JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump’s Remain in Mexico Policy
Brief #66—Immigration
By Kathryn Baron
Trump’s European Foreign Policy
Brief #59—Foreign Policy
By Colin Shanley
Remington Arms Under Fire After Recent Supreme Court Ruling
Brief #17—Gun Control
By Sarah Baron
Trump Administration Proposal To Use Social Media To Confirm Disabilities
Brief #80—Civil Rights
By Rod A. Maggey
On August 14, 1935 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act which initiated the program in the United States.
Trump Declares National Emergency, Yet Signs a Compromise Bill
Brief #64—Immigration
By Kathryn Baront
Earlier this month, the members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees passed a new spending bill that addressed 7 spending bills that had expired during the government’s recent shutdown. The bill is very hefty at 1,100 pages, but received an 82-16 vote to pass it.
EPA Finally Vows to Regulate Cancer Causing Toxins
Brief #53—Health
By Taylor J Smith
After persistent national outcry, the EPA has announced it will regulate a group of long-lasting chemicals, called polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which have been linked to reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects.
Recent News From JP Morgan Chase Could Mean Changes for Private Prison Industry
Brief #36—Economics
By Samuel C. O’Brient
Private prisons have existed in the U.S. for years but under Trump, the stocks of two publicly traded companies, CoreCivic (NYSE: CXW) and GEO Group (NYSE: GEO) that make up the industry have surged.
Gen. Waldhauser:” Climate Change Is Threat to Global Stability”
Brief #57—Enviroment Policy Summary Climate change poses an immediate risk to international stability, General Waldhauser (Commander, AFRICOM) told the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday. He cited research done by the Red Cross, which found that the effects of...
Teacher’s Strikes March On: Success in Oakland
Brief #33—Education Policy Summary Oakland teachers are returning to their classrooms, this week, after a week-long strike. After a year of contract negotiations, this Sunday school officials and teacher’s unions were finally able to come to an agreement. Although...
Third Federal Judge Upholds DACA
Brief #50 Immigration
Policy Summary
On Wednesday, April 25, Judge John D. Bates became the third federal judge to uphold the DACA program, dealing a blow to Trump’s hard-lined anti-immigration policies, calling the administration’s decision to terminate the program capricious. In his decision, Judge Bates cited that the move to end DACA was unlawful because no rationale was provided in ending the program. Judge Bates gave the Department of Homeland Security 90 days to come up with a reason or reasons as to why DACA should be made illegal, otherwise the program will stand and DHS will be forced to accept and process DACA renewal applications.
Analysis
Once again, DACA recipients and immigration advocates can take a sigh of relief that federal judges are upholding the legality and necessity of the program, enabling Dreamers to remain in America as they continue to go to school, work, raise their families, and generally speaking, live their lives. Judge Bates was explicit in his demands for DHS to come up with a sound argument as to why DACA should be illegal, slapping a three-month timeframe on the demand, creating a sense of urgency for DHS, and in doing so became an advocate for Dreamers all over the country. However, Dreamers, their families, and advocates alike are going to have to monitor DHS over the next three months to act and react to how the administration may attempt to undermine DACA, and in doing so, threaten Dreamers and the American Dream, once again.
Engagement Resources
Support Here to Stay: Here to Stay is a campaign run by United We Dream aimed at defending DACA. The organization hosts local Defend DACA rallies and other events, holds community calls, and provides resources for understanding DACA, as well as mental health resources for anyone who is affected by Trump’s decision to end DACA.
Take Action with the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending immigrants with low income. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came here in search of a better life. You can help NILC advance its mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
Show Your Solidarity with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: ILRC is a national nonprofit resource center that provides immigration legal trainings, technical assistance, and educational materials, as well as engages in advocacy and immigrant civic engagement to advance immigrant rights. You can show your solidarity with ILRC by making a contribution to the center or attending a virtual or in-person ILRC training.
US, UK, and France Attack Syrian Chemical Sites
Foreign Policy Brief #38
April 21st, 2018
Summary
Just before dawn on April 14th, The United States, United Kingdom, and France launched a joint missile attack against two Syrian chemical weapon storage facilities and one research center. The strike was described by the western governments as a retaliation for a chemical attack against a rebel held Damascus suburb, Douma, on April 7th. The White House and its allies have identified the Syrian government and its sponsor, Russia, as culpable for the chemical attack, which reportedly has killed 70 people. Both Russia and Syria have denied responsibility, with Russian state media claiming that the attack itself was staged by pro-opposition actors. US officials were apparently not completely certain of the culprit and thus launched a more restrained attack than what was available to them. After being delayed by Russian military police, a team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons finally reached Douma and are awaiting results on evidence divulged from the site.
This series of events comes almost exactly a year after a nearly identical exchange, although this time the US fired over twice as many missiles and are leaving the door open for further actions. At this time the Pentagon has stated that they are not aware of any civilian casualties and the Syrian government has stated that three civilians were injured. The Pentagon also stated that the attack was a complete success, with every missile hitting its target, while Russia and Syria have contested that the majority of missiles were intercepted. The attack, which President Putin called “an act of aggression” was not certified by Congress as the Constitution requires. General Mattis reportedly attempted to push for congressional approval prior to striking, but was turned down by Trump who hoped to back up his previously tweeted threats.
Analysis
The joint strike was not described by the aggressors as an attempt to influence the civil war which has raged for seven brutal years, but rather to draw a red line with regards to the use of chemical weapons. Multiple Israeli officials have complained that the strike does not meet this goal, and that Assad remains equally able to commit further chemical attacks. As The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald recently argued, the US’s support of a number of regimes which use chemical weapons strongly undermines the suggestion that the attack is intended to send a humanitarian message.
The Trump administration has not been clear about their plan for Syria, and have wavered considerably throughout the past year on the fate of Assad. The American military apparatus is noticeably less eager for regime change as they were in the lead up to the Iraq war. At this point the possibility of deposing Assad is far less likely than it seemed in the early years of the war as Russia has continued to support him, his forces have won considerable territory, and the rebels have proven themselves to not be the champions of democracy and secular freedom that the west hoped for. While General Mattis declared the attack a “one-time shot”, Trump announced that our military is “prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents”. The most likely explanation for our government’s plans for Syria is that they are pushing neither for regime change nor the eventual victory of Assad’s forces. A rebel victory could lead to the quandary of a power vacuum, as we saw in Iraq and Libya after American intervention. An Assad victory would allow for regained stability for a Russian and Iranian ally. As long as Syrian is a drain on resources for Russia and Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia are protected and our government’s interests in the Middle East are advanced.
Engagement Resources
- Support the Answer Coalition: The Answer Coalition was founded just after 9/11 as an opposition to the developing imperialist ambitions of the Bush administration. They have maintained that struggle through the years, and have been involved with anti-war protests in response to the Trump administration’s recent actions in Syria. You can donate on their website.
- Orient Yourself to the Basics of the War in Syria: This video, produced by Vox, is an introductory explanation of the actors involved in the Syrian war and its progression of events.
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.
UPDATED:Scott Pruitt Under Investigation by Congress for Excess Spending, Secret Emails and Ethics Controversy
Environmental Policy – Brief 29
Letters from Congress Requesting Documentation for Investigation and Letter on Overdue Documents
Press Release from Oversight Committee Sent April 11, 2018
Update May 21, 2018
In late April, Scott Pruitt had a hearing on Capitol Hill regarding his various ethical controversies. Over the course of the two sessions, Pruitt did admit that he knew about the raises for two of his aides but little else, primarily placing blame on EPA aides and staff. In his opening statement, Pruitt claimed that many of the accusations were either exaggerations or completely fabricated. A former aide has already told news outlets that Pruitt lied to Congress during these hearings. The response to Pruitt’s time on the Hill have been mixed, primarily along party lines. White House aides are prompting Trump to fire Pruitt and various Democrats are calling for his resignation. However, Republican members of Congress are aware that Pruitt is their best chance to pass legislation regarding environmental regulation. And so he stays.
Since the hearings, new potential ethics violations have come to lights, including meetings with the Heritage Foundation, plans to stage public debates, hiring additional private council, and another trip paid for by lobbyists. The EPA has attempted to keep records and documents from Congress, and emails have been discovered detailing EPA staff attempts to shield Pruitt from scrutiny and explain the necessity of his high security costs. Pruitt has continued to work on various rollbacks of Obama era legislation.
Summary
In letters sent to President Trump and the EPA Secretary Pruitt, the Oversight Committee of U.S. Congress requested documents from Secretary Pruitt as they investigate the myriad of controversies that have arisen around the EPA’s lead administrator. Pruitt is currently past the given deadline to produce the documents, and the deadline has been extended to April 25, 2018. Another letter was written to Kevin Minoli, EPA’s Chief Ethics Officer, from the Office of Government Ethics asking him to participate in the investigations. The Government Accountability Office and the EPA’s Inspector General are also taking a look at records and requesting explanations. There have been rumblings of misconduct for quite a while, but these accusations nowballed once an aide came forward. The former aide, Kevin Chmielewski, was put on leave after questioning the Secretary’s spending habits. In addition to the extreme travel spending, Pruitt is under investigation by ethics committees for a discounted condo purchase from a lobbyist and the use of multiple undisclosed email addresses. Despite calls for his resignation and his 29 percent approval rating, many Republicans and businessman supported Pruitt and his position, especially in light of the moderate that would most likely take his place.
Analysis
Spending: Most of Pruitt’s spending controversies revolve around his travel, security detail and bonuses for special hires. Citing death threats, Pruitt has booked exclusively first class travel and more exorbitant hotel accommodations than those recommended by the State Department for international travel. Some of these destinations were based on personal travel rather than business, and Pruitt took many unjustified trips to his home state of Oklahoma. Republican lawmakers have since disregarded Pruitt’s death threat reasoning for his extreme spending on travel and security.
Ethics: Pruitt has also approved extreme bonuses for loyal employees that were rejected by oversight committees, including a long-time lobbyist for the chemical industry. A coal lobbyist was just confirmed as his number two and an oil tycoon ran his re-election campaign. Pruitt has gotten a long-term deal on a bedroom in a D.C. condo on a per-night basis from a health care lobbyist, although her husband has pending business with the EPA.
Emails: In another letter, the EPA’s Inspector General, Arthur Elkins, was asked to look into Pruitt’s three email accounts to make sure proper records were maintained. There is concern that Pruitt uses these additional email addresses to spread false information and conduct undocumented business.
Engagement Resource
Read the full letters regarding the investigations into Pruitt: To Trump and Pruitt, To Elkins, To Minoli
Keep Track of the Pruitt Investigations on the Oversight Committee’s Website
This brief was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact megan@usresistnews.org.
Bipartisan Strategy to Attack Opioid Crisis Mirrors Federal HIV/AIDS Policies
Brief # 34 Health Policy
Policy Summary:
Senators Marco Rubio, Elizabeth Warren, Susan Collins, and Maggie Hassan have released a bipartisan bill, Hospice Safe Drug Disposal Act, to encourage the disposal of unused opioids by home hospice care providers. This would ultimately aim to reduce the amount of opioids in circulation. Typically, hospice providers aren’t allowed to assist with the disposal of opioids after their use in care of patients, and frequently these opioid medications are given to families and left unused and vulnerable to abuse. This is relevant because about 70% of people who have an opioid addiction report that they first got them from a relative or someone who was prescribed them. The senators have worked together to hopefully curb the opioid crisis by tackling one of the root sources of the addiction problem.
Analysis:
This strategy is an interesting parallel to the HIV/AIDS response from the federal government. Similar to the HIV syringe services program under the Federal Response, the Hospice Safe Drug Disposal Act, aims to stop the spread of opioids through a legislative change in medical policy. Warren has said before that she supports increasing the level of funding for the opioid crisis to match or even exceed what HIV/AIDS crisis has received through PEPFAR. While the omnibus spending package contains $4.6 billion to fight the opioid crisis, experts say that it isn’t enough and Warren repeated this claim after mentioning the she has modeled some of her other legislative approaches after HIV/AIDS legislation. This could be an indicator of more such strategies because the recently appointed Director of the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Robert Redfeld Jr., is a prominent AIDS researcher. He has been criticized because of his positions on abstinence only AIDS prevention, but seems to be quickly changing his approach as head of the CDC. He has also discussed his ideas for prevention in the opioid crisis as part of his priorities for heading into office.
Engagement Resources:
NLC Opioid Action Report -Learn more about the National League of Counties and Cities report on community engagement and action for leaders on combating the opioid crisis.
As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns.
This Brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this Brief please contact sophia.lorene30@gmail.com .
Facebook & Cambridge Analytica Scandals, New Russia Sanctions, Mueller & Manafort Updates
Entry 19: Facebook & Cambridge Analytica Scandals, New Russia Sanctions, Mueller & Manafort Updates
Compiled and written by Stella Jordan (stella@usresistnews.org)
Summary of New Developments
With each week seeming to bring ever more drama to the White House and Russia investigations, recent news has brought no respite. The past two weeks have been dominated by the emerging controversy surrounding the data firm Cambridge Analytica and the Facebook user data it may have taken advantage of during the 2016 election; the new sanctions imposed by the Trump administration against Russian oligarchs and their companies; and many noteworthy moves by the special counsel, including the first sentencing in the Russia investigation: that of a Dutch attorney connected to Paul Manafort and Rick Gates who pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators. Manafort’s own case has also seen some new developments, as the former Trump campaign manager explores mounting a legal defense based on FBI misconduct and alleged bias. The Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing with Department of Homeland Security and state election officials and is releasing a report on systemic electoral vulnerabilities that hostile foreign actors may try to exploit ahead of the 2018 midterms. More on all of this, and more, below.
DoJ & Special Counsel
One of the most surprising developments in the special counsel investigation over the past two weeks has been the sentencing of Alex van der Zwaan, the Manafort/Ukranian-connected Dutch lawyer. Van der Zwaan was sentenced to 30 days in prison and fined 20,000 for lying to the FBI, in the special counsel grand jury’s first sentencing. He had previously pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with Rick Gates and an unnamed person connected to Russian intelligence, whom many have speculated also plays a role in the Manafort and Gates indictments. However, it is not clear whether van der Zwaan’s case is in any way related to the election or the Trump campaign specifically. Within the broader Russia investigation, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where this development fits. My best guess, purely speculatively, is that details about this case came from Rick Gates, Manafort’s partner, who is currently cooperating with the special counsel and may be providing Mueller with names and details of other people involved in the criminal activities–specifically those related to Russia–for which Gates and Manafort were charged.
Last week, news emerged of a classified memo that Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein sent to Mueller last summer, authorizing the special counsel to investiate allegations of collusion between Manafort and Russian officials to coordinate electoral interference. More broadly, the DoJ had authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s financial ties to Ukranian politicians, which is ultimately one of the major components of Manafort’s indictment. Although the charges against Manafort have not so far related to the election or Trump campaign, it is interesting that the DoJ saw merit in initially investigating collusion with Russians as well; it may be that Mueller found no evidence of such collusion, or that he has another path in mind for digging into that issue. Manafort, for his part, has been arguing that the special counsel overstepped its authority in his indictment, and has mounted a civil suit against the special counsel and DoJ to get his charges dropped on the grounds that they are unfair and potentially biased. Mueller recently filed an argument not to dismiss Manafort’s case, indicating that he intends to continue investigating communications and financial connections between Manafort and Russian or pro-Russian politicians and officials, both before and during the campaign, that may have resulted in collusion or other illegal behavior during the campaign.
Aside from his civil suit, Manafort is also fighting the special counsel on document evidence seized from him by the FBI. Last May, FBI agents working with the special counsel entered a storage unit owned by Manafort’s company to gather documents and other evidence. This week, Manafort’s lawyers filed a motion alleging that the unit was entered illegally without a warrant or proper consent, and that the warrant the FBI subsequently obtained to take evidence from the unit was overly general and violated Manafort’s rights; the motion calls for the evidence from the storage unit to be suppressed in court. We do not know the specifics of the evidence in question, but if the FBI obtained a warrant to seize it, it would probably have contributed to Manafort’s prosecution.
More broadly, Manafort’s legal team is reportedly debating how much to use FBI misconduct and political bias as a defense in his case. Making a solid case of federal investigative misconduct, overreach or bias could also help make a credible case for a presidential pardon, which Manafort may be angling for. However, basing his defense on an offensive against the DoJ would bring even more politicization and partisanship to his trial, and it could be risky for Manafort to question the credibility of the special counsel and prosecution before a grand jury. This is probably a risk Manafort is willing to take, given the possibility of executive intervention and the already tumultuous situation faced by the FBI and DoJ as their integrity has repeatedly come under attack over the past year. Indeed, last week the New York Times reported that recently-resigned Trump lawyer John Dowd had discussed the possibility of presidential pardons for Manafort and Flynn with their lawyers last year. The President’s legal team was reportedly worried about what information such high-level witnesses as Flynn and Manafort might give the special counsel. Mueller at the time was building cases against the two, so the possibility of pardons may have been meant to influence their cooperation or compliance in the special counsel investigation. It isn’t clear whether Dowd’s discussion of pardons constitutes obstruction of justice in Mueller’s investigation; pardons are a president’s constitutional mandate and are very hard to challenge, but the prospect of a pardon being used to influence a target’s cooperation in an investigation seems improper. It is also unclear whether Trump knew about Dowd’s discussions, although the President had reportedly asked his legal team about pardons for high-level campaign and administration officials before. Dowd and other White House lawyers denied any discussions of pardons.
Since Dowd’s resignation, Trump has been hard-pressed to find a replacement to handle the response to the Russia investigations on his legal team. Over the past two weeks many reports have indicated that the President’s offers to multiple high-profile attorneys have been turned down, including lawyers Joseph DiGenova and Victoria Toensing, who were originally reported to have been joining the team but later backed out, as well as former US attorney Dan Webb, who declined an offer to manage the White House response to the special counsel. Given the President’s reputation for refusing to follow legal advice, chafing at perceived critiques, and fostering a sense of chaos among his staff, Trump has had mounting difficulty finding a reputable and qualified attorney to represent him in the increasingly complex Russia probe.
Trump is very much still a subject of the special counsel investigation, according to recent reports: Mueller reportedly told White House attorneys that Trump is still under investigation, but is not currently a criminal target. This means that the President’s conduct is still being investigated, but investigators lack sufficient evidence to bring charges at this point. Trump reportedly viewed Mueller’s distinction as a sort of exoneration and is apparently open to an interview with the special counsel, against the counsel of his legal team. A subject of an investigation can very easily become a target, especially through their own testimony, which could incriminate them if they lied or misrepresented themselves under oath, as it is not hard to imagine Trump doing. Mueller has underscored the need to interview Trump before his probe concludes, and this issue was at the heart of the debate that prompted Dowd’s resignation, amidst arguments with other members of the legal team who thought Trump should give an interview given his vehement denial of any collusion or crime, and his condemnation of the Russia investigation itself. Mueller also reportedly told the White House legal team that the special counsel is creating a report about possible obstruction of justice and other issues during Trump’s presidency; the special counsel apparently plans to release reports on the Russia investigation’s findings in stages, with obstruction as the theme of the first report. Mueller first reports conclusions to Rosenstein, who directly oversees the special counsel investigation, and ultimately decides what should be publicly released.
The special counsel has been directing attention to Russian oligarchs of late: multiple Russian businessmen and government allies traveling into the US have been stopped and questioned–or searched–by FBI investigators, according to recent reports. Mueller’s team appears to be looking for financial ties to the Trump campaign, and potential illegal Russian-based campaign donations. This special counsel attention coincides with the recent Treasury Department sanctions, a large part of which focus directly on Russian oligarchs. This new set of sanctions–the most significant American sanctions against Russia in years–target 7 Russian individuals and 12 related companies, notably focused on close Putin allies and ultra-powerful businessmen, including Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch with former ties to Manafort. These sanctions, according to the Treasury, are in response to multiple Russian activities, including the occupation of Crimea and violence in Ukraine; support of Assad in Syria; and attempts to undermine western democracies, including cyberattacks and social manipulation in the 2016 US Presidential election. The language in the sanctions also explicitly highlights Russian corruption, and a system that consolidates power and money in the hands of a small circle of Putin insiders. These sanctions, more than past measures, are expected to discourage domestic and international financial and business interactions with the individuals and companies involved.
In other DoJ news, the office of the Inspector General recently published a press release announcing the commencement of their internal review of DoJ and FBI conduct and compliance regarding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrants and the use of confidential sources. Presumably, the review will look specifically at some of the issues surrounding last month’s controversial House Intelligence Committee memo, which blamed the FBI for improperly seeking and obtaining a FISC warrant to surveil Trump campaign aide Carter Page with intelligence partially gathered from the Steele dossier. More broadly, the DoJ IG is conducting a wide-ranging review of the Department’s management of the early stages of the Russia investigation, upon which much Congressional and Presidential attention has been focused over the past few months as high-profile firings and resignations have brought increased scrutiny and politicization to the Department’s leadership and processes. Apropos DoJ leadership, Deputy AG Rosenstein has picked a new deputy to assist in the oversight of the special counsel Russia investigation. Former federal prosecutor and DoJ national security and counterterrorism official Ed O’Callaghan will become Rosenstein’s Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, a top post which entails working closely with Rosenstein on investigative oversight. The former official occupying that position, Robert Hur, left last month for a post as US attorney of Maryland.
House Intelligence Committee
Although their Russia investigation has officially concluded, the House Intelligence Committee has remained active in related affairs. At the beginning of the month Committee Chairman Devin Nunes sent a letter to the DoJ and FBI, demanding that they provide him the original FBI document summarizing the rationale for beginning the Russia investigation. Nunes asked that the document be provided by April 11, and has repeatedly threatened Rosenstein and FBI Director Wray with legal action if they fail to comply. Nunes also reportedly asked for 4 classified FISC applications related to the warrant on Carter Page, ostensibly to bolster the claims in his contentious memo. So far, Wray and Rosenstein have apparently not given Nunes any documents, and it’s not clear what–if any–legal action he would actually be able to take against them, especially with the closure of his investigation and without the support of the full House Intelligence Committee.
Senate Intelligence Committee
The Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing at the beginning of the month to discuss election security, focused on Russian attacks on electoral infrastructure in 2016, the federal response to those attacks, and the mitigation of future vulnerabilities. The Committee heard from the Department of Homeland Security as well as state election officials, many of whom highlighted the need for increased state and federal cooperation and communication in elections. The hearing underscored concerns about the upcoming midterm elections, as many states have not significantly improved their voting systems since 2016, when Russian hackers were able to breach systems in 21 states. Among the Homeland Security officials at the hearing were Kristjen Nielsen, the DHS Secretary, and former Secretary Jeh Johnson, who testified about weaknesses in current state voting systems that could still be exploited by cyberattacks, and also discussed weaknesses in communication between state election officials and the federal government, which failed to act promptly in providing information, security and resources to states whose systems had been compromised in 2016. Nielsen and Johnson also highlighted the particular vulnerability of swing states, which have disproportionate control over electoral outcomes, and are therefore larger targets for hostile state attacks. The Senate Intelligence Committee released a shortlist of recommendations following the hearing, ahead of a classified report on election vulnerabilities which is currently under review by federal intelligence agencies. The Committee called for states to secure their voting infrastructure with paper ballot machines and more secure databases, with additional funding and resources being provided by the federal government for security and threat monitoring. The recommendations backed up previous intelligence community recommendations to states regarding elections, but also urged the federal government and the White House to take a firm stand against election interference and to allocate additional resources, including information, to state officials. Congress appears poised to approve almost 700 million dollars in aid to states to secure voting infrastructure before the midterms.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has also been investigating Facebook and the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal, which has again thrown the social media giant into the spotlight for its role in the 2016 election. Last week Facebook deleted hundreds of accounts associated with or controlled by the Internet Research Agency, a Russian propaganda firm that was indicted last month by the special counsel for its role in the proliferation of divisive misinformation on social media during the 2016 election. Most of the content the company removed was in Russian and was apparently aimed at influencing Russian and European users, in ways similar to those the IRA employed to influence US users during the election. Facebook also outlined a plan to make political ad purchases–and data about ad influence–more publicly transparent before the midterms. This week Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before joint Senate Committees, addressing both Russian activity and influence on the platform and data privacy concerns sparked by the recent news that data from around 87 million Facebook users–according to a recently expanded estimate by Facebook–may have been illegally or improperly shared with the data firm Cambridge Analytica in 2016. Cambridge Analytica, which was founded by Steve Bannon and Stephen Mercer, a powerful Republican donor, used Facebook information to run big data analytics and create ‘psychographic profiles’ of users in order to target ads and potentially manipulative information during the election. Zuckerberg admitted that in the past decade Facebook has not adequately protected users’ data, and has allowed third parties such as apps and advertisers to use data without users’ knowledge or consent.
For its part, Cambridge Analytica has built its reputation around elections, advising political campaigns around the world using data analytics to profile and target voters and ultimately influence outcomes, sometimes also employing clandestine methods. The head of the firm, Alexander Nix, offered an undercover reporter from Britain’s Channel 4 news posing as a political client to set up rival politicians using bribery or entrapment. Other Cambridge Analytica officials were caught on tape bragging about their heavy involvement in the chaotic Kenyan presidential elections last year. The company is facing similar scrutiny in the UK, where Parliament held hearings earlier in the month to discuss Russian social media interference in the Brexit referendum and Cambridge Analytica’s potential use of Facebook user data to influence public opinion. In the US, the firm was working on behalf of the Trump campaign in 2016, but has denied any improper use of Facebook data, claiming they didn’t use psychographic profiling or personality models to target ads, only data that Facebook and other companies made available to all advertisers. It was later revealed that Cambridge Analytica had at one point been in possession of Facebook user data that violated Facebook policies, but later deleted it and claimed it was never used in their Trump campaign work. The prospect of Facebook data being used by the Trump campaign without users’ knowledge or consent is a heavy one, compounding the morass already created by Russian misinformation on social media. This issue will probably remain central to the Russia investigations in the coming months, as the company meets with Congressional Committees and the special counsel to explain its actions during the election.
Senate Judiciary Committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee, whose Russia investigation has been stalled for the past few months by a reluctant Chairman Grassley and other Republican members, has been active in recent weeks with a few Russia-related matters. Last week former Trump adviser and close ally Roger Stone agreed to hand over documents to the Committee. Stone said the request, which originally came from ranking member Diane Feinstein last fall, was ‘absurd,’ but nonetheless complied. The Committee is reportedly interested in Stone’s communications with WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange–who apparently worked with Russians in 2016 to release stolen DNC and Clinton emails during the election–as well as other Russian officials and Trump campaign members. Stone has long been a somewhat enigmatic subject of the Russia investigations, due to his closeness to Trump and alleged ties to Assange, as well as his proximity to an increasing number of other witnesses. He will likely remain in investigators’ spotlights.
The Judiciary Committee was also involved in the recent Facebook drama, hearing testimony this week from Zuckerberg in a joint hearing with the Senate Commerce Committee, where Senators probed the issues of Russian fake news and political interference, as well as data privacy. The Facebook hearing precipitated an unusually bipartisan movement in Congress to discuss regulations and necessary changes to Facebook and other companies occupying the inscrutable world of social media, as it becomes increasingly clear how easily misinformation can spread on such platforms, undermining political debate and aggravating social issues. iIlustrative of this point is the ease with which Facebook allowed user data to spread to other more nefarious operators in the past, and how easily companies like Cambride Analytica can further twist political and social narratives by using that data to target voters in specific ways for the benefit of specific political figures.
Trump Announces Quotas for Immigration Judges
Brief #46 Immigration
Policy Summary
On Monday, April 2, the Justice Department announced that it will be instating quotas for immigration judges to fill in order to process cases faster. Immigration judges will be expected to clear a minimum of 700 cases per year in order to keep their jobs. Of these 700 some cases, judges can only refer 15% or less of cases to higher courts, which typically prolongs the process of deportation in the event that an immigrant is to be removed from the country. On top of these measures, judges will be penalized if they schedule cases too far apart from one another.
These new measures are part of Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ promise to tighten immigration enforcement and clear a backlog of 600,000 pending cases at the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EIOR). Director of EOIR James McHenry said the quota will “encourage efficient and effective case management while preserving immigration judge discretion and due process.”
Analysis
The first concern raised by the implementation of quotas is a judge’s ability to remain impartial during court cases. Judges worry that due process will be violated if they are rushing through cases merely to receive a ‘satisfactory’ on an annual review. Justice is undermined when judges are pressured to meet metrics backed by anti-immigrant sentiments, which is precisely what Attorney General Sessions has championed as the country’s chief law enforcement officer and throughout his decades-long career in the Senate.
Equally concerning, immigrant judges and advocates alike feel that the implementation of the quota was created solely to rush the deportation of all immigrants going through Immigration Court, regardless of what circumstances brought them to the United States and what they’ve contributed to the fabric of the country’s economy and culture since arriving in the US.
It won’t be surprising if immigration judges pushback on this new measure given the legal implications and complications that could arise from instating quotas, but for now the implementation stands.
Engagement Resources
Support the National Immigrant Justice Center: Immigrant Justice protects human rights and provides access to justice for all immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. A project of the Heartland Alliance, a Chicago-based nonprofit working in the areas of health, housing, and human care, Immigrant Justice champions the human rights of immigrants through providing quality, low-cost legal services, improving the immigrant legal system simultaneously. Learn how you can help advance Immigrant Justice’s work here.
Show Your Solidarity with The New Americans Campaign: The New Americans Campaign is a national, nonpartisan network of immigrant organizations, legal service providers, faith-based organizations, faith-based organizations, immigrant rights groups, foundations, and community leaders. A project by the Immigration Legal Resource Center, the campaign is committed to connecting lawful permanent residents to trusted legal assistance. Click here to support the campaign.
Stay Informed with the National Association of Immigrant Judges: NAIJ is a voluntary organization of the United States Immigration Judges. The mission of NAIJ is to promote independence and enhance the professionalism, dignity, and efficiency of Immigrant Courts. To stay up-to-date on all things related to Immigration Court news, check out to the NAIJ news page.
Student Organizers Take Control of the Gun Control Debate: National Student Walkout and the March for Our Lives
Brief # 3 Gun Control
Summary
On February 14, 2018 a gunman shot and killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSD) in Parkland, Florida. According to CNN, within the first 12 weeks of 2018 there have been an average of 1.4 school shootings a week, which comes out to 17 school shootings where someone has been hurt or killed. Since the shooting on February 14, students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School have launched the #neveragain movement. The group of around twenty students from MSD was initially founded by Cameron Kasky, Alex Wind and Sofie Whitney the day after the shooting, they were later joined by fellow students Alfonso Calderon, Sarah Chadwick, Jaclyn Corin, Emma González, and David Hogg among others.
Analysis
The #neveragain movement organized by MSD students has featured two major events in the past few weeks. A month after the shooting in Parkland, the MSD students started a global initiative: the National Student Walkout. At 10 a.m. on March 14, students across the country walked out of school for 17 minutes to honor those who lost their lives during the school shooting. Walkouts happened in elementary, middle and high schools throughout the country including in Columbine, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut. Kaylee Tyner, a student at Columbine High School who participated in the walkout, told the New York Times, “We have grown up watching more tragedies occur and continuously asking: Why?” While some schools and administrations were supportive of the walkout, there were also schools that told students if they walked out they would be facing disciplinary action. According to Youth EMPOWER, the youth branch of the Women’s March, over 3,000 walkouts took place around the country with over 1 million students participating.
The students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas also organized the March for Our Lives, a national movement on March 24, 2018. The march, originally organized for D.C., had over 800 sister marches planned worldwide. Their demands:
- Fund gun violence research
- Eliminate restrictions on the ATF
- Universal background checks
- High-capacity magazine ban
- Limit firing power on the streets
Politicians were not asked to speak at the marches, rather they were student organized and led. In D.C. MSD student, Emma Gonzalez had a particularly powerful impact on the crowd, standing on stage for 6 minutes and 20 seconds, the majority of the time in silence. She said, “Six minutes and about 20 seconds. In a little over 6 minutes, 17 of our friends were taken from us, 15 were injured and everyone in the Douglas community was forever altered. Everyone who was there understands. Everyone who has been touched by the cold grip of gun violence understands. For us, long, tearful, chaotic hours in the scorching afternoon sun were spent not knowing. No one understood the extent of what had happened.” Many activists also noted the intersectionality of this march by including and elevating people of color and their stories. Jaclyn Corin, one of the MSD student organizers addressed this directly in her speech saying, “We recognize that Parkland received more attention because of its affluence. But we share this stage today and forever with those communities who have always stared down the barrel of a gun.” Naomi Wadler, an 11-year-old girl, also took the stage in D.C., to say never again for black females. “My friends and I might still be 11 and we might still be in elementary school, but we know. We know life isn’t equal for everyone and we know what is right and wrong.”
In the US it is estimated 1.2 million people marched around the country. At the march in D.C. estimates range from 200,000 to 800,000 people. In Boston it is estimated between 50,000-100,000 people participated in the march and rally on the Boston Commons. In New York City around 200,000 people marched through the streets. In Los Angeles it is estimated around 55,000 people attended the March for Our Lives rally. And, in Parkland, Florida, approximately 20,000 people marched. Another student walkout is being planned for April 20, the anniversary of the Columbine shooting.
In response to the Parkland shooting and the rise of the MSD student activists, the NRA has received an outpouring of monetary support from their supporters. Contributions to the NRA’s Political Victory Fund which funds candidates supportive of the NRA tripled during the month of February. Additionally, after the shooting, the NRA increased their Facebook ad spending from $11,300 to $47,300. Their ads included messaging such as, “Never in our lives have we seen more dangerous and reckless attacks from those who despise our freedoms.”
Now, the student organizers are turning their attention to the November midterm elections. Furthering the original goals of the march, nearly 4,800 people were registered to vote, which is in line with their next mission—Vote for Our Lives. David Hogg, another of the MSD student activists has said, “To those politicians supported by the NRA that allow the continued slaughter of our children and our future, I say get your resumes ready.”
Engagement Resources
March for Our Lives—Their mission is “Not one more.” Follow their website as they turn movement from the March into further action.
Sandy Hook Promise—An organization created by the parents of Sandy Hook students to build a national movement to deliver gun violence prevention programs and mobilize for the passage of sensible state and national policy.
Everytown—A movement of Americans working to end gun violence and build safer communities.
This brief was compiled by Rebecca Leclerc. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact, rebecca@usresistnews.org.
Mental Health and Gun Violence: Rhetoric or Necessary Policy?
Brief 33
Policy Summary:
There are many legislation proposals that are suggesting further limitations placed on those that are mentally ill and their access to guns. However, there are several loopholes which allow those with documented mental illnesses to purchase weapons. There have been recent movements to help block these loopholes. This includes further specifying the broad mental health categories which allow differentiation between commitments to outpatient treatment or guardian care, blocking access to purchasing guns from private sellers (e.g. buying at gun shows), and increasing accessibility to medical records which show possible violent behavior. Trump has also paved the way for open access to guns for as many Americans as possible, even those with a mental illness. Policy suggestions on both sides of the aisle have attempted to limit this access through closing some of the loopholes that exist for those that have documented mental illness. The problem of this lies not in the mental health policies around gun control, but in the presence of guns themselves.
Analysis:
The common strategy for conservatives to use to get out of applying common sense gun reform is blaming the problem of rampant US gun violence on solely the poor mental health of the active shooters. This is also actually working to convince most Americans that the gun violence problem is rooted not in access to guns, but the taboo of mental illness. The American Psychiatric Association has proven that there has been little research claiming a correlation between gun violence and mental illness. Limiting access to weapons for those with documented mental illness has been shown to reduce gun violence, but it’s not the main catalyst. There have been strong correlations to instances of bullying, but there hasn’t been significant connections between mental illness and gun violence in mass shootings. Ultimately, the broader question around mental illness and gun violence lies in access. Current legislation doesn’t limit the access of those without a documented mental illness or general public access to military style assault rifles. Common sense gun reform has often included background checks, but what’s the point if the buyer doesn’t have indicators of a violent history or if a buyer finds a military assault rifle at a gun show? This has been the central issue with gun control advocates: limiting access to more dangerous weapons for everyone, not just those with a mental illness.
Engagement Resources:
March for Our Lives- an organization started after the Parkland school shooting which aims to unify advocates for gun control around relevant issues. Consider donating or canvassing during the midterm elections on these issues with this organization.
Alliance for Gun Responsibility Foundation– Learn about how this organization is aiming to destigmatize the association between gun violence and mental illness. Consider donating or attending a conference if possible.
As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
This Brief was compiled by Sophia Adams. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this Brief please contact sophia@usresistnews.org.
Teacher Walkouts Spreading Throughout Red States
Brief # 21 Education
Summary
Teachers in Oklahoma, Kentucky and Arizona have been participating in walkouts in an effort to raise salary increases for teachers and increase funding for their schools. These protests come in the wake of teacher walkouts in West Virginia after state legislature approved a 5% raise after nine days of the teacher led movement.
In Oklahoma teachers are asking for a $10,000 raise, a $5,000 raise for support staff and $200 million over three years for funding of schools. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has since signed a bill to fund a $6,000 raise for teachers and $1,250 raise for support staff. The same bill provides only $33 million for textbooks as opposed to the $200 million over three years.
In Kentucky, teachers are protesting education budget cuts, and a change in retirement plans for new teachers that would eliminate pension plans and create a retirement plan similar to a 401(k) which is used in the private sector. The new bill would also limit the amount of sick days teachers are allowed to put towards their retirement.
In Arizona teachers want a 20% raise to increase wages to those of neighboring states like Colorado and New Mexico, and they want increased school funding. They’re asking that the state of Arizona implements no new tax cuts until the per-pupil spending in state matches the national average.
Analysis
West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Arizona are red states, where Republican legislators have consistently passed tax cuts that benefit the businesses and cut funding for public services. These budget cuts have largely impacted classrooms and the students in them. A picture on Facebook posted by an Oklahoma art teacher, Laurissa Kovacs, has gone viral. In the post she says how she has up to 32 students in some of her classes and not enough chairs for all her students to sit in. The chairs they do have are broken and the bottoms are falling out from under kids. Another viral post, a tweet by a parent of an Oklahoma Public School student, shows an image of a textbook that still lists George W. Bush as the current president of the United States.
According to The 74, a nonprofit news site that covers education in the U.S., “When adjusted for inflation, education spending in 29 states (including Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Arizona) was less in 2015 than it was in 2008.”
In light of the walkouts and the response from some legislators, teachers are now planning to run for local offices. One example is Cyndi Ralston, who is running to unseat Republican Representative Kevin McDugle. McDugle has said of the teacher walkouts, “I’m not voting for another stinking measure when they are acting the way they are acting.” In response Ralston announced her campaign by saying, “When my colleagues and I have visited our Republican representatives and senators, we have been brushed off, if not outright lied to. Republican members of the legislature have made it crystal clear that they do not believe they work for us, that our concerns do not matter. . . If Kevin McDugle won’t fight for teachers and students, then I will. If Kevin McDugle won’t back parents over oil companies, I will.” In Kentucky, 40 teachers or other educators have filed to run for office, and Arizona has also seen an increase in educators file to run for office.
Teacher walkouts are expected to continue in the following week in Oklahoma, Kentucky and Arizona.
Engagement Resources
Research—Learn how much your state spends per-pupil and what the average teacher salary is in each state.
Contact your elected officials—Let them know that teacher wages and education spending are important issues to you.
This brief was compiled by Rebecca Leclerc. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact, rebecca@usresistnews.org.
Trump Establishes Federal Commission on School Safety
Education Brief #22
Summary
In a White House briefing statement issued on March 12, 2018, President Trump established the Federal Commission on School Safety chaired by Education Secretary Betsey DeVos. The commission was established to address school safety and “a culture of violence”. According to the White House briefing the committee, among other issues, will address:
- Best practices for school buildings and campus security from Federal Government components, including the Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and also from other State, local, and private sector sources.
- A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools.
- Opportunities to improve access to mental health treatment, including through efforts that raise awareness about mental illness and the effectiveness of treatment, reduce barriers to the recruitment of mental health professionals, and provide training related to violence prevention.
- Best practices for school-based threat assessment and violence prevention strategies.
- Existing entertainment rating systems and youth consumption of violent entertainment.
- Strategies to advance the science and practice of character development in youth and a culture of connectedness.
- Effects of press coverage of mass shootings.
According to a press-release by the Department of Education, released nine days after the White House briefing, the members of the committee are: Secretary DeVos, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen.
The first meeting of the Commission took place on March 28, 2018. According to another press release by the Department of Education they discussed “staffing, the timeline for future meetings with stakeholders, coordination with State and local partners, the scope of the Commission’s work and how best to incorporate stakeholder input on the issue areas President Donald Trump directed the Commission to study.”
Analysis
Many key stakeholders in the public education community feel that the Commission is leaving out the voices of students, parents, and educators. After the first meeting of the Commission the National Education Association President, Lily Eskelsen García, issued a press release explaining the frustrations. “This commission is meeting just days after hundreds of thousands of students held marches in Washington and across the country to demand meaningful action to prevent gun violence in our schools and communities. Yet, today’s meeting purposefully excludes the voices of students, educators and parents . . . Given the previous actions of DeVos, we’re not surprised that today’s meeting is closed to the media and happening away from the eyes of the public. The commission’s clear purpose is to push an agenda that is focused on a dangerous and misguided plan to put more guns in schools by arming teachers and other school personnel.”
Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat representing Washington, and the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Education Committee, also expressed concerns about the Commission in a statement she released after meeting with DeVos about the Commission. In her statement she specifically called out the NRA’s potential involvement in the Commission. “While Secretary DeVos said she had no interest in meeting with the NRA as a part of this process, she couldn’t or wouldn’t tell me how the NRA would be allowed to influence the commission’s recommendations, or even that they wouldn’t have veto power. She wouldn’t agree to put survivors of gun violence, families of victims, or experts on preventing gun violence on the commission — in fact, she told me that the only people on the commission would be federal officials.”
In response to the concern that there are no students, parents or educators on the committee, DeVos has said, “This is an urgent matter. We want to ensure sure that we are able to move and operate as quickly as possible, without getting bogged down in bureaucracy.”
The committee has not met again and there isn’t a public timeline of when the next meeting will be held.
Engagement Resources
Email the Commission—Let them know your concerns about school safety directly
Take action with the National Education Association—Tell Congress to pass common-sense gun violence laws
Contact your elected officials—Let them know that you want students and educators to have a voice in this process
This brief was compiled by Rebecca Leclerc. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact, rebecca@usresistnews.org.