JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Supreme Court Upholds Remain In Mexico Policy and a Federal Judge Voids Trump’s Appointment of Director of ICE
Brief #89—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
EU Leaders React to Trump’s Coronavirus Travel Ban
Brief #90—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
The Effects of Trump’s Impeachment Acquittal Go Beyond US Borders
U.S. RESIST : From A Global Perspective Blog Post
Post # 5: The Effects of Trump’s Impeachment Acquittal Go Beyond US Borders
By Rakesh K Singh
Proposed Student Debt Overhaul Ignores Loan Servicer Mismanagement Policy
Brief #40—Education
By Terrence Smith
COVID-19, Corona virus, stock market, recession. Will a Pandemic Lead to a Recession?
Brief #68—Economics
By Will a Pandemic Lead to a Recession?
Rosalind Gottfried
Voting Rights Advocates Achieve A Win In Federal Appellate Court Decision On Florida Poll Tax Case
Brief #115—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
A Review of the Qualifications of Recent Trump Appointments
The Corruption Blog is a series of blog posts by Sean Gray that digs into the details of the all-encompassing corruption of the Trump administration.
Blog Post # 14 A Review of the Qualifications of Recent Trump Appointments
March 3, 2020
Russia and the 2020 Elections
Brief #80—Foreign Policy
By Brandon Mooney and Erin Mayer
The Coronavirus and an Inevitable Global Pandemic
Brief #69—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Trump’s Puerto Rican Attitude Problem
Policy Summary
On May 6th, President Trump tweeted, “Puerto Rico has been given more money by Congress for Hurricane Disaster Relief, 91 Billion Dollars, than any State in the history of the U.S.” This became one of numerous claims the President made in regard to the aid Puerto Rico was receiving. This shocked many onlookers as thus far there has only been a recorded $11.2 billion spent on aid for the island since devastation arrived with Hurricane Maria and Irma in 2017. In addition, $40.8 billion has been allotted to the issue, although it has been estimated $91 billion is needed for possible liabilities over the next two decades.
In early June, President Trump signed a $19.1 billion disaster relief bill and directly commandeered credit for the aid received by Puerto Rico. On June 6th, the president wrote, “Just signed Disaster Aid Bill to help Americans who have been hit by recent catastrophic storms. So important for our GREAT American farmers and ranchers. Help for GA, FL, IA, NE, NC, and CA. Puerto Rico should love President Trump. Without me, they would have been shut out!” Many critics pointed out the president’s consistent opposition for months to the Disaster Aid Bill, resulting in lengthy delays in getting help to states in need.
Analysis
So how did the $91 billion estimate originate? Officials claim that the President was referring to an internal Office of Management and Budget figure of possible liabilities over the life of the disaster, as it falls under the 1988 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The number was a high-end estimate subject to alteration yearly. In other words, the Stafford liability figure is projected at $50 billion in addition to the $41 billion allotted in funding, which equates to a total of $91 billion.
Therefore, it was simply false when the President asserted that Puerto Rico had already received $91 billion. In fact, to date, the island has been appropriated less than half of that, as previously mentioned at $41 billion. Of the total amount, only $11 billion has been used to assist in the Puerto Rico’s recovery since 2017.
However, this issue goes deeper than just figures and projections. Since the initial recovery, just days after the natural disasters that devasted the island territory, President Trump labeled criticisms focusing on the lacking federal recovery effort as “fake news”. He publicly declared Carmen Yulín Cruz, San Juan’s mayor, of being “totally incompetent”, while accusing the Puerto Rican government of trying to swindle hardworking, mainland Americans into paying off the island’s increasing debt. At times it has been unclear if the President and his administration understand that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and that Puerto Ricans are indeed U.S. citizens. Hogan Gidley, a White House spokesman, confirmed this misunderstanding as he described Puerto Rico as “that country.”
Engagement Resources:
- Project HOPE’s medical team remains on the ground to help those suffering in hard-to-reach communities throughout Puerto Rico. They are accepting donations to assist in their vital work.
- Puerto Rico & Caribbean Hurricane Relief Fund initially provided relief to survivors in the form of emergency supplies like food, water, and medicine, and is now supporting longer-term assistance to help residents recover and rebuild.
- All Hands and Hearts arrives early, when a natural disaster strikes, and stay late to address the immediate and long-term needs of affected-communities. They work alongside the local residents and deploy our unique volunteer model to enable direct impact — helping families and communities recover by building safe, resilient schools, homes and other community infrastructure.
- Direct Relief is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a stated mission to “improve the health and lives of people affected by poverty or emergency situations by mobilizing and providing essential medical resources needed for their care.”
- Foundation for Puerto Rico (FPR) is a public charity that promotes opportunities for social and economic development in Puerto Rico mostly focused on promoting the visitor economy and transforming Puerto Rico as a destination for the world.
Photo by Tatiana Rodriguez
Trump Crosses Policy Lines as He Attempts to Weaponize Tariffs Aimed at Mexico
Policy Summary
President Donald Trump has had a clear obsession with curbing migration from across the Mexican border since before he took office. Recently, though he has tried unsuccessfully to propose a new tariff policy, linked to Mexican immigration, of sorts that makes almost as little sense as the border wall he has tried so hard to build.
For some time, Trump has made threatens regarding placing tariffs on the many products and goods that the U.S. imports from Mexico on an annual basis. Employing the negotiation by bullying technique that he has displayed a continuous fondness for, he recently announced that he would not be levying the 5% tariff on goods imported from Mexico, provided America’s trade partner took significant steps to curb the flow of immigrants crossing the U.S. Mexican border. This applied not just to Mexican immigrants but those from Central American neighboring countries such as Guatemala and Honduras. In his typical fashion , Trump felt compelled to warn Mexico that the tariffs he is planning to implement could quickly rise to 25% if Mexico declined any of his conditions.
The economies of Mexico and the United States are deeply intertwined and Trump’s proposed Mexican tariff would have large-scale repercussions on businesses and consumers in the US. There was a huge outcry against the tariff from both Democratic and Republican members of Congress which forced the President to withdraw his ill thought out policy
Trump tried to spin the withdrawal of his Mexican tariff as a victory, that Mexico had agreed to collaborate with the US on immigration. However,. the New York Times reported that Mexico had agreed to the terms of Trump’s “deal” months prior to his recent statements in a negotiation with former Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielson with Trump having little to do with the initial agreement. Trump was quick to resume his threatens regarding implementing tariffs against Mexico, leaving citizens of both nations to wonder if any actual progress had been made.
As of June 20th, Bloomberg reports that no specific plan regarding tariffs has been set or proposed by Trump. He hasn’t mentioned redacting the threat of tariffs that formed the basis of his initial plan but he also hasn’t said otherwise. Mexico seems willing to negotiate if a new deal is presented, but as it stands, Trump appears to have no clear plan for moving any deal forward.
Analysis
Throughout Trump’s presidency, most news coverage regarding U.S. Mexico relations has focused on immigration policy. Throughout the fiscal year, though, many imported goods that play a pivotal role in U.S. markets also cross the border. Automobiles, including tractors and other farming equipment and the parts on which U.S. auto manufacturers depend are the most common commodities for the U.S. to import from Mexico but the list includes other products. The list includes telephones, television sets and data processors, popular goods for the U.S. to import, as are certain beers, including Corona and Pacifico and of course avocados.
As has proven a common theme through the course of Trump’s trade war, Trump was quick to claim that the inevitable cost that such tariffs would have on his nation’s economy was justified by the gains it would reap. His logic was, as he tweeted, that if the tariffs increased manufacturing costs too steeply than the companies would simply move their operations to the U.S. From an economic standpoint, though, that seems highly unlikely. The trade war hasn’t steered companies that manufactured outside the U.S. to shift operations to our soil. Rather, it has done exactly the opposite, with companies such as Harley Davidson shifting operations overseas to avoid the increased manufacturing costs imposed by Trump’s aluminum and steel tariffs of 2018. The automotive industry would be the most affected were such tariffs to be levied against Mexican imports
Trump had initially claimed that he would begin by implementing a 5 percent tariff in June and increase it each month until the tariff reached 25 percent. In such a system, businesses would see a steep increase in production costs and would be forced to increase their prices. This, in turn, would likely cause a decline in sales for vehicles manufactured in Mexico and built in the U.S. Such a reality would lead to both nation’s becoming less competitive within the global economy.
Vox recently reported that the costs of Trump’s proposed tariffs against Mexican imports could easily lead to catastrophic costs for the typical American household. The Peterson Institute for International Economics’ senior fellow Gary Hufbauer spoke with Vox’s Dylan Scott, stating that
“A 5 percent tariff on $360 billion worth of imports, spread across 100 million households, equals $180 for every American family in a year. If the tariffs gradually increase to 25 percent, as Trump has threatened to do, that is $900 for each household in a year.”
It is clear that Trump’s proposal of levying tariffs against Mexico is based on the same faulty logic that led to his earlier trade policies. The past few years have seen Mexico surpass Canada as one of the U.S.’s primary trading partners, second only to China. From a purely economic standpoint, there is no reason to implement such tariffs.
It is hardly surprising that Trump would seek to use tariffs as a weapon to curb immigration. His obsession with immigration has proven boundless and he has made no moves to hide the fact that he considers tariffs to be an effective weapon, despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to the contrary. The ultimate conclusion we can draw them all of this is that Trump knows he has failed at multiple attempts to curb immigration across his nation’s southern border. He knows that implementing tariffs would prove detrimental to the Mexican economy as the U.S. is one of their primary trading partners and the threat of such a reality might be force the Mexican government to play ball on his terms. Trump has also displayed a willingness to make threats then quickly retract them. Whether he will actually move forward with these tariffs against Mexico remains to be seen but it is clear that to do so would cause significant problems for both economies.
Resistance Resources:
- The Council on Foreign Relations is a nonpartisan think tank and research organization that specializes in matters involving foreign policy and international relations
- The Peterson Institute for International Economics is a nonpartisan think tank that produces research and analysis on international economic policy related matters.
- The Economic Policy Institute is a nonpartisan think tank that provides in depth research on economic policy related matters, analyzing the economic impact of policies and proposals
Photo by Jorge Aguilar
Investigating the President
Angles of Impeachment
On June 10th, a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee featured testimony from former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean and a number of former US attorneys. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Mueller Report and the question of whether Donald Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice.
Dean, who last sat in front of a House Judiciary Committee in 1974 during Nixon’s impeachment inquiries, wasted no time in letting the nation know he considered the Mueller Report a “road map” for Congress to Trump’s impeachment.
With Dean’s testimony, House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent statement in which said she wished to see Trump behind bars but not impeached, and an American public eagerly awaiting a conclusion to a years-long saga, here are several pros and cons to having Trump impeached.
Pros:
- Though an impeachment trial would prove to be lengthy and complicated, the world would bear witness to the consequences of abusing the most powerful political position in the world. From a standpoint of morale, removing a mascot of authoritarianism and the patriarchy could reinstill what little faith remains in democratic institutions.
- It would be a further blow to democratic values if Trump’s amoral and criminal misdeeds were ignored by Congress, the branch of government entrusted with oversight of the executive branch. As Elizabeth Warren has said, Congress has a moral duty that goes beyond politics to launch an impeachment investigation.
- The Mueller Report made a strong case for Trump’s obstruction of justice acts. However, citing a legal technicality, Mueller chose not to indict the President. Instead he said that it is Congress’ responsibility to act on the Mueller Report’s findings.
- Allowing Trump to complete his term in office and run for reelection would further the narrative that wealthy white men in the United States can do as they please—it’s up to the rest of us to acquiesce to them. This narrative has to be crushed at the highest level so as to avoid its perpetuation.
- According to a recent article by Politico, an impeachment trial would potentially lead to heightened access to sensitive information by Congress. This could include Trump’s ever-elusive tax returns, additional evidence gathered in the Mueller Report, and details of Trump’s dealings with foreign leaders. Amongst the spectacle of an impeachment trial, we may finally be granted transparency.
Cons:
- The prospect of Mike Pence being president. Pence could easily present himself as a more palatable candidate come 2020, perhaps earning the vote of Republicans Trump has lost touch with since 2016.
- Impeachment proceedings, while likely to pass in the House will almost certainly be defeated in the Republican-controlled Senate. If this happens it will enable Trump to run for re-election as a victim of a Democratic “witch-hunt.”
- The legal precedent of allowing his presidency to remain legitimate in the face of expanding executive power is, for lack of a better word, disturbing.
- In late-February, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen testified before a House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Of special interest was Cohen’s doubts as to whether a peaceful transition of power was possible in the event of Trump being beaten in 2020, “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump…there will never be a peaceful transition of power.” If Democrats and liberal media outlets conduct a long-term crucifixion of Trump, it’s possible his base could react violently well before next year’s election.
Personally, I am against the idea of impeachment. Yes, Trump has broken the law and I want to see him and most of his family in federal prison, but I echo Cohen’s sentiments in that he and his base won’t go quietly into the night. We must consider Trump’s erratic behavior and the heightened political tensions we’ve witnessed across the country the last several years. If we truly want Trump out of office, the Democrats will provide us with a strong candidate who can match the gravitas of Trump’s authoritarian personality, namely Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
With closed door meetings, lawsuits, and subpoenas the new norm, it is difficult to tell when this saga is going to end, and whether the American public will gain anything out of it besides fatigue and a deeper mistrust for authority. But as the story continues to unfold, we will provide you with a unique take on it all.
Photo by History in HD
The 2016 Election was Tainted – Why Are We More Vulnerable Now?
Policy Summary
On May 2, 2019 President Trump issued Executive Order 13800 – “Strengthening the Cybersecurity of Federal Networks and Critical Infrastructure” to improve the US cyber posture and capabilities in the face of intensifying cybersecurity threats. The Executive Order is an attempt to focus Federal efforts on modernizing infrastructure, working with state and local government and private sector partners to more fully secure critical infrastructure, and collaborating with foreign allies. It defines critical infrastructure as security, national economic security, national public health or safety, The security of our democratic electoral institutions is not mentioned.
Analysis
The Mueller Report made it abundantly clear that Russian interference was a factor in the 2016 Presidential election. The failure of the current administration to acknowledge this lesson promises an even more chaotic and unreliable 2020 election cycle.
The attacks on the 2016 elections were multi-pronged – email system intrusions, manipulation of social media, planting of false or misleading news stories, and breaches of state and local government election databases. For the most part tech companies, election officials and political organizations have been left to fix these problems on their own with little guidance or regulation from the Department of Homeland Security or the White House. As the executive order demonstrates, there will be little or no emphasis on election security. With greater reliance on social media since the last Presidential election and the further decline of traditional media outlets, there is little reason to think that 2020 will see a different outcome. Gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts have taken precedence over a serious look at voting technology.
Congress has tried its hand at guidance including Election Security Act of 2019 but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel has indicated that this measure will never come to a vote as a similar measure in 2018 never reached the Senate floor.
In addition, local authorities are increasingly reliant on electronic voting machines that have proved unreliable and prone to unpatched security vulnerabilities. Security experts are near unanimous that fair and auditable elections are only possible by a system that includes a paper ballot and the pressure to allow voting by email or smartphone is fraught with opportunities for fraud and hacking. This consensus has not made its way to federal guidelines or policies.
Resistance Resources
- Electronic Frontier Foundation Founded in 1990, the EFF is the leading not-for-profit exploring issues and defending civil liberties in the digital world.
- SANS Institute Established in 1989 as a cooperative research and education organization, SANS is a go-to place for security industry professionals for education and analysis of security threats.
- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Sets national standards for security of computers, computer networks, and computer data storage used in voting systems.
- US Elections Assistance Commission Established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). It is an independent, bipartisan commission charged with developing guidance to meet HAVA requirements, adopting voluntary voting system guidelines, and serving as a national clearinghouse of information on election administration.
Photo by Jason Zeis
State Department Announces Commission on Unalienable Rights
Summary
The Commission is tasked with meeting once a month to provide “fresh thinking about human rights” and propose “reforms of human rights discourse where it has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights.” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters that the goal of the panel was to determine “how do we connect up what it is we’re trying to achieve throughout the world, and how do we make sure that we have a solid definition of human rights upon which to tell all our diplomats around the world.” This Commission is separate from, and would presumably bypass the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Affairs formed in 1977.
Analysis
The State Department Notice announcing the creation of the Commission is brief and vague, but suggests a significant shift in the State Department’s attitude towards international human rights with ominous implications. The State department’s announcement calls for a return to the support of “natural rights”, rather than the more contemporary notion of universal rights. This implies a more religious attitude towards human rights, which many have taken as a threat against LGBT and abortion rights. The State Department notably threatened to veto a UN Security Council resolution on sexual violence in war zones unless a passage referring to the provision of “sexual and reproductive health” assistance to survivors was removed. Distinguished Princeton University professor Robert P. George, co-founder of the anti-LGBT group National Organization for Marriage, is reported to have played a large part in designing the commission.
The adoption of natural rights also challenges the increasingly popular conception of a social and economic component to human rights. The rights to clean water, food, housing, healthcare, and economic security are often left out of discussions of natural law, considering the necessity of direct government facilitation to provide these rights. The Trump Administration’s reverence for the founding fathers’ attitude towards human rights, and their distaste for the moral and legal evolutions of the past two centuries is also cause for concern. While the founding fathers facilitated an advance in the ideological understanding of human rights, their legal system allowed for slavery and the oppression of women and landless men. Many of our most sacred rights were fought for many years, and a return would betray that struggle for justice. President Trump and his administration have long had a spotty relationship with the concept of human rights, often using them only as a rhetorical weapon against individual enemies while ignoring the crimes of our allies. While the exact intent of this new commission remains unclear, it’s safe to expect that it will be used to invoke the language of human rights while undermining them internationally.
Resistance Resources
- Human Rights First – An independent advocacy and action organization who have criticized Trump over this new commission.
- Human Rights Watch – A non-governmental, non-profit, international organization which provides a source of research and advocacy for human rights and anti-war causes around the world.
An Update on Migrant Children in Detention
Policy Summary
In a facility in Homestead, Florida some migrant children are held for many months at a time – including some cases of 6 months. Artwork by the children decorate the building walls with uplifting sentiments like “I have a dream” in Spanish, and “through these doors walk the greatest people in the world!” The facility is a temporary shelter and on federal land next to an Air Reserve Base, so it is unlicensed and not required to follow state child welfare standards.
As is, the facility violates many child welfare standards due to its prison camp nature. There are several cases of children suffering from tremendous psychological self- harm and suicidal thoughts/tendencies. The children wear wristbands that track their movement, walk in single-file lines, and require permission for everything including using the bathroom and obtaining water. Staff members accompany minors almost everywhere and periodically search their rooms. Everyone is allotted 5 minutes to shower, 15 to eat, and are allowed to talk to their family members on the phone twice a week for 10 minutes at a time.
The facility is run by Comprehensive Health Services, Inc., which is a private, for-profit company with a growing line of business in housing immigrant children. It costs approximately $250 per day to house a migrant child at a standard, permanent shelter, so in total at Homestead it is roughly $1.2 million per day. In Homestead, 1,600 migrant children are housed and 250 additional beds have been installed in the last 2 months so they can soon house 2,350 children. Some of the children were separated from their families during Trump’s Zero Tolerance last year, but most crossed alone with the intention of reuniting with a parent or close relative in the US.
Due to an influx of unaccompanied children and a lack of funding to match, unaccompanied children in government detention centers will no longer have English classes, recreational programs or legal aid according to the Department of Health and Human Services because they are not ‘directly necessary for the protection of life and safety.’ However, under the terms of the 1997 Flores court settlement, immigrant children in custody must be taught English 5 days a week and have at least 1 hour of recreational time each day.
Analysis
For the most part, international human rights norms do not encourage nations to jail asylum seekers in any capacity. It is a choice that the Trump Administration has chosen to make. Many immigrant advocates fault poor case management for the lengthy stays many migrant children face. One could argue that, once again, the Trump Administration is using vulnerable children as bargaining chips to secure funds from Congress and demand quick responses.
Educational/language classes and recreational activities are crucial to maintaining physical and mental health while migrant children are in government custody. If the Trump Administration strips them of these basic necessities, it is stripping these vulnerable children of their dignity and humanity, reducing them to being treated like sub-human prisoners. Furthermore, depriving children of legal aid is teetering on the line of setting these children up for failure. Many do not speak English (well) nor do they understand the US legal system enough to make informed decisions without guidance. Legal aids are helpful in making decisions best for the young individuals, telling them when and where to show up for court hearings, and what to do with the lengthy and complicated information presented to them in a language even some of their adult counterparts are not familiar with.
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.
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
Photo by Johnny Wall
New Voting Rights Pledge Seeks To Push Gerrymandering As An Issue For 2020 Elections
Policy Summary: On June 3, 2019, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) announced a pledge that future political candidates at the federal and local level can commit to upcoming campaigns. The pledge states:
“For too long, partisan gerrymandering has been used as a tool to manipulate electoral districts to benefit political parties instead of voters.
I believe every elected official should be accountable to the people they represent, which means we need to end gerrymandering.
I pledge to support fair redistricting that ends map manipulation and creates truly representative districts.”
The pledge has been sent to current members of the Democratic Party and at last count has been embraced by twenty – six politicians which include a number of Democratic candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, a number of party leaders and a handful of congressional and state legislative leaders. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: The pledge conceived by the NDRC is a direct result of the aggressive gerrymandering tactics undertaken in many states the last decade. Since 2010, legislators in a number of states have redrawn congressional and state legislative lines to draw districts that would ensure that a political party would win that district regardless of the candidate. This attempt to draw districts that would rig the system to ensure an advantage for a preferred political party has led to an inequality in voting results. States that had a majority number of votes cast for one political party overall often ended up winning a minority of seats statewide. This has led to lawsuits in courts where some partisan maps were thrown out and even to some new options adopted by some states like independent redistricting commissions.
While the President of the United States has little power in implementing and enforcing change on the issue of gerrymandering, nearly all of the current Democratic presidential candidates have signed the pledge because of the importance of supporting change on an issue that has run amok for far too long. The message that this pledge sends is that American citizens need to pick their elected representatives instead of having politicians pick who their voters will be. The current system is broken and has been broken for a long time and partisan gerrymandering is one reason that has contributed to the dysfunction and stalemate in American politics today. The pledge allows voters to see which politicians support the pledge and through the NDRC become more informed on how to confront the issue, how to reform the system and eventually implement a durable and fair redistricting process. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
- Brennan Center for Justice – non – profit group webpage on partisan gerrymandering issues.
- National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) – advocacy group pushing for a fair redistricting process.
Photo by Element5 Digital
Government Changes the Rules on Climate Change Data Collection and Reporting
The New York Times has reported that James Reilly, the Trump appointed director of the United States Geological Survey, has ordered a change in the way in which the government collects and reports climate data. Going forward they will use only climate models projecting the impact of climate change through 2040.
This order breaks from standard climate modelling as determined by section 106 in the Global Change Research Act of 1990 that claims climate predictions should be projected 25 to 100 years in the future. According to the same Time report, scientists have predicted that the most devastating effects of man-made global warming will occur after 2050 and that the rate of climate change will remain relatively consistent until then.
Reilly’s order signals that the USGS will use a ‘best-case scenario’ model that purposefully minimizes the danger and impact of anthropogenic global warming. The main target of Reilly’s order is likely the National Climate Assessment, which is produced every four years by a body of intergovernmental agencies in order to determine the broad consequences of climate change.
Policy Analysis
This policy change is seen as part of a broader push by the Trump administration to politicize climate science, and produce data that artificially minimizes the environmental, social, and economic impacts the public faces from the fossil fuel industry emissions.
Some sources claim that there may be legal challenges to this order to the extent that it could be countermanded in the courts due to the Global Research Act, which was passed by congress in 1989. The underlying legality of the order could be questioned if it violates the principles behind the United States’ climate research program.
The change to USGS policy squarely violates the Precautionary Principle, which states that when dealing with novel circumstances the burden of proof lies in demonstrating that those circumstances do not pose a significant risk. By limiting the scope of its risk assessment from 25-100 years to 20 years, the National Climate Assessment will be hamstrung in its capacity to provide a holistic risk-assessment.
The Precautionary Principle should be a keystone of Environmental policy in an age where the extent of the harm posed climate by change is complex and hard to predict, but Reilly’s order undermines the scientific basis on which policy can be made that protects vulnerable populations.
Resistance Resources:
New Changes to Health Care Rights Law Threaten Transgender and Nonbinary Communities
Policy
The Trump Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has submitted a major change to the administrative rule interpreting Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This change will remove explicit protections for the LGBTQ+ community in healthcare programs and activities. Section 1557 was proposed by the Obama Administration intended to protect the LGBTQ community from discrimination based on sex stereotyping and gender identity. The specific Trump change of the rule removes gender identity and sexual orientation under the definition and category of sex discrimination. Under the Section 1557 change the ACA still bans sex discrimination in the health-care industry, but defines sex “according to the plain meaning of the term” and removes any “excess” aka gender identity and sexual orientation, in accordance with a definition passed by congress in 1972. Such a change removes protections for those previously protected.
Analysis
The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the Trump Administration list 3 reasons for changing Section 1557. First is to alter the section so it “conforms to the law as written”, second is to reduce unnecessary spending by the OCR, and finally, OCR and the Administration found that rule exceeded the regulatory authority of the government.
Section 1557, as originally written, included gender identity and sexual orientation as a means of defining one’s sex. These attributes are not included in traditional definitions of sex. The Trump Administration argues there is no room for alterations in the meaning of sex and therefore gender identity and sexual orientation have no place, and should not be included as a basis for protection against discrimination based on sex. The administration views that the definition of sex in Section 1557 is more “powerful” than the way in which the word is defined in other parts of the Affordable Care Act, and that the government exceeded its authority when it broadened the way in which the meaning of one’s sexuality is traditionally defined. The Trump Administration sees Section 1557 as creating false interpretations of the law and “unjustified cost and regulatory burdens”.
The change to Section 1557 is expected to save OCR a significant amount of money from a reduction of grievances and court fees. Because fewer people will be protected fewer people can file claims; resulting in OCR saving money. However, it is likely that the real reason behind this rule change comes from religious rights support, a key following of the Trump/Pence Administration. The religious right takes a strict traditional male/female only as options to defining one’s sexual identity; and many do not recognize the right of people to have gay lesbian, transgender, and sexual preferences or non-binary sexual identities.
Critics of this new rule highlight the likelihood of increased discrimination and a decrease of willingness to visit health care facilities by these affected communities as core reasons for rejecting proposed changes in Section 1557. The risk of trans and non-binary individuals being arbitrarily denied services or voluntarily avoiding facilities due to fear will only result in negative experiences and health complications.
The proposed rule change goes into effect after a 60-day commenting period, which will begin once it is officially submitted to the Federal Registrar.
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union : A national organization working to defend civil liberties across the United States.
- Human Rights Campaign : America’s largest civil rights organization, working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer equality.
- Lambda Legal : A national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of the LGBT community as well as those living with HIV/AIDS through litigation, societal education, and public policy work.
- National Center for Transgender Equality : The nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization winning life-saving change for transgender people.
2020 Candidate Involvement:
- TX-D Beto O’Rourke: Advocate for same sex rights and protections against discrimination.
- CA-D Kamala Harris: Historically refused to defend CA’s Proposition 8, which would ban same sex marriage.
- MA-D Elizabeth Warren: Co-sponsor of the Equality Act, scores a 100% rating on Human Rights Campaign Congressional Scorecard.
- IN-D Pete Buttigieg: Pledged to pass federal legislation making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation, strong advocate for the Equality Act.
- NY-D Kirsten Gillibrand: Advocate for the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, supporter of the Equality Act.
Photo By Denin Lawley
Amazon.com Prioritizes Corporate Profits Over Civil Liberties In Facial Recognition Fight
Policy Summary
At Amazon.com’s annual shareholder meeting in Seattle, two non – binding proposals regarding Amazon.com’s sales of facial recognition software – known as Rekognition – to government entities were placed on the ballot for a shareholder vote. The first proposal asked whether Amazon.com should stop selling the software to government entities until it concludes that the software does not infringe on civil liberties. The second proposal asked whether an independent commission should conduct a civil rights review on the use of the software. Amazon.com announced that the shareholder vote on both proposals did not pass with an overwhelming number of votes against the proposals. Some reports indicated that the vote against the proposals was as high as 98% against although Amazon.com has not released specific numbers yet. Although the shareholder vote was non – binding, the failure of the proposals paves the way for Amazon.com to increase sales of Rekognition to federal, state and local government institutions for use. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Facial recognition software is becoming an increasingly contentious issue in the U.S. The core use of the software – the ability to use public cameras to scan a live crowd of people (at sporting events, concerts or any large public gathering) and instantly connect with public databases (DMV records, police arrest records) to match people’s faces – raises privacy concerns and a lack of oversight of activities of law enforcement departments. Amazon had initially allowed police departments in Oregon and Florida to test the use of their software. Other cities began to express interest and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began a campaign to counter the widespread use of the technology. In May 2019, the City of San Francisco became the first city to ban their police department from using the technology. Soon after cities in Oakland, California and Somerville, Massachusetts considered similar citywide bans while the Legislatures in Washington State and California considered statewide bans of the software. (California’s bill eventually was aimed only at banning the software from police body cameras and was passed by the California Assembly in May 2019). On June 3, 2019 the ACLU sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Reform Committee requesting a moratorium on federal use of the technology.
With growing opposition, an approach aimed directly at Amazon.com was devised which would have Amazon.com shareholders take a direct role in sending a message to the company on the dangers of this technology. The two proposals could have sent a direct message to CEO Jeff Bezos to be more prudent and to take caution in selling the software to the federal government until a thorough analysis of the software could be undertaken. Sadly, both proposals failed with reports that shareholders overwhelmingly rejected the proposals. Had both proposals passed, Amazon.com could have sent a message that it places a high value on privacy and civil liberties but this vote instead shows that corporate profits are more important to Amazon shareholders. The battle now shifts back to the federal, state and local government levels and their options in trying to limit the spread and potential misuse of this dangerous new technology. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
- Engagement Resources:
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group podcast on dangers of facial recognition technology.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – non – profit group info on facial recognition technology issues.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit’s group webpage on how facial recognition technology works.
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.
Photo by Christian Wiediger