JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump Progresses with NAFTA Re-Negotiations–Could Leave Canada Out of New Deal
Donald Trump has made no secret of his feelings regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). He’s described it as the “worst trade deal in history” despite the numerous benefits that the U.S.
NRA Propaganda: Sentry Program Using Federal Funds to Arm Teachers with Guns
Oklahoma, Texas, and other states have proposed using federal funds for states to train and arm school marshals. The proposal is called the “Sentry Program.”
The “Coordinated Response” To President Trump’s War On The Press; Free Speech Concerns
Since the day President Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States he has become a vocal critic of various news groups.
Nationwide Prison Strike Highlights Deplorable Conditions in US Prisons
In 11 states, prisoners and prison organizers have organized hunger strikes, work stoppages, and commissary boycotts to protest deplorable prison conditions and to demand the end of what they call “prison slavery” for 19 days of peaceful protest.
North Korea Peace Process Stalls
The International Atomic Energy Agency, an intergovernmental forum which reports to the UN, has reported a lack of progress in the denuclearization of North Korea.
The Case of Paul Manafort—Part 1
The first trial of President Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort has now concluded with his conviction on 8 of 18 counts. A verdict could not be reached on the remaining 10. Manafort has long been a person of interest in the Russian Collusion investigation, stemming from his close ties to Moscow and the work he and Roger Stone did for Trump in the 1980’s as a lobbyist.
Trump’s Medicaid Requirements Could Push Thousands Off Healthcare
This week, the Trump Administration enacted more regulations on Medicaid that would allow smaller states to tighten their eligibility requirements. This could push more people off of the Medicaid plans.
Executive Order Issued by President Trump Indicates His Stance on Federal Unions
Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign was filled with promises that involved helping restore union-dense industries such as coal and manufacturing. With these in mind, as well as his promises regarding infrastructure, it is hardly surprising that his support among union members was quite high.
A Surprising Endorsement in New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District
As endorsements begin to roll out for candidates in the 2018 midterms, the gun advocacy PAC, Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, raised eyebrows for two of their endorsements.
President Trump Addresses the UN General Assembly
Presidential Speech
Summary
In his first speech to the U.N. General Assembly, President Trump extolled the importance of state sovereignty and denounced the perceived enemies of global democracy on the world stage. Following the path of isolationism and nationalism that he described in his inauguration speech, Trump promised that the United States “does not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch”. Moving away from precedent, he described the U.S. as an “example for everyone to watch” rather than a major source of aid or authority.
Trump also took the opportunity to levy some insults at the “loser terrorists” of ISIS, and “rocket man”, a name he has now twice used to refer to Kim Jong-un. Echoing the sentiments of Bush’s 2002 “axis of evil” speech, Trump decried North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela as “rogue regimes” that neglected the rights of their people and threatened the sovereignty of other states. WIth North Korean delegates in the front row, Trump continued to increase the fervor of his rhetoric, insisting that Kim was on a “suicide mission”. He suggested the premature death of the Iran nuclear deal was soon to come, due to the regime’s support of Hezbollah and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as their continued testing of ballistic missiles. He promised that the U.S. is prepared to take further action against Venezuela, in response to their backsliding democracy, and asked our allies to join him if necessary.
Analysis
As the most headline-grabbing remark of the day, Trump’s “rocket man” line proved yet again the level of which he has found himself over his head as a world leader. Now that he is being tested with the most looming threat to our security in years, he has reverted to the strategy that won him his first victory as a politician in the Republican primaries: schoolyard insults. However, what worked for him within the environment of cable news squabbling is unlikely to produce any endearment now that lives are at stake, and voters are recognizing Trump’s fear-inducing inadequacy as commander in chief.Trump’s promotion of sovereignty as a unilateral solution to
Trump’s promotion of sovereignty as a unilateral solution to worldwide conflict is a simplistic attempt to cling to the ideas that worked during his campaign, as if the strategy that appealed to out of work blue-collar Americans could somehow enforce civil rights around the globe. He betrays this approach in the same speech in his insistence that world leaders take up action against Maduro, as well as his cavalier attitude towards leading us into nuclear war. It seems his idea of sovereignty is only relevant when turning down refugees, but not when he wants to interfere with the affairs of another country. His failure to mention a grave threat to national sovereignty, the Russian annexation of Crimea, as well as the most serious recent human rights crisis, the genocide of Muslims in Myanmar, show that these ideals of humanitarianism and sovereignty are simply ideas he entertains when it serves him, rather than fundamental values underpinning his ideology.
Engagement Resources
- 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.
- Donate to Seeds of Peace: Seeds of Peace is an organization focused on building peace and strengthening ties among those living in conflict ridden areas of the world. A main element of the program is a camp for teenagers and educators from unstable regions to share and learn values of unity and leadership. You can support by donating.
- Support the Human Rights Watch: The Human Rights Watch is a nongovernmental, nonprofit, international organization which provides a source of research and advocacy for human rights and anti-war causes around the world. You can find many ways to personally take action in the struggle for human rights 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.
Trump Imposes Major Tariff on Canadian Plane Manufacturer
New Tariff
Summary
With U.S.-Canada relations unusually tense due to NAFTA renegotiations, the Trump administration has potentially taken a further step to weaken the historic bond between the two nations. An integral part of Trump’s campaign promises hinged on reshaping the dynamic of our trade interactions in order to protect American jobs, and he has found an opportunity with the Canadian owned plane manufacturing company, Bombardier. Bombardier’s C-series jet is set to be delivered to its U.S. customer Delta in the Spring of 2018. A trade case brought against Bombardier by U.S. competitor Boeing proved to be a rare opportunity for Trump to follow through on a campaign promise. The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) determined that there is a reasonable case to be made against Bombardier, which meant that the dispute was advanced to the Department of Commerce. The decision was made that Bombardier has received subsidies or is selling at below cost to undercut American manufacturing, which resulted in an import tariff of 220% being levied against the Canadian company.
Analysis
While the intent of Trump’s protectionist policies has been primarily to promote American job growth, this tariff could endanger what Bombardier estimates are 22,000 jobs in Kansas and West Virginia, both states which supported Trump in the election. In addition, this could create an uncharacteristic division between the United States and Canada, as well as, to a lesser extent, Northern Ireland, who both are relying on the boost in employment the manufacturing of the C-series will create. This grievance is a further addition to a previous dispute regarding Trump’s plan to restore tariffs against Canadian lumber companies, which were ended with the initial NAFTA agreement. The Bombardier tariff may be a plan to gain leverage for the U.S. in future NAFTA negotiations, but it could also be an insult to two countries who view themselves as close allies rather than competitors with the United States.
Engagement Resources
- Support Atlas Free Trade: Atlas Free Trade is an organization established by the Atlas Network and tasked with encouraging research and advocacy on behalf of lowering trade barriers. You can volunteer which will allow you to keep in touch in regards to events being held around the world.
- Donate to the Center for Global Development (CGD): The CGD is a nonpartisan think tank focused on reducing worldwide poverty, partially be opening trade laws. You can donate here.
This brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact colin@usresistnews.org.
Health News Update: Cassidy-Graham, Tom Price, and CHIP
Recent events in healthcare policy and news
Summary
September was a busy month in healthcare. The Cassidy-Graham bill, a last hurrah “repeal and replace” bill under budget reconciliation, failed to gain the necessary support and never made it to a vote in the Senate. Even after state-specific efforts to rally support, Senators John McCain, Susan Collins, and Rand Paul opposed the bill as well as Senator Lisa Murkowski, although she was more willing to negotiate.
This final failure for the GOP on the healthcare front left Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price on thin ice. President Trump was even less impressed to find out that Price had racked up over $400,000 in travel bills for chartered flights. On Friday, Sept. 29th, under pressure from the Administration, Price resigned.
The next day, on Sept. 30th, Congress allowed the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to expire, leaving 9 million children and pregnant women without the low-cost health insurance. The 20-year old bipartisan program was established under the Clinton Administration and decreased the number of uninsured children from almost 14% to 4.5% in 2015.
Analysis
The failure of the Cassidy-Graham plan means that the Affordable Care Act is still the law of the land. This “repeal and replace”, like all the others that have been proposed in the last few months, would have left millions uninsured, cut Medicaid, and weakened protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Republicans will have the opportunity to pass one bill under budget reconciliation next year, which means they will need only a simple majority in the Senate instead of 60 votes. The GOP had planned on using this opportunity to pass tax reform, but some frustrated Republican Senators want to repeal and replace the ACA before their midterm elections. There is now talk of combining health care and tax reform into one budget resolution bill that can be passed under reconciliation. LEARN MORE
After Tom Price’s breach on Trump’s vow to “drain the swamp of Washington’s privilege”, all cabinet travel requests now must be approved by the White House. Possible successors for Price’s position include the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Seema Verma and the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Scott Gottlieb. Tom Price is now another name on the growing list of Trump’s resigned of fired personnel. LEARN MORE
With all the drama surrounding healthcare in the past few days, the CHIP was pushed aside. Many states are expected to run out of funding for the program by the end of the year while others will not make it to the end of the week if Congress does not vote to restore it. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Sen. Bernie Sanders recently proposed a single-payer bill that would provide Medicare for all Americans regardless of their income.
- Join the fight to provide Health Care for America Now!
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns or support.
- Learn more about the CHIP program, what it offers, and why it is important.
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 Announces New Revisions to Travel Ban
Presidential Announcement
Announced on September 25, 2017
Policy Summary
On Sunday evening, September 24, President Trump announced his latest revisions to the travel ban via Twitter in a proclamation, removing Sudan and adding the countries of Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela to the list. Joining the ranks of Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, nationals from the aforementioned countries will be barred from entering the United States unless they are found to have a bona fide relationship with an American citizen(s). Revisions were made and announced in a timely fashion, as provisions from the second edition of the ban, which were implemented in March, were set to expire on Sunday evening per a Supreme Court ruling in June.
Unlike versions one and two of the ban, 3.0 is set to enforce varying restrictions per country and is not slated to go into effect until October 18, but will last indefinitely. Furthermore, the curated list of countries was developed following “intense negotiations with security officials around the world,” according to the New York Times. The Trump administration and DHS believe that this applied methodology will ensure safety from threats of terrorism and transnational crime.
Analysis
The latest installment of Trump’s travel ban is yet another egregious display of decaying diplomatic relations between the US and several nations around the world, which is particularly audacious in the case of North Korea. Following a week of fighting words and mounting tensions between the US and North Korea by way of both countries’ executive leadership, these revisions are quite contrary to making American safe again; infuriating one of the world’s most dangerous dictators is more harmful than helpful to national security. What is more, the ban’s isolationistic rhetoric and tactics are as much a threat to national security and foreign relations as they are to the economy. This move is one more step back for peace and prosperity in the US and around the world.
Equally as concerning as national security and economic well-being, the Supreme Court announced on Monday, September 25 that it has canceled the hearings that were scheduled for October 10 on the previous edition of the ban. Trump’s proclamation complicated exactly what provisions would be orally argued in the Supreme Court, and now the court is asking for both parties to file new briefs by October 5. Canceling the October 10 hearings puts the case in jeopardy; filing new briefs will not guarantee that the Supreme Court actually hears and rules on the constitutionality of the travel ban. Though a new round of litigation may emerge from outcries over the new proclamation, the ban will remain in effect until further challenged, constitutional or not.
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 supporting 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.
Manafort’s Troubles, Facebook’s Information, Trump Legal Discord, Senate Struggles with Special Counsel
The past week has seen a flurry of activity–or at least revelatory media reports–in almost all of the federal and congressional investigations into Russia and President Trump. Most notable have been a new wave of reports on former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who has long been a central subject of the Russia investigations. Recent reports indicate that Manafort was under FBI surveillance prior to the 2016 campaign, and had additional and previously unreported contact with Russian operatives during the campaign. He has been aggressively pursued by the special counsel all summer. In addition to Manafort, there have been important disclosures on Facebook’s role in the special counsel’s investigation, as well as internal disputes within the White House legal team about how to respond to the special counsel’s extensive document requests. Finally, a handful of reports about the various congressional committees conducting Russia investigations suggest that at least some of those committees are clashing with the special counsel’s team and the DoJ at large over access to certain witnesses and documents.
DoJ and Special Counsel
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has of course been the source of much speculation over the past few months, as more and more important pieces of evidence and lines of questioning are identified by the media and made public. Manafort has been in Mueller’s sights for months now, and we are learning more details about the special counsel’s supposed intentions and tactics regarding the Manafort investigation. Earlier in the summer, we learned about the FBI raid Mueller had ordered by search warrant on Manafort’s home; recently, the New York Times reported that during that raid agents told Manafort that Mueller intended to indict him. This move was read by many legal experts as an attempt by Mueller to ‘set a tone’ for the investigation, to ensure that witnesses cooperate and tell the truth. In a broader context, Mueller’s actions seem to indicate tactics of aggression and persuasion in handling central and high-level witnesses such as Manafort–essentially gathering enough incriminating evidence to intimidate or compel them into giving additional information, potentially about other subjects of the investigation.
Another surprising revelation regarding the Manafort investigation is the recent report that while chairing the Trump campaign, Manafort offered a private briefing on the presidential race–via an aide’s email–to a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, who is known to have close ties to Putin. Thus far no evidence points to any meetings actually having taken place, and the criminality of Manafort’s offer is yet to be determined.
Yet another bombshell report from the past week about Mueller’s investigation of Manafort was a Washington Post report revealing that Manafort had been under investigation by the FBI since 2014, and had been under surveillance for the past 3 years, potentially during and after his tenure as Trump’s campaign chairman. Prior to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel, the FBI had obtained multiple FISA warrants to surveil Manafort’s communications, although it is unclear exactly when and for how long the warrants were issued, and what specific types of intelligence-gathering they covered. The surveillance reportedly continued on into this year and covered at least some of the time during which Manafort communicated closely with Trump; it’s also not clear whether specific conversations between the two were picked up. What is most important about these revelations is what the process of reaching them indicates: to obtain FISA warrants–which deal with surveillance in connection to foreign agents and espionage–the DoJ had to prove that Manafort was engaging knowingly in activities relating to foreign intelligence and foreign operatives. According to the Post article, DoJ investigators were concerned by some of the intel they gathered, which reportedly indicated that Manafort had ‘encouraged’ Russian operatives to help with the Trump campaign. As special counsel in charge of the Russia investigation, Mueller undoubtedly received this prior DoJ intelligence and has probably incorporated some of the FBI’s findings into his own investigation of Manafort.
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has also been a longtime key figure in the special counsel investigation, and recent reports suggest that his son, Michael G Flynn, is now under investigation as well. Flynn Jr seems to have played an important role at Flynn Intel Group, Flynn’s lobbying firm, including working closely with his father and accompanying him on several business trips to Russia, and potentially communicating with Russian state operatives. Many speculate that Mueller is using Flynn’s son to pressure him into cooperating more in the investigation. Two Democratic congressmen from the House Oversight and House Foreign Affairs Committees are also reportedly giving the special counsel documents they obtained from Flynn’s former business partners, after accusing Flynn of concealing even more information from investigators and on background and security checks over the past two years, related to Russian projects and foreign trips.
Aside from Manafort and Flynn, the special counsel has been looking at Facebook–more specifically, social media’s role in disseminating false and misleading articles and advertisements, funded by Russian interests, aimed at creating divisive social and political currents and potentially influencing public opinion before and during the election. In the past few weeks, Mueller obtained a warrant to gather Facebook data and information about the Russian-backed ads and accounts in question, including information about their buyers and the targeting criteria used to circulate the ads. Again, the way the special counsel was able to obtain this information is important: to get the Facebook warrant, Mueller had to present compelling evidence to a federal judge that a crime had occurred in connection with the foreign purchases of ads, which were probably intended to influence the outcome of the election. This warrant also represents a new–or at least previously unreported–arm of Mueller’s probe, digging into the question of specific instances of Russian electoral interference. The news prompted many reporters to speculate that the special counsel is coming closer to questioning and charging specific foreign individuals for their role in trying to influence the outcome of the election.
Another update on the special counsel’s investigation is the recently released news that Mueller interviewed deputy AG Rod Rosenstein earlier in the summer about his role in and knowledge of the firing of former FBI director James Comey. Since AG Jeff Sessions’ recusal from Russia-related matters, Rosenstein has directly overseen all DoJ activity involving the Russia investigation, including the special counsel probe; the fact that he was interviewed by Mueller and hasn’t recused himself seems to indicate that he isn’t seen as a key witness in the probe.
Mueller and his team continue to request and review White House documents related to Trump’s actions in office, including Comey’s dismissal, issues surrounding Michael Flynn, and the president’s reported crafting of his son’s misleading response to news of the infamous Donald Jr-Trump Tower meeting. In addition to those matters, the special counsel has reportedly requested White House internal communications regarding former campaign associates including Manafort, and Trump’s original foreign policy team. Mueller’s team has also been looking over a letter drafted by Trump and an aide, Stephen Miller, giving Trump’s initial reasons for firing Comey. The President had reportedly been increasingly angered that Comey wouldn’t publicly state that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation, and that was included as reasoning for his dismissal in the draft letter. The letter was never sent after strong objections from White House counsel Don McGahn and other aides. Eventually, the White House released a letter signed by deputy AG Rosenstein, which cited Comey’s handling of the Clinton email investigation as the main reason for his firing.
The White House response to Mueller’s extensive document requests has been fraught with disagreement and internal bickering. A New York Times reporter recently overheard two leading White House lawyers discussing the legal team’s discordant response to the special counsel’s requests. Those two lawyers were Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer responsible for responding to the Russia investigations, and John Dowd, Trump’s personal lawyer, who took over from Marc Kasowitz–who was pushed aside earlier in the year over internal disagreements. (See my previous post for a full–if now slightly dated–list of the White House legal team). Cobb and Dowd were talking about how to respond to Mueller’s document requests–and the differing opinion of White House counsel Don McGahn on the matter. Their discussion exposed a deep disagreement between Cobb and McGahn: Cobb advocates handing over everything requested by the DoJ as quickly as possible in order to avoid subpoenas and try to show innocence through transparency, while McGahn is concerned that giving too much would limit the President’s ability to invoke executive privilege in the future. The Times reporter overheard Cobb venting that McGahn was being too withholding of documents and evidence. After the story broke, McGahn reportedly exploded at Cobb, who then gave a conciliatory interview. The special counsel had previously asked McGahn for an interview, which complicates his position on handing over documents; he is reportedly awaiting the President’s decision on whether to invoke attorney-client privilege, although an appeals court ruled during President Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky scandal that attorney-client privilege covered government lawyers differently, and that they could in certain cases be compelled by prosecutors to testify. Tensions within the White House legal team have been high for months, and any decisions by Trump or Mueller are sure to spark more conflict.
Finally, there have been two recent changes to Mueller’s team: a new prosecutor, Kyle Freeny, recently joined the special counsel investigation after transferring from the DoJ’s money laundering unit. Lisa Page, an attorney who had been part of the team, reportedly left earlier in the summer to return to her position at the FBI general counsel’s office. (Again, here’s a previous post with a now slightly dated list of the attorneys working on the special counsel probe).
Senate Intelligence Committee
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation has some notable updates, including the Committee’s intentions to speak with President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen. The committee had planned a closed-door interview with Cohen, but postponed it after Cohen released a public statement vehemently denying any type of collusion or involvement with Russia regarding the election. Much of Cohen’s statement addressed contents of the controversial and yet-unverified Steele dossier, which alleges that Cohen met with Russian and Ukranian operatives and was heavily involved in dealmaking on behalf of the Trump campaign prior to the election. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr told reporters that after Jared Kushner released a public statement addressing his closed-door interview the Committee changed their policy on witness statements, since when interviews are conducted privately it is in order to protect sensitive information, and public statements only tell one side of the story. Hours after postponing Cohen’s interview, the Senate Intelligence Committee canceled it altogether and instead invited him to testify at a public hearing, which is yet to be determined.
Another person the Committee seeks to interview is Michael Flynn, who recently refused a new Senate request. Earlier in the year, Flynn had invoked the 5th amendment to decline the Committee’s prior requests. The Senate and House Intelligence Committees both subpoenaed Flynn earlier in the summer for his business records–not covered by the 5th amendment–after he refused their personal requests; Flynn did give the Senate Intelligence Committee substantial documents in response to the subpoena, but has not cooperated further. Flynn originally offered to testify to both intelligence committees in exchange for immunity, but both declined.
The Senate Intelligence Committee is also going after Facebook for information on social media’s role in the Russian electoral interference. Reports suggest that the Committee plans to hold a hearing at some point to gather testimony from Facebook. The special counsel already obtained a warrant for access to Facebook’s information, and the company recently announced that they would voluntarily share information about Russian-bought ads with congressional investigators. The Senate Intelligence Committee wants to look deeper into the question of whether the false stories and ads placed by Russian operatives had a measurable impact on voters in the 2016 election.
At the beginning of the week, the Senate Intelligence Committee reportedly held a private interview with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Politico reported that Podesta was seen leaving a Senate Intelligence Committee room, but neither he nor the Committee would comment on his appearance. Podesta’s personal emails were among those hacked during the campaign by suspected Russian operatives, and later released online by WikiLeaks, ostensibly in an attempt to damage the Clinton campaign.
House Intelligence Committee
The House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation has been a rollercoaster of intrigue, dispute, and deception from the start, which has to a great extent prevented the Committee from gathering credible information and pressing forward cooperatively with their probe. This week a few significant updates to the investigation were reported, including news that former Trump adviser and longtime political ally Roger Stone will meet Committee members for a voluntary closed-door interview next week. Stone has repeatedly asked to testify publicly, and has tried to publicize his cooperation with congressional requests, but the Committee has been firm about interviewing certain key witnesses in private. Stone has been an extremely controversial figure in Trump’s network, and his interview is set for September 26th.
Like its Senate counterpart, the House Intelligence Committee is also eager to hear from Facebook, although consensus within the Committee on such intel-gathering is unclear. Ranking member Adam Schiff has called for representatives from Facebook and Twitter to appear either privately or publicly before the Committee to address Russian activity on social media before and during the election, but it’s not yet clear whether the Committee will request data from Facebook.
A new and already controversial figure is joining the staff of the House Intelligence Committee. Ousted National Security Council official Derek Harvey was originally appointed to the NSC by Michael Flynn, and was removed earlier in the summer by national security adviser H.R. McMaster.
Senate Judiciary Committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee has had a busy few weeks, and as their Russia investigation progresses they find themselves butting heads with the special counsel probe on multiple fronts, including witness interviews and document requests. The Committee has been trying to interview two senior FBI officials, Carl Ghattas and James Rybicki, about Comey’s firing, but the DoJ recently denied the Committee’s interview requests on the grounds of potential interference with the special counsel investigation. The DoJ’s refusal suggests that Mueller is still probably investigating Comey’s firing and interviewing departmental witnesses, and wants to avoid congressional interference which could publicize sensitive information. Committee chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Diane Feinstein are reportedly annoyed with the DoJ’s reluctance to cooperate with their requests, which they see as ‘stonewalling’. The Committee views witness testimony as a key part of their investigation, and according to a recent New York Times report it is considering subpoenas to compel the DoJ officials to testify, even with objections from the department and the special counsel. Feinstein hasn’t been explicit about issuing subpoenas, which she would have to sign off on, but has stated her frustration with DoJ-related delays in the investigation. In addition to Ghattas and Rybicki, the Senate Judiciary Committee is interested in interviewing Paul Manafort, who agreed to testify earlier in the summer after being subpoenaed, but has reportedly refused to communicate with committee requests since the FBI raided his home. Aside from the struggle for witness interviews, the Committee has been going over documents including transcripts from their closed door interviews with Donald Trump Jr and Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS–the firm that produced the Steele dossier. In a sign of broader tensions with the special counsel, the Committee reportedly has not yet given Mueller full access to the Donald Trump Jr transcript. Trump Jr is also expected to testify in a public Senate Judiciary hearing at some point later in the fall. Much of the Committee’s frustration seems to stem from the view that since they are the direct congressional oversight body for the DoJ and FBI, their investigation should have jurisdictional access to information regarding the Comey firing, which is now being withheld due to Mueller’s investigation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled two important hearings in the near future: one an annual DoJ oversight hearing with AG Jeff Sessions, and the other a hearing on the role of special counsels, at which senators plan to bring up bills proposing to make it more difficult for the White House or DoJ to fire Mueller (or any special counsel in the future). These bills come in the midst of the Committee’s clashes with Mueller over evidence, but indicate that even with their disagreements the Committee is taking a broader view of the Russia investigations in general and acknowledging the importance of allowing an impartial special counsel investigation to run its course; last month a Republican congressman proposed cutting funding to the special counsel probe to 6 months and limiting its scope. The DoJ/AG oversight hearing is scheduled for October 18th, and is an annual event unrelated to the Judiciary Committee’s Russia investigation. However, Committee members are reportedly eager to question Sessions about a range of issues, including both his recusal after failing to disclose meetings with the Russian ambassador during his confirmation hearing, and his role in or knowledge of Comey’s firing. This hearing will be Sessions’ first appearance before the Committee since his confirmation hearing.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Trump Administration Rejects DHHS Report on Refugee Impact
Refugee Impact Report Rejection
Summary
On Tuesday, September 12, the Trump administration announced that it is considering limiting the number of refugees admitted into the country to less than 50,000 in 2018. Should this consideration come to fruition, it would be the lowest number of refugees admitted into the country since the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, according to the New York Times.
Following this announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) released a draft report to the Times on the impact that refugees have on the US economy, citing that refugees bring in a collective $63 billion more in government revenues than they cost over the past ten years. The report was given to the administration in late July but never released to the public. Ultimately, the Trump administration rejected the conclusions in the report, stating that the conclusions “were delivered by someone with an ideological agenda” White House spokesperson Raj Shah told the New York Times.
Analysis
Critics speculate that the DHHS report was never released to the public (before it was leaked to the Times) because it does not serve the administration’s agenda or Trump’s promise to crack down on the number of refugees admitted to the US as part of an overhaul of the current immigration system at large. In fact, these findings go directly against Trump’s unfounded claims that refugees do more to harm the country’s economy than help it. By suppressing or discrediting facts like those found in the leaked DHHS report, American democracy suffers firsthand. An uninformed, or misinformed, public will merely position the president to implement unjust, even unconstitutional, policies, programs, and practices.
Engagement Resources
- Take Action With HAIS: HAIS is a refugee advocacy organization that provides legal protection, psychological care and resources for self-sufficiency to displaced persons in the United States. You can support the mission and vision of HAIS through volunteering, attending a local HAIS event, or donating to the organization.
- Support the International Refugee Assistance Project: IRAP, a project sponsored by the Urban Justice Center, mobilizes law students and lawyers to provide direct legal aid and advocate for public policy to protect refugees and immigrants affected by Trump’s travel ban. You can support IRAP and those affected by the travel ban by donating, signing up for action alerts, starting a local chapter, or applying for available volunteer opportunities.
- 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.
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.
United States Denies Chinese Acquisition of American Semiconductor Company
Acquisition Rejection
Rejected on September 13, 2017
Summary
On Wednesday, September 13th, a federal board blocked the 1.3 billion dollar Chinese acquisition of Lattice Semiconductor, an American company based in Oregon. The board cited national security concerns related to the deal, and there has been some evidence of relations between the Chinese company and government. In the past 30 years, there have been only three other such rejections of acquisitions made by the President. Lattice announced they would cancel the proposed sale. LEARN MORE
Analysis
It’s unclear whether or not the claim of endangered national security is substantiated, but this denial will not help US-Chinese relations. Amid other rising tensions, this trade acquisition was intended to smooth over some ties between the two countries. Lattice claimed it would be able to double its employees, and both companies assured the board that there were no national security risks at play. Furthermore, the Chinese Communist Party will hold its Congress in October, something that only happens once every five years. While it’s unclear to the general public whether or not this denial is justified, it will definitely harm the relationship between China and the United States.
Engagement Resources
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States — See how the board which monitors Foreign Investment operates
- Capitol Hill Reaction — See how Senate Democrats believe CFIUS should act in the North Korean Crisis
This brief was compiled by Jacob Malinowski. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jacob@usresistnews.org.
President Trump Threatens Iran Deal
Nuclear Agreement Indecision
Summary
On September 18th, President Trump announced that the world would know “very soon” about the future of the JCPOA, commonly know as the Iran Deal. This agreement, negotiated by former Secretary of State John Kerry, stalled and prevented the Iranians from achieving nuclear weapons in exchange for removing sanctions on the country. President Trump campaigned on revoking the Iran Deal while both Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson wish to remain. President Trump has until October 15th to announce his intentions to Congress. LEARN MORE
Analysis
President Trump’s refusal to commit to a decision on the Iran Deal only fuels instability and endangers the world. While the Iran Deal isn’t perfect, it’s important to maintain the status quo until we have a better agreement or a new strategy. Yet the President continues to flip-flop on his policy, sometimes signaling he’d like to remain, and he also conflicts with other top diplomats and secretaries. Many experts believe the Iran Deal is working despite its flaws, and the United States can better punish Iran if we remain in the deal. President Trump’s ignorance in world affairs could spark another global crisis, and the United States is put in jeopardy because of it.
Engagement Resources
- Full Text of the Iran Deal
- Does the Iran Deal Work? — A piece by the Atlantic examining the efficacy of the Iran Deal.
This brief was compiled by Jacob Malinowski. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact jacob@usresistnews.org.
The Effects of and a Possible Solution to the Problem of Partisan Gerrymandering
Upcoming Supreme Court Case
Policy Summary
On September 12, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that temporarily prevented implementation of a federal district court ruling that found state electoral districts in Texas were illegally drawn to suppress minority voters. This ruling comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2017 decision to agree to hear a case from Wisconsin, Whitford v. Gill. That case is similar to the case from Texas in that voters are challenging the way a state draws its electoral districts because of the way certain groups of voters are favored over other groups of voters in order to give one party (in both states, the Republican Party) an unfair and even unconstitutional advantage over the other political party. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
Gerrymandering is an American political tactic that dates back nearly 200 years. The premise is simple – to draw state electoral districts and congressional districts in such as a way as to ensure that a candidate of a particular political party will have a very good chance of winning. Districts are constitutionally required to be roughly equal in terms of population, and they usually are, but the unusual shapes of certain districts – with elongated arms and hooks that curve around illogically – are often intentionally drawn that way so as to favor Republican or Democratic candidates.
The current problem, as illustrated by the Texas and Wisconsin cases, is that the drawing of electoral districts are being manipulated and not representative of how the electorate is voting in the state. For example, in Wisconsin Republican legislators re-drew the state electoral map after they came to power in 2010. When the 2012 election came around Republicans in Wisconsin won 49 percent of all votes cast statewide in congressional elections but ended up winning 63 percent of the congressional seats. In this map of recent trends, the states of Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin show more Democratic votes than Republican overall but less Democratic congressional seats. Why are states that have more Democratic voters sending fewer Democrats and more Republicans to Congress? The answer lies in which political party is currently in power and how they choose to draw the electoral maps of their state. The hope is that the Supreme Court will take the Whitford v. Gill case and articulate a framework to determine when “gerrymandering” crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional. Each and every vote should count and should be reflective of what the electorate wants instead of allowing the process to be manipulated by legislative leaders in order to suppress votes from minority communities and keep their party in power. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Campaign Legal Center – nonprofit webpage on redistricting cases.
- Brennan Center for Justice – nonprofit group info page on redistricting and gerrymandering.
- Common Cause – nonprofit group’s information page on redistricting reform campaigns nationwide.
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.
Sanctuary City Funding Protected in Federal Court
Legal Decision
Issued on September 15, 2017
Policy Summary
On Friday, September 15, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, a federal Judge in Illinois, blocked the Justice Department from withholding federal money from sanctuary cities. Specifically, the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Leinenweber bars the DOJ from denying the Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG, funding to sanctuary cities, the leading federal grant providing state and local jurisdiction with financial assistance supporting law enforcement agencies. The ruling supports the City of Chicago’s lawsuit against the DOJ, which was filed on Monday, July 7 following Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ announcement that sanctuary cities would be excluded from JAG funding in their refusal to work with federal immigration enforcement. In his ruling, Judge Leinenweber cited that this decision was unconstitutional, for Congress never explicitly authorized Sessions to implement new provisions to the grant.
Analysis
JAG funding is broad in scope, supporting program areas ranging from crime victim support and awareness to mental health and crisis intervention to technology, and more at the local and state level. Withholding these funds from major cities that are, to a certain extent, reliant upon the money in order to keep their communities safe is counter-intuitive and unwarranted. Sanctuary city policies do not encourage nor prevent police from seeking out illegal immigrants who may have committed crimes; rather, local law enforcement officials operating in sanctuary cities typically do not ask a person about his or her immigration status. Many local jurisdictions are in favor of these policies and have voiced concern about worsening community and law enforcement relations should these policies be blocked at the federal level. Both sanctuary cities and JAG funding are two important measures for keeping communities safe, and taking away funding from these jurisdictions will not serve to make America safe again.
Engagement Resources
- Show Your Solidarity With the Immigrant Legal Resource Center: The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national nonprofit resource center that provides immigration legal trainings, technical assistance, and educational materials, and engages in advocacy and immigrant civic engagement to advance immigrant rights. You can support the center by donating or attending one of their virtual or in-person trainings.
- 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 support sanctuary cities through utilizing its Sanctuary City Toolkit.
- 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.
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.