The Red Folder

Last updated December 16, 2024.

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024.

Click here to test your knowledge of Red Folder articles with our weekly Extemp Questions!

Domestic Stories

4 key domestic stories for the week.

1) The East Coast's UFO Invasion Ron Kim

From 'The X-Files' to 'Men in Black,' UFOs have long captured the interest of the American populace. But what if these sightings weren't just confined to the sets of Hollywood? Could the skies of the East Coast be hiding a secret of their own?

Beginning in mid-November, witnesses reported clusters of large drones and possible fixed-wing aircrafts flying in several areas around New Jersey, specifically around the Raritan River. From the Jersey Shore all the way up to counties such as Sussex, the sheer scope and quantity of these reports made it seem improbable that they were a mere trick of the eye. Indeed, these sightings ignited a flurry of panic that spread across the nation. In early December, the FBI got involved as tips began to rack up. Entities such as local sheriff’s departments, emergency management offices, and the state police also began work on solving the mystery and mitigating the fear within the state.

However, much to the chagrin of everyone involved, the problem has only spread. Now, many East Coast states such as New York and Pennsylvania have reported seeing the same objects. These continued sightings have caused many to demand answers about the situation. Even politicians seem to agree with their constituents.

Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey wrote in a letter to President Joe Biden advising him “to continue to direct the federal agencies involved to work together until they uncover answers as to what is behind the UAS (unmanned aircraft systems) sightings.” Furthermore, Murphy has also voiced his support for a bill that would give the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice more authority in identifying and monitoring drones. Senator Andy Kim, also of New Jersey, stated in a press release on December 13 that he was ‘just as frustrated as everyone else in not getting more information and details,’ and that ‘people deserve answers.’ The previous night, Kim had gone with the Clinton Police to investigate the reports of the drones and posted a video of his findings on X. As the situation has grown worse, with reported sightings now in Queens and the Bronx, Senators Blumenthal (D-CT), Gillibrand (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), and Booker (D-NJ) have also demanded more action to be taken.

In recent days, rumors of these objects crashing have also begun to sprout up. A report of a crash in Hillsborough, New Jersey prompted a police search, although no drone was found and the claim was discarded. Another report of a crash, this one in Morris County, held a bit more basis, but the aircraft was “a hobby or toy type of drone” and “not a large commercial or military grade drone” according to the Pequannock Police Department. Nonetheless, these claims prove one thing: panic is spreading.

National security official John Kirby claimed that the White House has “no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or a public safety threat, or have a foreign nexus”, but citizens are growing increasingly concerned and demanding more details. As the federal government grips with their UFO dilemma, it’s hard not to ponder how the situation will play out.

Read More Here:

2) The Eras Tour as an Era of Prosperity Aaniya Khan

Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour is more than a musical phenomenon; it is an economic force. Economic growth, consumer behavior, and cultural influence are often analyzed through traditional lenses, but artists—particularly musicians—rarely get the spotlight they deserve as catalysts of financial booms. Swift’s Eras Tour, which, after two eventful years recently concluded in Toronto, provides a compelling case study for the intersection of culture and economics, offering insights into broader economic trends due to its global reach and record-breaking revenue.

The numbers have spoken volumes. According to Pollstar News, the tour has set an all-time record with a gross exceeding one billion dollars. Beyond ticket sales, ancillary spending has created ripples across the economy. A survey by the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book noted that Swift’s performances in Philadelphia boosted hotel bookings to unprecedented levels, generating millions in local revenue. This phenomenon, often referred to as the “Taylor Swift Effect,” is a microcosm of the broader economic trends following major cultural events.

Besides boosting local hospitality revenue, the Era’s tour has transformed the job market and catalyzed immense industry growth. Swift’s tour highlights the employment opportunities generated by large-scale events. From stagehands and sound technicians to marketing teams and security personnel, the logistical machinery behind Swift’s tour is massive. Moreover, cities hosting her concerts experience powerful surges in employment—hotel staff, ride-share drivers, and restaurant workers often see increased demand.

This job creation is not limited to the tour itself. Merchandise booths, where tour-goers can purchase products from $75 hoodies to $35 tour posters—boost production, providing a boon to the manufacturing and retail sectors. Such localized, short-term employment spikes contribute to broader economic narratives, such as post-pandemic recovery or gig economy trends.

Swift’s global appeal underscores the economic value of cultural exports. Her concerts draw fans from around the world, turning American cities into sought-after international destinations. The cultural clout she wields—a quintessential example of American soft power—has significant economic implications.

This dynamic invites discussions about globalization and cultural diplomacy. How do cultural icons bolster a nation’s economy and global standing? What role do artists play in shaping perceptions of a country? These questions are particularly relevant when analyzing how non-traditional sectors contribute to GDP growth and international relations.

The Eras Tour offers more than just headline-worthy results; it provides a framework for integrating cultural phenomena into economic discussions. Specific figures illustrate the economic benefits of cultural events. Namely, Swift’s six concerts in Toronto are expected to provide a significant boost to the local economy, as noted by Toronto Star. Moreover, the tour’s impact intersects with topics like urban planning, labor markets, and international tourism, offering a holistic view of how art and culture drive economic growth.

Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour exemplifies the profound economic impact that artists can have. By understanding the financial ripple effects of such cultural phenomena, analysts can present nuanced arguments that capture the multifaceted nature of economic growth. Whether discussing consumer spending or cultural diplomacy, Swift’s record-breaking tour is a timely and relevant example that bridges the gap between art and economics.

Read More Here:

Joshua Chong, Toronto Star

3) TikTok, On the Clock Christina Yang

It’s ironic that an app named TikTok---capitalizing off of the fleeting nature of time---has mastered the craft of making hours and hours disappear on end. I myself am guilty of checking the app before writing this article…Every scroll is an intermittent reinforcement of dopamine bathed in an unhealthy amount of blue light. As this generation becomes consumed by the round-the-clock notifications and ephemeral short form content, TikTok has come under scrutiny too many times to count for its harmful algorithms. However, in recent years of this digital age of dilemma, TikTok has found its intersection into the world of global politics as well.

Due to concerns that the Chinese government could gain access to sensitive user data in the United States and given TikTok’s ability to fuel misinformation during contentious time periods in our country, government legislation has begun cracking down on TikTok’s parent company ByteDance. Most notably, President Biden previously signed into law legislation that gives ByteDance one year to sever its ties with TikTok, or a nationwide ban would be imposed. To that end, TikTok’s time is slowly ticking away with this deadline meaning it could be banned as soon as January 19, 2025. However, this still remains up in the air as President-elect Trump enters the office on January 20, 2025 and has notably stated that he would stop a TikTok ban. Despite Trump’s wildcard agenda, significant advances have still been made regarding TikTok’s ban. With all of this talk at the national level about security threats, TikTok has clapped back by referring to the bans as a “political theater” that was attempting to censor Americans.

On Dec. 6, 2024, TikTok lost its first legal battle against the federal law as a panel of three judges voted unanimously to reject the company’s claims that the law violated the First Amendment. In fact, the government even responded by stating that it was actually acting to protect that very freedom from foreign adversaries. TikTok has since stated that it will take this issue up to the Supreme Court. However, there is still a chance that ByteDance will consider a sale under the terms of the new law, which would buy TikTok a few more months of time in the U.S. Additionally, the push to force a TikTok sale is gaining wide attraction in the U.S. Potential buyers include a group of investors brought together by former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, large American corporations, a coalition of private equity firms, or even billionaire Frank McCourt.

To dive deeper into the global context of this issue, the TikTok ban only further reflects the contentious trade relationship between the U.S. and China that has been ongoing for centuries. The dominance of the American tech giants has given the U.S. the upper hand in social media disputes, until TikTok’s elusive appearance. To that end, TikTok has challenged American companies and won, while also pulling tons of dollars away from Meta and Google due to its sheer ubiquity on phones across the U.S. Other critics argue that a ban would actually make foreign companies less likely to do business with the U.S. as a ban would create a “splinternet”---globally connected internet splinters fragmented into regional networks.

On the local level, more than 30 states and New York City have joined the movement to ban TikTok and many colleges have also blocked it from campus WiFi networks. Many of these states have sued TikTok, accusing the company of intentionally pushing out addictive content to harm the youth but gain profits with little protections put in place. Additionally, states have also cracked down on the issue of beauty filters by citing a study in their lawsuit that states 50% of girls believe they do not look good without editing. Thus, the social harm of TikTok is extremely apparent and it is clear regulations need to be put in place regardless of a ban.

If TikTok were to be banned, the app would not disappear on every user’s phone. Instead, companies like Apple and Google would be penalized for distributing or updating TikTok in the app store, and this trend would continue until TikTok is no longer an active app. Despite all of the speculation, the legal battle between digital free speech and national security is still a ticking time bomb waiting to explode…

Read More Here:

4) 2 Strikes and You’re Out Lindsey Zhao

On October 3, 2024, the United States barely avoided catastrophic economic disaster. After negotiations broke down between the International Longshoremen’s Association, the largest union representing dock workers in the US, and the USMX (US Maritime Alliance) a few days prior, nearly 45,000 dock workers walked out on strike. The strike fully halted half of all US port activity over the few days it lasted. Dire predictions preceded this widely-anticipated strike-- analysts predicted it could cost the US economy anywhere between $2.1 to $7.3 billion for each week it lasted.

The ILA, which represents over 85,000 East and West Coast dock workers in the US, had been fighting for a 77% pay raise over the next six years to offset rising inflation and a history of low yearly wage increases. They also wanted a total ban on automation at ports, fearful it could nullify the need for thousands of their workers. Eventually, the USMX, the employer’s group that represents some of the wealthiest shipping companies in the business, settled with a 62% pay increase, but no promises of restraining automation.

Unfortunately, that second part is coming back to haunt the USMX, and the US economy’s outlook for 2025.

The ILA has been stubborn in its demands for the USMX to disavow automation entirely, promising to have their workers go back on strike by January 15, 2025 if their conditions are not met. This is their biggest concern now that pay has been settled.

The USMX has recently pushed harder than ever for an expansion of artificial intelligence, automated software and cranes, and top-of-the-line technology to streamline dock processing. While the USMX and its associated employers have assured the ILA that “it supports automation [that will] improve safety and efficiency, but only when a human being remains at the helm”, clearly the ILA does not believe them.

In November, talks officially broke down yet again between the two groups over the role of automated gates, cranes, and container trucks at ports. Dock workers and the ILA have a few major concerns over the integration of automated technology at ports.

First, and most obviously, is the risk of massive job loss. Dock workers are extremely concerned that automation would replace the need to have human bodies operating ports, taking away thousands of jobs from people that depend on ports for their livelihoods. For example, in the current system, dock workers operate cranes to load cargo onto trucks for delivery. Drivers transport the cargo, and personnel track and document its destination.

With automated rail-mounted gantry cranes, transportation, and computer software, people would be completely painted out of the picture. That is of existential concern to dock workers.

The ILA is also concerned about trade security, for two reasons. One Chinese company, Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC), manufactures 80% of the cranes used at US ports. A Congressional investigation in September of this year discovered that they secretly placed cellular modems on the cranes they sent to the US and repeatedly requested remote access to their cranes. This already gives China huge leverage over port security, and a further expansion at this time in automation would only increase our dependence on these Chinese cranes, since the US has no alternative supplier for any of this technology.

Next, automation glitches could prove just as deadly for trade as a worker strike. A software glitch at a South Carolina port in March this year shut down operations across the entire port for over a day. A cyberattack forced DP World Australia, one of the country’s largest port operators, to shut down for three days in November 2023. Prolonged shutdowns because of new technology or hostile cyberattacks could pose a serious threat to the long term reliability of US ports.

Now that talks have apparently broken down between the USMX and ILA, most analysts predict that the ILA will go on strike in January next year. In anticipation, US ports have seen a significant increase in inbound port volumes, indicating retailers’ efforts to stock up on goods ahead of any strikes. The ILA has repeatedly stated that their sticking point in negotiations has been the use of automation in ports, and it doesn’t appear as though the USMX is willing to bend very far.

The clock is ticking as both sides grapple with a crucial decision: reach an agreement or plunge the U.S. into another wave of potentially crippling dock worker strikes. One more strike, and the US economy could be out.

Read More Here:

International Stories

4 key international stories for the week.

1) Somehow it Gets Worse For Syria Rowan Seipp

The end came quickly for Bashar Al Assad. One would imagine that while he was fleeing on his private jet en route to Moscow he must have looked out and thought “Where did it all go wrong?” The answer to his question is probably when he used poison gas against his people, or when he used Russian bombs against his people, or when he allowed a radical terrorist cell to kill thousands of his people. Yeah, you get the point. Bashar Al Assad is not a good guy or an adequate leader. His two-decade rule saw Syria slip from a crown jewel of the Middle East to a war-torn and ruined nation. Syria has been under the grip of a brutal civil war since the Arab Spring in 2011. Assad’s remarkable cruelty has made him an international pariah. However, we do not have to think about Assad, or his policy, any longer, because he is no longer the ruler of Syria. In a surprise offensive, rebels took the city of Aleppo last week and then moved into the capital Damascus. The Assad regime crumbled like a house of cards and the people of Syria were left to pick up the pieces. In the absence of the Assad regime, a power vacuum remains in Syria, and the question of who is going to fill it will decide the future of one of the most war-torn nations on earth.

The rebel group that ultimately will receive credit for toppling the Assad reign is Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS). HTS is the group currently holding Damascus and will likely attempt to set up a new government. That is both good and bad. It is good because they are not Assad. Other than that they are a major security concern. The United States already designates them as a terror group and their links to Al Qaeda are strong. Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the leader of HTS, has a concerning pattern of spewing rhetoric about forming an Islamic caliphate in Syria. HTS are your typical Jihadist group with a standing force of ~12,000 soldiers. They will face serious trouble running the nation.

But that’s trouble that the Syrian National Army has a better chance of facing. The Syrian National Army (SNA) is a collection of fighters assembled under the common goal of forcing out Assad. The SNA are Turkish-backed militia forces formed from all of the other militias in Syria. On November 30, the Syrian National Army (SNA) launched “Operation Dawn of Freedom” targeting the Manbij region with two main goals: disrupting supply lines controlled by the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and creating a corridor between the cities of al-Bab and Tel Rifaat, which the SNA captured on December 1. The SNA are particularly anti-Kurd who are the largest ethnic minority in Syria. Kurdish militants want a separate uniquely Kurdish state. That does not happen if the SNA takes power. Instead, the SNA allows Turkey to make Syria into a proxy and further exert control in the region.

Finally, the Islamic State is still a force in the region. While some think that ISIS is dead they very much are not. Expect them to make a return to regional prowess. Regardless of who takes change, Syria appears to be headed for a decade of turmoil and disaster. This is ultimately going to reflect a decade of pain for the Syrian people who already have endured so much hardship.

Read more here:

2) Stop and Go: Germany’s Political Situation Ian Cheng

In the case of a traffic light, red means stop, and green means go. It seems as if German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his long-gone coalition are horrible citizens and don’t understand this. While trying to go and pass a new budget for next year, they stopped, and fell apart. This has plunged the nation into a state of instability.

Mr. Scholz, of the Social Democrats (SDP), has said that he will call for a vote of confidence, which is planned to be on January 15th, 2025. But, there is pressure from the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), a prominent opposition party, to speed up the process. The election will test whether the German parliament, or the 733-seat Bundestag, still has trust in him to lead the government. Considering that Euronews reports that his approval rating stands at a mere 18%, staying in office is highly unlikely.

The German chancellor has the greatest influence on German politics. The country also has a president, who will give the green light to dissolve Parliament once Scholz loses the confidence vote, which is almost certain. Snap elections will then follow in the next 60 days. German voters will go to the polls to elect new members of the Bundestag, and those representatives will choose the new chancellor.

In recent years, Germany has been suffering from political fragmentation. The latest development was the collapse of the “Traffic Light” coalition, composed of the SDP (red), the Free Democratic Party (FDP, yellow), and the Greens. Scholz’s firing of now ex-Finance Minister Christian Lindner, also the FDP’s head, triggered the fallout. Mr. Lindner disagreed with the SDP and the Greens over the “Black Zero”, a debt ceiling. His party wanted it enforced more powerfully to limit spending, while the other two progressive groups wanted to loosen rules in order to spend more. According to the Bundestag itself, the two party coalition now has 324 seats, after losing the FDP’s 90 and with it, their majority. This spells danger, because a minority government at the helm is always risky.

The several parties vying for power have now named their nominees for the nearly guaranteed elections. Conservative Friedrich Merz from the Christian Democrats (CDU) is the leading candidate. His opinions include taking a more proactive stance on Ukrainian support, tax cuts, and surprisingly, potentially loosening the constitutional spending cap. The strictness of this cap and the government’s struggles working with it is exactly what is giving him a large edge over Chancellor Scholz. The CDU currently holds the second most seats in the Bundestag, with 196.

New groups have burst onto the German political stage, especially the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and the far-left Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW). AfD’s nominee is Alice Weidel, who supports mass deportations. The Guardian reports that she polls at 17%, second only to the CDU, but she’s unlikely to do her job as chancellor even if she gets it, because no party wants to work with the AfD.

BSW, led by Sahra Wagenknecht, has won double-digit support in recent state elections, showing its emergence to power. Despite polling at just 6.1%, it poses a bigger danger. The two parties advocate for the lifting of sanctions on Russia, as a result, the Kremlin is gaining an even bigger advantage in the Russo-Ukrainian war because the 2nd biggest donor to Ukraine is faltering politically.

The Greens, led by Robert Habeck, and the FDP, led by Christian Lindner (the same guy who got fired), hold about 13% and 4.1% respectively. The latter is at the brink of collapse, because as of now, it can’t sustain the 5% figure that it needs to stay in Parliament. All three “traffic-light” parties have lost support thanks to recent political disasters.

In the coming months, the fate of the third largest economy in the world will be sealed. It could go anywhere from left, right, or even the same state that it is right now, going nowhere. It’s up to German voters to switch gears and give the green light to a new leader who can drive them back into prosperity, not into another red.

3) The Schengen Area Borders On Collapse Robert Zhang

On June 14, 1985, European leaders convening in the small Luxembourg village of Schengen dramatically reshaped the European continent for the decades to come. There, ministers from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg signed an agreement establishing the Schengen Area, a free travel zone in which no border controls existed. By March of 2024, the Area had grown to include twenty-five out of the European Union’s twenty-seven members as well as eight additional non-EU members, widely being viewed as the most successful and extensive free travel zone ever established.

Lately, however, the Schengen Area’s openness has become the target of many European governments. Due to concerns over irregular migration, several countries have used the agreement’s provisions to temporarily reinstate border controls. Moreover, some EU countries have even stalled efforts to expand the Area to new countries. As more countries join a growing list of Schengen Area skeptics, its prospects are bleaker than ever.

Migration concerns are at the heart of new Schengen Area restrictions. Over 385,000 migrants entered the continent in 2023 by irregular means (such as land crossings or, more commonly, by sea.) This has sparked public and political concerns that public services and housing would be significantly strained by new arrivals (although the validity of these concerns is debatable). As a result, parties espousing stricter immigration policies have found success all over the continent in recent years, many winning on pledges to keep out new migrant arrivals.

To act on these promises, Schengen Area members have begun to close their borders to varying degrees. In September, the German government officially reinstated border checks for individuals entering from the Netherlands and France, citing a surge in irregular migrant arrivals from those countries. Less than a month later, the Netherlands joined them, announcing their intention to conduct spot checks at the border. Both nations used a provision in the original Schengen agreement that allows for countries to temporarily reintroduce border controls for six months (and extend them for up to two years) in cases of threats to “internal security.”

Furthermore, an effort to restrict the Schengen Area’s expansion also spread among EU members. Bulgaria and Romania, two countries that have been members of the European Union since 2007, did not apply for Schengen Area membership until 2011. However, several countries led by Austria essentially vetoed their bid until late 2024, citing their status as migration hotspots.

While reintroducing internal border controls may offer some temporary relief, it will almost certainly fail to address the root causes of the migration crisis. Smuggling networks are adept at establishing new routes into countries like Germany, meaning that enforcing border checks will likely become a game of cat and mouse. Additionally, it could cause a sizable buildup of migrants in countries bordering those with closed borders if migrants choose not to risk the journey. This would undoubtedly increase tensions between EU member states, further dashing hopes that a strategy to equitably distribute migrants between EU members can be reached.

Schengen, Luxembourg prides itself as “the birthplace of a borderless Europe.” Unfortunately, Berlin and Amsterdam may be where it takes its last breath.