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

 

The “Politics” of Fighting For A Supreme Court Seat

On July 9, 2018, President Donald J. Trump nominated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to replace Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who stepped down after thirty years on the Court.

read more

Methane Cutbacks and What it Means

Rollbacks appear to be the defining characteristic of the Trump administration, particularly with relation to environmental oversight. Last week, the Department of the Interior in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management decided to ease restrictions on leaking, venting and flaring methane from fossil fuel drilling on public lands, ostensibly saving the fossil fuel industry approximately $1.01 billion over the next 10 years. By contrast, the Obama era regulations, which have since been nixed, would have reduced methane emissions by 35%.

read more
Jobs01 e1489352304814

Justice Department Files Motion to Dismiss Lawsuits Against DACA Repeal

October 27, 20174

Summary

On Friday, October 27, the New York Times reported that the Justice Department filed a motion in a Brooklyn federal courthouse to dismiss two lawsuits filed in response to the impending repeal of the DACA program. This is the first time that the Justice Department has taken such action to defend its repeal of DACA. The motion argues that the government has “absolute discretion to end the program for any reason or no reason, with or without notice.”  Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis will consider the motion.

Analysis

While it is technically within the scope of President Trump’s powers to repeal DACA, as it was created through an executive order issued by President Obama, the rhetoric in which Attorney General Session deploys in the motion is dangerous. To assert that the Justice Department can repeal a program protecting and preserving the lives of 800,000 young people in the United States can be lawfully done “without reason” only further supports claims made by immigration lawyers and Democratic state attorney generals was arbitrary and a gross display of animus towards the Latino community.

Engagement Resources

  • Get Involved with Here to Stay: Here to Stay is a campaign run by United We Dream aimed at defending DACA. The organization hosts local Defend DACA rallies and other events, holds community calls, and provides resources for understanding DACA, as well as mental health resources for anyone who is affected by Trump’s decision to end DACA.
  • Take Action with 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 help NILC advance its mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
  • Get Involved With the American Civil Liberties Union: The ACLU is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” They have been actively involved in court cases challenging the Trump Administration on Immigration. You can learn more about supporting the ACLU in their fight for just immigration policy here.

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.


 

Immigration01

Jane Doe Permitted to Legally Seek Abortion

October 19, 2017

Summary

On Thursday, October 19, lawyers from the Trump administration sought an emergency order from a federal court to block a 17-year old undocumented immigrant from having an abortion. The 17-year old, who is referred to in court as Jane Doe, was found to be pregnant in a detention center in Texas, where she was taken to after she had been found attempting to illegally enter the country. Though a state judge in Texas permitted Jane to seek an abortion, per the requirements of Texas abortion law for a minor who does not have the permission of her parents, federal officials were unwavering and would not permit Jane to seek the procedure.  Attorney General Sessions attempted to prolong the ruling, which was scheduled for the following Friday, and lawyers from the Department of Justice stated that Jane could get an abortion if she returned to her home country. Had the proceedings been delayed, it is quite possible that Jane Doe would not have been able to legally seek an abortion regardless of the ruling, for Texas law does not permit abortions to be sought after 20 weeks of pregnancy, and Jane Doe was 15 weeks pregnant at the time of the hearing.

On Wednesday, October 25 a federal appeals court ruled that Jane could legally seek an abortion. She was represented by Brigitte Amiri, an attorney from the ACLU. In her statement, Jane wrote that she crossed the border to fulfill her dream of becoming a nurse and caring for the elderly. She wrote that she is not ready for motherhood, and this decision is one between her and God.

Analysis

The Department of Justice’s attempt to block Jane Doe from seeking an abortion is an egregious and shocking display of when the federal government’s likening to meddle in the reproductive affairs of a woman who they quite frankly do not even want in the country. Deport her if she enters the country illegally to seek a better life, but keep her here and infringe upon her reproductive rights should she attempt to seek a very personal and private procedure. Though Jane Doe was able to seek an abortion legally, this case sets a very concerning precedent for the state of affairs concerning reproductive rights for all women in the United States, undocumented and documented alike.

Engagement Resources

  • Act With and/or Donate to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund: PPFA is the legislative arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The fund advocates for abortion access, birth control, and health care equity. Find out how you can act beside PPFA or donate to the fund and support its efforts to preserve women’s reproductive, family planning, and health care rights.
  • Get Involved With the American Civil Liberties Union: The ACLU is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” They have been actively involved in court cases challenging the Trump Administration on Immigration. You can learn more about supporting the ACLU in their fight for just immigration policy here.
  • Support Kids In Need of DefenseKIND protects immigrant and refugee children through providing them with pro bono legal services and educating the public on the most pressing issues facing the child immigrant and refugee community. You can support KIND through donating and/or getting involved in the Back to School campaign.

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.


 

Immigration01

Hawaii Federal Court Blocks Travel Ban 3.0

Travel Ban Attempt
Blocked on October 17, 2017

Summary

On Tuesday, October 17, Judge Derrick K. Watson, a federal judge in Hawaii blocked Trump’s third attempt at restricting the entry of into the US for citizens of the countries listed in the most recent iteration of Trump’s Travel Ban. This is not Judge Watson’s first intervention with Trump’s travel bans; he also blocked the second version of the Travel Ban, deeming its provisions unconstitutional. The move came one day before revisions to the ban were set to go into effect. Watson wrote in his ruling that this version, and its two predecessors, “lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six countries would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” which would be necessary information in order for the ban to be lawfully enforced. The remaining two countries that were not protected by the block were North Korea and Venezuela, so it remains that certain people from these two countries, as set forth in the third revision to the Travel Ban, remain barred from entering the United States. The White House called this decision “dangerously flawed,” and the Department of Justice separately stated that the decision has implications to negatively affect national security.

Analysis

Judge Watson’s ruling on both Travel Bans 2.0 and 3.0 demonstrate that the politics of fear will not go unchallenged by those who will not accept the hateful rhetoric and fear-mongering tactics deployed by Trump on the campaign trail and in the White House. In addition to lack of reasonable evidence, Watson took a stand against blatantly discriminatory politics, which will hopefully serve to set a precedent for a culture shift away from the politics of fear in the wake of Trump.

Engagement Resources

  • Take Action with 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 help NILC advance its mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
  • Support the Council on Foreign Relations: Founded in 1921, CFR is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for helping invested individuals better understand the world and foreign policy changes facing the United States and other countries. You can learn more about CFR’s work and support CFR here.
  • Get Involved With the American Civil Liberties Union: The ACLU is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization whose stated mission is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.” They have been actively involved in court cases challenging the Trump Administration on Immigration. You can learn more about supporting the ACLU in their fight for just immigration policy here.

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.


 

Immigration01

President Trump’s Policy On Transgender in the U.S. Military [UPDATE]

President Trump’s Policy On Transgender in the U.S. Military [UPDATE]

Brief #16—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On July 26, 2017, President Donald Trump announced on his Twitter account a reinstatement of a ban on transgender persons from serving in the United States Armed Forces. The President’s full statement reads, “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.” President’s Trump ban is a reversal of policy that had been approved under the Obama Administration and which was waiting to be implemented by the Defense Department. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
President Trump’s surprise decision is not supported by academic studies and medical research. His decision claims to be based on medical costs and disruption to military readiness but studies have disproven these claims. A Rand Corporation study in 2016 commissioned by the Department of Defense found that allowing transgender persons to serve would have a “minimal impact” on health care costs. The same study also examined 18 countries that permitted transgender persons to serve and found “no negative impact on operational readiness, effectiveness or cohesion.” President Trump’s decision simply ignores the facts to reach an arbitrary decision. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Update: On August 29, 2017, Secretary of Defense James Mattis issued a statement that he is in receipt of President Trump’s Memorandum banning transgender peoples from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces and its directive to comply with the statement President Trump made regarding this on July 26, 2017.

The Secretary of Defense’s statement that a study and implementation plan will be developed appears to be another attempt to distort facts to reach a conclusion the President and his team prefer. While it is admirable that Secretary Mattis will allow current transgender troops to continue to serve, a new study will accomplish nothing. As previously written in this brief, transgender troops will have minimal impact on health care costs and their service, as found by 18 nations studying the issue, found no negative impact on combat effectiveness. Another study won’t change that conclusion unless President Trump and Secretary Mattis intend to fabricate the study to get the result that they want so they can justify their discriminatory action.

Update No. 2: On Monday, October 30, 2017, United States District Court Judge Colleen Kollar – Kotelly issued a preliminary ruling that blocked provisions of a policy that did not allow the enlistment and retention of transgender peoples from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. President Donald J. Trump had announced the controversial policy in a July 26, 2017 tweet. The most interesting portion of the ruling was the judge’s criticism of the President. In her ruling she stated, “All of the reasons proffered by the President for excluding transgender individuals from the military in this case were not merely unsupported, but were actually contradicted by the studies, conclusions and judgment of the military itself.” Her ruling is just another repudiation of a boastful President who has offered questionable facts and statements far, far too many times for a person occupying the Oval Office. LEARN MORE

Update No. 3: On March 23, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense disqualifying from military service transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The memorandum revoked President Trump’s prior August 29, 2017 memorandum banning transgender persons from serving although this memorandum is not any different in substance. Mark Stern reports in an article on slate.com that the impetus for the move came from Vice – President Michael Pence, who has long been an opponent of transgender persons serving in the military. The Vice – President issued a report that shows how medical costs and operational readiness would become a burden because of transgender persons serving but the report is seen as being written to accommodate their pre-conceived notions against transgender military service. Luckily, some Republican leaders in Congress are refusing to fall in line and follow President Trump and Vice – President Pence’s new policy. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), a member of the Armed Services Committee, has broken ranks and announced that she supports transgender persons serving in the armed forces. This new policy will likely be challenged in the courts so the battle is far from over. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Update No. 4: On January 4, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an unsigned order that lifted a federal district court injunction that barred the government from instituting President Trump’s plan to limit military service for transgender persons.

The appeals court ruling reasoned that the lower court’s ruling blocking President Trump’s plan made an erroneous finding that the administration’s plan was “the equivalent of a blanket ban on transgender service.” The appeals court noted that President’s Trump plan had been revised before and that the most recent revision permitted a small number of transgender persons to continue to serve in the armed forces but still banned new transgender troops from joining. What is notable about the ruling is when the appeals court made a distinction with the term “blanket ban” and the sentence “not all transgender persons seek to transition to their preferred gender.” This might infer that the government might be willing to let transgender persons serve in the military so long as the government does not have to contribute funds for the person’s sex – reassignment surgery. In addition to the funding issue, this also raises the question as to whether the government is trying to force transgender persons to serve if they are only classified in their birth sex.

The ruling is only one in a number of cases around the country that are challenging the President’s plan. While this case addressed a number of issues, there are still a number of other cases to rule on the merits of the plan, which might lead to conflicting legal determinations. The case seems likely headed to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the issue. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group supporting transgender rights.

National Center for Transgender Equality – non – profit group promoting transgender equality.

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.

Photo by Chris Johnson

Anti-Russian Influence Bill

Proposed Legislation
Proposed in October 2017

Summary

During the last election and a plethora of time after it, many congressional lawmakers and experts have hypothesized that the Russians had some form of influence during our national election. A group of senators introduced a bill that would mandate online political advisers to provide information about their aids. This information may pertain to who is paying for the aids or any other information to prevent foreign governments from influencing our US elections. Democratic senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobucher introduced the Honest Ads Act and it was cosponsored by Republican Senator John McCain. Klobuchar claimed that “Our entire democracy was founded on the simple idea that the people in our country should be self-governing. Now, 240 years later, our democracy is at risk. Russia attacked our elections, and they and other foreign powers and interests will continue to divide our country if we don’t act now.” READ MORE

Analysis

Adam Sharp, former head of news, government, and election on Twitter claimed that “It’s a good piece of legislation to address the modern realities of campaign financing and the need for disclosure”. In addition, the bill amends the Bipartisan Campaign Reform of 2002 by requiring tech platforms with more than 50 million monthly users to “maintain and make available for online public inspection a record of advertisers who spend at least $500 on the platform for advertising on campaign issues”. This legislation will solve a major regulatory blind spot because online political aids are unregulated in the status quo. This is key as the Internet Research Agency found that Facebook created nearly 470 fake accounts with purchases up to $100,000 ads, Twitter had 200 accounts and Google had discovered $4,700 worth of ads. At the end of this day, this piece of legislation increases the level of transparency since it requires disclosures by these tech giants. This sentiment was repeated by Alex Howard, deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation (a government transparency advocacy group) when he claimed “This is a substantive legislative proposal that addresses the online disclosure gap that we and other good-government advocates and campaign-finance experts have talked about for years.

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.
  • US Senate – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation.
  • US House of Representatives – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation

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.


 

Foreign01

Mueller’s White House Interviews, Fusion GPS vs. Nunes, Sessions’ Oversight Hearing

News of the Russia investigations over the past week has mainly focused on testimonies, interviews, or refusals from persons of interest. The special counsel has been busy interviewing White House staffers, while the congressional intelligence committees have had less luck bringing witnesses to the stand. The House Intelligence Committee is beset as ever by conflict, this time between recused chairman Devin Nunes and the firm behind the controversial Steele dossier. Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and unsurprisingly refused to discuss Russia-investigation-related matters.

DoJ and Special Counsel

Mueller’s team has been circling in on the White House, conducting interviews with recently departed staffers over the past weeks and reportedly planning to meet with more former and current officials in the near future. Last Friday, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus met voluntarily with the special counsel, reportedly to discuss Priebus’ knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the President’s most controversial Russia-investigation-related actions, including former FBI director Comey’s firing and the response to Donald Trump Jr’s infamous Trump Tower meeting, among other things. Priebus’ interview had been scheduled for some time but kept being delayed while the special counsel’s team waited for its relevant White House document requests to be fulfilled. After Priebus, Mueller met with former White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday. Spicer was reportedly interviewed about his knowledge of and responses to Comey’s firing and the Trump Tower meeting as well. Although future interviews are not yet scheduled, the special counsel is expected to meet with at least two current administration officials in the coming months: White House communications director Hope Hicks, and White House counsel Don McGahn.

Senate Intelligence Committee

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation has had a somewhat disappointing week, after being denied documents and testimony from a few key witnesses. Notable among these is former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who refused to comply with initial Committee requests for documents regarding his Russian contacts and connections, which prompted the Committee to issue a subpoena. Although the Committee reportedly expects Page to invoke 5th Amendment rights in order to avoid testimony, Page’s position on cooperation with the Russia investigations has frequently shifted. He has expressed willingness to cooperate with Senate investigators, and told the media that he was already interviewed by the FBI; after the Committee first requested information from him he then indicated that he would not cooperate, but following the Committee’s subpoena NBC reported that Page had instead asked to testify publicly on November 1st, which is the day the Committee scheduled their hearing for Facebook and other influential social media company officials to testify.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has also been trying to obtain information from former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s son concerning his role in the family’s business dealings, especially meetings and close contact with Russian businesses and Kremlin affiliates. The Committee had previously requested documents and testimony from Flynn Jr, who never responded; Committee members were reportedly unsatisfied by earlier information provided by the Flynn family and have since proven their willingness to subpoena information they are denied. The special counsel is also reportedly interested in speaking with Flynn Jr, although potentially not just for his information but in an attempt to compel Flynn Sr to cooperate as well.

Finally, President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen is scheduled to speak with Senate Intelligence Committee investigators at the end of the month.

House Intelligence Committee

The House Intelligence Committee’s somewhat one-sided focus on the Steele dossier has persisted, taking the form over the past few weeks of an increasingly heated back-and-forth between Fusion GPS, the political research firm which commissioned the dossier, and members of the Committee–seemingly led by displaced chairman Devin Nunes. At the beginning of the month, the Committee subpoenaed Fusion GPS officials to testify about the dossier, which reportedly took the Committee’s minority by surprise. Reports originally indicated that Nunes, who recused himself from the Russia investigation, had issued the subpoenas of his own accord. Many still perceive Nunes as trying to undermine or politicize the investigation by acting without full Committee support or knowledge, and pursuing leads that are often seen as irrelevant to the investigation’s main focus. Nunes has maintained that he never actually recused himself from the Committee’s Russia investigation, only temporarily stepped aside. As Committee chairman, Nunes still has ultimate oversight on subpoenas related to the investigation. However, last week Republican Committee members denied that Nunes had acted unilaterally in subpoenaing Fusion GPS, saying that Mike Conaway–the Republican in charge of the Russia investigation since Nunes’ recusal–had originally requested that Nunes issue the subpoenas. Ranking member Adam Schiff said that the Fusion subpoenas, as well as earlier Committee subpoenas to the DoJ, were made without consulting him or the rest of the minority. Fusion has also been fighting back against the subpoenas, accusing Nunes in a letter of abusing his power and acting in the interest of the President, not the progression of the investigation, by trying to run a parallel and irrelevant investigation into the dossier and uncover the identity of the clients who funded it. Fusion GPS officials briefly visited the House Intelligence Committee last week in response to their subpoena, but refused to testify, invoking “constitutional privileges” and maintaining that the subpoenas were politically motivated and that sharing information about their clients would violate confidentiality policies. The officials also reminded the Committee that Fusion GPS had already complied with congressional Russia investigators; founder Glenn Simpson gave a lengthy interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the year, and the company has asked for the transcript of that interview to be made public. It is unclear how Nunes and the rest of the House Intelligence Committee will respond to Fusion GPS’s accusations and refusal to testify.

Another important issue for the Committee has been the Russian-bought Facebook ads which aimed to spread social and political discord prior to the election. While their Senate counterpart has scheduled a public hearing for officials from Facebook and other similarly implicated social media sites, the House Intelligence Committee has been considering publicizing the Facebook ads in question. This week, after meeting with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Schiff and Conaway said they would be releasing the Russian ads that Facebook had given the Committee, in order to better inform the public about potential future online threats. In addition to the House Intelligence Committee Sandberg has been visiting many other groups of lawmakers over the past week, as more and more tech companies are being drawn into the congressional Russia investigations and anticipate being called to testify.

The spread of Russian-backed socially and politically divisive false stories and pages before and during the 2016 election has become a focal point of all the Russia investigations, but also raises broader questions for Congress and the tech firms whose platforms were used. Firstly, it isn’t clear just how far the misinformation campaign reached, and even as more social media companies are implicated it’s becoming clear that the false stories weren’t just limited to Russian activity on their sites: ordinary people saw and spread them to disparate corners of the internet. Secondly, it is almost impossible to gauge if and how the misinformation actually affected Americans’ perceptions of the election, and possibly of the electoral system itself. As more information is uncovered–both by congressional investigators and by tech firms themselves–about how Russian operatives used the internet to influence public opinion, the contentious issue of internet regulation becomes more acute. Most of the sites affected conducted very little content oversight, and are only now discovering the frightening extent of foreign political propagandizing on their platforms. Bipartisan groups in both the house and senate have recently introduced legislation to closely track and regulate internet advertising, especially political and foreign-bought ads. Representatives for Facebook, Google, and Twitter–the three sites with the most documented Russian activity–will meet on November 1st with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to discuss internal and external content regulation; the companies and both committees are still working to assess the extent of the disinformation, which has already been found to have reached at least millions of Americans through those sites and others.

Senate Judiciary Committee

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a highly anticipated routine oversight hearing with AG Jeff Sessions this past week. Sessions’ testimony covered a wide range of controversial judiciary topics, but Committee members were eager to press him on his knowledge of and role in the Comey firing, as well as his initially undisclosed communications with Russians. Sessions refused to discuss the circumstances of Comey’s dismissal, telling the Committee that his conversations with the President about such matters were confidential, and citing executive privilege–Presidential power to bar staff from discussing certain issues–even though Trump has never invoked it and has had ample time to do so. When asked about the special counsel, Sessions said he wants Mueller to complete his probe and would cooperate if asked. Sessions also told Committee members that he hasn’t been interviewed by Mueller thus far, although he was initially reluctant to answer this line of questioning.

This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.


 

ResistanceBlog2017c

Trump Cuts off Key Health Care Subsidies

Executive Order
Issued on October 12, 2017

Summary

On Thursday, October 12th, President Trump scrapped subsidies to health insurance companies and signed an executive order that changed insurance market regulations. The subsidies, called cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, help pay out-of-pocket costs for low-income people. In this desperate effort to ditch Obamacare, the White House released a statement saying, “The government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments” and urging Congress once again to repeal and replace the ACA. The announcement to cut off CSR payment came just hours after Trump signed an executive order making major changes to the insurance system, including allowing sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and fewer consumer protections. LEARN MORE

Analysis

Trump has faced opposition from both parties following his executive order and announcement. Without these subsidies, insurance companies will be forced to raise premiums and some may pull out of insurance marketplaces under the ACA. Many Democrats feel the president is trying to sabotage the ACA so that he can blame it for insurance market chaos. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Trump “apparently decided to punish the American people for his inability to improve our health system.” Two Senators, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democrat Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, struck a bipartisan deal on Tuesday, October 17th to fund CSR subsidies for two years. Trump originally agreed to continue the subsidies in exchange for giving states more flexibility to regulate health care under the ACA. While this deal could offer short-term relief, Trump continues to change his support for the bill and is still promising the American people a “great solution” for health care in the future. In the meantime, the Alexander-Murray bill has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources

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.


 

Health01

Religious Freedom and Representative Kennedy’s Proposed “Do No Harm” Amendment

Presidential and Attorney General Directive
October 6, 2017

Summary

Last year on May 18, 2016, Representative Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) introduced an amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. That statute provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” The proposed amendment was referred to a congressional committee but no action was taken on it. On July 13, 2017, Representative Kennedy reintroduced the same amendment to the statute again in Congress. The amendment introduced by Representative Kennedy is popularly known as the “Do No Harm Act” and would clarify the RFRA to provide that no person can use the religious exemption of the law to deny another person fundamental civil and legal rights. On October 6, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive to all federal government agencies that said, “religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis

In recent years, opponents of women’s reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and LGBT issues have tried to resist complying with government laws designed to protect people who would otherwise be vulnerable to discrimination because of these issues. In 2014, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed a company to opt out of mandated contraceptive insurance because of religious beliefs. And in a highly anticipated Supreme Court case, the court will examine the case of a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because it went against his religious beliefs.

These cases illustrate an alarming trend – how more and more people are relying on religious beliefs and the RFRA in order to not comply with laws they do not personally agree with. It is becoming, in effect, a license to resist and discriminate against abortion laws, same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues. How long before this rationale is extended to discriminate against minorities and even other viewpoints? This is why Representative Kennedy’s “Do No Harm” bill should be approved. In an inspiring speech promoting it Representative Kennedy said:

“Inherent in our nation’s right to religious freedom is a promise that my belief cannot be used to infringe on yours or do you harm. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was intended to protect against such distortions of faith, not to justify them. Unfortunately, in recent years, that legislation has been used as cover to erode civil rights protections, equal access to health care and child labor laws. In the face of mounting threats from an Administration that continues to back away from civil rights protections, the Do No Harm Act will restore the sacred balance between our right to religious freedom and our promise of equal protection under law.”

The “Do No Harm Act” is the right mindset and the right approach to oppose this alarming trend. This amendment is not a restriction on religious freedom. It still protects the Freedom of Religion and a person’s ability to worship as they see fit. What it does is ensure that those religious beliefs do not deprive other persons their right to full participation in American society. 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

US Pulls Out of UNESCO

October 2017

Summary

Last Thursday, the Trump administration officially announced plans to pull out of UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The United States originally left the organization in protest in 1984, citing a pro-Soviet Union bias, only to return in 2002. The most recent departure was announced by the Trump administration as being due to their pro-Israel bias. Despite all the political controversy, the actual purpose of the organization is fairly innocuous. UNESCO’s primary function is to designate and protect international landmarks known as “world heritage sites”, such as the Taj Mahal and the Grand Canyon. Otherwise, their funding goes towards education and cultural programs around the world, including literacy programs and holocaust education.

While this move is certainly in line with Trump’s distrust of the U.N. and international agreements as a whole, this is really just the last step in a slow departure which began in 2011. UNESCO voted 107 to 14 to recognize Palestine as an independent state and participant, with France, China, Russia, and India in favor, the United States, Canada, and Germany against, and the UK abstaining. This triggered a 1990 US law prohibiting funding towards any UN body which recognizes Palestine as a state. Up to this time, the United States was providing 22% of the funding for UNESCO. The organization responded by suspending US voting rights two years later, delegating the US as a non-member observer. After years of limbo, Trump’s decision to leave unilaterally puts any hopes of rectifying the dispute to rest.

Analysis

Historical sites can have a lot more political power than some would expect. UNESCO’s decision last July to designate part of the West Bank city of Hebron as not only a Palestinian world heritage site, but one that is actively endangered can be seen as a strong repudiation of Israel’s actions in the region. Historical sites have often been used by the state to justify pushing Palestinians out of certain regions. UNESCO’s activism in this area caused them to be accused of not “truly promoting culture and education” by a State Department spokesperson.

While leaving UNESCO may have seemed fated to be since 2011, following through on this departure can have lasting effects on the ability of the United States to maintain power and influence around the world. Reneging on our agreements makes us look untrustworthy, and only serves to breed division. Other countries may follow our lead and stop payments towards UNESCO. If the hope of the Trump administration was really to maintain a balance between Israeli and Palestinian interests on the international level, leaving UNESCO only makes that harder. With one of the biggest sponsors of Israel no longer funding the organization, Israel may be forced to make more concessions to the Palestinians. Ultimately, this is still a victory for conservatives, who broadly oppose the UN as a whole.

Engagement Resources

  • Explore UNESCO: UNESCO does a lot more than designate world heritage sites. You can learn more on their website.
  • Donate to the American Task Force on Palestine: The ATFP is a nonprofit organization based in Washington that aims to educate the American people about the national security interests of the U.S. in establishing a Palestinian state.
  • Learn more about UNESCO’s decision to designate Hebron as a world heritage site: Here is an article written for The Guardian in July examining the full implications of UNESCO’s decision, which may have been a major factor in the decision to leave.

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

Raising the Debt Ceiling

Summary

In a meeting with Congressional leaders on Wednesday, September 6, Trump proposed potentially eliminating the national debt ceiling.

The conversation began with plans in the House to temporarily raise the debt limit in order to provide financial aid for states affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Republican leadership had planned on an eighteen-month extension, but were opposed by Conservative Republicans ideologically opposed to raising the debt ceiling without accompanying fiscal reform.

Democrats ultimately bargained down to a three-month extension, which would allow the issue to resurface mid-December. The shorter extension period benefits Democrats particularly, as it will allow the debt ceiling debate to resurface sooner – in mid-December – which is a critical bargaining tool for the minority party. The bill raising the debt ceiling for three months passed.

When meeting with Trump about the proposal, though, the president expressed confusion about why raising the debt ceiling was an issue that necessitated a vote at all. Once explained, Trump expressed support for a removal of the debt ceiling entirely. Democratic leaders at the meeting did not take an outward stance, but said they would bring the proposal back to their caucuses.

What is the Debt Ceiling? 

The debt ceiling defines the total amount of money the government can borrow to meet its financial obligations. Rather than allowing the government to spend money, it is a statement on how the government plans to repay money it has already borrowed and spent. The debt ceiling was originally created in the early 1900s to allow the Treasury Department did not have to ask Congress’ permission to issue bonds every time it needed to pay bills. Since then it has remained the blanket tool to manage government debt, and has been raised throughout the years by Congressional vote.

Until relatively recently, the debt ceiling was raised automatically whenever Congress passed a new budget – a practice known as the Gebhardt Rule. However, in 2011 a Republican-controlled House changed the practice, only voting to raise the debt ceiling if the bill was accompanied by equal spending cuts and reforms.

Raising the debt ceiling commensurate with the needs of the budget is critical – if the government defaulted on its debt it would trigger an economic crisis. Given the seriousness of what is at stake with the debt ceiling, separating the vote on the debt ceiling away from an automatic accompaniment to the budget was a strategic political ploy, allowing both parties at times to use it as a bargaining chip whenever there were serious disagreements about fiscal policy.

There are alternatives to the debt ceiling as a means of keeping up with government spending, but none have ever been seriously pursued by Congress.


 

economic icon

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