Since 1984, the precedent set by the court caseChevron v. NRDC has controlled the balance of power in the United States. Unfortunately, most Americans can’t get through the words “administrative law” without their eyes glazing over, which puts this precedent in a uniquely undercover position. In short, the idea behind this is that whenever Congress has not spoken directly about an issue, the courts defer to the agency with jurisdiction for filling the policy (regulatory) gap. This has given government bureaucratic agencies broad authority to act as they see fit. Since the court case was decided, Chevronhas become a prime conservative target. When Americans make broad, general statements about how little Congress accomplishes, a fair share of that is due to Chevron. Under the doctrine, the less Congress does, the easier it is for federal agencies to function at the direction of technocratic experts. Congress has happily abdicated the role of executing wordy policy, instead deciding to write checks with only broad guidelines for how agencies use the funds. This dynamic has given rise to the infamous “fourth branch” of government: executive agencies.
Competition is the ultimate inevitability of ambitious statehood. Since antiquity, the growth of aspiring powers has been tested by the defiant presence of other powerful states. This is the legacy of great powers, which the United States has now claimed. American preeminence, the global “Pax Americana,” is currently threatened by the aspirant People’s Republic of China. If this definitive struggle is to be successfully endured, the United States must learn from the fates of its predecessors.
If there is anything that shows the American public’s lack of education on foreign policy and geopolitical issues, the Pew Research Center’s 2022 survey on citizen knowledge tells it all. The report presents a startlingly grim picture and should alarm anyone who reads it. Only about half of Americans correctly answered questions about our involvement in the global system. Just 48% knew that Ukraine was not part of NATO. Only 51% could answer that Antony Blinken is the current U.S. Secretary of State. A solid 25% of respondents answered Not Sure on eleven different questions. This geopolitical illiteracy was evident among men, women, all education levels, all ages, and all political affiliations. What does that say about our understanding of our place in the world? More importantly, what does it say about our ability to form educated opinions on domestic and international politics?
By Naveen Wineland ’27 Managing Editor, Ike’s Anvil
On February 15, the House of Representatives went on vacation, a two-week recess until February 28. This recess occurred despite numerous pressing challenges requiring our legislature’s urgent attention. During this break, Avdiivka (one of the most critical “fortress cities” in Ukraine) fell to Russian advances due to a lack of American weaponry. Also during this recess, tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants crossed the border due to a lack of adequate legislation from Congress. This is all occurring amid a looming government shutdown, especially since the recess left Congress almost no time to make a deal. A shutdown was narrowly averted with temporary funding through March 8, with 12 funding bills once again in limbo. This is only one manifestation of a House incapable of legislating since being sworn in on January 3, 2023.
After watching the disastrous GOP outcomes in the November 2023 elections, many conservatives felt overcome with dread and confusion. Notably, Attorney General Daniel Cameron trailed incumbent governor Andy Beshar in Kentucky. Virginia Democrats flipped the state’s House of Delegates while maintaining their Senate. Although Mississippi Governor Tate Reeves won reelection against Democratic contender Brandon Presley, it was the closest gubernatorial election won by a Republican since 1991. Heading into the third GOP presidential debate the next day, Republican voters needed consoling and explanations—instead, what they received from one candidate was brutal honesty.
Drag shows are not typically the first thought that comes to mind when asked about national security. However, they have become a significantly contested issue in the security realm. On March 29, against a backdrop of anti-LGBTQ+ state laws passed throughout the United States, drag was raised as an issue during a meeting of the House Armed Services Committee on the Pentagon’s 2024 budget. During the testimony of Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Under Secretary of Defense Michael J. McCord, Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) inquired into drag performances held on military bases.
Words have meaning, and that meaning translates into reality. The more influence an individual or organization has, the more their language could become dangerous and incite violent action. As a participant in Professor Annie Morgan’sEmerging Threats in National Securityprogram, I have learned of the vitalrole that language plays in the study of national security threats and government policy.
For many years, the United States Congress has exercised its powers to investigate controversial topics, including foreign policy, presidential power and federal spending. Often, Congress has used its legal authority to compel other authorities to provide information, as members carry out their necessary and proper power to make and execute federal laws. However, the U.S. Supreme Court continues to grapple with challenging questions on the limits of Congressional authority to compel information. The Court recently decided to dismiss a case that would have addressed a pressing question regarding Congress’ authority to demand information from an executive agency. This case represents a hallmark of separation of powers, and the Federalist debate.
Through the Eisenhower Institute’s Women and Leadership program, I had the opportunity to listen and learn from accomplished women leaders. Though each speaker contributed their knowledge from vastly different career areas and personal experiences, they all praised the value of authentic leadership. Women and Leadership tasked me with finding my hypothetical tie as a woman entering the professional world. The phrase “finding my tie” evolves from the hyper-gendered professional dress code that deems men professional once they lace up their tie—but what is a woman’s “tie?”