On Friday Feb. 28, the Hopkins Political Union hosted a debate between the Johns Hopkins College Republicans and the Hopkins Democrats, during which both student groups discussed the Trump administration's actions regarding immigration and the formation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This event was hosted in collaboration with Hopkins Votes and the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins.
This debate marks the first event of the Hopkins Political Union. In an interview with The News-Letter, Aneesh Swaminathan, the organization’s founder and president, and president of the College Republicans, discussed his motivation to establish the Union and the need for engaging civil discourse on campus.
“Hopkins is the only top-20 university that does not have a civic forum, debate and discussion society,” he said. “We see it at other campuses but not here. [...] Our ultimate goal is to bring more robust discussions on contentious issues and to foster intellectual diversity.”
The debate was moderated by SNF Agora Professor of Sociology Andrew Perrin. Preceding the event, attendees interested in actively participating were asked to join a coaching meeting with Perrin. During the debate, Perrin emphasized the importance of avoiding interruption and offered audience members unaffiliated with either the College Republicans or Democrats the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.
Perrin described his approach to debate moderation in an interview with The News-Letter.
“I think what's particularly important is that, as students learn to be good citizens, what they're able to do is to learn how to listen to people that they disagree with [and] to consider whether they might change their views or not,” he said.
The debate included two resolutions. The first stated that the Trump administration’s actions on immigration are unwarranted. Hopkins Democrats argued on the pro side, and College Republicans argued for the con side. The second resolution stated that DOGE is the solution to waste, fraud and abuse. The College Republicans argued for the pro side, while Hopkins Democrats took the con side.
Before the debate began, the audience was polled regarding their stance on each of the resolutions (pro/con), and reported their confidence regarding their knowledge of the topic. These preliminary responses would later be compared to those at the end of the debate to observe any changes in the opinions of attendees.
While debating the first resolution, one speaker on the pro-side argued that Trump’s immigration actions have had negative economic consequences, threatening to reduce Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 7.4 percent, and suggested that the immigration should be made more accessible and efficient so people are incentivized to enter the country through legal as opposed to illegal channels.
Another pro speaker argued that the deportation policies pursued by the Trump administration will have a negative impact on the economy, by reducing the workforce, exacerbating backlogs in the immigration system and the cost of transporting immigrants to their home countries. The pro side also contended that Trump’s policies have focused on on criminalization while failing to address the broken legal immigration system.
One argument put forth by a speaker on the con side was that illegal immigration should be considered a a national security crisis, not just a border issue. They argued that the Trump administration’s immigration policies are aimed at protecting American citizens, and specifically mentioned criminal violence or sexual assaults committed by illegal immigrants. A pro speaker responded to this claim, by stating that although sexual assault and murder are pressing issues, they perceive others as fear-mongering about the number of immigrants responsible for these crimes.
A speaker on the con side argued that the American taxpayers have spent billions of dollars on illegal immigrants and settlement programs, creating severe deficits and draining funding for cities like Chicago and New York City. The speaker also stated that illegal migrants with ties to international terrorism or gangs have been arrested in the U.S., and that the decline in immigration enforcement by the Biden administration and in sanctuary cities has led to an increase in illegal immigration and criminal activity.
After 30 minutes, the group moved on to debating the second resolution, regarding government efficiency and the role of bureaucracy in the U.S.
A speaker on the pro side argued that DOGE is a necessary response to excessive government spending, open borders and bureaucratic inefficiencies that have led to waste and corruption. They claimed that federal agencies are politically biased in favor of Democrats, citing donation patterns among federal employees that skew Democratic, and argued that the Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation have been historically weaponized to advance leftist causes. The goal of DOGE, they argued, is to cut waste, enforce accountability and return power to the people.
Another speaker stressed that capitalism incentivizes finding the most efficient solutions, and the government should adopt competitive principles, like efficiency and reducing waste, to provide the best value for taxpayer dollars.
One speaker on con side stated they agreed that waste and fraud existed in the government but argued that the proposed reforms go too far, putting critical programs and services at risk. They argued that cuts to federal agencies could harm national security and medical research, specifically criticizing funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health. They continued by arguing that mass layoffs in agencies like the Federal Aviation Agency could compromise public safety, particularly after recent crashes and runway close calls.
One pro speaker argued that one prominent example of bureaucratic waste was the United States Agency for International Development and provided examples of perceived waste, such as millions of dollars for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in Serbia.
A con speaker responded that DOGE has spent its efforts on trivial matters in the millions, while ignoring the trillions of dollars spent on other programs like Medicare and Social Security. They contended that the programs cut by DOGE have little effect on saving money and are less effective than other options like reducing welfare programs or taxes. A pro speaker argued following this claim that even millions of dollars could be used to serve American citizens suffering national diasasters or social crises like homelessness.
The debate was concluded at the one-hour mark. In an interview with The News-Letter, Swaminathan reflected on the success of the event.
“We had a great turnout — among the highest for civic events on campus. That really shows the necessity of civic dialogue and how much students want this as a catharsis from the political polarization we see on campus,” he said.
After the debate, the audience was polled once again. For resolution one, the proportion of the audience who agreed that Trump administration actions on immigration are unwarranted decreased from 55 percent at the start of the debate to 53 percent by the end. Those who believed the actions were not unwarranted increased from 30 percent to 41 percent.
For resolution two, the proportion of the audience who agreed that DOGE was an effective method of reducing waste, fraud and abuse in the government increased from 61 percent to 69 percent by the end of the debate. Disagreement with the resolution also rose, rising from 30 percent to 41 percent by the end of the debate.
Perrin underscored the value in dialogue and debate as a skill for citizenship and noted that the event was initiated by students.
“It's fine if they end up more convinced that they were right, but being able to listen to and really understand why the people who disagree with them disagree is a really important citizenship skill, and that's what we really hope to try to be able to teach students,“ he said. “I'm thrilled that the students wanted to do it on their own.”
Samhi Boppana contributed to this article.
