Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024. 

On June 16th, 2015, Donald Trump announced that he would run for President. Contrary to his current claims, there were just a few hundred people in the crowd when he declared this. Many had been paid to be there. None, including the former TV star himself, could have comprehended the impact that Mr. Trump’s decision to run would have on the United States and the world.

Just over a year later, Mr. Trump would be elected to the most powerful office of the world’s most powerful nation from 2016 to 2020. The event was a shock to Washington, which had not gotten past the surprise of seeing him get the GOP nomination. In the four years that Mr. Trump occupied 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he was impeached twice, appointed three Supreme Court justices, and bungled the response to the first pandemic in over a century. With days left to his term, Mr. Trump incited a riot on the US Capitol which was widely condemned even from within his own party.

Mr. Trump ran for President again in 2024. Defying countless primary challengers, two assassination attempts, and accusations of facism from his former staff, he won by a relatively large margin: 50.3% to 48.1% with a shocking 312 electoral votes compared to Harris’s 226. With a large part of America still unsure how this came to be, it’s important to understand how and with what tactic his victory materialized, while more importantly, having a concept of what the next 4 years may look like.

Battleground states and key demographics

Long before this November, political analysts have been keeping their eyes on seven key states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. As battlegrounds, each of these states had the potential to swing to either the Democrats or the Republicans before this November, making a win in any of them vital to winning the electoral college as a whole. Unsurprisingly, Joe Biden’s victory in 2020 was supplemented by him winning in exactly 6 of these 7 states.

This year, Trump shockingly managed to dominate the polls in all 7 of these states, winning a total of 93 electoral votes. More impressive is that just 4 years ago, all of them, save North Carolina, were Democrat-owned. In fact, up until Election Day, most of these states were still poised to go blue according to nationwide polls. So what changed once ballots started coming in?

A likely answer is specific  demographics, whose power was severely overlooked. In particular, men aged 18 to 29 played an irreplaceable role for Trump. Traditionally, young voters have been fertile ground for Democrats, where they have used issues like debt relief and much-needed welfare programs to gain traction. In fact, back in 2020, Biden held a solid 15 point lead over Trump with this exact same demographic. Despite this, analyses from Election Day suggest that the tide has turned. Among males under 30, Harris trailed Trump with a 14 point disadvantage. She isn’t faring well with young voters as a whole, either. Harris only narrowly won their vote 52 to 46 percent.

There are a few factors behind young voters’ disillusionment with Democrats that are worth mentioning, the first being economic issues. More than 42% of all American adults have cited jobs and the economy as one of the deciding factors of the 2024 election. Despite this, Harris's ambitious tax credit proposals, welfare program expansions, and more didn't cut it. If anything, she was called out for a lack of realism and consideration for how her policies will be paid for, especially in terms of future inflation. With Harris already drawing criticism on her economic goals from staunch Democrats like Mike Cuban, outside critics were merely adding fuel to the fire. To compound the problem, Trump's economic plans have hardly had as harsh of a response. Although more expensive and fiscally challenging to carry out, Trump's years working in business, as well as his 4 years of experience running the world's largest economy, make up for it. The element of trustworthiness that Harris lacks, he has. On another note, young voters are leaving the blue for different reasons, specifically, how the Trump campaign made a last-minute decision to diversify its outreach methods. With advice from his son Barron, Trump found himself engaging with podcasts, talk shows, social media (going as far as creating a TikTok account, despite his long time denouncement of the app) and more in order to reconnect with the next generation of prospective voters. Although he himself was skeptical at first, it clearly paid off. Republicans haven't had such a close call with voters under 30 for decades and the change in marketing may be at the forefront of this.

But it’s not just young voters who fueled Trump’s ultimate path to the White House. Another crucial demographic that Democrats have been depending on for years lost ground to Republicans. For a long time, the Democratic party has used campaigns focused on social issues tending to resonate with minority voters. Ranging from the issue of racism for racial minorities to abortion access for women, this is and has been a strategy unique to Democrats, allowing them to touch on issues Republicans usually shy away from. It appears that this year's election was a major exception. Many minority voters went from blue to red, marking a drastic shift from their past general voting behavior. In fact, this year Trump nearly doubled support among black voters compared to results in 2020 and similar trends follow among minority groups, proving Democrats have lost the once firm ground they held among these demographics.

Expectation versus reality

Trump’s win wasn’t an especially foreseen one. In fact, months before November, back when President Biden first announced he would not be running for reelection, polls suggested that Harris was either deadlocked or beating Trump by a reasonable margin. So what went wrong? Was it the US poll system that ultimately stopped working or America’s ability to look past personal bias?

The answer is most likely the former. Polls overestimated the influence of states in which Harris held a lead over Trump, while severely underestimating others. Even then, the states in which polling was most heavily concentrated, battleground states, like Pennsylvania, didn’t show Harris having as significant of a lead as was being reported. In contrast, the underestimated, less-watched states ended with Trump majorly pulling ahead while Harris lagged in them. Florida is one example of these blatant blind spots that painted a completely different picture for the upcoming elections. Hence, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that polling error was relatively low, as the only real error was in how the poll results were being interpreted.

Even then, there’s more behind Democrat’s devastation and lack of foresight on Trump’s victory. Apart from certain polls being sensationalized, so too was the apparent public appeal of Harris. Common left-leaning media outlets continued to give Harris positive attention and accentuate her more relatable, friend-like characteristics as an advocate and public speaker. This apparent media bias led to a wrong perception of how the United States was truly feeling about Harris. Social media platforms, online news sites, and discussion forums all may have contributed, but in the end, it was the people who were misaligned with their expectations. In general, Democrats will seek out media that covers issues closely related to them with the same going for Republican voters.

Other issues on the ballot

Of course, it's not just problems specific to certain groups that have been getting fanfare this November. Nearly every aspect of both candidates' campaigns ended up playing a crucial part in the end results and there's plenty of regret to go around. However, only one candidate's campaign promises stood the test of the electoral college. So, what exactly were they and how did they differ from the opposing policies of Harris's?

Naturally, the first and most important problem in the minds of the American public is the state of the American economy. Thankfully for both parties, their candidates each have their own shares of experience. Trump has his years as a businessman, as well as his previous stay in the White House. Overseeing the instatement of heavier tariffs, changed tax policies, attacks on welfare programs, and more, there's plenty of past experience for Americans to consider. For Harris, what she has lacked in time and experience, she has made up for in quality. As vice president for the Biden administration, she can take credit for the expansion of health and welfare programs, lowering the prices of vital medicines, instituting a set of successful tariffs against Chinese companies, enormous tax credits, and overseeing one of the healthiest job markets the United States has seen in decades. At the end of the day, of course, what matters is how voters interpret these two economic portfolios.

Interestingly, approval ratings for the economy are rather split. Polling has concluded that neither candidate has a decisive edge on their economic policy, although more trust has generally been placed in the hands of Trump. Of course, it’s important to note following the official results of the election, polls from before November have been shown to be relatively untrustworthy.

Still, a more contentious issue worth noting is immigration politics. Apart from just Harris, Democrats have generally been perceived as lacking on the problem of secure borders. Currently, the border crisis is at the heart of many Americans’ greatest worries and if not, it’s certainly been on the top of their minds. States like Texas, New York, and California have faced overwhelming pressure on their facilities as immigrants inflow has skyrocketed in the past few months. Furthermore, the extensive documentation and reporting on this issue has made it one of the top 3 concerns America has saved for the ballot. Trump has made concrete promises to “terminate every open border policy of the Biden Administration,” begin the “largest” mass deportation in the history of the US, and employ diplomatic strategies and pressure on the Mexican government to further secure borders. With the magnitude of illegal immigration at this point, Trump’s solution has resonated with voters. Rather, the Biden Administration has pursued the more humane options available, meaning they are curbing illegal immigration at a slower pace, and this has earned them more criticism. Even swaths of Democrats have accused their party of being too lenient on the issue, although some have cut Biden slack, given it is difficult to prioritize human rights and efficiency. In the context of the 2024 election, however, this is anything but helpful for Harris and she’s been aware of this disadvantage. As a whole, she hasn’t spared much time for her views on the border and has focused on other social issues, such as abortion and criminal justice reform, that Democrats have a known lead on.

Even then, the specific concern of improving the state of the country’s police and prisons has been leaning towards the Republicans. Another major weakness for the Democratic party has been their stance on crime. Surprisingly, although crime rates have been falling since 2021, tough on crime strategies popular with Republicans, especially the Trump campaign, have actually gained more traction. Yes, even with some liberal voters. The question is why and how Trump may have capitalized off of this advantage for his ultimate victory. First and foremost, perceived rates of crimes (meaning what Americans feel is the state of violence in the nation) have been steadily rising since the pandemic, opposite to the true reality of the criminal justice system. In fact, last year 77% of Americans reported that they felt crime was on the rise, at the same point in which murder rates reached one of their lowest levels in years. This has set the perfect background for Republicans’ vows to crack down on the so-called greatest danger of violence and crime. Secondly, the issue has swung right thanks to the effective and expansive fear-mongering techniques used by the Trump campaign. Political advertisements have painted the safety landscape as in critical condition and Trump’s policies on it as the only antidote to the country’s problem. Combine this with an existing problem with the media; specific cases of violent crime get overblown coverage and are sensationalized overnight, leading the nation to believe such incidents are the norm. Again, this hasn’t bode well for Harris. Her ambitions to decrease the salience of criminal sentences, ameliorate prison conditions, and kickstart major reform to police training have been undermined by American’s bleak perceptions on crime. When the country feels that harsher policies are needed, it has grown difficult to push improved standards and meaningful reform in the same sector.

On the bright side, other problems have swung straight to the Democrats, meaning Harris wasn’t entering November without any solid ground on which to base her campaign off of. Abortion access has been a much debated point in politics ever since it was overturned in 2022. For pro-choice female voters, it has been viewed as a life or death problem that could imperil women across the country. Naturally, although the executive branch will likely not have much control directly over access to abortion and contraceptives, it has resulted in a symbolic threat, but also a sense of insecurity in the case the president does end up getting a chance to act. Coupled with the strong Republican domination in both the House and Senate, as well as the 6 to 3 conservative judge hegemony in the Supreme Court, it’s another heavy blow for pro-choice individuals. Pro-life defenders are almost just as passionate, however. They have staunchly argued that permitting nationwide abortion access would equate to the normalization of infanticide and murder. Thus, having a president that is just as ardently opposed to abortion as they are is vital to them. These two differing viewpoints don’t make equal portions of the pie, however. The majority of Americans, 52%, would describe themselves as pro-choice compared to 44% taking on the pro-life stance. Additionally, a greater portion of pro-choice voters are under 30, correlating to a higher likeliness to vote. Hence, abortion has strongly flown to the Democrats.

Another huge help for the blue is their position on welfare programs, social security, and other benefits for the common person. Their promise to expand related programs has come at a crucial juncture in time: healthcare benefits coming from Social Security are beginning to dry up. Up to 70 million Americans currently relying on its aid may face draconian cuts in how much they receive. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that the average middle-income worker would see a roughly $8,200 drop in benefits by 2025. On top of this, the agendas of House Republicans have long put pressure on the SNAP and EBT programs, as well as countless other school food programs that help disadvantaged communities afford the basics. While Democrats have made promises (and progress, as shown with the Biden Administration to negotiate lower drug prices this summer,) the Republicans are on the opposite side of the issue. Trump has made his plans to cut funding and eligibility requirements for SNAP, EBT, Social Security, and various other welfare programs clear. For voters with welfare as their top priority, voting blue appeared to be the obvious choice. 

Finally, there’s plenty of policies that have no clear winner. Mainly, the two parties’ foreign policy plans. Of course, that isn’t to say that they’re completely convergent on all points when it comes to foreign policy. For example, take the positions that Harris and Trump have when it comes to the Gaza war. Both are onboard for supporting Israel throughout the conflict, meaning neither’s presidency would suddenly upend US support. However, there are still great contrasts. Trump has stressed that once elected, he would ramp up pressure against Hamas proxies like Hezbollah and Iran, while Harris has stood firm on the humanitarian route. A Harris administration would have still meant that the US stands with Israel, but aid, shelter, and safe escape routes for refugees would take significant priority. 

Furthermore, there’s other global conflicts that either administration’s foreign policy would have to consider: namely, the war in Ukraine. Although the Russo-Ukrainian war is now well into its second year of violence, Trump has made the presumptuous promise to end it in a mere 24 hours, if sworn into office. Neither Trump nor his associates have disclosed how this would be done, but there is another aspect of his policy on Ukraine that is known. Individuals close to Trump himself have claimed that he has intentions to pull the US out of NATO, an alliance which has thus far been detrimental to countering Russian aggression and promoting reconstruction and democracy in Ukraine (despite Ukraine not being an official member.) If the US were to indeed leave the NATO alliance, as sources have speculated, this could end in anything from the best case scenario of an only weaker NATO to the worst case scenario of full-scale international conflict. If the US detracts its commitment to the alliance, it could also inspire other hesitant nations on the NATO periphery to follow in its footsteps, such as Turkey and Hungary.

Undoubtedly, there will also be new plans for the US’s pursuits with China and North Korea, often seen as adversaries to the US government. Firstly, Trump has a distinguishable China policy that doesn’t just stand out from the oft vague remarks and prospects Harris has hinted at, but also, will be stricter than that of the Biden administration. With the end goal of promoting domestic production of goods and curbing economic dependence, Trump has advertised his plans as the save-all solution to America’s economic concerns. He plans to achieve this through upping the ante on previous tariffs from the Biden Administration and cutting off certain trade deals with China in exchange for alternative ones with countries like India. To Americans, this decisive and US-oriented policy plan is both attractive and seemingly feasible, giving Trump yet another boost among them. Not too different are his plans for North Korea. Harris hasn’t spent much time discussing plans for how to address North Korean President Kim Jong Un’s saber-rattling. On the other hand, Trump has doled out his ambitions to pressure North Korea, potentially upend its nuclear proliferation (if not use it as a bargaining chip instead,) and follow similar steps with other adversarial countries to the US like Iran.

Clearly, foreign policy has weighed in the favor of Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans. But now that it has helped him win the election as well, all of the country is asking what will come of it? Overall, there’s only so much Americans can really take Trump’s word for what he will do while in office, but there are still some expectations they can and ought to be sure of.

What’s next

With Trump now having secured his role as president for the next 4 years, America needs to start looking forward. The policies he has in store for the country will be monumental in determining the state of the border, abortion access, world politics, and so much more. So what exactly should the country be looking for?

Let’s start by examining what other countries will be seeing instead. Most notably, if Trump carries out his prospects of pulling the United States out of the NATO alliance, there could be global repercussions. Regardless of whether or not such an action would actually be taken by Trump, there are still impacts for the international community to be certain of. First of all, even if the US stays in NATO, the credibility of the alliance will and is already deteriorating. NATO hinges on the joint cooperation of all of its member countries and allies, with the United States being one of its greatest contributors. For example, when the war in Ukraine prompted many alliance members to begin sending ammunition, humanitarian aid, and new technology in support of the Ukrainian military, the US was a prime example for other countries to follow, dedicating millions to the development of Ukraine’s troops and military strategy. Should one of NATO’s strongest fighters be forced to take back its commitment due to a switch in its political leaders, the nature of other countries’ “commitments” will also start being questioned. Setting a precedent for domestic politics to determine whether or not a nation’s commitment to NATO is long term would be dangerous for the alliance’s cohesiveness. Furthermore, a weaker alliance directly implies a stronger Russia and sino-Russian alliance. Is this something that the US is willing to risk? Probably not, but if Trump is really only using the guise of leaving NATO as a bluff, then he’ll actually be disrupting stability more by using it. This will especially be so when considering the stalwart approach Biden had been employing when it came to NATO responsibilities. 

Beyond just the Euro-Atlantic, East Asian and Pacific countries will also be in for a whirl. Apart from stronger economic ties with India, the US should expect a major turn-around when thinking about confrontation with China in the Taiwan strait and North Korea with its southern neighbors. As in 2016-2020, Trump will return to his policy of “strategic patience” with North Korea and potentially even China on the subject of Taiwan and disputed territories. This essentially entails giving greatway leeway to the adversary as compared to the past and hoping that is enough to open negotiations and lead to greater cooperation. To a certain extent, this has worked under the previous Trump regime although analysts agree that it leans on the side of a gamble. For example, Trump was able to use his more friendly relations to persuade Kim Jong Un to halt all future tests of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons in the Pacific. Similar tactics of his have shown promise with China. Chinese President Xi Jinping has shown surprising willingness to cooperate with the US under Trump’s rule, despite the ongoing trade war, rising tariffs, and extreme domestic pressure to not do so.

Most relevant to the American people, however, is the “foreign” policy of our southern border. Concerning many Democrats and a cause for celebration to many Republicans is Trump’s vow to begin the largest mass deportation in history. Some have veered on the side of uncertainty, saying that this is an exaggeration and false campaign promise, but increased deportation of undocumented immigrants is almost guaranteed. In 2016, Trump gave his word of honor to deport all or most of the 11 million immigrants in the country illegally. And although he did establish a deportation force and announced the actions he would be taking, much of it was a public farce. Deportations under Trump mainly happened in highly visible areas allowing for high publicity without necessarily having high effectiveness. In fact, Trump’s record on deportations was less intensive than that of the president before him, Obama, with the total number standing at roughly one third of what Obama managed. Now that the public has been made aware of the overexaggerated deportation campaign from Trump’s past term, the pressure for his prospective one to deliver has undoubtedly mounted. Even more so, the drastic situation at the border and various sanctuary cities across the country means that action on Trump’s part is more vital than ever. Else, public frustration and overwhelmed services will become ever more common.

Trump’s immigration plans have been a source of panic for dual citizens, immigrants, and the families of immigrants, but their worry is negligible when it comes to the newfound concern around abortion access. Obviously, the president has extremely limited power around changing laws regarding abortion. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, it was only made possible through the decisions of the Supreme Court, which continues to have a conservative majority. So why in the world are pro-choice advocates still so panicked? The answer is both symbolic and direct. First of all, a Republican president (and House and Senate… ) isn’t a promising sight for an issue most often protected by Democrats. On the surface level, this is unsettling on its own. But there is a deeper and more direct action that president Trump will be able to take concerning abortion access. For the next 4 years, the potential for a Supreme Court judge to have to be replaced is low but not nonexistent. Should such a decision need to be made, it will be in the hands of Trump. Hence, the conservative majority that paved the way for Roe v. Wade to be overturned will be cemented and perhaps even increased. From here, the chance for another anti-abortion ruling to be made will also be elevated and activists will have a good justification for their worry. Additionally, comments from Trump about limiting access to popular contraceptives, including the most popular Plan B, are another issue for activists to keep in the back of their minds.

Other activists who will harbor worry will be those dealing with the need for environmental protections and a more stable safety net in the form of welfare programs. Under Trump’s rule these next 4 years, he has announced there are countless environmental regulations he plans to strike down (although they would work to limit harmful practices like logging.) Similarly, Trump would likely put the US on track to lag behind on its 2050 net-zero promises. His energy policy puts a significantly stronger emphasis on fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to higher emissions or even more money poured into offset projects that will strive to make up for them. Welfare programs are going to be set back in a not too different way. Food stamps, such as the most notable SNAP and EBT programs, are grappling with a proposed $30 billion cut over the course of the next decade with less people even being eligible to receive their benefits. Social security hasn’t been spared either. The most recent budget proposal from Trump includes a monumental $1.1 trillion cut in Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act alone in the next 10 years. This number still has room to rise or fall, but it’s already plenty concerning for people below the poverty line, those relying on government-subsidized insurance, and anyone with a disability or health condition. 

The United States still can’t be certain what to foresee for these next 4 years, but there will definitely be turbulence either way. It’s important that our nation stays cohesive and united, moving forward as one although politics may attempt to divide us. Hopefully, both Democrats and Republicans will see the importance of doing so, despite the election of president-elect Donald J. Trump.

The Red Folder is brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the News Brief Team:

• Paul Robinson

• Boyana Nikolova

• Sasha Morel

• Roshan Shivnani

• Rowan Seipp

• Anthony Babu

• Daniel Song

• Rohan Dash

• Charlie Hui

• Justin Palazzolo

• Ruhaan Sood

• Evelyn Ding

• Robert Zhang

• Sahana Srikanth

• Meera Menon

• Andy Choy

• Max Guo

• Christina Yang

Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.