Key Issues in the 2024 United States Presidential Election
Explore our analysis of the Trump presidential transition and first 100 days here. Dive into key policy priorities and changes shaping the next chapter of American leadership.
The results of the 2024 United States presidential election will significantly impact American public policy, with consequences around the globe. This collection gathers analysis from faculty members on the outlook for their areas of topical expertise. Through their writings and media engagements, Fletcher's faculty offer a range of academic perspectives on this historic geopolitical moment.
For interview opportunities with Fletcher faculty, please contact Katie Coleman at katie.coleman@tufts.edu.
Immigration
By Katrina Burgess, Professor of Political Economy
While campaigning in Iowa last September, former President Donald Trump made a promise to voters if he were elected again: “Following the Eisenhower model, we will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” he said. Trump, who made a similar pledge during his first presidential campaign, has recently repeated this promise at rallies across the country.
If he were to win the presidency again, Trump would have the legal authority to deport undocumented immigrants, but the logistical, political and legal obstacles to doing so quickly and massively are even greater today than they were in the 1950s.
First, most undocumented immigrants now live in cities, where immigrant sweeps are more difficult to carry out. Second, the U.S. undocumented population is much more dispersed and diverse than in the 1950s. Today, Mexicans are no longer in the majority, and nearly half of undocumented immigrants live outside the six major hubs for immigrants. Third, most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. did not sneak across the border. An estimated 42% entered the country legally but overstayed a visa illegally. Another 17% requested and received a short-term legal status that protects them from immediate deportation.
Trump has not supported a way to provide undocumented immigrants with a legal alternative, which means that migrants will keep finding ways to cross illegally.
For more, read Professor Burgess's piece in The Conversation
Technology
By Thomas Cao, Assistant Professor of Technology Policy
Research reveals that many in Silicon Valley support liberal social policies but are resistant to regulation of the tech industry.
This is evident in the public support for Donald Trump from Mark Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, who oppose Biden's approach to AI regulation. The Republican Party vows to “repeal Joe Biden’s dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI Innovation.”
Techno-optimists and government regulators are divided over questions about AI's future. Many techno-optimists take for granted that AI will continue to advance rapidly, predicting breakthroughs like artificial general intelligence (AGI).
Biden administration officials are more cautious. Regulators prioritize present-day challenges over future hypotheticals. This approach is often perceived by Silicon Valley elites as antagonistic to AI’s potential.
On content moderation, both parties share dissatisfaction but differ sharply in desired approach. Republicans believe that current moderation practices disproportionately target conservative voices. Democrats generally favor tightening regulations.
My research shows that liberals’ demands for censorship are driven not only by concerns over falsehood, but also over negative externalities on public beliefs and behaviors. In a recent letter, Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged government pressure on Meta to moderate COVID-related content. The Biden administration responded that "tech companies… should take into account the effects their actions have on the American people."
Both parties vie to shape the digital landscape to align with their political objectives. While tech policy may not be many voters' top concern, the election can have profound implications for technology in the U.S. and worldwide.
Antitrust
By Bhaskar Chakravorti, Dean of Global Business
Every presidential transition includes baggage to be handed from one administration to the next. The Biden team promises to offer a historic overhang of antitrust cases. What’s the successor likely to do with this gift?
Kamala Harris speaks about her intention to tackle price gouging, help small business, and encourage competition. As for the slew of inherited cases, I expect her to go more gently than Biden, despite her prosecutorial past. She appears more sympathetic to positives that big businesses can accomplish if they behave responsibly. Donald Trump has beef with some antitrust targets; he accuses the tech industry of bias against him and is backed by vocal tech personalities, including Elon Musk, with their own axes to grind.
At the heart of these speculations are two interesting questions: one, what’s the future of Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan, who has been a lightning rod for her eagerness to take on big business? Khan will certainly be gone if Trump is elected. Some prominent Harris supporters, such as Reid Hoffman, have called for Khan’s ouster, while others want Khan retained. Harris has been mum-ala on the issue.
The second big question: what happens to the pileup of antitrust cases? Will Harris’ strong Silicon Valley ties give Big Tech a license to get bigger? Will Trump look to settle scores with, say, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who owns the famously anti-Trump Washington Post?
Either way, we must prepare for a wild ride ahead.
Transatlantic Affairs
By Daniel Drezner, Professor of International Politics
On the campaign trail, Trump has promised to cease all aid for Ukraine, withdraw the United States from NATO because allies aren’t meeting spending targets, implement across-the-board tariff increases, deport immigrants and militarize the immigration system, and use military force against drug cartels in Latin America.
Trump’s economic and national security policies could lead to a more multipolar world. They are more likely to lead to a world in which nuclear proliferation accelerates, especially in Asia, the dollar ceases to be the world’s reserve currency, and the United States loses its ability to attract the best of the best from the rest of the world. Eventually, Americans could find themselves on the margins of Pax Europa.
A U.S. reversal on both Ukraine and transatlantic trade could be the impetus for Europe to get its strategic act together. All the states on the continent’s Eastern flank, from Finland to Bulgaria, would be clamoring for stronger security commitments from the rest of the European continent if Trump were to weaken the U.S. commitment.
A strategically autonomous European Union would likely be willing to move on from its reliance on the dollar as the global reserve currency. The geopolitical effects of such a move would be significant.
For more, read Professor Drezner's opinion piece in Politico
Israel-Lebanon War
By Tamirace Fakhoury, Associate Professor of International Politics and Conflict
Both candidates view Lebanon through the lens of Israel’s security dilemmas. Despite growing calls to end an all-out war that has had disastrous consequences for civilian lives, it is unlikely that either candidate would abandon support for the Netanyahu government’s declared plan to dismantle Hezbollah’s military arsenal.
Currently, President Biden is seeking to broker a ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese state. His proposal foresees the application of UN Resolution 1701, which calls for the disarmament of armed groups in Lebanon and the deployment of the Lebanese army to the South of Lebanon. The ceasefire draft would allow Israel to continue flying over Lebanon, terms that are unacceptable to the Lebanese state.
It is unlikely that the Biden presidency can push through the current ceasefire deal before November 5. If Harris wins, she will continue Biden’s efforts to broker a ceasefire that will however fall short of addressing the root causes of the war.
A Trump presidency is more unpredictable. Trump blames the escalating situation on Biden and sends mixed signals on how he would handle the war. On one hand, he recently wrote a "peace letter" to the Lebanese-American community, saying that peace will prevail if he is elected. On the other, he declared on various occasions his unconditional support for Israel. It is not clear whether he would deploy sustained efforts for a ceasefire or whether he would back an unrestrained war.
Climate
By Kelly Sims Gallagher, Dean of the Fletcher School
The United States is the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter, after China. If elected, former President Trump would immediately withdraw the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Agreement, as he did during his first term. This agreement enshrines commitments from 195 countries to reduce emissions and aim to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Though no other countries followed Trump’s initial withdrawal, the momentum in climate negotiations fizzled out.
Next year at COP30 in Brazil, countries are expected to submit new and improved emission reduction targets. If Trump is elected and the U.S. no longer a party to Paris, it’s hard to imagine that other major emitters like China, India, the EU, and Russia will push themselves to submit ambitious targets. Conversely, Vice President Harris will certainly honor Paris, given that President Biden immediately rejoined it upon taking office.
Domestic climate policy outcomes are less clear. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, U.S. oil and gas production rose to their highest levels in years. In fact, in 2024, the U.S. will “produce more crude oil than any country, ever,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Biden prioritized American energy security, which a President Harris is likely to continue. Even so, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are steadily declining. Many new investments in clean energy (and resulting jobs) are occurring in red states, so Congress would likely resist efforts to repeal these laws on a bipartisan basis.
Freedom of Speech
By Michael J. Glennon, Professor of Constitutional and International Law
Neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump inspires confidence as a defender of free speech. To Harris, it seems a privilege; to Trump, Supreme Court protections seem irrelevant.
Harris has said that social media sites are “directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.” In 2019, as a Senator, she said that “if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable.” She urged Twitter to suspend Trump’s account.
Her running mate, Tim Walz, has called for restrictions on misinformation and hate speech, claiming falsely that the Constitution provides no protection.
Trump, after CBS appeared to favorably edit Harris's “Sixty Minutes” interview, said the network’s license should be revoked. He called for jailing anyone who burns an American flag, notwithstanding a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that this is constitutionally protected speech. He argued that criticizing judges should be criminalized.
His running mate, J.D. Vance, opposed the Biden administration’s efforts to pressure social media to take down unwanted speech (a practice confirmed by the courts, the “Twitter Files,” and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg). Harris has said that not a thing “comes to mind” that she would have done differently from Biden.
Tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum, with hope for Vance.
East Asia
By Aram Hur, Assistant Professor of Political Science
When it comes to East Asia, this election presents no good choices.
Trump vows to continue “America First” diplomacy in the region. If we believe in precedent, this means he will double-down on his first term’s hawkish stance against China. Nevermind that steep tariffs hurt financially vulnerable Americans who need access to essential products made most affordably in China. Nevermind that anti-China rhetoric fuels violence against Asian Americans, the fastest growing ethnic block in the U.S. electorate. Trump’s demonizing of China also carries high stakes in Asia, where it will further ratchet up the temperature in cross-strait relations by emboldening Taiwan, but with no promise of a fire extinguisher. Trump’s praise of Putin also hints at rekindling relations with North Korea, which will antagonize South Korea and Japan, key U.S. allies in the region.
On the surface, the Harris plan of value-based diplomacy with democracies may appear a safer option. What could be bad about upholding democracy? But for Asia, it is the same product in nicer packaging. The reason for pursing a democratic alliance in the region is not so different from what drives Trump’s aggression: to contain China. Any time a region is dichotomized—be it Communism vs. anti-Communism, democracy vs. autocracy—it heightens potential for conflict and lowers the bar for what passes as a democracy. In the long run, this approach narrows the room for engagement across regime types, hurting stability in Asia.
Public Health
By Adam Kamradt-Scott, Associate Professor of One Health Diplomacy
While former President Trump’s administration was responsible for Operation Warp Speed that delivered life-saving COVID-19 vaccines to Americans, he is also known for promoting unproven therapies, expressing mistrust in science and expert knowledge, proposing budget cuts to public health agencies such as the CDC, and questioning public health measures. During the current campaign, the former president has celebrated the overturning of Roe v Wade that has restricted family planning services including abortion, promoted anti-vaccine policies, and indicated he “probably would” close the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy that was created by Congress to strengthen America’s national preparedness and public health response capabilities.
Vice President Harris, by way of contrast, has committed to science-led, evidence-based health policy, increased funding to public health agencies to improve maternal health, actioned measures to reduce drug prices, and supported measures to improve access to community health centers and expand the public health workforce. While on the campaign trail, Vice President Harris has vowed to restore reproductive rights for women, make affordable healthcare a right including expanding Medicare to cover seniors’ home-based care, and provide debt relief for medical bills. As such, in the coming election Americans have a very clear choice between the candidates’ respective views on the importance of public health.
Energy Transition
By Barbara Kates-Garnick, Professor of Practice
The Biden-Harris administration has pursued an “all of the above” energy policy. While the administration leads on climate impact legislation, the US stands as the world’s largest oil producer, producing nearly 13 million barrels per day in 2023. Both Biden and Harris want a legacy of climate action, aiming to spur production of renewables, invest in clean energy technologies, and create green jobs under the umbrella of energy equity. What could a second Trump administration do to undermine achievements already under way?
Clearly, Trump will have a deleterious effect on many aspects of a clean energy transition. Trump will likely immediately pull the US from the Paris climate accords and perhaps the UNFCC itself, limiting US participation in global negotiations. He will seed federal energy and climate bureaucracies with fossil fuel interests and reduce stringent regulations, often abetted by Supreme Court decisions.
But all is not bleak. Much energy and climate policy rests with the states, 29 of which have set GHG limitation targets. Offshore wind projects are slowly coming online along the East Coast. Notably the private sector, impacted by the effects of climate change, is stepping up, planning to fuel much new generation with clean energy, build new transmission to carry clean energy, and invest in new, cutting-edge technology.
Thus, while we can expect setbacks and slowdowns under Trump 2, the clean energy transition will continue, even if the US will not be a global policy leader.
Inflation
By Michael Klein, Clayton Professor of International Economic Affairs
Inflation has come down dramatically from its peak of 9 percent in June 2022, with current inflation below 3 percent, and food price inflation just over 2 percent. Inflation represents the percentage change in prices over the past year, so even when inflation drops, prices remain higher than they were.
Both candidates have said they would address high prices; former President Trump said he will make prices go down, and Vice President Harris advocates a federal government ban on price gouging on food and groceries. Neither of these pass the economic smell test.
Trump offers no policy proposals for bringing down prices, maybe because price declines would have to come about through a massive recession, given that supply chain issues that plagued the economy during Covid have been resolved.
Harris’s proposal lacks any specifics about what constitutes “price gouging,” and price controls would distort the normal working of the market, likely leading to shortages.
It is most relevant to consider purchasing power, not prices alone, as I do in this EconoFact memo. The most recent data show that average hourly earnings have risen by more than prices since the start of the pandemic recession in February 2020.
For more analysis from Professor Klein on the economic impact of the election, read his interview in Tufts Now
Trade
By Joel Trachtman, Professor of International Law
The U.S. has not been a leader in trade policy since 2016. As president, Trump withdrew from the U.S.-led Transpacific Partnership (CPTPP), ceased negotiations for a U.S.-EU Transatlantic Partnership, commenced a trade war with China, and imposed ostensibly national security-based tariffs on steel and aluminum. Surprisingly, Biden did not reverse most of these measures. We have observed a horseshoe effect in trade policy, with the Democratic left meeting the Republican right.
Trump says he will double down on tariffs if elected, imposing 60% on goods from China and 10 or 20% on goods from everywhere else. He claims that exporters will pay. This is false. Depending on market conditions, the cost is shared between exporters and importers. Trump’s earlier tariffs were mostly borne by importers—the U.S. purchasers. These tariffs are regressive taxes, burdening poorer people most, since they spend higher percentages of their income on goods. The tariffs also reduce U.S. competitiveness, as they apply to intermediate goods and raw materials, driving a price wedge between U.S. manufacturers and their supply chains.
Harris is not a neoliberal free trader either. She has criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), voted against the NAFTA replacement USMCA, and opposed the CPTPP. Unlike Trump, Harris seems to support industrial policy like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips Act, which have raised concerns of a subsidies war with Europe and China. She won’t seek the kinds of big tariff walls that Trump proposes - but for her, trade is still toxic.
Professor Daniel Drezner joined the Foreign Affairs podcast for a conversation on Trump's second term foreign policy agenda. (November 8)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti spoke to Deutsche Welle about Elon Musk's role and agenda in the presidential election. (November 8)
Together with fellow journalists at Reuters, Fletcher alumnus Timothy Aeppel examined the questions facing Democrats in the aftermath of their election loss. (November 7)
In a second post-election piece for Reuters, Fletcher alumnus Timothy Aeppel reported on reactions from Black American voters. (November 7)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti analyzed the election results in a video for The Indian Express. (November 6)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen profiled independent U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn. (November 5)
Visiting scholar Pavel Luzin, an analyst of Russia's politics and military, told ABC News that Kremlin leadership hopes for a Trump election victory. (November 3)
CNN International host Michael Holmes mentioned Professor Katrina Burgess's recent comments that the United States is no longer perceived as a global standard bearer for democracy. (November 3)
Barbara Kates-Garnick spoke to The New Bedford Light about how the next president can shape energy policy. (October 31)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen compared Donald Trump's rally at Madison Square Garden to George Wallace's event there during the 1968 campaign. (October 29
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher spoke to The Guardian about how a future Trump administration may approach climate policy. (October 28)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti penned an opinion piece in The Indian Express with analysis for the election season's final week. (October 28)
Senior fellow Tara Sonenshine authored an opinion piece in The Baltimore Sun on the Trump campaign's immigration rhetoric. (October 23)
A report in The Atlantic about Donald Trump's attitudes towards military service included anecdotes involving Fletcher alumnus Joseph Dunford, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Trump's first term. (October 22)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen assessed the relationship between Donald Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. (October 22)
An NBC News piece on campaign appeals to low-wage workers cited analysis from Fletcher's EconoFact publication. (October 21)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen described Democratic reactions to Trump's enduring support base. (October 19)
Professor Karen Jacobsen provided an explainer in The Conversation on Temporary Protected Status, a U.S. immigration designation criticized by Donald Trump and JD Vance. (October 16)
Swiss newspaper Blick quoted Academic Dean Monica Duffy Toft in a story about polarization in American politics. (October 15)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen discussed Donald Trump's attitudes towards Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin. (October 10)
In an interview with Politico, veteran German diplomat and alumnus Wolfgang Ischinger answered questions about how the U.S. election could affect European security. (September 28)
For Reuters, alumnus Timothy Aeppel reported on how campaign policy proposals may impact U.S. manufacturing. (September 24)
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher spoke to The New York Times about how geopolitical tensions and sources of uncertainty, including the presidential race, make international climate diplomacy more difficult. (September 23)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti discussed Kamala Harris's policy profile on artificial intelligence issues with Built In. (September 23)
Professor John Shattuck appeared on In the Middle with Jeremy Hobson, an NPR radio program, to discuss the NATO alliance and its relevance to the 2024 presidential race. (September 20)
Professor Michael Klein spoke to South China Morning Post about how a Federal Reserve rate cut might affect employment and inflation, key issues in the presidential campaign. (September 18)
Alumnus Mike Eckel appeared on a Meduza podcast to discuss a U.S. Justice Department crackdown on alleged Russian election interference operations. (September 18)
Center for European Policy Analysis
Visiting scholar Volodymyr Dubovyk wrote a piece for the Center for European Policy Analysis addressing how Europe may respond to Donald Trump's plan to end Ukrainian military aid. (September 17)
After Ryan Routh was accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump, alumnus Mike Eckel co-authored a piece for Radio Free Europe describing Routh's history as self-styled military recruiter. (September 16)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen commented on Donald Trump's immigration rhetoric. (September 16)
After Kamala Harris and Donald Trump sparred over semiconductor policy on the presidential debate stage, Professor Chris Miller joined NPR Weekend Edition to discuss. (September 15)
Alumna Evelyn Farkas, executive director of McCain Institute, appeared on Meet the Press to discuss the candidates' approach to the Russo-Ukrainian War. (September 12)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen assesses the ABC presidential debate. (September 12)
An opinion column by George Will, analyzing the candidates' approaches to TikTok, quotes Daniel Drezner's Foreign Policy piece on the overuse of national security designations. (September 11)
Professor Daniel Drezner joined the On the Media radio program to discuss news media coverage of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. (September 6)
Dean Kelly Sims Gallagher spoke to The New York Times about how the U.S. presidential election will impact international climate negotiations. (September 5)
In an article for The Conversation, Professors Marcia Moreno Báez and Rockford Weitz explored Tim Walz's advocacy for geographic information systems (GIS), a mapping technology tool. (September 5)
A column in The Hill co-authored by senior fellow Tara Sonenshine assessed how debates over abortion and IVF may shape the election campaign.
A piece in Financial Times assessing the candidates' approaches to international economic policy featured quotes from Professor Daniel Drezner. (September 4)
Professor Thomas Qitong Cao provided a quote to Financial Times about the uncertainly around Kamala Harris's approach to China. (August 26)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen described the Democratic Party's political unity after their August convention. (August 20)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti penned a opinion piece in Foreign Policy analyzing Kamala Harris's work on artificial intelligence issues for the Biden Administration. (August 19)
Professor Daniel Drezner appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to discuss the foreign policy challenges facing both candidates. (August 16)
In her opinion column for The Hill, senior fellow Tara Sonenshine described how each candidate has changed their mind on various issues, including TikTok, immigration, and healthcare. (August 15)
Professor Daniel Drezner's essay for the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs magazine argued that too many topics are classified as national security priorities, offering advice for how the next administration can more clearly prioritize. (August 12)
Brazil's most-circulated newspaper quoted Professor Daniel Drezner's assessment of Kamala Harris's foreign policy approach, originally made on the Independent Thinking podcast from Chatham House. (August 12)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen analyzed Donald Trump's August 8th press conference at Mar-a-Lago. (August 9)
Senior fellow Tara Sonenshine penned an editorial in The Baltimore Sun, advocating for the importance of presidential debates. (August 9)
Alumnus Taehee Lee wrote a piece in The Diplomat assessing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's perspective on the U.S. presidential election. (31 July)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Senior fellow Tara Sonenshine authored a piece in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Georgia's significance for the 2024 Electoral College vote. (July 30)
In an article on Project 2024, USA Today quoted Professor Daniel Drezner from his Washington Post column on Project 2025 contributor Michael Anton. (July 29)
In a column for The Indian Express, Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti offered seven pieces of political and policy advice for Kamala Harris. (July 26)
Professor Carlos Alvarado Quesada, the former President of Costa Rica, wrote an article on the root causes of the U.S. immigration crisis for Project Syndicate. (July 26)
Politico's China Watcher newsletter quoted Professor Chris Miller in a piece on Donald Trump's approach to Taiwan. (July 25)
A piece in The Guardian on Kamala Harris's climate policy quoted Fletcher senior fellow Gina McCarthy, who served as National Climate Advisor in the Biden White House. (July 23)
Professor Daniel Drezner spoke to Canada's CBC Radio about how a second Trump administration may approach key public policy issues including immigration, abortion, and the civil service. (July 19)
Alumnus Bob Hormats appeared on CNBC's Squawk Box to describe the Chinese perspective on American political divisions. (July 18)
Professor Eileen Babbitt provided insight for a PolitiFact explainer on how the next U.S. president can affect matters of global war and peace. (July 18)
Professor Chris Miller spoke to BBC News Radio's World Business Report about how a future Trump administration may approach Taiwan. (July 17)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen offers his perspective on the direction of the Republican Party. (July 17)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti spoke to The Hill about how Elon Musk and other Silicon Valley figures are approaching the election. (July 16)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti provided analysis to The Washington Post about online reaction to the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. (July 16)
In a piece for Reuters, Fletcher alumnus Timothy Aeppel reported on how Wisconsin's union workers may vote in the election. (July 15)
Professor Barbara Kates-Garnick spoke to NBC News about prospects for the offshore wind industry under a potential future Trump administration. (July 12)
In her opinion column for The Hill, senior fellow Tara Sonenshine described how the election may impact issues raised at NATO's 75th anniversary summit. (July 11)
Faculty affiliate Alvin Camba co-authored a piece for East Asia Forum assessing whether the election outcome may affect the Luzon Economic Corridor, a joint initiative of the Philippines, Japan and the United States. (July 10)
Professor Daniel Drezner wrote an article for Politico Magazine, excerpted above, offering predictions for how a future Trump administration would approach global issues, with a focus on the transatlantic relationship. (July 6)
In his regular opinion column for MSNBC, senior fellow Michael A. Cohen discussed the lessons American campaigns can draw from the United Kingdom's July general election. (July 5)
The New Yorker magazine reviewed Professor Sulmaan Khan's book The Struggle for Taiwan, exploring the challenges that the next presidential administration will face in deterring Chinese aggression towards the island. (July 1)
Dean of Global Business Bhaskar Chakravorti provided commentary to The New York Times about the spread of misleading political videos on social media. (June 21)