The William & Mary Policy Review is a publication of the College of William & Mary’s Public Policy Program. The Policy Review‘s purpose is to showcase critical analysis, applied research, and engaging opinions on current policy issues.
We publish two semi-annual issues of the Policy Review, an in-depth and peer-reviewed academic journal, per academic year. Articles published in our print journal may be viewed on our website for free. Submissions requirements for authors interested in publication may be found here.
Additionally, we semi-regularly publish more concise blog posts pertaining to contemporary policy topic areas. Authors primarily consist of current graduate students of public policy at William & Mary though pieces are additionally contributed by undergraduate interns, affiliated researchers as well as invited guests.
Preview of the Blog
Nearly a month ago, President Trump announced plans to impose tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports. Though the decision will not be made final until April, a 25% steel tariff and a 10% aluminum tariff were proposed, to be levied on all trading partners-no exceptions. The idea, the Commander in Chief claimed, was to promote American security interests and build up the steel and aluminum industry after “decades of unfair trade and bad policy."
In recent years, wildfires have wrought havoc across the American West. Each year, flames tear through hundreds of thousands of acres and destroy thousands of structures; some years, scores of individuals lose their lives. In California, the 2017 Tubbs Fire and 2018 Camp Fire set back-to-back, ignominious records for the most destructive fires in state history. And this duet of record-setting blazes was no one-off occurrence – wildfires out West have become increasingly larger and more intense over the past four decades.
On March 29, 2019 Britain will no longer be part of the European Union, a result of the June 23, 2016 referendum in the United Kingdom known as Brexit. The “Vote Leave” campaign won 51.9% of the country’s vote, based on a platform of border security, immigration control, dissatisfaction with EU spending, trade management, and strengthening democracy. At the time of the referendum, Americans were preoccupied with our own campaigns (and have since been a bit distracted) and took little notice as to the bilateral and international implications this break-up would have for us. So, what does Brexit mean for the United States?
It’s an election year. Politics and policy conversations –whether intelligent or not- seem to be everywhere. This election cycle we have heard quite a bit about the economy but surprisingly not much about entitlements – at least not since the Republican primary ended. This is surprising considering entitlement spending accounts for nearly half of the federal government’s budget. That makes the issue an obvious channel for candidates to illustrate their particular politics on the role of government, government spending, and the economy. Not only that, but it is an issue that impacts every voter, whether they are retired, close to retirement, or paying taxes to fund others’ retirement. However, this election cycle, strangely enough, louder, more colorful topics have trumped the political arena and national conversation.
Earlier this month the New York Times published another article noting how widely personal geospatial data is shared and how easily identifiable it is. It features the usual spokespeople, consumers who thought they understood their privacy risks only to be shocked by the granularity of information The Times readily discovered about their lives: how long they spent at a doctor’s office, how frequently they spent the night at an ex’s house, and when they flew out of town.
This investigation is one of many sounding the alarm about the privacy breaches created by widespread location tracking and data publication.
On July 26, 2017, President Donald Trump announced to the world that the United States military would no longer allow transgender people to serve as military personnel. Over the span of three tweets, he argued that transgender individuals create costs and cause disruption, impacting the US military’s effectiveness and readiness. Since the announcement, there has been a lively discourse between the LGBTQ+ community and its allies and those who support the ban. The question remains; is a ban on all transgender military personnel feasible?