JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
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...
Trump and Kim Fail to Reach Agreement in Hanoi
Brief #58—Foreign Policy Summary President Trump and Chairman Kim’s departures from Hanoi last week, Trump by plane and Kim by way of an over 60-hour train ride, signaled the disappointing conclusion to the second in-person meeting between the two leaders. The first,...
Movement To Give Presidential Candidates All of a State’s Electoral College Votes Based on Nationwide Popular Vote Gaining Steam
Brief #79—Civil Rights Policy Summary The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an affiliation of U.S. states that has put together an agreement that has the potential to enact sweeping changes in future elections of the U.S. President. The current...
Judge Rules HIV Status is Not an Exclusionary Factor in the Ability to Serve
Brief #51—Health Policy A federal judge put a stop to the recent attacks on military members, referred to as the “Deploy or Get Out” ;policy. This policy , sponsored by the former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, effectively mandated that any military personnel who were...
The Trump Administration Tries to Further Limit Women’s Reproductive Rights
Brief #52—Health Policy The Trump administration made another calculated move in the war on Planned Parenthood and women’s reproductive rights late last month. Under this new policy provided by Trump and Pence, massive changes to Title X, the federal program that...
Whose New Deal? Unpacking the Green Plans of AOC and Senate Democrats
Brief #56 – Environmental Policy Policy Summary Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced her plans for a Green New Deal in February. Senate Democrats responded with their own, highly abridged version of a Green New Deal proposal at the end of the month,...
Supreme Court Greatly Limits Controversial Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws
Brief #78—Civil Rights Policy Summary Tyson Timbs of Indiana was arrested for selling drugs to an undercover officer. The value of the drugs sold was just under $400. Mr. Timbs eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to house arrest, five years of probation and...
Trumpian Economic Policies Likely a Factor in Growing Bipartisan Support for ‘Tax-the-rich’ Policies
Brief #34—Economics Policy Summary As President Trump continues his focus on securing funding for his border wall by any means necessary, some of the most influential democrats are working around the clock to help curb the damage caused by his policies by way of...
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.
Is The Department of Housing and Urban Development Becoming Hostile To Racial Equality Efforts?
Policy Summary:
On March 28, 2018, a New York Times investigation reported that Dr. Ben Carson, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), had ordered the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Division at the federal agency to pause investigations into violations of federal fair housing laws. The next day two prominent Senate Democrats, Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein of California, and a number of U.S. Congressional Representatives sent a letter to Secretary Carson expressing their “deep concern” concerning a proposed change in the mission statement of HUD. An internal memo dated March 5, 2018 revealed that the proposed change would remove the phrase “free from discrimination” from the updated mission statement and instead describe HUD’s mission as “to ensure Americans have access to fair, affordable housing.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis:
These two incidents should raise red flags about the direction of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Secretary Carson. The Trump Administration has repeatedly been accused of being hostile to civil rights. These two incidents do not help in trying to erase those accusations towards President Trump and members of his administration. First, the pausing of investigations into violations of federal fair housing laws creates an impression that racial discrimination incidents in housing are unimportant. Mr. Jereon Brown, a spokesman for HUD, stated that sixty per cent of their complaints are disability related and that the department was going to now focus on new, neglected areas of discrimination. But this statistic misses the point. Even if the majority of complaints come from other areas that does not mean that complaints based on racial or national origin discrimination will simply stop occurring or are unworthy of an investigation. The message sent by pausing current investigations into racial discrimination complaints at HUD is that the agency could care less that they occur and are uninterested in helping American citizens be free from these types of behavior in the housing field.
The second incident from HUD regarding the proposed change in the mission statement of the agency only reinforces the theme that Secretary Carson is steering the agency in a direction that is hostile to civil rights. This incredible proposal is stunning because it seeks to remove the very words that prompted the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 in the first place. The text of that act “prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on race.” One of the non – profit organizations that helped to push for passage of the act was the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing. The use of the new phrase “fair, affordable housing” in the mission statement has a very different meaning from “free from discrimination.” A minority citizen could be denied access to fair and affordable housing because of his race and be unsure if HUD would do anything to remedy the situation in his neighborhood. Reading these two incidents together shows a troubling policy shift initiated by Secretary Carson and deserves clarification from the agency to ensure that the agency’s fifty – years of work does not go down a different path than originally intended by Congress. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
National Fair Housing Alliance – non – profit group seeking to eliminate housing discrimination.
Fair Housing Justice Center – non – profit group seeking to strengthen enforcement of fair housing laws.
The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein – book detailing the history of how laws and policies passed by federal, state and local governments promoted racial housing segregation in America.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Trump Says ‘NO MORE DACA DEAL!’
Policy Summary
On Easter Sunday, before entering services, Trump took to Twitter to announce that there would be “no more DACA deal.” Speaking with reporters before going to church, Trump cited that an influx of Mexican border crossings, for which he has no evidence to back up, put a wrench in the deal; that Hondurans caravanning through Mexico are crossing to take advantage of the program, and that Democrats “blew their great chance” of securing the future of dreamers.
Analysis
The tweet prompting discussion on DACA expressed frustrations with “ridiculous liberal laws” preventing Border Patrol Agents from doing their jobs, indicating that “no more DACA deal” is a retaliation towards Democrats, as well as a gross misunderstanding of what’s actually going on at the US-Mexican border. First and foremost, illegal border crossings are at a 46 year low, according to a Department of Homeland Security study. This would negate the notion that Border Patrol Agents aren’t able to do their jobs, as well as the idea that the influx of Latin Americans entering the United States illegally en masse. Secondly, the “caravans” Trump speaks of are groups of Hondurans migrating to Mexico City, ending their foot travels to safety there. Unfounded rhetoric like the content of this tweet is what continues to stoke anti-immigrant sentiments in the US that are founded upon false truths. Nevertheless, in the wake of Trump’s twitter tirade, the fate of DACA remains largely uncertain.
Engagement Resources
Get Involved with 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.
Support the Center for Migration Studies: The Center for Migration Studies is a New York-based think tank that conducts crucial research on international migration patterns. The Center publishes journals, sponsors events, produces research for policy recommendations, partners with faith-based institutions to support migrants, and maintains migration archives. You can support the Center by donating here.
Contact Your Representative: Tell your representative how you feel about DACA! Click this link to find out who your representatives are and how you can contact them.
Trump Administration to Add Citizenship Question to Census; California Sues
Policy Summary
On Monday, March 26, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration will be adding a question on citizenship to the 2020 U.S. Census. This decision was made at the request of the Department of Justice, which wrote to the Census Bureau in December of 2017 asking that a citizenship question be reinstated to “provide census block level citizenship voting age population data (CVAP).” CVAP data is used to determine any violations to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, according to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.
Following this announcement, the State of California sued the Trump administration, citing that the citizenship question is unconstitutional.
Analysis
The problem with the citizenship question is twofold: 1) it intimidates undocumented immigrants out of participating in the census; and 2) results of the census can be skewed to unfairly favor the GOP. Should undocumented immigrants abstain from participating in the 2020 Census for fear of deportation or other reasons surrounding the citizenship question, population numbers in urban areas where undocumented immigrants are most populous will fall. This impacts partisan politics because the census determines who draws district lines at the state level. State legislatures draw their own district lines in accordance with census data. The party in control of a state’s legislature is afforded the power to redraw the district lines after census data comes out in order to make sure that districts are near equal in population number, which is required at the state level. By deterring undocumented immigrants from participating in the 2020 census, urban populations will decline and districts will have to be redrawn to include suburban and even rural populations in the same district as urban ones. Because rural populations tend to be Republican, districts that are typically blue may become red following the 2020 census. Because some conservative Republicans have aired on the side of hard-lined immigration policies, more red districts could mean more unwarranted deportations for undocumented immigrants.
Engagement Resources
Act with America’s Voice: America’s Voice is a progressive immigration reform nonprofit that advocates for full and equal rights of all immigrants. The organization runs numerous campaigns, maps incidents of hate against people of color, and assists with voter registration, amongst other activities essential to promoting equity for immigrant lives in the United States. You can make a contribution to America’s Voice here.
Support 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 Up to Date with the National Immigration Forum: The National Immigration Forum is a DC-based nonprofit that leads the nation in constructive conversation and advocacy for the value of immigrants and immigration. The Forum is currently running a program called Immigration 2020, a multi-constituency effort to ensure that new Americans have the opportunities, skills, and status they need to contribute to the United States and realize their maximum potential. Join the organization’s email list to stay up date on all things related to immigration policy.
***
This brief was compiled by Principal Immigration News Analyst Allie Blum. For questions or comments, you can reach her at allie@usresistnews.org.
Trump Appoints John Bolton as New National Security Adviser
Summary
On March 22nd, only a week after the replacement of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Trump announced the departure of national security adviser General H.R. McMaster. On April 9th, the seat will be filled- for the third time in fourteen months- by John Bolton. The position does not require congressional approval, which is a blessing for Bolton considering he has historically been unable to succeed in convincing even a Republican controlled congress that his views are sufficiently restrained for public office. An Ivy League trained renowned war hawk who never served time in the military, Bolton is a strong stylistic departure from his predecessor. McMaster’s military background had instilled a preference for order and procedure which clashed with the looser methodology of President Trump. He also prefered a more diplomatic approach to Iran, an increase in troops in Afghanistan, and a stronger front against Russian election interference- the evidence of which he called “incontrovertible”. Many have suggested that the final spark which set his departure into motion was his possible involvement in leaking the news that Trump had ignored memo’s asking him not to congratulate Putin on his recent electoral victory. Despite this, McMaster’s exit has been far more amicable than that of his former colleague Tillerson.
Analysis
To be frank, the appointment of John Bolton may be the most dangerous personnel decision Trump has ever made. There is rarely a foreign policy dispute to which Bolton would not recommend war in response. He entered that national stage as President Reagan’s Assistant Attorney General, a position which he used to suppress information on the Iran-Contra affair. Under President George W. Bush, Bolton worked as the Undersecretary of State in Charge of Arms Control. Perhaps foreshadowing what we have seen from the Trump administration, he viewed his objective as completely antithetical to his job title, going as far as to block the passage of a ban on the personal ownership of military grade weapons. After failing to attain congressional approval for his radical views, Bush appointed him to UN Ambassador while the Senate was on recess. Bolton was one the main figures supporting the invasion of Iraq. In the lead-up to the war he told the Director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague that he would need to resign after he requested chemical weapon inspections in Iraq. Bolton feared that a sincere investigation of the facts at hand would interfere with the case for invasion.
Since the Bush administration, Bolton has resorted to using any media appearance to call for war against Iran and North Korea, while also calling Russia and China two of our greatest enemies. Just recently he wrote an op-ed titled “The Case for Striking North Korea First”, a terrifying prospect considering the Presidential sit down with Kim Jong-un coming this May. In 2014 his Super PAC was involved in hiring the now notorious consulting firm Cambridge Analytica to conduct “behavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging”.
To this day, he continues to be a strong defender of the decision to invade Iraq. With the ten year anniversary of the invasion last week, Perhaps the answer to Bolton’s unrepentant commitment to the legacy of the Iraq invasion is that, unlike many of his contemporaries, he does not brand himself as a neo-Conservative. What this means is that he does not bother to concern himself with the same veneer of respectability. His desire for war is not founded in any ideal of promoting democracy and freedom around the world, but rather a method for advancing American interests through any way possible. As a pro-intervention nationalist, he fits nicely alongside Trump, who once asked why we didn’t fully pillage Iraqi oil fields for our own supply. But beyond that, the man is capable, with extensive experience in foreign policy and bureaucratic process. And for that reason, the danger is perhaps more tangible than it ever has been.
Engagement Resources
- Stay Up to Date With the Struggle for World Peace With the World Peace Council: The WPC is an alliance of pro-peace, anti-imperialist organizations, based in over 100 countries around the world. You can learn more about their work on their website.
- Listen to a Podcast on the Dangers Posed by John Bolton: This episode of the Intercept’s podcast, Intercepted, covers the history and implications of John Bolton.
Special Legal Status Ended for Liberian Community
Policy Summary
On Tuesday, March 27, The New York Times reported that the Trump administration will be terminating Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) for the Liberian community. DED is a non-specific temporary immigration status that enables citizens from countries around the world experiencing conflict, natural disaster, or disease to live and work in the United States while the home country’s government restores living conditions. DED status was first granted to Liberians by President Bill Clinton in 1999 following the outbreak of Liberia’s second civil war, which lasted until 2003. Presidents George W. Bush was the first to grant DED to Liberians as the country recovered from war, only to be raptured again by an Ebola outbreak in 2014. DED status will end for the Liberian community as of March 31, 2018. By that date next year, all will be forced back to Liberia. President Trump terminated DED for Liberians citing improved conditions in the country.
Liberians now join the ranks of Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Salvadoran communities that face deportation from the United States in 2019 (January for Haitians, July for Nicaraguans, and September for Salvadorans, respectively). These groups are being forcibly removed from the US following the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a similar program to DED that enables citizens of other countries to seek refuge and employment in the United States while the home country heals from natural or man-made disaster.
While the exact number of Liberians living in the US under DED is not known, an estimated 800,000 Liberians were displaced by the civil war, some fleeing to the United States.
Analysis
The picture Trump paints of a stable, prosperous, livable Liberia contrasts the reality of the country’s conditions, according to the Liberian community and its advocates. While armed conflict has ceased, this does not change the fact that Liberians in the US under DED have started businesses and families and are important contributors to local and national economies. Like the Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Salvadoran populations in a similar predicament, many Liberians gave birth to children here, and those children are US citizens. Do they abandon their children at the hands of the Trump administration, or do they bring their children to an unfamiliar land?
The decision to end DED for Liberians further demonstrates Trumps commitment to purging immigrant communities with unfounded reasoning. As the country braces to say goodbye to hundreds of thousands of immigrants next calendar year, the social, political, and economic repercussions will be felt in all corners of this country and throughout the world.
Engagement Resources
Act with America’s Voice: America’s Voice is a progressive immigration reform nonprofit that advocates for full and equal rights of all immigrants. The organization runs numerous campaigns, maps incidents of hate against people of color, and assists with voter registration, amongst other activities essential to promoting equity for immigrant lives in the United States. You can make a contribution to America’s Voice here.
Support the Center for Migration Studies: The Center for Migration Studies is a think-tank and educational institute devoted to the study of international migration, to the promotion of understanding between immigrants and receiving communities, and to public policies that safeguard the dignity and rights of migrants, refugees and newcomers. You can support the institute through purchasing its publications or attending an event.
Stay Up to Date with the National Immigration Forum: The National Immigration Forum is a DC-based nonprofit that leads the nation in constructive conversation and advocacy for the value of immigrants and immigration. The Forum is currently running a program called Immigration 2020, a multi-constituency effort to ensure that new Americans have the opportunities, skills, and status they need to contribute to the United States and realize their maximum potential. Join the organization’s email list to stay up date on all things related to immigration policy.
***
This brief was compiled by U.S. RESISTNEWS Analyst Allie Blum: allie@usresistnews.org.
The Trump Administration’s Latest Assault on Healthcare for Women and LGBTQIA+
Policy Summary:
In the past year, Trump and his administration have championed actions that threaten the right to adequate healthcare for women and LGBTQIA+ populations. The latest actions in the past month were found primarily in a report last week detailing the elimination of online resources for lesbian and bisexual health on the Department of Health and Human Services website. The report, from the Sunlight Foundation’s Web Integrity Project, details major flaws in the HHS website. It details redactions made specifically related to health resources and fact sheets for lesbian and bisexual populations, with additional information on domestic violence, breast cancer, and men’s health. This action was coupled with rhetoric on the recent Supreme Court case (National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) versus Becerra) on faith-based pregnancy crisis centers misleading women about healthcare options relating to abortion. The case is being spearheaded by an action group called Alliance Defending Freedom, which is one of many Christian Anti-Abortion organizations. On the state level, Mississippi and Kentucky have banned abortions after the fifteenth (Mississippi) and eleventh (Kentucky) week of pregnancy. These bans have been struck down by federal judges, but it’s not too soon to question the other methods that these state legislatures have concerning banning abortions for women. The NIFLA vs. Becerra case, coupled with Trump’s blatant support for Pro-Life movements and states banning abortions, leads one to question the status and future of adequate healthcare for women, especially those in marginalized groups, in this country.
LEARN MORE ABOUT NIFLA V. BECERRA
LEARN MORE ABOUT HHS ELIMINATION OF LGBTQ+ RESOURCES
Analysis:
Each of these actions has permanent impacts within the care for women and LQBTQIA+ individuals in the United States. The removal of resources and fact sheets on a website not only shows the true nature of support for these groups from the Trump administration, but it strips people of knowledge relating to their identity. This was one specific strategy in an entire plan that excludes marginalized groups from the HHS’s outreach. The impacts of NIFLA versus Beccera could be much more impactful, especially with Trump’s support for abstinence education and pregnancy crisis centers within Title X. If NIFLA wins the case, then faith based pregnancy crisis centers could continue misleading patients, especially women from marginalized groups (lower socioeconomic class, minorities) in more populous places like Texas and California. These centers could become more prevalent and widely used than healthcare clinics like Planned Parenthood, and more women could be subject to unwanted pregnancies and misinformation about their sexual health. Furthermore, Mississippi and Kentucky’s laws pushing up the banning of abortions from twenty to fifteen and eleven weeks has no founding in legal or medical precedents. This legislation shows the atmosphere within Republican legislatures and their willingness to dismantle abortion rights for women. Ultimately, the combination of these policies prove the continued apathy and negative effects of the Trump administration’s policies on women and LGBTQIA+ healthcare.
Engagement Resources:
Fenway Institute– Learn about how you can support LGBTQIA+ individuals and donate time or money to this organization that advocates for LGBTQIA+ healthcare.
Planned Parenthood-Support this organization’s cause to help people understand the importance of sexual health and family planning.
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.
The Poorly Written Anti – Sex Trafficking Bill; Proposed Congressional Bill
Policy Summary
On February 27, 2018, the House of Representatives passed the “Allow States To Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” by a vote of 388 to 25. Three weeks later on March 21, 2018, the Senate approved the bill by an overwhelming 97 to 2 vote. The bill, which had been formerly known as the “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act,” amends a 1996 telecommunications law that gave tech companies immunity from liability for publishing third – party communications on their online platforms. By amending Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, the proposed bill looks to create an exception in that statute that will allow technology companies to be held civilly liable if they “knowingly assist, support or facilitate advertising” that violates federal sex – trafficking laws. The only other categories that exempt technology companies from liability are federal criminal laws, intellectual property laws and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. LEARN MORE
Analysis
As can be seen by the results of the votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate on this bill, the proposal has widespread support across the political spectrum. Michael – Macleod Ball, a First Amendment advisor to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has warned that this bill could serve as a model as to how to restrict online speech in the future. The problematic aspect of the bill is with the language where a tech company becomes liable if they “knowingly assist, support or facilitate” sex advertising. These words are overly broad and it is uncertain as to what behavior a technology company can take so as to not engage in the prohibited conduct that the bill seeks to prevent. Would a technology company’s overly aggressive moderation of the content on its platforms be classified as “knowingly support[ing] [or] facilitat[ing]” a federal crime because of sex trafficking advertising that appear on their platforms that they failed to remove in a timely manner? This bill also runs into difficulties because of purely legal behavior – such as ads for medical professionals like sex therapists, exotic dancers and academic and medical research. Advertisements for sex – trafficking is certainly a problem that needs to be curtailed in the digital universe but this bill does a poor job of addressing only that issue. It encompasses a wide range of legitimate behavior and advertising and should be re – written so as to properly define the exact contours of the prohibited behavior. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Polaris – non – profit group working against trafficking issues.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – ACLU letter to Congress in opposition to the current form of the anti – sex trafficking bill.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Updates on President Trump’s Policy On Transgender in the U.S. Military
Policy Summary: On July 26, 2017, President Donald Trump announced on his Twitter account a reinstatement of a ban on transgender persons from serving in the United States Armed Forces. The President’s full statement reads, “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.” President’s Trump ban is a reversal of policy that had been approved under the Obama Administration and which was waiting to be implemented by the Defense Department. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis: President Trump’s surprise decision is not supported by academic studies and medical research. His decision claims to be based on medical costs and disruption to military readiness but studies have disproven these claims. A Rand Corporation study in 2016 commissioned by the Department of Defense found that allowing transgender persons to serve would have a “minimal impact” on health care costs. The same study also examined 18 countries that permitted transgender persons to serve and found “no negative impact on operational readiness, effectiveness or cohesion.” President Trump’s decision simply ignores the facts to reach an arbitrary decision. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Update: On August 29, 2017, Secretary of Defense James Mattis issued a statement that he is in receipt of President Trump’s Memorandum banning transgender peoples from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces and its directive to comply with the statement President Trump made regarding this on July 26, 2017.
The Secretary of Defense’s statement that a study and implementation plan will be developed appears to be another attempt to distort facts to reach a conclusion the President and his team prefer. While it is admirable that Secretary Mattis will allow current transgender troops to continue to serve, a new study will accomplish nothing. As previously written in this brief, transgender troops will have minimal impact on health care costs and their service, as found by 18 nations studying the issue, found no negative impact on combat effectiveness. Another study won’t change that conclusion unless President Trump and Secretary Mattis intend to fabricate the study to get the result that they want so they can justify their discriminatory action.
Update No. 2: On Monday, October 30, 2017, United States District Court Judge Colleen Kollar – Kotelly issued a preliminary ruling that blocked provisions of a policy that did not allow the enlistment and retention of transgender peoples from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. President Donald J. Trump had announced the controversial policy in a July 26, 2017 tweet. The most interesting portion of the ruling was the judge’s criticism of the President. In her ruling she stated, “All of the reasons proffered by the President for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself.” Her ruling is just another repudiation of a boastful President who has offered questionable facts and statements far, far too many times for a person occupying the Oval Office. LEARN MORE
Update No. 3: On March 23, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense disqualifying from military service transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The memorandum revoked President Trump’s prior August 29, 2017 memorandum banning transgender persons from serving although this memorandum is not any different in substance. Mark Stern reports in an article on slate.com that the impetus for the move came from Vice – President Michael Pence, who has long been an opponent of transgender persons serving in the military. The Vice – President issued a report that shows how medical costs and operational readiness would become a burden because of transgender persons serving but the report is seen as being written to accommodate their pre-conceived notions against transgender military service. Luckily, some Republican leaders in Congress are refusing to fall in line and follow President Trump and Vice – President Pence’s new policy. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), a member of the Armed Services Committee, has broken ranks and announced that she supports transgender persons serving in the armed forces. This new policy will likely be challenged in the courts so the battle is far from over. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group supporting transgender rights.
National Center for Transgender Equality – non – profit group promoting transgender equality.
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.
Gun Restrictions; Will Banning Bump Stocks Be Enough?; National Protest Action
Policy Summary: On March 23, 2018, the United States Department of Justice proposed a new Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulation that would effectively ban “bump stocks.” Bump stocks are add on gun components that when attached to a semi – automatic gun permits the weapon to harness the gun’s recoil energy after firing one shot or one pull of the gun’s trigger. The recoil energy is then used to facilitate the non – stop firing of the semi – automatic weapon with the aforementioned single trigger pull. The bump stock is attached to the rear of the weapon and when attached does not modify a gun’s internal components. The bump stock allows the weapon to fire more bullets at a faster rate without requiring a second or subsequent pull of the trigger by a shooter. LEARN MORE
Analysis: The announcement by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on the new regulation banning bump stocks is likely to be greeted with plenty of enthusiasm. The controversial device was not used in the Parkland, Florida shooting. However, it was used by Stephen Paddock to kill fifty – eight people at a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada in October of 2017. The device allowed him to shoot numerous rounds rapidly akin to using a fully automatic weapon, also known as a machine gun. According to this report, the use of a bump stock allowed Stephen Paddock to shoot ten rounds a second at a concert containing more than 20,000 people. While taking the step to ban these devices that increase the ability to fire more bullets in a shorter time span, the remaining question is whether this ban will reduce the epidemic of mass shootings in America.
Banning bump stocks can help reduce the high numbers of casualties at these mass shootings but it still does not get to the root problem of why mass shootings keep occurring. The shooter in Parkland, Florida was able to kill seventeen people in just under seven minutes without adding a bump stock add on to his weapon. The Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooter also was reported to not have used the bump stock device when he killed twelve people in less than ten minutes. President Trump and Jeff Sessions have made a wise decision to ban these devices in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida shooting but the reality is that bump stocks are not the only problem. America is going to have look past bump stocks and take a look at the bigger picture (mental health, availability of guns, age limits, etc.) to enact comprehensive and common sense gun restriction laws. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources:
Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence – non – profit group advocating an end to gun violence.
Every Town For Gun Safety – non – profit group looking to end gun violence and build safer communities.
Coalition To Stop Gun Violence – coalition group on issues of guns in America.
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.