The International Health Regulations (IHR) is the quintessential binding international public health framework. The IHR emphasizes surveillance, notification, and response systems, establishing clear obligations for countries and the World Health Organization (WHO) during public health emergencies. In a perfect world, the IHR, established in 2005, would have ushered in an age of global health cooperation. Yet, this is not the case. Five years removed from the 2020 shutdown, COVID-19 has highlighted the sheer failure that the global medical industry faced as a result of lackluster international policy and diplomacy efforts. While the IHR seeks to establish a clear baseline, it falls victim to delayed and inconsistent reporting, weak intrastate capacity for surveillance and response, and finally, significant political pressure and the weakness of the WHO’s authority. 

The case of COVID-19 seems like a distant past, but nearly half a decade later we are still reeling in its effects. Most notable is the lack of transparency states have regarding their reports. Take, for example, China’s delay in reporting initial cases to the WHO. China was criticized for delaying the disclosure of crucial information about human-to-human transmission, violating the IHR’s requirement to notify the WHO within 24 hours of identifying a potential threat. However, China faced little-to-no backlash from the WHO due to both the status the world superpower holds along with the IHR framework lacking an enforcement mechanism. Without enforcement, reporting is based on speculation and individual states’ willingness to come forward. Such expectation fails on the world stage, where states are heavily incentivized to protect their domestic information and assets. However, it is not just superpowers that have not been forthright in relaying information to the WHO, as during the 2014 Ebola crisis. Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone failed to report early signs of the outbreak, contributing to its rapid spread. The IHR’s fundamental goals of surveillance and notification fail at all levels, as states have no real reprimand.

The 2014 Ebola crisis displays a rarely discussed aspect of how meaningless the IHR’s requirements are, as it concerns states that have significant intrastate difficulties. Many low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) lack the resources to meet the IHR’s core capacity requirements (the ability to detect, assess, notify and report events). This is for a multitude of reasons, from the neo-colonialist policies of states, such as China with its Belt and Road initiative, the U.S.’ strong military presence, or even just the after-effects of centuries of colonial rule. However, these effects culminate in the significant underfunding of critical national healthcare infrastructure, which was highlighted by West Africa’s Ebola outbreak. Yet, the IHR has limited resources to address this issue. The WHO itself provides no financial aid, let alone structure, for these states to begin creating robust healthcare infrastructure, choosing only to temporarily patch the leaks through initiatives such as COVAX and the African Vaccine Acquisition Trust (AVAT). COVAX failed to have an impact due to richer states hoarding vaccines in the interest of domestic national security, further exacerbating the global pandemic. Fundamentally, LMICs prioritize domestic stability, causing international cooperation and information sharing to become low priorities. 

Nothing highlights the weakness of the IHR and the WHO as a whole as the disregard states have for its authority. With the U.S. exit from the WHO earlier this year, despite being a founding member, the purpose of the WHO has been called into question. When the WHO attempted to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) for COVID-19, there was significant political pressure from China for it to not be released. There is no real punishment for states failing to abide by the core tenets of the IHR, leading to gross negligence on the part of states. No “stick” to compel states to act means that states will simply act in their best interest, avoiding disclosing any data they deem detrimental to their image abroad or at home. On top of this, when the WHO released a PHEIC for the H1N1 pandemic (2009), it faced significant backlash from the international community for supposedly “over-exaggerating the significance of the outbreak,” which killed over half a million people globally. Even when the WHO does its job properly, states will continue to complain, leading to de-prioritization. This can have dire consequences in a context where 4.5 billion people worldwide lack access to basic health services and two billion people face financial hardship due to health costs.The best way to address the failing WHO is to take conditional aid and trade measures (soft penalties), emergency intervention protocols, and strengthen partnerships with regional bodies. Similar to the World Bank, IMF, or WTO, tying the requirements of the IHR to economic measures would ensure that states prioritize their domestic reporting infrastructure and decrease the likelihood of states failing to report to the WHO when concerns do come up. In extreme cases where a country conceals or suppresses critical public health information, the WHO could invoke emergency powers to deploy rapid response teams and work directly with states to be able to mobilize neighboring countries or regional coalitions to address the outbreak.

This framework has largely been ignored by states due to their national security concerns, but at the end of the day, human security is what should matter. Allowing for the IHR and the WHO to have a realistic, non-military enforcement mechanism is the best possible solution to its current failings. Finally, working with regional bodies such as the Africa CDC, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), or ASEAN BioDiaspora Initiative would allow for a more global approach as well as a general increase in the legitimacy of the WHO’s mission and existence. On top of this, regional bodies often have better diplomatic leverage and cultural understanding. Partnering and working with them would decrease issues related to sovereignty, as well as expedite information communication between individual states and the WHO. The best way forward is to create a path in which the WHO can truly operate on the world stage. Without these changes, we risk the collapse of the only significant international framework that seeks to benefit the health of people worldwide.

Although widely recognized in the U.S. for its peaches and southern charm, Georgia has a different reputation internationally: its location and attributes have caused it to quickly become a magnet for foreign direct investment and a hub for European companies. With economic and political tensions currently rising between the U.S. and E.U., subnational diplomacy, which is defined as international engagement on a local or regional level, and economic cooperation between American and European partners, are more important than ever to ensure the long-term success of the transatlantic relationship. It’s this type of European involvement in the state of Georgia that is reshaping the economy, increasing innovation, and elevating the state’s globalization.

Georgia’s strategic location makes it an ideal spot for overseas companies’ investment. Atlanta is home to multiple headquarters of Fortune 500 companies, as well as the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, one of the world’s busiest airports, providing easy access to almost 80% of America’s largest metro cities within a 2-hour flight. As a result, more than 70 countries have official consular and trade representatives in the state, who are responsible for representing their respective national interests to the entire Southeast. Additionally, Georgia’s coastal location is an attractive prospect for many European countries, as it houses two ports. The Port of Savannah is both the largest container terminal in America and the fastest-growing port in the country, functioning as a vital hub for international trade and logistics. The Port of Brunswick is the country’s number one port for new auto imports. European companies in key industries such as supply chain, logistics, and technology, including Vanderlande Industries, Stellantis/Groupe PSA and Hapag-Lloyd, have all chosen Georgia as their U.S. headquarters for these reasons.

Over the past few decades, these companies, particularly German ones, have significantly contributed to Georgia’s economy. Germany is Georgia’s top European trading partner, and has consistently been in the top five international trading partners of the state. For example, Porsche Cars North America (PCNA), a German car brand, established its U.S. headquarters in Atlanta in 1998. More recently, it opened its renowned Porsche Experience Center Atlanta in 2015, a facility that offers multiple drive, track, and simulator experiences. PCNA invested an initial $150 million and expanded their facilities in 2023, contributing an additional $50 million. In 2018, Mercedes-Benz USA, the North American subsidiary of German automotive company Mercedes-Benz, opened its corporate headquarters in Sandy Springs, a suburb a few miles out of Atlanta. The company invested upwards of $74 million and built a facility that could employ up to 1,000 people. Motor vehicles have consistently ranked in the top five traded products between Georgia and international partners, further facilitated by the Port of Brunswick. Other German companies, such as ThyssenKrupp and Siemens, have opened regional or North American headquarters in Georgia. 

To further strengthen these international partnerships with Germany and Poland, Georgia governor Brian Kemp announced an overseas economic development trip, which took place in January 2025. Governor Kemp and representatives from the Georgia Department of Economic Development met with German companies already operating in Georgia, as well as companies with expansion plans, in order to reinforce relationships while participating in diplomacy and partnerships. In Poland, Georgia officials met with Polish business leaders to explore opportunities in the defense industry. Coupled with the news that a Czech aerospace and defense company established North American headquarters in Roswell in February 2025, and Lockheed Martin’s Marietta site, this initiative reflects an effort to support the defense industry in the state. Strong economic relations with Europe aid job creation and stimulate the local economy, simultaneously allowing the state to attract more foreign companies looking to expand to the U.S. In addition, creating enduring relationships with eastern and central Europe allows Georgia access to new emerging markets and stay at the forefront of innovation in science, technology and defense.

The first months of 2025 have presented a number of particularly difficult challenges for the U.S.-E.U. partnership. Strengthening and reinforcing economic partnerships with foreign countries at the local level not only supports the country’s diplomatic ties, but acts as a stabilizing force for transatlantic relationships in an economically and politically uncertain time. While subnational economic relationships cannot replace formal diplomacy, they serve as an opportunity for states to expand their reach and forge cross-cultural partnerships. International investments, like the German and Polish examples discussed above, create thousands of jobs in Georgia each year and bring in millions of dollars in funding. This positions the state to leverage its strategic advantages in diplomacy, geography, and infrastructure, something that has become more important than ever in the modern global landscape.

Luanda, the largest city in Angola, is home to over 10 million people. In addition to being the capital, it is the economic and industrial center of Angola, serving as the primary gateway for international business in the country. Despite this, there are on average only 27 flights departing from the city a day. In contrast, the city of Hyderabad, India, which has a comparable population of 11 million, hosts almost 300 departing flights daily. This pattern is reflected across the African continent, wherein large cities have significantly fewer daily flights than their similarly sized Indian counterparts. Kinshasa has 15 compared to Kolkata’s 204, Lagos has 72 while Bangalore has 388, and Dar es Salaam has only 40 whereas Ahmedabad has 137.

Flights are the primary means of international travel across long distances. People travel for business, leisure, and to visit friends and family. They represent tangible links connecting cities and countries. Thus, the lack of flights to a particular city suggests a disconnect from the global economy. Like India, the economies of most African countries are still developing. Yet, the difference in flight traffic between the two raises the question: why are African cities so much more disconnected from the global economy than Indian cities?

In order to answer this, it is important to examine how these cities have grown over the past few decades. In the case of Luanda and Hyderabad, both cities have added millions of new residents since the 1990’s, but this growth has been fueled by different factors. The growth of Hyderabad has been driven by job creation across a diverse array of sectors such as the IT, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries. Major international companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have set up offices in the city, bolstering its status as an international economic hub. On the other hand, urbanization in Luanda was primarily driven by the fact that there were few other places in the country for people to move to. During and after the Angolan Civil War, Luanda remained as one of the only safe locations in the country where people could seek out economic opportunities. Meanwhile, the economic opportunities within the city are largely limited to the oil industry, which is not sufficient to create a diversified economy and generate enough jobs to support a city as large as Luanda. People moved to Luanda not because they wanted to, but because they had to, while the few jobs that created actual wealth remained inaccessible to the majority of the population, creating a city with vast inequalities. This has left Luanda disconnected from the global economy.

The situation of Luanda is reflective of a larger trend occurring within various countries across Africa, where countries are urbanizing without globalizing. The economies of many African countries are dominated by the extraction and export of natural resources such as oil, timber, and minerals. The vast majority of Nigeria’s exports are petroleum products; Tanzania’s largest single export is gold; copper and cobalt make up the largest exports for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Resource extraction-based industries generate demand for certain urban goods and services, but the jobs created as a result of this demand are often low-paying service jobs in the informal sector. As a result, wealth in these cities remains concentrated in the hands of the socioeconomic elite, which creates little incentive to build and maintain public services and infrastructure. Only one city in all of Sub-Saharan Africa (Lagos) has a metro system, whereas 17 cities in India have metros. Greater investment in public infrastructure helps lower the cost of doing business in a city, which incentivizes companies to invest and create jobs. Poor infrastructure in cities also disincentivizes tourism, which is another large industry that creates jobs and increases the demand for flights. Out of the top 15 largest cities in Africa, the only two with more than 200 daily flights are Cairo, Egypt, and Johannesburg, South Africa. Egypt and South Africa are the second and fourth most visited countries in Africa respectively, which helps to explain the higher number of flights for cities in those countries. Cape Town, a major international tourist destination in South Africa, has 113 daily flights, whereas Yaounde, Cameroon, has only 8, even though both cities have around 5 million people.

Historically, urbanization has been a sign of economic development since the Industrial Revolution. Cities like London and Paris grew rapidly in the 19th century, New York and Tokyo in the 20th century, and Guangzhou and Shenzhen in the 21st. In these instances, urban growth was largely driven by manufacturing and service sectors creating enough new jobs to entice people to move from rural areas to cities. This traditional pattern of urbanization is the one that most Indian cities are following. Mumbai’s growth has been fueled by the financial and entertainment industries; Hyderabad and Bangalore by the tech industry; and Chennai by the automotive and healthcare sectors. Cities like Luanda, Kinshasa, and Lagos on the other hand, have urbanized due to factors like conflict, climate change, and the lack of rural job opportunities, pushing people to move to the only areas with wealth in those countries. Yet, this wealth remains inaccessible to most people who move, creating a society with severe economic inequality.  

The differences between the wave of urbanization taking place in India versus Africa highlights the failure of many African governments to build cities that serve the people who live there. Instead, many African cities have been built with the rich elite in mind, with projects such as grand stadiums, statues, and high-rise apartments being prioritized over public transit, power, and sewage infrastructure.  If these countries seek to transition from being developing nations to becoming industrialized, globalized states, then they must redefine their development priorities by starting at the city level.

In a sociology course about gender and work at UGA, not a single man is enrolled. This may not be surprising, but it should be a concern. The way people learn is impacted by their existing values and views of the world. The idea of self-selection into education does not just apply to college access or careers postgraduate, but also to what people choose to learn while in college. When students choose to learn based on existing values, this can create an echo chamber where people are not exposed to new ideas and only reinforce what they already believe. This relates to the concept of endogeneity, where the independent variable (values and beliefs) is influenced by the dependent variable (class choice), creating a feedback loop of mutual influence rather than a single directional impact. In this case, students may choose courses that they have existing knowledge about, and then the course reinforces their beliefs.

Why is this a problem? If people do not want to learn something, why should they? The mere exposure effect explains that people have a “tendency to develop preferences for things simply because we are familiar with them,” thus people tend to make better choices when they have more information. It is therefore likely that the students who typically enroll in gender studies, race-related courses, or other classes that discuss contentious topics already have some knowledge and interest in these areas. 

Although people tend to resist going out of their comfort zone, there are ways to make doing so more attractive. Carl Wieman explains that experts often design classes without fully considering how those new to the subject perceive the content. People familiar with a subject struggle to teach novices because their deep understanding of a subject makes it hard to see how beginners approach learning. Especially when discussing sensitive topics that are often politicized, it is even more crucial for professors to understand how those not exposed to these ideas process the new information. Wieman talks about science education and how the professor and student are unknowingly “speaking a different language.” The same concept applies to social sciences, especially courses discussing topics seen as political. To those accustomed to social science classes, it feels natural to discuss intersectionality or Marxism. Even concepts that social science students assume to be well-known, such as the gender wage gap or institutional racism, may feel foreign, abstract, or complex to those not used to discussing these topics. Further, Wieman explains how students often have misperceptions about science, seeing it as irrelevant to real-life problems. In social science, especially in departments like sociology, people view it as useless or too ideological to apply to their lives or careers.

Understanding the problem is not enough; it is vital to determine the steps needed to address the issue. The availability heuristic explains that experts draw on their recent experiences with a subject rather than their initial learning experiences due to misremembering their performance as novices. Intermediates may be better than experts at understanding novices due to their more recent experiences. In this case, that would require talking to people recently learning about these topics to understand how new people will process the information. Instead of simply assuming why certain people avoid topics like gender studies, data should be gathered to understand their perceptions and make the content more relevant and approachable. Using empirical evidence to improve teaching methods is crucial rather than relying on assumptions.Many potential solutions focus on fostering open dialogue and freedom of expression. For example, a researcher focused on improving climate change education in conservative, religious, or low socioeconomic status communities in the Southeast. They used public dialogue sessions to unite diverse groups and ensured everyone felt respected and free to express their views. The authors argue that “preaching to the choir” does not work when trying to reach groups that are skeptical or dismissive of an issue because it only involves speaking to those who already have knowledge or interest in the issue. In addition, social constructionism explains that reality is constructed through conversations and interactions. People can co-create a positive future through building relationships. Creating an environment where dialogue can flourish helps to overcome polarization in communities, in and outside of the classroom. It seems like stating the obvious that the way to encourage people to learn about topics they may avoid is simply promoting open discussion. Still, it is important to push beyond raising awareness among those who already care about an issue and bring in interdisciplinary perspectives. “Preaching to the choir” can incentivize people who already care to take action and become well-educated about a topic, but it is not enough to create change. Social science concepts can reach beyond the “choir” by focusing on intersectionality with other disciplines. Instead of fostering niche echo chambers, education should be designed to welcome people of all views and give them space for open dialogue.

Limited hospital access, fewer healthcare providers, and financial barriers exacerbate health disparities between rural and urban communities. Over 60 million people in the United States live in rural areas, usually composed of older individuals with worse health conditions who require more medical care. Rural areas have lower hospital access and fewer workers to treat particular conditions. Additionally, individuals in rural communities are less likely to have insurance, making access to healthcare exceedingly difficult. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare services started providing virtual meetings, known as telehealth, to help individuals in rural areas receive care. While telehealth is a promising system to address health disparities in rural communities, overcoming barriers to technology, funding, education, and hesitancy is essential to equitable healthcare access. 

After the pandemic, rural communities were more vulnerable to health and socioeconomic disparities. Over 100 hospitals closed by 2020, exacerbating health risks without access to primary care and mental health services. Since hospital access has become exceedingly difficult in these communities, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allowed flexibilities within Medicare for individuals to use telehealth and access care during the pandemic. Telehealth provides patients with an alternative form of communication to consult healthcare providers through video, phone, or messaging services. This opportunity is most impactful in rural areas by making it possible for patients to receive medical advice and counseling from their homes.

Even though the CMS increased the availability of telehealth, people in urban areas were more likely to use the service than people in rural areas. Approximately 28% of people in rural communities and 24% of people in tribal lands lack high-speed internet, making it difficult to contact health professionals and impossible to conduct virtual appointments. Struggles with digital literacy make it difficult for older populations to use new technology and access telehealth benefits. 

There are also financial barriers that prevent the widespread use of telehealth services. Telehealth is primarily a fee-for-service program in which healthcare providers are reimbursed for each service provided to patients. This type of program can be expensive for those who require multiple visits since they have to pay for each service they receive. Medicare does not reimburse much in the fee-for-service system; it is dependent on the service provided and the zip code the patient lives. Restrictions on reimbursements increase the cost to patients to receive care. States have different regulations about the services that can be reimbursed by Medicaid and rural communities do not have clear regulations on such reimbursement policies. Individuals who are unable to pay for fee-for-service systems or do not have reimbursement regulations are less likely to use telecommunication services due to the high costs of routine visits. Payment and reimbursement strategies require more financial data to ensure that telemedicine reduces the cost of medical care. 

Cultural factors such as willingness to use the technology and public perception of telehealth services impact peoples’ use of these services. A 2024 study analyzes the disparities in telehealth access, focusing on the willingness of individuals to use its services. The researchers conclude that individuals have problems with audio and video quality and a limited data plan, and thus are less likely to use telehealth services. Low digital literacy in older populations prevents them from using telecommunication services, leading to less care and communication with their healthcare providers. 

Despite these hurdles, efforts are being made to improve telehealth accessibility. The federal government is expanding funding opportunities and technical support for rural communities with populations of less than 20,000 people by providing Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants between $50,000 to $1 million to state and local governments, federally-recognized tribes, non-profit organizations, incorporated businesses, and other eligible groups. Additionally, the Rural Health Care Program provides healthcare providers, including post-secondary educational institutions, teaching hospitals, community health centers, local health agencies, and other nursing and clinic facilities, with services necessary to administer virtual care. 

Telehealth holds the potential to close the healthcare gap between rural and urban communities across the United States. It provides underserved individuals with an opportunity to access healthcare professionals. During the pandemic, approximately 97.6% of patients were satisfied with their telehealth services. For those who can access telehealth services, it serves as a convenient, efficient, and cost-saving method of receiving care. However, it takes more than the implementation of such technology in these areas. It is up to each person to adopt and willingly use it. Addressing barriers to infrastructure, funding, education, and hesitancy towards telehealth is essential to transform equitable healthcare access. 

Across the US, the number of students who are English learners, “those whose first or primary language is anything other than English and who identify as requiring assistance in school to reach English language proficiency,” has been rapidly rising. As of 2021, nearly 11% (5.3 million) of public school students were classified as English learners (ELs), and the National Association for the Education of Young Children has estimated that by 2030, 40% of students will have a home language other than English. Due to decades of insufficient support from the government, many ELs are suffering academically. The most recent national data from the 2019-2020 school year show that the high school graduation rate percentage for ELs is 71% compared to the national average of 86%. And as of 2017, a very small percentage of graduating ELs, 1.4%, end up taking college entrance exams like the SAT or ACT. Despite the clear and pressing need for school programs dedicated to effectively supporting the increasing number of ELs and addressing some of these academic disparities, a multitude of challenges such as insufficient funding, teacher shortages, and a lack of culturally sensitive classroom spaces persist. 

Something that must be immediately addressed is the need for more funding and readily equipped EL teachers. As the New America think tank explains, “Education advocates have been pushing for more federal funding for ELs for years, calling attention to the fact that funds have not kept up with the pace of growth among the EL population.” Since 2022, the federal grant program dedicated for ELs has decreased by 24%, despite the increasing number of EL students. Furthermore, the Trump administration “has fired nearly every Education Department staffer who ensured states and schools properly spent the hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked to help over 5 million students learning English.” This development has sparked concerns from education advocates over the proper management of the already limited federal funds dedicated to ELs. 

To further complicate matters, there are not enough EL educators available. According to the latest federal data, while the number of EL students increased by 2.6% between the 2018-2020 school years, the number of certified EL teachers decreased by 10.4%. A report by the nonprofit the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) highlighted the impact of this data stating, “In the 2020-2021 school year, 33 states and DC reported a shortage of ESL or bilingual teachers.” The CCSSO further stated that in the 2020-2021 school year, “only 10% of teachers had a major, minor, or certificate in EL instruction.” Although 48% of these teachers were familiar with EL instruction to some degree due to courses taken in college, this is not the same as long-term training or a specialized degree. It is important that universities encourage education majors to consider learning more about EL instruction and offer specialized programs, as research has shown that EL students perform better academically when both their general and EL teachers have specialist certificates or training. General classroom teachers must be properly prepared to potentially instruct ELs, as “U.S. Department of Education statistics for 2020-21…showed 67% of all U.S. teachers had at least one EL student in their class.” 

Researchers and education advocates have also emphasized the importance of valuing students’ L1, or first language, as well as culturally sensitive classroom spaces for ELs. Educators and researchers have repeatedly expressed concerns over the common practice of “restricting support for students’ home languages, and emphasizing English-only approaches.” A multitude of studies and meta analyses have shown academic, cognitive, and language acquisition facilitation benefits that result from incorporating students’ L1 into classroom instruction. Furthermore, a research study on equity in classrooms emphasized the importance of teachers approaching education from a bilingual and bicultural perspective, understanding the intersection of language and culture, and applying this knowledge to support effective instruction for ELs. In order to fully support EL students and help them succeed, educators must embrace an asset-based pedagogy with ELs that values the “existing linguistic and cultural knowledge” that these students already bring with them to the classroom.  It is extremely evident by the lack of sufficient funding, trained EL teachers, and culturally responsive classrooms that ELs have been and continue to be drastically underserved and undervalued in the current US education system. With the Trump Administration eliminating “nearly 200 civil rights attorneys who would make sure school districts meet their legal obligations to support English learners” as well as declaring English to be the official language of the US, which “could lead schools to put less effort into translating documents and conversations for immigrant families” and discourage L1 incorporation in classrooms, it is clear that these policies actively harm EL students. Policymakers must recognize that EL’s “unique cultural and linguistic resources…can add considerably to the breadth and depth of knowledge, perspectives, and talents of American society.” The rise of ELs is not a burden but instead an opportunity for everyone present in the classroom. Educators and lawmakers valuing EL students and their perspectives allows for a “global, dynamic, and multicultural approach to education”—something that is necessary in an increasingly diverse and globalized world.

The U.S. is the most popular destination for studying abroad in the world. With its high-ranking universities and prestigious degree programs, it pulls a plethora of young minds from around the globe and is a melting pot for innovation and cultural exchange. 

The U.S., Soft Power, and International Education

Education has historically been utilized as a tool of soft power diplomacy. While hard power denotes the use of military force and economic sanctions, soft power is a country’s ability to influence others without resorting to coercive pressure. This is often done through the sharing of ideals, values, and culture to foster goodwill and partnerships abroad. The U.S. invests a significant amount in promoting soft power through education through institutions such as EducationUSA, a network of 430 international student advisory centers dispersed across 175 countries. Additionally, the U.S. holds the highest number of high-ranking universities in the world, attracting foreign intellectuals who seek prestigious degrees. Beyond its international student advising and academic rigor, U.S. culture has its own magnetism. American football, sorority-fraternity tradition, and American pop culture attract curious students. It is this combination of accessibility, prestige, and culture that convinces over one million international students to study abroad in the U.S. each year. These international students, in turn, bring a range of economic, social, and political benefits to the United States.

An Array of Benefits

The presence of diverse intellectual talent greatly benefits the U.S. economy. In 2024 alone, foreign students generated 43.8 billion for the U.S. economy and supported more than 350,000 jobs. Foreign students often choose to stay in the U.S. to start their own companies as well. Take Hamdi Ulukaya, the founder of Chobani Greek yogurt. He came to the United States in 1994 before starting a company valued at over 10 billion dollars today. Additionally, Mike Kreiger, originally from Brazil, traveled to the U.S. in 2004 to attend Stanford University and eventually founded Instagram. It is undeniable that foreign students leave their mark on the U.S., channeling their diverse perspectives and drive into groundbreaking entrepreneurship. However, the impact of international students is not only economic. These students bring cultural diversity to U.S. campuses, which helps enrich college life. International student festivals and organizations help bring vibrancy to campus communities, and in the classroom, foreign students bring diverse perspectives that enhance critical thinking and global-mindedness. Additionally, the presence of international students in the U.S. promotes people-to-people diplomacy, helping to foster goodwill across borders. Not only does studying abroad increase awareness and connectivity to host countries, but it also influences policy support for that country. Many foreign internationals go back to their country of origin to become diplomats, business executives, or prominent political figures. These individuals often carry positive experiences with American society and are more likely to support political initiatives led by the U.S. Attracting international students is a powerful tool for advancing U.S. international strategic interests. However, recent changes to the U.S. political administration are reducing the appeal of studying abroad in America. 

The Cost of Turning Away International Students

The recent weighing of a travel ban and spontaneous revocation of international student visas is creating a hostile dynamic for international students that is making the U.S. a less favorable country for studying abroad. Not only is this likely to decrease the number of international students coming to the U.S., but it also risks sending a message that the U.S. is intolerant of foreigners, making the country a less favorable political ally to work with. Allyships and collaboration are important because they allow for global protection of human rights, international trade deals, and the advancement of U.S. security interests abroad. In an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, international students are one of America’s most powerful diplomatic tools. If the U.S. wants to maintain its global influence, it must continue to invest in international education by expanding scholarship opportunities, streamlining the visa process, and funding cultural exchange programs to foster goodwill. Continued investment into international education to build lasting global connections is imperative for the U.S. diplomatic image and its strategic interests abroad.

For more than a decade, global superpowers have targeted the Pacific Islands in their race for hegemony. These islands, residing in the ocean between China, Australia, and the United States, are a key asset. Not only are they home to a trove of natural resources, they are geopolitically attractive locations for foreign powers’ military bases. Because of this, China and the United States compete through financial aid to garner the favor—and security agreements—of these island nations. While China has achieved moderate influence in comparison to the U.S., either country stands to take the lead by focusing on a relatively untapped area of investment: climate change prevention projects.  

The Pacific Island nations view climate change as their most significant threat. As global warming accelerates, the Pacific Islands suffer the increased effects of natural disasters. In 2022, the island nation of Tonga endured a 33% loss in GDP due to Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai’s volcanic eruption and subsequent tsunami. Cyclone Pam caused similar devastating effects to Vanuatu in 2015, with further disasters predicted. Moreover, the sea level in this region is rising three times faster than the global average. This will have devastating effects on the Pacific Islands. Their average elevation is less than two meters above sea level, with most of their populations and infrastructure near the coast. Because of this, these nations continue to push for further foreign assistance toward confronting the tragic consequences of climate change. However, their calls for help have gone relatively unheard. 

Historically, the U.S. and China have overlooked this Pacific Island policy concern, focusing on funding infrastructure rather than climate change prevention projects. From 2008 to 2021, the two superpowers each composed less than 5% of the Pacific Islands’ development partner financing for climate-focused projects. This, alongside a global failure to meet the Pacific Islands’ environmental financing goals, has left both a significant need and capacity for investment in climate resilience initiatives. The results of past investments suggest that, if China or the U.S. were to provide further aid to address this issue, each country involved might effectively achieve their regional aims.

Namely, China’s moderate success in exerting influence over the Pacific Island nations across the past decade exemplifies the importance of responding to the region’s concerns. China is the largest trading partner for most Pacific countries. Additionally, it began serious investment in 2016, long before the U.S. initiated its own intensive aid program. Although China has failed to maximize climate aid, Pacific nations often view its investments as a way to increase climate resilience. Given this history, in comparison to the U.S., China has more effectively convinced “…Pacific leaders that its interests in the region are broader than shaping the Pacific’s military environment.” This has yielded tangible results. In 2022, China signed a security deal with the Solomon Islands, a major accomplishment far exceeding the United States’ Pacific achievements. While China continues to overlook certain Pacific Islands priorities, its relative success indicates that investments aligning with island concerns lead to advantageous returns.

Following the Solomon Islands security pact, the U.S. seems to have jolted to action, igniting previously dormant engagement with the Pacific region. Secretary Antony Blinken’s 2022 visit to Fiji was the first U.S. Secretary of State appearance in the country in nearly four decades. Months later, the U.S. announced its Pacific Partnership Strategy, pledging $810 million to the Pacific Islands to serve a variety of objectives. This investment, spread over 10 years, designated $130 million for climate resilience projects and indicated a renewed focus on Pacific policy priorities. While not insignificant, this aid remains only a fraction of overall investment, leaving considerable—and critical—room to expand.This growing emphasis on U.S. climate initiatives in the Pacific Islands along with China’s success through the security agreement point to what experts have continuously maintained: superpowers seeking influence in the Pacific must be attentive to their policy concerns. Specifically, interested nations “will have to seriously consider climate change as a key security issue in order to secure cooperation from island partners.” While both China and the U.S. seem to have started along this path, they have failed to aggressively pursue these forms of investment, choosing instead to remain fairly insensitive to Pacific goals. This is a missed opportunity to advance all parties’ interests. Extended climate aid campaigns could address both Pacific environmental concerns and superpowers’ security goals, creating a mutually beneficial relationship. Climate safety is the path to military security: directly addressing Pacific needs would enable investors, like the U.S., to advance their objectives.

In late August 2023, Hurricane Idalia ravaged Southeast Georgia, downing not only trees and powerlines but also numerous farms, severely impairing Georgia’s agriculture. The impacts can still be seen today.

Georgia is the nation’s most robust producer of pecans and has been leading the nation consistently each year with the highest utilized production of pecans in recent times. Clearly, pecans are a large part of Georgia’s economic agricultural system. Each year, the pecan industry comprises around two billion dollars of Georgia’s economy and generates approximately 13,000 jobs, making it a substantial portion of the state’s economy.

However, pecans do not grow instantaneously. Pecan trees require 4 to 10 years to mature, with some not producing nuts until they are around a decade old. Hurricanes pose a huge economic threat to the almost 3,000 pecan farmers located in Georgia, as even downed limbs can deeply hinder a tree’s productive capacity for years. In these orchards, farmers plant trees via the process of grafting. During the process of grafting, farmers take established roots that thrive in Georgia’s rich soil and attach them to the tree shoots so that as they grow, they combine and transform into a more productive, resistant plant. These trees are then planted 40 to 70 feet from one another, which means they require a considerable amount of space to grow and produce pecans.

Hurricanes Idalia and Helene have caused severe damage to Georgia’s economy because of pecan tree destruction. Hurricane Idalia made landfall as a Category 3 Hurricane, eventually becoming a Category 2 hurricane as it crossed the Florida-Georgia Line. Idalia sustained winds of 50 to 70 miles per hour. These speeds are substantial enough to topple trees, wrench immature pecans from their branches, and cause tree limbs to fall. Elevated wind speeds are especially troubling for pecan trees, which can only withstand 60 mile an hour winds before causing major structural damage and an increased risk of uprooted trees. Orchards in Idalia’s path in Southeast Georgia experienced around 50 percent loss of trees and substantial losses for that year’s pecan crops.

Hurricane Helene posed a similar threat for pecan farmers. In late September of 2025, Hurricane Helene swept across Georgia, not only killing hundreds of people, but also severely damaging Georgia’s agriculture, most notably the pecan industry. Helene emerged from the Atlantic Ocean as a Category 4 hurricane, eventually losing steam and crossing the Florida-Georgia line as a Category 2 hurricane. With wind speeds reaching up to 137 miles per hour, Helene downed pecan trees in its path, causing an estimated $5.5 billion in agricultural damages, with economic losses totaling around $100 billion. In comparison, Hurricane Helene was stronger than Hurricane Idalia, causing an estimated 40 percent loss of trees from eight to 29 years old and an estimated 70 percent loss of older trees that were already proven to be reliable producers.

The resulting damages from these hurricanes have caused major economic distress for Georgia as the orchards continue to recover. Hurricane Helene, in particular, caused losses of $138 million in the pecan industry alone. Due to the lengthy maturation period, the impacts of these natural disasters are far-reaching. Pecans, while a sizable agricultural resource for the state of Georgia, are not an especially resilient crop. Large catastrophic events will take longer for the pecan industry to recover as the trees not only need to be replanted but also tended to and harvested. Meanwhile, the pecan harvesters have little-to-no revenue source until pecan production increases again.

In addition to plant damages, tariffs on U.S. exports to China have troubled pecan growers, as they face greater competition from others internationally who offer lower prices. 

China has imposed additional tariffs in direct response to the blanket tariffs the U.S. recently imposed on Chinese imports. Under the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the U.S. has currently suspended its tariffs covering pecans, but farmers are unsure about the impacts of future tariffs. Because Georgia has exported around 50-70% of its pecans to China for the last decade, the U.S. and China trade war will greatly harm farmers as the cost of pecans in China increases. The quantity exported to China will subsequently decrease and stifle Georgia’s economy. In addition, the cost of pecan production continuously increases as farmers combat scab, a disease affecting plants that can lead to deformed fruit and leaf drop. Scab requires numerous fungicide sprays due to increased resistance. Combating the disease raises the costs of production even higher—at times an upwards of 60 percent. These rising costs to pecan production, coupled with higher crop prices abroad due to tariffs, will reduce the profit margins of pecan farmers and make it even more challenging in the future to survive catastrophes such as hurricanes as they await a new crop of pecans.

Amidst higher costs, lower prices abroad, and lower margins, Georgian pecan farmers, from small family farms to large growers, are concerned with the future of their industry. Pecan farmers can still manage to plant, grow, and sell pecans due to government aid following natural disasters, but it is imperative that Georgian communities also take action to support such a vital industry. For one, farmers can consider seeking other sources of revenue as they recover, such as selling pecan wood. Some may even consider agritourism as a way of increasing community awareness while simultaneously boosting funds. In addition, supporting local growers through farmers markets and buying locally can help to increase pecan farmer’s profits, and one can even join community organizations whose goal is to inform the public of farmer’s needs. Lastly, when local and national elections arise, citizens should always remember to look into policies that advocate for the wellbeing of farmers. Farmers are the backbone of America, and their resilience continues to sustain society. Naturally, society needs to reciprocate this strength and pour back into the industry which allows it to thrive.

The issue of censorship has been a hot topic in politics, and within the last month it has come to a head in Georgia with a recent Senate Bill, GA SB 74. This bill addresses the distribution of materials deemed “harmful” to minors, and it eliminates the protections that were previously afforded to librarians within state code. Essentially, where libraries were originally exempt from legal repercussions regarding distribution of “obscene” materials to minors, librarians could now face consequences for the books they lend out to underage patrons. This includes any materials that might be perceived as indecent or profane, and this recently proposed Senate bill would substantially restrict the types of materials that can be freely distributed by libraries.

Given how controversial the issue of censorship is in contemporary politics, the bill has faced criticism from the public. Libraries have proven to be an invaluable part of the Georgia community, with over 400 spread across every county in the state. Without the previous exception protecting libraries’ ability to freely disseminate materials, young readers could face significant restrictions on the topics they can read about in libraries.

Georgia code defines works as “harmful to minors” when it lacks any serious literary, political, artistic, or scientific merit. However, there are no clear standards for determining what works fit under this exception. This determination is highly subjective and gives cause for concern about certain topics being more vulnerable to censorship than others. While it is true that the same standards may be applied to all literature in theory, restrictions on literature tend to disproportionately affect books addressing issues of race, gender, and sexuality. This bill has not yet been passed, as it is still awaiting a vote by the Georgia House, but should this bill be passed, Georgia librarians will forever have the threat of legal action hanging over their heads, preventing them from lending books that touch on historically censored topics to young students.

This threat to students’ ability to freely access books cuts to the core of what it means to provide young adults with a comprehensive education. GA SB 74 comes in the wake of President Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, including a recent executive order on the subject. It remains to be seen how the Department of Education might redistribute its powers to other departments–and which roles it plays will simply cease to exist. However, should the Department of Education be eliminated, the lack of federal funding to ensure quality of education would disproportionately affect poorer communities and rural areas. Furthermore, many communities dominated by racial minorities will tend to feel the impacts of this executive order the most severely, given the department’s role in providing funding to under-resourced Black-dominated neighborhoods. Additionally, the abolishing of the Department of Education would eliminate support for students with disabilities and make their education even more inaccessible.

Furthermore, through various executive orders, President Trump is seeking to push a pro-privatization agenda through educational policy. One way in which he is aiming to do this is by utilizing public funds that would go toward the public education system to instead help parents pay for privatized, often faith-based education. However, sending a student to a private school rather than a public school could severely restrict the scope of the education a student is receiving, especially without the Department of Education’s oversight in ensuring the quality of education students receive. This effect is only exacerbated by GA SB 74, which would restrict libraries from providing materials that could expose K-12 students to topics that their education may not address.

This is not the only executive order from President Trump that puts the integrity of K-12 public education at risk. Trump has also made education on race-related issues a target through his executive order banning education on race-related issues. With the Trump administration’s attempts to limit students’ exposure to race-related issues and privatize education, students’ exposure to diverse topics is becoming increasingly threatened, an issue exacerbated by GA SB 74. The best way for students to subvert these attempts to restrict what they can learn about is for them to be able to openly access information and literature outside the scope of their education. Thus, the legal perils of librarians providing such materials to young students is another means of censoring education.

President Trump cannot fully disband the Department of Education without congressional approval. Even so, he seeks to drastically reduce its power and functions to only the barest necessities and take action to preemptively facilitate its disbanding. This, coupled with the number of executive orders he has been able to pass regarding restriction of education, has severely destabilized the comprehensiveness of lower education, preventing young students from learning about highly essential topics related to social issues and taboo topics in American history and culture. The combined impact of this and the recent Georgia Senate Bill would make it immensely difficult for Georgia students to access information unrestrictedly.

GA SB 74 has not yet been passed into law; the end of the Georgia legislative session on April 4th may prevent it from being passed into law this legislative session. However, the introduction of this bill sets a dangerous precedent for the future of libraries’ legal protections. Given the recent attempts to dismantle the Department of Education, it is certainly possible that there will be continued attempts in future legislative sessions to strip libraries of their discretion on what materials to distribute. Such a development would have a substantial impact on Georgia students’ ability to receive a well-funded, comprehensive education.