Provider of in-depth & balanced analysis on hot issues around the world

The United States recently — and suddenly — announced a 28-point peace plan to end Russia’s war in Ukraine, seemingly jointly written with Russian delegates, and presented it to Ukraine. The leaked contents of the peace plan caused concerns for Ukrainian representatives, European leaders and some American politicians. Yet it has nonetheless led to “meaningful progress”, according to the White House, on a revised peace proposal drafted by Ukrainian and American delegates in Geneva. Ukraine has reportedly agreed to the deal, with minor tweaks, while Russia says it’s premature to say a resolution is close, even as Russian representatives met with U.S. delegates in Abu Dhabi to discuss the revised plan. What was in the first plan? The leaked initial 28-point plan was criticized for asserting many Russian demands that date back to the initial peace negotiations of March and April 2022: • It placed a limit of 600,000 troops on Ukraine’s military; • It prevented Ukraine from having long-range missiles; • It placed a permanent ban on Ukrainian membership in NATO; • It included protections of Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. It also explicitly gave the entire Donbas region of eastern Ukraine to Russia, and called on the international community to recognize full Russian control of the Donbas and Crimea and control of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia on the front lines. In return, there would be “reliable security guarantees” envisioned by U.S. President Donald Trump: a NATO-style “Article 5” for Ukraine. This would mean if Ukraine was purposefully attacked by Russia in the future, the U.S. and other parties involved would come to Ukraine’s defence through sanctions, diplomatic pressure and military support, if necessary. In many of the economic and security arrangements that could emerge from the agreement, Russia and the United States would manage them together under the terms of the 28-point plan. The original plan also offered amnesty to all parties for any crimes and atrocities committed during the war, meaning Russia would not be brought to justice for war crimes. It also called for Russia’s return to European and global affairs, ending its political isolation with the West by reforming the G8. In short, the agreement would essentially act as if the war in Ukraine never happened. Was this a joint U.S.-Russia plan? The origins of the peace plan have been widely debated. The stilted language in the English version has led some to speculate it was translated from Russian. American senators said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, when briefing them, called the deal a “Russian wish list.” The draft reportedly came as a result of meetings held in Florida between Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev, a noted Putin supporter. Rubio has insisted it was a U.S.-crafted document while Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia could accept the peace plan. The fact that the document tended to mirror many of Russia’s demands immediately put Ukraine, and Europe, on the defensive. Trump declared that Ukraine would have until American Thanksgiving — Thursday, Nov. 27 — to agree to the plan. He has since softened his stance. But he’s also lambasted Ukraine’s leadership for not showing sufficient “gratitude” for American efforts to bring peace to Ukraine. Details of Europe’s plan In response, European leaders offered their own peace plan. They largely removed some of Russia’s most egregious demands, keeping some of the 28 points, while placing sensitive issues like NATO membership as something to be determined by NATO members and Ukraine. But it also acceded to some Russian demands, including accepting a cap on Ukraine’s military and offering Russia re-entry into the G8. It included a provision for territorial swaps with negotiations starting from the current front lines instead of recognizing Russia’s annexations. European proposals include using frozen Russian assets as reparations for Russia’s aggression, eliminating any of the amnesty clauses and making the European Union and NATO the key players in any future political, economic and military security arrangements. The European deal also removes key qualifiers in the original 28-point plan that could be manipulated by Russian misinformation — namely that Ukraine would be forced to face Russia alone if it struck either St. Petersburg or Moscow with a missile or it failed to “de-Nazify”, a common and erroneous Russian line of attack against Ukraine. The Kremlin rejected the European counter-plan outright. Where does the deal stand now? Ukrainian and American officials recently met in Geneva to discuss the peace plan. Emerging from the meeting, European leaders were cautiously optimistic while insisting a lot more work needed to be done. Trump stated that “something good just may be happening.” So, what resulted from that meeting? Few details have been leaked. Sources have shared that the 28-point plan has now been pared down to 19. It has also been suggested that key issues like territorial swaps and NATO accession have been left for Trump and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss at a future meeting. Ukrainian officials have said the plan has been substantially revised and reflects Ukraine’s concerns. The Russian response has been cagey, to say the least. Since there’s been no formal presentation of any revised peace plan, they are electing to say nothing firm. But U.S. Army Secretary Dan Driscoll recently met with Russian delegates in Abu Dhabi. Russian sources, meanwhile, have restated their preference for the original 28-point plan. Seeing is believing While this appears to be the most notable progress in the peace process in months, expectations should be tempered until there’s a presidential summit between Zelenskyy and Putin and until their signatures are on a treaty. Such momentum for peace has happened in the past. And it has often been scuttled by the key sticking points of both nations. Ukraine has continued to demand extensive security guarantees, justice for Russian war crimes, and has rejected territorial swaps. Russia has wanted a pliable Ukraine and one that could remain in its orbit politically and economically. Fundamentally, these positions haven’t changed. At this point, it appears the Ukrainians have managed to bring the Americans to their side in the latest peace talks, which reflects the importance Ukraine places on U.S. support in their fight against Russia. Russia has elected to say little, but if it was to agree to the revised deal, it would represent a seismic shift. For those reasons, believe in success in the peace process when you actually see it.

The accelerated authoritarian drift of the United States under the Trump administration poses serious risks to democracy and stability throughout Latin America. The United States is undergoing a rapid process of democratic erosion. Despite its limitations, until January 2025 it still had a democratic regime with relatively free and fair elections (though more so in some states than others), universal suffrage, no tutelary authorities, protection of political rights and civil liberties, and a series of checks and balances that restricted executive power. Today, that regime has changed substantially. Following the playbook of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela or Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, over the past ten months the administration has dismantled the federal bureaucracy, usurped legislative powers, used government agencies to attack, censor, and extort universities, media, and opponents, and violated due process for immigrants (and African American citizens). The shift has been so extreme that political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way have declared that the United States is no longer a democracy but a competitive authoritarian regime. The implications of this autocratization process in the U.S. for Latin America are catastrophic. Empowered by a submissive Congress and Supreme Court — whose majorities are more concerned with ideological victories than with the rule of law or civil and political liberties — Trump has been able to operate with minimal constraints. Despite efforts by district, state, and federal courts to block executive orders and actions that violate the Constitution, the president has managed to find ways around adverse rulings or inconvenient requirements. This is particularly true in areas where the presidency has traditionally enjoyed great flexibility — especially those affecting Latin America — such as foreign aid, immigration, and drug enforcement. In one of his first acts, Trump suspended or eliminated U.S. international aid programs previously approved by Congress. The 2024 budget included, among other things, $90 million for democracy promotion in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua; $125 million to combat fentanyl flows in Mexico and cocaine trafficking in Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Panama, and Costa Rica; and $82.5 million for programs to prevent human trafficking and reduce violence against women in Central America. The dismantling of USAID and the State Department’s human rights programs has been accompanied by measures to end immigration from the Global South. Early in his term, Trump abruptly suspended the asylum and refugee programs and terminated temporary protection for more than 600,000 Haitian and Venezuelan immigrants. Worse still, since March, the administration has used Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain and deport immigrants without due process. By September 2025, ICE had detained more than 59,000 people — 71.5% of them without criminal records — and deported 234,210, many without judicial orders. The process has been so arbitrary that ICE raids have even captured 170 U.S. citizens. Those detained — citizens or not, with or without legal status — are subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, often disappearing into the immigration detention system or being deported without contact with lawyers or family. For those of us who grew up in Latin America hearing about the human rights abuses of dictators like Rafael Videla or Augusto Pinochet, the images of masked ICE agents refusing to identify themselves or present warrants while loading people into unmarked cars are disturbingly familiar. The consequences of these immigration policies are especially severe for Latin America. They not only endanger our compatriots but also reduce the number of Latin Americans living and earning in dollars — whether through deportation or voluntary departure driven by fear. Over time, fewer migrants in the U.S. mean fewer remittances, closing a vital economic valve for fragile economies. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, remittances range from 0.1% of GDP in Argentina to 27.6% in Nicaragua. Countries like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala derive around one-fifth of their income from remittances — 60% of which come from North America. The crackdown on migrants, the closure of legal entry routes, and the elimination of economic aid coincide with the U.S. government’s decision to use military force against Venezuela. Over the last three months, U.S. forces have attacked Venezuelan (and Colombian) vessels allegedly carrying drugs. These attacks violate international law and expose worrying changes in the rule of law within the U.S. In a liberal democracy, security forces cannot act as prosecutor, judge, and executioner. Even if evidence of drug trafficking existed — which is not entirely clear — due process requires that the ship be detained, evidence collected, and suspects tried in court. The administration’s warlike rhetoric, combined with increased military presence in the Caribbean and the authorization of covert intelligence operations in Venezuela, signals a dangerously inflammatory policy. Some senators fear that the president may even declare war unilaterally — an unprecedented and devastating step for the region. This brings a final reflection. U.S. support for democratic (or authoritarian) leaders and regimes has long been essential to the stability of democracy (or dictatorship) in the Americas. Over the last two decades, democracy has been threatened and weakened in several countries. Overthrowing dictatorships in Venezuela or El Salvador and protecting democracy in Argentina, Colombia, or Guatemala requires strong democratic allies capable of exerting pressure to complement pro-democracy movements. Trump’s erratic policy toward Venezuela, unconditional support for authoritarian-leaning leaders like Nayib Bukele or Javier Milei, and hostility toward populist figures such as Gustavo Petro all contribute to political polarization, impunity, and the growing influence of autocratic powers like China and Russia — undermining democratic actors and institutions across the region. It is difficult to predict how far the erosion of democracy in the U.S. will go. Despite important resistance, the administration’s authoritarian excesses are mobilizing domestic opposition. With some luck, this mobilization may curb its authoritarian impulses. But until that happens, it is hard to rely on the U.S. to defend democracy and human rights in the region. So far, the regional response has been fragmented and, in some cases, improvised. Latin America would do well to seek collective responses, strengthen democratic leadership, and prepare jointly for the repercussions of the Trump administration.

I. Introduction Elections in the United States are held for government officials at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, the head of state, the President, is elected indirectly by the people of each state, through an Electoral College. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected by the people of each state. There are many elected offices at state level, each state having at least an elective governor and legislature. In addition, there are elected offices at the local level, in counties, cities, towns, and villages, as well as for special districts and school districts which may transcend county and municipal boundaries. The US election system is highly decentralized. While the US Constitution sets parameters for the election of federal officials, state laws regulate most aspects of elections in the US, including primary elections, the eligibility of voters (beyond the basic constitutional definition), the method of choosing presidential electors, as well as the running of state elections. All elections-federal, state, and local-are administered by the individual states, with many aspects of the electoral system’s operations delegated to the county or local level. [1] Under federal law, the general elections of the president and Congress are held in even-numbered years, with presidential elections occurring every four years, and congressional elections taking place every two years. The general elections that are held two years after the presidential ones are referred to as the mid-term elections. General elections for state and local offices are held at the discretion of the individual state and local governments, with many of these races coinciding with either presidential or mid-term elections as a matter of cost saving and convenience, while other state and local races may occur during odd-numbered “off years.” The date when primary elections for federal, state, and local races take place are also at the discretion of the individual state and local governments; presidential primaries in particular have historically been staggered between the states, beginning sometime in January or February, and ending about mid-June before the November general election. [2] With this basic information in mind, this paper explores the US electoral system. This paper first provides an overview of the US electoral system and then explains the US Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) and features of US electoral systems. Finally, the paper compares the US electoral system with Canadian and Mexican electoral systems.  II. US Elections  1. Federal elections The United States has a presidential system of government, which means that the executive and legislature are elected separately. Article II of the US Constitution requires that the election of the US president by the Electoral College must take place on a single day throughout the country; Article I established that elections for Congressional offices, however, can be held at different times. Congressional and presidential elections are held simultaneously every four years, and the intervening Congressional elections, which take place every two years, are called mid-term elections. The US constitution states that members of the US House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old, a US citizen for at least seven years, and be a legal inhabitant of the state that they represent. Senators must be at least 30 years old, an US citizen for at least nine years, and be a (legal) inhabitant of the state that they represent. The president and vice president must be at least 35 years old, a natural born US citizen, and a resident in the US for at least 14 years. It is the responsibility of state legislatures to regulate the qualifications for a candidate appearing on a ballot paper, although in order to get onto the ballot, a candidate must often collect a legally defined number of signatures or meet other state-specific requirements. [3] A. Presidential electionsOverview of the presidential election process The presidential election process in the US follows a typical cycle as Table 1 shows. Table 1: US Presidential Election Cycle (source: USA In Brief: ELECTIONS. https://www.usa.gov/presidential-election-process) The president and the vice president in the US are elected together in a presidential election. It is an indirect election, with the winner being determined by votes cast by electors of the Electoral College. The winner of the election is the candidate with at least 270 Electoral College votes. It is possible for a candidate to win the electoral vote, but lose the nationwide popular vote (receive fewer votes nationwide than the second ranked candidate). This has happened five times in US history: in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. [4] Electoral College votes are cast by individual states by a group of electors; each elector casts one electoral college vote. Until the Twenty-third Amendment to the US Constitution in 1961, citizens from the District of Columbia did not have representation in the electoral college.  State laws regulate how states cast their electoral college votes. In all states except Nebraska and Maine, the candidate that wins the most votes in the state receives all its electoral college votes (a “winner takes all” system). From 1996 in Nebraska, and from 1972 in Maine, two electoral votes are awarded based on the winner of the statewide election, and the rest (three in Nebraska and two in Maine) go to the highest vote-winner in each of the state’s congressional districts. [5] The Electoral CollegeOverview of the Electoral College  In the US, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years for the sole purpose of voting for the president and vice president in the presidential election. This process is explained in Article Two of the US Constitution. The number of electors from each state is equal to that state’s congressional delegation which is the number of senators (two) plus the number of Representatives for that state. Each state appoints electors using legal procedures determined by its legislature. Federal office holders, including US senators and representatives, cannot be electors. In addition, the Twenty-third Amendment granted the federal District of Columbia three electors (bringing the total number from 535 to 538). A simple majority of electoral votes (270 or more) is required to elect the president and vice president. If no candidate receives a majority, a contingent election is held by the House of Representatives, to elect the president, and by the Senate, to elect the vice president. [6] The states and the District of Columbia hold a statewide or district-wide popular vote on Election Day in November to choose electors based upon how they have pledged to vote for president and vice president, with some state laws prohibiting faithless electors. All states except Nebraska and Maine use a party block voting, or general ticket method, to choose their electors, meaning all their electors go to one winning ticket. Nebraska and Maine choose one elector per congressional district and two electors for the ticket with the highest statewide vote. The electors meet and vote in December, and the inaugurations of the president and vice president take place in next January. The merit of the electoral college system has been a matter of ongoing debate in the US since its inception at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, becoming more controversial by the latter years of the 19th century, up to the present day. More resolutions have been submitted to amend the Electoral College mechanism than any other part of the US constitution. An amendment that would have abolished the system was approved by the House in 1969, but failed to move past the Senate. [7] Supporters of the Electoral College claim that it requires presidential candidates to have broad appeal across the country to win, while critics argue that it is not representative of the popular will of the nation. Procedure of Electoral College Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution directs each state to appoint a number of electors equal to that state’s congressional delegation (two senators plus the number of members of the House of Representatives). The same clause empowers each state legislature to determine the manner by which that state’s electors are chosen but prohibits federal office holders from becoming electors. Following the national presidential election day on Tuesday after the first Monday in November, each state, and the federal district, selects its electors according to its laws. [8] After a popular election, the states identify and record their appointed electors in a Certificate of Ascertainment, and those appointed electors then meet in their respective jurisdictions and produce a Certificate of Vote for their candidate; both certificates are then sent to US Congress to be opened and counted. [9] In 48 of the 50 states, state laws mandate that the winner of the plurality of the statewide popular vote receives all of that state’s electoral votes. In Nebraska and Maine, two electoral votes are assigned in this manner, while the remaining electoral votes are allocated based on the plurality of votes in each of their congressional districts. The federal district (Washington, D.C.) allocates its 3 electoral votes to the winner of its single district election. States generally require electors to pledge to vote for that state’s winning ticket; to prevent electors from being faithless electors, most states have adopted various laws to enforce the electors’ pledge. [10] The electors of each state meet in their respective state capital on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December, between December 14 and 20, to cast their votes. The results are sent to and counted by the Congress, where they are tabulated in the first week of January before a joint meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives, presided over by the current vice president, who is the president of the Senate. [11] Should a majority of votes not be cast for a candidate, a contingent election takes place: the House of Representatives holds a presidential election session, where one vote is cast by each of the fifty states. The Senate is responsible for electing the vice president, with each senator having one vote. The elected president and vice president are inaugurated on January 20. Since 1964, there have been 538 electors. States select 535 of the electors, this number matches the aggregate total of their congressional delegations. [12] The additional three electors came from the Twenty-third Amendment, ratified in 1961, providing that the district established pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 as the seat of the federal government (namely, Washington, D.C.) is entitled to the same number of electors as the least populous state. In practice, that results in Washington D.C. being entitled to three electors. [13] Figure 1: Current number of presidential electors by state in US (Source: Wikipedia)B. Congressional electionsOverview of US Congress The US Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is a bicameral legislature, including a lower body, the US House of Representatives, and an upper body, the US Senate. They both meet in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. Members of Congress are chosen through direct election, though vacancies in the Senate may be filled by a governor’s appointment. As Figure 2 shows, Congress has a total of 535 voting members, a figure which includes 100 senators and 435 representatives. The vice president of the United States, as president of the Senate, has a vote in the Senate only when there is a tie. [14] Figure 2: Current US Congress Structure (Source: Wikipedia) Congress convenes for a two-year term (a Congress), commencing every other January. Each Congress is usually split into two sessions, one for each year. Elections are held every even-numbered year on Election Day. The members of the House of Representatives are elected for the two-year term of a Congress. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 established that there be 435 representatives, and the Uniform Congressional District Act requires that they be elected from single-member constituencies or districts. It is also required that the congressional districts be apportioned among states by population every ten years using the US census results, provided that each state has at least one congressional representative. Each senator is elected at-large in their state for a six-year term, with terms staggered, so every two years approximately one-third of the Senate is up for election. Each state, regardless of size and population, has two senators, so currently, there are 100 US senators for the 50 states. [15] Article One of the US Constitution requires that members of Congress be at least 25 years old for the House and at least 30 years old for the Senate, be a US citizen for seven years for the House and nine years for the Senate, and be an inhabitant of the state that they represent. Members in both chambers may run for re-election an unlimited number of times. [16] Figure 3: US House of Representatives Seats by State (source: Britannica) Congress was created by the US Constitution and first met in 1789, replacing the Congress of the Confederation in its legislative function. Although not legally mandated, in practice members of Congress since the late 19th century are typically affiliated with one of the two major political parties, the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and only rarely with a third party or independents affiliated with no party. Members of Congress can also switch parties at any time, though this is uncommon. [17] Role & Power of US Congress Article One of the US Constitution states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a US Congress, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” [18] The House and Senate are equal partners in the legislative process – legislation cannot be enacted without the consent of both chambers. The US Constitution grants each chamber some unique powers. The Senate ratifies treaties and approves presidential appointments while the House initiates revenue-raising bills. The House initiates and decides impeachment while the Senate votes on conviction and removal of office for impeachment cases. A two-thirds vote of the Senate is required before an impeached person is removed from office. [19] US Congress has authority over budgetary and financial policy through the enumerated power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.  The Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 extended congressional power of taxation to include income taxes without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The US Constitution also grants Congress the exclusive power to appropriate funds, and this power of the purse is one of Congress’s primary checks on the executive branch of the United States. Congress can borrow money on the credit of the US, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, and coin money. Generally, the Senate and the House of Representatives have equal legislative authority, although only the House may originate revenue and appropriation bills. [20] In addition, Congress has an important role in national defense, including the exclusive power to declare war, to raise and maintain the armed forces, and to make rules for the military. Some critics charge that the executive branch has usurped Congress’s constitutionally defined task of declaring war. While historically presidents initiated the process for going to war, they asked for and received formal war declarations from Congress for the War of 1812, the Spanish–American War, the Mexican–American War, World War I, and World War II, although President Theodore Roosevelt’s military move into Panama in 1903 did not get congressional approval. In 1993, Michael Kinsley wrote that “Congress’s war power has become the most flagrantly disregarded provision in the Constitution,” and that the “real erosion of Congress’s war power started after World War II.” Disagreement about the extent of congressional versus presidential power regarding war has been present from time to time throughout US history. [21] US Congress can establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish courts inferior to the US supreme court, and make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the US, or in any Department or officer thereof. Article Four gives US Congress the power to admit new states into the Union. One of Congress’s foremost non-legislative functions is the power to investigate and oversee the executive branch. Congressional oversight is usually delegated to committees and is facilitated by Congress’s subpoena power (see Tables 2 & 3). Some critics have charged that the US Congress has in some instances failed to do an adequate job of overseeing the other branches of government. In the Plame affair, critics including US Representative Henry A. Waxman charged that Congress was not doing an adequate job of oversight in this case. [22] Table 2: Major Senate committees (source: Wikipedia)Table 3: Major House committees (source: Wikipedia)Power of US Senate Senate approval is required to pass any federal legislation. The US Constitution provides several unique functions for the Senate that form its ability to “checks and balances” the powers of other elements of the federal government. These include the requirement that the Senate may advise and must consent to some of the president’s government appointments; the Senate must also consent to all treaties with foreign governments; it tries all impeachments, and it elects the vice president in the event no person receives a majority of the electoral votes. Legislation Bills may be introduced in either chamber of Congress. However, the Constitution’s Origination Clause provides that All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. [23] Accordingly, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Moreover, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which money bills approved by Parliament have originated in the House of Commons per constitutional convention. Although the US Constitution gave the House the power to initiate revenue bills, in practice the Senate is equal to the House in the respect of spending. As Woodrow Wilson wrote: [24] The Senate’s right to amend general appropriation bills has been allowed the widest possible scope. The Senate may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but also even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character. The approval of both chambers is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both the House and the Senate must pass the same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by sending amendments back and forth or by a conference committee that includes members of both bodies. Appointment confirmations The president can make certain appointments only with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate’s approval include members of the Cabinet, ambassadors, heads of most federal executive agencies, justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges.  The powers of the Senate concerning nominations are, however, subject to some constraints. For instance, the US Constitution provides that the president may make an appointment without the Senate’s advice and consent during a congressional recess. The recess appointment remains valid only temporarily; the office becomes vacant again at the end of the next congressional session. Nonetheless, presidents have frequently used recess appointments to circumvent the possibility that the Senate may reject the nominee. Moreover, as the Supreme Court held in Myers v. United States, although the Senate’s advice and consent are required for the appointment of certain executive branch officials, it is not necessary for their removal. However, recess appointments have faced a significant amount of resistance and in 1960, the US Senate passed a legally non-binding resolution against recess appointments to the Supreme Court. [25] Treaty ratification Moreover, the Senate has a role in ratifying treaties. The US Constitution provides that the president may only “make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur” in order to benefit from the Senate’s advice and consent and give each state an equal vote in the process. However, not all international agreements are considered treaties under US domestic law, even if the agreements are considered treaties under international law. Congress has passed laws authorizing the president to conclude executive agreements without action by the Senate. In a similar way, the president may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the Constitution, leading some scholars such as John Yoo and Laurence Tribe to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. However, US courts have upheld the validity of such agreements. [26] Impeachment trials  The US Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. If the sitting president of the United States is being tried, the US chief justice presides over the trial. During an impeachment trial, senators are constitutionally required to sit on oath or affirmation. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present. A convicted official is automatically removed from office. In addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant is banned from holding office. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. The House of Representatives has impeached sixteen government officials, of whom seven were convicted (one resigned before the Senate could complete the trial). Only three US presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and 2021. The trials of Johnson, Clinton and both Trump trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson’s case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. [27] Election of the vice president Under the Twelfth Amendment, the Senate has the power to elect the vice president if a vice-presidential candidate does not receive a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the Senate to choose from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. But Electoral College deadlocks are rare. The Senate has only broken a deadlock once; in 1837, it elected Richard Mentor Johnson. The House elects the president if the Electoral College deadlocks on that choice. [28] Power of US House of Representatives  The US House of Representatives has the exclusive power to initiate all revenue bills, impeach federal officials, and elect the US president if the Electoral College is tied. Along with the Senate, it also shares the power to make laws. [29] The organization and character of the House of Representatives have evolved under the influence of political parties, which provide a means of controlling proceedings and mobilizing the necessary majorities. Party leaders, such as the majority and minority leaders, as well as the speaker of the House, play a central role in the operations of the House. However, party discipline (for example, the tendency of all members of a political party to vote in the same way) has not always been strong due to the fact that House members, who must face reelection every two years, often vote the interests of their districts rather than their political party when the two diverge. A further dominating element of House organization is the committee system, under which the membership is divided into specialized groups for purposes such as preparing bills for the consideration of the entire House, regulating House procedure, and holding hearings. Each committee is chaired by a member of the majority party. Almost all bills are first referred to a committee, and ordinarily the full House cannot act on a bill until the committee has “reported” it for floor action. There are approximately 20 standing committees, organized mainly around major policy areas, each having subcommittees, staffs, and budgets. They may hold hearings on questions of public interest, propose legislation that has not been formally introduced as a bill or resolution, and conduct investigations. Among important standing committees are those on appropriations, on ways and means (which handles matters related to finance), and on rules. In addition, there are select and special committees, which are usually appointed for a specific project and for a limited period of time. The committees also play an important role in the control exercised by Congress over governmental agencies. Cabinet officers and other officials are frequently summoned before the committees to explain policy. The US Constitution (Article I, section 6) prohibits members of Congress from holding offices in the executive branch of government—a major difference between parliamentary and congressional forms of government. [30] 2. State elections Overview State laws and state constitutions, controlled by state legislatures regulate elections at state level and local level. Various officials at the state level are elected. Since the separation of powers applies to states as well as the federal government, state legislatures and the executive (for example, the governor) are elected separately. Governors and lieutenant governors are elected in all states, in some states on a joint ticket and in some states separately, some separately in different electoral cycles. The governors of the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the US Virgin Islands are also elected. In some states, executive positions such as Secretary of State and Attorney General are also elected offices. All members of state legislatures and territorial jurisdiction legislatures are elected. In some states, members of the state supreme court and other members of the state judiciary are elected. Proposals to amend the state constitution are also placed on the ballot in some states. [31] As a matter of cost saving and convenience, elections for many of these state and local offices are held at the same time as either the federal presidential or mid-term elections. There are a handful of states, however, that hold their elections during odd-numbered “off years.” Governors  As state managers, governors are mainly responsible for implementing state laws and overseeing the operation of the state executive branch. As state leaders, governors advance and pursue new and revised programs and policies using a variety of tools, among them executive orders, executive budgets, and legislative proposals and vetoes. As chiefs of the state, governors serve as the intergovernmental liaison to the federal government on behalf of the state. [32] Governors carry out their management and leadership responsibilities and objectives with the support and assistance of agency & department heads, many of whom they are empowered to appoint. A majority of governors have the power to appoint state court judges as well, in most cases from a list of names submitted by a nominations committee. Although governors have many roles and responsibilities in common, the scope of gubernatorial power varies from state to state in accordance with state constitutions, legislation, and tradition. Governors often are ranked by political historians and other observers of state politics according to the extent and number of their powers. States, commonwealths, or territories vary with respect to minimum age, US citizenship, and state residency requirements for gubernatorial candidates and other state office holders. The minimum age requirement for governors ranges from no formal provision to age 35. The requirement of US citizenship for gubernatorial candidates ranges from no formal provision to 20 years. State residency requirements range from no formal provision to 7 years. [33] State legislature  In the United States, the state legislature is the legislative branch in each of the 50 US states. A legislature generally performs state duties for a state in the same way that the US Congress performs national duties at the national level. Generally, the same system of checks and balances at the federal level also exists between the state legislature, the state executive officer (governor) and the state judiciary. In 27 states, the legislature is called the legislature or state legislature. In other 19 states, the legislature is called the general assembly. In New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the legislature is called the general court, while North Dakota and Oregon designate the legislature the legislative assembly. [34] The responsibilities of a state legislature vary from state to state, depending on the state’s constitution. The primary function of any legislature is to make laws. State legislatures also approve budgets for state government. They may establish government agencies, set their policies, and approve their budgets. For example, a state legislature could establish an agency to manage environmental conservation efforts within that state. In some states, state legislators elect other state officials. State legislatures often have the power to regulate businesses operating within their jurisdiction. They also regulate courts within their jurisdiction. This includes determining types of cases that can be heard, regulating attorney conduct, and setting court fees.With respect to other responsibilities of a state legislature, under the terms of Article V of the US Constitution, state lawmakers have the power to ratify Constitutional amendments which have been proposed by both houses of Congress and they also retain the ability to call for a national convention to propose amendments to the US Constitution. [35] After the convention has concluded its business, 75% of the states will ratify what the convention has proposed. Under Article II, state legislatures choose the manner of appointing the state’s presidential electors. In the past, some state legislatures appointed the US Senators from their respective states until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 required the direct election of senators by the state’s voters. Sometimes what the legislature wishes to achieve cannot be done simply by the passage of a bill, but rather requires amending the state constitution. Each state has specified steps intended to make it difficult to revise the constitution without the sufficient support of either the legislature, or the people, or both. Organization All states except Nebraska have a bicameral legislature. The smaller chamber is called the senate, usually referred to as the upper house. This chamber usually has the exclusive power to confirm appointments made by the governor and to try articles of impeachment. (In a few states, a separate executive council, composed of members elected from large districts, performs the confirmation procedures.) Nebraska originally had a bicameral legislature like other states, but the lower house was abolished following a referendum, effective with the 1936 elections. The remaining unicameral (one-chamber) legislature is called the Nebraska Legislature, but its members are called state senators. During the 20th century, state legislatures further emulated the activities and structures of the US Congress as institutions at both levels grew in size and complexity, often accompanied by increases in staffing and member pay. While most state legislatures remain part-time institutions, a handful of states have expanded theirs to meet year-round. [36] Local elections At the local level, county and city government positions are usually filled by election, in particular within the legislative branch. The extent to which offices in the executive or judicial branches are elected vary from city-to-city or county-to-county. Some examples of local elected positions include sheriffs at the county level and mayors and school board members at the city level. Like state elections, an election for a specific local office may take place at the same time as either the presidential, mid-term, or off-year elections. III. Features of US electoral system Voting methods A number of voting methods are used within the various jurisdictions in the US, the most common of which is the first-past-the-post system. In the first-past-the-post system, the highest-polling candidate wins the election. Under this system, a candidate who achieves a plurality (that is, the most) of votes wins. But the State of Georgia uses a two-round system, where if no candidate receives a majority of votes, then there is a runoff between the two highest polling candidates. [37] Since 2002, several cities such as Burlington in Vermont have adopted instant-runoff voting. Voters rank the candidates in order of preference rather than voting for a single candidate. Under this system, if no candidate receives more than half of votes cast, then the lowest polling candidate is eliminated, and their votes are distributed to the next preferred candidates. This process continues until one candidate receives more than half the votes. In 2016, Maine became the first state to adopt instant-runoff voting (known as ranked-choice voting) statewide for its elections, although due to state constitutional provisions, the system is only used for federal elections and state primaries. [38] Figure 4: US voting methods (source: Wikipedia)Eligibility The eligibility of an individual for voting is set out in the US constitution and also regulated at state level. The constitution states that suffrage cannot be denied on grounds of color, race, sex, or age for citizens eighteen years or older. Beyond these basic qualifications, it is the responsibility of state legislatures to regulate voter eligibility. Some states ban convicted criminals, especially felons, from voting for a fixed period of time or indefinitely. The number of adults in the US who are currently or permanently ineligible to vote due to felony convictions is estimated to be 5.3 million. In addition, some states have legacy constitutional statements barring those legally declared incompetent from voting; such references are generally considered obsolete and are being considered for review or removal where they appear. [39] About 4.3 million US citizens that reside in Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and other US territories do not have the same level of federal representation as those that live in the 50 US states. These areas only have non-voting members in the US House of Representatives and no representation in the US Senate. Citizens in the US territories are also not represented in the Electoral College and therefore cannot vote for the US President. [40] Those in Washington, D.C. are allowed to vote for the president because of the Twenty-third Amendment. Voter registration While the federal government has jurisdiction over federal elections, most election laws are decided at the state level. All US states except North Dakota require that citizens who wish to vote be registered. In many states, voter registration takes place at the county or municipal level. Traditionally, voters had to register directly at state or local offices to vote, but in the mid-1990s, the federal government made a lot of efforts to make registering easier, in an attempt to increase turnout. The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (the “Motor Voter” law) required state governments that receive certain types of federal funding to make the voter registration process easier by providing uniform registration services through drivers’ license registration centers, disability centers, libraries, schools, and mail-in registration. Other states allow citizens same-day registration on election day. An estimated 50 million Americans are unregistered. It has been reported that registering to vote poses greater obstacles for low-income citizens, Native Americans, racial minorities and linguistic minorities, and persons with disabilities. International election observers have called on US authorities to implement measures to correct the problems of the high number of unregistered citizens. [41] In many states, citizens registering to vote may declare an affiliation with a political party. This declaration of affiliation does not cost money, and does not make the citizen a dues-paying member of a party. A political party cannot prevent a voter from declaring his or her affiliation with the party, but it can refuse requests for full membership. In some states, only voters affiliated with a political party may vote in that party’s primary elections. Declaring a party affiliation is never required. Some states, including Georgia, Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Washington, practice non-partisan registration. [42] Non-citizen voting Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections. As of 2024, 7 state constitutions specifically state that “only” a citizen can vote in elections at any level in that state: Florida, Alabama, Arizona, North Dakota, Colorado, Louisiana, and Ohio. [43] Absentee and mail voting Voters unable or unwilling to vote at polling stations on election day may vote via absentee ballots, depending on state law. Originally these ballots were for people who could not go to the polling place on the election day. Now some states let them be used for convenience, but state laws still call them absentee ballots. Absentee ballots can be sent and returned by mail, or requested and submitted in person, or dropped off in locked boxes. About half the states and territories allow “no excuse absentee,” where no reason is required to request an absentee ballot; other states require a valid reason, such as travel or infirmity. Some states let voters with permanent disabilities apply for permanent absentee voter status, and some other states let all citizens apply for permanent status, so they will automatically receive an absentee ballot for each election. Otherwise a voter must request an absentee ballot before the election takes place. [44] In Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington state, all ballots are delivered through the mail; in many other states there are counties or certain small elections where everyone votes by mail. [45] As of July 2020, 26 states allow designated agents to collect and submit ballots on behalf of another voter, whose identities are specified on a signed application. Such agents are usually family members or persons from the same residence. 13 states neither enable nor prohibit ballot collection as a matter of law. Among those that allow it, 12 states have limits on how many ballots an agent may collect. Americans living outside the US, including active duty members of the armed forces stationed outside of their state of residency, may register and vote under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA). Almost half the states require these ballots to be returned by mail. Other states allow mail along with some combination of e-mail or fax; four states allow a web portal. [46] A significant measure to prevent some types of fraud has been to require the voter’s signature on the outer envelope, which is compared to one or more signatures on file before taking the ballot out of the envelope and counting it. Not all states have standards for signature review. There have been concerns that signatures are improperly rejected from young and minority voters at higher rates than others, with no or limited ability of voters to appeal the rejection. For other types of errors, experts estimate that while there is more fraud with absentee ballots than in-person voting, absentee ballots have affected only a few local elections. [47] Following the US presidential election in 2020, amid disputes of its outcome, as a rationale behind litigation demanding a halt to official vote counting in some areas, allegations were made that vote counting is offshored. Former Trump Administration official Chris Krebs, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) during the election, said in a December 2020 interview that, “All votes in the United States of America are counted in the United States of America.” [48] One documented trend is that in-person votes and early votes are more likely to lean to the Republican Party, while the provisional ballots, which are counted later, trend to the Democratic Party. This phenomenon is known as blue shift, and has led to situations where Republicans were winning on the election night only to be overtaken by Democrats after all votes were counted. But Foley did not find that mail-in or absentee votes favored either party. [49] Early voting Early voting is a formal process where voters can cast their ballots before the official election day. Early voting in person is allowed in 47 states and in Washington, D.C., with no excuse required. Only Alabama, New Hampshire and Oregon do not allow early voting, while some counties in Idaho do not allow it. [50] Voting equipment The earliest voting in the US was through paper ballots that were hand-counted. By the late 1800s, paper ballots printed by election officials were nearly universal. By 1980, 10% of American voters used paper ballots that were counted by hand, and then dropped below 1% by 2008. [51] Mechanical voting machines were first used in the US in the 1892 elections in Lockport, New York. Massachusetts was one of the first states to adopt lever voting machines, doing so in 1899, but the state’s Supreme Court ruled their usage unconstitutional in 1907. Lever machines grew in popularity despite controversies, with about two-thirds of votes for president in the 1964 US presidential election cast with lever machines. Lever machine use declined to about 40% of votes in 1980, then 6% in 2008. Punch card voting equipment was developed in the 1960s, with about one-third of votes cast with punch cards in 1980. New York was the last state to phase out lever voting in response to the 2000 Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that allocated funds for the replacement of lever machine and punch card voting equipment. New York replaced its lever voting with optical scanning in 2010. In the 1960s, technology was developed that enabled paper ballots filled with pencil or ink to be optically scanned rather than hand-counted. In 1980, about 2% of votes used optical scanning; this increased to 30% by 2000 and then 60% by 2008. In the 1970s, the final major voting technology for the US was developed, the DRE voting machine. In 1980, less than 1% of ballots were cast with DRE machines. Prevalence grew to 10% in 2000, and then peaked at 38% in 2006. Because DREs are fully digital, with no paper trail of votes, backlash against them caused prevalence to drop to 33% in 2010. [52] The voting equipment used by a given US county is related to the county's historical wealth. A county’s use of punch cards in the year 2000 was positively correlated with the county’s wealth in 1969, when punch card machines were at their peak of popularity. Counties with higher wealth in 1989 were less likely to use punch cards in 2000. This supports the idea that punch cards were used in counties that were well-off in the 1960s, but whose wealth declined in the proceeding decades. Counties that maintained their wealth from the 1960s onwards could afford to replace punch card machines as they fell out of favor. [53] Multiple levels of regulation Elections in the US are actually conducted by local authorities, working under local, state, and federal law and regulation, as well as the US Constitution. It is a highly decentralized system. The secretary of state in about half of US states is the official in charge of elections; in other states it is someone appointed for the job, or a commission. It is this person or commission who is responsible for certifying, tabulating, and reporting votes for the state. Ballot access Ballot access refers to the laws which regulate under what conditions access is granted for a candidate or political party to appear on voters’ ballots. Each state has its own ballot access laws to determine who may appear on ballots and who may not. According to Article I, Section 4, of the US Constitution, the authority to regulate the place, time, and manner of federal elections is up to each state, unless Congress legislates otherwise. Depending on the office and the state, it may be possible for a voter to cast a write-in vote for a candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot, but it is extremely rare for such a candidate to win office. [54] Primaries and caucuses In partisan elections, candidates are chosen by primary elections and caucuses in the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands. [55] A primary election is an election in which registered voters in a jurisdiction (nominating primary) select a political party’s candidate for a later election. There are various types of primary: either the whole electorate is eligible, and voters choose one political party’s primary at the polling booth (an open primary); or only independent voters can choose a party’s primary at the polling booth (a semi-closed primary); or only registered members of the political party are allowed to vote (closed primary). The blanket primary, when voters could vote for all parties’ primaries on the same ballot was struck down by the US Supreme Court as violating the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly in the case California Democratic Party v. Jones. In addition, primaries are used to select candidates at the state level, for example, in gubernatorial elections. Caucuses also nominate candidates by election, but they are very different from primaries. Caucuses are meetings that occur at precincts and involve discussion of each political party’s platform and issues such as voter turnout in addition to voting. Eleven states: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia use caucuses, for one or more political parties. [56] The primary and caucus season in presidential elections lasts from the Iowa caucus in January to the last primaries in June. Front-loading – when larger numbers of contests take place in the opening weeks of the season—can have an impact on the nomination process, potentially reducing the number of realistic candidates, as fund-raisers and donors quickly abandon those who they see as untenable. However, it is not the case that the successful candidate is always the candidate who does the best in the early primaries. There is also a period dubbed the “invisible primary” that takes place before the primary season, when candidates attempt to solicit media coverage and funding well before the real primary season begins. A state’s presidential primary election or caucus usually is an indirect election: instead of voters directly selecting a particular person running for president, it determines how many delegates each party’s national political convention will receive from their respective state. These delegates then in turn select their party’s presidential nominee. Held in the summer, a political convention’s purpose is also to adopt a statement of the political party’s principles and goals known as the platform and adopt the rules for the party’s activities. [57] The day on which primaries are held for congressional seats, and state and local offices may also vary from state to state. The only federally mandated day for elections is the election day for the general elections of the president and Congress; all other elections are at the discretion of the individual state and local governments. Criticism and concernsA. Voter suppression and subversion Voting laws and procedures between the states vary as a consequence of the decentralized system, including those pertaining to voter IDs, voter registration, provisional ballots, postal voting, voting machines and vote counting, felony disenfranchisement, and election recounts. Thus the voting rights or voter suppression in one state may be stricter or more lenient than another state. After the 2020 US presidential election, decentralized administration and inconsistent state voting laws and processes have shown themselves to be targets for voter subversion schemes enabled by appointing politically motivated actors to election administration roles with degrees of freedom to subvert the will of the people. One such scheme would allow these election officials to appoint a slate of “alternate electors” to skew operations of the electoral college in favor of a minority political party. [58] B. Vote counting time As detailed in a state-by-state breakdown, the US has a long-standing tradition of publicly announcing the incomplete, unofficial vote counts on election night (the late evening of election day), and declaring unofficial “projected winners,” despite that many of the mail-in and absentee votes have not been counted yet. In some states, in fact, none of them have yet been counted by that time. This tradition was based on the assumption that the incomplete, unofficial count on the election night is probably going to match the official count, which is officially finished and certified several weeks later. A basic weakness of this assumption, and of the tradition of premature announcements based on it, is that the general public is likely to misapprehend that these particular “projected winning” candidates have certainly won before any official vote count has been completed, whereas in fact all that is truly known is that those candidates have some degree of likelihood of having won the election; the magnitude of the likelihood (all the way from very reliable to not reliable at all) varies by state because the details of election procedures vary from state to state. This problem has impacts on all non–in-person votes, even those cast weeks before election day—not just late-arriving ones. [59] C. Structural problems In 2014, political scientists from Princeton University did a study on the influence of the so-called “elite,” and their derived power from special interest lobbying, versus the “ordinary” US citizen within the US political system. These scientists found that the US looked more like an oligarchy than a real representative democracy; thus eroding a government of the people, by the people, for the people as stated by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address. In fact, they found that average citizens had an almost nonexistent influence on public policies and that the ordinary citizen had little or no independent influence on policy at all. [60] Sanford Levinson claims that next to the fact that campaign financing and gerrymandering are seen as serious problems for democracy, also one of the root causes of the American democratic deficit lies in the US Constitution itself. For example, there is a lack of proportional representation in the Senate for highly populated states like California, as regardless of population all states are given two seats in the Senate. [61] Partisan election officials in the US can give an appearance of unfairness, even when there are very few issues, especially when an election official like a secretary of state runs for an election that they are overseeing. Richard Hasen claimed that the US is the only advanced democracy that lets partisan officials oversee elections, and that switching to a nonpartisan model would improve trust, participation and effectiveness of the elections. [62] The Electoral College has been criticized by some people for being undemocratic (it can select a candidate who did not win the popular vote) and for encouraging campaigns to mainly focus on swing states, as well for giving more power to smaller states with less electoral votes as they have a smaller population per electoral vote compared to more populated states. This can be seen through one electoral college vote representing 622,000 voters in California, compared to one electoral college vote representing 195,000 voters in Wyoming. [63] The first-past-the-post system has also been criticized for creating a de facto pure two-party system (as postulated in Duverger’s law) that suppresses voices that do not hold views consistent with the largest faction in a major political party, as well as limiting voters’ choices in elections. [64] IV. Comparison of US Electoral System with Mexican and Canadian electoral systems US electoral system has both similarities and differences with Canadian and Mexican systems. All of three countries have federal systems and bicameral legislatures. All elections in these three countries are on a fixed schedule. In addition, Us and Canada have first-the-post voting systems.  However, there are many differences among these three countries. The elections in Canada and Mexico are managed and administered by a national election agency. Thus elections in both Canada and Mexico are carried out the same way across the country. By contrast, elections in the US are managed and carried out by each state in different ways. The biggest difference is that unlike Canada and Mexico, the US elect the head of government (President) though the Electoral College. In addition, unlike the US and Canada, Mexico has a hybrid system across first-past-the-post voting (single-member district), party-list proportional representation, and/or mixed-member proportional representation. Moreover, unlike Mexican members of Congress, members of US congress do not have term limits. Table 4, 5, and 6 show the similarities and differences among the US, Canada, and Mexican electoral systems. Table 4: Federal elections comparison, US vs Canada (Elections Canada, 2025)Table 5: Federal elections comparison II, US vs Canada (Elections Canada, 2025)Table 6: Comparison of Federal elections, US vs Mexico (source: Wikipedia)Table 7: Political parties in the Mexican Senate (source: Wikipedia)Table 8: Political parties in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies (source: Wikipedia) V. Conclusion This paper explained US electoral systems and its features. The paper also explained federal elections in the US, including presidential and congressional and state elections, including local elections. In addition, the paper described the power and role of the US Congress. Moreover, this paper compared US electoral systems with Canadian and Mexican systems and showed the similarities and differences among these three countries’ electoral systems.  Referencias [1] "Elections & Voting". whitehouse.gov. April 2, 2015. [2] For more information, see Wikipedia [3] "Constitutional requirements for presidential candidates | USAGov". www.usa.gov. [4] "Electoral College History". National Archives. November 18, 2019. [5] "Maine & Nebraska". FairVote. Retrieved December 31, 2023. [6] For more information, see Wikipedia [7] Ziblatt, Daniel; Levitsky, Steven (September 5, 2023). "How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind". The Atlantic. [8] Statutes at Large, 28th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 721. [9] Neale, Thomas H. (January 17, 2021). "The Electoral College: A 2020 Presidential Election Timeline". Congressional Research Service. [10] "Faithless Elector State Laws". Fair Vote. July 7, 2020. [11] Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress (Report). Congressional Research Service. December 8, 2020. [12] Neale, Thomas H. (May 15, 2017). "The Electoral College: How It Works in Contemporary Presidential Elections" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. p. 13. [13] Murriel, Maria (November 1, 2016). "Millions of Americans can’t vote for president because of where they live". PRI's The World. [14] For more information, see Wikipedia [15] For more information, see Wikipedia [16] For more information, see Wikipedia [17] For more information, see Wikipedia [18] For more information, see Wikipedia [19] John V. Sullivan (July 24, 2007). "How Our Laws Are Made". U.S. House of Representatives. Archived from the original on May 5, 2020. [20] Davidson, Roger H. & Walter J. Oleszek (2006). Congress and Its Members (10th ed.). Congressional Quarterly (CQ) Press. [21] "The Law: The President's War Powers". Time. June 1, 1970. [22] David S. Broder (March 18, 2007). "Congress's Oversight Offensive". The Washington Post. [23] "Constitution of the United States". Senate.gov. [24] Wilson Congressional Government, Chapter III: "Revenue and Supply". Text common to all printings or "editions"; in Papers of Woodrow Wilson it is Vol.4 (1968), p.91 [25] Pyser, Steven M. (January 2006). "Recess Appointments To The Federal Judiciary: An Unconstitutional Transformation Of Senate Advice And Consent". Journal of Constitutional Law. 8 (1): 61–114. [26] For an example, and a discussion of the literature, see Laurence Tribe, "Taking Text and Structure Seriously: Reflections on Free-Form Method in Constitutional Interpretation [27] "Complete list of impeachment trials". United States Senate. Archived from the original on December 2, 2010. [28] For more information, see Wikipedia [29] For more information, see Britannica [30] The Legislative Branch Archived January 20, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, The White House. [31] For more information, see Wikipedia [32] For more information, see Wikipedia [33] See https://www.nga.org/governors/powers-and-authority/ [34] For more information, see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_legislature_(United_States) [35] For more information, see Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_legislature_(United_States) [36] "States with a full-time legislature". Ballotpedia. Retrieved September 25, 2025. [37] Dunleavy, Patrick; Diwakar, Rekha (2013). "Analysing multiparty competition in plurality rule elections" (PDF). Party Politics. 19 (6): 855–886. [38] For more information, see Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_U nited_States [39] DeFalco, Beth (January 9, 2007). "New Jersey to take 'idiots,' 'insane' out of state constitution?". Delaware News-Journal [40] Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), "ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission Final Report" VIII. Voting Rights, p. 13. [41] Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), "ODIHR Limited Election Observation Mission Final Report" IX. Voter Registration, p. 12-13 [42] "Voter Registration Resources". Project Vote Smart. Archived from the original on October 30, 2011 [43] "Louisiana Amendment 1, Citizen Requirement for Voting Measure (December 2022)". Ballotpedia. [44] "Voting Outside the Polling Place: Absentee, All-Mail and other Voting at Home Options". www.ncsl.org. [45] "VOPP: Table 18: States With All-Mail Elections". www.ncsl.org. Retrieved July 2, 2020. [46] "Electronic Transmission of Ballots". www.ncsl.org. [47] "Who Can Vote? - A News21 2012 National Project". [48] Krebs, Christopher Cox (November 29, 2020). "Fired director of U.S. cyber agency Chris Krebs explains why President Trump's claims of election interference are false". [49] Graham, David A. (August 10, 2020). "The 'Blue Shift' Will Decide the Election". The Atlantic [50] "Early Voting Calendar - Vote.org". www.vote.org. [51] Stewart, Charles (2011). "Voting Technologies". Annual Review of Political Science. 14: 353–378. [52] Stewart, Charles (2011). "Voting Technologies". Annual Review of Political Science. 14: 353–378. [53] Stewart, Charles (2011). "Voting Technologies". Annual Review of Political Science. 14: 353–378. [54] For more information, see Wikipedia [55] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States [56] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States [57] see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States [58] Stanton, Zack (September 26, 2021), "What If 2020 Was Just a Rehearsal?", Politico [59] Parlapiano, Alicia (October 29, 2020), "The Upshot: How Long Will Vote Counting Take? Estimates and Deadlines in All 50 States", The New York Times, [60] Gilens, Martin; Page, Benjamin I. (September 1, 2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. [61] Sanford Levinson (LA Times article available on website) (October 16, 2006). "Our Broken Constitution". University of Texas School of Law -- News & Events. [62] Hasen, Richard L. (2020). "Chapter 2". Election meltdown: dirty tricks, distrust, and the threat to American democracy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press [63] "Representation in the Electoral College: How do states compare?". USAFacts. [64] McDonough, Bryanne (November 4, 2016). "Our Elections Are Stupid: How to Make Them Less Dumb". Reporter.

On 30 October 2025, Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump held their first in-person meeting since 2019 on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Busan. The encounter marked a cautious “tentative reengagement” after six years of sustained friction, signalling neither a diplomatic thaw nor a substantive breakthrough, but a forced recalibration. Both sides recognised that prolonged confrontation was increasingly costly, yet neither was willing to display strategic vulnerability or compromise on core interests. The central challenge of this “six-year reunion” was how to balance unavoidable competition with limited cooperation. The Busan meeting did not resolve long-standing disputes, but it did illuminate the evolving structure of bilateral engagement: limited economic de-escalation coexisting with sustained tensions in security and technology. Trust remained thin, and risk management defined the tone. Within this framework of cautious interaction and enduring rivalry, both sides resumed dialogue while leaving key structural contradictions unresolved. Tactical Easing: A “Mutual Ceasefire” over Rare Earths and Tariffs Building on preliminary understandings reached during earlier Kuala Lumpur discussions, the Busan meeting yielded limited but concrete outcomes. Washington agreed to suspend part of its planned tariff increases and delay the expansion of export restrictions. Beijing, in turn, postponed implementation of newly announced controls on rare earth elements and related technologies. These reciprocal measures were explicitly time-limited, with a one-year horizon.While framed as mutual concessions, the steps reflected pragmatic political calculations within each country’s domestic context. President Trump sought short-term economic calm to support financial markets and reassure key Midwestern constituencies ahead of the election cycle. Beijing, for its part, aimed to preserve a stable external environment through managed openness, gaining room for continued economic restructuring and technological adaptation. Yet the truce was fragile. China’s decision to delay export controls was not a concession but a strategic withholding of leverage. As the supplier of roughly 60 percent of the world’s mined rare earths – critical to semiconductors, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and US defence platforms such as the F-35—Beijing retains significant influence over global supply chains. The Busan easing was therefore less a structural breakthrough than a tactical pause: a deferral of escalation rather than a resolution of underlying tensions. Diplomatic Silence over Taiwan: Strategic Caution and Latent Risks The Busan meeting made no reference to the Taiwan issue—an omission that is rare in the history of China–US summitry. Following the talks, President Trump remarked that President Xi “understands the consequences” of attempting to seize Taiwan but declined to clarify whether the United States would intervene militarily. Secretary of State Marco Rubio similarly emphasised that Washington would not trade Taiwan’s interests for economic concessions. Taiwan thus became the “elephant in the room”: too consequential to ignore, yet too politically volatile to confront directly. For Beijing, Taiwan constitutes an inviolable sovereignty red line. For Trump, raising the issue risked derailing trade-focused dialogue and undermining his image of diplomatic control. Both leaders chose strategic silence as a means of avoiding escalation. This silence did not indicate convergence, but rather mutual restraint under high pressure. Taiwan has become a latent variable in every round of China–US engagement: absent from formal discussions, yet structurally embedded in the broader strategic equation. The longer it is avoided, the more its political cost accrues. In the future, renewed tensions—whether triggered by trade disputes or maritime incidents in the South China Seas—could rapidly return Taiwan to the center of bilateral confrontation. Taiwan’s “absence” in Busan does not reduce its relevance; it only signals that the crisis has been temporarily displaced from public diplomacy rather than defused. Institutionalised Decoupling: From Policy Choice to Structural Reality The diplomatic silence over Taiwan reflected tactical caution, while at a deeper level, the Busan meeting underscored the entrenched technological and institutional divergence between China and the United States. Trump signalled that US firms such as NVIDIA might engage in selective transactions involving mid-range AI chips, but reaffirmed that the most advanced semiconductor products would remain tightly restricted. This reaffirmed Washington’s “technology defense logic,” in which high-tech rivalry is governed by national security imperatives rather than market access concerns. In Beijing’s view, technological self-sufficiency is equally central to national resilience and regime security. Both sides now frame their strategic contest as a “struggle over national trajectory,” where concession is viewed as structural vulnerability. As a result, each is doubling down on domestic institutional insulation rather than pursuing negotiated guardrails. This bifurcation has produced a dual trajectory: modest stabilisation in trade flows paired with accelerating fragmentation in high-end technologies. Both governments are using this brief “technological cooldown” to advance structural measures. Washington is deepening coordination with allies and expanding export control and investment screening regimes. Beijing, for its part, is formulating new legal instruments—including draft frameworks akin to a Science and Technology Security Law and prospective regulations on critical technologies—to consolidate oversight over strategic sectors. While these initiatives are not yet fully codified, they reflect a clear intent to embed technology governance within national security architecture. In this context, technology has lost its value as a bargaining lever in diplomacy. Both sides tacitly acknowledge that strategic technologies can no longer be traded without compromising sovereignty. Technological decoupling has thus evolved from a temporary response into a systemic condition. The Busan “easing” did not reflect progress toward convergence, but rather a managed pause in an increasingly institutionalised contest. From High-Intensity Confrontation to Managed Competition The Busan meeting marked a shift in China–US relations from high-intensity confrontation to limited management. The two sides temporarily stabilised trade and exercised restraint on political and security fronts, while competition in technological and institutional domains remained entrenched. This was not reconciliation, nor a turning point, but the formation of a provisional equilibrium. For China, Busan offered a space for economic adjustment and accelerated efforts toward technological autonomy. For the United States, it maintained strategic pressure while averting short-term escalation. Beneath the optics of diplomacy, structural divergence and strategic mistrust persist. Across the Indo-Pacific, this “uneasy coexistence” is increasingly becoming the regional default. The significance of Busan lies not in concrete outcomes, but in the shared recognition that strategic confrontation must be managed, even if it cannot yet be resolved. This article was published under a Creative Commons license and may be republished with attribution, check original source for more information.

Introduction An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) or unmanned aircraft system (UAS), commonly known as drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot, crew or passenger on board, but rather controlled remotely or autonomously. Drones can be seen as cutting-edge technologies with tremendous ramifications across various fields, including military, security, economics, and logistics – ranging from lightweight consumer drones to advanced autonomous combat platforms – that have transformed global security economics and technological developments. Their proliferation marks a shift in the conduct of warfare, industrial processes, and urban infrastructure design. In this context, this article aims to analyze these dynamics across three domains: geopolitical and security implications, economics and industrial processes, and future technological transformation. I. Geopolitical and Security Perspective: "Game Changers" The Dawn of the Unmanned Warfare Era The past decade — and especially during the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and the Caucasus —has showcased an irreversible shift toward unmanned warfare. Low-cost drones have enabled nations and non-state actors to conduct reconnaissance, precision strikes, and electronic warfare at a fraction of traditional military costs. The democratization of drone warfare erodes conventional military hierarchies by giving smaller nations and even non-state groups asymmetric capabilities (Kania, 2020), (Vision of Humanity, 2024). Figure 1: Use of drones by type. A major consequence of this shift is the emergence of continuous aerial presence, which fundamentally alters operational rhythm and tempo. Previously, only major powers could afford persistent surveillance through manned aircraft or satellites. Today, even insurgent groups can deploy swarms of commercial drones to maintain near-constant observation of enemy movements. This constant presence of drones on the battlefield forces militaries to make decisions much faster and operate as if they are always being watched. As drone technology becomes cheaper and more widely available, it also becomes easier for states or groups to launch low-risk, hard-to-trace attacks without putting their own people in danger. This reduces the barrier to starting or escalating conflicts and makes the overall situation far more unpredictable. On the other hand, despite automation, drone warfare remains heavily dependent on human adaptation, moreover, in practice, drones’ use is constrained by weather, terrain, and limited night capability (Newton, 2025). Nonetheless, and as seen in the Ukraine War, the adaptation, development and improvement of the designs and systems have skyrocketed and shortened from months to weeks. A Paradigm Shift in Modern Warfare Traditional doctrines built around armored vehicles, manned aircraft, and centralized command structures are giving way to distributed, networked, and automated operations. Drones allow for constant ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), rapid kill chains, and battlefield transparency that reduces the effectiveness of concealment and mass maneuver (Biddle & Oelrich, 2016). Swarm technology further accelerates this shift by overwhelming air defenses through algorithmic coordination. On a broader strategic level, unmanned systems are transforming operational art, forcing militaries to rethink how they structure campaigns. Instead of relying on a small number of high-value manned platforms, modern forces must integrate thousands of expendable, semi-autonomous assets into a coherent command-and-control ecosystem. This shift elevates the importance of data fusion, algorithms, and electronic warfare, as success increasingly depends on which side can process information more effectively rather than which side has heavier armor or more firepower. Furthermore, the psychological effects of drone warfare — constant monitoring, unpredictable strikes, and the invisibility of operators — alter the morale and behavior of both soldiers and civilians. In this sense, unmanned warfare not only changes tactics but reshapes the human dimension of conflict. Evolution of Defense Strategies States now are prioritizing anti-drone systems (C-UAS), electronic warfare, and resilient supply chains. Defense strategies emphasize dispersion, decoys, deception, and multi-layered air defense, recognizing that the cost ratio favors attackers using cheap drones against expensive assets. Militaries increasingly incorporate AI-enabled targeting, autonomous perimeter defense, and drone-versus-drone combat (Mehta, 2022). The rapid evolution of offensive drone capabilities has forced governments to pursue a new generation of integrated counter-unmanned systems, blending kinetic interceptors, directed-energy weapons, radio-frequency jamming, and cyber tools. However, the challenge is not merely technological — it is organizational. Modern militaries must revise procurement cycles, adopt flexible doctrine, and restructure units to counter the fast-changing drone threat. For example, some nations are creating dedicated “drone defense battalions” or embedding electronic warfare teams at lower echelons of command. Once more the Ukraine War is a good example: Ukraine’s early-warning systems (so called, “drone walls”) use layered reconnaissance UAVs to identify threats and enhance battlefield visibility, unfortunately, these are highly vulnerable to electronic warfare and radar destruction. More examples include the fiber-optic FPV drones as countermeasure of jamming, or decoy drones to lure air defenses and absorb munitions. (Newton, 2025) The rise of drone warfare also places huge demand on secure communications and resilient digital infrastructure; adversaries increasingly target supply chains, software vulnerabilities, and satellite links that control unmanned systems. Thus, the evolution of defense strategies represents a multi-domain effort that spans hardware, software, organizational culture, and national-level industrial capacity. Major Countries' Competition in Drone Weapon Development The United States, China, Israel, Turkey, and Iran dominate the global drone arms race, while Russia and Ukraine deserve a special mention too. • USA: it focuses on high-tech autonomous systems, for example the MQ-25, Collaborative Combat Aircraft. In addition, according to the Federal Aviation Administration they have an estimated 822,039 drones registered as of July 2025. (FAA, 2025)• China: leads in export volume, offering cost-competitive platforms like the Wing Loong series (Fischer, 2020).• Turkey: gained strategic influence through the Bayraktar TB2, proven in multiple regional conflicts like the Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 or its use for strategic communications for Ukraine during the ongoing conflict. (Péria-Peigné, 2023)• Israel: its research, development and production of innovative drone technology and exports roughly $500 million worth of UAV-related products per year, have positioned Israel as a world leader in the area. Israel is well known for its indigenous and competitive manufacturing UAVs like the Hermes 450, the Searcher Mk II and the Heron. (Sadot, s.f.)• Iran: their Shahed-136 drone is a low-cost drone that has gained attention internationally as it has shown affordability, precision, long-range, and cheapness during the Ukraine War – deployed by Russia. (Kesteloo, 2025)• Ukraine: has emerged as a leader in tactical warfare, including mass quantities of low-cost First-Person View (FPV) drones for frontline and deep-strike operations. But also, it has implemented “Spider’s Web” operations, which strike deep inside Russia, while using low-cost assets but with strategic and punctual strikes. Ukraine has also expanded into the maritime domain with unmanned surface vessels (USVs) using them with a kamikaze-style operation targeting ships and critical offshore infrastructure in the Black Sea. (Newton, 2025)• Russia: the war has institutionalized an UAV doctrine with mass deployment of FPV drones (Newton, 2025) and the creation – similar to Ukraine – of an Unmanned System Force (USF) aiming to encompass aerial, land and surface drones. (Altman, 2025) II. Economic & Industrial Perspective: “Flying Industrial Revolution” Future Logistics and Delivery Systems Beyond the battlefield, drones are reshaping global economies and enabling new industrial ecosystems. For instance, drones are rapidly transforming last-mile delivery by reducing transportation time, bypassing road congestion, and enabling access to remote or disaster-affected areas. Companies like Amazon, Wing, and Zipline have already demonstrated how unmanned aircraft can deliver medical supplies, parcels, and consumer goods more efficiently than traditional vehicles. As autonomous navigation, battery technology, and payload capacity continue to improve, drones are expected to become critical components of global supply chains, especially in regions where infrastructure is limited or demand for ultra-fast delivery is increasing. Global drone delivery is expected to reach multi-billion-dollar scale by 2030 (PwC, 2023). In the longer term, logistics networks are expected to evolve into hybrid ground–air systems, where drones work alongside autonomous ground vehicles and smart warehouses. These systems could drastically reduce operational costs by automating pickup, sorting, and delivery processes. Integrating drones with AI-driven inventory management and predictive delivery algorithms will allow companies to anticipate demand and route products dynamically. As eVTOL cargo aircraft mature, the concept of “airborne logistics hubs” may also emerge, enabling rapid long-distance transport between distribution centers without the need for airports. Together, these developments point toward a future where aerial logistics are not just an add-on, but a central pillar of modern supply chains. Improving Industrial Efficiency Across agriculture, energy, construction, and mining drones significantly improve efficiency by automating tasks that previously required expensive equipment or manual labor. By replacing manned inspection systems, drones can reduce labor costs, increase safety, and provide data of unprecedented detail (McKinsey, 2022). For example, farmers use drones for precision spraying and crop monitoring, reducing fertilizer and water usage. Energy companies deploy unmanned systems for pipeline inspections and powerline surveys, minimizing downtime and enhancing worker safety. Construction and mining firms rely on drones for site mapping, progress tracking, and 3D modeling, improving project accuracy while lowering operational costs. Beyond task automation, drones are becoming essential to data-driven industrial optimization. Equipped with thermal sensors, LiDAR, and multispectral cameras, unmanned systems can capture high-resolution data that feeds directly into AI analytics platforms. This allows companies to detect inefficiencies, predict equipment failure, and optimize resource allocation in real time. As industries move toward digital twins — virtual models of physical assets — drones will play a key role in continuously updating these systems with accurate spatial and environmental data. The result is a more responsive, efficient, and resilient industrial ecosystem that leverages aerial automation for competitive advantage. Regulatory Environment and Market Growth Regulation remains the single most influential factor shaping the global drone market. Governments are gradually introducing frameworks to enable Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations, Remote ID tracking, and certification standards for commercial drones. Regions like the European Union have adopted unified risk-based rules through EASA, while the United States continues to refine its Part 107 and UTM integration policies through the FAA. These regulatory milestones are essential for scaling commercial drone usage, as they provide clarity to manufacturers, operators, and investors. As regulatory frameworks mature, they are also becoming a competitive advantage for regions that adopt them early. Countries that implement drone-friendly ecosystems — such as Singapore, the UAE, and Rwanda — are rapidly emerging as hubs for drone research, testing, and deployment. This regulatory momentum encourages multinational companies to establish operations in these markets, accelerating local innovation and talent development. Furthermore, harmonized international standards will make it easier for drone manufacturers to reduce production complexity and expand globally. Ultimately, the pace of market growth will depend not just on technological advancement but on how effectively governments balance innovation with safety, privacy, and public acceptance. Investment Trends Investment in drone-related technologies has surged, driven by the convergence of autonomy, artificial intelligence, and advanced manufacturing. Venture capital firms increasingly fund companies developing autonomous navigation systems, UTM software, battery technology, and specialized industrial drones. Defense investors continue to expand their portfolios into dual-use drone companies, reflecting growing geopolitical interest and national security incentives. Meanwhile, major tech firms and automotive companies are exploring opportunities in cargo drones, eVTOL aircraft, and autonomous mobility ecosystems. Beyond private investment, government funding and public–private partnerships are accelerating drone adoption globally. Many nations are launching test corridors, innovation hubs, and subsidies to attract drone startups and support local manufacturing. This trend is particularly strong in Asia and the Middle East, where governments see drones as strategic tools for digital transformation and economic diversification. As markets mature, investment is shifting from hardware-heavy startups toward software, analytics, and integrated airspace management solutions — reflecting a broader transition from drone manufacturing to drone ecosystems. This shift signals a long-term, sustainable evolution of the drone industry from early experimental phases to full-scale commercial and civil integration. III. Future Technologies The Need for Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) As drones and future eVTOL air taxis multiply, low-altitude airspace will become increasingly crowded. To prevent collisions and maintain order, UTM frameworks — already being developed by NASA, the FAA, EASA, and ICAO — aim to coordinate autonomous flights using real-time tracking, automated route planning, and digital air corridors (Kopardekar, 2016). These systems will act as the “air-traffic control of the future,” but designed for far larger numbers of smaller, faster-moving vehicles. In addition, as demand grows, it is likely that UTM will evolve into a fully automated, AI-driven airspace ecosystem capable of managing thousands of simultaneous flights with minimal human oversight. Future systems could incorporate weather prediction, dynamic rerouting, and AI-powered detect-and-avoid features, which more than a technical upgrade, would transform the air mobility in the cities worldwide. Global Standardization Competition The need for standard UTM, drone certifications, communication systems, and detect-and-avoid technology is critical, but it also represents a geopolitical contest. The U.S., the European Union, and China are each developing distinct technological ecosystems, hoping their standards will dominate global markets. Whichever region’s standards become the international norm will shape supply chains, aircraft design, and regulatory practices for decades. This competition mirrors earlier battles over telecommunications and 5G. Nations that establish widely adopted drone standards will gain strategic advantages, including influence over global manufacturing, software ecosystems, and aviation governance. As a result, UTM and drone certification are no longer just technical debates — they have become instruments of national power, economic leverage and somehow geopolitical importance. Urban Safety and Privacy Issues In addition, another major concern for cities is the widespread adoption of drones itself, which translates into surveillance risks, noise pollution from frequent flights, and vulnerability to cyberattacks that could compromise flight controls. Therefore, urban areas need strict rules governing data collection, flight paths, and liability in case of accidents to maintain public trust and safety. In the future, cities will also require integrated emergency response protocols, stronger cybersecurity defenses, and digital identity systems for all unmanned aircraft. Public engagement and transparent oversight will play a major role in ensuring that drones enhance urban life without creating new forms of intrusion or risk. Managing these challenges will be essential for the successful adoption of unmanned urban mobility. Integration with Future Urban Infrastructure In line with the previous section, smart cities could incorporate drones into their core infrastructure. For example, vertiports, rooftop landing pads, sensor-equipped air corridors, and digital twins could enable efficient navigation and real-time monitoring. In addition, drones will become essential for urban mobility and public services – from medical or any goods deliveries to emergency response like fire unit responses. As cities evolve, this integration will create a hybrid transportation ecosystem, where ground vehicles, aerial drones, and automated control systems would operate in sync. Urban planning will increasingly consider airspace as a valuable layer of infrastructure, much like roads or power grids. Therefore, collaboration between governments, industry, and technology providers to design cities capable of supporting high-density autonomous air mobility is required. Conclusion Unmanned systems are redefining the global balance of power, transforming industrial processes, and reshaping urban futures. The convergence of autonomy, AI, and networked airspace introduces both unprecedented opportunity and profound risk. Geopolitically, drones dilute traditional military dominance; economically, they catalyze a new airborne industrial revolution; technologically, they push societies toward complex management of shared automated airspace. Future policy, regulation, and innovation will determine whether unmanned systems become drivers of prosperity or vectors of instability. References Altman, H. (2025, November 13). Russia Creates New Military Branch Dedicated to Drone Warfare. The War Zone (TWZ). https://www.twz.com/news-features/russia-creates-new-military-branch-dedicated-to-drone-warfare Amazon. (2023). Prime Air: The Future of Drone Delivery. Amazon Corporate Publications. Biddle, S., & Oelrich, I. (2016). Future Warfare in the Age of Drones. Council on Foreign Relations. Deloitte. (2022). Drones in Industrial Operations: Transforming Asset Inspection and Performance. Deloitte Insights. FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). (2023). Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems into the National Airspace System. U.S. Department of Transportation. FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). (2025). Drones. https://www.faa.gov/uas Fischer, S. (2020). China’s Military–Civil Fusion Strategy: A View from Washington. U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission. Kania, E. B. (2020). Learning Warfare from the Laboratory: China’s Progress in Military Innovation. Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Kesteloo, H. (2025, September 29). Global Military Drone Race Intensifies as Nations Rush to Copy Iran’s Shahed Design. Medium. https://medium.com/@hayekesteloo/global-military-drone-race-intensifies-as-nations-rush-to-copy-irans-shahed-design-404badf482fb Kopardekar, P. (2016). Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) Concept of Operations. NASA Ames Research Center. McKinsey & Company. (2022). The Commercial Drone Market Outlook: Insights on Market Growth, Industrial Adoption, and Regulation. McKinsey Robotics & Automation Practice. Mehta, A. (2022). Counter-Drone Systems and the Future of Air Defense. Defense News. Newton, M. (2025, November 3). How Are Drones Changing War? The Future of the Battlefield. Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). https://cepa.org/article/how-are-drones-changing-war-the-future-of-the-battlefield/ Péria-Peigné, L. (2023, April 17). TB2 Bayraktar: Big Strategy for a Little Drone. IFRI. https://www.ifri.org/en/memos/tb2-bayraktar-big-strategy-little-drone PwC. (2023). Clarity from Above: Global Drone Market Analysis. PwC Global. Roland Berger. (2022). Urban Air Mobility: The Rise of the Drone Economy. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. Rwanda Civil Aviation Authority. (2021). Regulatory Framework for Drone Delivery and BVLOS Operations. Government of Rwanda. Sadot, U. (n.d.). Proliferated Drones: A Perspective on Israel. Center for a New American Security (CNAS). https://drones.cnas.org/reports/a-perspective-on-israel/ Schmidt, E., Work, R., & Clyburn, M. (2021). Final Report: National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. U.S. Government Printing Office. Singer, P. W. (2009). Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century. Penguin Books. Statista. (2023). Global Drone Market Value and Investment Trends. Statista Market Outlook. Vision of Humanity. (2024, June 13). How Drones Have Shaped the Nature of Conflict. https://www.visionofhumanity.org/how-drones-have-shaped-the-nature-of-conflict/ Wing (Alphabet). (2023). Autonomous Delivery Networks and Future Logistics. Wing Technical Publications. Zipline. (2022). Operational Impact of Automated Medical Delivery by Drone. Zipline International Case Studies.

Introduction Technological innovation is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, reshaping how societies generate energy, transport people and goods, produce food, fight disease, and explore space. Across multiple sectors, groundbreaking solutions are emerging in response to global challenges such as climate change, public health threats, energy insecurity, and resource scarcity. This article examines seven transformative technologies — from wireless electric-vehicle charging roads and regenerative ocean farming to graphene applications and disease-eliminating robots — each demonstrating how science and engineering are redefining sustainability, resilience, and human capability in the 21st century. 1. Wireless Electric Vehicles Charging Roads Electric Vehicles (EVs) have become key technology to decarbonise road transport, a sector that accounts for over 15% of global energy-related emissions. The increase of their sales globally exceeded 17 million in 2024, and it is forecasted to surpass the 20 million units by 2025. (IEA, 2025) Source: IEA analysis based on country submissions and data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA), European Alternative Fuels Observatory (EAFO), EV Volumes and Marklines. Despite this growth, several concerns continue to slow down their widespread adoption. Limited charging infrastructure, battery-related autonomy issues, high purchase costs, slow charging times, and the environmental impact of the battery productions remain major obstacle. The broader EV industry, however, is actively developing new technologies to overcome these challenges. (Automotive Technology, 2025) In this context, one of the most pressing challenges is energy supply – specifically, the need for better batteries and more accessible charging points. To address this bottleneck, a promising new trend has emerged: wireless roads capable of charging EVs while they drive. This technology could fundamentally transform the charging experience and significantly reduce dependence on stationary chargers. The idea is simple, a system that supplies power to EVs while driving, using embedded inductive coils (wireless charging) or conductive rails on the road, in other words a dynamic or in-motion charging on the road. In fact, this technology already exists and there are several examples worth mentioning: - South Korea: introduced in 2013, the first road-powered electric vehicle network, in which electrical cables were buried below the surface and wirelessly transfer energy to the electric vehicles via magnetic resonance. An electrified road has the advantage of eliminating the plug-in infrastructure and vehicles usually require a smaller battery, reducing weight and energy consumption. In 2009, KAIST introduced the OLEV (online electric vehicle), a type of EV that uses wireless dynamic charging through inductive coils embedded in the road. The OLEV public transport buses were later used in the 2013 first electric road in the city of Gumi, which consisted of a network of 24 km, by 2015 the number of OLEV buses increased to 12 (Anthony, 2013) and another bus line was launched in Sejong that same year. (SKinno News, 2021)- Sweden: a 1.6 km road linking Stockholm Arlanda airport to a logistic site outside the capital city was a pilot project achieved in 2016. (The Guardian, 2018), (Carbonaro, 2022) However, the Swedish government didn’t stop there and by 2020 they built a wireless road for heavy trucks and buses in the island city of Visby, and they are planning to expand it to the 13-mile E20 highway – logistic hub between Hallsberg and Örebro – and even have a plan of further 3,000 km of electric roads in Sweden by 2035. (Min, 2023), (Dow, 203)- USA: a quarter mile (400 m) section of road through the Corktown area of Detroit was changed to a wireless electric road. Electreon was the company in charge of the project. (Paris, 2024), (6abc Philadelphia, 2025)- France, Norway and China: Electreon – a leading provider of wireless charging solutions for EVs – has partnered and gained projects for wireless highways in France – a section of the A10 highway (Electric Vehicle Charging & Infrastructure, 2023) –, Norway – evaluation of wireless charging for AtB’s BRT routes in Trøndelag (Foster, Electreon to install the first wireless electric road in Norway, 2023) – and China – not wireless but in an 1.8 km electrified highway in Zhuzhou. (Foster, China demonstrates electrified highway, 2023) While all these examples show a “tendency” to switch into wireless roads, it is important to highlight three points to keep that are decisive and have slowed down the transition: in first place, these wireless roads are being targeted mainly for freight trucks and buses, the second point is the initial cost of the infrastructure is high and third point is the technology that should be added to the EVs. 2. Fire Suppression Using Sound Waves Seth Robertson and Viet Tran, engineering students from George Mason University in Virginia designed a fire extinguisher that uses sound waves to put out flames. Their device emits low-frequency sound waves that disrupt the conditions necessary for a fire to sustain itself, meaning that no foam, powder, chemicals or water are needed to extinguish a fire, just sound. In order to understand how it can be possible to extinguish fire with sound it is necessary to remember that a fire needs heat, fuel and oxygen to survive, if one of these elements does not appears, there is no fire, under this principle, Robertson and Tran’s prototype uses sounds to separate the oxygen from the flame, as a result, the fire extinguish. The interesting part is that the sound must have the right frequency, specifically between 30 to 60 Hz – low frequency sounds. The sound waves will act as pressure waves moving the air molecules back and forth, and in the right frequency, the movement will disrupt the flames’ structure, separating the oxygen molecules and the fire will simply die out with the lack of these molecules. Potential applications include small kitchen fires or small fires, while unfortunately, large-scale structural or wildland fires still remain a challenge, mostly due to the environmental factors, like wind, air density and flame intensity, that can be a hurdle in uncontrolled environments. Moreover, the generation of low-frequency sound waves powerful enough to suppress fires requires a significant amount of energy. Nonetheless, an early prototype consists of an amplifier to generate low-frequency sound and a collimator to focus the sound waves directly on the fire, and as mentioned before, one limitation is that specialized equipment is required to produce the high-pressure sound waves. Still, research has been carried out recently and it is expected that this technology could be a non-destructive and less damaging method for firefighters soon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPVQMZ4ikvM 3. Regenerative Ocean Farming Regenerative ocean farming is a climate-friendly model of aquaculture where seaweed and/or shellfish are grown in a way that requires no freshwater, feed or fertilizer, as the crops naturally filter nutrients from the water and capture carbon and nitrogen. This farming model can benefit coastal ecosystems and communities by increasing food security, creating jobs, improving water quality, protecting coastlines, supporting ocean justice (Urban Ocean Lab, 2023) and most importantly, mitigating climate change. Ocean farming can rely on a polyculture system – cultivate a mix of shellfish and seaweeds – or just a single species system. While the climate conditions determine the species to grow, it does not affect the system itself. The system follows a vertical layer farming way, in which farms use ropes that extend vertically from the surface to the seabed, in addition to the use of different levels and cages for scallops, oysters or clams, for example, as shown in Figure 2. Other species like kelp, abalone, purple sea urchins or sea cucumbers can also be harvested. Figure 2: Ocean farming diagram. Source: Urban Ocean Lab The big advantage is the maximization of the ocean space, producing more food in a smaller footprint, in addition to the use of the benefits of the species – seaweed and shellfishes – which are both natural filters that help to clean the water and absorb excess nutrients, combating ocean acidification and reducing marine pollution (Hassan, 2024) naturally. Moreover, the versatility of these species allows them to use them in other areas, such as biofuels, soil fertilizers, animal feed or cosmetics and not only for human food. Around the world, there are several projects that have adopted this methodology (Hassan, 2024): 1. GreenWave (USA): increased biodiversity by 50%, reduced nitrogen level in water by 20% and created sustainable job opportunities for locals.2. Ocean’s Halo (Ireland): annual harvest of 500 tons of kelp, creation of 20 jobs in rural areas and carbon footprint reduction by 30%3. Kitasaku Marine (Japan): Nori production increased by 25%, coastal water quality improved by 15% and local support of 50 locals.4. Catalina Sea Ranch (USA): harvested 1 million pounds of mussels annually, increased local biodiversity by 20% and created 10 new jobs.5. Blue Ventures (Madagascar): harvested 146 tonnes of red seaweed, plus they have created a sea cucumber market with a value of $18,000 and 700 farmers have been trained to farm in the ocean. (Blue Ventures Conservation, 2015)6. Havhøst (Ocean Harvest) (Denmark): they are growing seaweed, mussels and the European flat oyster in 30 communities along the Danish coast. In addition, they focus on educational activities to introduce ocean farming to more people. (Waycott, 2022) Overall ocean farming creates a positive environmental impact; it provides a sustainable food source and economic opportunities for the local people and the industry. Of course it faces challenges, but it has become a way to mitigate climate change and protect the ocean. 4. Wave Energy Generators There are two types of waves. Surface waves are generated by a combination of wind passing over the sea’s surface raising up water and gravity pulling it back down. In a technical way, warm air rises and expands, creating areas of low pressure compared to places with cooler air. Air then moves from high-pressure areas to low-pressure areas. This movement of air is wind and when it rushes across the surface of the Earth it creates waves in oceans. (Lumley, 2025) On the other hand, underwater waves are sound waves produced by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions; these waves travel by compressing and expanding the water. (Kadri, 2025) In both cases temperature variations and other factors can affect the nature of the waves. For instance, wave energy or wave power harnesses the ocean’s waves to generate energy by converting a wave’s kinetic energy into electricity. Wave power is a form of renewable and sustainable energy which has potential cost benefits over solar and wind but faces technological challenges limiting its large-scale adoption in electricity generation and water desalination. (Lumley, 2025) The nature of the waves makes wave energy the world’s largest source of energy with a potential of annual global production of 29,500 TWh, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2012). In addition, it works well in tandem with other renewables such as wind. (Ocean Energy Europe, s.f.) In terms of technology itself, wave energy has relied on the next devices: 1. Point absorbers: floating buoys that capture the vertical movement of waves, which then is harnessed through a cable anchored to the seabed. The vertical movement of the waves is subsequently transformed into electricity via converters (alternators, generators or hydraulic systems). These are usually mounted on the seabed in shallower water and are connected to the floating buoys.2. Oscillating water columns (OWCs): a partially submerged, hollow structure connected to an air turbine through a chamber. These devices use the rise and fall of the waves to compress air, the air is forced to move back and forth in the chamber and creates a strong air flow that powers the turbine, generating electricity.3. Overtopping devices: a floating structure made of segments linked together, which lifts up and down with the waves. These devices harness wave energy by allowing waves to flow into a reservoir, which then releases the water through turbines to generate electricity. Design, flow dimensions, turbine efficiency and structural elements influence their efficiency. Source: BKV Energy Despite its huge potential and considering it as a clean energy source with no GHG emissions, the main concern related to wave energy is the marine life affectation – including habitat alteration, noise pollution or collision risks for marine life. On the other hand, high costs, complex design, maintenance and technological constraints also have become a problem, still, the potential of this continuous energy is huge compared to the more limited wind energy, for example. (Lumley, 2025) Despite all that, there are some active projects being developed in different parts of the world, for example: Azura Wave Power (tested in Hawaii), Anaconda WEC (UK’s prototype), CalWave (in California), CETO (tested in Australia and expected to be tested in Spain too), Crestwing (tested in Denmark), HiWave-5 (Swedish-based tested in Portugal), the Wave Energy Program (in India) or the Ocean Grazer WEC (developed in The Netherlands), among many others. (Wikipedia, 2019) 5. SpinLaunch SpinLaunch is a spaceflight technology development company working on mass accelerator technology to move payloads to space. This innovative space company is known for their Meridian Space and their Suborbital Accelerator. The Meridian Space is a low-cost, highly differentiated LEO satellite communications constellation which offers speed, reliability and flexibility (SpinLaunch, 2025). The company has partnered, and investments have been achieved in order to launch 280 satellites (Berger, 2025) as part of their satellite constellation, which will satisfy the needs in any area needed such as maritime, national security, communications, corporate networks, aviation, military, etc. The highlight of these satellites is their mass that is only 70 kg, and its facility to be launched in one or two rockets. On the other hand, SpinLaunch is aiming to build a kinetic launch system that uses centrifugal force instead of traditional rockets and spins a rocket around at speeds up to 4700 mph (7,500 km/h) before sending it upward toward space. At 60 km or so altitude, the rocket would ignite its engines to achieve orbital velocity. To achieve this, they have built a Suborbital Accelerator prototype, in Spaceport America, New Mexico. This prototype is a 33-meter vacuum chamber that can launch payloads from 800 to 5000 mph. Several tests have already been carried out, being the 10th the latest on September 27th, 2025. (Young, 2025) SpinLaunch hopes to have a 100-meter Orbital Lauch system by 2026. The engineering behind these systems is as follows: both systems are circular accelerators, powered by an electric drive that uses a mechanical arm to sling payloads around in circles to reach incredibly high speeds of up to 5,000 mph. They then release the payload through a launch tube and spaceward. (Young, 2025) The company claims that their method is cheaper as it eliminates 70% of the fuel compared to the traditional rocket launch, in addition, the infrastructure is less, and it is more environmentally friendly than the traditional methods. However, the limitations are seen in the payload weight (no more than 400 kg per payload) and their resistance (payloads must be able to withstand up to 10,000 G’s of force during the centrifugal acceleration process) Source: SpinLaunch. 6. Disease-Eliminating Robots “Disease-eliminating robots” encompass a diverse set of robotic and AI-driven systems designed to prevent, monitor, and treat infectious diseases while minimizing human exposure to risk. These technologies operate at multiple scales — from environmental disinfection in hospitals to microscopic interventions inside the human body. Environmental disinfection robots are among the most established applications. Devices such as Xenex and UVD Robots utilize pulsed ultraviolet (UV-C) light to destroy viral and bacterial DNA, effectively sterilizing hospital rooms within minutes (UVD Robots, 2023; Xenex, 2024). Others deploy vaporized hydrogen peroxide (VHP) to disinfect enclosed environments like train carriages and operating rooms (WHO, 2022). These systems substantially reduce hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) and cross-contamination risks. In medical and clinical settings, robotics contribute to precision and safety. Surgical robots such as Intuitive Surgical’s da Vinci and Ion platforms enable minimally invasive operations with reduced infection risk and faster recovery times (Intuitive Surgical, 2024). At the microscopic level, nanorobots are under development for targeted drug delivery, capable of navigating the bloodstream to deliver chemotherapy agents directly to tumor sites, thereby minimizing systemic side effects (Lee et al., 2023). Meanwhile, biofilm-removing microbots are being engineered to eradicate bacterial colonies on medical implants and dental surfaces (Kim et al., 2022). Automated systems are also emerging for precise injections, such as intravitreal therapies for ocular diseases, helping reduce clinician workload and human error (Zhou et al., 2024). Beyond clinical contexts, robots support public health surveillance and disease prevention. Prototypes like MIT’s “Luigi” sewage-sampling robot autonomously collect wastewater data to monitor community-level infections and anticipate outbreaks (MIT News, 2025). In precision agriculture, AI-guided robotic systems detect infected crops early, controlling plant disease spread and protecting global food security (FAO, 2023). Collectively, these robotic systems demonstrate the increasing convergence of automation, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence in safeguarding human and environmental health. By taking on tasks that are dangerous, repetitive, or biologically hazardous, disease-eliminating robots represent a pivotal advancement in the global strategy for infectious disease control and public health resilience. 7. Graphene Graphene is the world’s thinnest material, consisting in a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal honeycomb lattice. Despite its thinnest it is stronger than steel and diamond. In addition, graphene is flexible, transparent, conductive, light, selectively permeable and a 2D material. In summary it is a versatile material with many different applications and that has gained attention since its isolation in 2004 by Russian and Nobel prize scientists Andre Geim and Konstantin Nocoselov. (Larousserie, 2013) The characteristics of graphene make them an important player in the energy, construction, health and electronics sectors. In a deeper analysis, its high conductivity is valuable for battery life, autonomy and energy efficiency. Its lightness is suitable for manufacturing drone batteries, which reduce their weight, and the drone’s weight too. Graphene’s transparency and flexibility could be used in screen devices including cell phones, televisions or vehicles – Samsung already produced a flat screen with graphene electrodes. In addition, its high resistance and excellent heat and electric conductivity make them valuable for the light industry. Other sectors that are beneficial from graphene include the construction and manufacturing sector. For example, adding 1 g of graphene to 5 kg of cement increases the strength of the latter by 35%. Another example refers to Ford Motor Co., that is adding 0.5% of graphene to increase their plastic strength by 20%. (Wyss, 2022) Graphene has become a promising material, and it has been studied and tested to be used as a replacement or equivalent of silicon in microelectronics. It has been used in sports, like tennis rackets made by Head or in electric cars concepts like BASF and Daimler-Benz Smart Forvision. Bluestone Global Tech partnered with mobile phone manufacturers for the first graphene-based touchscreen to be launched in China. (Larousserie, 2013) Paint with graphene for a better thermal regulation in houses; bones, prosthesis, hearing aids or even diagnosis of diseases could also rely on graphene. (Repsol, 2025) Nowadays, its costs are high, but the graphene is going through a moment of intense academic research that surely in some years will end up with even more promising results and applications. Conclusion Together, these seven emerging technologies form a powerful snapshot of the future. Their diversity — spanning transportation, renewable energy, aquaculture, aerospace, robotics, and advanced materials — reflects the multi-sectoral nature of today’s global challenges. Yet they share a common purpose: to create more sustainable, efficient, and resilient systems capable of supporting a rapidly changing world. Wireless charging roads challenge the limits of mobility; ocean farming and wave energy reimagine how we use marine ecosystems; SpinLaunch and graphene redefine what is physically possible; and disease-eliminating robots transform public health. These innovations are still evolving, but they show that the solutions to some of humanity’s most pressing problems already exist — they simply need investment, scaling, and political will. By embracing these technologies and continuing to pursue scientific discovery, societies can accelerate the transition toward a cleaner energy future, safer communities, healthier ecosystems, and a more equitable and technologically advanced world. References 6abc Philadelphia. (2025, Juky 11). Electric vehicle tech: The rise of wireless charging roads. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NzJO67JIUE Abing, H. (n.d.). The Sonic Fire Extinguisher That’s Changing Firefighting. Retrieved from Rareform Audio: https://www.rareformaudio.com/blog/sonic-fire-extinguisher-sound-waves Anthony, S. (2013, August 6). World's first road-powered electric vehicle network switches on in South Korea. Retrieved from ExtremeTech: https://www.extremetech.com/cars/163171-worlds-first-road-powered-electric-vehicle-network-switches-on-in-south-korea Automotive Technology. (2025). What Are the Biggest Challenges Facing Electric Vehicle Adoption Today? Retrieved from Automotive Technology: https://www.automotive-technology.com/articles/what-are-the-biggest-challenges-facing-electric-vehicle-adoption-today BBC Earth. (2023, March 3). Are Underwater Farms the Future of Food? | Our Frozen Planet | BBC Earth. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93nk2xIRcbk&t=11s Berger, E. (2025, April 4). SpinLaunch—yes, the centrifuge rocket company—is making a hard pivot to satellites. Retrieved from Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/04/spinlaunch-yes-the-centrifuge-rocket-company-is-making-a-hard-pivot-to-satellites/ Blue Ventures Conservation. (2015). Community-based aquaculture. Pioneering viable alternatives to fishing. Retrieved from Blue Ventures: https://blueventures.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BV-Aquaculture-Factsheet-2015.pdf Carbonaro, G. (2022, June 24). Wireless charging for electric cars is already here - but the technology isn’t for everybody yet. Retrieved from euro news: https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/06/24/wireless-charging-roads-for-electric-cars-ev-technology-is-here-fiat-stellantis Dow, C. (203, May 16). Sweden will build the world's first EV charging road. Retrieved from TopGear: https://www.topgear.com/car-news/electric/sweden-will-build-worlds-first-ev-charging-road Electric Vehicle Charging & Infrastructure. (2023, July 20). Electreon, together with Vinci, wins tender for first wireless electric road in France. Retrieved from Electric Vehicle Charging & Infrastructure: https://www.evcandi.com/news/electreon-together-vinci-wins-tender-first-wireless-electric-road-france Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2024, March 20). 3D Ocean Farming | Transforming tradition. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PqvHaaL6EQ&t=225s Emergent Team. (n.d.). Using Sound Waves to Put Out Fire: The Story of Two George Mason University Students. Retrieved from Emergent: https://www.emergent.tech/blog/sound-waves-to-put-out-fire FAO. (2023). AI and Robotics in Precision Agriculture: Combating Plant Diseases. Foster, J. (2023, March 29). China demonstrates electrified highway. Retrieved from Electric Vehicle Charging & Infrastructure: https://www.evcandi.com/news/china-demonstrates-electrified-highway Foster, J. (2023, June 28). Electreon to install the first wireless electric road in Norway. Retrieved from Electric Vehicle Charging & Infrastructure: https://www.evcandi.com/news/electreon-install-first-wireless-electric-road-norway George Mason University. (2015, February 6). Pump Up the Bass to Douse a Blaze: Mason Students' Invention Fights Fires. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPVQMZ4ikvM Greenwave. (2025). Regenerative Ocean Farming. Retrieved from Greenwave: https://www.greenwave.org/our-model Hassan, T. (2024, October 15). Vertical Ocean Farming. Retrieved from AgriNext Conference: https://agrinextcon.com/vertical-ocean-farming-sustainable-and-shellfish/ IEA. (2025). Electric Vehicles. Retrieved from IEA: https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/electric-vehicles Intuitive Surgical. (2024). da Vinci and Ion Robotic Systems Overview. IPCC. (2012). Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Retrieved from IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SRREN_Full_Report-1.pdf Kadri, U. (2025, April 7). Wave energy’s huge potential could finally be unlocked by the power of sound – new research. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/wave-energys-huge-potential-could-finally-be-unlocked-by-the-power-of-sound-new-research-253422 Kim, J. et al. (2022). “Microbotic Eradication of Biofilms on Medical Implants.” Nature Biomedical Engineering, 6(11), 1215–1226. Larousserie, D. (2013, November 22). Graphene - the new wonder material. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/26/graphene-molecule-potential-wonder-material Lee, S. et al. (2023). “Nanorobotic Drug Delivery Systems for Cancer Therapy.” Science Advances, 9(4), eabq1234. Lumley, G. (2025, March). What Is Wave Power? Retrieved from BKV Energy: https://bkvenergy.com/learning-center/what-is-wave-energy/ MIT News. (2025). “Luigi: A Robot for Wastewater Epidemiology.” Min, R. (2023, July 06). Sweden is building the world's first permanent electrified road for EVs to charge while driving. Retrieved from euro news: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/05/09/sweden-is-building-the-worlds-first-permanent-electrified-road-for-evs NOAA. (n.d.). 3D Ocean Farming. Retrieved from NOAA: https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/fullmoon-3doceanfarming/welcome.html Ocean Energy Europe. (n.d.). Wave energy. Retrieved from Ocean Energy Europe: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/ocean-energy/wave-energy/#:~:text=Wave%20energy%20technology Paris, M. (2024, January 31). Wireless charging: The roads where electric vehicles never need to plug in. Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240130-wireless-charging-the-roads-where-electric-vehicles-never-need-to-plug-in Porter, A. (2024, June 20). What is Aquaculture? An Overview of Sustainable Ocean Farming. Retrieved from PBS: https://www.pbs.org/articles/a-guide-to-hope-in-the-water-and-aquaculture Repsol. (2025). An innovative and revolutionary material. Retrieved from Repsol: https://www.repsol.com/en/energy-move-forward/innovation/graphene/index.cshtml SKinno News. (2021, July 8). Charging while driving – electrified road for electric vehicles. Retrieved from SKinno News: https://skinnonews.com/global/archives/6253 SpinLaunch. (2025). Pioneering The Next Generation of Satellite Broadband. Retrieved from SpinLaunch: https://www.spinlaunch.com/meridianspace The Guardian. (2018, April 12). World's first electrified road for charging vehicles opens in Sweden. Retrieved from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/apr/12/worlds-first-electrified-road-for-charging-vehicles-opens-in-sweden Urban Ocean Lab. (2023, November). What is Regenerative Ocean Farming? Retrieved from Urban Ocean Lab: https://urbanoceanlab.org/resource/regenerative-ocean-farming-factsheet UVD Robots. (2023). Next-Generation UV-C Disinfection Systems for Hospitals. Waycott, B. (2022, January 10). Regenerative ocean farming is trending, but can it be a successful business model? Retrieved from Global Seafood Alliance: https://www.globalseafood.org/advocate/regenerative-ocean-farming-is-trending-but-can-it-be-a-successful-business-model/ WHO. (2022). Guidelines on Hydrogen Peroxide Disinfection in Healthcare Settings. Wikipedia. (2019, June). List of wave power projects. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wave_power_projects Wyss, K. (2022, November 29). Graphene is a proven supermaterial, but manufacturing the versatile form of carbon at usable scales remains a challenge. Retrieved from The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/graphene-is-a-proven-supermaterial-but-manufacturing-the-versatile-form-of-carbon-at-usable-scales-remains-a-challenge-194238 Xenex. (2024). LightStrike Germ-Zapping Robot: Clinical Outcomes and Use Cases. Young, C. (2025, October 18). SpinLaunch just catapulted a NASA payload into the sky for the first time. Retrieved from Interesting Engineering: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/spinlaunch-catapulted-a-nasa-payload Zhou, Y. et al. (2024). “Automated Injection Robots for Ophthalmic Care.” Frontiers in Medical Robotics, 5(2), 45–57.

Chaos seems to mark US policy under President Donald Trump at first blush. But behind what appears (and sometimes is) capricious Trump Administration decision making are policymakers with serious plans. They intend to engage perceived threats to the United States power, while transforming its economy in ways making it less dependent on global supply chains and “reserve assets.” Recognizing festering wounds to the US economy while seeing areas of strength, Trump policymakers look to cauterize the former while pivoting more fully to the latter. Trump’s presidency has openly engaged in criticizing past US liberal interventionist and neoconservative foreign policy. Branded as “America First” Trump’s US does not seek isolationist  withdrawal from the globe, but rather a dismantling of institutional structures and alliances that no longer benefit Washington. The United States can and should continue projecting power far but, not wide, according to America Firsters. Under America First, the national interest does not always align with the “international community,” a term America Firsters would regardless see, borrowing a line from Benedict Anderson, as a fictitious “imagined community.” America First means dismantling the liberal hegemonic world order, or at minimum the US offloading the bill for it. The cost of that liberal order, with some 750 US military bases abroad, combined with growing power of the BRICS (China chiefly, but not only), signals to America Firsters America’s need to retreat from some parts of the world, while continuing to exercise dominance in others. Related to national security is the fallout from a generation of globalization in labor markets. US offshoring of manufacturing in the post-Bretton Woods period lowered production costs. Cheap goods produced abroad were then purchased by Americans even more cheaply courtesy of the overvalued dollar as the world’s reserve currency. This worked great for US consumers, albeit with the intention of also pushing down US labor costs. Globalization enabled the United States to vacuum up global manufactures, while also running up massive government fiscal deficits. As former Vice-President Dick Cheney described it during globalization’s heyday, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” What was once, however, a massive advantage for the United States later became its “twin deficits” problem.   In short, the best fit for the US is a realist spheres of influence model, according to the Trump Administration. The criticism of the liberal world order, of course, circles back to the aforementioned economic challenges: on the one hand, the negative economic processes related to global labor organization and America’s indebtedness, and on the other hand, the strengthening of emerging international actors. Amongst these entities, the People’s Republic of China has long been high on the agenda. During the first Trump administration the president escalated tariffs on goods imported from Asia’s giant, which then led to a trade war. According to a Pew Research Center survey from mid-April 2025, although Americans believe that this bilateral trade relationship benefits China more than the US, they are “skeptical that increased tariffs on Chinese imports will have a positive effect on the country or on their own lives.” The Trump Administration thinks otherwise. America’s economy entering Trump’s presidency looked strong. On the cusp of the great 2008 financial shock, the European Union’s dollar GDP was $16.4 trillion, the US’ was $14.8 trillion. But by 2024, EU GDP was $18.7 trillion, while the United States posted a GDP of $28 trillion. Thus, in the span of less than a generation, the US went from having a GDP 9.8% short of the EU’s in 2008 to leaping ahead with a GDP 32% larger by 2024. These impressive US GDP gains were built on the foundations of financial services, corporate high-value added HQ (headquarters) functions, intellectual property, higher education, and information technology. Yet, there were problems: Maintaining world order, or empire, was, as we asserted above, expensive. In 2024 the US military budget was $824 billion. This figure does not even count huge “off (or black) budget” items related to security, etc., for which costs are not precisely known. Besides these numbers, we should not forget about the military’s global presence: The US paid for global security costs, protecting important maritime trade routes, chokepoints – not just supporting the American interest, but for instance chiefly helping China trade with the world. These costs were covered, in part, through US borrowing, much of it from abroad. In 2024, the US government deficit stood at $1.8 trillion, or 6.4% of GDP. While the total US debt reached $38 trillion. The last time the US federal budget was in surplus was in the last term of President Bill Clinton, when there were both reduced military expenditures (post-Cold War “peace dividend”) and top marginal income tax rates of 39.6%. And before Clinton’s second term, US budgets were only in surplus in 1969 and before that only for several years in the 1950s. Decelerating US decline also requires addressing these areas. First is the area of domestic costs. US public pension costs (Social Security and Medicare) face a fiscal crisis. The dedicated taxes (Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or “FICA”) will soon be insufficient to pay for pension costs. FICA taxes in the late 20th century, under President Ronald Reagan, were raised above pension costs. The surplus (a de facto tax on labor) was to finance costs of a future changed 21st century demographic mix creating lower ratios of workers to pensioners. This funding forward model could only work if surplus revenues were invested in productivity enhancing infrastructure creating larger future economic growth and productivity. Instead, the FICA tax surpluses levied on labor were largely used to reduce budget deficits resulting from tax cuts to the wealthy and corporate sectors. In short, to be blunt, the money was taken from labor, with continued borrowing now to pay pension costs running up against the limits of the US to borrow. Second, reserve assets. Lack of ground rents, given the US had no centuries long accumulation of land ownership from feudalism, meant low land prices and reduced inequality generally in the United States. Additionally, the United States applied tariffs to protect domestic markets and promote industrialization generally starting with their first Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton’s Report on Manufactures in 1791 that gave the US high tariffs, only later rivaled by Russia under the economic leadership of Sergei Witte and Pytor Stolypin in Russia’s late Czarist Russia period. Third, after the 2008 US financial shock it became clear that China was not limited to being merely a supplier of lower-tier consumer goods to the world, but risked becoming a power that could challenge the United States (an idea encapsulated in the Thucydides trap). Rather than markets paving the path toward liberal democracy, as many US policymakers previously assumed, the ascendancy of Xi Jinping signaled China’s fealty to an autonomous route to development. However, China still depends on the global system, the institutions, and structures that have ensured and continue to ensure its participation in global trade, for example. China does not yet possess the global capabilities that would allow it to defend its interests beyond its borders. Therefore, taking action against Beijing as a rival could cause difficulties in time for a country that is dependent on numerous structures maintained by Washington. The Trump administration’s goals and responses to the US crises are to: • Offload costs of US “empire” to other states currently benefiting from it• Recovery through fall in commodity prices (energy, food, metals, etc.)• Move from globalization to regional spheres of influence• Postpone “Armageddon” of global exit from US dollar• Widen leads in AI, thus requiring cheap energy• Reduce US government debt levels• Widen US lead in space• Reshore US industry To achieve these goals, a tariff policy was established that fundamentally shapes American economic and foreign policy, to which Washington has put forward the following proposals: First, other countries can accept tariffs on their exports to the United States without retaliation, providing revenue to the U.S. Treasury to finance public goods provision. Critically, retaliation will exacerbate rather than improve the distribution of burdens and make it even more difficult for us to finance global public goods; Second, others can stop unfair and harmful trading practices by opening their markets and buying more from America; Third, they can boost defense spending and procurement from the U.S., buying more U.S.-made goods, and taking strain off our service-members and creating jobs here; Fourth, they can invest in and install factories in America. They won’t face tariffs if they make their stuff in this country; Fifth, they could simply write checks to the Treasury that help us finance global public goods. Or more passively, accept conversion of their Treasury Bills into century-long non-interest bearing bonds. American foreign policy actions can generate results that are drastically different from expectations, and in certain cases can accelerate and amplify problems Washington faces. Although it is evident classic free trade agreements have not formed the basis of American foreign and economic policy for some time, the tariffs introduced and then implemented (and periodically suspended) by the Trump administration, imposed challenges to the United States on several fronts: First, tariffs have severely affected or even targeted states that have traditionally been in partnership with the United States (e.g. EU, Japan, South Korea), which Washington could rely on for support, for example during its international interventions. Such steps can, on the one hand, harm and jeopardize American global and economic interests, and on the other hand, push actors towards a multipolarity that Washington fears. Similarly questionable are trade actions against states that could be pillars of a coalition against China (e.g. Vietnam and the Philippines). American weaponization of trade and unilateral military expectations make Washington an unattractive, if not unreliable, partner, thus encouraging multilateralism. Second, Washington’s demands that states sever trade relations with China, or even with Russia, as Trump asked India to do, is accelerating states decoupling from the United States not on ideological grounds but primarily based on realistic economic policy considerations. Third, these steps could also threaten the dominance of the US dollar, and even accelerate decline in confidence of the dollar – further complicating the financing of the deficit. The Trump Administration (Treasury Department) are aware of the dangers (the “Triffin” reserve currency dilemma) but think the crisis is so acute that they must do something even if they risk accelerating the dollar’s collapse. However, it is also true that a drastic decline in confidence in the US currency would require an alternative reliable currency, and currently, the currency of no potential player can be considered perfectly reliable or transparent. Finally, on a global scale, the America First slogan is not necessarily guaranteed to win partners for Washington. It is evident that in the short term, several actors will not be able to free themselves from the security architecture guaranteed by the Americans (see: NATO), but most actors will strive to advance by developing and building their own capacities. In conclusion, Washington under Trump looks to downsize and rightsize. American economic and military power, while strong, has declined from its post-Cold War unipolar moment. Reduced power has diluted American confidence, thus resulting in the US taking at times a more aggressive posture in an increasingly multipolar world. Meanwhile, the rest of the world grows wary at how the Trump Administration reacts to these changed global ‘‘adjustments” that are creating confusion over where spheres of influence begin and end. The days of America acting to, in the phrasing of Joseph Nye Jr., “winning the hearts and minds” of the world, seems off the table. The United States now retreats from soft power with dramatic cuts to foreign aid and international exchanges, such as its Fulbright program. Rather than winning the world over, under Trump, demands for deference to US authority and power now mark its preferred relations with the world, while it disengages from other parts of the globe.

 I. Introduction On October 6, 2025, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had a phone call with US President Donald Trump. Two leaders spoke for 30 minutes. During the call, they exchanged phone numbers in order to maintain a direct line of contact, and President Lula reiterated his invitation for Trump to attend the upcoming climate summit in Belem, according to a statement from Lula’s office. At the UN General Assembly in New York on September 23, 2025, two leaders had a brief, unscheduled meeting. President Trump commented that he had “excellent chemistry” with his Brazilian counterpart. Even Trump told reporters that President Lula liked me, I liked him. This Trump’s comment has been interpreted by some analysts as a potential thawing in recent frozen US-Brazil relations. This apparently friendly call and comments from President Trump may signal a turnaround in relations between the two leaders, which have been strained in recent months. Trump and Lula have been at loggerheads since July 2025, when the US leader imposed 50 percent tariffs on Brazilian exports. In announcing those tariffs on Brazil, Trump cited what he described as a “fraudulent” prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. In addition to sky-high tariffs, Trump tried to further pressure Lula to drop the Bolsonaro case by hitting Brazilian supreme court justices with visa bans and slapping financial sanctions on the judge overseeing the case – Alexandre de Moraes. Ultimately, however, Brazil went ahead with Bolsonaro’s prosecution, and the former president was convicted. Why did President Trump suddenly soften his stance towards Lula now? Trump’s softer tone may have been prompted by hard economic realities in US, according to Pantheon Macroeconomics’ chief economist, Andres Abadia. The US depends heavily on Brazil for its coffee and meat imports, and both have taken a hit amid the tariff war. The result: prices have shot up. Brazil is the largest source of imported coffee for the US – responsible for $1.33billion out of the $7.85billion total coffee imports by the US in 2023, according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity. But since the 50 percent tariffs kicked in, Cecafe, Brazil’s council of coffee exporters, said that exports to the US fell by 46 percent in August 2025 and had dropped 20 percent more by September 19, 2025. Amid that supply crunch, coffee prices in the US rose 21 percent in August 2025 compared with a year earlier, even as overall food price inflation hovered at about 3 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “The prospect of higher coffee prices,” Abadia said, “would be definitely bad for President Trump.”[1]  Brazil is also the US’s third-largest source of imported meat behind Australia and Canada, according to the US Department of Agriculture. “As with coffee, higher beef prices would hit President Trump,” Abadia told Al Jazeera. Beef and veal prices rose by almost 14 percent in August 2025 compared with a year earlier, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. According to a new survey published on September 29, 2025, by the New York Times and Siena University, President Trump’s approval ratings have fallen recently, with 58 percent of respondents saying they think the country is headed in the wrong direction. “Inflation is definitely biting in the US,” says Abadia. “And anything that can be done to ease the pain, especially as we approach the holiday season, would be seen as positive.” [2] By contrast, Brazil appears to have weathered Trump’s tariffs better than the US has expected: Its overall exports grew in September 2025, compared with a year earlier, as it expanded its offerings to other markets, including China and Argentina. Lula’s feud with Trump has boosted his popularity, and Washington’s interventions in Brazilian politics have put the country’s conservatives on the back foot. Before next year’s presidential election, Lula is currently polling ahead of his top opponents, although the 79-year-old President has not formally announced his bid.  Abadia believes that there is an opportunity for rapprochement between the two leaders. The most fertile area for compromise may lie in rare earth minerals. Brazil has the world’s third-largest reserves behind China and Vietnam. And for now, they remain largely untapped. “Critical minerals are one area where bilateral interests align,” he said. “The US wants to diversify away from China and play an important role in the Brazilian market.” [3] Trump has shown a clear interest in rare earths, placing them at the heart of his deal with Ukraine, for instance. Brazil, on its part, wants to emerge as an exporter and supplier of these minerals. “Clearly,” noted Abadia, “that would be a positive for cooperation.”  [4] With these episodes in mind, this paper examines why Brazil can challenge US President Trump and force him to soften his position on Brazil. In doing so, this paper explores seven strengths that enables Brazil to challenge the US as well as US President Trump. Brazil’s seven strengths are as follows: 1. niobium; 2. rare earth; 3. agriculture; 4. oil; 5. ethanol; 6. aircraft industry; 7. leader of BRICS. II. Overview of Brazil Brazil, officially the Federative Republic of Brazil, is the largest country in South America. Brazil is also the world’s fifth-largest country by area and the seventh-largest by population, with over 213 million people. The country is a federation composed of 26 states and a Federal District, which hosts the capital, Brasília. Its most populous city is São Paulo, followed by Rio de Janeiro. Brazil has the most Portuguese speakers in the world and is the only country in the Americas where Portuguese is an official language. [5] Brazil is a founding member of UN, the G20, BRICS, G4, Mercosur, Organization of American States, Organization of Ibero-American States, and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries. Brazil is also an observer state of the Arab League and a major non-NATO ally of the US.  Brazil is a rising global power. As Figure 1 shows, Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world in PPP terms and the largest economy in Latin America.    Figure 1: Brazil is the 8th largest economy in the world (source: IMF) Brazil is one of the world giants of mining, agriculture, and manufacturing, and it has a strong and rapidly growing service sector. Brazil is a leading producer of a host of minerals, including iron ore, tin, bauxite (the ore of aluminum), manganese, gold, quartz, and diamonds and other gems, and it exports vast quantities of steel, automobiles, electronics, and consumer goods. Brazil is the world’s primary source of coffee, oranges, and cassava (manioc) and a major producer of sugar, soy, and beef. The city of São Paulo, in particular, has become one of the world’s major industrial and commercial centers.[6] However, Brazil has a lot of domestic problems. Income inequality is very high. As Figure 2 shows, Brazil is one of world’s highest unequal countries along with other Latin American and African countries. The most common tool used to measure different types of inequality is the Gini Coefficient. The Gini Coefficient represents inequality on a scale where 0 equals perfect equality (where everyone has the same wealth, for example). At the other end of the scale, 100 equals a situation of perfect inequality: One person has all the wealth, and no one else has any. Fortunately, income inequality in Brazil, as measured by the Gini index, has dropped. Income inequality in Brazil reached the lowest level in 2024 since the historical series began in 2012, according to Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Last year, the Gini index dropped to 0.506, a 2.3% decrease from the 0.518 recorded in both 2023 and 2022. [7] Nonetheless, Brazil’s income inequality is still very high.   Figure 2: which countries are most unequal. (source: Statista) Moreover, crime rate in Brazil has been very high. Brazil had the seventh-highest crime rate in the world in 2020. Brazil’s homicide rate was 23.6 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2020. Brazil’s most massive problem remains organized crime, as it has expanded in recent years, and violence between rival groups is common. Drug trafficking, corruption, and domestic violence are all pervasive issues in Brazil. [8] Luckily the ranking of Brazil’s crime rate was down in 2024. As Figure 3 & Table 1 show, Brazil became a country with the 15th highest crime rate in the world   Figure 3: Crime rate by country, 2024 (source: World population review) Table 1: Highest crime rate countries in the world, 2024 (source: World population review)   III. Brazil’s Seven Strengths that challenge the US and US President Trump 1. Brazil’s Dominance of Niobium in the world Brazil is one of the world giants of mining. It is a leading producer of a host of minerals, including iron ore, tin, bauxite, manganese, gold, quartz, and diamonds. In particular, Brazil leads the world in reserves and production of niobium as Figure 4 & 5 show.   Figure 4: niobium reserves worldwide by country, 2021 (source: USGS)   Figure 5: production of niobium worldwide by country, 2024 (source: Statista) Brazil holds an overwhelming lead, accounting for 90% of global niobium reserves and approximately 85% of its global production. Canada is the sole major producer, supplying most of the remaining 15%. As Figure 6 shows, in 2023, the Brazilian company Companhia Brasileira de Metalurgia e Mineracao (CBMM) supplied 76% of global niobium production, followed by the Chinese-owned CMOC, which supplied 11%. The world’s largest deposit is located in Araxa, Brazil and is owned by CBMM. The reserves are enough to supply current world demand for about 500 years, about 460 million tons. Another pyrochlore mine in Brazil is owned and operated by the CMOC and contains 18 million tons, based on a grade of 1.34% niobium oxide. Canadian production is from one mine. Much smaller production, usually as mixed Nb–tantalum (Ta) ores, comes from Australia and sub-Saharan Africa. The US has had negligible niobium production since 1959, and imported about 9.4 kt (thousand tons) of niobium in 2023. [9]    Figure 6: Niobium mine supply, 2000 to 2023. source: SFA (Oxford) Niobium (Nb, formerly known as columbium) is a rare metal that is included on the 2022 US Geological Survey’s Critical Minerals List. This light gray crystalline metal is primarily used in alloys with iron (Fe) as ferro niobium to increase the strength, corrosion resistance, and temperature resistance of steel. It is also found in specialty superconducting magnets such as those found in medical MRI instruments. The extraordinary properties of niobium have rendered it indispensable across a broad spectrum of industrial and technological applications. Its significance became evident in the mid-1930s when niobium was first employed to stabilize stainless steel against corrosion. Later, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, niobium's breakthrough role as a microalloying element (MAE) for steel, typically in the range of 0.05–0.15 wt.%, further solidified its importance. The importance of niobium as an MAE is underscored by its ability to enhance material properties such as high heat and corrosion resistance, increased strength, reduced density, exceptional conductivity, and enhanced biocompatibility. Its presence is essential in the construction of steel structures, including bridges, buildings, pipelines, offshore platforms, and automotive components, where it is predominantly employed as an MAE (∼90 %). [10] Furthermore, niobium plays a central role in the production of superalloys, holding significant importance in aerospace and power generation technologies. Its exceptional conductive properties also find applications in the healthcare industry, such as in MRI machines and in research institutions. Currently, niobium is finding exciting new applications in the transition to low-carbon energy solutions, and it is already a key component in wind turbines. Ongoing research into niobium-based rechargeable batteries holds the potential for further advancements in sustainable energy technologies, and it is being explored for use in solar panels and smart glass that can filter sunlight radiation and control the amount of light and heat entering buildings. [11]  From its applications in defense systems, where its unique properties are irreplaceable, to its pivotal role in green technologies and infrastructure, niobium’s economic and strategic significance is undeniable. Niobium is essential for the advancement of low-carbon and green technologies. Its classification as a critical mineral stems from both its vital applications and the concentrated nature of its supply. One of its most impactful uses is in steelmaking. The addition of just 0.1% niobium to steel produces high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) variants, allowing for the construction of lighter, more durable structures. This reduces the quantity of material required, as well as contributes to lower carbon emissions. HSLA steels are particularly valuable for building pipelines, wind turbine towers, and hydrogen gas transmission infrastructure. [12] Niobium’s contribution to renewable energy systems is also important. Its excellent strength-to-weight ratio makes it vital for wind turbine frames, while in solar and hydrogen technologies, it boosts the efficiency of solar cells and enhances the longevity of hydrogen fuel cells. In sustainable manufacturing, niobium supports the production of high-performance components via 3D printing, reducing both weight and material waste. [13] The criticality of niobium is largely due to its concentrated supply. Approximately 90% of global niobium production comes from Brazil, with Canada as the only other significant producer. The US has had no domestic production since 1959, and both the US and EU rely wholly on imports. Beyond its scarcity, niobium is difficult to substitute. It is a core material in the defense and aerospace sectors, used in jet engines, missiles, and military systems where few or no viable alternatives exist. Niobium plays a crucial role in advanced materials and high-performance applications, with demand primarily driven by its use in steel, strategic industries, and emerging technologies. Steel alone accounts for 85–90% of global niobium consumption, serving as a microalloying element to enhance strength, toughness, and weldability. As global regulations increasingly push industries towards lighter and stronger materials, average niobium intensities in steel manufacturing are rising.  Currently China is the world’s largest consumer of niobium, with demand propelled by its infrastructure development and car production growth. Steel remains the backbone of niobium usage, with high-strength, low-alloy (HSLA) and structural steels accounting for the majority share through to 2035. Nevertheless, demand from other sectors, such as aerospace and electronics, is steadily increasing. In particular, interest in niobium for use in batteries is growing, although its uptake heavily depends on the successful commercialization of early-stage niobium-based technologies. Despite steel’s continued dominance, emerging applications begin to expand niobium’s demand profile. The CBMM, the world’s leading niobium producer, primarily shaped the supply landscape. The company’s strategy centers on aligning production with demand, allowing it to scale output flexibly in response to market needs. This responsive model, however, could pose challenges for new niobium projects seeking investment, as CBMM’s dominant position reduces incentives for alternative supply. Anticipating a significant rise in demand—particularly from battery markets, which are projected to account for 25% of company revenues by 2030—CBMM has already increased its output of battery-grade niobium. [16] Niobium’s potential in the battery space hinges on its ability to compete with established technologies. Niobium-based anodes offer high-speed charging and long cycle life, often exceeding tens of thousands of cycles. However, their lower energy density than graphite or silicon anodes poses a challenge, especially for electric vehicle applications where energy density is critical. To achieve broader adoption, niobium battery technologies must overcome this performance gap and significantly reduce costs through economies of scale or further technological innovation. In May 2018, President Trump recognized a group of 35 ‘basic’ minerals considered necessary to US national and economic security, which are to be produced nearby. This order follows Trump’s ‘America first’ initiative to reduce US dependence on imported natural resources, with a US Geological Survey (USGS) report reasoning that 20 of the 23 elementary minerals are sourced from China. Niobium is one of these minerals and was recognized as both critical and essential mineral, indicating its significance to the US, even though it’s not an easy mineral to extract and process. [17] Niobium’s qualities make it one of the top 8 strategic raw materials considered indispensable. Niobium has been deemed important to the US’s national welfare in part due to their inherent military and industrial potential. Jeffery A. Green, the president of a bipartisan government-relations firm in Washington DC and a former US Air Force commander, wrote in Defense News that, “with no access to such minerals, including niobium, our precision-guided missiles will not hit their targets, our aircraft and submarines will sit unfinished in depots, and our war-fighters will be left without the equipment they need to complete their missions.”  The scarcity of niobium means that the vast majority is currently imported. The report notes that niobium has not been mined in the US since 1959. Niobium is now imported from Brazil and Canada only. [18] Vacuum-grade niobium’s role in aerospace is not a newfound revelation. Its unparalleled resilience against extreme thermal stresses, withstanding temperatures over 2,400 degrees Celsius, renders it indispensable for critical components in hypersonic vehicles. Beyond its inherent properties, niobium’s crucial role lies in its use for crafting heat-resistant superalloys essential for hypersonic missiles and the broader aerospace sector. Its low density compared to other refractory metals contributes to a high strength-to-weight ratio, which is essential for reducing the weight of aerospace components. This reduction in weight directly impacts fuel efficiency and payload capacity, two critical factors in aerospace design. For example, companies like SpaceX and Hermeus rely on niobium C103 for their spacecrafts, which require extremely high temperatures that surpass that of other superalloys. [19] For decades, niobium has played a pivotal role in the US aerospace industry, with its notable use in the innovative designs of the iconic Gemini and Apollo programs of the 1960s and 70s. However, despite its significance, the US depends entirely on niobium imports, with no substantial domestic mining since 1959. This dependence introduces a severe risk to its supply chain. Of the estimated 8,800 metric tons imported annually in 2022, a significant majority comes from Brazil (66%) and Canada (25%). This heavy reliance on just two primary sources—both neighbors of the US—exposes the US to considerable national security and economic vulnerabilities. The situation becomes even more precarious considering China’s dominant position in the niobium sector and its growing footprint in the hemisphere.  China has recognized the potential of niobium for over a decade. In 2011, a consortium of five Chinese firms acquired a 15 percent stake in CBMM. This engagement intensified in 2016 when China Molybdenum Co. Ltd. (now known as CMOC) secured ownership of the Chapadão and Boa Vista mines, further strengthening China’s position in the niobium market. The importance of niobium was further highlighted in the Brazilian political arena in 2018. Then presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro emphasized niobium’s role in Brazil’s economic independence. Despite Bolsonaro’s campaign rhetoric focusing on safeguarding this critical commodity from foreign control and advocating for its national governance, Chinese influence in the Brazilian niobium sector continued to grow. By 2020, Chinese entities controlled approximately 26 percent of Brazil’s niobium production. This control not only ensures China’s preferential access and influence over pricing dynamics in the niobium supply chain, but also positions it advantageously in a global context.  China managed to maintain and even strengthen its position at the subnational level under President Bolsonaro. CMOC, for example, provided $1.2 million in Covid-19 aid to the city of Catalão, demonstrating China’s strategic engagement beyond mere commercial interests. China’s influence over Brazil’s niobium production conforms to a pattern of growing ownership and sway over the regional mining industry, a trend with substantial environmental, political, and security implications. Such tactics could force nations into making diplomatic compromises, ceding trade advantages, or grappling with economic dilemmas, thereby solidifying China’s geopolitical standing. The US is not immune to this exposure; the US Geological Survey in 2022 identified niobium as the second most critical of 50 minerals, falling behind only gallium in its criticality to US national security and economic growth. [22] Facing such formidable challenges, the US cannot afford to remain a passive observer. Safeguarding its strategic interests and maintaining its global position demands a comprehensive and multifaceted critical mineral strategy, in particular in securing niobium supplies. Incorporating Brazil into the 13-nation Mineral Security Partnership (MSP) could significantly fortify the global niobium supply chain. The MSP represents a concerted multinational endeavor to develop environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards and bolster investments in critical mineral supply chains, an initiative that aligns well with the strategic interests of both Brazil and the broader international community. Brazil’s inclusion would make it the first Latin American country to enter the partnership, signaling its regional leadership and increase in international stature. The integration of Brazil into this partnership is particularly strategic, considering its substantial niobium reserves, in addition to its other critical mineral deposits. This move would add a robust layer of security against potential supply disruptions. [23] President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government, with its strong emphasis on ESG standards, is likely to find the MSP’s principles congruent with its policy priorities. The MSP’s emphasis on elevating global standards in these areas could resonate with Lula’s progressive agenda, potentially making Brazil’s participation both beneficial and attractive. Moreover, Brazil’s inclusion in the MSP would facilitate its adherence to a framework that advocates for the diversification and stabilization of mineral supply chains. This alignment could be important in mitigating China’s dominant influence in the niobium market. By joining the MSP, Brazil would not only assert its role in the global mineral economy but also contribute to a more balanced and less vulnerable critical mineral supply landscape, including niobium. [24] 2. Brazil has the third largest rare earth reserves in the world According to US Geological Survey in 2024, China holds the largest rare earth reserves with 44 million metric tons, followed by Vietnam and Brazil. As Table 2 shows, Brazil holds the third largest rare earth reserves with 21 million metric tons. Other countries with significant reserves include India, Russia, and Australia. [25] However, as Figure 7 shows, Brazil ranked  12th position in the world in the production of rare earth minerals. Table 2: world mine production and reserves of rare earth minerals (source: USGS in 2024)    Figure 7: Global rare earth production by country, 2024 (source: USGS) Surprisingly, Brazilian rare earth exports hit a record high in 2025, according to data from the Brazil National Mining Agency (ANM). Almost the entire volume was shipped to China. Exports of raw rare earth materials—part of a group of minerals deemed strategic for the global energy transition—reached $7.5 million between January 1 and June 30, 2025. That figure is ten times higher than the $705,900 recorded in the same period last year, more than double the $3.6 million exported in all of 2024, and higher than in any other full year since official records started in 1997.  Though the total exports remains small, the surge in exports underscores the growing strategic value of these materials. Rare earth elements are critical in high-tech industries, used in wind turbine components and batteries, particularly for hybrid and electric vehicles. They have also become a flashpoint in US-China trade tensions, which began with President Donald Trump’s tariff war. At one point, China restricted exports of critical minerals to the US in retaliation. With this background, President Trump said in May 2025 that the US needed Greenland “very badly,” renewing his threat to annex the Danish territory. Greenland is a resource-rich island with a plentiful supply of critical minerals, a category that also includes rare earths elements, under its ice sheet. Trump also signed a “rare earth deal” with Ukraine in May 2025. The tussle over rare earths precedes the current Trump administration. China for years has built up near-total control of the materials as part of its wider industrial policy. [27] The International Energy Agency said 61% of mined rare earth production comes from China, and the country controls 92% of the global output in the processing stage. There’s two types of rare earths, categorized by their atomic weights: heavy and light. Heavy rare earths are more scarce, and the United States doesn’t have the capabilities for the tough task of separating rare earths after extraction. “Until the start of the year, whatever heavy rare earths we did mine in California, we still sent to China for separation,” Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told CNN. [28] However, the Trump administration’s announcement of sky-high tariffs on China in April, 2025 derailed this process. “China has shown a willingness to weaponize” America’s reliance on China for rare earths separation, Baskaran said. The US has one operational rare earth mine in California, according to Baskaran. [29] China holds a near-monopoly control over the global processing of rare earths. In 2023, China produced 61% of the world's raw magnet rare earth elements, which are essential in high-tech industries such as electronics, electric vehicles and defense. Its dominance is even more pronounced in refining these materials, making up 92% of the global refined supply. The export controls by China could have a major impact, since the US is heavily reliant on China for rare earths. Between 2020 and 2023, 70% of US imports of rare earth compounds and metals came from the country, according to a US Geological Survey report. [30] The US and Australia have signed a deal intended to boost supplies of rare earths and other critical minerals, as the Trump administration looks for ways to counter China’s dominance of the market. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the deal would support a pipeline of $8.5bn (A$13bn; £6.3bn) "ready-to-go" projects that would expand his country's mining and processing abilities. It includes $1bn to be invested by the two countries in projects in the US and Australia over the next six months, a framework text says. The US and Australia have been working on these issues since Trump’s first term, but Albanese said the latest agreement would take the partnership to the next level. [31] Under this situation, to counter China’s dominance of rare earths, the Trump administration identified Brazil as a potential strategic partner in rare earth production. Despite holding the world’s third-largest reserves—behind China and Vietnam—Brazil accounts for 0.005% of global output in 2024, according to the USGS, as Figure 7 shows. [32] Accordingly, Brazil's rare earths sector is gaining momentum, with key industry players outlining the country’s potential to become a vital player in the global energy transition. During the Brazil Lithium and Critical Minerals Summit held in Belo Horizonte on June 4-5, 2025, over 300 senior executives and international delegations from China, US, Australia, Canada, the UK, Japan, France, Italy, Portugal, and Argentina discussed Brazil’s abundant resources and the need for strategic partnerships to explore potential reserves and ensure energy security.  [33] 3. Brazil: the world giant of agriculture Brazil is one of the world giants of agriculture. Brazil is the world’s largest producer of sugarcane, soy, coffee, orange,  açaí, guaraná, and Brazilian nut. Brazil is also the second-largest producer of ethanol, and third-largest biodiesel producer. Brazil is also one of the top 5 producers of maize, tobacco, papaya, and pineapple. Brazil is one of the top 10 world producers of avocado, cocoa, cashew, tangerine, guava, mango, rice, tomato, and sorghum. In addition, Brazil is one of the top 15 world producers of grape, melon, apple, peanut, fig, peach, onion, palm oil, and natural rubber.  A. Soybean  According to USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), as Table 3 & 4 shows, Brazil is the world’s largest soybean producing & exporting country in 2024. This is the results of the increase in production of soybean in Brazil as Figure 8 shows. Table 3: World’s Top 10 soybean producing countries, 2024-25 (source: USDA)     Table 4: World’s Top 10 soybean exporting countries, 2023-24 (source: USDA)     Figure 8: Soybean production in Brazil (source: Joana Colussi & Fram Progress) Historically, the US was the world’s largest soybean exporter. In 2013, Brazil surpassed the US in soybean shipments for the first time. Since then, Brazil’s share of the global soybean trade has increased steadily, with Brazilian soybean exports reaching a record 3,744 million bushels in 2023, according to the Foreign Trade Secretariat (Secex). At the same time, American soybean exports were reduced to 1,789 million bushels, half the Brazilian soybean export volume, according to the US Department of Agriculture (see Figure 9). [34]  Figure 9: Total soybean exports by US and Brazil (source: Farmdoc Daily, IL, USA) Over the last 20 years, Brazilian soybean exports jumped fourfold (431%), from 705 million bushels in 2004 to 3,744 million bushels in 2023. This jump occurred mainly in the second decade. Soybeans have become Brazil’s primary agricultural export commodity by volume, accounting for more than 60% of the soybeans grown domestically. The Brazilian soybean crop for the 2022/23 marketing year was 5,680 million bushels, a historic record, according to Brazil’s food supply and statistics agency. [35] Revenues from Brazilian soybean exports totaled a record $53.2 billion in 2023 versus $46.5 billion in the previous year, according to the Foreign Trade Secretariat (Secex). Considering the soybean complex, which also includes soybean oil and soybean meal, the revenue reached $67.3 billion in 2023, representing 40% of the total export revenue for the country. For the first time since the 1997/98 season, Brazil displaced Argentina as the leading global exporter of soybean meal due to severe drought, which cut Argentine soybean yields by half. [36] On the other hand, over the past 20 years, US soybean exports have increased 94% from 922 million bushels in 2004 to 1,789 million bushels in 2023. The US soybean exports have plateaued since 2016, with an average annual volume of 1,993 million bushels. The roughly doubling of exports occurred over the first decade and stagnated in the second decade. Revenues from soybean exports totaled $27.9 billion in 2023 versus $34.4 billion in 2022, according to the USDA. On average over the past five years, the US has exported 49% of total soybean production. The soybean crop for the 2022/23 marketing year reached 4,160 million bushels, slightly lower than the previous year. [37] The dynamics of global soybean trade remain heavily influenced by China, which accounts for approximately 60% of worldwide soybean imports. China predominantly sources its soybean supplies from Brazil and the US. For many years, the US was the top supplier, but in the past 15 years China has depended more on imports from South America, especially from Brazil. From 2019-2023, 73% of Brazil’s exported soybeans have headed to China, versus a 51% average for the US (see Figure 10).   Figure 10: China’s share of US and Brazil soybean exports (source: Farmdoc Daily, IL, USA) Shifting dynamics from China, the top global soybean buyer and consumer, has played a central role in the divergence between the US and Brazil as top global soybean producers.  In 1995, US soybeans accounted for 49% of Chinese soybean imports, with soybeans sourced from Brazil only totaling 2%. The US drought in 2012 kicked off a massive rise in Chinese imports of Brazilian soybeans. As a result, Brazil surpassed US in soybean shipments in 2013 for the first time. By 2024, 71% of China’s soybean imports were sourced from Brazil, with a only 21% sourced from the US. [38] As China purchased more soybeans from Brazil, Brazilian growers expanded acreage to meet export demand as Figure 8 shows. Moreover, the trade war between US and China in 2018 shifted more soybean production to Brazil at the expense of US soybean acreage as China imposed higher tariffs on US soybean. In 2018, Brazil’s soybean accounted for 82% of Chinese soybean imports while US only 18%. In the middle of another trade war between US and China in 2025, China stopped buying US soybeans. Accordingly, this trend of Brazil’s dominance over the US in soybean exports to China is likely to continue even though China resumed to buy US soybeans in accordance with Trump-Xi trade deal reached on October 30, 2025 in South Korea. [39] B. Meats  In the production of animal proteins, Brazil is today one of the largest countries in the world. In 2024, Brazil was the world’s second largest producer of beef and the world’s largest beef exporter as Table 5 and Figure 11 show.  Table 5: Top 10 beef producing countries in the world, 2024-25 (source: USDA)     Figure 11: As of December 2024, top 10 beef exporters in the world (source: AuctionPlus) In 2024, the global beef export market was dominated by five key players, each nation with significant shares of the market. Brazil led the beef market, commanding a substantial 27.8% of global beef exports. Following Brazil, Australia held a notable 14.7% share, positioning itself as a major player in global beef trade. India, another significant contributor, was responsible for 12.7% of the beef exports. The US also played a critical role, contributing 9.1% to the international beef export figures. Argentina rounded out the top five, with 6.6% of the beef market share. These five countries collectively shaped the dynamics of the global beef market, influencing pricing and supply chains. [40] Brazil sets record for beef exports in 2024 worth US$ 12.8 billion. A total of 2.89 million tons were exported, an increase of more than 26% compared to 2023. The volume exported generated US$ 12.8 billion, approximately 22% more than the amount earned in 2023. China maintained its position as the main destination for Brazilian beef, with 1.33 million tons exported, generating revenue of US$ 6 billion. Next came the US, which imported 229 thousand tons, totaling US$ 1.35 billion. Other important markets include United Arab Emirates (132 thousand tons and US$ 604 million), European Union (82.3 thousand tons and US$ 602 million), Chile (110 thousand tons and US$ 533 million) and Hong Kong (116 thousand tons and US$ 388 million). [41] In addition to beef, according to Statista (2025), Brazil was the world’s largest poultry meat  exporter as Figure 12 shows. Moreover, Brazil has been the world’s largest chicken exporter during the period of 2020-25, as Table 6 shows. Chicken meat exports reached 5.294 million tons in 2024, generating $9.928 billion in revenue.   Figure 12: Poultry meat exports worldwide leading countries, 2025| Statista  Table 6: Market share of global chicken meat exports, 2020-2025 (source: WATTPoultry) Over the past 50 years, Brazil has exported nearly 100 million tons of chicken meat to more than 150 nations. Today’s top markets include China, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and European Union—reflecting global recognition of Brazil’s quality standards and food safety. A significant portion of these exports are halal products aimed at Muslim consumers. More than 2 million tons are shipped annually, making Brazil the world’s largest exporter of halal chicken. [42] According to Euromeat News on February 18, 2025, the top 10 biggest exporters of halal meat to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries account for a total trade value of $14.04 billion. Brazil is the largest exporter of halal meat to OIC countries with a trade value worth $5.19 billion, followed by Australia with $2.36 billion and India with $2.28 billion on the second and third spots respectively. The biggest importer of halal-certified food is Saudi Arabia, followed by Malaysia, UAE, Indonesia, and Egypt. Share [43] According to SIAL Daily, an Italian newspaper, countries like Brazil and Australia dominate exports of halal-certified meat, especially to Middle Eastern countries. Brazil is the largest exporter of halal products, particularly meat, supplying significant quantities to many countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. [44] Overall, Brazilian meat & soybean exports have dominated the world. As a result, citizens in the world have problems preparing for meals without Brazilian products. 4. Brazil, one of top 10 producer of oil in the world Brazil is one of top 10 influential oil country in the world. In 2024, Brazil was the world’s 9th largest crude oil producer as Table 7 shows. Brazil was also the world’s 10th largest crude oil exporting country, as Table 8 shows. Brazil company ‘Petrobras’ is the world’s 7th largest oil company, as Figure 13 shows.  Table 7: Top 10 crude Oil Producing Countries in the world, 2024 (source: 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy Data - Energy Institute )     Figure 13: Top 10 oil companies in the world, 2024 (source: Macrotrends)  Table 8: Top 10 crude oil exporting countries in the world, 2025 (source: https://www.seair.co.in/blog/crude-oil-exports-by-country.aspx)   Moreover, as Figure 14 shows, Brazil is one of net oil exporting countries. Figure 14 shows the trade balance in crude petroleum for 2023. Colors represent the difference between each country’s export and import values. Shades of green indicate a trade surplus (exports largest than imports), while shades of red represent a trade deficit (imports largest than exports).   Figure 14: Global trade balance of crude oil, 2023 (source: The Observatory of Economic Complexity: OEC) In 2023, countries with the largest trade surpluses in crude petroleum were Saudi Arabia ($181 billion), Russia ($122 billion), and United Arab Emirates ($96.2 billion).  In 2024, Brazil exported $44.8 billion of crude petroleum, and the main destinations of Brazil’s crude petroleum exports were China ($20 billion), followed by the US ($5.77 billion), Spain ($4.78 billion), and Netherlands ($3.21 billion). In 2024, Brazil imported $8.69 billion of crude petroleum, and the main origins of Brazil’s crude petroleum imports were Saudi Arabia ($1.93 billion), the US ($1.45 billion), Angola ($1.01 billion), and Guyana ($859 million). [45] Brazil exported more crude oil to the world and US than it imported in 2024. Oil trade surplus with the world and US was $36.11 billion and 4.32 billion, respectively. 5. Brazil, the world’s largest producer of sugarcane ethanol Ethanol is a renewable fuel made from various plant materials collectively known as “biomass.” More than 98% of US gasoline contains ethanol to oxygenate the fuel. Typically, gasoline contains E10 (10% ethanol + 90% gasoline), which reduces air pollution. As Table 9 shows, the US was no. 1 producer of fuel ethanol in the world. In 2024, the US produced an estimated 16.2 billion gallons of the biofuel. Brazil was the world’s second-largest ethanol producing country, with an output of 8.8 billion gallons that same year. Table 9: Annual ethanol fuel production by country, 2015-2024   (source: Annual Ethanol Production | Renewable Fuels Association. https:// ethanolrfa.org/markets-and-statistics/annual-ethanol-production) However, the US and Brazil have different ethanol industry. Brazil has sugarcane-based ethanol industry, while the US has corn-based industry. Brazil is the leading producer of sugarcane ethanol, followed by such countries as India, Thailand, and Colombia. While the US produces the most ethanol globally, its production is primarily from corn, not sugarcane.   Brazil has the largest and most successful bio-fuel programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugarcane, and it is considered to have the world’s first sustainable biofuels economy. [46]  Brazil’s sugar cane-based industry is more efficient than US corn-based industry. Sugarcane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than ethanol produced from corn. Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol. US corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol. [47]   Although Brazil has sugarcane-based ethanol industry, its corn ethanol industry has also been expanding rapidly, with production reaching 6 billion liters in 2023, representing an 800% surge over the past five years. [48] Brazil is also a significant developer of the second-generation ethanol, from sugarcane waste or “bagasse.” This gives it the advantage of being able to produce significantly more ethanol from the same land and, as technology advances, producers are also able to extract more energy from the bagasse. Second generation ethanol, known as an advanced biofuel, is particularly in demand because it meets growing sustainability related regulatory requirements. This all sounds promising – but it is not to say that the Brazilian ethanol industry is without its challenges. Its great advantages have been the strength of its domestic sugarcane and ethanol production, the availability of a strong internal market and its flexibility. It has also been helped by legislation and regulation. As both the domestic and international ethanol markets change, these advantages continue to prove useful. [49]    Figure 15: US fuel ethanol exports to Brazil (source: Renewable Fuels Association) https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/news-releases/article/2025/08/rfa-supports-u-s-investigation-of-punitive-brazil-trade-practices The trade volume of fuel ethanol between Brazil and US is low. US exports to Brazil averaged 3,800 barrels per day—or just 2.7% of total US ethanol exports—from January to May, 2024, according to USDA data. As Figure 15 shows, exports to Brazil in 2024 were valued at USD 53 million, down from a peak of USD 761 million in 2018, according to the USTR investigation notice. The US imported just 491 barrels per day from Brazil during the first five months of 2024, equivalent to 81% of total US ethanol imports.  [50] Overall, Brazil shipped about 300 million liters of ethanol to the US in 2024, with the trade flow relying heavily on incentives paid for low-carbon fuels in California. But exports are just a tiny fraction of the size of the domestic market, where so-called flex-fuel cars can run either on 100% ethanol or a mixture of biofuel and gasoline. Historically, most of Brazil’s production has been absorbed by the domestic fuel market where it is sold as either pure ethanol fuel (E100; hydrous ethanol) or blended with gasoline (E27; anhydrous ethanol). Brazil has been a pioneer in using ethanol as motor fuel in what are known as flex fuel engines. [51] 6. Brazil, a major aircraft manufacturer & exporter  The Brazilian aeronautical industry, led by Embraer (Empresa Brasileira de Aeronáutica S.A.), is an outstanding example of successful national industrial production. The commercial aircraft company, which is among Brazil’s main exporters, is recognized as the only large national company with active international insertion in a high technological intensity sector. This leadership position is the result of a historical trajectory that dates back to the 20th century, from the pioneering achievements of Santos Dumont with the creation of the 14-bis airplane to the continuous efforts over the years to develop a sustainable aeronautical industry in Brazil. The initial incentives for the development of the aeronautical industry in Brazil occurred under the government of Getúlio Vargas, through the national-developmentalist model, when two state-owned companies were created: Fábrica do Galeão and Fábrica de Aviões de Lagoa Santa, with the support from the private sector. During the same period, the Aeronautics Technical Center (CTA) and the Institute of Research and Development (IPD) emerged. The two institutions were considered the foundations for the establishment of a modern aeronautical industry in Brazil. Later, the CTA and the Ministry of Aeronautics argued for the creation of a state-owned company in the aeronautical sector, which led to the foundation of Embraer in 1969.  [52] In a post-World War II context, in which aircraft development became more expensive and complex, Embraer faced two challenges during its early years: the growing technological complexity and the greater concentration of the production structure. To overcome these challenges, Embraer developed a strategy which focused on creating its own technologies and intensifying its international operations through exports, resulting in the expansion of its production capabilities and an active global insertion. From the 2000s onwards, Embraer continued to stand out in the development of high-performance technological aircraft and expanded its operations to executive aircraft and the defense sector, transforming itself into an aerospace conglomerate. According to Flight Global, which publishes the ranking of the 100 largest aerospace companies, Embraer reached 3rd place in the ranking of sales of commercial aircraft, behind Airbus and Boeing in 2022. Embraer has divisions for commercial, executive, military, and agricultural aviation; it also maintains an incubator for aerospace technologies and businesses. While Embraer continues to produce aircrafts for the defense sector, it is best known for the ERJ and E-Jet families of narrow-body short to medium range airliners, and for its line of business jets, including the market-leading Phenom 300. As of May 2024, Embraer has delivered more than 8,000 aircraft, including 1,800 E-Jet planes. [53] On the other hand, concerning aircraft exports, Brazil ranked 7th in 2022, behind France, Germany, Canada, Spain, US, and Ireland. And Brazil ranked 9th in the world in the aircraft/spacecraft exports in 2023. [54] Moreover, as Table 10 shows, according to Aerotime, Embraer is the 7th largest aircraft manufacturer in the world in 2025. [55] Table 10: Top 10 Aircraft Manufacturers in the World, 2025 (source: Aerotime)   7. Brazil, the leader of BRICS BRIC was originally a term coined by British economist Jim O’Neill and later championed by his employer Goldman Sachs in 2001 to designate the group of emerging markets. The first summit in 2009 featured the founding countries of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, where they adopted the acronym BRIC and formed an informal diplomatic club where their governments could meet annually at formal summits and coordinate multilateral policies. In April 2010, South Africa attended the second BRIC summit as a guest. South Africa joined the organization in September 2010, which was then renamed BRICS, and attended the third summit in 2011 as a full member. Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates attended their first summit as member states in 2024 in Russia. Indonesia officially joined BRICS as a member state in early 2025, becoming the first Southeast Asian member. The acronym BRICS+ (in its expanded form, BRICS Plus) has been informally used to reflect new membership since 2024. [56] As Figure 16 shows, BRICS now consists of 20 countries. The 10 BRICS members are the founding five — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — plus Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates. The 10 BRICS partners are Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.  Figure 16: BRICS PLUS as of July 2025 (source: Geopolitical Economy) Some in the West consider BRICS the alternative to the G7. Others describe the organization as an incoherent joining of countries around increasing anti-Western and anti-American objectives. BRICS has implemented competing initiatives such as the New Development Bank, the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, BRICS PAY, the BRICS Joint Statistical Publication and the BRICS basket reserve currency. [57] BRICS has been growing in size and influence, and this has frightened some Western politicians. Donald Trump is particularly rattled. After he returned to the White House for his second term as US president, Trump threatened very high tariffs on BRICS, and falsely said he had destroyed the organization. Although Trump threatens BRICS, it grows stronger, resisting US dollar. [58] The US government’s fear of BRICS is rooted in the Global South-led organization’s increasing power. As Figure 17 shows, 20 BRICS members and partners already represent more than two-fifths of the global economy: 43.93% of world GDP, when measured at purchasing power parity (PPP). The BRICS 20 also have a combined population of 4.45 billion, meaning that they represent 55.61% of the global population — the majority of the world.   Figure 17: BRICS share of global GDP (source: IMF) One of the key issues discussed at the 2025 BRICS summit in Brazil was de-dollarization — the attempt to create alternatives to the US dollar as the global reserve currency. Brazil’s left-wing President Lula da Silva has long been an advocate of de-dollarization. [58]“The world needs to find a way that our trade relations don’t have to pass through the dollar,” Lula said at the BRICS summit. “Obviously, we have to be responsible about doing that carefully. Our central banks have to discuss it with central banks from other countries,” the Brazilian leader explained, according to Reuters. He added, “That’s something that happens gradually until it’s consolidated.” [60] Lula agreed that de-dollarization is “complicated” and will be a slow, gradual process, but he maintained that it is necessary. At the 2025 BRICS summit, the Brazilian president even reiterated his call for the creation of a new global currency to challenge the US dollar. [61] Lula declared that “BRICS is an indispensable actor in the struggle for a multipolar, less asymmetrical, and more peaceful world.” He lamented that the US-dominated international financial system benefits the rich colonial countries at the expense of the poor, formerly colonized ones. At the BRICS summit on July 6, 2025, the 20 BRICS members and partners signed a lengthy joint statement. The Rio de Janeiro Declaration was 31 pages long and consisted of 126 points, encompassing a wide variety of subjects. The joint declaration made many references to BRICS initiatives to encourage de-dollarization. The declaration called to strengthen the BRICS bank, the New Development Bank, to “support its growing role as a robust and strategic agent of development and modernization in the Global South.” In particular, the document emphasized the need for the New Development Bank to “expand local currency financing.” [62] Dilma Rousseff, the former Brazilian president from Lula’s left-wing Workers’ Party, has been the Chair of the New Development Bank. In her remarks at the BRICS summit, Dilma emphasized that the New Development Bank is promoting financing in local currencies. “Any business or government that borrows in foreign currency becomes subject to decisions made by the Federal Reserve or other central banks in Western developed nations,” she said, warning of exchange-rate risk and currency volatility. As a positive example of an alternative, the BRICS website noted that Dilma “pointed to a project in Brazil funded directly in renminbi, without the need for dollar conversion.” [63] The BRICS declaration similarly urged further development of the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), which could serve as an alternative to the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF), by providing short-term liquidity to developing countries facing balance-of-payments crises. Another initiative discussed in the declaration was the New Investment Platform (NIP), which seeks to facilitate investments in local currencies, instead of US dollars, Euro, or British pounds. The declaration addressed the BRICS Interbank Cooperation Mechanism (ICM), which is working on “finding acceptable mechanisms of financing in local currencies.” The joint statement also highlighted the work of the BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative and BRICS Payment Task Force (BPTF), which it noted identify “the potential for greater interoperability of BRICS payment systems,” as part of “efforts to facilitate fast, low-cost, more accessible, safe, efficient, and transparent cross-border payments among BRICS countries and other nations and which can support greater trade and investment flows.” [64] As a leader of BRICS to push for de-dollarization, Brazil has deepened its bond with China. Growing ties between Brazil and China were a reality well before Donald Trump came into office. But as US president Trump tried to intervene in Brazil’s judiciary and politics and imposed one of the highest tariffs in the world, enthusiasm for collaboration between the two governments seems to be at an all-time high.  “Our ties are at their best moment in history,” China’s President Xi Jinping said in August 2025 after holding an hour-long call with Brazilian President Lula da Silva. “China supports the Brazilian people in defending their national sovereignty and also supports Brazil in safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests,” he added. Xi also told Lula that China “stands ready to work with Brazil to set an example of unity and self-reliance among major countries in the Global South.” [65] China has been a key commercial partner for South America, and the tie with Brazil has for years been the strongest—it’s China’s top trade partner in the region and one of its main foreign investment destinations. In recent years the breadth of the relationship widened, even under former President Jair Bolsonaro, who used anti-China rhetoric and wanted to see Brazil more aligned with the United States. During Lula’s third term, the connection between China and Brazil has strengthened further. 2025 has seen significant developments. In July 2025, Brazil hosted the 17th BRICS summit, and Brazil and China co-announced the construction of a bi-oceanic railway corridor between Brazil and Peru’s Pacific coast. In addition, Chinese car maker BYD rolled out the first electric car built entirely in Brazil, at its new factory in Camaçari, Bahia, its first outside Asia. [66] In the context of the US-China rivalry, Washington is anxious. According to US media, Brazil’s hosting the BRICS summit meeting was a factor in the Trump administration’s imposition of tariffs. On the other side of US politics, Senate Democrats recently wrote a letter to Trump  saying “a trade war with Brazil would make life more expensive for Americans, harm both US and Brazilian economies, and drive Brazil closer to China.” [67] China has been Brazil’s top trading partner since 2009, when it overtook the US. As Figure 18 shows, the trade volume between Brazil and China doubled the volume between Brazil and US in 2024. China is the world’s biggest soybean importer, and gets most of its supply from Brazil. In 2024, 28% of Brazil’s exports went to China. In 2023, Brazil was China’s main supplier of soy, beef, cellulose, corn, sugar and poultry.   Figure 18: Brazil’s trade with China vs USA (source: ComexStat & Americas quarterly) The balance of trade between Brazil and China has historically been favorable to Brazil, although China has increased its exports in recent years. And when the US tariffs took effect, China authorized 183 new Brazilian coffee companies to sell to its market, and did the same with other products. A recent new step between Brazil and China is to negotiate for the adoption of mechanisms to track the origin of agricultural products, particularly soy and beef. The goal is to create a system where both countries recognize the same environmental certifications, so that products can be tagged, for example, as “carbon-neutral beef.” There’s also talk of China importing Brazilian ethanol for the production of “sustainable aviation fuels.” [68] Commodities comprise the vast majority of exports, but the trade relationship between Brazil and China is no longer based solely on them. The manufacturing industry represented 23% of Brazil’s exports to China in the first quarter of 2025, an increase of 6 percentage compared to the same period in 2024, according to the Brazil-China Business Council.   The kinds of exchanges have been changing, too, from government to government, to company to company, to company to client. Beyond BYD’s new factory in Camaçari, expected to be fully functional by the end of 2026, green energy and telecommunications services see strong Chinese investment, and Chinese companies operating in fields like delivery apps are expected to be active in Brazil in the coming years. [69] By contrast, as Table 11 shows, US-Brazil trade has been limited compared to China-Brazil trade. Brazilian exports to the US are less than 2% of Brazil’s GDP in 2024, while Brazilian exports to China are more than 4% of Brazil’s GDP. Brazil economy is too large to be bullied by the US. Moreover, Brazil’s strong ties to China guarantees Brazil’s economic independence from the US.  Table 11: Bilateral trade between Brazil and China & US, 2024(source: SECEXMDIC)   IV. Conclusion This paper explained Brazil’s seven strengths that enabled Brazil to challenge the US as well as US President Trump. Brazil has important strategic assets such as niobium and rare earth. Brazil holds the world’s largest niobium reserves, as well as the world’s third largest rare earth reserves. Brazil also has been the world giant of agriculture that has exported the largest amount of soybean and beefs & chicken to the world. In addition, Brazil is the world’s 9th largest crude oil producer and the world’s 10th largest crude oil exporting country. Moreover, Brazil is the world’s largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, as well as the world second largest ethanol producer, leading Bazil to its energy independence. Furthermore, Brazil is a major aircraft manufacturer & exporter. Embraer, a Brazilian company, reached 3rd place in the ranking of sales of commercial aircraft, behind Airbus and Boeing in 2022. Concerning aircraft exports, Brazil ranked 7th in 2022, behind France, Germany, Canada, Spain, United States, and Ireland. And Brazil ranked 9th in the world in the aircraft/spacecraft exports. More importantly, Brazil has been a leader of BRICS that has wielded huge geopolitical influence around the world. On top of that, Brazil has strengthened its ties with China which has been another BRICS leader. Because of these seven strengths, Brazil has not relied on the US for its economy. Rather Brazil has been able to resist US President Trump’s pressure and threats.  Brazil has been different from Mexico which depends on US for its trade and overall economy. Mexico’s total exports in 2024 were valued at US$618.98 billion, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database on international trade. Mexico’s total exports to the US in 2024 was valued at US$503.26 billion, constituting 81% of Mexico’s total exports and 27.5% of Mexico’s GDP. [70] Brazil’s exports to the US hit a record $40.3 billion in 2024, but it made up 1.9% of Brazil’s GDP in 2024. [71] Thus, Brazil sharply contrasts with Mexico in terms of its economic dependence on the US.  Brazil has also been different from Japan in terms of its security dependence on the US. Japan has heavily depended on the US for its security. As Figure 19 show, as of March 2025, approximately 53,000 US military servicemen have been stationed in Japan. By contrast, as Table 12 shows, there are 58 US soldiers in Brazil as of March 2025. Even 58 US servicemen in Brazil are not stationed there. They are temporarily in Brazil for a moment. Moreover, unlike Japan where there are several military bases in Japan, including major installations like Futenma air station in Okinawa and Yokota air base in Tokyo, there are no US military bases in Brazil. Thus, Brazil has not depended on the US for its security. Accordingly, Brazil sharply contrasts with Japan in terms of its security dependence on US.   Figure 19: US troops overseas (source: https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-us-military-members-stationed-and-why/) Table 12: Number of US military personnel (source: https://usafacts.org/articles/where-are-us-military-members-stationed-and-why/)  On the other hand, the US has a growing military presence in Australia, primarily through the marine rotational force in Darwin, which involves thousands of US marines rotating annually for training exercises. These rotations, which have happened since 2012, have grown from an initial 200 marines to nearly 2,500 each year. In addition, the US planned to host up to four nuclear-powered submarines at a future base in Australia, beginning as early as 2027. Moreover, Australia has been a member of Quad and AUKUS that are anti-Chinese alliance.  On the economic front, however, Australia exported a total $517.0 billion in merchandise goods in 2024, with $23.8billion of this going to the US. Australian goods exports to US made up 5% of its total goods exports in 2024 and were 0.9% of Australia’s annual GDP. [72]  In 2024, as Figure 20 shows, around 35% of Australia’s merchandise exports by value went to China. China is also Australia’s largest export market for services with a 13.3% share. China is also Australia’s largest import partner with AUD 116 billion in 2024, followed by the US at AUD 93 billion, and Japan at AUD 32 billion. China has been Australia’s largest trading partner since 2009, when it replaced Japan. Thus, Australia is situated in-between Japan (with heavy security dependence on the US) or Mexico (with extreme economic reliance on the US) and Brazil (with economic and security freedom from the US) in terms of its economic and security dependence on US. Australia straddles a middle path between the US and China. Australia depends on China for its economy, while it strengthens its security ties with the US.  Figure 20: Australia’s exports to China, 2024 (source: Australian Bureau of Statistics) In conclusion, Brazil’s seven strengths have made Brazil achieve both economic and security independence from the US. Thus, Brail was able to resist US pressures and threats. Even Brazil has been able to challenge the US. Brazil’s pursuit of de-dollarization and multipolar world order are good examples of such efforts. References[1] “Is Donald Trump trying to dial back tensions with Brazil?” Alex Kozul-Wright. 7 Oct 2025. AlJazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/10/7/is-donald-trump-trying-to-dial-back-tensions-with-brazil[2] “Is Donald Trump trying to dial back tensions with Brazil?” Alex Kozul-Wright.[3] “Is Donald Trump trying to dial back tensions with Brazil?” Alex Kozul-Wright.[4] “Is Donald Trump trying to dial back tensions with Brazil?” Alex Kozul-Wright.[5] For more information on Brazil, see Wikipedia.[6] see Wikipedia[7] For more information about income inequality in Brazil, see “Income Inequality Drops Again and Hits Lowest Level on Record in Brazil.” May.8.2025. Folha De S. Paulo.[8] For more information, see https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country[9] For more information, see https://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf-publications/fs23.pdf[10] Moisés Gómez, Jinhui Li, Xianlai Zeng. “Niobium: The unseen element - A comprehensive examination of its evolution, global dynamics, and outlook.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling. Vol. 209 (October 2024), p.1[11] Moisés Gómez, Jinhui Li, Xianlai Zeng., p. 2.[12] For more information, see https://www.sfa-oxford.com/market-news-and-insights/niobium-swing-producer-cbmm-driving-the-future-of-advanced-materials/[13] See https://www.sfa-oxford.com/market-news-and-insights/niobium-swing-producer-cbmm-driving-the-future-of-advanced-materials/[14] For more information, see https://www.sfa-oxford.com/market-news-and-insights/niobium-swing-producer-cbmm-driving-the-future-of-advanced-materials/[15] See https://www.sfa-oxford.com/market-news-and-insights/niobium-swing-producer-cbmm-driving-the-future-of-advanced-materials/[16] See https://www.mining-technology.com/news/cbmm-opens-niobium-production-facility/?cf-view[17] For more information, see https://niobiumcanada.com/why-is-niobium-a-critical-mineral-resource-for-the-united-states/[18] https://niobiumcanada.com/why-is-niobium-a-critical-mineral-resource-for-the-united-states/[19] “Hypersonic hegemony: niobium and the Western Hemisphere’s role in the US-China power struggle.” Guido L. Torres, Laura Delgado Lopez, Ryan C. Berg, and Henry Ziemer. CSIS. March 4, 2024.[20] “Hypersonic hegemony: niobium and the Western Hemisphere’s role in the US-China power struggle.” Guido L. Torres, Laura Delgado Lopez, Ryan C. Berg, and Henry Ziemer.[21] “Hypersonic hegemony: niobium and the Western Hemisphere’s role in the US-China power struggle.” Guido L. Torres, Laura Delgado Lopez, Ryan C. Berg, and Henry Ziemer.[22] “Hypersonic hegemony: niobium and the Western Hemisphere’s role in the US-China power struggle.” Guido L. Torres, Laura Delgado Lopez, Ryan C. Berg, and Henry Ziemer.[23] “Hypersonic hegemony: niobium and the Western Hemisphere’s role in the US-China power struggle.” Guido L. Torres, Laura Delgado Lopez, Ryan C. Berg, and Henry Ziemer.[24] “Hypersonic hegemony: niobium and the Western Hemisphere’s role in the US-China power struggle.” Guido L. Torres, Laura Delgado Lopez, Ryan C. Berg, and Henry Ziemer.[25] For more information, see USGS website: https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024-rare-earths.pdf[26] https://valorinternational.globo.com/business/news/2025/08/05/brazils-rare-earth-exports-hit-record-but-remain-modest.ghtml[27] “What are rare earth minerals, and why are they central to Trump’s trade war?” Ramishah Maruf. CNN. June 3, 2025.[28] “What are rare earth minerals, and why are they central to Trump’s trade war?” Ramishah Maruf.[29] “What are rare earth minerals, and why are they central to Trump’s trade war?” Ramishah Maruf.[30] “What are rare earth minerals, and why are they central to Trump’s trade war?” Ramishah Maruf[31] “US and Australia sign rare earths deal to counter China's dominance.” Natalie Sherman. BBC News. October 20, 2025.[32] https://valorinternational.globo.com/business/news/2025/08/05/brazils-rare-earth-exports-hit-record-but-remain-modest.ghtml[33] https://www.spglobal.com/commodity-insights/en/news-research/latest-news/metals/060625-brazils-rare-earth-projects-seek-partnerships-to-enhance-energy-security [34] For more information, see https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/09/us-soybean-harvest-starts-with-no-sign-of-chinese-buying-as-brazil-sets-export-record.html[35] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/09/us-soybean-harvest-starts-with-no-sign-of-chinese-buying-as-brazil-sets-export-record.html[36] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/09/us-soybean-harvest-starts-with-no-sign-of-chinese-buying-as-brazil-sets-export-record.html[37] https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2025/09/us-soybean-harvest-starts-with-no-sign-of-chinese-buying-as-brazil-sets-export-record.html[38] https://soygrowers.com/news-releases/how-does-u-s-soybean-production-compare-to-brazil/[39] https://soygrowers.com/news-releases/how-does-u-s-soybean-production-compare-to-brazil/[40] For more information, see https://pulse.auctionsplus.com.au/aplus-news/insights/whos-got-beef-and-wheres-it-going[41] https://pulse.auctionsplus.com.au/aplus-news/insights/whos-got-beef-and-wheres-it-going[42] https://www.thepoultrysite.com/news/2025/08/brazil-marks-50-years-as-top-global-chicken-exporter[43] “Top 10 exporters shipped halal meat worth $14.04 bn to OIC countries.” EuroMeat News. February 18, 2025.[44] For more information, see https://newsroom.sialparis.com/topics/news/middle-east-food/[45] For more information, see https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/crude-petroleum/reporter/bra[46] D. Budny; P. Sotero (April 2007). "Brazil Institute Special Report: The Global Dynamics of Biofuels" (PDF). Brazil Institute of the Woodrow Wilson Center. [47] The Economist, March 3–9, 2007 "Fuel for Friendship" p. 44[48] The flourishing ethanol industry in Brazil, Brazilian Farmers.[49] https://www.hfw.com/insights/bioenergy-series-the-evolution-of-the-brazilian-ethanol-industry/ [50] https://ethanolrfa.org/media-and-news/category/news-releases/article/2025/08/rfa-supports-u-s-investigation-of-punitive-brazil-trade-practices[51] https://www.czapp.com/analyst-insights/trump-targets-brazil-over-ethanol-tariffs-amid-falling-us-exports/[52] For more information, see "The Remarkable Story of Brazilian Jet Maker Embraer." Bloomberg. July 5, 2024.[53] "Embraer Delivers 1800th E-Jet". Embraer. Archived from the original on 2 May 2024. Retrieved 21 July 2024.[54] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/aircraft-and-spacecraft-exports-by-country[55] https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/largest-airlines-aircraft-manufacturers[56] "Expansion of BRICS: A quest for greater global influence?" (PDF). Think Tank, European Parliament. 15 March 2024.[57] For more information, see Wikipedia.[58] https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/[59] https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/[60] https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/[61] https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/[62] https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/[63] https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/[64] https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/07/10/trump-threat-brics-us-dollar-western-imperialism/[65] https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/brazil-deepens-bond-china/[66] https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/brazil-deepens-bond-china/[67] https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/brazil-deepens-bond-china/[68] https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/brazil-deepens-bond-china/[69] https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/brazil-deepens-bond-china/[70] https://trading economics.com /mexico/exports-by-country[71] https://www.publicnow.com/view/8D388094BA5934BD1B86E434070AA54216D7E628?1756817187 & SECEXMDIC[72] See Australian Bureau of Statistics; https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/australias-trade-united-states-america

Drug trafficking is the illegal trade, in large quantities, of drugs or narcotics (RAE, 2025). However, while this definition is accurate, it is insufficient to describe the complexity of a global phenomenon that transcends borders and involves the production, purchase, and distribution of illicit substances. Drug trafficking has developed hand in hand with global trade and interconnection (Saldaña, 2024). In other words, the evolution of drug trafficking is closely linked to globalization, which has strengthened the logistical, technological, and financial networks that enable its expansion. Therefore, more than isolated crime, drug trafficking must be understood as a transnational system of power that feeds on globalization itself. Drug Trafficking as a Transnational System of Power Drug trafficking is described by some authors as a profoundly complex transnational phenomenon resulting from globalization (Luna Galván, Thanh Luong, & Astolfi, 2021). This phenomenon involves and connects global networks of production, logistics, financing, and consumption, all made possible by economic interdependence, information technologies, and established global logistical routes. These authors analyze drug trafficking from a multidimensional perspective, identifying seven interrelated spheres that sustain this activity: the economic (money laundering and investment diversification), institutional (corruption and institutional capture), organizational (organized criminal networks and advanced logistics), social (presence in territories with state vacuums and community legitimization), technological (use of cryptomarkets, encryption, and innovation), geopolitical (route adaptability and resilience against state policies), and cultural (narratives and subcultures that normalize illicit practices) (Luna Galván, Thanh Luong, & Astolfi, 2021). These dimensions form a web of relationships in which criminal groups not only control the flow of drugs but also influence economic and political structures. As Interpol (n.d.) warns, this global network undermines and erodes the political and economic stability of the countries involved, while also fostering corruption and generating irreversible social and health effects. Furthermore, drug trafficking is intertwined with other crimes — such as money laundering, corruption, human trafficking, and arms smuggling — thus forming a globalized criminal ecosystem, a global issue and a national security concern for nations worldwide. Origins and historical context There are records of the use of entheogenic drugs for ritual or medicinal purposes in Mesoamerican cultures — such as the Olmecs, Zapotecs, Mayas, and Aztecs (Carod Artal, 2011) — as well as in Peru (Bussmann & Douglas, 2006), the Amazon region, and even today among the Wixárika culture in Mexico (Haro Luna, 2023). Likewise, there was widespread and diverse drug use among the ancient Greeks and Romans, including substances such as mandrake, henbane, belladonna, cannabis, and opium, among others (Pérez González, 2024). However, modern drug trafficking can trace its origins to the First Opium War (1839–1842) between the Chinese Empire (Qing Dynasty) and the British Empire, marking the first international conflict directly linked to the drug trade. During the second half of the 19th century and the early 20th century, several drugs —such as heroin, cocaine, cannabis, and amphetamines — made their debut in the pharmaceutical field, being used in medicines and therapeutic remedies (López-Muñoz & Álamo González, 2020). This period is considered the pharmaceutical revolution, characterized by the emergence of researchers, research centers, and major discoveries in the field. During that time, the term “drug” began to be associated with “addiction.” The pharmaceutical revolution had its epicenter in Germany; however, it was the British and Americans who promoted its expansion (Luna-Fabritius, 2015) and contributed to the normalization of psychoactive substance consumption. Military promotion, use and dependence Armed conflicts — from the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865) to the First World War (1914–1918) — played a key role in spreading and promoting the military use of psychoactive substances. For instance, stimulants such as alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, and methamphetamines were used to combat sleep, reduce fatigue, boost energy, and strengthen courage, while depressants like opium, morphine, and marijuana were used to relieve combat stress and mitigate war trauma (Marco, 2019). The dependence that developed led to a process of expansion among the civilian population, which entered a period of mass experimentation that often resulted in substance abuse and chemical dependency (Courtwright, 2001). In response, the first restrictive laws emerged, particularly in the United States (López-Muñoz & Álamo González, 2020). However, the high demand for certain substances, such as opium, gave rise to the search for markets capable of meeting that demand. Thus, Mexico — influenced by Chinese immigration that introduced the habit of smoking opium in the country — became, by the 1940s, the epicenter of poppy cultivation and opium processing in the region known as the Golden Triangle (Sinaloa, Durango, and Chihuahua). It became the main supplier for drug markets in the United States and other parts of the continent, at times providing up to 90% of the demand during periods of shortage (Sosa, 2025). Even during World War II (1939–1945) — when the traditional supply of heroin and morphine to Europe was disrupted — Mexico strengthened its role in the illicit trade by providing smoking opium and processed morphine or heroin. These developments, alongside the implementation of opiate regulations in Mexico, helped consolidate and structure Mexican drug trafficking, which has persisted for more than sixty years (Sosa, 2025). Social expansion and regulatory restrictions The end of World War II brought stricter restrictions and regulations, but that did not prevent socio-cultural movements such as the hippie movement (in the 1960s) from adopting the use of marijuana, hashish, LSD, and hallucinogenic mushrooms (Kiss, 2025) without facing severe repercussions. That same hippie movement — which promoted pacifism and opposed the Vietnam War (1955–1975) — in one way or another encouraged drug use among young people. Moreover, the demand for substances by returning veterans led to the internationalization of drug markets, fostering, for example, the heroin trade from Southeast Asia (Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand) (Saldaña, 2024). The Nixon administration and the US “War on Drugs” The dependency became so severe that it was considered a public health emergency in the United States. On June 18, 1971, Richard Nixon declared the “War on Drugs” at an international level, labeling drug trafficking as “public enemy number one” (Plant & Singer, 2022). Nixon’s strategy combined international intervention with increased spending on treatment and stricter measures against drug trafficking and consumption (Encyclopedia.com, n.d.), along with the creation of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in 1973. Although the War on Drugs was officially declared in 1971, it had a precedent in 1969 with the failed Operation Intercept, whose goal was to combat marijuana trafficking across the U.S.–Mexico border (M. Brecher, 1972). As part of his international strategy, Nixon launched several operations such as Operation Condor with Mexico (1975 and 1978), Operation Stopgap in Florida (1977), and Operation Fulminante, carried out by Colombian President Julio César Turbay in 1979. Most of these efforts were aimed at combating marijuana trafficking. The results were mixed, but the consequences were significant, as drug traffickers resisted and adapted — giving rise to a more active and violent generation and marking the consolidation of modern drug trafficking. The Consolidation of Modern Drug Trafficking: Colombia and Reagan Era. During the 1980s and 1990s, drug trafficking evolved into a highly organized industry. Figures such as Félix Gallardo [1], Amado Carrillo Fuentes [2], Pablo Escobar [3], Carlos Lehder [4], Griselda Blanco [5], Rafael Caro Quintero [6], and later Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera [7], among others (Wikipedia, 2025), symbolized the growing power of the cartels in Colombia and Mexico. During this period, criminal organizations consolidated their operations, and the profits from drug trafficking fueled violence and corruption. Moreover, the struggle for power — not only in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, or the United States but also in other regions of Latin America — and the competition for markets led to greater sophistication, as well as the construction of infrastructure and distribution networks. Pablo Escobar’s famous phrase, “plata o plomo” (“silver or lead”), reflects the immense power and influence that drug traffickers wield, even over governments and authorities. Colombia, through the Cali and Medellín cartels, dominated the production and export of cocaine via a triangulation network that connected through Mexico or the Caribbean, with the final destination being the United States, where the Reagan administration (1981–1989) intensified the War on Drugs, focusing on criminal repression rather than public health. The Reagan’s War on Drugs was characterized for setting aggressive policies and legislative changes in the 1980s which increased the law enforcement and the punishment, as a consequence the prison penalties for drug crimes skyrocketed from 50,000 in 1980 to more than 400,000 by 1997 (HISTORY.com Editors 2017) Mexican cartels consolidation and Mexico’s transition to a consumer nation Around the same time, on the international arena, following the fragmentation of the Guadalajara Cartel in the 1980s, the emergence of new Mexican cartels — the Sinaloa Cartel, Gulf Cartel, Tijuana Cartel, and Juárez Cartel — combined with the downfall of Colombia’s Cali and Medellín cartels in the mid-1990s, catapulted Mexican cartels into prominence. They seized control of trafficking routes and diversified their operations, thus consolidating their role in the global drug market. Later, the September 11, 2001, attacks altered U.S. security policy, affecting border transit, increasing security measures, and tightening inspections along the southern border with Mexico (Rudolph, 2023) — one of the main drug distribution routes into the United States. Although some studies suggest that U.S. security policies at land ports of entry had only marginal pre- and post-9/11 effects (Ramírez Partida, 2014), in reality, these measures significantly impacted Mexico more than the US. Mexico transitioned from being primarily a producer, distributor, and transit country for drugs to also becoming a consumer nation. In 2002, more than 260,000 people were reported to use cocaine, whereas today the number exceeds 1.7 million addicts, according to data from the federal Secretariat of Public Security (Alzaga, 2010). Likewise, the ENCODAT 2016–2017 survey shows that the percentage of Mexican adolescents who had consumed some type of drug increased from 1.6% in 2001 to 6.4% in 2016 (REDIM, 2025). By disrupting one of the main drug distribution routes to the United States, the situation led to drugs being redistributed and sold within Mexican territory. This, combined with the country’s social and economic conditions, facilitated the recruitment of young people by organized crime groups (Becerra-Acosta, 2010) for the domestic distribution of drugs. Mexico and the Contemporary War on Drug Trafficking The escalation of violence caused by the power struggle among Mexican cartels became so critical that President Felipe Calderón (2006–2012) declared an open war against organized crime on December 10, 2006 (Herrera Beltrán, 2006). His strategy involved deploying the armed forces throughout Mexican territory, as well as obtaining financial aid, training, and intelligence through the Mérida Initiative from the United States to support the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime in Mexico and Central America (Embassy of the United States in Mexico, 2011). His successor, Enrique Peña Nieto (2012–2018), shifted the focus toward prevention and civil protection, although he continued the militarization process and the transformation of police institutions (BBC News, 2012). The strategies of Calderón and Peña Nieto — often grouped together — while questioned and criticized (Morales Oyarvide, 2011), achieved significant arrests, including figures such as “La Barbie,” “La Tuta,” “El Menchito,” “El Chapo,” “El Marro,” and “El Ratón.” They also eliminated key figures like Arturo Beltrán Leyva, Ignacio Coronel Villarreal, Antonio Cárdenas Guillén, Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, and Nazario Moreno González. Later, during the presidency of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018–2024), the strategy shifted once again toward a stance of “hugs, not bullets,” showing clear signs of passivity that allowed cartel expansion (Fernández-Montesino, 2025). His successor, Claudia Sheinbaum (2024–2030), on the other hand, has navigated both internal and external pressures (particularly from the United States), seeking to balance intelligence, coordination, and attention to structural causes (Pardo, 2024), although continued militarization suggests a hybrid strategy remains in place. Fentanyl and synthetic drugs: The future of drug trafficking The president of the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Jallal Toufiq, said that “the illicit drug industry represents a major global public health threat with potentially disastrous consequences for humankind.” In addition, the 2024 INCB Annual Report found that illicit synthetic drugs are spreading and consumption is increasing, moreover, these could overtake some plant-based drugs in the future. (International Narcotics Control Board 2025) The press release before mentioned also points out that Africa, Middle East, East and Southeast Asia and the Pacific drug markets are increasing, while production in Central America, Peru, Colombia and the Caribbean keeps on developing. On the other hand, the opioid crisis (fentanyl) remains a serious problem for North America and the cocaine keeps affecting Europe with a spillover Africa. (International Narcotics Control Board 2025). The fentanyl crisis in North America is well documented. Data show an increase of 540% in overdose deaths between 2013 and 2016 (Katz 2017), with 20,100 deaths in the USA, while by 2023, the number increase to 72,776 deaths (USA Facts 2025). On the other hand, Canada has reported 53,821 deaths between January 2016 and March 2025 (Government of Canada 2025), while Mexico reported only 114 deaths from 2013 to 2023 (Observatorio Mexicano de Salud Mental y Adicciones 2024). These figures reveal not only the unequal regional impact of the synthetic opioid crisis but also the ongoing adaptation of organized crime networks that sustain and expand these markets. Evolution and Diversification of Organized Crime The phenomenon of adaptation, evolution, and diversification of new illicit markets is not an isolated issue. Experts such as Farah & Zeballos (2025) describe this in their framework Waves of Transnational Crime (COT). The first wave is represented by Pablo Escobar and the Medellín Cartel, pioneers in moving tons of cocaine to the U.S. market through Caribbean routes. The second wave is represented by the Cali Cartel, which perfected the model and expanded trafficking routes through Central America and Mexico — still focusing on one product (cocaine) for one main market (the United States). The third wave is characterized by the criminalization of criminal structures, the use of armed groups (such as the FARC in Colombia), and the use of illicit production and trafficking as instruments of state policy, with clear effects on public policy functioning. At this stage, there is product diversification, with the main market remaining the U.S., but expansion reaching Europe (Farah & Zeballos, 2025). Finally, the fourth wave — the current stage — is defined by total diversification, a shift toward synthetic drugs, and global expansion, involving extra-regional groups (Italian, Turkish, Albanian, and Japanese mafias), where many operations function “under government protection.” This fourth wave offers clear examples of collusion between criminal and political spheres, which is not new. However, the arrest of Genaro García Luna (Secretary of Public Security under Calderón), the links between high-profile Mexican politicians and money laundering or fuel trafficking (Unidad de Investigación Aplicada de MCCI, 2025), and even Trump’s statements claiming that “Mexico is largely governed by cartels” (DW, 2025) reveal a reality in which drug trafficking and criminal organizations are no longer merely producers and distributors of illicit substances. Today, they possess the power and capacity to establish parallel governance systems, exercise territorial control, infiltrate institutions and local economies, and even replace core state functions (Farah & Zeballos, 2025). Future Perspectives and Challenges Currently, drug trafficking and organized crime represent structural threats. It is well known and widely studied what drug trafficking means for public security and health, but it has now also become a threat to politics, democracy, and the rule of law. With divided opinions, many analysts argue that the war on drugs has failed — in addition to being costly and, in many cases, counterproductive (Thomson, 2016). Punitive strategies have generated more violence without truly addressing the social causes behind the phenomenon (Morales Oyarvide, 2011). In this context, a paradigm shift is necessary: drug trafficking should not be approached solely as a security issue, but also as a public health and social development problem. Drug use has been a historical constant, and its total eradication is unrealistic. The key lies in harm-reduction policies, international cooperation, and inclusive economic development. Moreover, organized crime demonstrates adaptive resilience, making its eradication difficult — especially given that its operational capacities are so diversified, it maintains alliances with groups worldwide, and globalization and new technologies continually help it reinvent itself. Furthermore, even political and economic tensions among the United States, Mexico, Canada, and China are now intertwined with the trade of synthetic drugs — particularly fentanyl —, revealing the geopolitical magnitude of the problem (Pierson, 2024). Conclusion In summary, drug trafficking has ceased to be a marginal activity and has become a transnational structure capable of influencing politics, the economy, and society. Its persistence can be explained not only by the profitability of the business but also by social inequality, institutional corruption, and sustained global demand. History demonstrates that repression has not eradicated the problem but rather transformed it. Today, it is essential to rethink drug policies from a comprehensive approach that integrates security, public health, education, and international cooperation. Only through a multidimensional strategy will it be possible to contain a phenomenon that — more than an illicit economy — constitutes a global form of parallel governance that challenges the very foundations of the modern state. Notes[1] Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, also known as “El Jefe de Jefes” (“The Boss of Bosses”), “El Padrino” (“The Godfather”), or “The Drug Czar”, was one of the founders of the Guadalajara Cartel. [2] Amado Carrillo Fuentes, known as “El Señor de los Cielos” (“The Lord of the Skies”), was the former leader of the Juárez Cartel. [3] Pablo Escobar was the founder and former leader of the Medellín Cartel. [4] Carlos Lehder was the co-founder of the Medellín Cartel. [5] Griselda Blanco, known as “The Black Widow,” “The Cocaine Queen,” or “La Patrona” (“The Boss”), was a founder of the Medellín Cartel. [6] Rafael Caro Quintero, known as “El Narco de Narcos” (“The Drug Lord of Drug Lords”), was one of the founders of the Guadalajara Cartel. [7] Joaquín Guzmán Loera, known as “El Chapo,” was the former leader of the Sinaloa Cartel. ReferencesAlzaga, Ignacio. 2010. Creció mercado de droga por blindaje en frontera. 23 de Enero. https://web.archive.org/web/20100328122522/http://impreso.milenio.com/node/8707705.BBC News. 2012. México: el plan de Peña Nieto contra el narcotráfico. 18 de Diciembre. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias/2012/12/121218_mexico_pena_nieto_estrategia_seguridad_narcotrafico_jg.Becerra-Acosta, Juan P. 2010. Los ninis jodidos y el narco tentador…. 16 de Agosto. https://web.archive.org/web/20100819043827/http://impreso.milenio.com/node/8816494.Bussmann, Rainer W., y Sharon Douglas. 2006. «Traditional medicinal plant use in Northern Peru: tracking two thousand years of healing culture.» Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-2-47.Carod Artal, Francisco Javier. 2011. «Alucinógenos en las culturas precolombinas mesoamericanas.» Neurología 30 (1): 42-49. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nrl.2011.07.003.Courtwright, David. 2001. «Forces of Habit. Drugs and the Making of the Modern World.» Editado por Cambridge. (Harvard University Press).DW. 2025. Trump dice que México está "gobernado por los carteles". 19 de Febrero. https://www.dw.com/es/trump-dice-que-m%C3%A9xico-est%C3%A1-gobernado-por-los-carteles/a-71666187.Embajada de los Estados Unidos en México. 2011. Iniciativa Mérida. 22 de Junio. http://spanish.mexico.usembassy.gov/es/temas-bilaterales/mexico-y-eu-de-un-vistazo/iniciativa-merida.html.Encyclopedia.com. s.f. President Nixon Declares "War" on Drugs. https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/medical-magazines/president-nixon-declares-war-drugs?utm_source=chatgpt.com.Farah, Douglas, y Pablo Zeballos. 2025. ¿Por qué el crimen organizado es cada vez más grave en América Latina? 19 de Septiembre. https://latinoamerica21.com/es/por-que-el-crimen-organizado-es-cada-vez-mas-grave-en-america-latina/.Fernández-Montesino, Federico Aznar. 2025. México y la guerra contra el narcotráfico. 20 de Mayo. https://www.defensa.gob.es/documents/2073105/2564257/Mexico_2025_dieeea36.pdf/1d38d679-f529-7d1e-130c-71a71cf0447c?t=1747593702946.Government of Canada. 2025. Opioid- and Stimulant-related Harms in Canada. 23 de September. Último acceso: 5 de November de 2025. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids-stimulants/.Haro Luna, Mara Ximena. 2023. Los hongos en la cultura wixárika. https://arqueologiamexicana.mx/mexico-antiguo/los-hongos-en-la-cultura-wixarika.Herrera Beltrán, Claudia. 2006. El gobierno se declara en guerra contra el hampa; inicia acciones en Michoacán. 12 de Diciembre. https://www.jornada.com.mx/2006/12/12/index.php?section=politica&article=014n1pol.HISTORY.com Editors. 2017. Just Say No. 31 de May. Último acceso: 5 de November de 2025. https://www.history.com/articles/just-say-no.International Narcotics Control Board. 2025. Press release: The deadly proliferation of synthetic drugs is a major threat to public health and is reshaping illicit drug markets, says the International Narcotics Control Board. 4 de March. Último acceso: 5 de November de 2025. https://www.incb.org/incb/en/news/press-releases/2025/the-deadly-proliferation-of-synthetic-drugs-is-a-major-threat-to-public-health-and-is-reshaping-illicit-drugs-markets--says-the-international-narcotics-control-board.html#:~:text=In%20its%202024%20Annu.Interpol. s.f. Tráfico de drogas. https://www.interpol.int/es/Delitos/Trafico-de-drogas.Katz, Josh. 2017. The First Count of Fentanyl Deaths in 2016: Up 540% in Three Years. 2 de September. Último acceso: 5 de November de 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/02/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur.Kiss, Teresa. 2025. Movimiento hippie. 18 de Octubre. https://concepto.de/movimiento-hippie/.López-Muñoz, Francisco, y Cecilio Álamo González. 2020. Cómo la heroína, la cocaína y otras drogas comenzaron siendo medicamentos saludables. 25 de June. https://theconversation.com/como-la-heroina-la-cocaina-y-otras-drogas-comenzaron-siendo-medicamentos-saludables-140222.Luna Galván, Mauricio, Hai Thanh Luong, y Elisa Astolfi. 2021. «El narcotráfico como crimen organizado: comprendiendo el fenómeno desde la perspectiva trasnacional y multidimensional.» Revista De Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad 199-214. doi:https://doi.org/10.18359/ries.5412.Luna-Fabritius, Adriana. 2015. «Modernidad y drogas desde una perspectiva histórica.» Revista mexicana de ciencias políticas y sociales 60 (225). https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0185-19182015000300021.M. Brecher, Edward. 1972. Chapter 59. The 1969 marijuana shortage and "Operation Intercept". https://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/studies/cu/CU59.html.Marco, Jorge. 2019. Cocaína, opio y morfina: cómo se usaron las drogas en las grandes guerras del siglo XX. 7 de Diciembre. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-50687669.Morales Oyarvide, César. 2011. El fracaso de una estrategia: una crítica a la guerra contra el narcotráfico en México, sus justificaciones y efectos. Enero-Febrero. https://nuso.org/articulo/el-fracaso-de-una-estrategia-una-critica-a-la-guerra-contra-el-narcotrafico-en-mexico-sus-justificaciones-y-efectos/.Observatorio Mexicano de Salud Mental y Adicciones. 2024. Informe de la demanda y oferta de fentanilo en México: generalidades y situación actual. Abril. Último acceso: 2025 de November de 2025. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/910633/Informe_Fentanilo_abril_2024.pdf.Pardo, Daniel. 2024. Cómo es el plan de seguridad que Claudia Sheinbaum anunció en plena crisis de violencia en México. 8 de Octubre. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c1wn59xe91wo.Peréz González, Jordi. 2024. Del opio al cannabis. Drogas en Grecia y Roma, una peligrosa adicción de plebeyos y emperadores. 19 de Enero. https://historia.nationalgeographic.com.es/a/drogas-grecia-roma-peligrosa-adiccion-plebeyos-emperadores_14533.Pierson, David. 2024. El fentanilo tiene otro auge, ahora como arma diplomática de Donald Trump contra China. 26 de Noviembre. https://www.nytimes.com/es/2024/11/26/espanol/mundo/fentanilo-china-trump.html.Plant, Michael, y Peter Singer. 2022. Why drugs should be not only decriminalised, but fully legalised. August. https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/08/drugs-should-be-decriminalised-legalised.Ramírez Partida, Héctor R. 2014. «Post-9/11 U.S. Homeland Security Policy Changes and Challenges: A Policy Impact Assessment of the Mexican Front.» Norteamérica 9 (1). https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1870-35502014000100002.Real Academia Española. 2025. narcotráfico. https://www.rae.es/diccionario-estudiante/narcotr%C3%A1fico.REDIM. 2025. Consumo de alcohol, tabaco y drogas en la infancia y adolescencia en México (2023). 16 de Mayo. https://blog.derechosinfancia.org.mx/2025/05/16/consumo-de-alcohol-tabaco-y-drogas-en-la-infancia-y-adolescencia-en-mexico-2023/.Rudolph, Joseph R. 2023. 9/11 and U.S. immigration policy. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/911-and-us-immigration-policy.Saldaña, Eduardo. 2024. ¿Qué es el narcotráfico? 2024 de Febrero. https://elordenmundial.com/que-es-narcotrafico/.Sosa, Fabián. 2025. La llegada del opio a México, la historia que dio inicio al narcotráfico en el país. 2 de Agosto. https://www.infobae.com/mexico/2025/08/02/la-llegada-del-opio-a-mexico-la-historia-que-dio-inicio-al-narcotrafico-en-el-pais/#:~:text=Su%20aparici%C3%B3n%20en%20M%C3%A9xico%20se,utilizada%20para%20tratar%20sus%20heridas.Thomson, Stéphanie. 2016. Los expertos opinan: la guerra contra las drogas ha sido un fracaso. ¿Es hora de legalizarlas? 7 de Diciembre. https://es.weforum.org/stories/2016/12/los-expertos-opinan-la-guerra-contra-las-drogas-ha-sido-un-fracaso-es-hora-de-la-legalizacion/.Unidad de Investigación Aplicada de MCCI. 2025. Huachicol Fiscal. https://contralacorrupcion.mx/anuario-de-la-corrupcion-2025-gobierno-de-sheinbaum/huachicol-fiscal-corrupcion-mexico/.USA Facts. 2025. Are fentanyl overdose deaths rising in the US? 25 de October. Último acceso: 5 de November de 2025. https://usafacts.org/articles/are-fentanyl-overdose-deaths-rising-in-the-us/.Wikipedia. 2025.

Since the 1970s, the US-China relationship has been defined by a combination of cooperative and competitive objectives. Competitive interests, however, have prevailed, resulting in a rising competition between the two countries. (Pillsbury, 2015) Candidates in the 2016 presidential election treated China as an adversary, with Donald Trump's China-bashing becoming a trademark of his campaign. Rivalry with China has become the organising premise of American foreign policy under Trump's administration. Republicans and Democrats differ on most issues, but they agree on the need to change America's approach towards China. This has sparked speculation about whether the US-China relationship has devolved into a possibly violent clash or a new Cold War. The Trump administration has openly announced a shift in US policy towards China, with Matt Pottinger claiming that the US has modified its China policy to emphasise competition. Former Vice President of Trump Pence stated that the United States will combat China aggressively on all fronts, including economic, military, diplomatic, political, and ideological. This statement is regarded as "the declaration of a new Cold War." (Pence’s, 2018) Former Trump advisor Stephen K. Bannon has declared economic war on China, blaming its exports on the American working and middle classes. Many people agree that China is economically dominating America, and the US government and industry have done little to solve the situation. Globalists such as Madeline Albright, Tom Friedman, and Fareed Zakaria have grown increasingly concerned about China's lack of reciprocity in economic dealings with the United States. David Lampton, a pro-engagement advocate, has criticised China's WTO membership for increasing bilateral trade surpluses. (Staff R. , 2017) The second stage began when Donald Trump determined to halt Chinese commercial and technological advancements, renouncing liberal internationalism in favor of a new grand strategy against China. (Drezner D. R., 2021) The growing view of Xi Jinping as a harsh leader with an aggressive foreign policy contributes to the sense of an ideological clash. China and the United States have initiated an unconstrained war for bilateral, regional, and global dominance, ushering in a new age of strategic conflict that has yet to be fully defined. (Rudd, 2020) The US-China conflict appears to be a Cold War, and any return to a pre-2017 environment of "strategic engagement" with Beijing is no longer politically viable. (Rudd, 2020)However, (Zakaria, 2019) does not feel that the liberal international order has deteriorated as much as is widely assumed, and China is far from a grave threat to the liberal international system. Despite the best intentions of both countries, the US-China relationship is more likely to devolve into economic and military competition. (Lake, 2018) China's strategy aims to modernize its industrial capacity and secure its position as a global powerhouse in high-tech industries. The strategy aims to reduce reliance on foreign technology imports, increase Chinese-domestic content of core materials, and upgrade its dominant position in major strategic industries, such as pharmaceutical, automotive, aerospace, semiconductors, and most importantly, IT and robotics. The 14th Five-Year Plan of China (2021-2025) emphasizes high-quality growth driven by green and high-tech industries, service sectors, and domestic consumption. The US judged China's old growth model as generating a somewhat balanced win-win relationship between the two economies, based on "comparative advantage" and "cost-benefit" evaluations. However, Beijing's new growth model, particularly the "Made in China 2025" aspiration, is perceived as competition with the US service and knowledge economy, resulting in trade and high-tech warfare between the two countries since 2018. (Bernal-Meza L. X., China-US rivalry: a new Cold War or capitalism’s intra-core competition?, 2021) The US business community, once a staunch supporter of engagement, has complained that China has hacked American industrial secrets, created barriers to American firms investing in China, enforced regulations that discriminate against foreigners, maintained high tariffs that should have been reduced decades ago, and blocked American Internet businesses. In a rare joint statement by the allies, the intelligence chiefs of the Five Eyes countries convened on Tuesday to charge China with stealing intellectual property and using artificial intelligence to hack and spy on the countries. (Bing, 2023) The officials from the United States,Britain,Canada,Australia and Huawei,for example,has tight relations with the Party and has been accused of stealing intellectual property as well as spying on Western countries. The United States is concerned about Huwaie's 5G supremacy, which is why it’s CEO, Meng Wan Zhou, was arrested in Canada. Indeed, its importance was highlighted when the United States imposed restrictions restricting, and in some cases prohibiting, Chinese telecoms operations in the American market, and launched a global effort to persuade friends, partners, and others to follow suit. Thus, while President Trump allowed one company (ZTE) a respite from what appeared to be a ban that would put it out of business, later American limitations on Huawei threatened to destroy China's premier international technology company's global viability. (Goldstein, 2020) When it comes to both green technology and chips, it is now at the center of American politics. The CHIPS Act, approved by Congress last year, included $52 billion in grants, tax credits, and other subsidies to stimulate American chip production. That's the kind of industrial policy that would make Hamilton gape and clap. Over the next few years and decades, China will pour vast sums of money into its own industrial strategy programmes, spanning a wide spectrum of cutting-edge technology. According to one Centre for Strategic and International Studies researcher, China already spends more than 12 times as much of its GDP on industrial programmes as the United States. (BROOKS, 2023) Certain social media sites, such as Facebook and Google, are prohibited in China.In the United States, there is a restriction on TIKTOK and WECHAT. To counter China, the United States has implemented a number of statutes, including the: 1.COMPETES Act 2020.: The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee decided to advance the America Competes Act of 2022, which intends to improve America's scientific and technology efforts in the twenty-first century in order to compete with China in vital fields. The bipartisan Act is divided into eleven sections, with Division K headed "Matters Related to Trade." Trade Adjustment Assistance, Import Security and Fairness Act, National Critical Capabilities Review, Modification and Extension of Generalized System of Preferences, Reauthorization of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 and Other Matters, and Temporary Duty Suspensions and Reductions are the seven sections of the Act. President Joe Biden has indicated his support for the Act, arguing that it will strengthen America's supply chains and reenergize the economy's innovation engine, allowing it to compete with China and the rest of the globe for decades to come. 2.Chips and Science Act 2022: President Joe Biden signed the Chips and Science (or CHIPS) Act into law, promising local semiconductor producers more than $50 billion to expand home output and "counter China." (Cosgrove, 2023) 3.The United States passed the Inflation Reduction Act 2022: Although China now dominates clean technology manufacturing, the Inflation Reduction Act contains provisions geared primarily at strengthening the United States' clean energy supply chain. Furthermore, the global transition to clean technology such as solar panels and electric vehicles is unavoidable and ongoing as they become more affordable than fossil-fueled alternatives and countries take action to achieve their Paris climate obligations. (NUCCITELLI, 2023) CHIP War After failing to achieve an agreement with Chinese regulators, Intel cancelled a $5.4 billion takeover deal with Israel-based Tower Semiconductor. China is one of Intel's most important markets, and on July 3, Beijing announced a license requirement for exporters of gallium and germanium, rare-earth metals used in semiconductor manufacturing. The chip war is mostly motivated by the United States' concerns about China's military exploitation of semiconductor technology. However, China's military sector has a key weakness: most of its cutting-edge applications rely on foreign technological inputs, particularly microprocessor exports. China will be the world's largest buyer of semiconductor manufacturing equipment in 2021, accounting for 26% of worldwide demand. Biden established an export license requirement in October 2022, limiting China's access to semiconductor innovations manufactured by US corporations. In July 2023, Japan officially prohibited the sale of 23 types of semiconductor equipment to China, which is significantly more widespread than the US restriction, impeding China's development of advanced chips and basic chips used in technology such as automobiles and smartphones. The Netherlands Standing Committee on Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation said in September that it will begin limiting its semiconductor technology exports to China. According to Nikkie Asia, this new legislation would prohibit the Dutch ASML from exporting innovative chip manufacturing methods without first getting government-approved licenses. (CHENG TING-FANG, 2023) These export limitations have pushed Beijing to retaliate, with China's most recent regulation on gallium and germanium shipments serving as a direct retaliation to the US' global allies. According to the New York Times Magazine, Taiwan manufactures more than 90% of the world's most advanced microchips and could risk armed confrontation if China goes on the offensive in the future. (Palmer, 2023) Former national security advisor Robert O'Brien, on the other hand, believes that in the case of an impending invasion,the US would destroy Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturers rather than allow them to fall into the hands of China. The chip battle has further pushed Taiwan into an awkward position in the changing geopolitical landscape. (Carr, 2023) The Biden administration intends to restrict shipments of advanced artificial intelligence chips designed by Nvidia to China as part of a broader set of actions aimed at preventing Beijing from gaining advanced US technologies to enhance its military. The action is intended to address regulatory gaps and limit China's access to advanced semiconductors, which might feed AI advances and sophisticated computers crucial to Chinese military purposes. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, emphasised that the administration's goal is not to harm Beijing economically. (Alexandra Alper, 2023) In the words of Lampton, "There was a widespread public perception that the Sino-American economic playing field had been unfair to Americans, with the assertion that the American economy was hollowed out, in part due to overt and covert technology transfer to China" (Lampton, 2015) . China's new growth strategy is leading to more rivalry than complementarity in the China-US economic partnership. The fact that "China's achievement in moving up in the global supply and value chains has led to Beijing's larger share of global surplus and the reduction of the profit margin for traditional core states" has disturbed the United States. (Li X. , 2020) As Lenin would have argued, the dynamics of the US-China rivalry are an inter-imperial rivalry driven by inter-capitalist struggle. Competition for the global market could quickly escalate into escalating confrontations of zones of influence, if not war. Conclusion The US-China rivalry is characterised by a complex interplay of economic, technological, and ideological issues. Although the relationship resembles a new Cold War, some argue that it is best understood as a capitalist intra-core competition driven by inter-imperial rivalry. As Lenin foresaw, competition for global markets may escalate into conflicts over areas of control. The contest is likely to last and have an impact on the global order for many years to come since both nations have made large investments in industrial strategy and technology. Advanced semi-conductors and AI chips are necessary for the next race for technological supremacy. 6G telecom and quantum computing. The globe was forced to protect the supply chain for rare earth materials due to this high-tech rivalry. Since they are currently the epicentre of the world's military and economic might. For many years to come, its influence will shape international politics, trade disputes, and technological advancements. Global struggle for these minerals is anticipated in the twenty-first century, much like the wars for oil and gas in the twentieth. Rare earths will be the focus of the twenty-first century. Mineral-rich nations like Brazil, India, Australia, and Vitenam will also become strategically significant for other reasons. As competition for these resources intensifies, international relations will shift and geopolitical alignment will result. 5Gs is no longer the focus of this new technical cold war. It now comes down to controlling the basic materials that enable technology. For this reason, JD Vance adds, "Give us your financial resources, and we'll take care of you." In the trade and technology conflict that has intensified since the Biden Administration increased the restrictions on sales of cutting-edge American technology to China, the Pentagon has designated rare earth as a strategic mineral that is essential for US defence.In response to US technology sanctions, China restricted the export of rare earth materials.It has nothing to do with economics, but rather with military supremacy on a worldwide scale. This is how the US sees the discovery of these rare earth minerals. Donald Trump is threatening Canada, Greenland, and Ukraine for this reason. Due to their large stockpiles of rare earth materials, they are able to protect the global supply chain in this way.Interestingly, however, China produces 63% of rare earth minerals and refines 83% of them. It can store 44 million metric tonnes of reserves in this manner. The US would still have 4-5 million tonnes of metric reserves if it were to seize the deposits of Greenland, Canada, and Ukraine.Thus, they are negligible compared to 44 million metric tonnes in China. If China wisely controls its rare earth export strategy, it will be powerful enough to remind the world of its might without being overly harsh. Then it can demonstrate that Beijing is just as adept at using resources as Washington is at using dollars or sanctions. However, if the world manages to get past it or if China's grip wanes, its greatest advantage may begin to diminish. The next few months are critical because tanks and missiles are not being used in the largest power fight this time. Minerals and magnets will be used to combat it. Bibliography Alexandra Alper, K. F. (2023, October 18). Biden cuts China off from more Nvidia chips, expands curbs to other countries. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/biden-cut-china-off-more-nvidia-chips-expand-curbs-more-countries-2023-10-17/Bernal-Meza, L. X. (2021, May 1). China-US rivalry: a new Cold War or capitalism’s intra-core competition? Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, vol. 64, no. 1. Retrieved from https://www.redalyc.org/journal/358/35866229009/html/#B39Bing, Z. S. (2023, May 23). Chinese hackers spying on US critical infrastructure, Western intelligence says. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-says-china-backed-hacker-targeted-critical-us-infrastructure-2023-05-24/BROOKS, D. (2023, March 23). The Cold War With China Is Changing Everything. Retrieved from The NewYork Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/23/opinion/cold-war-china-chips.htmlCarr, E. (2023, August 22). The 2023 US–China Chip War: The Nexus Of High Tech And Geopolitics. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/earlcarr/2023/08/22/uschina-chip-war-the-nexus-of-high-tech-and-international-relations/?sh=618bc5ed1bd3CHENG TING-FANG, L. L.-B. (2023, June 30). Netherlands unveils chip tool export curbs in fresh blow to China. Retrieved from Nikkei Asia: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Tech/Semiconductors/Netherlands-unveils-chip-tool-export-curbs-in-fresh-blow-to-ChinaCosgrove, L. (2023, May 5). Lawmakers Tout Effect of CHIPs Act in US Competition with China. Retrieved from THE EPOCH TIMES: https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/lawmakers-tout-effect-of-chips-act-in-us-competition-with-china-5243151Drezner, D. R. (2021, May/June 13). The end of grand strategy. Retrieved from Foreign Affairs,: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2020-04-13/end-grand-strategyGoldstein, A. (2020). US–China Rivalry in the twenty-first century: Déjà vu and Cold War II. China International Strategy Review volume 2,, 48-62.Kautsky, K. (1914, September 11). Ultra-imperialism. Der Imperialismus," Die Neue Zeit, 32 (1914), Vol. 2, 908-922. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1914/09/ultra-imp.htmLake, D. A. (2018). Economic openness and great power competition: lessons for China and the United States. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 11, no. 3, 237-70.Lake, D. A. (2018). Economic openness and great power competition: lessons for China and the United States. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 11, no. 3, 237-270.Lampton, D. (2015, June 2). David Lampton on “A Tipping Point in U.S.-China Relations”. Retrieved from COUNCIL PACIFIC AFFAIRS: https://www.councilpacificaffairs.org/news-media/security-defense/dr-david-lampton-on-a-tipping-point-in-u-s-china-relations/Li, X. (2020). The rise of China and its impact on world economic stratification and re-stratification. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 34, no. 4 , 530-50.NUCCITELLI, D. (2023, September 20). The Inflation Reduction Act is reducing U.S. reliance on China. Retrieved from The YALE Climate Connection: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/09/the-inflation-reduction-act-is-reducing-u-s-reliance-on-china/Palmer, A. W. (2023, August 11). An Act of War’: Inside America’s Silicon Blockade Against China. Retrieved from The NewYork Times Magazine : https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/magazine/semiconductor-chips-us-china.htmlPence’s, P. J. (2018, October 5). China Speech Seen as Portent of ‘New Cold War’. Retrieved from New York Times. : https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/world/asia/pence-china-speech-cold-war.htmlPillsbury, M. (2015). The Hundred-Year Marathon: China's Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower . Henry Holt and Co.Rudd, K. (2020, May 6). The coming post-COVID anarchy. Retrieved from Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-05-06/coming-post-covid-anarchyStaff, R. (2017, August 17). Trump adviser Bannon says U.S. in economic war with China: media. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-bannon-idUSKCN1AX0DEZakaria, F. (2019, December 6). The new China Scare: why America shouldn’t panic about its latest challenger. Retrieved from Foreign Affairs: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2019-12-06/new-china-scare