Search

Begin New Search Political Geography North America Publication Year within 5 Years

51. Two Roads to Reform: Marijuana Policy Changes, Arrest Trends, and Racial Disparities in Chicago and Indianapolis

Author:
Mustafa Ali-Smith and Keiana West
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
This paper examines the relationship between marijuana policy changes, arrest trends, and racial disparities in arrests in two major U.S. cities, Indianapolis and Chicago, between 2014 and 2023. Chicago implemented statewide legalization in January 2020, while Indianapolis decriminalized certain marijuana offenses at the county level in September 2019. By analyzing public arrest data from Chicago and the State of Indiana, this research addresses three key questions: whether marijuana-related arrests declined after these policy changes, how racial disparities in arrests changed after these shifts, and how marijuana arrest trends compare with those for other drugs. Our findings reveal significant reductions in marijuana-related arrests in both cities following policy reforms, though the degree of change varied. The results also demonstrate stark racial disparities in marijuana arrest rates both prior to and following policy changes in each city, though racial disparities decreased in both Chicago and Indianapolis following each policy change during the study period. Ultimately, racial disparities in both cities increased again as time after reform passed, signaling the need for policies and practices that sustain decreases in disparities overtime.
Topic:
Law Enforcement, Reform, Marijuana, and Drug Policy
Political Geography:
North America, Chicago, United States of America, and Indianapolis

52. What the White House and Congress Can Do to Prevent Global Mass Atrocities

Author:
Federica D'Alessandra
Publication Date:
05-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The Unites States has long recognized that preventing and responding to mass atrocities is both a moral responsibility and in its national security interest. Commitment to atrocity prevention and response has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support, and the U.S. government has long been a global leader on the issue. In 2011, the United States was the first country to establish an interagency body dedicated to atrocity prevention. Ever since, each Republican and Democratic administration—with the support of Congress—has taken additional, important steps toward implementing this objective. In 2019, under President Donald Trump, the United States was the first country to enact federal legislation addressing global mass atrocities. The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act mandates the White House to report annually to Congress on government-led atrocity prevention efforts. Under the act, the second Trump administration will again be required to report to Congress by mid-2025, raising the question: What is in store for the atrocity prevention agenda under Trump 2.0? This paper reviews the atrocity prevention track record of the first Trump administration and other relevant action taken so far in this second term to parse out what efforts to sustain and uphold U.S. atrocity prevention obligations could look like under Trump’s second White House. This paper highlights how a number of steps the administration has already taken, including but not limited to the recently announced reorganization of the U.S. Department of State and the effective dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), unless promptly addressed, will raise dire challenges for the readiness and capacity of the State Department and other relevant agencies tasked with operationalizing U.S. commitments to this end. Accordingly, this paper advances a number of actionable recommendations that both the White House and the U.S. Congress should urgently consider to ensure the administration stands ready and capable to fulfill its obligations under the Elie Wiesel Act and other relevant legislation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, National Security, and Atrocity Prevention
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

53. Geothermal Energy and U.S. Competitive Advantage: Drill, Baby, Drill

Author:
Robert W. Sweeney and Noah Gordon
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
The United States and the rest of the world sit at the intersection of potentially destabilizing trends. Great power competition, climate change, intensifying geopolitical uncertainty, the economy’s potential deglobalization, and the potential massive increase in energy demands arising from artificial intelligence (AI) are creating challenges for U.S. national energy policy. A foremost concern is the vulnerability of energy supply chains to interference from or control by a hostile power. In this dynamic context, U.S. energy policy has evolved significantly in terms of markets, supplies, regulation, and legislation. The country’s success in using fracking technology and exploiting abundant shale reserves have made it the world’s largest producer of hydrocarbons and a major exporter, especially of natural gas.1 Further, as national and international concerns about climate change have grown, U.S. energy policy has become more aligned with transitioning to renewable sources. So far, the focus of clean energy additions has been on wind, solar, and nuclear power. Beginning in the mid-2000s, the United States issued legislation and policies raising renewable energy to the level of industrial policy. Among those were the Energy Policy Act (2005), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (2021), the CHIPS and Science Act (2022), and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (2022). However, geothermal energy—which uses the heat of the earth’s crust for power—has been largely left out of U.S. industrial policy. This is despite the facts that utilizing this source of renewable energy requires some of the same technologies that have made the United States the world’s top oil and gas producer and that geothermal has the potential to provide clean, dispatchable power that does not rely on weather conditions. With U.S. clean firm power demand expected to increase by approximately 700–900 gigawatts by 2050,2 the United States needs to dramatically increase capacity while reducing or eliminating net carbon output and insulating its energy supply from dependence on international supply chains. The question for the country now is: how should public and private resources be directed to provide the United States with an energy system optimized for the current national and international environment? This paper argues that recent advances in geothermal power have made it the technology with superior characteristics for future U.S. energy system development. With its comparative advantages, geothermal power merits an urgent, intense, and dedicated reorientation of U.S. industrial policy, legislation, and resources.
Topic:
Development, Energy Policy, Science and Technology, and Geothermal Power
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

54. This Spanglish Bookstore In New York Is Reclaiming Bushwick's Sense Of Latinidad

Author:
Victoria Mortimer
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
Mil Mundos began as a means for María Herrón to reclaim her identity. Now, this bookstore’s founder is building a community among Latines in Brooklyn, New York.
Topic:
Community, Identity, and Spanglish
Political Geography:
New York, North America, and United States of America

55. The U.S. Is Helping Brazilian Police Kill

Author:
Joseph Bouchard
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
The North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA)
Abstract:
Brazil’s highly militarized policing disproportionately impacts poor and racialized communities. By providing funding and training, the United States has helped exacerbate the crisis.
Topic:
Training, Police, Militarization, and Police Brutality
Political Geography:
Brazil, South America, North America, and United States of America

56. Impacts of the Artificial Intelligence on International Relations: Towards a Global Algorithms Governance

Author:
Vicente Garrido Rebolledo
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
This article examines the transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on international relations (IR) and global governance. It begins by presenting a conceptual framework that situates AI within the theoretical and practical dimensions of IR, and explores how AI influences global power dynamics, alters state behaviour, and reshapes institutional frameworks. The study highlights the ethical and regulatory challenges of AI governance, focusing first on the efforts of the United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe and the European Union (EU). Later, the article discusses the "AI technology race" between the United States and China and their regulations. Finally, the article highlights the need for ethical and responsible AI development to foster global cooperation and address the challenges and opportunities that this technology presents in contemporary international relations.
Topic:
International Relations, Science and Technology, United Nations, Governance, European Union, Regulation, Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Council of Europe
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

57. The e-commerce challenge: Is importing low-value consignments going to become more cumbersome in the EU and the US?

Author:
Anna Jerzewska
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
In the last few months, terms such as e-commerce and de minimis (threshold below which imported goods are not subject to tariffs) have made headlines both in the EU and in the US. The rapid growth of e-commerce exacerbated problems with this exemption both in the US and in the EU. The first problem is lack of control. Only a percentage of commercial goods are subject to physical border checks, and for e-commerce goods this number is even smaller. Then there is the issue of endangering the level-playing field. De minimis benefits consumers and businesses that rely on it, but harms domestic manufacturers and retail outlets that import in bulk (and thus are subject to full customs and product standards and safety requirements). But can the challenges around the rapid growth of e-commerce be solved by the removal of de minimis? And what would be the consequences of removing the exemption? The paper summarises recent attempts and proposals of removing de minimis in the EU and the US and the challenges faced by both administrations. In both cases, e-commerce is still under discussion and it’s not clear what the final solution will look like. However, there are already noticeable differences in approach.
Topic:
European Union, Trade, Imports, and E-Commerce
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

58. Biopower: Securing American Leadership in Biotechnology

Author:
Vivek Chilukuri and Hannah Kelley
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The biorevolution is upon us. Converging breakthroughs in biological sequencing, engineering biology, and machine learning are ushering in an almost science fiction–like world in which humans can manipulate and even design the building blocks of life with increasing sophistication—for good or ill. In this world, cutting-edge biotechnologies will create organs, capture carbon emissions, restore polluted environments, tailor medicines to a person’s genes, and replace vulnerable supply chains for food, fuel, fabrics, and firepower with domestic biobased alternatives. According to one estimate, existing biotechnologies could have a direct economic impact of $4 trillion a year for the next 20 years.1 As innovation continues, the ceiling could be far higher. If next-generation biotechnologies hold great promise, they also come with gathering perils from new bioweapons, intrusive biosurveillance, and the race for biotechnology breakthroughs without adequate safeguards for public health, the environment, and democratic values. For policymakers, the question is not whether the biorevolution has transformative power, but which nation will responsibly harness that power to unlock new tools for defense, health, manufacturing, food security, environmental remediation, and the fight against climate change. No country is better positioned to lead the biorevolution than the United States, but it requires that policymakers act now with swift, ambitious, and far-sighted steps to secure America’s place as the global biopower. The United States enters the biorevolution with formidable tailwinds—an unrivaled innovation ecosystem, world-leading research institutes, unmatched private investment, talent, and a global network of democratic partners and allies. Recent federal investments and an emerging policy framework have fortified U.S. leadership. But in this fast-moving field, settling for gradual progress will guarantee falling behind as competitors like China race to eclipse the United States with ambitions to scale up their biotechnology research, innovation, talent, and infrastructure. To secure America’s place as the global biopower, the Trump administration and Congress should accelerate U.S. tailwinds through greater investment in biotechnology research and infrastructure, especially in sectors beyond health and medicine; expand the pipeline of biotalent; and lead globally to drive biotechnology norms, standards-setting, and responsible adoption. At the same time, policymakers must navigate headwinds that could imperil further progress—specifically, an underdeveloped national biomanufacturing infrastructure; insufficient public and private investment that flows overwhelmingly to biotechnology research and development (R&D) in the health and medical sectors; a lack of uniform federal standards, definitions, and codes; a morass of conflicting policies and regulations; inaccessible and insecure biodata; and low public awareness and trust in emerging and ethically fraught biotechnology applications. This report outlines several recommendations to shore up America’s position as the preeminent biopower, including an investment of $20 billion in new federal funding. Policymakers should view this level of investment as the floor of what it will require to secure U.S. biotechnology leadership. Cutting-edge biotechnologies will create organs, capture carbon emissions, restore polluted environments, tailor medicines to a person’s genes, and replace vulnerable supply chains for food, fuel, fabrics, and firepower with domestic biobased alternatives. Regardless of what U.S. policymakers do, countries around the world are moving swiftly to embrace the biorevolution. The United Kingdom (UK) is driving innovation by concentrating and sharing its biodata through the UK Biobank, which houses the fully sequenced genetic codes of 500,000 people.2 France has invested roughly $9.5 billion through Innovation Santé 2030 to drive biomedical research.3 Japan has committed $3 billion to promote its biotechnology ecosystem.4 South Korea is carving out a niche in digital biotechnology and aims to transition 30 percent of its manufacturing industry to biomanufacturing within a decade.5 If any nation can surpass the United States as the global biopower, it will be China. In its most recent five-year plans, Beijing made explicit its ambition to become a biotechnology “superpower.” It is well on its way. China’s biotechnology leadership has surged on the back of significant public investment, long-term policy prioritization, a massive domestic market, decades of largely unrestricted capital flows, and the amassing of biodata through licit and illicit means.6 China’s concerted biotechnology push has already paid dividends: its scholars rank second in the world for authoring biomedical papers, and the country leads high-impact research in biofuels and biomanufacturing. China’s high-impact research in synthetic biology is more than triple that of the United States, posing a high risk of monopolization.7 Today, China is a global biomanufacturing powerhouse that exports roughly 40 percent of the world’s active pharmaceutical ingredients.8 Now, China aspires to move up the biotechnology value chain with a renewed push to support start-ups, integrate its vast biodata with cutting-edge machine learning tools, and dominate emerging markets for biotechnology with “national champions” such as BGI Group and WuXi Biologics, as it did with Huawei and 5G. China’s ambition to close the gap with the United States should inspire action from policymakers to secure and extend America’s lead. To that end, this report outlines a series of immediate and longer-term recommendations in six key areas for leaders in policymaking and industry.
Topic:
Leadership, Innovation, and Biotechnology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

59. Averting AI Armageddon: U.S.-China-Russia Rivalry at the Nexus of Nuclear Weapons and Artificial Intelligence

Author:
Jacob Stokes, Colin H. Kahl, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, and Nicholas Lokker
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
In recent years, the previous bipolar nuclear order led by the United States and Russia has given way to a more volatile tripolar one, as China has quantitatively and qualitatively built up its nuclear arsenal. At the same time, there have been significant breakthroughs in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, including for military applications. As a result of these two trends, understanding the AI-nuclear nexus in the context of U.S.-China-Russia geopolitical competition is increasingly urgent. There are various military use cases for AI, including classification models, analytic and predictive models, generative AI, and autonomy. Given that variety, it is necessary to examine the AI-nuclear nexus across three broad categories: nuclear command, control, and communications; structural elements of the nuclear balance; and entanglement of AI-enabled conventional systems with nuclear risks. While each of these categories has the potential to generate risk, this report argues that the degree of risk posed by a particular case depends on three major factors: the role of humans, the degree to which AI systems become a single point of failure, and the AI offense-defense balance. As Russia and China increasingly aim to modernize their nuclear arsenals and integrate AI into their militaries, it is essential for policymakers to be aware of the risks posed by the AI-nuclear nexus. Dealing with China and Russia on issues at this nexus is likely to be difficult in the current diplomatic and military context, characterized by increasingly strained bilateral relationships between the United States and both China and Russia, along with an uptick in coordination between Beijing and Moscow. Nonetheless, there are still various steps that U.S. policymakers could take to bolster deterrence and stability with respect to these issues. These include: building knowledge and competency around issues at the AI-nuclear nexus; integrating AI into diplomatic initiatives related to nuclear and other strategic risks, and vice versa; establishing and promoting norms for the safe use of AI in relation to nuclear arsenals and other strategic capabilities; developing policy and technical criteria for assessing exactly how and when to keep humans in the loop on all nuclear-related processes; including AI technologies as a factor in oversight and reviews of the U.S. nuclear arsenal; investing in AI-enabled cyber and space capabilities to enhance defense and resilience, reduce incentives to attack those areas, and mitigate entanglement risks; consulting closely with U.S. allies about how AI will shape extended deterrence calculations related to both nuclear and conventional capabilities; and pursuing a comprehensive set of risk reduction and crisis management mechanisms with China and Russia while recognizing the obstacles to progress. Failing to take these steps could leave the country and the world dangerously exposed to risks and ill-prepared to seize any opportunities arising from the increasingly salient AI-nuclear nexus.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

60. Starr Forum: The US and the World Under Trump: The First 100 Days

Author:
Juliette N. Kayyem and Kori Schake
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Starr Forum: The US and the World Under Trump: The First 100 Days: Wednesday, April 16th, 2025. Juliette Kayyem and Kori Schake analyzed President Trump’s first 100 days in office and what this means for our nation and the world. Speakers: Juliette Kayyem is the faculty chair of the Homeland Security and Security and Global Health Projects at Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. She also serves as a senior national security analyst for CNN where she has been described as CNN’s “go to” for disasters. A contributing writer to The Atlantic, Professor Kayyem has a weekly security segment on NPR’s Boston station WGBH. Her most recent book, "The Devil Never Sleeps: Learning to Live in an Age of Disasters," was described in a New Yorker profile as an “engagingly urgent blueprint for rethinking our approach to disaster preparedness and response.” She served as President Obama’s assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. Kori Schake leads the foreign and defense policy team at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of "Safe Passage: the Transition from British to American Hegemony," and a contributing writer at the Atlantic, War on the Rocks, and Bloomberg. Before joining AEI, Dr. Schake was the deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. She has had a distinguished career in government, working at the US State Department, the US Department of Defense, and the National Security Council at the White House. She has also taught at Stanford, West Point, Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, National Defense University, and the University of Maryland. She has written additional books, including "America vs the West: Can the Liberal World Order Be Preserved?" and is coeditor, along with former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, of “Warriors & Citizens: American Views of Our Military.” Moderator: Evan Lieberman is the Total Professor of Political Science and Contemporary Africa and the director of the MIT Center for International Studies. He conducts research on the political-economy of development, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. He studies the democratic politics of governing ethnically and racially diverse societies, including the challenges of public health, climate adaptation, and ensuring respect for human dignity. Lieberman is the author, most recently, of "Until We Have Won Our Liberty: South Africa after Apartheid."
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, Public Health, and Donald Trump
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America