JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump Administration Policies Help Spread Covid-19 to Central America
Brief #94—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Since March, the Trump Administration has expelled almost 10,000 migrants using emergency public health measures that have granted US Customs and Border Protection temporary authority to bypass immigration laws.
Hawaii Wildlife Fund defends Clean “ Wai” Water
Brief #84—Environment
By Shannon Quinn Elliott
Hawaiian culture is sacred. Hawaiians give much respect to the history and folklore of their state. Forest, streams, oceans and humans are all interconnected creating “Ohana” one family, protecting invaluable resources. Hawaiian mythology tells a tale of Kane and Kanaloa; Gods of Water, who when they desired to drink would dig their hands into the earth calling on the fresh water to quench their thirst.
Netanyahu ‘Confident’ Trump will give green-light for Annexation
Brief #82—Foreign Policy
By Hassan Elsebai
Speaking to an Evangelical pro-Israel group, Netanyahu assured the audience that Israel’s annexation of the West Bank will likely be supported by the Trump administration. Secretary of state Mike Pompeo has stated that the decision to annex is up to Israel and the US will relay its thoughts privately.
We Are 16 States Away from Being Able to Have an All Mail-In Presidential Election
Brief #122—Civil Rights
ByRod Maggay
In the United States, an absentee ballot is a voting option that permits a registered voter to receive an official ballot from the state and return the ballot to the state board of elections after he or she has filled it out at a place other than a local polling booth.
Unemployment Surges with Little Cause for Optimism
Brief #73—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
The dramatic surge in unemployment in the April BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data comes with little surprise. The current rate of 14.7% is the worst since the 1933 high of 25%.
States Re-Open: Is It Wise
Brief #4—Coronavirus Government Watch Post
By Sean Gray
By last Monday morning 31 states in the US had reopened portions of their economy. Mass gatherings are still be prohibited wide and social distancing practices remain in effect for businesses.
The dangers of America’s appetite for meat just multiplied
Brief #83—Environment
By Todd J Broadman
Approximately 25% of all U.S. meat packing plants have been closed.
States Weigh Mail-in Ballot Options; Trump’s Poll Numbers Slip
Brief #2—U.S. Resist Presidential Campaign News Update
By Iryna Shkurhan
Voters today are stuck between exercising their constitutional right or protecting their health as states rush to implement mail voting systems. A partisan divide on expanding voting access for the remaining primaries serves as a glimpse for what to expect when the general election rolls around in November. Until then, court rulings and legislative changes are to be expected as the current public health crisis continues to expose partisan clashes over conducting elections.
Trump to Limit Immigration to the US due to COVID-19
Brief #93—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The Trump Administration issued a proclamation (Proclamation 9994) to limit immigration into the US in the next 60 days. The justification given is that, due to the economic recession the US is bound to face in the aftermath of COVID-19, “aliens” will be taking jobs.
Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15:” Gun Control Ideas for 2020
Policy Summary
Looking at the gun control ideas of the current presidential candidates is important to ensure that those fit what you believe as an informed citizen. Since Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Beto O’Rourke are some of the leading candidates, an analysis of their positions on gun control is vital to determine who can best serve the country and prevent future mass shootings. All candidates, for example, support a universal background check. On the other hand, the views on assault weapon bans and how to handle them are different. They all believe an assault weapon ban is important, but Biden would not apply this ban to previously owned weapons, nor force a buyback – though he does support a voluntary buyback. Sanders is unclear in his position on whether the buyback he supports would be mandatory or voluntary, so that point is still in question. Warren does not seem to have a plan for a buyback, which is an interesting fact given how many plans she has released. O’Rourke has the most intensive buyback plan, indicating an interest in a mandatory return of assault weapons. A deeper look, though, will assist in informing and allowing for easier analysis of which candidates have the strongest views and ideas.
Biden
Joe Biden does not have a direct gun control plan available on his campaign website, though the basics are visible. He supports universal background checks, and banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines. He claims he wishes to defeat the NRA, though there is little supporting evidence on how he wants to do that and some of his comments (like stating the NRA is not the enemy, the gun manufacturers are) bring up questions about his stance. While he is not entirely wrong, since even some members of the NRA do support some level of gun control, targeting the entirety of the organization is important to ensure that their lobbying cannot continue to influence gun laws.
Sanders
Bernie Sanders presents a relatively minimalist plan for what he wants with regard to gun control on his website. Banning assault weapons and making it harder for criminals to get guns is a big goal, as is lowering the influence of the NRA. Previously he did vote on occasion in support of guns, but his current NRA rating is D-minus, indicating that the lobbying group feels that he would threaten their goals- which is excellent for prospects regarding gun bans and limitations.
Warren
Elizabeth Warren has an intensive plan for gun control, as she does for most things. She wants to eliminate corruption in order to prevent the NRA from continuing to have control in the government as her first priority. After that, federal licenses, a universal background check, purchase caps and prevention of illicit transfer of firearms are all focuses. The waiting period is another aspect of control that she addresses. Supposedly one exists, but Warren wants to ensure that it is followed and enforced. As with everyone, an assault weapons ban is on the table as well, along with a ban on things like trigger cranks that can cause even more death by making semi-automatic weapons fully automatic. The access to firearms that many domestic abusers and others at high risk for violence (either to themselves or others) is another limit that Warren sees as important – both with a higher age limit and stricter rules for who can obtain a gun. Along with these rules, Warren wants to strike back against the NRA and other gun lobbies. She believes that accountability and the elimination of corruption will help lower the amount of gun violence. When the manufacturers see that they are losing money with every mass shooting( since they can be sued for the deaths and injuries to people) they are more likely to enforce safety rules.
O’Rourke
Beto O’Rourke was originally somewhat moderate on the gun control issue, at least vocally. Now, however, with the shooting in El Paso directly influencing his home, he has shown much less restraint. In fact, he supports a mandatory assault weapon buyback now, stating that Americans should not have weapons of war. Taking down the influence of the NRA, enforcing gun licensing, and limits on stockpiles are other ideas he has. A very large one that is not commonly seen is the idea of declaring gun violence a public health emergency. Beto believes that the massive number of deaths needs to be addressed, since over a hundred people die daily due to gun violence. Moving forward on this is vital, Beto knows, and he is now becoming much more vocal on the point.
Policy Analysis
Unfortunately, there are no perfect solutions when it comes to gun control. All of the candidates, however, have much better positions than we currently see with Republicans and their placating views toward the gun manufacturers and NRA. No matter who finds their way to the Democratic nomination, the idea of universal background checks, assault weapons bans, and support for more regulation with regard to guns is forthcoming. Perfection is hard to find, but anything is better than the mass shootings and constant fear the country deals with every day, unsure if they will get a call that their children have been killed by firearms, or if they will find themselves trapped in a mass shooting and in danger of becoming a statistic.
Resistance Links
- https://www.dosomething.org/us/campaigns/do-something-about-gun-violence is a site that offers registration and reminders on how to keep up with the gun control movement, as well as an easy way to email representatives to keep them informed on the fact that you support gun control and you vote.
- https://momsdemandaction.org/ seeks to promote responsible gun ownership and prevent gun violence. The group is a grassroots campaign to ensure that children and families are made safer, and has chapters countrywide.
- http://www.30guncontrolactionsyoucantakenow.com/take-action offers, as the site says, 30 gun control actions that can be taken easily and quickly. It is important to ensure that the movement continues and that new laws are put in place to make the United States safer.
Photo by DXL
Trump’s Disregard for Security Clearance Process Compromises Intelligence Community
In April of this year it was reported that 25 Trump administration officials were granted security clearances against the recommendation of White House Personnel Security Office. The clearances are divided into the categories confidential, secret, and top secret. Applicants are thoroughly vetted through a SF-86 form, which inquires about who an applicant knows, where they’ve lived and what foreign contacts they’ve had. The rationale behind this digging is to ensure individuals with access to the most sensitive informational are not susceptible to blackmail or coercion through personal or financial entanglements. According to former CIA intelligence officer Andrew Bakaj, the background checks protect “people or entities that we rely on to gather information and intelligence — and the information that is gathered.” Bakaj noted in the same NPR article that disclosure of top secret information can carry grave consequences.
Whistleblower Tricia Newbold set an important precedent by becoming the first member of the Trump White House to take allegation of misconduct to Congress with her name behind them. Newbold is a career government employee who began working in the Executive Office at the end of Bill Clinton’s second term in 2000. She rose to the level of White House adjudications manager, tasked with determining which employees should be granted which clearances. In January she was suspended two weeks, without pay, for what she alleges was retaliation for raising issues regarding certain security clearances.
The most glaring example of questionable security clearance is the President’s son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. The Washington Post reported in February that Trump ordered then-Chief of Staff John Kelly to issue Kushner a security clearance over the concerns of officials. There is no known precedent for a president interfering in this way. In filling out his SF-86 form, Kushner omitted his involvement in the infamous ‘’Trump Tower’’ meeting, a meeting with the head of a state owned Russian bank. Kushner made more than 40 revisions to his initial financial disclosures. Most disturbing amongst his omissions was the back-channel he and former National Security Director, Michael Flynn, allegedly tried to create with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Given the administration’s lack of transparency and the president’s overly favorable position towards Russia, this allegation was a warranted red flag.
If the security clearances began and ended with entrance to the White House, Trump circumventing the process could be viewed through the lens of nepotism or cronyism, insidious and unfair, but not a detriment to national security. The access to top secret information that the clearances grant make it a more serious matter and the issue likely should have received more scrutiny. Trump has often been dismissive of the intelligence community. At times he directly contradicts their findings, never offering any evidence of his contrarian assertions. His hubris should not be taken lightly. Gathering information concerning potential threats to the country is the most essential function of the intelligence community. Safeguarding this information, the means through which it was acquired and the people who acquired it ,are critical to ensure such activity can continue unimpeded. When such safeguards are violated, it endangers the American intelligence community and by extension the country.
Photo by NASA
Landmark Decision in Opioid Epidemic Case
The Case
Amid cries to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in the nation-wide opioid epidemic that killed 47,000 Americans in 2017 alone, an Oklahoma court has done just that. Judge Thad Balkman ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $572 million, upon finding the company guilty in its role in fueling the state’s opioid crisis. Oklahoma originally sought $17.5 billion to be paid by the defendant over the next 30 years to repair the damages done by the crisis. The facts of the case found that the defendants, Johnson & Johnson, “engaged in false and misleading marketing of both their drugs and opioids generally, and the law makes it clear that such conduct is more than enough to serve as the act or omission necessary to establish the first element of Oklahoma’s public nuisance law,” according to the Judge. Johnson & Johnson’s defense centralized over the claim that the company could not be held liable for supplying legal products and ingredients that were highly regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and state authorities. Additionally, Johnson & Johnson disputed the claim that neither the company (J&J) or its subsidiaries, participated in a misinformation campaign where healthcare professionals understated the dangers of the drugs, nor did they conduct sales calls to doctors that lead to over prescribing or the drug crisis. Nevertheless, the company was found guilty of these charges and claims.
Analysis
Oklahoma is one of dozens of states suing drug makers, with this being the first to go to trial as many companies have settled out of court . This historic case is the first to hold pharmaceuticals responsible for the opioid epidemic which started in 1999 and has reportedly taken over 6,000 lives in Oklahoma since 2000, in addition to the more than 400,000 people have died of overdoses nationwide since 1999. A federal trial, made up of nearly 2,000 cases involving cities, counties, communities and tribal lands, is set for this October, in Ohio. Attorneys for this federal case, have been watching Oklahoma’s proceedings closely, hoping to find similar success.
Johnson & Johnson has announced that they plan to appeal the ruling, which the company attorney called flawed and stated it was a misapplication of the public nuisance law that has been rejected by other, out of state judges. Should the appeal fail, Johnson and Johnson will fund millions to ease the epidemic in Oklahoma, where money will be diverted to addition treatment and prevention programs in the state. This case, as it is already proving to be, will likely be the first of many court cases holding companies and even individuals accountable. However, success in other states is still questionable due to varying state laws.
The Johnson& Johnson case is likely to be the first in a series of cases that seek to hold big pharma companies accountable to the tragic consequence of opioid misuse. With drug maker’s now being held accountable, USRN will be covering the numerous events coming soonJoin our mailing list to be the first to know when the next pharmaceutical is prosecuted
Fig 1. Oklahoma Opioid Use – National Institute on Drug Abuse
Fig 2. US Drug Overdose NCHS Data Brief No. 329 – CDC
Photo by kgrkz
Trump Uses the Military to Boost His Scottish Resort
In 2014 Donald Trump purchased the historic Turnberry golf course in southwest Scotland for $60 million. True to form, he renamed it Trump Turnberry and sunk another $200 million into renovations. In an act of collaboration to cover its bets, The Trump organization formed a business partnership with the nearby Glasgow Prestwick airport. A press release from November of the same year announcing the partnership cited the synergy between the two as ”crucial for both parties as [they] further develop golf and tourism in Ayrshire and Scotland”. Now the president faces more question of scandal after it came to light that a military convoy plane delivering supplies to Kuwait made stops at the Scottish resort as it traveled to and from the Middle East.
A House Oversight Committee investigation of this affair has been underway since April. The Pentagon has not been forthcoming with answers. In response to a Politico story, the Air Force maintained that the stop was not unusual, but that an investigation is ongoing. In the same statement, Brigadier General Ed Thomas said: ”the [crew] used the closest available and least expensive accommodations to the airfield. An email from Glasgow Prestwick’s Manager of Aviation Services (prior to the partnership) bluntly stated that of a list of hotels used for the airport’s business, Turnberry was last, based on price.
Trump’s latest scandal sees him playing air traffic controller to divert military flights to destination profitable to him. As has often been the case with this administration, there is ample smoke, but deceit and legal stonewalling have obscured the extent of the fire. Trump’s ownership of the club is listed on his financial disclosure forms and the partnership was announced publicly, but it seems no one considered the possibility for conflict-of-interest to arise. It is now on the radar of Representative Elijah Cummings. In June he sent an official correspondence to then-acting Defense Secretary Patrick M. Shannon detailing his concerns of a conflict of interest and a sharp increase in military expenditures at Glasgow Prestwick. It is not known if Shannon complied with this request before he resigned.
The prosperity of Glasgow Prestwick and Trump Turnberry are very closely linked. Each was struggling prior to Trump’s election. The golf course reportedly lost $4.5 million in 2017. The Scottish government purchased the floundering airport for £1 in 2013 and put it back up for sale in June. This despite $11 million is U.S. military fuel purchases since October ’17. All evidence points to two intertwined businesses seeing considerable financial upticks following the Trump ascension to the presidency.
Photo by Ludwig Schreier
EPA Changes Rules to Allow Pesticide Harmful to Bees
Policy Summary
The EPA is being sued over its approval of the pesticide Sulfoxaflor, a pesticide which has historically been strictly regulated or banned to prevent harm to bees, and has recently been given a series exemptions to be used on plants which bees and other pollinators find attractive. The pesticide, which the EPA’s own risk assessment calls “very highly toxic” to bees, is usually only allowed for plants which bees do not naturally pollinate, or during times where the plants are not in bloom and therefore not being visited by bees. The exceptions, granted under special emergency power, give farmers the ability to spray the pesticide in ways more likely to harm bees and native pollinators.
The EPA is charged with the approval of pesticides, and is therefore required to make adequate risk assessments on the toxicity to both humans, non-target plants, and animals. This is not the first time in the past year the EPA has come under fire for its regulation of pesticides, with the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General publishing a report charging that the procedures in place for approval of pesticides were inadequate for assessing their risks. This particular pesticide approval has reportedly caused strong backlash among advocates for bee and pollinator health.
The pesticide Sulfoxaflor was embroiled in court challenges from beekeepers and advocates which ultimately lead to its banning shortly before being reintroduced with stricter regulation in 2016. The new exemption comes at a time where the Trump administration is rolling back efforts to collect data on the health of the nation’s key pollinators, and in a year where bee populations have faced some of their harshest declines.
Policy Analysis
The Trump administration has a long history of rolling back environmental regulation, most notably in the energy sector. Pesticides, are at the intersection of several important interests: public health, the agricultural industry, and environmental protection.
Bees are well known to be the single most vital species to many ecosystems of pollinated plants, and the systematic use of industrial farming techniques including pesticides is linked to the decimation of bees around the world. Meanwhile, pesticides and herbicides have caused some of the most grim ecological and human tragedies of the past century, and yet they have been absolutely pivotal in increasing crop yields and reducing insect borne diseases. At the heart of both of these issues is the effect on agriculture through the sometimes-competing needs of safety, productivity, and low-costs in farming.
In dealing with these competing interests, the Trump administration does not seem to take a strategic or long-term view in terms of agricultural policy. Food security is not the top priority of the administration, as the sustained impact of the trade war, and subsequent aid, on farmers and farming communities has shown. Nevertheless, it is in the language of food security and agricultural success that these pesticide policies are justified, even when they have sounded alarm bells for the long-term sustainability of the United States agricultural system.
The most convincing analysis of this deregulatory trend in the agricultural industry is that it has the same animating philosophy as the deregulation of the coal industry — the disavowal of responsibility for the climate crisis and a neoliberal animus towards regulation as the dampener of economic progress. This policy trend within the EPA fails to either strengthen food supply in the long term, or to increase the ecological and human wellbeing of the country, and therefor it fails to live up to any rhetoric except that of blanket deregulation.
Resistance Links
- Earthjustice is the organization providing legal support for the beekeepers in their lawsuit against the EPA over this regulation
- Bee informed is an informational organization which collects data about bee health and best practices. Their work is especially important as the Department of Agriculture is shuttering certain public data programs about bee health.
- Natural Resource Defense Councilworks to provide scientific and expert support to environmental advocacy, including providing documents examining the health effects of pesticides like Roundup.
Photo by Boris Smokrovic
Trump to End Medical Deferred Action
Policy Summary
This past August, the US Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) eliminated their ‘Medical Deferred Action’ program for individuals who may avoid deportation whilst they and/or their family members were undergoing medical treatment. Medical Deferred Action was intended as a temporary agenda, to be modified and made more robust, but not eliminated. This special program for individuals with rare diseases who may not have access to treatments in their home country rely heavily on the medical treatments they can receive in the US – which also aids scientific development of medicines to treat such rare diseases. The agency sent letters to individuals previously exempt from deportation, giving them a 33 day notice to leave the country or else face deportation. Requests for deferred action must now be made to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE – the agency responsible for deportations) instead of USCIS. Previously, individuals had to re-apply/renew their deferred action every couple of years and many have been renewed for decades now. Those same individuals received letters from the USCIS telling them that their program support was coming to an end.. The elimination of the program is technically still under review, but it is unclear if there will be a limited version of deferred action or if the program will be eliminated entirely.
CBS reached out to USCIS to inquire about the abrupt change, but they provided no answers and instead deflected by re-directing them to ICE. Confusingly, an ICE official told CBS that they were not previously consulted about the change but alerted once the letters were sent out to migrants. In reality, the government does not have the time nor the resources to deport literally every single unauthorized immigrant.
As the news of this program termination began to trickle out, public outrage led to a temporary reversal by the Trump Administration. Roughly 100 members of Congress officially denounced this and wrote letters to senior officials at the Department of Homeland Security urging them to reverse their decision.
Analysis
There is a huge lack of transparency surrounding the end of this program. No public announcements were made, just private letters to specific individuals. The program termination is a death sentence for many of the individuals in the US under Medical Deferred Action. A number of individuals would essentially be sent home to die.
In the past 6 months, the Trump Administration also decided it would abstain from giving flu vaccinations to migrant families held in border detention centers, despite 3 deaths of migrant children due to the flu. These are subtle, but dire actions of intentional cruelty under the existing guise of national security.
Resistance Resources
- The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights. Recently, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the separation of families at the border.
- The National Immigration Law Center: an organization that exclusively dedicates itself to defending and furthering the rights of low income immigrants and strives to educate decision makers on the impacts and effects of their policies on this overlooked part of the population.
- FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.
Photo by
Elias Castillo
Trump Goes It Alone at a Global Summit Meeting(As Usual)
Summary
Donald Trump’s lone wolf mentality towards foreign policy has become a detrimental issue for the United States. President Trump has goaded our enemies with dramatized negotiations without sticking to promises. The administration has lost the faith of our allies by focusing energies on twitter and fruitless trade wars. He has allowed tensions to worsen when he pulls out of global promises. His international track record is crucial. This may be why President Trump had the limelight at the G7 gathering past week.
For starters, President Trump shocked the international world when he openly expressed regret over the escalating trade war with China. “I have second thoughts about everything,” he said. Later his aides walked that comment back, reiterating that Trump’s only regret was not placing higher tariffs on Chinese goods. White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham later issued a statement. “This morning in the (meeting) with the UK, the president was asked if he had ‘any second thought on escalating the trade war with China. His answer has been greatly misinterpreted. President Trump responded in the affirmative — because he regrets not raising the tariffs higher.” However, a transcript of Trump’s back and forth with journalists clarifies that Trump was questioned on three separate occasions whether he had any regrets on the trade tensions with China. During each instance, Trump indicated that he did have regrets. That being said, the U.S. will apparently sign a new trade agreement with Japan at an upcoming NATO meeting and talks are back on with Beijing. Stocks are predicted to rise as Japan and China trade optimism will ease investors’ concerns about economic instability caused by tariffs.
The President expressed on multiple occasions that he would like Russia to rejoin the G7. Russia was removed from attending these summit meetings when it annexed Crimea several years ago. Since, the Russian government has displayed more aggression toward the Ukraine. Russia will not be welcome to attend unless all member nations agree on their return. This invitation is highly unlikely as Russia would have to reverse its annexation of Ukraine. Many international leaders were taken aback when Trump pushed for Russia’s attendance at summits in the future. The President denied Russia’s responsibility in the past and instead cast blame on former President Barack Obama for Russia’s violation of international law, expressing his sympathies for Putin.
Prior to the G7 summit, Emmanuel Macron, the French president wrote on Twitter, “The Amazon rainforest—the lungs which produce 20% of our planet’s oxygen—is on fire…Our house is burning. Literally. The French President referred to the Amazonian fires as an “international crisis”. Across the board, leaders agreed to join forces to battle the disastrous Amazon rainforest, including a surprising show of support from Trump and U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson. Soon afterward, $20 million in aid was announced by French president Emmanuel Macron.
Sadly, climate change did not receive much attention from our POTUS. As international leaders gathered to discuss climate change and what could be done to address the gradual warming of our planet, President Trump made himself scarce. “The President had scheduled meetings and bilaterals with Germany and India, so a senior member of the Administration attended in his stead,” press secretary Stephanie Grisham claimed. However, both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi were witnessed as attending the climate change meeting. For many this does not come off as a surprise, as Trump has repeatedly voiced skepticism about climate change in the past.
Iran’s foreign minister made a surprise appearance at the G7 summit. This was an unanticipated occurrence to an already heated gathering, adding only one more controversial subject to stand between President Trump and our western allies. Mohammad Javad Zarif, flew to the summit in southern France by way of an invitation from President Emmanuel Macron of France, in an attempt to reconcile relations with the United States and Iran. All in attendance agreed on a common interest in obtaining stability in the Middle East and not wanting Iran to obtain access to nuclear weapons. Officials claim Macron discussed Iran at length with Trump and by the next day the Group of 7 leaders had agreed on a common outreach to Iran.
Analysis
During the 2019 Group of Seven summit, President Trump faced backlash from international leaders over his policies on China, trade, Russia and Iran. Disappointingly, President Trump did not attend the global climate meeting and at one point reportedly suggested using nuclear weapons to combat hurricanes. Trump went as far as to offer that next year’s summit be held at his Miami resort. “They love the location of the hotel,” he said, referring to the G7 leaders.
However it was not all a loss. When it came to international relations, Trump said Iran is “not the same country that it was two and a half years ago,” and he noted that the US is “not looking for leadership change.” When questioned about whether he was willing to come to a trade agreement with China, Trump said, “Only if it’s a fair deal and a good deal for the United States. Otherwise, I will not make a deal.” This may not seem like much but in comparison to his past comments in regards to trade with the country in the far east, this was an improvement.
Engagement Resources:
- Rainforest Alliance announced earlier this month that it would be redirecting 100% of its donations to frontline organizations in Brazil working to “protect the Amazon and defend the rights of its Indigenous people,” including the Brazil chapter of Coordinator of the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin and sustainable agriculture partner IMAFLORA.
- The Rainforest Foundation is one organization that works to support thousands of indigenous communities, especially those that depend on the Amazon’s habit to survive. The group is accepting donations, 100% of which will go to support “on-the-ground indigenous organizations in Brazil” focused on stopping illegal deforestation and securing land claims, as well as building campaigns aimed at mobilizing government action.
- Amazon Watch works with the Munduruku people and has supported the community’s efforts to stop the proposed dam, and this year, helped convene an assembly of Munduruku youth with Munduruku chiefs. Amazon Watch helps provide legal defense, convening community assemblies and workshops, as well as mapping and monitoring initiatives.
- Earth Alliance is a joint environmental conservation project founded by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, and private equity guru Brian Sheth. On Sunday, the organization formed an Amazon Forest Fund, with an initial $5 million pledge from DiCaprio. The fund will be focusing resources toward local communities and groups working to protect the Amazon, as well as those affected by the fires.
Photo by Jose Moreno
Cyber Ransom Hits American Towns and Cities – Europe Has An Answer
Policy Summary
Over the past month cities in Florida and Texas have reported cyber attacks against their computer file systems. These attacks, that encrypt data and demand ransom to regain access to the information, have grown in frequency and audacity. The attackers demand ransom payments that are made through crypto currencies and are thus difficult to track. There are some estimates that claim $18 billion in annual revenue from this criminal activity.
The US Conference of Mayors, which represents cities with populations of 30,000 or more, noted that since 2013 more than 170 municipalities have been targeted including Baltimore, Atlanta, and Newark New Jersey. This does not include the Texas and Florida towns targeted in the August attacks. In their 2019 annual meeting they passed a resolution opposing payment to ransomware attack perpetrators
In 2016 Europol’s European CyberCrime Center began an initiative to provide a coordinated response to these attacks. Partnering with major computer security companies Kaspersky and Mcafee, they serve as a clearinghouse for information on attacks aiding local police agencies and creating a library of tools to recover data without paying ransom. This effort led to the “No More Ransom!” Project.
In the United States, two Federal agencies are tasked with dealing with crimes in the computer sphere; the Computational Intelligence and Signal Analysis (CISA) branch of the Department of Homeland Security which deals with national security threats and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that investigates and counters criminal activity. State governments are also on the front lines of these attacks as the resource that county and municipal governments and agencies turn to first when disaster strikes.
Analysis
Ransomware attacks usually begin with clever bits of social engineering. An unsuspecting user clicks on a link or opens an attachment in an otherwise innocent looking email. This will start a process that installs malicious software on the user’s computer that will attempt to spread itself to computers and file systems on the same network. There has always been blackmail. What makes the ransomware blackmail more insidious is that the attacker can hide behind the anonymity of crypto-currencies to make the transaction from around the corner or around the world.
Victims of ransomware attacks have three choices 1) pay the ransom which may or may not get your data back (blackmailers have been known to ask for more if they believe you will pay) 2) If you are lucky enough to have backups restore them 3) rebuild from scratch.
The fragmented nature of the Federal response to this sometimes criminal sometimes state sponsored activity have led to ambiguous strategies to combat these threats. The threat has existed in the world of personal computing since at least 2013 but the FBI’s response and guidelines are more in the nature of how you can prevent an attack rather than what to do when an attack occurs. Their recommendation has been “don’t pay”. Companies, governments and others have had to turn to private companies such as CloudStrike, Symantec, Mcafee, and others to help remediate or rebuild.
In Trump’s “America First” international cooperation is discouraged. It is clear that these kinds of attacks have a global reach. Joining the “No More Ransom!” Project is a positive step that the United States could take to end the scourge. Going it alone is an expensive and unproductive strategy to meet the challenge.
Resistance Resources
- The official No More Ransom! website has descriptions of the project, tools to use if you are hacked and ways to get involved.
- US Conference of Mayors resolution to oppose ransom payments.
- FBI recommendations for victim of cyber attacks.
- Computing Technology Industry Association CompTIA is an industry trade association that is a clearinghouse for IT education, IT certification, IT advocacy and IT philanthropy.
- The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world
Photo by Nahel Abdul Hadi
The Use of a Trump Golf Resort for a Meeting of the G-7
The Corruption Blog: A new series by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
President Trump recently suggested that the next meeting of the G-7 take place at the Doral in Miami.
Trump’s refusal to divest of private assets have created the impression of presidential profiteering since his inauguration. His struggling Trump National Doral Miami resort in no exception. In a bid to lower the property’s value in 2018, a Trump Organization consultant cited an 18% decrease in revenue between 2015 and 2017, per The Miami Herald. Hosting the prestigious and globally visible 2020 G7 could change that in a hurry. A quick Google search reveals an average cost of a room in the 643 room resort at $193 a night. Assuming no increase in price in the next year, that would make the resort a tidy profit of $372,297 over the course of the three day retreat. This does not account for fees for catering, rental equipment or any other amenities befitting a foreign dignitary. It also doesn’t consider the boon hosting such an event could provide for the president’s property.
Trump spent this year’s G7 obfuscating discussions of global importance and bellyaching for Russia’s re-admittance. A year out from the next one, he has his sights set on further enriching himself at taxpayer expense. There’s little reason to think his agenda next year will be any more coherent. But at least in 2020, his priorities will be easier to pinpoint.
Learn More
- https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/trump-would-personally-profit-hosting-next-years-g-7-his-doral-resort-these-news
- https://globalnews.ca/news/4052182/g7-summit-canada-cost-605-million/
Photo by Ludwig Schreier
THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL: A VALUABLE RESOURCE IGNORED
By Colin Shanley
Summary
The Council consists of senior analysts within the intelligence community as well as subject matter experts from the public and private sectors. The NIC does not traditionally have a public face, operating instead as a source of information for internal decision-making. The Council also supports the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), a position formed in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Act. The DNI serves as the intelligence adviser to the President and rhe Department of Homeland Security, and also informs the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and others in the President’s cabinet. A major responsibility of the DNI is to present the President’s Daily Brief, which encapsulates all current intelligence concerns around the globe.
The NIC grew in institutional power after the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY1993, due to concerns that the intelligence community had grown to be too detached from the White House and private sector. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the NIC assisted the Clinton Administration in analyzing and predicting the new global environment and its implications, particularly concerning non-traditional concerns such as the effects of environmental change on national security. In 2002, the Council was criticized for failing to predict the threat posed by Al-Qaeda, and later again when they inaccurately reported that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. However, according to recollections from then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the plan to invade Iraq had already been set in motion by the time of the NIC’s report. Two 2003 reports warning of the dangerous reaction that an invasion would provoke were ignored by the Bush administration.
When the Obama administration organized a NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, they again ignored NIC warnings about the potential for US involvement to lead to larger consequences. After the pursual of Moammar Gadhafi lead to the collapse of the Libyan government and years of turmoil in the region, Obama reflected on this decision as his “worst mistake”. President Trump’s administration attitude towards the NIC has been characteristically incurious, ignoring the former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats’ assertion that Iran was in compliance with the Iran Deal and that North Korea was unlikely to surrender its nuclear weapons program.
Coats, a former Senator from Indiana and friend of Mike Pence, has drawn Trump’s ire by criticizing the President’s comments on Putin and expressing doubt regarding Trump’s optimism with regards to negotiations with North Korea. In July, Trump was reported to have privately discussed Coats’ removal. On July 28th, Trump announced that Coats would be replaced by John Ratcliffe, a Texas Congressman known for his strong public loyalty to Trump. In response to widespread criticism that this choice would further politicize the intelligence community, Trump announced on August 8th that Joseph Maguire, former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, would fill the role instead.
Analysis
The fact that Trump backed down from choosing Ratcliffe is notable, and suggests that he appreciates the value that much of Washington places on the intelligence community remaining isolated from such politicized conflict, due to the role it plays in preserving national security. Whether this means that Trump will begin to listen more closely to his intelligence briefs remains to be said. The Council has made serious miscalculations in the past, particularly under the Bush administration, but has also been a voice of moderation and sobriety in other cases. If Trump can learn to work with Maguire, as unlikely as this may be, it could help move the United States closer to a reasonable, consistent, and informed foreign policy.
Resistance Resources:
- Peace Action: A grassroots peace network which has helped reduce US aggression towards countries such as Iran.
- Human Rights Watch – A non-governmental, non-profit, international organization which provides a source of research and advocacy for human rights and anti-war causes around the world.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org