SMHA founder Ethan Fitzgerald (second from left) led students
on a visit to Capitol Hill to lobby for mental health reform.

ISSUE 2 | MARCH 2026

We’ve officially entered a new election cycle where the balance of power will shape the outcome of the midterms and the future of our democracy, all against a backdrop of rising polarization and political tension. This is a pivotal moment, and it calls for serious conversation.

We invite you to join us on March 17 to continue the conversation at the 2026 Fahrenkopf-Manatt Lecture. The evening begins with a preview of our Election Hub, your go-to source for timely faculty analysis and election insights, followed by a dynamic discussion on democracy, campaigns, and governing in an era of populism. A reception will immediately follow the program.

Beyond the classroom and public forums, our students are putting these values into action. We’re proud to highlight GSPM student Ethan Fitzgerald (pictured above) who will earn his master’s degree in Political Management this May and was recently featured in GW Today. His leadership and commitment to supporting his peers epitomize GSPM’s mission of turning preparation  into meaningful impact.

As we look ahead, GW's upcoming Giving Day offers an opportunity to invest in that impact. We invite you to consider making a gift to support scholarships, hands-on learning opportunities, and the programs that prepare the next generation of political leaders.

In This Issue:

THE PRESIDENCY

State of the Union

by The Honorable Debbie Mucarsel-Powell
GSPM Executive Director

This year, GSPM faculty members Dr. Todd Belt, Dr. Casey Burgat, and I were invited to share our insights on the President’s State of the Union address. It marked my third time providing live analysis of the President’s address, and each time, just like when I witnessed it on the House floor as a member of Congress, the experience reinforces how significant this constitutional moment is, not just for those of us in politics, but for the country as a whole.

At its best, the State of the Union celebrates what makes Americans proud. This year, the recognition of our men’s hockey gold medalists and tributes to service members drew genuine bipartisan applause, a reminder that even in divided times, there are shared victories and a government that recognizes patriotic values. Those moments matter. But too often, they were overshadowed by partisan attacks that may energize a base yet do little to unify the nation.

Americans were not tuning in for political theater. They were looking for clarity, particularly on the economy. Post-speech polling showed that inflation, wages, and economic stability remain top concerns. Voters want direct answers: How will this lower costs? How will it strengthen growth? How does it affect my family’s bottom line? My analysis focused on separating applause lines from actionable policy — identifying what was proposed, what was realistic, and where key questions remain.

What stood out just as much as the speech itself was the need for balanced and trusted insight. In a political environment many Americans experience as chaotic and difficult to follow, clarity is essential. In the hours after the address, our faculty experts continued to be called upon across national and local media to break down the substance behind the soundbites. 

That is what makes GSPM distinctive. We are practitioners. We translate complexity into practical understanding. In moments like the State of the Union, that mission matters more than ever.

ELECTION LAW

by Dr. Casey Burgat
Director of the Legislative Affairs Program

Congress is once again considering a federal election bill now called the SAVE America Act, short for the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The House of Representatives passed it in February 2026, and there are reportedly at least 50 senators supporting it, though not the 60 votes needed to overcome a Senate filibuster.

At its core, the bill would make two major changes to how Americans register and vote in federal elections. First, it would require people to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a passport or birth certificate—before they can register to vote. Second, it would mandate that voters present a photo ID at the polls, a requirement stricter than in many states today.

Supporters argue these are commonsense steps to protect election integrity. But the law already makes it illegal for noncitizens to vote, and anyone who does so faces serious penalties, including fines, imprisonment, or deportation. Enforcement of that prohibition is longstanding and already binding in federal and state elections.

Independent research also finds actual voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Studies show that instances of noncitizen voting and other forms of fraud occur at vanishingly small rates across many millions of ballots cast. 

Critics also argue the bill shifts power from states to the federal government. The U.S. Constitution gives states primary authority to run elections, including setting voter qualifications, subject to certain constitutional protections. A federal law imposing detailed documentation standards would reshape that balance, centralizing control over election procedures that have traditionally been state functions.

While most Americans say they support “voter ID” in abstract polling, it is important to examine how a specific law would work in practice—and whether its costs to voter access and state discretion outweigh its intended benefits.

TRADE POLICY

by Dr. Todd Belt
Director of  the Political Management program

On Friday, February 20, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to implement tariffs. Trump responded by implementing a sweeping 15% over the following weekend. How does the president still have this power?

President Trump initially claimed his tariff power under IEEPA because it was the fastest way for him to implement them -- just declare an emergency. The other tariff powers that Congress has delegated to the president make them either temporary or more difficult to implement. Here’s why:

The new 15% tariffs are based upon the President’s powers in Section 122 of the US Trade Act of 1974 (USTA). This provision allows the president to impose tariffs up to 150 days for balance of payments issues (see here for details). After 150 days, Trump needs approval from Congress to extend them, and he’s not likely to get that. So what’s next?

Another provision of the USTA, Section 301, authorizes the administration to impose tariffs for four years. But the catch is these tariffs need to be justified by an investigation that shows their necessity on the grounds of unfair trade practices.

Another source of tariff power comes from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. While the primary purpose of the law was to reduce tariffs, it provided a loophole. Section 232 permits the president to impose tariffs on goods that are vital to national security. These tariffs can remain in effect indefinitely, but like the Section 301 tariffs, they also require a study justifying the national security rationale.

Can the administration release a study that says just about anything is necessary for national security? Probably so, because the courts have been extremely deferential to the president, saying that national security is what the president’s administration says it is.

So, President Trump’s tariffs are likely to stay, just in another form. The administration has 150 days to determine its “unfair trade practices” and “national security” rationales for longer-term tariffs. It’s a good bet they will work quickly to do so.

GEOPOLITICS

by Dr. Matthew Dallek
Professor of Political Management

Within hours of the massive air strike launched by the U.S. and Israel against Iran, President Trump achieved a key goal, hitting and killing Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. The Ayatollah was among the world’s most brutal dictators; it’s hard to imagine any American mourning him. But the Administration’s larger goal of regime change, while theoretically appealing, is extremely hard to pull off in practice. Replacing Iran’s theocracy with a friendlier government that can stabilize the nation may well end much the way other U.S.-backed regime changes have ended.

Take a few examples: The U.S. toppled the Taliban in 2002, ousted Saddam Hussein from power in 2003, and helped kill Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. Yet the Taliban is back in power in Afghanistan, while Iraq and Libya are fractured, mostly failed states. A CIA-backed coup helped install the Shah to power in Tehran in 1954, but in 1979, Iranian Revolutionaries deposed the Shah, leading to decades of rule by the world’s greatest state sponsor of terror. A U.S.-backed coup in 1963 failed to stabilize South Vietnam and was a contributing factor in the disastrous Vietnam War. U.S.-sponsored coups in Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973) yielded few if any benefits to citizens of those nations and arguably failed to advance U.S. national security.

While America has used its might to do good in the world since World War II, its ability to topple a dictator has been greater than its capacity for stabilizing those nations and installing governments that are partners to the U.S. and its allies. This checkered record suggests that assassinating Khamenei is just a first step, and the toughest challenge is yet to come. Trump’s gambit may still find success; the cliche is wrong: past is not prologue. But in the early days of this war, it’s hard to see how a new regime aligned with the West takes power in Iran and then proceeds to usher in a period of stability, peace, and prosperity. 

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

by Dr. Natalia Dinello
Global Residencies Program Director & Assistant Professor

Participants in the UK residency in front of the Palace of Westminster with
Robert Courts, Member of Parliament and Solicitor General, 18 March 2024.

The greatest strength of GSPM is experiential, immersive learning. This is true for both domestic and global exposure. Attracting students from across the College of Professional Studies and GWU, Global Perspectives Residencies have offered appointments at Mexico’s Senate with GSPM alumni, now senators, at Spain’s Congress of Deputies, and with the President of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil. From the European Commission and European Council in Brussels to the Bundestag and Bundesrat in Berlin, students meet VIPs and insiders to acquire professional know-how and enhance their career opportunities.

As a coincidence or destiny, we have been coming to London at the most opportune time to learn about national and global politics. We happened to be there on 12 December 2019 election day. Remember Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s slogan, “Get Brexit Done,” and the landslide victory of the Conservative Party? One of our students even volunteered at a polling station. In March 2022, from the Westminster Parliament to the Royal United Services Institute, the discussions focused on post-COVID policies, geopolitical shifts in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the “Partygate” scandal involving Johnson. In March 2024, together with insiders, we tried to figure out how the British “Keep Calm and Carry On” under the implications of Brexit and the brisk change of four Conservative prime ministers, with infamous Liz Truss having served a record-breaking 44 days.

During the upcoming March 8-14 program, another drama awaits us. The UK experiences economic difficulties, the shape of the UK-US “special relationship” is changing, and the old world order is crumbling, and the British Royal Air Force base in Cyprus was hit by Iran in the spreading war. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has the worst-ever approval rating and is close to losing his leadership of the Labour Party and the country. Ahead of us are the meetings with members of the House of Commons and House of Lords, visits to a think tank and the Valarian cybersecurity company, conversations at the Brunswick Group global advisory group, and networking with GSPM and GWU alumni. We are ready to dive into the heart of political action and engage with high-stakes issues, benefiting students’ intellectual growth and global outlook. 

GSPM alumnus Steven J. Blattner (Political Management, Class of 2018) has been promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff/Legislative Director in the office of Representative Yvette D. Clarke in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In this expanded leadership role, he will help shape the office’s legislative strategy and advance its policy priorities on Capitol Hill. Please join us in congratulating Steven on this well-deserved career milestone.

Are you a GSPM alum ready to stay connected? Share your expertise, engage with students, and be part of upcoming events. Use the button below to learn more.

Connect With Us on Social Media