JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Fetal Heartbeat Bills are Mounting Against Women’s Reproductive Rights
Brief #36—Health
By Taylor J Smith
Supreme Court Examines “Worst of the Worst” Violators In Partisan Gerrymandering Case
Brief #83—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Educational Policies of 2020 Democratic Presidential Candidates
Brief #36—Education
By Erin Mayer
Kamala Harris Promises Action on Gun Legislation in Town Hall
Brief #18—Gun Control
By Sarah Barton
New Hampshire Law Placing Restrictions On College Students Right To Vote Poised To Become A National Issue For 2020 Election; U.S. Petition
Brief #84—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Does Trump’s Purge of the Department of Homeland Security Solve America’s Immigration Problem?
Brief #68—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
TO IMPEACH OR NOT; THAT IS THE QUESTION
U.S. RESIST NEWS Op Ed
Op Ed by Ron Israel, Managing Editor, U.S. RESIST NEWS
Trump Seeks to Ramp Up Oil Pipelines and Production
Brief #58—Environment
By Andrew Thornebrooke
Supreme Court Examines “Worst of the Worst” Violators In Partisan Gerrymandering Case
Brief #83—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Congress Tries to Combat Sexual Harassment
Re: Policy Brief No. 38
Policy Summary: In February 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced and passed H.R. 4924 which is known as the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act. That bill seeks to “revise administration and judicial dispute resolution procedures…for claims by employees alleging that employing offices have violated their…rights and protections, including protections against sexual harassment” by Members of Congress. On May 24, 2018, the U.S. Senate introduced and passed by voice vote S.2952 which is a companion bill to H.R. 4924. The Senate bill seeks to revise the same administrative and judicial dispute resolution procedures for sexual harassment claims by the legislative workforce as they may arise against a Member of Congress. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: Due to the high – profile number of sexual harassment incidents against Members of Congress the last year, the two bills in the House and the Senate was seen as long overdue. Despite the good intentions to address these types of incidents in Congress, many groups still have concerns whether the proposed reforms will lead to substantial change. In advance of the floor vote in the Senate, five non – profit groups jointly authored a letter detailing their perceived shortcomings of the bill. The highlight of the letter dealt with the personal reimbursement obligation by a Member of Congress. The House bill passed in February authorized a Member of Congress to personally reimburse the U.S. Treasury if any settlement monies are paid as a result of an act of harassment or retaliation by the Congressperson. However, the non – profit groups found that the Senate bill found ways to limit and undermine the reimbursement obligation. Additionally, the Senate bill added other requirements to future investigations which were seen as uneccessary – barring legal advice from an attorney after a claim against a Member of Congress is filed, requiring Congressional committees to review sexual harassment claims instead of unbiased independent investigators and allowing Members of Congress who have been accused to not be identified in the final report. The Senate bill does not seem to make the process of pursuing a sexual harassment claim against a Member of Congress as transparent and as streamlined as it could be. Hopefully, the concerns in the Senate bill can be reconciled with the stronger House bill before it is finalized and sent to the White House for the President’s signature. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Take Action:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – group’s comment on Senate bill (S.2952).
National Women’s Law Center – non – profit group’s infopage on sexual harassment in the workplace and comments on the Senate bill.
National Organization of Women (NOW) – non – profit group advocating women’s rights and their comment on the Senate bill.
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
.
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Workers Rights
Re: Policy Brief No. 37
Policy Summary: On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. That case had been consolidated with two other cases but had a similar set of core facts. In the three cases, each company required its employees to waive their right to join in a potential class action lawsuit against the company and mandated that they pursue individually any legal claims that may arise in arbitration proceedings. Employees of the three companies brought a lawsuit against their employers to preserve their right to pursue collective legal action against their employers. The Supreme Court, in an opinion that focused extensively on statutory and contract interpretation rules, decided 5 – 4 in favor of Epic Systems Corporation and the two other employers. LEARN MORE
Analysis: As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent, the Court’s decision is “egregiously wrong.” Galen Sherwin of the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Women’s Rights Project said in a blog post about the court decision that “arbitration has been criticized as biased in favor of companies and employers, and lacking in the procedural protections afforded by the justice system.” By forcing employees to sign on to only one option to pursue their legal complaints and barring them from one not favorable to their employers, companies are stacking the deck so as to create the likelihood that most employee complaints will be decided in the employer’s favor. Employers favored arbitration over class actions because panelists deciding the case are often chosen by both parties (other lawyers and not always a judge or someone with legal training), the proceedings are held in strict secrecy and often legal precedents are not required to be followed. Employers could manipulate the process to choose who would hear their case, did not have to worry about the hearings being made public and did not have to worry about pesky legal precedents that did not favor them. These protections would be found in a court case but are not required in arbitration proceedings. Employees would have better protections when permitted to band together and confront their employers with their legal claims as a united group. In a class action suit, employees could find strength in numbers instead of confronting a company alone, could share the costs with other co – workers instead of shouldering the financial burden on their own and could be confident in established legal protections by having their claims heard in court (evidentiary rules, binding legal precedent and an unbiased judge and/or a jury of their peers). This case will now upend all of these hard won protections because it forces employees into an unfavorable arbitral process and allows companies to ban workers from what had historically been one of the most useful avenues to have workplace complaints redressed – the class action lawsuit. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Take Action:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – infopage critical of the Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis case.
Fair Arbitration Now – non – profit group seeking to lobby Congress to end forced arbitration.
Public Citizen – non – profit group infopage on the dangers of forced arbitration clauses.
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
.
Federal Court Rules Against Trump Efforts to Block Twitter Followers
Policy Brief No. 40
Policy Summary: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.” In the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association the court categorized government property for purposes of which rules would control speech and expression activities and listed three categories: [1] traditional public forums, [2] limited, or designated, public forums, and [3] non – public forums. Justice White explained that when it comes to speech in a limited, or designated, public forum “a content – based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest.” In July 2017, the Knight First Institute at Columbia University and seven other plaintiffs sued President Trump because they were blocked from the President’s Twitter account. On May 23, 2018, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order characterizing President Trump’s Twitter account as “a limited, or designated, public forum” and that his banning of followers according to their viewpoint was “proscribed by the First Amendment.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: The decision from Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald is not only a wake up call to all government officials but also a shot at President Trump himself. First, all public officials are now on notice that their interactions with constituents on social media platforms are likely limited, or designated, public forums and cannot be manipulated in a way as to suppress critical opinions on government policies. Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites may have the technological tools to block or mute followers but using these options to bar opposing viewpoints and critical opinions from important and relevant discussions on social media will likely no longer be permitted. This will prevent public officials from having a slanted and incomplete view on how their policies are being received by the public.
And lastly, Judge Buchwald’s memorandum and order that categorized Trump’s Twitter account as a limited, or designated, public forum sends a message to President Trump that he cannot selectively pick, based on their substantive content, which users and followers will have their positions and viewpoints shown in his Twitter account. Every critical tweet and disapproving reply to his own tweets is an opportunity for this President and this country to hear the concerns and opinions of any citizen who chooses to engage with him on his Twitter account. By trying to block users and suppress their critical tweets to him, this President chose to try to quash legitimate criticisms of him and elevate other viewpoints that he viewed, in his eyes, as much more worthy. It was a simple case of trying to censor viewpoints that President Trump did not agree with. Hopefully Judge Buchwald’s order will put an end to these tactics undertaken by this President who cannot handle legitimate criticism. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Resistance Resources:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blogpost discussing government officials blocking users prior to the recent court decision against President Trump.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University – institute defending freedom of speech and press in the digital age and a plaintiff in the lawsuit against President Trump and his Twitter account.
First Amendment Coalition – non – profit group defending free speech and the public’s right to know.
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
Trump Cancels, Then Resumes US-North Korea Summit
Brief # 42: Foreign Policy
Summary
Last Thursday, President Trump announced the cancellation of the historic US-North Korea summit, originally slated for June 12th in Singapore. The cited reason was the “open hostility” exhibited by the North Korean government, including the suggestion that a diplomatic failure would lead to a “nuclear to nuclear showdown”. These comments were in response to recent threats by Vice President Pence that North Korea could end up like Libya if they failed to make a deal.
Trump’s cancellation of the summit provoked a disappointed and conciliatory response from North Korea, who stated that they were “willing to sit face to face at any time”. Trump called it a “very nice statement” which would lead “hopefully to long and enduring prosperity and peace”. As for the future of the summit, Trump stated that “We’ll see what happens. It could even be the 12th”. On Saturday, Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in held a surprise summit, during which Moon said there had been a candid exchange of views, and made plans for another meeting this Friday. The North Korean state media declared that they would meet frequently in the future “to make dialogue brisk and pool wisdom and efforts, expressing their stand to make joint efforts for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula”. The White House has confirmed that a team of officials have departed for Singapore to prepare for the possible summit. On Wednesday night, North Korean General Kim Yong-chol met with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in New York, for what Pompeo tweeted was discussions for the “potential” upcoming summit.
Analysis
Peace talks between North Korea and the US would be an enormous step forward for world peace. The hostility between the two nations, and the militarism it creates has led to brutal living conditions for the North Korean people, and a world living under the threat of nuclear war. The diplomatic process needs to be approached with care and patience, two qualities which our President has failed to exhibit thus far. By allowing his administration to continue to name-drop Libya, he’s putting any hopes of diplomacy in jeopardy. In Libya, Gaddafi agreed to a denuclearisation deal, similar to what Trump hopes to accomplish with North Korea. Once Gaddafi gave up his weapons, he was killed by US supported rebels. Any mention of Libya will only threaten to ruin any hope for a deal. North Korea needs to have US sanctions lifted. so they can finally be allowed some economic breathing room.
Resistance Resources
- Read a Previous U.S. RESIST Assessment of the North Korean Peace Process: Here is the brief, published earlier this month. (NOTE KIM PLEASE MAKE THE LINK TO COLIN’S LAST BRIEFG)
- Donate to Peace Action: Peace Action is a network of peace activists committed to pressuring Congress into passing legislation supporting a foreign policy which respects human rights and non-violence. You can donate on their website.
This Brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this Brief please contact Colin@usresistnews.org.
The Independence of DOJ and FBI Under Attack From Presidential Tweets and Insults; Presidential Communications
Re: Policy Brief No. 35
Policy Summary: After the Watergate scandal in the 1970’s President Jimmy Carter and his Attorney General Griffin Bell instituted policies that restricted communications between White House personnel and Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel. The intent was to permit DOJ personnel to carry out the duty of their positions without immediate political or partisan pressures. The policies have varied slightly with each Administration but the core of the communication restriction policies have remained the same – that communications from the White House to and about DOJ are to be limited regarding pending or potential criminal or civil investigations or cases. On January 27, 2017, White House Counsel Don McGahn issued a memorandum to all White House staff titled “Communications Restrictions With Personnel at the Department of Justice” that addressed these kinds of communications. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The words, actions and tweets of President Trump have run roughshod over this decades long policy. As a result of his feud with Attorney General Jeff Sessions at DOJ, displeasure with James Comey at FBI and unpredictable twitter storms, the President has eroded confidence in DOJ and FBI as agencies that would pursue justice in an even handed manner and apply it equally to all persons and parties. The rationale underpinning the restricted communications policy with DOJ is to ensure that any case or investigation brought is done according to standard procedures without regard to who the person is being prosecuted or investigated. And the communications restriction policies were designed to reduce the pressure of partisan politics on cases and investigations. However, President Trump has instead used Twitter to spew questionable comments about what cases DOJ are and are not pursuing. For the last year he has specifically asked why certain cases aren’t being brought (a crooked Hillary investigation, other Democrats and investigation of Andrew McCabe). These tweets by Trump are a serious ethical breach because of how it undermines the independence of the department. There are also his direct insults aimed at former FBI Director James Comey. The President seems intent on having a Department of Justice that pursues cases only he approves of and an FBI that investigates only those cases he personally wants investigated. This is not how a President is supposed to ensure the independence of these agencies. The President appoints personnel to lead the department but the lawyers and prosecutors have full independence to pursue and prosecute cases. Politics is not supposed to be a part of whether a case succeeds or not. With his ignoring of Counsel Don McGahn’s memorandum and relentless attacks on the Department of Justice and the personnel of the FBI, President Trump and his Twitter account have done the very thing that the restriction of communications policy should have done – he has politicized cases and investigations at these agencies and given the impression that they should be loyal only to President Trump. Even to the point of looking away from President Trump’s scandals, which would imply that this President is above the law. It remains to be seen if these two agencies can resist the politicization and unwarranted personal attacks by this complicated President. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Take Action:
Protect Democracy – non – profit group infopage on the danger of White House communications with independent federal agencies.
Democracy Fund – group that invests in organizations that seeks to strengthen American democracy and protect her institutions.
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.
Update on Scott Pruitt’s Investigation by Congress for Excess Spending, Secret Emails and Ethics Controversy
Environmental Policy – Brief 30
Letters from Congress Requesting Documentation for Investigation and Letter on Overdue Documents
Press Release from Oversight Committee Sent April 11, 2018
Update May 21, 2018
In late April, Scott Pruitt had a hearing on Capitol Hill regarding his various ethical controversies. Over the course of the two sessions, Pruitt did admit that he knew about the raises for two of his aides but little else, primarily placing blame on EPA aides and staff. In his opening statement, Pruitt claimed that many of the accusations were either exaggerations or completely fabricated. A former aide has already told news outlets that Pruitt lied to Congress during these hearings. The response to Pruitt’s time on the Hill have been mixed, primarily along party lines. White House aides are prompting Trump to fire Pruitt and various Democrats are calling for his resignation. However, Republican members of Congress are aware that Pruitt is their best chance to pass legislation regarding environmental regulation. And so he stays.
Since the hearings, new potential ethics violations have come to lights, including meetings with the Heritage Foundation, plans to stage public debates, hiring additional private council, and another trip paid for by lobbyists. The EPA has attempted to keep records and documents from Congress, and emails have been discovered detailing EPA staff attempts to shield Pruitt from scrutiny and explain the necessity of his high security costs. Pruitt has continued to work on various rollbacks of Obama era legislation.
Summary
In letters sent to President Trump and the EPA Secretary Pruitt, the Oversight Committee of U.S. Congress requested documents from Secretary Pruitt as they investigate the myriad of controversies that have arisen around the EPA’s lead administrator. Pruitt is currently past the given deadline to produce the documents, and the deadline has been extended to April 25, 2018. Another letter was written to Kevin Minoli, EPA’s Chief Ethics Officer, from the Office of Government Ethics asking him to participate in the investigations. The Government Accountability Office and the EPA’s Inspector General are also taking a look at records and requesting explanations. There have been rumblings of misconduct for quite a while, but these accusations nowballed once an aide came forward. The former aide, Kevin Chmielewski, was put on leave after questioning the Secretary’s spending habits. In addition to the extreme travel spending, Pruitt is under investigation by ethics committees for a discounted condo purchase from a lobbyist and the use of multiple undisclosed email addresses. Despite calls for his resignation and his 29 percent approval rating, many Republicans and businessman supported Pruitt and his position, especially in light of the moderate that would most likely take his place.
Analysis
Spending: Most of Pruitt’s spending controversies revolve around his travel, security detail and bonuses for special hires. Citing death threats, Pruitt has booked exclusively first class travel and more exorbitant hotel accommodations than those recommended by the State Department for international travel. Some of these destinations were based on personal travel rather than business, and Pruitt took many unjustified trips to his home state of Oklahoma. Republican lawmakers have since disregarded Pruitt’s death threat reasoning for his extreme spending on travel and security.
Ethics: Pruitt has also approved extreme bonuses for loyal employees that were rejected by oversight committees, including a long-time lobbyist for the chemical industry. A coal lobbyist was just confirmed as his number two and an oil tycoon ran his re-election campaign. Pruitt has gotten a long-term deal on a bedroom in a D.C. condo on a per-night basis from a health care lobbyist, although her husband has pending business with the EPA.
Emails: In another letter, the EPA’s Inspector General, Arthur Elkins, was asked to look into Pruitt’s three email accounts to make sure proper records were maintained. There is concern that Pruitt uses these additional email addresses to spread false information and conduct undocumented business.
Take Action
Read the full letters regarding the investigations into Pruitt: To Trump and Pruitt, To Elkins, To Minoli
Keep Track of the Pruitt Investigations on the Oversight Committee’s Website
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.
Zinke Faces the U.S. Senate
Brief # 31—-Environmental Policy
Summary
Earlier this month, Department of the Interior head, Ryan Zinke, a self-declared geologist, faced a senate hearing to address his proposed 2019 budget. However, this hearing may expand to include his numerous scandals. The former Navy SEAL seems to have a pattern of travel fraud. In addition, reports show that he has nominated an oil industry lobbyist for the DOI regulatory rollback advisor, allowed trophy hunters to lead a panel governing animal imports, and failed to reveal his shares in a gun organization. Zinke has managed to avoid public scrutiny, partially because of the current investigations in and coverage of EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt.
Analysis
The Department of the Interior is in charge of managing the conservation of federal lands and natural resources, and Ryan Zinke was appointed as Secretary last year. While there is surprisingly little coverage on what ensued during Zinke’s recent hearing on May 10, 2018, there is an expectation that Zinke’s questionable behavior will be more thoroughly examined by the Senate. Prior to his role, Zinke was a state senator in Montana, giving rise to allegations that he has taken a pro-development stance in every state except Montana, possibly to save jobs. This may be in violation of the D.O.I.’s ethics rules. Furthermore, Zinke’s pattern of travel fraud is said to have cost taxpayers at least $84,000[1], with one instance of Zinke even charging the D.O.I. for he and his wife’s private security detail on a family vacation to Greece and Turkey. Theoretically, this laundry list of scandals could beg the question of whether or not Zinke is fit to lead the Department of the Interior, but given that no coverage has been applied to the matter, it appears that nothing has changed and all is running as it were.
Take Action
Get involved with the fight to save the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was created by congress in 1964 and is set to expire in September 2018. Check out the LWCF Coalition to become engaged
Keep checking in with the Sierra Club—the most influential grassroots conservation group in America–to stay up to date on many high-profile initiatives to protect the environment
Learn more about the timeline of Zinke’s Ethics Scandals
Learn More about the Tension Between the DOI and EPA
This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker:
[1] Costs compiled from The Intercept, Politico Media Matters and Climate Nexus
US and China Concludes Second Round of Trade Talks Despite Internal Divisions and Confusion
Brief #15 Economic Policy
Summary
On the weekend May 18-21, a team of Chinese delegates lead by the CCP’s Vice Premier and economist Liu He met with representatives from the Trump administration to discuss trade policies and advert a potential trade war. This comes at the backdrop of tough rhetoric and escalating tensions between the two superpowers. Last month, President Trump threatened to slap tariffs on 150 billion USD worth of Chinese product and in response, China threatened to implement tariffs upwards to 25% on a wide range of US products equaling to 50 billion USD.
Since the campaign, President Trump has accused the Chinese as conducting unfair trade practices. Some of the President claims against China includes: devaluing their currency to make Chinese markets cheaper, not respecting intellectual property rights affecting the competitiveness of American firms in Chinese markets and flooding American markets with cheap Chinese products resulting in almost a 380 billion USD trade deficit in 2017.
After the negotiations concluded, little progress on either side appear to be made. Vague gestures and ambiguous language characterized the post-negotiations press conference. China pledged to purchase more US products while both countries pledge to continue to meet and have more discussions in the future. However, Trump’s negotiation camp appears to be bitterly divided over the focus of the talks, the potential outcomes and the means of achieving different goals.
Throughout the three days, there appeared to be much confusion on the US’ side. While the Chinese were able to present a united front during the talks, the same can not be said for the Americans. The disorganization was evident when Trump’s official released contradictory statements. Some in the camp wanted statements to focus on China’s bullying and forcing American firms to share technology and intellectual property while others wanted statements and tactics to focus more on reducing the trade deficit.
On Sunday, Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin said the Trump administration would “put the trade war on hold” while talks continued while that same day US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer released a statement that said that may still resort to tariff and other measures unless China makes “real structural change.” On Friday, Trump chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow prematurely said China offered to reduce its trade surplus by 200 billion USD although such an agreement was never made.
According to Derek Scissor – a Chinese scholar at the American Enterprise Institute claims that the Trump negotiations team is divided into two camps. Secretary Mnuchin and Economic advisor Larry Kudlow represents the neoliberal faction who seek further global integration and worry about the market’s reaction to a potential trade war – a testament to their banking background. This side is seeking to make a deal as quickly as possible. The other faction includes Peter Navarro leader of the White House National Trade Council and Robert Lighthizer who are demanding China change its practices and help reduce the deficit by 200 billion USD. This faction is willing to resort to extreme trade disruptions to accomplish their goals. The rivalries between both camps is evident as they jockey for influence over the president during the trade talks.
These talks also come days after President Xi Jinping of China asked Trump for a “personal favor” by providing sanction relief for Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE which has had its operations severely crippled under the Obama administration. After bipartisan backlash in Congress, in a tweet Trump claimed “that nothing happened with ZTE except as it pertains to a larger trade deal.” Both Republicans and Democrats are steadfast in maintaining sanctions on ZTE for illegally selling products to both Iran and North Korea. Both parties feel as if Trump is placing Chinese economic need over America’s national security imperative. On Tuesday, May 23 2018, the Senate Banking Committee passed an amendment that would make it illegal for Trump to reduce penalties on ZTE unless it provides proof that the company is compiling with US laws.
Next month, in June 2018, both sides are preparing for round three of the talks with hopes that a deal can be made. However, it is unclear exactly if the potential for a trade war still exist before or while negotiations talks take place. Those in the Mnuchin camp would rather make a deal and if that isn’t possible would rather wait before implementing tough tariffs until after the North Korea summit at the very least. While those in the Navarro camp would rather use any tools at their disposal to force China to acquiesce to America’s demands.
Analysis
There is a great possibility that the disorganization and the in-fighting within President Trump’s negotiation team gave the Chinese the upper hand in these talks and future talks. It was very noticeable to see the divisions within the camp and China’s skilled negotiations could easily take advantage of the situation by playing both sides off one another and pandering to one side over another at advantageous times. Already, some might argue China achieved a great victory by getting the US to delay tariffs with China only vaguely agreeing to purchase “massive amounts of farm and agricultural products” according to the President’s tweet.
This chaos and confusion seems to be commonplace in the Trump administration. One might even begin to think that confusion and chaos is a part of the President’s elaborate grand strategy pertaining to trade and almost any other policy issues for that matter. If one gives off the appearance they are confused and disoriented the other side may begin to overestimate their own abilities. However, it is difficult to see an underlying strategy in the midst of all the confusion. After the trade talks, Chinese official felt a sense of bewilderment saying that they would place any “concession” made during the talks on “hold” until president Trump gave final confirmation. Still, it is very likely China did use and will use this confusion to buttress their demands in the next round of talks.
The foundation of President Trump’s thinking as it pertains to trade and China is the belief that China is more dependent on America than America is on China. China makes hundreds of billions per year off of selling its products to American consumers. The United States is China’s largest single country trading partner accounting for about 20% of all of China’s exports. China is still an economy more heavily dependent on exports than it is on domestic consumption even though the Communist Party is desperately trying to change this. It can’t be said one way or another if the president’s line of rationale is correct or incorrect. Existing literature supports both arguments. China, on the other hand, feels like it would have the upper hand in a trade war. Although, the US market does make up a significant cross section of Chinese exports, the US is also a democracy. The US is often times constrained by the capricious desire of the citizenry. A trade war will have an inflationary impact. America’s thirst for cheap Chinese products may to be so great as to weather a long term trade war. No one wants to walk into a Wal-Mart or Target and spend almost 35% more on clothes, electronics and other items- two stores many in Trump’s base are very fond of. Ironically, existing literature both supports and goes against this view as well. Although it can’t be concluded one way or another, most certainly both economies are very dependent on each other and both side stands to lose significantly in a trade war. A trade war would not only hurt both China and the US, but it would harm global supply chains across the world.
President Trump’s demand for China to reduce the trade deficit is unrealistic. The only way the deficit can be reduced is if US ships more goods and services to China, limit the number of imports or a combination of both. The US has little control over demands for its products in China just as China has little control over demands for its products in America. President Trump’s lack of understanding of basic supply and demand principles shows up in the various infeasible demands he made this weekend.
Finally, Trump’s ZTE controversy shows his willingness to often times easily abandon his own agenda. The President has consistently abandoned beliefs that he presented himself resolute on. This might be very problematic going forward with negotiations with Chinese officials. The Chinese are expert negotiators and have more than likely studied the President’s weakness. The President was elected to represent the American people and its problematic if the president forgets his own underlying platform. The people who will be hurt the most are those who support him and believe in him the most.\
Take Action
- The US-China Business council is an NGO consisting of over 200 companies that do business in China and its mission is to expand the US commercial relationship to its members.
- The US-China Policy Foundation is an NGO that seeks to enhance mutual understanding and positive relations between the two countries via awareness
- The US-China Strong Foundation is an NGO that seeks to develop relations by investing in a new generation of knowledgeable leaders.
This Brief was submitted by KAF, a U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst. For more information contact: kaf@usresistnews.org
Department of Justice fumbles with systemic sexual misconduct
Brief 35
Policy Summary:
A recent report that came out from the Justice Department (DOJ) appears to indicate that multiple sexual harassment charges have been filed within the DOJ. The new policies and guidelines set up by the DOJ seek to create a harassment free work environment through a zero tolerance policy, but it’s vital to note that survivors often need more support than simply having the perpetrator removed. Simply incorporating a zero tolerance policy will not be enough to address the systemic issues of harassment and favoritism at the DOJ, there needs to be a culture shift to support and advocate for all employees, but especially survivors of sexual harassment and violence.
It appears that the DOJ is focused more on maintaining the credibility of the agency than about the mental health of those affected by sexual harassment. One particular case illustrates how little the DOJ is focusing on the survivors of sexual harassment because they simply switch the offenders to a different department, rather than working with the survivor to set up a safer environment for herself. This has been a pattern as discussed in the Washington Post as early as last February. This appears to have affected the overall work environment, with reports surfacing that accuse leaders in the death penalty unit in the DOJ of creating a culture of sexism and favoritism. With the #MeToo movement gaining traction especially in the United States Entertainment industry, there are even more eyes on the DOJ to figure out how to address systemic sexual harassment in their department.
Analysis:
Ultimately, there’s a large focus on getting sued versus actively changing the culture of sexual harassment and violence within a federal agency. Trump hasn’t actively put forth any type of resources to further investigate the negative culture at the DOJ, but officials within the DOJ have made statements recommending further investigation into the extent of the problem. As often goes with these cases, it’s unclear how changes will be made to further support survivors of sexual violence and harassment in the workforce. The focus is often made on simply covering up the story and moving forward in a way that satiates the needs of the media and recovers optics, versus supporting survivors in adequate ways.
Take Action:
Equal Rights Advocates – Read more about ways you can become a better advocate and bystander to call out workplace harassment and donate time or money to this organization dedicated to improving equity for women.
Time’s Up – Support this legal fund dedicated to providing aid to women undergoing legal battles around sexual misconduct and violence.
As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
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.
American Patients First or American Pharmaceutical Executives First? Trump’s plan to lower drug prices and buffer Big Pharma
Brief 36
Policy Summary:
Trump and his HHS secretary, Alex Alzar, took to the Rose Garden to unveil his new plan, “American Patients First” (APF) to cut costs for prescription and over the counter (OTC) drugs in the US. His speech and initiatives come after criticism over the rising cost of healthcare and medications. Basing many of his policies in a strategy to remove low cost medications from foreign competitors, APF seeks to cut rebates and deals for middlemen in developing and marketing medications. Another key aspect of the policy are recommendations that aim to cut attributes of Part B to Part D of the Medicare programs which covers senior drug costs. This would aim to limit special protections for key medications and lower the cost of drugs overall. HHS Secretary, Alzar, also has made comments that indicate he would cut the Part D rebate altogether.
Analysis:
Most of the outlined initiatives come in as mere suggestions or still as questions. A lot of these policies will require further legislation from Congress, and not be able to be implemented in a swift succession of executive orders. As far as the Part D plan is concerned, this could impact a lot of senior citizens, which largely make up the Republican base and Trump supporters. Cutting drug rebates will not have immediate effects on lowering drug prices, and it wouldn’t effectively cover all drugs in similar ways, especially those that are more popular and necessary for access. This could affect how certain demographics vote come the midterm and general elections, since healthcare is a number one issue for many Americans. Ultimately, these initiatives are a business minded approach to creating more access to healthcare. What Trump doesn’t understand is that opening up more opportunities for Big Pharma to get involved in drug pricing in the US leaves more room for business control of pricing, and could impact the rest of the world’s drug pricing. Big Pharma can get more involved in drug pricing because it will be able to set prices and market prices in advertising. The cut of foreign competitors from the domestic market will also allow for pharmaceutical companies to gain more control of the industry and therefore, pricing of drugs.
Take Action:
Accessing Generic Drugs– Encourage family and friends to purchase generic drugs at a cheaper cost, this Consumer Report will tell you the best drugs to buy at a generic price. This will assist in eliminating the financial support that Big Pharma gets and will help you get a better price on drugs. Look further for hospitals that start nonprofits to get better access to necessary life saving drugs.
Health Care Advocates-Consider using this resource for major healthcare decisions. Their knowledge and experience can help you make the best decision for your wallet and for your health.
As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
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.