JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
TikTok CEO Is Trump’s Latest Billionaire Buddy
TikTok CEO Is Trump’s Latest Billionaire Buddy Technology Policy Brief #125 | By: Mindy Spatt | January 24, 2025 __________________________________ Summary Predictably, a law banning TikTok was in effect for only a few hours on January 19. The Biden administration’s...
Understanding Trump’s Expansionist Threats
Understanding Trump’s Expansionist Threats Foreign Policy Brief #174 | By: Ibrahim Castro | January 20, 2025 __________________________________ Since his election victory, Donald Trump has made international headlines with a series of comments suggesting possible...
Why is LA on Fire?
Why is LA on Fire? Environment Policy #178 | By: Arvind Salem | Submitted: January 13, 2025 Photo Credit: LAFD Photo | Cody Weireter __________________________________ Policy Summary The latest round of fires, something that has been plaguing Los Angeles, is a scary...
Ski Patrollers Go On Strike
Park City, Utah, is one of the most premier ski areas in the United States. It boasts a tremendous 350 trails with over 40 lifts to move skiers uphill and access the terrain. Park City Mountain Resort is one of over 40 ski resorts owned by Vail Resorts around the world. Other famous resorts owned by Vail Resorts are: Whistler Blackcomb in British Columbia, Canada; Crested Butte in Colorado; Crans-Montana in Switzerland (home to a FIS World Cup alpine ski race); and three ski resorts in Australia (and many others throughout the United States). Vail Resorts, in 2024, did $2.8 billion in net revenue and over $230 million in net income, according to Vail Resorts website.
The Fallacy of School Choice
Though touted as a way to empower families, school choice policies often widen the gap between wealthy and disadvantaged communities, leaving public schools underfunded and many children underserved. Instead of fixing the education system, these measures risk creating a fragmented system where only a privileged few benefit, while the majority are left behind.
Don’t Expect Trump 2.0 to be Climate Friendly
Don’t Expect Trump 2.0 to be Climate Friendly Environment Policy #177 | By: Todd J. Broadman | January 10, 2025 Photo by Documerica on Unsplash __________________________________ POLICY SUMMARY President-elect Trump is set to take office on January 6, 2025 and has...
Developments in Syria: A Window of Opportunity
Developments in Syria: A Window of Opportunity Foreign Policy Brief #173 | By: Damian DeSola | January 10, 2025 Photo by Ivan Hassib __________________________________ The Assad regime has fallen. After over fifty years of a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, the...
Week That Was: Global News in Review
Week That Was: Global News in Review Foreign Policy Brief #172 | By: Ibrahim Castro Photo by visuals on Unsplash __________________________________ Justin Trudeau resigns as Canadian Prime Minister Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that he’ll step...
Do All Acts of Political Violence Need a Side?
Do All Acts of Political Violence Need a Side? Social Justice Policy Brief #170 | By: Morgan Davidson | January 07, 2025 Photo by Colin Lloyd __________________________________ Summary The start of 2025 has been marked by significant acts of political violence,...
The Ethics Report on Matt Gaetz
The Ethics Report on Matt Gaetz
Elections & Politics #142 | By: Arvind Salem | December 27, 2024
Collage by Breann Bracewell for U.S. Resist News
__________________________________
Policy Summary
Just before Xmas the House Ethics Committee released a bombshell report on the conduct of former Representative Matt Gaetz. The report not only alleges numerous ethical violations, but state law violations as well. The release of the report was controversial as Gaetz had already left Congress, following the announcement of his selection as Trump’s Attorney General nominee (although he later withdrew his name from consideration). The committee also previously voted to keep its findings secrets, but later reversed course. The Committee is split between 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, but 2 Republicans voted for the report’s release.
The report alleges four main categories of ethical impropriety: commercial sex, illegal drug use, excessive gifts, and obstruction of Congress. For commercial sex, the report alleges that Gaetz paid over $90,000 to 12 different women in connection to sex or drug use. One of those women was allegedly a minor at the time of the encounter. Gaetz explicitly denied this in a written response to the committee. For illegal drug use, per the testimony of women involved with Gaetz, he allegedly used ecstasy and cocaine, while outside evidence pointed to potential use of cannabis: all three of which are banned for recreational state use by Florida law. Regarding excessive gifts, Gaetz allegedly accepted gifts past the $250 limit by accepting a private plane trip and hotel accommodations for a trip to the Bahamas. Gaetz denied this accusation but failed to produce any proof to the committee that he paid for these himself. Gaetzs’ behavioral pattern included providing scant documentation to the committee, not voluntarily interviewing with the committee, and also not responding to a subpoena he faced for testimony. The report concluded that these actions represented obstruction of Congress.
Policy Analysis
Matt Gaetz political future after his Congressional tenure is largely uncertain. In Republican circles, Gaetz has been thrown out as a name that could run for Florida governor in 2026 and Gaetz himself seems to be considering running for Senator Rubio’s likely vacant seat (as he becomes Secretary of State). The presence of the report definitely harms his candidacy on both fronts.
For his part, Gaetz criticized the report as a sham witch hunt and is using it as evidence of left-wing targeting to fuel donations. Gaetz especially criticized the release of his report after he left the House, the fact that he was not able to confront his accusers or witnesses, and he was given no opportunity to debate or rebut the contents of the report (although as the committee argued in their report, Gaetz was given ample opportunity to contribute but was less than eager). Gaetz is also attempting to maintain conservative credibility by avowing his previous self and promising that he’s changed away from his womanizing, drinking, and smoking past. He appears to still have the support of President Trump, who is still the kingmaker in the Republican party, meaning that Gaetz political future, especially in Republican politics, is still very much alive.
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center : The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy and argues against many practices today such as gerrymandering and mass incarceration. Readers who are concerned about the health and protection of our democracy in light of this may wish to support the Brennan Center and help it advance its proposed reforms.
- ActBlue : ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are against Matt Gaetz on this site and may wish to donate money to further that cause.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The 2024 U.S. Election and Its Impact on Domestic and Foreign Policy
The 2024 U.S. Election and Its Impact on Domestic and Foreign Policy
Elections & Politics #141 | By: Inijah Quadri | December 23, 2024
Photo by The Now Time on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Issue Summary
The 2024 U.S. presidential election has concluded with former President Donald Trump securing a non-consecutive second term, defeating incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris. This outcome signifies a substantial shift in both domestic and foreign policy directions for the United States.
Domestically, the Trump administration has outlined plans to implement sweeping changes, including mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, significant tax cuts, and the establishment of “freedom cities.” These initiatives aim to reshape the socio-economic landscape, emphasizing conservative values and economic deregulation.
On the international front, the administration intends to adopt an “America First” stance, reassessing trade agreements, imposing universal tariffs—particularly targeting Chinese imports—and reevaluating the United States’ involvement in international alliances such as NATO. These policies are poised to redefine America’s role on the global stage, with potential implications for international trade and geopolitical stability.
Analysis
The administration’s proposed mass deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants represents one of the most aggressive immigration policies in recent history. This initiative is expected to have profound effects on communities, labor markets, and the economy. Critics argue that such measures could lead to labor shortages in key industries and humanitarian concerns, while supporters believe it will uphold the rule of law and national security.
In economic policy, the planned tax cuts and deregulation are designed to stimulate economic growth and enhance competitiveness. However, these measures may also result in decreased federal revenue and increased income inequality. The proposal to establish “freedom cities” reflects an ambition to create hubs of innovation and economic activity, though details on implementation and funding remain sparse.
Additionally, the administration’s focus on cultural issues, such as the elimination of wokeness in universities, indicates a commitment to countering progressive ideologies in education and promoting conservative values. This move is likely to intensify debates over academic freedom and ideological diversity in higher education.
Internationally, the administration’s intent to impose universal tariffs, especially on Chinese imports, signals a shift towards protectionist trade policies. While aimed at protecting domestic industries, such measures could provoke trade wars, leading to increased consumer prices and strained international relations.
The reevaluation of the United States’ role in NATO and the proposed push for a settlement in Ukraine favorable to Russia suggest a significant realignment of foreign policy priorities. These actions may undermine traditional alliances and alter the balance of power in regions like Eastern Europe, raising concerns among allies about America’s commitment to collective security.
Furthermore, the administration’s approach to international conflicts and defense strategies, including the potential use of military force to manage domestic protests, reflects a more assertive and unilateral stance. This posture may lead to increased domestic and global tensions, and challenges to international norms.
To ensure stability and equity in the administration’s approach, a balanced strategy is recommended across key areas. On immigration, pairing enhanced border security with pathways to legal status for contributing residents could preserve labor markets and uphold humanitarian values. Economic reforms should prioritize inclusive growth through tax credits for low-income groups, while international policies could emphasize multilateral diplomacy and cooperation to maintain alliances and global credibility. A transparent and consultative approach to implementing domestic and foreign strategies will also ensure broad-based support and long-term success.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
- Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org): Provides expert insights and analysis on how U.S. elections influence global diplomacy and international policies.
- Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu): Offers in-depth research on the implications of U.S. domestic and foreign policies post-election.
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org): Engages in strategic discussions and provides analyses of U.S. military commitments and geopolitical strategies following the election.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The End of Birthright Citizenship? A Question of Legal Rights and National Identity
The End of Birthright Citizenship? A Question of Legal Rights and National Identity
Immigration #138 | By: Morgan Davidson | December 19, 2024
US RESIST NEWS has asked Morgan Davidson, one of our outstanding Reporters, to chronicle and analyze Trump administration efforts to deport 11,000 Immigrants.
Photo by Courtney Hedger on Unsplash
__________________________________
Summary
Birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of America’s identity as a nation of immigrants, has come under scrutiny with President Trump signaling his intention to end it following electoral victories and Republican control of Congress.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, declares:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This provision unequivocally grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. It ensures citizenship is not tied to lineage, race, or political allegiance—principles central to America’s democratic values.
This article explores the history and importance of the Fourteenth Amendment, the practicalities of its birthright citizenship provision, the motivations behind Trump’s push to amend it, and the legal and political hurdles such a move would entail. While the Trump administration may hesitate to pursue a constitutional amendment, given the high thresholds and obstacles involved, reversing this constitutional right would have profound and long-lasting impacts on the social and legal fabric of the United States.
Analysis
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 to address the injustices of slavery, ensuring that children born to formerly enslaved individuals would be recognized as full citizens. This amendment sought to dismantle the racial and social hierarchies of the time by guaranteeing that citizenship could not be denied based on race or ancestry. This was especially vital in the Reconstruction-era South, where laws were designed to strip Black Americans of their rights.
Birthright citizenship remains vital today, ensuring that all individuals born on U.S. soil have access to rights such as education, healthcare, and civic participation. It prevents the creation of a stateless underclass, where children of non-citizen parents could be left without legal identity, vulnerable to exploitation. The policy also strengthens diplomatic relations. Foreign diplomats, military personnel, and international workers posted in the U.S. benefit from birthright citizenship as it allows their children to have American citizenship, fostering positive ties between countries. Many other nations, including Canada, the UK, France, and Brazil, also grant citizenship to children born on their soil, reflecting the global recognition of birthright citizenship’s importance.
If birthright citizenship were revoked, defining citizenship would require alternate criteria such as lineage, residency, or legal status of parents. Such systems risk creating legal ambiguities and would likely exclude significant groups, deepening inequalities and undermining principles of inclusivity central to American identity. Historical precedents, like apartheid South Africa or Germany under the Nuremberg Laws, demonstrate the dangers of restrictive citizenship policies.
Motivations Behind Trump’s Push
The push to amend or eliminate birthright citizenship is rooted in a mix of political, ideological, and cultural motivations. At its core, it reflects a growing hostility toward immigrants, driven by fears about national security and economic stability. This sentiment aligns with nationalist ideologies that prioritize a narrowly defined concept of American identity, often excluding those who do not fit a particular racial, ethnic, or cultural mold.
For Trump and his allies, challenging birthright citizenship is a way to redefine what it means to be American—shifting the narrative from inclusivity to one that is more exclusive, based on heritage and ethnicity. This approach resonates with certain segments of the electorate who feel threatened by demographic changes and the loss of traditional power structures.
Revoking or limiting birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of individuals born in the U.S. but denied citizenship. This would institutionalize inequality, forcing millions into legal limbo. History shows that stripping marginalized groups of citizenship often leads to systemic oppression. For example, in Nazi Germany, the Nuremberg Laws revoked citizenship from Jews, paving the way for persecution. Similarly, apartheid-era South Africa denied full citizenship rights to Black South Africans.
Legal and Political Hurdles
The attempt to revoke birthright citizenship would face significant constitutional, legislative, and political hurdles. To alter the Fourteenth Amendment, a constitutional amendment would likely be necessary. Proponents argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants, but this conflicts with the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents.
Any law restricting birthright citizenship would likely violate the Fourteenth Amendment and face immediate legal challenges. These challenges would likely lead to a lengthy court battle, possibly requiring Supreme Court intervention. Changing citizenship laws through legislation would also face significant political opposition, making it difficult to pass such laws in a deeply divided Congress.
While some have proposed executive orders to end birthright citizenship, legal experts widely agree that this would exceed presidential authority. Any such action would almost certainly be blocked by the courts, as it would conflict with the constitutional provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Path Forward
Rather than dismantling birthright citizenship, the U.S. should focus on addressing the root causes of immigration challenges. This can be achieved through comprehensive immigration reform that balances national security with compassion, ensuring fair and efficient processes for asylum seekers and immigrants. Establishing programs that provide clear and accessible pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. can create a more inclusive system, allowing individuals to contribute fully to society. Additionally, the U.S. should support social and economic policies aimed at reducing migration pressures in countries of origin, such as investments in education, healthcare, and economic development. By addressing these underlying factors, the U.S. can reduce the need for restrictive measures like ending birthright citizenship, fostering a more humane and sustainable immigration system that benefits both immigrants and the nation as a whole.
Engagement Resources
- ACLU: Advocacy for immigrant rights and challenges to unconstitutional policies.
https://www.aclu.org - American Immigration Council: Research on the benefits of birthright citizenship and the role of immigrants in the U.S. economy.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org - Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR): Legal analysis of birthright citizenship and challenges to its revocation.
https://ccrjustice.org
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Transgender Students Need Protection from Trump’s Assault on Title IX
Transgender Students Need Protection from Trump’s Assault on Title IX
Education Policy Brief #196 | By: Evan Wechman | December 21, 2024
Photo by Katie Rainbow 🏳️🌈
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
With President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration just weeks away, many Democrats are anxious about how Trump will treat transgender students. Back in April, President Biden enacted a new provision to the 1972 Title IX Law, strengthening protections for LGBTQ students and expanding rights for students who may identify with a different gender than the one assigned at birth.
These regulations infuriated the Republican Party, especially devout followers of Trump. The President-elect has vowed repeatedly to roll back any protections for transgender students. In a radio interview in early May he said “We’re gonna end it on Day 1.” He added “It will be terminated.”
Title IX was enacted in 1972 and is a federal civil rights law that states ““No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
President Biden has since expanded those protections for not only sex, but gender identity as well. Many Republicans however have said Congress didn’t intend for such protections when Title IX was initially passed.
Even near the end of the campaign, Trump ramped up his attacks on transgender issues. Both Trump and his allies who were running for election openly criticized Vice President Kamala Harris for her statements supporting transgender rights.
At the recent rally at Madison Square Garden shortly before election day, Trump said “We will get … transgender insanity the hell out of our schools, and we will keep men out of women’s sports.”
Policy Analysis:
The issue of transgender athletes is largely on hold right now and may not be decided by the courts for some time. However, the Trump team’s views on pulling back protections for transgender students seems to have hit a chord with his voters and many average Americans.
This is very disconcerting considering Title IX was an attempt at equality for all students. Unfortunately, if Trump has his way, transgender students will be at a severe disadvantage and remain vulnerable to verbal and physical assaults.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Biden administration’s efforts to create a more inclusive education system. The rhetoric by Trump and his followers have put many transgender students at further risk for harm.
Transgender youth since the election have found themselves calling suicide and crisis hotlines out of fear of how their lives will be affected now that Trump will be taking power.
Many such students fear at the very least Trump will exclude them from their choice on their use of pronouns, bathrooms, and locker rooms. All of this seems silly and more of a wedge issue than anything else, since there is little evidence that education is significantly hampered by such student choices.
However, at the most dangerous, America can see an uptick in violence against transgender students and an increase in suicide rates among this population.
For example, the number of crises calls pleading for help is disturbing. For the week after election day, the Rainbow Youth Project, an organization that assists LGBTQ+ students received almost double the number of calls to its crisis hotline that it receives in a typical month.
One can only imagine the number of calls such hotlines will receive if such protections are eliminated. The aim of Title IX was to create a system of equality and inclusivity for all students and not just the ones Trump seems to favor. There is absolutely no reason to put young lives in jeopardy because they may see their gender differently that how President Trump sees things.
This country has enough on its plate without being divided further while putting students’ lives at risk.
Engagement Resources
- National Sexual Violence Resource Center: Provides research & tools to advocates working on the frontlines to end sexual harassment, assault, and abuse with the understanding that ending sexual violence also means ending racism, sexism, and all forms of oppression.
- U.S. Department of Education: Promotes student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access for students of all ages.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The Disastrous Impact of Disinformation on the Election
The Disastrous Impact of Disinformation on the Election
Technology Policy Brief #122 | By: Mindy Spatt | December 21, 2024
Photo by Element5 Digital
__________________________________
SUMMARY
Just how big was the impact of disinformation on the election of Donald Trump?
Leading up to the election, commentators and experts issued numerous warnings about disinformation, and how easily it could be spread through social media. Post-election analysis shows those concerns were well founded; not only did disinformation impact voters, it substantially swayed the results.
ANALYSIS
Disinformation isn’t a new concern, but concerns about it were amplified in the months before the presidential election. Between artificial intelligence, social media platforms eliminating guardrails, and a Trump-fueled atmosphere where lies are normal and often unchallenged, the extent to which disinformation had a decisive impact on the election is unprecedented.
In October, a joint report by the FBI and CISI (the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) warned that “Generative AI-enabled tools have lowered the barrier for foreign malicious actors to conduct more sophisticated influence campaigns” including “inauthentic news articles, … synthetic pictures and deepfakes” being disseminated “at greater speed and scale across numerous US- and foreign-based platforms.”
Trump is, of course, no stranger to disinformation; during some rallies, his entire speeches were a string of outlandish lies. Spreading those was a cornerstone of his campaign strategy, aided by Elon Musk’s X, and Musk himself, often seen gloating and giggling at Trump’s side.
Immigration is a perfect example. Trump repeatedly described hordes of undesirable migrants besieging the United States, sucking up public benefits and good jobs and roaming the streets brazenly committing violent crimes.
The actual statistics on border security don’t support these claims, especially the most alarming ones about violent criminals, but that didn’t stop Trump from sticking Harris with responsibility for the pretend problem. Her reasoned response that Trump had killed immigration reform in Congress didn’t stop him. Nor did the fact that apprehension and release numbers were similar during the Biden and Trump administrations.
And there was the famous fabrication that Haitian immigrants were eating dogs and cats, a bizarre story that was debunked on national TV immediately after Trump said it. Still, it went viral, and its repercussions kept it in front and center in the media for weeks.
Another deceptive video featured a Haitian man who claimed he had voted in two counties in Georgia. That video was traced to Russia, and the featured man wasn’t actually Haitian. Trumps’ most successful ad played on fears of immigrants and fears of transgender people, claiming Vice President Harris was giving gender reassignment surgeries to violent “illegal” immigrants in prisons.
Trump was also able to exploit a false narrative on the country’s economic state as well; polling on views about the country’s financial situation in 2024 found that despite a robust economy by most indicators people reported extremely negative views of it. The research company Ipsos reported that Harris polled higher among people who understood that inflation had declined over the past year; Trump did better among the people who believed the opposite. .
Ipsos also found that media source “affects people’s understandings of what’s true or not. Notably, Americans who primarily get their news from Fox News and conservative media and social media/other are more likely to answer questions about inflation and crime incorrectly than Americans writ large. “
It is easy to say why commentators including Darrell West of the Brookings Institute concluded that “false claims affected how people saw the candidates, their views about issues such as the economy, immigration, and crime.” Now we all have to live with the disastrous results.
Engagement Resources
- How Disinformation Defined the 2024 Election Narrative, Darrell West, Nov. 7, 2004,
- Misinformation Decided the US Election, J. Bradford Delong, Nov 11, 2024,
- Disinformation From Adversaries and Americans Swamped 2024 Election, Rebecca Beitsch Nov. 8, 2024,
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
A New Era of Corruption: Financial Conflicts of Interests for President-Elect Donald Trump and his Incoming Administration
A New Era of Corruption: Financial Conflicts of Interests for President-Elect Donald Trump and his Incoming Administration
Elections & Politics #140 | By: Nicholas Gordon | December 12, 2024
Photo by Carlos Herrero
__________________________________
Summary
For a President-elect who ran a campaign on claims to support the working-class and with renewed vows to ‘drain the swamp’ of D.C. government elites, Donald Trump has appointed a problematic number of billionaires with corporate conflicts of interest to his incoming cabinet. This is not new territory for Trump: the cabinet from his first presidency was the richest cabinet in U.S. history and had an onslaught of ethics violations, including the misuse of taxpayer funds, inaccurate financial reporting, and quid pro quo political favors, with numerous cabinet officials embroiled in ethics scandals during Trump’s four years in office. By appointing a cadre of crony billionaires to prominent government positions, Trump is now making a mockery of his pledge to support blue-collar Americans. Here’s a brief breakdown of some of Trump’s uber-wealthy cabinet picks and their conflicts of interest.
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a diehard Trump enabler whom Trump recently appointed to his newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) which aims to “cut government spending”, currently receives billion-dollar government contracts and subsidies for his satellite- and vehicle businesses. Musk’s new government position may give him unlimited power to shape regulations, contracts, and budgets in favor of his personal business interests, and to the detriment of his competitors. As Musk’s relations with Trump evolve and his role within the administration takes shape, this column will analyze the effects of his conflicts of interest.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire businessman and former presidential candidate, was appointed by Trump to co-chair DOGE. As the founder of a pharmaceutical company and an investment firm, Ramaswamy could have conflicts of interest in his DOGE role to reduce federal regulations. As outside advisors not subject to senate confirmation hearings, Musk and Ramaswamy will not be required to abide by conflict of interest laws, nor to disclose their financial interests.
David Sacks, a billionaire venture capitalist and Silicon Valley insider who invested in his pal Musk’s space technology company SpaceX, will serve as the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar,” another new position created by Trump that will not require Senate confirmation. Sacks has significant investments and connections in both the AI and Crypto worlds.
Linda McMahon, billionaire co-founder of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) along with her husband Vince McMahon, is Trump’s nomination for Education Secretary. A huge donor to the Trump campaign, Linda McMahon has ties to a far-right think tank that promotes cutting federal education funding, and expanding school privatization, which could lead to more for-profit schools and less equal opportunity for children. A lawsuit filed on behalf of five men against Linda McMahon alleging that McMahon and her husband ignored acts of child sexual abuse during their tenure heading the WWE was recently paused by a federal judge in Marlyand while the court deliberates state law for such cases.
Howard Lutnick, Trump’s billionaire choice for Commerce Secretary, is a pro-cryptocurrency investment banker with reported financial ties to China. Lutnick’s significant gains from China appear to be in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits federal officeholders from receiving payments of any kind from a foreign state or its representatives.
Additional ultra-rich Trump picks and nominees with potential conflicts of interest include: Kash Patel, for FBI Director, who runs a supposed ‘non-profit’ with links to MAGA-branded merchandising; Doug Burgum, proposed Secretary of the Department of the Interior, who has close connections with magnates from the oil and gas industries; Scott Bessent, for Treasury Secretary, who has made enormous profits as a Wall Street hedge fund capitalist; Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, for Surgeon General, hawks her own line of vitamins, including selling them on the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social; and Paul Atkins, the CEO of a financial services consultancy who Trump nominated for head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is an advocate for the crypto industry, favoring de-regulation.
As the chief shareholder of Trump Media and Technology Company (DJT), Trump himself stands to gain enormous financial profit from his presidency, as he leverages the value of the shares in his company to acquire businesses and invest in crypto-currency markets, members of which have also been major donors and supporters of Trump. And just as Trump violated the Emoluments Clause in his first presidency by capitalizing on foreign government officials staying at his hotels and clubs and using his golf clubs, he will continue to do so in his second presidency, refusing to divest and using his Executive Office to rake in millions of dollars for his family business.
The President-elect and his federal officeholders have a responsibility to serve the best interests of the American people while avoiding conflicts of interest and ethics violations, and exercising transparency in their government work and business dealings. But as Trump made clear in his first presidential term, he will not hold himself or his wealthy allies accountable. Moreover, as the conservative-led Supreme Court has granted Trump presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, we could be heading into an era of unprecedented U.S. government corruption. US RESIST NEWS will be keeping a close watch on how the conflicts of interest of the President-elect and his government officials play out.
Engagement Resources:
- Campaign Legal Center: Advancing Democracy Through Law: Works to defend democracy and the rule of law, protect the Constitution, and fight for Americans’ rights.
- Public Citizen: Champions citizens’ interest, defends democracy, resists corporate power, and “fights to ensure that the government works for the people.”
- Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington: CREW: Provides in-depth legal analysis and investigations of government officials who “sacrifice the common good to special interests and personal gain.”
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The Sidelined War: Myanmar’s Fight for Freedom
The Sidelined War: Myanmar’s Fight for Freedom
Foreign Policy Brief #171 | By: Damian DeSola | December 8, 2024
Photo by Pyae Sone Htun on Unsplash
__________________________________
On February 1, 2021, Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, forcefully overthrew the democratically elected government in a coup d’etat. Since that day, the entire country has been consumed by a multiparty civil war. Various ethnic groups, armies, militant groups, and insurgents have aligned either with the military junta or with the democratic government in-exile.
The goals of the military were to regain power over the country to advance their economic and ethnonational goals, while escaping civilian accountability and oversight. Since taking power, and fighting an unexpectedly difficult civil war, the junta has engaged in a campaign of internal repression. By suppressing information about the civil war and brutally repressing dissidents, Tatmadaw has attempted to retain power through extreme autocratic practices. Tactics of torture, counterterrorism, censorship, mass arrests, and scorched earth, have made the junta a target of Western sanctions and a lack of recognized legitimacy by the West. Tatmadaw has become increasingly reliant on Russia and China for economic, military, and political support.
The main military wing of the exiled government, the National Unity Government of Myanmar (NUG), is the People’s Defense Force (PDF). Formed in reaction to the coup, they have aligned with various ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) for the purpose of military support, training, and shelter from the junta. This has resulted in a complex network of alliances throughout the country, many of which have chosen to join the PDF’s fight against Tatmadaw.
The bulk of exiled government-aligned groups have set aside their differences, mainly ethnicity, for the common goal of dismantling the junta and installing a democratic national government, though the aftermath of the deposition and replacement is still up in question. A major group that aids the NUG’s mission is the Three Brotherhood Alliance. Their motivation is to achieve liberation from the junta and establish greatly autonomous ethnic regions.
For the moment, the idealistic vision of a multiethnic federal democracy that provides universal civil rights has taken the hold of the immediate imaginations of the opposition’s leadership and soldiery. However, if the rebels achieve victory, the continued existence of Myanmar as a nation will be up for debate due to the tenuous relationship between the insurgent groups.
Analysis
The PDF and its EAO allies have proven extraordinarily capable of thwarting and repelling Tatmadaw’s forces. While Tatmadaw still retains control over major urban centers and has the luxury of international support from Russia and China, the PDF and the Three Brotherhood Alliance have achieved sweeping victories. The youthful and idealistic ranks of both the PDF and EAOs have been able to grind down and push back the corrupt and unorganized Tatmadaw. At this point, it has become increasingly clear that the Tatmadaw is nearing collapse. The concern now is that the victorious rebel groups will be unable to agree to any form of centralized democratic governance, and that territorial disputes based on ethnicity will spark further conflict after the main rival of the junta is dismantled.
Under the Trump administration, will the United States’ approach to Myanmar change? Unlikely, a Trump presidency will in all probability be satisfied with the current situation in Myanmar. There is little to no strain on the U.S. economy in the aid that is already being provided; the incoming administration will be much too focused on resolving conflict in Ukraine, Israel, and China to spend the necessary time and material to change course on policy in Myanmar. If time is taken by the administration, Myanmar will likely be treated as a skirmish in the battle with China that must resolve itself over time. Furthermore, without the go-ahead from the United States, Europe will continue its focus on Africa and Ukraine before turning to further support a free Myanmar.
The only realistic solution for international support of a democratic Myanmar would be local powers. South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, and any others who may seek to reduce Chinese influence in the region could be persuaded to provide economic, political, and military aid to the democratic rebels. However, with the recent political troubles South Korea is facing, and the ever-building threat of direct military confrontation with China, Myanmar is taking a backseat in the overall conflict analysis of the Southeast Asian theater.
From a grand strategical perspective, it seems Myanmar is on its own for the moment. The Tatmadaw’s dissolution becomes more of reality every day, and the chance for increased ethnic conflict grows with that reality. Without Western support, Myanmar seems all the more likely to fall further into chaos. All we as democratic citizens can do now is educate ourselves on the matter and work for the day when the political will to support all those in need for liberty arrives.
Engagement Resources
- The official website of the National Unity Government of Myanmar
- An interactive map of the war from the International Institute for Strategic Studies
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
The Dangerous Future of the Department of Education
The Dangerous Future of the Department of Education
Education Policy Brief #95 | By: Evan Wechman | December 08, 2024
Photo by Pixabay
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
With President-elect Donald Trump preparing to make radical changes from United States policies under President Biden, there is concern over what will happen to the Department of Education. Trump has not been shy about his dislike of this department which was created by an act of Congress in 1979 under the Carter administration.
“One other thing I’ll be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education in Washington D.C. and sending all education and education work and needs back to the states,” Trump said in a video posted to social media back in October of 2023. “”We want them to run the education of our children because they’ll do a much better job of it.”
This opposition is nothing new for the GOP. Trump continually lambasted the role of the department during his 2016 campaign. Also, the party’s distrust of the Department of Education can be traced back to Ronald Reagan during his first campaign. However, Reagan quickly backed down when he saw he didn’t have the votes in Congress to make any sweeping changes.
First off, abolishing the department would likely require House action as well as a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate. Though many democratic Think Tanks believe the country is safe from such action, the fact that Republicans have a majority in both houses has alarmed many progressive advocates.
The role of the Department of Education and that of the states is often misunderstood. Education is primarily a state role but the Department of Education attempts to fill in any holes that arise when there are clear national needs. Such demands include the protection of civil rights and equality for all students.
Policy Analysis:
Congressional Democrats and their constituents have good reason to fear Trump’s dislike towards the department. For one thing, many in his party have said since he won the electoral vote by a wider margin than many predicted, he has a mandate from the American people to govern how he wishes.
Whether this is true is open for debate, but Trump’s distrust of progressive ideology such as protecting civil rights for the most vulnerable is a serious subject.
For instance, if Trump gets his way and the Department of Education is either abolished or greatly reduced, it would be open season on students who need protection the most. It would leave children who identify as LGBTQ or Transgender in harm’s way.
Trump has said early on in his campaign he would roll back Biden’s Title IX protections which have allowed transgender students to use bathrooms, locker rooms, and pronouns that align with their gender. In addition, he has repeatedly said he would sign an executive order eliminating federal funds for schools teaching critical race theory, speaking openly about the transgender issue, or educating students about any other race or civil rights theories which he disagrees with.
Trump seems intent on following through with his assault on civil rights. One only must look at his recent selection of Linda McMahon to head the Department of Education.
McMahon served one year on the Connecticut Board of Education and was appointed by Trump during his first term to oversee the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Though such experience is credible, she will likely serve as a rubber stamp for Trump. She has been a tireless supporter of his policies while donating millions of dollars to his campaigns. In addition, she served on the America First Policy Institute which advocates against teaching critical race theory.
It is not too far from a leap to think she would advocate for the elimination or severe underfunding of the Department of Education.
The selection of McMahon is like his other picks and shows he is not looking for any dissent in the areas he wants to radically change.
Engagement Resources
- National Education Association | NEA: Advocates for justice and excellence in public education.
- Education Week – K-12 education news and information: Provides trusted resources for K-12 education news and information.
- Home | U.S. Department of Education: Promotes student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access for students of all ages.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
What Will Trump Administration Policy Towards Ukraine Look Like?
What Will Trump Administration Policy Towards Ukraine Look Like?
Foreign Policy Brief #170 | By: Yelena Korshunov | December 6, 2024
Photo by Markus Spiske
__________________________________
The US presidential election results have been met with mixed feelings in Ukraine. Trump’s threats to cut military support and force Ukraine to give up captured territory to Russia has caused frustration and anxiety. However, many Ukrainians hope that the new U.S. president-elect will be able to stop the war at the negotiation table. They believe that Trump’s ongoing demonstrative amiability with Putin is just a part of a complicated political game.
While the war notably weakened Russia’s economy and took the lives of many Russian soldiers, Ukrainians have suffered from it much more severely, losing their lives, friends and relatives, homes, and everything they used to own. Despite incredible endeavors of the Ukrainian army and continuous weapon supplies, Russian troops move forward invading more land, taking and destroying the lives of Ukrainian people, humiliating and shooting surrendered soldiers, looting and robbing. About a fifth of Ukrainian territory has fallen under the occupation of Putin’s forces.
WHAT ABOUT THE UKRAINAIN CAPTURE OF RUSSIAN TERRITORY? THE NEW UKRAINIAN USE OF US LONG RANGE MISSILES?
On August 6th Ukraine burst through Russia’s border launching attack on the Kursk Region. Russia initially didn’t respond to the attack, but later attempted to expel the Ukrainian forces, by reportedly sending North Korean troops. Since August, a part of the Kursk region is staying under Ukraine’s control. Most likely, Zelensky will use this territory for a possible negotiation promised by Trump.
During his election campaign, Trump repeatedly pledged to end the war within 24 hours of his inauguration . However he has yet to prpose a plan of how he is going to achieve this goal. Trump vaguely has said that he will stop giving Ukraine weapons if they won’t go for the proposed conditions but will generously arm them if Putin refuses to negotiate the ceasefire. According to Reuters, proposals by Trump’s advisers include “taking NATO membership for Ukraine off the table”.
Leaving Ukraine without military support would give Russia unlimited time to garther enough weapons to hit the rest of Ukraine and invade Moldova and set up a border across NATO countries.
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky claimed that Ukraine could be open to a ceasefire deal if its Russian occupied territory were placed under NATO protection. In an interview with Sky News he said that the condition to end the “hot phase of the war” is NATO membership, thwprotection of Russian occupied regions and the international recognition of the country’s borders. Zelensky pointed out that “if we want to stop the hot phase of the war, we need to take under the NATO umbrella the territory of Ukraine that we have under our control.” He added that Ukraine could later reclaim its occupied territories through diplomatic negotiations. It seems the Ukrainian president acknowledges that the occupied eastern regions might be temporarily lost in a potential ceasefire agreement with Russia.
The popular Ukrainian media source, Ukrainska Pravda, notes that as Trump prepares to return to the White House, Ukrainian officials are working behind the scenes to build strong connections with his upcoming administration. Zelensky’s office has reportedly managed to “open certain lines of communication” with Richard Grenell, Trump’s former ambassador in Germany who was initially proposed by Trump to take a seat of Secretary of State before he appointed Marco Rubio. According to Ukrainska Pravda, Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, started communicating with Grenell following a meeting between Trump and Zelensky in September. At a roundtable organized by Bloomberg in July, he advocated the creation of “autonomous zones” to resolve the conflict. Grenell also added that he would not support Ukraine’s entry into NATO. According to Routers, Grenell’s views on Ukraine “could give Ukraine’s leaders pause.”
Therefore the current conflicts in Trump’s circle are complicating the Ukrainian officials’ attempts to build connections and ensure support. A Zelensky’s official told Ukrainska Pravda that “some people from Trump’s incoming administration say Trump still holds a grudge against Zelensky and Yermak for not fully supporting him during the 2020 impeachment proceeding.
Others tell us there won’t be any support, while Trump says everything will be fine and he won’t abandon us. It feels like they’re deliberately sowing ambiguity.” It looks like while Trump is too busy with distributing fat pie pieces to those who boosted his victory in election. Considering Trump’s warm attitude toward Putin and “Russian trace” in the 2016 US presidential election, nobody can more or less accurately predict Trump’s real steps in stopping Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Engagement Resources
- Trump May Surprise Us on the Ukraine War
- Israel Celebrates, Ukraine Frets: What Trump’s win means for US allies at war
- What will Trump’s presidency mean for Russia’s war on Ukraine
- Facing uncertain faith under Trump, Ukraine appeals to his ‘strength’
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
The United Nations in Today’s World
The United Nations in Today’s World
Foreign Policy Brief #169 | By: Ibrahim Castro | December 6, 2024
Photo by Hugo Magalhaes
__________________________________
The United Nations (UN) is the world’s largest international organization, it was founded on October 24, 1945, in the aftermath of the Second World War by 50 countries. The UN was the second multipurpose international organization, after the League of Nations, that was established in the 20th century. The UN is headquartered in New York City, with regional offices in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi. Its official languages are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.
The purpose and principles of the United Nations are outlined in its Charter. The essential principles underlying the purposes and functions of the organization are listed in Article 2 and includes the following: “the UN is based on the sovereign equality of its members; disputes are to be settled by peaceful means; members are to refrain from the threat or use of force in contravention of the purposes of the UN, and each member must assist the organization in any enforcement actions it takes under the Charter”. The United Nations has six principal organs: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat.
Major changes in the nature of the international arena since the end of the second world war have resulted in changes and additions to the responsibilities of the UN and its role in the world. For example, during the post-war decolonization period, countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East increased the volume and nature of political, economic, and social issues that confronted the organization. Following this, Cold War tensions between the two global superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union deeply affected the UN’s functions and peace making efforts. The end of the cold war and beginning of the 21st century brought a multiplicity of issues thrown into the UN’s ever increasing agenda; humanitarian crises, regional and civil wars, unprecedented refugee flows, devastation caused climate change, global pandemics, global financial disruptions, international terrorism, and the disparities in wealth between the world’s richest and poorest.
UN Security Council: Inaction and Underrepresentation
One of the most controversial aspects of the UN is the Security Council (UNSC), its primary crisis-management body. With 15 members—10 rotating and 5 permanent (the P5: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China)—the UNSC has the power to impose binding obligations, authorize military action, and enforce sanctions. However, its structure reflects the geopolitical realities of 1945, leading to frequent and increasing criticism of underrepresentation. Nations from the Global South, which make up over two-thirds of the UN’s membership, are notably absent from permanent membership in the UNSC.
Additionally, the Council’s effectiveness is frequently hampered by the veto power wielded by the P5, often resulting in political deadlock. This polarized dynamic, with Russia and China on one side and the US, UK, and France on the other, stalls resolutions on major global issues. Proposed reforms include expanding the Council to include more nations from diverse regions, removing veto powers, or even replacing the UNSC with a majority-based decision-making process in the General Assembly. However, such reforms would require amending the UN Charter, a challenging process that demands agreement from two-thirds of the General Assembly and all P5 members.
Inability to Resolve Global Crises
The UN often faces criticism for its perceived inability to prevent and resolve global conflicts. Originally designed as a platform for diplomacy, the UN struggles to keep pace with the rise of conflicts involving both state and non-state actors, including militias, criminal networks, and terrorist groups. Natural disasters, climate change, and resource scarcity further exacerbate tensions. As of 2024, the world is witnessing 56 active conflicts, the highest since World War II, involving 92 countries. These conflicts have displaced over 122.6 million people, with 43.7 million fleeing across borders, 7 million seeking asylum and 72.1 million being internally displaced.
While the UN has played a significant role in averting some crises, it lacks enforcement power over member states and often faces political limitations, especially when powerful nations and members of the P5 are directly involved in or supporting conflicts. The UN’s perceived inability to halt global conflicts and solve the refugee crisis is often cited as a reason for its ineffectiveness. However it is important to remember that the UN as an institution has no practical power over states, it has no standing army or ability to impose its decisions. Solutions to enhance the UN’s role include reforming the Security Council for more decisive action, ensuring women and youth are involved in decision making, increasing funding for humanitarian efforts, and adopting a human-centric approach to peacekeeping that emphasizes rebuilding communities.
Disinterested Participants
The UN depends on the active cooperation and participation of its member states. Its operations, spanning peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, and climate action—are funded and supported by the collective efforts of its members. However, disinterest or disengagement by influential countries can severely weaken its effectiveness. For example, during Donald Trump’s presidency, the US, the UN’s largest financial contributor, withdrew from key initiatives such as the World Health Organization (WHO), funding for peace keeping and refugee programs, and the Paris Climate Agreement.
Trump’s “America First” policy clashes with the ideals of multilateralism and shared responsibility. Such actions diminish consensus and diminishes the UN’s ability to act decisively. This approach can embolden other leaders to adopt similar stances, further fragmenting the international system and limiting the UN’s influence. The long-term impact is a weaker, less cohesive global order, where conflicts and crises may go unresolved due to a lack of collective will and resources.
Conclusion
The United Nations is an indispensable platform for addressing the challenges of an interconnected and polarized world. While it has faced significant criticisms—ranging from structural inefficiencies in the Security Council to its reliance on member-state participation—its role in fostering dialogue and cooperation remains vital. Reforming key aspects of its structure and decision-making processes could enhance its ability to meet the demands of the 21st century. Ultimately, the UN’s success depends on the collective will of nations to prioritize global unity over division. But even in times of division and conflict, a meeting place for all of the world’s nations is perhaps more important than in times of unity and peace.
Engagement Resources
- United Nations- https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
- Amnesty International- https://www.amnesty.org/en/about-us/#tab-governance
- Human Rights Watch- https://www.hrw.org/about-us
- International Criminal Court- https://www.icc-cpi.int/
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.