JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Net Neutrality – Not the Net-pocolypse – Not Internet Freedom
Brief #3—Technology
By Charles A. Rubin
The Trump Administration Defunds UNFPA for a Third Consecutive Year
Brief #59—Health
By Taylor J Smith
National Weather Service Predicts Record Number of Dangerously Hot Days for Millions by Mid-Century
Brief #61—Environmental Policy
By Quixote Vassilakis
Federal Court of Appeals Rules President Trump Cannot Block Critics on His Twitter Account
Brief #92—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Georgetown Law School Discovers FBI and ICE Use State DMV Databases With No Restrictions To Scan ID Photos For Investigations
Brief #93—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Thus He Speaks, Thus They Act
Investigating the President Blog
Post #3 Thus He Speaks, Thus They Act
by Rudy Ralph Martinez, July 16, 2019
Confusion Results from Trump’s Meeetings With Chinese and North Korean Leaders
Brief #66—Foreign Policy
By Colin Shanleyt
President Trump Abandons Battle To Add Citizenship Question To U.S. 2020 National Census
Brief #91—Civil Rights
By Rod A Maggay
Democratic Candidates Stance on Breaking Up Big Tech Garners Both Support and Opposition
Brief #46—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
Update: Trump Administration Reunification of Families Proves Chaotic
Brief #48—Immigration
Policy
President Trump was court ordered to reunify families by July 26, 2018 (see Brief #47,) While the government claims the deadline was met, more than 700 children (yes, every 1 in 3 children) still held in government custody were not reunited by 6 pm on the day of the deadline. The government has not offered a timeline for tracking down the hundreds of parents who still remain unaccounted for.
Parents of about 430 children were deported – despite the court ruling against deportation of separated families, in June 2018 – and thus those children were deemed ineligible for reunification. The remaining children of the 700 were also deemed ineligible due to red flags for a wide array of reasons that prevented reunification. In some cases parents were labelled “released” even though they were still in custody which made for an even more chaotic affair.
For those 1,820 children 5 and over that were reunited with their families, some parents waited up to a week for their children and were not allowed access to showers, phones or religious services during that time. One young migrant mother was greeted by her son who had a cough and a black eye; and some children were sent to the wrong facilities. What should have been a systematic and clear-cut system was in practice chaos.
Amateur fund-raisers have played a large role in helping to reunite families, providing food and travel essentials; as have larger groups, such as Fwd.us backed by Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg that raised millions of dollars for immigration court bonds and plane tickets. The ACLU filed a motion July 25 to protect the parents whom the government has claimed waived their rights to immediately recover their children. Many signed things they did not understand because they were not translated and signed documents under duress. Additionally, faith based organizations and other groups provided meals, clothing, legal advice, plane and bus tickets to families at ICE locations (even new shoe laces because those were taken away – like prisoners).
Analysis
This approach to reuniting families based on who is eligible and who is ineligible seems to be a form of organized disarray. The emphasis appears to be on counting children rather than parents, even though 1 parent can have more than 1 child. This seems like a backwards way to approach the issue and come to a mutually beneficial solution. There are a number of various steps that could have been taken – perhaps more accurately keeping written record of parents and their child/children.
Additionally, the Trump administration did in fact deport some parents without their children (reference above), which went against the court ruling that families who were separated could not be deported and could not be deported immediaitly upon reunification. This may seem trivial in the grand scheme of things due to statistics and the general public’s focus on making sure every child has a parent, but it is a bold move on the Trump administration’s part that defied court orders
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.
- FWD.us: an organization that aims to promote the tech community to support policies that keep the American Dream alive. They specifically and currently focus on immigration reform.
- Kids in Need of Defense: an organization that promotes the protection of children as they migrate alone in search of safety and ensuring children’s rights are upheld and respected.
- Families Belong Together: an organization that has dedicated its mission to ensuring families are together, especially reuniting children with their families. This organization contributes all its efforts to counter Trump’s separation of children from their families.
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Kathryn Baron: Contact Kathryn@usresistnews.org
Photo by Matheus Ferrero
Trump Rolls Back Endangered Species Act
Brief #38—Environment
Policy Summary
The Trump administration has rolled back the Endangered Species Act, a policy that has been in place for the last 45 years having been put in place by Richard Nixon. In the past, the Act has protected a laundry list of endangered species, such as the Pacific walrus, Mexican gray wolf, finback whale, and many others from ranching, oil drilling and logging in their natural habitats so that any at-risk species would not be further threatened. Now, the White House has put forward over a dozen petitions, some of which that have been voted on in congress, which would, in essence, undermine or delegitimize pre-existing threats to threatened species. The policy decision come as a great attack on both environmental conservation efforts and animals.
Analysis
This policy decision only further re-affirms the current Administration’s commitment to deregulation in the name of fossil fuels. Department of the Interior Chief of Staff, David Bernhardt, announced to the public that he expects both, “crazy” and grateful responses for the newest changes. The thanks he anticipates is undoubtedly from the oil and gas lobby, for whom he previously worked. And already the decisions are causing calamity, as the Department of the Interior has already requested an expedited review to renew their lease of part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The reason? Oil and gas drilling, of course, as the government hopes to acquire the land for lease now that the regulations are being scaled back without intervention.
Engagement Resources:
- World Wildlife Fund — a conservation organization that protects endangered species all over the world.
- Defenders of Wildlife – Another organization that works to preserve and protect endangered species worldwide.
This brief was compiled by Zoe Stricker. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact zoe@USResistnews.org.
Photo by Marek Szturc
3D Printed Guns Face New Legal Challenges
Brief #11—Gun Control
Policy Summary
After Cody Wilson settled a lawsuit with the government which allowed him to post blueprints online of how to print 3D guns, other states have retaliated in response. A plethora of states have begun attempting to make these blueprints illegal to post, and one judge from Seattle delayed the posting of the plans until the end of August. With the overwhelming flow of information and accessibility on the internet, however, it will be difficult to monitor these blueprints from appearing online.
Analysis
In the ongoing debate and legal battle between free speech and gun safety, a US District Judge in Seattle, Robert Lasnik, has halted the plans for 3D printed guns to be posted until August 28th. This ensued after 8 states and the District of Columbia filed to block the settlement with Cody Wilson who had received $40,000 and free disbursement of the 3D printed gun blueprints.
Now, 19 states and the District of Columbia are pushing to make the sharing of these blueprints illegal altogether. On August 21st Judge Lasnik scheduled a hearing for the states who are looking to reverse the U.S. State Department’s ruling.
President Trump weighed in on Twitter on Tuesday saying, “I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!”. These comments come as no surprise given the current administration’s stance on guns – Wilson was initially sued by the State Department in 2013 under the Obama administration and only after Trump’s pro-gun administration took office did the Justice Department decide to settle with Wilson.
Even if the temporary court order becomes permanent, ensuring the blueprints are not posted or distributed on the internet will be extremely difficult to monitor. Before Wilson’s blueprints were asked to be removed, they were downloaded countless times and will be easy to disburse once more.
Engagement Resources
- March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
- Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
- Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo by rawpixel
TSA Monitoring and Documenting Innocent Behavior With Quiet Skies Program
Brief #51—Gun Policy
Policy Summary
At the end of July 2018, the Boston Globe reported that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had been conducting a surveillance program known as “Quiet Skies.” Federal Air Marshals were deployed to track American citizens even though they were not suspected of committing a crime, were not under any active and separate law enforcement investigation and were not on any terrorist watch list. The air marshals were directed to observe passengers on flights based on behaviors the TSA classified as suspicious – extreme perspiration, cold penetrating stares, extreme fidgeting and a number of other behaviors. During the flight, the marshals documented the behaviors and even included how many times a passenger used the bathroom and whether or not the person slept on the flight. In some cases the air marshals also followed the targeted passenger on subsequent flights. Passengers were never notified they were followed by air marshals. The program was put in place in 2010 and TSA estimated they followed approximately thirty – five passengers daily since the program has been in existence. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The report by the Boston Globe was a shocking report and showed that the government was clearly invading the privacy of ordinary Americans when they traveled by plane. TSA issued a statement to CBS stating that the program’s primary purpose is to “ensure passengers and flight crews are protected during air travel” but this rings hollow. This program does nothing more than invade the privacy of ordinary Americans by fabricating a suspicion based on innocent and commonplace behaviors. A passenger nervous about flying could display “extreme perspiration” and “nervous fidgeting.” Another passenger exhibiting penetrating stares could simply have had too many alcoholic drinks or be under the influence of legally prescribed medication. These physical states are the results of innocent and legitimate behavior and are not accurate predictors of an intent to harm.
Additionally, in February 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a report calling TSA’s behavior detection methods “wholly ineffective” and that there is “no scientific basis…to support the detection or inference of future behavior, including intent.” Yet TSA still employed these behavior detection methods in the Quiet Skies program. And, in the most telling rebuke of the program, a number of federal air marshals have publicly criticized Quiet Skies as a waste of time and resources. John Casaretti, president of the Air Marshals Association, said it best when he said that the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria that the group finds acceptable. With so many groups critical of the program and the way it is being conducted against ordinary Americans, it would be best to scrap the program and develop another that is respectful of commonplace human behaviors and protective of the civil liberties that Americans expect and deserve. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Travelers United – non – profit group on travel issues and webpage on Quiet Skies program.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – non – profit group infopage on travel screening issues.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – non – profit group infopage on air travel privacy.
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 Ross Parmly
Senator’s Warner’s Effort to Have a National Discussion on Internet Policy
Brief #50—Civil Rights
Policy Summary:
On August 1, 2018, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) wrote an opinion piece in USA Today that called on the United States to have a national discussion about Internet privacy, data and social media. The Senator also urged the government to pass new laws and regulations that allows those technological tools to have a positive place in society today. The Senator wrote his opinion article the same week that he released a white paper that contained twenty potential policy proposals for the regulation of social media and technology firms.
This proposal has not been introduced as a bill in Congress yet but comes on the heels of bad news for tech companies like Facebook and Twitter. In March 2018, Facebook became embroiled in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. There, a researcher at Cambridge University enticed users to install an app and partake in a survey. The personal information of those users was collected from that survey along with millions more even though no consent was given to mine the personal info of Facebook friends and connections or share it with outside third parties. All of this data was later acquired by Cambridge Analytica and then shared with various third parties, including President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Facebook admitted that as many as eighty – seven million users may have had their personal information compromised due to the data breach. Due to the suspicion that this info may have been used to affect and meddle in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, Mark Zuckerberg was called to Congress in April 2018 to testify as to how to prevent future abuses of users personal information. Additionally, Twitter has come under fire for its inability to control “Twitter bots” which are anonymous accounts used to try and influence and sway political elections and politicians themselves on behalf of foreign governments (namely, Russia). Many Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of a Russian campaign to spread disinformation and meddle in American politics. The events have persuaded Senator Warner to take the lead in pushing for new social media and data regulations. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Senator Warner’s list of twenty potential policy proposals is an ambitious set of suggestions but for the moment the proposals can be broken down into three main categories – [1] Exploitation/Disinformation/Misinformation, [2] Privacy and Data Protection and [3] Data Ownership.
The Exploitation/Disinformation/Misinformation prong are those policy proposals that seek to require tech companies to be able to determine the origin of posts and accounts, to prevent anonymous accounts, clearly label political advertisement messages and to clearly and conspiculously label “bots.” Bots are anonymous automated accounts that are prodded to send certain types of messages based on certain keywords or other actions. They were believed to have been used extensively by the Russians in the 2016 election to defeat Hillary Clinton.
Privacy and Data Protection proposals are those proposals that are aimed at enacting proposals to actively protect users’ data. This includes making platforms liable under state level actions (defamation and others), civil actions (as “information fiduciaries”) and giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the power and resources to enact rules to regulate tech companies (the FTC has not had rule – making authority since 1980).
Finally, the Data Ownership proposals are those aimed at giving people more control over their own personal information. This would include 1st Party consent for data collection and more proposals similar to those available in Europe, known as the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). Under the GDPR, companies doing business in Europe have a seventy – two hour window to notify users of a data breach. The GDPR also gives users a “right to be forgotten.” This means users have a right to request companies that their data be erased. There are more proposals with more technical details to sort through but these are the three main areas that Senator Warner’s proposals aim to touch on. The proposals are a good first step to hold the tech companies accountable and giving more control back to the users and should be taken up by Congress as soon as possible. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – blog post on getting Facebook to give more control back to users.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – history of Facebook’s privacy missteps and why they continue to occur.
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 rawpixel
Trade, Not Aid: $12 Billion Aid Package for American Farmers Is Met with Mixed Responses
Brief #19—Economic Policy
Policy Summary
As the chaos and confusion of the trade war continue to prove problematic on both domestic and global levels, President Trump has attempted to offset the damage done to a critical part of the U.S. economy.
Last week, it was announced that the Trump administration would award $12 billion in federal aid for the American farmers who had been affected by the tariffs. The effects felt throughout the midwestern farming communities have been severe. Farmers across the rural midwest had been completely shut of the international markets that annually provide buyers for their crops, helping the U.S. economy to continue its healthy rates of productivity.
Trump ruled that such a maneuver was necessary without congressional vote. There is little question that these farmers are facing financial problems that are only going to get worse if the trade war continues. The response from the American people since the plan was announced, though has been primarily been less than enthusiastic.
It hasn’t only been the American taxpayers who aren’t happy about it. Speakers from many farming and agriculture driven communities across the midwest and southern parts of the U.S have also expressed fear and distain at the prospect of the bailout.
Even after it was announced that the European Union would begin purchasing more soybeans grown in the U.S, responses still remained primarily negative.
Policy Analysis
When we consider why American farmers have responded so negatively at the prospect of receiving government aid, there are several key factors that must be taken into account.
Firstly, it must be noted that the aid would not be needed if President Trump had not implemented tariffs that caused significant problems within the global agriculture markets in the first place. Products such as soybeans and grain as well as beef, pork, and chicken are often sold by American farmers through overseas markets. The retaliatory tariffs imposed by Canada and Mexico as well as Europe have resulted in them being shut out of these markets and the cost for the farmers doing the selling will likely be in the billions, as financial analysts have indicated.
The problems that Trump’s tariffs have caused within the agricultural commodities market cannot be overstated. For many of the farmers who operate small to mid size enterprises, the prospect of losing the market share of their crops and products is extremely frightening. Soybeans were among the first U.S. agricultural exports to be negatively effected by the trade war. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, July 9th saw the price of soybeans fall to roughly $7.79 a bushel, the commodity’s lowest dip in almost a decade. Meanwhile in Brazil, soybean futures soared above those in the U.S. by $2.21 per bushel.
Commodity producers know just how difficult it is to recover a market share that has been lost. Soybean farmers saw something similar happen when President Richard Nixon imposed an embargo on American grown soybeans in 1978. Years later, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter imposed another on all U.S. goods being exported to the Soviet Union. Both policies proved problematic, negatively effecting the U.S. reputation as a reliable supplier within global trade markets, causing international buyers to quickly lose confidence in both American goods and producers.
Another problematic element of Trump’s plan to bailout America’s farmers is that it may cause problems within non-farming states. In the American north, many citizens, both liberal and conservative have expressed great concern for their rail transportation system. The proposed Gateway rail project would keep the Amtrak line, the New Jersey Transit and most of the Boston-Washington rail corridor from suffering further damages. People throughout the Northeast have raised their eyebrows at the fact that the farming states that would receive the federal aid package are predominantly red, while their states are primarily blue. While the necessary aid is being provided for people in communities that voted for Trump, the pressing need in their part of the country is receiving neither aid not attention from their government. This is not helped by Trump’s previous tax bill which largely effected blue states such as New York and New Jersey, nor by the fact that the aid for the farmers was generated by their own tax dollars.
Farmers across American have posed similar responses to Trump’s proposed aid for them, though, and the verdict seems to be that they do not want it. They want their market share restored and to have the same free market access and free trade options that they enjoyed before Trump’s tariffs were implemented. Those systems proved beneficial to small farming communities across the country and therefore to the entire U.S. economy. Trump’s tariffs have had exactly the opposite effect.
American farmers understand what is best for their businesses and they know that it is not Trump’s federal aid bailout. Their cries have been and remain for “trade, not aid.”
Resistance Resources
- Adopt-a-State is an organization dedicated to helping political activists and volunteers in blue states connect with each other.
- Policy Link is a research institute dedicated to helping advance economic and social policy.
- Organic Trade Association is a leading agricultural trade publication that provides resources for those within their community.
This brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Economic Policy Analyst Samuel O’Brient: Contact sam@usresistnews.org
Trump’s Healthcare Policy is Built Around Destroying the Affordable Care Act
Policy Summary
Trump’s healthcare policy is largely built upon destroying the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and throughout the last year, he has continually attempted to destroy it brick by brick. From two other briefs reporting on this, we’ve seen that the strategy has shifted from the attempted legislation to wholly restructure and destroy the ACA. The latest attack comes by way of a decision to put a $10 billion risk adjustment program on hold in order to supposedly hold up a court decision. The risk adjustment program takes money from healthier customers in the ACA marketplace and redistributes it to the sicker customers so that there is an even spread of premium cost. This creates a stability for the market that without can make the insurance market more uncertain for the sick people that are the most vulnerable to changes. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
This policy comes on the back end of many Trump Administration strategies to debilitate ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare. The difference with this policy is that it could hike up insurance costs much more quickly, and right before midterm elections. This also comes after the market was beginning to even out after a couple years of financial and political uncertainty. Ultimately, all these attacks are leading to higher healthcare costs for people. This comes at an incredibly high cost to the sickest in the US, and will affect them the most. This policy comes with a slew of other healthcare policies that are debilitating American’s access to adequate healthcare. From the sheer cost of reuniting migrant children and parentstaking away from healthcare funds, to the abolishment of the individual mandate, health care costs are getting ever more expensive for Americans. There is one group who seeks to profit off of the sick, and that is the healthcare consultants. We’re forced to question the real constituents of Trump’s health care policies—his blue-collar worker base or the white collar criminals of the billionaire class? LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources
American Physicians Association (APHA)– Donate to this national physicians group dedicated to protecting and advocating for the ACA, read their materials on why the ACA is important.
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.
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 rawpixel
Devos Invests in the Pockets of For-Profit Colleges at the Expense of Defrauded Students
Brief #24—Education
Policy Summary
For-profit colleges are privately owned, post-secondary schools operated by businesses with the goal of maximizing their profits; most students are enrolled in two-year certificate programs. The schools focus on enrolling a stream of new students with little effort in improving educational programs. Unsurprisingly, most students drop out and are left with crushing student debt. Education Secretary Betsy Devos is proposing new DOE rules that would cut an estimated $13 billion in federal student loan relief for students defrauded by for-profit colleges. The changes eliminate the 2016 Borrower Defense rule, which provided student loan relief in a wide range of cases by the Obama administration after the collapse of ITT Tech and Corinthian College.
Since 2015, DOE has received more than 100,000 claims which are under review. The proposal will only apply to loans after July 1, 2019. Devos stated that DOE lays out clear rules which schools must follow in order to “avoid trouble” but also stated that students are obliged to conduct their own research on for-profit schools because “postsecondary students are adults who can be reasonably expected to make informed decisions if they have access to relevant and reliable data about program outcomes.” Under the plan, students are eligible for loan relief only if they can prove that their school knowingly misled them with statements or actions that directly led them to take out loans or enroll at the school. Some committee members argued that the new proposal will prevent taxpayers from paying for unreasonable claims of fraud. LEARN MORE
DOE officials will also allow schools to defend themselves against claims of fraud because “schools deserve to defend themselves against accusations that could damage their reputations and revenue.” Such changes could strip students of their rights to recourse, making it next to impossible for students who bring claims to receive adequate relief. For instance, for-profit schools have forced students into arbitration agreements – a practice banned under the Obama administration due to the unequal bargaining power between students and schools. While the Obama administration granted full relief for borrowers, the current DOE announced that it will provide only partial relief for borrowers based on income. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Unlike the Borrower Defense rule, which allowed relief in many cases dealing with breach of contract issues, Devos’ requirement that students must prove that a school knowingly misled them places the burden of proof unreasonably on students who have little to no access to a school’s internal operations or materials that could potentially prove a school’s intent. Eliminating the Borrower Defense rule essentially allows predatory schools to further mislead and defraud students.
Furthermore, companies running alternative schools, such as Camelot Education, have been accused of perpetuating staff-on-student violence. An investigation by The Teacher Project found allegations of abuse in Camelot schools spanning 10 years and three states in Reading; Lancaster; Philadelphia; New Orleans; and Pensacola, Florida. Although students described prison-like conditions in these schools – where they have been taunted, beaten, and isolated in order to maintain obedience and control – no staff member faced discipline or criminal charges.
It is no coincidence that for-profit colleges are more likely to recruit low-income students and underrepresented minorities by sending circulars to housing projects and assuring the availability of loans. DOE’s statement regarding the need to protect students from predatory lenders while simultaneously utilizing a patronizing tone of personal responsibility telling its victimized students to walk a tight line of perfection is deeply disturbing. For-profit schools deceptively funnel their revenues into advertising and enrollment efforts rather than into quality education programs, ensuring that a steady stream of tuition dollars will flow into the pockets of greedy executives and shareholders. Research also shows that community colleges may provide a better education at lower costs but budget pressures often mean that they are unable to meet the demands for higher education. Students unable to get into these programs are left with no option but to attend for-profit schools; the alternative is no postsecondary education – not a particularly viable option in a global economy where having a college degree has become a bare necessity to survive.
Rather than trying to squeeze blood out of stones, perhaps the DOE should focus on tightening regulation at for-profit colleges and decreasing the costs of nonprofit public or private schools, especially for low-income families. Taxpayer investment in student aid should also follow scrutiny on whether students are able to complete their studies and earn enough to justify pay back of their loans. Investing in public education to uplift disadvantaged students rather than well-to-do executives is not such a bad idea considering that a well-educated populace is essential to acountry’s successful social and economic welfare. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
Higher Ed for Higher Standards – Growing coalition of college presidents, trustees, chancellors, and state system leaders who believe aligned expectations and strong partnerships between K-12 and postsecondary leaders are critical to improving student success.
American Council on Education (ACE) – ACE is the nation’s most visible and influential higher education association, representing presidents of U.S. accredited, degree-granting institutions, which include two- and four-year colleges, private and public universities, and nonprofit and for-profit entities. ACE convenes representatives from all sectors to collectively tackle the toughest higher education challenges, with a focus on improving access and preparing every student to succeed.American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) – A nonprofit organization and leading proponent for community colleges, representing 1,200 two-year, associate degree-granting institutions and more than 13 million students, as well as a growing number of international members.
Association of American Universities (AAU) – A nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization of 62 leading public and private research universities in the United States and Canada. AAU focuses on issues important to research-intensive universities, such as funding for research, research policy issues, and graduate and undergraduate education.
This Brief was developed by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Tina Lee. Contact:Tina@usresistnews.org
Photo By: Nathan Dumlao
How 3D Printed Guns Has Become a Threat to Public Safety
Brief #46—Gun Policy
Policy Summary
Cody Wilson produced blueprints online that gave instructions on how to produce a gun using only a 3D printer. Shortly after the blueprints were posted, the State Department requested Wilson take them down. This prompted a lawsuit by Wilson in which he claimed the demand for the removal of the blueprints was an infringement on free speech. The case was settled by the administration on June 29th which included free disbursement of the instructions and awarded Wilson $40,000 for legal fees.
In the age of rapidly advancing technology, the Trump administration’s recent settlement foreshadows a lack of modernization to policies that have been in effect since Reagan that could be disastrous for the future of gun control. The increasing commonality of 3D printers provides the opportunity for anyone who owns one to produce their own gun comprised of plastic. Not only does this give potential to almost unlimited access to firearms, it also presents a security problem as they can be virtually undetectable in X-rays and metal detectors.
Analysis
This ruling in the Wilson case seems to be undermining The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 which aimed to eliminate firearms with certain features that cause them to be undetectable by restricting their production, possession, and transportation. While the bill has been renewed until 2023, NRA lobbyists blocked more technologically advanced provisions to be added.
The ruling in the Wilson case indicates the Trump administration will do very little to update the bill to modern technological threats such as requiring metal components in 3D printed guns or restrict the printing of guns at all. By ruling in favor of Wilson, the administration signaled its allegiance with gun ownership, rather than a commitment to prohibiting the possible mass distribution of downloadable guns. Wilson said he will release the blueprints available to download to produce guns, including the AR-15, August 1st. With little to no regulation, this era of ever-evolving technologies proves to be a new threat to public safety.
Engagement Resources
March For Our Lives – an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. You can also find more information about the Road to Change tour on their website. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
Everytown – A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
Vote.gov – A resource to utilize if you need to register, are unfamiliar with voter ID requirements, or election processes so you can be ready by November.
This Brief was written by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Sarah Barton: Sarah@usresistnews.org
Photo By rawpixel
Part 2: Update of Investigation Activities
This is the second half of our re-cap series covering developments in the ongoing Russian election interference investigation since early May. Next week we’ll cover the Helsinki Summit and what it means for the investigation moving forward.
June began in familiar fashion with the president taking to twitter to defend himself from various allegations. Former CIA Director John Brennan appeared on MSNBC on June 1st. “I think that he is afraid of the President of Russia,” Brennan stated in the interview, adding that “The Russians could have something on him personally that they could always roll out to make his life more difficult.” Brennan believes the Russians “have had long experience with Mr. Trump,” Trump would later be criticized after the Helsinki summit in July for his warm attitude towards Russian President Vladimir Putin (more on this next post).
The president defended himself on twitter the following day tweeting that “John Brennan, no single figure in American history has done more to discredit the intelligence community than this liar,” and speaking of the investigation more broadly he tweeted “$17 million spent, it’s a scam investigation. Americans are being worked. We know there was Russian collusion, with Russians and the Democrats.” The President has not been shy about trying to discredit the Mueller investigations. He took to twitter the day before, citing an A.P. report that “the Russian Hoax Investigation has now cost our government over $17 million, and going up fast.” In May, the President used twitter to coin the hashtag #spygate in reference to what he claims was an effort by the Obama administration to plant spies within the Trump campaign in a purported effort to derail his presidential campaign. This, in conjunction with repeated insistence that the Russians colluded not with his campaign, but with the Democrats to undermine his election bid would suggest a strategy on the part of the President to divert public attention or “flip-flop” the blame onto Democrats.
In another bizarre twitter episode on June 4th, President Trump asserted his authority to pardon himself. “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” This tweet came on the heels of Rudy Giuliani’s appearance on ABC’s “This Week” in which he suggested that Trump likely does have the ability to do this. However, it should be noted that Giuliani also said the president “has no intention of pardoning himself,” and called such a move “unthinkable.”
Paul Manafort, Trump’s former Campaign Manager,had additional charges pressed against him by Special counsel Mueller’s grand jury. Manafort is charged with obstruction of justice in that he allegedly conspired to “sway the testimony of two potential witnesses who might offer evidence against Manafort.” Based on these charges, Judge Amy Berman Jackson revoked his bail and ordered that he remain in jail prior to his trail. Manafort had originally posted $10 million bond and was placed under house arrest awaiting trial for money laundering and other charges. Both president Trump and Rudy Giuliani wasted no time in defending Manafort. Trump tweeted “Wow, what a tough sentence for Paul Manafort, who has represented Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and many other top political people and campaigns. Didn’t know Manafort was the head of the Mob. What about Comey and Crooked Hillary and all the others? Very unfair!”
Giuliani disagreed with the decision. “I don’t understand the justification for putting him in jail,” Giuliani told NY Daily News, “You put a guy in jail if he’s trying to kill a witness, not just talking to witnesses.” He then re-asserted what he’d said back in May, calling for an investigation into Mueller’s investigation. “It’s time for Justice to investigate the investigators.” What’s more, Giuliani insinuated the President may pardon Manafort if he is convicted. “When the whole thing is over, things might get cleaned up with some presidential pardons.”Giuliani later walked back his comments telling ABC that “[Trump] is not considering [pardoning Manafort] and he will not even entertainthinking about it until after the investigation has been completed.” From the beginning, Giuliani has taken a hostile stance to the Mueller investigation.
The Justice Department Inspector General Report was released in mid-June, with significant impact. Analysis of the report provides plenty of incendiary material for both sides as each tries to discredit the other. The Report concluded that “We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors’ assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice.” However, the report did find that individuals within the FBI harboured an anti-Trump bias, chiefly through the text message exchanges between attorney Lisa Page and agent Peter Strzok. Rudy Giuliani told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “Strzok should be in jail by the end of next week.” He also said that Deputy AG Rosenstein and AG Sessions “should suspend [Mueller’s] investigation, throw out all the people that have been involved in the phony Trump investigation, and bring in honest FBI agents from the New York office, who I can trust implicitly.” Page has since retired, and Strzok has been fired. Strzok, however, would like to tell his story.
House Intelligence Committee Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) invited Strzok to appear before the committee. Trump later tweeted that “The hearing of Peter Strzok and the other hating frauds at the FBI & DOJ should be shown to the public on live television, not a closed door hearing that nobody will see. We should expose these people for what they are – there should be total transparency!” Strzok did testify before the house committee on July 12th. He told the committee “Let me be clear, unequivocally and under oath: Not once in my 26 years of defending my nation did my personal opinions impact any official action I took,”
Additionally, House Intelligence Committee former Chairman Devin Nunes sent additional demands to the Justice Department requesting information on “contacts” between FBI intelligence sources and Trump campaign associates. Nunes has been highly critical of the investigation since its inception. Nunes, along with Trey Gowdy (R-SC)and Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) originally demanded unredacted copies of written conversations between former FBI director James Comey and President Trump. A federal judge ordered these remain secret in February. The Justice Department has since maintained that it has complied with Nunes’ requests to the extent that is legally permissible.
It would seem that the fallout from the IG report has only widened the gulf between supporters and opponents of the investigations. Each side has dug in further, with Rudy Giuliani leading the charge against Mueller.