15 Thought-Provoking Questions for America’s Next President, Posed by BU Community

What do you believe is the greatest threat facing the United States, and what measures would you implement to address it?

Jack Weinstein, Pardee professor of the practice of international security

This question is crucial because it challenges candidates to identify the most pressing issue-domestic or international. Is it climate change, economic inequality, wars in the Middle East or Europe, the erosion of democratic norms? Their responses would reveal their priorities and understanding of this nation's complex challenges. Moreover, it would provide insight into their problem-solving strategies and vision for the country's future. The way candidates frame their answers shows their capacity for leadership, long-term planning, and willingness to engage in bipartisan efforts to safeguard the nation. Their proposed solutions would be pivotal in evaluating their fitness to lead.

Photo via Unsplash/iStrFry Marcus

Will you propose that the United States should engage in new strategic security talks with China and Russia?

Paul Hare, Pardee master lecturer of international relations and interim director of the Center for Latin American Studies

Currently we have a new, almost unlimited arms race in all sorts of areas-nuclear, cyber, drones, space. It is in all countries' interests to avoid accidental conflict and promote a dialogue to develop new approaches to arms control and counter-proliferation. What has been built up over many decades in these areas should be consolidated, not torn apart. New terrorist threats using new weaponry are emerging, which threaten all major powers. China and Russia may reject the approach, but no one will promote such a dialogue without a United States lead.

Photo via iStock/MicroStockHub

How do you plan to address implications of policies that hold that some people-i.e., white men-deserve full bodily autonomy, while women, trans people, and many others do not have the same treatment?

Joelle Renstrom, College of General Studies senior lecturer in rhetoric

That question isn't really about a policy problem from the discipline of rhetoric, but rhetoric is how politicians promote policies, so it's instrumental in everything, including in the manipulation of policy positions (such as the assertion that Harris-Walz support partial-birth abortions and infanticide). The rhetoric of reproductive and trans rights is particularly problematic because of how dehumanizing it is. I am reminded of a phrase corporate shills on the TV show Succession used to minimize the damage their company causes: "no real people involved." As in, don't worry, the people who died were just immigrants or unhoused or whatever-they're not "real people." Rhetoric used in debates about bodily autonomy often carries that same suggestion-that the people being negatively affected don't matter. The white supremacy, patriarchal toxicity, and misogyny of those sentiments spill over into debates about immigration, health insurance, gun control, and other issues involving people who aren't "real" or important enough for a president or party to care about them.

Photo via Unsplash/Gayatri Malhotra

What are you going to do about the massive federal government debt?

Jay Zagorsky, Questrom School of Business clinical associate professor of markets, public policy, and law

Today, according to the government's website, Debt to the Penny, over $28 trillion is currently owed, which is larger than the annual GDP of the United States. As any undergraduate with large amounts of student loans, or any business manager struggling to repay massive borrowings can tell you, crushing debt is a major problem that constrains choices. In 2025, the government is expected to pay about $1 trillion dollars just for interest on its past borrowings. What policies will you enact and what places will you make cuts to bring the debt down to manageable levels?

Photo via iStock/Douglas Rissing

What policies and initiatives would you implement to bolster the arts and culture across the USA?

Harvey Young, dean of the College of Fine Arts

As the world emerged from WWII, among the United States' great exports were art and culture. The ripple effect is legendary. The Beatles, growing up in war-ravaged Liverpool, were inspired by the music of Little Richard. Cultural diplomacy in the form of tours by American Ballet Theatre and Alvin Ailey helped to thaw the Cold War. However, federal funding for the arts and humanities have failed to keep pace with inflation over recent decades and, increasingly, face threats of outright cancellation. Furthermore, arts and music education in public school have been on a decline due to limited funding. There have been calls to dramatically increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities, as well as to appoint a cabinet-level secretary for the arts and culture. What are your thoughts on these calls as well as on how America can regain its prominence as a world leader in the arts and culture?

Photo via Unsplash/Jessica Pamp

How does your administration plan to uphold the United States' legal obligations to protect those who qualify as refugees and asylum seekers, in accordance with international and domestic law?

Sarah Kimball, Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine associate professor of internal medicine and director of the Immigrant and Refugee Health Center at Boston Medical Center

The United States, as a signatory to the 1967 Protocol and through the Refugee Act of 1980, has committed to providing protection to individuals who meet the international law definition of a refugee. These obligations are not just legal formalities-they reflect our nation's values of offering refuge to those fleeing persecution. The question of how we uphold these commitments is critical, especially in a time when global displacement is at record levels. Ensuring that our asylum processes are fair, humane, and in compliance with our legal obligations is vital to maintaining our moral leadership on the world stage. This issue goes beyond politics; it speaks to our identity as a nation and our responsibility to protect the most marginalized members of our global community.

Photo via Unsplash/‪Salah Darwish

What is your position on reproductive health in the wake of the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Nicole Huberfeld, Edward R. Utley Professor of Health Law at the School of Law and School of Public Health and codirector of the BU Program on Reproductive Justice

The president's position on reproductive health has the potential to either increase or decrease the legal chaos and confusion that the Dobbs decision triggered, which has had measurably negative impacts on the practice of medicine and on patients' lives. Do you think a federal law would be the best approach to quelling the chaos and, if so, what should it include? Given that Congress tends to move very slowly, how would you decide which executive actions to issue in the first 100 days as president to try to address the crisis in access to care for people of reproductive age?

Photo via Unsplash/Colin Lloyd

If elected, what will you do to lead Congress and constituents across ideologies to solutions toward a meaningful immigration system that benefits our nation and its people?

Craig Andrade, associate dean for practice and director of the Activist Lab at SPH

Throughout its history, the United States' success has been built by the brawn and brains of global souls fleeing harm and seeking a better life. We repeatedly welcomed immigrants' labor and innovation but rejected their color, culture, and customs as "un-American." As a nation of immigrants, we are stuck in a centuries-long failure to create comprehensive immigration policies that meet real workforce needs and address valid concerns regarding capacity, fairness, and security. Our immigration laws were and still are mostly self-serving, one-sided and front-loaded with racism, xenophobia, dehumanizing hate and violence. Now, as before, politicians use immigrants as pawns to stoke fear, demean opponents and win votes. We as a people deserve better and should demand that our leaders be better.

Photo via Unsplash/Greg Bulla

What is your plan to expand mental and behavioral healthcare access for all?

Barbara Jones, dean of the School of Social Work

Americans face a mental health crisis, particularly among adolescents and young people. The number of suicides in the US has hit record highs several years in a row, and nearly 50,000 Americans died by suicide in 2023. The American Academy of Pediatrics declared a national emergency in child and adolescent mental health following the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, nearly 30 percent of US adults reported having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their life, and a 2024 report from the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General shows that Americans who rely on Medicare and Medicaid have limited access to mental health care. All of these issues are significantly worse for communities of color, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and anyone facing financial insecurity. These statistics have driven our social work researchers and practitioners nationwide to work alongside our communities to identify the contributing factors to mental health challenges, uncover treatment options and necessary system changes, and recommend policy improvements. But they can't do it without more structural and financial support. While the demand for services is rising, the country also faces a critical shortage of behavioral healthcare workers, including social workers, who provide the majority of mental health care in the US. What is your plan to make mental and behavioral care affordable and accessible for all, and what is your plan to address the behavioral health workforce shortage?

Photo via Unsplash/Mitch

If you could take 50 percent of the military budget and allot it elsewhere, would you? And, if so, where would that money go?

James W. McCarty, School of Theology clinical assistant professor of religion and conflict transformation and director of the Tom Porter Program on Religion & Conflict Transformation

Martin Luther King, Jr., once said that to overcome the triple evils of "racism, extreme materialism, and militarism," we must have "a revolution of values." If this values revolution doesn't come, he said, we will be incapable of charting a path for a peaceful future because "[a] nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." If the 21st century has shown us anything it is that King [(GRS'55, Hon.'59)] was right and that those three interlocking social evils are still with us. Both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris have promised to maintain or grow, in Harris' words, "the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world." What I want to know is if either of them can even imagine a different future or if they, like so many previous presidents, can only see to the next election.

Photo via Unsplash/Diego González

• Twitter
• Facebook
• Reddit
• LinkedIn
• Email
• Print