JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Con Man’s Coffers: Trump’s Unfettered Leveraging of Government Power to Reap Personal Profits Soars Yet Again
Inked deals for new Trump-branded properties overseas, increased stock sales to foreign investors in the Trump Organization’s media and cryptocurrency sectors, business partnerships with companies funded by foreign governments – all of these actions by a sitting U.S. president signify an unprecedented leveraging of presidential power for personal profit, and they’re all in a day’s work for President Donald Trump.
A Refugee’s Tale. Halina. | Real story. All names are changed.
Halina dragged heavy bags filled with humanitarian bean cans to the apartment door, her numb hand fumbling for the key in her pocket. Her feet ached with exhaustion.
A Comparison of Biden and Trump’s January 20th Pardons
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides: The President…shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
It’s Tempting To Do Nothing But
We are only two + weeks into the Trump administration. Despite the administration’s onslaught of deeply troubling and misguided policies.
People feel tired from the hard fought election campaign. It is too soon to do anything they surmise; it is tempting to do nothing; better sit back and chill for a while and wait for a later date to re-engage.
The Hypocrite in Chief’s War on Women
Trump has been president for under a month, and he is already going to great lengths to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion. At first, after the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court that Trump helped assemble, it appeared that abortion would be left to the states.
Jack Smith’s Honorable but Frustrating Journey to Prosecute Trump ; January 2025
Jack Smith made sure to state when he resigned that Mr. Trump engaged in an ‘unprecedented criminal effort’ to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Additionally, Jack Smith stated that the evidence was there to convict Donald Trump. The only reason why the trials did not go forth was because of DOJ policy that prohibits prosecuting a sitting President.
The Uncertainty of the Student Loan Crisis in the Age of Trump
The student loan crisis, a pressing issue under former President Biden, has entered a phase of uncertainty with President Trump back in office. Biden’s initiatives, including forgiving $188.8 billion in student loans and easing repayment with the SAVE plan, are now at risk as the Trump administration signals a potential rollback of these measures. With proposals to dismantle programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness and the Department of Education itself, the future of student debt relief hangs in the balance. Trump’s track record suggests prioritizing the wealthy over supporting struggling borrowers. Can America afford to overlook the needs of millions saddled with debt?
Disaffection and Abandonment: The European Far-Right Drift
Disaffection and Abandonment: The European Far-Right Drift Foreign Policy Brief #175 | By: Damian DeSola | January 24, 2025 Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash __________________________________ The far-right in Europe is rising once again. Following a trend that has...
The Impact of Autonomous Drones on Privacy and Security
The Impact of Autonomous Drones on Privacy and Security Social Justice Policy Brief #171 | By: Inijah Quadri | January 23, 2025 Photo by Kaleb Kendall on Unsplash __________________________________ Policy Issue Summary Autonomous drones have rapidly integrated into...
Developments in Syria: A Window of Opportunity
Developments in Syria: A Window of Opportunity
Foreign Policy Brief #173 | By: Damian DeSola | January 10, 2025
__________________________________
The Assad regime has fallen. After over fifty years of a totalitarian hereditary dictatorship, the neo-Ba’athist regime vanished on 8 December 2024 when President Bashar al-Assad escaped capture from Syrian rebels and flew to Moscow. In less than two weeks, the nearly fourteen-year civil war changed dramatically. To understand the implications of this lightning liberation, let us look at the status of the various factions whose shifts in power allowed it to occur in the first place.
Surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, the main contributor to the end of the Assad regime was its staunchest backer – Russia. Since the start of the war in Ukraine, Russia has made difficult decisions regarding its military equipment and manpower. By focusing on its border war, Russia removed sizeable military support from Syria. Viewing the war in Ukraine as its priority, Russia effectively abandoned the Ba’athist government, allowing it to be crushed by the better organized and equipped Syrian Rebels. The loss of their influence in Syria is a major blow to Russian influence in the region and the Mediterranean, losing vital access to the country’s military and naval bases.
Who are these Syrian Rebels? Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is a Sunni Islamist paramilitary organization led by the now de facto leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa. Originally set up in 2011 at the outset of the Civil War as an affiliate of Al-Qaeda and supported by the now-deceased ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, it became a powerful militant opposition to the Ba’athist regime. Later, under the leadership of its current leader, al-Sharaa, the organization broke from al-Qaeda and joined various other Syrian militant groups, becoming the HTS as is understood today.
Al-Sharaa has taken steps to ensure that the new regime respects the rights of minorities and to treat former Assad employees and soldiers humanely. The interim government has also claimed they will hold elections in four years once a constitution is drafted. They have also reopened currency exchanges and have allowed Western products back on store shelves. Much of this has been understood to be signals of openness to Western governments and regional states for normalized relations.
Concurrently, there have been reports of the interim government acting in an autocratic fashion. While al-Sharaa is attempting to protect minorities writ-large, the Alawite people, the ethnic group that the Assad family came from and whom that family gave favor, live in fear of retribution from soldiers and interim government officials. Another concerning sign is the reworking of historical textbooks to exclude certain events and people without the permission of the Syrian academic community. These conflicting actions of liberalization and authoritarianism leave uncertainty as to whether the new regime will remain a beacon of hope for the Syrian people.
While this interim government controls most of the Syrian territory to the West of the Euphrates River, the Eastern side is majority controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Led by left-wing Kurdish militias and rebels, this group controls what is now referred to as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), or more fashionably (and unofficially) Rojava. This region and the SDF are backed by the United States and were a major part of the forces that captured Islamic State territory in Iraq and Syria.
Sharply opposed to the establishment of a Kurdish state, the Turkish government has conducted incursions into Kurdish-controlled territory soon after the U.S. removed troops from the Turkish border following the territorial defeat of ISIS in 2019. To justify anti-Kurdish activity, Türkiye directly aligns the SDF with the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), a militant guerilla movement in Southwest Türkiye, which they have labeled a terrorist organization. Two major sectors of Kurdish territory, North and Northeast Syria, are occupied by Turkish forces. Following the fall of the Assad regime, Türkiye has increased its attacks on Kurdish forces.
Finally, there is Israel. With the resounding defeat of Hezbollah, and the crippling of Hamas, Israel has been free to take advantage of the chaos in Syria. Soon after the fall of Damascus, Israel moved its forces into the Golan Heights, a region that the two nations have disputed for decades, with plans to permanently control the region. They have also wasted no time in destroying abandoned Assadist military assets with the goal of weakening the incoming government in case it is hostile towards Israel. The territorial incursions have been condemned by local governments including Jordan and Türkiye.
Analysis
Now, how will and how should the incoming Trump administration deal with this new Syrian reality? Let us start with how the Biden administration has reacted so far. Within weeks of the interim government taking control, the U.S. State Department sent a delegation to meet with Syrian officials and the de facto leader, Ahmed al-Sharaa. Soon after, the $10 million bounty on Sharaa was rescinded; spokespeople from the State Department referred to the meetings with Sharaa as “productive”, showing signs of potential future cooperation between the U.S. and this new Syrian government. While HTS is still labeled a terrorist group by the U.S., it seems the groundwork for a potentially positive relationship is being laid.
This administration is about to leave, and along with it, its current policies. Trump has cast no illusions on the idea that he aims to be an isolationist president. In true Trumpian fashion, he has already jumped the gun by posting on Truth Social, “Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!” However, where the U.S. stands in the Middle East, especially regarding Russian and Iranian influence, and a recent resurgence of Islamic terrorism, Trump may see need to establish relations with this new Syrian government.
However, his penchant for transactional foreign policy may lead to a souring of relations. By potentially requesting too much out of the new government, such as access to the abandoned Russian naval ports, free movement of American military equipment, or even permissions for their oil fields, there are clear opportunities for Trump to sour this relationship. Furthermore, the past friendly relations between Trump and Netanyahu could result in Israeli pressure to avoid normalized relations with the new Syrian government.
The dust has barely begun to settle on the latest developments of the Syrian Civil War, and there is still an array of potential outcomes that can occur. The chaotic civil war has brought in a range of powerful actors, capable of changing the narrative at a moment’s notice. However, an opportune moment for building a peaceful Syria is happening at the same time. If the right steps are taken by the Democratic West, the elusive bright future for the Middle East will finally be at hand.
Engagement Resources
- Live map of the Syrian Civil War
- Website for the U.S. Mission to the Syrian Democratic Council; provides information about the SDF and AANES (Rojava).
- Background report on Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham from the Center for Strategic & International 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.
Week That Was: Global News in Review
Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #172 | By: Ibrahim Castro
__________________________________
Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau holds a press conference outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, Canada, on January 6
Justin Trudeau resigns as Canadian Prime Minister
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced that he’ll step down as head of the country’s governing Liberal Party, after weeks of speculation that his time in leadership was coming to an end. Trudeau has led the Liberal Party since 2013 and been prime minister since 2015. He and his party were initially popular with a 65% approval rating shortly after taking office nearly a decade ago. But as Canada suffered a cost-of-living crisis in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as criticism of immigration and environmental policies, Trudeau’s popularity has decreased steadily and is now at only a 22% approval rating. As other voters in Western countries have indicated, Canadians too are disillusioned with establishment and incumbent governments. In recent months, polls have indicated that Canadian voters are also ready for a new governing party with many predicting a rightward shift in the country’s politics.
![Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye speaks during a press at the Palais de la Republique in Dakar after their meeting, on 22 April 2024 [SEYLLOU/AFP via Getty Images]](https://www.usresistnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Artboard-2-300x192.png "Week That Was: Global News in Review 2")
Senegalese President Bassirou Diomaye Faye speaks during a press at the Palais de la Republique in Dakar after their meeting, on 22 April 2024 [SEYLLOU/AFP via Getty Images]
Senegal kicks out the French
Senegal’s prime minister last week announced that the government is closing “all foreign military bases,” a move primarily aimed at France as no other foreign forces have military bases in Senegal. France is the West African nation’s former colonial ruler who still operates within the country. France has faced opposition from African leaders over what they describe as a demeaning and heavy-handed approach to the continent. The move follows a string of ousting for the French in West Africa over the past few years, as several countries including Chad, Niger and Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast and now Senegal have kicked French troops off of their soil. French President Emmanuel Macron stirred up further controversy with France’s remaining allies in West Africa and faced accusations of showing a neo-colonialist attitude after stating that African countries “forgot to say thank you” for France’s military involvement in the Sahel.
Rescue workers search for survivors in the aftermath of an earthquake in Changsuo Township of Dingri in Xigaze, southwestern China’s Tibet Autonomous Region on January 7, 2025.
Earthquake in Tibet
A 7.1 magnitude earthquake shook a high-altitude region of Tibet, damaging hundreds of houses and killing at least 126 people. Nepal is reported to have experienced the earthquake, but there are no initial reports of injuries or damage, according to the country’s National Emergency Operation Center. The quake’s epicenter was in Tibet’s Tingri county, an area where the India and Eurasia tectonic plates grind against each other and can cause earthquakes strong enough to change the heights of some of the world’s tallest peaks in the Himalayan mountains. Nearly 150 aftershocks were recorded in a few hours after the earthquake. Chinese leader Xi Jinping called for all-out efforts to rescue people, minimize casualties and resettle those whose homes were damaged.
Herbert Kickl, the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, after speaking with reporters on Tuesday in Vienna. Credit… Lisa Leutner/Reuters
Austria’s new Far-Right government
The leader of Austria’s Far-Right Freedom Party received a mandate to form a government last week when Austrian President, Alexander Van der Bellen, asked the party to form a new ruling coalition in what would yield the first far-right-led government in Austria since World War II. The Freedom Party was founded by former members of the SS, the Nazi paramilitary force, in the 1950s. It was largely shunned in its early years, but then slowly became part of the mainstream political establishment. Following the President’s announcement hundreds of protesters, including Jewish and left-wing activists, gathered outside the presidential office in Vienna holding banners to boo and whistle, shouting “Nazis out”. The Austrian Freedom Party is part of a right-wing populist alliance in the European Parliament, Patriots for Europe, which also includes the parties of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and of the Netherlands’ Far-Right Geert Wilders, whose party dominates the Netherlands’ government.
Venezuelan opposition leader seeks support to challenge Maduro
The presidential candidate for Venezuela’s opposition, Edmundo González (left), was at the White House meeting US President Joe Biden on Monday January 6, 2025 BBC NEWS
Venezuelan opposition leader Edmundo González is touring Latin America and the US, meeting leaders in an effort to build his credibility internationally and pressure President Nicolás Maduro as his inauguration nears. González, who left Venezuela for Spain after the presidential elections last year, has claimed he will return to Venezuela to assume the presidency on January 10. The opposition has also called for a massive mobilization on January 10 in an effort to challenge Maduro. Gonzalez has also urged the Venezuelan military to recognize him as their commander-in-chief and “put an end to the leadership” of President Nicolás Maduro. However despite Gonzalez’s efforts, Maduro organized an inauguration ceremony and swore himself into office on January 9.
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.
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, setting an unsettling tone for the year. From the New Year’s terror attack in New Orleans to the explosion of a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas, these incidents highlight a troubling escalation in politically charged violence. This series of events follows the tumultuous year of 2024, which saw two assassination attempts on President Trump and the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson—a crime classified as an act of domestic terror allegedly committed by Luigi Mangione. These developments suggest a shift from isolated, lower-level incidents to large-scale, nationally salient events reminiscent of January 6th.
This rise in political violence raises an important question: Must every act of political violence in a polarized America be classified along partisan lines?
Analysis
A friend recently suggested I write about the emergence of left-wing violence in the wake of Donald Trump’s re-election. At first glance, incidents like the Tesla bombing near Trump’s Las Vegas resort may seem easy to label as left-leaning violence. However, such conclusions often obscure a more complex reality. Acts of political violence, particularly those rooted in broader social grievances or religious ideologies, resist simplistic binary classifications.
Take, for example, the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangione. This act reveals a deeper frustration with the for-profit healthcare system, which many criticize for prioritizing profits over saving lives. The economic and emotional toll of such a system affects Americans across the political spectrum, transcending partisan boundaries. While the act itself is inexcusable, its underlying motivations reflect widespread discontent that cuts across ideological lines.
Similarly, acts of terror tied to religious extremism, such as the attack in New Orleans, challenge the utility of a partisan lens. When a perpetrator acts in alignment with ISIS or similar groups, their motivations often have little to do with domestic political affiliations. The chants of “Death to America” from such attackers make it clear that their agenda targets Americans collectively, regardless of partisan alignment. These are not acts meant to bolster a domestic left- or right-wing agenda but rather manifestations of foreign extremism with broader, more destructive goals.
Beyond Partisan Blame
While debates over the Middle East have polarized Americans, with partisans adopting staunch and opposing positions, acts of terror committed by individuals sympathetic to ISIS’s goals should not be framed within domestic political binaries. Such acts are expressions of allegiance to a foreign extremist ideology rather than extensions of internal partisan conflicts. Recognizing this distinction is essential for addressing the broader patterns and commonalities among these incidents.
By focusing on partisan blame, we risk obscuring the shared grievances that fuel these acts of violence. Political elites and media narratives often exploit such events to deepen divisions, shielding themselves from accountability and avoiding meaningful dialogue about systemic issues. For instance, the debate over whether Mangione was a Democrat or a Republican detracts from addressing the healthcare system’s flaws, which lie at the root of much of the public’s anger and despair.
Contributions from the Mental Health & Gun Crises
While partisan narratives often dominate discussions of political violence, it’s essential to consider that not all perpetrators are ideologically driven. For example, the two individuals who attempted to assassinate President Trump in 2024 have not been conclusively linked to specific political motivations. Instead, these cases appear to involve unstable loners acting out of personal grievances or psychological distress. Such examples remind us that some acts of violence defy traditional political categorizations, reflecting broader issues of mental health and societal alienation.
This observation is critical because it challenges the reflex to attribute every act of violence to partisan hostility. By overemphasizing political affiliations, we risk neglecting the underlying psychological and social factors that often drive these individuals to commit such heinous acts. Addressing these factors—whether through improved mental health resources or stronger community support systems—may help reduce the frequency of such violence.
Relatedly, a crucial aspect of America’s violence problem is the widespread availability of firearms. In almost every incident mentioned, from Luigi Mangione’s attack on UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson to the New Year’s attack in New Orleans, firearms or explosives played a central role. The sheer accessibility of weapons in the United States enables individuals, regardless of their political alignment or mental state, to carry out acts of violence with devastating consequences.
This sobering reality underscores a critical truth: the pervasive availability of firearms in the U.S. serves as a significant enabler of violence, whether politically motivated or otherwise. Irrespective of ideology, the ease of access to weapons empowers individuals to act on grievances—whether born of systemic inequalities, personal vendettas, or extremist ideologies. The recent surge in violence highlights the urgent need for investigative processes to prioritize identifying indicators of mental instability. Additionally, a coordinated national initiative is essential to confront the psychological challenges afflicting individuals nationwide, adopting a proactive stance to address these deep-seated risks and prevent further tragedies.
Addressing Shared Grievances
The murder of Brian Thompson underscores a shared sense of frustration and discontent among Americans—Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and others. Rather than dividing the public along partisan lines, we should focus on the systemic issues that contribute to such acts of violence. This includes acknowledging the fear, anger, and pain that drive individuals to commit these heinous acts. While these emotions do not justify violence, they highlight tangible hardships and unmet needs that demand attention from policymakers and society as a whole.
Similarly, the New Orleans attack reveals the futility of analyzing ISIS’s political stance within the context of American partisanship. It is unlikely that terrorists chanting “Death to America” care whether their victims are Democrats or Republicans. Such acts are driven by foreign ideological objectives, not by domestic political affiliations. Debating their partisan implications only distracts from the larger threat they pose to all Americans.
In both domestic and foreign contexts, these acts of violence highlight vulnerabilities that transcend American political binaries. They point to systemic issues—from healthcare inequalities to national security gaps—that require a unified response. Instead of waging identity politics or assigning blame along partisan lines, we must address the root causes of these grievances and work toward solutions that foster solidarity.
Whether it involves reforming the healthcare system to reduce economic anxieties or countering the influence of foreign extremist groups, the focus should be on actionable steps that address the underlying issues. Only by doing so can we begin to reduce the frequency and severity of these acts of violence and create a society that prioritizes unity and resilience over division and blame.
In conclusion, not every act of political violence in America needs to be classified along partisan lines. By shifting the narrative away from binary classifications and toward a more nuanced understanding of the motivations and grievances behind such acts, we can foster a more constructive dialogue and build a stronger, more unified nation.
Engagement Resources
- Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): Tracks hate groups and extremism in the U.S., offering insights into political violence and its root causes.
https://www.splcenter.org - Brennan Center for Justice: Research and policy proposals on combating domestic terrorism while safeguarding democratic values.
https://www.brennancenter.org - The Violence Project: A database and research organization examining the causes and prevention of mass violence, with a focus on political and ideological factors.
https://www.theviolenceproject.org - PEN America: Advocacy for free expression and against hate speech and violence, promoting dialogue in polarized times.
https://pen.org
Wanna stay in-the-know? Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News 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.
Trump’s Big Inauguration, Brought to You By Big Tech
Trump’s Big Inauguration, Brought to You By Big Tech
Technology Policy Brief #124 | By: Mindy Spatt | January 07, 2025
Photo by The Now Time on Unsplash
__________________________________
Summary
Donald Trump’s triumphant return to the White House on January 20th will be funded by the same tech billionaires who eschewed him the first time he was president. Now they are looking to trade their massive financial support for their dream agenda in Washington, an unregulated industry free to make its own rules.
Analysis
Donald Trump and Big Tech were not friendly during his first term. In 2016, Candidate Trump received little to no support from major tech companies or their leaders and criticism flowed both ways. Trump accused Meta, Google, and others of censoring conservative voices especially because social media companies temporarily suspended Trump’s accounts after the US Capitol was attacked on Jan. 6, 2021.
After Trump took office, tech CEOs butted heads with him over his immigration policies and other excesses. In 2020, Jeff Bezos said Trump’s refusal to accept the election results “erodes our democracy around the edges.” Last month, Bezos joined Mark Zuckerberg, Tim Cook, and the many other high-profile tech leaders lining up at Mar A Lago to kiss Trump’s ring, to put it politely, all with millions of dollars in their hands.
That’s not all Bezos is doing for his new buddy. In November, Bezos came under fire for refusing to allow the Washington Post, which he owns, to endorse Kamala Harris. He recently interfered with editorial content at the Post again, nixing a cartoon depicting him kneeling before Trump, prompting its author, editorial cartoonist Ann Telanes, to resign from the paper.
Whatever problems tech CEOs had with Trump 1.0 have disappeared, even though in the interim Trump has been found liable for sexual assault and guilty of 36 felonies and campaigned on lunatic ravings about abortion in the ninth month and sex change operations being performed in schools. After the Biden Administration’s wariness of Bitcoin, AI, and internet monopolies, tech billionaires are fawning over Trump and the possibility of dramatically loosened regulations.
Trump has said he plans to reverse President Biden’s 2023 executive order on AI. That is in keeping with the Republican Party’s platform, which states ‘We will repeal Joe Biden’s dangerous Executive Order that hinders AI innovation and imposes radical leftwing ideas on the development of this technology.’. Those radical leftwing ideas include safety and privacy standards for AI and a watchful eye toward the potential of AI to ‘displace and disempower workers; stifle competition; and pose risks to national security’. Open AI CEO Sam Altman is on board with his $1 million inauguration contribution.
Consumer protections and labor standards are unlikely to flourish in the new regime. President Biden’s moves to protect gig workers won’t be continued by Trump, which may be why Uber and its CEO Dara Khosrowshahi forked over $2 million. In recent years, the Federal Trade Commission has sued Amazon for monopolistic practices and Meta for antitrust violations and has challenged mergers and acquisitions by big tech companies. One of Trump’s first moves will be to replace Lina Kahn, the current chair of the FTC, with someone far less aggressive, an agenda the tech bros have made no secret of.
What will flourish is Bitcoin. As Trump said at a Bitcoin conference, “The rules will be written by people who love your industry, not hate your industry.” Case in point, he recently described his pick to head the Securities Exchange Commission, Paul Atkins, as someone who “recognizes that digital assets & other innovations are crucial to Making America Greater than Ever Before’.
Coinbase likes that idea and contributed $1 million. A cryptocurrency trading firm with the inappropriate name of Robinhood donated $2 million. Ripple, another crypto firm, gave the inaugural committee $5 million. If Trump fulfills his promise to turn America into the “crypto capital of the planet,” they’ll likely get an enormous return on their investment. As of this writing, the inaugural committee has collected $2 billion and is still open for business.
Engagement Resources
- List of Tech Companies That Donated to Trump’s Inaugural Fund, Dec 13, 2024
- Tech Billionaires Get in Line to Support Trump Inauguration Fund, by Eloise Goldsmith, Dec 13, 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.
The Harm That AI Can Cause
The Harm That AI Can Cause
Technology Policy Brief #123 | By: Inijah Quadri | January 02, 2025
Photo by Google DeepMind on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Issue Summary
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of social media platforms, transforming how information is curated, shared, and consumed. AI refers to advanced computational systems capable of tasks such as problem-solving, pattern recognition, and decision-making. Unlike traditional algorithms that follow predefined rules, AI algorithms learn and adapt through vast data analysis, allowing them to predict user behavior and make complex decisions. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram utilize AI to enhance user experiences, tailoring content to individual preferences and moderating online interactions. However, the integration of AI into social media also introduces significant societal challenges, including ethical concerns, privacy issues, and the amplification of harmful content.
The rise of AI-generated misinformation, including deepfakes and algorithmic biases, has raised alarms about its influence on public opinion and democratic integrity. Misinformation—particularly in the form of AI-enhanced disinformation—has already impacted critical political events, such as elections and social movements. Meanwhile, privacy concerns are growing as platforms harvest user data to feed AI algorithms, often without transparent consent mechanisms or adequate safeguards.
Global policymakers are increasingly recognizing the urgency of regulating these intertwined technologies. In the United States, efforts to regulate AI remain fragmented. While some states have implemented privacy laws, Congress has yet to pass comprehensive federal legislation addressing AI’s societal impacts, leaving a regulatory void. Efforts are underway to craft policies that balance innovation with public interest, but the rapid evolution of AI poses a challenge to existing regulatory frameworks, necessitating a proactive and collaborative approach.
Analysis
The intersection of social media and artificial intelligence amplifies existing concerns about misinformation and privacy while introducing new ethical dilemmas. High-profile figures like Elon Musk have voiced concerns about the unchecked growth of AI, calling for proactive regulation to mitigate potential risks. Others, such as President Donald Trump, have primarily emphasized its impact on jobs and economic growth.
AI algorithms, designed to optimize user engagement, inadvertently prioritize sensationalist or polarizing content, creating echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and biases. This occurs because AI systems are designed to optimize for metrics such as click-through rates and time spent on the platform, which often correlate with emotionally charged and polarizing material. These echo chambers intensify political polarization and erode trust in institutions, as seen in landmark events like U.S. Presidential Elections and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Privacy violations are another critical issue. Social media platforms collect and monetize vast amounts of personal data to refine AI-driven personalization tools. This has led to widespread criticism over opaque data practices, with regulatory responses like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) setting a benchmark for user privacy protections. However, global enforcement remains inconsistent.
The ethical challenges posed by AI are vast and complex. Deepfake technology, for example, has been weaponized to spread disinformation, manipulate public opinion, and create fraudulent content with devastating consequences for individuals and communities. Unlike traditional media tools, AI-driven systems utilize advanced neural networks to create hyper-realistic forgeries, which require computational power and machine learning capabilities not available in standard social media algorithms. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in AI systems—often described as “black box” algorithms—makes it difficult for users and regulators to understand or challenge the decisions these systems make.
Addressing these challenges requires a balanced approach that ensures accountability and transparency without stifling innovation. Policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society must work together to develop ethical standards and legal frameworks that protect users while fostering technological progress. Sure, whether the private sector can self-regulate responsibly is a contentious issue. Critics argue that profit-driven motives often conflict with the ethical safeguards needed to protect public interest. But by engaging with the resources below, stakeholders can collaborate to create a digital ecosystem that aligns technological innovation with ethical principles, ensuring a safer and more equitable future for all.
Engagement Resources: Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available:
- AI Now Institute (https://www.ainowinstitute.org/): Focused on the social implications of AI, with policy recommendations to guide ethical development and deployment.
- Center for Humane Technology (https://www.humanetech.com/): Advocates for technology that prioritizes human values and addresses the ethical challenges of AI and social media.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) (https://www.eff.org/): Protects civil liberties in the digital sphere, emphasizing privacy and responsible AI use.
- Stanford Internet Observatory (https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io): Conducts research on social media’s role in information integrity and the abuse of emerging technologies.
- Deeptrace Labs (http://www.deeptracetech.com/): Offers tools and insights for detecting and mitigating deepfake content, a growing AI threat.
- Partnership on AI (https://www.partnershiponai.org/): Promotes responsible AI practices and fosters dialogue among global stakeholders.
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.
An Explanation As To Why Special Prosecutor Jack Smith Asked To Dismiss Trump’s Two Criminal Cases
An Explanation As To Why Special Prosecutor Jack Smith Asked To Dismiss Trump’s Two Criminal Cases
Civil Rights Policy Brief #233 | By: Rod Maggay | December 27, 2024
__________________________________
Policy Summary: On November 25, 2024 Special Prosecutor Jack Smith filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to voluntarily dismiss the felony charges brought against former President Donald Trump. The four charges brought against the former President were initially filed in August 2023 and were conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. All charges related to Mr. Trump’s attempt to reverse his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. The case before Judge Tanya Chutkan never went to trial as the proceedings were delayed as the appeals process took its course. Hours after Special Prosecutor Smith’s filing to dismiss, Judge Chutkan granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Additionally on the same day, Special Prosecutor Smith also filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Special Prosecutor had also brought charges against Mr. Trump in Florida regarding the former President’s handling of sensitive documents and classified documents after he left office in 2020. The case in Florida had been dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon after the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, which Judge Cannon had relied on to dismiss the charges. The Special Prosecutor appealed the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit. However, the Special Prosecutor and his team relented and filed a motion to dismiss their appeal.
The motions for dismissal in the two cases have been filed because of Mr. Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election and his upcoming inauguration in January 2025 for a second term as President of the United States.
Policy Analysis: What needs to be made clear about the Jack Smith’s decision to file the motions to dismiss the charges in both cases against Mr. Trump is that they were not based on the merits of the case or the strength of the evidence against the former president.
When Donald Trump defeated Vice – President Kamala Harris in the 2020 election, it marked a stunning win that meant more than returning Mr. Trump to the White House for the next four years. His win presented a challenge as to whether or not the criminal cases against him could proceed to trial and whether he could be sentenced while serving his duties as President. According to U.S. Department of Justice policy from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), DOJ has determined that the Constitution prohibits the prosecution of a sitting President in order to not distract him from the incredible duties he has to manage. While this is a reasonable and logical course of action with regard to those who will serve in the position in the future, the situation was complicated because of the ongoing nature of the criminal cases prior to Election Day. The charges were brought when Mr. Trump was a private citizen although some of the acts alleged against Mr. Trump occurred while he was serving in his first term. Had Mr. Trump lost the election, the criminal cases would have for certain continued and a felony conviction, if one was imposed against Mr. Trump, could have, however unlikely, set up Mr. Trump for a custodial sentence. But Mr. Trump won the election and the Special Prosecutor had no choice but to have the felony charges and his appeal dismissed. With Mr. Trump set to be inaugurated in January, it becomes near impossible to proceed with the two cases in light of the Department of Justice’s policy with regard to prosecuting a president.
But, there is a silver lining even if it is a very small one. Per DOJ special counsel regulations, Jack Smith is required to file a final report with the Attorney General. Mr. Smith will likely put all of the evidence required and list all of the challenges that came with bringing the two cases against Mr. Trump. The Attorney General will then have the option to release the final report for everyone to see. Merrick Garland will likely chose to release the report as he has released all previous reports from Mr. Smith. However, if the final report is delayed and the decision is left to the new Attorney General appointed by Mr. Trump (likely nominee Pam Bondi) the new AG could decide to not release the final report. This could become key because the Special Prosecutor has repeatedly claimed that they had a very strong case against Mr. Trump. In one of the motions to dismiss that was filed, Mr. Smith said that the DOJ prohibition on prosecuting a president, “[did not] turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind.” And, he also mentioned that with regard to the concept of presidential immunity that helped delay the cases that the principal of immunity is temporary, implying that future charges may still be possible (the statute of limitations for the charges against Mr. Trump will expire before he leaves office making it unlikely he would be indicted for these charges again). And, the conviction in the hush money case in New York could still apply to the President after he leaves office. These are small consolations, if at all, but these are the cards the Special Prosecutor had left to play after Election Day. If the final report is released, the public can review all of the evidence and decide for themselves the gravity of Mr. Trump’s crimes and whether their decision to return him to the White House was in the best interests of the United States of America. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Department of Justice (DOJ) – the OLC memo “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” that formed the basis for not prosecuting a sitting president.
- Public Citizen – letter to Congress supported by 75 organizations asking Congress to overturn the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.
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 rodwood@email.com.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist 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!
Trump and Vance Fail to Offer Solutions to School Violence
Trump and Vance Fail to Offer Solutions to School Violence
Education Policy Brief #196 | By: Evan Wechman | December 28, 2024
Photo by Jose Alonso on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
The conversation about school shootings has recently been turned up a notch. After the deadly incident at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison Wisconsin two weeks ago, the nation has again turned its attention to this heated topic.
Since the deadly massacre at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, there have been many studies on the effects these incidents have on students at such schools.
Most have concluded that there are many long-lasting effects on young students who have been present at school shootings, even if they have escaped unscathed. The consequences are numerous and not always apparent immediately after a school shooting.
For example, there is overwhelming evidence that survivors at such schools often suffer from absenteeism, depression, post-traumatic stress, and even drug abuse. The data indicates that even students present at school shootings where there are no fatalities are less likely than other students to graduate high school, and on average, earn significantly less money in employment when they reach their 20’s.
School shootings have risen in frequency since the Columbine incident and are now at their highest levels in the last 25 years.
Professor Maya Rossin-Slater who has studied the impact on student survivors at schools in Parkland and Sandy Hook, as well as incidents at less high-profile schools where no deaths occurred, has found the consequences are harming both the mental health and education of these children.
“Attention in the media on gun violence in schools tends to focus on the mass, indiscriminate, horrific events like Sandy Hook and Parkland and the victims, their families and friends,” Rossin-Slater said. “But there are many more shootings that take place at American schools in which nobody dies. Our research shows that children exposed to these shootings nevertheless experience massive disruptions in their learning and later economic well-being.”
Policy Analysis:
Though the consequences of such trauma are prevalent, the GOP has not given up its connection with the NRA. Vice President-elect JD Vance has said on the campaign trail that enacting stricter gun laws will not stop school shootings. This is in line with what has been a major talking point for the NRA.
Vance has also said schools need tighter security such as stronger doors, better windows and more school resource officers. He has come under fire for his remarks about school shootings being a” fact of life.” Though his team has said Vance’s comments were taken out of context, it seems he is missing the forest for the trees.
Vance, while acknowledging the despair of the current state of school violence, is not offering any solutions to the future trauma our students will endure.
Rather, his language suggests that once the Trump administration takes office, the GOP and NRA will still be joined at the hip and the focus will solely be on heightened security.
However, this will not do anything to curb the detrimental effects on students’ mental health and their ability to learn. He doesn’t offer a plan to deal with these consequences, which is very dangerous.
On the other hand, the current administration deserves credit for trying to change the status quo. President Biden and Vice President Harris have both acknowledged a change in course is essential. They are pleading for stricter gun laws such as more stringent background checks and a ban on assault rifles.
Unfortunately, with the Trump regime set to take office in a few weeks, such common-sense laws seem unlikely to be considered.
Engagement Resources
- Sandy Hook Promise — Preventing Gun Violence: Provides education and empowers youth and adults to prevent violence in schools, homes, and communities.
- Alliance for Gun Responsibility – Preventing Gun Violence: The Alliance for Gun Responsibility works to save lives and eliminate the harms caused by gun violence in every community through advocacy, education, and partnerships.
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.
Who’s On Trump’s Cabinet- Part 3: Health and Education
Who’s On Trump’s Cabinet- Part 3: Health and Education
Elections & Politics #138 | By: Arvind Salem | Submitted December 25, 2024
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
Health and Education were not what swung this election, but issues of education and healthcare still hold much sway with moderates and formed a key part of Trump’s appeal. This Brief continues the process of exploring how to hold Cabinet appointments like these accountable, using the express motivations and goals that either Trump or they themselves have set (regardless of if those goals themselves are admirable or not, although most are).
Robert F Kennedy Jr.
RFK Jr. burst onto the political scene with his run as a third party candidate in the 2024 election. RFK Jr. strayed from his family political heritage, including his namesake, by abandoning the Democratic party and running as a third party candidate. Throughout the campaign, he began shifting further to the right, and eventually found himself endorsing Trump after dropping out.
However, more so than any of Trump’s other cabinet picks, RFK Jr. is extremely polarizing. He frequently contradicts established health authorities and peddles countless health conspiracy theories. While the public health establishment has been under fire ever since their handling of COVID-19, RFK Jr’s public health policy perspectives often find themselves outside the realm of orthodox political debate. He has spread numerous anti-vaccine theories (including that vaccines cause autism), advocated against fluoridating water (when the CDC recommends it), embraced hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment and raw milk (both of which contradict the guidance of the FDA). He also has no public health or medical degree. This isn’t an empty exercise in credentialism, but leads to natural skepticism on what his basis is for questioning established medical consensus, especially as he will be given the power to shape public policy on many of these issues.
Many of RFK Jr’s policy positions fall within the context of railing against the existing public health establishment for making American children unhealthier and increasing the incidence of chronic diseases like autism and diabetes. If RFK Jr. can lower these chronic disease numbers, despite the unorthodox tactics he may use to do so, he would be successful. However, if he did this by, for example, recommending less vaccinations, lower chronic disease numbers would have to be weighed against a potential increase in infectious diseases like the flu that would presumably result if less people take vaccines).
Mehmet Oz
One of RFK Jr’s most prominent staff members is set to be Dr. Mehmet Oz. Like RFK Jr, Oz is a politically prominent figure: he was the Republican nominee for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania and eventually lost to Senator John Fetterman. Unlike RFK Jr., Oz has more of a medical background: he was a celebrity physician with a daytime show (that was discontinued when he ran for Senate and advocated for medically dubious,pseudoscientific treatments).
The crux of Dr. Oz’s proposed policies, which he outlined in 2020 for his 2022 Senate race, is to replace Medicare with a private Medicare advantage plan, essentially privatizing Medicare. However, a coalition of Democratic Senators led by Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has concerns based on his financial ties to United Health Group. Oz invested over $550,000 in the company, which stands to gain massively if Oz’s privatized Medicare plan is implemented.
Much of Oz’ appeal comes from his promise to cut down the bureaucracy and ensure better health outcomes while being more efficient. Therefore, to measure his success, it is sufficient to examine his effect on the number of Americans covered by Medicare and the expenditures of the agency.
Linda McMahon
McMahon is a veteran of the first Trump administration- where she was head of the Small Business Administration. She is also a major donor to President Trump. Trump’s vision for the Department is largely to dismantle it and send education back to the states, and McMahon will largely be responsible for executing that vision. While there likely isn’t enough Congressional support to eliminate the Department of Education, McMahon will still have the power to, and likely will, institute programs like school vouchers and expanding access to homeschooling.
Once again, measuring success in education will be quite simple. Standardized tests like the NWEA within the United States can measure educational achievement relative to historical benchmarks. Additionally, there is already a test known as the “nation’s report card” (The National Assessment of Educational Progress), while the PISA test can compare U.S. students to their OECD counterparts. With a well-known litany of standardized tests in the United States, measurement isn’t a problem, and looking at these tests will determine if these educational policies improve student achievement, determining if McMahon was successful as an Education Secretary.
Conclusion:
All of these picks share Trump’s vision and are being given a broad mandate to execute it. Although these issues are muli-faceted and complex, the evaluative framework given in this series of briefs represents a sound, rational measurement of determining if these Cabinet officials succeed in accomplishing their goals. We all benefit from a healthier and more educated America, and I sincerely hope that these officials are able to make that vision into a reality.
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 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.