Foreign Policy

In the modern day, Western corporations opt for metadata over muskets to establish global hegemony. Digital colonialism—the practice of Big Tech companies retrieving and controlling user data for their own interests—has emerged as today’s “Scramble for Africa.” Through labor, resources, data, and digital infrastructure, Big Tech exploits the Global South, echoing the colonial systems of the past, and they show no signs of stopping.

Labor Exploitation: Ghost Workers Behind AI

Behind their guise of “machine intelligence,” tech giants need human workers to keep operations running. AI systems heavily rely on people for tasks like data labeling and content moderation. So, where do these giants turn? Wherever they can find cheap labor.

Western companies outsource tasks like data annotation, content moderation, and call center operations to countries in the Global South, capitalizing on lower labor costs while providing little to no support for their workers. According to Al Jazeera, Big Tech’s backbone (its human laborers), including content moderators in India, are exposed to distressing content with minimal psychological support. These workers certainly aren’t being paid enough for therapy, either. Outsourced tech laborers in countries such as Kenya, India, and the Philippines often earn as little as $1.50 per hour under precarious conditions. These workers form the hidden scaffolding propping up the tech empires of Silicon Valley, yet they remain invisible, overworked, and underpaid.

Resource Extraction: Cobalt and the Loss of Connectivity

Cobalt workers in the Congo.

Digital dominance also comes with a raw material cost buried underground in the Global South. AI hardware demands rare minerals like cobalt, nickel, and lithium to function. Thus, to satisfy their products and pockets, tech CEOs turn abroad. Over 70% of the world’s cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where underaged laborers are frequently forced to suffer under dangerous conditions.

Similar mining operations across the Philippines and Latin America have displaced communities with minimal local benefit. In countries like Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia, miners risk their health for a fraction of what Australian workers earn doing the same jobs. For reference, some Australian workers make up to $200,000 annually, while their Latin American counterparts scrape by on $1,430-$3,000 per month. Once again, the tech industry builds its empire on global inequality.

Environmental Impact: AI’s Hidden Carbon Footprint

Beyond its human cost, machine intelligence also causes environmental degradation. Training large-scale AI models can emit as much carbon as five cars over their entire lifespans. The energy required to store and run these systems normally comes from fossil fuels, especially when data centers are built in the Global South, where energy is cheaper and environmental regulations are looser.

But it’s not just the air that’s being drained—it’s the water too. Data centers that spring up through digital colonialism often consume massive amounts of water for cooling, exacerbating local water scarcity in already-vulnerable regions. In other words, the “cloud” is not weightless; it hangs low in the sky above the Global South, ripe with emissions and ready to rain on communities that had no say in its creation.

Legal & Regulatory Gaps

One may wonder how the above is allowed to go on. Well, the digital terrain is largely lawless. While initiatives like the European Union’s AI Act signal progress, their jurisdiction ends where the most damage begins. Many African, Asian, and Latin American countries lack the legal infrastructure to protect their data, labor, and environments. As a result, data extraction is allowed to proceed unchecked, turning user activity into profit streams for Western firms.

This regulatory void raises urgent questions around privacy, consent, and fair distribution of AI benefits. Members of the Perrin Research Institution recently attended an AI Forum moderated by the University of Oxford to investigate this further:

“Legal frameworks must link AI systems to identifiable entities so liability can be assigned. Currently, we lack the language to define what an ‘agent’ legally is,” said Chris Summerfield, Professor of Cognitive Science at the University of Oxford and Research Scientist at Deepmind UK.

How these legal frameworks should be constructed is still up in the air. What is certain, however, is that as AI agents proliferate, so do their risks:

“Currently, criminals buy thousands of fake accounts laboriously. Soon, AI could generate millions of fake personas instantly,” said Summerfield. “Agents could also be used to snipe bids on e-commerce sites, manipulate auctions, or identify legal loopholes for evasion or lawfare.”

Until global consensus emerges, Big Tech will continue operating in a vacuum and outsourcing harm without accountability. So, what can we do?

Looking to Future Resistance

Despite the bleakness, the Global South is not passive. India’s ban on Facebook’s “Free Basics” program, which was marketed as free internet access but criticized for limiting digital freedom, demonstrates the growing pushback against techno-corporate reign. Efforts to build autonomous platforms and enforce net neutrality reflect a broader movement toward digital sovereignty.

Lately, there has been a rise in “alternative digital narratives”—technological initiatives grounded in local values and free from colonial logic. In order for these narratives to prevail, experts agree that there should be a concentrated effort to invest in independent digital infrastructure, create binding global AI governance, and demand ethical tech that does not externalize its costs. The current system was designed to extract, but the future can still be built to empower.

In the technological arms race of today, the Global South faces significant challenges posed by dominant Western corporations. But this isn’t irreversible. Just as imperialism was challenged, so too can digital colonialism be confronted. With rising awareness, the datafied empire can be dismantled, before it finishes rewriting the future in its own image.

Sri Lankan women are becoming increasingly involved in politics, a positive sign for democracy in the country. Despite a majority female population, Sri Lanka has consistently had few opportunities for women in politics. The victory of Anura Kumara Dissanayake in Sri Lanka's 2022 presidential election marked the beginning of a more progressive political era in Sri Lanka, paving the way for increased female representation in parliament. 

An Uphill Battle

Women in Sri Lanka have faced—and continue to face—barriers preventing their participation in politics. 

Barriers, such as a lack of funding to run due to the prevailing wage gap, societal discrimination, and violence against women, have historically made involvement nearly impossible. Social perception of political jobs as masculine and the role of primary caretakers in the household as feminine discourages most women from running for office.

Sri Lanka was the first country to have a female prime minister and establish voting rights for women in 1931. Ironically, however, it has also been globally ranked among the lowest percentages of female representation in parliament. 

To combat this, Sri Lanka embarked on a 20-year-long journey to create a 25% quota of seats reserved for women. Despite their efforts, this progressive policy did not achieve the change it had hoped to see, as Sri Lankan women continued to stray away from political involvement. 

In light of rising concern for women’s rights issues, more attention has been directed to the Sri Lankan government's need for women in power. The civil war in Sri Lanka posed hardships for entire communities, but most pertinently, women—almost 90,000 wives were made widows, leaving them more prone to displacement, poverty, and sexual violence. 

Violence against women is an issue that plagues women in Sri Lanka. The Women's Wellbeing 2019 survey revealed that “women in Sri Lanka are more than twice as likely to have experienced physical violence by a partner in their lifetime (17.4%) rather than by anybody else (7.2%).” 

A lack of policy protecting women from gender-based violence led to a movement of Sri Lankan women wanting to make their voices heard on the legislative level.

Turn of the Tide

Despite the absence of female presidential candidates in the recent 2024 election being heavily criticized, each male candidate did promise to advocate for increased prioritization of women's rights. 

The winning candidate, Dissanayake, promised to amend laws to address gender-based violence, provide social and psychological support to victims of violence, and alter law enforcement standards to better accommodate women. However, it is just as crucial that the other presidential candidates, Wickremesinghe and Premadasa, also planned initiatives regarding systematic gender change. 

The NPP, a left-wing political alliance, nominated Amarasuriya as its candidate for prime minister. She is the first female prime minister to identify as a feminist and has made countless declarations of the goals she has for Sri Lanka and its women. Her victory for office is especially momentous as she was not elected due to family ties or nepotism. Another sign of change was the recent election of twenty-two women to parliament. 

Not only has Sri Lanka seen growth in representation, but it has also taken direct action, as seen by the passing of the Women Empowerment Act, No. 37, in 2024. Amarasuriya launched the She Trades Sri Lanka Hub, an initiative that aims to establish 200 women-led cooperatives, increase opportunities for women entrepreneurs, and provide overall support to women in Sri Lanka's economy. 

Similarly, during International Women's Day, Sri Lanka launched the installation Sama Theevu, a "glimpse into an island where everyone, regardless of gender, has equal rights and opportunities in all aspects of life." The exhibit also invited school students to visit and participate in workshops promoting interest in STEM. 

Another gender equality initiative started in Sri Lanka is THRIVE (Together for Her: Resilience-building, Inclusivity, and Voices for Equality). Prime Minister Amarasuriya launched THRIVE as part of the UN Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework for Sri Lanka for 2023-2027. 

These courses of action show positive signs for a new democratic future for Sri Lankan women. Amarasuriya addresses the progress Sri Lanka has made in her speech for International Women's Day: "Although the women's representation in parliament has been doubled, it remains at approximately 10%. A greater representation of women is essential in political spheres, decision-making, and leadership roles."

Continued Concerns  

The introduction of the 25% quota is seen as a formative step for gender equality in parliament—however, there are concerns that the quota may not be correctly implemented. 

The framework of the quota, specifically Section 65AA of the Local Authorities Elections Ordinance, allows for legal loopholes that can be exploited to avoid implementing equitable female representation. 

There are multiple instances in which the quota does not have to be met—for example, parties that receive less than twenty percent of total votes in an authorized local area and receive less than three seats in the local body do not have to follow the quota. 

For the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka, women's rights are even more of a concern. Tamil women must face intersectional oppression as they were especially victimized by the state during the civil war, which rarely serves them justice. This leaves them in an even more vulnerable state than other Sri Lankan women, making fair political representation that much more urgent.

Despite what women in Sri Lanka have already accomplished to move the goalpost, progress is not linear—there is still more work to be done. Empowering female candidates to run for presidency, properly implementing the quota, and tackling the financial and safety barriers that prevent participation are simply some starting steps the nation of Sri Lanka should consider in overcoming gender disparity in the race to office.

The Birth of a Behavioral Revolution

In the summer of 2010, a handful of civil servants in London decided to reimagine the machinery of government with a deceptively modest idea: that people are irrational in remarkably predictable ways. 

They had no lobby or army of donors. Still, they did have a question: What if governments could guide citizens by subtle psychological cues, gentle “nudges,” that anticipated how people actually behave?

Fifteen years later, that question has matured into an economic philosophy—with teeth. And at its helm is David Halpern, the behavioral scientist who once advised U.K. Prime Minister Cameron and now views behavioral economics as a skeleton key to growth. It’s a new economic realism that meets citizens where they are, not where economists expect them to be. 

Halpern believes that with the right framing, governments can coax investment, catalyze optimism, and—just maybe—fix the confidence problem at the heart of the modern economy.

Nudging Toward Growth

In a recent speech, Halpern argued that applying behavioral science principles to policymaking could help boost the U.K.'s economic growth. Behavioral public policy emphasizes understanding real human behavior—such as how defaults in pension enrollment affect participation—and advocates for rigorously testing policies through randomized controlled trials. 

While behavioral interventions (like reminder texts to reduce NHS appointment no-shows) can cut costs and improve efficiency, their impact on growth is typically modest. But Halpern suggests scaling iterative experimentation across government services will cumulatively drive growth. 

Additionally, he proposes leveraging concepts like “mental accounting” to encourage business investment. He suggests framing policies so citizens perceive expenditures as investments. Although behavioral insights offer promise, Halpern acknowledges that tackling major issues like infrastructure and planning may require strong leadership more than subtle nudges. He also focuses on the importance of optimism in economic leadership, noting that business investment is partly driven by confidence.

 From Theory to Practice 

Behavioral economics combines elements of economics and psychology to understand how and why people behave the way they do in the real world. 

It differs from neoclassical economics, which assumes that most people have well-defined preferences and make well-informed, self-interested decisions based on those preferences. Shaped by the field-defining work of University of Chicago scholar and Nobel laureate Richard Thaler, behavioral economics examines the differences between what people “should” do and what they actually do and the consequences of those actions.

 The application of behavioral economics in public policy gained traction worldwide. In 2010, the U.K. Cabinet Office created the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), dedicated explicitly to such work. In 2014, the U.S. government created the White House Social and Behavioral Science Team. 

Both of these organizations have been referred to as “nudge” units; nudge was defined by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein in their book of the same name as “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior predictably without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives.” Choice architecture, in this sense, refers to the design of the environments in which people make decisions, from how options are framed on a tax form to the default settings on a retirement account.

The logic is simple, even if its implications are profound: if you want more people to save for retirement, make enrollment the default. If you want citizens to pay taxes on time, rewrite the letter to remind them that most of their neighbors already have. In one early trial, the Nudge Unit reduced missed NHS appointments by sending patients simple, personalized reminder texts. In another, it increased organ donor registrations by subtly changing the wording of the prompt at the end of driving license applications. These interventions still respect freedom of choice.

Beyond the Nudge

Halpern's vision extends beyond small-scale interventions. He advocates for a broader application of behavioral insights to address significant economic challenges. For instance, he praises the apprenticeship levy, which effectively levies a tax on businesses to fund apprenticeships but offers a tax rebate to those that spend the money on their own training schemes. 

This approach leverages "mental accounting," where people compartmentalize money into different categories. By framing the levy as a dedicated fund for training, businesses are more inclined to invest in workforce development.

The integration of behavioral economics into public policy offers a promising avenue for driving economic growth and encouraging business investment. Through subtle nudges, strategic framing, and encouraging optimism, governments can influence behavior in ways that traditional economic models may overlook. 

As Halpern's work demonstrates, understanding and leveraging human psychology is a powerful mechanism for shaping economic outcomes at the national level.

Israel’s Gaza Offensive and West Bank Settlements

Israel has intensified its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, renewing an offensive in March 2025 that shattered a brief ceasefire and plunged the territory back into war. The Israeli Defense Forces expanded ground operations into densely populated areas of Gaza City, Khan Yunis, and Rafah, while enforcing a total blockade that halted humanitarian aid. After two months of siege, famine-like conditions set in, with the U.N. warning of a deepening humanitarian crisis as food, water, and medicine ran low. Only recently was this complete blockade on aid lifted, with around 100 trucks a day flowing in, although it is important to note that this is significantly lower than the 600 trucks a day during the ceasefire earlier this year.

The humanitarian toll and flattening of entire neighborhoods have drawn global outcry. China’s U.N. envoy, for instance, urged Israel to halt military operations and lift the Gaza blockade, stressing that continued fighting “will only result in more death and hatred,” not the release of hostages (CGTN). Beijing joined other nations in pressing Israel to abide by international humanitarian law, protect civilians, and allow life-saving supplies into Gaza.

At the same time, Israel’s government moved to expand Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank. In late May, officials approved plans for 22 new settlements - the largest expansion in decades - legalizing wildcat outposts and advancing new construction. Israeli human rights groups have previously condemned such policies as a push for “Jewish supremacy” via the theft of Palestinian land. Western allies also reacted with alarm: a growing list of European countries have demanded Israel end the war in Gaza. Morevoer, Britain’s Middle East minister labeled the new settlements as “illegal under international law” and a deliberate obstacle to peace (CNN).

U.S. and Israeli Strikes on Yemen’s Houthi Rebels

The Gaza war’s effects have spread to Yemen, where the Iran-aligned Houthi movement have for months fired ballistic missiles and armed drones toward Israel and ships in the Red Sea, aiming to pressure Israel into stopping its Gaza offensive. Most projectiles have been intercepted, but one long-range missile from Yemen struck near Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport on May 4, lightly wounding four people and briefly halting flights. It marked the first Houthi attack to reach Israeli soil, prompting swift retaliation. The next day, Israeli warplanes bombarded the Houthis’ Red Sea stronghold, hitting at least six targets around the strategic port of Hodeidah and reportedly disabling Yemen’s main airport in Sanaa, which the Houthis decried as “aggressive raids on civilian facilities” (Guardian).

Meanwhile, the United States launched its own campaign to neutralize the Houthi threat to shipping. On March 15, the U.S. military began Operation Rough Rider, a massive air and naval strike campaign targeting Houthi missile launch sites, air defenses, and infrastructure across Yemen. Over seven weeks, U.S. Central Command struck more than 1,000 Houthi targets, killing “hundreds” of fighters and several insurgent leaders (Reuters). However, rights groups report that some U.S. strikes hit civilian sites, including an alleged strike on a migrant detention center that killed dozens of migrants in late April.

Facing growing international pressure and the risk of being drawn into a protracted conflict, Washington moved to de-escalate. On May 6, President Trump announced that the U.S. would halt its bombing campaign “effective immediately,” after the Houthis agreed to stop attacking commercial ships in the Red Sea. Oman’s foreign ministry confirmed the truce, under which “neither side will target the other” and freedom of navigation will be safe (Reuters). Notably, the Houthis stressed that this U.S.-Houthi ceasefire doesn’t include Israel, vowing to continue strikes against Israeli targets as long as the war persists, and especially after Israel’s recent bombing of Yemen.

Trump’s Middle East Diplomatic Tour and Megadeals

In the midst of these conflicts, former U.S. President Donald Trump embarked on a high-profile diplomatic tour across the Middle East in May 2025, seeking to realign regional politics and cement American influence. Over four days, Trump visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, showcasing a flurry of arms deals, investment pledges, and business partnerships with Gulf monarchies. The tour was more than ceremonial, as it signaled a new Middle Eastern order centered on Sunni Arab powers and U.S. commerce, while pointedly sidelining Israeli PM Netanyahu.

Major outcomes of Trump’s Gulf tour included:

• A record $142 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia, supplying advanced U.S. weapons.
• 
  
• Gulf sovereign wealth funds committed to huge U.S. investments, such as a $1.4 trillion investment from the UAE over a period of 10 years.
• 
  
• Plans for a U.S.-led civil nuclear cooperation project with Saudi Arabia, giving the kingdom access to nuclear technology.
• 
  
• With Saudi mediation, Trump announced the U.S. would lift sanctions on Syria’s new government, accepting the ouster of Bashar al-Assad.

Trump’s pivot to the wealthy Gulf states underscores a U.S. strategy to counter China’s growing footprint and reassert American primacy in the region. “The Middle East is undergoing tectonic changes,” warned former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, lamenting that under Netanyahu’s watch Israel was left “paralyzed, passive” as regional alliances reshuffled (Reuters). Indeed, Gulf leaders warmly welcomed Trump’s engagement. Overall, U.S. officials signaled that while Israel remains an ally, Netanyahu’s hardline policies are “standing in the way” of broader U.S. interests in the region (Reuters).

China’s Reaction and Strategic Diplomacy

Beijing has closely watched these developments, crafting its response to protect Chinese interests and expand its role as a power broker. China’s public reaction to the Gaza war and its spillover has been one of measured concern coupled with pointed criticism of U.S. actions. Chinese officials repeatedly called for an immediate, lasting ceasefire in Gaza, calling out the humanitarian crisis. At the U.N., China’s ambassador urged all parties to cease fighting and warned against any attempt to annex Gaza or the West Bank, in an implicit rebuke of Israeli settlement expansion. “Gaza is the Gaza of Palestinians…not a bargaining chip, let alone a target of the law of the jungle,” a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson declared, reaffirming Beijing’s support for Palestinian sovereignty and the two-state solution (Reuters).

Striking a balance in its strategic positioning, China has positioned itself as a champion of stability and multipolarity in the Middle East. Last year, Beijing was praised for brokering a detente between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and it is keen to ensure new conflicts do not unravel that diplomatic victory. 

With the Red Sea crisis, China was clearly alarmed: Houthi attacks on shipping threatened China’s vital trade routes via the Suez Canal, and the U.S. bombing campaign risked further destabilizing a region where China has big economic stakes. In response, Chinese officials urged “calm and restraint” from all sides, pointedly warning Washington against escalating its strikes in Yemen (Semafor). Beijing declined to join the U.S.-led naval coalition in the Red Sea, instead quietly advocating dialogue to address the “complex reasons” behind the Yemen conflict (MFA). This cautious stance reflects China’s broader diplomatic playbook: avoid direct entanglement in conflicts beyond its sphere of influence, protect trade lanes, and offer to mediate where U.S. efforts falter.

While Trump’s high-profile Gulf tour signaled an American comeback in the region, Chinese analysts have downplayed its long-term impact. State media noted that Gulf countries maintain close economic ties with China, and argued it is “impossible for the U.S. to isolate China” by courting Arab states (Global Times). As the U.S. floods the Gulf with arms and investment promises, China is likely to respond by deepening its own economic engagement in the Middle East, from energy deals and infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative, to high-tech cooperation, all while staying officially neutral in regional disputes.

In summary, the Middle East at mid-2025 stands at a crossroads of intensified conflict and realigned diplomacy. Israel’s unrelenting Gaza offensive and West Bank expansion have provoked humanitarian disaster and international backlash, even as the U.S. and its allies strike back against militants on new fronts in Yemen. Washington under Trump has recalibrated its regional strategy with an eye on great-power competition, securing lucrative deals with Gulf monarchies and pressuring Israel to fall in line. And through it all, China is maneuvering carefully: condemning what it sees as injustices, urging negotiations, and quietly bolstering its influence amid the shifting geopolitical situations. The coming months will test whether these diplomatic efforts can temper the region’s turmoil or whether the Middle East is headed toward further escalation and transformation on the world stage.

The Alien Enemies Act has been invoked in policy legislation only three times in United States history: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Originally legislated by President John Adams, the Act grants the executive the power to deport noncitizens of countries deemed hostile to the United States. In centuries since, the Act became virtually obsolete, and its most recent use in World War II was deemed “overruled in the court of history” by United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. 

Today, however, the United States finds itself in “a constitutional crisis of unprecedented historical proportions,” as Cliff Elgarten, former clerk to Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, explains. It is a crisis in which the Alien Enemies Act can be invoked by an unchecked executive not to alleviate a national (or global) crisis, but to advance a political agenda with complete disregard to the law and its precedent. 

Targeting Immigrants by Reshaping the Law

The Trump administration, via the Supreme Court and the judicial system, has made a concerted effort to justify deporting immigrants—legal or not—without due process. Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act under the vague claim that Venezuelan gang violence constitutes an “invasion” justifying immigrants’ removal. The Supreme Court responded by ending the temporary halt to deportations held by a district judge, allowing Trump to use the Act as long as the administration allowed accused Venezuelan gang members the chance to fight their deportation orders legally.

The Department of Justice has brought increasing charges forward under the revival of forgotten statutes, such as the 1940 Alien Registration Act, which was recently updated to require registration and proof of registration for all immigrants over the age of fourteen. And powers like import-tariff laws and emergency statutes have enabled the government to threaten mass deportations of up to twenty million people. Senior officials have even debated suspending the writ of habeas corpus—which ensures that those held in custody can challenge their detention before a court—under the Invasion Clause of the Constitution. So far, the Supreme Court’s silence on these constitutionally impudent measures has only inflamed its gradual retreat from its role as a check on executive outreach, leaving millions of people vulnerable. 

Ideological Judiciary Shifts

The infusion of conservative judges throughout the federal court system, beyond just the five Trump-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, has fueled cases seeking to increase deportations. The Trump administration has entirely reshaped the U.S. Immigration System, deporting an average of 17,200 people in each month of 2025. Yet Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) data shows that roughly half of those deported possessed no criminal record. The uptick in wrongful deportations stems not only from a shift in enforcement but also in legal philosophy. The Court’s interim order to allow the Alien Enemies Act passed 5-4, with only conservative, male judges comprising the majority opinion. Conservative judges have shown greater deference to executive authority, creating a legal cover for the erosion of due process and limited scope for judicial review.

Meanwhile, numerous moderate and, naturally, liberal judges have opined in dissent. U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., a Trump appointee, wrote that Trump’s invocation of the act “exceeds the scope of the statute” and that “invasions” require a military incursion. Just two weeks later, however, Judge Stephanie Haynes of Pennsylvania ruled in opposition that the president is legally allowed to use the Act to deport Venezuelans accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang.

There is a new national framework in the United States’ legal system: courts are increasingly willing to uphold aggressive executive measures if they are framed as matters of national security. Despite the ambiguity in accusations, this ideological divide in the judiciary has reshaped not just the way laws are interpreted, but also who is protected by them. Thousands of deported migrants to El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela, and more still possess the right to challenge their removals. But the Court’s procedural rulings channel these challenges into such narrow cases that it is nearly impossible for them to mount a unified defense. 

Impact and the Need for Reform

Constitutional safeguards for noncitizens and citizens alike are under unprecedented contention. Treating immigration as a wartime occupation, the Trump administration effectively bypasses normal due process and asylum procedures—procedures central to American democracy. If sustained, the tactical weaponization of the judicial system against immigrants and their families will perpetuate their continued suppression through familial separation and the complete surrender of legal status.

The Trump administration has used the legal system to deny to the vast majority of immigrants in the country the democratic foundations that have long made America the land of opportunity. The administration encourages immigrants to abide by the law when entering the United States, but falls short in his own inability to adhere to it. And what may begin with the targeting of immigrants sets the groundwork for the extended constitutional illegitimacy of an unchecked, unbalanced executive. If this trend toward unilateralism continues, citizenship itself—for immigrants of all legal statuses and origins—will no longer be a concrete protection by law, but a conditional status granted or revoked at the discretion of political will.

South Korea is currently undergoing a challenging political transition, marked by dramatic upheaval and policy paralysis, even as a new president takes office. 

In December 2024, then-president Yoon Suk-yeol stunned the world by attempting to impose martial law, a move widely condemned as a power grab or “botched coup” that threw the country into turmoil (Carnegie Endowment). 

The backlash was swift: Parliament impeached Yoon days later, and by April 2025, the Constitutional Court had removed him from office, paving the way for an early election. Opposition leader Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party (DPK), who had narrowly lost to Yoon in 2022, rode a wave of public backlash against Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) to win the snap election on June 3, 2025, in what he called a “judgment day” on Yoon’s martial law attempt (Reuters). Nearly 80% of voters turned out - the highest in decades - and Lee’s comfortable 8-point victory over the PPP’s Kim Moon-soo signaled a decisive break with the immediate past. Yet the euphoria of Yoon’s ouster and Lee’s triumph has quickly given way to the sobering reality of a nation still deeply divided and institutions in disarray.

Despite the new leadership, South Korea’s politics remain polarized and partially paralyzed by the trauma of the past months. The attempted authoritarian turn under Yoon shocked the nation and weakened confidence in democratic institutions. Societal divisions are running deep, and Lee has pledged to “unite the people” after the martial law crisis, but public opinion remains split and partisan animosity fierce (BBC). 

Nowhere is this polarization more evident than in a growing gender and generational divide: the recent election saw a surge of right-wing sentiments among young men, with roughly three-quarters of male voters in their twenties casting ballots for conservative candidates, while a majority of women in the same age group backed Lee or other progressive candidates. 

Meanwhile, politically, the government was run by a series of acting presidents for half a year amid a “debilitating political vacuum”, leaving many state functions unaccounted for (Foreign Affairs). Lee’s incoming team has also criticized the handover of power, describing the presidential office, which was found to be deserted of staff and even basic equipment, as a “graveyard” (Independent).

The economy has emerged as the fiercest policy battleground as Lee Jae-myung takes office amid stark economic headwinds. By some accounts, he faces the toughest economic challenge of any South Korean leader in decades. Growth has slumped badly, and the central bank recently slashed the 2025 GDP growth forecast to a mere 0.8%, a figure not seen in decades. 

The international situation offers little relief: global trade wars and protectionism are squeezing South Korea’s export-driven economy, with its two biggest trading partners, the U.S. and China, both reducing imports by implementing trade restrictions. Exports to each of those markets were down to around 8% last month, and South Korean auto exports to the United States have plunged over 30% year-on-year.

Meanwhile, Lee campaigned on a promise to revive the domestic economy for ordinary people, lambasting the previous government’s neglect of working families. 

On his first day, he vowed immediate action on “cost-of-living concerns affecting middle and low-income families” and relief for struggling small businesses. The DPK has outlined an ambitious economic recovery plan: ramping up government spending on research & development and artificial intelligence, designating the high-tech defense industry as a new growth engine, and providing stimulus in the form of vouchers to help local merchants.

However, one of the earliest economic showdowns for Lee will be managing trade ties with the United States. Trump’s return to the White House has heightened pressure on Seoul to cut a deal or face steep tariffs after a grace period. Advisers warn that time is nearly up, and by July, U.S. duties on Korean automobiles and other goods could be instituted if no agreement is reached. 

Yet Lee has struck a cautious tone. He argues there is “no need to rush” into a bad bargain on tariffs, noting that protectionism is a global trend not limited to Trump. Instead, he advocates diversifying South Korea’s trade partnerships to reduce overreliance on the U.S. and China (Reuters). This pragmatic stance could lead to friction: Korea’s business lobbies and many officials are anxious about immediate losses and may push for a quick compromise with Washington. South Korea—its consumers and business—and its trade partners will have to see how the situation unfolds in the coming months.

National security is another area where Lee’s administration is redefining policies. Yoon Suk-yeol had pursued a more hawkish line, while Lee Jae-myung’s victory brings a liberal shift. He has pledged a return to the Democratic Party’s traditional approach of promoting dialogue with North Korea and seeking a more balanced foreign policy rather than ideological confrontation. 

Beyond the Korean Peninsula, Lee must navigate Seoul’s place amid great-power rivalries. Yoon’s government had joined the U.S. in criticizing China’s regional behavior and enhanced military cooperation with Japan, breaking from the more cautious approach of previous liberal administrations. Lee has signaled he will continue close three-way coordination with Washington and Tokyo, for example, by upholding the recent Camp David trilateral agreements that bolstered intelligence-sharing and joint exercises. This nod to continuity is likely to reassure allies. 

However, Lee also advocates for “strategic ambiguity” in areas like a potential Taiwan conflict, aiming to avoid any public steps that provoke Beijing (Atlantic Council). “Practical diplomacy centered on national interest” is how Lee describes his doctrine. In practice, this means maintaining the U.S. alliance as the “bedrock” of security, while not unnecessarily antagonizing China or Russia (Foreign Policy). 

Perhaps the most defining policy struggle of this transition is Lee Jae-myung’s mission to restore democratic norms and reform powerful institutions, a project that places him against certain interests left from the previous administration. Lee has described the country’s democracy as having been brought to the brink of “near destruction” by the coup attempt, and he used his inaugural address to vow a “revival” of democratic governance. His Democratic Party wasted no time in outlining a sweeping reform agenda targeting the tools Yoon abused. High on the list is curbing presidential emergency powers: Lee’s party has said it will “tightly control the president’s right to declare martial law” so that no future leader can so easily threaten democratic order (Reuters).

Lee’s domestic agenda also seeks to address long-standing social issues that the previous government either exacerbated or failed to resolve. One of these is South Korea’s notorious overwork culture. Yoon’s pro-business administration had controversially floated raising the cap on weekly working hours, sparking public backlash. 

Lee is moving in the opposite direction: he has promised to institute a 4.5-day work week to give workers more rest, gradually reducing South Korea’s average work hours toward OECD norms. He also plans to raise the retirement age from 60 to 65 to adapt to an aging society. While labor advocates welcome the shorter workweek proposal, big business groups and conservative economists warn that it could hurt productivity. This policy may become a tug-of-war between Lee’s social welfare objectives and industry’s concerns.

South Korea’s new leadership under Lee Jae-myung is entering office with a bold reformist platform, but into a landscape of opposition and inertia. The tumultuous ouster of Yoon Suk-yeol has resolved one crisis only to bring attention to many others. Lee’s administration has identified the critical policy battles it must fight: reviving a flagging economy, stabilizing foreign policy, and healing fractured institutions. 

It commands a parliamentary majority that gives it a rare chance to enact sweeping changes. Nonetheless, only the coming months will show how Lee’s government—and South Korea as a whole—will deal with the challenges currently facing it.