Beyond Labels

A 360° Discussion of Foreign, National and Local Policy Issues

Scott Miller

1/13/25: TikTok and DOGE

For Monday, we may discuss one (or both) of two topics:

The TikTok “Ban”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Friday, January 10 with regard to whether it should grant an injunction delaying implementation of a federal law mandating the divesture or closure of TikTok. The parties have been asked to brief and argue the following question:

Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to [TikTok and owner ByteDance], violates the First Amendment.

We touched on the topic a bit at last week’s meeting, but the oral arguments–together with more advance preparation–may make this subject worth a deeper dive.

For a quick overview, here are links to the Wikipedia article, a SCOTUSblog post, and a Washington Post backgrounder. For those who want to dive a bit deeper, here are links to the Supreme Court dockets (24-656 and 24A587).

We can discuss:

  • Should First Amendment rights ever be abridged in the interest of “national security?”
  • If so, how high should the bar be set? Clear, compelling, and imminent national security risks? Or potential risks, that are much less clear, compelling, and imminent? Where should we draw the line?

DOGE

Incoming President Trump’s designation of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as heads of a new “Department of Government Efficiency” (not a real Cabinet-worthy department) has triggered discussion about just how much spending could be reduced if the government were more efficient.

We can discuss two aspects:

  • What can we expect of the actual Musk/Ramaswamy effort?
  • More broadly, where do we think the government can be more efficient, and what would it take to implement those ideas?

Here’s the Wikipedia (the new Cliff Notes) take on the subject, together with a recent op-ed piece that speaks to a small part of the potential opportunity for increased efficiency.

12/16: NATO

The action in Syria reminded us of its neighbor to the north, Turkey, whose views on global geopolitics seem to be quite different from the U.S.’s (and much of Western Europe’s) views.

So we agreed to discuss the NATO alliance and the varying geopolitics “bents” of many of its members–especially those whose perspectives differ materially from the mainstream–such as, perhaps, Hungary and Turkey.

Is the alliance structurally suitable to accommodate those who are active intermediaries with Putin’s Russia? Is there a fundamental misalignment of values amongst the member countries? What “veto” rights can individual members assert, and how can they affect NATO’s effectiveness?

Here are some links from one of our participants:

  1. The NATO website (https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm) with background information about the organization, its history, a list of current member states, and the text of the North Atlantic.Treaty that created it.
  2. A July 2023 opinion piece in The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/opinion/nato-summit-vilnius-europe.html?smid=em-share) arguing that NATO is not the mutual defense organization it purports to be.
  3. A Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO) describing the history of NATO enlargement, the criteria and process for admitting new members, and the list of the three current aspirant countries (Bosnia and Herzogovina, Georgia, and Ukraine).

12/9: “Potluck”

Having failed to select a topic for the upcoming Beyond Labels meeting, we’ll open the floor to follow-ups to some recent topics (the Trump transition, municipal role in protecting local dams, etc.) or new ones, like the fall of the Assad government in Syria.

Consider what you think would be good fodder for our discussion.

  • Subscribe via Email

    Receive email notification of new posts/announcements about our weekly meeting.

    Join 244 other subscribers
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments