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

 

Hicks Stonewalls, Mueller to Testify

by Rudy Martinez, June 29, 2018 In an op-ed published by The Guardian on June 17th, Heather Cox Richardson, a professor of history at Boston College laid out a historical argument for impeaching Trump. Richardson posited that every Republican president post-Nixon has...

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Trump Administration’s Latest Intimidation Tactics used in the UN to Crush Pro-Breastfeeding Resolution

Trump Administration’s Latest Intimidation Tactics used in the UN to Crush Pro-Breastfeeding Resolution

Brief #39—Healthcare

Policy Summary
Early this month, the Trump Administration bullied other delegates into changing a World Health Organization resolution supporting the endorsement of breastfeeding in countries. The administration has been proven to have ties to companies producing breastfeeding alternatives, and this resolution would have dramatically hurt business in many developed countries. The resolution was aimed to encourage women to continue breastfeeding their young, as it has been proven to be the healthiest for mothers and newborn babies. Ecuador had been the first country to introduce the measure, but after being threatened with a loss of crucial military aid, they quickly dropped the resolution introduction. Several other countries have been reported to have withdrawn support in fear of falling into bad favor with the United States’. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis
Not only does this policy discourage diplomacy and discourse, it allows Trump Administration officials to use intimidation tactics to push their agenda forward in the UN. This action also indicates the partiality that the administration has with all their business ties, but particularly companies producing breast feeding alternatives. The actions of the Trump Administration further convey the main aim of the administration, to get rich through political power. UN officials from the US ignore the positives of this resolution. Aiming to encourage more women to breast feed, especially in developing countries, normalizes the behavior and is much healthier for the development of babies in the currently underserved populations. In developed countries, it does the same, and encourages less waste and consumption of unnecessary products. This policy harms not only the US on a global stage, but it leaves behind the priority of women and children’s’ health. The actions threaten the relationship with the WHO, and the UN, which in turn alienates us further from the relative global peace the US has been able to establish within the UN. LEARN MORE

Resistance Resources

  • 1,000 Days Initiative-Learn about the importance of the first 1,000 days between a women’s pregnancy and the birth of her child and how certain health decisions (especially breast feeding!)  aim to reduce infant and mother mortality.
  • As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.  Regularly check social media to see how you can get involved in local protests and rallies.

Contact
This brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact sophia@USResistnews.org

Photo by: unsplash-logoWes Hicks

Zero Tolerance Policy and the Mental Health Cost for Migrants

Zero Tolerance Policy and the Mental Health Cost for Migrants

Brief #38—Healthcare

Policy Summary
On June 27th, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the legality of anti-abortion or “pregnancy crisis” clinics. Currently, there are 3,000 clinics in operation around the country. Because of the prevalence of these centers, women will not be adequately counseled by healthcare professionals on their current breadth of choices surrounding termination of unwanted pregnancies. Anti-abortion clinics have often spread false information surrounding abortions and avoided informing women about the wide variety of contraceptive and termination options available for free or low cost. They are often falsely advertised as “clinics” but most of the mission relies on dissuading women from having abortions and using contraceptives–to the point of putting many women at unnecessary risk.  Ultimately, these clinics are misleading women about their healthcare options, but Justice Clarence Thomas and other conservative justices voted to allow these clinics to operate on the grounds of free speech. LEARN MORE

Policy Analysis
This decision was founded on the argument of the right to free speech, but seems to ignore the importance of women’s rights to safe and affordable healthcare. Limiting access to contraceptives and abortion harms families and limits choices for vulnerable women and families who do not have resources for additional children. This law also assists with the rampant spread of misinformation surrounding safe sexual practices. Additionally, access to birth control, termination information, and abortion services have been proven necessary for a sufficient national healthcare system. This case is only the first in what will become an assault on women’s rights to safe healthcare, and the nation’s right to education on safe sexual practices and options for birth control. The Trump Administrations’ and Republican Party’s religious platform should not limit the right of a woman to know the ramifications of pregnancies and the medical options available for birth control. LEARN MORE


Resistance Resources

  • Planned Parenthood-Support this organization’s cause to help people understand the importance of sexual health and family planning.
  • As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.  Regularly check social media to see how you can get involved in local protests and rallies.

Contact
This brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact sophia@USResistnews.org

(Image via Huntington Post)

Supporters and Opponents of the Investigation Dig In: Part 1

Supporters and Opponents of the Investigation Dig In: Part 1

The past few months have seen several significant developments in the investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which has loomed over American politics since the 2016 election. As the number of indictments grows, so too does the rift in American politics as several Republicans call for an end to the investigations, and a number of Democrats and Republicans alike reaffirm the necessity of the investigations and their faith in the Department of Justice and the FBI. This entry will be part one of a two part recap covering all of the major developments in the Russia scandal since early May.

The investigation, which has produced indictments or guilty pleas from at least 32 individuals, continues to gather steam as Trump’s former campaign chair Paul Manafort, who was originally indicted on charges unrelated to the Trump campaign, had new charges brought against him in June by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Manafort was first indicted along with Rick Gates this past February on numerous charges of financial crimes, but in June was again indicted by Mueller, this time charged with obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. Additionally, the special counsel named Konstantin Kilimik, who worked with Manafort in Ukraine on behalf of then president Viktor Yanukovich, as an associate of Manafort’s and brought charges against him as well. Manafort’s trial for the first has been set back two weeks, to July 24th, as one of the judge’s family members is set to undergo a medical procedure. His trial for obstruction of justice is currently set for September 17th. A federal judge denied Manafort’s motion to dismiss the former of the two indictments.

Meanwhile, supporters of the President have ramped up efforts to end the investigations, which many of them, including recent addition to the Trump legal team Rudy Giuliani, claim is an overstepping of the FBI’s and Special Counsel Mueller’s authority. Giuliani, who joined the Trump legal team last April, appeared on CNN on May 27th and claimed that “the basis on which [Mueller] was appointed was illegitimate,” and that the Mueller team is “giving us the material” to undermine the investigation.

Earlier in May, Vice President Mike Pence said of the investigation, “in the interest of the country, I think it’s time to wrap it up.” Other Republicans have also voiced increasing opposition to the investigation, including congressman Mark Meadows, chairman of the Freedom Caucus, who has called for an audit of the office of Special Counsel Mueller. Meadows’ audit was attached as a provision to a spending bill, which was passed by the house on May 4th. The bill and attached provision were approved by the Senate on June 8th but have not yet been sent to the President’s desk.

On May 16th Richard Burr (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, released a statement saying “There is no doubt that Russia undertook an unprecedented effort to interfere with our 2016 elections.” The committee was tasked with conducting a review of the intelligence community’s assessment on Russian activities during the 2016 elections. Vice chairman Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said in the joint statement with Burr that “after a thorough review, our staff concluded that the ICA conclusions were accurate and on point. The Russian effort was extensive, sophisticated, and ordered by President Putin himself for the purpose of helping Donald Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton.”

Also on May 16th, the Senate Judiciary Committee released its preliminary findings on the 2016 Trump Tower meeting in which members of the President’s campaign allegedly met with Russian informants with the intention of receiving supposedly compromising intel on Hillary Clinton. The 22 page document outlines the connections between several Russian nationals and members of the Trump campaign, and notably states that “The Trump campaign expressed willingness to accept Russian assistance.”

The day prior, on May 15th, it was reported that the Trump administration gutted the role of cyber policy advisor. Christine Samuelian, an aide to national security adviser John Bolton, reported in an email to NSC employees that “the role of cyber coordinator will end.” The move was criticized by Sen. Warner, who stated that “I don’t see how getting rid of the top cyber official in the White House does anything to make our country safer from cyber threats.” The purpose of the move is, according to an NSC email, to “streamline authority” for the leaders of NSC teams.

On May 21st, President Trump met with several officials including Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, as well as FBI Director Christopher Wray and Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats in regards to growing demands by Republicans, notably led by Devin Nunes (R-CA), for documents relating to Mueller’s investigation. Nunes issued a subpoena to the Justice Department in the beginning of May demanding “all documents referring or related to the individual referenced in Chairman Nunes’ April 24, 2018 classified letter to Attorney General Sessions.” However, Nunes later backpedalled on the demand contained in the subpoena, stating that he was “not interested in any individual.”

In a seemingly distractionary or retaliatory move, the President unleashed a fury of tweets throughout the month, coining the new hashtag “#spygate.” The President tweeted on May 20th that he demanded the DOJ “look into whether or not the FBI/DOB infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands were made by people within the Obama Administration!” Trump has previously tweeted that he believed the White House had spies planted within his campaign during the election. Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein responded to this demand by asking the DOJ Inspector General to expand it’s already existing probe into alleged FBI surveillance abuses. Late May saw a series of tweets about the so-called “Spygate,” as Trump and members of his legal team have taken to calling it, insisting not only that the president and his campaign had nothing to do with the Russian’s interference in the election, but that former president Obama actively attempted to derail Trump’s presidential bid. Between May 25th and May 29th, Trump tweeted about the Russia investigations a total of 16 times. From the beginning, Trump has maintained that he nor his campaign were involved in Russian efforts to influence the election.

This Russia Blog Post was submitted by USRESIT NEWS Analyst Thomas Wesley: Contact Tom@usresistnews.org

Photo by: Ilya Pavlov

Federal Appeals Court Opinion Insulates TSA Officers From Civil Liability

Federal Appeals Court Opinion Insulates TSA Officers From Civil Liability

Brief #49—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On July 11, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in Pellegrino v. Transportation Security Administration. The case began in 2006 when Nadine Pellegrino and a friend stopped at Philadelphia International Airport on their way back home to Florida. Ms. Pellegrino went through security with three bags. A transportation security officer (TSO) began to search her bags but Ms. Pellegrino was not happy with the search and requested a private screening. When another TSO began to search her bags, Ms. Pellegrino asked the TSO to change her gloves because she suspected they were dirty. The TSO complied but from then on the situation in the room became hostile. Ms. Pellegrino claims that the continued search of her bags were extremely rough and invasive – a search was even conducted into her cell phone, credit cards and lipstick. Once the search was completed, Ms. Pellegrino asked the TSO to leave the items out so she could re-pack her bags herself. The TSO refused and proceeded to re-pack her bags in the same rough manner but did not complete the task and eventually refused to finish packing Ms. Pellegrino’s bags. Ms. Pellegrino then took her items, tossed them outside the screening room and proceeded to leave. The two TSO’s in the room claimed that Ms. Pellegrino took her bags and struck a TSO with her bag as she was leaving the room. Ms. Pellegrino denies striking a TSO with her bags at any time. Philadelphia police officers were called to the airport where they arrested Ms. Pellegrino and held her for eighteen hours before releasing her. Ms. Pellegrino was charged with ten criminal counts but was eventually found not guilty due to testimony being deemed inadmissible. Ms. Pellegrino then brought a civil action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the U.S., the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and three of the TSO’s who searched her. With the exception of one count of property damage that was settled, the court ruled against Ms. Pellegrino on all actions. Ms. Pellegrino appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2 – 1 in favor of the Government to uphold the district court rulings against Ms. Pellegrino. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The lengthy decision by the Court of Appeals is a curious one and one that has the potential to lead to unwanted consequences. In its opinion, the court’s reasoning turned on how a transportation security officer was classified. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the federal government and its employees are immune from civil or criminal liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity except in specific circumstances. Under one of these exceptions “investigative or law enforcement officers” can be held liable and sued for actions such as an assault or a false arrest. However, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s opinion said that TSA agents were only “screeners” and not “investigative or law enforcement officers” as defined in the Federal Tort Claims Act. Thus, their searches of travelers was deemed only an “administrative” search that was not based on probable cause or suspicion, standards that an investigative or law enforcement officer would use as a basis for a search. Thus, TSA agents could not be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Judge Thomas L. Ambro’s dissenting opinion noted that this type of search of travelers is no different from when a police officer pulls over a driver for a traffic stop. He also pointed out that if people are not allowed to sue TSA agents under the Federal Tort Claims Act then people would not have a legal remedy for even the most extreme TSO behavior such as sexual assault and a fabricated criminal charge against a traveler. While the legal analysis of the decision seems somewhat rigid, it is clear that Congress never intended for a legal scheme where a person would have no legal remedy whatsoever. The FTCA itself preserves the doctrine of sovereign immunity but still has limited exceptions for people to bring suit. The flaws illustrated by this case dictate that Congress needs to act and act soon to fix the FTCA so travelers and TSO’s will know the legal limits of how a traveler can be physically treated when subject to a search at an airport. 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 Rod@USResistnews.org

Early Effects of Trade War Caused by Trump Administration

Early Effects of Trade War Caused by Trump Administration

Brief #18—Economic Policy

Policy Summary
As the trade war continues throughout the U.S. and through many nations beyond, citizens everywhere continue to feel its effects. While some have argued that there are no winners in a trade war, recent gains in the U.S. stock market might serve the case against such an argument. S&P 500, Nasdaq and the Dow Jones Industrial Average have seen two straight weeks of gains according to recent reports.

For those in lower economic brackets, though, the effects of the recent tariffs have not been so positive. The 22 percent tariff on imported newsprint paper has caused significant problems for many in the independent publication sector. In Owosso, Michigan, the owner of the Owosso Argus-Press, a local, family operated newspaper, is anticipating a hit of up to $30,000 following the spike in costs of paper. This trend is not unique to small papers, though. Florida’s The Tampa Bay Times has seen its operating costs rise by as much as $3 million following the tariffs.

That said, the effects of these tariffs seem almost small when compared to those felt by companies in industries dependent on aluminum and steel. When the Trump administration announced the imposition of these tariffs in June, the outcry was global. Mexico, Canada, and the European Union responded with force. Mexico was quick to announce that it would be implementing new tariffs of their own on certain products including various types of flat steel and tubes as well as meats, fruits, and cheeses. One of the top steel exporters to the U.S, Mexico made it clear that it did not feel the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were justified. China, meanwhile, announced that it would levy significant tariffs designed to effect the U.S. with a focus on agricultural goods such as soybeans, fish, and pork.

These international tariffs are not designed to only target agricultural companies, though. Some U.S. companies are feeling the impact of the steel and aluminum tariffs more than once. Florida-based boat manufacturer Correct Craft has been affected by both domestic and global tariffs. The Trump administration’s aluminum tariffs have also led to increases in prices of the American-manufactured steel used by many boat makers, as have the retaliatory tariffs imposed by international competitors, leading to a decrease in revenue and with it, a loss of opportunity to expand operations and hire more workers.

The steel and aluminum tariffs are continuing to negatively effect more larger companies as well.  Poplar Bluff in rural Southeastern Missouri is a town whose economy is driven by the nail manufacturing giant Mid Continent Nail Corp. The recent tariffs have caused a 25 percent spike in prices of the steel that the company continously imports from Mexico. This has prompted an increase in product prices, leading to the loss of considerable customers followed by 60 layoffs with many more expected to follow. A media spokesperson has described the company as being on the “brink of extinction” and reports indicate that it could be forced to close its doors by labour day or sooner if policies are not changed quickly.

While some companies are forced to face the reality of shutting down, others are trying to save face by shifting production overseas.  The most prominent example is Harley Davidson. For decades a symbol of American manufacturing, the motorcycle maker announced in late June that it would shifting part of its production to Europe. When the E.U. announced it would be raising its tariff on American manufactured motorcycles from 6 percent to 31 percent, Harley Davidson opted to move some operations overseas rather than increase the prices of their products to cover the $90 to $100 million burden that would be imposed on an annual basis by the new tariff.

Analysis
There can be no doubt that the effects of the trade war brought on by the Trump administration are significant and it seems as though they are not likely to slow down in the near future. President’s well documented interest in pulling the United States from the World Trade Organization further supports the theory that the effects of the trade war are likely to continue, for small and large businesses alike.

It is not only businesses who are feeling these effects, though. Citizens are beginning to notice increased prices in consumer goods across many industries that can no longer be ignored. This is hardly surprising as these tariffs have driven up operating costs for companies that manufacture and produce almost every type of consumer good. The inevitable effect of this is increased operating costs, higher product prices and as a result, worker layoffs. When a company’s bottom line is negatively effected, every other aspect is never far behind. While demand may be remaining robust, supply is not, as the problems for supply chains and employment resources remain continuous.

A further negative effect of the trade war for many businesses has been the lack of predictability that has accompanied the recent tariffs. It has led to significant instability, problematic declines in investor confidence and slumps on investments necessary for growth within many industries. Investors throughout the U.S. are opting to delay investment decisions, causing further negative ripples throughout the national economy.  Without the necessary investment capital, many companies are unable to add to their capacity for production, often leading to layoffs.

So far, the focus of the Trump administration regarding the tariffs seems to be aluminum and steel. This has led to the theory that they may not understand the broadness of the impact that their policies have had and continue to have. The harm that has been done to the U.S. economy cannot be ignored and so far, there is nothing to indicate that they are concerned with the significant layoffs throughout factory driven communities nor the drag on capital investments caused by the instability and declines in investor confidence.

This trade war has turned our former trade partners and allies into rivals whose tariffs are having further negative effects on the U.S. economy. From the looks of it, it is likely that the impact of these tariffs will be felt across the country and beyond for the foreseeable future.

Resistance Resources:

  • World Trade Organization is an international organization created to regulate world trade.
  • #KnockEveryDoor is an organization created to recruit and train volunteers to get involved with discussions on policy related matters to enact positive change.
  • Global Trade Magazine is a leading publication and voice on all things related to global trade matters.

This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact  sam@usresistnews.org

Photo by: Kyle Ryan

Pruitt Resigns, Becoming Trump’s Fifth Cabinet Member to Call It Quits

Pruitt Resigns, Becoming Trump’s Fifth Cabinet Member to Call It Quits

Brief #34—Environment

Policy Summary
Amid months of investigation for as many as 19 scandals, Scott Pruitt resigned his post as the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, July 5th. Many rejoiced that this enabler of deregulation had finally given up his position, but the administration has a very different story. Trump announced Pruitt’s resignation in a tweet where he thanked Pruitt for his service and congratulated him on an “outstanding job.” Trump made no mention of the various scandals, and said that Pruitt himself decided to resign so as not to be a distraction. Pruitt also cited the “unrelenting attacks” that had “taken a toll” on his family in his letter of resignation. Other aides have stepped down in support of Pruitt. However, Pruitt’s resignation comes in the midst of 13 federal inquiries into his spending and management decisions, including security and travel expenses, a $43,000 soundproof phone booth, barring certain scientists from applying for grants, a $50 a night condo deal from a lobbyist, firing of personnel for questioning these practices, and pay raises for those deemed loyal. These investigations will continue despite his resignation.  Andrew Wheeler, the recently Senate confirmed deputy to Scott Pruitt, will take on the role of EPA Secretary.

Analysis
While Pruitt’s exit has been celebrated, he left behind quite a mess and has lost the trust of taxpayers and personnel alike. His exorbitant spending showed a complete disregard for the taxpayer, and this will continue due to all the investigations and court proceedings pending. Perhaps even more troubling, is the lack of support for whistleblowers within the EPA. Watchdog agencies and journalists have worked hard to keep tabs on all of Pruitt’s actions, but received little reaction from the powers that be. In addition, Pruitt has managed to roll back significant amounts of legislation to protect our country and curb the toxins that may be our demise. Pruitt’s acting replacement, Andrew Wheeler, has a history as an energy industry lobbyist with Murray Energy and connections with other coal and energy lobbyists like Xcel Energy and Energy Fuel Resources, Inc. Many fear that his years in the industry will make him a more effective implementer of Trump’s environmental agenda, and that it will occur more quietly than under Pruitt. He will serve as the acting secretary until Trump nominates a new Secretary that must be confirmed by the Senate.

Resistance Resources

    • Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) – a charity collective of lawyers and scientists who defend and protect the environment from pollution and corporate greedContact
      This brief was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Megan@USResistnews.org

Photo by: Thomas Richter

Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban: Institutionalized Discrimination

Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban: Institutionalized Discrimination

Brief #46—Immigration

Policy Summary
On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court officially voted to uphold Trump’s travel ban that has been on his agenda since the early days of his presidency. Now, there are travel restrictions on individuals coming from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, North Korea (yes, North Korea, who’s relationship with the United States was currently in-repair), and Venezuela from entering the United States. To Trump, this is an extraordinary victory and will serve as a tool for him to fulfill his promise of defending the country from “terrorism, crime and extremism.” Trump and his advisors have long argued that presidents possess the authority to control and redesign the way the United States controls its borders as deemed fit; and with the 5-4 majority Conservative vote, unfortunately, he has done so. A policy openly introduced as a total and complete ban on Muslims entering the United States has been masked as a national security concern and properly lipsticked enough for 5 out of the 9 judges to admire.

Analysis
Naturally, as a nation built on immigrants, there has been major backlash and a lot of disappointment. Liberals have denounced the decision and many – even politicians and important decision-makers – have equated the ruling with that of the post-World War II decision in 1944 that endorsed the detention of Japanese-Americans. Justice Sotomayor claimed the court “blindly accept[ed] the Government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy,” as she became part of the minority vote. A decision like this puts policymakers and the Supreme Court on the wrong side of history and creates a platform that harbors the institutionalization of racism of Islamophobia and only encourages it to spread. Many have considered this ruling a historic failure in the sense that it has failed to protect its most vulnerable citizens – and people – from those that hold the most power.

In some regards, harboring such a policy that exudes fear, xenophobia and discrimination can potentially have the opposite of its intended effect and actually serve as a recruiting tool for extremist groups and existing terrorist organizations. Othering and grouping innocent individuals due to religion, race, or region can only induce further anger, resentment, and retaliation. If an extremist group held the values that Trump has claimed they do, i.e. exposing a deep hatred for the west and its ideals, a travel ban is only going to fuel their existing efforts and provide solid, tangible reason for them to alter and improve their already destructive tactics.

Resistance Resources

  • The ACLU: a non-profit with a longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting the individual rights and liberties the Constitution and US laws guarantee all its citizens. You can also donate monthly to counter Trump’s attacks on people’s rights.
  • The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law: a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to defend and reform – as necessary – the US systems of democracy and justice, focusing on upholding the Constitution and US laws while maintaining national security.
  • Stay up to date with the National Immigration Forum who advocates for the value of immigrants and immigration to the US and promotes responsible immigration policies and addresses those that hinder the success of immigrants.
  • 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.

This Brief was authored by Kathryn Baron. For inquiries, suggestions or comments email kathryn@usresistnews.org.

Photo By unsplash-logoMitch Lensink

Affirmative Action: Rescinding Obama-Era Policies

Affirmative Action: Rescinding Obama-Era Policies

Brief #22—Education

Policy Summary
Trump administration is rescinding seven Obama-era policies which encouraged schools to look at race as one among many factors in admissions. The seven affirmative action policies are among 24 documents rescinded on the Department of Justice’s website. The DOE/DOJ claim that the documents advocate policy preferences beyond the requirements of the Constitution, and Title IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Trump administration reposted a previously withdrawn George W. Bush administration document, encouraging the use of race-neutral methods for assigning students to elementary and secondary schools. The race-neutral policy is based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, which held that a race-conscious approach is inconsistent with Title VI which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin by school districts. The Court held that schools must make a good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives before implementing a race-conscious approach in accordance with the “strict scrutiny” standard. To be constitutional, a program must look at each applicant as an individual, and not simply as a racial group. However, because socioeconomic status is not subject to a “strict scrutiny” standard, under a race-neutral approach, schools may use socioeconomic status to determine admissions.

A senior Justice Department official denied that these decisions were rolling back protections for students of color but rather hewing the department closer to the letter of the law. In Tuesday’s joint letter issued by the Departments of Education and Justice, officials wrote that “protections from discrimination on the basis of race remain in place.” Officials replaced Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools. In the document, the Departments recognized the compelling interests that K-12 schools have in obtaining benefits from achieving a diverse student body and avoiding racial isolation in an increasingly multicultural world. Consistent with the principles articulated in Supreme Court opinions, the guidance lays out a strategic plan for schools to meet these compelling interests, and when it is more practical to use a race-conscious approach when a race-neutral approach becomes unworkable in achieving a diversity student body. LEARN MORE

Analysis
Previous cases reveals how a race-neutral/colorblind approach to the letter of the law has systematically denied equal protection for people of color. As established in Johnson v. California (2005), facially discriminatory laws based on race or national origin must pass a “strict scrutiny” standard, in which there must be a compelling governmental interest independent of the racial classification and the use of race must be narrowly tailored to that particular interest. The Supreme Court has held that governmental interest is compelling to remedy the effects of intentional discrimination and to obtain a diverse student body in higher education.

Today, schools like University of Michigan want more freedom to consider race and believe that race should be considered among many factors during admissions. This perspective is aligned with the the Supreme Court’s race-conscious approach in Brown v. Board of Education. In Brown, the Court ruled that there was no constitutional violation from using race and discouraged a colorblind approach. During this period, the Court had trouble guiding states on how to remedy inequalities that were fundamentally ingrained in the public consciousness and culture. Although Brown eliminated separate but equal, states remained resistant to desegregation policies even until the 1990s. For instance, Dowell (1991) held that dissolution of the desegregation decree was permissible because federal supervision was not intended to last forever. Civil Rights cases later established that policies “under color of law” (i.e. state’s unwritten policies or customs) were unconstitutional. In other words, although private discrimination by individuals was not unconstitutional because individuals were not considered state actors, it did not mean that such discrimination was constitutionally protected. Because the states’ role is to ensure the equality of civil rights, states have an affirmative obligation to push back on private discrimination when it does arise.

The ratification of the 14th Amendment during the Reconstruction era was a response to the vestiges of slavery – the denial of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Justice Harlan stated that the purpose of the 13th Amendment was to eviscerate all the vestiges of slavery – to not only make former slaves U.S. citizens in form but also in substance through equal participation in civil society. Last year, the Trump administration’s decision to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division towards suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants not only lacks historical basis but only makes sense if whites were once an enslaved group systematically denied their fundamental rights by the federal government. Furthermore, this perspective ignores the reality that the greatest benefactors of affirmative action have historically been white women.

Louis D. Brandeis Center, a human rights organization that champions Jewish causes, filed an amicus brief in 2012, arguing that “race conscious admission standards are unfair to individuals, and unhealthy for society at large.” On the contrary, using a colorblind approach when we are still struggling today to provide equal participation to all citizens and debating civil rights’ extension over public education will only move us further back to the vestiges of slavery. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

  • Chiefs for Change – An education reform nonprofit aimed at facilitating change through policy and advocacy, building a unique community of practice, and cultivating a pipeline of diverse education leaders.
  • Poverty and Race Research Action Council –The Council is a civil rights policy organization aimed at helping to connect advocates with social scientists working on race and poverty issues, and to promote a research-based advocacy strategy on structural inequality issues.
  • The National Coalition on School Diversity – The Coalition is a network of national civil rights organizations, university-based research centers, and state and local coalitions working to increase support for government initiatives that promote diversity in schools.

This Brief was prepared by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina R Lee: Contact tina@usresistnews.org

Photo by Joanna Kosinska

China Prepares to Shield Economy from Effects of U.S. Trade War

Brief #17—Economic Policy

Summary
Recent reports indicate that China has temporally ceased its work on the structural reforms on national economic systems and is shifting its focus to policies that are more geared to supporting general economic growth.

The People’s Bank of China is the nation’s central bank. Recently, it has prompted prominent lending institutions to trade over $1 trillion yuan’s worth of corporate debt in return for equity. In U.S. dollars, that amount is equal to roughly $152.9 billion. July 5th marked an important event for the Chinese economy, as the People’s Bank of China slashed the reserve ratio that many banks are required to have on hand by 0.5%, thereby liquidating roughly 700 billion yuan. These newly liquidated funds are available to be lent out or used for further purposes intended to spur growth.

In addition, the central bank is putting pressure on smaller banks, typically those in the  small to midsize range, to increase their loans distributed to small businesses and enterprises. To further encourage this, capital for these banks will be raised by up to 200 billion yuan. At the larger banks, meanwhile, the reserve requirements will decrease to 15.5%. The funds that will be liquidated from his endeavor are intended to be used to finance the debt-for-equity trades mentioned earlier while the bank’s outstanding liabilities are exchanged for stock options.

The original guidance for these debt-equity swaps was originally issued by the State Council of the Chinese Government in 2016. Currently, there is over 1 trillion yuan in anticipated swaps intended for enterprises owned by the state. Many such enterprises are steel and coal manufacturers who have been negatively affected by overcrowding within their industries.

So far, we have seen only roughly a tenth of the proposed swaps carried out. As of now, there seems to be no prospect of the shares of these indebted companies being resold.

Analysis
It is clear that these actions on behalf of the Chinese regulators and central bank are to help shield the nation’s economy from the effects of the trade war with the swiftly approaching trade war with the United States.

The recent actions on behalf of the People’s Bank of China indicated that they may be trying to move away from downsizing state-owned enterprises that have been deemed inefficient.

Banks all across the nation have been asked to do more to help the enterprises that continue to struggle, further indicating the prioritization of quick economic growth and general stability. This is further indicated by the recent policies pushed by the central bank that are intended to free up and stabilize liquidity in order to make such an endeavor more doable.

Historically, the practice of banks being pushed to create loans for those in the lower income brackets has not always worked in nations such as the U.S. but China remains hopeful as it moves forward with the policies centered around this endeavor.

The impending trade war with the U.S. has been marked by the tariffs on imported goods such as steel and aluminum proposed by President Donald Trump in March 2018. The manufacturer of half the world’s steel, China has been responsible for flooding the marketplace and lowering steel’s global prices. As previously mentioned, China has seen a strong overcapacity throughout its primary manufacturing industries. A trade war will affect the entire globe and as the world’s second-largest economy, it would certainly serve China to be ready.

Resistance Resources:

  • National Retail Federation – The world’s largest retail trade association, responsible for organizing a collation of diverse industry groups that are banding together to stand against the Trump administration’s proposed tariffs.
  • Information Technology Industry Council – A Washington D.C. based trade association, credited with helping the NFA compose a letter to the White House Ways and Means Committee warning of the impending negative impacts of the proposed tariffs.
  • United States Chamber of Commerce – An American lobbyist group centered-around business that recently launched a campaign against the Trump administration’s trade tariff policies.

This Brief was prepared by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst S O’ Brient, sam@usresistnews.org

Did the Supreme Court Decide a Free Speech or “Pro – Life” Case?

Did the Supreme Court Decide a Free Speech or “Pro – Life” Case?

Brief #48—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
In October 2015, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency) Act. The law was aimed at crisis pregnancy centers (CPC’s), which are typically Christian non-profit groups designed to counsel pregnant women against having an abortion. If the place is a licensed healthcare facility then the California law required the following statement to be posted in the facility: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women.” If the place is an unlicensed facility offering pregnancy related services, then the law required the following separate statement to be posted in the facility: “This facility is not licensed as a medical facility by the State of California and has no licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises the provision of all of the services, whose primary purpose is providing pregnancy-related services.” The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) on behalf of 100+ CPC’s brought a lawsuit to challenge the law on the grounds that it violated their First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religion rights. The case was decided against NILFA on technical grounds at both the federal district court and circuit court of appeals levels. NILFA then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and there requested whether California was violating the First Amendment by compelling them to post messages contrary to their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court, in a 5 – 4 decision, decided in favor of NILFA and held that the Reproductive FACT Act violated the First Amendment. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra case was a unique case because of how people tried to classify the case. On the one hand, it was a free speech case that illustrated the dangers of having the government dictate to organizations as to what they should say. And on the other hand, it was seen as an abortion case and the possibility that the government would try to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion in the United States. The case was eventually decided on free speech grounds. In the majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, he relied on traditional free speech legal analysis by distinguishing whether the law regulating the speech was content-neutral or content-specific. Content-neutral regulations do not regulate the content or message of a speech but only the time, manner or place of the speech. Content-specific regulations are laws that are aimed to regulate speech based on the message contained in the speech. Justice Thomas called the notices of the California FACT Act a content-specific regulation because the required statements were a government-scripted message that compelled a group to speak a particular message even if they did not want to say it. Based on Justice Thomas’ analysis, the case can be seen as a win for free speech advocates.

However, Justice Breyer’s dissent made an interesting and potentially significant point. Justice Breyer examined a prior 1992 Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, and pointed out that the Court there did not find a First Amendment Free Speech violation when Pennsylvania required a doctor to tell a patient information about adoption as an option. The facts in Casey and from this case both required doctors to say something they may not have agreed with before performing an abortion. Yet, the required speech about adoption as an option from Pennsylvania was upheld while the required notices about abortion as an option from California were struck down.

While the result in the current California case is likely correct in its free speech analysis, it is the effect on abortion rights that is alarming. Hostility towards abortion rights may be coming front and center in the very near future and may be susceptible to differing treatment as Justice Breyer’s dissent brilliantly illustrates. 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 Rod@USResistnews.org.

Photo by Brendan Church

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