JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump’s Emissions Rollbacks Refuted by New Study
Brief #53—Environment Policy Summary A 16-author study published in the December issue of Science reassessed the 2009 Endangerment Finding for greenhouse gas emissions. The report found increased evidence that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and...
The Economic Consequences of a Government Shutdown
Brief #32—Economic Policy Policy Summary As the first week of 2019 comes to a close, the government shutdown shows no immediate signs of doing the same. Officially in its third week, the shutdown has progressed to the point that President Trump has stated that he may...
Trump Administration Bans Bump Stocks
Brief #15—Gun Control Policy Summary While the Trump Administration has typically echoed the NRA’s platforms, the acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, signed a regulation on December 18th that banned bump stocks, a device that has the capability to turn...
North Carolina Election Highlights Need To Prioritize Election Integrity
Brief #48—Civil Rights Policy Summary On November 6, 2018, the United States held its biennial federal elections. As dictated by the U.S. Constitution, every seat in the House of Representatives was up for election as well as the required 1/3 of the total Senate seats...
The Potential Impact of the New Congress on Education Policy
Brief #31—Education Policy Policy Summary Over the past two years, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, has gone out of her way to roll back federal regulations, completely in tow with the Trump administration. Shortly after President Trump took office, the Education...
Trump Announces Withdrawal From Syria
Brief #54—Foreign Policy Policy Summary With Syria nearing the eighth year of its brutal war, one which has claimed the lives of an estimated 300,000-500,000 people, President Trump declared on December 19th that Isis was defeated and the United States would withdraw...
TRUMP’S WALL: REALITY vs. FANTASY
By Ron Wolf "The debate over Trump’s wall isn’t really about border security. It’s really a debate about whether we’re willing to live in a fact-based world." That's the premise of a compelling column in the Washington Post today by Anne Applebaum, who professes at...
The Trump Administration Uses Minority Protections as an Excuse for More Liberal Gun Restrictions on School Campuses
Brief #30—Education Policy Summary The Trump administration has announced a plan to prevent school shootings that includes arming school personnel and repealing Obama-era guidance targeted at upholding the treatment and discipline of minority children while combating...
Catch and Release: An Update on Asylum Seekers
Brief #61—Immigration Policy On November 9, the Trump Administration signed a policy that would temporarily bar migrants who illegally cross into the US through the Southern Border from attempting to seek asylum, unless they crossed through designated ports of entry....
Russian Indictments, Manafort & Gates Update, Democratic Memo Stall, Dossier Research
February 23, 2018
The Indictments
The special counsel dropped a bombshell in the Russia investigations last week, delivering 13 indictments of Russian nationals and organizations in relation to their online campaign to disrupt the 2016 election through promotion of fake stories and divisive narratives on social media and around the internet, as well as direct manipulation of unsuspecting Americans. Here is the public release of the official DoJ indictment, which lays out a long and extensive case against the defendants, and includes charges of conspiracy against the US, bank and wire fraud, and identity theft. The indictment does not include any explicit language on collusion, nor does it point to any evidence of American involvement in or knowledge of the Russian activity. The White House has seized on this point, also highlighting the indictment’s determination that the Russian interference had begun in 2014, prior to Trump’s candidacy.
With all the hype, it is easy to get lost in the details and reactions; in my opinion there are a few key takeaways from this recent move by Mueller. The indictments are incredibly specific about the Russians’ targeted interference in US politics, as well as their intention – directed by the Russian government – to support Trump’s candidacy and undermine Clinton’s in 2016. It is nearly impossible to determine if the Russian efforts actually did influence the election’s outcome, but to date this is the best legally-focused public indication of the scope of their operation. However, the indictment centers on cyber activity, especially social media manipulation, and financial frauds. Clearly this is not the endgame of the special counsel’s investigation; it reads more like a platform from which other related cases could be built, especially with the continued cooperation of a few key former campaign associates in Mueller’s investigation.
To my mind, there are two plausible outcomes regarding the question of collusion. Firstly, just because evidence of collusion was not included in this particular set of indictments, it does not mean that the special counsel lacks such evidence. He may be waiting for more witnesses to corroborate information, or simply choosing carefully how to lay down his cards in a highly politicized probe which has already drawn in many high-level government officials and may yet ensnare more. Such speculation is beside the point. This indictment makes clear that Russians wanted to sway the election in Trump’s favor, but no firm case has yet emerged that Trump campaign officials knew or collaborated with those efforts. What we do know is that the Russian interference was not limited to the 2016 election; it started before, and continues still, according to the US intelligence community. I think, therefore, that the other plausibility – which we should not rule out simply due to political sensibilities and suspiciously coincidental behavior by campaign officials – is that the 2016 election simply presented an ideal playing field for Russia, given its unconventional, chaotic, and already extremely divisive nature.
A final point to keep in mind regarding these indictments is that the White House has still not been moved to action on dealing with the continued threat that Russian political intervention poses. Trump’s initial reaction was to distance himself from the indictments by highlighting the lack of evidence of collusion, and he did not immediately address the serious and unique allegations the DoJ made against Russia, a political adversary, for crimes committed against the US. The White House has even tried to shift attention away from Russia by blaming Democrats and the media, as usual. Trump has always been uniquely cozy with Russia, and un-critical of Putin, but his continued refusal to acknowledge the scope and depth of the Russian intervention into American politics does seem strange, especially if his campaign was, as he claims, just an unwitting pawn in Russia’s larger game.
Unrelated to the Russia indictments but important to the Russia investigation, Mueller has also released a profusion of new charges against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, Manafort’s business partner and former deputy campaign chair. Last fall the men were indicted for laundering money that Manafort had received working for former pro-Russian Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovich. After Yanukovich fled to Russia in 2014, Manafort and Gates seem to have devised a scheme to make more money by lying to banks about income and assets in order to secure loans and mortgages. It is this bank and tax fraud that Mueller’s new charges are based on. The new charges, like the original ones, are not directly connected to Trump or the Trump campaign, and seem to be intended to increase pressure on Manafort and Gates to cooperate with other aspects of the Russia investigation. Recent reports indicate that Gates is already cooperating with the special counsel, and may be close to a plea deal, which would put even more pressure on Manafort, whose trial is set for the spring. Gates has reportedly been in plea negotiations for about a month.
Special Counsel
The special counsel’s recent activity has not been limited to the Russia indictments and Manafort charges. Reports indicate that Mueller has been interviewing other campaign and White House officials, including former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. Bannon has reportedly met with the special counsel several times over the past few weeks, stirring speculation about his cooperation with Mueller’s investigation. Bannon is also in the midst of a legal battle with the House Intelligence Committee over his refusal to testify. He had previously been subpoenaed by the special counsel and made a deal with Mueller to avoid grand jury testimony. The special counsel also interviewed former Trump legal spokesman Mark Corallo last week, and is reportedly planning to interview early Trump campaign adviser Sam Nunberg this week.
Reports about specific people or things that the special counsel is investigating are numerous and probably misleading; aside from knowing whom Mueller interviews and when, there is very little reliable public information about the many directions his investigation is taking. That said, over the past month he has reportedly been looking into suspicious Russian financial transactions in the US, even prior to the election; money laundering; Russian banks; and Jared Kushner’s financial ties. The Russia investigation is moving quickly and in many directions, and is certainly following the money. The special counsel also brought a new prosecutor on board: Ryan Dickey, who joined the team after leaving the DoJ’s computer crime and intellectual-property division, and specializes in prosecuting cyber crimes.
White House vs. DoJ Update
My last post focused on the escalating conflict between the White House and the Department of Justice, as the House Intelligence Committee released an inflammatory memo about the FBI, which the President used to bolster his claims that the Justice Department was biased against him and his campaign. The memo was decried by members of the intelligence community and congress, who alleged that it was intentionally misleading and omitted important circumstantial facts. After an internal battle, the House Intelligence Committee’s Democratic minority released their own counter-memo, which they say provides a more complete picture of the Republicans’ charges, centered around a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court application which cited intelligence from the controversial Steele memo. However, to date the President has refused to sign off on the Democratic memo’s public release, citing security concerns stemming from a plethora of classified material. Last week Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein met with Trump to discuss the memo’s declassification, and House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff met with the FBI to discuss redactions, which he said he will freely make if deemed necessary by legitimate security concerns. Schiff has argued that unlike Nunes’ memo, the Democratic one had already been seen and preliminarily vetted by the FBI and DoJ prior to being sent to the wider Committee and the President, and that Trump is suppressing it because it undermines the elements of the Nunes memo he had claimed as ‘vindication’ in the world of the Russia investigations. Republicans, on the other hand, have accused Schiff of purposefully including information he knew would need to be redacted, in order to make it seem like the White House is trying to suppress information. Regardless, the Democratic memo presents a tricky political situation for the administration, especially given their strained relationship with the Justice Department. On one hand, releasing the Democratic memo could reveal embarrassing inconsistencies in the Nunes memo and make the White House look bad for standing by it; on the other hand, the justification for releasing Nunes’ memo was public transparency, and clearly releasing only one (partisan) side of the story and suppressing the countering narrative even further politicizes the entire issue. Now that the underlying intelligence matter – the FISA warrant application and the intel it was based on – was declassified, barring specific details there seems little legal justification for not declassifying the rest of the relevant information that the Democrats and DoJ provided, and letting the public judge for themselves whether there was bias or malfeasance. Schiff has predicted the memo’s imminent release, telling reporters last week that Committee Democrats and FBI/DoJ officials are nearing an agreement on redactions. However, the President still has ultimate and wide-ranging authority over the memo’s contents, should he choose to release it, so it is not unlikely that the White House will try to use redactions to create their own narrative spin.
DoJ & FBI
Aside from the recent indictments, there has been a flurry of activity within the Justice Department as well as the special counsel investigation. Driven in large part by the outspoken criticisms from the White House, the DoJ and FBI have had a few significant staff changes in the past few weeks. One of the most notable shakeups was the resignation of Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who had been the subject of Presidential recriminations for months. FBI Director Christopher Wray had reportedly been pressured by Trump to fire McCabe, and had also reportedly discussed demoting him ahead of an anticipated DoJ Inspector General report which is expected to be critical of the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation in 2016, for which McCabe may have had a potential conflict of interest stemming from a donation by a Clinton ally to the earlier political campaign of McCabe’s wife. The circumstances surrounding McCabe’s resignation are confusing, but it does seem that pressure from above played a role in his departure. Hiring decisions at the FBI and DoJ have become incredibly politicized, and Wray himself is in a difficult situation with the President. An Acting Deputy, the next-in-line official at the FBI David Bowdich, has taken McCabes place.
Last month Wray also replaced two top aides: FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki and General Counsel James Baker. There had been reports circulating that Wray had also been under pressure from the White House to make some staffing changes, and Rybicki had been questioned earlier in the month by the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees about his role in the Clinton email investigation and his knowledge of the circumstances around former FBI Director James Comey’s firing. Wray stated that Rybicki had decided to leave on his own. Rybicki is succeeded by Zachary Harmon, a former prosecutorial colleague of Wray’s. The former FBI General Counsel James Baker was also involved with some of Comey’s decisions during the Clinton and Russia investigations, and was replaced by Dana Boente, who briefly served as Acting AG and Deputy AG during the Trump transition.
At the Justice Department, the third-ranking official also resigned. Associate AG Rachel Brand left the DoJ, reportedly due to uneasiness about ongoing vacancies and instability at the department. Media reports circulated that Brand also feared the possibility that she would be forced to take charge of overseeing the special counsel investigation; she and the DoJ have refuted them. Deputy AG Rosenstein, who is currently in charge of the Russia investigation, has also faced harsh criticism from Trump recently, and given the president’s record of attacks on his Justice officials, concern from the next-in-command at the DoJ would certainly be understandable.
In the midst of these shakeups, the President’s faithful Attorney General Jeff Sessions has called for a ‘fresh start’ at the FBI, citing lack of public trust in the Justice Department and intelligence institutions, aided by the White House’s attacks on their credibility. Along with the high-profile resignations, pressure has been mounting on Director Wray as well, so we can probably expect the saga of DoJ instability and White House hostility to continue.
The FBI has been playing an important and to date somewhat understated role in investigating certain aspects of Russian intervention and potential collusion. Last month reports indicated that the FBI is currently assessing a second dossier concerning the Trump-Russia connection. According to a report by The Guardian, the FBI was given a memo written by a former investigative journalist, Cody Shearer, which independently makes some of the same assertions as the infamous Steele dossier. The Bureau reportedly received Shearer’s memo in 2016 from Steele himself, after they asked him for additional documents related to his dossier. The FBI is seemingly still looking into the Shearer documents, leading to speculation that some of the information they contain corroborates parts of the Steele dossier – parts of which the FBI, in turn, had previously verified independently. The Steele dossier contains many damning allegations regarding collusion, so corroboration from additional sources and intelligence is extremely significant. Shearer is described as a “controversial political activist” and has ties to the Clinton administration. Thia could provide prime fodder for conservatives looking to undermine his research, should it be verified or brought into the broader Russia investigation, although Shearer reportedly had a substantial global network of sources as well as financial independence in pursuing his research, and there is no evidence that his memo was commissioned, sought out or used politically.
In other dossier-related news, former FBI and White House cybersecurity official Anthony Ferrante has reportedly been working for the past 6 months with a team from Buzzfeed to independently verify parts of the Steele dossier. Buzzfeed, who originally published the dossier, has been sued for libel by at least two people mentioned in the documents: Russian tech executive Alexej Gubarev, whose firm Steele alleged provided the servers Russia used to hack the DNC during the 2016 campaign; and Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who was alleged to have acted as a sort of middleman for communications with well-connected Russians. The investigation is being run by a Washington business advisory firm called FTI consulting, who is working on behalf of Buzzfeed to prove that parts of the dossier are true in order to vindicate the news company from the libel charges. Foreign Policy reported that the FTI team initially only focused on investigating the allegations related to the lawsuits, but then expanded its scope to try to confirm other parts of the dossier as well. The dossier, and the FBI, are so politicized that it’s hard to tell whether independent external verification of some of Steele’s findings would even lend the document more credibility, but if Buzzfeed is able to use FTI’s research in court it could give the dossier’s contents wide-ranging implications in the Russia probe, especially if other research backs up parts of the document as well.
Senate Intelligence Committee
Last week the Senate Intelligence Committee held an annual hearing on worldwide threats, during which they heard testimony from the nation’s top intelligence organizations. The chiefs of those organizations unanimously delivered warnings about Russia’s continued interference in US politics, and their expected targeting of the 2018 midterm elections. In presenting their global threat assessments, intelligence officials told the Committee that they expect Russia to escalate its interventions, focusing on hacking and social media manipulation. National Intelligence Director Daniel Coats warned that the US political system is increasingly threatened by Russian cyber attacks and exploitation of social and political issues on social media. The testimony from intelligence organizations highlighted the lack of inter-agency coordination and responsibility in responding to this type of threat. Democrats on the Committee underscored the need for a united governmental response, which seems unlikely if not impossible given the executive branch’s refusal to acknowledge the ongoing Russian interference and the President’s ongoing feud with the Justice Department.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Proposed Amendment to the Americans With Disabilities Act – Favoring Businesses Over People
House of Representatives Bill
February 15, 2018
Summary
On February 15, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed bill H.R. 620, popularly known as the Americans With Disabilities (ADA) Education and Reform Act of 2017, by a vote of 225 – 192. The bill seeks to amend the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act by adding additional procedures that must be met before a business or company can be sued in court for non-compliance with the ADA. That law sought to require by law that public accommodations provide “equal access” and that employers provide “reasonable accommodations” to those people with physical or mental medical conditions. H.R. 620 will now be sent on to the Senate for a vote. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The bill passed by the House has been condemned by numerous groups and has critics from both sides of the aisle. Faiz Shakir, National Political Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), called the passage of the bill “damaging, unnecessary and ill-conceived” and stated that “the disability community should not have to fight through bureaucratic red tape to enjoy basic liberties that others freely enjoy.”
The main problem of the bill is that it does not encourage businesses to comply with the ADA. It instead establishes a “wait and see” approach for businesses. Instead of proactively making architectural changes to provide “equal access” businesses would instead have no obligation to make the changes unless they are served with written notice to make a change from a potential plaintiff. They are then given as long as one hundred twenty (120) days to show they have made “substantial progress” in making a change. This is different from actually making a change or removing an existing barrier. Because of this new standard, businesses can merely delay full implementation of changes and proceed on their own timeline. What this proposed bill does is give businesses a way to procrastinate compliance with the ADA on a timeline of their own choosing. It becomes very easy to see how businesses could manipulate this law to prevent full compliance with the ADA over time. Removing the ability of people to sue businesses for “equal access” is simply giving these places a way to not comply with the ADA and should be voted down in the Senate when it comes up for a vote. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Americans With Disabilities National Network – webpage on information, training and guidance on the ADA.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – information sheet on the myths and truths of bill H.R. 620.
- American Association of People With Disabilities – non – profit group seeking to increase the political and economic power of people with disabilities.
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.
DOI Secretary Zinke Announces Offshore Oil Drilling Program [UPDATED]
Update: February 13, 2018
Both officials and residents of California have come out in droves to push back against Zinke’s draft of the Offshore Oil Drilling Program. Protests have spanned the length of California, involving thousands of people. The protest in Sacramento preceded a Federal “open house,” which many are calling a peace offering for the lack of public input on the program’s draft. California may have found other avenues to block the ruling and set the stage for other states to follow suit. The land commission has stated that it will not issue infrastructure permits, and the California Coastal Commission, which has the authority to review offshore oil and gas activities, has publically announced its opposition.
Draft Proposed National Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program
Announced by the Department of the Interior on January 4, 2018
Summary
In an announcement last week, DOI Secretary Zinke announced the Draft Proposal Program (DPP) of the National Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil & Gas Leasing for 2019-2024. This five-year lease schedule opens the largest number of lease sales in U.S. history. Where previously 94% of the OCS has been protected, this plan makes 90% of total acreage available for leasing and 98% of the undiscovered area available as well. (Undiscovered are areas where oil is assumed but has not been proven.) There are 47 sites proposed for auction in that 5-year time frame, with 19 off the Alaskan coast, 7 Pacific, 12 Gulf Coast and 9 Atlantic. Many of these areas have either never been available or have been banned for upwards of 30 years. Some areas are a direct repeal of an Obama Era ban enacted after the 2011 Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster, which killed 11 people and caused the worst spill in American history. But Zinke has already repealed the rig and drilling regulations that contributed to this disaster.
Secretary Zinke sites this DPP as a move toward “energy dominance,” rather than the existing “energy weakness.” In his announcement, he stated that the funds that would come from this drilling would help with conservation efforts and coast revitalization. According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), offshore oil drilling is responsible for 18% of domestic oil production, as well as thousands of jobs, and the expansion of this program would increase domestic energy efforts.
The road to DPP approval is a long one, with time for public comment, a Note of Intent and an Environmental Impact study and statement, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. And while many members of Congress showed support for the measure earlier in 2017, many others are openly opposing the DPP, opening it up for possible Congressional Review. There are also many at least 12 governors, attorney generals, and 64 environmental agencies in opposition and seeking legal action.
Analysis
A few months after opening national landmarks for commerce and drilling, Zinke has moved to make the OCS available as well. One leader in the industry made a familiar argument when he said that the land is “taxpayer owned and should be made available [to the people].” However, Zinke is already wavering. In a meeting with Florida Governor Scott that, to many, stinks of political favoritism, the Secretary announced that waters off the coast of Florida would be exempt from the DPP and the sites would not be made available for auction. Citing Governor Scott’s points for exemption, the California Attorney General said, “California is also ‘unique’ and our ‘coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.’ Our ‘local and state voice’ is firmly opposed to any offshore drilling. If that is your standard, then we too should be removed from your list. Immediately.”
Engagement Resources
- Maps of areas proposed for lease auction in 2019-2024 schedule as opposed to 2017-2022 maps
- Learn more about and participate the public comment period
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.
Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule [UPDATED]
Executive Order
Issued February 28, 2017
Update: January 31, 2018
Almost a year after the announcement of its review, the Trump administration has formally suspended the “Waters of the United States” Rule. This suspension paves the way for this Administration’s version of the pollution regulating rules. The original Obama rule was up for implementation, and the documents filed on January 31 suspend the rule for 2 years while EPA Director Scott Pruitt and President Trump craft a new rule with looser pollution restrictions. Lauded as a means of economic development, Pruitt’s draft is anticipated sometime in the Spring. The Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) plans to contest this suspension in court.
This update was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this update please contact megan@usresistnews.org.
Summary
The Trump administration released an Executive Order (EO) directing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to review the Obama Administration’s “Clean Water Rule” and “publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the rule.” The Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ helped define the extent of governmental protection of national waters under the Clean Water Act establishing the government’s authority to regulate pollution of a large swath of smaller streams, wetlands, and other water sources. Opponents of the rule argue that it harms economic growth and places undue burdens on farmers and other business interests. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While the EO has no legal significance of its own, it signals the president’s desire to dismantle the Clean Water Rule, and Scott Pruitt is expected to vigorously begin the process of rolling back regulations put in place by the Obama administration. Environmental groups and fishing organizations support the rule, which offers “clearer protection to upstream bodies of water that contribute to drinking supplies for one-third of the population.” They argue that you can’t protect major rivers and lakes from pollution unless you cover their sources upstream; the gray area that exists in absence of the rule would make it difficult to bring a case against companies dumping in smaller streams and waterways. Additionally, while the farming industry has argued that new regulations harm business interests, the EPA explicitly avoided overburdening farmers, and a systematic legal analysis revealed that the agencies jurisdiction with regards to agriculture is, if anything, more limited than under the previous framework.
Engagement Resources
- Natural Resources Defense Council – a non-profit international environmental advocacy group committed to fighting Trump’s “environmental assault” and providing individuals with avenues for taking action.
- Sierra Club – the nation’s largest environmental preservation organization; recent focuses include green energy, mitigating global warming, and opposing coal.
- Clean Water Action – an environmental advocacy group focused on canvassing and gaining support for political issues and candidates.
- Environment America – a federation of liberal state-based environmental advocacy organizations throughout the US that researches and advocates for environmental policies.
This brief was compiled by Conor Downey. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this, brief please contact conor@usresistnews.org.
Nominations for the EPA, NOAA and Environmental Policy Advisor Positions [UPDATED]
Update: February 3, 2018
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-10 (primarily along party lines) to advance Andrew Wheeler’s nomination for Deputy Administrator to the full Senate for a vote. The vote is not scheduled at this time.
This update was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this update please contact megan@usresistnews.org.
October 16, 2017
Summary
Over the last few weeks, Trump has submitted nominations for various environmental positions within the government. With these nominations, many are worried that the administration has the manpower it needs to roll back green energy initiatives and replace them with coal and fossil fuel programs. There have been four nominations for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) positions: Andrew Wheeler, coal lobbyist, for Deputy Administrator; Michael Dourson, toxicology and chemical researcher, for Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention; Bill Wehrum, coal and oil lobbyist, for Office of Air and Radiation; and David Ross, a lawyer typically defending those who have violated EPA regulations, for Office of Water. Trump has also nominated Barry Meyers, CEO of AccuWeather, for Under Secretary of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce and Kathleen Hartnett, Texas Environmental Regulator and author of “Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case,” for the White House Senior Advisor on Environmental Policy. Each of these nominees has rejected the idea of climate change science and many have a substantial stake in the arenas they have been sought out to regulate.
Even before these nominations, Secretary Pruitt met frequently with lobbyists and industry leaders in sectors like oil, coal, and toxicology, soliciting their input on potential regulations, while avoiding meetings with environmental groups. Funding for environmental justice investigations has decreased, and Pruitt has threatened to stop funding this sector of the Justice Department altogether. Environmental crime investigators have been reassigned to Pruitt’s 24-hour security detail, and climate change researchers have claimed they received desk assignments rather than instructions to continue their research. To top it all off, an investigation recently began on Pruitt’s spending on private and chartered flights and the $25K sound-proof phone booth in his office.
Analysis
Earlier this month, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works began the process of confirming these nominations with a series of hearings. While the current employers of these nominees are alarming unto themselves, their histories have only caused greater distress among environmental groups and the Democratic Party. Dourson, the nominee for Chemical Safety, founded an organization that produces research in support of decreased chemical regulation. The results of these studies not only tend to minimize the harmful effects of certain chemicals, but their funding sources are not fully disclosed. When asked about potential conflicts of interest, Dourson replied he did not see any present issue. Wheeler, the nominee for Deputy Administrator, is a registered lobbyist for Murray Energy, the largest coal mining organization in the US that filed multiple suits against the Obama Administration for regulations on their industry. Wheeler has worked for Senators in the past, in particular on pieces of Bush Era environmental legislation. Hartnett, the nominee for Senior Advisor, has claimed that carbon is harmless and her current position at a think tank in Texas is funded by major fossil fuel companies. Wehrum and Ross, nominees to Offices of Air and Water, also have long associations with anti-regulation groups and have previously worked as lawyers against the EPA and other environmental organizations. Meyers, Nominee to NOAA, is a businessman with little scientific experience with a history of support of privatization of weather information and restriction on the NOAA’s dissemination of data. With these nominations it is clear that the Trump Administration is looking to deregulate coal and fossil fuel industries, rolling back the Obama Era climate preservation standards and allowing for private sector domination. In the midst of these efforts, money is being spent on chartered flights, private phone booths, and protection details before it is used for environmental justice investigations and climate change research.
Engagement Resources
- Follow the Senate Committee’s confirmation process.
- The Natural Resource Defense Council’s guide to calling Congress.
- Sign the petition to reject the nomination of Michael Dourson.
- Find out more about Pruitt’s spending of your tax dollars.
- Check out the New York Times FAQ on climate change.
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.
Trump’s 2019 Budget Proposal Slashes Health and Welfare Program Funding
February 12, 2018
Policy Summary
On Monday, February 12, President Trump released a 2019 budget proposal. The proposal calls for massive cuts to social welfare programs such as food stamps, housing subsidies, and health insurance. Trump’s proposal would cut food stamp funding by almost 30% over the next decade. Part of these cost savings would come from a government initiative called America’s Harvest Box that would cut SNAP recipients’ benefits in half and instead deliver packaged, U.S.-grown, processed and canned food to the recipients, saving money but severely limiting poor American’s food options. The proposal would also cut the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by 14%, instate work requirements for housing vouchers, and cut Section 8 vouchers by nearly $1 billion. These changes would cause 250,000 low-income families to lose housing assistance. Trump also wants to cut health care for low-income Americans. The proposal would cut Medicaid funding by $250 billion over the next decade. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While the budget proposal has a ways to go before becoming law, it reflects the President’s goals and priorities in office. He continues to cut taxes for large corporations and wealthy Americans while slashing welfare programs. Were the new budget to pass homelessness and hunger would grow among the most vulnerable populations, while rich Americans and corporations become richer. Many Americans would lose essential health care as well. Slashing programs that help the poor widens income inequality and limits upward mobility for poor Americans. Cuts like these were largely rejected in Congress last year and the budget bill that recently passed actually increased discretionary spending. Nevertheless, Trump’s budget proposal sets the bar for negotiations and reflects the priorities of the President. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Families USA – Learn more about how Medicaid helps low-income families and what these proposed cuts would do.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
This brief was compiled by Ann Furbush. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact ann@usresistnews.org.
Congress Kicks the FY2018 Budget Can Down the Road As Trump Releases FY2019 Goals
February 15, 2018
Summary
The US government shut down, again, for only a few hours last Friday while Congress worked overtime hashing out another Continuing Resolution that funds federal operations through March 23, along with a 2-year spending bill, both signed into law by Trump on the morning of February 9. The shutdown had little effect during pre-dawn hours as Congress “kicked the can” of FY2018 closer to a probable resolution, to occur nearly five months after the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year.
The new agreements were followed on Monday, February 12 by the release of Trump’s FY2019 efficient, effective, and accountable American budget of major savings and reform, which calls for unprecedented cuts in non-defense domestic and foreign programs and the abolishment of several federal agencies. The 2-year Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, however, negates much of the savings called for by Trump, allocating nearly half of its $300 billion spending cap to support non-defense government programs. As an addendum to the FY2019 budget proposal, the White House noted, “The administration does not believe these non-defense spending levels comport with its vision for the proper role and size of the federal government.”
While passage of the 2-year spending deal provides Republicans with a long sought-after, hefty increase for the Pentagon and appeases Democrats’ demands for support of non-defense domestic agencies, a combination of this new spending and last year’s tax cuts will bloat the deficit to nearly $1 trillion in 2019. The deal also raises the debt cap, preventing a first-ever default on government loans and putting off another vote on debt until March of 2019, though analysts predict the deal itself will increase federal debt to record levels.
Also included in the bill is nearly $90 billion in disaster relief for last year’s devastating hurricanes and wildfires. This allocates only $11 billion for Puerto Rico, far short of the estimated $94 billion needed for its recovery from Hurricane Maria. Other provisions include a ten-year extension of CHIP and a $6 billion injection of funds to combat the opioid epidemic.
As the government continues to operate under 2017 spending levels, Congress now has just under six weeks — including a Congressional recess for all of next week — to finalize appropriations for 2018 and to haggle over unresolved issues such as infrastructure spending and dozens of riders. In an unusual break from tradition, the GOP-led Congress has made no attempt to include a ten-year plan to balance the budget.
Analysis
Welcome to election year 2018. Although House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did try to make a last stand for DACA during budget talks, while Libertarian-turned-Republican Rand Paul stood stubbornly alone to see the government shut down on Friday, most of Congress appears ready to move the budget along and to polish up their respective parties’ reputations.. Contentious immigration debate has been separated from the budget process. Republicans have for the time being set aside overt attempts to repeal Obamacare which, in an election year, can only mean their constituency is not entirely on board. The lauded boosts in military and domestic spending offer a win-win compromise for both parties — if voters ignore the increased debt and deficit that come with it. As lawmakers become more sheepish about forcing shutdowns to meet partisan ultimatums, the Republican-led Congress has hidden away many of its most controversial proposals in the form of budget riders, or provisions that have nothing to do with the fiscal year budget but would never pass as laws on their own merits.
One of the most obvious bait-and-switch election year tactics in the spending bill is the revival of more than thirty special-interest tax breaks that were left to expire at the end of 2016. These “extenders” are supposed to encourage individuals and business to change behavior, but these breaks only apply to last year’s economic activity, and only to those who have not already filed their tax returns. Tax breaks related to energy-efficient home improvements, residential renewable energy and electric vehicles, higher education and mortgage debt, among others, might benefit some voters this year, but rely on some $15 billion the government does not have and must now borrow. They may, at least, serve to partly obscure the effects of the new tax law on individual returns while giving constituents a nod in areas Republicans are attacking on other fronts, like renewable energy and higher education.
Progressive non-governmental advocacy groups are bracing themselves for a tough battle in the weeks ahead, to educate lawmakers and voters on the hidden costs of “poison pill” riders attached to FY2018 appropriations and to advance the progressive agenda before the March 23 deadline. While voters may see hope for domestic programs, raising the non-defense spending cap does not mean Congress will actually appropriate all those funds. What’s more, with a GOP-controlled House, Senate, and White House, Republican policy preferences may more easily advance via executive orders and use of the Congressional Review Act. Riders are yet another duplicitous way to bypass the legislative process and slip unsavory policy into must-pass appropriation bills. Transparency on these issues is even more crucial as midterm elections approach.
Scores of riders tacked onto appropriations for FY2018 include: an effort to repeal the Johnson Amendment, which would enable religious groups to make campaign contributions; a long-standing rider to block a rule requiring publicly-traded companies to disclose campaign contributions to stockholders; an effort to stop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s watch-dog activities over banks; a renewed attack on the fiduciary rule, restrictions on stem cell research and radical reduction of access to abortion and other reproductive health care services; repeal of safe drinking water protections; reversal of an Obama-era rule to reduce methane gas emissions; numerous other anti-environmental riders; and more.
Given the dysfunction of the 115th Congress thus far, the March deadline may come and go with more short-term Continuing Resolutions and perhaps, more government shutdowns. Meanwhile, in a Farm Bill year and with the new FY2019 budget goals already on the table, voters and advocates will be scrambling to keep track of even more pitfalls and hidden, poison pill riders.
Engagement Resources
- The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization committed to educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact.
- Clean Budget Coalition is made up of nearly 200 groups that have joined together to oppose riders.
- The Federal Budget Group is dedicated to providing policymakers, the media, and the general public timely and reliable information that is strictly nonpartisan, rigorously factual, and explained in plain English.
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.
Trump Administration Presents Nuclear Posture Review
February 8, 2018
Summary
On February 2nd, the Trump administration released a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which revealed an eager attitude towards the development and use of nuclear weapons. Highlighting the dangers posed by North Korea, Russia, China, and Iran, the review called for a vast renovation of our nuclear arsenal. While new nuclear warheads would not be produced, they would be repurposed for additions such as General Dynamics built Columbia-class nuclear missile submarines (a $270 billion project), Northrop Grumman built B-21 strike bombers ($550 million per plane), and Lockheed Martin built F-35 stealth fighters (a $406 billion project). Our 400 current silo-based Minuteman III missiles would be replaced, and hundreds of ICBM launch facilities would be updated.
While these renovations fall in line with a trajectory set by the Obama administration in 2010, Trump varies from his predecessor in his stated willingness to use nuclear weapons to strike against even a non-nuclear state. The NPR affirms an intent to use nuclear weapons in “extreme circumstances” which would include “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” such as “attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.” The NPR also introduced a plan to “strengthen the integration of nuclear and non-nuclear military planning” and develop “low-yield” weapons, fireable from submarines and capable of more moderated destruction. The Trump administration argues that our nuclear arsenal has been the subject of “consistent underfunding” only fixable by “significant and sustained investments”.
Analysis
The Nuclear Posture Review claims to reaffirm our commitment, in line with the 1968 nuclear treaty, to “arms control and nuclear non-proliferation”. It’s hard to imagine a strategy further removed from that goal. Trump, who famously threatened “fire and fury like the world has never seen” upon North Korea, is pushing us closer than ever to nuclear armageddon with this document. By integrating nuclear and non-nuclear military programs, developing more usable “low-yield” weapons, and threatening nuclear attack over increasingly smaller disputes, he blurs the line between conventional warfare and what is supposed to be a distant last resort. The description of “low-yield” weapons as a more harmless alternative to nuclear war is deceiving; these weapons hold roughly the destructive power of the bombs which killed over a hundred thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What Trump considers to be an “extreme circumstance” warranting nuclear attack includes any attack on an allies civilian population or infrastructure. This exhibits a dangerous willingness to wildly destabilize the globe over a minor conflict. Aggressively pursuing a stronger nuclear arsenal and threatening its use over uncertain conditions does not serve to reduce the threat of nuclear war, if anything its normalizes its possibility. It’s hard to imagine a policy pushed by the Trump administration thus far which puts more lives in danger.
Engagement Resources
- Assess the Doomsday Clock: Published yearly by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock is a yearly measurement of our proximity to nuclear devastation. You can read a summary for the threat level each year here.
- Donate to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN): ICAN is a coalition of non-government organizations in one hundred countries advocating for a strong and effective nuclear weapon ban treaty. Last year their lobbying lead to a UN proposition of a treaty which would ban and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons. The treaty, which lead to a Nobel Peace prize for ICAN, was backed by 122 nations, with the US boycotting negotiations. You can donate on their website here.
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.
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.