JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Another One Bites the Dust: Exit Tear Gas, Enter Migrant Child Death
Brief #75—Civil Rights Policy While the American public is still horrified after the migrant tear gas encounter at the San Ysidro border in November, troops are being shifted, more individuals are attempting to seek asylum, and most heartbreaking: a 7 year old died in...
Trump Administration Threatens US-Russian Nuclear Treaty
Brief #74—Civil Rights Police Summary On December 4th, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced to a meeting at the NATO headquarters in Brussels that Russia was in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and had 60 days to come into...
Wide Bipartisan Support For FIRST STEP Act, A Criminal Justice Reform Bill
Brief #73—Civil Rights Policy Summary: On May 7, 2018, Representative Doug Collins (R-GA) introduced the FIRST STEP Act bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. The FIRST STEP Act is a bill that contains numerous reforms to help improve the criminal justice system...
Coal and the NCA
Brief #52—Environment Policy Summary Representatives from nearly 200 different countries have gathered in Katowice, Poland to discuss the parameters of the Paris Agreement, known as the COP24. The United States, however, are in a challenging position with regard to...
Communities Most Affected by Trade War Remain Behind Trump, Ignoring Economic Policies They Need
Brief #30—Economic Policy This past week saw automotive giant General Motors (GM) announce it would be closing its Lordstown Ohio plant, as well as four others, in an effort to reduce costs. The effects of this decision will include the loss of 15% of the company’s...
State Voter Suppression Tactics Continue Even After The Elections
Brief #72—Civil Rights Policy Summary In the aftermath of the 2018 midterm elections which saw the Democratic Party make significant gains with additional seats in the House of Representatives and the number of state governorships, state legislators in four swing...
Analysis: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act
Brief #50—Environment Policy Summary Last week U.S. lawmakers sponsored the first bipartisan attempt at climate legislation in nearly a decade. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act would impose a progressively increasing tax on carbon emissions, topping out...
Trump is a Liar. So is Most of His Orbit. Will This Ever Disturb His Supporters?
In 1996 William Safire, in a column based largely on the right-wing conspiracy theories of the time, famously called Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar.” One can only guess what Safire would have written about Donald Trump. The president of the United States is liar....
Senate Passes BUILD Act
Brief #52—Foreign Policy Policy Summary In a show of bipartisan support, the “Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018”, or the BUILD act, was passed on October 5th and later signed by President Trump.. First introduced in February by...
White House V. Justice Department
February 8, 2018
The Memo
The past month has been incredibly tumultuous for both the DoJ and FBI, who have long been criticized and antagonized by the president, and have more recently aroused conservative outrage over a highly divisive memo accusing top Justice Department officials of surveillance misconduct. The memo, commissioned by controversial House Intelligence Committee chairman and Trump ally Devin Nunes, alleges that the FBI harbors a bias against President Trump and implicitly conspired against his campaign when improperly applying for a surveillance warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court using evidence from the unverified Steele dossier.
There is a lot to unpack from this memo affair. Against the advice and extraordinary warnings of the FBI and nearly the entire Justice Department, including presidentially-appointed officials, Trump – urged by House Republicans and an influentially large online conservative movement – authorized the memo’s public release on Friday, declassifying information that the intelligence community barely had time to properly vet. The memo itself, according to FBI and DoJ officials as well as Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee and bipartisan members of Senate, seems to be factually untethered and grossly misleading to the public. It reads as an important distraction for Republicans and conservative media at a time when the special counsel’s Russia investigation seems to be getting dangerously close to the president. More to the point, amidst feverish chatter about Trump’s desire to rid himself of Mueller, Rosenstein, and yet more top FBI officials, there is a distinct possibility that the White House could try to use the memo as justification for more firings. At the very least, the Republican message emerging around the memo is one of vindication for the president from the ‘partisan witch hunt’ of the Russia investigations, with a logically unsound correlation being drawn between FBI surveillance prior to the 2016 election and the objectivity of Mueller, his team, and the entire special counsel investigation.
Significant media coverage on the memo began last week, when the House Intelligence Committee held a highly politicized vote to decide whether to release the memo to the public, pending Trump’s final approval. The week before, the Committee had voted to allow the memo, written by chairman Nunes and his staff, to be declassified for all Committee members. Chatter about the memo’s contents had already been building online in conservative and conspiracy forums, as well as throughout Congress; before the House Intelligence Committee’s vote on public release, the Senate Intelligence Committee was denied their request to view the memo’s contents. The hashtag “#ReleaseTheMemo” began to spread across the internet, potentially aided by posts from Russian bots; Facebook and Twitter were evasive when pressed to address allegations of continued Russian political manipulation on their platforms by members of Congress. At that point, although the specific contents of the memo remained classified, the media gleaned from members of the House Intelligence Committee that the document contained ‘evidence’ of FBI and DoJ bias against the Trump administration. We later learned that the memo accused the FBI and Justice Department, including specific members of their leadership, of abuse of authority in a pre-election surveillance operation on then-Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. More specifically, the FBI submitted a warrant application to the FISC, the body that oversees US government surveillance of suspected foreign agents, to surveil Page based on evidence from sources including the Steele dossier. Among the individuals accused of misconduct are former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who signed off on the warrant application. The basis of the memo’s allegations is that the Steele dossier – an unverified and particularly controversial piece of Democratically-funded espionage – was an inadmissible and possibly malicious piece of evidence upon which to base a surveillance warrant, since its financial origins and political associations had not been disclosed. The narrative the memo then implies is that by applying for and obtaining that warrant, the entire Department of Justice was somehow collaborating against Trump; hence the president’s present-day animosity, and the memo’s extreme drama.
As previously mentioned, the factual foundations of the memo’s ‘evidence’ are shaky. Multiple judges well-versed in surveillance ethics approve each FISC warrant, and sources told PRI that the FBI’s application to surveil Page was based on a variety of evidence materials, the dossier being one part; any evidence used in such an application would necessarily have been confirmed independently. Since the memo’s release, the House Intelligence Committee’s ranking member Adam Schiff has also told reporters that the FISC court had been aware at the time of the application that the Steele dossier was likely politically motivated. Democrats on the Committee called the memo a publicly misleading political stunt from the start, ultimately intended to discredit the DoJ’s Russia investigation. According to Committee Democrats, Nunes waited until the last minute before the Committee’s vote to allow the FBI and DoJ to go over the memo and legally vet its classified information. Justice Department officials repeatedly warned the Committee against publicly releasing the memo, echoing Schiff’s claims that it was misleading and neglected important facts. Assistant AG Stephen Boyd, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray were among the DoJ officials who raised concerns about the memo before the Committee’s vote. The Committee reportedly refused an offer of a relevant intelligence briefing from Wray. Schiff also told reporters that he and other members of the minority had drafted their own memo responding to Nunes’ and providing additional information, but the Committee’s Republican majority voted to suppress the Democrats’ memo and to publicly release Nunes’.
Following the Committee’s vote to declassify the memo, the FBI released an unusual statement condemning the document’s “omissions of fact” and mischaracterized information. Schiff then accused Committee Republicans of amending the memo after the vote, thus sending an altered and technically unapproved version to the White House. A Nunes spokesman countered that the edits were minor and had been previously requested by the FBI and Committee minority. Ultimately it didn’t matter; Trump declassified the memo, Nunes released it immediately, and the president and his supporters touted it as ultimate vindication of their attacks on the FBI and DoJ.
So now that the memo is out, and the suspense is over, what are we left with? It is as yet unclear if or how the White House plans to use the document, and legally it seems to provide little foothold should Trump want to use it against the DoJ. It also seems unlikely that Congress will be able to make it into a larger issue; they had already reached somewhat of an impasse on the validity and objectivity of the Steele dossier, and the memo brings nothing new to that conversation. What the memo has certainly accomplished is provide fodder to Trump supporters’ and conspiracy theorists’ claims that there is a ‘deep state’ plot against Trump, and that the Justice Department, even though it is run by people he appointed, is somehow out to get him. This is a surprisingly popular idea among conservatives, who link it to a diverse string of people and events, drawing on the deep distrust of the Clintons and the FBI’s bizarre mishandling of the Clinton email investigation – a justifiable accusation – as a cornerstone. Although conservative political counterculture can seem comical, it is worthwhile to try to understand why so many Americans believe the Russia investigations are a liberal ‘hoax’. When viewed from a certain angle, the actions of certain members of the FBI, including Comey and now-famous former special counsel prosecutor Peter Strzok, do seem strange and somewhat suspicious – especially to someone who sees evidence everywhere of the deep financial and political tendrils of a corrupt Clinton machine, seeking to stifle upstarts and outsiders. This is my simple take on that perspective, at least; there is certainly much more nuance to consider, and I will address the emerging Strzok issue in my next post.
The reason I think all of this is relevant is that there is a real danger in attacking or undermining such powerful institutions as the FBI and Justice Department. Certainly, our justice and intelligence agencies have dubious histories and deserve to be publicly analyzed with a healthy dose of skepticism, but much of their work is arguably for the benefit of our national security and government function, and even if sometimes politically motivated, their ideally objective work far extends that of a presidential term. This country is already irreconcilably split on the very idea of truth and scientific fact; if our legal apparatus – especially those institutions with the power to hold the rest of government accountable – is similarly dichotomized into political dogma, what principles will our democracy be left with?
President Trump is notoriously antagonistic towards political institutions, especially those associated with investigating matters that are associated with him. He has a history of demanding loyalty from appointees, and threatening those who won’t make a promise. (Trump reportedly asked Rosenstein in December whether he was ‘on his team’ with regards to the Russia investigation, and also reportedly asked McCabe, at the time the acting FBI director shortly after Comey’s dismissal, whom he had voted for in the 2016 election.) Rosenstein and Wray, in seriously campaigning against the memo’s release, seem to be inviting the wrath of a president who has shown his willingness to fire, or at least try to fire, political appointees who don’t support his efforts to discredit the Russia investigations. And, to tie all of this back to the special counsel’s Russia investigation, we also now know that last June Trump tried to fire Mueller, but was dissuaded by White House Counsel Don McGahn’s threat of resignation. He may have been hoping the memo would provide the justification he needed to finally make that call. At the very least, the president has already claimed that the memo ‘totally vindicates’ him in the Russia probe. Even though the document has nothing to do with the special counsel investigation, this claim may hold more water with Trump’s supporters than any logical presentation of fact. In an era when emotion and personality seem to be the most salient drivers of socio-political ideology, wishing something to be a certain way through verbal repetition has remarkable power.
There is actually an interesting possibility on the flip-side of Trump’s attacks on the Justice Department. By so wantonly antagonizing the institution and its executives, the president is surely sowing much more animosity towards himself in the upper ranks of his own law enforcement bureaucracy, and this self-inflicted conflict would logically seem to invite increased DoJ scrutiny in Trump-related investigations. As if that weren’t enough, in a twisted circle of self-actualization, there is also the possibility that Trump’s hostility has provoked members of the FBI and DoJ into retaliatory leaks of damaging information in the investigations, in which case Trump himself would have brought about the very ‘deep state intelligence plot’ against him that he initially alleged.
For the special counsel and his investigation, however insistent and dramatic the president’s claims, the memo has probably not created so massive an impact. Mueller has been pressing persistently forward, drawing ever closer to the president. Last month former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was subpoenaed by the special counsel for grand jury testimony. Bannon negotiated a private interview instead, and is likely cooperating with the investigation. Mueller seems to be paying special attention to money laundering and financial crimes; he, along with the FBI, are also reportedly investigating a variety of suspicious Russian financial transactions leading up to the election. A new prosecutor specializing in cyber crime recently joined the special counsel team, suggesting that Russian hacking also remains an important branch of the investigation. Perhaps most importantly, Mueller has also indicated that he will probably seek an interview with the president as soon as the coming weeks, and has reportedly begun to negotiate details with Trump’s attorneys. Trump, who after firing Comey last year told reporters he would gladly testify to the special counsel, told reporters recently that it “seems unlikely” that Mueller would even want to interview him, given, as he claims, the lack of evidence of collusion.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Trump Signs Executive Order to Keep Guantanamo Bay Open
February 8, 2018
Summary
One of the revelations drawing criticism from President Trump’s January 30th State of the Union address was the announcement that he had signed an executive order requiring the Guantanamo Bay military prison to be kept open indefinitely. Signaling a departure from US policy for the past decade, new inmates will also be brought to Guantanamo, falling in line with Trump’s campaign promise to “load [the prison] up with some bad dudes”. “Terrorists who do things like place bombs in civilian hospitals are evil. When possible, we annihilate them,” explained Trump during the State of the Union. The prison currently holds 41 captives, with five already cleared for transfer by either Bush or Obama. Upon taking office, Trump suspended the release of those five, and refused to staff the department responsible for negotiating transfers. While Guantanamo has long been a target of international criticism over abuse of human rights the order insisted that the prison is “legal, safe, humane, and conducted consistent with United States and international law.”
Analysis
This is not a situation most would have forecasted in 2008. The prison had been a blight on the legacy of outgoing President Bush, drawing criticism from around the world due to accusations of people being illegally detained and tortured, most famously through the process known as waterboarding. Amnesty International went as far as to call it the “gulag of our times”. The three leading contenders for the presidency, Obama, Clinton, and McCain, all supported its closing. Obama had gone as far as to say that “In the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values,” and made the prison’s closure a focus of his campaign. In his first week in office, Obama signed Executive Order 13492, which required the detention center to be closed within a year, and for all detainees to be transferred or released. By the end of his Presidency, he reduced the number of detainees from hundreds to dozens, but the prison remained open. Legislators who supported its closing balked at the prospect of bringing detainees to American soil, and other nations weren’t any more receptive.
Part of the difficulty with dealing with the cases of these prisoners is that there isn’t much of a historical precedent. Currently, they aren’t being treated as civilians charged with criminal acts such as terrorism, but as prisoners of war. The problem is, the wars we are fighting now are not comparable to the wars of the 20th century, when these standards were set. Wars such as World War II and the Vietnam War generally had somewhat of a foreseeable end. We could hold German prisoners until Berlin fell, after which they were eventually repatriated. However, the War on Terror will most likely not reach this kind of resolution any time soon. We aren’t fighting a regime, we are fighting anti-American sentiment. On the campaign trail, when asked about waterboarding, Trump stated “I would bring back waterboarding, and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” and that “torture works… if it doesn’t work, they deserve it anyway, for what they’re doing to us.” This kind of gleeful embrace of brutality, free of concern for either strategy or humanity, is the reason why anti-American sentiment is so rampant. As long as brute force is our one and only tactic for fighting terror, the War on Terror will never win, and those detainees will languish forever, whether they are guilty or not.
Engagement Resources
- Donate to Physicians for Human Rights (PHR): PHR is an independent group tasked with reporting and combating human rights violations through the lens of health and science. They have been longstanding vocal opponents of Guantanamo Bay. You can donate on their website here.
- Watch an Explanation of the Consequences of the War on Terror: The Intercept’s Mehdi Hasan narrates this video explaining how the invasion of Iraq and US ran prison camps such as Camp Bucca helped to create Isis. You can watch it here.
- Read an Article on the Dangers of Bringing Isis to Guantanamo: Here is an article by the Daily Beast on how bringing Isis members to Guantanamo would be a gift to the terrorist organization, strategically speaking.
- Learn More About Why Guantanamo Has Yet to be Closed: This article by the New York Times goes into depth on the long struggle to close the prison throughout the Obama presidency, and the varied actors and motivations involved.
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.
Department of Education Prepares to Pilot FSA Payment Card Program
February 8, 2018
Summary
The Department of Education released a Pre-Solicitation Notice in January that gives details on a new payment card program for federal student loan excess fund disbursements. Starting this spring a pilot program with approximately 100,000 students will test this new system. Under the pilot program, federal student aid (FSA) would be directly disbursed to the college or university, as it is now, but instead of student receiving their refunds via direct deposit or check, the funds would be placed onto the FSA Payment Card. A. Wayne Johnson, the former Chief Operation Officer of Federal Student Aid, said the payment cards would give the government control over “when and where and how much” federal loan money was spent. “It will have real-time coaching for people in terms of, ‘you’re about to spend this money on this particular matter — it’s going to have this effect on your student loans.’”
The FSA cards are part of Education Secretary Betsey DeVos’ plan to modernize and streamline the student financial aid system. FSA serves 40 million people, has more than $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loans, and processes 50 million disbursements that total more than $125 billion. The idea behind the FSA prepaid card is to offer a cost-efficient way to give students access to a bank-like product. Employers and family members would also be able to load money onto the card.
Analysis
U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote a letter to then COO of Federal Student Aid, A. Wayne Johnson, asking 19 questions about the FSA Payment Cards. They raised concerns about the program stating, “While we support efforts to improve the financial aid distribution process, we have serious concerns about your proposal given the poor track record of such cards in the past. History shows that in the absence of strict oversight and safeguards, these card programs can leave students and taxpayers vulnerable to exploitation.” In 2012 the U.S. Public Interest Research Group released a report showing that financial institutions that issued student IDs or prepaid cards to students through contracts with colleges were taking advantage of their access to student data. The report found that after a few years of aggressive marketing to the students using the prepaid cards and student IDs 70-80% of students were using their financial services. The cards also had per-swipe fees, inactivity fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees, and fees to reload the cards which means students were paying fees to access their financial aid. The colleges received monetary benefits from these institutions based on students using campus debit and prepaid cards.
In 2015, the Department of Education released new regulations to protect students from being exploited by campus debit and prepaid card programs. These regulations required that education institutions give students choices about how to receive their financial aid, ensured that students were not charged excessive fees when accessing payments of their federal student aid, and prohibited schools from requiring students or parents from open specific accounts to access their federal financial aid. The regulations also limited the sharing of student information and data with third-party servicers. With the new FSA payment cards, the financial services companies would own student data including spending patterns.
There is concern that similar predatory behavior from financial institutions could exploit students like they did prior to the 2015 regulations. Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center said of the new program and pre-solicitation notice that, “It could be that there are companies that would find this attractive, not so much for the card itself but for the opportunity to pitch other products or try to develop brand loyalty from customers.”
Engagement Resources
- Student Debt Crisis—A nonprofit dedicated to reforming student debt and higher education loan policies.
- National Consumer Law Center—A nonprofit that works with other nonprofits, legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and federal and state government and courts to stop exploitative practices.
- Inside Higher ED—A leading digital media company serving the higher education space that prides itself on speaking as an independent voice.
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.
U.S. Department of Justice Closes Legal Aid Unit
Federal Agency Action
February 1, 2018
Summary
On February 1, 2018, numerous media outlets reported that an office of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – the Office for Access to Justice (ATJ) – was reassigning its personnel and that other services were being rolled back significantly. According to its website, the office was established in March 2010 to “address the access to justice crisis in the criminal and civil justice system.” Additionally, the ATJ sought to “advance new statutory, policy and practice changes that support development of quality indigent defense and civil legal aid delivery systems at the state and federal level.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
This news concerning Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department is just another example of the Trump administration’s approach to civil rights initiatives. Previously, the Trump Administration scaled back civil rights units, reduced funding to those sections and folded some units into other offices and units with the goal of de-emphasizing the priorities and effectiveness of those offices. The result is that programs dedicated to advancing civil rights and investigating abuses in that arena no longer had the resources or guidance to aggressively investigate and monitor incidents and complaints. According to the 2017 Justice Gap Report by the nonprofit Legal Services Corporation, eighty-six percent (86%) of the civil legal problems reported by low-income Americans received inadequate or no legal help. The ATJ was a valuable unit because it also advanced statutory and policy recommendations that could have been used at the federal or state level to address the problem of access to justice for low-income Americans. By re-organizing the unit and de-emphasizing its work, the Trump Administration is showing that not only do they not care about the access to justice issue but they did not even want to hear recommendations or have discussions about something Americans definitely want to be addressed. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Office for Access to Justice at the U.S. Department of Justice – webpage on previous accomplishments of the unit.
- Legal Services Corporation – non – profit group addressing the civil legal needs of low-income Americans.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rod@usresistnews.org.
PROSPER Act Passes Committee, Under Review in the House
February 5, 2018
Summary
Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Representative Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, introduced the Higher Education Act reauthorization legislation known as the Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform Act or the PROSPER Act. It passed out of committee on a party line vote of 23 to 17 in December and is currently under review in the House. The timing of the PROSPER Act comes as the Higher Education Act, first passed in 1965, is up for renewal. The bill addresses a number of higher education issues including financial aid, religious freedom of institutions, Public Student Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), protections for sexual assault survivors, and regulations of for-profit colleges.
The PROSPER Act introduces a new income-based repayment plan for student loans to replace the current PAYE and REPAYE plans. The new plan increases the percentage a borrower must pay of their discretionary adjusted gross income from 10% to 15%. For borrowers on an income-based repayment plan, the PROSPER Act removes loan forgiveness after 20-25 years of repayment. The bill also cuts back on the amount of federal loans graduate students can take, and while it does expand funding for the work study program, it eliminates graduate students from the program. The bill would also eliminate Federal Direct Loans which are low-interest loans for students and parents, and replace all federal loans with Federal ONE Loans, a loan that would be limited to a standard 10-year repayment, barring all future loan borrows from qualifying for Public Student Loan Forgiveness under the current requirements. Under the PROSPER Act regulations for for-profit colleges would also change. The PROSPER Act would remove the 90/10 rule, which currently states that for-profit colleges can’t receive more than 90% of its revenue from Title IV federal financial aid. The gainful employment rule is supposed to incentivize for-profit colleges to remain competitive with non-profit institutions. The idea is that if they are offering high-quality education they will not only be funded by federal money, but also that students will see the value in paying for the programs out of their own pockets.
The PROSPER Act would also eliminate the gainful employment rule for for-profit colleges. This rule sets a minimum debt-to-income ratio for graduates of for-profit colleges, and if the college falls below this minimum they lose all federal funding.
The PROSPER Act also allows for discrimination of LGBTQ students at religious colleges and universities. The government would not be allowed to take action against colleges for policies related to their religious mission, including those that forbid “homosexual behavior”. In some cases, colleges enforcing discriminatory policies related to their religious mission could lose accreditation, but under the PROSPER Act they would be able to appeal to the education secretary to maintain their eligibility. The bill would also change the regulations for how colleges and universities handle claims of sexual harassment and assault. Under the PROSPER Act schools could indefinitely suspend investigations into sexual harassment and assault claims if the claims are also being investigated by law enforcement. This means colleges don’t need to support students with protective measures such as no-contact orders, or changing campus living situations, as is common practice when colleges conduct their own investigation.
Analysis
The PROSPER Act seems aimed at limiting access to higher education for low-income students and allowing for discriminatory practices against LGBTQ students. The Association of American Universities raised concerns about the effect the PROSPER Act would have on the affordability of higher education for millions of students, “As drafted, the House plan is seriously flawed. It seeks to eliminate subsidized loans, on which nearly six million undergraduate students depend each year . . . Perhaps most alarming, this plan would get rid of student loan programs that put graduate and professional studies within reach for many, conflicting with our country’s long-term interest of producing highly-skilled and educated talent, particularly in areas of national need.”
The National Consumer Law Center issued a letter to members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce raising concerns about the effect the PROSPER Act would have on low-income students and their families, “HB 4508, would make it more expensive for low-income students to get a higher education while simultaneously eliminating the programs that make student loan repayment for low-income students possible. Low-income students would bear the brunt of the changes to federal aid. It would also demolish safeguards that prevent low-quality schools from using abusive and predatory tactics to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars at the expense of students who are working to build a better life for their families.”
The Human Rights Campaign released a statement that raised numerous concerns about what the bill would mean for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors. In regards to cases of sexual harassment and assault, “the PROSPER Act would allow schools to choose what standard of evidence they use, and many could use a strict standard that makes it harder for survivors to get justice, tipping the scales in favor of rapists. It also contains a provision that would allow schools to considerably delay investigations into a case of sexual assault if there is also a separate law enforcement investigation. Meanwhile, the sexual assault survivor could be forced to continue interactions with their abusers in their dorms or classes.” As for the effect the PROSPER Act would have on LGBTQ students, “[the bill] could undermine federal, state, and local non-discrimination protections by allowing colleges and universities to ignore these non-discrimination laws simply because they have a religious mission.”
Other organizations opposed to the PROSPER Act due to the implications it will have on affordability and access to higher education include the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, The Education Trust, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities. While the PROSPER Act is expected to pass in the House, it is expected that the bill will be more difficult to pass in the Senate.
Engagement Resources
- The Institute for College Access & Success –A nonprofit working to make higher education more available and affordable for people of all backgrounds
- Human Rights Campaign –America’s largest civil rights organization working to achieve LGBTQ equality
- Contact your elected officials –Let them know that access to higher education and protections for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors are important 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.
Scientists Sue EPA and DOI Advisory Board Members Quit
EPA Lawsuit filed on January 24, 2018
DOI Advisory Board Members resigned on January 16, 2018
Summary
Earlier this month, The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Protect Democracy sued EPA Secretary Pruitt for blocking scientists who receive EPA funding from being on advisory boards within the agency. Pruitt announced this unprecedented shift back in October 2017 without any window for public comment, citing a potential conflict of interest as the reason for the change. No further explanation has been given for why leaders in the scientific community cannot contribute their expertise to the EPA and its policies. The UCS says that this violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which sets guidelines for balanced government advisories that are untainted by the viewpoint of the appointing authority. Pruitt has filled these advisory board openings with industry-funded scientists instead, causing further alarm within the academic community.
Meanwhile, in the Department of the Interior, nine of the twelve National Parks System Advisory Board members resigned their posts as a means of protesting Secretary Zinke and the acts of the DOI. A tenth member submitted her resignation the following day. In the resignation letter, former board chair and former Governor of Alaska Tony Knowles said that Zinke had disregarded the legal partnership between the board and the department. In a later interview he said that Zinke had “stonewalled” their efforts to address pressing issues of climate change and environmental protections by refusing to meet with them. A recent report by the UCS reviewed the 73 advisory boards within six federal agencies and found that these boards met less in 2017 than any other year since 1997, when the government starting keeping records. Almost two-thirds of those boards have met less than their charter recommends.
Analysis
In their press release regarding the legal action, Protect Democracy called Pruitt’s move “an attack on science itself,” as well as an abuse of power. Since the EPA is one of the largest funders of environmental and public health research, scientists face a choice between public service and continuing important scientific research with this board overhaul, which could lead to some of the brightest scientific minds stepping down from EPA advising. One member called the advisory boards “one of the most effective ways for me to use my scientific expertise to promote public health,” but goes on to say that this directive necessitates a decision between his own work and serving the public. One plaintiff says the order goes further by “caus[ing] significant harm to the public interest” by replacing these scientists with those who work for the industries and companies that the EPA is designed to regulate. As a self-designated champion of national parks, Zinke has also shone a lack of desire for scientific input, largely relying on industry leaders for advice on national monument size and offshore oil regulation. Neither the EPA or the DOI responded immediately to the respective lawsuit and resignations. DOI Spokeswoman Heather Swift has since stated that the “boards have restarted” without any further explanation and Pruitt has maintained that he is committed the EPA’s scientific integrity.
Engagement Resources
- Read the full UCS Report, “Abandoning Science Advice”
- Read the full press releases from both plaintiffs (Protect Democracy and UCS) suing Pruitt
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.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau De-emphasizes Racial Discrimination Investigations
Federal Agency Action
January 30, 2018
Summary
On January 30, 2018, Acting Director Mick Mulvaney of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced to staff that he would transfer the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) from the Division of Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending (SEFL) to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness (OEOF) which is under the direct control of the Director’s Office in the CFPB. The CFPB was created in 2010 with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act with specific instructions as to the structure and duties of each office within the bureau. Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican Congressman from South Carolina, had previously opposed the creation of the agency and has been critical of it ever since. President Donald J. Trump later appointed him Acting Director of the CFPB in November 2017. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
This decision by Acting Director Mick Mulvaney is a curious one. The Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) – the office that the Director is transferring – was a highly successful unit. The agency was established in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007 – 2008 and is tasked with consumer protection in the financial sector with mortgages, credit cards, student loans, debt collection and payday loans given priority for investigation and enforcement. In 2014, CFPB ordered GE Capital to pay $225 million to consumers because of racially discriminatory credit card practices. There were also other incidents of racial discrimination in mortgage pricing and lending practices. The move of this active unit raises eyebrows because it is being placed in an office of the director that handles personnel initiatives for people who work at the CFPB. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness (OEOF) does no enforcement work at all and is focused only on initiatives that arise inside the bureau. It does not make sense to move a unit that aggressively pursued third-party banks, credit unions, lenders and other financial firms and reorganize the unit into the agency’s personnel section. The obvious answer is that Mr. Mulvaney is moving to minimize the importance of fair lending for the benefit of these financial institutions. That leaves an obvious hole and raises the question as to who will continue to investigate and correct racial discrimination abuses that the OFLEO had discovered in the past. The Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB mandated the creation of the OFLEO and that it “provide oversight and enforcement of Federal laws…to ensure fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory access to credit.” It will be difficult to see how this will occur when the unit charged with that task is unable to continue because of Mr. Mulvaney’s questionable actions. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Consumer Federation of America – info page supporting the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – info page on race and economic justice (issuance of predatory loans and abusive mortgage practices).
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rod@usresistnews.org.
Tariffs on Solar Components, Washing Machines Part of Trump’s Protectionist Agenda
February 5, 2018
Summary
New tariffs on imported solar panels and modules and on washing machines, announced by the Trump administration on January 22, will come into effect on February 7. The tariffs are among the first unilateral trade restrictions imposed by the administration as part of a broader protectionist strategy that treats “unfair trade practices” as a threat to national security. LEARN MORE.
Trump imposed a 30% tariff on crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels and modules, which will step down incrementally over four years to 15%. For finished washing machines, a tariff beginning at 20% on the first 1.2 million imported units and raised on subsequent imports to 50% — the maximum allowed by law — will step down incrementally to a maximum of 40% over three years. Both of these import safeguards include options to continue beyond their specified timeframes. The tariffs will affect all but General System of Preference (GSP) nations as per World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, allowing GPS nations up to 3% of imports or a combined total of 9%.
Action against solar imports began when two financially-embattled US-based solar equipment manufacturers, Suniva and SolarWorld, petitioned the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in May of last year for protection against imports using Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act. This action was followed by a Section 201 petition from Whirlpool seeking import relief for washers, specifically targeting two Korean companies, Samsung and LG.
Under Section 201, the ITC is charged with investigating whether domestic industries are “seriously injured or threatened with serious injury” that is substantially caused by import competition. If the ITC concludes no such injury exists, the case is thrown out, as recently occurred in a dispute between Boeing and Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier over jets imported by Delta Air Lines. If the ITC concurs that serious injury does in fact exist, that gives the president authority to implement a policy response. Section 201 is rarely employed: the last affirmative investigation occurred in 2001, resulting in a disastrous, short-lived steel tariff imposed by the Bush administration. Since the Trade Law came into effect, previous presidents have erected trade barriers in only 19 of the 40 cases given an affirmative or tie vote by the ITC, as import safeguards may negatively impact US industrial development and jobs, raise consumer prices, result in trade diversion, and/or bring about retaliation in the form of trade barriers and restrictions or formal WTO complaints against the US. LEARN MORE.
Within thirty days of the new tariff proclamations (by February 22), the US Trade Representative (USTR) is required to publish procedures in the Federal Register for companies wishing to request exclusion. For now, it is unclear what the terms of exclusion will be or how quickly exclusion requests will be reviewed. This leaves some companies, like California-based SunPower Corp., which has already said it will request exclusion and has put plans to invest and expand on hold after the tariffs were announced, with a great level of uncertainty as to what the future will bring.
Analysis
The unusual employment of Section 201 under the Trump administration is highly politicized, if somewhat misaimed. The US Trade Representative (USTR) makes it clear that these actions prove Trump will “defend American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.” Farmers and ranchers? Clearly, the intention is to set the stage for imposition of more trade barriers in unrelated, hoped-for future cases. The USTR also ruminates on how these actions will curb Chinese imports, though in the relevant cases here the ITC found “serious injury” — in both the solar and washer petitions — from imports out of South Korea and Mexico. One cannot miss the irony in the fact that two of the petitioning companies — Suniva and Whirlpool — are Chinese-owned, while SolarWorld is also foreign-owned as the US subsidiary of a German company, SolarWorld AG.
The obvious intent of these “safeguards” against solar and washer imports is clear: rattle a saber at China; cripple the solar industry; and serve crony capitalism.
It’s no secret that Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy. That combined with a mandate to cut 72% of the budget for DOE renewable energy research makes his move to provide “relief” for the domestic solar industry seem dubious at best. Given the negative consequences of Bush’s steel tariff, Trump the deal-maker had to have gauged what the outcome of solar tariffs would likely be. It seems no coincidence that a week after announcing the tariffs, Trump proclaimed in his State of the Union address that he has ended “the war on beautiful, clean coal.”
As for the tariff on washers, it seems little more than crony capitalism that supports a pattern of anti-competitive behavior by Whirlpool. Samsung and LG, the targets of Whirlpool’s complaints, are both currently investing hundreds of millions of dollars in plants on US soil which would provide some 1,600 accompanying American jobs. Samsung is converting a Caterpillar Inc. factory in South Carolina, while LG is building a new plant in Tennessee: Foreign-owned, yes, but so is Whirlpool. When Whirlpool merged with Maytag ten years ago, it argued that imports from Samsung and LG would provide sufficient competition to protect consumers in the market for washers. Now it’s using those same imports to claim unfair competition. The new tariff seems more a windfall for Whirlpool than it is relief to the domestic industry at large. Perhaps Whirlpool gained Trump’s favor over two other foreign-owned American manufacturers when Jeff Fettig, Chairman and former CEO at Whirlpool, served on Trump’s business advisory council, which disbanded after many executives quit in response to Trump’s comments on a Neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, where counter-protester Heather Heyer was killed.
Response to the tariffs has been for the most part uncertain and disapproving. China, the world’s largest solar panel producer, called it an “overreaction” and “an abuse of trade remedy measures,” while Korea has already filed a dispute with the WTO. This is not the first time Korea has appealed to the WTO in trade disputes with the US over washing machines. Morgan Stanley suggests that these protectionist moves leave investors unsure that the US will adhere to free trade agreements and may chill investment in US business generally. Goldman Sachs has estimated a 3% increase in solar utility costs and a 7% rise in residential costs. While residential installations tend to serve clients deliberately choosing renewable energy even if it costs a bit more, the biggest impact is expected in utility-scale solar, which could lose half its projected installations in a worst-case scenario. Many fear that in addition to increased consumer prices, Trump’s move could trigger massive layoffs in an industry that employs roughly 260,000 American workers.
We can expect more protectionist moves from the Trump administration in the weeks and months ahead — along with more uncertainty and retaliation against the United States.
Engagement Resources
- The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) is a private, nonpartisan nonprofit institution for rigorous, intellectually open, and in depth study and discussion of international economic policy.
- The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI has helped change the nature of public debates over international trade agreements by underscoring their effects on workers and the importance of putting enforceable labor standards in trade agreements.
- The Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) works with member companies to promote pro-solar policies and advocate for the growth of solar nationwide.
This brief was compiled by Jennifer Chesworth. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jennifer@usresistnews.org.
A History of the Trump Administration’s Sanctions
Foreign Policy Brief #32: A History of the Trump Administration’s Sanctions
Update – April 3rd, 2018
On March 15th, the White House finally followed through on demands to sanction Russian individuals and entities, mostly for their involvement in the 2016 US election. Other factors leading to tensions between the two countries have included the recent nerve gas attack in the UK as well as a newly disclosed alleged cyberattack against the US power grid. In August 2017, Trump signed a bill passed nearly unanimously passed by the Senate authorizing him to sanction Russia. In January, Trump shocked many by missing the deadline to enforce those sanctions, instead arguing that by naming Russian offenders the intent of the bill had been fulfilled due to lost revenue.
With pressure finally building due to the UK attack and a letter penned by 140 House Democrats, Trump applied sanctions to a multitude of Russian government officials, the Internet Research Agency – an alleged internet troll farm, the Federal Security Service, and the Main Intelligence Directorate – both intelligence agencies. The sanctions would bar individuals from traveling to the US and freeze their assets. On March 26th, Trump also joined with over 20 other countries in expelling 60 Russian diplomats, to which Putin responded with the planned expulsion of an equal number of US diplomats and the closing of the St. Petersburg American Consulate.
Iran
- February 3rd, 2017: The Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and companies allegedly connected to either Iran’s ballistic missile program or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quods Force. This move was in response to recent ballistic missile testing.
- January 4th, 2018: The Trump administration announced sanctions on five subsidies of the already sanctioned Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group. The group’s logo appeared on missiles used by Yemeni rebels opposing the US-Saudi coalition, suggesting involvement by the Iranian company.
- January 12th, 2018: The Trump administration issued sanctions on 14 Iranian entities and people while issuing a last chance for European leaders to fix the Iran deal. The most prominent target was Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, the leader of the Iranian Judiciary. Larijani, a close ally of Ayatollah Khamenei, is accused of committing “torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners in Iran”
- February 2nd, 2018: 6 individuals and 7 businesses across Lebanon, Iraq, and Western Africa suspected of aiding Hezbollah were the target of the most recent set of sanctions. The Lebanese militant group has been accused of being used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to destabilize conflict zones in Iran, Yemen, and Syria. The targets are presumed to be connected to the prominent Hezbollah financier Adham Tabaja.
Syria
- April 24th, 2017: The Trump administration announced sanctions on 271 employees of Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center, allegedly the source of the government’s chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Assad’s government was accused of using sarin gas on civilians earlier that month. This follows the sanctioning of 18 Syrians, including 6 others from the Research Center, who were sanctioned by the Obama administration that January in response to chlorine gas attacks.
- May 16th, 2017: The treasury department imposed sanctions on 5 individuals and 5 companies in response to the Syrian government’s “relentless attacks on civilians”. The Trump administration accused the Assad regime of cremating the remains of thousands of hanged prisoners in an effort to “cover up the extent of mass murder”. Amnesty International previously reported that between 5,000 and 13,000 people were hanged at the prison from 2011 to 2015.
North Korea
- September 21st, 2017: Trump announced sanctions targeting any company or person doing business with North Korea by cutting off their access to the US financial system.
- December 24th, 2017: Lead by the US, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2397, which cuts exports of refined oil products by 89%, bans exports of industrial equipment, resources, and vehicles to North Korea, limits use of North Korean laborers, and requires countries to stop ships from illegally providing oil to North Korea.
- December 26th, 2017: The US sanctioned Kim Jong Sik and Ri Pyong Chol, 2 top North Korean officials in the ballistic missile program, in response to last November’s ballistic missile testing.
- January 24th, 2018: The US issued sanctions on 9 entities, 16 people, and 6 ships accused of “working on behalf of North Korean financial networks”
Analysis
Sanctions are a tool frequently reached for by the administration to backup Trump’s aggressive rhetoric. We haven’t seen much for positive diplomatic effects of these sanctions and they have lead to some tense exchanges. The Iranian State Media stated that recent sanctions “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic,”. North Korea called last December’s sanctions an “act of war”. With supply lines to China largely cut off, Kim has turned to business fronts in Mozambique to fund his Nuclear slush fund. What is conspicuously missing from Trump’s sanction crosshairs is Russia. In fact, Trump has gone so far as to trigger a constitutional crisis to protect Putin, neglecting to impose Russia sanctions overwhelmingly supported Congress last year. This hypocrisy is evidence of the Trump administrations motivation for sanctions, using them as a display of authority rather than a tool to enforce human rights.
Engagement Resources:
- Read a Previous U.S. RESIST Brief on the Iran Deal: Here is a brief assessing the implications of Trump’s attitude towards the Iran Deal, which reduces sanctions in return for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.
- Read an Assessment of All Sanctions Remaining on Iran: This article summarizes the many sanctions which remain on Iran, going back to those initially imposed after the 1979 revolution.
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.
Update – April 3rd, 2018
On March 15th, the White House finally followed through on demands to sanction Russian individuals and entities, mostly for their involvement in the 2016 US election. Other factors leading to tensions between the two countries have included the recent nerve gas attack in the UK as well as a newly disclosed alleged cyberattack against the US power grid. In August 2017, Trump signed a bill passed nearly unanimously passed by the Senate authorizing him to sanction Russia. In January, Trump shocked many by missing the deadline to enforce those sanctions, instead arguing that by naming Russian offenders the intent of the bill had been fulfilled due to lost revenue
With pressure finally building due to the UK attack and a letter penned by 140 House Democrats, Trump applied sanctions to a multitude of Russian government officials, the Internet Research Agency – an alleged internet troll farm, the Federal Security Service, and the Main Intelligence Directorate – both intelligence agencies. The sanctions would bar individuals from traveling to the US and freeze their assets. On March 26th, Trump also joined with over 20 other countries in expelling 60 Russian diplomats, to which Putin responded with the planned expulsion of an equal number of US diplomats and the closing of the St. Petersburg American Consulate.
A Review of Trump’s 2018 State of the Union Speech
February 2, 2018
President Trump recently delivered his first State of the Union to the American people. During this speech, he made a plethora of future plans and boasted about his administration’s accomplishments.
List 1 – Trumps’ Plans
There were a plethora of talking points President Trump had during his State of the Union, including lowering the cost of prescription drugs and revitalizing our nuclear weapons program to deter rogue actors such as North Korea. Although these two issues may seem very important the Trump administration prioritized two other plans: immigration and infrastructure.
One of the largest themes of the State of the Union was the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States and the devastating impact of illegal immigration to our people. His plan had four pillars. First, it would offer a pathway to citizenship for nearly 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the United States by their parents at a young age. Second, it would completely secure the border via a border wall. Third, it would end the visa lottery (a program that randomly hands out green cards which according to the Trump administration is handed out without any regard for skill, merit, or safety of America’s people. Finally, it would bring an end to chain migration. According to the Trump administration, a single immigrant can essentially bring an unlimited number of distant relatives.
There are many issues with this bill. First, the Trump administration claims that the visa lottery program blindly gives out visa lotteries but that is not true. Immigrants do not automatically get a visa but have to be eligible to even apply for it. According to the U.S. State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the individual must have at least a high school education or two years of work experience. In addition, the visa lottery is not randomly chosen. Applicants must pass a vetting process which includes passport, police/medical records, and photographs. The agency claims that “National security is our top priority when adjudicating visa applications.”
Secondly, the Trump administration claimed that once an immigrant enters this country they can bring an endless amount of relatives to this country. According to The Hill “The administration’s claims are demonstrably false.” Current law does not allow for you to bring an infinite amount of family members but only the closest family members (spouse, children, parents, and siblings). The Trump proposal would only spouses and children leaving parents and siblings out. There are currently no reunification paths for more distant family members.
In addition to the immigration plan, Trump promised a plethora of other things. One other one is updating and renewing our crumbling infrastructure. As with immigration, this plan lacks a clear plan on how the infrastructure will be built or even funded. The recent tax reform may also add to more problems as many companies may struggle to find new revenue sources. According to Patrick Sisson, “There also weren’t any specific calls to create new funding sources for the plan.”
List 2 – Accomplishments
There was a countless amount of accomplishments the Trump administration was boasting about. The biggest accomplishment that Trump spoke about was the economy. He claimed that black unemployment is the lowest it ever has been, he has added a total of 2.4 million jobs (200,000 of them in manufacturing), and claimed that the tax overhaul that passed Congress gave 3 million workers a tax bonus and was the largest tax cut in history.
It is true that black unemployment is the lowest it ever has been true but the Trump administration is conveniently leaving out other necessary facts. When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment was already at 7.8% (the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Under Trump, that number has fallen to 6.8% continuing its downward trajectory. Although Trump takes credit for accomplishing this, it is important to know that black unemployment was going down long before he took office (started falling from 16% in 2010 under the Obama Administration).
The Trump administration has also claimed that they have added nearly 2.4 million jobs and 200,00 manufacturing jobs. Although these numbers may be true, the pace of job growth has slowed twelve percent during Trump’s first eleven months in office. Even though there are jobs being added to the market it is at a slower rate than other past presidents. Finally, the Trump administration has claimed that they have given 3 million workers a tax bonus. While this may be true, according to the Labor Department the workers that got a tax bonus were only 3 million workers out of 154 million (only about 2%). Furthermore, Trump claimed that it was the largest tax cut in American history which is a false statement. Trump gave a tax cut of around 1.7% while Obama had a 1.8% cut in 2013 and Reagan had a 2.9% cut in 1981.
This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.