JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

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

Latest Jobs Posts

 

The Administration Efforts to Avoid a Judicial Ruling

On April 9, 2025 the House of Representatives voted on the No Rogue Rulings Act bill. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). H.R. 1526 would prohibit a federal district court judge from issuing an injunction or prohibition regarding a case unless the injunction or prohibition only applied to the parties of the particular case before the district judge’s court. The bill passed the House by a vote of 219 – 213 in favor of the bill, almost exclusively on party lines. One Republican voted against the bill, Rep. Mike Turner from Ohio.

read more

Understanding What the U.S. Department of Education Did

The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, promotes student achievement, ensures equal access to education, and enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, it manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs for low-income students, and special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It also oversees civil rights compliance in educational institutions.

read more

United States v. South Africa: US Executive Order 14204

The current US administration has altered South Africa’s trajectory as a nation. On 7 February 2025,  President Trump signed Executive Order 14204 titled, “Addressing Egregious Actions of The Republic of South Africa”. It outlines two reasons for its existence, first that South Africa’s Expropriation Act (2024) dismantles “equal opportunity” and fuels “disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners”. Secondly, the Order states  that South Africa’s condemnation of Israel to the International Court of Justice,  “poses national security threats to the US.” The provisions of the order also set two major policies that will reverberate across the international community. One is an immediate cut to United States aid to South Africa, second is the promotion of resettling Afrikaners, Dutch-descended South Africans, in the United States as refugees from racial discrimination.  

read more

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

Ecuador President Daniel Noboa has been declared winner of the country’s presidential election, over Luisa González, a protégé of Ecuador’s left-wing former President Rafael Correa. Gonzalez offered an alternative model for security based on what her party described as “prevention, violence reduction and coexistence”.

read more

Strategies for the Democrats for the Democrats to Push Back

Since last year’s election, in which Republicans gained control of all three branches of government, the Democrats have seemed somewhat lost and unable to develop a pushback strategy to counter the new administrations policies. The Op Ed team at USRESIST NEWS has the following suggestions to help the Democratic party get its act together.

read more

MAGA Against College: A Fight for America’s Minds

It is no secret that the past two months of Trump’s second term have rattled both American and international societies to their core. Racing out of the gates, the administration has enacted executive orders and taken initial action against those who stand against its policy agenda; these actions are illegal and fundamentally violate the Constitution.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814
Legal Battles: The Quiet Yet Powerful Resistance of the State Attorneys General

Legal Battles: The Quiet Yet Powerful Resistance of the State Attorneys General

Legal Battles: The Quiet Yet Powerful Resistance of the State Attorneys General

Elections & Politics #176 | By: Morgan Davidson | March 21, 2025

Featured Photo: Quotidiano

On Saturday, March 15, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a rarely used wartime power last exercised during World War II, to detain individuals from an “enemy nation” solely based on their country of origin, without trial. The next day, March 16, Trump ordered the deportation of 238 alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuela to El Salvador.

Federal Judge James Boasberg intervened, placing a hold on both the deportations and the administration’s invocation of wartime powers. The Trump administration, however, defied the court order, citing legal technicalities. Escalating the confrontation, Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment, prompting a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow Republican, who criticized the president’s attempt to undermine judicial independence. This defiance is part of a broader and increasingly troubling pattern of Trump minimizing or outright disregarding judicial checks on executive power.

In his inaugural address, where he foreshadowed invoking the AEA, Trump also proposed repealing naturalized citizenship, a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment. This immediately sparked a legal firestorm, with state attorneys general (AGs) leading the AGs to file lawsuits to challenge the administration in court. These AGs have been at the forefront of legal battles against the Trump administration on various issues, including mass federal layoffs (DOGE dismissals), dismantling the Department of Education, environmental policy rollbacks, and efforts to undermine democratic norms and judicial independence. Examples of the resistance of the AGs are provide below.

Analysis

In early 2025, the Trump administration dismissed thousands of federal probationary employees to shrink the federal workforce. This mass firing prompted 20 state attorneys general, led by Maryland AG Anthony Brown, to sue the administration, arguing that the firings violated federal laws requiring proper procedures and advance notice. The lawsuit also highlighted the economic and social disruptions, particularly in states with a high concentration of federal employees.

A similar coalition of 20 AGs, led by New York AG Letitia James, challenged the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. This move included firing half of the agency’s workforce. The lawsuit argued that gutting federal education funding would disproportionately harm students with special needs and low-income families while also asserting that the administration lacked the legal authority to dismantle or disrupt the department’s core functions without congressional approval.

In January 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced a freeze on $3 trillion in federal funding, pending a review to ensure compliance with recent executive orders. This action prompted 23 state AGs to file a lawsuit, arguing that the freeze would disrupt essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The lawsuit contended that the move lacked proper legal authority and would threaten the well-being of millions of Americans dependent on federal programs.

State AGs have also challenged the administration’s handling of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk. In February 2025, 19 AGs sued the administration, alleging that DOGE had been granted unauthorized access to the Treasury Department’s central payment system—potentially compromising the sensitive financial information of millions of Americans. The lawsuit sought to prevent unauthorized disclosures and protect citizens’ privacy.

Meanwhile, Democratic AGs have been vocal about concerns over Trump’s broader attempts to weaken the judiciary and undermine democratic institutions. Arizona AG Kris Mayes has publicly condemned what she views as executive overreach, stressing the need for checks and balances to prevent federal overreach.

The legal resistance spearheaded by state attorneys general has become one of the most effective tools in challenging the Trump administration. These lawsuits uphold the rule of law and constitutional protections and ensure that federal policies align with statutory provisions and democratic principles.

As the Trump administration continues aggressively restructuring federal agencies and policies, state AGs have emerged as critical defenders of institutional integrity and state interests. Whether these legal battles will successfully curb executive overreach remains to be seen. Still, one thing is certain: the courts have become the new frontline in the fight for American democracy.

What remains uncertain is the administration’s willingness to abide by court rulings, as top officials and allies openly challenge judicial authority. Vice President J.D. Vance has urged defiance of the courts: “When the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say: ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’” Elon Musk has framed judicial oversight as an existential threat to democracy, declaring, “If ANY judge ANYWHERE can block EVERY Presidential order EVERYWHERE, we do NOT have democracy, we have TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY.” Trump’s Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, has taken it a step further, arguing, “Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch. Or to nullify the results of a national election.” Meanwhile, Trump himself has fueled tensions with attacks on the judiciary, labeling judges and prosecutors “corrupt Democrats” and even calling for the impeachment of judges who rule against him. These statements and actions point to a growing hostility toward judicial checks on executive power, raising serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to the rule of law.

Engagement Resources

Musk’s Outrageous Conflicts of Interest

Musk’s Outrageous Conflicts of Interest

Musk’s Outrageous Conflicts of Interest

Elections & Politics #177 | By: Mindy Spatt | March 20, 2025

Distaste for Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is fueling protests at Tesla showrooms, a boycott of the company’s cars, and a rapidly deteriorating stock price.  But Musk can easily make up the losses from the federal government he is gleefully gutting.  Musk is poised to continue making billions from federal subsidies and contracts despite the obvious ethical problems.

Analysis

As Elon Musk slashes public programs, threatens social security, and preens and prances at Trump’s side, public outrage grows.  Tesla’s stock is plummeting, and protests at Tesla showrooms are escalating in number and intensity. In San Francisco, a few hundred protestors who converged at the Tesla showroom appeared to have the support of most of the pedestrians passing by, who gave them a thumbs-up, and the cars and trucks driving by honked their approval.  Even at Tesla’s hometown headquarters in Palo Alto, protesters marching to the building on “buy nothing” day in February were encouraged by much of the traffic going by with honks of support.

In some cases, Tesla cars have been targeted; three Tesla vehicles at a Dedham, Massachusetts, Tesla dealership were vandalized and defaced with spray paint.

More than a dozen shots were fired at a Tesla dealership in Tigard, Oregon, the second such incident at that location in one week, causing damage to cars and store windows.  The protests have spread overseas as well 20 Teslas in Belfast had their wing mirrors knocked off, windows smashed, or bodywork dented.

Many Tesla owners have had their cars vandalized, prompting some to put bumper stickers on them disavowing Musk.  Trump has taken notice of the protests and losses and filmed a commercial in front of the white house on his billionaire buddy’s behalf, extolling the virtues of Tesla.  His affection doesn’t stop there.  Attorney General and Trump loyalist Pam Bondi said she is opening an investigation into instances of vandalism at Tesla dealerships just days after President Donald Trump threatened that protesters would go through “hell” and be considered “domestic terrorists.”

Trump needn’t worry about Elon, who remains the richest man in the world and likely to get richer.  In his new job as head of DOGE, he can continue to rake in billions of dollars from the federal government even as he slashes the workforce, foreign aid, veteran benefits, school lunches, and anything else he can get his greedy little hands on.  According to the Washington Post, Musk’s companies have already received $38 Billion in government support, including  NASA’s investment of $15 Billion in SpaceX and $11 Billion in electric car subsidies for Tesla.

SpaceX has benefitted from more than $17 billion in federal contracts since 2015 and was selected a year ago to build a vehicle to bring the International Space Station out of its orbit in 2030 — a deal that could be worth as much as $843 million.

Starlink, the satellite internet service Musk owns already had contracts with several government agencies and was recently installed in the White House- for free, according to Musk.  Other federal agencies are also looking into switching to Starklink; apparently, the Internet budget is one thing that won’t be on the chopping block.  Musk’s efforts to move the Federal Aviation Agency to Starlink prompted a complaint to the Department of Transportation Inspector General alleging criminal conflicts of interest by the Campaign Legal Center.

“The scope of what Elon Musk stands to gain from directing agency reconstruction cannot be fully stated,” says the Center.  “His companies Tesla and SpaceX account for at least $15.4 billion in government contracts over the past decade and span multiple agencies.  Any power to influence which agencies must cut costs or how government contracts are doled out opens the door for Musk to enhance his personal fortune.”

Engagement Resources

The Ripple Effect: DOGE’s Workforce Reduction and Its Impact on Federal Agencies

The Ripple Effect: DOGE’s Workforce Reduction and Its Impact on Federal Agencies

The Ripple Effect: DOGE’s Workforce Reduction and Its Impact on Federal Agencies

Elections & Politics #178 | By: Inijah Quadri | March 21, 2025

Featured Photo: CNN

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established under the Trump administration and led by Elon Musk, has embarked on an ambitious mission to streamline federal operations by significantly reducing the workforce across various agencies. This initiative aims to cut $1 trillion from the federal budget during the 2025-2026 fiscal year, primarily through substantial layoffs and restructuring efforts. While proponents argue that these measures are necessary to eliminate inefficiencies and reduce government spending, critics warn of potential disruptions to essential public services and the erosion of institutional knowledge within federal agencies.

Analysis

The workforce reductions initiated by DOGE have been both rapid and expansive, affecting numerous federal agencies. For instance, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may experience a 20% reduction in its workforce, primarily affecting enforcement roles. This downsizing has led to the cessation of large-scale audits and unresolved tax cases, potentially undermining tax compliance and increasing the federal deficit. Similarly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) saw a large number of its staff terminated, impacting essential servicessuch as weather forecasting and environmental monitoring. Notably, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory announced an “indefinite hiatus” due to staff shortages, raising concerns about the management of invasive species and water quality in the Great Lakes region. Furthermore, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plans to cut up to 50% of its employees and is likely to close several of its field offices. These reductions could severely impact services amid a national homelessness crisis, affecting policy development, community planning, and fair housing initiatives.

According to public reporting, Elon Musk’s approach to workforce reductions (notably seen during his tenure at Twitter) sometimes follows a data-driven or algorithmic model. This can entail targeting a specified percentage of the workforce for layoffs, with an emphasis on cutting costs swiftly rather than conducting extended, role-specific reviews. Such methods, commonly employed by some Silicon Valley executives and venture capitalists, carry the risk of indiscriminately eliminating critical institutional knowledge and specialized roles essential for maintaining government operations. As expected, being led by Elon, the methodology employed by DOGE follows the same pattern, and it has raised a number of legal and ethical questions.

One notable instance of the impact on critical services involves the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Multiple employees reportedly lost email access before learning they had been terminated, creating confusion in an agency responsible for safeguarding the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. Such abrupt dismissals, had it not been reverted (after a lot of likely-panicked-scrambling by the team that fired them), would have greatly disrupted ongoing projects related to nuclear security, reducing the capacity to manage urgent safety protocols and maintain readiness for nuclear threat deterrence. Additionally, the focus on eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives has been criticized as ideologically driven rather than a genuine effort to reduce waste.

The broader implications of these workforce reductions are profound. The loss of experienced personnel threatens the continuity and effectiveness of essential public services, from education and environmental protection to tax enforcement and national security. Moreover, the rapid implementation of these cuts without comprehensive impact assessments may lead to unforeseen consequences, including increased unemployment, reduced public trust in government institutions, and long-term economic ramifications.

To mitigate the adverse effects of these workforce reductions, it is essential to implement a more measured approach that includes comprehensive impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, and phased implementation plans. This strategy would ensure that cost-cutting measures do not compromise the effectiveness of essential public services or erode public trust in government institutions.

Food for Thought

DOGE’s official website claims significant cost savings through measures like asset sales, contract cancellations, and workforce reductions. However, these claims have faced scrutiny for inaccuracies, including overestimations and double-counting savings. The “Savings/Wall of Receipts” section, intended to provide transparency, has been criticized for inconsistencies and errors. These issues raise questions about the reliability of DOGE’s reported achievements and the potential for unintended consequences stemming from its aggressive cost-cutting strategies.

Engagement Resources

Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available

Partnership for Public Service (https://ourpublicservice.org/): A nonprofit organization dedicated to making the federal government more effective by promoting civil service excellence and innovation.

National Academy of Public Administration (https://napawash.org/): An independent, nonpartisan organization that provides expert advice to government leaders on critical management challenges.

American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) (https://www.afge.org/): The largest federal employee union, representing federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas.

Project on Government Oversight (POGO) (https://www.pogo.org/): A nonpartisan independent watchdog that investigates and exposes waste, corruption, and abuse of power in the federal government.

Center for American Progress (https://www.americanprogress.org/): An independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas.

These resources offer valuable insights and support for understanding and navigating the challenges posed by the recent workforce reductions in federal agencies.

Our Values

Our Values

Dear President Trump,

Last month we wrote wishing you well on your 2nd term in Office. This month we write to express concern about the negative tone your administration has put forward in many of it  policies and pronouncements. We’d like to remind you of the values that are most important for a President to preserve when he or she serves as the custodian of our democracy. These values include the following:

Transparency: A commitment to sharing the reasoning, thinking, and information that goes into your decision-making process. In the first few weeks of your administration, we have found such transparency lacking. For example, what has Elon Musk’s DOGE team actually done? What data of ours do they have? What do they intend to do with it? Why can’t we know this?

Accountability: Too often it is unclear to us who in your administration is responsible for making decisions, and what happens if they get their decisions wrong. For example, who is accountable for your firing of government workers in different agencies? What if the workers who were fired were responsible for rendering services essential to protecting our lives?  What happens to those services? Who is responsible for determining whether these workers were unjustly terminated. 

Humility: At least occasionally Mr. President we would like to see you express some humility for the Office you hold and the decisions you make. As you know being President comes with a great deal of authority, power and responsibility. We understand your need to exert the authority of your office from time to time; but please don’t let muscle-flexing get out of hand. Always remember, acknowledge and be grateful to the citizens of your country that you serve.

Morality: While people may vary somewhat in their interpretations of current events, most of us have an inherent sense of what’s right and wrong. We feel a need to do good and combat evil. Sometimes Mr. President your moral stance is unclear to us. Your speeches often are laced with hate aimed at others. Please try and restrain yourself in the use of this kind of language; be more compassionate and do the right thing.

Avoid Retribution:  Don’t take everything personally. We understand and appreciate the fact that you feel you’ve been wronged; that “the system” as you perceive it, has worked against you. It may be difficult for you to do but as President you need to let it go. It is not the job of the President to bring his or her personal vendettas with them to the job. You are President of all the people now; not just those who voted for you but those who voted against you and  those who oppose your policies. Your job is to look for ways that can unite us and bring us together.

Be Independent from Outside Influence: You must realize that people will seek to court favor with you just because you are the President and in a seat of power.

Please stand guard against the temptation to do political favors for those who try to buy seats at your table. In your first administration there were accusations that your businesses profited from deals that were made because those that made them wanted to be in the good graces of  the President and his colleague. Please try and avoid a repeat of this kind of behavior.

Choose Country Over Party: While it is natural for you to enact policies that exclusively support the position of you and your party, don’t always have this be the rule. There are issues crucial to our security and quality of life that need bi-partisan support to succeed. In those instances, people look to you to lead the way by enlisting the support of leaders from the opposing party as well as your own.

Commit to Democracy and Rule of Law:  Our country is based on a democratic system and the rule of law. This system is framed by our Constitution and our legal network. It is possible to ignore democracy, the rule of law, and even the Constitution once you are in power; and we have noticed that your administration sometimes leans in that direction. But we implore you not to go too far. You may not think rules and traditions matter as much as the policies you want to get done; but they matter greatly to most of our citizens and for those who come after us. So please show some respect the political legacy that you’ve inherited.

We hope you will take these suggestions in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.

Best Regards

The US RESIST NEWS OP ED TEAM

The Impact on Public Safety When Trump Tries to Downsize the Government

The Impact on Public Safety When Trump Tries to Downsize the Government

Election & Politics #175 | By: Naja Barnes | March 20, 2025

Featured Photo: CDC

On February 11th, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the federal workforce and to reduce the size of the government and federal spending. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is executing that mission, echoing the need to regulate government spending and amplify government efficiency. Recently Musks’s actions to summarily layoff federal workers have been successfully challenged in the courts. In all probability the Trump administration will appeal some of the court decisions; so it remains to be seen whether or not Trump’s downsizing of the federal workforce will succeed.

 The downsizing of the United States government has resulted in thousands of federal employees being laid off, bought out, and pressured into quitting. That reality highlights the contradiction of DOGE’s mission to increase government efficiency. The massive firings of critical departments in government directly threaten government proficiency, potentially hindering its efficiency due to the lack of people needed for certain departments to succeed in their missions and duties.

That predicament poses a question: What will suffer from Trump’s mission to downsize the government?

Among the federal employees who were fired were those who worked for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A common thread among these departments is their mission to protect public safety, which could be threatened by DOGE’s plan to downsize the United States government.

Analysis

The Department of the Interior

Around February 14th, 2025, the government firings began affecting the Department of the Interior, which protects and manages the natural resources and cultural heritage of the United States. Thousands of National Park Service staff were also fired, such as Park Rangers, who work to protect and preserve public lands, state parks, and monuments. Their general duties include greeting visitors, providing guided tours, maintaining the parks, ensuring that visitors are following the law, and protecting the wildlife. Park Rangers’ duties are necessary in ensuring the public’s safety, and their absence may be felt and negatively impact the wildlife, the environment, and the humans they serve.

When someone is lost, hurt, or unable to get to safety, Park Rangers are trained to be first responders in an Emergency. They often lead rescue missions, provide medical assistance, and call for help. Park Rangers also ensure public safety by monitoring the wildlife in the area, tracking animal movements, and educating visitors on the area and potential dangers posed by wildlife.

Park Rangers ensure the safety of wildlife by protecting them from poachers and reckless visitors. Their upkeep of the parks positively affects the wildlife by ensuring that their habitats are habitable.

Some Park Rangers are trained to handle firefighting in instances of wildfires. They also work with local communities to promote conservation efforts, replanting native vegetation and removing harmful and evasive species.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is responsible for addressing housing needs, improving communities, and enforcing fair housing laws through community development. In January 2024, HUD reported that approximately 770,000 people experienced houselessness. That number is presumed to increase due to the massive government firings and downsizing. DOGE plans to reduce HUD’s staffing by half, which will affect local nonprofits’ ability to receive funding to provide housing, rental assistance, and health access to communities that need it.

With the lack of funding and manpower needed to provide homes and resources for the unhoused, public safety issues may increase. The threat that houselessness poses to public safety is the increased vulnerability of unhoused people to violence and criminalization.

Those who are unhoused are increasingly exposed to harm and violence due to the lack of access to safe and secure shelter. Acts of violence against unhoused people are thought to be motivated by the perpetrator’s bias of the unhoused community and how houselessness is discussed in society. This violence could be exacerbated by the criminalization of houselessness, which punishes those who participate in activities in public, such as sleeping, eating, and asking for money. Those actions could bring criminal penalties to those unhoused, such as jail time, fines, and arrests, which only cause more harm and obstacles for those in need of shelter.

In conclusion, downsizing the United States Government may decrease government spending but increase other issues, such as threats to public safety. It may also affect the government’s ability to do its job efficiently, conflicting with DOGE’s mission to increase government efficiency.

Engagement Resources

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

The Week That Was: Global News in Review

Foreign Policy #194 | By: Abran C | March 14, 2025

Featured Photo by Getty Images

__________________________________

US added to international watchlist for rapid decline in freedoms

ib1

March Watchlist 2025 The new CIVICUS Monitor Watchlist highlights serious concerns regarding the exercise of civic freedoms https://monitor.civicus.org/watchlist-march-2025/

The United States in early March was added to the CIVICUS Monitor Human Rights Watchlist. CIVICUS is a global research organization that studies and publishes the status of freedoms and threats to civil liberties in various countries around the world each year. CIVICUS has pointed to Trump’s erratic use of executive orders, mass firings of federal workers, dismantling of foreign aid programs, antagonism of journalists and efforts to tamp down pro-Palestinian protests as just some of the reasons for the change in the United States status.

The US has been classified as “narrowed” the “narrowed” label is CIVICUS’ assessment that while most people are still able to exercise their rights of expression, free speech, and assembly, there are ongoing and concerning attempts to violate these rights by the government. CIVICUS co-Secretary General Mandeep Tiwana stated that “Restrictive executive orders, unjustifiable institutional cutbacks, and intimidation tactics through threatening pronouncements by senior officials in the administration are creating an atmosphere to chill democratic dissent, a cherished American ideal”. The White House in response has rejected CIVICUS’ assessment, with Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly stating “This is nonsense: President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history”. 

Ukraine accepts US backed ceasefire deal but Russia is on the fence

ib2

US and Ukraine officials sit together at peace talks hosted in Saudi Arabia. Getty Images

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced this week that Ukraine has accepted the 30-day ceasefire deal after peace talks with the United States in Saudi Arabia. Washington has in turn lifted its pause on military aid and intelligence sharing with Kyiv. The ceasefire proposal is only eight paragraphs long, with meagre details beyond the desire to rapidly press ahead and does not mention any security guarantees to Ukraine. It does include the promise of both sides to exchange prisoners of war, the release of civilian detainees, and the return of forcibly transferred Ukrainian children to Russia.

Russian President Putin says he accepts the deal in principle but calls for more details before it is finalized.

Former Philippine President under arrest

ib3

Duterte speaking at a rally on Sunday. Two days later, he was arrested at an airport in Manila. Vernon Yuen/AP

Former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has been placed in the custody of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Netherlands following his arrest in Manila earlier this week. His arrest comes after his time as president where he oversaw a years-long anti-drugs crackdown that left thousands of Filipino citizens dead in its wake. The ICC confirmed it had issued an arrest warrant for Duterte on charges of the crime of murder as a crime against humanity, for actions it alleges were committed between November 1, 2011 and March 16, 2019.

Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC in 2019, a move condemned by critics as an effort to shield himself from accountability. But under the ICC’s withdrawal mechanism, the court keeps jurisdiction over crimes committed during the membership period of a state, which in this case, is between 2016, when his term started, and 2019 when he pulled the Philippines out. Duterte is still supported politically within the country. His daughter Sara Duterte, who is the country’s vice president, has condemned her fathers arrest.

Violence against Alawites in Syria

ib4

A Syrian man walks past burnt out cars in Jableh town, south of Latakia, following a spate of violence between Syrian security forces and armed groups loyal to deposed president Bashar al-Assad in Syria’s coastal region [Moawia Atrash/Picture Alliance via Getty Images]

More than 1,000 people have been killed in two days of clashes between security forces linked to Syria’s new government and fighters from Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite sect in the country’s coastal region. The Alawite community is the second-largest religious group in Syria after Sunni Muslims. The recent clashes began after coordinated attacks by gunmen loyal to the Assad regime killed over 200 members of the new government’s security forces. In response, government forces along with aligned armed groups carried out reprisal attacks in Alawite villages throughout the region killing hundreds of civilians. Syria’s interim President Ahmed Sharaa said the deadly violence is a threat to his mission to unite the country and announced the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate the violations against civilians and find those responsible for them.

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

The Pettiness of President Trump Targeting Law Firms For Revenge

The Pettiness of President Trump Targeting Law Firms For Revenge

The Pettiness of President Trump Targeting Law Firms For Revenge

Civil Rights Policy #238 | By: Rodney Maggay | March 12, 2025

Featured Photo by EPA

__________________________________

On February 25, 2025 President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending the security clearances of lawyers and staff at the Washington, D.C. law office of the international law firm Covington & Burling. The firm had provided legal services to former Special Prosecutor Jack Smith.

Jack Smith had been appointed by former Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Donald Trump for a range of activities after he left the White House in 2021. Mr. Smith eventually brought two criminal cases against Mr. Trump. The first criminal case was centered around charges of election interference by Mr. Trump regarding the 2020 presidential election that Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. The other criminal case centered around charges that Mr. Trump impermissibly hoarded top secret government documents after he left office. These two cases were set to go to trial but faced numerous legal delays. After Mr. Trump won the 2024 presidential election, Jack Smith reluctantly dismissed the two criminal cases against Mr. Trump because of the Department of Justice (DOJ) policy that forbids the prosecution of a sitting president. This comes on the heels of Mr. Trump making a number of threats and promises of retribution should he win the presidential election. Mr. Trump’s executive order is not aimed at Jack Smith himself but only at the lawyers and their staff who agreed to represent Mr. Smith because of the threats of retribution that came from Mr. Trump and his allies.

Additionally on March 6th, 2025, President Trump canceled federal clearances for specific members of the law firm Perkins Coie, LLP (Perkins Coie) because of connections to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Trump’s order also ordered any and all federal agencies that have existing federal contracts with Perkins Coie to immediately cancel those contracts. Trump’s order also criticized the firm’s diversity hiring practices and a number of reasons that have often been characterized as unfounded conspiracy theories.

Analysis

The orders signed by President Trump do not specifically go after Jack Smith or Hillary Clinton. The orders are directed at those at the law firm who have a connection to Mr. Smith and Mrs. Clinton due to the legal services they provided to both persons. This is a very dangerous legal road for the President to go down.

The reason why the President’s actions are troubling is because the orders are punishing a law firm and their staff for actions that are perfectly legal. Jack Smith and Hillary Clinton were provided legal services by Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie, respectively, which Smith and Clinton are entitled to and which the law firms are permitted to provide. The only reason why President Trump is now targeting the law firms and their staff is because of the President’s desire for revenge against Jack Smith and Hillary Clinton. The President is angry that he was charged with crimes in two criminal cases by Jack Smith and the President has had a long running animosity against Mrs. Clinton.

But the interesting part of Mr. Trump’s orders are that they are targeting the lawyers and staff of the law firm even though the firms did not provide any legal services connected to the criminal prosecutions of Mr. Trump. The law firm Covington & Burling has stated in a statement that they represent Jack Smith in his “personal, individual capacity” and that they only agreed to represent Smith “when it became apparent that he would become subject of a government investigation.” What this means is that President Trump is not revoking the security clearances based on any work that may have been done by Covington & Burling regarding the criminal cases Jack Smith brought against the President because it is clear that they did not participate in the investigation at all. The revocation of the security clearances is only being done because the law firm decided to represent Jack Smith after Trump’s rhetoric of retribution against his perceived political enemies. It is an element of guilt by association and nothing more. Jack Smith could very well have chosen another law firm or lawyer to represent him and Trump would have still focused his revenge on whatever legal counsel Mr. Smith would have chosen. By revoking security clearances, Mr. Trump is trying to shame the firm and possibly prevent other non – Trump related federal work contracts from being awarded to the law firm, similar to his order to cancel federal contracts with Perkins Coie simply because they represented Mrs. Clinton in the past. Quite simply, the orders are small and petty moves currently undertaken by the man sitting in the Oval Office.

Furthermore, Trump’s actions may very well have a chilling effect. If lawyers and law firms perceive that there is a great risk to providing legal services to Jack Smith or Hillary Clinton, some attorneys and law firms might think twice about representing those persons. They might not want to risk their financial well – being (loss of business opportunities or contracts with the federal government) or reputation because of the pettiness of the President. Law firms might simply decide to stay away from representing Smith or Clinton for now. And this also leads to what might happen with Smith and Clinton on a personal level. If law firms are wary about representing Mr. Smith and Mrs. Clinton, then what options are available for them to secure legal representation? They might certainly need legal counsel for non – Trump related activities in the future. Should they be shut out from competent legal representation because of a law firm’s fear at being associated with either Mr. Smith or Mrs. Clinton?

In the U.S., everyone is entitled to legal representation. Even murderers and other undesirables are entitled to competent legal representation. But the way President Trump has crafted his orders, it appears that he wants to scare anyone and everyone off from assisting with Mr. Smith and Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Trump does not need to do this but it appears his desire for petty revenge is more important to him than being the leader and unifier that this country needs right now. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

  • The Independent – a quick history of Trump’s attacks on law firms dating to the 2016 election.

  • MSN – former GOP chair criticizes Trump for revenge antics against law firms.

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

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

Utah, Fluoride, and the Public Water System Panic

Utah, Fluoride, and the Public Water System Panic

Utah, Fluoride, and the Public Water System Panic

Health & Gender Policy #180 | By: Nate Iglehart | March 12, 2025

Featured Photo: FOOD & WINE / GETTY IMAGES

__________________________________

Science is ever-evolving. When new information comes out, it is protocol to test it rigorously and check every assumption along the way. But what happens when the public takes a single new data point as gospel?

In the last few years, there has been a sharp increase in skepticism about the health effects of putting fluoride in public drinking water. Fluoride, a natural mineral, helps to prevent tooth decay by strengthening and rebuilding weakened tooth enamel. It was introduced into public water systems in the U.S. in 1945, and by 2020  72.7% of the U.S. population on a community water source were3 receiving fluopridated water..

For as long as it’s been in water systems, there have been studies on its effects, with the vast majority finding it beneficial to include.

But Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s new Secretary of Health and Human Services, has led the latest charge against water fluoridation. In a social media post before Trump took office, RFK Jr. said “the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water.” His concerns include higher risks for cancer and lower cognitive function in children, amongst a host of other health issues.

Americans are increasingly uneasy about fluoride, some are beginning to weigh the health benefits far lighter than the fear of perceived unknown effects. Utah has taken the lead, with a bill heading for Governor Spencer Cox’s desk that would make the state the first to ban fluoride in public water.

Analysis

There are myriad studies on the health effects of water fluoridation. On the cancer front, in 2011 California found that “fluoride and its salts have not been clearly shown to cause cancer.” The Dana Farber Cancer Institute also says that “overwhelming research shows that there is no reason to believe that fluoride, when used in an approved manner, causes any disease, including cancer,” while the National Cancer Institute concurs.

The worries about cognitive functioning in children, however, stem from a recent study by the National Toxicology Program that found higher levels of fluoride exposure (more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter) associated with lower IQ in children. This appears to have helped motivate a September 25th decision by a federal judge in California ordering the EPA to strengthen regulations for fluoride in drinking water.

Both of these have asterisks. The study explicitly states that “there was insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ” and also found no evidence of adverse effects on adult cognition. In the judge’s case, he stressed he was not concluding with certainty that fluoridated water endangered public health.

It should be noted that there is evidence that fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L are known to increase health risks such as bone fractures, thyroid disease, and nervous system damage. But that concentration is over double of both what is optimal for preventing tooth decay and what the vast majority of water systems have, at 0.7 mg/L.

All of these uncertainties have given momentum for RFK Jr. and the Trump administration to crack down on water fluoridation. However, the decision about if a water system receives fluoride is up to state and local governments, as the federal government can only make recommendations. But the EPA can set and regulate the maximum level of fluoridation in water systems, which could provide an avenue for the Trump-appointed head of the agency, Lee Zeldin, to affect local policy.

Utah’s bill would be the most sweeping fluoride legislation to be passed if it’s signed; but it wouldn’t be the first place to ban fluoride. Lakeland, Florida, on March 3 unanimously voted to stop adding fluoride to its drinking water, and joins a growing list of over 170 American communities that have ended the practice since 2010.

Despite the long and safe history of fluoride’s use in drinking water, it seems that water fluoridation is having a similar moment to vaccinations. A new data point has emerged, casting doubt on the safety of the practice. But that new point is just one drop in an ocean of evidence supporting the usage of fluoride in water systems.

Engagement Resources

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

A World Without USAID: Deadly Impact

A World Without USAID: Deadly Impact

A World Without USAID: Deadly Impact

Foreign Policy #193 | By: Damian DeSola | February 28, 2025

Featured Photo by Kent Nishimura/Reuters

__________________________________

Trump’s closing down of USAID (and his pausing of foreign assistance) is having a devastating effect on humanity. Across the world, millions who once had access to lifesaving materials and funds are now in a state of panic and danger. Diseases including TB, HIV, and malaria are expected to skyrocket, and those who are already infected are no longer receiving the care they need. Hunger is sweeping across the globe as expected food deliveries do not arrive. Crisis zones are in dire shape, as the aid necessary for stabilizing them has vanished. But at least, Elon Musk is ‘saving’ us money, right?

One major slash to funding was to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). This program works to provide prenatal, postnatal, and sexual healthcare to women and girls across the world. It holds the goal of ending child marriage, female genital mutilation, preventable maternal death, and other gender-based violence, by 2030. The cuts to its funding make that goal and the daily functions of UNFPA impossible to carry out, leaving the women and girls of 150 nations without life-saving interventions.

In Africa, rates of disease that USAID’s funding fought are dramatically rising. For example, across South Africa, the USAID funded programs that provided HIV treatment have shutdown. South Africa has the world’s largest number of people living with HIV, around 8 million. One study estimates that the loss of one USAID-funded program, PEPFAR, will singly result in 601,000 HIV deaths and 565,000 new HIV infections in South Africa alone over ten years. Furthermore, UNAIDS, which also lost USAID funding, reports that if funding is not restored, a growth of 8.7 million HIV-infected persons and a tenfold increase of AIDS related deaths, 6.3 million, is expected.

Broadly, much of humanity is losing access to life saving food and nutritional care. With the freeze to foreign aid, 500,000 tons of food are now left rotting in storehouses as millions go hungry. In Sudan, the pause closed more than 1,100 communal kitchens, leaving nearly 2 million Sudanese struggling to survive. Furthermore, the Famine Early Warning System Network, which could use a variety of scientific and political data to detect potential famines, is now offline.

The State Department attempted to exempt emergency food aid and other lifesaving programs in a waiver. However, since no one understood what this exactly means, and the usual channels of USAID application cut off, the attempt for damage mitigation is fruitless. Perhaps the federal government should have considered the massive number of illness and death before freezing lifesaving aid.

What was covered above is a small piece of the massive damage that the dismantling of USAID and the pause on foreign aid has done to the world. This was not to mention the cholera, TB, and malaria outbreaks happening across the world that would have been prevented by USAID. Or the hospitals in Haiti that no longer have the support they need to give proper care to rape victims under the country’s gang rule. There is no doubt that these policies have been deadly and damaging to humanity.

Analysis

There are several explanations for Trump’s draconian foreign aid policies. The first, and most distasteful, is that the administration cares little about what happens to poor people in developing countries; or about America’s historical commitment, as the leader of the free world, to helping those countries remain stable.

Secondly it should be noted that the Trump/Musk team singled out USAID as the first agency they chose to cut because of the small base of resident support for foreign aid. The foreign assistance community is relatively small, compared to the support communities for fields like veterans’ affairs and education where we are likely to see greater citizen pushback. There is also existing support for reducing foreign aid, with around 51% of Americans prefer reductions in economic assistance and only 33% interested in keeping it the same.

The closing of USAID also is illegal. It is Congress, not the White House, that has the power to open and close federal agencies. In the case of the closure of USAID Congress was not consulted, nor have they voiced disapproval of Trump’s actions. The inaction of Congress in the face of this illegal action will lend confidence to the Trump administration for further actions that violate and stretch the law.

No one is pretending anymore. The current administration is demonstrating that caring about developing countries is considered weak and soft. However, we do see some hope. On March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled to unfreeze the $2 billion in foreign aid that Donald Trump halted. While binding, Trump has promised to ignore Court orders, and this could be the start of a Constitutional crisis if Trump attempts to do so. However, if the government works as it is meant to, the released State Department funds can reach the people that need it. The order demands only that existing contracts must be fulfilled and does not approve any future funding, leaving little time for recipients to find new sources of funding support.

 

Engagement Resources

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

Elon Musk’s Government Influence and Political Dynamics

Elon Musk’s Government Influence and Political Dynamics

Elon Musk’s Government Influence and Political Dynamics

Elections & Politics Policy #174 (Part Two of a Two-Part Series) | By: Inijah Quadri | February 28, 2025

Featured Photo by Andrew Leyden / ZUMA Press Wire

__________________________________

This is the second of two briefs examining Elon Musk’s extensive role in government and politics, including his actions under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and his close ties to the Trump administration. Recent reports indicate that Musk had used his personal wealth to finance President Donald Trump’s campaigns while also threatening to fund challengers against those who fail to support Trump’s platform. Critics question whether this practice makes politicians indebted to Musk, an arrangement some regard as an extreme extension of the Citizens United ruling on campaign contributions.

Musk’s access to citizen data through the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Department, and the Social Security Administration has generated further concerns. Although DOGE was formed to “make government more efficient,” federal officials have not disclosed why Musk should hold such extensive data or how he intends to manage it. Skeptics note that there appear to be no publicly available metrics defining the efficiency gains Musk frequently touts, making it difficult to assess whether his approach has improved government operations or simply bypassed existing processes.

A related consideration involves workforce reductions attributed to DOGE’s cost-cutting measures. Observers warn that job losses in key sectors—such as the National Park Service, the Education Department, and medical research—may undermine essential government services and initiatives. Coupled with Musk’s stated goal of “expanding human consciousness,” there is ongoing debate about how his philosophical ambitions align with the realities of federal governance and the broader public interest.

Analysis

Elon Musk’s political influence has drawn scrutiny from multiple angles. His generous financial support for Trump, including the prospect of backing opponents of politicians who do not align with the administration, raises questions about possible obligations owed to him. Media commentators argue that these arrangements highlight the ongoing debate around Citizens United, since large-scale private funding may confer disproportionate influence on policy decisions.

The Department of Government Efficiency, under Musk’s guidance, has reportedly acquired access to federal databases from agencies overseeing taxes, public records, and social benefits. While the stated rationale is increasing efficiency, details remain opaque. Officials within DOGE have not explained what benchmarks or methodologies govern progress. This leaves open the question of whether “efficiency” simply means budget cuts, automation, or other, more sweeping reorganizations that could bypass the usual legislative or regulatory checks.

Reports of layoffs within the federal workforce shed further light on DOGE’s activities. National Park rangers, scientific researchers, and employees in public health programs have voiced concerns about the capacity of their agencies to deliver essential services. Critics point to the ripple effects of these staffing changes, particularly in areas like environmental conservation and medical research, where reduced manpower may delay or derail key projects.

Musk’s concept of expanding human consciousness appears throughout his ventures, from space travel to artificial intelligence. He regularly promotes this vision to justify his unorthodox decisions. Yet the practical implications remain unclear when it comes to integrating spiritual or existential pursuits into large-scale federal policy. In this respect, Musk’s philosophical goals may blend uneasily with administrative realities.

Engagement Resources

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

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

Pin It on Pinterest