Given that California is the largest agricultural producer in the United States and is home to a sizable immigrant community, this study analyses the impact of increased immigration enforcement on the State's agricultural labour supply since 2018 (Bay Area Council Economic Institute, 2025, p. 24). I employed a systematic literature review to synthesise peer-reviewed literature, government reports, and congressional resources published between 2018 and 2026, and evaluate the relationship between intensified immigration enforcement and California's agricultural labour supply. In order to bolster the existing literature, a quantitative examination of ICE arrest, detention, and deportation statistics was conducted, reinforcing the argument that immigration enforcement in California has notably escalated since President Trump’s first term in January 2018 (Capps et al., 2018, pp. 7, 23; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement compiled by The Deportation Project, 2026). Alternative measures of immigration enforcement revealed expanded funding and policy changes, such as the reinstatement of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Section 287(g) and Secure Communities programs (East et al., 2026, pp. 2-3; Reichlin-Melnick, 2026; Kolker, 2025). Additionally, through the detention and deportation of the workforce and the deterrence of imported workers due to public fear of immigration enforcement activities, a 20-40% reduction in California’s agricultural workforce is predicted (Li, 2025). This is supported by over 15% of farmers already reporting labour losses attributed to immigration enforcement (Rutledge & Win, 2026, pp. 2-3; Handweker, 2026). The discussion argues that labour shortages arise from multiple mechanisms rather than from arrests, detentions, and deportations alone. Although detention directly reduces workforce availability, fear and deterrence appear to display broader behavioural effects that may be reinforced by increased media visibility of immigration enforcement activities. Ultimately, intensified immigration enforcement through a combination of mechanisms significantly contributes to California’s agricultural labour shortages with further scientific research needed to substantiate my findings derived from existing literature.

Molly Wild completed the Washington Internship in ​2026 in the office of Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA21)​. Molly currently works Turner Freeman Lawyers while completing her Bachelor of Laws and Legal Practice (Honours) and Bachelor of International Relations and Political Science.

Tariffs are a tax on goods and services imported from other countries, by the federal government. This means that the price is often increased on a foreign product by the time it enters the country who has imposed a tariff. They can be a very effective way of protecting a country’s domestic product and encouraging people to buy local products before overseas ones by increasing the price tag on the latter. They are also frequently used as a tool for political and trade negotiations on an international stage and to raise government revenue, one of the biggest reasonings provided by President Trump when explaining why he has implemented such large tariffs on some of the United States’ largest trading partners, and largest allies alike.

After interning for the office of Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA-21) and learning about the unique challenges of the 21st District and its surrounds, agriculture stuck out as a major priority for the Congressman himself in his duties, and for the people he represents. California exports the largest number of agricultural resources in the country, and the Central Valley of which Costa partially represents, is one of California’s biggest growers. It supplies approximately 25% of the country’s fruits and nuts, but comprises only 1% of US farmland, an impressive output to land ratio. What became a point of fascination, was Costa’s place as one of the few Democratic representatives in the area, with the growth of commodities largely affected by the implementation of tariffs – something that Costa and the Democrats alike have clearly opposed.

Current research has documented the economic burden that tariffs have placed on the agricultural industry, but there is comparatively little research conducted on how competing political actors in the Democratic and Republican parties have framed their impact, and whether it aligns with the narratives of American farming advocates. This paper seeks to address that gap.

Ella Beard completed the Washington Internship in 2026 in the office of Jim Costa. Ella is now completing her double degree in Law and Political Science/International Relations. Connect with her on LinkedIn or via email at ellagbeard@outlook.com

Syria represents a case of prolonged conflict and post-conflict foreign policy complexity. More than a decade of civil war has produced extensive humanitarian needs, fragmented governance structures, mass displacement, and enduring challenges in political reconstruction (Paris, 2004; Richmond, 2009). Post-conflict environments are characterised by delayed outcomes, indirect causal relationships, and weak attribution of political responsibility, making sustained policy engagement both difficult to design and difficult to evaluate (Doyle & Sambanis, 2000; Fortna, 2008). These characteristics create particular challenges for democratic political systems, where policymakers must balance long-term commitments with shorter-term electoral incentives and fluctuating public attention.

Following the political transition in Syria after the fall of the Assad government in 2024, the country entered a new phase of reconstruction in which transitional authorities focused on “reconstituting national security forces, extending the state’s remit… and attracting investment to support Syria’s recovery” (Blanchard, 2026, p. 1). However, congressional engagement with Syria did not constitute a continuous or unified policy process over this period. Instead, activity developed through discrete communicative and procedural actions, including speeches, resolutions, oversight letters, votes, and responses to specific crises (Mayhew, 1974; Arnold, 1990). This raises an important question about how democratic institutions sustain attention to complex foreign policy problems where outcomes are uncertain, responsibility is difficult to attribute, and direct policy control is limited.

This paper asks: how do electoral incentives and institutional constraints shape congressional engagement with post-conflict foreign policy in low-salience environments? The United States (U.S.) Congress possesses significant constitutional authority over foreign policy, including war powers, appropriations, sanctions, and oversight mechanisms (Howell & Pevehouse, 2007; Tiefer & Clark, 2016). However, variation in congressional engagement across foreign policy domains demonstrates that formal authority alone cannot explain legislative behaviour. Instead, political action is shaped by the interaction between institutional capacity and incentive structures that determine when and how legislators choose to exercise that authority (Mayhew, 1974; Binder, 1999).

In low-salience policy domains such as Syria, legislators face limited electoral incentives to pursue sustained policy entrepreneurship because outcomes are difficult to observe, consequences are often delayed, and responsibility is dispersed across multiple actors. At the same time, congressional actions remain highly visible through speeches, votes, resolutions, and public statements. This creates an incentive environment in which legislators can maintain political engagement through observable forms of signalling without necessarily assuming responsibility for sustained policy development or implementation (Mayhew, 1974; Arnold, 1990). Rather than producing complete withdrawal, low salience encourages adaptation in the form and intensity of legislative engagement.

This paper argues that the interaction of electoral incentives and institutional fragmentation structures congressional behaviour in post-conflict foreign policy. Low salience reduces incentives for sustained policy entrepreneurship, while fragmented authority and executive dominance constrain Congress's ability to develop coordinated and long-term policy agendas (Howell & Pevehouse, 2007; Binder, 1999). As a result, legislative engagement is redistributed across institutional channels, with position-taking, oversight, and symbolic signalling becoming primary mechanisms through which legislators maintain visibility and express policy preferences.

To examine this argument, the paper employs a structured qualitative case study of Representative Lloyd Doggett's engagement with Syria-related foreign policy between 2013 and 2025. Doggett is selected as a within-case example through which variation in congressional behaviour can be examined across different political contexts and institutional settings. The dataset consists of eight verified instances of congressional activity, including floor speeches, roll-call votes, congressional letters, resolutions, and media statements. These observations are analysed as behavioural outputs shaped by electoral incentives and institutional constraints rather than isolated political events. Drawing on Mayhew's (1974) theory of the electoral connection, Arnold's (1990) account of strategic congressional behaviour and blame avoidance, and institutional accounts of congressional foreign policy authority (Howell & Pevehouse, 2007; Tiefer & Clark, 2016), the analysis traces how structural conditions influence the form and timing of congressional engagement.

The paper is organised into five sections: literature review, methodology, analysis, discussion, and conclusion. The literature review situates the study within scholarship on legislative behaviour, institutional constraints, and post-conflict governance. The methodology outlines the structured qualitative case design and coding framework. The analysis presents empirical findings from the Doggett dataset, while the discussion interprets these findings in relation to the broader theoretical debate. The conclusion draws together the study's implications for understanding how democratic institutions maintain engagement with complex foreign policy challenges under conditions of weak salience and fragmented authority.

Georgina Tenny completed the Washington Internship Program with a Capital Semester Program in the office of Representative Lloyd Doggett (TX-37) in 2026. Georgina is currently completing a Bachelor of International Relations and Political Science (Honours), where her research examines the translation of international gender equality norms into local realities in Nepal and the implications for women’s rights and governance in the Indo-Pacific region. Connect with her on LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/georgina-tenny and email: georginatenny769@gmail.com.

The presidential pardon power, as written in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, allows the President of the United States to grant pardons in all cases, except those of impeachment. The pardon power is controversial because the abuse of this power for personal or political gain erodes public trust and violates principles of political equality, equal treatment, and the rule of law.

This paper will look to answer the question: To what extent does the abuse of the presidential pardon power erode people’s trust in democratic institutions?

This research will begin by examining the constitutional origins of the pardon power, then trace its historical use in the United States, with Ford’s pardon of Nixon marking a key turning point in its abuse. Legal perspectives, theoretical frameworks, and key concepts will follow, leading into a comparative analysis of executive clemency powers in Australia, India, and the United States. This will highlight major differences in procedural safeguards against abuse, further illustrated through case studies of controversial pardons in each country.

A direct link between trust in government and abuse of the pardon power will be shown through polling data and qualitative research from the past 50 years. The findings reveal that the abuse of the presidential pardon for political purposes undermines the rule of law and fuels polarisation. This, in turn, erodes public trust, creating a self-reinforcing cycle that has contributed to democratic backsliding in the United States.

Based on these findings, the next section outlines reform proposals to strengthen the authority, accountability, and transparency of the presidential pardon system. This is aimed at mitigating democratic backsliding by reinforcing checks and restoring public trust in executive restraint. Rooted in institutionalism, the recommendations include creating an independent clemency board, introducing limited judicial review, and requiring Senate confirmation of controversial pardons. These proposals draw on academic literature, the comparative analysis of Australia, India, and the United States, and Congressman Steve Cohen’s 2025 Constitutional Amendment. To ground the need for reform, the origins and evolution of the pardon power must first be examined.

Preston Natale completed the Washington Internship in ​2025 in the office of Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09). Preston now is completing his Bachelor of International Relations and Political Science and Bachelor of Criminology. 

This report evaluates the impact of Operation Lone Star (OLS), a Texas state initiative implemented by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in 2021. OLS was established to reduce illegal drug smuggling along the South Texas border with Mexico and has been promoted as a response to increasing cartel activity and federal inaction, although its ongoing results and broader impacts have been highly scrutinised and remain contested.

Through a combination of quantitative trend analysis, qualitative content review, and comparative policy analysis, this study assesses OLS’s impact relative to similar operations such as California’s Operation Apollo and Australia’s Operation Tyrrendor as well as its broader impacts and effectiveness regarding factors such as overall costs and operational achievements. The report investigates OLS not only in terms of its tangible drug trafficking reduction outcomes but also through the lens of a constructivist theory of policy framing, exploring how political narratives have shaped public and institutional perceptions of its purpose and success.

Key findings from the data presented suggest that OLS has resulted in increases in drug seizures, particularly of methamphetamine and cocaine along the South Texas border, but evidence suggests these gains are modest and not clearly attributable to the operation itself. Independent investigations and comparative data show that OLS functions more as a political symbol of border security than as an effective, intelligence-driven strategy for disrupting cartel drug trafficking networks.

The analysis finds that OLS lacks clear causal evidence linking its activities to reductions in drug smuggling, especially given the absence of explicit data metrics and reliance on broader arrest data. The analysis argues that the operation’s highly politicized framing and legal ambiguities undermine its long-term policy viability and suggests that OLS’s comparative cost-effectiveness is insufficient.

Further investigation demonstrates that OLS faces significant policy challenges due to its inconsistent implementation, unclear correlation between enforcement efforts and drug seizure outcomes, and growing fiscal strain from the redirection of state funds. The report argues that if improved data collection, clear performance indicators, and a move towards collaborative federalism is not achieved, OLS risks remaining a costly, politically charged program with limited measurable impact.

To improve policy, the report recommends reframing OLS to prioritise multi agency and intergovernmental intelligence sharing, education regarding public health, and more standardised data reporting. In addition, the report proposes the establishment of a federally monitored Border Security Oversight Commission to enhance fiscal accountability, intergovernmental cooperation, and policy transparency.

Ultimately, the report concludes that although OLS has achieved some limited operational outcomes, it has been unable to convincingly demonstrate long-term effectiveness in dismantling cartel drug smuggling networks in South Texas. Instead, the operation appears to reflect a broader political strategy that frames the U.S.-Mexico border as a trafficking crisis zone requiring militarized state intervention. Future policy efforts should prioritize coordinated, intelligence-driven responses, an increase in federal and state collaboration, and adopt a more holistic approach that integrates public health, education, and economic development into border drug policy targeting.

Jameson Henderson-Redden completed the Washington Internship in 2025 in the office of Congressman Vicente Gonzalez Jr. Jameson is completing a Bachelor of Business (Management) combined with a Bachelor of International Relations and Political Science. 

SOn February 1, 2025, the 49th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, signed two Executive Order’s to impose tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, starting February 4, 2025 (The White House, 2025). In an official statement, the Trump Administration claimed the tariffs were in response to “an emergency situation”, citing undocumented immigration and drug trafficking were harming Americans and such a situation “constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act” (The White House, 2025).

Traditionally used as protectionist tools or bargaining leverage, tariffs have re-emerged as central instruments in Trump’s “America First” agenda, diverging from decades of U.S. engagement in multilateral frameworks. This shift challenges the foundations of the international rules-based order, signalling a return to transactional diplomacy. The decision to impose tariffs marked the beginning of a second-term trade strategy defined by unilateralism, unpredictability and sweeping economic consequences.

This paper argues that Trump’s second-term tariff policy has produced significant political and economic consequences for both United States allies and domestic actors, particularly for the state of Texas. Applying international relations theories of realism and liberalism, the analysis explores how U.S. allies have interpreted and responded to the tariffs. Domestically, in Texas, a state that shares a 1,200-mile border with Mexico and depends heavily on cross-border trade, local leaders, businesses, and communities are confronting the immediate fallout of a volatile trade agenda marked by economic instability and constitutional overreach.

This paper answers the research question: How have United States allies responded to Trump’s tariffs and what are the political consequences and trade implications of the tariffs for Texas trade relations? Ultimately, this paper contends Trump’s tariffs have strained diplomatic relationships with allies, disrupted established trade flows and undermined both global institutional norms and local economic stability within the U.S.

Alyce Ferme completed the Washington Internship in 2025 in the office of Congressman Lloyd Doggett. Alyce now works for Tom Venning, the Federal Member for Grey, while completing her Honours degree. You can connect with her via ajferme16@outlook.com or on LinkedIn.