JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Recent Stock Market Declines Likely Spurred by Trump’s Economic Policies
Brief #28---Economic Policy Policy Summary The patterns of the stock market since President Trump took office can only be described as turbulent. As his election shocked the nation, investors prepared for the unpredictable, only to have the market surge. Throughout...
Two Important Georgia Voting Cases Issue Rulings Days Before 2018 Election
Brief #69---Civil Rights Policy Summary: On October 30, 2018, Judge Leigh Martin May of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled against Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's request to stay an injunction that the judge issued the...
California and U.S. Department of Justice Reach Tentative Agreement in Ongoing Net Neutrality Fight
In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promulgated the “Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” That order rolled back regulations from 2015 that were originally intended to bar Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down access to content or charging users more for selected content.
Migrant Caravan: the Newest Attempt to Achieve the American Dream
Migrants from Central America have banded together on their quest for a better life through what has become known as the “migrant caravan,” that began in Honduras on October 12.
Trump Mistakenly Credits Himself for Gains in the Economy
Brief #27---Economic Policy Policy Summary One of President Trump’s favorite things to tout has consistently been the economic growth that the United States has enjoyed during his presidency. The picture he paints is one of economic turnaround, often highlighting the...
Michael’s Aftermath
Brief #45---Environment Summary The official death toll from Hurricane Michael is at 26 and counting as of last week, as rescuers continue to find bodies, and reports say many are still missing. The future looks tenuous for the Florida area that was devastated by the...
Bipartisanship Response on Opioid Crisis isn’t Bold Enough
Brief #43---Health Policy Summary This week, the Senate is poised to vote on the Opioid Crisis Response Act (OCRA) of 2018. This bill would increase access to addiction treatment centers, increase opportunities for research on non opioid painkillers, and make it...
Federal Judge Upholds For Profit Colleges Student Loan Forgiveness Program
Brief #28---Education Summary This past Tuesday, students rejoiced, nationwide, as the courts cleared the way for an Obama-era policy making it easier for individuals who have been scammed by for-profit universities and colleges to have student loans forgiven. The...
What is Happening to the Environmental Protection Agency?
Brief #44---Environment Policy Summary The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is changing shape. In the last week, the EPA has decided to change its rules on how it uses scientific studies, effectively deregulating public exposure to harmful toxins. Meanwhile, the...
Flynn’s Plea, Trump Family & Finance, Nunes’ DoJ Feud
The special counsel investigation into Russian electoral interference and Trump campaign collusion has taken a dramatic turn this week with the indictment and subsequent guilty plea of former national security adviser Michael Flynn on charges of lying to the FBI. Flynn had been under investigation since before Mueller’s appointment, and previous news–including his breaking ties with Trump’s legal team–had indicated that he may have been cooperating with the special counsel. A guilty plea signals the investigation’s increasing proximity to the current White House administration, which has had difficulties distancing itself from the characters who have been indicted or otherwise implicated thus far. The general perception, catalyzed by media coverage, seems to be that Mueller is zeroing in on very high-level members of the administration and transition, perhaps including Trump himself. Multiple reports suggest that the President’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner may be the next target in Mueller’s sights, due to his involvement in meetings between Flynn and former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, as well as his presence at and reported input on other Russia-related affairs during the campaign and transition. Aside from Kushner, Donald Trump Jr has also been under increased scrutiny for his role in meetings with Russian affiliates, and is set to appear before the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and possibly the Senate Judiciary Committee in coming weeks.
DoJ & Special Counsel
Charging Flynn was certainly the most noteworthy development in the special counsel’s Russia investigation thus far, but there is much about Flynn’s guilty plea and consequent cooperation to unpack. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about conversations he had during the presidential transition with then Russian ambassador Kislyak. Flynn was attempting to establish back channel communications to discuss policy issues including Russian sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to election interference, and a U.N. security council resolution on Israel (read the court documents here). Perhaps the most damning allegation is that Flynn coordinated foreign policy with Russian officials; it is illegal for Americans who do not hold political office to negotiate U.S. policy, and during the time that Flynn met with Kislyak and was in contact with other foreign officials, Trump had not yet taken office. We now know that including Flynn, multiple people involved in the Trump campaign not only communicated with Russians during the campaign and transition, but were also privy to Russian offers of campaign-related assistance, directly contradicting the administration’s steadfast insistence to the contrary.
Flynn’s indictment was not itself a surprise; the U.S. intelligence community had long known that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his foreign communications. There are many other potential crimes for which he could have been charged, so the fact that Mueller only charged him with lying to the FBI, coupled with his quick guilty plea, indicates that he had been working with the special counsel and has information Mueller views as valuable. This could include implicating other members of Trump’s inner circle; court documents indicate that Mueller is interested in one or two unnamed senior officials on the Trump transition team who directed Flynn to communicate with Kislyak about policy. Several media outlets have used anonymous sources to identify that senior official as Jared Kushner, although this has not been definitively confirmed. Last month, prior to Flynn’s plea, Kushner was questioned by the special counsel about a meeting he attended with Flynn and Kislyak during the transition, but this interview was brief and probably a procedural component of the case against Flynn. As with any important development in the Russia investigations, Flynn’s plea has caused a flurry of excited conjecture and speculation, but right now all that we can say for certain is that Flynn is giving some information to Mueller as part of his plea, which could potentially implicate other administration officials, likely by exposing their perjury related to denying knowledge of campaign communication with Russia.
In another bold move this week, Mueller subpoenaed–and received–President Trump’s personal banking information from Deutsche Bank, Trump’s biggest lender. It is unclear whether these financial records are directly related to the Russia probe, or if the special counsel is using his broad mandate to contemporaneously investigate other potential financial crimes. Trump and his business activities have a shady financial history to say the least, and Deutsche Bank is reportedly one of the only institutions that were still lending to him over the past two decades–the loans have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. Last year the bank itself was implicated in a Russian money laundering scheme, although investigators have found no relation between that and Trump.
This week has also brought an interesting update in the Manafort case. Special counsel prosecutors had reportedly worked out a large bail deal with Manafort, which would have released him from house arrest and monitoring, but withdrew their support for the deal amidst allegations that Manafort had secretly ghostwritten an editorial in defense of his work for pro-Russian interests in the Ukraine. He had reportedly been working on the editorial last week with an unnamed Russian colleague, whom prosecutors identified as having ties to Russian intelligence. According to the prosecutors, both the editorial itself and the contact with a Russian intel-affiliate violate a court order barring attempts to influence public opinion. The Washington Post tentatively identified the Russian colleague as Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Manafort during his time consulting in the Ukraine and with whom Manafort had remained in contact. Relating back to a previously reported allegation, during the campaign Manafort reportedly directed Kilimnik to reach out to Putin-allied Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska–for whom Manafort had worked as a consultant–to offer ‘private briefings’ on the Trump campaign, although both men deny this.
Senate Intelligence Committee
This week the New York Times reported that over the summer President Trump had repeatedly pressured senior Republicans in the Senate to end the Russia investigations as quickly as possible. These senators included Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and Richard Burr, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as other members of the Committee, according to lawmakers and aides. Burr told reporters that Trump had contacted him and urged him to ‘move on’ to other issues. During the summer Trump was especially upset about the Russia investigations, frequently complaining publicly and venting about Jeff Sessions’ recusal, and reportedly often complained to McConnell about the probes. Chairman Burr said he did not feel pressured by the president, and other Republican lawmakers have characterized Trump’s appeals as simply political ignorance. On the other side of the aisle, some Democrats are raising questions about possible obstruction of justice, although given Burr’s response the issue is unlikely to mature.
House Intelligence Committee
The House Intelligence Committee is set to meet for a private interview with Donald Trump Jr on Wednesday. Among the topics expected to be discussed are the Trump Tower meeting Trump Jr set up on the promise of ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton, and a National Rifle Association meeting he attended last year with Russian banker and Putin ally Alexander Torshin, who reportedly reached out to the Trump campaign in a Kremlin-backed attempt to set up a backchannel. Additionally, investigators are expected to question Trump Jr about Trump’s financial ties to Russia, as well as Trump Jr’s online communication with WikiLeaks during the campaign while the site was releasing hacked DNC emails. The Senate Intelligence Committee is expected to interview Trump Jr about similar subjects at an unspecified time later in the month. Both interviews are voluntary, so while investigators have long lists of issues they would like to probe, it remains to be seen how forthcoming Trump Jr will be.
The House Intelligence Committee has continued to pursue questions related to the controversial Steele dossier, a compilation of intelligence about the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia (see previous posts), and its author, former British spy Christopher Steele. Leading this line of questioning is recused Committee chairman Devin Nunes, who has repeatedly shown surprising and very partisan aggression on matters related to the dossier: Nunes has issued multiple subpoenas and threats to officials from Fusion GPS, the company that commissioned the dossier, as well as to the DoJ and FBI regarding intelligence related to the dossier’s allegations. Nunes’ tactics have been perceived as surprising and unnecessary by the Democratic members of his Committee, and ranking member Adam Schiff has been vocal about his misgivings with Nunes’ ongoing involvement in the investigation, implying that Nunes is most interested in creating distractions to benefit the Trump administration. Most recently, Nunes threatened to hold the DoJ and FBI in contempt of Congress for not allowing their officials to testify to the Committee. However, this week the DoJ reportedly reached a long-negotiated agreement with Nunes for Committee investigators to interview an official who was Steele’s point of contact in the FBI. Nunes has continued to publicly accuse Justice officials of ‘stonewalling’ his investigation, seemingly even after the agreement had been formalized. DoJ spokespeople have countered Nunes’ allegations, saying they have already given the House Intelligence Committee hundreds of documents related to the dossier and its funding. Additionally, CNN reported that after a tedious negotiation the FBI had agreed to brief a bipartisan group of Committee leaders about issues related to Nunes’ earlier subpoenas, but Nunes refused to attend the briefing with Committee Democrats and insisted on identical private briefings for each side. Nunes reportedly continues to fume over what he perceives as DoJ attempts to thwart or undermine his investigation, and despite their ostensible detente, he still insists on drafting a contempt of Congress citation as quickly as possible against FBI director Christopher Wray and deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, over their failure to produce certain documents the Committee had subpoenaed.
Senate Judiciary Committee
This week Diane Feinstein, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told NBC reporters that her Committee’s investigation is “putting together a case of obstruction of justice” against President Trump, given an already sizeable body of evidence supporting that charge, including Trump’s firing of James Comey as well as recent comments he made about Flynn. Feinstein also indicated that she thought the evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government was growing stronger. Feinstein has been at the forefront of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigative activities, but recent reports indicate that she and chairman Chuck Grassley have been butting heads over the probe’s progress. Although the Judiciary Committee’s investigation has proceeded more smoothly and expediently than some of the congressional probes, it has not been without its partisan struggles. These have included allegations of Grassley’s unwillingness to move forward with certain lines of investigation, which has been perceived by some Committee members as stalling or stonewalling. Grassley himself has seemed preoccupied by questions surrounding the Clinton email investigation, and other highly politicized issues that do not directly relate to the Russia probe. Feinstein and other Committee Democrats are pressing forward on issues of obstruction and potential collusion, and are pressing Grassley to sign on to a subpoena to compel Donald Trump Jr to testify in a public hearing before their Committee this month.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.

Trump Announces Downsizing of Two National Monuments
Presidential Proclamation Modifying Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments
Announced December 4, 2017
Summary
Trump announced on Monday that he would reduce the size of two Utah national monuments, Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante, by about two million acres as recommended by Interior Secretary Zinke. The Bears Ears national monument was downsized by 85 percent and Grand Staircase-Escalante by 50 percent [see map], which is the largest reversal of federal land protection in U.S. history. In his address in Utah, Trump cited federal overreach by previous administrations and a desire to give land back to the people as the motivating factors for the rollback. The lack of designation opens up this land to oil and gas production, mineral extraction, logging and other commercial endeavors. Supporters of the reversal say that it will give people access to land they need for their livelihoods and production of key resources, which was previously denied to them in a federal land grab. Opposition to the rollback is concerned about current and future land conservation in the U.S., as well as the sacred Native cultural sites located within the monuments. Eight lawsuits have already been filed against the reversal, citing the President’s lack of authority to recall the designations. A group of native tribes, outdoor retailers, and conservation groups are among the entities filing suit. In the meantime, Secretary Zinke has already suggested downsizing for two additional national monuments, California and Oregon’s Cascade-Siskiyou and Nevada’s Gold Butte, as well as a change in management for ten others.
Analysis
This decision fits seamlessly into Trump’s continued call for decreased regulation and increased development of public land. The search for “energy dominance” and the desire to tap into the fossil fuels that are assumed to lie beneath many public lands are assumed to be the driving force behind the push to open up these public lands to private companies. In his address in Utah, Trump claimed that “very distant bureaucrats” in Washington did not know this land’s best purpose, and he gave it back to those that do. However, the availability of previously protected land for development and commercial production has set off alarm bells for those in conservation. Especially in light of Zinke’s recommendation for downsizing additional monuments, many are concerned that this is only the beginning of undoing regulations for much of America’s protected land. Both sides say that the actions of the other are unconstitutional and an overextension of power. Those in favor of reducing national monuments say that the land was designated by federal overreach, while those opposed to the reversal say that the President only has power to set aside land, not reverse such orders. In what has been called a “flurry of lawsuits,” many entities, including conservation groups, outdoor retailers, and Native tribes, have come together to oppose this order and the implications it could have on all protected land.
Engagement Resources
- Sign the NRDC petition to protect national monuments
- Join the Nature Conservancy’s Defense of National Monuments
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.

Important Health Care Changes Snuck Into New Tax Plan
Tax Bill passed Senate early Saturday, December 2, 2017
Summary
The tax bill that passed in the Senate early Saturday changes a crucial component of the American healthcare system: the tax penalties enforcing the individual mandate. The individual mandate is a critical to the success of the Affordable Care Act because it requires that all Americans have insurance or pay a tax penalty. Without these healthy people paying into the insurance market, insurers have to raise prices to compensate for the disproportionate number of sick people in the market. This provision drives up premiums and makes health care unaffordable for many Americans. Because this Senate bill is different than the one that passed the House – one of the main differences being the House bill did not repeal the individual mandate – the two chambers of Congress must negotiate, draft one bill and then pass it in both chambers. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has indicated that the House will agree to the repeal of the individual mandate in the final bill. LEARN MORE
Analysis
According to the Congressional Budget Office report, eliminating the individual mandate tax penalty could result in as many as 13 million people losing insurance in 2027 and driving premiums up by 10% per year. Interestingly, the states most negatively affected by this policy are Republican states, including Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and Wyoming. In most counties in these states, citizens may not have any option for affordable insurance. Congress is trying to slip this unfavorable healthcare law into the tax plan because it failed to pass healthcare policy on its own. Americans around the country will feel the effects of this policy if it passes in the House and many people will lose their insurance coverage. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Resist the new tax plan with Not One Penny.
- 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.

United States Attorney General Jeff Session’s Law Enforcement Memorandum [UPDATED]
Attorney General Memorandum
Issued March 31, 2017
Update: November 17, 2017
On November 17, 2017, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a department memorandum that prohibits the Department of Justice (DOJ) from issuing regulatory guidance documents. This announcement is an implementation of the policy announced by the Attorney General in March when he said, “it is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non – federal law enforcement agencies.” In years past, the federal government through the DOJ was permitted to enter into consent decrees with local law enforcement departments to help suggest and implement better practices to reduce potential police and civil rights abuses. But Sessions has likely brought that to an end with his directive against issuing regulatory guidance documents. This is disappointing considering residents in Baltimore are eager to see a federal police consent decree implemented. The Attorney General’s decision removes another tool that was often used to address local law enforcement abuses. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Summary
On March 31, 2017, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum to Department of Justice attorneys promoting support for federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement authorities. The Attorney General pledged the resources of the Department of Justice in order to “promote a peaceful and lawful society where the civil rights of all persons are valued and protected.” In order to implement these twin goals, the Attorney General laid out a framework that emphasized “strengthening our longstanding and productive relationships with our law enforcement partners” at the various levels of government. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The law enforcement policy proposed by the Attorney General creates two immediate problems. The memorandum states [1] “it is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies” and that [2] “misdeeds of individual bad actors should not impugn…[the] honorable work…that law enforcement…agencies perform.” This is problematic because the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has the power and authority to investigate and offer solutions to law enforcement agencies that have engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. By minimizing unlawful conduct as only misdeeds of selected individuals, the Attorney General is ignoring the fact that numerous law enforcement agencies have systemic deficiencies that contribute to police ineffectiveness. But he also goes a step further by stating that DOJ should no longer step in to offer solutions to improve policing as DOJ did many times previously, most notably in recent police misconduct investigations in Chicago and Baltimore. This new policy, and current review of reform agreements nationwide, will curtail the ability of local communities to partner with the Federal Government to monitor, critique and address local law enforcement abuses. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – an information site addressing reform of police practices.
- Campaign Zero – a campaign that provides info on police abuses and tracks legislation on the topic.
- National Police Accountability Project – a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting civil rights of those in their encounters with law enforcement.
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.
![United States Attorney General Jeff Session's Law Enforcement Memorandum [UPDATED] 4 CivilRights01](https://www.usresistnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CivilRights01-300x233.png)
The Problem of Reverse Discrimination Cases Against Whites and Affirmative Action Cases [UPDATED]
Pending Department of Justice Policy
Reported on August 1, 2017
Update: December 2, 2017
It has now been confirmed that a DOJ investigation is looking into these policies at Harvard University. Confirmation of this investigation is unique because it is an investigation being done not for the white community but on behalf of a minority class — Asian-Americans. This is surprising considering the Trump Administration and Attorney General Sessions have struggled with accusations of pursuing racist policies. This DOJ investigation appears closely linked to a 2015 complaint against Harvard that was filed by numerous Asian – American organizations and was supported by the non – profit group that brought the Abigail Fisher case to the Supreme Court. This begs the question as to whether Asian – Americans and white conservative-leaning groups have banded together to oppose affirmative – action policies nationwide. Because of this, it is important to remember the statement made by two Asian – American commissioners on the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights. Michael Yaki and Karen Narasaki issued a joint statement in response to the 2015 complaint against Harvard that said: “we hope that this is a sincerely raised issue and not a backdoor attack on affirmative action that attempts to pit Asian Americans against other minorities, as other efforts have been.” That statement is critical because it may reveal Mr. Sessions’ true intention – to manipulate the Asian-American community into supporting his proposal to dismantle affirmative action. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Summary
On August 1, 2017, the New York Times reported that the U.S. Department of Justice “is preparing to redirect resources…of the civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.” This move is likely in response to the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas which held that a “race conscious admissions program…is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.” In that case, Abigail Fisher, a white woman, claimed her application to the University of Texas was rejected on the basis of her race. LEARN MORE
Analysis
What the Department of Justice does not see in pursuing reverse discrimination cases is that there is no law that is preventing Abigail Fisher and whites as a class from pursuing a higher education. In “reverse discrimination against whites” arguments, the key difference for discrimination purposes is that whites are not completely barred from the activity – in this case, pursuing a college education. Abigail Fisher may not have been accepted into the University of Texas but she could still pursue a college education at any other university that would accept her.
A white woman being denied admission to a university is not comparable to racist policies that other minorities have had to endure in the United States through the years. Unlike Abigail Fisher’s situation, minority communities in the United States have had to endure laws that were designed to bar entire races and nationalities from participating in activities with no option to participate elsewhere. Jim Crow laws in Mississippi were designed to exclude blacks from voting. In Richard Rothstein’s book The Color of Law he shows how government housing funds mandated discrimination against African – Americans. And for a while in California, Chinese persons could not own property or testify against whites. The Department of Justice should use extreme caution in litigating affirmative actions policies that discriminate against whites because there is no concerted effort to completely bar the white community from higher education and other facets of daily life, which had been the experience of entire minority communities in America in years past. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – nonprofit group promoting equal justice and equal opportunity.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – nonprofit group webpage on affirmative action.
- Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund (AALDEF) – nonprofit FAQ page on affirmative action and Fisher v. University of Texas case from a minority community point of view.
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.
![The Problem of Reverse Discrimination Cases Against Whites and Affirmative Action Cases [UPDATED] 5 CivilRights01](https://www.usresistnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CivilRights01-300x233.png)
Trump Holds Phone Call With Putin
November 21, 2017
Summary
On November 21st, President Trump announced that he had held a phone call with Putin lasting over an hour. The call reportedly focused on the Syrian civil war, the global fight against terrorism, the North Korea threat, and the Iran nuclear deal. Coming only a day after Putin was photographed embracing embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a meeting in the Russian city of Sochi, Trump’s call failed to broach any criticism of Assad or Putin’s decision to veto a US-led UN investigation of the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. Putin’s vetoing had come only hours after Trump tweeted about the necessity of the UN resolution in order to “ensure that Assad Regime does not commit mass murder with chemical weapons ever again” The call was part of Russian plans to restart talks to find a peaceful conclusion for the war in Syria, which was followed with talks with leadership from Turkey and Iran yesterday.
Analysis
Trump’s behavior surrounding his relationship with Putin continues to show his habit of playing nice with world leaders whose ideals and ambitions veer wildly from those of longstanding American foreign policy, while being enraged by any perceived slight back home. Putin has demonstrated that his plans for Syria strongly contradict with Washington’s hope to completely remove Assad from power, and he seems to be taking the leading role in the planning of the future of the divided country. This follows in line with Trump’s reticence to condemn or even acknowledge Putin’s interference in the 2016 US Presidential election after their meeting at the APEC summit in Vietnam weeks ago.
Engagement Resources
- Learn more: This article, written by Susan B. Glasser, takes an in-depth look at the complexities of Trump’s behavior towards Putin and Russian ambitions. It was published by Politico.
- Read a summary of the Trump-Russia scandal: Vox has published a helpful lengthy visual summary of the events corroborating the story that Russia influenced our Presidential election last year.
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.

Trump Declares North Korea a State Sponsor of Terrorism
November 20, 2017
Summary
On November 20th, Trump returned North Korea to the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Originally added in 1988 after the bombing of South Korean flight 858 the year before, President Bush chose to remove them in 2008 after a U.S. report recognized their avoidance of state terrorism since the attack two decades earlier. This doesn’t mean that the North Korean government has ever stopped toeing that line, between the continued support of terrorist groups such as Hamas, and the sinking of the South Korean ship ROKS Cheonan in 2010, the shelling of South Korean military forces on the island of Yeonpyeong that same year, and a cyber attack against Sony in 2015.
Despite these aggressions, the previous two administrations have maintained that keeping North Korea off of the list is the best path towards denuclearization and eventual peace. With the recent allegedly state-sponsored murder of Kim Jong-un’s half-brother, nuclear provocations, and death of American tourist Otto Warmbier, the Trump administration has announced that North Korea will be returned to the list of state sponsors of terrorism. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that this move would “tighten the pressure on the Kim regime, with an intention to have him understand that this is only going to get worse until you are ready to come and talk”. North Korea has returned in kind early Wednesday morning, launching an ICBM missile finally capable of reaching the entirety of the continental United States.
Analysis
Returning North Korea to the list of state sponsors of terrorism comes off as a largely futile attempt of the Trump administration to empty everything in their arsenal of aggression short of an actual military strike in a bid to force an end to their rapidly progressing nuclear program. The sanctions included in the listing, such as an end of military sales to the country, are largely redundant considering what has already been put into place, and according to Henri Féron with the Center for Korean Legal Studies at Columbia University School of Law, the pre-existing sanctions have had little effect on the North Korean economy thus far. The only presumable resulting effect of this declaration is just a further insult to the North Korean regime, which flies in the face of Trump’s requests for a diplomatic solution earlier this year.
Engagement Resources
- Read a Letter From the Former Deputy Commander of US Forces in Korea On His Assessment Of War With North Korea: This letter, released on November 10th by Representative Ted Lieu of California, outlines the unique dangers involved in a war with North Korea. It can be read here.
- Support the International Peace Bureau: The IPB is a peace federation founded in 1981 with the expressed priorities of disarmament and reallocation of military expenditure. Consisting of 300 member organizations across 70 countries, the IPB is building an international movement to reduce unnecessary conflict among states. You can support by donating or applying to become a member.
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.

White House Releases Report on Human Responsibility for Climate Change
Report published on November 3, 2017
Summary
Earlier this month, thirteen federal agencies published a report through the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) that claims humans are primarily responsible for global warming through the increased production of greenhouse gases in the last century. The White House has released this report, despite its direct opposition to the touted Trump administration position. The report goes so far as to say that there is “no convincing alternative [to human responsibility for climate change] supported by observable science.” The report describes increasing global temperatures and rising seas levels with the expectation that these changes will continue at an alarming rate. These changes are linked to extreme weather events, which could increase in intensity and frequency. Unless something is done about the emission of greenhouse gases, there will be dire social and economic consequences the world over, which disproportionately affect the world’s poorest individuals and communities.
Analysis
Since taking office, Trump and his administration have consistently denied the reality of climate change in both word and deed. However, scientists within the government have not allowed such talk to stay their research, even though Pruitt has banned many scientific grant recipients from his advisory councils. The U.S. is currently the only country that is not a part of the Paris Climate Agreement since Trump withdrew earlier this year. However, the U.S. is responsible for 27 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the pointed nature of the report, the White House has been silent on the point of climate change since its release of the document.
Engagement Resources
- Read the Full USGCRP Report (Executive Summary) and access their Resource Guide
- Get Involved at a local level
- How-to guide for calling Congress
- Further reading on Climate Change
- Resources for talking to kids about climate change
This brief was compiled by Megan Toney. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact megan@usresistnews.org.

Nebraska Approves Keystone XL Pipeline
Approved by the Nebraska Public Service Commission on November 20, 2017
Summary
Last Monday, five members of an obscure Nebraska committee voted three-to-two in favor of TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline (KXL) route through their state. The Keystone XL is the name for the fourth and final phase of the Keystone Pipeline System. Overcoming this regulatory obstacle was cited as a victory for the 1,179 mile-long pipeline nine years after the initial proposal. In 2011, President Obama delayed construction of the KXL in the U.S. before rejecting the project completely in 2015 for climate change reasons. Trump reversed this order within his first month as president, calling the pipeline a source of jobs and revenue with “no down side.” However, the approved route differs from that of the initial proposal. This approved Mainline Alternative route is further east, nearer to the phase three portion of the pipeline and further away from the Sandhills region and Ogallala Aquifer. This caveat creates further complications for the pipeline hopefuls who must now assess feasibility and cost differential between the two pathways. In addition, TransCanada would have to get temporary permission (easement agreements) from new landowners. Environmental groups and local native tribes have also promised to protest the decision through both demonstrations and legal action based on the lack of analysis on this alternate route. Not to be confused with the American Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), the KXL opposition mainly consists of environmentalists as opposed to the recently stayed DAPL, which was protested based on its pathway through Standing Rock Sioux sacred sites.
Analysis
This vote does not necessarily mean the pipeline will be built. While it was a substantial regulatory hurdle, the approval of a different route may require new permits and renewed State Department approval. This alternate site is near a current oil Mainline, but there has been little investigation of the proposed site and the implications a pipeline route would have on that location. The decision came four days after 210,000 gallons spilled from the phase one portion of the pipeline in South Dakota. Keystone XL advocates claim that all infrastructure breaks down at some point, but many see this as a concern. Especially when considering that the Canadian tar sands oil creates up to 50 percent more carbon dioxide than conventional oil when burned. When the proposal was initially submitted in 2008, oil was $80-90 a barrel compared to the current price of $60 a barrel. Even if delays do not continue, the lauded economic impact may not meet expectations and the overall outcome may be far less lucrative than originally expected.
Engagement Resources
- Find out more about the Keystone XL from NRDC (National Resource Defense Council)
- Read the recent Call to Action from a collective group of those in opposition to the pipeline.
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.

DeVos Rescinds Special Education Guidances
Policy Change
Announced on October 2, 2017
Summary
Stating that the move would in no way impact the services currently received by disabled students, DeVos rescinded 72 special education guidance documents that her department referred to as “outdated, unnecessary or ineffective.” Many of the documents, including those titled “Implementing Community-based Educational Programs for Students with Disabilities, “ and“Procedural Safeguards and Due Process Procedures for Parents and Children with Disabilities,” clarified and explained the parameters of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Rehabilitation Act. LEARN MORE
Analysis
While it may be true that the removal of these documents has no real policy implications, some remain wary. Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, explained that many of these memos focused on “critical clarifications of the regulations required to meet the needs of students with disabilities.” During her initial confirmation hearings, it was revealed that DeVos wasn’t even aware that IDEA, the act that many of these rescinded documents explain, was federal law, causing many to view this current move to rescind many explanatory documents as rushed or not well thought out. Despite the confusion around what the decision actually means, many democrats have still begun stepping forward to reaffirm their support for the country’s disabled students. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.) expressed her support via tweet stating, “This administration’s campaign against students with disabilities continues. We should be doing more, not less, to help them.” LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Center for Learning Disabilities -Working to create a society in which every person has the academic, social and emotional skills needed to succeed, the NCLD works to transform schools and advocate for equal rights for students and adults with learning and attention issues.
- Learning Disabilities Association of America– Support the LDA, the association that led the push for passage of the first federal legislation mandating a free, appropriate, public education for students with disabilities
- ACLU– An organization who works for an America free of discrimination against people with disabilities, come explore the many ways to support the ACLU.
This brief was compiled by Cindy Stansbury. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact, cindy@usresistnews.org.

