Social Sciences

Learn how to activate your subscription to the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

govinfo provides free public access to official publications from all three branches of the Federal Government. Very useful for acquiring primary sources by researching federal government documents.

Congress.gov is the official website for U.S. federal legislative information, providing timely information for Members of Congress and the public. Additionally, roll call votes are provided for both the House and Senate from 1989 to the present.

Provides detailed information about Senators, committees, legislation and records, including recent roll call votes.

Provides detailed information about individual Representatives, leadership, committees, and legislative activities.

Provides information on current President's administration and public policies from the perspective of the President.

Provides information on the U. S. Supreme Court, including cases, arguments, and other documents.

Website tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy. Compiled by a nonprofit nonpartisan group.

Website that publishes profiles of the various influencers of public policy issues. This is a project of the Capital Research Center which is a nonprofit conservative organization.

The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was passed to reduce the U.S. deficit by approximately $300 billion while investing $369 billion in energy security and climate change programs. The act allows Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, extends Affordable Care Act subsidies through 2025, and imposes a 15% corporate minimum tax on large businesses. Additionally, it provides significant tax incentives for renewable energy projects, including extensions and modifications to existing credits like the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) and Production Tax Credit (PTC), as well as introducing new options for tax credit monetization.

President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes significant healthcare, energy, and climate change provisions, while increasing taxes for large corporations and allowing the government to negotiate drug prices. The legislation allocates approximately $369 billion for clean energy initiatives and reforms Medicare, including capping insulin costs at $35 per month and restructuring drug pricing. Despite its name, analyses indicate the Act will have minimal impact on inflation but is expected to lower drug prices and reduce the federal deficit.

The CHIPs and Science Act aims to boost U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and technological competitiveness. It provides $52.7 billion for semiconductor research, development, manufacturing, and workforce development, including $39 billion in manufacturing incentives and $13.2 billion in R&D and workforce development. The Act also authorizes $170 billion for research and development initiatives across multiple federal agencies, promotes U.S. innovation in wireless technologies, and includes provisions to expand STEM education and workforce opportunities to underrepresented groups.

The Biden administration has introduced rules for its "Chips for America" program, allocating $50 billion to bolster semiconductor manufacturing and research in the U.S., aiming to reduce dependence on foreign chips. The initiative will primarily fund the construction of new manufacturing facilities and support research, with significant portions of the funding likely going to major companies like TSMC and Samsung, while also imposing requirements for worker benefits and community engagement. Critics express concerns about the program's effectiveness and the risks of government involvement in selecting industry winners and losers, alongside stringent conditions on funding to ensure taxpayer protection.

President Biden signed this Executive Order to implement significant military justice reforms, transferring decision-making authority from commanders to independent military prosecutors for serious offenses, including sexual assault and domestic violence. This marks the most substantial change to the military justice system since the Uniform Code of Military Justice was established in 1950, aiming to enhance protections for victims and ensure prosecutorial independence. The reforms are expected to create a fairer system for handling gender-based violence in the military and will fully take effect by 2025.

The president signed an executive order that changes how serious crimes like sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and murder are handled within the military justice system. The order moves responsibility for handling these crimes from military commanders to independent military prosecutors outside the chain of command. These changes are based on recommendations from the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military and represent the most significant transformation of the military justice system since 1950.

This Executive Order aims to govern the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the United States, focusing on promoting safety, security, and trustworthiness while harnessing AI's potential benefits. The order outlines key policy goals, including promoting competition in the AI industry, protecting civil liberties and national security from AI-enabled threats, and maintaining U.S. global competitiveness in AI. It mandates several federal agencies to appoint chief AI officers, sets guidelines for AI use in government, and directs various departments to develop AI-related security measures, standards, and initiatives to address potential risks and challenges associated with AI technologies.

The Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence aims to establish a framework for safe and trustworthy AI development amid a growing global discourse on AI regulation. The EO emphasizes transparency, red-teaming for safety testing, and the need for international cooperation, while also addressing potential risks such as discrimination and privacy concerns, although it lacks concrete solutions for these social issues. Congress remains a significant obstacle to effective AI regulation, as the reliance on executive powers may limit the EO's impact without legislative support, highlighting the challenges of balancing innovation with safety in the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Biden v. Nebraska that the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program, which aimed to cancel $430 billion in federal student loan debt, was unconstitutional. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the Secretary of Education did not have the authority under the HEROES Act to implement such a broad loan forgiveness program without clear congressional authorization. The Court's decision was based on the major questions doctrine, determining that the loan forgiveness plan exceeded the Secretary's statutory authority and required explicit approval from Congress for such a significant economic and political action.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the Biden Administration’s attempt to cancel $430 billion in student loan balances was legally unsupportable. The 6-3 decision in Biden v. Nebraska provided significant guidance on state standing in federal regulatory challenges and refined the “major question doctrine.” The ruling emphasized that the HEROES Act did not authorize the broad loan forgiveness plan, deeming it a "novel and fundamentally different" modification beyond the statute’s scope, while dissenting justices argued that the Act granted sufficient authority for such measures in response to national emergencies.

In this decision the US Supreme Court ruled that Harvard's race-conscious admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that Harvard's use of race in admissions was not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity and imposed undue penalties on Asian American applicants. This landmark decision effectively ended affirmative action in college admissions, requiring institutions to seek race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity.

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited affirmative action in college admissions, ruling 6-3 that the University of North Carolina and Harvard College's race-conscious admissions programs violate the Constitution's equal protection clause. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that while race can be considered to explain how it influenced an applicant’s character, students must be treated as individuals and not based on race, effectively overturning the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision. Justice Sotomayor's dissent criticized the ruling for undermining decades of progress in promoting educational diversity, arguing it imposes a superficial rule of colorblindness in an inherently segregated society.