Government

Going through mandatory airport security in the U.S. is already a hassle, as passengers must remove their shoes and take electronics out of their luggage, but the current TSA shutdown has made travel even worse. TSA told Congress on March 25 that more than 61,000 employees, about 95% of its workforce, are considered essential and must keep working without pay, while Reuters reported on March 27 that a Senate compromise to restore much of DHS funding remained uncertain in the House (Ha McNeill testimony, Mar. 25, 2026). The effects are now showing clearly at airport checkpoints. From New York to Atlanta, wait times have stretched to more than 4.5 hours (The Washington Post, Mar. 30, 2026). TSA reports daily checkpoint call-out rates rose from 4% before the shutdown to 11% nationwide, with some airports seeing absences above 40% or 50%, leading to missed flights and delayed connections (Ha McNeill testimony, Mar. 25, 2026).

This shutdown is not just a budget fight in Washington, it has evolved into a burden on ordinary travelers and entire communities. According to the AP, officials have discussed a list of roughly 75 smaller airports that could face closure or reduced operations if TSA officers are reassigned to major hubs (AP, Mar. 26, 2026). That means the damage could spread far beyond crowded airports in big cities. For regional communities, even a temporary shutdown can mean lost tourism, disrupted business travel, and hours of extra driving just to catch a flight that used to be local. A congressional funding standoff should never be allowed to strand entire communities.

And while travelers deal with the chaos, TSA workers are carrying the heaviest burden. In its March 25 testimony to Congress, the TSA said many officers are struggling to pay rent, groceries, childcare, gas, and basic bills, while nearly $1 billion in payroll had not been paid on time by March 27 (Ha McNeill testimony, Mar. 25, 2026). Some officers have reportedly been sleeping in their cars or taking second jobs just to get by (Reuters, Mar. 21, 2026). AFGE has said that about 90% of DHS’s 260,000 employees are still working without pay, while donation drives and World Central Kitchen have stepped in to provide meals and support at airports (AFGE, Mar. 23, 2026). That should embarrass Congress: the people keeping the country’s airports running are being forced to rely on charity just to survive.

To address this crisis and prevent it from happening again, Congress needs to take three immediate steps. First, pass clean funding for TSA and other essential DHS functions instead of using basic airport security as a bargaining chip in a larger political fight. Second, guarantee automatic pay for essential federal workers during any future shutdown, so the people protecting the public are never again forced to finance government operations out of their own pockets. Third, make it clear that core transportation security services cannot be used as leverage in a prolonged partisan standoff. Members of Congress and their aides are still getting paid while frontline workers and travelers absorb the fallout (Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2026). Lawmakers may be locked in a broader political fight, but the immediate cost is being paid at airport checkpoints and in the homes of the workers keeping those checkpoints running.

Overall, I think this current TSA shutdown is a clear example of congressional negligence. Travelers are losing time and money. TSA workers are losing pay and basic security for their families. And the country looks less competent because lawmakers failed to do the most basic part of governing. I urge Congress to resolve this quickly, and I hope the public remembers that keeping the government functioning is not a choice, but a necessity. 

Our government constantly faces the threat of shutdowns due to disagreements over budget planning. It happens so frequently that most people treat it as background noise and do not even pay attention. However, the latest shutdown is starting to affect everyone, not just federal employees. Congress blew past the October 1 deadline without a continuing resolution, causing agencies to scramble. Museums are closing, air travel is facing long delays due to a shortage of air traffic controllers, paychecks are paused, and essential workers are showing up without knowing when they’ll be paid (Washington Post, Oct. 7, 2025). The central dispute for the shutdown this time is health care subsidies: Senate Democrats are insisting on extending enhanced ACA tax credits put in place during COVID, while Republicans are demanding a “clean” funding bill with no policy add‑ons (Politico, Oct. 6, 2025).

A shutdown happens when Congress fails to fund the government, forcing most “non‑essential” operations to stop. Workers are furloughed, permits and grants stall, and public‑facing services go dark, while essential services such as military operations and Social Security continue. Even if back pay eventually arrives, the damage from the shutdown cannot always be undone: missed rent, late fees, and stalled projects do not simply resume where they left off.

Democrats cast their stance as an effort to protect kitchen‑table stability. Without the enhanced credits, millions could see premium spikes. From their perspective, the shutdown deadline is the only real leverage powerful enough to push Congress into action before families face steep premium hikes. If they let the moment slip by, the subsidies could expire, leaving millions worse off. But the political cost is high. Linking a policy demand to government funding can appear reckless, like gambling with public services, and it opens the door for the opposing party to use the same tactic the next time they want to force an issue.

Republicans argue that keeping the government open should come before policy debates. They contend that funding bills should focus solely on maintaining essential operations, without unrelated provisions attached. In their view, debates over the Affordable Care Act, like whether to extend enhanced subsidies, should occur separately, focusing on the program’s design, costs, and long-term sustainability. They caution against using a crisis to lock in permanent changes without proper scrutiny. Still, this stance carries political risk. If the shutdown drags on, voters may blame Republicans for refusing to negotiate on the central issue, and appeals to “regular order” can seem disconnected from the immediate consequences. 

The costs are real and immediate. Small businesses lose access to SBA loans, contractors often go unpaid, and federal courts and grants slow down. Key data releases are delayed, stalling economic planning. The 2018–19 shutdown cost $11 billion, with $3 billion never recovered (CBO, 2019). While both parties hold their ground, it’s everyday workers and communities who bear the brunt.

In the long run, shutdown politics sends the wrong message: that budget deadlines are tools for leverage rather than responsible planning. It weakens government institutions by making agencies less appealing to qualified workers, and in doing so, replaces long-term planning and innovation with short-term contingency responses. Each standoff normalizes brinkmanship, making future shutdowns more likely. This issue is not just a political problem; it is institutional. Having to extend the budget every six months is not a solution. I believe Congress should pass a basic funding resolution to keep the government open, without resorting to using policies as a bargaining tool. Let's have the health-care debate in the open and not by threatening workers’ paychecks and disrupting families and small businesses with manufactured crises behind closed doors. 

I have been following Texas’s mid-decade redistricting fight, and it is hard to miss what is at stake. House leaders rolled out a map that aims to flip five U.S. House seats by reshaping districts around Austin, Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston, and South Texas (Texas Tribune, July 30, 2025). Under the draft, 30 of 38 districts would have gone to Trump in 2024, up from 27, even though the GOP already holds 25 seats (Texas Tribune, July 30, 2025). A House panel advanced the plan (Texas Tribune, Aug. 1, 2025), Democrats staged a quorum-breaking walkout (Texas Tribune, Aug. 4, 2025), and legal threats are already circling—especially after a recent DOJ letter objected to several multiracial “coalition” districts in Houston and DFW (Texas Tribune, Aug. 1, 2025).

So what exactly is gerrymandering? In simple terms, it is the manipulation of district lines to advantage a party or group—packing your opponents’ voters into a few lopsided seats or cracking them across many districts so they never form a majority (Princeton Gerrymandering Project, n.d.). The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause didn’t praise the practice, but it did say federal courts cannot police partisan gerrymanders, leaving reform to Congress and the states (U.S. Supreme Court, 2019). Racial gerrymandering remains justiciable, but the ground is shifting there, too. In 2024, the Fifth Circuit limited “coalition” claims under the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—central to current Texas disputes (Petteway v. Galveston County, 5th Cir. en banc, 2024).

The term gerrymandering dates to 1812, when Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed a district map so contorted a newspaper cartoon compared it to a salamander—the “Gerry-mander” (Library of Congress, 2024). Two centuries later, sophisticated software has turned what was once an art into something closer to a science, letting map-drawers test thousands of configurations until they find the most durable advantage (Quanta Magazine, 2023). Texas has been a frequent battleground; as one Texas report put it, courts have found at least one Texas map violated the Voting Rights Act in every decade since the mid-1960s (Texas Tribune, July 30, 2025).

There are several ways to approach this issue. One way is to separate who draws the lines from who benefits—independent redistricting commission. Another is to put computers to work in the open. Algorithms can generate large “ensembles”of neutral maps that honor basic rules (equal population, contiguity, compactness, respect for counties and communities of interest, and VRA compliance) (Imai et al., 2024). If a proposed plan’s partisan tilt is an extreme outlier compared with thousands of neutral alternatives, that’s strong evidence of a gerrymander (Duke Quantifying Gerrymandering, 2018). Projects at Princeton, Harvard, and Duke have shown how ensemble testing and public “report cards” can flag skewed maps without pretending there is a single “perfect” map (Princeton Gerrymandering Project, n.d.).

Texas could implement those ideas. Require that any map be accompanied by an open-source code release and a publicly posted ensemble analysis (e.g., 10,000 simulated maps), plus basic compactness scores like Reock and Polsby-Popper, and a narrative showing how the plan protects voting rights and communities of interest (Princeton Gerrymandering Project, Methodology). Let a citizen commission pick from the most typical maps—not the most partisan—subject to transparency rules and an audit trail. And because algorithms can encode bias, mandate external peer review and diverse input data before adoption (DeFord, Duchin & Solomon, 2021). In other words: if politicians want to override the “median” computer-generated outcome, they should have to make the case in daylight. It will not end politics, but it will make the politics of mapmaking harder to rig. Overall, this flawed redistricting policy is not easy to fix, since both parties have incentives to game the system. Until those incentives change, gerrymandering will continue as both parties seek to unfairly secure more seats.

Over the summer, I took a self-study Coursera course called The Ethics of Public Policy, which guided me through ethical theories and practical frameworks for navigating real‑world challenges in attempting to create more equitable governance, ultimately bettering my knowledge in policymaking. 

The course begins by exploring foundational ideas like utilitarianism, a principle based on maximizing overall happiness while making note of concerns that such an approach might infringe on individual rights. It then introduces libertarian principles that insist policy interventions must never override personal liberty without justification. Next, the course delves into Rawls’s thought experiment built around a “veil of ignorance,” prompting policymakers to design systems that would feel fair, even if they ended up in the worst‑off position. 

Then it applies these ideas to real-life topics like social security and fairness between generations, such as whether it’s right to tax young workers to support retirees. It also encourages looking beyond just income, using Amartya Sen’s approach that focuses on what people are actually able to do, like getting an education, healthcare, or internet access. The final part of the course focuses on global issues like climate change and corruption, urging national policies to reflect equity and precaution on an international scale.

What resonates most with me is how ethical principles can reshape real-world policymaking. For example, debates over digital privacy and data‑driven surveillance demand balancing efficiency with strict rights protections. Applying a libertarian lens means consent and transparency are essential. In budget design, Rawls’s “veil‑of‑ignorance audits” helps ensure that marginalized communities receive a fair share of resources. In addition, updating success metrics also matters by moving beyond GDP to include access to health, broadband, or clean air, which better aligns policy with real human needs. Finally, applying UN ethics principles to climate policy can make global negotiations fairer and restore trust in institutions.

Overall, the course’s main message lies not only in teaching ethical theory, but also in providing a mindset focused on questioning: What maximizes welfare? Whose rights are at stake? Is this fair for every seat at the table? Does this expand real capabilities? These questions are fundamental not just for academics but also for anyone attempting to build policies that are effective and equitable in today’s divided world. This course truly opened my eyes to the deeper challenges behind policy decisions and deepened my commitment to approaching public policy with both analytical thinking and human empathy. I highly recommend this course to anyone who is interested in the field of public policy.

Currently, student council elections are happening in my school, and I am actually running for a position. Many candidates have started campaigning, some are sticking to traditional methods like posters and word of mouth, while others have turned to Instagram/social media to get their name out; however, a few candidates were trying to win votes in less unethical ways such as bribery (buying things for classmates and handing out candy, food, etc.). Thankfully, the current student council, along with the administration, stepped in and put a stop to this to ensure that voting is based on candidates' ideas rather than giveaways. The warning of being disqualified was enough to ensure this does not occur anymore.

However, in our current government, elections are money-driven. In last year’s Presidential Election, OpenSecrets estimates that the entire 2024 federal cycle cost a record $15.9 billion, and by 30 September 2024, presidential hopefuls alone had already raised $1.6 billion and spent $1.3 billion (FEC; OpenSecrets). 

Democratic nominee Kamala Harris raised nearly $2 billion, including $1.15 billion through her official committee and tens of millions from super PACs. President Donald Trump’s campaign reported $463 million, with outside groups like MAGA Inc. boosting his total to about $1.45 billion. In both cases, super PACs—empowered by the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling—handled much of the advertising, digital outreach, and field operations.

The excessive spending for both campaigns is unjustifiable and wasteful. That money could be better used to support the very issues the candidates claim they will address, such as public education, healthcare, infrastructure, and environmental protection. Instead of pouring billions into ads and travel, those funds could go directly toward real needs. It is ironic that the very problems candidates promise to fix are often underfunded because so much is spent on getting them elected. A shift toward public campaign funding and implementing caps on donations and spending, similar to recent reforms proposed in Australia in late 2024, which include a $90 million national campaign spending cap and a $20,000 limit on individual donations, could reduce corporate influence and help ensure fairer elections that focus more on candidates' qualifications and policies than financial power and media influences. 

Finally, if a school administration can step in to ban giveaways and bribery to ensure candidates are judged based on their ideas, then why can't the US government do the same on a national level? 

A few weeks ago, while waiting at a stop sign, a car suddenly ran into our vehicle because the driver was preoccupied with their phone. Fortunately, nobody was hurt. On the way home that day, I couldn’t help but notice the massive gaps between numerous vehicles and the frequent abrupt switching of lanes at the last minute. The reason for those actions was apparent: using cell phones while driving is a major distraction. 

When stuck in traffic, many people pull out their phones to alleviate boredom, not realizing they are exacerbating the traffic for everyone else on the road. According to the New York Times article referring to Auto Alliance, “the odds of getting in a wreck double if you have your eyes off the road for just two seconds.” These distraction-related accidents account for most of the collisions on the road today, impacting us all by increasing insurance rates, damaging infrastructure, and causing fatalities. The statistics are alarming; every day, nine people lose their lives due to such accidents.

There are options we can take to solve this dire situation.  Primarily, we need to raise awareness about the dangers of distracted driving, especially among younger generations. Implementing a dedicated curriculum, similar to a sex education program, in every high school could be highly beneficial. Inviting teens involved in distracted driving-related accidents to share their personal stories with their peers will effectively dissuade and prevent others from using their phones behind the wheel, which can significantly improve our roads' safety. 

Most importantly, the existing laws in place must be strengthened and enforced. Currently, the Texas Transportation Code only prohibits sending or receiving electronic messages while driving, leaving drivers free to engage in other activities that divert their attention, such as watching videos or playing games. Seeing others being pulled over and heavily fined for distracted driving will likely serve as a strong deterrent, compelling people to stop using their phones while operating vehicles.

Although many may perceive the enactment of new driving regulations as a violation of their rights, like the initial introduction of seatbelt laws in the 1980s when Michigan State Representative David Hollister introduced the Seat Belt Bill, people went as far as comparing him to Hitler. However, despite the strong objections, the federal government forced states to require laws mandating seatbelt usage under pressure from the auto industry. Nowadays, getting in a car and fastening the seatbelt has become an ingrained instinct.

The responsibility to end the perils of distracted driving lies with us, and we carry the power to effect this change. I hope one day, putting our cell phones away while driving will become second nature.

Sources: 

Boudette, Neal E. "Auto Industry Sets New Records, But Risks Are Growing." The New York Times, September 27, 2018. Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/business/distracted-driving-auto-industry.html. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Distracted Driving." Last modified February 11, 2022. Accessed March 12, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/Distracted_Driving/index.html. 

Roos, Dave. “When Americans Resisted Seat Belt Laws - History.” When New Seat Belt Laws Drew Fire as a Violation of Personal Freedom. Last modified 2020. Accessed April 2, 2023. https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance. 

"Transportation Code Chapter 545. Operation and Movement of Vehicles." Texas Constitution and Statutes. Accessed March 12, 2023. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.4251.