NUPR Spring 2024

MARY RAINES ALEXANDER THE TRUTH BEHIND BITCOIN COUNTRY

PROFIT WITHOUT PRIVACY: FAMILY CONTENT CREATORS AND CHILD INFLUENCERS

IRENA ZERVAS

2024 is the year of perseverance. Labeled the Year of the Wood Dragon in the Chinese zodiac, 2024 symbolizes power, prosperity, and strength. As we transition between leaders, forge new alliances, and grapple with seemingly endless changes, our writers remind us to stay adaptable and critical of the world around us. Like the Wood Dragon, we must find power in our independence, curiosity, and thirst for knowledge and novel experiences.

This edition of the Political Review embodies the explorative nature of the Wood Dragon, beckoning readers and future writers to dive into topics they may have once found too intimidating or complex. With every word, we open our minds to the unknown. The Political Review stands for the expansion of knowledge: real, unbiased, and accurate knowledge. We provide the tools through which our readers can independently determine their beliefs.

NUPR contributors undergo rigorous writing and editing processes for months on end to put forth extraordinary work. Our writers exceed the expectations placed on undergraduate students, writing complex and nuanced pieces that challenge readers to think deeper. Our columnists, staff writers, editors, and contributors continue to find new topics and theories that drive us forward. The Political Review magazine empowers the search for unrestricted knowledge; we do not implement predetermined themes or prescribed articles, yielding full creative control. We trust our writers to innovate, explore, and experiment with their ideas, and they consistently deliver unique results and a comprehensive array of topics.

Thank you for your diligence and resilience this semester—we’re so honored to present your Spring 2024 magazine!

Anjali Aggarwal Editor-in-Chief

Zoë Goffe President

Zoë Goffe President

Anjali Aggarwal Editor-in-Chief

Laura Mattingly Creative Director

Krishna Prakash Communications Director

Alexander Buckley Digital Director

Sangya Gupta Treasurer

Founded in 2010, the Northeastern University Political Review seeks to be a non-affiliated platform for students to publish articles and podcasts of the highest possible caliber on contemporary domestic and international politics, as well as critical reviews of political books, film, and events. We aspire to foster a culture of intelligent political discourse, promote awareness of political issues, and provide a forum for students to discuss their views and refine their options. We hope to reflect the diversity of thought and spirit at Northeastern, including the dual ethic of academic and experiential education our school embodies.

Krishna Prakash Managing Editor

Gya Gupta Columns Editor

Irena Zervas Columns Editor

Margaret Barnes Magazine Editor

Jessica Gudin Magazine Editor

Hannah Libelo Magazine Editor

Alishe Werry Magazine Editor

Kennedy Little Magazine Editor

Isabelle Young Magazine Editor

Michelle Zhong Magazine Editor

Abigail O'Conner Layout Editor

Check out our website at nupoliticalreview.com Want to write for NUPR? Email nupreic@gmail.com Questions about the club? Email nupoliticalreview@gmail.com

Magazines printed by Puritan Capital

The Republican Trojan Horse: Bringing Migrant Havens Down from the Inside

Shreya Thalvayapati

Social Ramifications & Policy Reccommendations for Facial Recognition Technology

Krishnamitra Prakash

What Americans Fail to Understand about Central American Immigration

Galiah Abbud

A Hard Pill to Swallow: Reigniting the SACKLER Act

Alexis Weldner

Did Black Friday Lose Its Hype?

Meklit Abebe

Profit without Privacy: Family Content Creators & Child Influencers

Irena Zervas

The Truth Behind Bitcoin Country

Mary Raines Alexander

The Biden Administration Is Right to Exercise "Excessive Restraint" against Iranian Proxies

Jack Masliah

The Truth Behind MSG

Kaitlin Chuang

Lukashenko & Putin, Till Death Do You Part?

Natalie Lehmann

Scan a QR code with your phone camera to visit the online version of the piece, which includes citations for factual claims. Online versions may differ slightly from print ones.

THE REPUBLICAN TROJAN HORSE: BRINGING MIGRANT HAVENS DOWN FROM THE INSIDE

SHREYA THALVAYAPATI / ECONOMICS & DATA SCIENCE, 2025

Historically, the Trojan Horse stands as a symbol of cunning deceit—a strategic ploy that led to the unsuspecting downfall of Troy. Today, as we grapple with the complexities of the migration crisis, a metaphorical Trojan Horse seems to be making its way into the political landscape. This time, however, it's not wooden, but rather made of flesh and blood as migrants find themselves to be unwitting pawns in a political game.

THE ONSET: THE WORSENING OF THE MIGRATION CRISIS

The number of migrants attempting to enter the United States (US) through its southern border has skyrocketed in recent years with 2023 bringing in a historic high of 2.5 million migrants. Tensions beyond the borders are correlated with this escalation.

In the Caribbean, Haitians are fleeing from violence committed by criminal groups, acute food insecurity, extreme poverty, and a dysfunctional government. In Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala—the Northern Triangle countries—years of civil war and political unrest have led to low economic output and high homicide rates. Unlike Europe, where migrants can choose from a selection of wealthy nations to resettle, in the Western Hemisphere nearly all roads lead into the United States.

The demographic of the migrant population has transformed: previously, single men from Mexico were most commonly encountered at the border, but US Border Patrol officials are now seeing an increasing number of families with young children from across Central America.

This shift in demographics is making the Custom and Border Patrol migrant centers less suitable for longterm stays. Reports of subpar living conditions in these bases, especially for children, have pushed immigration officials to make policy changes to minimize time spent within detention centers. For instance, officials are allowing an increasing number of

The narrative surrounding overwhelmed cities could become a powerful weapon in their arsenal, strategically aimed at tarnishing the Democratic Party's reputation and calling out the hypocrisy of Democratic pushes for immigration reform.

migrants to enter the nation while awaiting their court date, even if that date falls years into the future.

Once in the US, migrant families typically head to cities they perceive as welcoming and economically prosperous. New York City (NYC) is a popular destination among the migrant community, in part due to its rightto-shelter rules which promise every person in the city a safe place to stay regardless of citizenship status.

Since spring of 2022, more than 118,000 migrants and asylum seekers have sought refuge in New York City. As the influx of migrants reaches unprecedented levels and overwhelms an already fragile homeless shelter system, NYC’s right-to-shelter rules have been threatened. The city is being forced to reflect on which promises it can deliver.

THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY: USING MIGRANTS AS POLITICAL PLOYS

Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, immigration is forecasted to be a key issue amongst every voting group. 75 percent of New York Democrats expressed that the influx of migrants into their state was at least a “somewhat serious” issue they would consider while casting their vote for president. Prior to the third Republican primary debate in early November 2023, primary voters chose “controlling immigration” as the second most prominent issue that would determine their

bussed thousands of migrants out of their states to New York, Chicago, and Washington D.C. During his run for governor of Pennsylvania last year, Republican state senator Doug Mastriano said that he would like to use state police to bus migrants to Delaware.

Rather than being proactive and collaborating with the current Democrats in power to develop sustainable immigration solutions, the Republican party has found a way to use the migrant crisis to its own political advantage, much like the deceptive facade of the Trojan horse. Sending migrants to already overwhelmed Democratic cities and states, with leaders who have favorably spoken in agreement of welcoming migrants, allows this crisis to be a talking point for Republicans, in which they can highlight the Democrats as blameworthy for not delivering on their promises on immigration.

However, though the Republicans are keen on finger pointing, they lack interest in supporting congressional immigration reforms that would facilitate a more efficient migrant processing system.

Since the migration crisis has spun out of control in New York, immigration views have become more conservative. NYC officials have been distributing flyers at the southern border which discourage asylum

As Democrats crack under the pressure of the migrant crisis, the Republican party is making substantial gains. “ “

vote—“getting inflation under control” was given the utmost importance. Even 71 percent of Independents believe that current immigration policy could be improved and disapprove of Biden’s approaches.

Republican leaders are taking full advantage of the constituency’s displeasure. Florida Governor and former presidential

THE WOUND: IMMIGRATION VIEWS BECOMING MORE CONSERVATIVE

As Biden’s first term winds down, Democrat leaders have been scrambling to find a resolution to the migrant crisis. In New York City alone, the current flow of migrants can cost the city $12 billion over three years, which far exceeds the city’s financial and physical capacity. For this fiscal year alone, the migrant crisis has created a $3 to $4 billion gap in the city’s budget.

Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, immigration is forecasted to be a key issue amongst every voting group. “ “

candidate Ron DeSantis has set aside $12 million to transport undocumented immigrants out of the state. In September 2022, DeSantis orchestrated a plane of migrants to be flown into Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. It was later found that these migrants were lured with McDonald’s gift cards and promises of jobs and shelter in cities like Boston or Washington D.C. Instead, they were dropped off in a small community of primarily blue-collar residents who lacked the resources to handle such influxes.

Texas Governor Greg Abbot and former Arizona Governor Dougg Ducey have each

The city’s mayor, Eric Adams, has repeatedly found himself in disputes with the White House as requests for federal funding continually go unfulfilled. The Biden administration has pointed to inefficiencies in how the city has handled the crisis, including hiring an inexperienced medical services firm to move migrants out of overwhelmed city centers and into other communities in New York state. In response, Adams has repeatedly shared his displeasure with how Biden has handled immigration at the federal level, including failures to pressure Congress to expedite the work permit process for migrants.

This argumentative discord is causing deep internal divides in the Democratic party. Republicans are leveraging Adams to assert that criticism of Biden's border security lapses isn't confined to their party.

seekers from moving there. Despite its earlier guarantee of shelter for all, the city also now requires migrants to re-apply for shelter every 60 days, to strongly encourage those under city care to find new accommodations.

As Democrats crack under the pressure of the migrant crisis, the Republican party is making substantial gains. A In the 2022 midterm race, Republicans managed to flip four Democratic House seats. Additionally, a majority of people across all parties reported that they view the southern border as being “open” without any enforcement of immigration laws due to the policies of the Biden administration. Nearly half of the American public (47 percent) believe that illegal immigration is a “very big problem” for the United States, a statistic that has increased considerably since 2022 (38 percent).

As the Trojan Horse revealed its hidden occupants, shock and chaos ensued in Troy. Similarly, the Republicans are banking on the turmoil caused by the migration crisis to sway public opinion. The narrative surrounding overwhelmed cities could become a powerful weapon in their arsenal, strategically aimed at tarnishing the Democratic Party's reputation and calling out the hypocrisy of Democratic pushes for immigration reform.

The divide in American politics is no secret. The decision to put migrant families at risk by deliberately sending them to cities that are already overwhelmed, simply to bring the opposing party down, is a unique symptom of unprecedented partisanship.. American politicians can benefit from retiring the use of the Trojan Horse, switching instead to a synergetic, sympathetic culture that builds up, rather than tears down.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS RIGHT TO EXERCISE "EXCESSIVE RESTRAINT" AGAINST IRANIAN PROXIES

JACK MASLIAH / POLITICAL SCIENCE & PHILOSOPHY, 2025

Amidst the enduring conflict between Israel and Gaza, Iran’s proxy forces— collectively known as “The Axis of Resistance”—are hard at work in embodying Churchill’s adage to never let a good crisis go to waste. Stretching from Lebanon to Yemen and comprising scores of disparate factions including small Islamist militant groups, quasi-state actors, and designated terrorist organizations, these forces have an impressive track record for sowing international chaos. From radically restructuring the political and military landscape in Lebanon, to sparking the deadly Yemeni civil war and orchestrating terrorist attacks throughout Latin America, their global ambitions—fueled by an extraordinarily high tolerance for risk—have recently earned them front-page stories in newspapers around the world.

It is this quality which has now emboldened them to attack American military bases throughout the Middle East and cargo ships passing through international waters in the Red Sea. Such brazen attacks, coupled with the Biden administration’s prior reluctance to call for military strikes against these forces, have led many to call for a more assertive American response to create a deterrent. In theory, a strategy based on deterrence seeks to convince an enemy that the benefits of inaction outweigh the consequences of action.

RECENT ESCALATIONS

Over the past two months, Iran’s Yemeni proxy—the Houthis—have pirated, harassed, and attacked dozens of cargo ships in the Red Sea, an area through which 12% of global trade passes. Although the Houthis use the Israeli invasion of Gaza to justify their assault on international cargo ships, the group has been indiscriminate in the ships it has targeted. While they have targeted American, French, and British navy ships, the Houthis have also assaulted ships carrying goods from Iraq to Turkey, container ships sailing from Greece to Singapore, and a Norwegian crude tanker destined for India.

The threat of these attacks, coupled with the United Nations Security Council’s condemnation of their blatant illegality, spurred the creation of a coalition led by the US and composed of almost a dozen other countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Greece, Bahrain, the Netherlands, and Spain, whose mission is to safely escort and protect cargo ships through the Red Sea. On January 12th, the US and British navies struck over sixty targets throughout Yemen including missile launching sites, command and control modules, and radar systems resulting in five deaths.

The US’ ability to deter Iranian proxies rests on the US being more willing than Iran to bear the costs of continued escalation: a reality that simply does not pan out. “ “

In the context of this conflict, the US military could deter Iranian proxy forces from further attacks by raising significant military costs against them. Though well-intended, these calls stem from false assumptions about the feasibility of a deterrence strategy. Refusal to strike these proxy groups is not an example of American timidity, but rather the result of a practical—albeit uncomfortable—approach.

Twelve-hundred miles away, American military bases are under attack in Iraq and Syria. From October 17th to January 9th, observers have recorded an astounding 144 distinct attacks, resulting in over sixty wounded American servicemen and the accidental death of a military contractor who went into cardiac arrest following a false missile warning alarm. In response, the US’ Central Command—tasked with defending America’s Middle Eastern and East Asian interests—has hit back against Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria a total of eight times within the same time frame, resulting in the neutralization of around thirty proxy-affiliated members and multiple missile launching sites.

The unprecedented nature of these

attacks—both in quantity and lethality—fuel a growing chorus calling for a more forceful American posture. The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board, American defense officials, and Syrian rebel commanders who regularly fight these proxy forces have voiced their disagreements with the Biden administration’s policy of excessive restraint; they contend that a refusal to impose larger military costs on the proxies carrying out these attacks only sanctions future attacks. To counter these assaults, proponents push for a new strategy based on deterrence. Deterrence is a tried and tested strategy that, when successfully enacted, is on par with a diplomatic victory. However, deterrence can only be implemented as long as Iran believes they have more to lose from a military confrontation than the US does. A look into Iran’s objectives and intentions make it clear that this is not the case.

BENDING TO PRESSURE

The current Iranian strategy can be best described as a pressure campaign, as its ultimate goal is to compel the US to increase pressure on the Israelis to end their offensive. A victory for Iran seeks to preserve Hamas’ hold over Gaza (an entity they financially, politically, and operationally support) by placing the US in a situation where supporting Israel’s military campaign means accepting the new status-quo in the Middle East: continuous proxy attacks on American bases. Before the current war between Israel and Gaza, Iranian proxies targeted American bases throughout Iraq and Syria about a dozen times in 2021, twice in 2022, and twice in March of 2023. The divergence between the low level of prior attacks and the high level levied against the US since October draws a clear connection to the ongoing war in Gaza.

Iran has for years positioned itself not only as a key funder of Hamas, the terrorist organization responsible for the October 7th attacks in Southern Israel, but also as a regional power intent on reasserting their primacy throughout the Middle East. From Iran’s point of view, Israel’s invasion of Gaza provides a unique opportunity to reshape the status-quo of American presence in the region and requires a response for domestic and international audiences. Iran will act, regardless of justification, because years of precedent created the

Iran will act, regardless of justification, because years of precedent created the expectation that they must.

expectation that they must.

Many who advocate for a stronger American response claim that Iran’s intention is to kill American servicemen. Yet, out of 144 individual attacks against American bases from October 17th to January 9th, precisely 0 have resulted in the death of an American service member. Either Iran’s proxy forces are incapable of killing American servicemen in their own backyard (which would negate any necessity for counterstrikes) or they are not yet interested in doing so. The closest Iran’s proxy forces came to killing an American soldier came only after the Israelis assassinated a senior general in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which was a substantial deviation from the commonly accepted rules of engagement. Regardless of whether the Israelis intended to deter further attacks, such an escalation resulted not in the concession on the part of proxy forces, but instead compelled them to intensify their attacks.

Immediately following the Israeli assassination, proxy forces in Iraq launched an assault on an American base that left a soldier in critical condition. This instance marks the closest an American soldier has come to dying due to a hostile attack since the botched evacuation of troops from Afghanistan in 2021. Because of how rare the intentional killing of an American soldier has become in the past three years, the Iranians may have used this specific attack to communicate with the US that any targeting of an IRGC senior general— whether by the US itself or Israel—crosses a red line. Prior to the assassination of its IRGC general, Iran likely did not intend to kill American soldiers (which they would have no trouble doing if it served their interests) but instead intended to coerce the US to pressure Israel into ending their military campaign.

REALIZING DETERRENCE

Nonetheless, Iran’s determination not to kill American troops should not be confused with an unwillingness to do so. Advocates of a more forceful American posture assume that once struck by American forces, Iranian proxies would be hesitant to counter strike for fear of a larger, more powerful, American reprisal. Not only has this assumption been disproven following Iran’s response to the assassination

“

of their IRGC general, but the Biden administration’s own statements confess that attacks against proxy positions will not deter them but are instead intended to “degrade their capabilities.” The US’ ability to deter Iranian proxies rests on the US being more willing than Iran to bear the costs of continued escalation: a reality that simply does not pan out.

The Biden administration has made it clear that their goal is not to drag the US into yet another conflict in the Middle East. Such is evident by the administration’s constant attempts to pressure Israel into scaling down the war in Gaza.

These attempts at deescalation stem from the mechanisms with which foreign policy is communicated, which is often zero-sum; there are finite limits to the number of diplomats, amount of resources, and political will of our leaders. This forces the US to prioritize, and the Biden administration holds the view that allocating aid to Ukraine—which is already at danger of nearing an end—and revitalizing the much-anticipated diplomatic and military pivot to Asia takes precedence over conflict in the Middle East. In other words, it will be exceedingly difficult for the US to convince Iran that it would bear the burdens of continued escalation.

Iran would have more to lose by acquiescing to a forceful American reprisal than they would by doubling down, both because their proxies made the first move to target American forces and because of their physical proximity to the conflict. America, conversely, would have much more to lose; both the Biden administration’s reluctance to engage in a new Middle Eastern conflict and the importance of America’s other international commitments makes it highly unlikely for the US to continue down the escalatory ladder if a tit-for-tat were to ensue.

Iran recognizes the US government’s predicament, and this awareness is precisely why they challenged the status-quo in the first place—because they know they can. One can be justifiably irritated that the American security ecosystem in the Middle East allows for the repeated targeting of American troops, but this should not cloud our judgment when thinking of ways to respond. A pragmatic approach which soberly acknowledges the current situational landscape makes it clear that deterrence is not a favorable strategy for the US to pursue against Iranian proxies at this moment. If the US were to act more assertively, the ensuing events would not indeed take the shape of a deterrent but would instead surmount to a dangerous series of escalatory responses which Iran is predisposed to win.

It would be unwise to believe that the current American response to Iranian proxy threats— that of excessive restraint—is equivalent to a neglect of duty. Instead, we must see this strategy for what it truly is: the best choice picked from a sea of bad options. Solely looking at Secretary of State Blinken’s arduous meeting record over the past months, which includes dozens of consultations and in-person visits with Arab heads of state, should be enough to demonstrate that it is not due to sheer luck that the region has thus far avoided conflict, but instead is being held together by the muscular forces of diplomacy. If this delicate balance is disrupted, it will be not because of an overemphasis on strategic restraint, nor due to a careful evaluation of a deterrent’s feasibility, but by an impulse to act for the sake of action.

Being a social media influencer has become far more than just a hobby.

Thousands of people are able to call social media their careers, making large sums of money through brand deals and sponsorships. In relying on popularity and views to fuel their successes, influencers must find ways to create engagement in their content to muster up interest. While this is often done by doing something exciting like traveling or collaborating with other content creators, a certain sect of the internet has found another way: the exploitation of their children.

Family YouTube, Tiktok, and Instagram accounts have become wildly popular and concerningly common in recent years, amassing millions of views. These views, of course, lead to revenue, but this is done at the expense of the children featured in the content. The children of family content creators are often forced to give up their privacy and face the scrutiny of the internet at alarmingly young ages. Their most precious life events are used as content, yet they do not see a single penny of the revenue they are forced to create. Not

thousands of dollars in profit. While many of these channels have become irrelevant as their child-stars have reached adulthood, some families have been able to create longterm careers.

Mindy McKnight is one mom who’s done this through her YouTube account, CuteGirlsHairstyles. Using her daughters as models for her hair tutorials, she has amassed an internet empire. Since starting her YouTube channel, McKnight has created a haircare line and three of her six children are now major content creators.

Her oldest daughters now run a YouTube channel with over seven million subscribers and own both a mascara brand and a skincare brand. The twins recently spoke about their upbringing on the Unplanned podcast, stating that while their upbringing was unique, they were lucky to have parents who supported their right to privacy if they so chose, and compensated them financially for their appearances in videos. They also noted that while they grew up under the eyes of the internet, they grew up in an earlier era, where sponsorships and brand deals were less common and where their parents didn’t need to take their content seriously to bring in revenue.

As viewers, it is important to realize how the internet fueled this abuse. 8 Passengers thrived in controversy, and Franke was able to make a profit by documenting the abuse and humiliation of her children.... “ “

only must we, as a society, push for legislation to prevent the exploitation of these children, but we must also look critically at the consequences of our consumption.

The origins of family-centered content date back to YouTube’s origin, when many parents began posting home videos to pass the time. However, this hobby would eventually turn into a profession, generating

Even though the McKnight children still face the scrutiny and negativity that come from having an online presence, their parents were able to provide them with autonomy and financial compensation, making them an exception to an incredibly dangerous rule.

Unlike that of the McKnight family, most family-centered content relies on the exploitation and manipulation of children’s emotions and daily lives for views. One of the most notorious examples of this phenomenon

is 8 Passengers: a channel started in 2015 by Ruby Franke, a mom who grew to fame by showcasing the chaotic and vibrant life of her family of eight. As the channel grew, however, viewers became critical of Franke’s parenting tactics. In addition to the fact that she was humiliating her children by posting their wrongdoings online, her punishments for said wrongdoings were extremely harsh and unnecessary.

For example, after her older son pranked her younger son by telling him that the family would be going to Disney World, her older son was forced to sleep on a beanbag instead of a bed for seven months. When her six-year-old daughter forgot to pack her lunch for school, Franke refused to bring her lunch, stating that she should “be more responsible” and “face the consequences of her own actions.” Although Franke faced heavy backlash on the internet for these parenting tactics, the comments and controversy surrounding her family made the channel grow in notoriety. At its peak, 8 Passengers boasted over 2.5 million subscribers.

While the Franke children suffered, the 8 Passengers YouTube channel thrived. Franke eventually joined her friend Jodi Hildebrand in creating a new YouTube channel and life coaching business called Connexions, where they doled out parenting advice that relied on extreme and damaging tactics. While viewers had criticized Franke’s parenting style, many were shocked when Franke was arrested on child abuse charges in August of 2023. Her arrest came after one of her children escaped Hildebrand’s house, emaciated and scarred from the ropes that had been tied around his wrists and ankles.

Fortunately, YouTube has since deleted Franke’s channel and she has lost custody of her children. As viewers, it is important to realize how the internet fueled this abuse. 8 Passengers thrived in controversy, and Franke was able to make a profit by documenting the abuse and humiliation of her children.

Another infamous example of family content turned child abuse is the FamilyOFive

YouTube channel, which featured parents Heather and Mike Martin pranking their young children. These pranks gradually became more extreme, encouraging the children to physically abuse each other. One video encouraged their youngest child to slap his older sister. This garnered an intense amount of controversy from viewers, which eventually led authorities to examine the situation. The Martins were convicted of child neglect charges in 2017, and while their original channel has been terminated by YouTube, they have been able to create channels on other platforms, such as Twitch.

Both the 8 Passengers and FamilyOFive channels mastered the art of gaining viewership through controversy, and this proved to be wildly damaging for their children. While these channels demonstrate extreme violations of privacy and humiliation of children, many other channels rely on these tactics on a somewhat smaller scale. This often entails filming them during emotional and private moments. Because these children are under the guardianship of their parents, they often cannot choose whether or not they’re featured in a video. In many cases, these children have grown up under the scrutiny of a camera for so long that they don’t know any different. At a minimum, the children of family content creators have lost the right to privacy, but more often than not, face far more challenging situations than that.

The mental toll that family content creation can have on a child cannot be overstated. Not only will these children be exposed to a plethora of negative comments about themselves, but they must also live knowing that their lowest moments from their younger years will live on the internet forever. Family vlogging also has the potential to affect the relationships of a child, both with their parents and with their peers. There is no way to say exactly how every child would react to this type of attention, but even adults struggle with this level of exposure. It would be detrimental to anyone’s mental health to be exploited by their own parents and to be watched and criticized by thousands, even millions of people, for content of themselves nonconsensually pushed out to the internet.

The internet can be a problematic, cruel, and dangerous place. Family content creation poses a threat to the safety of the children, as intimate details about their lives are made public. Stalkers and obsessed fans come with any level of fame, including family content creation, and unfortunately, many parents either fail to realize this or simply do not care. By sharing general details about their lives to a mass audience, family content creators risk stalkers and predators finding their home addresses, places of work, schools, and any

other places that they frequent. These parents sacrifice safety for profit, as financial gain has become the priority.

In addition to the exploitation these children face for the sake of content, their parents often have no obligation to compensate them for the content they produce. There are protections against children creating their own accounts on the internet, such as the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule. However, there is currently no federal legislation that ensures financial compensation for children featured in content.

Currently, Illinois is the only state to ensure financial compensation to minors featured in content, while California, Pennsylvania, and Maryland have proposed similar bills. However, legislation like this is not a guarantee, as proposals have failed in New York, New Jersey, and Washington. That said, it is critical that more comprehensive federal legislation be put forth. Though legislation like this is certainly necessary, it does not protect children beyond financial compensation.

While the future of this legislation can seem unclear and difficult, legislators must look to the root of the problem: sponsorships and brand deals. Viewership is certainly important to the career of an influencer, however viewership alone is not what makes money. Viewership leads to partnerships with companies who pay influencers to promote them. Ultimately, the more viewers and followers an influencer has, the more a brand will pay them for their promotion. Knowing this, legislators must aim to restrict brand deals and sponsorships to prevent parents from making a career out of their children’s lives. One way to do this is by preventing sponsorships in videos that feature minors, or children under a certain age. While this would likely get backlash from influencers and brands themselves, legislators in favor of a policy like this could rely on existing child entertainment policies to make their case.

Because preventing children from being in videos would be nearly impossible, legislators should instead make it harder for parents to profit from these videos. In California, minors must file for extensive permits to work in entertainment, and are required to have their earnings set aside in a trust for when they turn eighteen. Future legislation in the social media space can act in a similar fashion. Lawmakers should pass legislation that requires permits for children to participate in content with sponsorships and brand deals. Policies against content with sponsorships would have stronger grounds for legislation because a third party is involved in the exploitation of these children.

Arguing against parents exploiting their children can be difficult because children

are under their parents’ guardianship. However, with sponsorships, brands play a direct role in this exploitation. When children participate in unsponsored content, one might argue that parents are simply filming their children living their lives, but children participating in sponsored content are undeniably taking part in marketing through entertainment.

Federal legislators must enact policies like these and draw from existing child entertainment laws to prevent children from being exploited and compensate them for the content they are featured in. It is unrealistic to expect legislation that completely prevents children from being exploited for views. However, restricting the root causes of exploitation is the best place to start.

As viewers, we have a moral responsibility to understand the consequences of our consumption. Though many value the freedom of discretion in choosing what to watch, we must draw the line somewhere. The exploitation of children should be an uncontroversial start.

Family content creators would not have a platform without viewership, and while they might be able to make entertaining content, they do so at the expense of their children. These children will grow up with the burden of their exploitation, and while millions claim to adore and care about these children, the reality is that their fans are the root of their problem. No one should be forced to endure the dangers of the internet, especially by their own parents. Children’s lives are not content, and they should never be a means of financial gain. As a society, we have the responsibility to respect their privacy and push for legislation that protects these children.

A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW: REIGNITING THE SACKLER ACT

From 1999 to 2021, opioids caused over 70 percent of the one million drug overdose deaths in America. The Opioid Crisis was declared a public health emergency in 2017, owing largely to Purdue Pharma’s 1996 release of OxyContin: a potent opioid similar to heroin. Purdue Pharma's false advertising of the drug's addictiveness led to overprescription, patient addiction, and significant company profits. To avoid another drug epidemic from occurring, the United States government must take action.

“ “

THE SACKLER STRATEGY: WEALTH PROTECTION THROUGH BANKRUPTCY LOOPHOLES

Following a lawsuit in 2007, the Sackler family, the owners of Purdue Pharma, withdrew nearly 11 billion dollars from the company into their pockets. Now, they have declared bankruptcy through a loophole in the current Bankruptcy Code, allowing them to escape liability from thousands of victims of the Opioid Crisis. To prevent powerful and wealthy companies from shielding liability from claimants, the federal government must pass legislation amending The Bankruptcy Code (referred to as “the Code”).

Although States have bankruptcy laws of their own, a person or entity filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy must do so under federal law. Purdue Pharma declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of The Bankruptcy Code in 2019, conveniently as the company was facing thousands of lawsuits from addiction survivors

The need for political activism has never been more apparent than it is now. In a current climate where American politics polarize nearly every issue, there needs to be a united call for justice against billionaires taking advantage of bankruptcy.

and families of victims. Many other large corporations have leveraged the same tactic to avoid liability.

By declaring bankruptcy in the Code, states have become powerless. The only solution is federal.

THE SUPREME COURT'S INFLUENCE ON PURDUE PHARMA'S ACCOUNTABILITY

One solution rests in the hands of the Supreme Court, which recently heard the case Purdue Pharma v. Harrington in early December 2023. The case revolves around victims, families, and governments who filed claims against Purdue Pharma due to the false marketing of OxyContin. In the midst of the lawsuits, Purdue Pharma filed for bankruptcy, which stopped the cases from being heard until a restructuring plan was approved. As a result, the restructuring plan stopped third-parties, victims, families, and governments from

filing lawsuits involving the sale or distribution of OxyContin. This tactic for dismissing claimants by bankrupt companies is generally known as “non-consensual third party release.”

Given the unpredictability of the Supreme Court, it is unreliable to depend on a ruling to fix the loophole. Furthermore, the Court has a tendency to favor business interests, putting the odds in Purdue’s favor. A tangible resolution rests in federal legislation that would permanently amend how individuals take advantage of the current Code.

LEGISLATIVE BATTLES: THE FIGHT TO PASS THE SACKLER ACT

Congressional legislation is unlikely, but is imperative to amend the Bankruptcy Code. Past failed efforts to amend the Code need to be reignited. In 2021, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-12) introduced The Stop Shielding Assets from Corporate Known Liability by Eliminating Non-Debtor Releases (SACKLER) Act. The proposed law would restrict individuals who have not declared bankruptcy from being exempt in legal cases initiated by state, local, or federal governments. The language of the bill is effective in closing the loophole for non-debtor releases. However, the bill died in a previous session of Congress (2021) without receiving a vote.

ALEXIS WELDNER / POLITICAL SCIENCE & BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, 2025

While Purdue Pharma may be bankrupt, the Sacklers certainly are not. Money is a lifeline running through the Purdue Pharma case. The Sackler family has billions of dollars siphoned from the unfortunate success of OxyContin, while victims are left paying thousands in rehabilitation and funeral costs. While Purdue Pharma declared bankruptcy in 2021, this move came amidst a backdrop of significant lobbying efforts, with the company having spent 1.2 million dollars in this area. These efforts—occurring in parallel with the Sackler family's close monitoring of legislative developments like the SACKLER

a split and paralyzed Congress. Resolving the Bankruptcy Code is not a current priority in Congress, but it must become one.

MOBILIZING FOR CHANGE: THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF PUBLIC SUPPORT AND ACTIVISM

To compensate and support the claimants, the Sackler family could effectively set up a fund for victims with the money earned from the sale of OxyContin. This seems unlikely given the family’s repeated claims that they bear no responsibility for the drug’s abuse.

The power for a bill to be passed rests in the public interest and opinion of the American people. “ “

Act—suggest that the Sacklers are taking a strategic approach to managing their legal and financial challenges.

Given the Sackler family's wealth and lobbying power, the likelihood of passing a victim-centric bill is nearly impossible.

The SACKLER Act was filed again with identical language by Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) this session. Yet, due to current turmoil in Congress and Congressional gridlock, the passing of the bill is unpromising. With a polarizing split between Republican and Democratic parties, less laws were passed than ever before in 2023. The Sacklers’ wealth and lobbying power would trump that of victims. The bill is unlikely to receive support in

The Sacklers argue that addiction is a personal responsibility.

However, many victims were not prone to addiction and were ordinary medical patients given OxyContin. Unaware of its risks, they trusted their doctors, who were also misled about the drug's safety. Reframing the issue, much like the approach taken with the legalization of gay marriage, is imperative to garner public support for controversial legislation. Organizations play a crucial role in shifting the stigma around drug addiction discussions by bringing in experts from government, evaluation, service delivery, and care planning. By reframing the issue, they can help ignite a new public interest and shift perceptions around addiction.

Public support for justice must drive the SACKLER Act's passage for innocent victims.

Strong societal support will motivate Congress to urgently pass the bill. Additionally, substantial financial resources are essential for lobbying to surpass the Sackler family's influence. In today's polarized climate, gaining attention for the bill is crucial, as polarization often stalls legislation not in the public spotlight.

The passing of the SACKLER Act is not impossible. It is the most reliable solution to amend the Bankruptcy Code. The power for a bill to be passed rests in the public interest and opinion of the American people. The need for political activism has never been more apparent than it is now. In a current climate where American politics polarize nearly every issue, there needs to be a united call for justice against billionaires taking advantage of bankruptcy.

Money and political ideology aside, the Opioid Crisis is a national tragedy. Nearly thirty years after the launch of OxyContin, opioids continue to kill 136 Americans every day. The Crisis haunts Americans on all fronts, in all corners of the country, no matter their political ideology. The Opioid Crisis has the power to unite Congress and the Supreme Court, but the path towards unity rests with the power of the American people.

Given the Sackler family's wealth and lobbying power, the likelihood of passing a victim-centric bill is nearly impossible. “ “

THE TRUTH BEHIND BITCOIN COUNTRY

MARY RAINES ALEXANDER / INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2026

In September 2021, El Salvador established Bitcoin as legal tender. In doing so, the government declared its validity as acceptable payment within the country: a landmark decision that attracted significant international attention.

Soon after the glamorous headlines and

For many Salvadorans, the government’s transition to Bitcoin benefited the political elites, not the citizenry. “ “

characterizes the Salvadoran government’s desire to implement Bitcoin. Because most citizens are unbanked, the average person would have easier access to financial development and remittances through Bitcoin. However, the immediacy of its initial rollout created a disconnect between the policy and the people. El Salvador’s failure to inform its populace of the change and inhibit its spiraling poverty set the stage for a failed attempt.

EMPTY PROMISES

Bitcoin billionaires’ hustling toward the country, economic stagnation and challenges to daily life began to plague the country. While some citizens were open to the prospect of potential financial prosperity, others were overcome with doubt. This was fueled partly by the similarities between the current economic shift and the 2001 great monetary switch to the dollar. In the decades-old decision to mark El Salvador as one of the few dollarized states in Latin America, the purchasing power of lower-class Salvadorans slipped through their fingers, despite the government’s claims of monumental economic development. Twenty years later, again, they were met with hollow words. Bitcoin’s impracticality revealed problems with the government’s top-down attempt to revitalize the Salvadoran economy. Yet, the Salvadoran people did not witness the allure of Bitcoin’s unprecedented financial rewards.

Blockchain technology’s potent decentralization and lack of bureaucratic extremities

With its vote in congress, President Bukele sold Bitcoin under the guise of tourism, investment, financial inclusion, and most importantly, economic development. Salvadoran politicians and government officials, like Vice President Félix Ulloa, declared the nation’s rebirth was upon them. On the outskirts of the financial system, Salvadorans would be able to forge their own wealth without the interference of hegemonic—or overpowering— institutions; the power would be in the hands of the people. Then, those lies began to unravel.

The government hoped the app would support Salvadorans who receive large proportions of their income from remittances. These types of transactions are U.S. migrants’ monetary transfers back to El Salvador with accompanying fees that average at approximately 10.2 percent for physical transfers. Although online banking transfers are less expensive, about 64 percent of Salvadorans are unbanked and must send remittance transfers physically with a mere 11 percent having a mobile account. Yet, such monetary transfers are invaluable to the country, as remittances constituted one fifth of El Salvador’s GDP in 2019, standing as one of the highest ratios globally.

El Salvador’s government claimed that Chivo would save Salvadorans hundreds of millions of dollars in lower rate fees. Western Union Bank charges nine to eighteen dollars (4.5 to 9 percent) to process a remittance of

Vast statements of the alleged empowerment of El Salvador’s financially destitute ring hollow without the acknowledgement of the systemic forces that feed poverty. “ “

The government released Chivo, a digital wallet similar to Venmo or Paypal, meant to harbor and transfer citizens’ digital savings. In creating the software, El Salvador relied on investments from large U.S. corporations like Athena Bitcoin.

two-hundred dollars, while Bitcoin’s network was supposed to charge approximately three to seven dollars (1.5 to 3.5 percent) for the same amount.

Yet, this promised benefit bypassed the people. As of February 2022, Salvadorans used digital wallets in only 1.6 percent of remittance

transfers. Despite Bitcoin’s intended reduction of remittance fees and hassle, the people did not follow the government’s suit with minimal use of Chivo in their remittance transactions. In reality, remittance costs are more expensive with Chivo than with physical transfers. To convert Bitcoin to paper money at Bitcoin ATMs, Athena charges an additional 5 percent bitcoin-sale fee. On top of this, Salvadorans must pay network fees, travel costs, and risk their safety to use a Bitcoin ATM in the first place. Taking everything into account, Bitcoin remittance fees in El Salvador nearly double the previous average fee.

SHORT-LIVED “SUCCESS”

sixth grade and a staggering national 26.6 percent live in poverty. These inequities fuel the country’s maras, or criminal gangs. Groups like MS-13 are active in nearly 40 percent of localities and are responsible for twenty-thousand murders between 2014 and 2017 alone. El Salvador’s lack of infrastructure—combined with growing gang popula-

given cryptocurrencies’ volatile nature and its track record of collapsing massive exchange platforms like FTX or Bittrex.

With nearly all of El Salvador’s fiscal capacity invested in Bitcoin, the country depends on its success. But success seems unlikely given cryptocurrencies’ volatile nature and its track record of collapsing massive exchange platforms like FTX or Bittrex.

“ “

Initially, as of 2022, 68 percent of Salvadorans knew of Chivo Wallet and 46 percent successfully used it. But this mass-downloading of Chivo had nothing to do with Bitcoin. Instead, it was because the government offered a thirty-dollar incentive—nearly 1 percent of what the average citizen earns in a year—to those who downloaded the app following its launch. Only 20.6 percent of the population continued to use Chivo within six months of receiving the subsidy and only 9.3 percent of Salvadorans still used Bitcoin within the app.

Those who actively interacted with the app were young, educated men; the law didn’t benefit minorities, who Bitcoin advocates hailed as potential benefactors. For many Salvadorans, the government’s transition to Bitcoin benefited the political elites, not the citizenry.

El Salvador’s promises of prosperity is a mere governmental lie to forty-five year-old Dalila Meléndez, a factory worker within the free trade zone in San Bartolo, who claims that prices for basic necessities like oil and meat continue to rise. With similar sentiments, Estela Gavidia, an outspoken citizen of San Salvador, criticized the decision, asserting that citizens need to be able to understand their currency. According to a poll conducted by Central American University in El Salvador, of the Salvadorans surveyed, 71.1 percent stated that the law had no positive impact on their family finances.

Unlike more established cryptocurrency hubs like the United States and China, only 55 percent of El Salvador’s population has access to the internet. Fewer than 50 percent of Salvadorans have graduated from the

tions and homicide rates—limit Salvadorans’ chances of upward mobility.

Living among crime and poverty, Salvadorans find it hard to place their faith in cryptocurrency.

WASTED MONEY AND NEW PROBLEMS

Despite Bitcoin’s inability to garner Salvadorans’ trust as legal tender, President Bukele invested an estimated 120 million dollars of El Salvador’s reserves into the currency. Though, the true quantity spent could be much higher; the only way of calculating the government's investments is through Bukele’s tweets.

With nearly all of El Salvador’s fiscal capacity invested in Bitcoin, the country depends on its success. But success seems unlikely

El Salvador’s high fiscal deficit endangers the country’s ability to receive loans from foreign powers. While El Salvador was able to pay off its amortized eurobond—a bond where debt’s face value is paid in addition to an interest value over the “life of the bond”— last January, international credit rating agency FitchRatings downgraded the nation to a rating of “CCC+.” This level indicates substantial credit risk with a high possibility of default.

Vast statements of the alleged empowerment of El Salvador’s financially destitute ring hollow without the acknowledgement of the systemic forces that feed poverty. The focus should not be whether to increase investment in the volatile digital currency. Rather, the focus should be the reason Bitcoin is deemed worthless in the eyes of Salvadorans.

Despite a rise in tourism rates, everyday life for Salvadorans has not changed, and the government's message of financial equity and currency decentralization to support Bitcoin has been lost. If the government wishes to re-establish Bitcoin’s relevance and “modernize” the country, Bukele’s administration must utilize a bottom-up approach with a focus on resilient governance rather than the glamor that accompanies El Salvador’s title of “Bitcoin Country.”

LUKASHENKO AND PUTIN, TILL DEATH DO YOU PART?

NATALIE LEHMANN / INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS & INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS, 2026

ALLIANCES IN THE RUSSIANUKRAINE WAR

The moment Russian soldiers marched across the Ukrainian border, much of the world turned further against them. Anti-Russian rhetoric was already strong pre-Ukraine War, but with the US doing everything it could to blame the war on someone else, Russia was the perfect target of continued criticism. Though it was Russia who invaded Ukraine, it was the West that pushed Putin to attack out of “need” to defend against the tyranny of NATO. Regardless, the war has progressed without an end in sight, and even though it looks hopeful for a Western win now, there is no certainty—especially in light of shaky alliances too close to enemy territory.

Today, more than 130 countries support the West against Russia. This includes all European Union member states, all G7 countries, and all NATO members except Turkey. The force against Russia accounts for at least 70 percent of the world's GDP, and yet only 36 percent of the world’s population because of China and India’s “neutral” stance. With what seems like the majority of Europe against Russia, only one country, Belarus, has remained loyal to its old Soviet friend..

In a blown-out perspective it would seem Russia is surrounded by enemies, yet, Russia has continued to fight with no practical end in sight. While Ukraine has prominent allies across the globe, Russia only acts as if it does. China, for one, only appears to be a strategic ally to Moscow. In spite of China’s

neutrality, the two countries are remarkably similar in future long-term plans and in a common adversary, the United States of America.

The US has sought to promote its conception of democratic ideals across the globe. Consider it democratic backsliding or the classic patterns of history, but the US’ greatest perceived enemies, China and Russia, are both non-democratic states. The importance of this lies in the fundamental principles of US defense against non-democratic governments. Despite the present international system severely condemning authoritarian rule, China and Russia have easily gotten away with significantly oppressive national policies, even as some of the most populous states in the world.

Belarus’ marital status with Russia has put Lukashenko in an immediate position to assist Russia in the likelihood of nuclear war. “ “

With its growing power, China has politically supported Russia because it wants to attack Taiwan the same way, but Xi Jinping is a risky ally who prioritizes Chinese interests before any kind of alliance with Russia. Regardless of the fact that China is Russialeaning in the war, China will prioritize its own interests.

So, is there anyone else that will support Russia in the war? India, Syria, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan have neither condemned nor aided Russia; Iran and North Korea have waned in providing Russia weapons; Venezuela and Nicaragua have only continued to vote pro-Russia in UN assemblies. That leaves the former Soviet bloc in Eastern Europe, most of which have said nothing to help their good ol’ pal Russia.

Belarus is the perfect example of how when democratization fails to grow out of a new government, the effects are seen across all geopolitical realms. “ “

Out of all fifteen Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and multiple satellite states that were just as impacted by the communist agenda, one has remained a

true, loyal ally to Father Putin: Belarus. More specifically, President Aleksandr Lukashenko. I would bet that if there was ever a non-adulterated poll of the Belarusians to see who actually liked their only ever president, those in favor would be significantly less than 50% of the population. They would be the same results that would have been received from any Soviet-occupied country in the 1970s or 80s. However, we have no concrete understanding of what Belarusians think or feel. That said, it is likely that Lukashenko is only President because he holds a monopoly of power and a nice relationship with Putin. Russian influence in Belarus is phrased the same way as Russia’s justification of invading Ukraine; there are “Russians” living in a land not “Russian enough” that must be liberated. This is a ludicrously false idea and will never be a sufficient justification for Russia’s horrifying acts.

A BRIEF HISTORY

In all Soviet countries, the Russian language is pushed into formal use and education. Consequently, many Ukrainian citizens on the Eastern front of the country speak Russian, in addition to nearly the entire Belarusian population. Belarusian is now the minority language in the country of more than 9 million, with about 6.7 million speaking Russian commonly. Though Belarus was officially a part of Russia from 1776 to 1991, it has been under its influence since medieval times. Language might be the least of the problematic aspects Belarus faces while aligning

itself with Russia. Russia worked with the Nazi regime for some years during World War II, subjecting thousands of Belarusians to the horrors of concentration camps. Even before the height of Soviet idealism and Nazi terrorism in the 1940s, Belarus was the second hardest-hit among Soviet countries by the Sovietcaused 1932 Great Famine. Approximately ten million people died across Ukraine, Belarus, and other Eastern-European States.

Rationally, one would assume that a country whose next-door neighbor starved them to death wouldn’t want much to do with them in the future. Belarus has defied the odds. Their history has been as subjected to the ruthlessness of foreign powers as the rest of Eastern Europe’s, and yet, they choose to go right back to their oppressors. The answer to why Belarus betrayed its fellow Europeans lies in its leadership, geography, and as with all conflicts, its economy.

After the USSR dissolved in 1991, the Republic of Belarus moved to adopt a new constitution and introduce a presidency. Belarus followed the same paths as other former Soviet states: the path to democracy, and the subsequent path to Westernization. In its beautiful dream of reaching democracy, Belarus fell short. In 1994, Aleksandr Lukashenko became the first President of the Republic of Belarus and ruled with an authoritarian regime, despite being elected democratically. Even today, Belarus is less of a liberal democracy than Russia itself.

TRANSITIONING TO PRESENTDAY BELARUS

The amount of corruption in the political atmosphere of Belarus is abundant. It involves fraudulent elections, jailing opposing presidential candidates, imposing restrictive measures on voting, and much more. Lukashenko has maintained his presidential status through oppressive mechanisms that are anything but democratic.

Lukashenko tied Belarus to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) that binds it to aiding Russia and other members if attacked: a treaty that is still valid for Belarus today. Other members of the treaty, such as Armenia and Kyrgyzstan, have not backed Russia in its war against Ukraine. Belarus, on the other hand, is nestled deep in the heart of the conflict.

Belarus has been an indispensable ally to Russia in the war against Ukraine, rising in prominence because of its geographical connections to NATO allies. Belarus is the perfect example of how when democratization fails to grow out of a new government, the effects are seen across all geopolitical realms. Russia has

used Lukashenko as a pawn in a greater game of gaining back at least influential control of the Eastern European bloc. With Belarus in his control, Putin has more access to a sphere of influence he believes is securely his.

ECONOMIC INFLUENCES

Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan formed the Eurasian Economic Community in 2000. In 2009, to facilitate the ease of trade between nations, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia created the Customs Union. In 2011, the economic integration of Eurasia was officially adopted in the Single Economic Space of Belarus, Russia, and Kazakhstan. The subsequent Eurasian Economic Union was signed in 2014 by the same three actors in further confederation with each other.

In the economic realm of the RussiaUkraine War, Belarus has been a continuous provider of trade and easing the effects of sanctions placed on Russia. Belarus has been closely intertwined in Russia’s economy since

its establishment as an “independent” state in 1991 and is still energy dependent on Russia.

With Western-allied Turkey still responding to Russia’s economy and in addition to the EU’s sanctions not being effective enough to end the war, Russia’s economy has adapted. The sanctions have been so inefficient that even Western technology is landing in Russian materiel.

A MILITARY ALLIANCE

As the Russia-Ukraine War progresses, the Belarusian alliance will aid Russia in military advances against the West and Ukraine. Belarus borders NATO members and Russia has convenient access to them through Lukashenko’s graciousness. In spite of this, Belarus has not sent ground troops to Ukraine; the Belarusian army is designed to resist a NATO invasion in the case that the Russia-Ukraine war or future conflicts need them.

Belarus’ marital status with Russia has put Lukashenko in an immediate position to assist Russia in the likelihood of nuclear war. In most recent events, Lukashenko has stated his prospective fear of NATO-member Poland attacking Belarus in order to justify the possibility of moving Russian nuclear weapons in position on Belarusian soil.

The strategic geopolitical landscape of Belarus for Russia could set Western allies on edge to proceed with more aid for Ukraine. Belarus’ standing with nuclear weapons has been dependent on relations with the West (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons); nuclear war discussions are a radical turning point for this conflict. Nevertheless, the Russia-Ukraine War has broken the relative post-Cold War peace that caused a necessary global abstention from nuclear weapons.

BELARUS AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

This war will set a major precedent for the future. It will determine Western relations versus the rising hegemonic powers of Russia and China, especially in the realms of international conflict, diplomacy, and the use of weapons of mass destruction. Belarus has and will continue to significantly aid Russia in its endeavors. With Lukashenko at his side, Putin has a multitude of opportunities in the progression of Russia’s war on Ukraine, and truly, Russia’s war on Western influence.

Ultimately, it is up to the Belarusian people to side with the West against Russia. As of today, there are still no divorce papers on the table for Mr. and Mr. Vladimir Putin.

In the modern era of artificial intelligence (AI), professionals from a myriad of backgrounds have sought to leverage the technological feats now accomplishable by AI. Amongst these novel accomplishments lies AI-powered facial recognition, which can be defined as “the automated process of comparing two images of faces to determine whether they represent the same individual.”

Given the enormous potential and current uses of automated facial recognition, policymakers and law enforcement officials must equitably utilize this technology without endangering minority populations. Facial recognition technology (FRT) uses machine learning algorithms to determine if a data

Justice (DOJ) has highlighted the role of FRT in capturing a bank robber; federal agents noted that images from the bank’s surveillance footage were submitted into facial recognition software, which retrieved a possible match for the suspect. Agents were then able to confirm the accuracy of the algorithmic match after interviewing close associates of the suspect, who positively identified him as the man within the photographs.

Additionally, FRT has also been utilized to determine the identities of those engaging in unlawful behavior while in large crowds. Investigations of the January 6th riots used datasets containing images of “suspected criminal activity” to recognize illegal activity and FRT to examine the identities of participants.

Unfortunately, the widespread and unregulated use of FRT has contributed to privacy concerns for those participating in democratic processes and worsened outcomes for racial minorities due to bias. “ “

input matches a face it has already examined in a training dataset. Though FRT holds great utility across various industries, its use has been heavily associated with the ability to bolster security and aid law enforcement officials in investigative work.

According to a report released by the United States Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO), half of all surveyed governmental law enforcement organizations stated that they used FRT to assist with the identification or arrest of criminal suspects. In recent press releases, the Department of

Unfortunately, the widespread and unregulated use of FRT has contributed to privacy concerns for those participating in democratic processes and worsened outcomes for racial minorities due to bias. As law enforcement agencies can access public and private camera footage and databases with judicial permission, FRT programs used by these agencies are now estimated to contain data involving 117 million American adults.

While acting with the intention to promote national security, the government does not publicly acknowledge nor allow people to opt out of having their personal information collected, despite instances of civilians having their information compromised in data leaks or otherwise unfairly used against them. Those participating in democratic processes,

such as protesting, are functionally more at risk of having their facial data non-consensually sold to technology companies.

Law-abiding adults who have applied for a driver’s license, a necessary form of identification in many parts of the United States, have had their facial data inputted into a recognition software that can be accessed by federal agents to identify criminal suspects. Using this information, police officers are effectively allowed to track innocent individuals deemed to be suspicious due to current data privacy legislation in the United States not protecting the rights of civilians who have not been previously investigated for criminal offenses. Subsequently, police officers may strip civilians of their constitutionally enshrined right to due process. For example, individuals legally engaging in protests criticizing government inaction during the 2020 resurgence of the Black Lives Matter movement have unduly had their facial data sold to law enforcement by companies like Clearview AI.

Moreover, the political implications of FRT are exacerbated by racial biases affecting its accuracy. Though software relying upon FRT may hold a massive volume of inputted data, algorithms powering the technology suffer from inadequacies in training. Currently, most training datasets disproportionately include faces of white males with little regard for algorithmic understanding of the facial characteristics of racial minorities.

Consequently, Black men and women have been repeatedly misidentified by FRT, with some algorithms erroring 35% of the time when attempting to recognize faces of Black individuals. While the technology remains faulty, its results are still largely trusted by law enforcement officials, leading to the arrests of innocent Black men and the revocation of refugee status for Black women after being

KRISHNAMITRA PRAKASH / POLITICAL SCIENCE & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 2024

Given the enormous potential and current uses of automated facial recognition, policymakers and law enforcement officials must equitably utilize this technology without endangering minority populations.

misidentified as criminals.

“

Several policy recommendations exist to more equitably incorporate FRT in the realm of security. While some academics argue that the use of FRT should be altogether banned due to racial biases and the non-consensual collection of sensitive data, others see a value in allowing law enforcement officials to access FRT under specific, strategic conditions.

Instead of collecting data on all individuals that receive government identification, some jurisdictions have moved toward stricter use standards and now only submit mugshots of known criminals into a facial recognition database. Before running a search in San Diego, for example, police must firstly use a standard of reasonable suspicion before accessing a facial recognition database and secondly have their searches and policies approved by a locally elected committee. If properly used, this method could simultaneously preserve a degree of privacy by limiting the number of individuals within a database and also be used to find repeat offenders if necessary. Additionally, facial information

used to verify identification upon entry or exit of a national border should be purged after a specified time period to prevent data leakage in the event of a breach.

In another vein, the issue of algorithmic bias can be corrected with more comprehensive training datasets. Generally, FRT algorithms are more adept at recognizing facial characteristics in people from the region they are developed in, due to researchers easily accessing facial inputs of people within their country’s racial majority. To become more equitable and overcome current biases, it is recommended to ensure algorithms receive “rich, varied datasets that are double and triple-checked as a [standardized] priority.” This aids FRT algorithms in not encoding errors into their programs and are well-trained in correctly identifying people from diverse ethnic backgrounds.

While necessary for the sustainable longterm use of FRT and AI-related technologies more broadly, comprehensive datasets will likely depend on information sharing between private and public entities. Corporations and governments have an interest in minimizing sharing information that is sensitive or proprietary, making it unlikely that all actors using FRT will ensure that they are incorporating only the most comprehensive datasets into their models. Additionally, the timeframe for such information sharing and uptake of new data does little to correct how FRT is negatively impacting civilians today.

While FRT holds massive implications for the future of

security and society more broadly, the need for equitable training and effective legislation cannot be overstated. Currently, FRT promotes a society wherein a criminal can be captured while minimizing law enforcement officials’ exposure to risk, but also result in unjust imprisonments of innocent civilians. More development is urgently needed to erase bias from FRT algorithms and create intelligent technology that can benefit all people regardless of their appearance or ethnic background. Despite the devastating consequences FRT may hold for minority populations, current intelligence actors within the United States have already greatly benefited from the automatic decision-making of facial recognition algorithms; legal mandates instead of policy recommendations are necessary to ensure that use of FRT is paused until it is more safe for common use. To safely reap the benefits offered by this technology, policymakers must establish a robust legal framework which both mediates ethical and technical issues involving consent and keeps pace with the speed of current innovation.

“ “

While acting with the intention to promote national security, the government does not publicly acknowledge nor allow people to opt out of having their personal information collected, despite instances of civilians having their information compromised in data leaks or otherwise unfairly used against them.

DID BLACK FRIDAY LOSE ITS HYPE?

MEKLIT ABEBE / FINANCE, 2025

Once synonymous with chaotic crowds of frenzied shoppers, Black Friday has lost the sparkle that once defined American consumerism.

Amidst a flurry of social media outcry, retailers such as Target find themselves in a pile of accusations of deceptive pricing practices, with consumers peeling off sticker prices to expose the lack of actual discounts. Yet, in light of deceptive pricing practices and record high inflation rates, many are now questioning the relevance of traditional pricing strategies, thus highlighting the pressing need for change.

In a digital age where consumer experiences are broadcasted instantly, voices such as TikTok user @TheSnackPak6 resonate strongly with customers during the last Black Friday season. Their remark, “When I worked retail, they marked up all the watches for Black Friday so our sale would bring it back to normal price," underscores growing disillusionment.

Similarly, another user, Morgan A. Stone remarks, “Never shopped Black Friday after," showing a shift in consumer behavior towards the once beloved tradition.

IS BLACK FRIDAY DEAD?

Declaring Black Friday dead might seem dramatic, but a closer look at recent trends raises questions about its once-held glory. Online sales reported in 2023 reached $9.8 billion, marking a 7.5% increase from the previous year. However, the dynamics reveal a hidden shift.

61% of these online sales were dominated by online retailers. General merchandise stores accounted for 10%, with a mere 6.2% from clothing stores and 4.6% from electronic stores. The breakdown of sales statistics from the 3rd quarter of 2023 makes it evident that the increase in online shopping isn’t evenly distributed among all retail platforms. Black Friday, once synonymous with frenzy and anticipation for the year’s best deals, seems to have lost its allure. Craig Johnson, founder of Customer Growth Partners notes, “It’s nothing like it used to be.” PwC’s holiday survey also reported that only 19% of shoppers were planning to shop on Black Friday, The statistics also suggest that the majority share of sales favor online retailers, leaving traditional retailers across both online and instore platforms trailing behind.

The holiday shopping craze, it appears, has become unrecognizable from routine sales throughout the year. The days of watching customers brawl over discounted TV screens are fading, and the craze surrounding Black Friday has decreased significantly with only 19% of shoppers in 2023 planning to shop on the holiday. With retailers offering similar discounts throughout the year, coupled with the rising costs of housing, gas, water, electricity, and basic necessities due to gov-

The holiday shopping craze, it appears, has become unrecognizable from routine sales throughout the year. “ “

ernment-marked inflation, consumers may be less enticed to participate in the yearly shopping ritual. One shopper claims, “There was only one set of curtains on sale.” In June 2023, inflation reached a record high of 9.1%, leaving consumers grappling with

financial strain, as Target's Chief Growth Officer Christina Hennington noted "consumers are experiencing the weight of economic pressure, and non-essential retail has been hit hard for a while now.”

Amidst the flurry of emails promoting discounts from Black Friday through Cyber Monday retailers vie for consumers’ attention and dollars, relying on the perpetual nostalgia that has traditionally drawn shoppers to stores in search of deals.

THE CHANGING FACE OF BLACK FRIDAY

It has evolved into a mere precursor to Cyber Monday, with deals being spread over the course of weeks. A method inspired by adapting to a society fully immersed in technology. In a world gone digital, the convenience of online shopping often outweighs the hassle of visiting stores in person.

Despite a decline of in-person shoppers and a shift in the narrative surrounding Black Friday, recent data reveals that Black Friday 2023 set a new record, with 200.4 million consumers shopping remotely from Thanksgiving through Cyber Monday. Online shopping has taken center stage, with 48% of U.S. consumers making Black Friday purchases online, and 28% opting for an exclusively online shopping experience, according to PYMNTS.com.

RESPONSES FROM BUSINESSES

The latest advancements in AI and personalized shopping as a result of algorithms, it has become increasingly clear what exactly consumers want. Gen Z and millennials are a key group of shoppers to look out for when it comes to trends in spending. Millennials are a demographic group that had planned to spend the most on themselves during the 2023 holiday season. Their younger counterparts, Generation Z had planned to trail far behind spending under $1,300 compared to $1,900. According to CBRE reports on generational spending habits, older generations such as Generation X (1965-1980) are reported to prefer viewing online content on laptops by 40% and 44% use in-store pickup or home-delivery services when available. They are also less likely to make impulse purchases.

With consumers increasingly gravitating toward online platforms, digital marketing may undergo a transformation with ad dollars going toward generating revenue through online sales. The future of Black Friday seems to be intertwined with the evolving landscape

Retailers that are quick to embrace this shift and provide flexible options for customers stand to gain the most significant profits. “ “

It will become increasingly easier for businesses to pinpoint what their consumers are looking to buy with the help of AI search tools and online shopping assistance. Holiday shopping starting early is a trend that is likely to continue into this year. Businesses can embrace this shift and push deals before Black Friday and into Cyber Monday and End of year winter sales.

THE FUTURE OF BLACK FRIDAY

As we reflect the surge in online shopping witnessed during the 2023 Black Friday season, it becomes increasingly evident that this trend is poised to leave an indelible mark on the future of retail. Retailers that are quick to embrace this shift and provide flexible options for customers stand to gain the most significant profits.

of American consumerism in the digital age. The burgeoning dominance of online shopping and the growth of e-commerce giants reflect a shift in consumer behavior, driven by convenience. The fate of brick-and-mortar stores and the retail industry stands at a crossroads, poised to redefine itself in response to technological advancements. Emphasizing personal experiences through algorithms and fostering meaningful connections with customers is an angle that retailers should possibly consider for the future.

This projection urges us to view Black Friday not as a fading memory, but as an ever-changing force aligning itself with the unrelenting nature of the digital age. Black Friday is evolving, yet its essence remains, prompting consumers to navigate the web in search of the best deals.

WHAT AMERICANS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT CENTRAL AMERICAN IMMIGRATION

Immigration at the United States-Mexico border has surged to record levels in recent years. Between October 2019 and March 2023, nationals of Central America made up one-third of the 5.8 million total immigrants who sought entrance to the United States. According to The Council on Foreign Relations, most Central American immigrants migrate from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, known as the Northern Triangle, with more than two million people migrating since 2019. Migrants from the Northern Triangle and many other Central American countries flee from poverty, violence, and corruption by heading north in search of safety. Although the handling of the migrant surge was uncertain between American political parties, with more right-leaning individuals

of existing immigration policy. The surge in immigration at the US border is an alarming symptom of a more significant geopolitical and humanitarian crisis, which many Americans misread.

“Movement has happened since the beginning of time,” says Northeastern University's Director of Latinx and Caribbean Studies, Isabel Martinez. “When people say there’s a crisis at the border, that's not the crisis. The crisis is happening in those countries, and we must decide how to receive that.”

SO, WHEN DID CENTRAL AMERICAN IMMIGRATION BEGIN

Policy Institute, an American non-partisan, non-profit organization, the population of Central Americans living in the US grew from three hundred thousand to over three million between 1980 and 2013, and the majority of these individuals came from the Northern Triangle. These countries suffered from political instability that allowed corruption, crime, poverty, and famine to take the lives of thousands of people. The United States’ foreign policy practices, especially during the Cold War Era, are arguably the cause of such suffering.

During the Cold War, the United States provided funding, arms, and military training to several countries fighting communism, including Guatemala. This practice was part of American interventionist policy, which was meant to stop the perceived spread of global communism after World War II. In 1951, Guatemala elected Jacobo Arbenz, a military officer and politician who aimed to redistribute property fairly to fight poverty. At the time, 42 percent of the land was owned by an American company named United Fruit Company. Because Arbenz’s laws would deprive this company of Guatemalan land, his “communist” efforts were thus seen as a “threat to democracy” in the United States. As a result, the CIA aided a military coup of Guatemalan rebels, leading to a thirty-six-year civil war in which thousands of people were killed or left unaccounted for Guatemalans were

GALIAH ABBUD / JOURNALISM, 2026

tions even after the war ended, giving them virtually no choice but to migrate.

Unfortunately, this case is but one example of how the United States has created political instability in Central America. Many other countries in the Northern Triangle have also suffered this same miserable fate. When asked about the influence United States military aid has had on Central American countries, Martinez says, “This is about US efforts of bounding communism, military interventions, the flow of arms, and supporting certain political figures. I think the Cold War set the stage for repercussions we deal with today, setting up weak infrastructures both physically and civilly.”

IF

THE

CIVIL WAR ENDED,

WHY ARE THERE STILL SO MANY

MIGRANTS

Although the crisis of political instability began during the Cold War and the latter half of the 1900s, Central America continues to struggle today. Violence in Central America is ongoing, and the US has long played a defining role. While the violence dates back to the Spanish conquest, recent US efforts to “help” corruption and rebuild infrastructure have generally been inefficient– either canceled or put on hold–meaning that Central Americans are still left with no other viable options other than heading north.

Moreover, US efforts to “help” recent migrants have also negatively impacted Central Americans. For example, US enforcement measures targeting migrants have actually upped the cost of smuggler services that allow Central Americans to migrate to the US, thus leading migrants to take out large loans to be smuggled across the border.

In some cases, migrants may find themselves unable to repay these debts, leading to a situation of debt bondage where they are compelled to work under exploitative conditions to settle the incurred financial obligations. This phenomenon is a modern form of slavery that traps individuals in cycles of exploitation; debts are often incurred under vulnerable circumstances and pose significant challenges for victims seeking escape.

THE NORTHERN TRIANGLE'S CURRENT PROBLEMS

There are a myriad of issues affecting the current socio-political climate in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Most of these issues stem from the fact that in 2021, all three of these countries ranked near the bottom for GDP per capita among Latin American and

Caribbean states.

One problem uniquely impacting the Northern Triangle is gang violence. The MS13 gang is prevalent within the region as an international criminal organization that originated in the impoverished neighborhoods of Los Angeles during the 1980s, fueled by the influx of refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. By the mid-1990s, US deportation policies aimed at addressing gang issues resulted in a significant number of gang members being sent back to Central America, overwhelming the capacities of the region's governments ill-prepared to handle the criminal influx.

According to the United Nations Office on Drug and Crimes, “criminal networks and their activities disrupt stability,

under - mine democrat - ic institutions and hinder the economic activity vital to the region.” Ultimately unable to handle the members, the prison systems in those nations were unprepared for the influx of organized gang members, violence rose sharply. As a result, these countries’ weak infrastructures have historically led to inadequate state responses when citizens are in times of dire need.

The problems caused by these weak infrastructures were exemplified when the fiscal response to the pandemic pushed El Salvador’s public debt beyond 90 percent of GDP, making El Salvadorians poorer and in more need than they already were. Although migration to the United States decreased in 2020 due to border closures, it soon resurged as Central American countries implemented laxer and more inadequate responses to the pandemic.

Furthermore, recent natural disasters like Hurricane Eta have led to necessary relocation. With the current climate crisis, immigration has only worsened. According to the US Institute of Peace, natural disasters and subsequent crop failures have driven low-income families across the globe further into poverty. These natural disasters mostly result from the

climate crisis, making climate change a leading factor in immigration. Relocation due to climate challenges has also led to various territorial disputes between criminal networks. Overall, it is evident that migration into the United States results from very multifaceted and dire issues.

The Biden administration has implemented a mix of “stringent and humanitarian” policies that aim to address the current migrant crisis, but these policies sadly often fall short. For example, a new rule prohibits non-Mexican immigrants from applying for asylum unless they have applied in one other country. In addition, the administration has also allocated billions of dollars in private investments to help rebuild the governments and increase the overall quality of life in Central American countries.

Many critics oppose Biden’s plan to build security and partnership in Central America, for they believe that this plan only promotes an economic development model that benefits large US corporations and upgrades local military and police forces. This approach, critics assert, historically leads to the dispossession of local communities and the exploitation of cheap labor. Furthermore, they highlight that such economic policies have contributed to environmental degradation, social inequality, and political instability in the region, ultimately exacerbating migration factors. Rather than addressing the underlying issues, Biden’s plan reinforces a framework that prioritizes corporate interests over the long-term well-being of Central American populations.

This is the same problem with non-committal immigration policies that have also been implemented, such as granting Central American immigrants Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for a period of up to eighteen months. While TPS does allow temporary relocation and protection, it also assumes that immigrants’ home countries will eventually become livable.

“This limbo (TPS) does provide work authorization and shelter,” Martinez says. “However, in the case of Central America, how do we determine that it's safe [for migrants] to return home? One could argue that it’s never been safe.”

Unfortunately, the problems in Central America aren’t isolated events, and temporary “band-aid solutions” will only contribute to disorganization at the United States border and in Central American countries alike. Increased pathways to citizenship and permanent relocation will help people build and sustain their lives in the United States. As Martinez points out, there is an imperative to “expand opportunities for immigrants to become citizens, not visitors.”

THE TRUTH BEHIND MSG

KAITLIN CHUANG / POLITICAL SCIENCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, 2026

Growing up as an Asian American, I shared the ingrained belief that Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) was detrimental to health. This misconception led me to meticulously inspect snacks at Asian grocery stores, ensuring they were MSG-free. This idea woven into my mind is widespread across the US, but it is untrue. The prevailing misconceptions surrounding the health effects of MSG in the 1960s, primarily associated with Asian cuisines, triggered underlying xenophobia, despite MSG's extensive utilization in diverse global culinary practices, including American and fast-food products.

The vilification of MSG in the US was founded on anti-Asian sentiments and continues to fuel racism and xenophobia today; in order to combat this, we should continue to support influencers, such as chef David Chang, who are actively working to destigmatize MSG and challenge broader societal biases. Additionally, promoting educational initiatives and leveraging social media platforms to disseminate accurate information about MSG can help dismantle unjust stigmas, contributing to a more informed and nuanced perspective on an ingredient unfairly maligned for decades.

BACKSTORY

In 1907, Monosodium Glutamate was discovered by Professor Kikunae Ikeda of Tokyo’s Imperial University and was released for the world to see. It originates from L-glutamic acid combined with sodium and was patented in the year 1909, crafted through the fermentation of starches or sugars.

Despite being flavorless on its own, MSG significantly enhances the taste in various dishes. The taste of "umami" is activated as MSG breaks down in saliva, stimulating taste receptors specific to that flavor. While some people report sensitivities, attributing various side effects to MSG, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies MSG as "generally recognized as safe". Canola oil and vinegar are also a part of this category and do not carry the same stigma as MSG.

Although it is recognized as safe, MSG's rep-

utation was completely marred in the 1960’s by Dr. Ho Ham Kwok, who reported to the New England Journal of Medicine that he had headaches after eating Chinese food. This led to the misleading term "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome," now referred to as the "MSG symptom complex." This misinformation not only misrepresented MSG, but also fueled racial prejudices.

CHINESE RESTAURANT SYNDROME

Following the 1960’s Chinese Restaurant Syndrome report, there was a surge of racially charged responses in the New England Journal of Medicine. This Anti-Asian Sentiment in the U.S., tracing back to the mid-19th century inflow of Chinese immigrants during the Gold Rush, escalated, as these immigrants were initially welcomed but quickly faced hostility and competition for jobs. This led to the significant employment of Chinese laborers in projects like railroads, further amplifying anti-Asian violence and racism.

Instead of diminishing over decades, the racism experienced by Asian-American immigrants endured. The late 19th century saw Chinese culture frequently depicted negatively in the media, with George Frederick Keller's 1877 cartoon "Uncle Sam's Thanksgiving Dinner" being a striking example. Guides from the 1880s in San Francisco talked down upon Chinese food and Chinatowns. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, fueled by increasing anti-Chinese sentiment, exacerbated national-level racism and bigotry against Chinese communities. This resulted in heightened violence against Chinese immigrants, exemplified by horrific incidents such as the Wyoming Riot and the Oregon Massacre.

Preceding the Chinese Restaurant Syndrome report, terms like "Chinese headaches" and "Chinese temples" exemplified the prejudice against Chinese food and culture. In the 1960s, misconceptions about the health effects of MSG, particularly in Chinese cuisine, reignited deep-seated xenophobia, despite its widespread use in American and fast-food

products. To combat these negative perceptions, many Asian restaurants began omitting MSG from their menus, highlighting the enduring impact of misconceptions surrounding Chinese culture and cuisine. The MSG scare not only led to changes in menu offerings, but also adversely affected Asian American communities, with restaurants struggling due to decreased patronage and increased discrimination.

MISINFORMATION

Contrary to popular belief, MSG's health effects are generally benign. It can actually be a healthier flavor-enhancing alternative because it contains less sodium than table salt. Despite its historical controversies, MSG is not a major food allergen and is approved by the FDA and the American Medical Association for consumption.

Notably, a recent analysis conducted in 2020 challenged previous studies, revealing that the negative health effects associated with MSG were largely incorrect and of limited relevance. This highlights the importance of relying on updated and evidence-based information to dispel myths and promote accurate understanding of food-related matters.

The approval of MSG by regulatory bodies further shows the necessity for science-based public health communications to counteract unfounded fears and ensure informed decision-making regarding food choices.

The story of MSG exemplifies how misinformation can influence food perception and cultural understanding. It highlights the ongoing challenge of combating ingrained misconceptions and the importance of continually reassessing scientific knowledge to foster a more informed and rational discourse around food and health.

MSG AND BEYOND

Stereotypes surrounding Asian food have long been fueled by misinformation, perpetuated by broader societal prejudices. Historically, during the arrival of Chinese cuisine in

America, unfounded rumors about consuming rats and snakes drove away customers, reinforcing negative perceptions. In more recent times, many Asian Americans can relate to bringing their cultural foods to school, only to face ridicule based on the smells and unfamiliarity of their cuisine. The closure of Chinese restaurants during the pandemic, often attributed to racism and xenophobia, serves as a stark reminder of the challenges persistently faced by the Asian community due to these stereotypes.

The unjust stigma attached to MSG is another manifestation of this broader issue. Despite being widely used in many types of cooking for decades without adverse effects, MSG has been unfairly maligned with Asian cooking due to misconceptions and cultural biases. Addressing the enduring misinformation surrounding MSG requires ongoing collective efforts, despite individual strides made thus far. These endeavors are crucial not only for dispelling misconceptions about MSG, but also for combating broader societal prejudices, particularly those affecting the Asian community.

The efforts of Asian American chefs to destigmatize MSG reflect a broader narrative about challenging stereotypes and combating racism against the Asian community. Chefs of popular Asian restaurants like Calvin Eng and Chris Cheung advocate the use of MSG and widely broadcast it in their food. They proudly use it in their cooking, instead of hiding it, and believe in the importance of ‘breaking the ice’ of MSG. While chefs work to change perceptions within the culinary world, the broader societal biases against Asian cultures persist, affecting businesses and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. David Chang, celebrity chef and owner of Momofuku, is also pushing to destigmatize MSG. His efforts can be observed in a video on

MAD's YouTube channel, where he engages in a candid conversation about the topic. By addressing the misconceptions surrounding MSG, he aims to educate both culinary professionals and the general public about the safety and flavor-enhancing qualities of this widely misunderstood ingredient.

Interestingly, Chang points out that some individuals who claim they cannot consume MSG or Chinese food without adverse effects often consume other foods that are naturally high in MSG. One example he highlights is Marmite, a popular yeast extract spread, which contains significant amounts of MSG. This contradiction emphasizes the need to dispel myths surrounding MSG and challenge preconceived notions about certain cuisines. Utilizing the internet and social media is a great way to shed light onto this topic. For example, the #cancelpizza was created by the Ajinomoto Group to inform others about the facts of MSG on their website “Know MSG ''. By utilizing a satirical approach with the concept of canceling pizza, the campaign aims to highlight the unfounded fear and stigma associated with MSG. The analogy suggests that just as pizza, a beloved food, wouldn't be subject to bans despite its potential health implications if consumed excessively, MSG should not be unfairly vilified or banned from restaurants. Through this hashtag, the Ajinomoto Group seeks to spark conversation and encourage a more informed and balanced understanding of MSG's role in food. By leveraging social media platforms and educational initiatives, movements like these seek to dismantle

the unjust stigma attached to MSG, which has marginalized Asian cuisines and perpetuated harmful stereotypes.

By promoting the dissemination of accurate information and embracing the use of MSG in their culinary creations, these chefs are contributing to a more nuanced and informed perspective on an ingredient that has been unfairly maligned for decades.

Despite this, challenges persist. The MSG narrative, when connected to the broader racism and stereotypes faced by the Asian community, reveals a deeper issue of cultural bias and discrimination. The perception of Chinese food as inherently unhealthy remains prevalent, evidenced by marketing strategies of some restaurants that promote "healthier" versions of Chinese cuisine, free from MSG and other supposedly harmful ingredients. The efforts of chefs like David Chang to challenge these stereotypes in the culinary world contribute to a more informed and nuanced perspective, but the battle against racism and misconceptions faced by the Asian community is ongoing.

OUR WRITERS

COLUMNS

Meklit Abebe Columnist

Senam Apedo Columnist

Mikhail Pyltsov Columnist

Alexis Weldner Columnist

WRITING TEAM

Mary Beirne Staff Writer

Annie Cayer Staff Writer

Kaitlin Chuang Staff Writer

Sophia Idrissou Staff Writer

Saadhi Jakka Staff Writer

Jack Masliah Staff Writer

Olivia Mintz Staff Writer

Tristan Patel Staff Writer

Mary Raines Alexander Staff Writer

Maya Soares Staff Writer

Shreya Thalvayapati Staff Writer

Hailey Wang Staff Writer

Laura Weppner Staff Writer