JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
No Capital Gains Tax in Texas: What It Means for Businesses and Residents (Economic Policy Brief #88)
In 2025, the Texas Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 6 (HJR 6), placing a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for the November 4, 2025, election. If approved by voters, the amendment would permanently prohibit Texas from ever imposing a tax on individuals’ net capital gains.
Project 2025 and Federal Influence Over K-12 Curricula (Education Policy Brief #204)
Although President Trump campaigned by keeping distance between himself and Project 2025, it is clear that his agenda since his inauguration has run parallel to the movement in many areas, including education.
2026 World Cup and President Trump’s Policies (Foreign Policy Brief #203)
The United States and its neighbors have long had a successful, and peaceful (mostly) existence. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have had free-trade agreements; entered into military alliances together; fought in wars together. However, since the inauguration of President Trump, these relationships have been tested – dramatically. The White House has called for Canada to become the “51st State”; the United States has changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America”. Publicly, President Sheibaum and Prime Minister Carney, of Mexico and Canada, respectively, have criticized President Trump and his policies both from afar and in-person.
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part II (Social Justice Policy Brief #175)
Presidential pardons are a constitutionally granted power, intended to serve as instruments of mercy, justice, and healing. But under President Donald Trump’s second term (2024–2025), this power has again been wielded as a political tool, continuing a controversial legacy from his first term. The recent wave of pardons reflects a continuation—and escalation—of Trump’s willingness to use executive clemency to reward loyalists, pardon convicted political allies, and whitewash wrongdoing linked to his political movement.
Pardons, Power, and Payback: Trump’s Legacy of Clemency — Part I (Social Justice Policy Brief #174)
The presidential pardon is a constitutional power granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It allows the President to grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses, except in cases of impeachment. While originally intended to offer clemency as a form of mercy or to correct miscarriages of justice, the use of pardons has evolved—and at times, been weaponized for political purposes.
The Role of the Judiciary Against The Other Branches of Government – A Historical Background (Civil Rights Policy Brief #244)
Just this week a number of reports have surfaced that detailed President Trump’s frustration with the Supreme Court and both the federal and state level judiciary in general.
Trump’s Big Beautiful Gifts to Artificial Intelligence Companies (Technology Policy Brief # 149)
In his first few days in office, Donald Trump announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank to invest in growing the US’s AI infrastructure and rescinded former President Joe Biden’s executive order requiring safety submissions from AI developers. His big, beautiful bill showers much more money in the industry, and aims to eliminate state oversight or regulation of AI companies as well.
The Future of Student Loans in Trump’s Presidency (Education Policy Brief #203)
Since Trump’s attack on the Department of Education, there has been some confusion surrounding the future of student loans. During the Biden Administration, there were discussions on a $20,000 loan forgiveness plan for each borrower, but that has since been struck down by the Supreme Court. Since then, there have been no discussed plans of mass loan forgiveness, but instead, mandatory loan repayments will be enacted.
Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration: A Busy 4-Month History
It is no secret the disdain the Trump Administration has shown towards the Justice system in America. On Truth Social, President Donald Trump has blasted the judges who have ruled against his agenda as “Crazed”, “Trump Hating”, and rogue, “activist judges” who hate the legal system.
Habeas corpus: What is it, and can it be suspended? (Elections & Politics Brief #185)
Habeas corpus: What is it, and can it be suspended?
Elections & Politics Brief #185 | Nate Iglehart | May 18, 2025
One of the most fundamental aspects of a fair and just legal system is the ability to challenge one’s detention, often referred to as “habeas corpus”. Habeas corpus is an old but crucial pillar of justice, dating back to the 13th-century Magna Carta, which stated that “No man shall be arrested or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”
Without a recourse to challenge detention, a government could jail someone without having to justify its decision to a judge. As a result, someone detained, regardless of whether they committed a crime or not, would have no way of ensuring their rights are protected, as there would be no judge to guarantee due process.
The Founding Fathers of the U.S. knew this and enshrined habeas corpus in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. But in recent weeks, the Trump administration has seemingly decided the Constitution is far more flexible than ever before, with key administration officials suggesting the suspension of habeas corpus to assist in Donald Trump’s deportation campaign as it grates against judges across the country.
Analysis
In the face of what he calls “activist judges”, Donald Trump has not backed down from stretching both the Constitution and the justice system to fit his needs, defying court orders and having his allies try to impeach judges who rule against his efforts to deport perceived criminal migrants. For the moment, the courtroom battles seem likely to continue into the coming months.
But in early May, the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, suggested that the Trump administration was eyeing ways to suspend habeas corpus, calling it a “privilege”. His justification is one that the administration has been leaning on intensely: that the arrival and presence of illegal migrants in the U.S. constitutes an “invasion,” which would give the administration extensive emergency powers.
More recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem echoed the idea that migrants illegally crossing the border from Mexico could warrant a suspension of habeas corpus.
Now, there are times when habeas corpus can, and has, been suspended, primarily in times of rebellion and invasion. Across American history, it’s been suspended four times: once under the threat of a British invasion of New Orleans in 1814, once under President Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War in 1861, once under President Theodore Roosevelt during a 1905 rebellion in the Philippines, and once under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Each suspension, save for the case during the Civil War, was ordered after being authorized by Congress, as while the original phrasing of habeas corpus doesn’t specify which government branch can suspend it, most legal experts agree that only Congress can do it. In the Civil War case, Lincoln faced such backlash after skipping congressional authorization that he went back and requested (and received) it.
There is also a decent breadth of legal precedent regarding who gets habeas corpus rights. In the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that only Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Clarence Thomas has also recently suggested that habeas corpus was indeed a constitutional right of national citizenship.
But that point of national citizenship is an important delineation, as the Trump administration would argue that habeas corpus doesn’t apply to noncitizens. Trump’s argument has some legal basis, as in 2020, the Supreme Court tossed out a decision by a lower appellate court allowing an illegal immigrant to file a writ of habeas corpus to overturn his asylum claim denial.
However, this line of argument runs into a sizable hurdle, as that 2020 decision applied more to his asylum claim instead of the detention. Additionally, a separate decision in the 2008 case of Boumediene v. Bush ruled that foreign nationals, at Guantánamo Bay in this case, needed to have meaningful habeas corpus reviews by civilian judges.
Whether or not Trump will try to suspend habeas corpus is an open question, depending on whether both judges and Congress believe illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion.” But Miller’s suggestion is an indication of the growing influence of the far-right in the Trump administration’s already hardline immigration policy.
Stephen Miller himself was a key immigration policy advisor in Trump’s first term and has come back the second time around with bigger plans. These plans are largely in line with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a checklist from far-right activists for Trump’s second term.
From sending troops to the southern border to limiting refugee admissions and revoking the temporary protected status of thousands of migrants, Trump’s policies are in line with that wish list.
While Miller himself has distanced himself from Project 2025, Trump brought in Russell Vought, an architect of the project. But here, there is a little gray around what Project 2025 believes regarding habeas corpus.
The actual text of Project 2025 doesn’t explicitly reference habeas corpus, and the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution does explicitly say, “in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court confirmed that only Congress possesses the constitutional power to suspend the writ.”
But it also focuses on many questions about following legal decisions and whether habeas corpus can be violated if there’s another avenue for contesting one’s detention. This has been an argument the Trump administration has made in recent court hearings regarding its deportation efforts.
Only time will tell if habeas corpus can, and will, be suspended. But the questions raised about how far the Trump administration is willing to push its power are troubling, especially with the fate of millions of undocumented immigrants on the line.
Engagement Resources
- The American Immigration Council is a nonprofit group that coordinates litigation, research, and advocacy for immigration policies.
- The American Constitution Society is a legal organization that advocates for a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution.
- The Federalist Society is a conservative and libertarian legal organization that advocates for a more fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution.
The Prison-Industrial Complex: Profiting Off Punishment in America (Economic Policy Brief #85)
The Prison-Industrial Complex: Profiting Off Punishment in America
Economic Policy Brief #85 | Inijah Quadri | May 16, 2025
The prison-industrial complex (PIC) in the United States represents a deeply entrenched system where incarceration is commodified, intertwining the interests of government agencies and private enterprises. This nexus has transformed the U.S. criminal justice system into a profit-driven enterprise, often at the expense of marginalized communities.
As of 2025, the United States operates approximately 1,566 state prisons, 98 federal prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,277 juvenile correctional facilities, 133 immigration detention centers, and 80 Indian country jails. Collectively, these facilities confine about 1.9 million individuals nationwide. State prisons hold the majority, with over 1 million incarcerated, followed by local jails housing approximately 619,000 individuals. Federal prisons detain about 209,000 people, while juvenile facilities, immigration detention centers, and Indian country jails account for the remainder. This extensive network underscores the scale and complexity of the U.S. incarceration system.
Private prison corporations, notably GEO Group and CoreCivic, have capitalized on policies that favor mass incarceration. Recent legislative developments, such as the Laken Riley Act, have expanded the criteria for detention, promising increased profits for these entities. These companies have secured lucrative contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), anticipating a surge in detainee numbers.
Beyond detention facilities, the exploitation extends to prison labor. In states like Alabama, incarcerated individuals work for corporations like McDonald’s and Home Depot under conditions likened to modern-day slavery. Despite generating significant revenue for the companies—estimated at about half a billion dollars annually—the workers receive minimal compensation, and refusal to work can lead to severe penalties.
This system disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and incarceration. The PIC’s entrenchment in American society raises critical questions about justice, equity, and the true cost of profit-driven punishment.
Analysis
The prison-industrial complex is sustained by a confluence of factors that prioritize profit over rehabilitation and justice. Private prison companies, such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, have been instrumental in shaping policies that ensure a steady influx of inmates. These corporations have invested heavily in lobbying efforts, with the two largest for-profit prison companies spending $1.7 million and $1.3 million respectively, on federal lobbying in 2024. Such financial influence has led to the enactment of laws that favor incarceration, including mandatory minimum sentences and stringent immigration policies.
The economic incentives for incarceration extend beyond the prison walls. Incarcerated individuals are often compelled to work under exploitative conditions, producing goods and providing services for major corporations. In Alabama, for instance, prisoners are employed by private companies like Home Depot, Wayfair, and McDonald’s through a state-run work program that generates significant revenue. Despite prisoners earning wages, the state garnishes 40% and imposes additional fees. Refusing work can result in harsh penalties, including denial of family visits and transfer to high-security prisons with poor conditions, deterring parole chances.
The racial disparities within the PIC are stark. Black Americans are incarcerated at disproportionately high rates, with one out of every three Black boys born today expected to be sentenced to prison, compared to one out of six Latino boys and one out of 17 white boys. This overrepresentation is not reflective of higher crime rates but is indicative of systemic biases within the criminal justice system. Policies such as the “War on Drugs” have disproportionately targeted communities of color, leading to mass incarceration and the subsequent disenfranchisement of these populations.
The PIC also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and incarceration. Individuals released from prison often face significant barriers to reintegration, including limited access to employment, housing, and education. These challenges are compounded by the stigma associated with incarceration, leading to high recidivism rates and a continuous supply of labor for the prison system.
Efforts to dismantle the PIC face significant challenges. Powerful lobbying by private prison companies influences legislation, while public perception often supports punitive measures over restorative justice. However, grassroots movements and advocacy groups continue to push for reforms, highlighting the need for a justice system that prioritizes human dignity over profit.
Engagement Resources
- Critical Resistance (https://criticalresistance.org/): An organization dedicated to dismantling the prison-industrial complex through grassroots organizing and advocacy.
- The Sentencing Project (https://www.sentencingproject.org/): Provides research and advocacy on criminal justice reform, focusing on reducing incarceration rates and addressing racial disparities.
- Prison Policy Initiative (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html): Offers data-driven insights into the U.S. criminal justice system, highlighting the impacts of mass incarceration.
- Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC) (https://incarceratedworkers.org/): A union for incarcerated workers advocating for labor rights and the abolition of prison slavery.
- Worth Rises (https://worthrises.org/): A nonprofit organization working to dismantle the prison industry and end the exploitation of those it targets.
- States of Incarceration (https://statesofincarceration.org/): A national public history project exploring the history and impact of mass incarceration in the U.S.
- Liberation Library (https://www.liberationlib.com/): Provides books to incarcerated youth, promoting education and empowerment as tools for liberation.
The Little Covered Big War in Congo and Rwanda (Foreign Policy Brief #201)
The Little Covered Big War in Congo and Rwanda
Foreign Policy Brief # 201 | Damian DeSola | May 20, 2025
To the average westerner, and especially to Americans, the African continent seems to be politically and economically monolithic. One could recall instances where an interviewed passerby on Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel’s show would refer to Africa as a country. This point of view makes the western public less capable of discerning and debating foreign policy as it relates to Africa. Therefore, it is the mission of this brief to inform readers of an infamous armed group that has made headlines for its brutality and human rights abuses, but whose history and status remain vague in the casual reader’s news feed: M23.
Origin of Ethnic Disputes in Rwanda and Eastern Congo
Before delving into the complex nature of this rebel group and the conflict it perpetuates, the ethnic tensions established by European colonization throughout Rwanda and Congo must be explored. During the Belgian colonial rule in sub-Saharan Africa, the three ethnic groups of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa, collectively known as the Banyarwanda, who had been living together for thousands of years, were labeled and turned into a caste system. The Belgians assigned the minority Tutsi as the ruling class, the majority Hutu the working class, and the 1% Twa below the Hutu as tribespeople.
As Belgium prepared and enacted decolonization policies, years of oppressive Belgian-backed Tutsi monarchy and enforced class structure coalesced into immense hatred between the two ethnicities. Tensions culminated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide of Tutsi, Twa, and “Tutsi-aligned” Hutu by radical Hutu militias.
The genocide resulted in a massive refugee crisis, especially of Tutsi, who crossed into the existing Congolese Banyarwanda communities in the Kivu region of the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). All Tutsi that settled in the DRC since the region’s decolonization in the 1960s have experienced discrimination from native Congolese. Even as certain Tutsi families have achieved massive wealth and influence in the Kivu region, they still find their rights as business owners and political actors to be precarious due to Kinshasa’s (capital of the DRC) reluctance and incapacity to provide adequate security and civil protections of Banyarwanda residents.
M23 Predecessor: The CNDP (2006-2009)
M23 originates from the Tutsi military elite that remained after the dissolution of its predecessor, the Congrès national pour la défense du people (National Congress for the Defence of the People, CNDP) that occurred on 23 March 2009: hence the name M23. The CNDP was a Rwandan-backed Congolese rebel group that formed in reaction to the failed military integration efforts of disparate rebel groups across the DRC after the Second Congo War. It was a coalition of Eastern Congolese Hutu and Tutsi military elites.
The stated purpose of the CNDP was to return the approximately fifty-five thousand Congolese Tutsi refugees in Rwanda and the dissolution of the anti-Tutsi Hutu-led Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, FDLR). These stated goals continued into CNDP’s successor the M23. However, experts believe the true purpose of both rebel groups is more closely related to controlling Eastern Congo mineral mines, protecting local business interests, and maintaining dubious autonomy of Banyarwanda communities in the Kivu region.
After the Congolese military and other militias routed the CNDP, an attempt to integrate the CNDP was partially successful after the March 23rd treaty. The autonomy of the CNDP within the Congolese army allowed the rise of Congolese Tutsi military leader and notorious war criminal Bosco Ntaganda; the Congolese assigned him to lead the integrated CNDP in the Kivu region of Congo. As the DRC focused on removing Ntaganda from power and dispersing the former CNDP out of Kivu, mutinies began to take place throughout CNDP’s ranks. Eventually, the mutineers and their leaders retreated to Rwanda to reorganize and soon declared themselves the M23.
The Original M23 (2012-2013)
Led by Ntaganda, Sultani Makenga, and other senior ex-CNDP and Rwandan miliary officers, the M23 comprised mostly out of former CNDP Tutsi rebels. In April 2012, the newly formed M23 began asserting control over Kivu. Before their defeat in late 2013, M23 gained control over valuable mines and major cities, including the largest eastern city of the DRC, Goma.
After M23’s successes due to an incoordinate Congolese military, an international coalition made up of UN troops and regional militaries pushed M23 out of the DRC and into neighboring M23-friendly Uganda and Rwanda. On 5 November 2013, M23 admitted its defeat. M23 split into regional entities, effectively pacifying it for the following decade.
Throughout the evolution of M23, Rwanda played an outsized role in supporting the group and its predecessor. By sheltering M23 leaders, and supplying them with arms, recruits, military officers, and other forms of necessary support, Rwanda has taken advantage of these rebels. Kigali has benefitted from the access to minerals, a buffer zone created by the rebels, and the instability of its large neighboring rival. While denying all involvement in M23, evidence collected by the UN has shown irrefutable proof of Rwanda’s complicity in aiding M23’s abhorrent activity in the Eastern DRC.
The European Union and the United States have condemned and sanctioned M23 and Rwandan leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UN’s Human Rights Watch (UNHRW) has found evidence of the group engaging in heinous acts of mass murder, rape, summary execution, and the forced recruitment of children and young men into their ranks under threat of death. The UNHRW has also identified the Rwandan Military (RDF) to be aiding M23’s conflict against the DRC as well as engaging similar underage recruitment and crimes against humanity.
When defeated in 2013, Ntaganda handed himself over to the US Embassy in Rwanda who transferred him to the ICC. In 2019 the ICC found him “guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Furthermore, a Congolese military court sentenced Makenga along with other M23 officers to death in absentia for treason and war crimes. Makenga and others sentenced remain part of M23 or at large.
The M23 Today (2019-Present)
After years of relative peace, M23 recently reignited conflict across Kivu and Eastern DRC, once again retaking mineral rich land and occupying cities, including the vital Goma. The stagnant peace talks between the DRC and M23 and lack of urgency on the part of the DRC allowed time for M23 to regroup on the borderlands of Mt. Sabyinyo. In early 2019, the first modern M23 attacks occurred. These coincided with multiple terrorist attacks in the Eastern DRC that Rwanda and the DRC attributed to Islamist extremists. Rwanda and the DRC agreed to allow a Rwandan police contingent to operate on Congolese territory to root out these extremists, but the Congolese population presented fierce resistance to legal Rwandan actions on DRC territory. The insecurity Rwanda felt from these protests prompted an increase of support for M23 to provide a regional buffer.
M23 escalated their attacks alongside Rwandan military units, continually expanding their territory which now extends across both Uganda and Rwanda’s border with the DRC. The UNHRW has found evidence of M23, Rwanda, the DRC, and DRC-aligned militias using artillery to decimate displacement camps. Multiple attempts by the DRC to defeat M23 have failed. Multinational coalitions comprising of regional partners, French diplomats, UN experts, and the African Union, engaged in efforts throughout the crisis. However, these diplomatic and military attempts have shown little result. In certain cases, M23 has returned certain villages and cities to occupation by Kenyan forces, but they still retain control over an extensive amount of Eastern DRC.
Recently, the DRC and M23 have begun peace talks in Doha, Qatar. While both sides show confidence and vow to work towards a lasting cessation of armed conflict, indications from inside sources paint pictures of reluctance and unwillingness to engage in necessary forms of trust building. M23 states it finds the DRC’s adverse attitude to releasing suspected M23 members from custody to be a sign of stagnation in any progress towards peace. Furthermore, the United States has recently shown interest in facilitating a peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda in hopes of gaining access to the mineral-rich land currently occupied by M23. The International Monetary Fund gave notice that the DRC is facing financial instability due to M23’s occupation of tantalum and gold mines.
Conclusion
This article provides an overview of M23’s history and ongoing conflict in Eastern DRC. The group, its Rwandan backers, the DRC, and the militias it backs, have all come under scrutiny for gross human rights abuses for purposes that remain vague. While news feeds focus on Ukraine and Israel, cases like M23’s go underreported and unnoticed. The near-nonexistent coverage by western news sources prevents any attention or real discussion of the situation. Without exposure to even a fraction of complex conflicts like that of the Congo, Rwanda, and M23, there cannot be national conversations that would lead to potential solutions. Meanwhile, the United States’ interest in peacemaking is exclusively based on a desire for mineral access.
The story of ethnic conflict in the Congo is far from over and atrocities against human beings will continue. It is our duty, with the liberty of information access and stable national security, to engage in conflict analysis and conversation for the sake of the millions of displaced people whose lives remain under constant threat.
Engagement Resources
- International Rescue Committee Democratic Republic of the Congo crisis profile
- UN brief history of Rwanda
- International Committee of the Red Cross: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ukrainian Refugees and American Citizens Mistakenly Ordered to Leave the U.S. Within Seven Days
Ukrainian Refugees and American Citizens Mistakenly Ordered to Leave the U.S. Within Seven Days
In early March, 2025 Reuters reported that the administration of Donald Trump was planning to deprive about 240,000 Ukrainian refugees of their legal status by terminating humanitarian programs. According to the Reuters sources, the decision was expected in April. In response, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt dismissed the report on X, calling it “more fake news” and stating, “No decision has been made at this time.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration has already begun revoking parole status for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, who had been living in the U.S. under temporary humanitarian programs. The administration said cases would be reviewed on “a case-by-case basis.”
One such program, Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), allowed American citizens to sponsor Ukrainian refugees displaced by Russia’s 2022 invasion. Approximately 240,000 Ukrainians are currently residing in the U.S. under this initiative. An additional 20,000 Ukrainians who entered the U.S. through Mexico early in the war were also granted parole, which provides temporary work authorization and protection from deportation.
On April 3, many Ukrainians legally residing in the U.S. under humanitarian parole received alarming emails from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stating their parole had been revoked and that they must self-deport. The messages declared, “It is time for you to leave the United States,” and warned that their parole would expire in seven days. The letter further threatened: “Do not attempt to remain in the United States — the federal government will find you.”
The notifications sparked panic and fear, especially as the war in Ukraine continues. Russian forces still occupy parts of the country and regularly bombard civilian areas. Since the war began on February 24, 2022, all civilian air travel to and from Ukraine has been suspended.
It is not known exactly how many people received such letters, but among them were also Russian political refugees under humanitarian parole, permanent residents, and even some US citizens. One of them was Nicole Micheroni, a 40-year-old U.S. citizen and an immigration attorney from Massachusetts. Nicole told MSNBC that the Department of Homeland Security sent her the notice telling her that “it is time for you to leave the United States…If you do not depart the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal from the United States.” Another U.S. citizen, Carmen Bello, an immigration attorney from the Boston area, told NBC Boston that she, too, received a notice of parole termination obligating her to leave the country.
The next day, DHS issued a follow-up email to recipients acknowledging the error and stating that “no action will be taken” and “the terms of your parole as originally issued remain unchanged at this time.”
Despite the retraction, fear and confusion linger among people who fled their country where a devastating war still continues taking human lives every single day. Milena, a mother of three from eastern Ukraine, now lives in New Jersey under humanitarian parole. Her hometown has been seized by Russian forces, and she has no home to return to. Her husband remains in Ukraine, fighting with the national army. Milena has been working in a local store in NJ for nearly three years, paid taxes, and supported her three kids. Her eldest son, Eugene, a high school senior, was recently accepted to college that he is eager to start in August.
Milena is one of those who received the DHS deportation email ordering her and her children to leave the U.S. within 7 days. “What should we do?” she asked tearfully. “Our neighbors in Ukraine, an old couple who were unable to escape from the town, wrote to me that Russians have moved into our apartment. We have nowhere to go back to. My children still suffer from nightmares and still need therapy. The youngest still wets the bed from the trauma caused by horrors we experienced when we fled the town under fire. We thought we were safe here and the suffering is behind for my kids. What awaits us now?”
During his campaign, President Trump claimed he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, bragging about a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet after three months in office, the war continues unabated, with Russian shelling intensifying and no de-escalation in sight. Trump’s approach appears more focused on meeting Kremlin demands than seeking a fair resolution, potentially forcing Ukraine to surrender territory and resources.
Refugees like Milena, who were granted legal entry, work low-wage jobs that Americans do not hurry to take. They support the U.S. economy by paying taxes, renting houses, and contributing as consumers. Now, they are being used as pawns in Trump’s political games.
While the Trump administration seeks to reduce refugee numbers, other countries recognize their value. A report by Poland’s National Development Bank (BGK) found that Ukrainian immigrants—Poland’s largest immigrant group at 1.5 million—contributed more in taxes than they received in benefits. Ukrainians now comprise about 5% of Poland’s workforce and accounted for €3.6 billion in tax and social contributions in 2024, boosting GDP growth by up to 2.4%.
In contrast, the Trump administration appears to overlook the contributions of refugees to the U.S. economy. Today, more and more Americans, and even some of Trump’s supporters, face the reality and begin to question the consequences of his policies. Many fear that the promise to “make America great again” is instead ruining the constitution and the entire foundations of law, democracy, and economic stability with the speed of a pen stroke.
Engagement Resources
- Citizen who was ordered to leave the U.S. in 7 days says she’s heard nothing from federal officials, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/citizen-ordered-leave-us-dhs-rcna201451
- Ukrainian refugees mistakenly told they must leave US in email mix-up, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/ukrainian-refugees-us-email-00273926
- Trump administration accidentally tells Ukrainian refugees they must leave U.S. immediately, citing an “error”, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-accidentally-tells-ukrainian-refugees-they-must-leave-u-s-immediately-citing-an-error/
- Ukrainian immigrants have “positive impact on Poland’s GDP and budget”, finds report, https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/03/15/ukrainian-immigrants-have-positive-impact-on-polands-gdp-and-budget-finds-report/
The Department of Justice Voting Section’s Shift In Priorities
The Department of Justice Voting Section’s Shift In Priorities
Civil Rights Policy Brief #243 | Rodney A. Maggay | May 7, 2025
A number of news outlets have recently reported that the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division Voting Section has changed their mission statement and its priorities.
After Harmeet Dhillon was ratified by the U.S. Senate (by a 52 – 45 vote) to become the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice, new mission statements were sent out to a number of sections in the Civil Rights Division. While the Civil Rights Division’s voting work has historically been focused on ensuring that marginalized voters were not discriminated against in their efforts to vote and that race was not used as a factor in drawing districts and implementing voting procedures, the Division will now shift away from those priorities. The Division will now focus on pursuing cases to ensure “elections [are] unmarred by fraud, errors or suspicion.” The new mission statement also adds that the Division will enforce President Trump’s latest executive order on elections titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”. However, that order has been challenged with a lawsuit and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar – Kotelly has granted a preliminary injunction to pause implementation of the executive order until the legal issues are resolved at trial.
Policy Analysis: The news of the change in the mission statement of the Civil Rights Division’s voting rights efforts is significant and not in a good way.
The Civil Rights Division’s core functions were to enforce the nation’s civil rights and voting laws, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One tenet that underscored both Acts was its focus to eliminate discrimination against people of color in the use of facilities, education and access to federally assisted programs. Notably, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about voting rights which were expanded the next year with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act continued the theme of prohibiting discrimination by attempting to bar discriminatory voting laws and procedures used by states, many of them in the South. It was these two laws that were primarily being enforced by the Civil Rights Division.
Now, that priority is being changed under the Trump Administration. Instead of pursuing and bringing cases that see communities of color and other groups encountering barriers to vote, the Division will now pursue cases that might suggest “fraud, errors or suspicion.” This is key because this aligns with one of President Trump’s biggest complaints – that American elections are not secure and caused him to be robbed of the 2020 presidential election. However, President Trump’s complaints about 2020 and a stolen election have been consistently proven false by experts and scholars. But with this new shift in the priorities of the Division’s Voting Section, President Trump is now given a fresh opportunity to continue to peddle his false election lies. Furthermore, the Division will now be tasked with looking for problems in voting that are exceedingly rare and nearly non – existent (fraud, non – citizens voting in significant numbers). These efforts will take away from the efforts to prevent discrimination in certain voting districts around the country and allow states and districts to implement discriminatory voting procedures without having to face pushback from the federal government. The government will have less power to investigate the obstacles minority communities face when trying to vote and instead be tasked with investigating other less pressing matters.
While the change in the mission statement is a big signal of the change in the Division’s priorities, there were other incidents that predicted this change was coming and was imminent. For the last month, the Department of Justice has slowly and quietly withdrawn and shut down active voting rights cases that were brought under the Biden Administration. With 29 cases still active, that number is expected to decrease dramatically in the next few months as government attorneys petition to withdraw the cases. Additionally, the section voting chief and five managers in the unit were reassigned from their voting rights work to positions in a complaint adjudication office handling inter – employee complaints. It was an unusual decision because of the wealth of expertise these persons had in voting rights law. And finally, the move to the Civil Rights Division to investigate fraud was unnecessary because the few fraud cases that did arise were investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ’s Criminal Division. There was no need to move those cases to the Civil Rights Division. These events signaled the change that was coming and the election lies that the Trump Administration wants to pursue despite minimal evidence of election fraud to the contrary. LEARN MORE,
Engagement Resources
Democracy Docket – DOJ lawyers explain their concerns in Division’s shift in priorities.
The Guardian – review of the removal of the DOJ Voting Unit’s leadership personnel.
Trump’s Plan for the Middle East: What’s at Stake for the Palestinians?
Trump’s Plan for the Middle East: What’s at Stake for the Palestinians?
The situation in Gaza and the West Bank has deteriorated sharply since October 7, 2023. Gaza faces unprecedented devastation, while economic strangulation and security clampdowns in the West Bank have created intolerable conditions for daily life. Over 400 permanent Israeli checkpoints now divide Palestinian communities across the West Bank, severely disrupting movement, trade, and human dignity.
Despite these conditions, one truth remains unshaken: Palestinians—whether in Gaza or the West Bank—have no desire to leave their land. This reality, inconvenient to many within Israel’s current far-right government, underscores a political deadlock that refuses to break.
The trauma of October 7 sent a profound shock through Israeli society. Understandably, it silenced voices once open to coexistence and the two-state vision. However, the pain of that day—and the suffering that followed—does not negate the existence of over 5.5 million Palestinians living under Israeli control (directly or indirectly, including Gaza). What long-term political solution can possibly ignore this fact?
When President Trump floated the idea of relocating Gaza’s population to other countries, Israel’s leadership—particularly Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition—no longer disguised this policy of demographic displacement. It moved from whispered strategy to public agenda. Meanwhile, despair is rising in the West Bank, and many who can afford to leave are doing so. But mass exodus is not the solution—nor is it realistic.
Neither the Jewish people are returning en masse to Europe or the U.S., nor are Palestinians willingly leaving their homeland for Egypt or Jordan. Both nations are bound to the same land, locked in a shared and inescapable reality—two peoples whose futures are intertwined, not separable.
So where does this leave Trump?
Despite his polarizing image, Donald Trump retains considerable leverage over the key players: Israel, the Arab Gulf states, and the pro-Israel political class in Washington. If he can use this leverage—not merely to impose, but to broker—he might help deliver what no one else could: a sustainable peace rooted in realism, not illusions.
Palestinians are not looking for handouts. They are seeking dignity and self-determination. There is a real and growing desire, especially among the educated and professional classes in Palestine and the diaspora, to rebuild—to turn Gaza and what remains of the West Bank into a hub for innovation, technology, and regional cooperation. But this requires a viable, demilitarized Palestinian state that is allowed to function—not as a threat, but as a partner.
In an interview decades ago, the iconic Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish once told an Israeli journalist: “Being occupied by the Jewish people is what made us known to the world—and what made us suffer the most.” The world still sees Israel through the moral lens of post-Holocaust survival. But true security for Israel cannot be built in isolation from its neighbors—especially not in a region that is culturally, digitally, and economically interconnected.
If Trump wishes to leave behind a legacy of global impact, a serious, pragmatic push for a sovereign Palestinian state—supported by the Gulf, safeguarded by the U.S., and recognized by Israel—is the only path forward. This would be worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. It is difficult, but not impossible. Especially for a dealmaker who understands power, pressure, and performance.
The Middle East doesn’t need another plan. It needs the will to act—and the courage to include Palestinians in shaping their future.
The Growing 2025 Anti-Trump Protests: Hands Off, No Kings Day, and More
The Growing 2025 Anti-Trump Protests: Hands Off, No Kings Day, and More
In just over 100 days of Trump 2.0, a reinvigorated Democratic opposition has taken shape. AOC and Bernie have been headlining rallies across the country. Cory Booker broke the record for the longest filibuster in Senate history. Beto O’Rourke is back on the road, holding town halls across Texas. Together, along with others, they’re making it clear: the fight is on. These examples all show how Democrats are fighting against the actions of the Trump administration, raising awareness around the authoritarian tendencies of the administration, & importantly testing the waters for potential runs.
Beyond the high-profile players, we’ve seen grassroots activism rising from the ground up. Protests like Hands Off!, most recently May Day, & the coming No King’s Day planned to counter Trump’s military parade on his birthday are a few examples of how citizens are making their voices heard across the country.
These protests are unfolding at a national level from New York to L.A. & even in deep red areas like Lubbock County in Texas. The protests respond to a wave of alarming developments: authoritarian behavior from the administration, the integration of billionaires like Elon Musk into governance, the erosion of civil liberties, the lack of due process for individuals like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the crackdown on campus free speech. They have surfaced issues that often fly under the radar for everyday Americans not glued to the news. They also have provided places for people to channel their fear, uncertainty, & anger into action & guidance for party leaders. While these organic movements have had their share of struggles we have seen the resistance persist providing a sustainable & meaningful way for people to express their grievances & fight back against Trump’s policies.
Analysis
Protests like Democracy has No Kings, Hands off!, May Day, & the counter No Kings Day protest have arisen through organizations like 50501, Indivisible & organically with local organizations. With engagement up & a constant feed of materials from the Trump administration there is no end in sight for these protests across the country.
The protests have largely had general purposes & calls to action that appeal to a broader group of people. With rally cries like “Hands off!” or “No Kings” these protests are able to speak to multiple issues at once & do not get bogged down in the weeds of policy issues. In terms of success or impact we have seen a consistent drop in Trump’s approval rating & shortened honeymoon period relative to historical trends. It is hard to say these are solely because of the protests, but it is reasonable to suspect that they play a role. One key indicator of success is the shrinking of Elon’s presence in the administration. The No Kings protests specifically went after Musk & the influence of elites in the administration. Musk announced that he would be stepping back in his role with DOGE & focusing more on Tesla & Space X after his stocks & sales fell. Additionally, Musk’s failed influence in the Wisconsin special election proved useful for Democrats despite the millions Musk threw at the race. While it’s hard to say these protest played a singular role in these outcomes, they have definitely made an impact. The attention, media, & engagement brought by the consistent use of protest in response to Trump’s agenda is something that will continue to pay dividends over time.
While these protests have made an impact they have also faced some scrutiny. Critics against the movement have criticized the lack of coherent messaging & messy organization. While these initial protests may have been a bit sloppy & unfocused, they have allowed for organic messaging to arise. By being broad these protests have allowed for citizens to be heard & lead the messaging of the protests. Instead of elites deciding the messages & being out of touch, these protests have served as trial ground for messaging & inform leaders what the people want them to focus on.
Engagement resources–
- 50501: A protest movement organizing nationwide actions against the Trump administration.
https://www.fiftyfifty.one/ - Political Revolution: A political action committee dedicated to progressive grassroots activism
https://pol-rev.com/ - Protest Sign Ideas: Here is a Reddit link affiliated with 50501 where you can discover ideas for protest signs
https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/comments/1jkpz02/fun_impactful_protest_sign_ideas/
Israel’s Use of AI in Gaza Sparks Protest at Tech Companies in the U.S.
Israel’s Use of AI in Gaza Sparks Protest at Tech Companies in the U.S.
Technology Policy Brief #148 | Mindy Spatt
The Israeli military uses Artificial Intelligence to find and target Hamas fighters, but with a civilian death toll estimated at 52,000, critics allege the system is not reliable and may even be providing cover for widespread bombing and ethnic cleansing. And that US companies are complicit.
Analysis
The use of Artificial Intelligence has changed the way Israel’s war is being waged by dramatically increasing the number of “targets” identified by the Army. The Israeli Defense Forces gather data from cell phone messages, satellite imagery, drone footage, and seismic sensors. In one report, an unnamed Israeli Defense officer said AI can suggest 200 targets in 10-12 days, a huge change from the human-led effort that took almost a year to find 50-100 targets.
But how reliable are those targets, presumably Hamas fighters rather than medics, aid workers, and journalists, hundreds of whom have been killed?
Israel estimates roughly 20,000 of the 52,000 dead in Gaza are Hamas fighters. Hamas says the number is smaller. Israel has often exaggerated the number, including in an example below. Regardless, the targeting seems wide, some advocates allege, deliberately so.
While the IDF has its own AI system, it is increasingly relying on American companies. Google’s contracts with the Israeli government have been the subject of employee protests for years. ( see Technology Policy Brief # 97 Google Cloud’s AI Conference Draws Protestors). Now, attention has turned to Microsoft.
In January, the investigative news site Drop Site released an in-depth report based on leaked documents proving that Israel’s use of Microsoft’s cloud services and artificial intelligence substantially increased after October 7. It also uncovered $10 million worth of contracts between the IDF and US companies.
Another report by the Associated Press “uncovered exclusive details about how Israel was using commercial AI models from U.S. tech giants in its war.” AP’s reporting also “linked AI-driven targeting to the wrongful killing of civilians, including a Lebanese family with children.”
One unnamed intelligence officer told AP that AI translations between Hebrew and Arabic can be incorrect and lead to incorrect targeting.” Additional problems identified in the report included faulty data and flawed algorithms. The report described an incident where a family had deliberately had their small children play outside their home in Gaza before evacuating, so the drones would show the Israelis that there were children in their car. Just the same, an Israeli airstrike hit it directly, killing all three of the small girls.
According to AP, “the day after the family was hit, the Israeli military released video of the strike along with similar videos and photos. A statement released said Israeli fighter jets had struck ‘just over 450 Hamas targets.”
Back in the US, a speech by Microsoft CEO Musta Suleyman at the company’s 50th anniversary celebration was interrupted by Ibtihal Aboussad, who shouted, “Mustafa, shame on you. Fifty thousand people have died, and Microsoft powers this genocide in our region.” A second protester, Microsoft employee Vaniya Agrawal, interrupted a later part of the event. Both were fired.
Over at Meta, Saima Akhter said reports of censorship of pro-Palestinian content led Meta staff to question upper management about the practice. Akhter claims her activism on the issue led to her firing.
Commentator Lucy Suchman, writing for the nonprofit AI Now Institute more than a year ago believes “The evidence from Gaza, where, as of this writing civilian casualties have surpassed 25,000 including over 10,000 children and destruction of roughly 70% of Gaza’s buildings and critical infrastructure, the gospel of AI-enabled precision and accuracy has now been revealed as a pretext for the acceleration of unrestrained and criminal acts of killing.”
Engagement Resources
- Lucy Suchman, The Algorithmically Accelerated Killing Machine, Jan. 24 2024
https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/the-algorithmically-accelerated-killing-machine - Questions and Answers: Israeli Military’s Use of Digital Tools in Gaza, Sept. 10, 2024,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/10/questions-and-answers-israeli-militarys-use-digital-tools-gaza - Noah Sylvia, The Israel Defense Forces’ Use of AI in Gaza: A Case of Misplaced Purpose, 4 July 2024,
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/israel-defense-forces-use-ai-gaza-case-misplaced-purpose - Michael Beisecker, Sam Mednick and Garrance Burke, As Israel Uses US-Made AI Models In War, Concerns Arise About Tech’s Role In Who Lives And Who Dies, Feb. 18, 2025
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-ai-technology-737bc17af7b03e98c29cec4e15d0f108
American Policy in Africa: US Retreats as China Advances
American Policy in Africa: US Retreats as China Advances
Foreign Policy Brief #199 | Damian DeSola | May 1, 2025
On 22 April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed plans to reorganize the State Department with the justification of increasing efficiency, rooting out ‘radical political ideology’, and delivering Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The details of the plan focus on reducing the size of the State Department and its budget over time: consolidating regional bureaus and embassies, shutting down redundant offices, and ending non-statutory programs that the administration determines to be irrelevant to American interests.
This has become another step in the isolationist doctrine of the administration, and in real terms is a major retreat of the United States from the world stage. Vast implications of this policy and the realities it will induce can be discussed, but this article will focus on how the retreat will alter one of the current great power struggle’s battlegrounds, Africa.
Battleground Africa
From a grand strategy perspective, the United States is in retreat from the continent, as an autocratic China aggressively advances into the position of altering neo-colonial order over Africa. Meanwhile, the people of Africa suffer. The reignition of great power tensions has once again placed African people and land at the center of the conflict.
The United States is removing its commitments to developing democracy and providing aid. As gray as much of American policy in Africa was, the reductions in malaria, HIV, and famine were undeniable positive impacts coordinated by US international aid. Without this aid coupled with foreign policy that drops all pretense of promoting human rights and democracy, African nations and peoples will come to expect a hardnosed and indifferent United States as the current administration’s policies develop. Furthermore, the disappearance of the complex infrastructure used to prevent famine and disease will be difficult to immediately replace even by China, leaving hundreds of thousands in extremely dangerous living conditions.
China
Countering the United States as the other major player in this modern scramble for Africa is China. For decades, the Chinese have implemented a long-term strategy to assert their influence over the continent. Once a silent actor in the Cold War, they now openly pursue an aggressive agenda of debt traps and coerced concessions. Under the auspices of foreign development and economic partnerships, China has succeeded in accumulating massive amounts of debt from African governments. By providing loans, material, manpower and more to develop nation-changing infrastructure for countries like Kenya, Ethiopia, and Zambia, China negotiates the rights to African mines, natural resources, and access to infrastructure to pay off the accumulated debts. China has also invested educational, military, and political resources to achieve influence over the targeted nations.
To conclude, it is becoming increasing certain that the conditions of stability, sovereignty, and security across Africa will deteriorate in the near and mid-term future. It is still uncertain what the US administration’s definable policy in Africa will look like. Perhaps what has been said here and much more has been considered and the State Department and US military will take steps to implement a complex and informed strategy. However, it suffices to say that the consolidation and reduction of funds for projects and diplomatic outposts won’t create a conducive environment for nuanced African policy.
Old Growth Forest Policy Made at the 19th Hole (Environment Policy Brief #180)
Old Growth Forest Policy Made at the 19th Hole
Environment Policy Brief #180 | Todd J. Broadman | May 5, 2025
Through an Executive Order issued March 1, 2025, there is to be an expansion of American timber production that meets goals to achieve “sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty.” Approximately 100 million acres, the equivalent of 60% of our national forests, are to be within earshot of a chainsaw. In so doing, the Trump administration declares this a “new era” in national forest management. Legally protected forest land and parts of old growth forest are slated be part of the expanded production.
Though the timber production order is framed as an emergency, that definition is not met under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), nor does it follow the decision process as defined by Congress – only the deputized branch that regulates a particular land parcel has authority to begin the process of opening or closing a forest to logging. Those details though, are not stopping the executive office from an attempt to sidestep environmental laws as well as declare emergency fire risks.
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) falls under the Department of Agriculture, and its Secretary, Brooke Rollins, and is enthusiastically following Trump’s directives in declaring a forest health emergency – one that spans 80% of forests managed by the USFS. She aims to increase logging in national forests by some 25%. Meanwhile, there was an attempt to fire over 3,000 USFS employees. That too made its way from the Oval Office to Brooke Rollins. (That order was overturned recently by the Merit Systems Protection Board and those employees are reinstated with backpay).
Underlying the Executive Order is the belief that job creation, economic growth, and national self-reliance must be the primary considerations in forest management policy. In addition to the imposition of this value system, the safety of Americans has been woven into the justification in so far as increased logging reduces fire risk. As with oil and other natural resources the assumption is that there is an “abundance” of trees, “more than adequate to meet our domestic timber production needs.” In that sense, national security adds further implied support. The Order goes as to say that leaving forests wild, and not acting to log, has actually degraded fish and wildlife habitats.
There is agreement amongst forestry scientists that selective logging, particularly in the West, can improve overall environmental health. Due to decades of logging and fire suppression, where there used to be millions of acres of old-growth trees, there are now dense stands of smaller trees, brush and other tinder. There has been an increase in insect infestations and droughts.
As with drilling deep for oil, the economics of harvesting smaller trees often does not pay off. In the timber industry, forest management practices designed to reduce the quantity, arrangement, and continuity of combustible materials such as dead wood, underbrush, and small trees, is known as “fuel treatment.” And fuel treatment combined with the opening-up of tracts with larger trees could change this equation and make it economically feasible for logging companies, and even then, only if lumber firms have employees and mills capable of these larger harvesting operations.
Industry lobbyists like the Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC), are thrilled with the initiative, and say they want to see logging on federal lands double. “The President’s Executive Order rightly recognizes that our National Forests are undermanaged and can do a lot more to meet the demand for lumber in the US,” they said, echoing the justifications Trump deployed. In addition to the FFRC, the American Forest Resource Council (AFRC), a corporate lobbyist for the lumber industry in western states claimed the directive was “long-overdue” and said the timber industry is poised to contribute to “economic revitalization.” In line with industry sentiment, in a memo to USFS field managers, Secretary Rollins, instructed the field to disregard National Environmental Policy Act regulations and to fast-track timber production.
Former timber industry (Idaho Forest Group) executive and Trump loyalist, Tom Schultz, was recently appointed US Forest Service Chief.
Aside from legal challenges, there are practical hurdles that must be overcome in order for increased logging to take place. There is a severe labor shortage in the industry. In Oregon, the Malheur mill closed its doors due to a labor shortage, prompting Bruce Dausavage, President of Ochoco Lumber to remark: “The way we currently stand, I don’t believe the President’s procedures will help.” The labor shortage is not confined to the lumber mills. There are shortfalls of skilled foresters, biologists, and other USFS workers who create and manage complex timber projects. This at a time when the Trump administration has and will continue to cut staff.
One of the prominent issues that will be challenged in court and one that directly impacts lands open to logging is the ESA and its definition of “harm.” The term as written includes habitat protection. The administration contends that harm ought to be defined as “affirmative act directed immediately against a particular animal,” rather than indirect harm coming from habitat destruction. Dave Owen, an environmental law professor at the University of California, San Francisco, says that the “shift here would be to say that just habitat modification that is detrimental to a species, even if the detriment is fairly direct, is not encompassed within the word ‘harm’.” On this issue of what constitutes harm, Noah Greenwald of Biological Diversity says, “There’s just no way to protect animals and plants from extinction without protecting the places they live, yet the Trump administration is opening the floodgates to immeasurable habitat destruction.”
ANALYSIS
New protections were granted to “carbon-rich” trees in national forests – those tree stands more than a century old – under the Biden administration. Rollins predecessor Tom Vilsack had a very different view of our natural inheritance. “At the end of the day, it will protect not just the forests, but also the culture and heritage connected to the forests,” he said. According to Andy Stahl, executive director at the nonprofit Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, the most valuable timber are old-growth trees located in wet rainforests of the Pacific Northwest. A three decades long agreement halted almost all logging of these trees. Industry watchers are following this closely to see if the administration is able to make any change at all to current protections.
In order to make good on his political promises, Trump has created an emergency in our national forests. Many experts contend that this is an attempt to confuse the public, similar to the emergency invoked to locate and deport immigrants. This follows a pattern of apply emergency powers to seize control of decision-making from the Oval Office. As Rollins directed, another ploy will be for the USFS to shorten their review process and the pushing through of approvals. These moves though are sure to be litigated.
To enhance the economics of domestic timber sales, Trump has imposed a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican lumber imports, a move applauded by U.S. lumber companies as a way to protect domestic producers from foreign competition and unfair trade practices. The President has requested a plan from the Secretary of the Interior and Agriculture with a target number for the annual amount of timber (in millions of board feet) per year to be sold from Federal lands managed by the BLM and USFS. In his gusto to cut down trees he asks that these agencies “revise or rescind” all existing regulations that would prevent attainment of the target.
A seasoned attorney in environmental and natural resource law, Murray Feldman, a partner at Holland & Hart LLP in Boise, Idaho, called this Executive Order an “aspirational statement.” He pointed out that there is no emergency to be substantiated. Emergency declarations normally apply to human health risks and this order falls far short of demonstrating that kind of risk. This is yet another change that is rightly to be made in the legislative branch of government, not the executive. Feldman explains that “If the Administration wants to remake timber policy on the federal lands, it needs to go the branch that has plenary authority over those lands and work there to implement any change it may seek. It cannot do so simply by issuing an Executive Order.”
Like so many other Executive Orders, this one was done by subverting Constitutional authority. As with the deportation of immigrants, Trump knows the courts will rule against him and wants action to take place before litigation begins and judges rule to stay the Order. And although there is merit in thinning certain forest stands to improve forest health and enhance fire prevention, his specific “board feet” targets make plain a different agenda. The judicial branch is sure to see through this charade.
USRESIST Resources:
https://amforest.org/ is a regional trade association whose purpose is to advocate for sustained yield timber harvests on public timberlands throughout the West.
https://climate.mit.edu/ informs and empowers the public on this complex issue of climate change.
https://elpc.org/ is the Midwest’s leading environmental legal advocacy organization.