JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
A U.S. RESIST NEWS SPECIAL REPORT; Trump’s League of Tyrants: A Guide to Authoritarian Leaders Around the World
By USRN Analysts Erin Mayer and Colin Shanley One of the most pervasive misreadings of the 2016 election is that Trump is simply an aberration who somehow slipped through the cracks of our otherwise stable institutions, and into a position of power. This view of Trump...
The Industry of Voting: How the Practice of Stealth Politics Serves to Undermine American Democracy
The recent midterm elections have cast a new light on an area of politics that has become increasingly more concerning since Donald Trump first took office in 2017–that of money in politics.
California Wildfires Keep Roaring
A devastating fire has been roaring through California, and the death toll has reached at least 77 people, while 1,000 are still missing.
Federal Oversight of Local Police Stifled by New DOJ Policy; Federal Agency Action
On November 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued the memorandum “Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements with State and Local Government Entities” to the Department of Justice (DOJ). He issued the memorandum moments before he resigned as Attorney General. Consent decrees are often used by the department in order to force state and local entities to comply with constitutional and federal laws.
DACA: an update on our Dreamers
In September 2018, the Trump Administration made known they would like to put an end to the DACA program. DACA (Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals) was an executive action under the Obama Administration that allowed undocumented immigrants who came to the US under the age of 16 to apply for protection from deportation.
Trump Wants to Call the Shots on Asylum Seekers
Brief #58—Immigration Policy Summary In addition to the Trump Administration’s announcement of rolling back DACA (see Brief #57), they have recently announced new rules that give President Trump vast authority to deny asylum to virtually any migrant who crosses...
Pipelines
The oil and gas industry is starting to face some blowback at the legal level. A Federal Circuit Judge in Montana recently rejected the Trump administration’s demand to build a Keystone XL pipeline, marking a new wave of environmentally charged legal decision-making.
THE DEMOCRATIC CIVILITY OFFENSIVE
Ron Wolf: The victorious Democrats flooded the zone on the Sunday morning political talk shows. Likely Speaker Nancy Pelosi and ranking members of key house committees who are in line to become the chairmen hit the airwaves to explain their priorities. The guests...
As Gun Violence Peaks, the 116th Congress Must Act Fast
Brief #14---Gun Control Policy Summary A Saturday turned from a morning of worship and celebration to one of tragedy and grief as a gunman opened fire with an assault rifle and at least three hand guns in the Pittsburg synagogue Tree of Life. Police say this act of...
Trump Administration Cracks Down on Legal Marijuana
January 4, 2018
Summary
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would reestablish federal marijuana laws as a priority. His announcement goes against the Obama-era Cole Memo guidelines that deprioritized enforcing federal marijuana laws and gave states the freedom to establish their own legislation. The new memo stirred confusion in the states that have already legalized recreational use of marijuana, such as California where cannabis became legal just a few days before Session’s announcement. Users in states where marijuana is legal will not have trouble with state officials but could be prosecuted by federal officials. This contradiction has stirred fear and confusion in the booming industry. It is still unclear how the changes will affect medical marijuana. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Some entrepreneurs think Session’s action was more of a political show than an actual threat. Sessions has always been a strong opponent to marijuana and is quoted comparing cannabis to heroin and saying “good people don’t smoke marijuana” and that he thought the KKK was “OK until I found out they smoked pot.” Many feel that marijuana regulation should be similar to that of alcohol because marijuana is safer than alcohol and even has some health benefits. A Gallup Poll recently revealed that a record 64% of Americans support marijuana legalization. Executive director of the Drug and Policy Alliance Maria McFarland Sanchez-Moreno points out that marijuana legalization is much more popular than Sessions or Trump and she expects it to outlive them both. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- NORML – Working to reform marijuana laws and keep legalization a state issue.
- Marijuana Policy Project – Working to make marijuana policy more like alcohol policy and reduce or eliminate penalties for marijuana use.
- 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.
Increased Oversight on HHS Word hoice and EPA employees
Health & Human Services Guidance
2018-2019 Budget Proposal Meeting
Summary
In a recent budget preparation meeting, members of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), a subset of the Division of Health & Human Services (HHS), were informed that a list of seven words were not to be used in budgets and budget proposals. These seven words were “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” In some cases, alternate phrases were suggested, such as “the CDC bases its recommendations on science in consideration with community standards and wishes,” while no alternatives were given for many others. Policy analysts in the original meeting reported these new restrictions, but the administration has pushed back saying that nothing has been officially “banned” and the complaints are unfounded. The Secretary of HHS and the Under Secretary of the CDC have made statements saying that their interest is the health of the American people, and they cannot live up to this mandate without the proper vocabulary, let alone proper evidence.
In another measure of increased restrictions, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of negotiating a new contract with a media monitoring organization, Definers Public Affairs. Pruitt and the EPA claim that Definers has been hired to do press clips and keep track of media affairs worldwide. However, recent events suggest that EPA employees are being monitored, especially those critical of Secretary Pruitt. In a report recently published by the New York Times, emails containing the names of Mr. Pruitt or Mr. Trump were read and analyzed by a lawyer for America Rising, a Republican Research group affiliated with Definers Public Affairs. These emails were requested and obtained after employees spoke out in meetings, disagreed with decision making or attended public demonstrations. There is a cruel irony in these increased restrictions as the President opens public and protected lands for oil drilling, mining, and even fracking.
Analysis
If the HHS and CDC have restricted words for their budget proposals, then so do the thousands of researchers, universities, and organizations that apply for and receive funding from HHS and its affiliates. This includes the National Institute of Health (NIH), which supplies funding for a variety of medical research. Banning words like science-based and evidence-based is alarming in a field where evidence and science drive daily decisions. However, words like “Trans” and “Fetus” target areas of research, such as the health and outcomes of trans youth. While there has been little official documentation of these banned words and phrases, already HHS affiliates are preparing to do what it takes to continue their work. Whether their emails come under scrutiny next is still unknown.
Outrage ensued after the report was released by the New York Times, and more evidence was discovered regarding video monitoring and Definers Public Affairs’ early support of Pruitt. The EPA announced that it was canceling its contract with Definers Public Affairs. Both parties said that this company’s efficiency would have saved the EPA money, but it isn’t worth the accusations that have arisen. At this point, a new firm has not been announced and officials say the search continues.
Engagement Resources
- Read the Full New York Times Report on EPA Employee Email Monitoring
- Learn more about the HHS budget
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.
State Department Suspends Aid to Pakistan
January 9, 2018
Summary
This past Thursday the State Department announced the cancellation of hundreds of millions of dollars in security aid for Pakistan. The point of contention is Pakistan’s continued alleged hesitance to cut ties to terrorist organizations such as The Taliban and The Haqqani network. Pakistan has been accused of providing a safe haven and even funding for these groups, who are both currently fighting NATO forces in Afghanistan. While the exact dollar amount to be withheld is yet to be announced, the State Department has made it clear that the money will not be re-appropriated, and will be returned upon renewed commitment to fight terror by the Pakistani government.
The announcement, preceded with a signature furious tweet from the President, had all the trappings of another erratic departure from historic US foreign policy. However, this is instead another advancement in a long history of contention between the two countries. President Reagan’s administration worked with Pakistan to fuel militant Islamist groups to fight Soviet influence in Afghanistan. Only a year after their victory in 1989, the US sanctioned Pakistan to discourage their pursuit of a nuclear arms program. Following 9/11, the United States found renewed interest in a Pakistani alliance and resumed funding. In 2011, the Obama administration suspended $800 million in military aid shortly after finding Osama bin Laden hiding just three hours outside of Islamabad. In 2015, $300 million of Pentagon funding was made conditional on Pakistan acting against the Haqqani network in Afghanistan.
Analysis
While cutting funding to settle a dispute is classic of the Trump playbook, we may find that the United States does not have much leverage in this case. Pakistan has been a valuable asset for the US military in the war in Afghanistan. The Karachi port is an invaluable supply line and the US also uses Pakistani bases to launch drone strikes. The Pakistani military and intelligence community hold a strong influence over the civilian government, and according to the former Pakistani ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani, “Pakistan’s military has convinced itself that it is acting in Pakistan’s national interest and that pursuing that interest is more important than U.S. aid.” Anti-American sentiment is rampant among the Pakistani populace, and bending to the will of Trump would not be a popular move in a country heading towards a general election in July. Islamabad issued a statement calling for “mutual respect and trust along with patience and persistence”, but opposition leader Imran Khan insisted that it was “time for Pakistan to delink from the US.” China, which already provides investment for a $60 billion infrastructure program in Pakistan, is promising to grant further support. The two countries have maintained a long and fruitful relationship, while the Pakistani foreign minister described the United States as the “friend who always betrays”. There’s a good chance this may be the final straw for Pakistan.
Engagement Resources
- Read the State Department’s Extended Explanation: Here is the State Department’s briefing
- Read More About Pakistan’s Relationship With China: Here is an article by Al Jazeera on The Strategic Importance of Chinese-Pakistani Relations
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.
President Trump’s “Election Fraud” Commission [UPDATED]
Executive Order
Issued on June 28, 2017
Update: January 3, 2018
On January 3, 2018, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order terminating the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. President Trump had created the commission last year to investigate whether there were instances of voter fraud and of non – citizens voting in U.S. elections. The Commission was viewed as a desperate attempt to investigate a problem that was seen as non – existent. After numerous states refused to hand over voter rolls information that contained sensitive personal data of voters others began to speak out on the sham nature of the commission. Two Republican strategists who had worked on campaigns for decades said they had never seen any instances of voter fraud. And members of the commission itself began to question the usefulness of the commission after getting no response to simple requests and inquiries into the commission’s activities. As Dale Ho, Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project said, “This commission was a sham from the start and everyone recognized it.” LEARN MORE
Summary
On May 11, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that established the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. Section 3 of the order explains the mission of the commission, which is to “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.” On June 28, 2017, Kris W. Kobach, the Vice Chair of the Commission sent an identical letter to all 50 states and the District of Columbia requesting voter roll data from each state which could be submitted through an online portal. The information requested includes highly sensitive personal information such as birthdate, partial social security numbers, addresses, voting history and military status in a stated attempt to “fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The personal information requested by Vice Chair Kris Kobach of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is a meaningless gesture. The establishment of the Advisory Commission overlooks a report by the Washington Post in January that found nine investigations into voter fraud that found virtually nothing. There are investigations from academia, from the George W. Bush Administration, from a major newspaper and even statements from President Trump’s own lawyers claiming there was no fraud in the 2016 election! The appointment of Kris Kobach hints at a possible motive for the Trump Administration as the former Kansas Secretary of State has a long history of making exaggerated voter fraud allegations and of illegally trying to suppress voting rights. With overwhelming evidence from a variety of sources already, it is questionable whether another investigation will yield any new conclusions. Forty – four states and D.C. have refused the commission’s request on privacy grounds but it is clear that part of the reason is that a good segment of the population and the states are fed up with the lies put forth by the Administration that could lead to misuse of personal data to suppress votes in the future and dubious new voting policies, especially in light of Mr. Kobach’s prior advocacy of questionable voting programs. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – web page petition to remove Kris Kobach from Commission.
- Brennan Center for Justice – web page analyzing President Trump’s “election fraud” commission.
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.
GOP Attack on the ACA Leaves Health Care Increasingly Government Subsidized
Tax Bill Passed Late December
Summary
In a tweet the day after Christmas, President Donald Trump announced that the Tax Cut Bill essentially repeals the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and forces Democrats and Republicans to collaborate to create new health law. The bill eliminates the ACA’s tax penalty for not having insurance, allowing low-risk individuals to leave the insurance market. Without low-risk individuals contributing to the pool, the remaining insurance buyers have higher costs, so premiums rise. As premiums rise for people who remain in the health insurance market, the government becomes increasingly responsible for subsidizing rising health care costs. The increased government coverage is similar to Medicaid under the ACA in many ways. However, while the ACA offered a mix of publically and privately funded health care, the default health care system after the tax bill shifts the funding away from the private market and gives the government an even larger role in subsidizing health care. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The GOP inadvertently increased government spending and responsibility on health care relative to private spending. The enhanced role of federal subsidies makes the ACA more like a government-run health care system than ever before. To avoid increased involvement and costs, some Republicans hope to make changes to the health care system before the insurance mandate is eliminated in 2019. Given the numerous failures of the GOP to pass health care legislation, these changes may not be easy to pass. Either way, according to the CBO, the changes to health care in the tax bill will lead to 13 million fewer Americans with health insurance in 10 years.
Engagement Resources
- Not One Penny resists the “Trump Tax” through protests, contacting legislators, posting articles, and more.
- Indivisible ensures that people from every part of the country have the opportunity to voice their opinions and resist laws such as the “Tax Scam.”
- 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.
Trump Submits National Security Strategy Report
December 23, 2017
Summary
President Trump revealed the first National Security Strategy Report of his presidency on Monday, further displaying his ideological departure from previous presidents. Trump’s report takes a more grim perspective than past reports, painting a picture of a world overrun with jihadist terrorists, international crime organizations, and conniving allies seeking to undermine the United States. While clear directives are largely absent, proposed solutions primarily include raising the defense budget and further promoting neoliberal market reforms. China and Russia are mentioned as “revisionist powers”, with a vague reference to Russia’s targeting of “media [and] political processes”. In highlighting the dangers of our “porous” border “chain migration” is designated as a threat, suggesting a further shift in rhetoric from opposing illegal immigration to immigration in general. This is not the only instance of Trump’s use of the report for vague race baiting, as he states that one of the five universal truths setting the stage for our security strategy is that “A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future.”, an uncomfortable allusion to the confederate statue conflicts of August.
Analysis
What is most telling about this year’s report is not the threats that are included, but those which are absent. Worldwide poverty is only cited as an excuse to deregulate the market, human rights are barely mentioned, and phrases such as “climate change” and “food insecurity” are completely missing. Russia and China are almost solely discussed as a pair, downplaying the far more serious danger to international peace and security that Russia has proven itself to be in recent years. North Korea’s dangerous pursuance of nuclear weapons is mentioned, but there is no suggestion of a commitment to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the world. In fact, Trump’s perception of the largest factor engendering war and conflict is our under-funded, weak military – despite the enormously disproportionate amount of funds we direct to our defense in comparison to the rest of the world. Conversely, Trump also warns of the “grave threat” of our growing debt, which only comes off as more insincere when mentioned immediately after pushing for the largest tax cut in decades. The underpinning of what causes Trump’s security strategy to read so differently from those of past presidents is that he does not believe the United States and its allies can grow together cooperatively. Trump promotes strategic partnerships, but ultimately he views all of our relationships as inherently competitive. Whether it be through trade deals or the spreading of American influence, in Trump’s mind, we can only succeed at the expense of others.
Engagement Resources
- Read the full report: Here you can find the full, 68-page report
- Compare with the previous report: Here you can find a summary of the main components of Obama’s 2015 report.
- Read an article on defense spending: This 2016 article, written by Time magazine, explores the major disconnect between citizens and politicians ideas of appropriate defense budgets.
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.
Trump Administration New Tax Bill
December 20, 2017
Summary
The Republican-led Congress passed a sweeping overhaul of the US tax code on December 20th just days before their holiday recess. The bill totals an estimated $1.5 trillion in tax cuts. Its main focus is on cutting taxes on businesses of all kinds and on reducing taxes for wealthy individuals.
Highlights of the new tax bill include: a permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate from 34 to 21 percent; businesses also will be able to write off their investments in capital expenditures right away instead of waiting several years; and small businesses will get a reduction in their business taxes. Businesses also will get a 25% deduction for income from partnerships, S Corporations, and sole proprietorships (providing incentives for business to set up such pass-through entities. Businesses that have depreciable property that wears out over time will get an additional 20% deduction even if they don’t have many employees.
The wealthiest Americans would have their tax rate slashed from 39.6% to 35% and benefit from reductions in the estate tax, a levy on inheritance paid only by the wealthiest Americans. Middle class and poor families would get some modest reduction in taxes, but these are temporary and will begin to expire in 2019. The maximum amount deductible under the Child Tax Credit (CTC) will increase to $2,000 with no limit on the incomes of those who can utilize it. ( Wealthier people will be able to make greater use of the CTC than middle class and poor people.) The ability to make a standard deduction for every taxpayer and dependent on a return will be eliminated until 2025.
There also are several politically loaded components to the bill including: a limitation on the ability to deduct (beyond the 1st $10,000 in value) the cost of state and local taxes on federal income tax returns (a clause that will especially penalize traditionally democratic states such as California and New York with high state and local tax rates.)The tax bill also ends the Obamacare mandate that all Americans must have health insurance. And it will add at least $ 1 trillion dollars to America’s budget deficit.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/whats-in-the-new-tax-bill/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/15/us/politics/final-republican-tax-bill-cuts.html
Analysis
The new Republican tax bill will mainly benefit corporations and wealthy individuals. Middle class and lower income individuals and families will receive a few benefits, but most of these are temporary and scheduled to end in a few years. The theory behind the new bill is that providing tax breaks to the wealthy will free up income that will be invested and help the economy grow, create jobs, and narrow the income gap. However, this approach has failed to work many times before, going back to the tax cuts made by Ronald Reagan under what was known as “trickle-down” economics. Instead of leading to greater investments jobs, tax cuts for the rich usually result in just more profits for those at the top.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 13 million Americans may lose access to health care as a result of the tax bill’s repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate, a move that is likely to drive up the cost of health insurance. Taxpayers can deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of AGI in 2017 and 2018, but the new deduction level ends Jan. 1, 2019.
The fact that the new bill will add at least $1.5 trillion to the current budget deficit, already at$ 20 trillion, is cause for concern. The government will need to find new sources of revenue to reduce the deficit, something that many think the Republicans will try to do by reducing entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and social security.
This new bill was rushed through Congress with no hearings and no bipartisan support. In the House and Senate, no Democrats voted in favor of the bill. The reason for this is President Trump and Republican desire to have some legislative victory during Trump’s first year in office. But the victory is sure to come at the expanse of voter anger at the polls in 2018. Almost all public opinion surveys show that the new tax bill has the least amount of popular support in the history of tax bill legislation.
It also is worth noting that President Trump and his family, along with other members of his administration stand to gain significant reductions in their taxes from the new bill, for example through changes in the estate tax, and the special exemptions for the type of businesses that they own.
Engagement Resources
- Tax Policy Center: (www.taxpolicycenter.org) – The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center aims to provide independent analyses of current and longer-term tax issues and to communicate its analyses to the public and to policymakers in a timely and accessible manner. The Center combines top national experts in tax, expenditure, budget policy, and microsimulation modeling to concentrate on four overarching areas of tax policy that are critical to future debate.
- Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (www.itep.org) – The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization that provides timely, in-depth analyses on the effects of federal, state, and local tax policies. ITEP’s mission is to ensure the nation has a fair and sustainable tax system that raises enough revenue to fund our common priorities, including education, healthcare, infrastructure and public safety.
This brief was compiled by Ron Israel. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact emily@usresistnews.org.
Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban 3.0
December 4, 2017
Summary
On Monday, December 4, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the third revision of the Trump travel ban could lawfully take effect. Travel Ban 3.0 had previously been blocked by Judge Derrick K. Watson, a federal judge in Hawaii, the day before its provisions were set to be implemented. While this is a major victory for the Trump administration, legal challenges brought against the ban continue to proceed in lower courts, which could ultimately affect this ruling.
Analysis
This ruling sets a dangerous precedent for the future of immigration policy under Trump, as well as negatively impacts foreign relations for countries implicated by the ban and otherwise. The tangible effects of the ban’s implementation are spelled out in the provisions, but the potential consequences of the ban that are not yet known on the country’s workforce and economy are of equal concern. In addition, allies of nations that are affected by the ban will view the US in a negative light if they do not already, increasing mounting tensions across the globe and diminishing efforts for meaningful diplomacy.
Engagement Resources
- Act with ACLU Action: ACLU Action enables people to sign petitions and contact their representatives regarding pressing social and political matters. Through ACLU Action, you can add your name to the petition to call on Congress to rescind the travel ban immediately.
- Support the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending immigrants with low income. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came here in search of a better life. You can support NILC’s mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
- Stay Up to Date with the National Immigration Forum: The National Immigration Forum is a DC-based nonprofit that leads the nation in constructive conversation and advocacy for the value of immigrants and immigration. The Forum is currently running a program called Immigration 2020, a multi-constituency effort to ensure that new Americans have the opportunities, skills, and status they need to contribute to the United States and realize their maximum potential. Join the organization’s email list to stay update on all things related to immigration policy.
This brief was compiled by Allie Blum. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact allie@usresistnews.org.
Trump Recognizes Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel
December 6, 2017
Summary
On December 6th, President Trump announced that the US formally recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and will begin the process of moving its embassy, which is currently based in Tel Aviv. The announcement was identified as a “new approach” for finding Trump’s promised “ultimate deal” for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While West Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel, East Jerusalem is considered to be occupied territory by most of the world, and is often envisioned as the eventual capital of a future Palestinian state. East Jerusalem is also home to both Jewish and Muslim holy sites, including the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as over 300 thousand Palestinians. Other countries avoid provoking conflict by basing their embassies in Tel Aviv. The policy change has aroused ire from much of the Muslim world, with the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation announcing that they will no longer accept US help in the peace process. Rallies protesting the move have been attended by thousands in Jakarta, Indonesia; Ankara, Turkey; and Karachi, Pakistan. Several Palestinian protesters have been killed in clashes with the Israeli Defence Force. Even two of Trump’s favorite heads of state, Putin and Erdogan, have criticized his decision. A UN resolution declaring the move to be legally void – supported by the other 14 members of the Security Council – was vetoed by the US.
Analysis
The transition towards recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is actually the culmination of a bill passed over twenty years ago. The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, which received bipartisan support, directed the embassy to be relocated no later than 1999. Clinton, and every successive president until now, have elected to sign bi-yearly national security waivers to keep the embassy in place. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is leading the administration’s peace efforts, even convinced the President to do the same earlier this year. This tradition has allowed the United States to keep up appearances as a neutral mediator of the conflict. Trump’s decision reinforces the belief held by many Palestinians – that the United States is solely concerned with ensuring the goals of the state of Israel. This could have a permanent destructive effect on the possibility of ever finding peace between the two embattled groups.
Engagement Resources
- Learn about one martyred Palestinian activist: Ibrahim Abu Thurayyah was a renowned activist who was killed by an IDF sniper during recent protests. Al-Jazeera has more details on his story and message.
- Check out J-Street: J-Street is a pro-Israel organization working to find a peaceful, humane solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You can learn more about their positions on their website.
- Donate to the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights: The USCPR is an organization founded in 2001 with the mission of shifting US policy towards recognizing the human rights of Palestinians. You can donate on their website.
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.
Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Contraceptive Rollback
Friday, December 15
This brief updates previous health briefs. For more information, please see the June 10th brief on the drafting of the rule and the October 12th brief on the issuing of the contraceptive rollback.
Summary
On Friday, Pennsylvania Federal Judge Wendy Beetlestone temporarily blocked the Trump Administration’s rules that allowed employers to deny contraceptive coverage to employees based on moral or religious objections. The administration drafted the rules early this summer and officially issued them in early October. Other states have sued to block the controversial rules. Judge Beetlestone argued that Pennsylvania is “likely to suffer serious and irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunction.” Others, like Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, argue that Congress has not changed the requirements in the ACA, so Trump’s rule is illegal and undermines women’s health. The rules are another way the Trump Administration is undermining the Affordable Care Act after the GOP’s inability to pass its own health care bill. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Contraceptive coverage was required in the Affordable Care Act with few exemptions. Trump’s rules expanded exemptions for religious or moral objections and allow employers, colleges, and universities with student health plans to deny birth control coverage. Notre Dame University, for example, announced that it would stop providing contraceptive coverage to students and employees after the October ruling, but has since reversed the decision after facing backlash. The main ideological clash circles around who has the right to make decisions about contraceptives. Trump and some conservative organizations feel that requiring contraceptive coverage violates employer’s religious and moral freedoms. Opponents, like most Democrats, Planned Parenthood, and the United Nations argue that it is each woman’s right to have access to contraceptives so that she has the choice to use them or not based on her own religious and moral belief system and not that of her boss. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Learn how to counter common arguments against free access to contraceptives and support that birth control is a human right.
- 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.