Three U.S Soldiers killed in Jordan Drone Attack

In an overnight drone attack on January 28th, Three U.S Army soldiers stationed in Jordan were killed along with 40 service members injured. The attack was on Tower 22 which is close to the border between Jordan and Syria. Serval questions are being raised regarding this conflict: 

1. How did it happen? 

1.  According to U.S officials, a U.S drone was reporting back to Tower 22, however there was a delay. While not fully certain, U.S officials are reporting that the drone leading the attack was mistaken for the U.S drone that was coming back to the base. 

2. Who is responsible for this attack?

1. U.S officials are evaluating the exact group behind the attack, however it is being said by officials that an Iranian militant group fired the drone from Syria. Iran stated that they did not employ that attack, however an Iran-backed militia group released a statement stating that they did attack targets along the border of Jordan and Syria. 

3. Why is THIS attack significant? 

1.  This is the first deadly U.S attack in that area since the Gaza War started. The U.S has experienced 165 drone and rocket attacks on the U.S forces in that area, and Tower 22 has 350 personnel on the base. Furthermore, the U.S does not want to widen conflicts with the Middle East. Therefore, the president, national security, and secretary of defense will be evaluating how to respond. 

4. How will the U.S respond? Will we respond? 

1.  On Sunday in South Carolina, Biden stated that the “We shall respond.” However to have a response with a clear effective message without widening conflicts in the Middle East is quite difficult to do. According to the Department of Defense, Press Secretary Sabrina Singh states that “Ultimately a decision that the president is going to make…we are committed to responding and we will do so at a time and place of our choosing.” Media reports different ideas of how the U.S can respond such as attack on Iranian militant groups, or attack both countries -- however the Biden Administration has not decided yet. 

5. Criticism for the Biden Administration on the matter? 

1.  Many republicans are criticizing the Biden administration stating that they are not doing enough to take action against these attacks. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina stated that the Biden administration’s “policy of deterrence against Iran has failed miserably” and that it would be better to strike against targets in Iran. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi and former House Representative Mike Rogers have also stated their frustration with the Biden Administration.

6. What now? 

1. The Biden Administration is evaluating how to respond and according to Sabrina Singh, hopefully there will be an answer in the next few days. 

When dealing with foreign and defense affairs, multiple departments are required to help respond to the conflict. The President, Department of Defense, Department of Foreign Affairs, Secretary of State, National Security Council are all some of the main groups needed to respond. They will impact the evaluation process of how the U.S responds to the Jordan attacks. This also demonstrates how the executive branch has to be able to respond to crisis situations quickly and effectively. 

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/28/politics/us-troops-drone-attack-jordan/index.html 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-attack-jordan-us-base-iran-denies-role/ 

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3659809/3-us-service-members-killed-others-injured-in-jordan-following-drone-attack/#:~:text=During%20a%20briefing%20at%20the,eight%20had%20to%20be%20evacuated. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tower-22-base-jordan-struck-deadly-drone-attack/story?id=106766574#:~:text=A%20Pentagon%20spokesperson%20said%20Monday,in%20opposition%20to%20Israel's%20campaign 

Nations Suspend Funding to the UNRWA

Following the allegations concerning the involvement of 12 United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) employees in the October 7th Hamas terrorist attack on Israel, multiple nations, including the U.S., are suspending funding to the main UN agency aiding Palestinian refugees in Gaza.

 

Details remain scarce to the public, but Israeli officials have shared specific information on the 12 individuals with both UNRWA and the U.S., giving them “specific names and which organizations they are affiliated with, whether Hamas or PIJ (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) or others, and what exactly they did on October 7.” 

The U.S. was UNWRA’s largest funder in 2022, contributing $344 million in a single year. This year however, a U.S. press statement on January 26 states that the funding pause will last while they “review these allegations and the steps the United Nations is taking to address them,” and emphasizes that UNRWA must take appropriate action, including any corrective measures and review its policies and procedures. The U. S. “will remain in close contact with the United Nations and Government of Israel regarding this matter.”

Along with the U.S. State Department’s statement announcing the temporary pause on funding to UNRWA, many countries such as Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Japan have also suspended funding. 

According to the UNRWA Commissioner-General, Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA has terminated the contracts of the accused staff members and launched an investigation into the allegations. As much of the funding for UNRWA has paused, Lazzarini says the agency may struggle to continue life-saving operations to support more than 2 million people in Gaza who heavily rely on the organization. He urges countries that have suspended funding to reconsider before UNRWA is forced to cease operations, saying that the lives of people in Gaza “depend on this support and so does regional stability.” Lazzarini said that it would be “immensely irresponsible to sanction an agency and an entire community it serves because of allegations of criminal acts against some individuals, especially at a time of war, displacement and political crises in the region.” 

From my perspective, causing a shutdown of UNRWA on short notice is questionable at such a sensitive time because the aid provided by the agency is too crucial to not have a devastating impact if its operations were to cease. While it is necessary to appropriately address the allegations and formally review the organization’s procedures, UNRWA is undeniably supporting millions of people in need. According to U.N. and Israeli officials, “No U.N. agency would be equipped to quickly take over from Unrwa in Gaza while the conflict continues.”

Sources:

• https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-n-says-gaza-aid-is-at-risk-as-nations-pause-relief-agency-funding-2781aab9 

• https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/more-countries-halt-aid-to-u-n-agency-amid-claims-staff-involved-in-israel-attack-7dd9dff7 

• https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/27/middleeast/unrwa-israel-hamas-october-7-allegations-intl/index.html

• https://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements/serious-allegations-against-unrwa-staff-gaza-strip 

• https://www.state.gov/statement-on-unrwa-allegations/ 

• https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/01/29/japan/japan-un-palestinian-refugee-funding-stop/#:~:text=Japan%20said%20it%20is%20joining,Hamas'%20Oct.%207%20attack. 

CSU Faculty Strike Comes to an End

On Saturday January 20th, the California Faculty Association American labor union (CFA) announced their strike on the California State University management. 

The CFA board of directors demanded a strike against CSU management because the faculty members need higher compensation, improved working conditions, and improved safety conditions. The CFA represents all 29,000 CSU professors, lecturers, counselors, and other faculty members. As we learned in class, it is a union's responsibility to protect their workers and to demand policies that will allow the members of the union to have better pay and working conditions.

While there has been an increase in media coverage on the 5 day strike currently, since December of 2023 individual CSU’s such as Cal Poly Pomona, San Francisco State, Los Angeles State, and Sacramento state have held walkouts for these demands. 

Two of CFA’s demands are the 12% general salary raise for all faculty, and a minimum salary raise for full time faculty from the current $54,360 to $64,360. The 12% raise would be for all 29,000 employees that the CFA represents. It’s understandable why they are asking for such a raise, the cost of living in California for non-family households is roughly $60,000 according to the United States Census report for California in 2022. However, while the faculty needs a massive raise, CSU management is concerned they cannot meet their demands. 

CSU management had agreed to raise CSU tuition by 6% for five years in 2023 in order to balance their budget. They claim that a large portion is already spent on the staff's compensation. Their concern is that accepting the union's wishes will cause program cuts and/or layoffs.

On January 22nd of 2024, the 5 day strike began. Classes were canceled, staff and students on all 23 campuses participated. On January 23rd, the strike ended when the CFA and CSU management announced they came to a tentative agreement. 

The agreement states that the union will grant the faculty a 5% grant raise, the lowest paid faculty will receive a $3,000 raise, and a third of faculty got 2.65% raise. Other important aspects of the tentative agreement were parental paid leave extended from 6 to 10 weeks, and an increase in establishing gender-inclusive restrooms. 

To bring this back to our classroom, the CFA is doing their duty as a union to advocate for their workers' betterment. The CFA and CSU participated in a collective bargaining to reach the tentative agreement, and that has resulted in changes on behalf of the CFA. However, despite the success that the CFA achieved, in comparison to the demands they requested, there is still a large difference between what the faculty members need. 

Cited Sources: 

https://apnews.com/article/california-state-university-faculty-strike-58c2a46fb4f532992c1a3c4754e1f7de

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/us/csu-california-faculty-strike.html 

https://www.calfac.org/tentative-agreement-reached-ending-cfa-members-historic-systemwide-strike/ 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-22/csu-and-faculty-reach-surprise-tentative-agreement-ending-strike

https://www.montereycountyweekly.com/blogs/news_blog/csu-strike-is-declared-over-before-it-had-barely-begun-after-faculty-and-administrators-reach/article_bdba0eea-ba16-11ee-bf7d-b7e873a07289.html 

https://www.csus.edu/news/strike-info/_internal/_documents/faq-general-update.pdf

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/01/24/uwgw-j24.html

https://data.census.gov/profile/California?g=040XX00US06#income-and-poverty

Candidates drop out of the 2024 Republican primaries - Why Ramaswamy and DeSantis suspended their presidential campaigns

 

Amid the dynamics of the 2024 Republican presidential primary, Vivek Ramaswamy, after finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses, has officially withdrawn from the race.

Receiving criticism from Trump, who stated that he was a fraud and supporting him would not be supporting the "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) movement, led to discouraged support for Ramaswamy. In addition, Ramaswamy supported controversial conspiracy theories such as the Capitol attack on January 6 was "an inside job" without providing any clear evidence. Low support, Trump's criticism, and promoting controversial conspiracy theories jeopardized Ramaswamy's campaign's viability, and ultimately contributed to his suspension for the presidential campaign. In the end, Ramaswamy firmly backed Trump, urging voters to bring support for Trump.

Just two days before the New Hampshire primary, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis withdrew from the Republican presidential primary, attributing his withdrawal in large part to the desire of the majority of Republican voters giving Trump another shot. 

There are several drawbacks that can be associated with DeSantis' decision to withdraw from the presidential race, such as his circumspect handling with Trump as well as his media shyness. In an attempt to win over Republicans, DeSantis tried to position himself as a Trump substitute; as a result, his position did not make a big impression, as he did not want to enrage Trump's supporters and protect his political career in the future. Additionally, he has previously faced criticism for coming across as stiff and awkward, as well as his media shyness which has negatively impacted his appearance in the public eye. Internal conflicts between power centers in DeSantis’ campaign, particularly his outsourcing to the super PAC Never Back Down, caused tension among campaign staff members and produced arguments and bad press. 

The decisions of Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis to suspend their presidential campaigns are intricately tied to Donald Trump's influence within the Republican Party. In spite of Trump’s criticism, Ramaswamy sees the strong hold Trump has over a significant portion of the GOP base, and ultimately withdrew and endorsed the former president. In a similar vein, DeSantis dropped out of the race, seeing Trump's significant lead and being wary of Trump's supporters. These incidents can be attributed to Trump's influence on the GOP base, as there is still a sizable portion of the Republican electorate loyal to Trump, which makes it challenging for competitors to stand out and establish themselves as viable alternatives. This produces a political environment in which success depends on having strategic alignment with Trump. 

It remains to be seen how Nikki Haley will perform in the New Hampshire primary as Trump's competitor.

Sources:

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2024/01/21/desantis-drops-out-of-2024-republican-presidential-primary

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/15/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-drops-out.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4414407-ramaswamy-desantis-credit-if-drops-out/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-planning-drop-presidential-bid-sunday-rcna134953

https://abc7ny.com/ron-desantis-presidential-campaign-suspends-538-analysis/14350485/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/01/22/ron-desantis-pulls-out-2024-race/72305671007/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/15/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-ends-presidential-campaign/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/15/1224751138/vivek-ramaswamy-suspends-campaign-and-endorses-trump

Trump v. Griswold

In December, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in a 4-3 decision that Trump was ineligible to be on the presidential ballot due to the fact that the 14th amendment bans insurrectionists from holding office. Trump has since appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court, with support from other Republican congressmembers including Mike Johnson and Mitch McConnell. They appear to be throwing every legal argument they can come up with out there to see what will stick, including: that the January 6 insurrection actually wasn't an insurrection at all; even if it was, the Supreme Court shouldn't be making this decision in the first place; and that Trump never swore to uphold the Constitution so he's not susceptible to being disqualified for violating sworn support.

Members of the GOP have filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs arguing that the ruling skews the balance of power between the three branches of government, minimizing Congress's power because it was passed without Congressional approval. This relates to what we are currently learning in class, especially the argument that the judicial branch will always lack as much power as the executive and legislative branches, which would suggest that the ruling should not be overturned at all. 

Republican lawmakers argue that Congress is a better judge on this ruling because it represents the various constituencies of the U.S. more widely and accurately. However, as we are learning in class, it's possible that congressmembers being dependent on their constituencies for reelection makes decisions like these far more biased and at times unethical, suggesting that the Supreme Court is in fact better poised to determine this ruling. 

In my opinion, it's unlikely that any pivotal swing states or red states will end up removing Trump from the ballot, meaning this issue will constitute a purely symbolic victory for one side or the other. Additionally, attempting to remove a presidential candidate from the ballot for the 2024 election means making similar removals real possibilities for the 2028 election, 2032 election, etc. While there appears to be a clear legally correct decision, politically, what is the best precedent to set?

Links:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/politics/top-gop-lawmakers-ask-supreme-court-to-keep-trump-on-the-ballot/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/28/here-are-key-states-where-trumps-ballot-status-is-being-challenged/https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-supreme-court-colorado-ballot-brief-arguments-rcna134689

AI Policy Shift: OpenAI Partners with U.S. Military

 

OpenAI, the parent artificial intelligence (AI) research company of ChatGPT, recently removed its prohibition on using their technology for “military and warfare” from its usage policy on January 10. The eased restrictions on military uses propelled OpenAI into the debate surrounding AI's growing military integration.

The change seems to be instigated by OpenAI’s collaboration with the U.S. Defense Department. OpenAI’s spokesperson, Niko Felix, stated that OpenAI wanted to pursue “national security use cases that align with our mission,” specifically citing OpenAI’s plans to develop “cybersecurity tools” with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). This progression aligns with Former Army General Mark Milley’s claim that the United States, its Defense Department, and the military, need to “embrace” AI to keep up or stay ahead globally.

When questioned about the January 10th policy changes, OpenAI representatives often mentioned the retained policies such as not using the service to “harm yourself or others.” In response, many critics have voiced concerns over the ambiguity of the language. The managing director of the AI Now Institute and former Federal Trade Commission AI policy analyst, Sarah Myers West, points out that in times when the use of AI systems has spread to the Israeli military’s offensive strategy in the Israel-Gaza conflict, OpenAI’s decision to drop “military and warfare” from its usage policy has questionable implications. She warns that OpenAI’s “permissible use policy [...] raises questions about how OpenAI intends to approach enforcement.” 

Although OpenAI representatives still maintain firm stances against AI usage in weapon development and harming others, discussion of AI throughout the previous year reveals that U.S. military leadership does not share the same vision. In 2023, the Pentagon developed an AI adoption strategy to optimize decision-making in “superior battlespace awareness” and “fast, precise and resilient kill chains.” On January 9, 2023, Michael Horowitz, the deputy assistant secretary of defense, reported a positive outlook: “We’ve launched initiatives designed to improve our [AI] adoption capacity, and I think we're really starting to see them pay off.” 

This is related to the bureaucratic structure that we learned in class, as the Department of Defense, an executive branch department of the U.S. federal government, uses DARPA to implement one of its assignments to use AI models to “remediate vulnerabilities [...] in national security systems” as structured by an Executive Order from the Biden Administration released in 2023. Due to the assigned responsibility, DARPA runs the cybersecurity pilot that OpenAI has joined. It isn’t just OpenAI, but also Anthropic, Google, and Microsoft assisting DARPA in developing cybersecurity software that will automatically reinforce infrastructure from cyberattacks.

While the same Executive Order also sets forth federal efforts to develop structured guidelines to ensure responsible usage of AI, I feel that both the technology and the surrounding policies still need more development to prevent intentional and unintentional harm. It is concerning that private AI companies have begun breaking down strict barriers that were set up to protect against the dangers of this new technology, especially since we’ve seen multiple accounts of its unreliability. One example is being able to trick ChatGPT into bypassing its safeguards against telling users how to make a bomb. As much as we are excited about the seemingly infinite possibilities of AI applications, are we ready for its potential? How far should we allow AI to expand into military usage? Or has this already been a step in the wrong direction?

Sources:

• https://time.com/6556827/openai-us-military-cybersecurity/ 

• https://www.techtimes.com/articles/300723/20240117/openai-defense-collaboration-offers-ai-military-weapons.htm 

• https://theintercept.com/2024/01/12/open-ai-military-ban-chatgpt/ 

• https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-usage-policy-chatgpt-military-purposes-2024-1 

• https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jan/16/market-leader-openai-rewrites-rules-to-allow-work-/ 

• https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3639685/dod-increases-ai-capacity-through-strategy-alignment/ 

• https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3578219/dod-releases-ai-adoption-strategy/ 

• https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47843 

Supreme Court Set to Overturn Landmark Pro-Regulation Precedent Case?

Current Supreme Court Justices

Very recently, on January 16th, 2024, the Supreme Court decided to hear a quiet and unassuming case, Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Gina Raimondo. Lawyers represented fishermen from the northeast, who were unhappy with the government-mandated $700 daily cost of carrying government conservation observers on their ships. However, this case was a cover for conservative lawyers with the interests of corporations and interest groups in mind: the real goal of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo was to overturn the landmark 1984 pro-regulation decision in the case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Interestingly, the conservative lawyers are backed by Charles Koch, the very billionaire who played a huge role in the West Virginia vs. EPA case that we saw in the documentary in class, which led to the scrapping of the Clean Power Plan. Thus, it is clear that the goal behind this case is to continue on the path of deregulation.

But what was Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council?

Glad you asked! Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council was a massive step forward in federal regulation, as it established that courts should essentially defer any decisions over ambiguous legislation or statutes to federal agencies. This meant that independent regulatory commissions such as the SEC, EPA, FCC, etc. were given much greater discretion over policy in their areas. Hey, that's what we're learning about in class! While Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council has not yet been officially overturned, many experts seem to agree that it seems extremely likely that the Supreme Court will at least rule to heavily diminish the decision established in the landmark case. 

So What?

Put simply, if Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council were to be overturned (or weakened), the balance of power would massively shift in the federal government. The hundreds of federal agencies that currently set rules for all ranges of public policy from healthcare to workplace safety to banking regulation would be heavily impaired in their ability to interpret what Congress means when it writes a law. As we know, this is relevant because Congress tends to intentionally write ambiguous legislature and leave the details up to the bureaucracy for a multitude of reasons that we've covered in class, including but not limited to: it's more efficient, they're more likely to pass, and agencies are simply more specialized and equipped to interpret such legislature.

Additionally, two massive industries emerging - cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence - stunting the power of the bureaucracy to regulate industries that are so inherently volatile and controversial seems to spell trouble for the future of the United States. Judges will have to defer to the out-of-date legislature that is completely unequipped to handle the growing industries.

https://loperbrightcase.com/

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-charles-koch/

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-sitting-supreme-court-justices/story?id=37229761

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/01/supreme-court-likely-to-discard-chevron/

Swatting: a growing problem

Swatting is the illegal act of harassing an individual by deceiving emergency services into sending a large number of armed police officers to break into their home by reporting the person as armed and dangerous. Swatting can be extremely dangerous, as showcased by the death of Mark Herring during a swatting in 2020. This destructive form of harassment began online, as malicious viewers would swat video game live streamers.

Tanya Chutkan

But swatting has escalated from petty online trolling to something much more sinister and disruptive as a new trend of US politicians being the targets for swatting emerges. 

US district judge for the District of Columbia Tanya Chutkan was swatted just weeks ago. Police and firefighters were sent to her house due to an anonymous source informing the police that there had supposedly been a shooting there. Thankfully during the swatting, no one was injured. However, what is alarming is that Chutkan is the federal judge currently presiding over the case of Donald Trump's alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Considering the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that this was likely a pointed threat toward Chutkan due to her proximity to the case. 

Beyond Chutkan, other cases where prominent politicians have been victims of swatting include: 

- Federal lawmakers Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, New York Rep. Brandon Williams, and Florida Sen. Rick Scott. 

- Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Trump in two cases.

- A 911 caller pretended to have broken into the home of Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows the day after she disqualified Trump from being on the state’s primary ballot.

The implications of this trend are frightening. With presidential election season approaching, the threat of violence may strongly affect the decisions of certain politicians as they now must weigh their personal safety into the equation. Fear and self-preservation are factors that threaten the democratic thread of the country as a whole.

Of course, people and politicians alike are moving for legislation that would make it easier to identify those responsible for swatting and to impose harsher penalties on those caught doing it. The question is, is swatting a small trend that the US will be able to quickly get control of, or does it point to a greater trend of increasingly polarized and undemocratic politics? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/24/us/mark-herring-swatting-tennessee.html

https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2024/01/10/swatting-targets-politicians

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/14/us/swatting-incidents-trend-explained/index.html

Taiwan Elects President Lai Ching-te

Last Saturday, Taiwanese voters elected Lai Ching-te, the current vice president, as president of Taiwan. This election marks the third consecutive win for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) — even amid threats from China, who has declared the DPP to be a separatist force and warned Taiwanese voters about the possible consequences of electing another member of the party. Almost counterintuitively, it's possible that these threats have increased anti-China sentiment within Taiwan, and possibly increased public support for Lai himself. 

Lai's platform essentially consisted of promises to preserve the status quo, a message that appealed to voters who want to maintain diplomatic relations with China while remaining neither formally independent nor fully part of China. Additionally, voters seemed to value his experience as vice president, and the DPP's experience preserving diplomatic relations for the past two terms — Lai obtained over 40% of the vote in a 3 way race against members of the Kuomintang (KMT) and Taiwan People's Party (TPP), while runner-up Hou You-ih followed with approximately 33%.  

The consequences of this controversial election are still up in the air. Some predict that Beijing will raise their pressure on Taiwan, increasing economic sanctions or making "an intimidating show of force through military exercises and gray zone security maneuvers" (Atlantic Council). Others note China's continued attempts to influence the beliefs of the Taiwanese public: China has reportedly purchased targeted ads through Facebook (the platform is banned in China but highly popular in Taiwan) that portray Lai as puppet of the US whose presidency will surely lead to war. President Biden himself has directly stated that the US does not support independence for Taiwan, and so far, all signs point to staying with the status quo. 

Taiwan's voting system differs in many ways from the US voting system as we learned about in class. Primarily, Taiwan uses popular vote instead of the electoral college to calculate the presidential winner (likely making outcomes less controversial) and doesn't require that the presidential-elect receive over 50% of the vote (possibly making outcomes more controversial). 

Links:

https://time.com/6555224/taiwan-new-president-lai-ching-te-bio-history/

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/experts-react/experts-react-taiwan-just-elected-lai-ching-te-as-president-despite-chinas-opposition-whats-next/#:~:text=However%2C%20Lai%20won%20with%2040,easing%20of%20tension%20with%20China.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/25/metas-advertising-rebound-gets-huge-assist-from-china-despite-ban.html#:~:text=That%20means%20Chinese%20companies%20are,of%20users%20around%20the%20world.

Biden Administration Authorizes Department of Education to Enact Student Loan Forgiveness

 

 

 

After Biden’s original extensive student loan forgiveness plan was struck down by the supreme court last July, the Biden administration announced Friday that in February, the Department of Education will erase the federal student loan debts of anyone who has been making monthly payments for at least 10 years and originally borrowed less than $12,000. 

To be eligible for this wave of student loan forgiveness, borrowers must be enrolled in the Biden administration’s new Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan. In an effort to have this forgiveness plan reach as many people as possible, the Department of Education has launched an email campaign to eligible borrowers not yet enrolled in SAVE. This wave of repayments is meant to target low income borrowers who left college before obtaining a degree and never earned the wage benefits that come with a college degree. 

In response to this plan and the fact that under SAVE, low income borrowers will pay an average of $6,121 for every $10,000 they borrowed, Republicans have voiced their displeasure. The chairwoman of the House Education Committee said that Biden is “greenlight[ing] the Department of Education to dump even more kerosene on an already raging student debt fire.” She went on to compare the people managing the Department of Education’s budget to “infants playing with abacuses,” emphasizing how she sees the plan as illogical and lacking financial considerations. 

This student loan forgiveness plan relates to bureaucracy since the Department of Education is one of the cabinet departments and as with most of the federal bureaucracy, the Department is getting large-scale attention only when what they’re doing is perceived as negative. At the same time, this is an exception to that general precedent since many Democrats have been pushing for student loan forgiveness for years, so they would be giving the bureaucracy credit for something positive.

Biden to forgive some student loan borrowers' debt early (cnbc.com)

A new student loan forgiveness policy is starting sooner than expected : NPR

Biden Announces New Student Loan Forgiveness Plan | TIME