Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

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

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Trump Administration Threatens US-Russian Nuclear Treaty

Brief #74—Civil Rights Police Summary On December 4th, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced to a meeting at the NATO headquarters in Brussels that Russia was in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, and had 60 days to come into...

read more

Coal and the NCA

Brief #52—Environment Policy Summary Representatives from nearly 200 different countries have gathered in Katowice, Poland to discuss the parameters of the Paris Agreement, known as the COP24. The United States, however, are in a challenging position with regard to...

read more

Analysis: The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act

Brief #50—Environment Policy Summary Last week U.S. lawmakers sponsored the first bipartisan attempt at climate legislation in nearly a decade. The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act would impose a progressively increasing tax on carbon emissions, topping out...

read more

Senate Passes BUILD Act

Brief #52—Foreign Policy Policy Summary In a show of bipartisan support, the “Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act of 2018”, or the BUILD act, was passed on October 5th and later signed by President Trump.. First introduced in February by...

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814

Department of Education Prepares to Pilot FSA Payment Card Program

February 8, 2018

Summary

The Department of Education released a Pre-Solicitation Notice in January that gives details on a new payment card program for federal student loan excess fund disbursements. Starting this spring a pilot program with approximately 100,000 students will test this new system. Under the pilot program, federal student aid (FSA) would be directly disbursed to the college or university, as it is now, but instead of student receiving their refunds via direct deposit or check, the funds would be placed onto the FSA Payment Card. A. Wayne Johnson, the former Chief Operation Officer of Federal Student Aid, said the payment cards would give the government control over “when and where and how much” federal loan money was spent. “It will have real-time coaching for people in terms of, ‘you’re about to spend this money on this particular matter — it’s going to have this effect on your student loans.’”

The FSA cards are part of Education Secretary Betsey DeVos’ plan to modernize and streamline the student financial aid system. FSA serves 40 million people, has more than $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loans, and processes 50 million disbursements that total more than $125 billion. The idea behind the FSA prepaid card is to offer a cost-efficient way to give students access to a bank-like product. Employers and family members would also be able to load money onto the card. 

Analysis

U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) wrote a letter to then COO of Federal Student Aid, A. Wayne Johnson,  asking 19 questions about the FSA Payment Cards. They raised concerns about the program stating, “While we support efforts to improve the financial aid distribution process, we have serious concerns about your proposal given the poor track record of such cards in the past. History shows that in the absence of strict oversight and safeguards, these card programs can leave students and taxpayers vulnerable to exploitation.” In 2012 the U.S. Public Interest Research Group released a report showing that financial institutions that issued student IDs or prepaid cards to students through contracts with colleges were taking advantage of their access to student data. The report found that after a few years of aggressive marketing to the students using the prepaid cards and student IDs 70-80% of students were using their financial services. The cards also had per-swipe fees, inactivity fees, overdraft fees, ATM fees, and fees to reload the cards which means students were paying fees to access their financial aid. The colleges received monetary benefits from these institutions based on students using campus debit and prepaid cards.

In 2015, the Department of Education released new regulations to protect students from being exploited by campus debit and prepaid card programs. These regulations required that education institutions give students choices about how to receive their financial aid, ensured that students were not charged excessive fees when accessing payments of their federal student aid, and prohibited schools from requiring students or parents from open specific accounts to access their federal financial aid. The regulations also limited the sharing of student information and data with third-party servicers. With the new FSA payment cards, the financial services companies would own student data including spending patterns.

There is concern that similar predatory behavior from financial institutions could exploit students like they did prior to the 2015 regulations. Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center said of the new program and pre-solicitation notice that, “It could be that there are companies that would find this attractive, not so much for the card itself but for the opportunity to pitch other products or try to develop brand loyalty from customers.”

Engagement Resources

  • Student Debt Crisis—A nonprofit dedicated to reforming student debt and higher education loan policies.
  • National Consumer Law Center—A nonprofit that works with other nonprofits, legal services organizations, private attorneys, policymakers, and federal and state government and courts to stop exploitative practices.
  • Inside Higher ED—A leading digital media company serving the higher education space that prides itself on speaking as an independent voice.

This brief was compiled by Rebecca Leclerc. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact, rebecca@usresistnews.org.

 

Education01

U.S. Department of Justice Closes Legal Aid Unit

Federal Agency Action
February 1, 2018

Summary

On February 1, 2018, numerous media outlets reported that an office of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – the Office for Access to Justice (ATJ) – was reassigning its personnel and that other services were being rolled back significantly. According to its website, the office was established in March 2010 to “address the access to justice crisis in the criminal and civil justice system.” Additionally, the ATJ sought to “advance new statutory, policy and practice changes that support development of quality indigent defense and civil legal aid delivery systems at the state and federal level.” LEARN MORE

Analysis

This news concerning Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department is just another example of the Trump administration’s approach to civil rights initiatives. Previously, the Trump Administration scaled back civil rights units, reduced funding to those sections and folded some units into other offices and units with the goal of de-emphasizing the priorities and effectiveness of those offices. The result is that programs dedicated to advancing civil rights and investigating abuses in that arena no longer had the resources or guidance to aggressively investigate and monitor incidents and complaints. According to the 2017 Justice Gap Report by the nonprofit Legal Services Corporation, eighty-six percent (86%) of the civil legal problems reported by low-income Americans received inadequate or no legal help. The ATJ was a valuable unit because it also advanced statutory and policy recommendations that could have been used at the federal or state level to address the problem of access to justice for low-income Americans. By re-organizing the unit and de-emphasizing its work, the Trump Administration is showing that not only do they not care about the access to justice issue but they did not even want to hear recommendations or have discussions about something Americans definitely want to be addressed. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

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.

 

CivilRights01

PROSPER Act Passes Committee, Under Review in the House

February 5, 2018

Summary

Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, and Representative Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Chair of the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training, introduced the Higher Education Act reauthorization legislation known as the Promoting Real Opportunity, Success, and Prosperity through Education Reform Act or the PROSPER Act. It passed out of committee on a party line vote of 23 to 17 in December and is currently under review in the House. The timing of the PROSPER Act comes as the Higher Education Act, first passed in 1965, is up for renewal. The bill addresses a number of higher education issues including financial aid, religious freedom of institutions, Public Student Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), protections for sexual assault survivors, and regulations of for-profit colleges.

The PROSPER Act introduces a new income-based repayment plan for student loans to replace the current PAYE and REPAYE plans. The new plan increases the percentage a borrower must pay of their discretionary adjusted gross income from 10% to 15%. For borrowers on an income-based repayment plan, the PROSPER Act removes loan forgiveness after 20-25 years of repayment. The bill also cuts back on the amount of federal loans graduate students can take, and while it does expand funding for the work study program, it eliminates graduate students from the program. The bill would also eliminate Federal Direct Loans which are low-interest loans for students and parents, and replace all federal loans with Federal ONE Loans, a loan that would be limited to a standard 10-year repayment, barring all future loan borrows from qualifying for Public Student Loan Forgiveness under the current requirements. Under the PROSPER Act regulations for for-profit colleges would also change. The PROSPER Act would remove the 90/10 rule, which currently states that for-profit colleges can’t receive more than 90% of its revenue from Title IV federal financial aid. The gainful employment rule is supposed to incentivize for-profit colleges to remain competitive with non-profit institutions. The idea is that if they are offering high-quality education they will not only be funded by federal money, but also that students will see the value in paying for the programs out of their own pockets.

The PROSPER Act would also eliminate the gainful employment rule for for-profit colleges. This rule sets a minimum debt-to-income ratio for graduates of for-profit colleges, and if the college falls below this minimum they lose all federal funding.

The PROSPER Act also allows for discrimination of LGBTQ students at religious colleges and universities. The government would not be allowed to take action against colleges for policies related to their religious mission, including those that forbid “homosexual behavior”. In some cases, colleges enforcing discriminatory policies related to their religious mission could lose accreditation, but under the PROSPER Act they would be able to appeal to the education secretary to maintain their eligibility. The bill would also change the regulations for how colleges and universities handle claims of sexual harassment and assault. Under the PROSPER Act schools could indefinitely suspend investigations into sexual harassment and assault claims if the claims are also being investigated by law enforcement. This means colleges don’t need to support students with protective measures such as no-contact orders, or changing campus living situations, as is common practice when colleges conduct their own investigation.

Analysis

The PROSPER Act seems aimed at limiting access to higher education for low-income students and allowing for discriminatory practices against LGBTQ students. The Association of American Universities raised concerns about the effect the PROSPER Act would have on the affordability of higher education for millions of students, “As drafted, the House plan is seriously flawed. It seeks to eliminate subsidized loans, on which nearly six million undergraduate students depend each year . . . Perhaps most alarming, this plan would get rid of student loan programs that put graduate and professional studies within reach for many, conflicting with our country’s long-term interest of producing highly-skilled and educated talent, particularly in areas of national need.”

The National Consumer Law Center issued a letter to members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce raising concerns about the effect the PROSPER Act would have on low-income students and their families, “HB 4508, would make it more expensive for low-income students to get a higher education while simultaneously eliminating the programs that make student loan repayment for low-income students possible. Low-income students would bear the brunt of the changes to federal aid. It would also demolish safeguards that prevent low-quality schools from using abusive and predatory tactics to line their pockets with taxpayer dollars at the expense of students who are working to build a better life for their families.”

The Human Rights Campaign released a statement that raised numerous concerns about what the bill would mean for LGBTQ students and sexual assault survivors. In regards to cases of sexual harassment and assault, “the PROSPER Act would allow schools to choose what standard of evidence they use, and many could use a strict standard that makes it harder for survivors to get justice, tipping the scales in favor of rapists. It also contains a provision that would allow schools to considerably delay investigations into a case of sexual assault if there is also a separate law enforcement investigation. Meanwhile, the sexual assault survivor could be forced to continue interactions with their abusers in their dorms or classes.” As for the effect the PROSPER Act would have on LGBTQ students, “[the bill] could undermine federal, state, and local non-discrimination protections by allowing colleges and universities to ignore these non-discrimination laws simply because they have a religious mission.”

Other organizations opposed to the PROSPER Act due to the implications it will have on affordability and access to higher education include the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, The Education Trust, the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and the Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities. While the PROSPER Act is expected to pass in the House, it is expected that the bill will be more difficult to pass in the Senate.

Engagement Resources

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.

 

Education01

Scientists Sue EPA and DOI Advisory Board Members Quit

EPA Lawsuit filed on January 24, 2018
DOI Advisory Board Members resigned on January 16, 2018

Summary

Earlier this month, The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Protect Democracy sued EPA Secretary Pruitt for blocking scientists who receive EPA funding from being on advisory boards within the agency. Pruitt announced this unprecedented shift back in October 2017 without any window for public comment, citing a potential conflict of interest as the reason for the change. No further explanation has been given for why leaders in the scientific community cannot contribute their expertise to the EPA and its policies. The UCS says that this violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which sets guidelines for balanced government advisories that are untainted by the viewpoint of the appointing authority. Pruitt has filled these advisory board openings with industry-funded scientists instead, causing further alarm within the academic community.

Meanwhile, in the Department of the Interior, nine of the twelve National Parks System Advisory Board members resigned their posts as a means of protesting Secretary Zinke and the acts of the DOI. A tenth member submitted her resignation the following day. In the resignation letter, former board chair and former Governor of Alaska Tony Knowles said that Zinke had disregarded the legal partnership between the board and the department. In a later interview he said that Zinke had “stonewalled” their efforts to address pressing issues of climate change and environmental protections by refusing to meet with them. A recent report by the UCS reviewed the 73 advisory boards within six federal agencies and found that these boards met less in 2017 than any other year since 1997, when the government starting keeping records. Almost two-thirds of those boards have met less than their charter recommends.

Analysis

In their press release regarding the legal action, Protect Democracy called Pruitt’s move “an attack on science itself,” as well as an abuse of power. Since the EPA is one of the largest funders of environmental and public health research, scientists face a choice between public service and continuing important scientific research with this board overhaul, which could lead to some of the brightest scientific minds stepping down from EPA advising. One member called the advisory boards “one of the most effective ways for me to use my scientific expertise to promote public health,” but goes on to say that this directive necessitates a decision between his own work and serving the public. One plaintiff says the order goes further by “caus[ing] significant harm to the public interest” by replacing these scientists with those who work for the industries and companies that the EPA is designed to regulate. As a self-designated champion of national parks, Zinke has also shone a lack of desire for scientific input, largely relying on industry leaders for advice on national monument size and offshore oil regulation. Neither the EPA or the DOI responded immediately to the respective lawsuit and resignations. DOI Spokeswoman Heather Swift has since stated that the “boards have restarted” without any further explanation and Pruitt has maintained that he is committed the EPA’s scientific integrity.

Engagement Resources

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.

 

ENV

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau De-emphasizes Racial Discrimination Investigations

Federal Agency Action
January 30, 2018

Summary

On January 30, 2018, Acting Director Mick Mulvaney of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced to staff that he would transfer the Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) from the Division of Supervision, Enforcement and Fair Lending (SEFL) to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness (OEOF) which is under the direct control of the Director’s Office in the CFPB. The CFPB was created in 2010 with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act with specific instructions as to the structure and duties of each office within the bureau. Mr. Mulvaney, a former Republican Congressman from South Carolina, had previously opposed the creation of the agency and has been critical of it ever since. President Donald J. Trump later appointed him Acting Director of the CFPB in November 2017. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis

This decision by Acting Director Mick Mulvaney is a curious one. The Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (OFLEO) – the office that the Director is transferring – was a highly successful unit. The agency was established in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007 – 2008 and is tasked with consumer protection in the financial sector with mortgages, credit cards, student loans, debt collection and payday loans given priority for investigation and enforcement. In 2014, CFPB ordered GE Capital to pay $225 million to consumers because of racially discriminatory credit card practices. There were also other incidents of racial discrimination in mortgage pricing and lending practices. The move of this active unit raises eyebrows because it is being placed in an office of the director that handles personnel initiatives for people who work at the CFPB. The Office of Equal Opportunity and Fairness (OEOF) does no enforcement work at all and is focused only on initiatives that arise inside the bureau. It does not make sense to move a unit that aggressively pursued third-party banks, credit unions, lenders and other financial firms and reorganize the unit into the agency’s personnel section. The obvious answer is that Mr. Mulvaney is moving to minimize the importance of fair lending for the benefit of these financial institutions. That leaves an obvious hole and raises the question as to who will continue to investigate and correct racial discrimination abuses that the OFLEO had discovered in the past. The Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB mandated the creation of the OFLEO and that it  “provide oversight and enforcement of Federal laws…to ensure fair, equitable, and non-discriminatory access to credit.” It will be difficult to see how this will occur when the unit charged with that task is unable to continue because of Mr. Mulvaney’s questionable actions. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

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.

 

CivilRights01

Tariffs on Solar Components, Washing Machines Part of Trump’s Protectionist Agenda

February 5, 2018

Summary

New tariffs on imported solar panels and modules and on washing machines, announced by the Trump administration on January 22, will come into effect on February 7.  The tariffs are among the first unilateral trade restrictions imposed by the administration as part of a broader protectionist strategy that treats “unfair trade practices” as a threat to national security. LEARN MORE.

Trump imposed a 30% tariff on crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) solar panels and modules, which will step down incrementally over four years to 15%. For finished washing machines, a tariff beginning at 20% on the first 1.2 million imported units and raised on subsequent imports to 50% — the maximum allowed by law — will step down incrementally to a maximum of 40% over three years. Both of these import safeguards include options to continue beyond their specified timeframes. The tariffs will affect all but General System of Preference (GSP) nations as per World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, allowing GPS nations up to 3% of imports or a combined total of 9%.

Action against solar imports began when two financially-embattled US-based solar equipment manufacturers, Suniva and SolarWorld, petitioned the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in May of last year for protection against imports using Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act. This action was followed by a Section 201 petition from Whirlpool seeking import relief for washers, specifically targeting two Korean companies, Samsung and LG.

Under Section 201, the ITC is charged with investigating whether domestic industries are “seriously injured or threatened with serious injury” that is substantially caused by import competition. If the ITC concludes no such injury exists, the case is thrown out, as recently occurred in a dispute between Boeing and Canadian aircraft manufacturer Bombardier over jets imported by Delta Air Lines. If the ITC concurs that serious injury does in fact exist, that gives the president authority to implement a policy response. Section 201 is rarely employed: the last affirmative investigation occurred in 2001, resulting in a disastrous, short-lived steel tariff imposed by the Bush administration. Since the Trade Law came into effect, previous presidents have erected trade barriers in only 19 of the 40 cases given an affirmative or tie vote by the ITC, as import safeguards may negatively impact US industrial development and jobs, raise consumer prices, result in trade diversion, and/or bring about retaliation in the form of trade barriers and restrictions or formal WTO complaints against the US. LEARN MORE.

Within thirty days of the new tariff proclamations (by February 22), the US Trade Representative (USTR) is required to publish procedures in the Federal Register for companies wishing to request exclusion. For now, it is unclear what the terms of exclusion will be or how quickly exclusion requests will be reviewed. This leaves some companies, like California-based SunPower Corp., which has already said it will request exclusion and has put plans to invest and expand on hold after the tariffs were announced, with a great level of uncertainty as to what the future will bring.

Analysis

The unusual employment of Section 201 under the Trump administration is highly politicized, if somewhat misaimed. The US Trade Representative (USTR) makes it clear that these actions prove Trump will “defend American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses.”  Farmers and ranchers? Clearly, the intention is to set the stage for imposition of more trade barriers in unrelated, hoped-for future cases. The USTR also ruminates on how these actions will curb Chinese imports, though in the relevant cases here the ITC found “serious injury” — in both the solar and washer petitions — from imports out of South Korea and Mexico. One cannot miss the irony in the fact that two of the petitioning companies — Suniva and Whirlpool — are Chinese-owned, while SolarWorld is also foreign-owned as the US subsidiary of a German company, SolarWorld AG.

The obvious intent of these “safeguards” against solar and washer imports is clear: rattle a saber at China; cripple the solar industry; and serve crony capitalism.

It’s no secret that Trump thinks climate change is a Chinese conspiracy. That combined with a mandate to cut 72% of the budget for DOE renewable energy research makes his move to provide “relief” for the domestic solar industry seem dubious at best. Given the negative consequences of Bush’s steel tariff, Trump the deal-maker had to have gauged what the outcome of solar tariffs would likely be. It seems no coincidence that a week after announcing the tariffs, Trump proclaimed in his State of the Union address that he has ended “the war on beautiful, clean coal.”

As for the tariff on washers, it seems little more than crony capitalism that supports a pattern of anti-competitive behavior by Whirlpool. Samsung and LG, the targets of Whirlpool’s complaints, are both currently investing hundreds of millions of dollars in plants on US soil which would provide some 1,600 accompanying American jobs. Samsung is converting a Caterpillar Inc. factory in South Carolina, while LG is building a new plant in Tennessee: Foreign-owned, yes, but so is Whirlpool. When Whirlpool merged with Maytag ten years ago, it argued that imports from Samsung and LG would provide sufficient competition to protect consumers in the market for washers. Now it’s using those same imports to claim unfair competition. The new tariff seems more a windfall for Whirlpool than it is relief to the domestic industry at large. Perhaps Whirlpool gained Trump’s favor over two other foreign-owned American manufacturers when Jeff Fettig, Chairman and former CEO at Whirlpool, served on Trump’s business advisory council, which disbanded after many executives quit in response to Trump’s comments on a Neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville, where counter-protester Heather Heyer was killed.

Response to the tariffs has been for the most part uncertain and disapproving. China, the world’s largest solar panel producer, called it an “overreaction” and “an abuse of trade remedy measures,” while Korea has already filed a dispute with the WTO. This is not the first time Korea has appealed to the WTO in trade disputes with the US over washing machines. Morgan Stanley suggests that these protectionist moves leave investors unsure that the US will adhere to free trade agreements and may chill investment in US business generally. Goldman Sachs has estimated a 3% increase in solar utility costs and a 7% rise in residential costs. While residential installations tend to serve clients deliberately choosing renewable energy even if it costs a bit more, the biggest impact is expected in utility-scale solar, which could lose half its projected installations in a worst-case scenario. Many fear that in addition to increased consumer prices, Trump’s move could trigger massive layoffs in an industry that employs roughly 260,000 American workers.

We can expect more protectionist moves from the Trump administration in the weeks and months ahead — along with more uncertainty and retaliation against the United States.

Engagement Resources

  • The Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) is a private, nonpartisan nonprofit institution for rigorous, intellectually open, and in depth study and discussion of international economic policy.
  • The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank created in 1986 to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. EPI has helped change the nature of public debates over international trade agreements by underscoring their effects on workers and the importance of putting enforceable labor standards in trade agreements.
  • The Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) works with member companies to promote pro-solar policies and advocate for the growth of solar nationwide.

This brief was compiled by Jennifer Chesworth. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jennifer@usresistnews.org.

 

economic icon

A History of the Trump Administration’s Sanctions

Foreign Policy Brief #32: A History of the Trump Administration’s Sanctions

 Update – April 3rd, 2018

On March 15th, the White House finally followed through on demands to sanction Russian individuals and entities, mostly for their involvement in the 2016 US election. Other factors leading to tensions between the two countries have included the recent nerve gas attack in the UK as well as a newly disclosed alleged cyberattack against the US power grid. In August 2017, Trump signed a bill passed nearly unanimously passed by the Senate authorizing him to sanction Russia. In January, Trump shocked many by missing the deadline to enforce those sanctions, instead arguing that by naming Russian offenders the intent of the bill had been fulfilled due to lost revenue.

With pressure finally building due to the UK attack and a letter penned by 140 House Democrats, Trump applied sanctions to a multitude of Russian government officials, the Internet Research Agency – an alleged internet troll farm, the Federal Security Service, and the Main Intelligence Directorate – both intelligence agencies. The sanctions would bar individuals from traveling to the US and freeze their assets. On March 26th, Trump also joined with over 20 other countries in expelling 60 Russian diplomats, to which Putin responded with the planned expulsion of an equal number of US diplomats and the closing of the St. Petersburg American Consulate. 

Iran

  • February 3rd, 2017: The Treasury Department imposed sanctions on 25 individuals and companies allegedly connected to either Iran’s ballistic missile program or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quods Force. This move was in response to recent ballistic missile testing.
  • January 4th, 2018: The Trump administration announced sanctions on five subsidies of the already sanctioned Shahid Bakeri Industrial Group. The group’s logo appeared on missiles used by Yemeni rebels opposing the US-Saudi coalition, suggesting involvement by the Iranian company.
  • January 12th, 2018: The Trump administration issued sanctions on 14 Iranian entities and people while issuing a last chance for European leaders to fix the Iran deal. The most prominent target was Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, the leader of the Iranian Judiciary. Larijani, a close ally of Ayatollah Khamenei, is accused of committing “torture or cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners in Iran”
  • February 2nd, 2018: 6 individuals and 7 businesses across Lebanon, Iraq, and Western Africa suspected of aiding Hezbollah were the target of the most recent set of sanctions. The Lebanese militant group has been accused of being used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to destabilize conflict zones in Iran, Yemen, and Syria. The targets are presumed to be connected to the prominent Hezbollah financier Adham Tabaja.

Syria

  • April 24th, 2017: The Trump administration announced sanctions on 271 employees of Syria’s Scientific Studies and Research Center, allegedly the source of the government’s chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. Assad’s government was accused of using sarin gas on civilians earlier that month. This follows the sanctioning of 18 Syrians, including 6 others from the Research Center, who were sanctioned by the Obama administration that January in response to chlorine gas attacks.
  • May 16th, 2017: The treasury department imposed sanctions on 5 individuals and 5 companies in response to the Syrian government’s “relentless attacks on civilians”. The Trump administration accused the Assad regime of cremating the remains of thousands of hanged prisoners in an effort to “cover up the extent of mass murder”. Amnesty International previously reported that between 5,000 and 13,000 people were hanged at the prison from 2011 to 2015.

North Korea

  • September 21st, 2017: Trump announced sanctions targeting any company or person doing business with North Korea by cutting off their access to the US financial system.
  • December 24th, 2017: Lead by the US, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2397, which cuts exports of refined oil products by 89%, bans exports of industrial equipment, resources, and vehicles to North Korea, limits use of North Korean laborers, and requires countries to stop ships from illegally providing oil to North Korea.
  • December 26th, 2017: The US sanctioned Kim Jong Sik and Ri Pyong Chol, 2 top North Korean officials in the ballistic missile program, in response to last November’s ballistic missile testing.
  • January 24th, 2018: The US issued sanctions on 9 entities, 16 people, and 6 ships accused of “working on behalf of North Korean financial networks”

Analysis

            Sanctions are a tool frequently reached for by the administration to backup Trump’s aggressive rhetoric. We haven’t seen much for positive diplomatic effects of these sanctions and they have lead to some tense exchanges. The Iranian State Media stated that recent sanctions “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic,”. North Korea called last December’s sanctions an “act of war”. With supply lines to China largely cut off, Kim has turned to business fronts in Mozambique to fund his Nuclear slush fund. What is conspicuously missing from Trump’s sanction crosshairs is Russia. In fact, Trump has gone so far as to trigger a constitutional crisis to protect Putin, neglecting to impose Russia sanctions overwhelmingly supported Congress last year. This hypocrisy is evidence of the Trump administrations motivation for sanctions, using them as a display of authority rather than a tool to enforce human rights.

Engagement Resources:

  • Read a Previous U.S. RESIST Brief on the Iran Deal: Here is a brief assessing the implications of Trump’s attitude towards the Iran Deal, which reduces sanctions in return for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.
  • Read an Assessment of All Sanctions Remaining on Iran: This article summarizes the many sanctions which remain on Iran, going back to those initially imposed after the 1979 revolution.

This Brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this Brief please contact Colin@usresistnews.org.

Update – April 3rd, 2018 

On March 15th, the White House finally followed through on demands to sanction Russian individuals and entities, mostly for their involvement in the 2016 US election. Other factors leading to tensions between the two countries have included the recent nerve gas attack in the UK as well as a newly disclosed alleged cyberattack against the US power grid. In August 2017, Trump signed a bill passed nearly unanimously passed by the Senate authorizing him to sanction Russia. In January, Trump shocked many by missing the deadline to enforce those sanctions, instead arguing that by naming Russian offenders the intent of the bill had been fulfilled due to lost revenue

With pressure finally building due to the UK attack and a letter penned by 140 House Democrats, Trump applied sanctions to a multitude of Russian government officials, the Internet Research Agency – an alleged internet troll farm, the Federal Security Service, and the Main Intelligence Directorate – both intelligence agencies. The sanctions would bar individuals from traveling to the US and freeze their assets. On March 26th, Trump also joined with over 20 other countries in expelling 60 Russian diplomats, to which Putin responded with the planned expulsion of an equal number of US diplomats and the closing of the St. Petersburg American Consulate.

 

 

A Review of Trump’s 2018 State of the Union Speech

February 2, 2018

President Trump recently delivered his first State of the Union to the American people. During this speech, he made a plethora of future plans and boasted about his administration’s accomplishments.

List 1 – Trumps’ Plans

There were a plethora of talking points President Trump had during his State of the Union, including lowering the cost of prescription drugs and revitalizing our nuclear weapons program to deter rogue actors such as North Korea. Although these two issues may seem very important the Trump administration prioritized two other plans: immigration and infrastructure.

One of the largest themes of the State of the Union was the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States and the devastating impact of illegal immigration to our people. His plan had four pillars. First, it would offer a pathway to citizenship for nearly 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the United States by their parents at a young age. Second, it would completely secure the border via a border wall. Third, it would end the visa lottery (a program that randomly hands out green cards which according to the Trump administration is handed out without any regard for skill, merit, or safety of America’s people. Finally, it would bring an end to chain migration. According to the Trump administration, a single immigrant can essentially bring an unlimited number of distant relatives.

There are many issues with this bill. First, the Trump administration claims that the visa lottery program blindly gives out visa lotteries but that is not true. Immigrants do not automatically get a visa but have to be eligible to even apply for it. According to the U.S. State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the individual must have at least a high school education or two years of work experience. In addition, the visa lottery is not randomly chosen. Applicants must pass a vetting process which includes passport, police/medical records, and photographs. The agency claims that “National security is our top priority when adjudicating visa applications.”

Secondly, the Trump administration claimed that once an immigrant enters this country they can bring an endless amount of relatives to this country. According to The Hill “The administration’s claims are demonstrably false.” Current law does not allow for you to bring an infinite amount of family members but only the closest family members (spouse, children, parents, and siblings). The Trump proposal would only spouses and children leaving parents and siblings out. There are currently no reunification paths for more distant family members.

In addition to the immigration plan, Trump promised a plethora of other things. One other one is updating and renewing our crumbling infrastructure. As with immigration, this plan lacks a clear plan on how the infrastructure will be built or even funded. The recent tax reform may also add to more problems as many companies may struggle to find new revenue sources. According to Patrick Sisson, “There also weren’t any specific calls to create new funding sources for the plan.”

List 2 – Accomplishments

There was a countless amount of accomplishments the Trump administration was boasting about. The biggest accomplishment that Trump spoke about was the economy. He claimed that black unemployment is the lowest it ever has been, he has added a total of 2.4 million jobs (200,000 of them in manufacturing), and claimed that the tax overhaul that passed Congress gave 3 million workers a tax bonus and was the largest tax cut in history.

It is true that black unemployment is the lowest it ever has been true but the Trump administration is conveniently leaving out other necessary facts. When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment was already at 7.8% (the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Under Trump, that number has fallen to 6.8% continuing its downward trajectory. Although Trump takes credit for accomplishing this, it is important to know that black unemployment was going down long before he took office (started falling from 16% in 2010 under the Obama Administration).

The Trump administration has also claimed that they have added nearly 2.4 million jobs and 200,00 manufacturing jobs. Although these numbers may be true, the pace of job growth has slowed twelve percent during Trump’s first eleven months in office. Even though there are jobs being added to the market it is at a slower rate than other past presidents. Finally, the Trump administration has claimed that they have given 3 million workers a tax bonus. While this may be true, according to the Labor Department the workers that got a tax bonus were only 3 million workers out of 154 million (only about 2%). Furthermore, Trump claimed that it was the largest tax cut in American history which is a false statement. Trump gave a tax cut of around 1.7% while Obama had a 1.8% cut in 2013 and Reagan had a 2.9% cut in 1981.

This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

 

economic icon

Reversing Obama-Era Regulation That Combats Housing Segregation

Congressional Bill
January 2018

Summary

The Trump administration is trying to eliminate the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule started by President Obama. The AFFH  is a legal requirement that federal agencies and federal grantees further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, this means asking communities that receive Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The rule requires jurisdictions that receive federal housing funding to not only document barriers to integration and opportunity, but to detail—and prioritize—policies to eradicate them.

Still, sadly, key components of this bill did not make it through the required Office of Management and Budget review by the time Trump was sworn in. As a result, this means that Trump does not even have to undo the rule as it was never put into effect. “He can just let it languish, unfinished, and direct his HUD secretary to return to business as usual.” LEARN MORE

Analysis

The AFFH regulation passed under the Obama Administration made it so when communities applied for federal HUD money they had to turn in an Analysis of Impediments (AI) form. This form would show how residents of color faced segregation and what actions local officials were using to combat this issue. Sadly, the AIs have been a joke for years for many reasons. First, local leaders don’t take them seriously (they rely on realtors/developers instead of carrying out an actual analysis. Secondly, HUD never checks if the applications are telling the truth. This can be done by either sharing intelligence federal agencies have with state/local officials or simply hiring more personnel to increase accountability. As a result, segregation continues to exist even after multiple decades of the Fair Housing Act. The 2015 AFFH rule would have combatted this by making it easier to prepare accurate AIs by sharing federal data on segregation with local governments. In addition, it would also make it easier for HUD to hold back money from communities that are not actively fighting against segregated housing. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

  • Town Hall Project– This project compiles the open-to-the-public events held by state and local representatives. This provides a great opportunity to tell them that this executive order will do more bad than good. You can also dial 1-844-6-RESIST to be redirected to the office of your local member of Congress.
  • National Housing Law Project – The National Housing Law Project’s mission is to advance housing justice for poor people and communities. – https://www.nhlp.org/
  • The Poverty & Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) – A civil rights policy organization convened by major civil rights, civil liberties, and anti-poverty groups. PRRAC’s primary mission is to help connect advocates with social scientists working on race and poverty issues, and to promote a research-based advocacy strategy on structural inequality issues. – http://prrac.org/about.php
  • US Senate – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation. – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
  • US House of Representatives – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation – http://www.house.gov/representatives/

This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

 

CivilRights01

Department of Defense Issues National Defense Strategy

January 19, 2018

Summary

Last Friday, January 19th, the US Department of Defense published a summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The full document, which is classified, was written in conjunction with the National Security Strategy Report of last December. This is a result of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act which required the Secretary of Defense to present a new national defense strategy in the year following a presidential election. The NDS showed a further divergence from the national security rhetoric of the Obama era. While Afghanistan and North Korea were discussed, the document was more focused on the perceived danger of our geopolitical rivals China and Russia. Defense Secretary Mattis introduced the document stating that “Great-power competition — not terrorism — is now the primary focus of U.S. national security”.

The document asserts that “China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea… It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model — gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions” and that Russia and China are a “central challenge to US prosperity and security.” China was quick to respond to the provocation, with Ren Guoqiang of the Chinese Ministry of National Defense contending that the NDS was “full of unreal assertions of ‘zero-sum’ games and confrontations”. Ren defended China’s “sovereign rights to carry out peaceful construction activities and deploy necessary defense facilities on islands and reefs of the South China Sea”, further suggesting that it “seems that certain countries do not want to see peace and stability in the South China Sea region and insist on intensifying their own military deployment and presence there…they are the backstage manipulator for militarizing the region.”

Defense Secretary Mattis also stated that the NDS is based on the “fundamental precept” that we need to increase defense spending because our survival is in question. Describing our military as “overstretched and under-resourced”, Mattis asked Congress to ensure a stable flow of funding towards the interest of national defense.

Analysis

With over 500,000 US military personnel in the Asia-Pacific region, it is understandable that China is offended by the Trump administration’s accusations of imperialism. As much as Mattis wants to portray the US as the crumbling guardian of democracy, we already take up 36% of global defense spending, more than three times what China spends. With Mattis’ explanation that “history makes clear that America has no preordained right to victory on the battlefield”, one must question whether the problem with the last 50 years of US foreign policy is really a lack of funding or merely a reckless sense of adventurism among Washington war-hawks.

Engagement Resources

  • Read an Analysis of US Presence in the South China Sea: Here is an opinion piece published in Forbes on the subject.
  • Read the Full National Security Strategy Summary: Here is the full summary
  • Read a Previous USResist brief on the National Security Strategy: Here is our brief from last December.

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.

 

Foreign01

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

Pin It on Pinterest