The second Trump administration has aggressively disrupted climate policy and politics, both domestically and internationally. Trump has prioritized domestic oil and coal interests, gutting  the Biden administration’s main climate policy and withdrawing permits for major wind and solar projects. In recent weeks, he has withdrawn the United States from several major international climate institutions –  and some argue that he has used oil as an explicit motivation for using force in Venezuela.

To discuss what all of this means for the ongoing global effort to combat climate change, I spoke with two experts who have written extensively about energy and climate politics. Jeff D. Colgan is the Richard Holbrooke Professor in the Department of Political Science and the Watson School at Brown University. He is also the founding director of the Climate Solutions Lab. He recently contributed a piece on Venezuela for Good Authority. Federica Genovese is professor of political science and international relations at the University of Oxford and a recent winner of the prestigious Philip Leverhulme Prize. 

Our conversation was based in part on a short open access article that Jeff and Federica wrote for International Organization on “Global Climate Politics after the Return of Trump.” We talked about both the domestic and international implications of the Trump administration’s actions for climate change.

In this episode of Chalkboard Politics, students sit down with Professors Eduardo Moncada, Sarah Daly, and Elizabeth Saunders to unpack how concepts like narco-terrorism, criminal governance, and credible commitment have, and continue to, shape U.S. policy toward Venezuela. Drawing on the legacy of the War on Drugs, the conversation challenges the argument that militarized intervention or leadership removal can dismantle illicit economies. Instead, our guests explore the relevance and role of patronage systems, the “balloon effect,” and the political incentives behind spectacular uses of force, while asking what all of this means for Venezuelan citizens, democracy, and regional sovereignty, and whether the Trump administration can actually get what it wants.

Episode’s Main Themes and Concepts: 

1. Narco-terrorism as a political label

2. Criminal governance vs. terrorism

3. Why military intervention is likely to fail 

References and Suggested Reading: 

References:

Further Reading: 

Follow the Chalkboard Politics Podcast: 

This episode of Chalkboard Politics comes to you via the Good Authority podcast feed. Listen, rate, and subscribe to the Good Authority Podcast. The Good Authority podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Podcast Addict, and wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also follow Chalkboard Politics on Instagram and Bluesky.

Contact the Chalkboard Politics Team: 

If you have any comments or questions about today’s episode, or ideas for future segments, please email us at [email protected].

How will artificial intelligence reshape global power? And what can past technological revolutions tell us about today’s U.S.-China rivalry? In this episode of Good Authority, I spoke with Jeffrey Ding, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University and a leading scholar at the intersection of technology and international politics.

Ding’s award-winning book, Technology and the Rise of Great Powers, argues that technological leadership depends less on breakthrough inventions and more on a country’s ability to diffuse new technologies widely across its economy and society. Drawing on historical cases from Britain, the United States, Germany, and Japan, he shows how diffusion capacity helps determine which countries translate innovations into lasting geopolitical advantage. 

The book has drawn a lot of attention, including from leading AI companies like Microsoft, and from politicians, including former British prime minister Rishi Sunak. Our conversation explores what this diffusion-centered perspective means for the current race over AI, how China and the United States compare in their technological ecosystems, and what historical analogies can – and cannot – reveal about the future of global politics. And we tackle the big questions about the real constraints facing governments attempting to harness emerging technologies for national power.

Stacie Goddard and Abe Newman explain how cliques are ruling the world

The journal International Organization has just published a new online open access edition with short accessible essays written by prominent scholars about the future of international order. One of the more provocative essays is by Good Authority editor and Wellesley College professor Stacie Goddard together with Georgetown professor Abe Newman. 

In this new article, Goddard and Newman argue that we may be witnessing the emergence of a neo-royalist world order—one that looks less like the liberal, rules-based system many of us grew up studying, and more like a world dominated by powerful patrons, loyal clients, and informal hierarchies and cliques.

We talk about what they mean by “neo-royalism,” how it connects to debates about U.S. power, China’s rise, and the politics of global interdependence. We also discuss some examples of how this new order works, such as the authorization of the sale of large quantities of advanced Nvidia chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other cases where the interests of the cliques appear to prevail over national security interests. We also discuss royal wannabes, like FIFA President Gianni Infantino, how this new order competes with other orders and whether it is likely to survive beyond Donald Trump’s Presidency.

The Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid puts the lifesaving program PEPFAR at risk, halting the distribution of essential HIV/AIDS medications in over 50 countries. Despite an emergency humanitarian waiver, the executive order dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has created both confusion and life-and-death consequences. Good Authority Editor-in-Chief Kim Yi Dionne reads her February 2025 article, "PEPFAR has saved 25 million lives. Without it, millions will die."

Barbara Walter spoke with Good Authority a year ago about the war in Gaza, drawing from her New York Times bestselling research on how civil wars almost always fight until the end – unless an outside power steps in to guarantee a peace agreement. Now that a ceasefire is in place, she revisits her initial analysis and how domestic political factors are likely to shape what happens next.

Pundits and scholars were quick to propose reasons for the 2024 presidential election outcome, from the economy to foreign affairs to campaign strategy—but what does the evidence actually say? Good Authority publisher John Sides and political scientist Danny Hayes, both experts on U.S. elections, explore what factors were likely the most decisive. While some questions remain unanswered, they find key points of consensus on what truly shaped the results.

After declaring martial law in December, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol has faced impeachment, arrest, and detention on charges of inciting insurrection. Jean Hong, a professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in the political economy of authoritarianism in East Asia, analyzes the implications for democratic consolidation. She discusses public opinion and the emergence of the far right, along with how legal proceedings are likely to evolve.

Is America ready for a second act of Trump's foreign policy—this time, no restraints? In a recent blog post, Columbia University political scientist and Good Authority senior editor Elizabeth Saunders wrote about what happens when the 'madman' in U.S. politics suddenly becomes predictable. Kim Yi Dionne, editor in chief of Good Authority, reads out the article in this bonus content shared ahead of Tuesday's U.S. elections.

Despite promising to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the 2015 Paris Agreement, many governments maintain low gasoline taxes or even allow citizens to buy gasoline below market prices. UCLA professor Michael Ross explains why it has proven to be so hard to move away from gasoline subsidies and, more generally, why price-based fossil fuel policies are often politically unsustainable.