On Oct. 23, Georgetown College Democrats (GUCD) and Georgetown College Republicans (GUCR) gathered in Reiss 103 for their annual upperclassmen debate. Moderated by the Georgetown Bipartisan Coalition (GBC), the debaters covered a range of current political issues including the Trump administration’s tariff policy, the abolishment of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and immigration.
GUCD was represented by Asher Maxwell (CAS ’26), Scott Pawley (CAS ’28), and co-chair Simone Guité (CAS ’26), while Matthew Benjamin (CAS ’27), Knox Graham (SFS ’27), and Devin Short (CAS ’28) represented GUCR. Maxwell and Benjamin covered economic policy, while Pawley and Graham debated foreign relations policy, and Guité and Short handled social policy.
“We encourage debaters to voice their own views and opinions,” Dia Chawla (CAS ’26), vice president of GBC, said at the start of the debate. “It takes a lot to get up on the stage in front of other students and debate.”
Beginning with economic issues, moderator Annabella Zhang (SFS ’28) asked Maxwell and Benjamin about the Trump administration’s use of tariffs as an economic policy. Maxwell responded with an explanation of the tenets of successful tariff policy that protect American consumers and companies.
“Good tariff policy is actually quite simple—it’s about maintaining clear, consistent tariff rates that protect key American sectors while keeping prices low for American consumers,” Maxwell said.
He also argued that the Trump administration’s inconsistent tariff policy harms American consumers and has led to inflation growth.
Following loud audience applause for Maxwell’s answer, Benjamin opened his response by echoing the words of GBC.
“You may hear viewpoints that you disagree with, you may resent, but the point for being here is that we exchange them in a civil and constructive manner,” he said.
Benjamin explained that prior neoliberalist economic policy has hurt middle-class Americans through the loss of jobs overseas. He argued that the Trump administration’s tariffs mark a new era of economic policy that aims to expand American manufacturing.
“It’s a different kind of policy, but tariffs are used for negotiation to be able to restructure our economy in a way that can actually protect American businesses and provide jobs to middle America,” Benjamin said.
Moving to foreign policy issues, moderator Connor Booth (CAS ’28) asked debaters about the impact of the abolishment of USAID in January on developing nations and areas of humanitarian aid.
Graham responded in support of the abolishment of USAID. He asserted that he believes the Trump Administration’s new view of foreign aid strategy is better than any previous administration’s strategy.
“We are focusing on U.S. trade, not USAID,” Graham said.
He elaborated that the U.S. should eliminate unnecessary social initiatives, such as humanitarian and educational aid, and combine foreign aid into a “holistic” State Department policy, focusing on commercial relationships. Later in his rebuttal, he quoted Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA)’s 2021 Fox News interview where he argues against sending U.S. aid to other countries, saying, “Why are we giving money to countries that hate us? They should be able to hate us for free.”
In his response, Pawley pushed back on the notion that the social policies of USAID were unnecessary.
“Over the past 20 years, 91 million lives were saved,” Pawley said. “A University of California, Los Angeles peer-reviewed study predicts that, without USAID, 14 million will die in the next five years.”
Later in the foreign policy segment, Booth asked about the role of ethics in artificial intelligence (AI) development, and whether the U.S. should focus more on ethics or American dominance in the race for AI.
Graham argued that ethical competition in AI should include export controls on AI equipment and the promotion of ethical manufacturing processes. He assured the audience that ethics can exist in the world of AI with the U.S. at the head of development.
“[AI competition] should be led by the United States, the greatest country in the world, the most ethical country in the world.” Graham said.
Audience members chimed in disagreeing with the idea that the U.S. is the most ethical country in the world. The moderators addressed the interruption by telling the audience to save their responses for the Q&A section and allow debaters to speak during their time.
In Pawley’s response to Graham’s suggestions for ethical competition in AI, he agreed with the argument for implementing export controls on AI chips and promoting ethical leadership in the development of AI. He further argued that the Republican party is not following through on those policies, but rather enacting an economic policy of inconsistent tariffs that prevents technological development.
“They are saying the right things rhetorically, but the fact is that the Republican policy doesn’t meet up,” Pawley said.
Later, in a response to the role that the U.S. should play in the Israel-Hamas negotiation process and postwar plans for Gaza, Graham supported the recent U.S. airstrike on Iranian nuclear sites.
“By striking Iran, we show the world that you’re no longer going to mess with peace that we are creating,” Graham said. “I support the path to peace.”
Pawley responded by emphasizing the dangers of military strikes for military personnel and civilians and stressing the need for caution in making decisions to become involved with military affairs of other countries.
“I don’t love the sort of nonchalant attitude about the fact that Iranian missiles struck a United States Air Base, Al Udeid, and put the lives of our service members at risk,” Pawley said. “We have to recognize that there are real risks when we decide to go to war with foreign countries.”
In the final segment centered around social policy issues, Noah Pasternak (CAS ’29) moderated a discussion between Guité and Short, beginning with the expansion of immigration enforcement under the Trump administration.
Guité argued that immigration enforcement was targeting community members rather than criminals. She used the example of Jackie Merlos, a woman from Portland, Oregon who was detained in June with her four U.S. citizen children.
“She’s a frequent church goer, a small business owner, and an integral part of her community,” Guité said.
Short argued that the case of Merlos was not representative of most illegal immigrants, which he described as “violent criminals who have murdered people and participated in sex trafficking.” He further asserted that former President Biden’s immigration policy was to blame for the rise of illegal immigration.
“Let me make one thing clear, if you are in this country illegally, you are breaking the law,” Short said.
During the Q&A portion, audience member Zadie Weaver (CAS ’28) asked social policy debaters to explain why the Trump administration did not release the Epstein files after making it a campaign promise. Almost 4 weeks after the debate, Trump signed a bill to authorize the release of the Epstein files from the Department of Justice. Short and Guité both took opportunities to respond to the question.
“Left-wing activist judges prevented the Trump administration from releasing the grand jury testimony,” Short said.
However, Guité refuted Short’s argument.
“It’s really simple, he’s in them,” she said.
After the end of the Q&A section, Pitman ended the debate by thanking the debaters for participating and audience members for supporting the exchange of different viewpoints.
