Month: October 2026

A World Without a Referee: Why Dissolving the UN Would Deepen Global Chaos | By Maria Alice Souza Maia

syamanak

Abstract: The UN General Assembly meeting showed that countries are willing to change how the international system operates, but not for the better. The mission of peace and commitment to human rights must remain strong, even amid increasingly hostile rhetoric from global superpowers.

How can the United Nations restore global trust when its own General Assembly becomes a place for augmenting international divisions? The United Nations General Assembly met from September 8 to September 28, 2026. Delegations from 194 countries were represented and met under the theme of “Restoring trust, managing transformation: A United Nations that delivers for all”. In his speech, UN Secretary-General António Guterres addressed four critical issues: artificial intelligence, climate action, sustainable development goals, and global health and security. During the assembly, some speeches drew fierce condemnation.  Two examples of speeches that generated protests were those by Israel and the United States. President Donald Trump said that his other choice is to “annihilate the Islamic Republic” and that he plans to establish a “large military presence” on Greenland.  Israel’s speech addressed the genocide in Gaza, describing it as “the biggest lie of the century” and the invasion of Iran as “one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make.” Multiple delegations left the assembly as a form of protest against Israel’s speech.1

Moreover, the speeches were marked by different narratives from the same situation: Israel and the Palestinian leader; President Vladimir Zelenskyy of Ukraine and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov; President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian.2 These speeches shaped the thematic agenda of the General Assembly. With three major wars happening in the world right now, several civil conflicts and dozens of genocide cases being investigated. These sharp divisions call into question whether the UN can still function as an effective instrument of collective security.

The theme of this General Assembly was overshadowed by the tensions among some of the present countries, but behind the scenes, a proposal to dissolve the UN and start a new world organization was being discussed.3 The UN faces its most serious crisis since 1945, dealing with a low budget and a transition to a new secretary-general. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cut the budget by 15% for this year, 2026. This is because a lot of countries, including the U.S., didn’t pay their dues, ending the last year with $1.57 billion in outstanding dues.4 The UN General Assembly is a more diplomatic and representative stage than the Security Council and its five permanent member states. Many countries see the UN as an ineffective organization that, amid several conflicts, shows inaction and, when faced with legal procedures on crimes, fails to enforce the law under the UN Charter. The organization’s crisis of legitimacy is further exacerbated by long-standing structural underrepresentation. For instance, African nations comprise 28% of total UN member states (54 out of 193) and represent over 1.4 billion people, yet lack a single permanent seat on the Security Council.5

However, would the true solution be a full makeover? Wouldn’t a reform solve the problem?6 A UN reform has been called for decades now, and little has been done regarding this claim. So, it is not a surprise that some countries are advocating for this approach. However, there are some counterarguments to these demands. First, realist International Relations theory posits that the global system is fundamentally anarchic. Without an overarching international authority, multilateral bodies like the UN serve as essential de-escalation forums rather than a coercive world police.7 So, when conflicts break out, there is no world police to call for help or assistance with a task force. The UN serves as a peacekeeping force and source of diplomacy and negotiation to help states navigate the nature of the international system. 

Ultimately, preserving and reforming the existing UN architecture remains the only practical safeguard against global instability. Since its creation, it has helped develop and create education and healthcare systems, peacekeeping missions, and holding perpetrators accountable through international legal mechanisms. Going back to the past and adopting a new system that would generate even more insecurity and violations of human rights is not what the world needs right now.  Dismantling the referee does not end the game; it merely leaves raw power as the only rule on the field. Remaining at the table sends a far stronger signal than walking away.

  1. CNN, “United Nations General Assembly: Trump,” CNN, September 22, 2026.  ↩︎
  2. CNN, “United Nations General Assembly: Iran, Trump, Ukraine,” CNN, September 23, 2026.  ↩︎
  3. Bruno Cardoso Reis et al., “What’s at Stake at UNGA 2026?” Brookings Institution, September 23, 2026.   ↩︎
  4. Vibhu Mishra, “UN Faces ‘Race to Bankruptcy’ as Guterres Unveils Sharply Reduced 2026 Budget,” UN News, October 17, 2025.  ↩︎
  5. Andrew Stanley, “African Century,” Finance & Development, International Monetary Fund, September 2023.  ↩︎
  6. Howard, Lise Morjé. “Peacekeeping, Peace Enforcement, and UN Reform.” Georgetown Journal of International Affairs 16, no. 2 (2015): 6–13. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43773690. ↩︎
  7. Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. ↩︎

Economic Interdependence: Peace or Vulnerability? | By Kimberly Hernandez

syamanak

Abstract: Despite the long existing literature Liberal scholars have offered on the relationship between economic interdependence and security, recent trends in U.S. foreign policy has emphasized the need for American economic independence. Although there are certain vulnerabilities that have emerged from extreme dependence on China for materials needed for weapon production, the role of interdependence as an inhibitor of peace should not be completely disregarded.

In the 2025 National Security Strategy report, it declared that, “Going forward, we will rebalance America’s economic relationship with China, prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence.”1 In recent years, many have begun to fear that interdependence has created dependence, and thus weakness. Liberalist international relations theory has traditionally posited that interdependence offers a medium for peace. Even so, recent developments have raised doubts about the underlying assumptions behind the theory of economic interdependence, as advocated for in the U.S. National Security Strategy. Rather than pursuing complete economic independence, the U.S should strategically manage interdependence by diversifying critical supply chains and decreasing asymmetric interdependence that could be exploited. 

Popular liberalist international relations theory hinges on the idea that trade and conflict have a negative relationship. Consequently, “trading countries with significant trade relations would thus engage in less conflict, because they are most threatened by welfare losses associated with lost trade.”2 However, more recent literature has questioned this relationship, and argued that the relationship between trade and conflict is much more complex than simply being an inverse relationship. Farrell, for example, argues that “asymmetric network structures create the potential for “weaponized interdependence,” in which some states are able to leverage interdependent relations to coerce others.”3 In other words, interdependence alone is not the solution for peace, but interdependence must be deliberately and strategically managed. 

Asymmetric interdependence has been a key source of worry for the U.S. Different assessments have been conducted to determine just how dependent the U.S. is on other countries. Specifically, the Government Accountability Office in a 2024 report found that “critical materials—like rare earths, tantalum, and tungsten—are materials needed to supply U.S. military…Most of these materials are mined and processed in China, which makes DOD’s weapon system programs vulnerable to supply chain disruptions by an adversary nation.”4 This aligns with Farrell’s findings of how interdependence can create channels of vulnerability. 

The realization of the deep asymmetric economic interdependence that the U.S has with China has increased fears that complete economic decoupling is necessary to protect U.S. national security. For example, in July of 2025, the Department of Defense invested $400 million in MP Materials, demonstrating a leap into the goal to decrease dependence on China for rare earth minerals.5 While complete independence may seem the ideal choice, economic interdependence has proven to remain effective, and de-coupling would also eradicate the benefits of America’s relationship with China. Indeed, while “China’s autonomy has grown as its wealth has increased—but like every other actor in the international system, it remains constrained by its reliance on the global economy.”6 In other words, interdependence continues to be an effective means of constraining power. Similarly, academic literature posits that “The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading relationships.”7

Echoing this sentiment, former Secretary of the Treasury, Janet L. Yellen, in a 2023 press release argued that “A full separation of our economies would be disastrous for both countries. It would be destabilizing for the rest of the world.”8 This view in particular considers the logistical hardships behind aiming to completely become economically independent. Similarly, a 2021 report by the CSIS considers the immense closeness between the economies and in the end, argues for “targeted decoupling,” as opposed to full and comprehensive decoupling.9

In the end, while there is an increasing sentiment that the US should seek to become independent as a means to cut the channels of vulnerabilities that asymmetric interdependence has created, especially in relation to the immense dependence that US has on certain materials needed for weapon production, complete decoupling should not be the answer. Interdependence so far has proven to have a relation to decreasing conflict when used strategically, and complete decoupling would create further problems considering the close relationship that the U.S. economy holds with others. As such, the U.S instead focuses on repositioning its independence to maximize its utility. 

  1. National Security Strategy of the United States of America November 2025. Accessed September 30, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf.  ↩︎
  2. Polachek, S. W. (1980). Conflict and Trade. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 55-78. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200278002400103 ↩︎
  3. Farrell, Henry, and Abraham L. Newman. “Weaponized Interdependence: How Global Economic Networks Shape State Coercion.” International Security 44, no. 1 (2019): 42–79. ↩︎
  4. Office, U.S. Government Accountability. “U.S. Gao.” Critical Materials: Action Needed to Implement Requirements That Reduce Supply Chain Risks, September 12, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107176.  ↩︎
  5. Office, U.S. Government Accountability. “U.S. Gao.” Critical Materials: Action Needed to Implement Requirements That Reduce Supply Chain Risks, September 12, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107176.  ↩︎
  6. “Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on the U.S. – China Economic Relationship at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.” U.S. Department of the Treasury, April 20, 2023. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1425.  ↩︎
  7. The dangers of misunderstanding economic interdependence | Cato Institute.  https://www.cato.org/publications/dangers-misunderstanding-economic-interdependence.  ↩︎
  8. Barbieri, Katherine. “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?” Journal of Peace Research 33, no. 1 (1996): 29–49. http://www.jstor.org/stable/425132. ↩︎
  9. Segal, Stephanie, and Dylan Gerstel. “Degrees of Separation: A Targeted Approach to U.S.-China Decoupling – Interim Report.” CSIS. Accessed October 1, 2026. https://www.csis.org/analysis/degrees-separation-targeted-approach-us-china-decoupling-interim-report.  ↩︎

“Your Countries Are Going to Hell”: How Donald Trump Keeps Alienating America’s Allies | By Bobby Signorelli

Bobby Signorelli

Abstract: Trump has repeatedly utilized international forums, such as the UN, as stages for provocation rather than diplomacy. This year’s speech, his first since the U.S. went to war with Iran, continued a pattern of escalation, from telling European leaders their countries were “going to hell” in 2025 to threatening to “annihilate” Iran in 2026. World leaders have responded by refusing to cooperate and reducing reliance on the United States, representing a loss of trust in American leadership. A president who has lost the faith of his allies cannot build the coalitions that successful foreign policy depends on. 

While President Trump’s incendiary rhetoric feels unsettlingly common in contemporary politics, his recent UN address was a stark reminder of what that discourse has cost in diplomacy. For the fifth time, Trump stood before the General Assembly, this time with the United States seven months into a war with Iran.1 He told the world he must either make a deal or “annihilate the Islamic Republic.”2 However, in the same speech, he called on “all nations to join us” and promised that “if we stand united,” Iran’s threat would soon be gone.3 How can Trump expect a coalition of nations while pleading for their help and provoking them in the same breath?

If Trump wants to make serious strides in diplomacy with Iran, he must first change his approach. International relations are contingent on leverage, and Trump’s goal of the “complete economic isolation of Iran” is only plausible if allies agree to enforce it.4 Recent events suggest that international allies are unlikely to support the United States and are losing faith in hegemonic dependence, which refers to the reliance of smaller nations on a dominant power for security, economic stability, and political influence. As this dependence diminishes, allies may seek independent paths or reliance on a new hegemon.  Early signs of this shift have been visible in recent geopolitical developments in Iran. For example, when Trump asked NATO members to help secure the Strait of Hormuz in March, most declined, and EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, explained that Europe’s main concern about the war was that “[they] were not consulted” before the war began.5 Spain and Italy went further than the EU, refusing additional assistance and restricting the United States access to airspace tied to the conflict.6 The self-inflicted rift between the US and its allies was on full display one day after Trump’s address, when Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez used the same UN stage to declare Spain’s opposition to the war.7 This situation can be further understood through Robert Putnam’s theory of two-level games. According to Putnam, leaders must negotiate abroad while remaining accountable to their domestic constituencies.8 In this context, Trump’s provocative rhetoric has made it politically risky for allied nations to align with Washington, complicating diplomatic relations.9

Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has not only strained global relations, but it has significantly impacted America’s relationships with its neighboring countries as well. In Canada, the share of people who describe the U.S. as a “reliable partner” fell from 83 percent in 2022 to just 35 percent in 2026.10 That distrust stems from Trump’s repeated talk of absorbing Canada as the “51st state,” making cooperation with Washington a liability.11 Allied nation leaders are quietly following their voters and reducing their reliance on the United States. The United Kingdom and Canada, two of America’s closest intelligence partners, have reportedly limited the information they share over concerns about the legality of U.S. strikes abroad,12 and Canada became the first non-European country to join the EU’s defense-loan program.13 Every partner that steps back leaves Trump with less leverage over Iran and only continues to prolong this seeming war of attrition. 

Trump closed his address by promising the General Assembly that “together, through bold action, we will make this world far safer.”14 It is a goal his allies definitely share, but unity cannot be demanded from a place of hypocrisy, where the United States infuriates other nations in the hope of peace. Until Trump trades provocation for diplomacy, the coalition he needs to end the war with Iran will remain out of reach. The consequences of this diplomatic strategy are directly affecting Americans, who have paid, and will continue to pay, for it at home. Gas prices are about $1.50 higher than before the conflict began, with this trend likely to escalate further.15 As the cost of living continues to rise on the back of military enterprise, Americans can only hope that decorum re-enters the diplomatic sphere.

  1. PolitiFact Staff, “Live Fact-Check: President Donald Trump Speaks to UN General Assembly in New York,” PolitiFact, September 22, 2026, https://politifact.com/article/2026/sep/22/trump-un-speech-live-fact-check/.
    ↩︎
  2. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america. 
    ↩︎
  3. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america. 
    ↩︎
  4. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america. 
    ↩︎
  5. Franco Ordoñez, “Trump Lashes Out at NATO After Countries Decline to Help in Iran,” NPR, March 17, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/03/17/nx-s1-5750596/trump-lashes-out-at-nato-after-countries-decline-to-help-in-iran.
    ↩︎
  6. Suman Naishadham, “Spain Closes Off Its Airspace to US Planes Involved in the Iran War,” AP News, March 30, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/trump-spain-united-states-iran-war-05e23ef4e0bda9cb226a16b10cd9437c.
    ↩︎
  7. Pedro Sánchez, “Address by the President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, to the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 23, 2026), La Moncloa, https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/lang/en/presidente/intervenciones/Paginas/2026/20260923-un-general-assembly-speech.aspx. ↩︎
  8. Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 427–60.
    ↩︎
  9. Olivier Knox, “European Allies Tell Trump ‘No’ to Iran War: Why It Matters,” U.S. News & World Report, April 1, 2026, https://www.usnews.com/news/u-s-news-decision-points/articles/2026-04-01/european-allies-tell-trump-no-to-iran-war-why-it-matters.
    ↩︎
  10. Luke Fountain,”Trump Faces Xi as Strains with Allies Complicate U.S. Pressure on China,” CNBC, September 23, 2026, https://cnbc.com/2026/09/23/trump-xi-china-summit-allies.html.
    ↩︎
  11. Robert D. Putnam, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42, no. 3 (1988): 427–60.
    ↩︎
  12. Tressa Guenov, “By Alienating Its Intelligence Partners, the US Risks Losing More Than Trust,” Atlantic Council, March 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/by-alienating-its-intelligence-partners-the-us-risks-losing-more-than-trust/. 
    ↩︎
  13. Lionel Laurent, “Canada and Europe Are Building a Hedge Against America,” Bloomberg Opinion, September 11, 2026, https://bworldonline.com/bloomberg/2026/09/11/776027/canada-and-europe-are-building-a-hedge-against-america/.
    ↩︎
  14. Donald J. Trump, “Address to the General Debate of the 81st Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (speech, New York, September 22, 2026), United Nations, https://gadebate.un.org/en/81/united-states-america.
    ↩︎
  15. Angi Gonzalez, “As U.S.-Iran War Hits 7-Month Mark, Rising Gas and Airfare Costs Squeeze Americans’ Wallets,” Spectrum News, September 28, 2026, https://spectrumlocalnews.com/us/snplus/international/2026/09/28/u-s–iran-war-7-months-gas-airfare-costs.
    ↩︎

Strategic Voting: Plurality vs. Proportional Election Systems | By Aiden Blake

aidenblake23

Abstract: America’s two-party, plurality system encourages strategic voting by forcing voters to weigh electability against political preference. Germany’s multiparty, proportional system shifts more of that compromise to post-election coalition building, allowing votes to more directly reflect what voters actually want.

In 1992, nearly twenty million Americans voted for independent candidate Ross Perot; he won zero electoral votes.1 Eight years later, roughly 97,000 Floridians backed the Green Party’s Ralph Nader, while George W. Bush carried the state, and the presidency, over Al Gore by just 537 votes.2

These elections and many others taught voters that a ballot cast outside of the two major parties can fail to translate into representation or, worse, help elect the candidate they least like. Therefore, many Americans vote strategically, backing parties based on the probability of victory rather than policy alignment. Political scientists since Maurice Duverger have recognized this behavior as largely systematic under plurality electoral rules, which are electoral systems in which the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in a given district wins the seat.3 But why might behaviors be different in a proportional system, where seat distribution reflects vote proportion?

The reason is not that voters in proportional democracies do not prioritize representation with their vote. Instead, the difference is that they can vote for a party without concern over falling within a majority. Under America’s two-party system, voters often compromise before casting their ballots. A voter who prefers a third-party candidate must consider whether that candidate can actually win and, if not, whether supporting them risks helping elect a less-preferred alternative. Additionally, because each of the two dominant parties group together a comprehensive set of policy positions before the election, voters can easily align within one of the two stronger options.

Proportional electoral systems, such as those used in multiparty democracies, shift much of that grouping to after the election. Germany provides a useful example. Its Bundestag is elected primarily through proportional representation, where ballots require two votes: first, specifically for member selection, and second, for party distribution.4 Each party’s share of the decisive “second vote” determines its relative strength within parliament.5 Instead of requiring every political interest to fit within one of two parties before an election, this system allows several parties to gain meaningful representation. 

Importantly, this system does not eliminate strategic voting entirely. Germany generally requires a party to receive at least 5% of second votes to participate in proportional seat allocation, giving voters who prefer parties near that threshold reason to think strategically.6 However, that pressure is different from a system in which only one candidate can win a state or a district.

Consider Germany’s Greens. In the 2021 federal election, the party received 14.7% of second votes.7 Those votes did not have to produce an outright Green victory to matter. The Greens gained representation in the Bundestag and ultimately joined SPD and FDP in forming the governing coalition.8 In other words, voters could support a smaller party, and the process of combining competing parties into a governing program happened afterward.

Every democracy eventually has to turn millions of different preferences into one government. By waiting to group policy positions until after the election process, proportional systems give voters a better chance to express what they actually want.

  1. “1992 Electoral College Results,” U.S. Electoral College, National Archives and Records Administration, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/1992.
    ↩︎
  2. Federal Election Commission, “2000 Presidential General Election Results,” in Federal Elections 2000, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.fec.gov/documents/1732/FederalElections2000_PresidentialGeneralElectionResultsbyState.pdf.
    ↩︎
  3. André Blais and R. K. Carty, “The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger’s Elusive Factor,” British Journal of Political Science 21, no. 1 (1991): 92.
    ↩︎
  4. “Each Voter Has Two Votes in the 2021 Bundestag Election,” The Federal Returning Officer, September 14, 2021, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/info/presse/mitteilungen/bundestagswahl-2021/37_21_zwei-stimmen.html.
    ↩︎
  5. “Each Voter Has Two Votes in the 2021 Bundestag Election,” The Federal Returning Officer, September 14, 2021, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/info/presse/mitteilungen/bundestagswahl-2021/37_21_zwei-stimmen.html.
    ↩︎
  6. “Restrictive Clause,” The Federal Returning Officer, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/service/glossar/s/sperrklausel.html.
    ↩︎
  7. “Results Germany: Bundestag Election 2021,” The Federal Returning Officer, accessed October 1, 2026, https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/en/bundestagswahlen/2021/ergebnisse/bund-99.html.
    ↩︎
  8. Nigel Walker and Eleanor Gadd, “Germany: 2021 Election and a New Coalition Government,” House of Commons Library, January 5, 2022, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9324/.
    ↩︎

Two Centuries Later, the Monroe Doctrine Once Again Defines American Foreign Policy | By Max Scharpf

David Murphy

Through policies and military operations across Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, and the broader Americas, the second Trump administration has explicitly revived the Monroe Doctrine as a guiding principle of American foreign policy.

In December 1823, President James Monroe addressed Congress with a message outlining the future of American foreign policy and military grand strategy, a declaration that became known as the Monroe Doctrine. Under the Doctrine, the United States asserted that the Western Hemisphere was naturally within its sphere of influence, distinct from European powers.1 Although the Doctrine originally emerged as a reaction to the War of 1812, its principles have reemerged two centuries later under President Donald Trump’s second administration. The United States has once again staked its claim over the Western Hemisphere, seeking military access, strategic infrastructure, and denying rivals the ability to jeopardize American hegemony, and it is doing so with decisive military force.

On January 23, 2026, the Department of War released its annual National Defense Strategy, which outlines the United States military’s top priorities. Most notably, in the first ‘Line of Effort’ subsection, this year’s report, in contrast with the 2025 counterpart, explicitly mentions Greenland and the Panama Canal as strategically significant: “We will actively and fearlessly defend America’s interests throughout the Western Hemisphere. We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland.”2 While the 2025 National Defense Strategy was not as explicit in its nomenclature, both documents included the same striking statement: “This is the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.”3

The second Trump Administration marks a significant pivot in United States foreign policy, with a new focus on restoring American primacy in the Western Hemisphere. On January 3, 2026, the United States completed ‘Operation Absolute Resolve,’ a military operation resulting in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.4 The operation represented more than a confrontation with the Venezuelan government; it demonstrated the current administration’s willingness to use military strength to advance its interests in the region. 

Furthermore, throughout ‘Operation Southern Spear,’ initiated in 2025 and still ongoing, United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) conducted multiple strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats in international waters, justifying the strikes action by declaring individuals aboard these vessels “narco-terrorists.”5 In a press conference following one such strike, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth referred to these targeted boat crews as the “Al-Qaeda” of the Western Hemisphere.6 It should be noted that these offensive operations did raise domestic concerns surrounding American due process and the legality of lethal action in international waters. As Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) put it: “I’m deeply concerned about the authority our president seems to be asserting to summarily kill people suspected of criminal activity outside the law.”7

The United States military is presently enforcing a fuel blockade against vessels transporting to Cuba, and has threatened tariffs against countries and companies attempting to export oil; On October 2, 2026, the Coast Guard announced the interception of the Grace, a “dark fleet” ship bound for Cuba, with the cooperation of the Mexican government.8

Since President Trump’s return to office, national elections across Central and South America have also heavily favored right-wing parties and coalitions. While this change has been largely driven by domestic concerns, the Trump Administration has been known to endorse candidates and apply diplomatic pressure, possibly in a bid to expand American influence in the region.9

Lastly, of recent occurrence, the Greenland Security Deal was signed between the U.S., the Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland on September 22, 2026, resulting in the expansion of United States military access and its now permanent role in the security of Greenland and a framework for the restriction of foreign adversaries from establishing military and strategic presence on the island–one would not be mistaken in noting the deal’s striking resemblance to the principles of the Monroe Doctrine.10

What do these changes in United States military and political grand strategy represent? Under the current administration, the U.S. is clearly pursuing a reorientation of American power toward the Western Hemisphere, denying foreign rivals the ability to establish strategic access to the region. Two centuries after the first declaration, the Monroe Doctrine is once again an explicit tenet of American foreign policy, and appears here to stay.

  1. “Office of the Historian. ‘The Monroe Doctrine, 1823.’ U.S. Department of State. Accessed September 30, 2026. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/monroe.” ↩︎
  2. U.S. Department of Defense. 2026 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, 2026. https://media.defense.gov/2026/Jan/23/2003864773/-1/-1/0/2026-national-defense-strategy.pdf
    ↩︎
  3. The White House. National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: The White House, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
    ↩︎
  4. U.S. Department of Defense. “This Week in DOW: Taking Down Maduro, Seizing Suspicious Vessels, Launching Arsenal Ships.” U.S. Department of Defense, 2026. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4374940/this-week-in-dow-taking-down-maduro-seizing-suspicious-vessels-launching-arsena/
    ↩︎
  5. Forbes Breaking News. “‘This Is The Al-Qaeda Of The Western Hemisphere’: Hegseth Denounces ‘Terrorist’ Drug Traffickers.” YouTube, accessed October 3, 2026. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lsoqIF4XLo
    ↩︎
  6. Nitzberg, Alex. “Hegseth Blasts ‘Narco-Terrorists’ Targeted by Trump Admin as ‘the al Qaeda of the Western Hemisphere.’” Fox News, October 31, 2025. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hegseth-blasts-narco-terrorists-targeted-trump-admin-the-al-qaeda-western-hemisphere.
    ↩︎
  7. Coons, Chris. “Senator Coons Pushes Attorney General Pam Bondi on Weaponizing the DOJ and Unconstitutional Boat Strikes in Fiery Hearing.” U.S. Senate, October 7, 2025. https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senator-coons-pushes-attorney-general-pam-bondi-on-weaponizing-the-doj-and-unconstitutional-boat-strikes-in-fiery-hearing ↩︎
  8.  U.S. Coast Guard. “Coast Guard Intercepts Motor Vessel Grace, Continues Operations to Interdict Illicit Drug Trafficking.” U.S. Coast Guard, 2026. https://www.news.uscg.mil/Press-Releases/Article/4616594/coast-guard-intercepts-motor-vessel-grace-continues-operations-to-interdict-ill/
    ↩︎
  9.  Trump, Donald J. “Truth Social post, November 2025.” Truth Social, accessed October 3, 2026. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115629335172411031
    ↩︎
  10.  The White House. “Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark Together with the Government of Greenland.” September 22, 2026. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/09/agreement-between-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-and-the-government-of-the-kingdom-of-denmark-together-with-the-government-of-greenland-to-amend-and-supplement-the-agreement-of-27-apri/
    ↩︎

Are Politicians Remembering the Ladies? | By Elena Jarm

mpowel25

Do politicians remember to include women and women-centered policies within their campaign platforms? In a short analysis of four senatorial candidates in the 2026 midterm election, their policy platforms are analyzed for the explicit inclusion of women-centered policy. 

Abigail Adams’ legacy is not typical for the 18th-century first ladies. She is not solely known for being the wife of Founding Father John Adams, but for the letter she wrote to her husband imploring him to “remember the ladies.”1 As history has taught us, the Founding Fathers did not consider the ladies’ role; instead, women had to fight for representation in politics. Additionally, suffrage did not come until the 19th Amendment in 1920 and even later in 1965 for women of color.

As the 20th century progressed, women began to play a crucial role in both political parties and in various areas of politics: grassroots movements, nonprofit work, activism, as well as local and national government.2 Women continue to be crucial political players; in the 2026 midterm election cycle, women are running for office on both sides of the aisle. Within an era of polarized politics, it’s important to consider if politicians running in this midterm election, across gender and aisle, are “remembering the ladies.” 

For this brief analysis, four candidates running for US Senate in open-seat races were selected: N’Kiyla Jasmine Thomas (D-OK), Michelle Tafoya (R-MN), Charles Booker (D-KY), and Kurt Alme (MT-R). In order to be considered as “remembering the ladies,” the politician must include women-centered policies in the policy statements on their websites. “Women-centered” policies are not concretely defined, but typically involve gendered issues that affect the lives of women, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking.3 In addition, women are disproportionately concentrated in low-wage jobs, face the most sexual violence, and face high maternal mortality rates.4 Therefore, policy addressing any of these factors could be considered a women-centered policy. In addition, any reference to child-care policy will also be considered a “women-centered” policy, as childcare historically fell into the hands of women.5

First, this article will examine women politicians and their policy platforms. Thomas (D-OK) played with feminine imagery within her campaign promotional material, using butterflies as her campaign symbol. Within her policy section, she also goes into detail about reproductive health and maternal mortality rates. In addition to her section about “women,” she includes policies about safety, which mention a proposal to expand the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as well as Missing & Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW).6 On the other hand, Tafoya (R-MN) does not explicitly mention women’s rights as a policy sector, but she mentions women in her efforts to “get men out of women’s sports.”7Additionally, she mentions policies that could be considered as women-centered, such as creating “stronger schools” and advocating for “parents’rights.” 

While observing the male candidates, there might be an assumption that there would be a partisan divide similar to that of the women candidates: Democrats explicitly supported women-centered policies while Republicans supported family-centered policies. However, Booker’s (D-KY) policy section did not mention women, but he did mention women’s reproductive health under his affordable healthcare plan.8 It’s worth noting that Booker did mention women’s access to contraceptives as part of healthcare, but he did so without explicitly labeling it as a “women’s” issue, and instead labeled it as solely healthcare policy. In contrast, Alme’s (R-MT) did not mention women in his policy section, nor did he mention family-oriented policy outside of his work with different childhood programs such as serving as president of the “Yellowstone Boys and Girls Ranch Foundation.”9

From this limited analysis, it appears politicians are not “remembering the ladies” as Abigail Adams hoped they would. This could be because most Americans are less concerned with social issues than with matters such as the economy and affordability.10 However, it is important to consider what social policies are being proposed in this midterm election, as only 17% of the U.S. population has trust in the federal government.11 If constituents think that the implementation of certain policies would benefit their communities, such as policies focused on half the US population, then trust in government could increase.

Candidates are not remembering the ladies when campaigning and displaying their policy platforms. While the Republican male candidate did not mention women, the Democratic male candidate did mention women’s health, but did so as a side note. In addition, three candidates did not explicitly promote women-centered policies, excluding children-based policy. Even though women-centered policies encompass many different sectors of policy– reproductive healthcare, childcare, sexual violence, etc.– they are being forgotten in this midterm cycle. 

  1. .Adams, Abigail. 1776. “Founders Online: Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March 1776.” Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/04-01-02-0241.
    ↩︎
  2. Schaeffer, Katherine. 2023. “Data on Women Leaders in the U.S.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/fact-sheet/the-data-on-women-leaders/. 
    ↩︎
  3. Women and Gender in Public Policy | U.S. GAO.” n.d. Government Accountability Office (GAO). https://www.gao.gov/women-and-gender-public-policy.
    ↩︎
  4. UNESCO. “Women in Policy- and Decision-Making.” In Fostering Women’s Leadership. UNESCO, 2024. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep70572.8. ↩︎
  5. National Women’s Law Center. n.d. “Undervalued: A Brief History of Women’s Care Work and Child Care Policy in the United States.” National Women’s Law Center. https://nwlc.org/resource/undervalued-a-brief-history-of-womens-care-work-and-child-care-policy-in-the-united-states/.
    ↩︎
  6. 2026. Jasmine Thomas for Oklahoma | Join the Movement Now. https://www.jasmineforok.com/. ↩︎
  7. “Issues.” 2026. Michele Tafoya. https://micheletafoya.com/issues/. ↩︎
  8. “Meet Charles Booker | Kentucky’s Fighter for U.S. Senate.” 2026. Charles Booker. https://charlesbookerky.org/meet-charles.
    ↩︎
  9. “Media.” 2026. Alme for Senate. https://almeforsenate.com/media/.
    ↩︎
  10. Daniller, Andrew, Andy Cerda, Hannah Hartig, and J. Baxter. 2026. “As the 2026 Midterms Approach, Economy Is Front and Center.” Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2026/07/23/as-the-2026-midterms-approach-economy-is-front-and-center/.
    ↩︎
  11. “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2025.” 2025. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/.
    ↩︎

What do deepfakes and democracy have in common? Both draw their power from the people | By Noirin Dempsey

noirindempsey1

As AI and deepfakes edge their way into electoral processes, it is important to recognize that voters control the influence of these tools.  Understanding voters’ psychological and behavioral responses to deepfakes is required in order to develop policy that can restore trust in democratic institutions and improve public awareness of AI’s role in electoral processes.

The chances that you’ve seen a deepfake video within the past year are pretty high – 60%, according to data from Jumio.1  Today, AI and deepfakes are all over the Internet, on topics from finance to healthcare to government and politics.  According to Łabuz and Nehring (2024), deepfakes are defined as “AI-generated or AI-manipulated audio, image, or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places, or other entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful.”2  In recent years, deepfakes have increased in quality and availability to the average person while decreasing in cost, contributing to a surge in their proliferation.3

Deepfakes have been used in the lead-up to elections in many ways, varying in believability, timing, and impact.  Most of the time, deepfakes have next to no impact on elections, such as the 2024 U.S. presidential election, when deepfake images featuring Kamala Harris with communist imagery and Trump with the Taliban proliferated online.4 In some cases, though, deepfakes are strategically employed in ways that do influence elections.  For instance, a few days before the 2023 Slovakia parliamentary election, an audio deepfake circulated on social media depicting Progressive Slovakia party candidate Michal Šimečka talking with a journalist about a “scheme to rig the election by buying votes from the country’s marginalized Roma minority.”5  Although “police concluded the recording was not persuasive enough to warrant a criminal investigation,”6 Šimečka still ended up losing the election by 5%.

For the most part, however, unless deployed on a strategic timeline (usually close to an election), deepfakes tend to have minimal impact on elections.  Studies by the Institute of Political Science at the University of Bamberg show that even when parties use deceptive AI (such as impersonating public figures), public support for the party does not change.7  The study suggests that although “partisans disapprove of deceptive AI use in principle,” they “are unwilling to penalize their own party for it in practice.”8  Therefore,  candidate favorability within one’s own party is unaffected by the use of deepfakes, suggesting that candidates’ deceptive use of deepfakes in campaigning is unlikely to lose them votes.

That is not to say deepfakes have no real effect on politics – quite the opposite.  But the deepfake’s real power comes not from the content itself, but from voters’ reactions.  Deepfakes often elicit real psychological and behavioral responses.  For one, deepfakes encourage political polarization and extreme views.  As economist Zeynep Arzu Kelani and sociologist Darina Lepadatu explain in their article on deepfake propaganda during the 2024 U.S. presidential election, “deepfakes that depict political figures in a negative light tend to disproportionately impact members of opposing parties, resulting in intensified distrust and division” along partisan lines.9  Many deepfakes are emotionally manipulative, eliciting intense reactions to “emotionally charged content” which encourage  individuals to “share misinformation that resonates with their social identity, beliefs, or social norms.”10

Deepfakes can also diminish trust in elections and democracy overall.11 After interacting with deepfakes, people often begin to view legitimate government content with skepticism, including election results.  Fola Adeleke, Executive Director and co-founder of the Global Center on AI Governance, notes one key example that occurred in the 2022 Kenyan Supreme Court case Obinga v. Ruto.12  In this landmark case, the court ruled that the Kenya Integrated Electoral Management System, or KIEMS (a technological tool used for voter registration and identification, as well as transmitting election votes to be counted), was constitutional and had produced accurate election results for the 2022 presidential election.13  Despite the court’s ruling, however, Kenyan citizens largely distrusted the election results and questioned the government’s transparency in using KIEMS.14  Such citizen distrust can be dangerous because it often means that “political participation declines and government finds it difficult to command…legitimacy and respect,”15 thus contributing to the erosion of democratic institutions over time.

As AI and deepfakes continue to take on an ever greater role in government processes, leaders must develop policies focused on a framework centered on the human person.  Politicians must assure citizens of accountability and transparency in elections, and one way to do this is by creating policies that review election technologies to verify their ethicality.16  Adeleke also suggests that political institutions should consider partnering with private corporations such as nonprofits to run elections.  Doing so will increase transparency and trust in government, since multiple organizations will be involved in the electoral process, many of which the public see as “trustworthy.”17  Additionally, it is important for governments and citizens to recognize that people do not have equal access to technologies and may be illiterate.18  As such, investing time and resources in public education on AI and other technologies could be a helpful way to build public trust in government institutions. Additionally, education resources can promote acceptance of certain uses of AI while instituting legal consequences to dissuade people from unethical practices such as spreading misinformation through deepfakes.

Despite deepfakes’ inability to influence election outcomes on a large scale, their ability to elicit a psychological and emotional response should not be understated.  Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that deepfakes draw their power from the voters.  Therefore, it is up to the voters to decide how much power to give to them in our democratic institutions and whether we allow them to influence the way we approach and view our electoral processes.

  1. Jumio. “2024 Online Identity Study: Global Consumer Research.” Jumio, 2024. https://www.jumio.com/2024-identity-study/.
    ↩︎
  2.  Łabuz, Mateusz, and Christopher Nehring. “On the Way to Deep Fake Democracy? Deep Fakes in Election Campaigns in 2023.” European Political Science 23, no. 3 (2024): 454–73. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-024-00482-9. 
    ↩︎
  3. Ibid. ↩︎
  4.  Kelani, Zeynep, and Darina Lepadatu. “Generative Artificial Intelligence, Misinformation and Political Polarization: A Content Analysis of Deepfake Propaganda During the 2024 US Presidential Election.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics (2026). https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2026.2652897. ↩︎
  5. Labuz and Nehring. “On the Way to Deep Fake Democracy? Deepfakes in Election Campaigns in 2023.” ↩︎
  6. Kováčik, Timotej, and Veronika Frankovská. “How AI-Generated Content Influenced Parliamentary Elections in Slovakia: The Slovak Police Will Investigate the Recording for a Third Time.” CEDMO, November 25, 2024. https://cedmohub.eu/how-ai-generated-content-influenced-parliamentary-elections-in-slovakia-the-slovak-police-will-investigate-the-recording-for-a-third-time/. 
    ↩︎
  7. Jungherr, Andreas, Adrian Rauchfleisch, and Alexander Wuttke. “Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications.” Political Communication 43, no. 4 (2026): 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2025.2611913.
    ↩︎
  8. Ibid. ↩︎
  9. Kelani and Lepadatu. “Generative Artificial Intelligence, Misinformation and Political Polarization: A Content Analysis of Deepfake Propaganda During the 2024 US Presidential Election.” ↩︎
  10. Ibid. ↩︎
  11. Jungherr, Rauchfleisch, Wuttke. “Artificial Intelligence in Election Campaigns: Perceptions, Penalties, and Implications.” ↩︎
  12. Adeleke, Fola. “Reinstating Trust in Elections in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies.” Data and Policy 7 (2025): e38. doi:10.1017/dap.2025.14
    ↩︎
  13. Ibid. ↩︎
  14. Ibid. ↩︎
  15. Diamond, Larry. “The Political Drivers of Low Trust.” Open Government Partnership. Accessed October 4, 2026. https://www.opengovpartnership.org/trust/the-political-drivers-of-low-trust/. 
    ↩︎
  16. Fola. “Reinstating Trust in Elections in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies.” ↩︎
  17. Ibid. ↩︎
  18. Ibid. ↩︎

Rethinking America’s Death Penalty | By Matthew Deahl

David Murphy

As botched executions become increasingly common, and states’ zeal to execute seemingly begins to supersede due process, the bulwark values of “restitution” and “deterrence” that capital punishment purports to uphold should be reanalyzed with increased scrutiny concerning today’s circumstances. Potential innocents remaining on death row, coupled with rising botched or unintentionally torturous executions, paint an unjust current reality of the death penalty and are a requisite backdrop to recognize when deciding the future of capital punishment in America.   

At 7:27 PM on September 30th, 2026, the curtain rose in the execution chamber of Riverbend Maximum Security to reveal 50-year-old Christa Pike strapped to a gurney, set to die for her brutal 1995 torture and murder of classmate Colleen Slemmer.1 Injected with a lethal dose of pentobarbital, the execution was meant to be swift and painless. Instead, Pike remained conscious, gasping, snoring heavily, and writhing in pain–eventually knocking her gurney sheets loose. After an hour of suffering, the curtain closed at 8:53 PM, shielding the scene from media view. Today, Pike’s medical and legal future remains uncertain; yet, one fact remains crystal clear: her execution was a failure and a complete miscarriage of justice.2 Yet, Pike’s failed execution is just a drop in the bucket of a practice that has continually failed to deliver its promise of final justice, both in physical practicality and in the societal benefits it supposedly purports.

The death penalty has been a contentious staple of U.S. justice for nearly its entire existence, though its practical failures have increased sharply within recent history.3 Historically the U.S. experienced an execution “botch” rate of about 3%.4 Yet, the botch rate for lethal injections, which have grown rapidly in popularity, sit at a starkly higher 8.4%, when measured from 2010 to 2020.5 While often lauded as a “humane” alternative, lethal injection has consistently produced deeply unsettling results.6 Over 84% of post-execution autopsies have found fluid in the deceased’s lungs–a telltale sign of a painful death.7 Beyond these botched executions, which have questionable 8th Amendment implications, the potential for wrongful executions is rising too, as states like Tennessee are accused of expediting executions before courts can have proper time for full legal prudence. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in Nelsen v. Pike, which authorized the execution of Pike before lower court litigation had concluded, claims that Tennessee was seeking emergency expedited executions “solely to execute Pike before litigation over her conviction has run its course in lower courts,” and that there is “no reason to short circuit the ordinary process of appellate review, particularly in light of the grave consequences of an erroneous decision.”8 Pike’s guilt was absolute, but the zeal of the state to execute fast and supersede due process poses dangers not only for individuals challenging wrongful sentences, but also for innocents who have been wrongfully convicted. A 2014 study found that at least 4.1% of death penalty convictions were wrongly decided, with only 1.6% experiencing proper exoneration prior to their execution.9 These statistics indicate that there is not only a non-negligible number of innocents who have been or may currently be on death row, but also that should anyone reach the execution chamber, their deaths are increasingly likely to be botched or extraordinarily painful from a lack of comprehensive understanding surrounding lethal injection limitations.

Now, many will argue that there is little value in worrying about the comfort and life condition of indisputable criminals convicted of horrific crimes, and that the values of restitution and deterrence should prevail. That said, promises of the 8th Amendment–torturous punishment and the inescapability of death foreclosing exoneration or due process appeals–should at least lead us to question the validity of the arguments of restitution and deterrence. Restitution for victims, while primarily moral and less empirically measurable, holds validity when the process is assuredly proportionate to the crime and efficient in carrying out justice; yet, as argued above, a system that enables the execution of innocents or unintentional brutality is neither just nor an efficient form of restitution. After all, the proportionality of responding to crime with botched executions is unknown in and of itself, and a complete miscarriage of justice when applied to innocents. As for deterrence, the National Research Council found existing pro-deterrence research “fundamentally flawed.”10 At the same time, 88% of criminologists believe there to be no deterrence effect to capital punishment.11

As Tennessee governor Bill Lee pauses further executions, politicians across the aisle once again revisit paths forward for capital punishment in America.12 Perhaps this results in new restrictions that confirm criminality and promote humane execution. Perhaps it’s a national abolition of the death penalty. Perhaps it’s keeping it in name only. But, should the status quo continue, so too may grave miscarriages of justice, in which more innocents and more botched executions continue to bloody up our criminal justice system.

  1. Associated Press, “How Tennessee’s Failed Execution of Christa Pike Unfolded, Minute-by-Minute,” Bangor Daily News, October 1, 2026, https://www.bangordailynews.com/2026/10/01/nation/how-tennessees-failed-execution-of-christa-pike-unfolded-minute-by-minute.
    ↩︎
  2. Associated Press, “Tennessee Governor Halts Executions After Christa Gail Pike Survives Lethal Injection,” OPB, October 1, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/10/01/tennessee-governor-halts-executions-after-christa-gail-pike-survives-lethal-injection/.
    ↩︎
  3. Meg Tirrell, “Why Botched Lethal Injections Are Becoming More Common,” CNN, via KEYT, https://keyt.com/?p=1482047.
    ↩︎
  4. Death Penalty Information Center, “Botched Executions,” Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/botched-executions.
    ↩︎
  5. Austin Sarat, “It Is Time to End the Lethal Injection Mess,” Verdict, June 27, 2022, https://verdict.justia.com/2022/06/27/it-is-time-to-end-the-lethal-injection-mess.
    ↩︎
  6. Death Penalty Information Center, “BOOKS: ‘Gruesome Spectacles’ Reveals the History of Botched Executions,” Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/books-gruesome-spectacles-reveals-the-history-of-botched-executions.
    ↩︎
  7. Death Penalty Information Center, “As Lethal Injection Turns Forty, States Botch a Record Number of Executions,” Death Penalty Information Center, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/as-lethal-injection-turns-forty-states-botch-a-record-number-of-executions.
    ↩︎
  8. Nelsen v. Pike. No. 26A428 (U.S. Sept. 30, 2026). https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26a428.html.
    ↩︎
  9. Samuel R. Gross et al., “Rate of False Conviction of Criminal Defendants Who Are Sentenced to Death,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2014, https://repository.law.umich.edu/facarticles/1591.
    ↩︎
  10. National Research Council, “Deterrence and the Death Penalty,” National Academies Press, 2012, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/13363/chapter/2.
    ↩︎
  11. University of Colorado Boulder, “Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder, According to New CU-Boulder Study,” CU Boulder Today, June 16, 2009, https://www.colorado.edu/today/2009/06/16/death-penalty-does-not-deter-murder-according-new-cu-boulder-study.
    ↩︎
  12. 12. NPR, “Failed ‘Torturous’ Execution Attempt on Christa Pike Reignites Death Penalty Debate,” NPR, October 2, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/10/02/nx-s1-5988832/christa-pike-reignites-death-penalty-debate;
    Associated Press, “Tennessee Governor Halts Executions After Christa Gail Pike Survives Lethal Injection,” OPB, October 1, 2026, https://www.opb.org/article/2026/10/01/tennessee-governor-halts-executions-after-christa-gail-pike-survives-lethal-injection/.
    ↩︎