JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Gun Control: Increases in Gun Sales During the Pandemic Raise Moral Issues for Society
Brief #25—Gun Control
By Ivan Moore
Amid coronavirus panic, a new and unexpected debate has arisen: Are gun stores essential businesses?
How Wisconsin Republicans Tried To Manipulate An Election Primary And Still Ended Up Losing
Brief #120—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On March 24, 2020, at the direction of Governor Tony Evers, Wisconsin Department of Health Services Secretary – designee Andrea Palmer issued a stay at home order for the residents of Wisconsin to try and slow the spread of the COVID-19 virus.
EPA Response to COVID-19; Open license to Pollute?
Brief #81—Environment
By Shannon Q Elliot
On March 26, 2020, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a memorandum in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. “COVID-19 Implications for EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Program” authored by Susan Parker Bodine, (Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance) is a 7-page temporary policy, in which the EPA addresses industry concerns over non-compliance issues as a result of COVID-19. Staff shortages, travel restrictions and other imposed regulations are affecting facility operations, reporting obligations and ability to meet required deadlines.
EPA Launches Another Blow to Climate Change Policy with Its Roll-back of Obama Era Auto Emission Standards
Brief #82—Environment
By Jacob Morton
In 2012, the Obama administration passed a climate policy requiring automobile manufacturers to reduce their vehicles’ CO2 emissions by 5% each year through 2026. This would have meant that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks would have a fuel economy of around 54 mpg by the 2025 model year.
Stay At Home Rules Expose The Need for Universal Internet Access Now
Brief #13—Technology
By Charles A Rubin
As the COVID-19 epidemic has forced the nation’s schools and business into a second month of lock-down with no timetable for relaxation in sight, the digital divide has been brought into sharp relief. By some estimates, fully 25% of the US lacks high speed internet connections.
California Approves Rules That Could Be Best Model For Courts To Manage COVID-19 Pandemic
Brief #119—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
On April 6, 2020 the California Judicial Council approved eleven temporary court rules in response to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. The rules are designed to only be temporary and will be used to ensure that California state courts can provide due process and access to justice to citizens while ensuring that citizens and employees of the judicial system are adequately protected from a possible COVID-19 transmission and infection.
Where is the Government Plan to Address Coronavirus Related Problems in Our Food Chain?
Brief #71—Economics
By Rosalind Gottfried
It is hard to address the policy regarding the food chain since the biggest issue is the lack of policy. On Friday, April 11, 2020 KQED (the public radio station in San Francisco) reported that there is a cruel irony in the fact that food banks are facing large increases in demand they are unable to meet while, at the same time, farmers are letting crops rot due to lack of buyers, transport, and workers. Some farmers are just not harvesting their crops because the restaurants, schools and other sources they typically serve are closed.
Coronavirus Government Watch
Brief Coronavirus Government Watch
By Sean Gray
The Coronavirus Government Watch Post is a new U.S. RESIST NEWS blog post written by Sean Gray. The Post provides information and analysis of the federal government’s response to the coronavirus. Wherever possible we seek to be supportive as the coronavirus threatens the health and economic welfare of our nation, and we need government leadership to deal with the virus crisis.
Does the Covid-19 Pandemic Justify Environmental Rollbacks?
Brief #80—Environment
By Jacob Morton
As a planet, our environmental policies and the current coronavirus pandemic are undeniably linked. The way in which we manage our natural resources, such as cutting down forests, can have unintended consequences, such as exposing humans to wild animals (like bats) that, as a result, are forced to find new habitat and come in closer contact with humans and inevitably transfer disease.
With a Wink, Trump Guarantees Foreign Interference in 2020 US Elections
Policy Summary
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence began an investigation in 2017 after widespread reports of Russian tampering and influence in the Presidential election of 2016. After conducting 5 open hearings, interviewing more than 200 witnesses and reviewing nearly 400,000 documents, the committee chaired by Richard Burr (R. North Carolina) and Deputy Chair Mark Warner (D. Virginia) concluded in its final report issued the day after Robert Mueller’s testimony to Congress that “The Russian government directed extensive activity, beginning in at least 2014 and carrying into at least 2017, against U.S. election infrastructure’ at the state and local level.”
In its unanimous conclusion the report calls out the inadequacy of the response to date: “If there was ever a moment when Congress needed to exercise its clear constitutional authorities to regulate elections, this is it. America is facing a direct assault on the heart of our democracy by a determined adversary. We would not ask a local sheriff to go to war against the missiles, planes and tanks of the Russian Army. We shouldn’t ask a county election IT employee to fight a war against the full capabilities and vast resources of Russia’s cyber army. That approach failed in 2016 and it will fail again.”
As of this writing, there have been no coordinated Administration proposals or US Senate legislation to coordinate a response or mount a defense.
Analysis
The US Senate has sent an unambiguous bipartisan message to the Trump Administration that, despite the President’s underplaying of the issue, election interference occurred in 2016 and remains a threat as we approach the 2020 election cycle. Yet Donald Trump undermined this bipartisan recognition of the threat at the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan just two weeks earlier when, in a much replayed moment for the cameras he smiled and joked with Vladimir Putin at a photo op, “”Don’t meddle in the election.”
It now appears that it is a clear policy of the Trump Administration to frustrate any attempt to beef up our election systems cybersecurity defenses.. As in 2016 Trump was the beneficiary of this interference, it is likely, he will be the beneficiary in his reelection bid.
Resistance Resources:
- The full, heavily redacted, test of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence can be found here
- Donald Trump’s “invitation” to Vladimir Putin to continue his cyber attacks on US Elections
- The National Election Defense Coalition is building a bipartisan national movement to secure elections technology. It brings together experts in cybersecurity and elections administration, policymakers, NGOs and concerned citizens to build consensus on a compreheVerifiedVoting.ornsive, cost-effective plan to secure the vote in coming elections.
- org is a non-partisan non-profit organization that advocates for legislation and regulation that promotes accuracy, transparency and verifiability of elections
Photo by Arnaud Jaegers
From Walls to Ceilings – Our Nation’s Budget Deficit Under Trump
Summary
In a recent op-ed in the New York Times, economist Paul Krugman labeled President Donald Trump the “deficit man.” It’s an interesting title and it is certainly appropriate. Even within the area of economic policy, our nation’s budget deficit doesn’t typically receive as much coverage as matters such as the trade war or the stock market. That said, this seems like an opportune time to examine it in detail.
It is important to be mindful of the difference between a nation’s budget deficit and its national debt. The former refers to the difference between the funds a country takes in from revenue streams or receipts such as taxes and what it spends. The latter is the debt that stems from a government borrowing further funds in an attempt to cover all such deficits. While the two are different, they are connected in ways that are important in a report such as this. For example, the ability to borrow money can be used to help the government finance the deficit.
August is here and with it, recess for Congress. The deadline for raising our debt ceiling is fast approaching. It was recently announced, though, that Trump’s administration has reached an agreement with Congress to address our deficit by implementing a budget deal while at the same ti e increasing the debt limit. The deal also includes a two-year budget that stands to significantly increase the federal deficit. The budget deficits it will create are estimated to be well over $1 trillion within a decade. This is the largest that deficits accumulated by the federal government during one presidential term have been expanded in the history of the U.S. economy.
In August 2018, I reviewed the increasing budget deficit under Trump and discussed its concerning elements that could pose threats to our economy. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had sent the budget deficit shooting up close to $1 trillion. We were also in the throws of the trade war sparked by Trump’s tariff policies. One year later, all such matters have only gotten worse. The deficit has increased by over 23%, according to CNN, and none of the factors that have caused this spike have been eliminated
Analysis
During his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump boasted that if he were elected, the national debt would be eliminated. This was a highly unrealistic promise, as it would have required completely balancing the budget deficit but under Trump, we have drifted even further from such a goal than we were during Obama’s second term.. While our economy is far from the “strongest it has ever been” , as Trump claims, our budget deficit is indeed poised to become the largest in history and it is due to things Trump has done, namely tax cuts and increased military defense spending.
We have a debt ceiling for a reason but Congress seems to be completely disregarding it. Historically, it is a concept that was engineered to allow Congress to make sure the federal government did not borrow more money than made fiscal sense. It was created with the idea in mind that any Presidential administration could easily lose control of their spending and attempt to fix any potential damage by borrowing the necessary funds.
When someone has accumulated more credit card debt than they can handle, borrowing more money to start paying it back is not a long term solution. College students and first time home buyers are advised by experts not to borrow more money than is reasonable for them to pay back but Congress doesn’t seem concerned with doing the same for the Trump administration. Both branches should be striving to balance the budget but the new deal is poised to do exactly the opposite, setting us back even further than we already were. Our economy is certainly not immune to downturns or market fluctuations and if we experience another one within the next few years, as we are likely to, a historically overblown deficit is the last thing we’re going to want. Despite Trump’s claims, our economy is far from stable. Adding to the budget deficit instead of balancing it will only serve to make all matters worse.
Resistance Resources:
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is progressive think tank that conducts research and analysis on budget related matters.The Concord Coalition is a grassroot organization that provides information on the risk and consequences on the growing federal debt and unsustainable fiscal policies.
- The Center for Economic and Policy Research is a nonprofit research organization that conducts research and public education to promote democratic debate on economic matters including the federal budget and national debt.
Photo by Fabian Blank
Elizabeth Warren: The Woman with All the Plans
Elizabeth Warren is considered one of the nation’s most outstanding progressive voices, pushing for structural alterations that would transform the economy of the United States while rebuilding the middle class. Warren has been a courageous advocate focusing her life’s work on battling for working-class families. Warren was born in Oklahoma City in 1949. Working from the age of 13 years old, in a family restaurant, Warren grew up in what she has called “the ragged edge of the middle class.” Soon, she became the first member of her family to graduate from college. She went on to receive a law degree from Rutgers University and become a law professor at Harvard Law School. On November 6th of 2018 she was re-elected to the United States Senate for a second term by the people of Massachusetts. She has worked as Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, specifically, she was a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel monitoring $700 billion TARP bank bailout program.
During last week’s debates Senator Elizabeth Warren, defended many of her progressive 2020 agendas in the face of skeptical moderates lining the stage. Thus far, the nominee remains in third-place, behind Senator Sanders by just three points. When prompted for an explanation on nearly any platform, Elizabeth Warren has responded with her catchphrase, “I have a plan for that!” So, what are some of the Senator’s plans for our nation?
- Debt Crisis: It is important to note that Elizabeth Warren predicted the 2008 financial crisis very early on, however Congress and regulators did not jump to action. Warren is now forecasting yet another looming financial crisis on the horizon. Warren has stated on her website, “We need to take concrete steps now to shore up our economy and reduce the risk of economic shocks if we want to reduce the chances of another crash.”
- Taxes: Warren has voiced strong opinions on her plans for taxes on the wealthy elite, which she has referred to as, “Ultra-Millionaire Tax”. She has proposed a 2% tax on wealth exceeding $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth above $1 billion. Annual 2% tax on assets above a taxpayer’s first $50 million, and 3% on assets that exceed $1 billion. The wealth tax would establish an estimated $2.75 trillion over 10 years from 75,000 families. In order to combat tax evasion, the policy would reinforce the IRS budget, institute a minimum audit rate for the exceptionally wealthy and add a 40% “exit tax” on these individuals, who may attempt to forfeit their U.S. citizenship. Additionally, Warren has suggested implementing a universal child care program that would obtain its revenues from the wealth tax to provide public and family-run centers to offer child care from birth until schooling age.
- Green New Deal: Warren has clearly supported the Green New Deal, by signing on as a co-sponsor. This past May, Warren suggested a plan that would substantially cut emissions produced by our military, which happens to be one of the planet’s largest polluters. A month later, Warren shared her most exhaustive climate plan to date. She proposed “a $2 trillion package that commits the federal government to spend $150 billion a year over the next decade on low-carbon technology, increases energy research funding tenfold, and funds a $100 billion Green Marshall Plan to aid the poorer countries projected to suffer the worst as global temperatures rise.”
- College Debt: U.S. Senator Warren and U.S. Representative James E. Clyburn (D-SC) are announcing legislation to eliminate student loan debt for 42 million Americans. This newer proposal is quite similar to Warren’s earlier campaign proposal from April. Warren’s newest student loan forgiveness plan would waive student loan debt for more than 95% of future borrowers. The plan would also completely cancel student loan debt for more than 75% of Americans with student loan debt.
- Medicare: Warren has been a proponent of Medicare for All for years. During the most recent democratic debates, on July 30th, Warren and Bernie Sanders defended their “Medicare for All” plan, which would install a national health insurance system and would, therefore, eliminate private insurance.
- “Economic Patriotism:” Warren’s plan for Economic Patriotism comes “with the sole responsibility to create and defend quality, sustainable American jobs” by focusing on green manufacturing and industrial policy for clean energy.
- Capitalism: The Senator classifies herself as a “Democrat capitalist.” Warren has has stated she supports, “accountable capitalism,” a market economy that works for all Americans by supporting a competitive and open market.
- Big Tech: She is seeking to break up companies like Amazon, Google, Apple and Facebook, by forbidding companies with over $25 billion in revenue from acting as operators and users of a platform.
- Corporate tax: Warren is planning to tax companies, with over $100 million in profits a 7 percent tax.
- Marijuana: The Senator is the co-sponsor of numerous bills focused on marijuana reform, including the Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States Act (also known as STATES), which would exempt state-legal marijuana activity from federal interference.Warren also co-sponsored Senator Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act to legalize weed federally.
- Electoral college: Warren has been very outspoken about ending the electoral college. She supports replacing the electoral college with a national popular vote.
- Presidential prosecution: Elizabeth Warren announced, in May of 2019, that she hopes to reverse the current Department of Justice policy that protects a sitting president from indictment, allowing Congress to amend the law to officially charge a sitting president with a crime.
- Criminal justice: Warren has been outspoken in regards our criminal justice system, claiming race is the main contributing issue. This past June, Warren released her plan to abolish privatized prisons.
- Punishment for scams: Warren has introduced legislation making it easier to jail corporate executives “who negligently [oversee] a giant company causing severe harm to U.S. families.”
- Public lands: The Senator has said, “…On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that says no more drilling — a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases, including for drilling offshore and on public lands.”
- Abortion: Warren has previously proposed a 4-part plan to protect reproductive rights and during the debates annouced that she would push to have access to abortion guaranteed by federal law.
- Opioid crisis: Warren has the most ambitious plan to tackle the national opioid crisis, experts say. She has proposed a 10-year, $100 billion plan providing funds to first responders, public health departments and states for prevention and rehabilitation services.
- HBCUs: Warren has claimed she will invest $50 billion in historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority serving institutions (MSIs), allowing colleges the discretion to use the funds freely. This would be paid for with the ultra-millionaire tax, which is a small 2% tax on fortunes over $50 million.
- Climate change: As president, Warren would require the Pentagon to reach net-zero carbon emissions on non-combat bases by 2030. Her plan would include “$1.5 trillion for American-made clean energy products, $400 billion in funding for green research and development and $100 billion in foreign assistance to purchase emissions-free American energy technology.”
- Voting rights: The Senator plans to expand voting rights access, establishing new standards for federal elections.Warren has stated she would create a new federal agency called the Secure Democracy Administration. Furthermore, she would replace all current voting machines with more modern equipment and would require the use of a standardized federal ballot.
- Immigration: Elizabeth Warren hopes to decriminalize crossing the U.S. border without authorized paperwork, causing a reduction in detention periods. Warren also plans to increase funding for aid to Central America in hopes of confronting the issue directly.
- Foreign policy: Warren plans to expand the State Department and end granting ambassadorships to donors, though many critics believe the Senator hasn’t been progressive enough.
- Women’s rights: Plans to ensure increased opportunities and close the pay gap for all women, especially women of color.
Although Elizabeth Warren is coming out as third in recent polls, as a candidate, she is a strong, very progressive, woman who has put in the work as an activist. Her strength is what could make her a number one threat to someone like Donald Trump. Currently Warren is polling well in vital states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. Although she and Bernie Sanders showed a united front during the last debates, she has separated herself from Sanders by not labeling her views as socialist. Instead she last listed herself as more of a reformer. She has said, “I believe in markets. Markets that work…I believe in a level playing field. And as long as we’ve got that then we will get the best out of markets because it means the people who come up with great ideas, who work hard are the ones who will prosper, not simply those who were born into wealth.” By pushing her stance away from both moderates and socialism, she may be giving herself a smart advantage. Regardless, Warren is someone for progressives and democrats to watch.
To read more about Elizabeth Warren’s platforms and opinions on the issues visit her website, here: https://elizabethwarren.com
Photo by Lucas Sankey
Competing House Resolutions Shine Light On Right To Boycott Under First Amendment
Policy Summary
On March 21, 2019 H.Res. 246 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Brad Schneider (IL-D) titled “Opposing Efforts to Delegitimize the State of Israel and the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement Targeting Israel.” On July 23, 2019 the resolution passed in the House by a 398 – 17 vote. Prior to the passage of that resolution Rep. Ilhan Omar (MN-D) introduced H.Res. 496 on July 16, 2019 titled “Affirming That All Americans Have The Right To Participate In Boycotts In Pursuit of Civil and Human Rights At Home And Abroad, As Protected By The First Amendment to the Constitution.” This resolution has not been voted on as of yet but has been assigned to the House Committee on the Judiciary which has jurisdiction over constitutional issues. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
One of the key issues in the debate on the conflict in the Middle East appears set to play out in the halls of the U.S. Congress. The two resolutions introduced in the House of Representatives since March have re-ignited a discussion as to the role of protest groups and the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment’s protection of free speech and the right to engage in boycotts. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement is a global movement working to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law. H.Res. 246 and Israel clearly oppose the BDS movement because of how it may affect the State of Israel economically and diplomatically.
Rep. Omar’s H.Res. 496 is in opposition to H.Res. 246 but takes a different approach than what one might expect her to take. While Rep. Omar’s position supporting the Palestinian people is well known her resolution is framed as a Freedom of Speech issue. It never mentions Israel or BDS by name but instead focuses on how prior boycotts were significant moments in American history – the U.S. boycotting the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, the 1980’s boycott of South African goods because of apartheid policies there as well as a number of Supreme Court cases from the Vietnam War era and the Civil Rights Movement that affirmed the right to boycott.
Between the two resolutions, it appears that Rep. Schneider’s H.Res. 246 is not aimed at protecting the free speech right of Americans but is an attempt to try and stifle discussion and dissent on the conflict in the Middle East in favor of the State of Israel. A resolution like that could have the effect of “chilling” speech on the issue if people become fearful of taking a position that the government clearly does not favor. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI-D), a noted Palestinian supporter, said, “Dissent is how we nurture democracy” and stood in opposition to H.Res. 246. Rep. Omar could have introduced a resolution stating her opposition to Israel but she made a key choice in deciding to frame the discussion as a free speech issue to be decided by each person as they see fit. The key point here between the two resolutions is to not to try and manipulate the American people into taking the political position that the U.S. Government prefers as Rep. Schneider’s resolution could do. The point is to instead use the protection of free speech to give Americans space and freedom to pursue and advocate for issues important to them even if they are unpopular to others, which is what Rep. Omar’s resolution does. As the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware said when it affirmed the right of people to engage in boycott activity on unpopular issues, “[B]oycotts and related activities to bring about political, social and economic change are political speech” and occupy “the highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values” and are protected by the First Amendment. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blog post on the right to boycott issue.
- Defending Rights And Dissent – non – profit group seeking to strengthen participatory democracy by protecting the right to political expression.
- Freedom Forum Institute – good overview of free speech issues.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
US Sanctions Myanmese Officials Responsible for Ethnic Cleansing of Rohingya
Summary
When an insurgent Rohingya militia attacked a series of 30 police posts in the Rohingya dominated Rakhine state, the Myanmarese government responded with a brutal campaign of violence which drove over 700,000 out of the country. The bulk of these refugees ended up in the largest refugee camp in the world, in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. State oppression of the Rohingya has existed since the two sides aligned themselves on opposite sides during World War II, and in 1982 led to the military government denying citizenship to most Rohingya, seen by the Buddhist majority as foreign “Bengalis”. The Myanmarese government sent a delegation to Bangladesh on Saturday in an attempt to convince the refugees to return home. Thus far, representatives for the refugees have refused, demanding assurances regarding their safety and the question of their citizenship.
On July 16th, the US State Department announced sanctions on four high level Myanmarese military officials that they claim are directly responsible for the campaign of ethnic cleansing. Acknowledging that the US remains “concerned that the Burmese government has taken no actions to hold accountable those responsible for human rights violations and abuses, and there are continued reports of the Burmese military committing human rights violations and abuses throughout the country.”, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that Commander-in-Chief of Myanmar’s Armed Forces Min Aung Hlaing, Deputy Commander-in-Chief Soe Win, Brigadier General Than Oo, and Brigadier General Aung Aung were responsible for “gross human rights violations,” and would not be allowed to enter the United States.
Analysis
As it stands, these sanctions serve a mostly symbolic purpose. Being unable to enter the United States is unlikely to have an effect on these military officials. However, this could be the first step towards an actual reckoning for those responsible for these crimes against humanity. Dan Sullivan of Refugees International expressed hope that these sanctions would lead to “international efforts to refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court or to establish an ad hoc tribunal”. As it stands now, even de facto leader of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who fought for democracy in her country, has largely given up on reigning in the largely autonomous Myanmese military, instead refusing to call the campaign ethnic cleansing and telling the BBC that “Muslims have been targeted but Buddhists have also been subjected to violence”. If the US State Department can maintain restrained and cooperative pressure on the Myanmese government, the international community may be able to provoke the change needed to allow the Rohingya people to return home.
Resistance Resources:
- Refugees International – An international organization advocating for lifesaving assistance and protection for displaced people and promoting solutions to displacement crises.
- Helping Hand Relief and Development – A global humanitarian relief and development organization which has been working to help Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Foreign Policy Analyst Colin Shanley: Contact Colin@usresistnews.org
Photo by Evgeny Nelmin
EPA Admin Wheeler rejects scientific consensus and danger to public health
Policy Summary
According to a new report, Andrew Wheeler, administrator of the EPA, has declined to ban chlorpyrifos, a chemical known to be dangerous to children’s health. The decision defies a court order to ban the chemical and will face legal challenges.
The chemical chlorpyrifos is largely used as a pesticide by the agricultural industry. The pesticide is widely used in the United States. In 2016, in California alone, over half a million acres of farmland were treated with chlorpyrifos, which was used to treat over 50 types of crops.
Several Studies, based on the science of epidemiology, were released showing that exposure to the chemical posed a threat to children’s brain development. The first study was a 2016 peer-reviewed report authored by the agency showing that the pesticide had links to damage brain in children. Additionally, a 2012 study by Columbia University showed that exposure to chlorpyrifos by pregnant mothers was associated with developmental delays in their children.
Under the Obama administration, the EPA issued a ban of chlorpyrifos. In 2017, before coming into effect, the ban was rolled back by Scott Pruitt. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the EPA must reinstate the ban. The majority opinion was written by judge Jed S. Rakoff, who stated that there was “no justification for the EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos in the face of scientific evidence that its residue on food causes neurodevelopmental damage to children.”
As Patti Goldman, a lawyer for Earthjustice, stated, “by allowing chlorpyrifos to stay in our fruits and vegetables, Trump’s E.P.A. is breaking the law and neglecting the overwhelming scientific evidence that this pesticide harms children’s brains.” Wheeler’s failure to ban chlorpyrifos will face legal challenge.
Policy Analysis
The EPA’s broad roll back of environmental regulations are often accomplished by undermining the scientific bases they rest on.
Under Pruitt’s guidance, the EPA changed its method of assessing scientific studies. The agency stated that it would no longer accept scientific studies as the basis of regulations without having access to the underlying data that supported these studies. This policy was made in the name of transparency. Pruitt claimed that making data publicly available would improve the quality of the science the agency bases its policies on.
However, Pruitt’s policy is disingenuous. There is a reason that the reports that have been excluded by the EPA do not make their underlying data public. Reports that show a connection between exposure to chlorpyrifos and health problems are epidemiological. They are based on data that was collected under non-disclosure agreements to protect the privacy of health information. This is exactly the data Pruitt wanted to be released.
Wheeler and Pruitt are leading an illegal action at the EPA. They disregarded a court order to ban chlorpyrifos, then attempted to cover-up, spin, and justify the illegality of their action by attacking to science that supported the court’s decision. The EPA shows an extreme disregard for the consequences of the use of chlorpyrifos to public health. By refusing to ban the pesticide, children’s lives and health are sacrificed for an increase in profit.
The Trump EPA decision also should be seen as part of systematic racism. Agro-businesses like Monsanto joined up with their former lobbyer, Andrew Wheeler to push the harmful externalities of crop dusting onto the largely Latino and immigrant communities who make up many of the laborers who administer chlorpyrifos. This is a more systematic pattern of white Americans profiting by harming communities of color. Environmental justice is one of the three pillars of sustainability. Profit is not sustainable if it is gained through externalities shouldered by communities of color and other vulnerable populations.
The systematic exploitation of Latino communities gives Pruitt’s call for transparency a sinister air. The very studies that Pruitt rejected had collected data from Latino farm workers. Pruitt’s decision to disregard these studies should be construed as silencing the voices and experiences of immigrants of color by making their experience and their lives inadmissible as the basis of policy decisions.
With this decision, the Trump EPA joins the growing group of federal agencies, especially ICE, who have scapegoated people of color to achieve their aims.
Resistance Resources
- NRDC Pre-Written Letter to Trump and Wheeler—The Natural Resources Defense Council has drafted a letter that can easily been sent under your name. The letter asks President Trump and Andrew Wheeler to take the need for environmental regulation seriously. There is also a feature to add your own message.
- Earthjustice—Earthjustice is an environmental law organization. They are responsible for many legal challenges to the Trump administration’s environmental policy. They also provide an action section where they provide resources for engagement.
- Indigenous Environmental Network—The Indigenous Environmental Network works to protect the environment from the perspective of indigenous communities. This organization aims to protect the environment through the use of indigenous knowledge. There are useful resources for developing your conceptual toolkit as an activist and to help understand the intersection of social and environmental justice.
- The Pesticide Action Network—PAN has resources available for activists seeking to get involved with the fight for workers’ rights in the agricultural industry. They focus on the health effects of pesticides on people. They also provide a page that provides action resources. They’ve also drafted a letter for you to send to the EPA.
- Friends of the Earth—Friends of the Earth work to protect farmworkers from the pesticides. They have an action page that provides resources for understanding the need for organic agriculture and the effect that agriculture has on their health.
Photo by RawFilm
What is Impeachment?
Over a week has come and gone since the highly anticipated House committee testimonies (judiciary and intelligence) of former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
This was the moment many Democrats believed would open the floodgates of impeachment. Surely, Mueller, as a lifelong civil servant, would utilize this moment in the spotlight to make an instantly viral statement on the threats to democracy posed by a president with seemingly permanent residence above the law. Mueller would assume the role of Howard Beale (which won Peter Finch a posthumous Academy Award) in Sidney Lumet’s Network by uttering:
“I don’t have to tell you things are bad, everybody knows things are bad…the air is unfit to breathe and our food unfit to eat…we know things are bad—worse than bad—they’re crazy…I want you to get mad!…I don’t know what to do about the Russians…All I know is that first, you’ve got to get mad!.. I want you to get up right now and go to the window, open it, stick your head out and yell, ‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!’”
The cable network shares of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News would hit an obviously unsustainable all-time high and American streets from Manhattan to San Francisco would’ve been drenched in the sounds of anger and agony, leaving Pelosi and her gang of centrist cohorts no other option than to move forth with impeachment, setting up the political battle of a generation. Imagine, Pelosi and Jerry Nadler, holding a press conference infused with the actual emotion inherent to human beings, in which they too claim in unison, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
And just like that, the country is transformed. The Democratic and Republican parties agree to disband after Trump’s impeachment and a suddenly politically involved American public lives up to Kant’s characterization of the Enlightenment by using their own understanding. New and truly progressive parties are formed, democratic centralism becomes a central tenant to our political process, and the United States dissolves into a series of amicable soviets.
In reality, Mueller’s testimonies were difficult to watch. During the six-hours of testimony, Mueller proved reticent, frustrated, and forgetful, while Democrats seemed surprised the 74-year-old Vietnam veteran simply showed up and reiterated what his report stated as opposed to playing the role of savior.
This is what happens when Democrats place their hopes of exaltation on the shoulders of a cop.
Though the Associated Press reports that 133 Democrats and 1 Republican are in favor of an impeachment inquiry, the tally is still well short of the 218 votes necessary to pass legislation in the House. Admittedly, the number of House Democrats in favor of an impeachment testimony increased by two dozen after Mueller’s testimonies, but it doesn’t seem the likes of Nancy Pelosi and other top-ranking Democrats are going to budge.
It’s time to move beyond the fantasy of impeachment. We don’t have the votes nor the time.
I too am mad as hell and am no longer going to take this. If the Democratic party wants to ensure the loyalty of today’s youth, those of us who have to inherit the future, it has to leave behind moderates clamoring for screen time and champion true progressives like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Don’t put the country in another position in which it has to choose between a war criminal and a proto fascist. Instead, be the party that awakens this country from its dogmatic slumber.
Photo by Tim Gouw
Disuse of “Black Identity Extremism” Category Creates New Problem For The FBI
Policy Summary
On July 23, 2019, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that the Bureau had reorganized its categories that it had used to describe and monitor violent extremism groups in the United States. Previously, the FBI had eleven different domestic terrorism categories which included “white supremacists” as a separate category. In 2017, it was revealed that the U.S. Government had a “black identity extremism” category which proved highly controversial. During his testimony, Director Wray stated that the bureau has now abandoned the category “black identity extremism” and is now using the overarching “racially motivated violent extremism” to track all domestic terrorism groups without differentiating any group by race. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The “black identity extremism” label became a highly controversial point of contention because of the possibility that the category was going to be used to suppress black protest groups in the wake of President Donald Trump’s racist statements, especially after the 2017 incident in Charlottesville, Virginia. Other civil rights leaders and a handful of Democratic senators pushed back on the “black identity extremism” label and called it an attempt to fabricate a false equivalency with rising white supremacy actions. They also called it an attempt to discredit legitimate black activist groups that were pursuing lawful actions against police violence and other black – centered issues. The worry was that any group that was legitimately advocating for an issue connected with the black community could easily be categorized as extremist. This could then lead to increased surveillance and harassment from law enforcement authorities against the groups. Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the National Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, called the “black identity extremism” category nothing more than a distraction from the real and rising threat of white supremacy groups. Those hate groups have even openly embraced President Trump.
The simple solution would have been to eliminate the “black identity extremism” category, which Representative Ayanna Pressley (IL-D) called absurd as used by the FBI. However, Director Wray’s comments to the Senate Judiciary Committee exposed a new problem when all of these categories are lumped together under one umbrella term. If the FBI no longer uses its old classification system (it had used as many as eleven before) to distinguish between white supremacist, anti – Semitic and other hate groups then the new “racially motivated violent extremism” category can still be used to label any race based advocacy group as a hate group. A legitimate black, Asian or Latino advocacy group can easily be grouped under this label. All it would take is one minor scuffle at a protest or a rogue member committing a violent act without the group’s knowledge and that would be enough for someone to call for the black or Latino group to be labeled and categorized as an extremist group. The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) or Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) would be susceptible to being classified under this category, as would many other groups doing legitimate advocacy work.
Additionally, the umbrella category could even be used to hide how the federal government is allocating its resources to fight these groups as there would no longer be any transparency as to how much money goes to fighting white supremacy or other groups, as is pointed out in this online petition. With President Trump and his administration constantly being accused of racist statements, it becomes more important to know if enough resources are being directed to fight white supremacist groups or if the resources are being directed away to other less pressing and less threatening groups. This new single category can help hide the true facts and numbers. While Mr. Wray’s comments to the Senate Committee have helped to expose the lie of the “black identity extremism” category it tried to implement, the single umbrella “racially motivated violent extremism” category seems just as flawed and might be no better in the long run. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blog post on the “black identity extremism” issue.
- Anti – Defamation League (ADL) – non – profit group program monitoring extremism.
- Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – non – profit group’s efforts monitoring hate and extremism.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Asylum Ban 2.0
Policy Summary
As of July 15, the Trump Administration has revised US asylum laws and put forward an asylum ban policy. Migrants coming from Central America who have passed through other countries en route to the US may no longer be able to apply for asylum due to new restrictions. The new ban requires migrants coming from Central America to make an asylum claim at a previous country en route to the US before arriving at the US Southern Border in order to be eligible for asylum in the US. The exceptions include if an individual was trafficked and/or if the migrant applied and was denied asylum in another country. This new rule even applies to unaccompanied children who cross the border alone.
This asylum ban violates domestic and international asylum laws. Congress has existing rules that a migrant cannot be banned from seeking asylum based on their nation of origin. The White House might also be acting outside of their range of power as they do not have the authority to change laws established by Congress. Thus, the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration.
Analysis
This new asylum ban is an aggressive push for the Trump Administration’s nativist rhetoric surrounding immigration and xenophobic tendencies. Slowly, but surely, this administration has been increasingly and aggressively trying to end asylum through loose interpretations of existing principles, laws, and filling the gaps with rigid stoppers.
In 2009, nearly 23% of asylum claims were granted. In 2018, only 8% of claims prevailed. Immigration courts are backlogged by more than 800,000 cases, so as it stands there are hundreds of thousands of migrants who will have to wait years for their cases to be heard. In times like these, efficiency is required, not panic or abrupt stops.
Engagement 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 Kyle Glenn
Expedited Removal: Trump’s Latest Crackdown
Last week, Secretary Kevin McAleenan, Head of the Department of Homeland Security, announced that the DHS will be claiming legal power to expedite deportation of undocumented immigrants who cannot prove they have been living in the US for 2 continuous years. He cited the Immigration and Nationality Act and claimed it gives the DHS Secretary the power to decide who qualifies for expedited removals. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1997 (under former President Clinton), says that certain immigrants can be denied entry and/or removed from the US without going through the formal removal procedures, such as a hearing before an immigration judge or a chance to find legal representation.
DHS is using the 1977 Act to say that those who cross into the US by land can be deported without a hearing if they are arrested within the first 2 weeks of arrival and within 100 miles of the border, and those who arrive by sea who cannot prove they have lived in the US for 2 years may be immediately deported. Essentially, McAleenan’s new claim gives the DHS a heightened ability to deport immigrants without due-process as well as granting relatively low-level immigration officers decision making rights.\
The ACLU has already announced their plan to sue over the DHS’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act that strips immigrants – especially asylum seekers – of many of their individual rights.
Analysis
In a nation where the average undocumented immigrant has lived for 15 years, the Trump Administration’s latest crackdown has instilled widespread fear felt even among those who are here legally. To prove residence in the US over a minimum of 2 years continuously can be difficult even for individuals who are citizens; so, this new interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act will elevate the show-me-your-papers environment already affecting many immigrant communities.
Engagement 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.
- 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 Katie Moum