When I was around seven or eight years old, my father tried to reduce my allowance. After an hour or two of robust negotiations, we emerged from an intense discussion having come to an agreement – my allowance went up, and now included two new books per week – and all of this was codified on a signed paper. Although my father’s intended plan backfired, it was hard to argue against a child who wanted to use their allowance to learn. Growing up in my family, everything was decided through negotiation and debate – whomever had the strongest reasoning and most persuasive argument got to define the path, whether it was something small like a curfew, or significant like whether to pursue a study abroad program.

This idea that everything important should be tested by debate and curious inquiry became a core value, reflected throughout my career. I have always considered it my professional responsibility to ensure reasoned discussion, regardless of the source of the idea. I often played devil’s advocate, introducing facts and alternate perspectives, and testing theories along the way. Sometimes I was able to persuade (like my allowance discussions as a child), and sometimes I was persuaded. One way or the other, the ideas that emerged were stronger.

For many, the question of how to positively engage the world, and how to stay true to our values in a world that persistently tests them is constant. For me, that has meant jumping into the heart of where the decisions I care about are being made, regardless of whether or not I agreed at that moment. At least I could contribute to ensuring the decisions were informed. As a lawyer, I learned early on to be comfortable with people and in spaces where I didn’t agree.

Policy debate isn’t always about the what – it is often about the how. Some of the most important debates happen when trying to bridge intention with impact. Very often, a well-intentioned policy reflecting an important principle on which there was significant consensus would be proposed in a manner that would likely result in unintended negative outcomes. In those cases, I saw my role as offering facts and alternatives drawn from the myriad country contexts in which the policy would apply. I would work with a team to collect data points and examples about how an issue was currently being addressed in different country or programmatic contexts. This would often involve understanding binding constraints, existing laws and regulations, personnel capacities and past practice, as well as stakeholders involved in implementation or decision-making in a specific context. Practical considerations like the availability of funding necessary for implementation, or the cost and capacity of local organizations to implement a reform were also key. Alternative approaches that preserved the principle but mitigated the risks were considered. At the end of the day, a policy that combined principle and practice was more likely to be effectively implemented.

In foreign aid, this fact-based debate was key to ensuring policies were positively impactful, programs worked, and decisions had necessary support. The best programs were deeply informed by data and local inputs, and attracted wide contributions and collaboration from stakeholders, beneficiaries and governments in the countries in which we worked. This was true whether it was an access to justice program adding interactive screens to help citizens navigate a courthouse, or higher education partnerships with local universities, other donors and private sector companies to advance regional cyber capabilities. Coordination and collaboration were at the core, with initiatives made better through curious inquiry and debate.

Reasoned debate is what makes government tick in a strong democracy, and law is the foundation on which it is built. To me, this is about tackling the issues that rage the most wildly around us each day, really listening to the interests and concerns of those impacted, and iterating until the best emerges to create a path forward that is stronger, more responsive and has wider support. Democracy is about people, and people have wide and varied perspectives, interests and objectives. There is never a perfect solution. There is always ample room for reform. But curious inquiry and fact-based debate are fundamental to ensuring the strongest possible options.

Law and public service allow you to move beyond headlines and engage constructively on both the broad landscape and the specific implementation, informing the fundamentals and translating the talking point into action in a way that makes sense and improves people’s lives. It is easy to fall into a trap, thinking that the only way to positively engage is by joining an organization that thinks like you do, where your beliefs will never be tested and none of the paths are murky. This would be a mistake. An echo chamber results in bad policy.

Public service is a responsibility. Like all things that carry weight, sometimes that responsibility is a pleasure and sometimes it is heavy indeed. But whether you are negotiating an allowance or a peace treaty, it always matters.

July 2026