JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Republican Party: Who’s Up Next?
Brief #19—Elections & Politics
By William Borque
With President Biden now leading this country, many analysts shifted their attention to the 2024 presidential election, where Republicans will once again have a chance to bring the balance of power back to their side of the aisle. The question, however, is who they will choose to lead their party in a key time that will decide the direction of the party for decades to come. Some suggest that they should re-nominate President Trump in an effort to revitalize his political and historical image after the tumultuous end to his presidency. Others suggest his son, Donald Trump Jr, a similarly polarizing and loud-mouthed public figure. Yet another suggestion, along the same vein, is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a well known Trump supporter and ardent conservative. DeSantis is seen as the favorite to secure the nomination, but there are still plenty of others who may sneak into the picture in the coming months and years.
The Complex US Relationship with Taiwan
Brief #114—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
For the last several weeks, the world’s focus has rightfully been on the horrific, American-backed Israeli assault on Gaza. Even as a ceasefire (hopefully) takes hold in that region, events continue to unfold elsewhere on the planet. One potential flashpoint remains the island of Taiwan.
The history of modern Taiwan is complex, and essentially begins with the Republic of China’s retreat to the island, in 1949, after effective defeat on the mainland by Mao Zedong and the People’s Liberation Army. The legal status of Taiwan (and the People’s Republic of China) has since been complex, and shifting. At this point, most states have some level of diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but stop short of full recognition. China does not recognize Taiwan as independent, per its “One-China policy,” and Taiwan typically has a limited status in international institutions.
A Needed Boost for Home Health Care Workers If Biden’s American Jobs Plan Passes Congress
Brief #117—Economics
By Lily Lady Cook
President Biden’s $2 trillion American Jobs Plan (AJP) will allot about $400 billion towards the caregiving workforce. In particular, funds will be allocated towards home health care workers, who provide services that run the gamut from short-term nursing care to longer-term daily visits. Many home health care workers are women, immigrants, or people of color. About 40% are on SNAP or Medicaid; their median hourly wage in 2020 was $13 with an average annual salary of $27,080.
Gun Control Efforts in the U.S.
Brief #15—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
The fight for tighter gun laws in the U.S. is nothing new in recent years. We have seen upticks in the number of mass shootings here in the U.S., as well as cities like Chicago struggling with ongoing gun violence daily. Innocent lives are lost left and right as guns fall into the wrong hands; it’s clear that something needs to be done, but there is much debate on what that should be. President Biden has made promises to put efforts towards gun control, and we have seen a few executive orders laid out, but nothing substantial. Individual states are also implementing their own gun control regulations, when federal regulations are just not enough to curb gun violence.
New Citizenship Policy For Children Born Abroad to Same – Sex Married Couples
Brief #162—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On May 18, 2021 the United States State Department announced new policy guidance and interpretation for U.S. citizenship transmission to children born overseas through assisted reproductive technology.
Under the old rule children who had been carried to term by a surrogate and been born outside the United States were considered to be “born out of wedlock” and could not be granted U.S. citizenship even though the child’s legal parents were married at the time of the baby’s birth. Additionally, children who were born abroad needed to have a genetic or gestational relationship to the U.S. parent.
The Need for a Global Response to the Pandemic
Brief #106—Health & Gender
By Erin McNemar
As COVID-19 restrictions are being lifted all across the United States, it’s important to remember that the pandemic is not over yet. As more and more people across the country gain access to the vaccine, the United States is seeing a steady decline in the number of infections, deaths and hospitalization. It’s easy for people who are experiencing mask fatigue to quickly support the lightening of restrictions. While the United States seems to be experiencing positive trends in getting rid of the virus, it’s also important to remember that the rest of the world is not experiencing the same thing.
Cease Fire Agreement Between Hamas and Israel: What are Its Implications?
Brief #113—Foreign Policy
By Reilly Fitzgerald
Last week I wrote a U.S. RESIST NEWS Brief regarding the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict with some thoughts on how the United States may respond. This Brief is a continuation of that updated with information from the past week, and focuses on a newly agreed upon cease fire agreement.
In the last week, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has escalated in several ways. The first being that the scale of violence from the Israeli military and government, towards the Palestinians, has increased dramatically. Initially, we saw clashes with police and rioters; and then, the Israelis started to drop bombs and target specific buildings – one building that was destroyed housed the Associated Press along with other journalists. According to various news sources, the Israelis targeted approximately 20 media outlets during their bombardment of Gaza. The bombing has killed over 200 people, and injured many others. Also, it is worth noting that the Hamas rockets being fired into Israel have killed more than 10 Israelis as well.
Should the US join the International Criminal Court?
Brief #112—Foreign Policy
By Ailin Goode
Relations between the U.S. government and the International Criminal Court have shifted back and forth between cautious support and straightforward opposition with each administration since the founding of the ICC in 2002. While the Biden administration is proving more tolerant of the Court than his predecessor it remains to be seen whether-or-not the United States will reconsider its current abstinence from the Rome Statute, the treaty that established and governs the ICC.
The 2020 Census Report Shifts Seven Seats in the House
Brief #18—Elections & Politics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The first report from the 2020 census data was released in April after delays stemming from issues related to the Corona virus. This first report is utilized to inform decisions relating to the reapportionment of the 435 seats in the House; it includes data through April 1, 2020 and as such is missing data reflecting deaths from the Covid 19. The new census shows the lowest population gain in recorded US history. The current population, based on the number of all living persons including Native Americans, is 331,449,281. This reflects an increase of 7.4% from the 2010 census, the second lowest since the reported 7.3% recorded in the decade of the 1930s. Thirty seven states grew more slowly than in the previous decade while three states lost population. This trend is attributable to lower birthrates; higher death rates, and slowed immigration.
Twitter Dumped Trump, For Good
Technology Brief #32
Twitter Dumped Trump, For Good
By Scout Burchill
January 25, 2021
Summary:
On January 6th, in the wake of the Capitol Hill riots, Twitter announced that President Donald Trump’s account would be suspended. Twitter followed this up on Friday, January 8th by permanently banning President Trump from its platform “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.” Other tech platforms almost immediately followed suit, including Reddit, Twitch, Shopify, Snapchat, Discord, Stripe and Facebook, which declared a ban “indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks.” Facebook has since sent this decision to their newly created oversight board for further review.
Twitter’s attempts to more aggressively moderate Trump’s Twitter feed have escalated drastically over the past year. Early on in the Coronavirus pandemic, Twitter began fact checking and labeling misleading claims about the COVID-19 virus, of which the former President was a leading source of misinformation. The social media company significantly ramped up these measures in the fall to combat false claims about mail-in voting and election fraud. Trump was a primary target of these policies, as well, as he often spread false and misleading claims, especially after the 2020 election. Despite losing the popular vote by 7 million votes, Trump continues to claim that the election was stolen from him. The violent siege of Capitol Hill on January 6th, and Trump’s refusal to concede the election, was the tipping point for Twitter and many other tech companies.
The Trump ban has fueled already heated discussions about the power of Big Tech and their inconsistent and seemingly ad hoc moderation policies. Reaction to the ban was largely mixed as many people celebrated what they considered to be a long overdue consequence of Trump’s incendiary rhetoric, while others viewed it as a troubling overreach of private corporate power verging on totalitarian censorship. Multiple global leaders, including Angela Merkel, Mexican President Manuel Lopez Obrador and now imprisoned Russian dissident Alexey Navalny, have called the ban problematic, but other officials, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Manchin, have called it appropriate. Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, defended his company’s decision, calling it, “the right decision for Twitter,” but admitted that it sets a “dangerous” precedent.
Analysis:
For the past five years, Twitter has been Trump’s bully pulpit and, for better or worse, one of his most powerful governing tools. It helped launch him into politics and it will surely be seen as a defining aspect of his presidency. He utilized it as a tool of diplomacy, a messenger of policy pronouncements, a megaphone for frustrations and falsehoods, an instrument of control over media narratives, a propellant to fuel conflict and culture wars, and a bludgeon to beat down disloyalty from within his party and target enemies outside of it. Although talk of banning Trump from Twitter is nothing new, the permanent ban of Trump’s account came as a surprise to many.
While it is hard to imagine many other scenarios meriting such a swift reaction (The attempted overthrow of the democratic process is certainly high up there!), there are lingering questions about the amount of power that Big Tech companies multilaterally flexed over the control of public discourse. These questions have been with us for a while. However tech companies’ ability to actually do what was always considered only hypothetical, the banning of a sitting president, brings these questions into new light. Whether or not you agree with the decision, which most Americans in fact do, this coordinated crackdown by tech companies should trouble people concerned about growing corporate power and a lack of transparency, as well as a lack of democratic accountability and governance. The details surrounding Trump’s permanent ban help elucidate this larger issue.
The permanent suspension of Trump’s account on January 8th, two days after the Capitol Hill siege, was announced by Twitter in response to two tweets that the company claimed violated its glorification of violence policy. In the first tweet, Trump announced that he would not be attending the Inauguration and in the second he wrote that his supporters, or “American Patriots,” would have a voice long into the future and would not be disrespected any longer. It is hard to see why these tweets, of all of Donald Trump’s tweets, warrant a permanent ban. Is the glorification of violence only unacceptable when it results in real world violence? If so, then why wasn’t a ban warranted over the summer when Trump tweeted, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts?” The point is that, yes, Twitter is well within its rights to ban Trump from its platform, but this still begs the question of why Twitter’s policies seem so arbitrary and ad hoc.
As comically noted by some Twitter users, the ban sent a clear message to rule breakers that they will be held accountable, but only after they have attempted to overthrow the government and their party has lost elections in all major seats of government. Look no further than the Rohingyan Genocide in Myanmar, which was incited on Facebook, or the rise of gang violence in Chicago, which Facebook abetted by making rival gang taunts go viral, to see that the policies of these businesses have very serious real world consequences. Why should our elected officials have to make impassioned appeals to Jack Dorsey, an unelected technocrat, in the wake of a violent upheaval on Capitol Hill?
Many point to political considerations and business interests to explain Twitter’s decision making as well as their policy changes and enforcements over the years. Since 2016, the company gained millions of new users from the simple fact that Trump used it. So much of the Trump presidency, from politics to media and journalism, revolved around the social media platform. As the public and even government representatives called on Twitter to enforce its own policies against the president’s tweets, the company resorted to half-measures. By introducing new features, Twitter tried to appease both sides but ultimately drew the ire of both the left and the right. With Trump on the way out and an incoming Biden Administration that has repeatedly criticized Big Tech for not doing enough to moderate content, the decision to ban Trump is a move to reconcile with the evolving political atmosphere. Other factors weighing on the decision may include the massive antitrust cases looming over Google and Facebook and Biden’s endorsement of repealing Section 230, which gives platforms immunity from the negative costs incurred by harmful content circulating on them.
Reforming and regulating Big Tech and social media platforms will be a major concern of the Biden Administration. The administration should pursue changes that mitigate the power these companies have to single-handedly make important decisions that bear heavily on the health of our society. The fate of our democracy and important questions of governance shouldn’t be dictated by the whims and bottom-lines of a few CEOs.
Learn More:
Twitter’s Permanent Ban of Donald Trump
https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html
Jack Dorsey’s Statement
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690
Internet Platform Responses to the Capitol Hill Riots
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dNC87RtdPWBXXReTsrAl-Sknw4PtwanPX0CA_oi20ec/edit
World Leader Responses
Article on Rohingyan Genocide
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
Article on Social Media Fueling Gang Violence
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 1: Improving Economic Security for Women
Brief # 93 Health and Gender Policy
The Biden Agenda for Women Series Part 1: Improving Economic Security for Women
A new U.S. RESIST NEWS series that explores the proposed gender related policies of the new Biden administration
By Erin McNemar
January 26, 2021
Policy
In March of 2020, President Joe Biden committed to selecting a female running mate. Five months later, he fulfilled that promise by tapping Vice President Kamala Harris for the position. This historic decision meant that women’s rights would be a priority issue for the next four years.
In December, Biden released a policy proposal entitled “The Biden Agenda for Women.” The plan begins by outlining Biden’s belief that “his daughter is entitled to the same rights and opportunities as his sons.” In many policy areas however, women are disproportionately affected. Therefore, the Biden plan focuses on improving and protecting women’s rights in several key areas. This first area of focus outlined in the plan is improving economic security for women.
Analysis
The gender wealth gap has been a standing issue for decades. According to the 2018 U.S. Census, working women make 81.6 cents for every dollar that a man makes. In addition, the data also shows that women’s median annual earnings were $9,766 less than men’s. The numbers are even worse for women of color.
In his plan, Biden identifies the Lilly Ledbetter Act Fair Pay Act. According to Biden, this was the first piece of legislation enacted during the Obama-Biden Administration. The policy helped ensure fair pay for all Americans; narrowing the pay gap and attempting to boost economic productivity. As President, Biden said he would continue to make the closing to pay gap a priority as well as ending paycheck discrimination.
While he continues to support the efforts of the Lilly Ledbetter Act Fair Pay Act, he understands that there is more work to be done. For this reason, Biden states in his plan he supports the Paycheck Fairness Act proposed by Senator Patty Murray and Congresswoman DeLauro. According to Biden, this policy will expand on protections for female workers regarding paychecks and retaliation. Additionally, Biden plans to make wage gaps transparent, level the playing field for negotiation and make it easier for women to unionize and collectively bargain. Biden also includes in his plan expanding pay in jobs that are disproportionately filled by women.
In addition to equitable pay, Biden identifies the importance of investing in women-owned small businesses. “Women start businesses at two times the rate of men and now represent 42% of the nation’s businesses. But, they still raise much less capital — with only about 2% of all venture capital funds going to women-owned businesses — and are more likely to rely on personal funds,” Biden writes in the plan. For this reason, Biden has pledged direct federal funding for women-own businesses as well as doubling funding for the State Small Business Credit Initiative; an Obama-Biden era program.
The economic section of the plan also highlights efforts to end workplace discrimination and harassment, expanding access to education and training and finally ensuring safety on college campuses.
Engagement Resources
- Read President Joe Biden’s Agenda for Women Plan.
- Reach out to your senators and representatives to take action!
- See how the wage gap is broken down by
- Learn more about the Lilly Ledbetter Act Fair Pay Act.
- Read the Paycheck Fairness Act
- To keep up to date on the latest health & gender policy news, SUBSCRIBE HERE!
Biden’s First Few Days in Office Address Immigration: Border Wall Funding Ceases and DACA is Reinstated
Brief #109 – Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Biden’s First Few Days in Office Address Immigration: Border Wall Funding Ceases and DACA is Reinstated
January 26, 2021
Policy Summary
Within President Biden’s first few days in office, he has signed two Executive Orders to begin mitigating and reversing the Trump Administration’s efforts to drastically alter immigration policies. First, Biden ended the national emergency declaration that effectively diverted $10 billion from the Defense Department towards Trump’s border wall. The proclamation also asserts that federal agencies must curate a plan of action within 60 days to redirect border wall funds.
Simultaneously, Biden issued another Executive Order calling on the Secretary of Homeland Security to take necessary measures in preserving and reinstating DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, signed under Barack Obama in 2012). The program was under consistent scrutiny during the Trump Administration and defending the program served as a major campaign promise for Biden.
Analysis
As so much of Biden’s campaign centered around bolstering the American people and its core values while undoing the detrimental actions by an incompetent presiden., His quick action towards making good on his promises surrounding immigration bode well for the Administration. In addition to the most recent Executive Orders, Biden also seeks to eradicate the Remain in Mexico policy that Trump established and to ensure undocumented immigrants are included in census counts and therefore enjoy representation by their government officials.
Engagement Resources
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- Center for Disease Control: the CDC provides updated information surrounding COVID-19 and the US responses
- Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA): Through the Department of Homeland Security’s website, this link provides additional information regarding the Obama era program.
Biden and Abortion: What Should America Expect?
Brief # 92
Health and Gender Policy
Biden and Abortion: What Should America Expect?
By Justin Lee
January 26, 2021
Policy
Former President Trump took strong actions against abortion and reproductive health policies during his presidency. Trump reinstated and strengthened the Mexico City Policy, which implemented funding restrictions to foreign organizations that provided abortion services or counseling. First introduced in the Reagan administration, Trump’s stance lead to the closure of many reproductive health clinics that provided care not just for abortions, but also for HIV care. Trump also attempted to limit the scope of the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act, which previously required most insurance plans to cover birth control without copayments. The Supreme Court upheld the exemptions for employers with religious and/or moral objections to refuse providing birth control benefits for employees in July 2020.
Trump’s actions against abortion followed the pattern of many conservative politicians and presidents before him. President Biden has made it clear his intentions to remove the Mexico City Policy. Should America also expect Biden to reinstate reproductive health rights, as done by many democratic politicians before him?
Analysis
It is important to note that President Biden is a devout Roman Catholic, and his past stance on abortion rights has been far less progressive than his liberal colleagues. Biden was a strong supporter of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal programs from paying for abortions with the exception of rape or incest. He changed his stance shortly before beginning his 2016 presidential campaign. As polling from the Pew Research Center shows the majority of Catholic adults in the US support some form of legalized abortion policies. Anti-abortion groups and conservative Catholics argue the hypocrisy of a President attending Sunday mass while fighting for abortion rights.
President Biden will likely continue to face criticism and skepticism from both his party and devout Catholics. But America should remain confident that Biden will be an advocate for reproductive health rights. Biden’s executive orders and priorities support his inaugural address indicating he will be a president “for all Americans”. Former President Trump’s actions during his presidency have led to reduced abortion care, contraception services, HIV testing, HIV treatment, and cancer screening; limiting reproductive health access for men and women in the US and abroad. President Biden has the opportunity to restore these critical services and help re-establish America as a proponent not just for reproductive health rights, but for human rights.
Learn More
Helpful links
NBC: Biden to Roll Back Abortion
NBC: Supreme Court Allows Plan for Limiting Contraceptive Coverage
NPR: President Biden and Being Catholic
Pew Research Center: Catholics and Abortion
NPR: Planned Parenthood Endorses Biden
Reuters: Biden Ending Mexico City Policy
Engagement Resources
The Planned Parenthood organization advocates for reproductive health care, as well as education for safe sex, gender identity, sexual consent and assault, and other related services. To learn more, use the link below:
Trust for America’s Health is a public health policy and research organization that advocates for a nation that values the health and well-being of Americans. Their organization has valuable information regarding health policies and issues on a federal and state level, and also actively publishes reports regarding public health on their website. To find more information or to get involved, use the link below:
The American Public Health Association is an organization aimed to Improve the health of the public and achieve equity in health status. As the main publishers for the American Journal of Public Health and The Nation’s Health newspapers, APHA educates the public on public health, policy statements, and advocacy for public health. To volunteer or become a member, use the link below:
Privacy Under Attack: The Challenge of Data Commoditization in The Biden Era
Brief #32 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
Privacy Under Attack: The Challenge of Data Commoditization in The Biden Era
January 26, 2021
Policy Summary
The US Defense Intelligence Agency and other government entities routinely collect cell phone location data on US residents without a warrant, according to a memo reported by The New York Times on Friday January 22, 2021. The agencies buy the information on the open market from data brokers, who often get it from third-party apps running on users’ phones.
The practice reveals how intelligence agencies and potentially local law enforcement departments can track US residents without warrants despite a 2018 US Supreme Court decision that ruled warrants are necessary for the practice. Known as the Carpenter decision, the ruling held that the Fourth Amendment requires investigators to clear a higher bar before accessing data that can create a timeline of a person’s every movement.
Analysis
Our mobile devices provide us with tremendous utility in navigating unfamiliar terrain, finding missing devices, keeping tabs on our kids and locating the nearest gas station. They also harvest a tremendous amount of information about where we have been and how long we’ve been there. This is information that we freely share when we agree to an application’s terms of service. What we are likely not aware of is that the app providers often sell this information to brokers and that there is a lively, lucrative and largely unregulated market for this information.
The European Union in its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and several US States including California and Vermont have attempted to bring some transparency to the collection of user data but the fragmented nature of the US response to date has left the consumer with a confusing path to determine what information is shared and how widespread is the sharing. Purging this data is nearly impossible.
Federal privacy legislation was not necessarily a priority for the Trump administration and there is hope that the Biden team will give it the full attention it deserves. On Monday January 18, 202, Reuters reported that 40 advocacy groups sent a letter to President Joe Biden calling for a renewed focus on consumer privacy. A coalition of 11 groups urged Biden to create an independent U.S. data protection authority and commit to a federal privacy law within his first 100 days in office.
While we remain hopeful that the new administration will take steps to address this issue, for now, the consumer should be wary, familiarize themselves with the terms of service they have agreed to and shun those services whose practices seem unethical.
Engagement Resources
- The Pew Research Center has compiled a report – Americans’ Views About Data Collection and Security
- The National Conference of State Legislatures has worked to draft laws on the local level to address this issue.
- The International Association of Privacy Professionals is the largest and most comprehensive global information privacy community and resource. Founded in 2000, the IAPP is a not-for-profit organization that helps define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally.
- The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation focuses on a host of critical issues at the intersection of technological innovation and public policy
Do We Need a Domestic Terrorism Law?
Brief # 5 Social Justice
Do We Need a Domestic Terrorism Law?
By Zack Huffman
January 25, 2021
President Joe Biden said that among his first priorities in office will be to pass a domestic terrorism law.
Renewed interest in anti-terrorism legislation comes after frenzied attendees from President Donald Trump’s January 6 rally in Washington DC, rioted at the Capitol while Congress was confirming the electoral votes from last November’s election. The insurrectionist crowd breached the capital, with so-called protesters breaking into legislators’ offices and ransacking the building.
Federal agents have since arrested dozens in the days after the riot. Charges against those arrested range from disorderly conduct and violent entry to making interstate threats and illegal possession of firearms. None have been charged with domestic terrorism. In fact the perpetrators of the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing as well as any of the suspects in the string of politically-motivated mass shootings from the last decade were not charged with domestic terrorism, because it is not technically a separate offense.
Rather than a specific crime, domestic terrorism as a legal definition is a designation that allows enhanced investigation and surveillance measures of crimes such as murder, mass destruction and kidnapping. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic offenses, such as the violent crimes listed above.
Analysis
President Biden co-authored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 which was intended to increase the federal government’s ability to prosecute international terrorism. The bill died before it could be voted on amid concerns from civil liberties groups. Key portions of that bill were later included in the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Biden bragged to the New Republic in 2001 that the then-pending USA PATRIOT Act borrowed from his own legislative work, so he already had experience on the issue even before he spent 8 years as vice president.
U.S. rep. Adam Schiff introduced legislation in 2019 that would have made domestic terrorism a specific crime. The law would have established domestic terrorism as a separate criminal charge for offenses that already carried stiff federal consequences. The new crimes would require prosecutors to prove political intent behind violent crimes, and those charges would have to be personally approved by the Attorney General or an acting equivalent.
Schiff’s bill failed to pass Congress – again, amid concerns from civil liberties groups. A report from the John Brennan Center for Justice criticized existing anti-terrorism laws, along with any new proposed terrorism laws, based on concerns over selective enforcement. For example, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Justice Department primarily targeted Muslims and Muslim organizations. Later the Justice Department focused its anti-terrorism efforts on animal rights, peace and social justice activism. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice has failed to identify white supremacist mass shootings in Charleston, Pittsburgh and El Paso between 2015 and 2019 as acts of domestic terrorism.
Even if a version of Schiff’s bill were to be passed, it would have to be applied retro-actively against the rioters who forced their way into the Capitol. As it stands, the various participants that have already been arrested face sedition charges on top of trespassing, assault, destruction, theft or which ever other crime they committed in the Capitol.
Biden could also face opposition from members of his own party on the issue of domestic terrorism. US rep. Rashida Tlaib released an open letter, that was signed by nine other members of congress, pledging to oppose any expansion of “domestic national security or surveillance powers.” The legislatures cited COINTELPRO, a now-defunct FBI program that targeted civil rights and anti-war activism in the 1960s and 1970s, and the modern targeting of Black Lives Matter activists, among the federal government’s past abuses of authority.
“The Justice Department has a history of minimizing far-right violence while aggressively targeting minority activists and far-left protest movements,” said the report. Historically, this has been the case in the United States, as evidenced by the results of the Church Commission
Following the Watergate scandal, Democrats created a congressional committee, chaired in the House by rep. Frank Church, to investigate intelligence gathering agencies that spied on protest movements during the 1960s and 1970s. The Church Committee, which started its work in 1975, found that the CIA and the FBI had used mass wiretapping with the latter group starting a program called COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) that infiltrated and disrupted numerous political organizations. The covert work originally targeted the Ku Klux Klan, after three civil rights workers disappeared in Mississippi in 1964. A few years later the FBI switched its attention to the rising civil rights and black nationalist movements as well as anti-war activists and the New Left, as detailed in the Committee’s report on Intelligence of Activities and The Rights of America.
“It has demonstrated that intelligence activities have not generally been governed and controlled in accord with the fundamental principles of our constitutional system of government,” wrote Church in the report’s preface.
More recently, the federal government used similar monitoring and infiltration efforts against environmental and animal rights activists in the early 2000s during the George W. Bush administration.
For example, environmentalists Eric McDavid, Lauren Weiner and Zachary Jenson were all arrested for an alleged plot to damage or destroy the Nimbus Dam in California after a federal informant using the name “Anna,” seduced McDavid and coerced the trio to attempt the destructive scheme. Such instances will likely be brought up again by those who are wary of expanded anti-terrorism powers for the federal government.
“While we are not necessarily opposed to reforms to address the law enforcement and intelligence communities’ inability or unwillingness to seriously confront domestic white nationalist violence, we firmly believe that the national security and surveillance powers of the U.S. government are already too broad, undefined, and unaccountable to the people,” wrote Tlaib.
Learn More
Thomas, Ken and Sabrina Siddiqui. Jan. 7. 2021. Biden Says Rioters Who Stormed Capitol Were Domestic Terrorists. https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-says-mob-that-stormed-capitol-were-domestic-terrorists-11610046962
Thirteen Charged in Federal Court Following Riot at the United States Capitol
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/thirteen-charged-federal-court-following-riot-united-states-capitol
Crowley, Michael. Oct. 22. 2001. Rhetorical Question. https://newrepublic.com/article/61756/rhetorical-question
The Church Committee report on Intelligence of Activities and The Rights of America
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/94755_II.pdf
German, Michael and Sara Robinson.
Oct. 31, 2018. Wrong Priorities on Fighting Terrorism. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_Wrong_Priorities_Terrorism.pdf
Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s open letter
https://tlaib.house.gov/sites/tlaib.house.gov/files/NationalSecurityOpp.pdf
Aaronson, Trevor and Katie Galloway. Nov. 19, 2015. Manufacturing Terror.
State and Local Jurisdictions Need Federal Aid to Be Viable
Economic Policy
Brief #106
State and Local Jurisdictions Need Federal Aid to Be Viable
Rosalind Gottfried
January 25, 2021
Policy
State and local government budgets provide the bread and butter of fiscal life and, because of the pandemic costs, require a federal infusion of aid to accomplish maintenance of essential services. State and local governments provide major funding for infrastructure, services, and education. They outspend the federal government on goods and services and account for 15% of the GDP. They contribute more than 90% of the moneys for education and 80% of transportation spending. State Medicaid costs have been on the rise, especially in Republican states that did not take advantage of federal extensions of benefits to states. State and local entities employ more people than domestic manufacturing and and have lost 1.3 million jobs since March, representing the smallest workforce since 2001. These are budgetary elements which impact the availability of goods and services which contribute to quality of life, such as police, fire, and waste services.
Fiscal shortfalls are projected at 172-308 billion dollars through July 2022 and are expected to reach 450 billion dollars in three years. This is after considering the utilization of state rainy day funds ranging from 72-119 billion dollars (estimates vary by sources). The situation has been deteriorating with the lengthening pandemic shut downs and is more severe in localities that have not fully recovered from the Great Recession.
Revenue has been reduced as a result of the pandemic related unemployment, shuttered businesses, and healthcare expenses. Tax revenues from March to October were down by 4.1% from the previous year, with corporate tax down 6.7%; sales tax down 3.8%; and personal income tax down 2.7%. Some states fared better than others due to high income workers earning at home and to stock market earnings. In the second quarter of 2020, State and local spending was down 6%, the biggest drop since 1952. In the third quarter, spending dropped by an additional 4%.
Analysis
Generally, the two approaches to budget constraints are to cut spending and/or increase revenues. In the Great recession both strategies were utilized. In today’s pandemic neither of these scenarios seems feasible since there is still high unemployment and measures to help low and middle income people hold onto more fluidity are antithetical to raising taxes.
State and local budgets have two aspects. The first is the operating budget which pays out for salaries, services, and maintenance needs such as minor infrastructure repairs and is funded by annual revenues. The second is the Capital Budget which invests in major projects and is largely funded by long term mechanisms such as bonds. Local budgets can be supported by chapter 9 bankruptcy laws not available to the states. States, by law must operate with balanced budgets (except in Vermont). As states work through their revenue shortfalls and accrued rainy day funds they are facing deep cuts in services which they can ill afford. The federal government must step in if the quality life is not to sink more dramatically that is has in the past ten months, especially in the areas of education and health care.
In the CARES act of the early pandemic, state and localities received an infusion of 150 billion dollars, and the persisting conditions are promising to create ever larger budgetary gaps. Biden’s current stimulus plan includes an infusion of 350 billion dollars for states and localities and 400 billion in pandemic relief which includes money to schools. It would seem there is not time like the present to pass this plan.
Learn More
https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/state-local-government-congress-relief/index.html
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-covid-19-harming-state-and-city-budgets
https://fortune.com/longform/state-budget-deficits-covid-economy-predictions-outlook/
The Rise of White Nationalism in America
U.S. RESIST NEWS OP ED
The Rise of White Nationalism in America
By Erika Shannon
January 22, 2021
The recent attack on America’s Capitol has certainly confirmed what many have worried for a long time – that white supremacy is on the rise here in the U.S. With recent events, it can be seen that this is a fast-growing problem. These far-right extremists are often disillusioned Trump supporters who want nothing more than to create chaos and for Trump to remain in office, even though he lost the election fair and square. One of the problems is that we live in a world of social media heresy, where people are able to get others worked up with a few keystrokes and the click of a button. In fact, Facebook in particular is often used by right-wing extremists as a way to recruit, and sometimes train, new members. While social media websites attempt to take down groups or pages with white supremacist or extremist views for fear that they may be used to incite violence, it is impossible to make sure that people with these views do not find their way onto social media and share their hate-filled opinions. There are people who feel that occurrences like this are indicative of a free speech violation; however, it is legally up to websites to create their terms of use and handle violations as such. One thing that’s clear is that when people are given a platform to express hate, other like-minded individuals will find them; because of this, something must be done to ensure that they are unable to recruit new members or incite violence.
A burning question for many is who are these people? Often times, they are those you would least expect: your neighbor, mailman, doctor, or barber. People of all ages are involved with the white nationalist movement. Many members are associated with the alt-right and have conservative ideals. According to research by the Institute for Family Studies, white people with no college degree make up a large chunk of these white nationalists. This suggests that members of these hate groups are less educated, which means that education may be a powerful tool for fighting racism in America. Their research also indicates that white males in the lowest income group ($0-$29,000) are more likely to have a strong sense of white identity and solidarity. The research by IFS also shows that while a large chunk of white nationalists are 65 and older, there is not a huge age gap; this means that the amount of white nationalists across age groups is fairly uniform, and it can be inferred that children of white supremacists are being taught white pride ideologies by their parents.
The reason why people get involved with white supremacist groups is not exactly clear-cut. The attitude carried by members of these groups is one of superiority. Often these extremists have a strong sense of white identity, as well as a sense of white victimization for fear that they will one day no longer be the majority. According to the US Census Bureau, all racial and ethnic minorities are growing faster than whites here in America. By 2044, it is projected that the white non-Hispanic population will no longer be the majority. With that looming fact, there should be no surprise that white nationalists are coming out of the cracks to regain a sense of power. Other reasons for people becoming white nationalists can include a desire to feel significant, a need to blame their lack of success on another race, and of course, a sense of belonging among their white nationalist group members. These reasons seem to overlap with reasons why young men would join a gang, and to put it bluntly: white supremacist groups in America ARE gangs However, without the threat of police violence looming over them, gangs of white supremacists feel brave and emboldened enough to march our nation’s capitol with their faces exposed, and the names of their family business proudly emblazoned on their clothes. This boldness is what we, as American citizens, have to worry about. Members of white nationalist groups have a skewed view of the world, in which they are the biggest victims in society. With that mentality, we cannot be sure what they are capable of carrying out in order to give themselves a sense of significance and power. With hate crimes on the rise over the past decade, it is clear that more effort must be put forth to put a stop to the spread of white nationalism in the U.S.
Engagement Resources
- For more on the demography of right-wing extremists, visit this Institute for Family Studies webpage
- See Resources to Fight White Nationalist Groups During the Election Period and Beyond to see how you can help in the fight against white nationalism
Trump Issues Pardons and Creates Nuisances for the Biden/Harris Team on his Way Out the Door
U.S. RESIST NEWS Blog
The Trump Watch: A new U.S. RESIST NEWS Blog Post series intended to report on the activities of President Trump at the end of his Presidency and after he leaves the White House.
# 2 Trump Issues Pardons and Creates Nuisances for the Biden/Harris Team on his Way Out the Door
By Sean Gray
Trump’s last days were marked by chaos, scandal and general ineptitude. Donald Trump’s swan song as a one term president has been unlike any before him. Self dealing and empty bombast have been the cornerstone of Trump’s political brand. With his tenure at an end, those chickens have come home to roost. Trump faces a second impeachment trial for his inciting role in the siege at the Capital. His use of pardons is coming under close scrutiny. And though he mostly abdicated governing since failing to acknowledge his November election loss, he took care to try to impede the Biden administration before it begins.
Donald Trump was as likely to be impeached twice as any president ever will be. For all the partisan bickering over his conduct in office, he was seldom held to account in any meaningful way. There existed more appetite for doing so in the final hours of his term. Organizing and instigating the insurrection at the Capital building was apparently a bridge too far in the eyes of his Republican allies. So much so that 10 GOP House members, along with the entirety of the Democratic caucus voted for the Articles of Impeachment against him. That prospect was unthinkable last time around.
With his term of office ended, a potential Senate trial serves as more of a referendum on Trump as a political more than anything else. When a trial begins, it will be after Trump is already out of office. Also different than the previous Senate trial, when the jury was publicly and vocally in the bag, most of Trump’s GOP confederates have been quite open in their condemnation of his behavior. If convicted by a 2/3 majority after exiting office, Trump would lose his presidential pension and a host of related perks. Soon-to-be Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, rather than whipping votes has told his Republican colleagues that their vote is ‘’one of conscience’’. No greater testament exists to how far Trump’s political star has fallen since his abortive coup on January 6th. Of most consequence in a post-presidency Senate trial would be a vote following conviction to bar Trump from holding office again, which would require only a simple majority. A vote to end Trump’s 2024 bid before it starts would serve as a thorough repudiation of him, at the risk of alienating an intensely loyal voting bloc.
Presidential pardon power is near absolute. Trump hasn’t shied from using it on felons in his orbit, as in the cases of Roger Stone or Paul Manafort. Once again he has demonstrated that norms are worthless if they’re ignored without consequence. Trump has treated his entire presidency transactionally on a personal level. His last few days have proven no exception. According to The New York Times, wealthy felons have spent good money to bend the outgoing president’s ear as he reviews the clemency process. Brett Tolman, a former federal prosecutor brought in to assist in the process has allegedly collected tens of thousands of dollars from deep-pocketed convicts looking to lobby Trump. He’s advocated on behalf of an imprisoned son of an Arkansas state senator, a Manhattan socialite who pled guilty in a fraud case, and Silk Road founder Russ Ulbricht. The lawyer brought in to assist this president with pardons and commutations monetizing the process is perhaps the most spot-on characterization of the Trump administration.
Former and current Trump attorneys John Down and Rudy Giuliani are also reportedly active in the pardon-lobby racket. Giuliani, who Trump has refused to pay for his recent legal work in relation to overturning the 2020 election, has taken the pay-for play scheme to audacious levels. Rather than mere ‘’access fees’’, Giuliani has taken an interest in the case of former CIA officer John Kiriakou. Kiriakou was convicted in 2012 for revealing the identity of a fellow CIA officer involved in torture overseas. Giuliani reportedly told Kiriakou a pardon would cost him $2 million, a price tag at which the latter balked. An associate of the former CIA officer informed the FBI of the conversation.
Such lobbying efforts appear to have been effective. A great many recipients of last minute pardons were wealthy, well-connected individuals; a fitting commentary on Trump’s political priorities from the beginning.
Steve Bannon, alt-right provocateur and Trump’s 2016 campaign manager was facing federal fraud charges related to swindling donors in the private financing of a southern border wall.
Eliot Brody, once-convicted fraudster and former head of the Republican National Convention pled guilty in October 2020 of acting as an unregistered foreign agent. He lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of the Chinese and Malaysian governments.
Each is off scot free and with seemingly little reason other than an intimate connection to Donald Trump. No other pardonees were as close to the seat of power, but convictions and accusations of fraud are the most prevailing trends among the other beneficiaries. A man awaiting sentencing in the Varsity Blues scandal received a pardon. As did the former husband of Fox News host, Jeannine Pirro, who had been convicted of tax evasion. Over a dozen pardons were issued to politicians of either party engaged in various acts of self-enriching misconduct. Some of the pardons issued did go towards more traditional and deserving recipients, such as those who’d served time, and shown a degree of contrition. But by and large, most of the issuances by Trump were a nod to the swamp he pledged to drain four years ago.
Unscrupulous as it may appear, neither Trump nor associates have run afoul of the law. Pardons are intended to ease punishment of offenders who’ve shown contrition, though it is not a hard-and-fast rule. The usual channel runs through a dedicated office within the Department of Justice. Dowd, Giuliani and Tolman are involved in what amounts to legal bribery. Their conduct violates the spirit of, but not the actual letter of the law. These ethical considerations provide ample food for thought without even mentioning an attempt by Trump to pardon himself.
Trump has still yet to and probably won’t acknowledge Biden as the legitimate president. As a parting gift to the incoming ‘’election, Trump has attempted to plant a few landmines for the Biden/Harris team.
In a letter to Congress, Trump has sought to freeze $27.5 billion in funding to key cabinet agencies. A provision in the 1974 Budget Impoundment and Control Act allows him to request freeze and rescind budget authority in specific areas. The proposed cuts, among them to the Environmental Protection Agency, mostly coincide with the ones rejected in Trump’s 2021 budget. With Democrats in control of all three branches of government, the move is unlikely to stick, or do anything more than delay inevitable funding to federal programs. Still, Trump’s attempt at forced austerity on his successor (after a term in which he ballooned the national debt) signal his intentions loud and clear.
With less than 72 hours left in his term, Trump nominated a political ally for the role of General Counsel at the National Security Agency. Michael Ellis is a former GOP operative and White House aide who also worked for blind Trump loyalist, Rep. Devin Nunes. He was involved in covering-up the call which led to Trump’s impeachment and fed disinformation to Nunes, which he used in an attempt to discredit Robert Mueller’s investigation. Such a partisan actor in what is supposed to be a strictly apolitical role would be problematic at anytime. For Trump to do so with less than three days remaining in his term is irregular and irresponsible. Politicizing intelligence helped Trump discredit information unflattering to him, and amplify intelligence he found agreeable, regardless of veracity. It also weakened national security and sowed confusion. Appointing a political hack to the top legal position in the NSA can only reinforce dangerous precedents. It also creates another headache for the incoming administration to contend with.
Trump’s budget maneuver is likely to be little more than a nuisance. Ellis’ appointment (to a civil service, not a political role) may be more difficult to undo. Notes of pettiness and sabotage may be detected in both. Each case was among several reported fires the Trump administration has started on the way out. It begs the question of what other nasty surprises await Biden/Harris upon assuming office.
Progress in Policing in 2020
Brief # 4 Social Justice
Policing in America Series: An ongoing series that covers efforts to reform policing in America, written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Reporter Laura Plummer.
Progress in Policing in 2020
January 19, 2021
Summary
Two-thousand and twenty was a year defined by unprecedented hardship. A deadly global pandemic ravaged the country and crippled whole sectors of the economy. A contentious presidential election divided the nation, and killings of black and brown people by police officers sparked yearlong protests against police brutality.
The Black Lives Matter movement gained popular support last year as it exposed the systemic racism inherent in American policing. More than any previous year, communities started organizing to demand comprehensive police reform and to hold their leaders and elected officials accountable. The following list explores the progress achieved in policing in 2020 at the federal and state levels.
Federal Level:
House and Senate Democrats unveiled the Justice in Policing Act to ban chokeholds and no-knock warrants, improve reporting on police misconduct and make it easier to prosecute police officers for misconduct.
Senate Republicans introduced a bill to improve reporting in police departments, apply harsher penalties for falsified documents, provide funding for de-escalation training, and establish a commission for criminal justice reform.
U.S. representatives introduced a bill in the House to end qualified immunity.
House Democrats introduced the George Floyd Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act to implement national policing standards, require agencies to report data to the DOJ, and increase oversight.
Pres. Trump signed the Executive Order on Safe Policing for Safe Communities, providing financial resources to departments that meet certain standards set by the attorney general.
State Level:
The Arkansas governor signed an executive order to establish a police task force to review its community policing policies.
California’s governor called for the banning of chokeholds. The California attorney general recommended key reforms.
Colorado passed a bill to ban chokeholds and tear gas, remove qualified immunity, require body cameras, prevent fired officers from being rehired, and hold officers accountable for not intervening.
The Connecticut governor required state police to stop using chokeholds and receiving military gear and to start using body cameras at all times. He signed a bill to increase oversight, review use-of-force policies, ban consent searches, investigate police shootings and weaken qualified immunity.
The Iowa governor signed a bill to ban chokeholds, prevent fired officers from being rehired, require anti-bias and de-escalation training, and weaken qualified immunity.
Massachusetts proposed several bills regarding use of force, hiring standards, and criminal justice reform.
The Michigan State Senate passed a bill to require mental health screenings for prospective officers and training in implicit bias and de-escalation for current officers.
The Minnesota State Legislature banned chokeholds and antiquated training programs, introduced trained peace officers, and improved investigations into fatal police encounters.
The New Hampshire governor issued an order on police reforms, including the use of body cameras by all state police.
New Jersey banned chokeholds and similar restraints.
The New York governor signed bills related to police misconduct, chokeholds, racial profiling, body cameras and reporting requirements. He also made departments come up with plans for reform in order to qualify for state funding.
Pennsylvania’s governor approved sweeping changes to policing, including background checks and mental health evaluations, a termination database, and training on use of force and de-escalation.The Rhode Island State Police agreed to obtain and use body cameras.
Tennessee House Democrats introduced a series of police reforms regarding use of force.
Analysis
At the federal level, most legislation introduced in the House in 2020 was not taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate. Only 14 states proposed significant changes to police policy last year and some of it was dead on arrival. In some cases, legislation is still pending. Readers can continue to put pressure on their governors and lawmakers to overhaul this historically racist institution.
Resources
- Contact President Joseph Biden online, or call the White House switchboard at 202-456-1414 or the comments line at 202-456-1111
- Contact your U.S. Senator
- Contact your U.S. Representative
- Contact your state governor
- Contact your state legislators