ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Pros and Cons of the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021

    Pros and Cons of the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021

    What is Menstrual Equity and Period Poverty?

    Menstrual equity and period poverty are two global issues rooted in accessibility and affordability of menstrual products and reproductive healthcare. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 4 in 5 students in the United States knew someone who missed school due to struggles in attaining menstrual products. A second study found that almost half of all Black and Hispanic students in the U.S. struggle to access period products, compared to about 28% of their white peers. While period poverty is a particular challenge for students, it also impacts incarcerated populations and the homeless. Without proper supplies, menstruating people face increased physical and psychological health risks, social challenges, and barriers to education. The goal of menstrual equity is to promote free, equal distribution of menstrual products to all people who need them, both in the United States and around the world. 

    Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021

    Introduced by U.S. representative of New York, Grace Meng, the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 aims to increase affordability and accessibility of menstrual products for all people, including those in detention facilities, federal public buildings, educational institutions, and for individuals facing homelessness and/or poverty. The goals of the act are as follows:

    1. Encouraging the state to provide free menstrual products in public schools. 
    2. Encouraging colleges and universities to establish pilot programs that provide free menstrual products in all bathrooms.
    3. Requiring that all incarcerated people in federal, state, and local institutions, including those held in immigration detention centers, have access to free menstrual products.
    4. Allowing homeless assistance providers to use funding for menstrual products.
    5. Requiring Medicaid to cover the cost of menstrual products.
    6. Encouraging employers of over 100 people to provide free menstrual products in the workplace.
    7. Requiring all federal public buildings to provide free menstrual products. 

    Those who most benefit from the act include all people who menstruate, with a particular focus on low-income populations, incarcerated people, the homeless, women of color, and students. 

    Financial Benefits and Economic Setbacks

    Supporters of the Menstrual Equity for All Act argue that the legislation increases the accessibility of menstrual products for all people in the United States. A woman, on average, gets about 450 periods during her lifetime, which adds to about $9,000 spent on menstrual products over the course of her life. Since most men do not menstruate, the cost of period products, coupled with the pay gap and the pink tax, create a problem of gender inequality. By providing free menstrual products to populations most in need, the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 has the potential to alleviate the financial burden of purchasing products and increase school and work attendance rates for low-income individuals. 

    However, many view menstrual products as outside the scope of government spending, and believe the funds could be better used elsewhere. They argue that $9,000 over the course of a lifetime is a drop in the bucket in comparison to the gender pay gap, and that other issues should be the focus of gender equality policies.

    In addition, critics believe that the legislation fails to address the source of funding for free products and their distribution. For example, the act does not ensure that government insurance and assistance programs are covering the costs of menstrual products. As a result, individuals dependent on government housing, food, and income support, despite being the most in need population, will be the least likely to reap the benefits of the Menstrual Equity Act. Furthermore, the legislation does not include a plan to ensure equitable financial distribution of funding to all school districts for menstrual products. Without a government-controlled source of funding, wealthier school districts with higher tax support will be able to consistently provide better menstrual products than school districts in low-income neighborhoods.

    The Impacts of the Act on Criminal Justice Reform

    Many incarcerated individuals report that purchasing menstrual products on a prison salary of between $0.14 and $0.63 an hour is a challenging feat. The Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 mandates that all federal, state, and local incarceration institutions must provide free menstrual products to all menstruating inmates. By erasing the cost of menstrual products, supporters claim that all detained people will have the equal ability to practice adequate hygiene and maintain their reproductive health. With access to the products they need, the act establishes financial equality among inmates and is believed to support mental health.

    Although supporters present the mental health benefits of free menstrual products in detention facilities, critics argue that the process of distributing products is unclear and could do more harm than good. The Menstrual Equity for All Act does not provide specific guidelines as to when and how often menstrual products will be given to inmates. Second, in detention facilities that have already instituted Meng’s menstrual equity plan, studies have found that there has not been significant improvement in the physical or mental health of inmates. Due to the low quality of free menstrual products, most women still purchase their own menstrual supplies from the prison commissary. In one Maryland prison, due to the low absorbency of free products provided, incarcerated  people often turned to rags or mattress stuffing as alternatives, which increases the risk of dangerous physical and mental health issues, and widens the socioeconomic gap between inmates. 

    Menstrual Stigma and Health Awareness

    Period poverty and menstrual equity are topics often considered taboo. Supporters of the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 believe that the legislation will decrease period stigma by encouraging both politicians and lay citizens to have open conversations about the accessibility and affordability of menstrual products in the United States. Additionally, providing free products in schools is a gateway to having conversations about menstruation, reproductive health, and hygiene in health education classes. One study conducted in Hawaii found that providing free menstrual products in school bathrooms increased student confidence and allowed students to focus more on school.

    Nevertheless, critics state that the Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 does not sufficiently address the issue of period poverty in the United States. By leaving the Act’s implementation up to the decision of individual states, menstrual insecurity and period poverty will not be equitably and uniformly addressed across the country. School districts, detention facilities, and homeless shelters with the most funding will receive the greatest benefits from the act, while communities facing higher concentrations of poverty will not have consistent access to period products. Therefore, critics argue that one’s access to the benefits of the Menstrual Equity for All Act is dependent on their wealth, which directly contradicts the inclusive mission of the legislation. 

  • Pros and Cons of Cybersecurity Regulation

    Pros and Cons of Cybersecurity Regulation

    Cybersecurity is the practice of protecting online networks, systems, and information from cyber attacks. Cybersecurity regulation involves policies that mandate specific cybersecurity strategies in both the private and public sector. With the increasing reliance on digital systems and networks by both individuals and organizations, cyber attacks have become more common and detrimental. As a result of this, the role of the federal government in regulating cybersecurity has been a topic of discussion and debate.

    Advocates of heightened federal cybersecurity regulations support two main arguments:

    1. It is critical to protect national security. Cyber attacks are targeting critical infrastructure such as pipelines and power grids, leaving vulnerabilities in national security. Because so much of US critical infrastructure lies in the private sector, it is becoming increasingly important to protect private companies with federally mandated cybersecurity guidelines. Government regulation can help protect national security in many ways. Lowering the barriers to cyber risk information sharing can promote a better understanding of the cyber threat landscape and lead to improved cybersecurity protections. Introducing federally mandated liability provisions can incentivize businesses to better protect their systems from cyberattacks.    
    1. Public-private partnerships in cybersecurity are effective and could benefit from being federally mandated. The federal government has a better grasp on cyber threats due to their intelligence capabilities, but private companies often have more advanced cybersecurity capabilities. Combining these unique abilities leads to the most effective cybersecurity protections as companies can greatly benefit from the federal government’s surveillance, forecasting, and notification of cyber threats. The EU has pioneered these partnerships through the successful enactment of public-private partnership (PPP) on cybersecurity in 2016.   

    Critics of federal cybersecurity regulations argue the following:

    1. The government should be limited in its access to private information. Privacy risks that occur when sharing cybersecurity information are not worth the tradeoff for better cybersecurity regulations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have stated that sharing cybersecurity related information with the government will introduce serious privacy concerns, thereby infringing upon the privacy rights of citizens. Specifically, the privacy concerns mainly involve the sharing and dissemination of personally identifiable information (PII) throughout the government. This leads to further questions over how that data will be used as well as who can access the shared information. Additionally, some cybersecurity professionals and technology companies have argued that the sharing of private consumer information with the government violates individual privacy rights. They say that the introduction of these privacy risks are not worth the limited benefit of information sharing with the government. 
    1. Mandating cybersecurity guidelines can inhibit companies. Threats of liability can stifle innovation for many companies. For example, ensuring that software products adhere to federally mandated cybersecurity standards creates additional, costly steps in the innovation of such products. Opponents of mandatory cybersecurity regulations further argue that acting in compliance could reveal trade secrets and make products less competitive in the market. Additionally, some also argue that federal cybersecurity mandates may actually impede the current cybersecurity measures of businesses’ by forcing them to adapt to government mandates.  

    Currently, there is a lack of comprehensive federal cybersecurity regulation, yet recent developments suggest that such regulations may be coming. For example, in March 2022, President Biden signed the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act into law, which requires certain critical infrastructure entities to report cyber incidents to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). In March 2023, the Biden-Harris administration announced a new federal cybersecurity strategy, with an emphasis on holding companies liable for protecting their cyberspace. While it remains unclear what specific policies will be designed, this announcement represents a major step towards more comprehensive federal cybersecurity regulation.

  • Pros and Cons of the 2015 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act

    Pros and Cons of the 2015 Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act

    At the end of 2015, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) was signed into law by President Obama as part of a larger omnibus spending bill. In the years prior to 2015, the US suffered many major cyberattacks including the 2013 Target Corp data breach that leaked the private information of 110 million people and the 2014 cyberattack on the United States’ Office of Personnel Management that affected 22.1 million American citizens. In 2015 alone, multiple major cyberattacks leaked the information of 300 million people and led to $1 billion in damages. Recognizing the need for increased cybersecurity protections, CISA was passed with bipartisan support, although controversy over the bill still remains. Broadly, the act allows for cybersecurity information sharing between private and public entities in the interest of national security. A key provision of this act is that information sharing with the government is completely voluntary.    

    Advocates of CISA support two main arguments:

    1. It is critical to protect private data. Given the cyber environment leading up to the passage of CISA, it was clear that cyber criminals had begun using increasingly complex tactics. In the early months of 2015, the Department of Defense had begun advancing and streamlining its cyber capabilities and some cybersecurity proponents argued that the private sector should follow its lead. Thus, CISA represents an attempt to develop more capable defense and responses to cyber incidents in order to protect private information in the United States.  
    1. It is important to develop public-private cooperation in cybersecurity. Neither private companies nor the federal government alone possess the requisite capabilities to protect critical infrastructure and data from cyberattacks. Public-private cooperation provides a cost-effective and dynamic approach to cybersecurity protection and advocates have argued that the US should take advantage of such a model. CISA allows for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to receive cyber information (cyberattack indicators, malicious code, etc) from private organizations, integrate that data, and provide comprehensive defense strategies for all to use. In addition, if one company were to discover signs of an attack, this information could be sent to DHS and a warning could be distributed to other companies within minutes. 

    Critics of CISA argue the following:

    1. CISA does not properly control how shared information can be used. Those against CISA argue that once data is shared with the federal government, there are no provisions in place to ensure that the data is only being used for cybersecurity related purposes. Privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation say that CISA takes cyber control away from DHS and allows other government entities to access shared information. They argue that CISA creates an environment conducive to excess sharing and loss of oversight on the regulation of sensitive shared data. Other critics say that such practices would lead to a surveillance state where the government could conduct unauthorized searches using the data collected via CISA.   
    1. The government is not capable of rapidly processing cyber information. Some against CISA argue that the government is not equipped to deal with the fast-paced nature of cyberattacks. They say that cyber criminals do not require consensus decisions to organize their attacks, while the government cannot move at such speed. Additionally, CISA critics argue that private companies are already engaging in extensive information sharing practices, and adding the government into such frameworks only slows these processes down. Additionally, they say that the government already has more data than it can process, so the input of additional information is useless.  

    In the years following the passage of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, cyberattacks are still an ever-present threat as exemplified by the attack on Colonial Pipeline in 2021 and Uber in 2022. Accordingly, CISA has undergone multiple revisions since its passage in 2015 in attempts to improve its efficacy and address privacy concerns. CISA has been effective in incentivizing public-private information sharing, yet adjustments are still needed to improve the quality of data being shared.

  • Biden Ends Re-election Campaign: Democratic Race Reopens

    Biden Ends Re-election Campaign: Democratic Race Reopens

    After weeks of calls to step down following his presidential debate performance in June, President Joe Biden has decided not to run for re-election in 2024.

    In this not-so-unexpected turn of events, the American people are in for an interesting and unprecedented August as the Democrats decide who will be their nominee to face off against former President Donald Trump.

    On Sunday afternoon, in his letter to the American people informing them of his decision to step down, the President began by addressing the accomplishments of his administration.

    He wrote, “Today, America has the strongest economy in the world. We’ve made historic investments in rebuilding our Nation, in lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, and in expanding affordable health care to a record number of Americans. We’ve provided critically needed care to a million veterans exposed to toxic substances, passed the first gun safety law in 30 years, appointed the first African American woman to the Supreme Court, and passed the most significant climate legislation in the history of the world. America has never been better positioned to lead than we are today.”

    He continued, “It has been the greatest honor of my life to serve as your President. And while it has been my intention to seek re-election, I believe it is in the best interest of my party and the country for me to step down and to focus solely on fulfilling my duties as President for the remainder of my term.”

    In a statement later, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to be the Democratic presidential nominee. He wrote, “My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

    However, even though President Biden endorsed Harris, it does not mean she will be the Democratic nominee.

    So, what happens now?

    Now that President Biden has decided not to run for re-election, the delegates who were bound to their electoral outcome with Biden as the winner are now released, allowing them to vote for and nominate whomever they choose at the convention.

    This means that all 3,896 delegates President Biden received from winning each state primary will no longer have allegiance to him, making room for an open convention.

    The same rules still apply at the Democratic National Convention.

    There are an estimated 4,672 delegates up for grabs in 2024. Of these, 3,933 are pledged delegates and 739 are superdelegates. 

    Whichever candidate reaches the 1,968 pledged delegate threshold, clinches the nomination. 

    The DNC rules also state that the Vice President is nominated first, adding an interesting twist to an already unprecedented convention. 

    Pundits immediately began to speculate as to who the next nominee might be. After his statement, Bill and Hillary Clinton released a statement endorsing Harris to be the next president, as did California Governor Gavin Newsom.

    Former President Barack Obama also released a statement; however, he did not endorse Kamala Harris to be the nominee. He emphasized his confidence in the leaders of the party to “create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges.”

    The “Biden-Harris” Campaign has officially become the “Harris Campaign,” with all funds being diverted to Harris, making her the most equipped candidate with a formidable campaign apparatus to run for president in just over two months.

    Republican Reactions 

    Former President Trump immediately responded to Biden’s decision to step down. In a post on TruthSocial, he wrote, “Crooked Joe Biden was not fit to run for President, and is certainly not fit to serve – And never was!… We will suffer greatly because of his presidency, but we will remedy the damage he has done very quickly. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

    He then turned the attack to his possible next opponent, writing “Kamala Harris is just as much of a joke as Biden is…. Harris has been the Enabler-in-Chief for Crooked Joe this entire time. They own each other’s records, and there is no distance between the two. Harris must defend the failed Biden Administration AND her liberal, weak-on-crime record in CA…And during this entire term, Kamala Harris – as well as every other Democrat in Washington, sat by and did NOTHING. They are all just as complicit as Biden is in the destruction of our once-great Nation, and they must all be thrown out of office.”

    In the wake of the announcement, some Republican lawmakers have come out criticizing Biden for stepping down after the primary process, calling his move “undemocratic.”

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson issued a statement writing, “At this unprecedented juncture in American history, we must be clear about what just happened. The Democrat Party forced the Democrat nominee off the ballot, just over 100 days before the election.”

    He also called for Biden to immediately resign, saying, “If Joe Biden is not fit to run for President, he is not fit to serve as President. He must resign the office immediately. November 5 cannot arrive soon enough.”

    Between the attempted assassination attempt on former President Trump and President Biden deciding not to run for re-election, it looks like October surprises came early this year. The American people are in for an interesting end of their summer, as the 2024 political landscape drastically changes before their very eyes.

    President Trump will now have to focus his efforts on a new opponent, and Kamala Harris will have to shore up support among her fellow Democrats to lead the fight against him. The Democratic National Convention starts August 19, leaving just about three weeks for potential nominees to start wooing delegates in their favor.

    It is going to be an exciting August. Stay here for constant updates without the spin. Stay engaged, stay critical, stay informed.

    Questions to ask yourself after reading:

    Do I agree with President Biden’s decision to not seek re-election?

    Should Kamala Harris be the Democratic nominee? If not, who?

    Should there be a debate between now and the Democratic National Convention for possible candidates?

    Who matches up best with former President Trump?

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 4

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 4

    Day 4 of the RNC Convention marks the final day and featured one of the longest acceptance speeches in history. The event included speeches from various Republican delegates and speakers, such as well-known wrestler Hulk Hogan and Linda McMahon, wife of the former CEO of WWE. Common themes among the speeches were the need for America to regain its strength, the belief that Donald Trump was saved by divine intervention from an assassination attempt, and the idea that the American dream needs to be saved, with Donald Trump being presented as the person capable of doing so. Below is a summary of some of the speakers’ speeches, presented in a non-partisan, unbiased manner.

    Diana Hendricks – ABC Supply Owner
    Diana Hendricks, the owner of ABC Supply, expressed her concern for what she sees as the “American dream under threat.” She stated that under the Biden administration, prices, taxes, and regulations have increased. As a business owner, Diana shared her worries for aspiring entrepreneurs, noting that high interest rates make it difficult for them to secure loans. She emphasized the need for a “builder” in the White House and believes that person is Donald Trump.

    Linda McMahon- Former Small business Administrator Of The USA

    Linda McMahon, former Small Business Administrator of the United States, voiced her dissatisfaction with the Biden administration’s handling of small business affairs. She believes that the current administration aims to “penalize” small businesses by raising taxes. In contrast, she highlighted Donald Trump’s promise to make tax cuts permanent if re-elected, along with other proposed policies such as no taxes on tips and increased tariffs on China. McMahon called Trump the “champion of the forgotten man and woman” and urged listeners to vote for him.

    Mike Pompeo- Former Secretary Of State

    Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State, expressed his displeasure with the Biden administration’s handling of foreign affairs. He said that under Trump’s administration, religious freedom was secure, the people of Israel were protected, and there was progress towards an honorable exit in Afghanistan. Pompeo criticized Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, the security of the southern border, and the handling of conflicts in the Middle East and the war between Russia and Ukraine. He accused the Biden administration of “selling out citizens, security, and sovereignty” and emphasized his belief that Donald Trump will put America first.

    Tucker Carlson- Host of “Tucker on Twitter”

    Tucker Carlson, host of “Tucker on Twitter,” expressed his belief that Donald Trump is the leader the country needs. He described a leader as someone who is “the bravest of men,” and praised Trump for demonstrating this bravery, particularly in light of the assassination attempt he survived. Carlson emphasized that a leader’s duty is “to his people, his country, and to no other,” and asserted that Trump exemplifies this principle. He criticized the Biden administration’s performance and urged voters to support Trump in the upcoming election.

    Hulk Hogan- Former Wrestler & Entertainer 

    Hulk Hogan, former wrestler and entertainer, voiced his support for Donald Trump and expressed dissatisfaction with the past four years under the Biden administration. Hogan highlighted what he saw as successes during the Trump administration, including a “thriving economy, strong borders, safe streets, and peace and respect around the world.” He contrasted this with what he perceives as a deterioration of these conditions under Biden. Hogan asserted that Donald Trump is the person capable of addressing these issues and improving the country.

    Dana White- CEO of UFC

    Dana White, CEO of UFC, conveyed his belief that Donald Trump is deeply committed to helping people. White criticized the media for promoting a narrative about Trump that he considers false, describing Trump as a fighter who “fights harder the higher the stakes.” He noted that Trump’s decision to run for president again was driven by his love for America, rather than necessity. White urged voters to support Trump in the upcoming election.

    Donald Trump- Presidential Candidate 

    Donald Trump, the presidential candidate, accepted his nomination for President of the United States. He expressed gratitude to the American people for their support following his assassination attempt, and extended his thoughts and prayers to the victims of the incident—one of whom passed away, and two others who were critically injured but are now recovering. Trump reflected on the assassination attempt, asserting that he felt divine support and reaffirmed his unbroken resolve to continue his campaign. He called for national unity, emphasizing that “now is the time to remember that we are all fellow citizens.” Trump criticized Democrats for what he perceives as the weaponization of the justice system and the labeling of political opponents as “enemies of democracy.” He expressed enthusiasm for his newly announced running mate, J.D. Vance, and praised him as a great choice for Vice President.

    Trump promised that, if elected, he would secure borders, boost the economy, and address the illegal immigration crisis. He described the current administration as leading a nation in decline and pledged to tackle inflation, reduce interest rates, and lower energy costs. He also vowed to end international conflicts he believes the current administration has created.

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 3

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 3


    Day three of the RNC convention featured speeches from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and the newly announced vice presidential candidate, J.D. Trump. These speeches shared several common themes, including concerns about national security, border control, energy policies, and the current administration’s approach. This event marked the first public appearance of the newly announced vice presidential candidate, J.D Vance, and his wife, Usha. Below is a summary of key points from some of the speakers, presented in a non-partisan manner.

    Jim and Sue Colton – Arizona Residents
    Jim, a fifth-generation rancher from Arizona whose property lies along the Arizona-Mexico border, expressed significant concerns about border security during his speech. He emphasized, “Joe Biden’s open border policy is our country’s greatest national security threat,” and cited incidents including “our house being broken into twice” and “a border control agent being shot five times by drug smugglers on our ranch.” Jim noted that during the Trump administration, construction of a border wall on his property was nearing completion but was halted under the Biden administration, which he claimed led to a reported five-fold increase in unauthorized crossings.

    Peter Navarro
    Peter Navarro, former U.S. Trade and Manufacturing Policy Director, was recently imprisoned in Miami for defying a subpoena. He claimed that Joe Biden and his Department of “Injustice” were responsible for his imprisonment. Navarro warned, “If they can come for me, if they can come for Donald Trump, be careful, they will come for you.” He expressed his disappointment in the Biden administration, criticizing what he perceives as corruption in all three branches of government, as well as Biden’s border policy, economic management, and belief in the “Green New Scam.”

    David Lara
    David Lara, an Arizona resident, expressed concern over border control, stating that “small towns like mine bear the brunt of the chaos.” He called for the Biden-Harris administration to put “Americans first” and criticized them for neglecting his town of San Luis, saying, “They have done nothing to stop it, and everything to make it worse.” Lara expressed appreciation for Donald Trump visiting his town and “believing in borders.”

    Greg Abbott
    Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, expressed his views on border security. He believes that “America needs a president that will secure our border” and that the president’s most sacred duty is to secure the country. He criticized Joe Biden’s border policy, stating that it has allowed “rapists, murderers, and terrorists” into the country. Abbott mentioned his initiative to bus illegal immigrants to D.C. until “we secure the border,” and expressed confidence that Donald Trump will enforce immigration laws, including arresting or deporting illegal immigrants.

    Sarah Phillips
    Sarah Phillips, a petroleum engineer, expressed her support for Donald Trump’s energy policies. She stated, “Trump is high energy and supports energy, while Biden is low energy and is against energy.” Phillips criticized Biden’s approach, referring to the Green New Deal as a “scam” and accusing Biden of declaring “war” on the oil and gas industry from day one. She emphasized the importance of fossil fuels, stating, “Our society and standard of living could not exist without fossil fuels.” Phillips believes that under Trump’s administration, “America’s great economic revival will be powered by American energy.”

    Trent Conaway
    Trent Conaway, governor of East Palestine, Ohio, criticized what he perceives as Joe Biden’s lack of response and action when a train derailed, spilling chemicals in his town. He stated that the White House was silent on the matter and that he did not hear from Vice President Kamala Harris. Conaway praised Donald Trump for visiting and “caring” and “listening to us,” while contrasting this with Joe Biden’s visit, which he described as “forced and scripted.” He labeled the Biden administration as a “train wreck” and called for action, stating, “Before President Biden derails our nation, we need to act.”

    Kimberly Guilfoyle
    Kimberly Guilfoyle, Trump campaign advisor and fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., views the upcoming election as pivotal for the future of the United States. She argues that the choice is between “safety and chaos,” urging voters to elect Donald Trump for what she describes as his vision of ‘American greatness’ versus Joe Biden’s ‘visions for American weakness.’ Guilfoyle criticizes Biden’s leadership capabilities, claiming he ‘cannot even lead himself off of stage.’ She opposes what she perceives as the indoctrination of children in schools and the inclusion of ‘“biological men” in girls’ sports, advocating instead for a return to national pride, where “freedom of speech is respected” and “cancel culture is ended”.

    Shabbos Kestenbaum
    Shabbos Kestenbaum, a first-generation Jewish Harvard alumni, is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Harvard, alleging a failure to combat anti-Semitism. He contends that Harvard students are taught “not how to think but what to think.” As a registered Democrat, Kestenbaum expresses concern that “the far left has abandoned not only the Jewish people but also the American people.” He criticizes what he sees as ideological poisoning within the Democratic Party, particularly impacting young American students. Kestenbaum denounces what he terms as ‘radicalism’ on American campuses and streets, asserting that such movements lack legitimacy.

    Michael Waltz
    Michael Waltz, the first Green Beret ever elected to Congress and former White House advisor, highlighted differences between administrations in his speech. He praised the Trump administration for its actions against ISIS, policies towards Iran, and support for Israel. He contrasted this with what he sees as President Biden’s focus on issues such as pronouns, base renaming, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and military technologies like electric tanks. Waltz criticized Biden’s decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, calling it ‘disgraceful’ and a “stain on our national conscience.” He emphasized his belief in achieving peace “through American strength” during the Trump administration.

    Donald Trump Jr.
    Donald Trump Jr., son of Donald Trump, expressed his admiration for his father, describing him as having “a heart of a lion” and showing resilience after an assassination attempt. He honored the life of Corey Compertore, who died during a recent rally. Trump Jr. criticized the Democrats, accusing them of lying about Joe Biden’s fitness for office and Hunter Biden’s laptop. He claimed that under the Biden administration “nothing is built, nothing is back, and nothing is better.”

    J.D. Vance
    J.D. Vance, the vice presidential candidate, shared his belief that Donald Trump did not need to run again, stating that “he didn’t need the politics, but the country needed him.” He posed a question to the audience about the importance of being governed by a party that debates ideas and seeks the best solutions. Vance accepted the vice presidential nomination and shared personal details about his childhood, including being raised by his grandmother in a small rural town, enlisting in the Marines after 9/11, attending Ohio State University, and then Yale Law School, where he met his wife. He emphasized the need for a leader who “fights for the people who built this country” and opposes the Green New Deal. Vance concluded his speech by expressing his hope for the nation to “thrive for centuries to come.”

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 2

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 2

    On the second night of the Republican National Convention, the theme “Make America Safe Again” resonated throughout the evening, but the underlying message of unity was unmistakable. The night saw a series of powerful speeches from key Republican figures, all rallying behind former President Donald Trump. They addressed various issues from economic policies to national security, emphasizing the need for a cohesive Republican front to ensure a return to the White House.

    Ted Cruz: The Border Crisis

    Senator Ted Cruz delivered a poignant address focusing on the border crisis. He painted a vivid picture of the human cost associated with illegal immigration, citing numerous tragic examples of Americans who had suffered due to crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Cruz emphasized the magnitude of the crisis by comparing the influx of illegal immigrants to filling 639 arenas, each holding about 18,000 people.

    Cruz passionately stated, “Every day Americans are dying… This is evil and it’s wrong. And it is happening every damn day.” He blamed the Biden administration’s policies for this crisis and asserted that under Trump, the border was secure. Cruz called for a return to strict border enforcement to protect American lives and restore safety.

    Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA): Critiquing the Biden Administration

    Rep. Steve Scalise (LA-1) offered a sharp critique of the Biden administration’s handling of the economy and energy policies. Scalise highlighted the stark differences between the current administration and Trump’s tenure, focusing on job losses and energy dependence.

    He pointed out that while President Biden approved the Nord Stream pipeline for Russia, he canceled the Keystone pipeline in the U.S., leading to thousands of lost American jobs. Scalise also criticized Biden for allowing Iran and Venezuela to export oil while hindering American natural gas exports. He stressed, “President Biden waived taxes on Chinese solar panels, but he raised taxes on Americans.”

    Scalise underscored the need to re-elect Donald Trump to restore American energy dominance and make the Trump tax cuts permanent. He also touched on border security, promising that a Republican majority would pass H.R.2 to secure the border and finish building the wall.

    Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA): Law and Order

    House Speaker Mike Johnson emphasized the Republican Party’s commitment to law and order. He announced an immediate investigation into the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, portraying the Republicans as staunch defenders of American values and the rule of law.

    Johnson stated, “We in the Republican Party are the law and order team. We always have been and we always will be the advocates for the rule of law.” He stressed the importance of a united Republican Party to safeguard the nation’s foundational principles, asserting that the country was at a crossroads where basic American values were under threat.

    Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy: A Call to Traditional Values

    Vivek Ramaswamy’s speech focused on what he described as a national identity crisis. He urged a return to the foundational values of 1776, calling for policies that emphasize merit and the rule of law. Ramaswamy criticized the current administration for what he viewed as a departure from these core values, replacing patriotism, hard work, and family with race, gender, sexuality, and climate as primary concerns.

    Ramaswamy argued, “What does it mean to be a Republican in the year 2024? What does it mean to be an American in the year 2024?” He stressed the importance of sealing the southern border on day one and reducing the influence of unelected bureaucrats. He portrayed Donald Trump as the leader who would revive these American ideals, emphasizing that success and excellence are unifying forces.

    Former South Carolina Governor and Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley: The Unifying Voice

    In perhaps the most critical speech of the night, former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley took the stage amidst mixed reactions. Haley began by expressing her strong endorsement for Donald Trump, which eventually garnered a standing ovation. Haley emphasized the importance of unity within the Republican Party and the need to expand its base by welcoming people with diverse backgrounds and experiences.

    Haley highlighted her tenure as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, praising his foreign policy achievements. She contrasted Trump’s strong stance with the current administration’s approach, noting that under Trump, Vladimir Putin did not invade Ukraine and Iran was significantly restrained. “A strong president doesn’t start wars; a strong president prevents wars,” Haley declared.

    On immigration, Haley criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the border crisis, emphasizing the influx of migrants and the associated security risks. She argued that Trump’s policies had kept the border secure and that a return to these policies was essential for national security. “Under Donald Trump, we didn’t have the border disaster we have today,” she asserted.

    Haley also reached out to Republicans who might have doubts about Trump, acknowledging that she herself did not always agree with him. She stated, “You don’t have to agree with Trump 100% of the time to vote for him. Take it from me. I haven’t always agreed with President Trump. But we agree more often than we disagree.” Haley’s message was clear: while Republicans may not always agree with Trump, they share a common goal of keeping America strong and safe. She called for Republicans to unite and work together to save the nation, highlighting that no president can fix all problems alone. “Together as a party, let us come together as a people, as one country strong and proud,” she concluded.

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis: Echoing the Sentiment

    Florida Governor Ron DeSantis followed Haley, echoing her sentiments about the stark differences between life under Trump and the Biden administration. DeSantis criticized Biden’s handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal and border security, reinforcing the call for unity and the re-election of Trump to restore national security and prosperity.

    DeSantis highlighted the affordability of life under Trump, stating, “Life was more affordable when Donald Trump was president. Our border was safer under the Trump administration and our country was respected when Donald Trump was our commander in chief.” He emphasized that a strong and unified Republican Party was essential to reversing the current administration’s policies.

    Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders: Personal Endorsement

    Sarah Huckabee Sanders shared personal anecdotes to illustrate Donald Trump’s character and leadership. She praised Trump’s policies on crime, education, and China, and called for his return to the White House to ensure a better future for the next generation. Sanders emphasized Trump’s resilience and unwavering commitment to American values.

    She recounted a personal story of President Trump supporting her during challenging times in her role as White House Press Secretary, and she underscored his compassionate side, saying, “That’s the kind of leader he is, courageous under fire, compassionate towards others.” Sanders concluded by expressing her belief that with Trump back in the White House, America could reclaim its greatness.

    Dr. Ben Carson: Faith and Resilience

    Dr. Ben Carson reflected on Trump’s resilience in the face of numerous attacks. He encouraged daily prayers for Trump’s protection and emphasized the need for a moral base in America. Carson’s speech was a call to action for Americans to uphold their values and re-elect Trump to maintain the nation’s greatness.

    Carson invoked a sense of divine protection over Trump, saying, “No weapon formed against you shall prosper.” He highlighted the various challenges Trump had faced, from attempts to ruin his reputation to assassination attempts, and praised his continued resilience. Carson’s message was one of faith, hope, and perseverance in the face of adversity.

    Florida Senator Marco Rubio: The People’s Movement

    Senator Marco Rubio highlighted how Trump had transformed the Republican Party by giving a voice to everyday Americans. He stressed the importance of putting America first and criticized the Biden administration for its economic and security failures. Rubio’s speech was a rallying cry for unity and action to protect the American dream.

    Rubio emphasized the importance of addressing the concerns of ordinary Americans, saying, “These are the Americans who wear the red hats and wait for hours under a blazing sun to hear Trump speak.” He called for policies that prioritize American jobs, secure borders, and a strong national defense, arguing that these are not extreme demands but fundamental expectations of the American people.

    Lara Trump: A Personal Appeal

    Lara Trump provided a heartfelt perspective on the personal sacrifices made by the Trump family. She highlighted Trump’s achievements during his presidency, including economic gains and national security. Lara urged Americans to remember the positive changes under Trump and to support his return to office.

    She recounted the emotional experience of witnessing the assassination attempt on Trump, emphasizing his resilience and determination. “Donald Trump is a lion. He is bold, he is strong, he is fearless, and he is exactly what this country needs right now,” she said. Lara’s speech was a personal appeal to voters to see beyond the headlines and recognize Trump’s commitment to America.

    You could feel the energy at the RNC Night 2, bringing together political foes, with unity as the central message. The speakers emphasized the importance of coming together to ensure a safe, strong, and prosperous America under Donald Trump’s leadership. Whether this message of unity will remain throughout the campaign remains to be seen. We are here to give you a non-partisan look at presidential politics so you can make decisions based on the facts we present. Stay critical, stay engaged, and stay informed.

    Questions to Ask Yourself After Reading:

    Do I think the Republican party is more unified now?

    Will this unity message last through November?

  • Trump Selects J.D. Vance as 2024 Running Mate

    Trump Selects J.D. Vance as 2024 Running Mate

    After what may be the best-kept secret in modern presidential politics, Donald Trump has finally chosen J.D. Vance, the senator from Ohio, to be his running mate in the 2024 election.

    J.D. Vance was born in Middletown, Ohio, to a working-class family. Raised mostly by his maternal grandparents due to his parent’s divorce and his mother’s alcohol and drug abuse, Vance enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps after graduating from Middletown High School in 2003. He deployed to Iraq and fought in the Iraq War.

    After his service, Vance attended The Ohio State University, earning a bachelor’s degree in political science and philosophy. He then studied at Yale Law School, obtaining his JD. Post-law school, Vance worked for the law firm Sidley Austin LLP and various investment firms nationwide.

    Vance gained fame in 2016 with the publication of “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis,” which detailed his upbringing and painted a bleak picture of rural life, describing poverty as a “family tradition” for many. The book quickly became a bestseller, making Vance a sought-after political commentator.

    In 2016, Vance moved back to Ohio to start a nonprofit aimed at helping disadvantaged children and addressing issues such as drug addiction and the opioid epidemic. Although the organization eventually folded, he later started an investment firm in Cincinnati.

    In 2021, when Rob Portman announced he would not seek reelection, Vance entered the race to fill his Senate seat. With an endorsement from Donald Trump, Vance was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022. In the Senate, Vance serves on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee; the Joint Economic Committee; and the Special Committee on Aging.

    Where J.D. Vance Stands on the Issues:

    Immigration:

    In one of his first Senate campaign advertisements, Vance released a video blaming Joe Biden for the border crisis and its effects on Ohio communities. He said, “Joe Biden’s open border is killing Ohioans. With more illegal drugs and more Democrat voters pouring into this country.” Vance supports finishing the border wall, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, and advocates for a merit-based system for legal immigration. He has also expressed concerns about immigrants being a source of cheap labor, suggesting, “If you cannot hire illegal migrants to staff your hotels, then you have to go to one of the seven million prime-age American men who are out of the labor force and find some way to re-engage them.”

    Abortion:

    Initially favoring a 15-week ban, Vance has recently supported leaving the decision to the states. In a “Face the Nation”, he stated, “I am pro-life. I want to save as many babies as possible. And sure, I think it’s totally reasonable to say that late-term abortions should not happen with reasonable exceptions. But I think Trump’s approach here is trying to settle a very tough issue and actually empower the American people to decide it for themselves.”

    Ukraine:

    Vance has long opposed funding for the war in Ukraine. In an op-ed for the New York Times, he argued, “Ukraine needs more soldiers than it can field, even with draconian conscription policies. And it needs more matériel than the United States can provide. This reality must inform any future Ukraine policy, from further congressional aid to the diplomatic course set by the president.” He accused President Biden of failing “to articulate even basic facts about what Ukraine needs and how this aid will change the reality on the ground.”

    Middle East:

    Vance has staunchly supported Israel throughout its war in Gaza, defending their wartime policies. 

    He led the effort to consider and vote on aid to Ukraine and Israel in separate packages. In a memo circulated among Republicans, he stated, “Israel has a clear plan, and we have a clear means of helping them to fulfill that plan — by providing very specific munitions to enable Israel to conduct a limited operation with a view to neutralizing the threat Hamas poses to Israel. We have no such plan for the Russia-Ukraine War.”

    2020 Election:

    Vance believes the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and has suggested there were significant problems that require political solutions. He stated in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, “If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there. That is the legitimate way to deal with an election that a lot of folks, including me, think had a lot of problems in 2020.” He has dismissed Trump’s role in the January 6 events, saying on CNN, “Look, Jan. 6 was a bad day. It was a riot. But the idea that Donald Trump endangered anyone’s lives when he told them to protest peacefully, it’s just absurd.”

    Economy:

    In his “Face the Nation” interview, Vance called for broad-based tariffs on imports, particularly from China, to protect American industries from unfair competition, which he attributes to slave labor rather than superior workers. He said, “…we need to apply some broad-based tariffs, especially on goods coming in from China and not just solar panels and EV stuff. We need to protect American industries from all of the competition. Because here- here’s the thing, Margaret, the reason China beats us, it’s not because they have better workers, it’s because they’re willing to use slaves–”

    Environment:

    While acknowledging climate change, Vance doubts its anthropogenic causes. He supports drilling for oil in the U.S. and criticizes the Biden administration for subsidizing alternative energy sources and demonizing reliable power sources. In a speech to the American Leadership Forum in 2022, he stated, “I’m skeptical of the idea that climate change is caused purely by man. It’s been changing, as others pointed out, it’s been changing for millennia…”

    ____________________________________________________________________________

    Although Vance was not always a Trump supporter, his perspective has evolved. Initially “Never Trumper,” Vance criticized Trump harshly in 2016 calling him a “terrible candidate” and even saying he was “America’s Hitler.” However, he has since reversed his stance, praising Trump’s presidency and working diligently to secure his second term.

    Former President Trump praised Vance in his announcement on TruthSocial, highlighting Vance’s military service, academic achievements, bestselling memoir, and business career. Trump emphasized Vance’s commitment to American workers and farmers and his dedication to upholding the Constitution and supporting the troops.

    He wrote “After lengthy deliberation and thought and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the great state of Ohio. J.D. honorably served our country in the Marine Corps, graduated from Ohio State University in two years, Summa Cum Laude, and is a Yale Law School graduate, where he was the editor of the Yale Law Journal and President of the Yale Law Veteran Association. J.D.’s book “Hillbilly Elegy” became a Major Best Seller and Movie as it championed the hard-working men and women of our country. J.D. has had a very successful business career in technology and finance, and now, during the campaign will be strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American workers and farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond. As Vice President J.D. will continue to fight for our Constitution, stand with our troops and we’ll do everything he can to help me MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Congratulations to Senator J.D. Vance, his wife, Usha who also graduated from Yale Law School and their three beautiful children. MAGA2024!”

    As we approach the 2024 election, the choice of J.D. Vance as Trump’s running mate adds another layer of complexity to an already dynamic race. Vance’s background and clear positions on critical issues like immigration, abortion, Ukraine, and the economy will significantly influence the political landscape. As election season heats up, it’s essential to stay informed on all matters. Seek out the facts and form your own opinions. This platform aims to provide clear, unbiased information, empowering you to draw your own conclusions. Stay engaged, stay critical, and stay informed.

    Questions to Consider After Reading:

    Do you think J.D. Vance was a good choice for Trump’s VP?

    Should Trump have chosen someone else? Why?

    Is J.D. Vance the strongest candidate to help Donald Trump beat Joe Biden?

  • A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 1

    A Guide to the Republican National Convention: Day 1

    In the wake of the assassination attempt on presidential candidate Donald Trump this past Saturday, the Republican National Convention is underway. Taking place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the main event on the agenda for the convention’s first day is officially nominating Donald Trump as the Republican presidential candidate. 

    Monday afternoon, Trump was nominated in a roll call vote in which delegates from each state were pledged to Trump. His son, Donald Trump, Jr. announced Florida’s 125 delegates for Trump, pushing Trump past the 1,215 delegate threshold to officially gain the GOP presidential nomination. 

    During the roll call vote, Trump announced on the social media platform, Truth Social, that he had selected Senator JD Vance as his running mate. Vance is a first-term senator from Ohio. He has previously served in the Marine Corps and is best known for writing his best-selling memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, which describes his experience growing up in rural poverty and being raised on Appalachian values. He once was a strong critic of Trump. In 2016, he stated he was a “never Trump guy” and referred to Trump as “America’s Hitler.” But he has since changed his stance, becoming a supporter of Trump after gaining Trump’s endorsement in 2021 for the Ohio senate seat. JD Vance appeared on the convention floor a couple of hours after the vice presidential announcement, greeting supporters and taking photos before being officially nominated as the Republican vice presidential candidate. 

    Key Speakers:

    Marjorie Taylor Green, Representative from Georgia

    Green began her speech by condemning the assassination attempt on Trump and offering prayers and support to Corey Comperatore, who lost his life during the assassination attempt at the rally in Pennsylvania. She then moved to reiterate her stance on immigration, criticizing “open borders” and blaming “illegal aliens” for a poor economy and loss of American jobs. She also criticized the aid to Ukraine, claiming that American’s tax dollars would be better used funding a border wall before ending her speech by reiterating her support for Trump, stating “Trump is the president America deserves.”

    Wesley Hunt, Representative from Texas

    Hunt criticized the economy and rising inflation rates under Biden. He claimed that under Trump. families had “more money in their pockets” and were living through the “greatest economy” before ending his speech with the message: “Trump will make America great again.”

    John James, Representative from Michigan

    “If you don’t vote for Trump, you aren’t black.” James began his speech praising his time at West Point and service in the army, calling his life story the “American Dream” story before attacking Joe Biden and the Democrats, stating that they have “given up on the American Dream” and instead intend to use American tax dollars to fund “their woke agenda and the Green New Deal.” He then praised Trump for securing the borders and fostering a strong economy, claiming that under Trump families will be able to go from poverty to riches in “one generation.”

    Katie Britt, Senator from Alabama

    Britt attributed the rising price of groceries, gas, electricity, mortgage rates, and rent to the failings of the Biden administration. She stated that Trump will instead deliver “strong borders” and “strong families and communities.” Her speech reiterated the republican message of American exceptionalism and promised Trump would bring “limitless opportunities” by fixing the current state of the economy.

    Tim Scott, Senator from South Carolina

    Scott criticized Biden’s ability to perform his presidential duties, claiming Biden is “asleep at the wheel” and that “America deserves better.” He then stated, “America is not a racist country,” praising conservative values for fostering unity while claiming democratic cities incite racial poverty. He stated that tax cuts granted by Trump will provide opportunities for growth and praised Trump’s ability and commitment to securing the border. The crowd then broke out in a chant for “four more years” after Scott declared that the Republican party was the party of “Fredrick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Regan, and Donald Trump.”

    Glenn Youngkin, Governor of Virginia

    “Joe must go!” Youngkin addressed the increases in mortgage rates, gas and grocery prices, and inflation which he claimed the Biden/Harris campaign was responsible for. He praised Trump’s position as an “outside businessman” and commended Trump’s tax cuts, “slashing of red tape,” and credited Trump with creating new jobs within Virginia. He reiterated the Trump campaign’s message of “high growth and low taxes” will “lift up all Americans.”

    Kristi Noem, Governor of South Dakota

    Noem first compared the Trump presidency to the Biden presidency, stating that Trump allowed her to “do her job” under COVID. She praised Trump for allowing her to run her state without federal oversight in comparison to Biden. Noem portrayed Trump as a fighter, calling the impeachments, current charges against him, and the assassination attempt as mere obstacles Trump has fought to overcome. She then cites Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, calling for a unity of people amongst great division as she urged her fellow Republicans to win the “hearts and minds” of the people.

    Byron Donalds, Representative of Florida

    Donalds first targeted public school education systems, stating that parents should be able to choose what was being taught in their child’s schools and that under Trump “all America’s children” will get the chance to choose which schools they wish to go to. He then claimed that the Biden/Haris administration enabled rising inflation rates under Biden’s “American Rescue Plan,” ignoring Donalds’ warning about the plan. He then urged that the people must come together under Trump in order for the economy to “boom again” and to “make America wealthy again.”

    Charlie Kirk, Turning Point Action Founder

    “The American Dream has become a luxury item for the wealthy and elite.” Speaking to the Millennials and Generation Z, Kirk blames Biden for the younger generations’ inability to “purchase a house” or “start a family.” He claims that under Trump’s economic platform, the American dream will become within reach again.

    Marsha Blackburn, Senator of Tennessee

    Blackburn claims that when Biden first entered office, “gas was $2.49 a gallon” and today “gas is $3.54,” arguing that “Bidenomics” has caused the rising gas prices and will only continue to raise taxes. In opposition, she claims Trump created “the largest tax cuts in history” and when reelected will make those tax cuts “permanent.” She also claimed that Biden and Harris hired “85,000 IRS agents” to “harass” small businesses, but Trump will fire those workers. She vows that Trump will return the country to “economic greatness.” 

    Amber Rose, Model and TV Personality

    “The best chance we have to give our babies a chance at a better life is to elect Donald Trump.” She once was a Democrat but after meeting with Trump and his base, she switched her support for Donald Trump, claiming that “it’s all love” and “these are [her] people” after feeling lied to by the media. She also cited rising gas and grocery prices as her main causes of concern. 

    After Senator Blackburn’s appearance, Trump made an appearance wearing a bandage over his ear, entering the convention to the cheers of the crowd. The crowd then began chanting “We want Trump” throughout the rest of the convention’s night.

    Finally ending on the crowd’s chants of “We want Trump,” the convention was adjourned until 5 pm central time on Tuesday. 

    Day 1 of the RNC began with the nomination of Donald J. Trump and JD Vance and the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for the GOP. After the nominations were official, the convention adjourned until later that evening. Night 1 of the RNC saw a selection of Republican congresspeople and voters who spoke in support of Trump and his reelection campaign. The main points the speakers hit were criticizing the current state of the economy, rising inflation rates, and border and job security. The general consensus was that a second term of Trump would boost the economy, provide massive tax cuts, and protect Americans from illegal immigrants and the far-left agenda. Then, towards the end of the first conference day, Trump entered the convention hall and sat with his running mate until the meeting was adjourned. Trump is expected to give a speech Thursday, the last day of the RNC.

  • Pros and Cons of the First Step Act

    Pros and Cons of the First Step Act

    The First Step Act

    The First Step Act is a bipartisan piece of criminal justice legislation signed into law in 2018, aiming to reduce crime while giving… citizens a chance at redemption.” The First Step Act (FSA) requires the Attorney General (AG) to develop a system for the Bureau of Prisons to assess the recidivism risk and criminogenic needs of all federal prisoners. The system should also place prisoners in recidivism reduction programs and productive activities to address their needs and reduce this risk. The program aims to promote good behavior, educational training, and fair supervision of prisoners by correctional officers in order to obtain an early release from a prison sentence, and lower the recidivism rates of incarcerated individuals in the United States. 

    Originally drafted and proposed in early 2018, the First Step Act was created as “new age” legislation after the Second Chance Act of 2007. A bipartisan House coalition approved the bill, and it received substantial support from both parties.

    Arguments in Favor of the First Step Act

    One major change is the expansion of opportunities which facilitate transition back into society. Inmates are incentivized to participate in these programs because class attendance counts as good behavior and leads to a reduction in sentence length. Eligible inmates can earn 10 to 15 days of time credits for every 30 days of successful participation in Evidence Based Recidivism Reduction Programs and Productive Activities. Supporters argue this policy benefits society as a whole. Inmates receive vocational, educational, and mental training, so they are equipped to succeed. Employers have access to trained and skilled future employees.

    The First Step Act is also praised for guaranteeing protection from cruel and unusual punishment from correctional staff. The FSA requires the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to provide training to correctional officers and other BOP employees (including those who contract with BOP to house inmates) on how to de-escalate encounters between an officer or employee of BOP and a civilian or an inmate, and how to identify and appropriately respond to incidents that involve people with mental illness or other cognitive deficits. Supporters believe that this step will control the behavior of inmates while incarcerated, further promoting good time provisions and mental well-being of inmates before potential release. With increased reformed control within prisons, it is argued that rehabilitation of inmates would be an easier process.

    Arguments Against the First Step Act

    Some voters argue that the FSA was adopted under a misguided approach to reforming our federal justice system. Many who oppose the First Step Act argue that, despite good intentions, it is dangerous to release prisoners back into society without a full prison sentence, and rush rehabilitation. A community impacted by a specific prisoner may be upset to learn they will be released into society sooner than expected. This can cause panic and fear in affected victims, and create the feeling that justice was not served. While supporters argue that recidivism training classes should reduce community concerns and allow eligible inmates time credits, others argue that prisoners convicted of a crime must meet the mandatory minimum of a sentence before time credits can be obtained from recidivism classes or good outstanding character. These citizens argue meeting a mandatory minimum of a sentence would ensure the prisoner would face the consequences of their actions under law; therefore, the prisoner would not be eligible to receive time credits until the minimum sentence under law has been fulfilled—ensuring the safety of communities, and correct punishment has been enforced.

    Moreover, some have raised concerns about how the First Step Act will affect minority communities. The bill faced backlash because it only applies to citizens—temporary or permanent residents who have not been naturalized are excluded. Many believe this two-tiered system indicates that immigrants do not deserve the same humane treatment within the criminal legal system. In addition, some risk assessment tools used to assess recidivism have been found to have a racial bias. For example, the risk assessment tools applied in sentencing decisions in Florida—meant to predict recidivism—were twice as likely to be wrong when evaluating Black people as White people. Under the FSA, risk assessment tools may bias by racial evaluations based on specific crime, location, and time credit handouts under the FSA’s reformed time credit policy.

    The First Step Act TodayAs of March 2023, there still is no clear direction on the calculation of time credits or policy change, and the frustration has grown among prisoners and families who are anxiously waiting on a determination of when a federal prison term will end. The First Step Act has barely been enforced by the Bureau of Prisons, and the BOP director has changed guidelines around how time credits can be used and obtained for prisoners. Families, prisoners, and lawmakers have become increasingly upset with the lag in legislation implementation. When time credit guidelines are changed, it becomes challenging for both prisons and incarcerated individuals to calculate remaining sentences.