The USC Political Union and Political Student Assembly hosted the Spring 2026 student debate Wednesday evening at Tommy’s Place. The event included members of Trojan Democrats, USC College Republicans and two USC professors, who debated issues like economic policies, the Iran War and the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. 

The semesterly student debate was shifted to a panel conversation last semester due to a lack of Republican representatives.

Students debated solutions to affordability, national debt

The opening debate topic was economic policies, specifically whether a Democratic or a Republican approach addresses both affordability and the national debt. McBane Vehslage, a freshman majoring in law, history and culture, argued for the Republican side. Vehslage argued that Democratic investment in healthcare, housing, childcare and clean energy would increase the cost of living, rather than decreasing it. 

Vehslage said that Democratic policies aimed at taxing the wealthy to fund welfare programs would not generate enough revenue to cover expanded spending and deficit reduction. Vehslage said reduced federal spending restricts the size of the government, which empowers the private sector. 

“This approach creates an environment where American businesses can innovate, jobs can thrive, and the crushing weight of inflation and debt can be lifted,” Vehslage said.

Izzy Del Gaudio, a senior majoring in political science, argued on the Democratic side. She said cutting government spending and shrinking the government have never worked. 

Del Gaudio focused on former President Joe Biden’s economic policies, which she said were successful, highlighting the Inflation Reduction Act, which aimed to reduce inflation by lowering the federal deficit, prescription drug costs and investing in domestic energy production.  

“Former President Joe Biden handed over one of the strongest economies in decades to Donald Trump, and what happened? That progress has just slipped away,” Del Gaudio said. “It is like literally being given a head start in the race and deciding to run in the opposite direction.” 

In response, Vehslage said that during the Biden administration, inflation had been the worst in 40 years. Vehslage also said that pumping money into the economy lowers the value of the dollar, and American taxpayers should be able to decide where to invest their money. 

Professors disagreed on Trump’s actions in Iran

Professors also joined in the debate. Robert English, an associate professor of international relations, Slavic languages and literature, and environmental studies, debated Benjamin Radd, a lecturer in law. English opened by saying the U.S.’s operation in Iran has not been effective in facilitating regime change. 

English argued that despite U.S. military dominance, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth failed to fully account for a key reality that Iran, though weakened, still possessed three advantages over Trump’s position: the regime’s durability, its geographic position and strength. 

Radd claimed that regime change was not the goal of the Trump administration, but rather an outcome desired by Israel. However, Radd said the Iranian regime “needed to be targeted, attacked and weakened” due to controlling 20% of the world’s energy exports, and a substantial portion of the globe’s fertilizer exports.

“[President Trump] stated from the very beginning three goals: end nuclear enrichment, completely — Iran gets nothing —, end [Iran’s] ballistic missile program … and end its support for proxy groups,” Radd said. “As someone who fled the 1979 [Islamic] Revolution … revolutions happen slowly until they happen quickly.”  

Democrat students say SAVE Act undermines democracy

The final debate topic was the SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, among other changes. Kenleonard Oparaji, a junior majoring in public relations and advertising, and David Lee, a freshman majoring in political science, gave the Democrat side. 

Oparaji argued that most students don’t carry the proper documentation, such as a passport or birth certificate, which would prevent them from registering to vote. Oparaji also compared the SAVE Act to America before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, where literacy tests and other barriers could be used to limit access to the ballot. 

Oparaji said that instead of securing elections by implementing automatic voter registration and ID card delivery, which he said would make it harder for Americans to work, politicians want to create “unnecessary” regulations for elections.

“Politicians want to undermine a central tenet of our democracy by adding yet another set of unnecessary regulations to our elections,” Oparaji said. 

Emma Del Real, a master’s student studying public administration, and Landon Long, a freshman majoring in political science, provided the Republican side. Real said that no citizens are being barred from voting, and the accessibility problems mentioned by Oparaji can “readily be fixed.” 

In response, Lee said that the argument that no citizen will be barred from voting is “statistically untrue,” saying that 21 million Americans do not have access to the required documents. Lee said that obtaining access to documents, such as a passport, can cost up to $295. 

Research conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice showed that 9% of American citizens, or 21.3 million, don’t have proof of citizenship readily available. 

“The SAVE Act was never meant to address voter fraud or introduce voter ID,” Lee said. “It is meant to obtain sensitive voter information that the Trump administration already tried and failed to obtain.” 

California will next vote for the governor, Los Angeles mayor, among others, in the June 2 primary election, followed by the general election Nov. 3.