Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Who’s On Trump’s Cabinet- Part 2: Economy

Who’s On Trump’s Cabinet- Part 2: Economy Elections & Politics #138 | By: Arvind Salem | November 28, 2024 Photo from Trump Stock photos by Vecteezy __________________________________ Policy Summary: The economy, after foreign policy, crime, and immigration,...

read more

Is  “I’m Moving to Bluesky” the new “I’m Moving to Canada?” 

The post-election fallout on Elon Musk’s platform, X, has triggered a digital exodus reminiscent of political protests past. On November 6, over 115,000 users deactivated their accounts, frustrated by Musk’s overt alliance with Donald Trump and X’s growing reputation as a hub for hate speech and misinformation. High-profile figures like Stephen King, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Barbra Streisand publicly announced their departures, with many migrating to emerging platforms Bluesky and Threads. Bluesky, created by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, saw over 1 million new users in a single day, as Wired aptly dubbed the movement: “the new ‘I’m moving to Canada.’” The message is clear—people are seeking safer spaces for online discourse, and Musk’s X may no longer be it.

read more

The Deepfake Dilemma: Navigating Ethics in a Digital Age

Deepfake technology, powered by artificial intelligence, represents both a creative frontier and an ethical quagmire. While it enables innovations in education, entertainment, and historical reconstruction, its misuse has led to identity theft, political disinformation, and financial fraud. High-profile incidents—such as manipulated videos influencing elections or non-consensual explicit content targeting women—highlight the urgent need for global policies to counter these harms. As governments and organizations strive to regulate deepfake misuse, the balance between fostering innovation and safeguarding privacy, trust, and societal stability remains critical.

read more

Climate Change’s Impact on the Ski Industry

Snow is important for the health of Earth. Snow plays a major part in regulating the planet’s temperature. Snow is hyper-reflective and is capable of sending the Sun’s energy back into space which keeps the Earth’s temperatures from rising too much through the year. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, without snow, the ground would absorb about 4-6x the amount of solar energy that it would if there was snow on the ground – leading to warmer temperatures. Less snow could lead to droughts in areas that typically relied on snowpack melting during the warmer months for access to water, or to harvest with the purpose of providing water. It could also lead to species of animals dying that had evolved to survive in a world with snow, such as snowshoe hares (white fur coats to blend into a snowy environment). It could also lead to Indigenous knowledge related to cultural practices that involve snow may disappear, as well.

read more

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank have intensified amidst global concerns, with statements from senior officials indicating potential annexation and permanent displacement of Palestinians. Meanwhile, the G20 Summit in Brazil launched a global initiative to fight hunger, and Southeast Asia faces climate vulnerability as Typhoon Man-Yi devastates the Philippines. Ukraine marks 1,000 days of war as Russian airstrikes cause severe damage to its power infrastructure.

read more

Losing the Other Georgia: Democracy is on Defense

Foreign Policy #167: Losing the Other Georgia – Democracy is on Defense
The recent parliamentary election in Georgia has sparked international outcry, with allegations of voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, and violent activity undermining the legitimacy of the results. Western nations, including the U.S. and EU, have rejected the outcome, calling it a significant blow to democratic values. Meanwhile, pro-Russian policies by the ruling Georgian Dream party signal a potential shift toward authoritarianism, threatening Georgia’s path to EU membership and further consolidating Russian influence in the region.

read more

A Congratulatory Letter to President Trump

Congratulations on your victory, President Trump. As you prepare to lead our nation, we urge you to address the needs of all Americans—ensuring equitable healthcare, protecting voting rights, tackling climate change, and fostering unity. Your presidency has the potential to shape a brighter future for everyone.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Trump’s Political Waltz with Putin and Zelensky As Election Day Approaches

Trump’s Political Waltz with Putin and Zelensky As Election Day Approaches

Trump’s Political Waltz with Putin and Zelensky As Election Day Approaches

Foreign Policy #165 | By: Yelena Korshunov | October 29, 2024
Featured Photo: vanityfair.com

__________________________________

Trump on Putin. “I’m going to hit you…”  

Former US president and incumbent Republican candidate for the presidency, Donald Trump has never hidden his enthusiastically warm attitude towards Russian president Vladimir Putin. The  influence of Russia on the course of the presidential elections in 2016 has been investigated by the FBI, and 11 suspects are wanted in relation to this case. Trump denies any Russian interference in this matter and, on the threshold of the 2024 presidential elections, feeds voters new details of his past interaction with Putin in regards to the war in Ukraine. 

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on October 18th, Trump said that he threatened to strike Moscow if Russia attacks Ukraine, “I said to Putin, ‘Vladimir, if you go after Ukraine, I am going to hit you so hard, you’re not even going to believe it. I’m going to hit you right in the middle of fricking Moscow.’” According to Trump, Putin’s answer was “No way”. Trump’s private relationship with Putin could be different than what he presents to the public. It’s unclear how the conversation was developed after Putin’s ambiguous response.  

What’s remarkable is that in February 2022 Trump described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy” that sounds very contradicting to his own words about threatening Russia’s dictator.  

In an interview with Elon Musk in August, Trump said that while serving as US president, he warned Vladimir Putin that “bad days would come” if Russia attacks Ukraine. According to the former president, this was the last time he spoke with Putin. 

John Micklethwait, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg, interviewed Trump asking him about a new book by the journalist Bob Woodward that includes an unnamed aide saying Trump and Putin had spoken as many as seven times since Trump left office in 2021. The editor posed questions about his and Putin’s long-scrutinized relationship, particularly in light of Mr. Trump’s criticism of military aid to Ukraine. However, Trump declined to comment on whether he’d talked with the Russian president since leaving the White House. However, he added, “If I have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing.” 

Trump on Zelensky. “The greatest salesman I’ve ever seen…” 

Donald Trump recently stated that Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky bears personal responsibility for the fact that he “allowed” the Russian invasion of Ukraine to begin. In an interview with a republican PBD podcast author Patrick Beth-David, Trump said, “I think Zelensky is one of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever seen. Every time he comes in, we give him $100 billion. Who else got that kind of money in history? There’s never been. And that doesn’t mean I don’t want to help him, because I feel very badly for those people. But he should never have let that war start. That war is a loser.” 

At the end of September, Zelensky and Trump met at Trump Tower in New York. This was their first face-to-face meeting in five years. Speaking to reporters at the beginning of the meeting, Zelensky said that “we have a common view that the war in Ukraine must be stopped, and Putin cannot win.” Trump stated that if he wins the election, he will “quickly resolve the issue” with the war. He told reporters that “we have very good relations [with Zelensky], and I also have very good relations, as you know, with Putin. And I think if we win [the elections], we will solve this very quickly.” As Zelensky commented later in October, at a meeting with Trump, he [Zelensky] said that to protect Ukraine, it [Ukraine] needs to either join NATO or have access to nuclear weapons. He later made an additional comment that this does not mean that Ukraine is going to produce nuclear weapons itself. Recently, Zelensky told the New Yorker [magazine] that he believes Trump “doesn’t really know how to stop the war” and called Trump’s running mate JD Vance “too radical” and “dangerous” for suggesting that Ukraine should give up its territory to end the conflict. 

Policy Analysis 

The atmosphere of the presidential race is heating up as the date of elections gets closer. The latest survey published on Monday, October 21st by The Washington Post shows that the candidates are racing neck-and-neck across the country’s seven states that can swing in favor of either candidate. The other Harris-Trump polls across the country demonstrate nearly the same picture. A promise to end the war in Ukraine is a winning point designed to attract votes. On the one hand, Trump wants to show that he is a strong leader who threatened Putin, warning him to not even think about invading Ukraine. But at the same time, his position to stop the war consists of leaving the conquered territories to the invader– that is actually a direct demand made by Putin. Getting an official recognition of the right to annex the violently captured lands to Russia, Putin would achieve his goal.  

This political waltzing on debris of the ruined cities and thousands of taken lives seems to have nothing in common with establishing peace in the world. Many politicians, not only in Ukraine, but throughout the world agree that this step would only temporarily stop Putin, who would win time to strengthen his position and accumulate weapons. His next attack on the territory of European states will not be long in coming. 

 

Engagement Resources 

 

Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

 

A Billionaire and A Buffon Join Forces

A Billionaire and A Buffon Join Forces

A Billionaire and A Buffon Join Forces 

Technology Policy #119 | By: Mindy Spatt | October 28, 2024
Featured Photo: foxnews.com

__________________________________

It’s easy to laugh at Elon Musk’s childish dance onstage with Trump and even easier to laugh at Trump’s moves, especially when they replace an actual campaign speech. The comedy shows have been having a field day with the antics of the two, but the combination is more frightening than funny.  Both are unhinged; one has unlimited money, and the other is on the brink of having unlimited power.   

Analysis 

Elon Musk has put himself, his money, and his social media company with 106.23 million subscribers in the US, front and center in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.  Frank Bruni, writing in the New York Times, put it this way:  Musk, who turned X into a digital Trump pep rally … is essentially cartwheeling across Pennsylvania with fistfuls of money for anyone with any inkling to vote for the madman of Mar-a-Lago.”    

The Musk/Trump axis of evil also caught the attention of Le Monde, which recently editorialized: “Little by little, the social media network has been transformed into an informal mouthpiece for the Republican candidate.”  A recent look at my “for you” tab on Twitter confirms this.  Although I only subscribe to liberal media and politicians, what X has for me includes: 

This little Chinese woman got me fired up “Kamawa is sooooo Stoopid”  

@MJTruthUltra 

Voter ID should be required nationwide 

@elonmusk 

BREAKING: Total Air & Plumbing just sent their entire company to the polls to vote early for Donald Trump. 

@VoteHarrisOut 

HAPPENING NOW: Here is footage of the historic line at the Madison Square garden in New York City where Trump will host a rally in 5 hours. This election is over. 

@dom_lucre 

One reason for Musk’s enthusiasm may be that Trump has said as President, he would make Musk head of a government efficiency commission, a role Musk would use to eliminate regulations he views as anti-business, especially his own businesses, which hold many government contracts.   

Not only would Musk have the authority to get rid of regulations, but he also intends to get rid of numerous federal agencies.  He might start with the EPA, which made Musk angry by fining SpaceX $140,000 for illegally dumping water at one of its facilities.    

And what of the former employees of the agencies Musk wants to eliminate?  Trump has gushed over Musk’s brutality with layoffs, which includes not honoring Twitter’s severance agreements with former executives.  Musk instituted mass layoffs at Twitter that purged almost  80% of the workforce, and wholly eliminated the trust and safety teams. 

Trump, in an interview on X with Musk, said, “I look at what you do, you walk in and you just say, ‘You want to quit?’ They go on strike – I won’t mention the name of the company – but they go on strike, and you say, ‘That’s okay, you’re all gone. You’re all gone. Every one of you is gone,” Those comments sparked the United Auto Workers to file a complaint against the two for intimidation. 

Another reason for Musk’s enthusiasm is likely the substantial tax benefits he stands to reap from the billionaire cuts Trump has promised.  With a role in the government, he could also see additional tax benefits that certain federal officials can claim.  Although conflict of interest statutes don’t permit government employees from official involvement in companies they have a financial stake in, Trump and others in his administration mostly ignored that rule in the past and will likely do so again. 

Trump and Musk are also aligned in their extremely transphobic views.  Trump’s bizarre rants about sex change operations at schools have a more serious underside; he would eliminate federal funding from schools that teach acceptance and inclusivity, an agenda that Musk, angry about his own child’s transition, is enthusiastic about.  

It’s not hard to imagine how their unholy alliance will react if Trump loses the election.  Constant tweets about election officials cheating, accusations of corruption and collusions, the unlimited number of lawsuits Musk could file, and another armed insurrection.  This time, I’ll know about it in advance if I remember to check my Twitter feed. 

 

 

 

Engagement Resources: 

Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!

 

The Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Two

The Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Two

The Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Two 

Civil Rights Policy Brief #221 | By: Rod Maggay | October 27, 2024

Featured Photo by: theregreview.org

__________________________________

In the first part of this series on the right to vote in the United States, we examined the source of the right to vote found in the U.S. Constitution and how the constitutional framework with regards to voting has been incomplete. We additionally examined some of the constitutional amendments that have been passed to try and remedy some of those gaps. The second part in this series will examine how Congress has tried to address voting rights through federal legislation. 

Policy Summary: After the Civil War Congress passed a number of constitutional amendments to try and manage and limit the restrictions states used to limit who could vote in elections. However many states, particularly in the South, simply refused to abide by the new amendments. States took it upon themselves to add more and more restrictions through a variety of methods. Some states passed new state constitutions with new voting restrictions that exempted white voters from the new restrictions, e.g. whites being exempted from poll taxes and literacy tests. Some states even implemented the “white primary” which only allowed white voters to participate. Physical violence was also employed to intimidate and harass voters and in some cases to physically beat (and sometimes murder) voters in order to keep them away from polling places. Combined with Jim Crow laws that were used to impose a white supremacy mindset, states were able to skirt what the new constitutional voting rights amendments prohibited. 

In the mid twentieth century, Congress decided to get involved with the issue of voting rights amid the growing Civil Rights Movement. Two pieces of legislation were passed in the 1950’s – the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 – but these acts were broad bills that dealt with a wide range of civil rights topics and only briefly touched on voting rights. It was not until 1965 that Congress passed the Voting Rights Act that dealt specifically with voting rights. The law outlawed voting qualifications that denies or abridges a right to vote on “account of race, color or membership in a language minority group.” LEARN MORE 

Policy Analysis: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided the Federal Government with more substantial tools to fight voter suppression tactics that were still being employed by some states. The most significant was Section 5 of the Act that required the Federal Government to first approve any changes that a state or local county wanted to make to a voting procedure, more popularly known as “pre – clearance.” This procedure no longer left it to the states alone to decide what voting laws to implement. The Federal Government now had a say and could approve or disapprove a state’s voting law. If it found the proposed law racially discriminatory in any way, the Federal Government could now “veto” the proposed rule and prevent it from going into effect. And, Section 6 (now Section 8) allowed “federal observers” to monitor a jurisdiction’s voter registration functions to ensure that race was not being used to deny a person from registering to vote. The entirety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is significant because it took the absolute power of the states over voter eligibility and the right to vote and shared it with the federal government to ensure that discriminatory practices were kept to a minimum. 

But while the Act made broad strides in protecting the right to vote, the Act is only limited to discriminatory tactics that are based on race, color and membership in a minority language group. It does not provide protections based on gender, sexual orientation or on a person’s immigrant status. States may not pass rules that are obviously based on race or color but they are still finding subtle ways to insert a restriction or prohibition that touches on race or color. In March 2024 a rule in Arizona requiring a person to register their birthplace in order to vote was struck down. This was because Arizona already had a rule struck down stating that they could not require proof of citizenship as a requirement to vote and it was believed the birthplace requirement could have been used to determine a voter’s citizenship status. And Alabama and Virginia have recently received notices from the U.S. Department of Justice to prohibit their removal of voters from their state’s voter rolls in the weeks and days leading up to Election Day on November 5th. Virginia’s methods were especially onerous as they were comparing lists of non – citizens with lists of currently registered voters to determine who should be removed. Virginia was also breaking the Quiet Period Provision of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) which provides that voter roll maintenance and removal of voters cannot be done within 90 days of an election. And in Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) won a victory in a case where Texas sought to limit who may provide assistance to a voter seeking help and instructions to fill out their ballot, as Texas wrongly believed that any assistance was evidence of voter fraud. 

What these scenarios demonstrate is that states can still find a way to discriminate and suppress the vote in ways that do not directly involve race or color. In these cases, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not apply to protect a citizen’s right to vote. It shows that when it wants to the federal government can do more. But what if the next wave of state voter suppression bills are aimed at LGBQT persons? Or aimed at out of state college students? Or aimed at those who support certain rights like reproductive rights or immigrant issues? States have been known to change minimum voting threshholds and eligibility to try and ensure that abortion restrictions don’t get overturned. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, because it is based solely on race, would be helpless to protect these voters. What is needed from Congress is a more comprehensive voter eligibility and protection bill that would cover more than race or color instead of addressing these gaps piecemeal. History has demonstrated that states will simply ignore new laws (e.g. the post Civil War constitutional voting amendments) but if Congress can enact a broad and sweeping bill with strong enforcement provisions (like what the VRA of 1965 has) that protects more beyond race and color then Congress will go a long way to protecting voting rights, even more than what was first envisioned when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE 

 


Engagement Resources


This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.

Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!

A Win for Democracy: Two Georgia Judges Rule Election Board Must Certify Election Results

A Win for Democracy: Two Georgia Judges Rule Election Board Must Certify Election Results

A Win for Democracy: Two Georgia Judges Rule Election Board Must Certify Election Results 

Civil Rights Policy Brief #221 | By: Rod Maggay | October 26, 2024

Featured Photo by: apnews.com

__________________________________

Policy Summary: On October 14, 2024, Judge Robert McBurney of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta Judicial Circuit issued a final order in the civil action Adams v. Fulton County. That is a case brought by a Republican member of the election board in Fulton County, Georgia in order to determine whether her duties as a member of the board were “discretionary” and whether she was entitled to “full access” to all “election materials.” This lawsuit came together as a result of new rules implemented by the Georgia State Election Board. These package of rules were not passed by the Georgia State Legislature but were instead passed by the board. The rule regarding certification of an election in the county allowed local boards to conduct “reasonable inquiry” before certifying the results of an election. The rule passed the board by a vote of 3 – 2 with all of the Republicans on the board voting in favor of the rule. In addition to the final order issued by Judge McBurney, Judge Thomas Cox, another Fulton County Superior Court judge in a separate case brought challenging the new election board rules declared the rules, including the new rule on the certification of elections, “illegal, unconstitutional and void.” LEARN MORE 

Policy Analysis: The decisions reached by both Judge McBurney and Judge Cox regarding the process of certifying elections in Georgia is significant. Judge Cox’s decision provided the foundation of why the new election board rules could not stand. Because the rules had been initially passed by only the Georgia State Elections Board itself and not the Georgia State Legislature, the rules could not be inconsistent with any law passed by the Legislature. Judge Cox found the rules were and were thus unconstitutional and void. Additionally, Judge Cox found that the election board did not have the authority to pass the rules, which added another layer as to why the board rules were invalid. The rules were in effect constitutionally devoid of force as a rule of law. 

But it was Judge McBurney’s order that many saw as quite possibly having the most effect on the upcoming 2024 presidential election. What many supporters of the Republican members of the elections board were hoping for was a decision that would permit members on the election board the right to refuse to certify the election results. This was a frightening proposition because if members of the election board were allowed discretion to certify an election, a member could conceivably delay or permanently hold up the certification of an election for any reason. The rule had no legal standards that could be used to help guide an election board member’s decision to not certify. A board member could simply do it, even base it on partisan reasons, or even refuse to have certain votes counted or included in the final tally. But Judge McBurney’s order made clear that the duties of the election board members were ministerial when it came to certification of election results. Judge McBurney explained that many duties of election board members were in fact discretionary which allowed them to examine the facts of a situation and/or case and then make a decision before deciding on a course of action. But he made clear that there was no discretion in certifying an election and that their duties in this scenario were ministerial which meant that, under state law, they had a mandatory duty to certify an election. They had no discretion to exclude ballots or to make determinations as to the validity of a set of ballots over another. Nor could they make the unilateral determination that a fraud or errors had occurred. Judge McBurney did not see it appropriate that a board member could as one person act as “investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge” and unilaterally determine error or fraud because then their act of refusing to certify an election would allow one person to silence Georgia voters. And with many officials aligned with former President Trump’s stolen election conspiracy theories, it would be quite conceivable that partisan reasons would be used to delay certification. And it could even lead to a manipulation of the results of the vote tally in a Georgia county. But with these two orders from these two judges, the possibility that a Georgia election administrator could delay certification on their own accord seems less likely. It was a win for democracy in Georgia the last week courtesy of Judge McBurney and Judge Cox. 

 


Engagement Resources
  • Brennan Center for Justice – background info on the certification process in key battleground states. 
  • ProPublica – background info on the certification battle in Georgia and how the battle behind the scenes ended up in court. 


This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.

Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!

Harris and Trump Will Treat Our European Allies Differently

Harris and Trump Will Treat Our European Allies Differently

Harris and Trump Will Treat Our European Allies Differently  

Foreign Policy #164 | By: Damian DeSola | October 25, 2024
Featured Photo: cbsnews.com

__________________________________

The United States finds itself in a tumultuous time. Both at home and abroad, our country’s staying power is being tested. As we prepare for an election that is days away, the world is watching as we choose one of two very different views of foreign affairs to lead us through the next four years. One debate not often mentioned is the future relationship between the United States and its European allies. This brief shall discuss the European policy strategies of Trump and Harris if either were to be elected. 

During his term, Trump preferred unilateral actions and bilateral over multilateral agreements with European nations, shown through his withdrawing the U.S. from multiple multinational agreements. He also has a mixed relationship with NATO. While he has shown to see value in the organization, he has also threatened members with possible revocation of security guarantees unless they “pay more” into the alliance.  

In terms of Ukraine, it is a mixed bag. He claims he has great relationships with both Putin and Zelensky and says that he would end the war if he were reelected. He also blames Ukraine and Biden for starting the war in the first place. It suffices to say that our current commitments to Ukraine would be in the air if he were reelected. 

Vice President Harris has said that, if elected, she will work to actively improve our allied relationships. She is in favor of working with our European allies multilaterally by including all relevant security and economic partners in strategy development and internal negotiations. This multilateral strategy also includes working with international organizations such as NATO and the EU. Under a Harris administration, Ukraine will also continue to receive US aid as their struggle against Russia persists. 

Analysis 

Now, which course of action would be the most beneficial for the United States and for our European allies? Simply put, a Harris administration would make policy decisions that would improve the security of the United States and democratic Europe in comparison to a Trump administration. A multilateral diplomatic strategy with our European partners would improve the security status of both our continents. 

In terms of international diplomacy, the multilateral doctrine that Harris espouses would be healthier for our friendly European relations. In comparison, Trump’s preference for dealing directly with individual European countries undermines their trust as we seek unity in democratic Europe over disunity. Multilateral agreements, while initially messier, will ensure the implementation of comprehensive and effective approaches to existing and future security issues (e.g. Ukraine, Israel, China).  

Something that specifically needs clearing up for most Americans is NATO defense spending. NATO requires member nations to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense spending. In 2017 at the start of Trump’s presidency, only four countries met the 2% requirement; by 2020, this reached nine of thirty nations. After the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, not only did NATO membership grow with the induction of Finland and Sweden, but the number of nations meeting the 2% threshold reached twenty-three out of thirty-two as of 2024. The increase is a result of common ground found between nations, as is the purpose of NATO, not from “tough negotiating”.  

With regards to the Ukraine war with Russia, Harris will either continue our current aid strategy or expand it to allow further leeway with Ukrainian usage of Western weaponry. It is also likely she would be vocal supporter  of  agreements that will allow Ukraine to integrate into the rest of democratic Europe. 

Trump’s likely policy towards Ukraine is murky. What can be said is that he would much rather the war end on any terms rather than exclusively Ukrainian ones. The freedom of Ukraine to choose the path it overwhelmingly desires, to join the Western bloc, will be left uncertain. Trump may prefer a peace that leaves Ukraine neutral, and therefore vulnerable to a near-certain second invasion after Russia regroups its military. 

One of these two views of European policy will be a reality soon. In a short time, the American people will determine the fate of our transatlantic partnerships, as well as our own fate.

 

Engagement Resources 

Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

 

The Politics of Funding Climate Disasters

The Politics of Funding Climate Disasters

The Politics of Funding Climate Disasters 

Environment Policy #175| By: Allie Amato | October 24, 2024
Featured Photo: bloomberg.com

__________________________________

Back in the 80s, the United States on average faced what would now total a billion-dollars in natural disaster relief about every four months. The latest estimates from The Fifth National Climate Assessment find that our country is hit with a billion-dollar disaster every three weeks. Many experts point to climate change exacerbating these major disasters, making them more frequent, deadly, and devastating. On the heels of Hurricane Helene and Milton tearing through the Southeastern coast, a recent analysis shows exactly that. The record heat in the Gulf of Mexico reportedly increased Helene’s rainfall by 10% and intensified the damaging winds by 11%. Helene left 220 people dead while the impact of Milton killed at least 11. So many lives have already been lost, so much infrastructure reduced to rubble, and lawmakers have dedicated so little funding to mitigate the growing pile of natural disasters. While a short-term spending bill that included funding for FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) successfully passed through the House and Senate ahead of Helene, it’s important to note that 100 Republican members of Congress voted to block it. Several Democrats in Congress even elected not to vote at all.  

In the lead-up to, and aftermath of Hurricane Helene and Milton, we’ve seen public officials politicizing climate disasters. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Vice President Kamala Harris have been sparring in the media over DeSantis’ office rejecting Harris’ attempt to reach him following Helene. Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump has been spreading misinformation about the Biden Administration’s storm response. Among Trump’s false claims are that FEMA’s funding is spent because all their money went to programs for immigrants, and that the government is withholding aid to Republican disaster victims. Meantime, Congress is quietly recessing amidst this chaos and Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said last weekend he has no intentions of calling Congress back in session despite recent major natural disasters. Johnson says they already gave FEMA $20 billion, that should suffice, right? Well, not according to top budget advisers to President Biden, who previously predicted the country would need to ante up $128 billion in new spending each year to respond to climate emergencies such as this. 

First, the good news is that the Biden Administration has approved $441 million in assistance to Helene survivors and $349 million to help rebuild communities. So far, FEMA has mobilized 600 staff members including search and rescue teams and disaster response units across Florida. The government has also approved 100% reimbursement for debris removal efforts for the next three months, but it’s also a job that DeSantis believes will take a year to fix.  

The bad news is that these are merely temporary solutions. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says FEMA can meet “immediate needs” following both storms, but the agency ultimately lacks enough funding to make it through the rest of hurricane season which concludes at the very end of November.  The fact of the matter is, that the increase and severity of climate disasters must be addressed  with additional resources and  long-term, thoughtful solutions. Our nation also needs more lawmakers who understand the dire straits our environment is in. If Congress refuses to address before the election the impact human-made climate change has on these disasters, then it’s our civic duty to elect those who will take the action that’s needed.  

 

 

Engagement Resources
  • Register to vote because the entire House of Representatives and 34 Senate seats are up for election this year.  
  • Americares is providing rush emergency relief to survivors of Hurricane Helene and Milton. Just a $10 donation can provide up to $200 in aid. 
  • Center for Disaster Philanthropy has responded throughout the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season and provides both immediate/long term assistance. 

 

Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

The Fight for Freedom: A Dad’s Perspective

The Fight for Freedom: A Dad’s Perspective

The Fight for Freedom: A Dad’s Perspective 

Elections & Politics #148 | By: Morgan Davidson | October 24, 2024
Featured Photo: govexec.com
__________________________________

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
– Ronald Reagan 

One of the key components of Kamala Harris’ campaign is the effort to reclaim the meaning of the word “freedom.” This concept has been foundational throughout American history, yet over time, the focus on what it means has shifted. In an era marked by growing polarization, “freedom” has become whatever political elites want it to mean. Many Americans, in turn, have converged on their preferred side’s interpretation of this powerful and sacred word. 

At its most basic level, freedom means having control over one’s life without undue impediment. However, freedom also carries personal responsibility, encapsulated by principles like the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We have the right to life, but we also have the responsibility not to infringe on others’ lives. So, where do we draw the line between individual freedoms and collective responsibility, particularly in the realm of politics and government? 

Republicans often claim to be the party of freedom and liberty, but is this claim accurate? They view Democrats as the party of big government, equating liberalism with socialism, communism, or Marxism. But this is a misrepresentation. A liberal, in ideological terms, supports individual rights and democracy. Does either party hold a monopoly on the word “freedom”? Or do Democrats have a case as the true defenders of freedom, particularly when Republican policies start to legislate morality and limit individual autonomy? After all, no one would want to live under a theocratic regime like the Taliban’s, so why should Americans be subjected to laws that impose one particular moral framework? 

This brief explores the contradictions between the Republican Party, especially under Trump, and the conservative principles of limited government and individual freedom. 

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
– Jesus in John 8:7 

Analysis 

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine our civil rights.”
– Thomas Jefferson 

Heading into this election, abortion is a key issue, sparking debates over legality, exceptions, and timelines. These conversations will undoubtedly drive voters from both sides to the polls. I come from a family that faced this deeply personal decision when doctors advised that my youngest brother, due to medical concerns, might not survive, suggesting abortion as an option. Thankfully, my brother was born healthy 14 years ago. 

Now, as a prospective father living in Texas, my wife and I no longer have the options that were available to my parents. While we both desperately want to be parents, my commitment to my wife’s health and well-being means that decisions regarding her pregnancy should remain between us and our doctors, not politicians like Governor Abbott, President Trump, or the Supreme Court. Under Roe v. Wade, that was our freedom. But post-Dobbs, the reality in Texas has changed. 

I’m not here to tell anyone how to feel about abortion, but I am asking for the right to make decisions in my home. Democrats stand for the freedom to choose, especially in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening pregnancies. On the issue of abortion, Democrats are the party of freedom because they allow families like mine to make deeply personal choices, free from government interference. 

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”
– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty 

Gun violence is a growing epidemic in America, especially when it comes to school shootings. As a gun owner myself, I support the Second Amendment, but I also believe in common-sense gun laws. The debate over gun rights is not as simple as “no guns” versus “unlimited guns.” My freedom to own firearms should not infringe on the freedom of children to go to school safely. 

We already have laws restricting the types of firearms people can own (such as fully automatic weapons, grenades, and tanks), and yet I still legally own guns. The slippery slope argument—that any gun control will lead to the end of gun ownership—is a fallacy. Policies like background checks, red flag laws, and bans on high-capacity magazines or assault rifles could prevent tragedies like Uvalde without taking away lawful gun ownership. 

On the issue of gun rights, Democrats are pro-hunter, pro-child safety, and tough on criminals and the mentally unstable. Meanwhile, Republicans, by opposing even modest reforms, empower the very dangers that deprive us of our freedom to live, learn, and gather safely. 

“Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.”
– Franklin Roosevelt 

No political party can claim to be the “party of freedom” when it comes to taxes. The government, which we sustain through taxation, provides services we all rely on: roads, schools, defense, and countless other essential functions. The debate isn’t over whether taxes should exist but over who should bear the burden. 

Donald Trump’s tax cuts for billionaires disproportionately benefit the wealthy while leaving the rest of us to bear the brunt. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris and the Democrats propose raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 individually or $500,000 as a family—taxes that will fund social programs that benefit the majority of Americans. 

I understand the frustration of increased taxes; my wife and I experienced it firsthand. But it’s important to recognize that this was in response to necessary stimulus measures during the pandemic, and we are better off economically than many other countries. It’s time for billionaires like Trump and Musk to pay their fair share. 

“We don’t have deficits because people are taxed too little. We have deficits because big government spends too much.”
– Ronald Reagan 

Neither party can escape criticism for excessive spending. While Ronald Reagan spoke about the dangers of big government, it was Bill Clinton who achieved a surplus. Every president, regardless of party, has increased spending. Calls to rein in reckless spending are redundant when Republicans refuse to replenish government funds through fair taxation. 

“Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.”
– Ronald Reagan 

In the realm of foreign policy, the 2024 election presents clear choices. Trump’s isolationist approach shrinks America’s global influence. While it may seem appealing to demand that other countries pay their fair share, this strategy allows our adversaries to grow unchecked. As the world’s leading democracy, the U.S. has a duty to protect and promote freedom abroad through trade, treaties, and investment. 

Retreating from global engagement would delight rivals like China and Russia. The Cold War taught us the value of maintaining alliances and projecting power abroad, even though it led to conflicts that are still scrutinized. While not without flaws, America’s international presence prevents the rise of authoritarian regimes. 

The Harris-Walz ticket champions a continuation of America’s role as a global force for democracy and freedom. In contrast, Trump’s policies would isolate us, weaken global stability, and ultimately harm American lives and freedoms. 

Conclusion

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz offer a path forward that preserves and strengthens American freedom—personal, political, and economic. The contradictions within the Republican Party, especially under Trump, show a departure from the conservative principles of limited government and individual liberty. I’m not here to tell you how to vote, but I urge you to consider which party truly upholds the freedoms that define us as Americans. 

 

Engagement Resources
  • The Lincoln Project is a leading pro-democracy organization founded by Republicans — dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of democracy. https://lincolnproject.us/ 
  • The Brennan Center for Justice: The Brennan Center provides research, advocacy, and litigation in support of democratic freedoms, focusing on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and the protection of civil liberties. It’s a nonpartisan group, but their work often challenges policies that restrict freedom and democracy. https://www.brennancenter.org/ 
  • VoteVets: A progressive veterans’ organization, VoteVets focuses on holding politicians accountable, particularly regarding policies that impact veterans and national security. They promote a vision of freedom rooted in service to country and responsibility to fellow citizens. https://votevets.org/ 

 

Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

Election Integrity and Voter Suppression Concerns in Swing States

Election Integrity and Voter Suppression Concerns in Swing States

Election Integrity and Voter Suppression Concerns in Swing States

Elections & Politics #147 | By: Inijah Quadri | October 24, 2024
Featured Photo: ppic.org
__________________________________

In the lead-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election, the intersection of election integrity and voter suppression has become increasingly contentious, particularly in battleground states like Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. These states, which typically see tight margins, are often the decisive factor in determining the outcome of national elections. The changes to voting laws since 2020 have sparked debates about whether such reforms are aimed at enhancing election security or restricting access to the ballot box to achieve political advantage. 

Many of these states have passed legislation that alters key aspects of the voting process, including the introduction of stricter ID requirements for absentee ballots, limitations on the use of drop boxes, and expanded powers for poll watchers. Advocates of these laws argue that they strengthen the integrity of elections by preventing fraud, while critics claim they suppress the votes of historically marginalized communities, such as minority and low-income voters​. 

The ongoing debate over election integrity versus voter suppression is rooted in the political dynamics of swing states, where a small shift in voter turnout can drastically change the outcome. This tension can also be framed as a struggle between those who seek to restrict access to the electoral process and those who advocate for expanding it. Critics of the new laws argue that they disproportionately affect groups that tend to vote Democratic, such as urban and minority communities, thereby altering the political landscape under the pretense of preventing fraud. 

In states like Georgia, new voting laws have raised significant concerns. Following the 2020 election, Georgia passed legislation requiring stricter ID rules for absentee voting, limiting access to drop boxes, and restricting assistance to voters standing in long lines—a rule that has disproportionately affected urban, often minority, voters​. Critics argue that these measures target specific groups that tend to vote Democratic, thus influencing the political landscape under the guise of preventing fraud​. 

Wisconsin and Arizona are two other battlegrounds where voter suppression concerns are high. Wisconsin’s laws now make it more difficult to return mail-in ballots, with increased scrutiny over absentee voting procedures​. Arizona has introduced measures that expand the role of poll watchers and implement stricter verification processes for mail-in ballots. While proponents claim these measures boost transparency, they also raise concerns about voter intimidation and the potential for mass voter challenges, particularly aimed at minority communities​. 

At the same time, states like Michigan have attempted to bolster protections against election subversion. Michigan’s voters enacted Proposition 2, which amends the state constitution to block political interference in the certification of election results. This move was designed to prevent a repeat of the tumultuous aftermath of the 2020 election, when false claims of fraud prompted challenges to the results​. Despite these improvements, the state still faces issues with voter challenges, as election deniers continue to push unfounded fraud claims​. 

The introduction of AI technologies into the election space further complicates these issues. AI tools, such as EagleAI, are being used in some states to challenge the legitimacy of voters based on incomplete data. AI-driven disinformation campaigns are also expected to play a significant role in the 2024 election, adding another layer of complexity to the debate over election integrity​. 

As the 2024 election approaches, the tension between maintaining the security of the electoral process and expanding access to the ballot is likely to grow, especially in swing states where small changes in voter turnout can shift the balance of power. The implementation of restrictive voting laws and the increasing use of technology in monitoring elections raise legitimate concerns about voter suppression, particularly among marginalized communities. On the other hand, the push for election integrity remains critical in maintaining public trust in democratic processes. Policymakers, election officials, and civil society must work collaboratively to ensure that these laws do not undermine the foundational principle of fair and accessible elections. 

 

Engagement Resources
  • Brennan Center for Justice  (www.brennancenter.org): Comprehensive analysis of state-level voting law changes and election integrity efforts. 
  • Voting Rights Lab (www.votingrightslab.org): Detailed reports on state-by-state election law changes and their potential impact on voter access. 
  • Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org): Insights on preventing election violence and securing electoral integrity in 2024. 

 

Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

The Week That Was: Global News in Review 

Foreign Policy #163 | By: Ibrahim Castro | October 14, 2024
Featured Photo: apnews.com

__________________________________

Mexico inaugurates its first woman president 

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum receives the presidential sash during the inauguration ceremony at the Congress of the Union in Mexico City on Tuesday.Alfredo Estrella / AFP – Getty Images  

Claudia Sheinbaum, a former mayor of Mexico City and climate scientist, was sworn in as Mexico’s first female president last week. Sheinbaum takes the reins of the world’s largest Spanish speaking country riding the popularity of her predecessor’s social programs but also facing challenges that include increasingly high levels of violence. Sheinbaum rose to victory in the June presidential elections with 60% of the vote. The inauguration of the new president comes on the heels of an ongoing war between factions of the Sinaloa cartel that have clashed in the state capital of Culiacan. The war between the different factions is a fight for power in the region since two of its leaders were arrested in the US in late July. As Sheinbaum steps into power, she faces a battle to retain her predecessor’s popularity, addressing the violence crisis, aid the nations  ballooning budget deficit, deal with a fossil fuel focued climate policy, and navigate tensions with its biggest trade partners to its north. 

 

Israel invades Lebanon 

A plume of smoke billows following an Israeli air strike on the village of Khiam in southern Lebanon near the border with Israel on October 7, 2024. | AFP via Getty Images 

While the war in Gaza continues, fears of the conflict spreading have materialized and show no signs of abating. Israel has begun an invasion into neighboring Lebanon over the last two weeks. The Israeli forces have displaced more than 1.2 million people from their homes in the Southern part of the country. Israel’s offensive, as stated by Israeli officials, is carried out in order to remove the armed group Hezbollah, and emnable 60,000 displaced Israelies in the country’s North to return to their homes. Since last year Israel and the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah have exchanged cross-border fire, resulting in the displacement of people on both sides of the border. Yet in recent weeks these exchanges significantly escalated in intensity. Israel then conducted a large-scale attack within Lebanon that targeted pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah personnel and civilians., killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike, and executed a series of aerial offensives that caused the deadliest day in Lebanon in decades.  

To date, over 2,000 civilians have been killed by the Israeli incursion, including 127 children. Strikes have also hit ambulances and healthcare workers, leading to the death of nearly a hundred healthcare and emergency workers. Israel has recently received widespread condemnation for attacking the  the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon or UNIFIL. The UN says that twice now their peace keeping forces in the country were fired upon by the Israeli military and Israeli PM Netanyahu has warned the peacekeepers to leave or face more violence. The actions have drawn condemnation from the international community, such as Indonesia, Italy, France, Spain, Ireland, Turkey, the EU and Canada. This escalating violence in Lebanon is now another warzone in the region where the situation continues to deteriorate. 

 

United Kingdom agrees to give Chagos Islands back to Mauritius  

 Chagossians attend a protest to response the U.K. announcement to agree to hand sovereignty of the long-contested Chagos Islands to Mauritius and against their “Exclusion” Kin Cheung/Copyright 2024 The AP Photo.  

 After nearly 60 years the last vestige of the British Empire in the Indian Ocean is set to be handed over to the East African Island nation of Mauritius. The Chagos Islands are a group of more than 60 islands in the Indian ocean and the deal to return the territory comes after a non-binding 2019 International Court of Justice ruling that stated the UK had unlawfully carved up Mauritius in the late 1960s. The UN General Assembly followed with a resolution demanding that Britain end its “colonial administration” of the Chagos Islands and return them to Mauritius. Under the recent return deal, the military base on the Island of Diego Garcia (the largest Chagos island), where most Chagossians are from, would remain under the joint UK-US control on a 99-year lease.  

 There have been mixed reactions to the decision. It has been welcomed by the African Union as a historic political agreement. Chair of the African Union, Moussa Mahamat, described the deal as a “major victory for the cause of decolonization, international law, and Mauritian self-determination.” Yet the deal has received condemnation by many Chagossians, as the deal makes no mention of a right to return for its original inhabitants and sees the largest island remaining under foreign administration. The islands original Chaggosian population today reside predominantly in Mauritius, the Seychelles and Britain, following their forced removal from their home islands to make way for the Diego Garcia military base by the UK and US between 1965 and 1973.   

 

Record breaking fires in the Amazon Rainforest  

A drone view shows smoke rising from a forest fire in the Amazon in an area of the the Trans-Amazonian Highway BR230 in Labrea, Amazonas state, Brazil, September 4, 2024. REUTERS/Bruno Kelly/File Photo  

The Amazon Rainforest has seen record breaking fires in the last few weeks. The blazes have affected multiple countries, Brazil and Bolivia have dispatched thousands of firefighters to attempt to control the fires, but remain mostly unsuccessful in their attempts. Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon remains at a six-year low. However, though under-reported, the fires in the Amazon have surged dramatically. The blazes are often started by illegal loggers and miners and made worse by a historic drought affecting Brazil. The drought is affecting nearly 60% of the massive South American country and river and lake levels have dropped to historic lows. Fires detected by satellite imagery show that the current fire season in Brazil is the worst in a decade. Over 24,000 miles have burned this year already, an area larger than countries like Sri Lanka or Costa Rica.  

Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.

 

 

How Algorithms Amplify Right Wing Disinformation

How Algorithms Amplify Right Wing Disinformation

How Algorithms Amplify Right Wing Disinformation 

Technology Policy #118 | By: Mindy Spatt | October 14, 2024
Featured Photo: abcnews.go.com

__________________________________

Donald Trump’s bizarre rants about Haitian immigrants eating dogs, televised during the US presidential debate, were immediately challenged and disproven on air and afterwards.  That didn’t stop the false and dangerous story from spreading online, thanks in part to algorithms.  Algorithms determine which content a social media user will see based on their previous engagement, often amplifying disinformation and highly ideological content for Trump’s already right wing base. 

Analysis 

Algorithms are the automated systems used by social media platforms to recommend content to users based on their previous online activities.  

It is well-known that these distribution systems allow sensational and extreme disinformation to travel quickly in a variety of ways: 

  • Through fake accounts, which are prevalent in online conservative forums,  
  • Through “echo chambers” that show users content they’ve already engaged with 
  • By manipulating metrics that push disinformation to the top of social media platforms and searches. 

The disinformation is traveling in a distinctly right wing direction.  According to a study published in Nature, content labeled as deceptive by fact checkers is more likely to be seen by conservative Facebook users and a majority of the political websites sourced by Facebook reflect conservative views 

Researchers at Queens University in Charlotte, North Carolina, found that after watching 20 popular videos suggesting election systems are rigged, TikTok’s algorithms began pushing more “election disinformation, polarizing content, far-right extremism, QAnon conspiracy theories and false Covid-19 narratives” toward the user, regardless of what terms they searched under.  

All of this can keep an extremely partisan political content at the top of users’ feeds, and means they are unlikely to see contrary information, regardless of its veracity.   

And it pays.  Going viral online can translate into real money for the people who amplify disinformation.  According to the New York Times, in the days after Trump promoted his false pet eating stories on TV, videos that repeated the story appeared on You Tube with advertising from major corporations including Adobe and Mazda, likely meaning a huge payday for the creators of the disinformation and You Tube owner Elon Musk.   

In a report in March of this year, Public Knowledge had several recommendations for reducing election disinformation, including increased transparency regarding their algorithms and the underlying data they are based on, paid advertising and the outcomes of “algorithmic decision-making.” The information should be made available to “researchers, regulators, independent auditors, and/or the public.”  

The report highlighted that product design can make a differences; it can impact the time it takes for disinformation to spread and the level of user engagement and can push increasingly extreme content over time.  In the groups’ view, a dedicated regulator is needed to implement liability for defective designs that cause harm.  

But right now those guardrails are not in place, which may be why Hillary Clinton warned has warned of an October surprise aimed at Vice President Harris similar to the ridiculous “Pizzagate” story about her that gained enormous traction online in 2016.  “This is dangerous stuff,” she said.  “It starts online often on the dark web. It migrates. It’s picked up by the pro-Trump media. It’s then reported on by everybody else, which makes sure it has about 100 percent coverage, and people believe it.” 

 

 

Engagement Resources: 

Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!

 

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest