Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

WE ALL MUST VOTE THIS TIME

A U.S. RESIST NEWS EDITORIAL                                               WE ALL MUST VOTE THIS TIME A) INTRODUCTION The 2020 Presidential election is the most important election of our lifetimes. At stake is the future of our rule of law and our democratic system of...

read more

Michigan Part 3

Brief #8—Congressional Campaign Update
By William Bourque
As we conclude our Targeted Districts” series in Michigan, we travel to the 10th district, currently held by Republican Paul Mitchell.  Mitchell served two terms but will not run for a third, saying that he felt frustrated by partisanship in Washington.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
How President Trump and Senator McConnell Have Been Reshaping the American Judiciary

How President Trump and Senator McConnell Have Been Reshaping the American Judiciary

Policy Summary
On President Donald J. Trump’s campaign re – election website for 2020 he lists numerous accomplishments during his first term thus far as well as promises that he claims to have fulfilled from his 2016 presidential campaign. The website address is even www.promiseskept.com. Under the tab for “Law and Justice” President Trump is touting his efforts in “Reshaping The American Courts.” He lists his well – known efforts in successfully nominating two conservative Supreme Court justices in Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. He also lists what he has done with filling the rolls of federal appeals court judges and federal district court judges.

In just over three years President Trump has appointed more than fifty (50) federal appeals court judges. And at the federal district court level President Trump has appointed more than one hundred thirty – three (133) judges. With the fifty (50) federal appeals court judges out of one hundred seventy – nine (179) total, President Trump is responsible for nearly twenty – eight percent (28%) of the judges at the federal appeals level. And with one hundred thirty – three (133) federal judges appointed at the trial level out of six hundred seventy – seven (677) total the President is responsible for nineteen percent (19%) of the federal trial judges currently in service. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis
Recent news articles have recently begun to sound the warning about what President Trump has done to the American judiciary and the consequences in the decades to come. But this effort did not begin with the Trump Presidency. In fact, there has been a long – standing battle in Congress for the last decade that has resulted in Republicans being able to exert more control over the American court system. The strategy of Republicans and evangelical groups, who overwhelmingly support Republican candidates, has been to stall and defer and possibly prevent appointments under a Democratic President and then change the rules to more favorable rules once a Republican President was elected.

In Congress, the Senate must approve all judicial nominations but the procedure to get there has undergone a radical change since 2011. With the Democrats in control of the Senate at the time, they also controlled the committees and could have installed more federal judges. However, former Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) reinstituted an old rule called “blue – slip” which allowed a home state senator to block a nominee if the nominee was going to serve on the bench in the senator’s home state. This allowed Republican senators to block Democratic federal judge nominations indefinitely and leave the bench open until the day a Republican became President. Numerous Obama federal judge nominations were simply blocked and kept vacant by a Republican senator if the judge was going to serve in his or her state. With the Republicans back in control of the Senate in 2016, they simply ignored the “blue – slip” tradition and proceeded to confirm as many Republican judges as possible after President Trump was elected.

Additionally, the way filibusters were handled was changed. Republicans would often “filibuster” federal judge nominees and simply keep talking so the debate would not end and a vote could be delayed. The only way a filibuster would end was if sixty (60) senators voted to end the debate. But the rule was changed so that only fifty (50) senators was required to end filibusters. Because of the inability to block a vote, Republicans have taken advantage of their current numbers in the Senate and simply voted to end filibusters and then rushed a vote to confirm federal judges.

What this means is that Republicans have very nearly succeeded in confirming an inordinate number of federal judges, which could have consequences for many social policies in the future. One worry is that many of these judges are mere idealogues who are simply there to rubber stamp Republican policies. Two Trump nominees – Sarah Pitlyk in St. Louis and Lawrence Van Dyke to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were both rated unqualified by the American Bar Association (ABA). And the main worry is how they will handle controversial topics such as abortion rights, voting rights, campaign finance, police accountability, religion and discrimination and LGBQT issues. The future of the American courts and the judiciary should be watched closely to see that it does not become overtly partisan. And, of course, one goal for the 2020 election cycle is to hope the Democrats regain control of the U.S. Senate in order to take back control of the judicial confirmation process. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

  • Alliance For Justice – non – profit group’s Building the Bench program to take back American courts and ensure they remain independent.
  • Brennan Center for Justice – report on federal judge nominations and attending issues.

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.

Trump’s New Budget Reviewed

Trump’s New Budget Reviewed

Policy
Mr. Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2021 makes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other safety nets which initially he had pledged to leave intact.  His proposals must be passed by Congress and that action is doubtful but his actions speak to his lack of commitment to support any segment of the population needing aid.  His proposed Medicaid cuts amount to 1 trillion dollars over ten years and jeopardize insurance eligibility to an estimated 13 million and otherwise compromising care. He would cut the subsidies to the states, initiated in the ACA, to expand Medicaid to those making somewhat more than the poverty level. Currently the federal government pays 90% of these costs.   Since the federal government supports the states with the ACA, imposing a work requirement would reduce the number of people receiving Medicaid and allow the Trump administration to justify cutting the budget.  Medicaid work requirements, mandates made by states, would also save the federal government an estimated 152 million though that figure has been contested by experts who say it would be nowhere that amount.  Several states initiated a work requirement and others suspended them pending a court decision on their legality.  Ten states initiated work requirements. On February 13th a US Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling against an Arkansas and Kentucky mandate requiring 80 hours of work for 30-49 year olds.  Kentucky’s newly elected Democratic governor had withdrawn its work requirement pending the court ruling.  Twenty states have pending or proposed work requirements.  Other states, such as Indiana, have anticipated instituting work requirements and likely will not pursue them given the recent decision.  Trump supports a pending Texas law which would eliminate the ACA altogether leaving many uncovered, priced out, or ineligible due to pre-existing conditions.

Trump’s proposals for the Medicare program would have hospitals receiving the same pay rate for services that doctors’ offices receive, which is a reduced price.  This leads to the fear that Medicare recipients will be denied treatment.  Other proposed cuts have targeted the food assistance program known as SNAP; opioid and mental health services; protection for student loan forgiveness, cuts for disabilities; and the children’s health program known as CHIPS.

Analysis
Trump’s 4.8 trillion dollar proposed budget eats away at multiple programs constituting the federal safety net putting more pressure on the states to finance programs and jeopardizing the health and healthcare of multiple millions of vulnerable individuals and families.  Trump’s justification for supporting work requirements depends on his belief that work contributes to a healthier life thus denying the reality that some people who cannot work will be cast off the Medicaid rolls.  Low reimbursement will exacerbate an already lean set of provider choices for those who need federal aid in seeking health care.  Additionally, should a state be successful in ending the ACA countless people will return to an uninsured status.  Trump’s proposed cuts of 844 billion dollars in health care are “necessary’ to compensate for his cuts in taxes by the wealthy.  He couches some of his cuts in healthcare as an effort “modernize,” while calling additional cuts to federal employee benefits and health care an effort to “modify” the system.  His cuts to help student loan forgiveness programs and disability eligibilities he has called “reforms”.  The Democratics will not pass the bill, as is, seeing it for the cruel effort it represents to save money of the backs of the neediest.  The federal budget deficit has grown under Trump, as a result of this economic and tax policies, and represents the largest figure since the last year of the recession recovery year.  Tax cuts have disproportionately accrued to the top 5% of households who gained 36.5% of the tax benefits.

Learn More: 

Resistance Resources:

  • https://indivisible.org/  An organization listing grass roots groups across the country seeking to defeat Trump in 2020.

 

Betsy DeVos Proposes New Title IX Definitions

Betsy DeVos Proposes New Title IX Definitions

Last week, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos proposed new rules for Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally-funded educational institutions. The regulations outline definitions for domestic violence, stalking, and dating violence, putting them all under Title IX’s purview. Now schools will be able to investigate and resolve these cases internally, theoretically allowing victims to avoid a lengthy and thorny process in the court system. In the past, such misconduct fell in a regulatory grey area; some schools chose to handle it based on the rules for sexual assault and harassment, while others claimed it did not qualify for Title IX investigations.

The confusion created a frustrating, dangerous legal landscape for victims. In one highly-publicized case, Lauren McCluskey, a student at the University of Utah, was murdered by her ex-boyfriend after filing over 20 reports of abuse. Despite numerous instances of stalking, domestic violence, and harassment. the university refused to investigate. McCluskey’s parents even petitioned University President Ruth V. Watkins repeatedly, all to no avail. The student’s death, and others like it, were cited as a motivation for the new rules.

Analysis

The proposed regulations are a positive development in DeVos’ otherwise controversial tenure; a major blindspot in Title IX has now been covered. However, this does not negate the clear harm DeVos has done by rolling back other Title IX protections. Last year, the Department of Education released several amendments favoring the rights of the accused. Supposedly an effort to encourage “due process,” the changes would require both parties to be cross-examined in person. These proceedings could re-traumatize victims, and would dissuade many from ever reporting a crime. Additionally, the DOE narrowed the definition of sexual harassment and made it more difficult to hold institutions legally accountable for failing to address discrimination.

The new rules are a paltry gesture in the context of this larger picture. Most of DeVos’ updates to Title IX read as pointed attempts to dissuade victims from reporting. Since the majority of gender-based violence goes unreported, cries of “due process for the accused” are myopic at best. Adding these new definitions does very little if victims can’t feel safe coming forward.

That said, defining domestic violence, stalking, and dating violence creates a good legal framework. In the future, a more sympathetic iteration of the DOE can utilize them in a stronger version of Title IX. Unfortunately, these increasingly toothless regulations offer little support to students today.

Resources

 

The Role of the Judiciary in Interpreting Environmental Policy

The Role of the Judiciary in Interpreting Environmental Policy

Summary

Separation of powers are delegated to the three branches of government via article I section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, entrusting the legislative, executive and judicial branch with the authority to create, implement and interpret U.S law. The concept of environmental protection is a recent idea dating back to the creation of the EPA in the early 1970’s under the Nixon administration. In an era where President Donald Trump, has been named the most hostile president to ever reign over the EPA; the argument is whether or not the judiciary should assume a greater role addressing contentious environmental issues.

Analysis

There are several types of cases that provide insight into the evolving role of the judiciary in regards to environmental policy-making.

(1) Claims from communities that have been injured and suffered damages due to negligent practices on behalf of the government or industry.

For example, in deciding Massachusetts v. EPA 2007, the Supreme Court definitively stated that the Bush Administration needed to take immediate action to combat climate change. The landmark case recognized that the government has a duty and responsibility to regulate environmental issues and ordered swift action be taken to reduce emissions from tailpipes of automobiles.

(2) The interpretation of common law, written law and policy. Common law can be applied through the judiciary when an outcome cannot be determined by written law.

One such common law is The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) which grants guaranteed permission to the public when accessing resources placed in trust with the states. Each state is individually tasked with the protection and maintenance of such resources. Originally, the PTD was invoked for public and commercial use of navigable waters, but in recent years, some states have expanded the doctrine to include resources such as wildlife, ecological systems, climate change, and atmosphere. Forward thinking states have contended that protection and use of these resources serve the public best when left in their natural state. Texas and New Mexico have added air as a public trust resource and Hawaii has applied the PTD to groundwater. The state of New Jersey has heightened its awareness of Natural Resource Damages initiating eight lawsuits alleging that hazardous substances, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic and lead have seeped into groundwater and navigable waters. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Deull Fuel (2018) sought to recover natural resource damages caused by negligent discharge of harmful materials. The suit maintains that Deull Fuel Company of Atlantic City, NJ failed to dispose of toxins properly, thus polluting the surrounding area of Beach Thorofare an intercoastal waterway, which serves as a habitat for birds, wildlife, and a variety of plants; as well as a recreational spot for NJ residents and tourists. The suit alleged that Deull Fuel Company left the costly burden of environmental clean up for the tax payers to bear.  In August of 2019, The New Jersey Superior Court denied a motion to dismiss the states common law trespass claim because the Public Trust Doctrine supersedes the element of trespass. In taking legal action against companies that have failed to act environmentally responsible, the state of New Jersey is championing for the environment and for the health of their citizens.  Moving forward state uniformity of the PTD could pressure the federal government to create additional legislative protections for natural resources.

(3) Reparation claims by younger generations for the damage that climate change will inflict on their generation, e.g. Juliana v. The United States 2015

For example, Juliana v. United States 2015 avows that the government failed to protect the younger generations fundamental rights with respect to climate change. Concerned youth, ages 12-23 contended that the ignorance to protect public resources is a violation of their 1st amendment rights which will result in an ill-disposed quality of life as they enter into adulthood. On January 17, 2020 a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2-1) found that the government was in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Two of the judges presiding over the case urged the plaintiffs to seek remedy through the legislative and executive branches of government. The third judge affirmed the youths’ constitutional climate rights, writing “our nation is crumbling – at our governments’ own hand – into a wasteland.” Attorneys for the plaintiff will request that the full Ninth Circuit Court review this decision.

Resistance Resources

  • https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/juliana-v-us- Our Children’s Trust is a non-profit public interest law firm that provides strategic, campaign-based legal services to youth from diverse backgrounds to secure their legal rights to a safe climate.
  • https://www.youthvgov.org/- We all have the same rights to life, liberty, and property — but these rights depend on a safe climate. We are the 21 young Juliana plaintiffs suing the federal government to defend the rights of youth and future generations.
  • https://earthjustice.org/about- We wield the power of law and the strength of partnership to protect people’s health, to preserve magnificent places and wildlife, to advance clean energy, and to combat climate change.
  • https://www.sierraclub.org/- The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone’s right to a healthy world.
The Importance of the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act

The Importance of the Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act

POLICY SUMMARY
Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act (WCCA) of 2019, if passed, will create a system of national wildlife corridors and crossings on public lands. The goals are to boost animal biodiversity, protect ecosystems and help safeguard species from extinction. This legislation directs federal land agencies to collaborate with each other – along with states, tribes, local governments and private landowners, to designate wildlife corridors, and increase habitat restoration.

Reconnecting habitats with their native animal populations increases “gene flow,” an essential ingredient of biodiversity. Without different population biodiversity (inbreeding), there will be an eventual collapse of their population. For example, seventy-five percent of migration routes for elk, bison and pronghorn have already been lost in the Greater Yellowstone area due to human development.

Wildlife corridors also decrease vehicle collisions. Each year there are 1 to 2 million wildlife-vehicle collisions. This number includes amphibians, larger mammals, along with 21 federally endangered or threatened species: Florida panthers, desert tortoises and Hawaiian geese among them.

The most contentious section of the WCCA is a science- and data-driven system of designation for land that would prevent activities like oil drilling and mining.

Pre-dating the WCCA is the country’s first designated wildlife corridor: in 2008, upper part of the Path of the Pronghorn migration route was designated by the National Forest Service. The WCCA builds upon this achievement. The WCCA has already been endorsed by 222 wildlife protection organizations. More than 40 sportsmen’s groups signed a letter to congress asking for a competitive grant program with at least $50 million annually  directed toward the planning, design, and construction of wildlife crossing projects. Related, in the 2020 Highway Bill, the hunting and fishing community is asking for a dedicated funding source for the construction of wildlife crossings in areas that are heavily used by animals.

At the state level, twelve states have already passed legislation or created conservation programs to establish wildlife corridors. For example, in 2012, the Wyoming Department of Transportation built a wildlife overpass for pronghorn elk. And then again in 2017, Wyoming started a two-phase, $100 million project to reconstruct a section of U.S. Highway 89, just south of Jackson. Part of the project, 17 years in the making, is to build six underpasses for wildlife, two fish passages, and numerous culverts for smaller animals.

ANALYSIS
America built an entire interstate system and other superhighways without considering the needs of wildlife. A recent United Nations report found that roughly 1 million species worldwide are threatened with extinction underscoring the need for constructing additional wildlife crossings. As many of the drivers of species extinction are man-made, the solutions will be as well.

Then there is the economic factor. According to the Western Transportation Institute, deer collisions run about $8,000, elk an average of $25,000, and moose upward of $44,000 when factoring in things like human injury and vehicle repair.

A Secretarial Order on migration corridors and big game winter ranges was signed in February 2018, by then-Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke. This provided the spark to State Wildlife Agencies, DOI, and NGOs to start working closer together to understand the migration corridors of mule deer, elk, and pronghorns. Based upon this Order and support by sportsmen groups and other special interests, bipartisan endorsement is expected. The results of corridors in Canada are often cited as precedent. From 1996 to 2014, six wildlife overpasses and 38 underpasses were built along the border of Banff and Yoho national parks. Subsequent studies showed that the designated crossings reduced animal-vehicle crashes by 80 percent.

Status: on January 29, 2020, the WCCA passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee markup, taking it one step closer to a vote on the House floor.

Resistance Resources:

  • https://www.nwf.org/  their mission is to increase America’s fish and wildlife populations and enhance their capacity to thrive in a rapidly changing world.
  • https://rewilding.org/  their mission is to develop and promote the ideas and strategies to advance continental-scale conservation in North America.
  • https://protecttheharvest.com/  their mission is to create to defend and preserve American freedoms and to support farmers, ranchers, outdoor enthusiasts, and animal owners.
  • https://wildlandsnetwork.org/  they have a mission of reconnecting, restoring and rewilding North America so that life—in all its diversity—can thrive.
US-China ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal and Its Global Implications

US-China ‘Phase One’ Trade Deal and Its Global Implications

US President Donald Trump signed a ‘phase one’ trade agreement with China, last month, denoting a significant move in attempts to reduce a more than 18-month trade confrontation between the two nations, and also providing Trump with political bragging rights.

The president’s approach may pay off politically as a boost for Trump in an election year. The first phase of the trade agreement is expected to open Chinese markets to more American firms, enhance energy and farm exports and provide significant protection for American technology. However, the agreement will go far beyond China, impacting nations that deal with China.

Whatever China promises to purchase from the United States will obviously happen at the expense of other exporting nations. For example, in the field of farm produces and supplies, Canada is at risk of losing and weakening market share, along with Brazil, New Zealand and Australia.

Many Asian nations such as India that do not export large amounts of farm products and manufacturing goods to China, will be less impacted by the US-China Phase 1 Agreement.

By and large, the trade deal has more extensive consequences for the prospect of world economic stability, where time-honoured guidelines and policies have ruled out these types of specific, customized special deals and agreements that do good to two nations at the disadvantage of other nations. And, from this perspective, it appears that the United States under President Trump is retrenching from global participation, and, henceforth, may not be considered by many governments and leaderships as a reliable global partner.

The recent spread of the coronavirus calls into question with the US or China will benefit from the newly finalized Phase 1 trade deal. To date, the virus has infected more than 70,000 people in China and killed more than 1,800, triggering disruptions in the supply and demand for Chinese goods and services. Therefore, it has become harder than anticipated to predetermine the business outcomes of the US-China ‘phase one’ trade deal.

Emboldened by Senate Acquittal, Trump Doubles Down on Abuse of Power

Emboldened by Senate Acquittal, Trump Doubles Down on Abuse of Power

After Donald Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, Senator Susan Collins and other Top allies of the president expressed confidence that he had learned a lesson. The idea was rife with cock-eyed optimism to begin with and in the week since, he’s gone out of his way to prove he has learned nothing. Instead rather than reflect on the conduct that wrought an Impeachment Trial, Trump has doubled down on his abuse of powers and putting his own needs before the greater good.

When Congress issued subpoenas in the initial House impeachment inquiry, Trump issued a blanket edict that they were to be ignored by Executive Branch employees. A handful defied the unlawful order and provided damaging testimony against the president before the House and the American public. Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman was on the July 25th call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky. During the impeachment inquiry denied knowing the whistleblower but said he was deeply troubled by what he heard on the call. EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland was referenced numerous times during Vindman’s testimony. The Lt. Col. recalled several instances during meetings with Ukrainian diplomats where Sondland, unprovoked, brought up investigations into the Bidens at the expense of their stated foreign policy goals. Vindman’s testimony was hardly a smoking gun, but leant serious credibility to that accusation that the president sought politically motivated investigations from Ukraine in exchange for the release of $391 in military aid.

Sondland would take the stand several days later and shed additional light on his activities in Ukraine. He detailed that he and others were directed to work with the president’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to initiate investigations into Joe and Hunter Biden that would boost Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. The former ambassador described a surreptitious channel of diplomacy that ran counter to the State Department’s purposes. Most significantly he confirmed the existence of a quid pro quo between the announcement of a Ukrainian investigations into the Biden sand the release of security assistance.

Both Vindman and Sondland followed the law by truthfully testifying before the House when called. Each knew doing so placed them in an extremely unenviable position. Last week they were both fired for their efforts.

Trump’s executive overreach reared its pernicious head again in the sentencing of long-time associate, Roger Stone. Stone, ensnared by the Mueller investigation had been tried and convicted of obstruction of justice, witness tampering and lying to investigators. Prosecutors handling the case recommended a sentence of seven to nine years. When the news broke Trump took to Twitter in a barrage of tweets attacking the ‘’ridiculous and unfair sentence. “

Within 24 hours the Justice Department had revised the sentencing guidelines for Stone to a one to two-year sentence. All four prosecutors in the case resigned. One left the DOJ entirely. Attorney General William Barr, in an ABC interview, denied that the president asked him to intervene. In the case Given Barr’s previous partiality towards the president, it is difficult to hear his denial as anything other than a political appointee towing the White House’s line of deception. To believe Trump’s outrage at Stone’s sentence had nothing to with its reduction is to suspend disbelief all together.

Trump called Vindman and Sondland ‘’very insubordinate’’ because they testified before Congress in response to a subpoena., Trump’s retaliation against them creates a dangerous precedent for government employees considering speaking out on misconduct by superiors. The intimidation and discouragement of whistleblowers benefits only the corrupt in high places.

Roger Stone lied to investigators looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He obstructed the Special Counsel and when facing jail time, he physically threatened a witness and his dog. All these charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Ideally his fate should rest in the hands of the judge overseeing the case without any undue outside influence. But Stone is a friend of the president’s. Now it seems the department is taking the position that obstructing justice isn’t as serious if it’s advantageous to the president. Roger Stone isn’t Nelson Mandela or Walter Raleigh. He’s a political operative with a record of unscrupulous behavior and well-connected allies. His debt to society should not be any lighter than someone guilty of similar offenses and no friends at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Napoleon said ‘’put a gold braid on a fool and you have a tyrant.’’ The United States is staring that fate in the face. A president who acts on his worst instincts, can’t be told ‘’no’’ and can’t be held to account ceases to be a president. When laws, and checks and balances lose their consequences, they lose their effectiveness.

Maine Senator Susan Collins said Trump had learned his lesson after the Senate let him off the hook. Adam Schiff said more than once during the trial ‘’He will not change and you know it.’’ Oddly enough it seems Collins was right and Schiff was wrong. He learned that it doesn’t matter what he does, because even when his malfeasance is uncovered, his GOP allies have his back. And he likely will change. His behavior will grow more corrupt and threatening to our democracy. He’s learned he can get away with it.

Learn More:

The Trump Administration’s Anti-Peace Plan

The Trump Administration’s Anti-Peace Plan

Policy Summary:

On January 28th the US government unveiled its long awaited Middle Eastern “Peace Plan” by Jared Kushner. The plan would permit Israel to annex all its illegal settlements and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinian government is striving for an independent state in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, areas currently under Israeli control. The peace plan, announced by Jared Kushner, would permit Israel to maintain such territories as the West Bank, the Jordan Valley, and Jerusalem. This would allow nearly 700,000 Israeli settlers to remain on lands captured by Israel; settlements the UN has deemed illegal. The plan would further permit Israeli authority over the currently divided Jerusalem, pushing the Palestinians to establish the capital of a new Palestinian state in a poor neighborhood in east Jerusalem, and cutting it off from the city by a concrete separation barrier. This new Palestinian state would be demilitarized and left under the significant security control of Israel.

Policy Analysis:

The “peace deal” was authored by White House adviser Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law. Critics are claiming Trump’s plan is the antithesis of a peace plan as well as the timing of its release being of great question. The proposal was unveiled just hours after Netanyahu was formally indicted on corruption charges in Israel and also during the second week of an impeachment trial against Trump in the U.S. Senate. Following the announcement, the Plan was met with protests and denunciation by Palestinians.

To date, 94% of Palestinians reject Trump’s plan. Palestinian political leadership pressed the international community to reject the Trump administration’s plan. Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said of the deal, “nothing but a plan to finish off the Palestinian cause.  “This is a plan to protect Trump from impeachment and protect Netanyahu from prison. It is not a Middle East peace plan. We reject it and we demand the international community not be a partner.” After the announcement of the peace plan, Kushner blamed Palestine’s President, Mahmoud Abbas, for the escalation in violence occurring in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Kushner claimed President Abbas “calls for days of rage in response and (Abbas) said that even before he saw the plan.”

On February 7th, over 100 House Democrats signed a letter, renouncing President Trump’s Middle East peace plan. The letter addressed to the President claimed it would “hurt Israelis and Palestinians alike, pushing them toward further conflict.” The open letter, spearheaded by Democratic Representatives Alan Lowenthal of California and Andy Levin of Michigan, warned that Trump’s plan “paves the way for a permanent occupation of the West Bank. It does not have our support, and the Israeli government must not take it as license to violate International law by annexing all or portions of the West Bank.”

Trump’s Peace Plan is not only impacting Israel and Palestine. On February 6th, the Tunisian government fired their ambassador to the United Nations, Moncef Baati. Baati was accused of “leading diplomatic negotiations on a Palestinian draft Security Resolution declaring U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan in breach of international law, according to three diplomats”, according to the Foreign Press. A foreign ministry statement expressed the government’s explanation for the dismissal of Baati, “Tunisia’s ambassador to the United Nations has been dismissed for purely professional reasons concerning his weak performance and lack of coordination with the ministry on important matters under discussion at the UN.” However according to three diplomats, Baati had allegedly  been heading “diplomatic negotiations on a Palestinian draft Security Resolution declaring US President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan in breach of international law,” reported by Foreign Policy. However, the Tunisian President Kais Saied’s choice to fire Baati seems to have backfired. President Saied’s methods were called into question over the dismissal of Tunis’ UN envoy. “The manner in which the dismissal was carried out raises many questions around the diplomatic strategy of the presidency” said political commentator Youssef Cherif.

Engagement Resources:

  • Alliance for Middle East Peace envision a Middle East in which Israelis and Palestinians have built the trust necessary to live in peace and security, prospering in societies that protect their human and civil rights. The group secures and scales up funding to expand trust-building interactions between Palestinians and Israelis.
  • A Land for All is a joint Israeli-Palestinian organization that strives to promote a new paradigm for solving the conflict based on trust and partnership rather than separation. The solution derives from the confederation model and suggest two independent states within the 1967 borders in a way that will meet the desire of the two peoples for self-determination alongside freedom of movement and residence in the entire area between the Jordan River and the sea.
  • Arab-Jewish Community Center, Jaffa, fosters better understanding, tolerance, and democratic values among Jewish, Christian, and Muslim populations in Jaffa while preserving ethnic, religious and national identities. The Center provides the community with a wide variety of programs, ranging from social welfare and assistance to families in need, to educational programs, empowerment initiatives, multi-cultural events and celebrations.
  • MEPEACE is a non-profit organization, which aims to foster a growing community of peacemakers. Its peacemakers, from 175 countries, are committed to realizing peace in the Middle East through online and on the ground efforts.

This brief was compiled by Erin Mayer. This brief was compiled by Erin Mayer. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact ErinMayer@USResistnews.org

Trump Lifts Restrictions on Military Use of Land Mines

Trump Lifts Restrictions on Military Use of Land Mines

Policy Summary

Last week, the Trump administration announced that it would be lifting the 2014 Obama-era restriction on the use of so-called “smart” landmines for the Department of Defense in conflict areas, which had been previously confined to the border of North and South Korea. In statements made by both Pentagon and administration officials, it was said that the new policy would only pertain to the use of anti-personnel landmines in war zones where “exceptional circumstances” required or there were “major contingencies” that demanded said use. There was no given clarification on what these circumstances or contingencies were. The reversal was limited to new age, non-persistent anti-personnel mines that are advertised as being specifically designed to diminish accidental damage and injury to civilians, American troops, and allied forces. These mines are built with internal or on-command self-destruct or self-deactivation mechanisms and are referred to as “smart” rather than “dumb” mines that lack such features. The Trump administration took the policy a step further by reassigning authority to deploy smart landmines from the Secretary of Defense to military commanders directly involved in the conflict in question. However, the commander must notify the Secretary of Defense after they have authorized the use of mines, although it was not said whether an explanation had to be given as to why. This decision cannot be made by any military official under the rank of four-star, and the smart mines must self-destruct or self-deactivate after 30 days have passed.

Smart landmines have been in development by arms producers since at least the Bush-era, with self-destruction and self-deactivation typically being accomplished through an internal clock, a battery that eventually runs out, radio communication, or network sensors. There has been some debate over whether smart mines are actually as smart as they claim to be, however. Some will likely fail despite not being designed to, with the Landmine Protocol of Certain Conventional Weapons allowing for an expected 10% failure rate in smart mines.

The Trump administration defended its reversal of landmine policy by claiming that Obama’s restrictions placed U.S. troops and the military as a whole at a severe disadvantage against its enemies and that Trump himself was unwilling to accept the risk to troop’s lives. The Pentagon’s interim Assistant Secretary for Strategy Vice Mercado said that the policy shift was made due to a calculation of “great power competition,” which points to the belief within the executive branch that China and Russia will either utilize landmines in conflicts, leaving the U.S. at a disadvantage, or that landmines are critical to U.S. resistance to expansionist foreign powers. When asked, Mercado added that he did not anticipate a need to use landmines in war zones similar to Afghanistan and Syria.

Analysis:

Any discussion of landmine use has to begin with the fact that the vast majority of landmine-related casualties are civilians. Mines are not designed to nor are they intelligent enough to differentiate between combatants and civilians. 71% of the global casualties caused by landmines in 2018 were civilians according to the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor. This is actually lower than previous years, with the highest reported in recent times being 87%. According to New Atlas, half of adults who step on land mines die before reaching the hospital, with the number being even higher in children due to their smaller size. Mines themselves are exceptionally expensive to clear, with the average cost being around $2,000 per unit. The cost of clearing all of the world’s currently sown landmines is estimated at $33 billion dollars. The Federation of American Scientists have also pointed out that along with smart mine technology, weapons producers have also rolled out innovative designs that boast little to no metal content to evade detection and increased shrapnel projection, making modern mines even more difficult to detect and far more deadly. Some landmines now incorporate anti-handling devices that make clearing near impossible, with a few particularly horrific examples being specifically designed to appeal to children. According to CARE, someone dies every 15 minutes from a land mine.

The case of using landmines must be weighed against the significant cost to civilians. Although smart landmines may reduce the number of civilian casualties, they do not wholly eliminate them. There is still a 10% allowable failure rate, and even if it does deactivate or self-destruct as designed, within the 30 days that it is live, it can just as easily kill as a civilian as it can a combatant. It is immoral and reprehensible for the U.S. to willing allow the use of devices of war that so disproportionally affect non-combatants. The Trump administration also said that it only reversed the ban on smart mines on the basis of suspicion that “great powers” (which likely refer to China and Russia) would use them or that landmines are needed military resource. First, this is rather hypocritical, as the U.S. has similarly refused to sign international standards that would limit the use of landmines in combat. Second, China and Russia have appeared to challenge the U.S.-led world order through either proxy wars, such as the Syrian Civil War, or slow on-set testing, such as Chinese maneuverings in the South China Sea. Will American military commanders be green lighting the sowing of landmines against proxy forces or only against Chinese and Russian troops? There is an extreme degree of ambiguity and free reign under this policy, and it should worry any who are concerned about executive power, military power, the military-industrial complex, and humanitarian issues. Are landmines so critical to “great power competition” that the U.S. can justify enormous civilian casualties? The U.S. should be leading by example, not given the military a long and rather vague leash to determine where and when it is appropriate to utilize devices that overwhelmingly affect innocent lives.

Engagement Resources:

  • The HALO Trust – committed to demining efforts the world over.
  • GICHD – devoted to assisting states in managing their ammunition according to humanitarian best practices.
Student Loan Debt Soars with No Clear End in Sight

Student Loan Debt Soars with No Clear End in Sight

Student loan debt has reached unprecedented levels in the United States. In just 15 years, the amount of debt has tripled to over $1.5 trillion, surpassing credit card and auto debt. The burden is shared between roughly 44 million Americans. Moreover, according to the Pew Research Center, roughly a third of borrowers age 25 to 39 with a Bachelor’s believe that the cost of their degree outweighs its benefits.

The crisis has become a top issue for voters, and many presidential candidates have plans to address it. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have advocated for forgiving all or some debt, respectively. Meanwhile, this week President Trump made another call to end a popular student loan forgiveness program.

In Congress, several bills have been introduced to combat the issue. HR 3448 and S 1947, introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN-5) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) respectively, would both cancel all student debt. On the Republican side, S 2339 offers more modest reform; in addition to changing the accreditation system, it would require educational institutions to publish data on student loans and educational outcomes. However, none of these three bills have advanced since their introductions, all in the summer of 2019.

Analysis
With stagnating wages and almost 30% of loan holders in delinquency or default, more aggressive loan forgiveness legislation will likely become a necessity. It’s apparent that an increasing number of loans will never be repaid, and keeping borrowers beholden to them harms our entire country. According to CNBC, it is becoming more common for people to postpone marriage, buying homes, and starting businesses — all activities that produce and signal a strong economy.

However, debt cancellation alone wouldn’t address the web of systematic flaws that perpetuate that debt. As enrollment has grown, state funding has deflated, leaving universities little choice but to pass on higher operating costs to students. After Congress expanded federal student loan programs in the 1970s, it became possible for families to foot the rising bill, which took pressure off states and schools to budget more effectively. Meanwhile, colleges have expanded non-instructional spending on services like counseling and healthcare. Though expensive, these services can be literally life-saving for the growing number of low-income students, who may not have access to care otherwise — demonstrating a bizarre dovetail connecting our healthcare crisis and our student loan crisis.

Ultimately, an issue this complex and urgent demands innovative policy. Sen. Sanders’ call to cancel debt and subsidize university education offers the most direct solution. Although it’s highly unlikely to gain congressional support in the near future, readers should remember that our government spends over half of its discretionary budget on the military every year (almost $700 billion in FY 2019). Our government has the resources to address this issue, and it has a moral obligation to do so.

Resources

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest