Blakesley

Name: Media/Outlet: Reason: (Ex. Why I Love Our Presidents) [Bullet points/brief outline of talking points during appearance.] Due by April 24th, at 11:59 PM EST.

The Watford Nomination: A Litmus Test for a Divided Senate In a move that resurrects both old battles and high hopes, President de la Cruz, following her 2016 victory, renominated 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Paul Watford to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia. This decision not only revives a nomination initially put forth by Barack Obama but also tests the current political landscape's capacity for bipartisan agreement. Judge Watford, historically popular among judicial observers for his jurisprudence, once again finds himself at the epicenter of a heated political skirmish. His nomination in 2016 was met with considerable acclaim in legal circles for his moderate record and judicial temperament. However, it also ignited a partisan standoff that underscores the ever-polarizing nature of Supreme Court nominations, with then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell enforcing the "Biden rule" to say that the next President should choose the next Supreme Court justice. With the election resolved, Judge Watford was renominated and his nomination remains held up in the Senate. As Watford's nomination is debated in the Senate, Republican leadership has ramped up efforts to solidify opposition among its ranks. The intensity of these efforts suggests a strategy not just of opposition but of outright blockade, with Republican leaders pressuring members to block cloture - a procedural action necessary to end debate and move forward to a vote. This effort led to significant pressure being placed on wavering Senate Republican centrists. This firm stance is likely to boost opposition amongst right-leaning voters, for whom judicial appointments remain a cornerstone issue and Watford (and likely any Democratic pick) is to be unacceptable. The narrative constructed by Republicans paints Watford as an ideological threat, specifically suggesting that his moderate record is not actually moderate, aiming to galvanize a base that has historically prioritized the composition of the Supreme Court. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats, buoyed by their electoral success, have initially leaned on the mandate they believe their victory imparts. "We won the election," has been a common refrain aimed at justifying their entitlement to appoint Supreme Court justices of their choosing. However, this argument carries limited weight in the face of continued partisan divisions and does little to address substantive questions about Watford's qualifications and potential impact on the Court. Recognizing the limits of their electoral argument, Democratic leaders are now tasked with constructing a more nuanced and affirmative case for Watford's nomination. This involves not only highlighting his legal acumen and balanced rulings but also appealing to broader concerns about the Supreme Court's role in addressing national issues such as civil rights, environmental laws, and healthcare. Amid high-level political maneuvers in Washington, grassroots pressures are mounting across the country. Democratic-leaning groups across the country have signaled a need for Watford to be confirmed. This threat underscores the growing influence of activist bases in shaping political outcomes and adds an additional layer of urgency to the Democratic campaign for Watford. Failure to confirm Watford may have consequences for the activist wing of the party, particularly amongst voters of color who largely support the Watford nomination. Conversely, right-leaning voters, particularly in states where Republicans voted for Watford, are being energized against the nomination. As the Senate gears up for what promises to be a contentious confirmation process, the stakes extend beyond Watford's personal judicial future. This nomination is emblematic of broader political and ideological battles that will shape the American judicial landscape for years to come. For Democrats, securing Watford's place on the Supreme Court would not only be a victory for their judicial philosophy but also a reaffirmation of their electoral mandate. Some strategists suggest that pushing the Watford nomination through quickly is the best solution for Democrats, as it will allow the national debate to move on and let Watford's record speak for itself. For Republicans, the fight against Watford's nomination offers an opportunity to solidify conservative values within the judiciary and energize their base ahead of future elections. While winning some independents over is a daunting challenge, this nomination is an opportunity to solidify support with right-leaning groups, which would be a tactical victory. Forcing President de la Cruz to nominate a new justice would be an impressive victory for the Republican Party. In this charged atmosphere, Judge Watford's nomination transcends individual achievement: a symbol of the tumultuous and highly charged nature of Supreme Court politics in contemporary America. As both sides of the aisle prepare for a prolonged battle, the outcome will undoubtedly leave a lasting imprint on the nation's highest court and its judicial ethos.

Hotel Bayerischer Hof, Munich, Germany Held annually at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof in Munich, Germany, the Munich Security Conference is attended by several American, Canadian, and European leaders and, increasingly, several officials from further afield. While any topic is open to discussion, many speeches typically focus on the transatlantic relationship. Topics of particular interest in 2017 are "the future of the West and NATO", "the fight against terrorism", foreign policy in the Middle East (particularly as it relates to Afghanistan, NATO, Syria, and the refugee crisis), and the future of the U.S. and NATO policy towards Russia. The top three speeches will be awarded meetings with foreign officials. 1st place: Meeting with a Foreign or Defense Minister from a major European country (France, Germany, UK, Italy, Turkey), the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, or a head of government from a mid-sized European country (think Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway). Runners Up: Meeting with a foreign or defense minister from a mid-sized European country (think Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) or a head of government from a smaller European country (think Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, or any Balkan country). Speeches are due by 11:59 pm EDT on April 6, 2024. This topic is moderated, so feel free to post your speech at any point from now until the deadline. This topic will lock automatically and no extensions will be granted. If you post early, you can edit your speech until the deadline.

As part of an effort to improve the ability of members on Congress to gain experience in foreign affairs, I'd like to announce that the following events will be made available for members of Congress to speak at. Exact deadlines will be announced as each event draws closer. The first, the Munich Security Conference, will be April 6, 2024 by 11:59 pm EDT. Foreign Policy Opportunities for Members of Congress Q1, 2017 Speak at the 2017 Munich Security Conference. Held annually at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof in Munich, Germany. While any topic is open to discussion, many speeches typically focus on the transatlantic relationship. Topics of particular interest in 2017 are "the future of the West and NATO", "the fight against terrorism", foreign policy in the Middle East, and the future of the U.S. and NATO policy towards Russia. The top three speeches will be awarded meetings with foreign officials. 1st place: Meeting with a Foreign or Defense Minister from a major European country (France, Germany, UK, Italy, Turkey), the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, or a head of government from a mid-sized European country (think Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway). Runners Up: Meeting with a foreign or defense minister from a mid-sized European country (think Poland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway) or a head of government from a smaller European country (think Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, or any Balkan country). Q2, 2017 Speak at the 2017 Shangri La Dialogue. Held annually in Singapore. While any topic is open to discussion, speeches typically focus defense and security issues in the Indo-Pacific region. These topics can include defense partnerships in the region, freedom of navigation, or the U.S. relationship with China (or other Asian states). The top three speeches will be awarded meetings with foreign officials. 1st place: Meeting with a Foreign or Defense Minister from a major Asian country (subject to admin approval - think Australia, the Philippines, Japan, or South Korea) or the Chinese or Indian Deputy Foreign Minister. Runners Up: Meeting with a foreign or defense minister from a mid-sized Asian country (think Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, New Zealand) or the leader of a smaller country (think the Pacific islands, Cambodia, Laos), subject to admin approval. Q3, 2017 Write for Foreign Affairs magazine on U.S. foreign policy. Essays should be 1,000-1,500 words in length and should outline a theme for U.S. foreign policy (think "America First" Trumpism, restraint, support of liberal internationalism, etc.), why it should be the organizing principle for foreign policy, and briefly, what changes should occur to implement it. Essays offering the most coherent or interesting views will be rewarded. 1st place: Meeting with a Foreign Minister from a G20 (+Israel) nation (or Deputy in the case of China, Russia, and India) or a head of state from another nation (subject to admin approval - no, you won't get to meet the President or Iran) at the United Nations General Assembly meeting. Runners Up: Meeting with a foreign minister from any nation (excluding the G7 nations, Russia, and China), subject to admin approval (see above comment about not sitting down formally with the Iranians or other countries with which the U.S. has an active conflict). Q4, 2017 Speak at the Halifax International Security Forum. Held annually in Halifax, Nova Scotia, this meeting is described as the "Davos of international security". Speech topics can be on anything of note, provided that it sticks to the international security theme. The top three speeches will be awarded meetings with foreign officials. 1st place: Ability to organize a CoDel that can visit up to three countries (subject to admin approval), on which you can invite two other senators (one from each party). Runners Up: Invitation to visit a country relevant to the topic of your speech and meet with officials there. Speak on the sidelines of the 2017 Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC, held in Bonn, Germany this year. The conference is focused on combating global climate change and speech topics should stick to that theme.

Brave New World - Challenges Abroad for the de la Cruz Administration Part 2 - The Great Power Conflicts The following is part two of a three part series on foreign policy challenges facing the next administration. The first installment of this series focused on nuclear challenges, namely the Iran Deal and a proliferation in the Middle East and the expansion of North Korea's nuclear program. This second installment of this series focuses on great power competition, namely the rise of China and the the resurgence of Russia, and diplomatic and development challenges, such as shifting U.S. policy towards Cuba. The third installment of this series will focus on hot conflicts that the United States finds itself involved in: namely the war in Afghanistan, the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and counterterrorism operations in Africa. While not a comprehensive look at foreign policy challenges, this review will cover major foreign policy challenges facing President-elect de la Cruz as she prepares to take office. Russia, NATO, and Europe Across both parties there is generally a distrust of Russia - the question is largely one of how to prioritize the troublesome state. For some, particularly in the Republican Party, China is the defining challenge of the time and Russia is just a distraction - a declining power acting out. Others view Russia with suspicion and emphasize the need for greater cooperation with our European allies, namely NATO. A minority view promotes closer ties with Russia and a potential end to the sanctions imposed following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Geopolitically, the most significant issue straining the U.S.-Russia relationship is the invasion of Ukraine. With Crimea essentially being Russian territory and frozen conflicts on the Donbas. This conflict, per Putin, is rooted in the need to “protect Russian speaking peoples” who are having their rights denied by Western leaning governments. Moreover, it utilizes hybrid warfare that defies traditional lines of armed conflict and requires altered responses. The de la Cruz administration must decide whether to maintain, escalate, or relax sanctions against Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine, as well as make decisions on American aid to Ukraine. These decisions will signal the U.S.'s commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, and will also affect transatlantic unity on the issue. Additionally, the conflict in Syria highlights another flashpoint in the U.S.-Russia relationship. Crafting a coherent strategy for Syria, where U.S. and Russian interests collide, will be crucial. The administration will need to balance the fight against ISIS, support for opposition groups, and the humanitarian crisis, with the reality of Russia's influence over the conflict's outcome. With respect to NATO, the President de la Cruz will need to navigate questions about the future of the alliance moving forward. Ukraine and Georgia continue to seek membership, though there is limited movement on granting them that membership. NATO’s eastern flank, anchored by the Baltic nations, remains a source of concern for planners in the alliance. There remain tensions that NATO might need to focus on in the Balkans. Despite a push by the Obama administration, many NATO members still do not meet the spending requirement of 2% of GDP going towards national defense. Bringing NATO into the future is a challenge that will face the next President. The other points of tension aside, President de la Cruz will face one necessary form of engagement with Russia. With the New START Treaty set to expire in January 2021, a replacement will have to be negotiated during the next four years. New START remains the primary treaty governing the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. The China Challenge As noted above, to some the China challenge is the defining challenge of the 21st century. Over the past eight years the Obama administration, in recognition of this challenge, established a strategic and economic dialogue with China and began to implement the “pivot to Asia” (successfully or unsuccessfully, depending on whom you ask). At its heart, U.S. policy towards China remains anchored upon the “Three Communiques” of 1972, 1978, and 1982, as well as the Taiwan Relations Act. China has undoubtedly been growing as a force on the world stage. It is the largest trading partner of an alarming number of nations. Its Belt and Road Initiative, a $1 trillion development project, is set to dramatically extend its reach in the developing world. Politicians of both parties decry China for undermining manufacturing jobs in America’s industrial heartland and the allegations of currency manipulation leveled at the Chinese government. In light of these accusations, trade and economic tensions have been at the forefront of the bilateral relationship. The challenge for the next administration lies in negotiating trade agreements that promote fair competition while avoiding a trade war that could have detrimental effects on both economies. Beyond economic flashpoints, growing assertiveness in the South and East China Seas threatens freedom of navigation and challenges the territorial claims of U.S. allies, such as the Philippines and Japan. China's militarization of disputed islands and assertive maritime claims have alarmed neighboring countries and the U.S., which advocates for freedom of navigation and the peaceful resolution of disputes. A potential repeat of the Taiwan Strait Crisis of 1996, though not likely, remains a potential military flashpoint between the U.S. and China. The Taiwan question is particularly potent, with increased agitation on the island for formal independence, which would draw the United States’ support of the One China policy into question. China continues to oppose the United States’ arms sales to Taiwan. That said, China remains a key partner on a wide variety of issues facing the United States. Both the United States and China are concerned about North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, though differences in approach have complicated cooperation. American officials have urged China to use its influence and economic leverage over Pyongyang to curb its nuclear program, while China advocates for dialogue and a less confrontational approach. Forging agreement between the United States and China will likely be critical to solving the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula. Moreover, both China and the United States are leaders on climate and environmental issues, with both countries playing pivotal roles in the Paris Agreement. Continuing to engage China in global environmental initiatives and clean energy development will be vital for addressing the global climate crisis. Engaging the Developing World Outside of the return of great power conflict, the United States faces a web of diplomatic challenges across Africa and the Americas that will test the strategic acumen of the incoming administration. From navigating political instability and economic uncertainty to addressing security concerns and fostering development, the geopolitical landscape presents a multifaceted puzzle for U.S. foreign policy. In Africa, the U.S. confronts a continent of vast diversity and complexity. One of the paramount challenges is the ongoing threat of terrorism, with groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabaab in Somalia undermining regional stability and security. The U.S. has engaged in counterterrorism efforts, including military support and training for local forces, but the persistent instability calls for a more comprehensive strategy that also addresses the underlying socio-economic drivers of extremism. Another pressing issue is the political turmoil and humanitarian crises in countries such as South Sudan and the Central African Republic. The U.S. must balance its diplomatic efforts to promote peace and democracy with the imperative to aid in humanitarian relief. Moreover, the burgeoning youth population across the continent, coupled with economic stagnation and unemployment, underscores the necessity for U.S. engagement in economic development and education initiatives. In the Americas, the U.S. faces the challenge of bolstering deteriorating democracies and backsliding human rights conditions in countries like Venezuela and Nicaragua. The crisis in Venezuela, marked by political repression, economic collapse, and massive migration, requires a delicate approach that supports the Venezuelan people without exacerbating the situation. The instability in the “Northern Triangle” and Venezuela present security and migration concerns, with drug trafficking and gang violence directly impacting the United States and requiring a comprehensive strategy to confront. The U.S. faces shifting dynamics in the political realignment of the region with shifts in power that could play a role in future engagement. The election of right-wing leader and daughter of a former dictator Keiko Fujimori in Peru marks a strong right-wing lurch towards possible authoritarianism, despite claims against such by Fujimori's new government. Haiti also makes a major shift as former ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas party is swept into power with Dr. Maryse Narcisse elected as the next President. Aristide himself, a fierce critic of the United States and France with whom he alleges conspired to remove him from power in the early 2000s, has been elevated to Haitian Foreign Minister within the new government and has already adopted a more hostile approach to the West. Additionally, the U.S. must navigate its relationship with Cuba following the historic thawing of relations under the Obama administration. The next steps in diplomatic and economic engagement with Havana will significantly impact the broader U.S.-Latin America relations and the promotion of democracy and human rights in the region. Faced with potential opposition in Congress, the de la Cruz administration will need to determine a path forward on the relationship with Cuba should it choose to continue the thaw brought forward by the Obama administration.

Brave New World - Challenges Abroad for the de la Cruz Administration Part 1 - The Nuclear Impasses The following is part one of a three part series on foreign policy challenges facing the next administration. The first installment of this series will focus on nuclear challenges, namely the Iran Deal and a proliferation in the Middle East and the expansion of North Korea's nuclear program. The second installment of this series will focus on great power competition, namely the rise of China and the the resurgence of Russia, and diplomatic challenges, such as shifting U.S. policy towards Cuba. The third installment of this series will focus on hot conflicts that the United States finds itself involved in: namely the war in Afghanistan, the campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and counterterrorism operations in Africa. While not a comprehensive look at foreign policy challenges, this review will cover major foreign policy challenges facing President-elect de la Cruz as she prepares to take office. The Iran Deal No foreign policy issue inspired as strong a debate as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the JCPOA), also known as the Iran deal. Announced in 2015, the Iran deal seeks to prevent the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon over the next 15 years. The core of the agreement includes what are described as “highly verifiable” benchmarks on nuclear enrichment capability and a robust inspection regime. Nuclear security experts described the technical annexes of the agreement as “as close to airtight as a nuclear agreement can be”. Critique of the agreement centered on numerous points. First, Israel is adamantly opposed to the agreement, based on the reduction of sanctions and the eventual possibility of an Iranian weapon. An Iran expert noted that “the crux of the agreement is in ‘strategic patience’, the idea that in fifteen years, as Iran’s younger generation matures, the nation will be less radical and less inclined to pursue nuclear weapons. A more potent critique is that the agreement solely addresses Irans nuclear and ballistic weapon capabilities, leaving out their other malign activities, including support for militia and terror groups. As an executive agreement, the fate of the Iran deal is largely in the hands of the next President. The options are, essentially, a binary: keep it or ditch it. Proponents within the Obama administration point out that reopening the agreement is unlikely to yield a stronger agreement. “Iran’s leadership is deeply unhappy with the agreement and its implementation, but they’re not willing to contest it because they see some benefits,” said one official. Iran is viewed as unlikely to reopen the agreement to further negotiation. A barrier to action may be that the P5+1 nations that negotiated the agreement (the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) are unlikely to back reopening the agreement. “The United States can collapse the agreement, essentially, by itself. But it cannot reopen the agreement without the Europeans, the Chinese, the Russians, and the Iranians themselves. And those nations are quite happy with the agreement as it currently is.” Of course, terminating the agreement by itself poses risks. While the International Atomic Energy Agency, supported by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), assess that Iran currently has a year plus breakout time following the transfer of nuclear fuel and disabling of a reactor and several centrifuges, they retain critical knowledge. “In the absence of the agreement and verification steps, Iran’s path to a nuclear device is easier. Though it is unlikely they’d make a mad dash for a bomb,” commented an NNSA official. Sources within the Intelligence Community emphasize that “Iran is unlikely to be able to covertly enrich uranium to weapons grade. We’ll know whether they’re doing it no matter what. The question will be how far along are they.” Nuclear North Korea North Korea poses a different set of issues from Iran. A far more insulated and isolated society, intelligence penetration of North Korea’s nuclear program is next to impossible. “We have known unknowns in North Korea,” said a former intelligence official. “We know they have secret enrichment facilities beyond Yongbyon, but we have no idea where they are.” The results of those enrichment activities are concerning: the next President could be facing a North Korea with 20-50 nuclear weapons, despite the crippling sanctions that the country currently faces. North Korea leverages several tools and techniques to avoid sanctions. The question facing the next President will be how to confront the North Korea challenge. At the moment, North Korea appears to lack a intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States, though this remains unconfirmed. The Hwasong-13 (KN-08) potentially poses a threat to the West Coast, though nonproliferation experts currently dispute the accuracy of that claim. “It’s likely not the best missile,” said one. “And even if it could reach the West Coast, it would likely be at the cost of accuracy, leading to an inability to effectively target population centers or military targets.” The Six Party Talks, discontinued in 2009, were once seen as the primary forum via which an agreement on North Korea’s nuclear program would be achieved. While various parties have stated openness to resuming talks, it remains unclear whether this will be achieved or what the goals of such talks will be. “North Korea looked around and saw what happened to leaders that gave up their nuclear programs. The Kim regime won’t go the same way as Gaddafi or Hussein. More importantly, he already has nuclear weapons.” The key component of talks will be reaching agreement, not with North Korea, but with China in the views of some Asia watchers. Alternatively, the United States and its allies could increase pressure on the rogue state. “There is room for tough enforcement of sanctions, a stronger military presence, and so on,” said a North Korea expert at The Heritage Foundation. “Considering their provocations in the Yellow Sea and elsewhere, a more muscular posture shouldn’t be ruled out. That includes both economic and military power.” Some in South Korea and Japan would welcome more robust United States security engagement in the region. “Ultimately, North Korea policy will depend on what the administration wants to get out of it,” said a bleary eyed fellow from The Asia Society. "The United States will have to outline clear goalposts that they want to achieve and then set out to achieve them. Is a nuclear North Korea an acceptable outcome? What limits need to be imposed? Those are the questions that the de la Cruz administration will have to wrestle with." The Proliferation Paradox One of the major concerns resulting from the nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea is the threat that other, more capable nations may seek nuclear weapons in the future. The states that could seek nuclear weapons, under these circumstances, include nations such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East and Japan and South Korea in East Asia. "These are countries that absolutely have the technical capability," said a NNSA analyst. "Whether or not they choose to act is another question." Another source noted that, "It's more or less an open secret that Saudi Arabia will receive nuclear weapons from Pakistan the moment that they request them, which may be sooner rather than later if Iran makes meaningful progress towards a nuclear weapon." At any rate, it is clear that President de la Cruz will face nuclear challenges as her administration prepares to take office, something that they must prepare for.

Lord help us.

Seeing as you inherit the record of the officeholder, unfortunately you must from the same party (unless the office is nonpartisan). Unfortunately in this circumstance, we believe it would be unlikely for a Democrat to inherit the record of Mitch Daniels.

As a note, from 2005-2013, the Governor of Indiana was a Republican.

Powell questions sustainability of U.S. debt at Jackson Hole meeting JACKSON HOLE, WY-- Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that it was "critical" for the federal government to make a priority of dealing with the national debt while giving his annual keynote at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium. In prepared remarks, Powell highlighted that federal debt was increasing faster than economic growth and accelerating, meeting "the fundamental definition of insustainability." Addressing the fundamental state of the U.S. economy, Powell highlighted that the Federal Reserve was unlikely to reduce interest rates before the second quarter of 2026. "The best tool in our arsenal for reducing housing prices is to continue to address the issue of demand, in the absence of supply stimulus," said Powell, referencing the elevated cost of shelter and its contribution to core inflation. "We have a double-edged sword: some say high interest rates are deterring investment in new homebuilding. However, we have to consider the counterfactual of our work: near zero-interest rates for the better part of the last two decades did not spur homebuilding. On the monetary side, we are fundamentally limited to demand." Punctuating his remarks frequently with the caveat that "it is not for the Fed to tell Congress what to do", Powell pointed to the lack of action being taken on economic issues as a key driver for his remarks. "The United States government, broadly, has fiscal and monetary tools to shape the economy. If fiscal tools aren't being used, then it increases the reliance on monetary tools. The Federal Reserve will work diligently, via the monetary toolkit available to us, to achieve our dual mandate of ensuring price stability and promoting full employment." The federal debt is set to rise to over $27 trillion this year. The Fed Chair said that he anticipates that the U.S. government would continue to be able to adequately finance its debt over the near- to medium-term. However, persistent debt growth "created the risk of long-term destabilization, particularly in an era of elevated interest and bond rates. It's not something I'm overly concerned about, but it is something where the trajectory can take decades to bend, requiring activity more imminently than on other issues." Experts surveyed at the symposium said that the United States will certainly be able to finance its publicly-held debt. However, they noted that acceleration in the growth of entitlement programs would, eventually, constrain discretionary spending measures. "There are motions that are weighing on U.S. debt markets - that's just the reality now," said one participant. "It wasn't reassuring to see Congress absolutely fumble the debate on the PROSPER Act - a debt reduction bill that, after proposed amendments, could have increased debt over the long term. So Congress will need to get that under control or managed," said a participant who requested to remain anonymous.

HBCU aid becomes litmus test for NAACP support NAACP President Derrick Johnson said that Congress must work to pass a bill to aid HBCUs immediately, calling it a "moral imperative". Prospects for funding for HBCUs being increased faded as the PROSPER Act was pulled from the Senate floor following opposition to a number of provisions in the legislation from both sides of the aisle. However, one provision that did not attract controversy, at least on the record, was the proposal to increase funding for HBCUs. "Nobody spoke out against it and now Congress has abandoned the prospect of funding communities of color once again," said Mr. Johnson. The NAACP's more aggressive stance comes in the wake of the inclusion of the America's College Promise Act in the Ross Administration's PROSPER Act. "We were thrilled to see the Vice President visit Morehouse College and Spelman College and engage with the students there. But now its time for members of Congress from every party to make clear that support for HBCUs is more than a political talking point. It's a bipartisan point of agreement and Congress should act on it." The NAACP communicated that it views the HBCU provisions within the America's College Promise Act as a floor for support and that "anything less would be backpedalling on a bipartisan consensus." The America's College Promise Act included approximately $18 billion in funding for HBCUs, Hispanic serving institutions, and other minority serving institutions over ten years. The passage of equivalent provisions, either as a stand alone bill or as part of a larger package, are now a critical litmus test for the NAACP's political arm. This move raises pressure on House Democrats, who have yet to advance funding for HBCUs or other college and university support legislation. Likewise, Senate Republican leadership needs to make a decision on whether to advance HBCU legislation. The political peril is clear. If House Democrats don't advance HBCU legislation, then it's a clear abandonment of one of their key voting bases. If Senate Republicans and the White House don't work to advance HBCU legislation, then it makes it look like Vice President McKnight was advocating HBCU support as part of a political ploy to gather support for the PROSPER package. "The White House has triangulated itself into a corner," said one Democratic strategist. "If [Republicans] block HBCU assistance, then they run the risk of abandoning a policy that they originally backed and being held accountable for that." One political strategist added, "They may have abandoned PROSPER, but they've shifted the debate and now [Republicans] can't support HBCUs." It remains to be seen who will bring forward HBCU legislation first. "At this point, it doesn't matter if it's stand alone legislation, an amendment, or a broader package, the NAACP expects to see Congress act and won't take no for an answer." NAACP is being joined by organizations such as UnidosUS and the National Indian Education Association in their push for passing increased funding for minority serving institutions. A joint statement by the three groups read: "There is broad consensus on this issue, as demonstrated through the Democratic Party's past actions and the Republican Party's drafting of the PROSPER Act. It's time that Congress act on it."

News from POLITICO goes here.

As PROSPER falters, Ross calls for Medicare negotiations, clean debt ceiling bill Following limited debate, the Ross Administration’s deficit reduction and growth legislation, PROSPER, was pulled from the Senate floor. Framing her decision as a “strategic move”, President Leah Ross announced that the White House would support clean suspension of the debt ceiling and invited Congressional leaders to negotiate a package to ensure Medicare’s solvency, which the Medicare trust fund set to run dry in 2027. Senate Democratic Whip Joyce Kamaka commented on the President’s decision to call for a clean debt ceiling bill, saying “I’m glad to see Republicans endorse the effort already underway by Democrats with the Debt Ceiling Limit Extension Act of 2025 making its way through the House. They teased shenanigans around that bill before so let’s hope they’ve had the change of heart Americans deserve.” Senate Majority Leader Jim Fealty confirmed that the Senate would be moving forward with debt ceiling legislation, saying “I've spoken with the President extensively regarding the debt ceiling and it is my intention to put a clean debt ceiling bill on the floor. That is just good governance and the Senate will deliberate the matter. With a view to reviewing spending later in the year, we hope to have something ironed out in the coming weeks.” Negotiating a package to stabilize Medicare appears to be more difficult than raising the debt ceiling. Policy experts have been clear that Medicare operability rests on a carefully constructed balance between hospitals and doctors, payers (the federal government), insurers (in the case of Medicare Advantage) and the pharmaceutical industry. “Reducing funding is going to impact some of these groups negatively. Restructuring programs is going to benefit some and penalize some. The challenge for Congress is enacting reforms and maintaining the solvency and stability of the program. That’s where the White House negotiations will be interesting.” Budget watchdogs interested by Medicare debate Budget policy groups expressed varied opinions on the debate over Medicare’s solvency. Paul Waters, a fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal leaning think tank, noted that “the government can pursue several easy fixes to restore Medicare solvency for the next twenty five years” by reallocating tax revenue and extending the Medicare tax to high earners. Conversely, Amelia McMorrow, of the right leaning Heritage Foundation, pointed to extensive waste in Medicare that could be cut, “protecting benefits for seniors, expanding choice, and removing bloat that promotes health care inflation”. In particular, she pointed to Medicare Advantage as an area that was both ripe for reform to cut costs and expansion to increase choice and competition. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has put forward a program of modifications to Medicare that would help to restore solvency over the long term, but would not necessarily maintain the current operation of the program. One analyst, when discussing the CRFB proposals, noted that “CRFB sees dollar signs and only dollar signs. Their proposals exclude the function of the overall health care system for seniors.” Defending their position, CRFB researcher Paul Generelli said, “There is no doubt that our proposals would achieve our aims of stabilizing the debt, reducing the deficit, and ensuring the sustainability of Medicare.” When pointing to the original PROSPER Act, budget watchdogs found things to like and dislike. CBPP embraced the Ross Administration’s call for expanding Medicare prescription drug price negotiation, saying “the Administration’s backing creates a bipartisan consensus for expanding the drug pricing provisions of the IRA.” Alternatively, they called proposals on Medicaid reform “catastrophic” and projected that there will be a significant increase in uninsured Americans as states were forced to scale back their Medicaid programs or increase taxes. Heritage, on the other hand, embraced the cost cutting measures, while calling the drug price negotiation provisions “socialist policy that needs to be abandoned.” CRFB referred to the proposal as a “reasonable set of reforms that could be more balanced on the revenue side.” Interest groups preparing for significant fight As negotiations are set to begin, special interest groups across the country are preparing to make their position known on health care proposals. Most vocal are hospital groups, which are concerned that significant restructuring of the program will force hospitals to remove themselves from participating in Medicare and Medicaid. “Hospitals are here to provide critical services, but hospitals need to remain solvent in order to operate,” said one advocate. Pointing to the closure of rural hospitals over the past several decades, they noted that “dramatically reducing funding could accelerate already concerning trends.” PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobby group, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) are signaling their intent to fight against any drug pricing provisions in the legislation. “We need to be clear, the IRA was damaging to American innovation - the rapid expansion of so-called negotiation rules would be catastrophic,” said a PhRMA representative. BIO’s position was less aggressive, with a spokesman saying, “We oppose expansion of the drug pricing provisions of the IRA and encourage Congress to instead revisit the IRA’s anti-innovation provisions.” The American Medical Association, in keeping with its stated positions, have embraced policies such as payment site neutrality, while also asking Congress to “avoid policies that would decrease the availability of health care or reduce health insurance coverage, particularly amongst highly vulnerable groups.” Both conservative and liberal interest groups are also tapped into the discussion. Liberal groups, led by CBPP, have said that there’s “no solution to Medicare that relies on cuts and efficiencies alone - Congress must address the revenue component.” Conservative groups, led by the Heritage Foundation, on the other hand have advocated for “increasing competition and reducing the single payer aspect of Medicare as key components to ensuring long term sustainability of the program - without these measures this is just a $30 trillion unfunded mandate”. The clock is ticking Congress, realistically, has until the end of this session to enact Medicare reform. A particularly vocal member on the issue, Senator Tabitha Kinsey, put her priorities for the Medicare legislation in context. While backing bipartisan negotiations, Senator Kinsey called for the administration to limit participation by those “who…speak without thinking” and called negotiations “a conversation for grown-ups who understand the seriousness of the problem.” In Medicare policy, Senator Kinsey called for increased support for rural hospitals, with the goal of making sure “we don’t take away medical care from people who need it.” On Medicare negotiations themselves, Kinsey added that there was a need to consider both revenue and spending options, saying that she wanted to see “a full picture of all our options beyond just the orthodoxy of my own party.” Senate Majority Leader Fealty said that “the President is right to call for Medicare negotiations” and that “it’s clear the American people supported what we had in PROSPER but Senate Democrats were unable to come to terms with the good progress that we would have made for American seniors and indeed our future generations in that bill. What comes of the negotiations remains to be seen.” Senator Kamaka simply stated that “we want a deal on Medicare Part A solvency” and noted that “[Democratic leadership] called our Congressional Republican colleagues to talk to us weeks before the President decided to pull the unpopular PROSPER Act. That offer still stands.” With the clock ticking, it remains to be seen what Congress can accomplish over the coming months.

Inflation in America Sticky, then spiking The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the headline rate of inflation rose to 3.3% in May 2025, compared to 2.9% in the first quarter of 2025. The rise in the headline rate of inflation was driven primarily by the rise in energy costs after the beginning of the conflict between Venezuela and Guyana. The Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation, so-called core inflation (which strips out volatile food and energy prices) remained above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target at 3.1%, a slight increase compared to the quarterly inflation rate from the fourth quarter of 2024. In an assessment released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the majority of the rise in inflation is directly attributable to the rise in energy costs in the past several months. The average price of a gallon of gas rose to $3.65 since the beginning of the Venezuelan conflict, as global oil prices rose following the departure of Venezuelan oil from both the global market and the black market. OPEC has thus far refused to increase oil output in response to the conflict in the Caribbean. An additional driver of inflation related to the conflict is an increase in shipping insurance costs for vessels transiting the Panama Canal. A spokesperson for Lloyds of London, a leading insurer, commented that, “We view the transit of the Panama Canal as a risk event based on proximity to the conflict zone at this time. We are constantly evaluating the risk that vessels may face in the southern basin of the Caribbean Sea.” While factors related to the conflict explain the recent surge in inflation, the sticky aspect of inflation relates to a number of diverse factors. Shelter remains the most significant driver of elevated non-core inflation: both house prices and rent prices are increasing well above the headline rate of inflation year-on-year. Once shelter costs are removed from the inflation calculation so-called “supercore inflation” remains elevated at 2.5%, but is nearing the Federal Reserve’s target. Outside of shelter, much of the increase in inflation is driven by price rises in “high-skill services”, including legal services, health care, and college tuition, and transportation goods and services. Increases in “low-skill services”, such as car repair, and core goods, such as furniture, have moderated are at or below the Federal Reserve’s target. “There’s a certain stickiness to the core elements of inflation that’s going to be difficult to get rid of,” said Christopher O’Hanlon, a professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business. “Government policies have often tried to make it easier for people to buy homes or make it easier to attend college by enabling them to spend more money on certain services. It’s unclear that those solutions will help here. It might help a class of people, but the headline numbers will continue to advance.” Members of Congress have proposed measures related to housing in recent days, with the House of Representatives passing significant housing legislation. However, estimates have not been provided on how that legislation will impact housing prices over the long term. In a forward looking statement, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that, “The prospect of interest rate cuts over the next six months, though the fourth quarter of 2025, remains limited.” Markets reacted poorly to the statement, with the Dow Jones down 1.4% in after hours trading and the S&P 500 down 1.1%. Mr Powell’s term as Federal Reserve Chair expires in early 2026.

Name: Caroline Fitzgerald, U.S. Senator for Wisconsin Media/Outlet: Jesse Watters Primetime | Fox News Reason: Prescription drug price reform "We have to acknowledge, Jesse, that there is a new consensus on prescription drug price reform. After criticizing the Inflation Reduction Act, Leah Ross is embracing it. Her administration is copying and pasting, word for word, the prescription drug price reforms from the IRA - and even joining progressives like me in calling to expand those reforms. Republicans have finally come around and recognized that we need price controls to stop big pharma from engaging in out of control prescription drug price hikes that hurt all Americans. That's a victory for progressives and a new bipartisan consensus, abandoning decades of shoddy free market voodoo economics when it comes to prescription drugs and medicine costs for American families." "Look, I didn't think we'd see the day when Republicans were embracing price controls wholeheartedly. I didn't think we'd see the day when the Ross administration was calling to expand the Inflation Reduction Act. But that's where we are. It's a declaration by even conservative Republicans that President Biden's reforms were the right reforms and need to be taken farther." "What we need to do is think about the market more broadly - price controls aren't the be all, end all of the debate. Pharmaceuticals use loophole after loophole to extend patents and charge American families exorbitant fees for drugs that aren't even new. That hurts normal people. We need to rewrite the rulebook around some of these proposals in order to help families out and create incentives for real innovation - because extending a patent on the same drug over and over again isn't innovation, it's embracing the status quo. That's not what American health care needs. And it's not just me arguing for this - even biotech investors and venture capitalists are calling for us to make sensible reforms that enable medical innovation." "I'm a capitalist to my core, Jesse. As a prosecutor, I fought for real competition and open markets. I want us to use all of the tools at our disposal - especially market based tools - to lower prescription drug costs for American families and that's what I'm fighting to do. While Leah Ross's only trick seems to be price controls, I'm ready to build bridges with industry, fix the market, and help American companies bring new drugs to market at a fair price for American families. That's innovation that will save lives and save money for the American people. Something that this administration seems unwilling to do."