. Yet, the current era is filled with geopolitical tensions. Trump’s presidency has destroyed the once powerful alliances and the relations are in dire need of repair.
DISSECTING THE STRAIN
The root of the decaying transnational relationship stems from the Trump presidency. There are several factors that contributed to this now fragile relationship, including climate change, the response of COVID19, security threats, the media, and Trump's desire to be the "world's policeman." Due to its economic and military power, Trump was able to bluntly impose American interests over other countries, often speaking over the voices of other nations.
President Biden reentered the Paris Agreement, the United States is still behind in meeting climate goals.
Trump intro duced a new culture to not just American politics, but also to American daily life. He encouraged American citizens to embrace nationalism, sparked debates on identity, and transformed the way Americans engage in civic and political discourse. Europe has maintained the status quo, as politics are not at the forefront of national identity. Typically, cultural differences exist and are healthy. In the case of the Euro-American relationship, the cultural differences enacted by Trump continue to affect global politics negatively. The choice on whether to server ties or to fix the strained relationship lies in the hands of American Politicians and citizens.
During the Trump administration, there was a clash between European and American lawmakers over the severity of climate change. Europe has a deeply rooted commitment to strong environmental agendas, and this is not shared by Trump. For example, Trump withdrew from climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement. This showed a pro-climate Europe that the United States did not prioritize or take accountability for climate action, adding strain to European politicians who are elected by climate-conscious voters. Politicians have difficulty justifying their alliances with the United States when statements are made refuting the legitimacy of climate change. If the United States does not adopt policies to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate change, the alliance with Europe can be considered lost. Though President Biden reentered the Paris Agreement, the United States is still behind in meeting climate goals, the alliance with Europe can be considered lost. Though
Another issue affecting voter opinion in recent years is Covid-19 policy. European countries had very strict Covid-19 policies that included travel restrictions, mandatory testing, mask mandates and extensive quarantines, mandated by the European Union. Trump took a conservative and unresponsive attitude regarding the pandemic, which included reprimanding mask and vaccine mandates. Trump’s conservative and unresponsive attitude towards the pandemic created a further drop in his perception by Europeans, which was at an all-time low in March of 2020. Europeans felt a disconnect as his response may have been viewed as irresponsible and disrespectful to those that suffered during the pandemic. Though it’s been four years since the start of the pandemic, the negative views carry over and become a subconscious thought in the minds of Europeans.
Beyond climate change and Covid-19, Europeans felt that Trump was a threat to their security. This factor is more keenly felt by policymakers rather than everyday citizens. Europeans felt that Trump made the NATO alliance much more transactional, as he pressured European nations to meet his high defense expenditure targets. NATO has been a collaborative entity founded by a treaty to “guarantee freedom” to its member countries. an nations to meet his high defense expenditure targets.
By demanding European members to contribute more to defense budgets, he is effectively forcing European militarization. However, militarization is a sensitive subject to Europeans, who have a losing history when it comes to warfare. As WWI and WWII were both fought on European soil, Europeans are much more conscious when it comes to war. Trump put power in his hands by “engaging in military conflicts [to momentarily simulate] sovereignty.” By enforcing monetary targets that only the United States could meet Trump put himself as the lead authoritative figure of NATO, and therefore global security.
As President, Biden has had the job of repairing the relationship that Trump damaged. Biden has taken a pro-Ukrainian stance and has attempted to be amicable and flexible regarding defense budgets. In Europe, Biden polls better than Trump, though his favorability is still low. This may be due to his lackluster policies or that negative carry-over from Trump that has permanently tainted the United States’ reputation. Trump’s election shocked Europeans, who didn’t expect that millions of Americans would elect such a controversial figure. This shock will take years to recover from—if at all—given Trump is currently active in American politics as the 2024 Republican nominee for President.
Given the prevalence of media in the modern world, it should not be surprising that it has greatly contributed to the strained Euro-American relationship and is the leading cause for the aftershocks of the Trump Presidency. Trump was one of the first presidents to freely use the digital world as a method of information sharing. This characteristic brought together his domestic supporters while giving Europeans a direct view of the American government. Those abroad could witness the conservative ideologies and controversial statements shared by Trump, which caused them to be fearful of his leadership, as he shared incredibly conservative and often factually incorrect statements.
Though both Americans and Europeans consume social media at high rates, there is a difference in its usage. In the United States, social media often serves as a platform for consumer marketing, promoting products and individuals. Trump utilizes strong and seemingly controversial slogans to promote his ideology. Trump was able to use social media (now his own platform “Truth Social”) to create emotional ties with his base. Social media stereotypes about Americans have developed through Trump’s usage of offen sive terminology, such as “Mexicans” instead of “Latinx.” Conversely, in Europe, there are stricter laws preventing “illegal or harmful content online.” This prevents politicians from spreading fake news which helps
eliminate parasocial relationships that may be formed.
Western countries are growing in nationalist ideology, and this is not simply an American phenomenon. It can be seen by the rise of rightwing parties in European countries, such as the National Party in France, AFD in Germany, or Swedish Democrats in Sweden. Trump’s presidency normalized anti-democracy, nationalism, and the merge of religion and politics. These characteristics are true to right-wing movements globally and Trump is simply the predecessor for other conservative politicians. He proved to politicians that the far right can win elections by motivating voters concerned with economic strife. A win for Trump in 2024 would be a gateway for other European nations to elect anti-democratic leaders.
Studies of European countries suggest that Trump’s mentality of being the “world’s policeman” has made even right-wing Europeans feel animosity towards the American president. As a world policeman, Trump desires the sovereignty to intervene in matters in countries other than his own. This goes against each European country’s nationalism. Trump sets himself up on a pedestal, where he values himself the most important player, refusing to acknowledge that Europe holds power.
To preserve its power globally, the United States should be desperate for positive global attention. The disconnect in American politics is seen from afar, reinforcing the need for a united front. Though Europeans hold the misconception that the US is predominantly conservative, the country actually has a significant population of moderates and liberals. Americans are more emotionally polarized than ideologically, yet politicians stay electable by asserting the opposite. Modern politicians like Trump purposefully push their followers to vehemently hate “the other side.”
Another way the United States has the ability to mend its relationship with Europe is by electing non-polarizing political figures. For example, Vice President Kamala Harris, who is currently running for President, may offer a way out of Trump’s America if elected. Harris represents an opportunity for a reset, as she presents herself as liberal, non-divisive, and logical compared to Trump. She could reshape the European view towards Americans if she governs well. It is very plausible that if Trump wins the 2024 election, ties between Europe and the United States
would become irreparable. Trump’s past presidency is still affecting politics today. A reelection could undo all the cultural and political repairs that the Biden administration enacted in the past four years.
The European-American disconnect could have drastic consequences for global alliances. It would not be in the United States’ best interest for Europe to turn to China—an emerging world power that is threatening the US for its role as global policeman. If Europe allies itself with China, the US will no longer have the strongest economy and military force. Estrangement between nations could drastically reduce American and European worldliness and opportunity. Both parties would be cut off from each other culturally and travel would become less feasible if there is a strong sense of dislike from either entity. Nationalism would grow in each country and a cycle of single-mindedness may become unbreakable.
Policy is a crucial element to reestablish a strong working professional relationship, and can eventually lead to a renewed understanding between the people as well. Current American policymakers can evaluate the reasoning behind the strained relationship to tailor diplomatic strategies that align more closely with European values and sentiments. This would foster a more collaborative and mutually beneficial relationship. Such strategies include having a proactive approach towards climate change, scientific discovery, and transnational relations.
Oversimplified assumptions about how Europeans view Americans is a form of American ignorance. The factors that have caused these negative perceptions need to be addressed urgently. An informed understanding of European attitudes towards Americans can create stronger diplomatic ties and enhance global cooperation to avoid dire consequences. In a world where geopolitical tensions heighten, we must take the time to understand international perceptions and use our political power to elect officials that promote political collaboration.
One in ten US workers belong to labor unions, representing 14.4 million Americans and over 10 million eligible voters. Unions have held a long-standing presence in political efforts to win over the working class in the US, typically championing left-wing campaigns. But the tide is turning for the Democratic Party, whose growing unpopularity among the working class leaves unions politically fractured. Democrats are eager to reestablish ties with unions in their efforts to win the 2024 presidential election and “preserve democracy” as we know it. In 2021, President Biden announced that he “[intended] to be the most pro-union president leading the most pro-union administration in American history.” And in the past four years, he’s followed up on his claims; under the Biden-Harris Administration, unions leverage more political capital than they’ve had in decades. In 2023, President Biden made a visible commitment to the United Auto Workers (UAW) in their strike against General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis by becoming the first US president to walk a picket line—a calculated risk that generated both acclaim from progressives and derision from political moderates.
Former President Trump, on the other hand, pushed forth a series of anti-union legislation during his time in office. His orders harmed unions’ abilities to represent workers, opposed any increase in the federal minimum raise, and appointed union-busters to critical roles impacting the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board. From a policy standpoint, Trump exemplifies the antithesis of union goals.
However, the Democratic Party’s fatalistic rhetoric, heavy messaging, and bold moves are unconvincing to unions whose members are reluctant to place their faith in a party frequently characterized as performative, out-of-touch, and ineffective. Despite the fact that Biden’s pro-union capital has mostly transferred over to Democratic nominee and sitting Vice President Kamala Harris— whose campaign attempts to highlight endorsements from the country’s most influential union leaders—recent poll averages show Harris losing non-college-educated voters by almost twelve points: a gap greater than Biden’s eight-point loss in 2020 and Clinton’s seven-point loss in 2016.
The problem with Democratic appeals to union workers lies with their messaging, not their policies. Democratic politicians push far more pro-union legislation than their Republican counterparts, but their rhetoric fails to emphasize industrial policies in favor of overused talking points aimed at professional-class concerns. Democrats cannot take union voters for granted. To win over the working class, they have to seek out their critics instead of hiding behind their supporters.
Teamsters’ Strategic Indecision
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“Teamsters”) is America’s largest, most diverse union with 1.3 million members and counting. Teamsters has historically offered significant support for the Democratic Party, representing workers from nearly every occupation in every sector. However, at the end of September, Teamsters declined to endorse a presidential candidate for the first time since 1996—also marking the first time they had refused to endorse a Democratic candidate since 1988. In July, Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien became the first leader of the organization to address the Republican National Convention, emphasizing that the Teamsters aren’t “beholden” to either party and praising Trump for being “one tough SOB” in the face of his assassination attempts. These moves pivot away from the pro-Harris messaging of Teamsters chapter leaders and other unions across the country, leaving the Democratic Party “pissed off” and “igniting an internal on.” Both prior and present Teamsters leaders have openly criticized O’Brien for his shift, referring to his announcement as a failure of leadership, an embarrassment, and a betrayal to its members.
ANJALI AGGARWAL / BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND ECONOMICS, 2025
In spite of overwhelming judgment and condemnation, O’Brien defends the organization’s choice by claiming that neither candidate has committed to their mission. When questioned about the Biden-Harris Administration’s 36 billion dollar bailout to rescue union pension plans, O’Brien asserted that Teamsters appreciated the funding, but felt no obligation to extend Democratic support.
“Yes, they fixed the problem, but that problem was created by the people that fixed the problem, and they don’t want to recognize that…I broke my mother’s window playing street hockey in 1980, and for 40 years she’s been asking me to fix it. I finally fix it. Should I look for praise for fixing a problem that I helped create?”
In his statement, O’Brien refers to Democratic legislation that Biden signed in 1980 which passed trucking deregulations and cost 400,000 jobs. He argues that this move placed excess strain on pension funds, reframing Biden’s bailouts as a long-overdue payment instead of a praiseworthy donation.
O’Brien was likely referring to the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 (“MCA”), though he did not cite the legislation behind his statements. The MCA brought the trucking industry into the free enterprise system to enhance opportunities for independent truckers and lower prices for consumers—also leading to layoffs for larger trucking companies who couldn’t afford to provide both cost-effective services and competitive wages. However, Biden’s track record—and political power—as a Delaware Senator forty years ago vastly differs from his current economic platform and ability as President of the United States. Moreover, Biden’s political past has little to do with Harris’ political future. Current union voters may be misled by these anecdotes, spread by someone they trust on a national scale. While Biden’s progressivism has shifted since his time as a senator, Harris’ political career has remained steadfast in its commitment to future-forward policies: especially for union workers.
with an abundance of conflicting information from both parties, Teamsters’ decision to remain indecisive comes directly from their members. According to an electronic poll of over 35,000 union workers, only 34 percent of Teamsters plan to vote for Vice President Harris, while 59.6 percent plan to vote for Former President Trump. The disconnect between union leaders and union members suggest that the Biden-Harris Administration and the Harris presidential campaign need to focus less on “trickle-down” campaigns, and more on grassroots, bottom-up appeals.
Freedom over Democracy
For millions of voters, politics is a bleak subject. Disaffected voters overwhelmingly prevail in US households: according to the Pew Research Center, over 60 percent of Americans have no confidence in the future of US politics, and 28 percent dislike both major political parties. Nearly 80 percent believe that politicians do not spend enough time discussing issues that actually impact the state of the nation. Policy-wise, there is little faith across the board for both Democrats and Republicans. Yet, the Trump-Vance campaign has managed to separate itself from its political missteps and brand itself as the anti-establishment ticket—victimized by the political elite. And as more Democrats vilify Trump, more conservatives buy into his persecuted narrative. Though several Democratic leaders have warned that a Trump presidency would be the end of democracy in an urgent appeal to voters, Harris has taken a more forward-looking and uplifting approach to her speeches. While Biden referenced “democracy” 386 times and “freedom” only 175 times in his reelection efforts, Harris—thus far—has referenced “freedom” nearly 60 times and “democracy” only around 12 times. Instead of focusing on what Americans lose by voting for Trump, she’s pivoted to what they can gain from voting for her. And this strategy works: the promise of freedom sounds more optimistic than the threat of autocracy. But its overpolished ambiguity rings empty in the ears of voters exposed to the Trump-Vance campaign’s clear-cut pro-worker rhetoric, which has spread to formerly anti-union conservative politicians like Sen. Josh Hawley from Missouri. Even if the Trump-Vance policy platform clashes with the Trump-Vance narrative, the Harris-Walz campaign must effectively and directly communicate their pro-union narrative for their policy platform to matter at all. They must speak with voters on the ground, put their pro-union words into actions, and use words that inspire confidence, not doubt.
Although union support for Trump has grown, Americans continue to believe that the Democratic Party is better for union members. Teamsters chapters across the US, including every single Florida chapter and chapters in battleground states, have endorsed Harris. If Democrats turn to grassroots campaigns and meet union members where they are, the Harris-Walz campaign has a stronger chance of convincing skeptics of their authenticity. Vice President Harris cannot run on the brand of anti-establishmentarianism—she’s already part of the establishment. Instead, she must speak in clear terms, acknowledge her missteps, and propose realistic efforts for change.
The Democratic Party still has the chance to mend its ties with union workers; this support is contingent upon the satisfaction of working class Americans; polls sway back and forth, public perception is malleable, and Democrats cannot take unions for granted. Union members, if overlooked, may be a deciding force in the 2024 presidential election.
SU SHEN OOI / BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
(MARKETING & BRAND MANAGEMENT), 2025
NOT ALL MEN, BUT ENOUGH MEN
We often consider gendered violence against women to be an individual man’s fault with “bad apples” engaging in these actions, but the reality is that there is a systemic problem within global societies which allows and encourages femicides and violent actions towards women. Deflecting attention away from the accountability of men in the conversations of sexism and gendered violence, opponents to feminist commentary commonly refer to the phrase: “Not all men!” Yes—not every man would willingly engage in sexual violence or gender-related crimes. However, when there are multiple countries stating that gendered violence is becoming a national emergency and an influx of extremely graphic sexual crimes are regularly reaching the headlines, it is becoming abundantly clear that while it may not be all men, it is enough men. Gendered violence is not the result of isolated incidents but rather a pervasive, systemic issue fueled by deep-rooted misogyny that spans across global societies. The increasing frequency and severity of gender-related crimes in our so-called “modern world” highlights the urgent need to hold not just individual perpetrators accountable, but to address the cultural, legal, and governmental structures that enable and perpetuate violence against women and girls worldwide.
Pelicot regularly drugged his wife of fifty years, Gisele Pelicot. Dominique recruited men on the internet to rape Gisele for no monetary exchange, just with the condition that he could film and watch the crime. Over ninety men, including Dominique, had raped an unknowing Gisele for almost a decade until she found out in 2020. The French police discovered over twenty thousand sex-
Medical College Hospital. Protests and shutdowns have swept across India with medical workers and civilians demanding for better protections against women and a more thorough investigation into the victim’s murder. The police have accused Sanjay Roy, a police volunteer employed at the hospital, of being the perpetrator. However, civilians suspect collusion between the police and the hospital and believe that the two entities are using Roy as a scapegoat.
Gendered violence is not the result of isolated incidents but rather a pervasive, systemic issue fueled by deep-rooted misogyny that spans across global societies.
ual images of an incapacitated Gisele, as well as inappropriate pictures of Caroline Pelicot, the Pelicots’ daughter. Dominique Pelicot is now facing charges of rape, gang rape, and privacy breaches by recording and sharing sexual images in a public case that is dominating the media.
From 2011 to 2020, Frenchman Dominique
On August 9th, 2024, a thirty-one-year-old postgraduate trainee doctor was found brutally murdered with potential signs of a violent gang rape in the place of her work, RG Kar
In August of 2024, Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers issued a legal ban on women’s voices and bare faces in public under new laws in an effort to promote a culture of virtue. The Taliban’s rule in Afghanistan has been widely referred to as a state of gender apartheid, with Afghani females facing severe restrictions on their rights, movement, and participation in the economy. These new laws have placed extreme limitations on women, disallowing them from being heard in public, participating in sports, visiting public parks, looking at men they are not related to by marriage or birth, traveling solo, and much more. In the past year, multiple UN agencies have reported increased rates of child and forced marriage plus gender-based violence and femicide with impunity. As a result, there has been a rise of depression within the Afghani female community as well as suicide.
On September 1st, less than a month after competing in the Olympics, Rebecca Chep-
tegei, an accomplished Ugandan Olympic runner, was set on fire by her abusive ex-boyfriend Dickson Ndiema Marangach. In the months leading up to her death, Cheptegei attempted to report Marangach to the police at least three times for his threats and physical abuse. Due to Marangach’s attack, Cheptegei suffered burns to 80 percent of her body and died from her injuries on September 4th.
Currently, South Korea is experiencing a deep fake porn and digital sexual humiliation crisis occurring on the popular messaging app Telegram. South Korean men have been sharing sexually exploitative materials in “humiliation rooms” and AI-generated porn in group chats. These humiliation rooms revolve around group chat members “humiliating” female family members by taking sexually exploitative content of them, including daughters, sisters, mothers, and cousins. A Telegram channel containing more than 220,000 members has been widely used to create and share AI-generated pornographic images that target women and girls, using their school photos, public selfies, and even military headshots.
lated motivation. Although general global rates of homicide are decreasing, femicide cases have been rising continuously. In fact, the UN reported that femicide has reached a twenty-year peak across the globe. With a multitude of countries from varying regions reporting increased levels of such crimes, it is clear that femicide and the oppression of women is an international epidemic.
With a multitude of countries from varying regions reporting increased levels of such crimes, it is clear that femicide and the oppression of women is an international epidemic.
According to the UN, despite gender-based violence being one of the more common crimes in the world, it is least likely to result in conviction due to legislative gaps, gender stereotypes, and inadequate responses of criminal justice institutions. Rebecca Cheptegei’s family blames the police for failing to protect the Olympic athlete after her repeated attempts to report her ex-boyfriend’s abusive behavior. Cheptegei’s father even told the police in February of this year, seven months before her murder, “this man is going to kill my child,” after Dickson Marangach beat the athlete up and broke her phone. Cheptegei’s family claims that when Marangach refused to listen to the police’s warnings to stay away from her, the officers simply gave up on intervening in the situation.
These are just a fraction of the many current worldwide cases of gendered violence—especially sexual violence—and the systemic suppression of women. The oppression of women has always existed, however even researchers and experts are growing increasingly concerned with how frequent and egregious these gender-related crimes are becoming. Welsh police have even stated that the recent statistics of men perpetrating violence towards women has amounted to a national emergency. In England and Wales, gender-related crimes with female victims have risen by 37 percent in the past five years.
Greece, Kenya, the United States, England, India, Iran, Italy, Kenya, Canada, Mexico, Turkey, Puerto Rico, Brazil, South Korea, Australia, Spain, and a myriad of other countries are reporting significantly increased levels of gender-based violence and femicide: the intentional killing of a woman or girl, in particular by a man with a gender-re -
Beyond the direct perpetrators of sexual violence and femicide, there are an alarming number of male bystanders or accomplices that allow for these crimes to take place. In the countless number of men that Dominique Pelicot approached to rape his wife—including the men that rejected his invitation—not a single one reported Dominique to the police. In a study conducted by the International Association of Forensic Nurses on gender differences in attitudes with bystander behavior and sexual assault, experts found that males tended to have less positive attitudes towards sexual violence intervention and were more likely to be a bystander in such situations than women. Even many of our systems in place that are intended to protect victims are biased and complacent in these crimes.
As the law enforcement field is indisputably male-dominated, with 87 percent of American police officers being male, many female victims of gendered violence feel uneasy and reluctant to contact the police as a resource. In a report from the ACLU, experts in domestic violence and sexual assault stated that police inaction, hostility, and bias against survivors are the key barriers against victims seeking intervention from the justice system.
In addition, when a crime of sexual violence
occurs, there is a disturbing “brotherhood” phenomenon where fellow misogynists team up to defend these predators and support them in their war against women. After the rape and murder of the medical trainee in Kokalta, thousands of people peacefully marched through various Indian cities calling for stronger laws, swifter police action, and for the overall better treatment of women. Medical workers across the country have been protesting and going on strike, even refusing to provide non-emergency medical care, to condemn the inaction of the Indian government and demand justice for the victim. But oOn August 15th, while a group of women were demonstrating outside of the RG Kar Medical College Hospital, an unidentified large group of men swarmed the protestors and stormed into the building. In retaliation to the ongoing marches for justice, the group of men vandalized the hospital and attacked protestors, police, and doctors.
The increasing rise in misogyny and hatred towards women is reaching to a point where misogynists view women protesting for justice as an attack on the male gender as a whole. The ambush on the hospital as a reaction to the ongoing protests in India shows that misogynistic men are teaming up to perpetuate a culture of male dominance and female suppression.
tion, surveys show there is a growing feeling that society is becoming more hostile and discriminatory towards men as more women adopt feminist ideologies. As a result, many young men, specifically in Generation Z, are rejecting feminism and are resorting to finding comfort in the opposing side. The current ideological divide between men and women is unprecedented and continuing to grow as the two sides become more polarized.
Surprisingly, experts have named the COVID-19 pandemic as another major factor in the recent rise in hatred towards women. The widespread practice of quarantining not only led to increased rates of domestic violence, but also, in combination with mental stressors and hardships, widely triggered pornography addictions or dependencies in men. A multitude of psychological studies
human beings. Even though more and more women are becoming more independent and progressive, our lives are still in danger because increasing numbers of men are becoming more misogynistic and acting on their instilled hatred for women.
While it might be easy for us to ignore these trends as we might feel that this issue doesn’t affect us, it absolutely does. As an epidemic that places 50 percent of our global population in danger, these widespread crimes of gendered violence should concern every single one of us. Although feminism is gaining more traction and expansion in the United States, the same systems of misogyny that strip away the rights of women in Asia and Africa are the exact same patriarchal systems that allow for the subject of abortion to still be a topic of debate in our country. The statistics presented in this article are extremely alarming, yet they are only the tip of the iceberg. The true scale and consequences of violent misogyny are still immeasurable due to inadequate investigations and international variations in criminal justice recordings and practices.
The increasing rise in misogyny and hatred towards women is reaching to a point where misogynists view women protesting for justice as an attack on the male gender as a whole. The ambush on the hospital as a reaction to the ongoing protests in India shows that misogynistic men are teaming up to perpetuate a culture of male dominance and female suppression.
Researchers attribute the recent rise in misogyny and gender violence to a multitude of reasons. First of all, the misogyny that leads to these violent acts is just a more extreme version of the same misogyny that lies in mainstream society. With men statistically becoming more conservative, the misogyny in our cultures increases and therefore gender violence simultaneously increases. In the past twenty-five years, the partisan gap between young men and women has almost doubled from a 12 point difference to a 23 point disparity with men becoming more right-wing, and women leaning more left. As men become more politically conservative, their views on gender are concurrently rapidly shifting. In 2022, 49 percent of American Gen Z males believed that the United States was becoming “too soft and feminine.” Only a year later, that percentage rose to 60 percent of Gen Z men.
The expansion of misogyny can also be traced to the fact that women are becoming more progressive, independent, and feminist. Some researchers believe that the current rise in misogyny is a reaction to the simultaneous widespread surge in feminism and female empowerment. In the American male popula-
have suggested that there is a relationship between heavy pornography consumption and sexually violent acts. Some experts believe that male pornography consumers are more likely to objectify females and commit acts of sexual violence. While this is not proven to cause for sexual crimes, experts widely agree that pornography can be harmful to how men perceive women due to how graphic and accessible pornographic content is becoming. Violent pornography promotes rape culture as it normalizes the mistreatment and extreme objectification of women in the minds of many young males.
Ultimately, women and researchers shouldn’t have to investigate why men are committing these crimes. Governments and societies need to better protect their female citizens, and most importantly, our cultures need to reshape our dialogues to teach men that they simply need to respect women as
Nevertheless, researchers have already concluded that misogynistic worldviews seem to be a common thread amongst perpetrators of mass shootings, hate crimes, and other extreme acts of violence. University of Rhode Island’s Professor of Psychology, Miriam Lindner stated in her new research, “when we look at the people who commit these very violent acts, it turns out that what they have in common is not that they are male—though 98 percent of them are male—it is actually that they are extremely misogynistic.”
The general public tends to view gender-related crimes as isolated incidents that result from evil individuals simply because misogyny is so ingrained into our society that people are unwilling and uncomfortable to draw the connection. However, undermining misogyny and the global phenomenom of gendered violence is not only ignorant, but extremely dangerous. When society disregards sexism, women’s tolerance for sexual harassment increases, radical male supremacy groups become more confident, female mental health suffers, and the rate of gendered crimes increases. If we continue to turn a blind eye to the systems of sexism that permeate throughout every single one of our civilizations, the issue is only going to get even worse with women bearing the brunt of the repercussions. Misogyny affects all of us, men and women, even if you don’t feel like it does.
Fresh for No One
Inflation has burdened every sector of the American economy, but nowhere is it more noticeable than at the grocery store. Americans pay 25 percent more for groceries today than they did in 2019, while wages remain stagnant, creating an accessibility crisis.
As many as 42 million Americans now rely on federal assistance programs to acquire basic necessities, and a quarter of Americans listed grocery inflation as one of their primary concerns leading into the 2024 presidential election. While pandemic-era supply chain disruptions may have kick-started grocery inflation, shifting dynamics of grocery retailers and the current state of competition are ultimately at the center of America’s grocery problem. Kroger and Albertsons controversial merger proposal outlines how this crisis evolved and represents a pivotal moment for the future of food pricing.
KROGER-ALBERTSONS MERGER
In October 2022, Kroger and Albertsons
Americans pay 25 percent more for groceries today than they did in 2019, while wages remain stagnant, creating an accessibility crisis. “ “
definitive merger agreement. Since the announcement, the effects of this merger have been hotly debated by economists and policy makers. According to Kroger, merging would expand access to affordable, quality food, create “Zero-Hunger” communities, and provide a more convenient shopping experience – effectively addressing the most pressing concerns of American consumers. They even go so far to say the deal is necessary for them to remain competitive in the face of big box chains. Kroger and Albertsons have crafted a narrative that paints them like David, valiant underdogs in the struggle against Goliaths of Amazon and Walmart. A lofty and questionable depiction considering both are already among the
nation’s largest retailers, but the deal’s supporters are adamant that merging is the only way to keep prices low.
As of 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and nine individual states have sued to block the Kroger-Albertsons merger. In a press release from the FTC, the commission argues that the deal will have severe consequences for consumers. The council claims that the head-to-head price and quality competition between the two companies is the driving force behind their low prices and service, which would be eliminated as a direct result of the deal.
CAPITALIZING OFF CRISIS
To understand the complexity of concerns surrounding this merger, we must first look back to the global pandemic of 2020. Lockdowns and new safety restrictions caused a decrease in available labor, an increase in shipping costs, and dramatic shift in consumer demand that quickly threw the supply chain into shambles across every sector of the economy. These disruptions significantly inflated the cost of goods and are estimated to account for 60 percent of inflation between 2020 and 2021.
The supply chain has since stabilized, so the fact that grocery prices have remained high and even increased three years out is cause for suspicion.
Last March, the FTC released a report, “Feeding America in a Time of Crisis”, investigating this phenomenon. After examining financial data and public records associated with nine companies across the grocery industry, the FTC concludes that input costs are not the main cause of prolonged inflation. Instead, the report finds that large firms, including Kroger, entrenched their market power by acquiring suppliers and wholesalers, therefore limiting purchasing opportunities for their competitors.
Small retailers no longer had access to the same variety of goods and struggled to keep shelves stocked, which drove away their customer bases and diminished profit margins. Community Foods Market, a California based independent grocery store, saw record profits in the first few months of the pandemic, but by the end needed to launch a community funding campaign to keep its doors open. At the same time, Amazon, Walmart and Kroger saw record profits in the fallout of the pandemic. In 2021, revenue-over-cost for these retailers reached 6 percent, their highest peak since 2015. In the third quarter of 2023, their profits only skyrocketed, reaching 7 percent over total costs.
The effects of monopolistic consolidation are not limited to crisis situations. As the share of buying power continues to diminish for independent stores and small chains post-pandemic, they become increasingly unprofitable and are forced to shut down. As of today, 23.5 million Americans live in food deserts, areas more than 10 miles from the nearest grocery store, and 76 counties in the US lack any grocery store at all. Large chains have no personal connection to their communities and close underperforming stores at a whim, disproportionately affecting rural locations. Conversely, locally run and operated grocery stores are interdependent on their communities and have a greater focus on providing cheap, healthy food options, making their success vital in these areas. Without the ability to fairly compete, local options can no longer fill in the gap of grocery retailers for less profitable regions, and the inequity in accessibility and price will only continue to grow.
CONFRONTING GROCERY GIANTS
In response to the FTC’s suit against the merger, Kroger-Albertsons promised to divest
existing concerns. The FTC continues to push back against the merger in their pending suit and remains unaffected by Kroger-Albertsons divestment argument. If the court decides to block the merger, it would set an important precedent for confronting other dominating
It's also clear that the existing grocers have exploited their market power at the expense of workingclass Americans. “ “
DARIO NARDINI / INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, 2027
VENEZULAN IMMIGRATION CRISIS IN CHICAGO: HOW A SANCTUARY CITY HAS STRUGGLED
For centuries, people from Latin America have been coming to Chicago to escape persecution, poverty, and war. Mexican migration to Chicago began in the 1910s, spurred by the Mexican Revolution and the demand for labor during World War I. From 1942 to 1964, the Bracero Program brought Mexican laborers to the US to work primarily in agriculture, and some moved to urban areas like Chicago to work in factories. Similar economic opportunities brought Puerto Ricans, who are US citizens, to Chicago throughout the 1950s. Latin American migration to Chicago continued into the twenty-first century, with Mexicans remaining the largest group, followed by growing populations from countries like Guatemala and Colombia.
There are now waves of Venezuelan migrants flooding into Chicago, fleeing political turmoil only to reach an inefficient legal system. Without adequate financial support from the city to help immigrants join the workforce, the Venezuelan community will not be able to establish an economic and cultural hub in Chicago.
HISTORIC LATIN AMERICAN IMMIGRANTS IN CHICAGO
Today, the largest Latin American population in Chicago hails from Mexico, with one in five Chicagoans identifying as Mexican. Chicago’s Little Village, or "La Villita," is often referred
to as the "Mexico of the Midwest" because of its strong Mexican identity. Early immigration surges during the twentieth century allowed for future Latin-American immigrants to have a foothold with Mexican immigrant populations in the city, allowing the demographic to increase.
Aid societies, cultural centers, and places of worship have kept foreign languages and cultural traditions alive, creating vibrant ethnic enclaves and in turn benefiting the greater city. Marketplaces, artisan craft stores, and chilaquiles restaurants make La Villita a major economic hub for the Mexican-American community and one of the busiest commercial corridors in the city. The village features hundreds of Mexican-owned businesses, including bakeries, clothing stores, cafes, and grocers, enabling the community to generate billions of dollars in sales annually. Back of the Yards, located on the South-West side, shows how Mexican neighborhoods in Chicago are also often at the forefront of social justice movements, particularly around immigration reform, labor rights, and affordable housing. Back of the Yards has a strong sense of community, with residents working together to improve local services, schools, and public spaces, famously advocating for workers' rights and improved living conditions.
Job disparity and legal status are the two biggest problems historically faced by Mexican Americans. Many Mexican immigrants in Chicago are undocumented, which limits their access to jobs, social services, and legal protections. These struggles have led to dangerous poverty trends for Mexican immigrants, making them vulnerable to exploitative employers who pay below minimum wage, deny benefits, or subject them to unsafe working conditions. Out of fear of deportation, some workers hesitate to report abuses or seek legal recourse. Mexican immigrants often live in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, where access to well-paying jobs, quality education, and healthcare is limited. As a result,
they face higher rates of poverty compared to other demographic groups in Chicago.
Today, the largest Latin American population hails from Mexico, but recent political unrest in Venezuela is pushing Venezuelans to migrate to the US, and Chicago—being a sanctuary city— has been tasked to aid a portion of these immigrants. Although local and state government subsidized programs currently support Venezuelan immigrants in Chicago, such programs have spurred debates of ethical and economic sustainability. Chicago officials should recognize historic obstacles concerning Mexican immigrants in order to make way for a legal path to acquire job permits.
BUSSES TO CHICAGO: THE RECENT INFLUX OF VENEZUELAN IMMIGRANTS
Since August of 2022, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has bused over one hundred thousand Latin American immigrants from Texas border cities to Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, and Los Angeles. An estimated fifty thousand immigrants have come to Chicago, with about thirty thou-
sand coming from Venezuela. Non-profit organizations and volunteer groups rushed to support this massive wave of migrants alongside Chicago’s Mayor, at the time, Lori Lightfoot. Already facing high rates of homelessness, the city of Chicago created 28 housing shelters that offered Venezuelans, among other migrants, a temporary home to keep them off the street. These options proved to be ineffective, as degrading living conditions forced countless people out. Many Venezuelan migrants are now living in underpasses and public parks, or have moved to the suburbs. There are fewer than 5,400 people living in the city's 17 remaining facilities as of mid-September.
Current migrant support programs demonstrate how Chicago has learned from its history, to a certain extent. Mexican immigrants weren’t provided robust municipal or state-sponsored immigrant aid to the extent that other immigrant groups were, particularly Europeans. The city lacked formal mechanisms to assist Mexican immigrants in accessing housing, jobs, education, and legal protections. Community organizations, churches, and the Mexican consulate provided far more valuable support.
Now, to support migrants in need of housing and provide them food, current Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has designated a
substantial amount of money for a migrant relief fund, while also tapping into COVID-19 relief funds. President Biden’s proposed bipartisan deal, which allocated $1 billion to local governments and nonprofit organizations around the country, could have helped resolve these issues. However, after former President Trump crushed the bill, the city of Chicago was forced to use $370 million of Chicagoans’ tax dollars to help feed, shelter, and care for migrants. This substantial amount of money allocated to the migrant relief fund, though an integral part of Mayor Johnson’s continued response, is not practical in the long run. Not only is this investment not sustainable for the city's budget, but the use of this money has created divisions within the Chicago community.
When migrants arrive to any city, there is an immediate need for access to safe and humane temporary housing, food, health care, education, legal assistance, psychosocial support, etc., which former Mayor Lightfoot provided. Although these options show a step in the right direction, further income generating opportunities need to become available for migrants to succeed in a new country.
In Colombia, there are three million Venezuelan immigrants, two million of whom have received legal status in the form of a Temporary Protection Permit, granting them access to employment, a pension, and education. These working Venezuelans are living comfortably, have improved Colombia's GDP, and have elevated the standard of living for Colombians. In Chicago, only some Venezuelan immigrants have a path to obtain a work permit. If they arrived before July 31, 2023, they were afforded temporary protected status (TPS), which enables them to live and work in the US legally. Past July 31, most Venezuelans who have crossed the border are asylum-seekers protected by international law. This means they have one year to apply for asylum and can request a work permit 150 days after filing their application.
There is no guarantee these migrants will win their cases, or even have their cases heard.
The process is consistently slow due to a significantly backlogged administrative system—an issue only exacerbated by the influx of thirty-four thousand immigrants who have arrived in Chicago since 2023. The system for acquiring a legal permit to work and therefore gain a steady income is lengthy or non-existent.
A POSSIBLE SOLUTION
For Venezuelan immigrants to settle comfortably in the city of Chicago, as Mexican immigrant communities did in the twentieth century, the city must offer a clear path towards financial stability. Chicago’s booming industries in the early twentieth century, particularly in steel, railroads, and meatpacking, actively recruited Mexican workers to fill labor shortages which allowed for Mexican immigrants to find economic success. A stable income is fundamental for securing housing, food, healthcare, and education—all of which are essential for personal stability.
The job market in Chicago is high, projected to grow, and can be filled by Venezuelans, but the current legal process for receiving a right to work permit is ineffective. Mayor Johnson should divert funds from the migrant crisis fund to focus on acquiring work authorization workers, something the Biden Administration failed to deliver. The city plans to spend $150 million on the migrant crisis in 2025 to cover the cost of housing, food, and care for those who have recently crossed the southern border. The city's plan translates to spending more than $2,000 per month per person, which is far greater than what is federally allocated for low-income Americans. A more economically sustainable plan in the short term will yield long term benefits, saving money for Chicago while also supporting Venezuelan immigrants. With the correct investments towards expediting the legal status process for migrants, allowing them to join the workforce, Venezuelan migrants can firmly settle in Chicago soil and build an economic and cultural hub of their own.
A THANK-YOU CARD TO IMMIGRANTS
GALIAH ABBUD / ENGLISH AND PHILOSOPHY, 2026
IWhile immigrants do fill job vacancies, their contribution goes beyond simple labor supply dynamics. They stimulate job creation and economic growth through entrepreneurship and diverse skill sets, consistently expanding the market. For example, when looking at the output of nearly 880,000 Americans who patented inventions between 1990 and 2016, researchers found that immigrants were behind 23 percent.
n public discourse, immigration is often talked about as a direct threat to national security, with a majority of criticism coming from Republicans and Republicanleaning independents who advocate for heightened security along the US-Mexico border. The reelection of former President Donald Trump and his hardline immigration stance—reinforced by the mistaken belief that immigrants "steal" American jobs—has brought these criticisms to the forefront. Right-wing narratives portray immigration as an economic disadvantage to American citizens, deploying these criticisms as a counterpoint to simpler paths of legalization and misapprehending the significant economic advantages of immigration. Ultimately, many people are accusing immigrants of a crime they never committed. It is a fallacy to believe that there are only a certain number of jobs and that someone filling a job directly takes it away from another person. Immigration's impact on the job market defies the traditional supply-and-demand model. Individuals entering the workforce, including immigrants, contribute to economic vitality by actively participating in job creation rather than engaging in zerosum competition.
Immigrants fill vital roles in sectors with talent shortages, like technology and healthcare... “ “
Immigrants fill vital roles in sectors with talent shortages, like technology and healthcare, fostering innovation as diverse perspectives contribute to problem-solving. As a result, immigration helps prevent problems such as stagnation. In addition, with 1.3 million more Americans unemployed since 2022, the American labor shortage has been worsening annually. This shortage results from a myriad of issues, such as an aging population and a declining birth rate. But Americans often overlook a crucial factor in
our declining labor supply: the net rate of international migration decreased between 2020 and 2021, leaving lasting damage to the US economy.
While many are concerned with the price of legalization, deportation also has an expensive price tag—a particularly relevant concern now, as Trump has pledged that he would conduct the largest deportation in American history, potentially costing billions each year. There are fiscal costs of enforcing tight immigration laws and economic impacts of removing the immigrants who are already here.
In order to remove all undocumented immigrants, the federal government would have to go through an extraneous process of localizing, detaining, legally evaluating, and finally, deporting all undocumented individuals. This process bears a heavy burden, costing $3 billion in 2016 alone, with each deportation costing American taxpayers an average of around $11,000.
While issuing green cards is also expensive, at around $40 billion to put Dreamers and those eligible for TPS on a pathway to citizenship, it would promote significant changes in economic activity over a decade as the country continues to grow. Namely, it would boost the total cumulative GDP by nearly $2 trillion, create almost half a million new jobs, and increase the annual wages of legalized workers—benefiting those already here, too!
As more people obtain green cards and transition to lawful permanent resident
status, they become eligible for federal benefits and services. These include access to social security, medical aid programs, and education assistance. In addition, the pathways to citizenship would protect our workers. As of 2018, there were an estimated 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States. As of 2023, five years later, that number may have doubled. Although they already contribute to the labor force, unauthorized immigrants are at higher risk of deportation and are unequally represented in issues of worker rights. Creating more opportunities for immigrants to become citizens will not only secure benefits for the economy but also protect workers' welfare across the United States.
meaning USCIS covers its operating costs through service charges. This is inefficient for a variety of reasons, such as inflexible fees, slow responses to demand changes, reliance on application volume for funding, and staffing challenges that lead to backlogs.
Extending permanent legal status to immigrants will result in a much-needed boost to long-term trends in the economy, helping ease a tight labor market and filling jobs that would otherwise go unfilled.
Despite these benefits, it remains challenging for immigrants to seek employment. They face various obstacles, such as trouble gaining recognition for foreign education or training and obtaining the necessary work authorization.
The green card is the most efficient way for immigrants to live and work safely in the United States. However, acquiring a green card is an extensive process—and one with many issues. To begin with, the service that issues green cards, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), operates under a flawed “fee for service” funding model,
The federal government should reconcile its budgets and allocate money to provide more pathways to citizenship, though any reform is unlikely to occur under the Trump administration. The only way forward is through a policy that facilitates the distribution of more green cards to combat systemic issues. But in the absence of political progress, the least we can do as citizens is to dismantle fallacies that misrepresent the immigrants who so tirelessly contribute to our country.
Immigrants aren’t taking your jobs; they are saving them, and it is a courtesy to give them a green (thank-you) card.
