JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
President Trump Tries to Control the Federal Reserve
Brief #40—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
Trump Roll Backs on School Lunches Leads to Lawsuit
Brief #35—Education
By Erin Mayer
The Trump administration has altered the way children are eating lunch, nationwide. The State of New York claims today’s school lunches contain fewer whole grains, more sodium, and additional milk flavors in children’s meals.
Trump’s Humanitarian Emergency at the Southern Border
Brief #67—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
In response to the alleged humanitarian crisis at the Southern Border, President Trump has threatened to shut down the US-Mexico Border but has not given a definite timeline; he has just warned that if he ‘has to’ he is ready to do whatever it takes.
White House Obstructs International Investigation of War Crimes in Afghanistan
Brief #61—Foreign Policy
By Colin Shanley
Last Friday, the International Criminal Court (ICC) unanimously rejected a proposed investigation of war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the Taliban, Afghan forces, and US personnel, citing the extreme difficulty of “securing meaningful cooperation from relevant authorities.”
2020 Budget Proposal Slashes Funding for Medicaid and Medicare
Brief #54—Healthcare
By Taylor J Smith
In early March, the Trump administration announced the 2020 budget proposal with controversial cuts.
Trump Recognizes Israeli Sovereignty Over the Golan Heights
Brief #36—Foreign Policy
By Colin Shanley
Trump Shouldn’t Rely on the Economy to Carry Him to Victory in 2020
Brief #39—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
Is The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) On The Verge Of Being Ratified and Added To The U.S. Constitution?
Brief #82—Civil Rights
By Rod Maggay
Betsy DeVos Special Olympics Cuts
Brief #34—Education
By Erin Mayer
The Three Approaches To Saving Net Neutrality; Proposed Remedies To Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Agency Regulations
Re: Policy Brief No. 28
This brief updates a prior civil rights brief on the net neutrality issue. For more information please see the original April 26, 2017 brief and November and December 2017 updates here.
Update: On May 10, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission announced that they would file a notice in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of the modifications made to the Restoring Internet Freedom Report and Order, known as the Net Neutrality regulations. The repeal of the net neutrality regulations that were voted on in 2017 will now become effective thirty days from the May 11, 2018 publication of the notice – June 11, 2018. There is still popular resistance to the repeal of the regulations with numerous efforts to stall and/or overturn the regulations. Ed Markey (D-MA) has stated that 86% of the electorate are in favor of keeping the net neutrality regulations that were repealed. A vote in the Senate to disapprove of the repeal and prevent it from being implemented is still pending with significant support but still has to pass the House of Representatives and be signed by President Trump which is unlikely. The most promising options appear to be proposals in individual states to try and enforce net neutrality within their state borders which will likely result in a battle between individual states and the FCC in the coming months. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Summary: On January 16, 2018, a lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by attorney generals of twenty-one states and the District of Columbia. The petition will seek to prevent the enforcement of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) “Restoring Internet Freedom” order that overturned Obama – era regulations. In the Senate, Democratic members announced that they had fifty votes of support and were one vote shy to vote to reject the FCC order. And finally, numerous states in the last two months have introduced bills in their state legislatures that would preserve net neutrality within their states regardless of the fate of the FCC’s “Restoring Internet Freedom” order. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: After the FCC’s 3 – 2 vote to rollback Obama – era regulations in its “Restoring Internet Freedom” proposal, many were up in arms and sought ways to prevent implementation of the order. As of January 2018, three options had emerged. In December 2017, numerous states began to consider state laws that would preserve net neutrality regulations in their state. The proposal in California, which mirrors net neutrality bills in other states, would require businesses to adopt net neutrality practices if their business is dependent on California funding or infrastructure. However, this does not guarantee that the law would reach every resident of California. The second option comes from the Senate. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) has proclaimed that he has a majority of votes to disapprove of the order in that chamber. But even if that resolution passes, there would still be opposition in the House of Representatives and would not likely be signed by President Trump. The final option is the petition filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday. This option is the most substantial because it shows that there is widespread support (twenty – one states and the District of Columbia) to oppose Chairman Pai’s intent to do away with net neutrality. However, cases are not decided overnight. It may take months for the case to get a full hearing on the merits in addition to a few other legal obstacles that need to be addressed first. None of these options guarantee a total or an immediate success at the moment but it does demonstrate the widespread opposition to Chairman Pai’s efforts to do away with net neutrality. The fight continues. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Take Action:
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) – database of state efforts related to Internet service providers.
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) – research center dedicated to online privacy and civil liberty issues.
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) – local community efforts at digital privacy and net neutrality.
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.
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.
Investigating Trump’s Economy
Brief # 14
This past week, the United States Department of Labor reported the unemployment rate fell to 3.9% – a 17-year low. This makes the 3.8% target by the end of 2018 well within reach for the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, nonfarm payroll jobs increased by 164,000 in April and 135,000 in March. African-American and Latino unemployment rate also hit records lows as the unemployment rate fell to 6.6% and 4.8%, respectively; this is the lowest jobless rate for these ethnic groups since the 1970s. Naturally, President Donald Trump and his economic advisor Gary Cohn attribute strong economic growth to the Trump tax cuts Congress passed in December.
On other metrics, the economy appears to be as strong. The “Broader Unemployment Rate” – a metric that includes dissatisfied workers or part-time workers in 2009 was over 17%. By April 2018, this number also feel to 7.8% showing signs of continued economic growth. The Labor department also announced that the US has a record of 6.6 million job posting.
Despite strong jobs growth, wages haven’t fared as well. Wage growth has occurred but not near the 4,000 USD annual figure the Trump administration predicted. From January to April, average hourly earnings only increased by 13% (multiplied by 12 months to average around 260 USD). Economist predicted for a 3.9% unemployment rate, wages should theoretically increase by a far greater margin than the 2.6% when compared to last year. Wages would have to hit a margin of 3% for the average consumer to feel the benefit.
Analysis
President Trump was quick to declare the tax cut a victory for job creation and economic growth. In economics, it is always important to refer to raw data to determine the veracity of presidential claims- especially this President. President Trump may say one thing while data shows the full picture.
A Renewed Emphasis on Sexual Harassment and Assault Incidents at DOJ In The Workplace and Beyond; Federal Agency Action
Re: Policy Brief No. 36
Policy Summary: On April 12, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced an expansion of an ongoing DOJ sexual harassment program. The initial program, announced in October 2017, is an initiative to combat sexual harassment in the housing market and protect women from harassment from landlords, property managers and other employees of rental property owners in the rental of housing units and properties. That initiative will now be expanded to include programs to increase awareness and reporting of sexual harassment incidents in housing. On April 30, 2018, DOJ set forth a separate and new set of directives to help “enforce the Department’s zero – tolerance policy for sexual harassment” among DOJ employees for their on – duty and off – duty conduct and in places outside DOJ workplaces. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: It appears that the Department of Justice is trying to do its part to respond to the Me Too Movement and the wave of sexual harassment and assault allegations against men in leadership positions and positions of power The two separate initiatives put forth are small steps but i a welcome effort by the DOJ to confront sexual harassment. The current global movement seems to have now come to DOJ.
With the DOJ program that looks into sexual harassment and assault incidents in the housing arena the hope is that the highly successful reporting and awareness tools DOJ tested and utilized there (they were first implemented in pilot programs in Washington, D.C. and Western Virginia) can be used in other potential programs to combat other sexual misconduct incidents in other areas. The DOJ program helped made it easier to women to report incidents anonymously and they also emphasized ways to connect victims with resources to help them.
The DOJ hopes that its own internal sexual harassment policy can serve as a model for companies and other government agencies. It hopes the policy will demonstrate that sexual harassment and assault allegations can be investigated seriously and resolved in an even – handed and consistent manner. That had not been the case before at DOJ and other workplaces. Prior incidents at DOJ were often ignored, and even if they were investigated, the punishments meted out varied wildly (ranging from two week suspensions to merely moving the accused to a different office/unit).
Take Action:
#MeToo Movement – website of movement geared to demonstrate prevalence of sexual harassment and violence and to help victims of those incidents.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – infopage on sexual harassment and allegations in housing.
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.
Korean Peace Process Stalls
Foreign Policy Brief #41
May 16th, 2018
Summary
The peace process with North Korea nearly derailed this week as the North Korean government canceled high level talks with South Korean leaders, just hours in advance. The future of the planned summit between President Trump and Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un has also been placed in jeopardy as relations have regained hostility. History was made late last April, as South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un became the first leaders of their respective countries to cross the border since the Korean War began in the 1950s. This followed the two countries’ unified performances at the last winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea.
North Korea previously offered an olive branch, calling for the unified pursuit of the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. Stating they no longer have a need for nuclear weapons, the North Korean government invited foreign media to witness the dismantling of its main nuclear test site later this month. Three American prisoners were also released into the hands of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a recent visit. The government’s tone shifted this past week in response to several perceived slights at the hands of America and South Korea. Firstly, the US and South Korean military engaged in a number of annually held military drills on the border, an act which North Korea warned would be seen as an unnecessary provocation. Second, the Trump administration has been shifting the goalposts for what they expect of North Korea, in advance of the upcoming summit. What started as a unified goal of heading down the path of denuclearisation, beginning with the lifting of sanctions, has shifted to a more direct demand. National Security Advisor John Bolton has more recently made it clear that immediate denuclearisation is non-negotiable, and that sanction relief would come in time. Bolton has also made remarks suggesting that the Trump administration wishes to follow the “Libya model” when it comes to handling the threat of North Korea. This has alarmed North Korean leadership, who released a statement declaring that the “Precondition for denuclearisation is to put an end to the anti-DPRK hostile policy and nuclear threats and blackmail by the United States.” After being asked whether the US-North Korean summit would proceed as planned, President Trump responded “we will have to see”.
Analysis
What’s missing from much of the discussion surrounding the North Korean government is an honest analysis of their intents. Kim Jong-un’s administration, as brutal as they may be towards their own people, are not interested in conquest. They see themselves as one of the few true rogue nations in the world, somehow allowed to remain in power after the brutality of the Korean War, and want to hold onto that power for as long as possible. They have witnessed what has happened to other nations who have stood up against the United States and our allies, and have no interest in following that same path. Muammar Gaddafi agreed to surrender Libya’s nuclear weapons program in return for reduced hostility with the West, and was killed by NATO supported militias once he was disarmed. Saddam Hussein never built nuclear weapons, and was killed by the United States. North Korea has watched this happen, and has no interest in being next on the chopping block.
For this reason, negotiations need to include a certain amount of understanding for the paranoia North Korean leaders must be experiencing right now. They have been sufficiently cowed by the reckless aggression exhibited by President Trump and will mostly likely agree to a denuclearisation process if they can be convinced that we are authentically pursuing peace. Conducting military drills on their border referring to the “Libya model” will only have the opposite effect. On top of this, Trump’s decision to forgo diplomacy and break the historic peace agreement that is the Iran deal only serves to feed the fears of North Korea. The peace process will never succeed if it continued to be viewed as a military maneuver instead of a universal commitment to demilitarization.
Engagement Resources
- Learn More About the Korean Peace Movement Through Women Cross DMZ: Women Cross DMZ is a coalition of activists from around the world, including both North and South Korea, who are calling for a peaceful solution to the Korean conflict. They are organizing a protest on the DMZ later this month in partnership with the Nobel Women’s Initiative. You can learn more on their website.
- 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.
President Trump Ends US Participation in the Iran Deal
Foreign Policy Brief #40
May 15th, 2018
Summary
On May 8th, President Trump announced that sanctions would be reimposed on Iran, violating and thus jeopardizing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an integral part of the legacy of President Obama. The JCPOA, colloquially known as the Iran Deal, was formed as a solution by the US, China, France, Russia, Britain, Germany, and Iran to stem fears that Iran’s nuclear energy program could be used to build nuclear weapons. The deal, passed in 2015, removed heavy sanctions which had crushed the Iranian economy in the early 2010’s, in return for strong limits on the enrichment and stockpiling of Uranium and regular, independently conducted inspections of nuclear sites.
While Iran is widely considered to have been following the rules of the JCPOA, the Israeli government and elements within the Trump administration have insisted that the country is behaving duplicitously. President Trump considered Iran’s continued development of ballistic missiles as a violation of the spirit of the deal. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu held a press conference on April 30th claiming that Iran engaged in the development of nuclear weapons between 1999 and 2003, and never disclosed this during the formation of the JCPOA. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that wealth created under the deal “drove Iranian malign activity”
Now that the United States has withdrawn, the remaining six members of the deal are scrambling to keep it in place. British Foreign secretary Boris Johnson stated after speaking with his French counterpart that they are determined to “conserve the essence” of the deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met with Russian and Chinese officials looking to weigh their options. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced that Iran would increase Uranium enrichment if a solution was not found. President Trump has threatened to not only replace US sanctions on Iran, but also sanction “any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons”. Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton predicted that “the Europeans will see that it’s in their interests to come along with us”.
Military conflicts have sparked between Israel and Iran, potentially in response to Iran’s reduced diplomatic security. On April 9th, Israel attacked the T-4 Syrian Air Force base near Homs, Syria. Earlier this month, they struck again, this time on a cache of Iranian missiles north of Hama, Syria. On May 9th, immediately following US withdrawal from the Iran Deal, Iran launched 20 rockets towards Golan Heights, an area of Syria occupied by Israel since 1981.
Analysis
The United States has been pushing for war with Iran ever since the Islamist revolution of 1979 replaced the western-backed dictatorship of the Shah. Iran has been largely spurned internationally since, leading to a reduced access to western weapons and capital. For this reason, the nuclear program has been essential for Iran, allowing them to avoid squandering their most valuable export – oil – on their own energy needs. Elements within the US military industrial complex have used this to push for regime change at every turn, even when diplomacy is working, as it was under the JCPOA. The hypocrisy here is pervasive. The United States has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and the White House announced an increase in that arsenal this week. Israel is one of only four countries in the world to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, and is widely believed to have built nuclear weapons in secret. Also, the treaty actually requires nuclear armed states such as the US to help non-nuclear armed states such as Iran build peaceful nuclear energy programs.
It’s no coincidence that this aggressive attitude also serves the interests of our most powerful allies in the region. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel are noted rivals of Iran and have used humanitarian disasters in Syria and Yemen as proxy wars to push their influence, all with the support of the US. This contrasts with our European allies, who have made major economic investments in Iran since the raising of sanctions. French energy company Total signed a $5 billion deal for Iranian natural gas last year, and has no interest in losing that investment.
Trump’s desire to end the Iran deal seems embarrassingly rooted in his fascination with tarnishing every aspect of Obama’s legacy. He has not suggested any possible solution now that the deal is nearly destroyed. It seems that his goal is a dependable way to ensure that Iran has no way of building weapons, but that is exactly what Obama and our allies painstakingly ensured with the Iran Deal. Nevertheless, the war hawks of his administration are surely delighted that the diplomatic route is being steadily closed off. And they aren’t alone. Iranian hardliners have long pushed for a complete break of relations with the US, who they deem untrustworthy. The more moderate Iranian President Rouhani is still very popular, but he spent a large amount of political capital on the dealmaking process, and he might not be able to accomplish that a second time. Not only is breaking the deal potentially helping hand Iran to the hardliners, it jeopardizes any future deals we might make. Now the rest of the world knows that even if they spend months or years forming a treaty with the United States, it might only last until the next administration. This is not the right message to send with the North Korean summit coming up.
Engagement Resources
- Read Bernie Sander’s Op-Ed on the Danger Caused by Leaving the Iran Deal: Here is Sanders’ article, published by the Guardian last Monday. You can also watch his town hall discussion on the topic from the same day, hosted by The Intercept.
- Get Involved with Beyond the Bomb: Beyond the Bomb is an activist group looking to reduce the danger of nuclear war around the world. You can learn about the campaigns they are involved with 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.
Mike Pompeo Confirmed as Secretary of State
Brief #39, Foreign Policy
May 14th, 2018
Summary
After a year as the Director of the CIA, Mike Pompeo was confirmed by the Senate in a 57-42 vote as the new Secretary of State. While he eventually secured more votes than his predecessor Rex Tillerson, his path to the confirmation was originally not so assured.
As of mid-April, not a single Democrat or Independent on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was willing to go on the record as being in favor of his nomination. On the Republican side, Senator McCain was home battling cancer and Rand Paul had expressed opposition towards Pompeo. However, when Democratic Senators Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, and Heidi Heitkamp expressed eventual support for Pompeo, the dynamic shifted. Rand Paul’s vote was essential for the Foreign Relations Committee to support Trump’s pick. Ultimately, Senator Paul changed his mind after being assured by the President that Pompeo regarded the Iraq War was a mistake and that US troops should leave Afghanistan. Pompeo secured the endorsement of the committee and Democratic Senators Bill Nelson, Claire McCaskill, and Doug Jones joined Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp in crossing party lines to vote in favor of his confirmation.
Much of the controversy regarding the idea of Mike Pompeo operating as our nation’s top diplomat regards his positions on the War on Terror and Islam as a concept. Deviating from Tillerson’s view of the United States as a country competing with other economic rivals such as China and Russia, Pompeo seemingly views the US as a crusades-era force defending the West from Iran and “radical Islamic terror”. He has found himself adjacent to a number of groups and individuals who push the narrative that the Muslim world is attempting to subvert the entire social framework of the United States. Pompeo arranged for a Capitol Hill briefing for Act for America, a group which awarded him their National Security Eagle Award in 2016. Act for America is renowned for protesting the building of mosques, pushing for anti-Sharia law bills in state legislatures, and describing terrorism as the “purest form of Islam”. In a 2015 interview, Pompeo agreed with radio host Frank Gaffney that President Obama displayed “kind of an affinity for, if not the violent beheading and crucifixions and slaying of Christians and all that, but at least for the cause for which these guys are engaged in such activities.”
While in a 2017 confirmation hearing Pompeo backtracked on previous statements and spoke in opposition of the use of torture, he is on the record as being in support of the continued use of Guantanamo Bay as a prison camp.
Pompeo spent his time as Director of the CIA personally delivering daily intelligence briefs to President Trump, which earned him a reputation as a close confidant. While he has previously disparaged Obama for being weak on Russia, he has repeatedly falsely claimed that the intelligence community had concluded that Russian interference had no impact on the 2016 election, despite the fact that the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment stated that they “did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election”. In a confirmation hearing, he also refused to clearly state whether or not Trump had directed him to push the FBI into backing off the Russia investigation. With his willingness to serve Trump’s corrupt interests, his ruthless worldview, and his ample experience in Washington, Pompeo will be a dangerous asset for the President to extend his influence worldwide.
Engagement Resources
- Follow CREDO Action: CREDO Action is an activist organization which mobilizes support for progressive causes. Their petition asking the Senate to block Pompeo gained over 140,000 votes.
- Donate to the ACLU: The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the most renowned groups involved in defending the rights of citizens. They were steadfast in their opposition of Pompeo’s confirmation. 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.
EPA Set to Rollback Automotive Standards
Environmental Policy – Brief 30
EPA Press Release on GHG Emission Standards
Summary
Earlier this month Pruitt announced another step in Trump’s “regulatory agenda” with the plan to lessen automotive regulations on emissions and fuel economy. The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were revised in 2010 to require a minimum fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles to the gallon (double the current typical average) by model year 2025. Pruitt has promised these regulations will be replaced by a new set developed in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. These new regulations have not yet been developed. Pruitt has also noted that California specifically has unreasonable standards. Various CA politicians immediately responded that they would hold their state to higher standards and have recently taken legal action along with 17 other states.
Analysis
While the Obama Era regulations have not yet been replaced, there is the expectation that the new set of rules will drastically decrease the existing requirements. The EPA has made it clear that it views the Obama Era rules as a regulatory burden and that dispensing with the rules will allow automotive companies to produce more affordable vehicles. Before this announcement was made on April 2, 2018, the Department of Transportation announced that it would not enforce the associate fines for failing to meet the CAFE standards, unofficially nullifying the regulations. Many environmental agencies are concerned about the implications of the rollback as it pertains to global warming. In the opinion of many scientists, fuel efficiency and emissions requirements are the best way to tackle climate change. Decreased pollution and decreased oil usage on a national scale would be significant. However, Pruitt has made his loyalties very clear with his rollback announcement location: A car dealership in Northern Virginia. Meetings were held in the Oval Office with major automakers within weeks of Trump’s Inauguration about these impending rules, and the Auto Alliance stated in a regulatory filing in February that climate science cannot be fully trusted.
Engagement Resources
Read more about the lawsuit filed by California, et.al. against the EPA
Check out the NYT Graphics about Emissions
Read more about the Evaluation of the Obama Era rules by the EPA
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.
Entry 20: Michael Cohen Investigation, Trump-Mueller Interview Prospects & Giuliani’s Legal Negotiations, House Intel Final Report
Russia Investigations Blog
Entry 20: Michael Cohen Investigation, Trump-Mueller Interview Prospects & Giuliani’s Legal Negotiations, House Intel Final Report
Compiled and written by Stella Jordan (stella@usresistnews.org)
Developments in the Investigations
Important developments abound this week in the Russia investigations; things, as always, seem to be moving at a breakneck pace. Last month we learned that the FBI had conducted surprise raids on Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen’s home, office, and hotel room. Warrants for the raid were approved by a federal judge after a request from the US Attorney for the southern district of New York and a recommendation from the special counsel. The FBI apparently seized evidence mainly related to Cohen’s payoff during the campaign to adult film actress Stormy Daniels over an alleged relationship with Trump than obtaining materials related to the Russia investigation.
The President acknowledged last week that Cohen represented him in the Daniels deal, which may have violated campaign finance law. The raids could very well result in special counsel indictments for financial crimes or campaign-finance violations, putting pressure on Cohen to cooperate in the special counsel’s broader Russia investigation, much like the Manafort and Gates cases. Cohen was implicated in the Steele dossier, which alleged that he had a strong “covert relationship with Russia” and was in close contact with Russian officials during the campaign and colluded with them to undermine the Clinton campaign. These allegations have not yet been independently verified, but there has been much speculation about Cohen’s role in the Trump campaign and his communications with foreign operatives.
Cohen filed a libel suit against BuzzFeed, the first to publish the dossier, and Fusion GPS, the company that backed it, but dropped both lawsuits during the past month’s events. Cohen is also being sued by Stormy Daniels, and recently announced that he would plead the fifth in that case in order to avoid self-incrimination in his ongoing criminal case. This move likely indicates that Cohen and his attorneys are worried that the FBI and federal prosecutors could use something he says in the civil case against him in the criminal case they are building. Invoking fifth amendment rights does not necessarily imply guilt; Cohen is simply seeking to protect himself from incrimination since he does not know exactly how prosecutors will build the criminal case against him and what evidence or coercion they may try to use.
There has been much buzz in Washington over the past few weeks about whether or not Cohen will ‘flip,’ or cave under the pressure of his federal case and start cooperating with special counsel investigators. Some Trump advisers are reportedly worried about the possibility of one of the President’s closest allies flipping on him if the charges brought against Cohen are severe enough. Cohen has previously said he would “take a bullet” for Trump and “do anything to protect” him, but there has been increasing speculation about the pressure Cohen will face as investigators move ahead with his case, especially given the apparently difficult way Trump has treated his lawyer in the past. Trump himself is apparently very concerned and angry about the Cohen investigation but has said he thinks his lawyer will remain loyal, and those around him seem to be split on the destructive potential of recent developments. Cohen’s own lawyers and other White House lawyers are arguing that the raids on Cohen and subsequent document seizures constitute a violation of attorney-client privilege, as the documents taken may contain sensitive information about people Cohen had been representing. Last week Cohen and his lawyers attempted to suppress some of the seized materials from investigators through a temporary restraining order, which was denied by a federal judge who instead recommended the appointment of a ‘special master’–an independent official who would review the evidence for potential conflicts. This sparked the appointment of an ex-judge to that role, who will be tasked with deciding whether any of the evidence the FBI took in the Cohen raids contains sensitive and classified materials regarding clients. The White House, apparently trying to distance itself from Cohen of late, underscoring the point that the raids were focused on Cohen’s private business activities and had “nothing to do” with Trump, according to the President himself.
There have been some other important shakeups in the Trump legal world, centered on the recent news that Rudy Giuliani has joined the White House legal team; Giuliani, the former NYC mayor and a longtime Trump supporter, stepped into the role vacated last month by John Dowd of coordinating the White House’s legal response to the Russia investigations. Trump struggled to find lawyers willing to handle the Russia investigations, but has recently added two other attorneys to his legal team in addition to Giuliani: Jane and Marty Raskin, both former federal prosecutors. For his part, Guiliani told reporters that he had joined the team in order to “negotiate an end” to the special counsel investigation, and has been negotiating with the special counsel to arrange an interview with Trump. Giuliani reportedly met with Mueller last week to negotiate terms for a special counsel interview with the President. The special counsel is expected to release Russia investigation reports in stages, with the first focusing on obstruction of justice, and Mueller has repeatedly told Trump’s legal team that an interview is essential to concluding this first stage of the investigation. Trump was at first open to an interview, but is apparently now reluctant to speak to the special counsel.
Later in the week Giuliani did an interview with Fox News where he revealed that President Trump had reimbursed Michael Cohen from his own funds for the $130,000 paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about her affair with the President. This move apparently was a ploy to avoid Cohen or anyone else from being charged with campaign finance violations. Amazingly Trump then confirmed that he had made such a payment. However this effort was then immediately contradicted by Michael Avenatti, Stormy Daniels lawyer, Avenatt, who in an interview on MSNBC, claimed that he has evidence of conversations between Michael Cohen and Daniels former lawyer, Keith Davidson, during the months immediately preceding the 2016 election. In those conversations Cohen apparently emphasized the need for payments to be made as soon as possible. “How stupid to they think they are,” said Avenatti in the interview referring to Trump and Giuliani.
Last week, the questions that had been compiled by the special counsel in preparation for a potential interview with the President were leaked, and subsequently obtained by the New York Times. The questions mainly related to obstruction of justice, but seem overall to be open-ended and wide-ranging. These questions show how the special counsel is trying to understand how and what Trump was thinking during the major events that have marked the Russia investigation, such as the Comey firing and the news that Trump was considering firing Mueller, as well as more generally how the President views and has tried to influence the Russia investigations so far. According to the Times, the questions fall into four main categories: Flynn, Comey, Sessions, and campaign coordination with Russia. After the questions were leaked Trump denounced their publication, calling it “disgraceful.” The leak apparently did not come from the special counsel’s office; the questions had been given to the Trump legal team during the interview negotiations and the Times said someone outside of that circle had provided them. The speculation is that Mueller’s Office just gave the President’s team a series of talking points for the interview, and that a member of Trump’s legal team, Jay Sekulow, took Mueller’s talking points and turned them into questions. The President also falsely tweeted that there were no questions about collusion; in fact, some of the special counsel’s questions seemed aimed at uncovering more about Trump’s potential knowledge of campaign aides’–such as Manafort , Gates, Papadopoulos and others–communications with Russia during the campaign.
Other major developments in the Russia investigations include the embattled House Intelligence Committee’s final Russia investigation report, which was declassified and publicly released last week after a summary of the report’s findings last month. The 253-page report found no evidence of collusion during the Trump campaign, but did acknowledge Russian electoral interference, although not to the extent agreed upon by the rest of the intelligence community. The report also dwells on the intelligence community’s use of the Steele dossier and their alleged bias against Trump, which was a major flashpoint during the Committee’s investigation. No Committee Democrats endorsed the report, whose politicized conclusions they rebuked in a counter-report highlighting Republicans’ refusal to pursue relevant leads in the investigation. During the declassification process, parts of the Committee’s report were redacted by intelligence agencies; Committee Republicans say the redactions were excessive and are apparently working to declassify more of the report. Trump unsurprisingly greeted the report’s release with a triumphant tweet in which he claimed the report vindicated him of all accusations of collusion and called for an immediate end to the other Russia investigations.
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill last week to protect the special counsel from being fired. The bill had bipartisan support in the Committee, although Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate leaders said they wouldn’t bring the bill to a full Senate vote, deeming it unnecessary. Chairman Chuck Grassley co-sponsored the bill and voted with Committee Democrats, in a departure from his usual mode of proceeding slowly and cautiously in Trump and Russia investigation-related matters and generally siding with the President’s interests. Grassley and the bill’s other supporters have argued that the legislation will provide special counsel investigations – which arise from conflicts within the executive branch to begin with – more independent accountability and congressional oversight. The bill doesn’t explicitly prohibit a President from firing a special counsel, but would put in place expedited oversight and review mechanisms to ensure any executive dismissals or changes weren’t politically motivated or obstructive.
Last week a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Manafort and his lawyers which attempted to prevent any future special counsel charges being brought against the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort’s lawyers have argued that the special counsel “overstepped his authority” and appear to be challenging Mueller as a defense tactic. The judge wrote that a civil case such as a lawsuit may not be used to interfere with or influence an ongoing criminal case, which the defendant can already legally challenge through appeals. Manafort has pleaded not guilty to multiple felony financial charges, and is also trying to get a separate tax and banking-related case dismissed in a Virginia federal court.
Finally, new revelations emerged about the Russian lawyer who attended the summer 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump Jr and other top campaign officials to offer them “dirt” on Clinton, allegedly on behalf of the Russian government. Natalia Veselnitskaya, according to a New York Times report based on leaked emails, had repeatedly denied any ties to the Kremlin and initially described the meeting as a privately-driven event. The new emails reveal Veselnitskaya’s close relationship with the top Russian legal officer and other prominent Kremlin connections; after recent revelations she told reporters that she had acted as an “informant” for the Russian Prosecutor General, Yuri Chaika, since 2013. This news raises new concerns about the Trump Tower meeting: if Veselnitskaya was representing the Russian government more directly than previously thought or proven, the meeting could have more serious implications for the Trump campaign officials who attended, as well as wider-ranging obstruction of justice implications for Veselnitskaya herself.
The Trump Administration’s New Tariff’s
Brief # 12
April 12, 2018
Since the beginning of 2018, the Trump administration has been enacting a series of tariffs, on a variety of foreign products, intellectual property rights, and technology services. The tariffs reflect Trump’s efforts to follow through on a campaign promise to not let other countries take advantage of the US. He is seeking to appease his base of supporters, many of whom perceive that current trading agreements with other countries is the major reason for their unemployment. The tariff’s that Trump has enacted include the following:
On January 22 the President imposed tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines; A tariff of 30 percent will be applied to imported solar panels, most of which originate in China. Tariffs will begin at 20% on large residential washing machines.
On March 22, he imposed a 25 percent tariff on selected Chinese products that could total $60 billion dollars. The products included aeronautics, modern rail, new energy vehicles, and high tech products.
On March 25 he imposed 25 percent tariff on imported steel and 10 percent tariff on aluminum. The administration stated that tariffs on such goods from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, the European Union and South Korea were delayed until May 1. Canada and Mexico are exempt from the tariff as the US reviews its national security relationships and the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
On April 6th, after China retaliated with its own tariffs on US products, Trump announced he was considering $100 billion dollars of additional tariffs on Chinese goods.
The Chinese government, according to a CNN Report, then responded by reiterating that it doesn’t want “to fight a trade war, but we are not afraid of fighting it.” “If the United States disregards the opposition of China and the international community, and insists on unilateralist and protectionist trade practices, the Chinese side will follow through to
Analysis
By instituting these new tariff’s President Trump is threatening to overturn a decades long bi-partisan policy of free trade. This policy is predicated on the fact that national economies have become increasingly inter-dependent, and that many businesses operate by buying and selling products and services across the planet. Trump’s tariffs also threaten to unleash a trade war, as the Chinese have observed. Trade wars, usually escalate conflict between countries rather than cooperation. They result in higher prices for consumers, shrinking demand for business services and products, and increased unemployment. The last large-scale global trade war occurred in the nineteen thirties and was a factor that contributed to the Great depression and World War II.
Fortunately, the U.S. and the world learned a lesson from this experience. With the Reciprocal Trade Act of 1934 and its successors, which granted the President authority to reach tariff reduction agreements with foreign governments, U.S. trade policy came to be global and strategic.
This new approach was institutionalized at the international level with the creation of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1948 and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO), in 1995.
President Trump claims that certain countries have weakened American industries by exporting cheap products to the United States. He believes this has been going on for decades and has caused significant job losses. He takes this position because a large part of his political base are unemployed blue-collar workers.
However, international trade is one of many factors contributing to US unemployment; the larger ones being the onset of automation, the lack of an adequate unemployment safety net, and the lack of effective job education and retraining programs.
There are better ways for addressing international trade issues that don’t publically embarrass nations and force them into an escalating trade war. These include behind the scenes country-to-country diplomatic negotiations or working through the WTO that was established to deal with trade disputes between countries.
It is true that there remain many injustices in the world trading system. Until recently most free trade agreements failed to take into account workers’ rights and labor and environmental standards. It is also true that the WTO is still a young organization that needs strengthening. However, these are problems that skilled diplomats and trade negotiators can address.
There is increasing concern that President Trump’s tariffs will likely impose a heavier burden on lower income households as these households generally spend more on traded goods as a share of expenditure/income.
Engagement Resources
VoxEU.org – CEPR’s policy portal was set up in June 2007 to promote research-based policy analysis and commentary by leading economists.
https://voxeu.org/columns/archive
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)-The CFR is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens to understand foreign policy
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) – The CEPR was established to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect working people’s lives.
ThinkProgress is a news site dedicated to providing their readers with rigorous reporting and analysis from a progressive perspective.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions.
This Brief was compiled by Ron Israel, U.S. RESIST NEEWS Managing Editor and Bruce Boccardy