JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
New Top Dogs, Same Old Tricks: Uncovering the Power of Big Tech, Part 1 Washington’s Biggest Influencers
Brief #44—Technology
By Scout Burchill
Move over Big Oil and Big Tobacco. According to a new report by Public Citizen, Big Tech companies now run the largest lobbying operations in Washington. For the first time ever, Facebook and Amazon topped the 2020 list of individual corporate lobbying spenders. Facebook spent close to $20 million and Amazon was not far behind spending close to $19 million, about 30% more than Comcast Corporation, the third highest spender. Since 2018, Amazon and Facebook have increased their spending by 30% and 56%, respectively.
These sums only represent reported federal lobbying dollars. Additional spending to gain influence through campaign contributions, Super Pacs, advertising campaigns, research funding, non-profits, associations, federations or trade groups, as well as state, local and international political spending are not included. Taking reported campaign contributions into account, Amazon and Facebook spent a combined $124 million in lobbying and campaign contributions during the 2020 election cycle alone.
Will Biden Save OSHA? An Assessment of the Weakened Regulatory Agency
Brief #103—Health And Gender
By Lily Lady Cook
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was founded in 1971 to protect workers from hazards on the job. OSHA has faced intermittent funding challenges since the ‘70s, and reached new lows under the previous administration. Currently, the U.S. has one labor inspector for every 70,000 people although The International Labor Organization recommends one for every 10,000 people. This means that about 1,850 inspectors are responsible for overseeing the safety of 130 million workers. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Labor criticized OSHA for its lack of regulatory guidance and decreased on-site inspections. On the campaign trail, President Biden called upon then-President Trump to double the amount of OSHA investigators; once in office, he instructed OSHA to release Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) guidelines for employers by March 15. OSHA did not follow through on this order, possibly due to legal barriers related to the ‘grave danger’ precondition necessary for their release. In the absence of federal guidelines, separate states established their own ETSs. OSHA did, however, issue a National Emphasis Program in March, which increased pandemic-related inspection mandates for high hazard industries.
New Top Dogs, Same Old Tricks: Uncovering the Power of Big Tech, Part 2
Brief #45—Technology
By Scout Burchill
What exactly does progressivism mean nowadays? This question is worth thinking about as a consortium of tech companies have recently announced the creation of a business association called the Chamber of Progress. Positioning itself as a center-left progressive organization, it is funded by tech companies like Amazon, Facebook, Doordash, Google, Grubhub, Instacart, Twitter, Uber, Zillow and a few others. Their website describes the partnership as “a new tech industry coalition devoted to a progressive society, economy, workforce, and consumer climate.”
Beyond advocating for progressive causes, the organization aims to steer the conversation around tech regulation and Section 230, of which they oppose any reform or repeal. The Chamber’s first official policy engagement is to support the passage of two recent voting rights legislation bills (the “For the People Act” and the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act”) and to condemn voter suppression proposals that are currently pending in 43 states.
American Withdrawal From Afghanistan
Brief #108—Foreign Policy
By Will Solomon
Last week, President Biden announced plans for an American military withdrawal from Afghanistan by September 11 of this year. The date will mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the events that precipitated the invasion of that country, and the catalyst for what subsequently became the longest-running war in American history. Biden’s announcement was received largely positively, both by those who have demanded the withdrawal for a long time (Biden himself once stated that America would leave Afghanistan by 2014) and even by some more traditionally hawkish members of the national security establishment, who recognize the war has lost popular support and legitimacy, and is in practice un-winnable.
This is not to say approval was universal: a significant sector of the national security state would evidently be content with a drawn-out occupation, and many neoconservatives—Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney, and others—have been vocal in their opposition to Biden’s plan. There are also reservations from the anti-war sector: many contend that Biden’s announcement obscures the heavy unofficial American military presence, in the form of special forces, drones, and mercenaries and other contractors who will remain after American troops leave. Across the spectrum, there is also concern for the direction Afghanistan may go, even if clear solutions to avoiding outcomes like a Taliban takeover are not readily apparent.
Derek Chauvin Found Guilty in Trial over George Floyd’s Death
Brief #13—Social Justice
By Erika Shannon
For almost a month, the nation has been watching the trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. He was on trial for murdering 46-year-old George Floyd; the unfortunate events leading to Floyd’s death unfolded when police were called to a convenience store over a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill. Former officer Chauvin responded to this call (with 3 other Minneapolis police officers), and ended up kneeling on George Floyd, cutting off his air supply for approximately 9 minutes and 29 seconds.
On April 20th, Derek Chauvin was found guilty on all three counts that he was facing in the trial: unintentional second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Sentencing will be in eight weeks, and while the charges collectively add up to 75 years in prison, focus will be on the most serious charge of second-degree murder. This charge carries with it up to 40 years in prison. Many are holding their breath and hoping for the maximum sentence possible.
Our Migrant Workforce: Who Are They? How Did They Get Here?
Brief #121—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Migrant workers support the US economy providing American industries like agriculture and technology the critical labor force they need to prosper. In 2019, more than 900,000 temporary foreign workers visas were granted, compared to only 400,000 in 1994. During lockdown measures in 2020, Trump suspended all temporary work visas to ensure public health safety.
The first migrant labor program came during WWI due to severe labor shortages and drew in agricultural laborers primarily from Mexico. In 1952, lawmakers attempted to regulate and consolidate temporary visa regulations into a comprehensive Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which introduced the H2 visa (the precursor to the H1B). There are currently 4 types of H-visas for temporary workers (with the 4th being for spouses and unmarried children of H-visa recipients). See below for an explanation of the different H type visas that that are used by migrant workers.
Is Broadband Internet Access for All Possible? Ask the Biden Administration
Brief #43—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
The Biden administration infrastructure bill will prioritize broadband expansion as a top goal. The plan earmarks $100 billion to bring affordable internet to all Americans by 2029. The plan’s goals are to reach 100% high-speed broadband coverage across the US by prioritizing broadband networks owned, operated by, or affiliated with local governments, non-profits, and cooperatives. The emphasis of this plan is to not make this endeavor the province of big tech for which the Biden administration has a healthy mistrust. The scope is on a scale as such projects as rural electrification during the administration of FDR. Is it enough?
Reunited; Science and Government… And It feels so good.
Brief #112—Environment
By Shannon Q. Elliot
Biden and Harris walked into a cyclone of environmental ludicrousness as they entered The White House. The previous four years disavowed regulatory science, and neglected to create policies which would support public health and the environment. The policies enacted during the Trump era are now being reevaluated via Executive Order (EO) “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” Under the EO, federal agencies will vet existing environmental policies, vowing to hold polluters accountable, and discuss innovative ways in which to restore and confront environmental crisis.
Biden and the Conflict in Ukraine
Brief #107—Immigration
By Will Solomon
The last several weeks have seen a significant escalation of tensions in Eastern Ukraine, a focal point of confrontation between the United States/NATO, and Russia. It has been reported that Russia has amassed troops on the Ukrainian border, with some estimates suggesting as many as 40,000 are currently stationed there. Russia has publicly claimed their troop movements are due to NATO provocations. Much of Eastern Ukraine, a predominately Russian-speaking region, has been effectively controlled by Russian-backed separatists since 2014.
The Crisis In American Higher Education; College Enrollment; Student Debt; Student Loan Forgiveness
Brief #101
The Crisis In American Higher Education; College Enrollment; Student Debt; Student Loan Forgiveness
Rosalind Gottfried
Economics
December 21, 2020
Policy
The pandemic has exacerbated troubling trends in higher education. College enrollment fell by 11% from 2011-2019. The rate of decline accelerated in the past year, with undergraduate enrollment falling by 3.6% from the previous year; that is two times the previous year’s rate. The brunt of the decline has been sustained by Community Colleges where enrollment fell by 10%. Community Colleges, public institutions with two year college degree and certificate programs, educate the largest group of college students in the country and service a disproportionately high percentage of low income students and students of color. They also suffer the most underfunding, in higher education, as they don’t command as much public money as four year schools and they maintain low tuition as part of their mandate.
The high school class of 2020 demonstrated a 21.7% drop in college enrollment which was unevenly spread over the graduating class. In high poverty high schools the drop was 32.6% while the drop was only 16.4% in low poverty schools. The fear is that the class of 2021 will have similar data. FAFSA (the federal application for student financial aid) applications are down 14% and some colleges, including the California State University system, have extended their admissions deadlines in the hope of gaining more applications. During the pandemic, short certificate graduate programs and Masters Programs showed some increased enrollment, along with for profit schools. Many for profit undergraduate programs spend a lot of money on advertising and they charge high tuition and generally show low graduation and employment rates. These colleges are thought to be siphoning some of the potential pool of community college students, partially because of their advertising and also because they have a history of easy access and online learning.
Even when the effects of the pandemic are eliminated, demographic shifts in the population point to a decreased pool of eligible college students. The portion of students graduating from high school will peak in 2025 and then face a period of sustained decline until 2037. In response to lowered enrollments, many institutions have experienced layoffs and furloughs among staff and faculty. Some schools have canceled sports, certain majors, and even whole departments. Fifty universities have suspended enrollment in their doctoral programs.
The pandemic has many students questioning the efficacy of gaining a higher education, especially among low income students. Many students are wary of paying tuition for online learning instead of opting to join the workforce and make money, potentially saving it for future education opportunities. Data show, however, that the longer an individual delays college attendance, the less likely they are to ever attend. The most vulnerable students are first generation college students and they are disproportionately from low income and/or non-white households. These students are also vulnerable to failing to complete degree programs and still owing payments on student loans, without the benefits of jobs requiring college degrees.
Student loan debt is at a record high of 1.6 trillion dollars. Student loan debt is second to mortgage debt. Forty five million people hold student loans. Forty five percent of loan holders, benefitting from student loan forbearance in place until January 31st, say they fear they will be unable to make their subsequent payments. The median loan payment is $222 and the average (mathematical) is $393, likely accounting for the small proportion of students with over 100K in debt. Thirty percent of students graduate without any loan debt and 23% have less than $20,000 in debt. These figures likely represent the students from affluent families or the small portion that gain full financial aid. These figures highlight the likelihood that the low and moderate income students are the most likely to accrue debt and they are also the ones who are most likely to struggle to make payments. If young adults are not saddled with student debt, they could buy houses, cars, start businesses and families—all things which have been delayed or eliminated. It is estimated that loan forgiveness would boost the GDP by 108 billion dollars per year and add 1.5 million jobs.
Analysis
President elect Joe Biden has pledged to address the issue of student debt forgiveness. Senators Warren and Schumer support eliminating up to $50,000 in student debt and that is one consideration. A majority of Americans favor student loan forgiveness of up to $50,000. Another possibility is that Biden will move quickly to forgive $10,000 in federal student loans per individual, through Executive Order which is possible under the current Higher education Act. The senators also want to eliminate the tax liability on the loan forgiveness which is currently accrued by the small portion of students who have gained forgiveness under public programs. Americans feel that tax breaks made for the very wealthy are unfair and “regular” Americans should also get a comparable break. Those tax breaks made under the Trump administration did not improve the economy though canceling debt for the lower income groups would boost the consumer power of that group.
The Biden administration is considering multiple fixes to the crisis in higher education. In addition to forgiving debt, the proponents of reform suggest restructuring education funding and making four year public colleges tuition free. The federal government will have to support higher education in new programs because tuition increases already have stretched family budgets. In 1968, the ratio of college tuition to income was 1:30; today it is 1:5. Incomes have stagnated or increased only minimally. Many schools increased tuition during the Great Recession to compensate for slashed state budgets and cannot sustain viability without a federal infusion of funds. The millennials are the first generation to be worse off than their parents and the bulk of this trend is seen among the most vulnerable groups, namely low income students and students of color. Biden can help, though there is concern that if he invokes his power of Executive Order it will be contested in the courts, possibly up to the US Supreme Court, a worrying prospect.
Learn More References
- https://www.npr.org/2020/12/17/925831720/losing-a-generation-fall-college-enrollment-plummets-for-first-year-students
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/02/03/student-loan-debt-statistics/?sh=280d965c281f
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertfarrington/2020/12/17/can-biden-really-forgive-student-loans-by-executive-order/?sh=3cd411f1eed5
- https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-biden-should-get-rid-student-debt-or-without-congress-ncna1251160
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2020/02/01/do-you-really-need-student-loan-forgiveness/?sh=a61b94b507eb
Resistance Resources
- https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/lower-payments/get-temporary-relief/forbearance
- Website for help with student loan payments
Alternatives to Deadly Force: Tasers
Social Justice Brief # 2
Alternatives to Deadly Force: Tasers
Policing in America Series: Alternatives to Deadly Force
By Laura Plummer
December 21, 2020
Summary
On Oct. 26, Philadelphia police shot and killed Walter Wallace Jr. in broad daylight. In a viral video of the incident, Wallace can be seen approaching officers with a knife. After issuing a verbal warning, they unloaded 14 rounds into the 27-year-old from a distance of around 15 feet. He quickly collapsed to the pavement and was later pronounced dead.
What the video doesn’t show is that police were actually responding to a 911 call that Wallace was experiencing a mental health crisis. The event sparked a nationwide debate about the role of law enforcement in mental health emergencies. At minimum, many believe Wallace’s death could have been prevented if officers on the scene had been equipped with tasers.
A taser is a conductive electrical device (CED) that causes painful muscle contractions. It came on the market in 1993 to provide law enforcement with an alternative to firearms. Over 90 percent of police departments in the U.S. issue them. But at the time of Wallace’s death, only one third of Philadelphia officers were trained to use tasers.
Tasers are often confused with stun guns. While both are CEDs that deliver an electric shock, a stun gun must be used directly against the skin. Depending on the model, police tasers can be effective at a distance up to 35 feet. This makes them especially useful if a suspect is fleeing, resisting arrest or behaving in a menacing way. They can incapacitate someone for five minutes to an hour without causing any permanent injury.
While tasers are less lethal than firearms, they still present the possibility of serious injury or death if misused or abused. Some people are also at higher risk, including pregnant women, the elderly, children, and those with certain medical conditions. In addition, secondary risks exist if a tasered subject falls from a height, crashes his vehicle, or hits the ground while running. Tasers have even been known to catch flammable materials on fire.
Analysis
Despite the taser’s shortcomings, it is likely Walter Wallace Jr. would still be alive today had he been tasered rather than shot. The Philadelphia Police Department has a use-of-force continuum on the books, which prescribes an officer’s level of force according to an offender’s behavior. Additionally, the department requires police to exhaust all alternatives prior to discharging their firearms. Because Wallace was at a sufficient distance away, and armed with only a knife, a compliant officer may have first reached for his taser.
Policies around use of force and exhausting alternatives are only effective when police have access to less lethal weapons like tasers. When officers only have firearms in their tool belts, that will be their go-to weapon when responding to a threat.
This brief was compiled by Laura Plummer.
Pfizer and BioNTech Vaccine Receives US Approval
Brief #86 – Health and Gender
Author Taylor J Smith
Brief Title: Pfizer and BioNTech Vaccine Receives US Approval
The Policy
The US saw a million new COVID-19 cases in the first five days of December and states have begun reimplementing restrictions; However, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer & BioNTech vaccine last weekend and Moderna was approved this week. First doses of the Pfizer & BioN Tech vaccine have arrived in the US with health care workers and nursing home residents are at the top of distribution lists.
Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine’s data review confirmed that it is highly protective, with an efficacy rate of 94.1%. Side effects of the vaccine include a fever, a headache and fatigue, while all were found to be unpleasant, none were in fact dangerous. Once approved, the distribution of millions of doses could begin as early as next week.
Over the summer, the US government signed deals with both companies to acquire 200 million doses by early 2021, and last week, the White House announced they had purchased an additional 100 million doses from Moderna. With 300 million expected doses, 150 million Americans can be expected to be vaccinated with one of the two-dose vaccines developed through Operation Warp Speed. However, that number is less than half of the US population and it is unclear how long it will take to get everyone vaccinated.
COVID-19 Internationally
-Puerto Rico reports it has received only half of the doses of the 32,500 doses expected for the island. The mix up is said to be a result of logistical error, with the other half of doses expected to arrive in the next two days.
-The first doses of the Pfizer & BioNTech vaccine has been administered in the United Kingdom. Notably, a William Shakespeare was the second patient in the UK to receive a vaccination. For the first time in the organization’s history, humanitarian organization UNICEF will help feed people in Britain as children struggle with food insecurity amid the pandemic.
-Ecuador’s health ministry has approved the use of Pfizer & BioNTech’s vaccine, with doses arriving in January 2021.
-Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that mass vaccination is necessary to end the pandemic, a shift from his previous stance on the pandemic. With this statement, he still has not been vaccinated with Russian-made Sputnik V, as it is not advised for people older than 60 and Putin is 68.
-French President Emmanuel Macron has tested positive for the virus on Thursday morning. Currently no Prime Ministers who recently met with the President have tested positive.
-European Union plans on vaccinating citizens on December 27, 28, and 29, according to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
-Japan’s capital Tokyo reported the highest single-day rise in cases since the start of the pandemic on Thursday.
Analysis:
There have been over 300,000 American deaths due to the coronavirus. Multiple vaccines during what is expected to be one of America’s darkest winters is a feigned beacon of hope, as experts say the vaccine is too late to stop the impending wave of infections and deaths. New estimates put covid-19 related deaths over 500,000 by April, another 200,000+ deaths in the next three months.
The expected approval of Moderna’s vaccine reassures vaccine shortage fears, as both manufactures are capable of mass production, with hopes of having enough for the entire country by late 2021. Both vaccines are provided free of charge, quelling fears of accessibility. However, Pfizer & BioNTech’s vaccine requires much colder storage, making shipping, storage, and handling more complicated, especially for communities with limited or insufficient infrastructure. These potential issues are small in comparison to the very real possibility that a good portion of Americans will not want to get vaccinated. A new survey found that around a quarter of Americans simply don’t want the vaccine, most citing lack of government trust and possible side effects as top concerns.
Here’s how some of the vaccines compare:
| Producers | Type | Doses Needed | Efficacy | Storage | Cost Per Dose |
| Oxford / AstraZeneca | Viral Vector | Two | 62-90% | Regular fridge temp |
$4 |
| Moderna | RNA | Two | 95% | -20C, up to 6 months | $33 |
| Pfizer / BioNTech | RNA | Two | 95% | -70C | $20 |
| Gamaleya (Sputnik V) | Viral Vector | Two | 92% | Regular fridge temp | $10 |
Engagement Resources:
For concerns about COVID-19, please seek assistance with the Center for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, or local health officials.
Subscribe HERE to stay up to date with COVID-19
Number of COVID-19 cases and deaths as of December 17, 2020 – Consult the CDC or Johns Hopkins for an update in numbers.
| Nation | Confirmed Cases | Deaths |
| Globally | 74,467,555 | 1,654,461 |
| United States | 17,011,532 | 308,098 |
| India | 9,956,557 | 144,451 |
| Brazil | 7,040,608 | 183,735 |
| Russia | 2,736,727 | 48,568 |
| France | 2,465,246 | 59,472 |
| Turkey | 1,928,165 | 17,364 |
| United Kingdom | 1,918,786 | 65,618 |
| Italy | 1,906,377 | 67,220 |
| Spain | 1,773,290 | 48,596 |
| Argentina | 1,517,046 | 41,365 |
A Look at the Trump Administration’s Response to the Coronavirus
Transition of Power
A new blog post by U.S. RESIST Reporters on the transition of Presidential Power from the Trump to the Biden administration
Brief # 7 A Look at the Trump Administration’s Response to the Coronavirus
By Sean Gray
December 18,, 2020
With the first Covid-19 vaccines being administered in the US, a light is beginning to emerge at the end of the pandemic’s tunnel. President Trump is taking a curious victory lap. Boasting about the success of Operation Warp Speed has represented his only break from incessant election fraud conspiracy. While his administration undoubtedly played a role in the record-setting vaccine, it belies the fact that every step of the way, Trump himself exacerbated the pandemic, largely by viewing it through a politically transactional lens.
Trump’s misleading, revisionist history in relation to the pandemic is apt; He has consistently misled and confused Americans about the coronavirus. News of the incoming pandemic was reportedly in his daily brief around the turn of the year, 2020. Only in mid-March did he begrudgingly acknowledge the ugly reality. In the intervening time he dismissed the obvious dangers and suggested it was his political opponent’s ‘’new hoax’’. At the mid-March press conference, he said without irony ‘’I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic’’. This type of self-serving double-talk would categorize the federal government’s Covid-19 response.
Worse than that was his effort to distort facts and silence medical experts that might reflectepoorly on him. Trump supporters have demonstrated an uncanny willingness to swallow whole whatever cockamamie he offers up. Placing him alongside experts in infectious disease, like Dr. Fauci, in the pandemic’s early days, lent undue credibility to his dangerous spit balling. From his pulpit he suggested injecting disinfectants, or direct sunlight could prove a miraculous cure for the mysterious virus. He vigorously promoted the anti-malarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, even after quality research suggested it had no meaningful benefit and serious side effects. Medical experts willing to debase themselves for attention took to conservative media to echo the president’s reckless claims, thereby legitimizing misinformation from the commander-in-chief.
No instance of Trumpian ineptitude would be complete without a touch of graft, which was focus of the whistleblower complaint filed by former government scientist, Rick Bright. Bright claimed he awarded contracts to the companies connected to the administration, including a drug company linked to a friend of Jared Kushner’s. In his report, Bright called for an inspector general investigation into the ‘’cottage industry’’ of political influence which determined to whom contracts were awarded. His concerns about the administration’s Covid response mostly fell on deaf ears, but found an unlikely ally in Trump economic advisor, Peter Navarro, to whom Bright advocated creating a ‘’Manhattan Project’’ for coronavirus. That idea would eventually become, Operation Warp Speed, well after it was initially proposed and the pandemic had grown in severity.
FDA head, Stephen Hahn had a major role in the ultimate success of the vaccine endeavor. His role, by necessity, is a nonpartisan one. That didn’t deter Trump from making a political pawn out of him. In August, Trump announced the emergency approval of convalescent plasma for treatment of Covid patients. Hahn endorsed the decision publicly, despite the fact that the National Health Institute had serious concerns that its efficacy had not been demonstrated. The move came as a direct result of Trump leaning on the FDA, accusing them of slowing approval for political reasons. Hahn was the subject of widespread criticism from the scientific community, which led to a rare apology and admission of fault out of the Trump administration.
Even with the finish line in sight, Trump doubled-down on his political meddling by tweeting out that Hahn ought to ‘’stop playing games’’ and ‘’start saving lives. In doing so, he implied that bureaucratic red tape was delaying the approval and fanning the flames of his ‘’deep state saboteur’’ rhetoric. The end result is a significant decrease of public confidence in the nation’s public health institutions from a man with no expertise in the subject.
Claiming to fight for the forgotten working class while serving the interests of the incredibly wealthy has been a staple of Trump’s political brand. His own Covid-19 experience illustrates the contradiction well. After months of deceiving the American public about the scope and severity of the pandemic, Trump came down with the virus himself. He was airlifted to Walter Reed Medical Center (roughly 14 miles from the White House) and treated nonstop with experimental remedies at no personal expense. Then, as if tooprove he was right all along, took an ill-advised limo ride (presumably while still infected) in a sealed vehicle full of Secret Service agents. Trump followed up the plague-spreading publicity stunt with an odd appearance on the White House balcony, walking under his own power. In the aftermath he seemed to use the incident to support the notion that the whole thing had been blown out of proportion, to damage him politically. This dangerous bit of deception ignores obvious realities. Trump and every member of Congress are covered by top-top-notch medical coverage at taxpayer expense. The Covid-19 experience of Donald Trump (or Rep. Louie Gohmert or Sen. Ted Cruz) bares little resemblance to that of the average citizen. Most are independently wealthy on top of their six-figure salaries. Independent of the helicopter ride, the estimated cost of Trump’s medical treatment was $183K, and completely inaccessible to the general public. Contracting a virus about which he has been habitually dishonest, and escaping its worse consequences because of privilege, is as on-brand Trump as it gets. It also likely reinforced the positions of his Covid-skeptic supporters, whose own experience might be considerably more fraught.
A coronavirus vaccine in record time is a win for the nation across party lines. Trump’s attempt to take an outsized amount of credit does not detract from the unprecedented accomplishment. But true to form it does represent a distortion of reality. Trump may have signed off on Warp Speed, but it is difficult to make a good faith argument that he aided the process more than he impeded it.
School reopening and parents’ perspectives
Brief # 51 Education
Education Brief – School reopening and parents’ perspectives
Emily Carty
December 14, 2020
As of December 12, eleven states plus D.C. and Puerto Rico have ordered schools to partially or fully close. Four state governments (Arkansas, Iowa, Florida, and Texas) have ordered schools open for the families that choose to attend. The rest have no orders in place, so the decisions are up to regional authorities and institutions.
While we have seen schools open and close in a matter of days throughout the pandemic, parents continue to have mixed feelings about when it is safe to send their kids back to school. With a major surge in Covid cases throughout November, plans to reopen have faltered and the death toll has soared. Although health practitioners know more about treating the virus now, and despite a vaccine on the horizon, some experts warn that reopening for in-person learning has contributed to increased cases of the virus. Others warn that it is overall ineffective at decreasing the spread.
The New York Times reports that one of the “mercies” of this virus has been the smaller risk of serious illness in children, nevertheless more than 1.4 million children have tested positive for Covid-19 since the start of the pandemic. What parents, schools, and governments must consider are the long-term effects of school closures on quality of education, and how that might influence the risk of poverty and health issues later on. Not to mention the effect of remote-learning on access to resources and food in the immediate context.
The CDC has put together a decision making toolkit for families deciding whether or not to send their children back to school. Many school districts are giving parents a choice to send their kids to school once they are open for in-person classes again. And although the risk of children contracting a severe illness due to Covid-19 is lower for younger kids, risk to family members, caregivers, and school staff could potentially be greater — which has put parents in a tough spot.
In California, Los Angeles has returned to distance learning amidst the highest rate of new cases thus far, and Orange County teachers unions are pressuring the school board to shut down all in-person services due to high hospitalizations and low ICU capacity. In San Diego, rival parent groups are protesting to either keep schools open or closed — everyone’s definition of “safe” is different. Just recently, New York City’s Mayor de Blasio loosened restrictions for opening schools. In school districts that have remained open, like in Florida, school-related outbreaks have numbered in the hundreds, yet schools stay open. Meanwhile, parents across the nation are calling on school leaders to look at the science — many families and doctors believe that school is the “essential business” for children and with precautions in place the spread will be minimal, albeit possible.
Families are drawing on the increasing data points which suggest that schools are not the superspreaders we expected them to be. Children and their teachers have certainly contracted the virus, perhaps in the school setting or perhaps outside. However through random testing and case studies across the US and abroad scientists and public health leaders are now seeing that increasing positive cases in school children do not necessarily correspond to spikes at home. Furthermore, when the right precautions are in place, schools can be relatively low-risk, particularly for elementary students. The issues seem to arise with older students and when there are high Covid rates in the general community. This is perhaps due to older students gathering outside of school in sports and extracurriculars. Plus, the added factor of indoor dining, bars, and shopping increases chances that adults will contract the virus and spread it to kids and throughout schools.
That being said, parents are wondering why businesses can open but schools can’t. In California, Pennsylvania, and New York parents have filed lawsuits calling for schools to reopen. Grassroots organizing and protests led by parents are springing up from Oregon to Georgia in the face of more school closures. Groups like The Oakland REACH, Parents Amplifying Voices in Education, Kids First Chicago, and Parent Revolution are putting families at the center of the discussion and empowering families to be part of devising the solution to education during Covid.
Understanding parents’ needs and perspectives should be a major aspect of crafting school reopening plans. In a recent study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the US Department of Health and Human Services, a survey of 858 parents revealed differences in attitude toward school reopening for different ethnic groups. The survey suggested that more “White” identifying parents (62.3%) wanted schools to reopen for everyone in the fall, whereas fewer “Black” (46.0%) and “Hispanic” (50.2%) parents wanted a fall reopening. Almost all parents surveyed were concerned with their kids’ quality of education during the pandemic, but more (67.3%) White parents responded that returning to school for the experiences it gives is more valuable despite the risk of Covid — 56.5% of Black parents felt that way, and 53.9% of Hispanic parents and 53.4% of “Other / non-Hispanic.” While this is a small survey size and not indicative of the entire country, it is an important perspective to consider, especially with the pandemic exacerbating already present inequities across racial and class lines.
In order to ensure all student and family needs are met and concerns addressed, decision makers must consider how their constituents truly feel so that we can come together and make school reopening transparent, collaborative, and safe. The nation’s second largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, is doing just that. It has recently sent every parent a detailed survey asking their perspectives on reopening, and what makes them feel safe. Nonetheless, even if “safe reopening” plans are agreed upon by parents, part of the issue lies in the school’s ability to create a safe space and pay for the required Covid precautions. Without sufficient data, federal aid, and will to collaborate and communicate with other leaders, schools wishing to open are in a bind.
The CDC recently said that schools need almost $22 billion — nearly $442 per student — to reopen safely. Without that money, precautions against Covid might be futile, prolonging virtual learning and leaving parents frustrated. Newly elected Joe Biden has stated that school reopening is a priority. He strives to open schools within the first 100 days of his presidency, but notes that it is dependent upon congress providing adequate funding.
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
- Parents Helping Parents – This organization has consolidated a broad set of resources for parents with students of all abilities and needs. Connect with parents and find detailed resources for addressing Covid and remote learning to best help your child and yourself succeed.
- Parent Teacher Association – The National PTA offers plenty of resources for parents as well as advocacy tools. Take a look at their advocacy page to write letters to your congress people or find tools to be a more effective advocate for the students in your life.
- National Parent Leadership Institute – This organization provides training for aspiring parent leaders as well as resources and a place to share your story. From a parent centered approach, NPLI seeks to uplift parents’ lived experiences to help them be better activists for their children and themselves.
SOURCES
- EdWeek – Map: Where are Schools Closed?
- New York Times – UNICEF Finds School Closures to be Ineffective
- American Association of Pediatrics – State Level Data for Covid in Children
- UNICEF – Covid and Children
- Politico – Districts Slow to Follow NY School Reopening
- The Bold Italic – Oakland Parents Rally to Reopen Schools
- KCBS Radio – Berkeley Parents Rally to Reopen Schools
- ABC 7 – Parents Push for Reopening
- CNBC – More Colleges Plan to Reopen
- EdSource – California Covid Crisis
- AJC – Atlanta Parents Rally for School Reopening
- ABC 7 – Chicago Parents Opt In or Out of Remote Learning
- Time – Parents and Coronavirus in Schools
- Center for Reinventing Public Education – Parent Advocacy Groups and Covid
- LA Times – Parents Surveyed on School Reopening
- US News – Schools Need More Money to Reopen
- US News – No Vaccine, No School?
US Government Agencies Again Fall Victim to State Sponsored Cyber Attacks
Brief #29 – Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
US Government Agencies Again Fall Victim to State Sponsored Cyber Attacks
Policy Summary
On December 13, 2020 news broke that computer networks at several US government agencies including the Departments of Treasury and Commerce had been compromised by a state actor. In the ensuing days, other agencies including the State Department, Los Alamos National Laboratories and the Defense Department revealed that they had been similarly compromised. In each of these events, the attacks were carried out through a corrupted piece of software from an Austin,Texas based company named SolarWinds which provides a network monitoring solution called Orion. This product is widely used in business and government. It also was revealed that the intrusions date back to March 2020 and had gone completely undetected.
It is unclear at this writing the extent of the data loss and exactly what information has been stolen. It is also unlikely that we will ever know the full extent of the damage to our privacy and national security.
Analysis
It is ironic that the Trump Administration will end much in the way it began; with revelations of a state actor slipping through the defenses of US computer networks. As in 2016, the prime suspect is the Russian State security agency, the SVR, and specifically the group known as APT29 or more commonly referred to as Cozy Bear.
It is also ironic that the Trump Administration, which despite the President’s public undermining, did a truly professional job guaranteeing the security of the November election completely failed to detect or repel this threat
Details are only beginning to emerge on how the attack was carried out but we do know that the Solarwinds software was uniquely positioned to exfiltrate data. The software is designed to monitor networks and computer system processes and report them to an external server. Stolen data could easily be directed to different servers and thus undetected since this was the platform that was supposed to detect irregularities.
This exploit is being referred to as a Supply Side Compromis. What this means is that the compromised software was delivered to an organizations as part of regular software updates much like the applications on your computer and your mobile phone.
Despite millions of dollars spent in shoring up our cyber defenses, the US government does not seem to have a coherent strategy for repelling attacks or holding perpetrators to account. This will have to be a high priority of the incoming administration.
Resistance Resources
- SANS Institute – Established in 1989 as a cooperative research and education organization, SANS is a go-to place for security industry professionals for education and analysis of security threats.
- The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA) is part of the Department of Homeland Security charged with repelling attacks and informings the public.
- AISP – The Association of Information Security Professionalsthe is a leading organization for security professionals worldwide.
Information Systems Security Association (ISSA) s a not-for-profit, international organization
Trump Administration Impedes Search for Migrant Children’s Parents ACLU Tells U.S. RESIST NEWS
Immigration Brief # 112
Trump Administration Impedes Search for Migrant Children’s Parents ACLU Tells U.S. RESIST NEWS
By Linda F. Hersey
December 18, 2020
The Trump administration withheld key contact information for locating the deported parents of 666 immigrant children detained in the U.S., according to an attorney with the ACLU, which is representing the separated families in a class action lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Daniel Galindo, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, accuses the Trump administration of “obstructive” activities that impede searches and hinder efforts to reunite families and put them on a path to citizenship.
“What people are rightly asking and wondering is, how were these circumstances inflicted on these families, and why isn’t the federal government doing right by them?” said Galindo, in an interview with U.S. Resist News.
Advocates with the ACLU have located relatives for 168 of the 666 children, though the family member often is not the parent. Galindo said the outreach involves trust-building with the children’s relatives.
“We have the beginning of an answer in many of the cases,” Galindo said. Parents, fearful of arrest by the U.S. or violence in their home country, often are difficult to locate. “We may be able to reach a parent’s brother who explains the family situation and that the parent is in hiding,” he said, which complicates the situation and delays court efforts to reunite the families.
The ACLU and other civil rights groups argue that the Trump administration has engaged in misinformation to justify anti-immigration policies that violate due process and federal law protecting asylum seekers.
The ACLU lawsuit focuses on the experience of a parent fleeing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, who was forcibly separated from her 7-year-old daughter in the U.S. They were detained 2,000 miles apart.
While the mother and child were reunited, the ACLU case, filed in 2018, has advanced as a class action lawsuit for 666 children that U.S. border agents separated from their parents.
Misinformation Campaign Waged to ‘Criminalize Immigrants’
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), which provides legal help to immigrants, argues that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Trump has waged an “image campaign to criminalize immigrants” that the administration “made the centerpiece of its narrative.”
“We must rethink immigration enforcement,” the California-based coalition urges on its website. “The point should not be maximizing suffering and tearing apart immigrant families.”
The coalition also criticized the level of funding increases that Homeland Security received under Trump for tracking, arresting and detaining undocumented individuals. The DHS budget for immigration enforcement has nearly doubled to $30 billion in five years, the coalition reported.
Damages Sought for Forced Separations
The ACLU is seeking damages for the anguish that 666 children identified as plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit suffered by the forced separations. The ACLU also is seeking a legal path to citizenship for the children and their parents.
Most of the families are from South and Central America and were detained as they entered the U.S. from Mexico. The task now, according to the ACLU, is to find the parents separated from their children and deported by U.S. border agents.
Under Trump’s zero tolerance policy, hundreds of children – including some as young as infants and toddlers — were taken from undocumented parents, in 2017 and 2018, and held in detention centers, sometimes for months and often under harsh conditions. Many of those children were not reunited with their parents. They were placed with court-approved sponsors, in cities across the U.S., who were not always a relative or parent.
Galindo said that the Trump administration deliberately withheld information that ICE collected on the parents’ whereabouts, which only now is being discovered during court arguments in the class action lawsuit.
Biden Expected to Provide Path to Legal Status
He described the federal government’s data on the deported adults and their children as “haphazardly collected.”
The government, for example, may have originally provided searchers with the address of a U.S. detention facility where an undocumented parent was held, when it had more up-to-date information on the parent post-release but withheld it.
“The Trump Administration has persistently not provided information that would be useful,” Galindo noted. “The latest example is of the government now coming forward with data from court proceedings that will prove useful but should have been turned over quite some time ago.”
Delays and incomplete information have an impact, making it harder for advocates to connect children with families and slow down asylum proceedings in the U.S.
Galindo said the incoming Biden administration has said publicly it will take a different approach toward immigration but has yet to define it.
“We are advocating that they pursue enduring ways to do right by these families,” Galindo said, “including a pathway to legal status and returning families that want to return.”
Engagement Resources
- ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project works to expand and protect the civil liberties and civil rights of immigrants.
- The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, known as CHIRLA, has a mission to advance the civil and human rights of immigrants and refugees.
- Idealist is a nonprofit based in New York that offers resources and connections to agencies dedicated to helping people live free and dignified lives.
New Defense Authorization Act Calls for the Taking Down of Confederate Monuments at Military Bases
Social Justice
Brief # 1
New Defense Authorization Act Calls for the Taking Down of Confederate Monuments at Military Bases
By Erika Shannon
December 18,2020
POLICY SUMMARY
With 2020 finally coming to a close, many of us are beginning to look ahead to 2021. It is a new year with a new president and new possibilities for our country. Our government is certainly looking ahead, and recently, the House and Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021. The spending bill sets aside $740 billion dollars for the United States military, and there are several new provisions within it. Perhaps the most interesting provision is also one of the reasons why Donald Trump wanted to veto the bill; this provision created a commission to help in removing names, symbols, displays, monuments and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederate States of America on buildings and at military bases. This change must happen within three years, and Trump has certainly been vocal about his disdain for this specific provision. There is speculation on what Trump will do with the bill once it comes time to sign it.
Now that the bill has officially passed both the House and the Senate, it will be landing on Trump’s desk any day now. He feels that the provision about renaming military bases and buildings is one of the deal breakers that this bill contains; however, any efforts to stop the passage of the bill are likely to be unsuccessful. With it passing 335-78 in the House and 84-13 in the Senate, the National Defense Authorization Act is more or less veto-proof at this point. Even if Trump wishes to veto it, it is probable that Congress will override his veto when they vote on it again. Essentially, by not signing the bill, Trump is simply prolonging the inevitable, because someway, somehow, our military does need their budget to be approved. This is something our divided Congress understands, but Trump still has apparently not figured it out. Trump’s time as our president is ticking away, and he is superficially trying to make the most of his remaining days in office. If he wishes to foster change before his anti-climactic exit, there are other ways to do it than to veto a military spending bill.
POLICY ANALYSIS
The National Defense Authorization Act for the year 2021 has been controversial since June; this is mostly due to the fact that military bases and buildings must change their names if they are named after anybody who helped to lead the Confederate States of America. Some, including Trump, are upset because they feel it is erasing a part of American history. The fact of the matter is that that is a dark spot on our history. The United States was divided during the Civil War, partially because the South did not wish to lose the free labor that came with slavery. The states that seceded did so because they did not want their economy ruined by the abolishment of slavery and they did not wish to accept Abraham Lincoln as their president. The Confederate States of America coming to exist is nothing for our country to be proud of, as some seem to think. The monuments, names, and homages to Confederate leaders in the South should be rightfully renamed. American history does honor our heroes – the heroes that fought for every American to be free, regardless of skin color. The Confederacy is a symbol of hate, bigotry, and lack of empathy.
Think of what it must be like to be a black US soldier working at one of the bases named after a confederate general. Many might feel a disconnect between their commitment to defending their country and working or training at a government base named after a person who was committed to defending slavery.
Public opinion on the matter is largely divided. While the general public is primarily against displaying the confederate flag in public places, feelings on renaming military bases and removing monuments is not as clear-cut. According to YouGov polls from earlier this year, only 20% of people strongly favor changing names of bases or buildings, while 30% of people strongly oppose. It is a hard choice for some who are holding on to our country’s historic past, no matter how wrong it was. Those who want them removed see the removal as a way to show that our values as a country are changing in a positive direction. There is no way to dismantle oppression unless change begins somewhere. These military bases and buildings names are not being changed to erase that part of our history. They are being changed so that every American can feel included, and they are being changed so that nobody has to be reminded of a time when slavery was widespread and acceptable. The America we live in now should not be a place that is built upon the backs of others; rather, it should be a place where everybody has a voice and nobody feels alienated.
RESISTANCE RESOURCES
- To see a list of the military bases that are still named after the confederacy, see this article.
- Click here to see in-depth polling data on confederate symbols.
- Human Rights First is an organization that helps to influence policy in the U.S. to be more inclusive and equal for all.
Facebook Taken to Court Over Antitrust Issues
Brief # 28 Technology
Facebook Taken to Court Over Antitrust Issues
By Zack Huffman
December 16, 2020
Summary
Parallel lawsuits from The Federal Trade Commission and multiple state Attorneys General declared Facebook an illegal monopoly and both suits are seeking to break up the social media giant.
The legal action is the result of an antitrust investigation that the FTC opened in 2018, in cooperation with Attorneys General from 46 different states as well as the District of Columbia and Guam.
The lawsuits accuse Facebook of using anti-competitive tactics to shut out or acquire other companies that could possibly pull from Facebook’s market share as a social network. Previous acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, for $1 billion and $19 billion, respectively, allowed Facebook to remain a monopoly, according to the lawsuits.
Both sets of litigation are calling for Facebook to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC lawsuit seeks approval for all future acquisitions, while the multistate lawsuit set a $10 million minimum for all transactions requiring prior approval.
The lawsuits were filed in the D.C. federal court. The FTC’s lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper. The multistate lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Both judges were appointed by President Barack Obama.
Analysis
In order to prevail in court, the FTC will likely have to show that acquiring Instagram and WhatsApp were vital components to achieving Facebook’s monopoly status, which former FTC member William Kovacic told Vox.
Among the government’s evidence is a 2008 email in which Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg wrote, “that it is better to buy than compete.” Other emails cited in the lawsuit indicate that Zuckerberg viewed WhatsApp and Instagram as potential rivals if they were allowed to grow unfettered.
The FTC also claims that Facebook selectively made its proprietary software available to third party companies. Facebook would allow smaller startups to access enough code to develop their applications which interact with Facebook, but as soon as those startups grew large enough to compete, Facebook would pull the plug on access to its network. Success on this claim is less likely to result in a corporate breakup, but it could yield a shift in Facebook’s policies, similar to what has happened through multiple FTC-backed lawsuits against Apple over the last two decades. David Dinieli, a former Department of Justice antitrust attorney told Business Insider that this could be a multi-year court battle.
This is not the first time the government has attempted to use litigation to force the breakup of a giant technology conglomerate. The FTC was previously successful in breaking AT&T in the early 80s after about 8 years of litigation. AT&T was able to remain a long-distance phone service provider, while relinquishing control of the local Bell Systems, which were further split into nine separate regions. The FTC then attempted to break up Microsoft in a 1999 lawsuit over the company’s monopoly on internet browsers. Although the government initially prevailed in court, the District Court of Appeals overturned the ruling.
Facebook VP and General Counsel Jennifer Newstead wrote a lengthy blog post in response to the lawsuits, in which she defended the company and their previous acquisitions. Newstead argued that the FTC’s actions represented an unsettling shift in the government’s treatment of tech companies and that Facebook’s previous actions had increased competitiveness in the marketplace. Newstead also noted that the FTC previously investigated and declined to take action against Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram in 2012, effectively approving the deal.
“Our acquisitions have been good for competition, good for advertisers and good for people. We look forward to our day in court, when we’re confident the evidence will show that Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp belong together, competing on the merits with great products,” wrote Newstead.
Engagement Resources
The FTC’s Questions and Answers page for its lawsuit against Facebook:
https://templatelab.com/ftc-complaint-against-facebook/
References
Heilweil, R. (2020, December 9) Why the US government wants Face book to sell off Instagram and WhatsApp. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/recode/22166437/facebook-instagram-ftc-attorneys-general-antitrust-monopoly-whatsapp.
Canales, K. (2020, December 12) Experts Say the antitrust suits against Facebook may not change anything, but they’re still a ‘big deal’ and signal that the US government will no longer look the other way. Retrieved December 13, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/what-ftc-facebook-antitrust-lawsuit-is-important-2020-12.
Newstead, J. (2020, December 9) Lawsuits Filed by the FTC and the State Attorneys General Are Revisionist History. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://about.fb.com/news/2020/12/lawsuits-filed-by-the-ftc-and-state-attorneys-general-are-revisionist-history/.
Alexei Oreskovic, A. (2012, August 22). FTC clears Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-instagram/ftc-clears-facebooks-acquisition-of-instagram-idUSBRE87L14W20120823.
President Trump’s Assertion That He Can Pardon Himself Likely Wrong
Policy Summary: Under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President of the United States has “the Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This power is vested exclusively in the President and only applies to federal crimes. A president has no authority to pardon persons convicted of crimes under state laws. That would be the responsibility of the state governor where the state crime was committed.
On August 5, 1974, Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lawton of the Office of Legal Counsel issued a memorandum opinion titled Presidential or Legislative Pardon of the President. The purpose of the memo was to clarify legal questions with regard to a possible pardon for then President Richard Nixon. President Nixon was facing calls for his impeachment in connection with the Watergate burglary. (President Nixon would resign five days later). Her memo took the position that the President would likely be unable to issue a pardon for himself. And as for a possible legislative pardon, she took the position that Congress could not enact a legislative pardon as this would probably be in conflict with the President’s exclusive pardon power under the Constitution.
During the Trump Presidency author Jack Goldsmith has calculated that the President, as of November 10, 2020, has issued forty-one pardons or commutations of sentences. 88% of these pardons and commutations have a personal or political connection to the President. On June 4, 2018 on his Twitter account President Trump claimed that he had the absolute right to pardon himself. With the end of the Trump Presidency in sight, President Trump has granted a full pardon to General Michael T. Flynn with more expected in the coming weeks, including a likely contentious pardon to all of his adult children for their work and activities during the Trump Presidency. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The Constitution is clear that the power of the pardon resides with the President of the United States. There are no conditions or limitations attached to the power such as having to confer with Congress first or having his pardons be approved by the Supreme Court. The current process to request a presidential pardon through the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice requires submitting the request through this office for evaluation. A recommendation is drawn up and sent to the President but as a practical matter the President’s decision to issue a pardon is up to him. He does not have to follow the recommendation of the Office of the Pardon Attorney and can issue a pardon to whomever he chooses even if the request did not originate in the Office of the Pardon Attorney.
This brings up the thorny question as to whether the President can issue a pardon to himself. The memorandum opinion authored by Ms. Lawton more than forty years ago starts off with a fundamental principle of American law. That no one in America, even the President, should be a judge in his own case. This is a key principle because it supports the notion that everyone should be able to have a fair and neutral person, such as a judge, examine the facts of their accusations and be able to come to a reasoned conclusion as to the innocence or guilt of that person. President Trump’s assertion that he can issue a pardon for himself completely upends this principle and his assertion should be categorically rejected. It defies not just the legal rationale of having neutral judges decide disputes but also common sense. If President Trump can issue a pardon to himself that would mean that there would be no mechanism to hold the President accountable for acts he undertakes. Acts that would not be for the benefit of the United States could be authorized and then after the fact wiped clean from the President’s record so that he would not be responsible for it in any way. As an analogy, ordinary citizens accused of crimes do not have the power to decide for themselves to absolve themselves of crimes that they commit. They must answer to a neutral judge in open court. Just because a person has risen to the Office of the President does not mean that the laws should no longer apply to him.
If President Trump is to be held accountable for possible crimes he may have committed than the President should answer before a neutral judge just like all other ordinary Americans do. The power to grant a pardon to himself should not be a power that a President should be able to exercise no matter the circumstances. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
DOJ Office of the Pardon Attorney – website of the office handling pardon requests.
Pew Research Center – research institute providing comparison of statistics on presidential pardons.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.