Multiple administrations have reallocated congressionally appropriated funds for emergent priorities, such as FDR's 1941 diversion of naval funds to develop atomic capabilities (Manhattan Project Congressional Report, 1975). What legal parameters define such executive actions under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S. Code § 681)?

A 2019 reallocation of $6.7B in military construction funds to border security under 10 U.S.C. § 2808 (GAO Report) was challenged as exceeding statutory authority. How does this precedent interact with Congress' "power of the purse" under Article I § 9?

Governmental analyses suggest economic impacts from redirected funds. The CBO estimated reduced military readiness from the 2019 diversion (CBO Report), while infrastructure advocates highlight benefits of expedited projects (ASCE Report, 2025). What metrics determine whether reallocations serve national interest?

Article II's "Take Care Clause" has been invoked to justify emergency actions (e.g., Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579). However, the Supreme Court blocked COVID-era student loan forgiveness as exceeding appropriation intent (Biden v. Nebraska, 2023). What constitutional tests apply?

Recently, the US government has made statements regarding China’s control over the Panama Canal, specifically claiming that China is operating the canal and that American ships are being unfairly charged. These remarks have raised questions about China's role in the region and have sparked concerns, especially as Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to visit Panama as part of a diplomatic trip to Central America and hearings are being held on the issue of the canal's governance.

In addition to the issue of China’s role, there is the issue of Panama’s adherence to the Neutrality Treaty. The treaty, signed in 1977, ensures that the Panama Canal remains neutral and open to all nations.

Questions:

• Is there evidence of non-compliance to the Neutrality Treaty?
• Is there evidence for claims about China’s control of the Panama Canal?
• Is there evidence for American ships being treated unfairly?

Some prominent U.S. companies have recently scaled back or set aside their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives under pressure from conservative activists.

What are the business pros/cons of them making this move? Corporations are typically always driven by bottom-line decisions, so how does this move boost their bottom line? Now that the Federal government is under conservative control, does this buy those companies “good will” in Washington or ensure specific tax benefits? Why are so many (formally presumed) “progressive” businesses making this shift?

Some businesses appear to remain steadfast in their commitments to DE&I. How have they been impacted by this decision?

The US Military current have DEI initiatives in place:

https://media.defense.gov/2022/Sep/30/2003088685/-1/-1/0/DEPARTMENT-OF-DEFENSE-DIVERSITY-EQUITY-INCLUSION-AND-ACCESSIBILITY-STRATEGIC-PLAN.PDF?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Have organizations in place to promote DEI:

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2452750/diversity-and-inclusion-final-board-report/

On 1/20/2025, the US president has put out an executive order to end DEI programs in the military.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/

What are the reasons for keeping or eliminating DEI programs in the US military? What are some benefits and drawbacks?

In this BBC article, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czj3v42m9x0o,they report some views from both sides…

“Their backers say they address historical underrepresentation and discrimination against certain groups, including racial minorities, but critics say such programmes can themselves be discriminatory.”

“The Trump administration claims that removing these initiatives from the US military will help boost recruitment levels.”

It seems more logical that with DEI programs in place you would be targeting a larger pool when you are recruiting.

I read that it's 9 Democrats and 2 Republicans, but I can't find anything except for the typical Democrats, (AOC, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders). The two Republicans are Tennessee’s Phil Roe and Florida’s Francis Rooney

About a year ago, Tennessee proposed adding firearm safety courses to public schools in the state, a practice that used to be somewhat common across the US.

What are the pros and cons of such a policy? Does firearm safety education actually reduce gun violence or does it have the opposite effect? Is there evidence that more or less familiarity with firearms results in a public benefit?

Thanks to /u/smallguy135 for the original version of this submission.

Background

The jus soli form of birthright citizenship is the principle that a person's citizenship is dictated by the location of their birth. In the United States and many other countries, the concept is carried over from British common law.

However, many people born in the US, such as enslaved people, were denied citizenship until the 14th Amendment formally codified the right in 1868. Thirty years later, the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark expanded to include the US-born children of foreigners.

On the first day of his second stint in office, President Trump issued an executive order declaring future people born in the US will not be considered citizens if their mother isn't a lawful permanent resident, unless the father is a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Questions

• What's the case for and against the type of territorial citizenship the administration is seeking to limit here?
• What evidence supports the need to make this change?
• Is there evidence that people granted jus soli citizenship in the 127 years since United States v. Wong Kim Ark have been a net detriment or benefit to the country?
• The cited executive order claims that its interpretation of the law is not new, but if that were the case, it seems there would be no need for an executive order, so what is it changing?
• Does the executive branch have the power to change the interpretation of a law in this way?

Hi all. I’m trying to track the house and senate to see which viewpoints i agree with and overall just learn more about congress. I feel like for the most part since I started tracking the house/senate (about 2 weeks ago) 90% of the bills have been fairly cut and dry for me about how I feel about them, but after reading multiple opinions about this bipartisan bill, I realize that it feels very much like a non partisan issue. I was wondering what the pros and cons of it? I’m planning on watching the proceeding to learn more about it while the bill is being talked about.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/471

One question that gets submitted quite often on r/NeutralPolitics is some variation of:

Objectively, how has Biden done as President?

The mods don't approve such submissions, because under Rule A, they're overly broad. But given the repeated interest, we've been putting up our own version once a year. We invite you to check out all six previous years' discussions.

There are many ways to judge the chief executive of any country and there's no way to come to a broad consensus on all of them. US President Joe Biden's four-year term ended today. What were the successes and failures of his administration?

What we're asking for here is a review of specific actions by the Biden administration that are within the stated or implied duties of the office. This is not a question about your personal opinion of the president. Through the sum total of the responses, we're trying to form an objective picture of this administration's various initiatives and the ways they contribute to overall governance.

We handle these posts a little differently than a standard submission. The mods have had a chance to preview the question and may post our own responses. The idea here is to contribute some early comments that we know are well-sourced and vetted, in the hopes that it will prevent the discussion from running off course.

Users are free to contribute as normal, but please adhere to our rules on commenting. And although the topic is broad, please be specific in your responses. Here are some potential policy areas to address:

• Appointments
• Campaign promises
• Criminal justice
• Defense
• Economy
• Education
• Environment
• Foreign policy
• Healthcare
• Immigration
• Rule of law
• Public safety
• Taxes
• Tone of political discourse
• Trade

Let's have a productive discussion.

Thinking about the Gen z rightward shift at the ballot box. Has there ever been another generation in America that swung more to the right than the generation directly older than them? I only followed balloting and polls around Obama so I’m not sure if this is common or not

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/yes-trump-improved-young-men-drew-young-women-rcna179019

https://worldcrunch.com/focus-israel-palestine-war/one-state-solution-for-israel-and-palestine

As of today, it might seem more clear that due to the Israeli settlements on the west Bank being entrenched more and more, and due to the reluctance of both sides in deciding to be neighbors, it seems likely (this is just my informed opinion) that the vision of a two state solution is vanishing day by day

It should ideally be possible for this nation to come about from a peaceful revolution, how likely that is I will leave it in the air.

What are the challenges to establishing this nation In the present day? One would be the wars that have happened between these nations

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Israel since the inception of Israel, there have many such of these wars, many such in plans to drive Jews out of Palestinian land, out of the middle East, or any other such territory. Indeed, it seems highly uncertain weather Jews and Arabs can live together in the same place.

Another, thing, that also appears I n the first link, is the fear of Jewish folk of being overwhelmed with the increasing Arab population in case of a unified state.

That's two reasons why the United States seem unlikely, what are other present day problems that doesn't facilitate the formation of this union?

We know the end results of the popular vote from places like the associated press.

https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/?office=P

But the only demographic information I can find it merely Exit Polls, not the raw data of where the votes were allocated.

Will this information never be available, how so?

I’ve been vaguely aware of the Belt and Road Initiative (https://www.forbes.com/sites/miltonezrati/2024/09/16/beijing-doubles-down-on-the-belt-and-road-initiative-and-on-africa/), but recently, I read about France being the latest nation to be pushed out of Africa (https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/1/3/frexit-why-ivory-coast-is-joining-african-campaign-to-expel-french-troops). It seems like there’s growing momentum across the continent to challenge Western influence.

This raises an important question for me: What is it that Russia and China truly offer as a better alternative to the West, or what is it that appeals to African nations?

Some call China’s Belt and Road Initiative ‘debt diplomacy’ (https://odi.org/en/insights/why-china-is-seeking-greater-presence-in-africa-the-strategy-behind-its-financial-deals/) and others seeing it as an opportunity for much-needed infrastructure and development. Do these projects genuinely benefit African nations and their citizens, or are the risks of dependency and exploitation just taking a new form?

I’m also curious about how African leaders can navigate these shifting alliances. What steps can they take to ensure that deals with China and Russia are transparent, fair, and truly focused on long-term development for their people?

Lastly, as Africa diversifies its partnerships, how does China and Russia’s approach compare to Western influence in terms of sustainability, sovereignty, and real development outcomes? Are these new alliances are a step forward for Africa or is the continent simply trading one set of challenges for another?

Does the US have a legitimate path forward to achieve this?

Per the article linked below:

"U.S. president-elect Donald Trump declared that he’s open to using “economic force” to acquire Canada."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-says-not-a-snowball-s-chance-canada-would-become-part-of-u-s-1.7167098

A recent published study by the respected "Institute of Labor Economics", sheds light on the fiscal contributions of immigrants in the Netherlands over their lifetimes. It offers some intriguing insights that raise important questions for discussion. The data show that labor migrants, particularly from Western countries, tend to contribute positively to public finances, with an average lifetime contribution of €42,000. In contrast, non-Western immigrants often face challenges, resulting in an average fiscal deficit of €167,000 over their lifetime. Native Dutch citizens, by comparison, contribute an average of €98,000.
Interestingly, even the second-generation immigrants that achieved education levels similar to native citizens, their earnings still lag behind, maintaining negative fiscal contributions.

This makes wonder: why it happens ? Do we need to revisit how newcomers are integrated into the labor market, ensuring they have the opportunities to contribute more effectively ?
This study doesn’t provide all the answers but serves as a starting point for constructive dialogue.

What policies have been implemented to enhance the economic impact of immigration and what's the evidence for their efficacy?

Study available here:
https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/17569/the-long-term-fiscal-impact-of-immigrants-in-the-netherlands-differentiated-by-motive-source-region-and-generation

Apart from anti-immigration stance I have a hard time finding unbiased information about AfD party actual policies in English. I've heard the terms "far-right" and "neo-nazi" being thrown around by left leaning media but would like to understand more what's actual political stance made them so.

EDIT: their official manifesto in English

https://www.afd.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-12_afd-grundsatzprogramm-englisch_web.pdf

https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-condemned-israel-more-than-all-other-countries-combined-in-2022-monitor/

I had another version but this source seems to illustrate the problem more clearly.

everyone has bias, but that doesn't stop one from being accurate, right?

Does the United Nations have any bias with respect to Israel? If so, is it for or against? And if so, is that bias unfounded or grounded?

Does the United Nations do a good job in relation to the Israel Palestine conflict?

Sorry if this comes off as copy pasted, but it's a hassle editing in reddit.

What led Illinois to becoming a blue state? It was a red/purplish state until 1992 with the exceptions of FDR and LBJ. I understand JFK won it as well. What were the factors to it becoming a blue state? The last republican to win it was George H.W. Bush in 1988.

SPAM phone calls have gotten out of hand. (Source: FTC: "Unwanted calls – including illegal and spoofed robocalls - are the FCC's top consumer complaint and our top consumer protection priority. " https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-robocalls-and-texts )

Despite being the FTC's "top consumer protection priority" (Source: see above), the volume seems undiminished (Source: https://www.truecaller.com/us-spam-stats warning--this is actually a site selling anti-SPAM software. Admittedly anecdotal, but my personal SPAM volume greatly exceeds the "8 per user per month" stated in this source: mine is more like 10-20 per DAY.)

Given the FTC's assertion about this being their "top consumer complaint" I am surprised that (AFAIK) some enterprising elected official hasn't gone after this issue. Or have they?

What new legislation has been proposed to address the problem? What has prevented existing regulation from being effective? Why is the Do Not Call Registry (Source: https://www.donotcall.gov/) ineffective? Does the SPAMers' business model depend on acquiring new phone numbers in bulk, so limiting those sales is a reasonable target for new regulation?

I look forward to your explanations!

Background:

The U.S. Constitution grants the president nearly unlimited power to pardon federal crimes. This power has been used extensively throughout the history of the republic. But inevitably, there's conflict around particular pardons for each president, including the most recent one.

Questions:

• What's the political theory behind granting pardon power to the chief executive of the country?
• Throughout history, is there evidence that the use of the pardon has been a net positive or negative?
• Does the use of the pardon indicate that the Federal criminal justice system is not fair and impartial?
• Does the use of the pardon diminish or enhance the public's belief in the fairness of the system?
• What are the overall pros and cons of the president having this power.

Are there any checks on this power? Could the tariffs be essentially infinite, or even negative?

In the past several days, President-elect Trump has proposed tariffs on a wide range of countries, on various goods. There is some question about whether he's serious, or the exact details, but because he says he'll enact tariffs on Day One, I am curious to know what checks and balances there are on any powers the President may have here.

I’ve been thinking about this for a bit, and thought about it again after seeing a fringe far-right Romanian politician receive more votes than the incumbent in the first round. Every election I’ve seen in the past several years, the incumbent party has lost, often dramatically. This goes for left wing, moderate and right wing incumbent parties. A list I can think of off the top of my head;

United States, Trump’s reelection.

UK Tories getting annihilated.

Modi’s party severely underperforming expectations.

The far-right winning control of Italy’s government.

Macron’s party coming in third in the latest elections.

Bolsonaro losing reelection.

Poland’s incumbent party losing after ages in control of government.

The SDP hasn’t lost in Germany yet, but they are basically dead.

Botswana's incumbent party losing after over half a century in control.

This is just a list of some of the most widely covered elections, so I encourage people to add examples that buck this trend or fit it. But I know little about Mexican politics other than the previous President was remarkably popular. Incumbents losing popularity seems widespread due to rising costs of living. What is different about Mexico?

Background:

The DoEd was split off in 1979 to manage programs that were already Congressionally mandated. Its tasks are limited, because education in the United States is largely funded at the state and local level.

Some of the Department of Education’s biggest jobs are to administer federal funding appropriated by Congress to K-12 schools and manage the federal student loan and financial aid programs. [...]

But federal funding typically accounts for roughly just 10% of all school funding because the rest comes from state and local taxes.

The incoming Trump administration has a stated goal of eliminating the department.

Questions:

• What are the reasons to keep and eliminate the Department of Education?
• In the event that the department is shut down, who is proposed to administer the Congressionally mandated programs it handles now?
• What, if any, are the projected savings of eliminating the department?

Thanks to /u/rameshv98 for the idea and original version of this submission.

In cooperation with /r/geopolitics, we're announcing this AMA with Newsweek's Senior Editor for Russia and Ukraine, Yevgeny Kuklychev, today at 9:00 AM ET.

Background:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance of 32 member states. At the core of its deterrent functions is Article 5, whose collective defense principles mean that an attack on one ally is considered as an attack against all allies. Article 5 has long been considered a successful deterrent to aggression in Europe, at first countering the Warsaw Pact countries, and later Russia.

But things changed with the rise of Donald Trump, who has been openly critical of NATO. It was widely reported that soon after Trump took office, NATO's mutual defense obligations were explained to him and he responded, "You mean, if Russia attacked Lithuania, we would go to war with Russia?" adding, "That’s crazy." Just the suggestion that the United States could not be depended on would compromise the value of such an alliance, but in 2020, Trump went a step further, reportedly telling the European Commission President, "You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you." He then added, "By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO."

Now, despite Russia annexing part of Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and fomenting a war in Donbas, all prior to invading Ukraine in 2022, nine NATO countries have still not met their recommended military funding targets. And after nearly three years of war in Ukraine with an intensive sanctions regime against Russia, weapons production in NATO countries still lags way behind Russia.

On the other hand, NATO countries still have the nuclear umbrella that didn't extend to Ukraine. Some argue this alone, with some updating, would be enough to deter aggression.

Questions:

• Is NATO still a credible deterrent?
• Are member countries right to doubt the commitment of other members, especially the U.S., to Article 5?
• Is it appropriate for smaller countries to have a credible fear that the rest of NATO would not come to its aid if attacked?
• In a NATO with less political commitment and military industrial output than Russia, is the nuclear umbrella still a sufficient deterrent?

I'm looking to better understand what to be on the lookout for. One of the last things we saw was him talking about opposing Fluoride in the water, but to my understanding that would be harder for him to accomplish because fluoride is implemented on a state and local level (which is not to say that he can't do it, just that it's not directly under his control in HHS). As a person who is worried about his opposition to science-backed medicine, what things can he do right away with his position of power as Health and Human Services secretary that might damage reliance on scientific consensus and create downstream impacts for Americans who want HHS to continue to follow the science? What direct powers does he have? What can he accomplish with or without the help of Congress? What will require an executive order? Does he have any direct powers to implement these things?

RFK Jr.'s positions:

Opposed to vaccines "There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective." - Lex Fridman podcast

Promotes debunked theories about vaccines and autism Edited a book promoting the link between Thimerosal and autism. despite continued lack of scientific evidence.

[opposes fluoride in the drinking water] (https://x.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1852812012478398923?s=46) despite evidence that it is safe.

Wants to ban puberty blockers for children despite the fact that they are linked to reduction of suicidal ideation in trans children

[Says HIV does not cause AIDS] (https://www.bugeyedandshameless.com/p/joe-rogan-and-robert-f-kennedy-jr)

Suggests that chemicals in the water are changing the sexuality of children

Wants to lift restrictions on raw milk This is despite the finding of bird flu in raw milk, causing it to be a potential vector for a COVID-like pandemic.

In which of these issues is he most likely to be effective in implementing his policies given the structures of power in the HHS? Are there any other areas where he has the power to drastically change policy?

Voter concerns about the economy/inflation and immigration were two major factors in Kamala's electoral loss. But these factors become advantages to Trump largely because of an uninformed/misinformed electorate. Most mainstream economists believe his policies will worsen, not improve inflation, and earlier this year Republicans rejected a bipartisan bill that would have improved border security, at Trump's behest. Fabricated falsehoods about Haitian immigrants eating pets and the government creating hurricanes via cloud seeding were also used as distractions or lines of attack by Republicans, not to mention the "big lie" that Trump won the 2020 election, which continues to be impactful. Though they don't utilize misinformation as heavily, Democrats are not immune to it either; for example, Kamala misrepresented Project 2025's plans for Social Security and pregnancies.

Currently there are very few checks on fake news and misinformation in the U.S., except for slander directed against specific people (e.g. Alex Jones being taken to court for defamation by victims of the Sandy Hook shooting). Are there any other countries that have laws or provisions in place to limit the spread or impact of politically-driven misinformation? What legal obstacles are there to implementing such protections in the U.S.?

Good afternoon, everyone! With this election behind us, I am looking to get more politically aware and active as opposed to looking at a candidate voting history before Election Day. I do believe our representatives in the house and senate care about our opinions, and we have a duty to make our opinions known if we want things to change. That being said — besides scouring websites daily to see what coming up to the floor for votes, what resources are there to stay up to date?

I have looked over votesmart.org and issuevoter.org — are there any more that you all utilize to stay informed and connected to the voting body?

The US political parties are not serving us (1, 2, 3), we only have two choices for a US population that has diverse in many forms (economic stats, social status, education level, age, gender, racial identity, cultural etc) (1, 2, 3)

Would welcome a discussion on what actions a regular citizen can initiate to create small changes that improve the quality of life for society, (local neighborhood) and try to scale those changes with others (county - state changes) yet keep their livelihood of enjoying life as best they as they see fit.

Trump won the popular vote with issue number two of his platform being the largest mass deportation of illegal aliens in history:

From: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

"1 Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion

"2 Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history"

Public polling has found that most Americans support deporting all illegal aliens ^1, ^2 ; that nearly half of Americans support the military being involved, including running detention centers ^3 , with furthermore surprisingly robust support from not just Republicans but Democrats as well in such polls.

Additionally, Trump won a larger share of the Latino vote than any Republican candidate ever at 45% ^4 and there is even some evidence that some illegal aliens themselves are sympathetic, even though they understand they may well be deported ^5 .

• Who saw this coming and what did they say/write about it?
• What lessons can be learned from these results?