JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Trump Administration Reaches Compromise with Canada as NAFTA is Rebranded USMCA
Almost one week ago, the events of an emerging US instigated trade war took an interesting turn as it was announced that the U.S. and Canada had settled on a compromise in their long-standing and complicated negotiations regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The “Politics” of Fighting For A Supreme Court Seat
On July 9, 2018, President Donald J. Trump nominated Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Kavanaugh was nominated to replace Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy who stepped down after thirty years on the Court.
California’s Landmark Gender Law Is A Boost For Women In Corporate Boardrooms
On January 3, 2018, California State Senators Toni Atkins and Hannah – Beth Jackson introduced Senate Bill 826. This bill sought to make additions to California’s Corporations Code regarding the composition of a company’s board of directors.
Trump Administration to Limit Green Cards for the “Burdens of Society”
To promote self-sufficiency and protect finite resources, the Trump Administration has proposed harsher reviews of individuals applying for green cards and/or permanent resident status in the US.
President Trump Addresses United Nations
On September 25th, President Trump delivered a speech before the United Nations General Assembly, complete with all of his signature vague jingoism and confrontational barbs.
Methane Cutbacks and What it Means
Rollbacks appear to be the defining characteristic of the Trump administration, particularly with relation to environmental oversight. Last week, the Department of the Interior in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management decided to ease restrictions on leaking, venting and flaring methane from fossil fuel drilling on public lands, ostensibly saving the fossil fuel industry approximately $1.01 billion over the next 10 years. By contrast, the Obama era regulations, which have since been nixed, would have reduced methane emissions by 35%.
Transactional Migration: a Transition in American Values
Following up on an Executive Order he made in September 2017, President Trump has signed a new order placing an even lower cap on immigration to the United States than ever before.
Does the Administration’s Tax Cuts and Job Act Mean Trouble for GOP in Upcoming Election?
With the midterm elections quickly approaching, speculation continues to mount as to how much of an impact the Trump administration’s policy will have on the impending elections
Is “Anti – BDS” Legislation Compatible With Free Speech and the First Amendment?
In June 2005 one hundred seventy (170) Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) as a form of non – violent protest against illegal activities of the State of Israel against the Palestinian people.
Anti-Russian Influence Bill
Proposed Legislation
Proposed in October 2017
Summary
During the last election and a plethora of time after it, many congressional lawmakers and experts have hypothesized that the Russians had some form of influence during our national election. A group of senators introduced a bill that would mandate online political advisers to provide information about their aids. This information may pertain to who is paying for the aids or any other information to prevent foreign governments from influencing our US elections. Democratic senators Mark Warner and Amy Klobucher introduced the Honest Ads Act and it was cosponsored by Republican Senator John McCain. Klobuchar claimed that “Our entire democracy was founded on the simple idea that the people in our country should be self-governing. Now, 240 years later, our democracy is at risk. Russia attacked our elections, and they and other foreign powers and interests will continue to divide our country if we don’t act now.” READ MORE
Analysis
Adam Sharp, former head of news, government, and election on Twitter claimed that “It’s a good piece of legislation to address the modern realities of campaign financing and the need for disclosure”. In addition, the bill amends the Bipartisan Campaign Reform of 2002 by requiring tech platforms with more than 50 million monthly users to “maintain and make available for online public inspection a record of advertisers who spend at least $500 on the platform for advertising on campaign issues”. This legislation will solve a major regulatory blind spot because online political aids are unregulated in the status quo. This is key as the Internet Research Agency found that Facebook created nearly 470 fake accounts with purchases up to $100,000 ads, Twitter had 200 accounts and Google had discovered $4,700 worth of ads. At the end of this day, this piece of legislation increases the level of transparency since it requires disclosures by these tech giants. This sentiment was repeated by Alex Howard, deputy director of the Sunlight Foundation (a government transparency advocacy group) when he claimed “This is a substantive legislative proposal that addresses the online disclosure gap that we and other good-government advocates and campaign-finance experts have talked about for years.
Engagement Resources
- Town Hall Project– This project compiles the open-to-the-public events held by state and local representatives. This provides a great opportunity to tell them that this executive order will do more bad than good. You can also dial 1-844-6-RESIST to be redirected to the office of your local member of Congress.
- US Senate – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation.
- US House of Representatives – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation
This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.
Mueller’s White House Interviews, Fusion GPS vs. Nunes, Sessions’ Oversight Hearing
News of the Russia investigations over the past week has mainly focused on testimonies, interviews, or refusals from persons of interest. The special counsel has been busy interviewing White House staffers, while the congressional intelligence committees have had less luck bringing witnesses to the stand. The House Intelligence Committee is beset as ever by conflict, this time between recused chairman Devin Nunes and the firm behind the controversial Steele dossier. Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee and unsurprisingly refused to discuss Russia-investigation-related matters.
DoJ and Special Counsel
Mueller’s team has been circling in on the White House, conducting interviews with recently departed staffers over the past weeks and reportedly planning to meet with more former and current officials in the near future. Last Friday, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus met voluntarily with the special counsel, reportedly to discuss Priebus’ knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the President’s most controversial Russia-investigation-related actions, including former FBI director Comey’s firing and the response to Donald Trump Jr’s infamous Trump Tower meeting, among other things. Priebus’ interview had been scheduled for some time but kept being delayed while the special counsel’s team waited for its relevant White House document requests to be fulfilled. After Priebus, Mueller met with former White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday. Spicer was reportedly interviewed about his knowledge of and responses to Comey’s firing and the Trump Tower meeting as well. Although future interviews are not yet scheduled, the special counsel is expected to meet with at least two current administration officials in the coming months: White House communications director Hope Hicks, and White House counsel Don McGahn.
Senate Intelligence Committee
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation has had a somewhat disappointing week, after being denied documents and testimony from a few key witnesses. Notable among these is former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who refused to comply with initial Committee requests for documents regarding his Russian contacts and connections, which prompted the Committee to issue a subpoena. Although the Committee reportedly expects Page to invoke 5th Amendment rights in order to avoid testimony, Page’s position on cooperation with the Russia investigations has frequently shifted. He has expressed willingness to cooperate with Senate investigators, and told the media that he was already interviewed by the FBI; after the Committee first requested information from him he then indicated that he would not cooperate, but following the Committee’s subpoena NBC reported that Page had instead asked to testify publicly on November 1st, which is the day the Committee scheduled their hearing for Facebook and other influential social media company officials to testify.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has also been trying to obtain information from former national security adviser Michael Flynn’s son concerning his role in the family’s business dealings, especially meetings and close contact with Russian businesses and Kremlin affiliates. The Committee had previously requested documents and testimony from Flynn Jr, who never responded; Committee members were reportedly unsatisfied by earlier information provided by the Flynn family and have since proven their willingness to subpoena information they are denied. The special counsel is also reportedly interested in speaking with Flynn Jr, although potentially not just for his information but in an attempt to compel Flynn Sr to cooperate as well.
Finally, President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen is scheduled to speak with Senate Intelligence Committee investigators at the end of the month.
House Intelligence Committee
The House Intelligence Committee’s somewhat one-sided focus on the Steele dossier has persisted, taking the form over the past few weeks of an increasingly heated back-and-forth between Fusion GPS, the political research firm which commissioned the dossier, and members of the Committee–seemingly led by displaced chairman Devin Nunes. At the beginning of the month, the Committee subpoenaed Fusion GPS officials to testify about the dossier, which reportedly took the Committee’s minority by surprise. Reports originally indicated that Nunes, who recused himself from the Russia investigation, had issued the subpoenas of his own accord. Many still perceive Nunes as trying to undermine or politicize the investigation by acting without full Committee support or knowledge, and pursuing leads that are often seen as irrelevant to the investigation’s main focus. Nunes has maintained that he never actually recused himself from the Committee’s Russia investigation, only temporarily stepped aside. As Committee chairman, Nunes still has ultimate oversight on subpoenas related to the investigation. However, last week Republican Committee members denied that Nunes had acted unilaterally in subpoenaing Fusion GPS, saying that Mike Conaway–the Republican in charge of the Russia investigation since Nunes’ recusal–had originally requested that Nunes issue the subpoenas. Ranking member Adam Schiff said that the Fusion subpoenas, as well as earlier Committee subpoenas to the DoJ, were made without consulting him or the rest of the minority. Fusion has also been fighting back against the subpoenas, accusing Nunes in a letter of abusing his power and acting in the interest of the President, not the progression of the investigation, by trying to run a parallel and irrelevant investigation into the dossier and uncover the identity of the clients who funded it. Fusion GPS officials briefly visited the House Intelligence Committee last week in response to their subpoena, but refused to testify, invoking “constitutional privileges” and maintaining that the subpoenas were politically motivated and that sharing information about their clients would violate confidentiality policies. The officials also reminded the Committee that Fusion GPS had already complied with congressional Russia investigators; founder Glenn Simpson gave a lengthy interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the year, and the company has asked for the transcript of that interview to be made public. It is unclear how Nunes and the rest of the House Intelligence Committee will respond to Fusion GPS’s accusations and refusal to testify.
Another important issue for the Committee has been the Russian-bought Facebook ads which aimed to spread social and political discord prior to the election. While their Senate counterpart has scheduled a public hearing for officials from Facebook and other similarly implicated social media sites, the House Intelligence Committee has been considering publicizing the Facebook ads in question. This week, after meeting with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Schiff and Conaway said they would be releasing the Russian ads that Facebook had given the Committee, in order to better inform the public about potential future online threats. In addition to the House Intelligence Committee Sandberg has been visiting many other groups of lawmakers over the past week, as more and more tech companies are being drawn into the congressional Russia investigations and anticipate being called to testify.
The spread of Russian-backed socially and politically divisive false stories and pages before and during the 2016 election has become a focal point of all the Russia investigations, but also raises broader questions for Congress and the tech firms whose platforms were used. Firstly, it isn’t clear just how far the misinformation campaign reached, and even as more social media companies are implicated it’s becoming clear that the false stories weren’t just limited to Russian activity on their sites: ordinary people saw and spread them to disparate corners of the internet. Secondly, it is almost impossible to gauge if and how the misinformation actually affected Americans’ perceptions of the election, and possibly of the electoral system itself. As more information is uncovered–both by congressional investigators and by tech firms themselves–about how Russian operatives used the internet to influence public opinion, the contentious issue of internet regulation becomes more acute. Most of the sites affected conducted very little content oversight, and are only now discovering the frightening extent of foreign political propagandizing on their platforms. Bipartisan groups in both the house and senate have recently introduced legislation to closely track and regulate internet advertising, especially political and foreign-bought ads. Representatives for Facebook, Google, and Twitter–the three sites with the most documented Russian activity–will meet on November 1st with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to discuss internal and external content regulation; the companies and both committees are still working to assess the extent of the disinformation, which has already been found to have reached at least millions of Americans through those sites and others.
Senate Judiciary Committee
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a highly anticipated routine oversight hearing with AG Jeff Sessions this past week. Sessions’ testimony covered a wide range of controversial judiciary topics, but Committee members were eager to press him on his knowledge of and role in the Comey firing, as well as his initially undisclosed communications with Russians. Sessions refused to discuss the circumstances of Comey’s dismissal, telling the Committee that his conversations with the President about such matters were confidential, and citing executive privilege–Presidential power to bar staff from discussing certain issues–even though Trump has never invoked it and has had ample time to do so. When asked about the special counsel, Sessions said he wants Mueller to complete his probe and would cooperate if asked. Sessions also told Committee members that he hasn’t been interviewed by Mueller thus far, although he was initially reluctant to answer this line of questioning.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Trump Cuts off Key Health Care Subsidies
Executive Order
Issued on October 12, 2017
Summary
On Thursday, October 12th, President Trump scrapped subsidies to health insurance companies and signed an executive order that changed insurance market regulations. The subsidies, called cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, help pay out-of-pocket costs for low-income people. In this desperate effort to ditch Obamacare, the White House released a statement saying, “The government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments” and urging Congress once again to repeal and replace the ACA. The announcement to cut off CSR payment came just hours after Trump signed an executive order making major changes to the insurance system, including allowing sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and fewer consumer protections. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Trump has faced opposition from both parties following his executive order and announcement. Without these subsidies, insurance companies will be forced to raise premiums and some may pull out of insurance marketplaces under the ACA. Many Democrats feel the president is trying to sabotage the ACA so that he can blame it for insurance market chaos. According to Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Trump “apparently decided to punish the American people for his inability to improve our health system.” Two Senators, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Democrat Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, struck a bipartisan deal on Tuesday, October 17th to fund CSR subsidies for two years. Trump originally agreed to continue the subsidies in exchange for giving states more flexibility to regulate health care under the ACA. While this deal could offer short-term relief, Trump continues to change his support for the bill and is still promising the American people a “great solution” for health care in the future. In the meantime, the Alexander-Murray bill has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Save My Care is a grassroots community from all around the country who formed a movement to oppose repealing the ACA.
- 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.
Religious Freedom and Representative Kennedy’s Proposed “Do No Harm” Amendment
Presidential and Attorney General Directive
October 6, 2017
Summary
Last year on May 18, 2016, Representative Joseph Kennedy III (D-MA) introduced an amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. That statute provides that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” The proposed amendment was referred to a congressional committee but no action was taken on it. On July 13, 2017, Representative Kennedy reintroduced the same amendment to the statute again in Congress. The amendment introduced by Representative Kennedy is popularly known as the “Do No Harm Act” and would clarify the RFRA to provide that no person can use the religious exemption of the law to deny another person fundamental civil and legal rights. On October 6, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a directive to all federal government agencies that said, “religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
In recent years, opponents of women’s reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and LGBT issues have tried to resist complying with government laws designed to protect people who would otherwise be vulnerable to discrimination because of these issues. In 2014, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which allowed a company to opt out of mandated contraceptive insurance because of religious beliefs. And in a highly anticipated Supreme Court case, the court will examine the case of a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because it went against his religious beliefs.
These cases illustrate an alarming trend – how more and more people are relying on religious beliefs and the RFRA in order to not comply with laws they do not personally agree with. It is becoming, in effect, a license to resist and discriminate against abortion laws, same-sex marriage and other LGBT issues. How long before this rationale is extended to discriminate against minorities and even other viewpoints? This is why Representative Kennedy’s “Do No Harm” bill should be approved. In an inspiring speech promoting it Representative Kennedy said:
“Inherent in our nation’s right to religious freedom is a promise that my belief cannot be used to infringe on yours or do you harm. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was intended to protect against such distortions of faith, not to justify them. Unfortunately, in recent years, that legislation has been used as cover to erode civil rights protections, equal access to health care and child labor laws. In the face of mounting threats from an Administration that continues to back away from civil rights protections, the Do No Harm Act will restore the sacred balance between our right to religious freedom and our promise of equal protection under law.”
The “Do No Harm Act” is the right mindset and the right approach to oppose this alarming trend. This amendment is not a restriction on religious freedom. It still protects the Freedom of Religion and a person’s ability to worship as they see fit. What it does is ensure that those religious beliefs do not deprive other persons their right to full participation in American society. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – non – profit group’s webpage statement on Do No Harm Act bill.
- Human Rights Campaign – non – profit group’s info page analyzing the Do No Harm Act bill.
- Protect Thy Neighbor – non – profit group advocating the separation of church and state and its analysis and support of the Do No Harm Act bill.
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.
US Pulls Out of UNESCO
October 2017
Summary
Last Thursday, the Trump administration officially announced plans to pull out of UNESCO — the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. The United States originally left the organization in protest in 1984, citing a pro-Soviet Union bias, only to return in 2002. The most recent departure was announced by the Trump administration as being due to their pro-Israel bias. Despite all the political controversy, the actual purpose of the organization is fairly innocuous. UNESCO’s primary function is to designate and protect international landmarks known as “world heritage sites”, such as the Taj Mahal and the Grand Canyon. Otherwise, their funding goes towards education and cultural programs around the world, including literacy programs and holocaust education.
While this move is certainly in line with Trump’s distrust of the U.N. and international agreements as a whole, this is really just the last step in a slow departure which began in 2011. UNESCO voted 107 to 14 to recognize Palestine as an independent state and participant, with France, China, Russia, and India in favor, the United States, Canada, and Germany against, and the UK abstaining. This triggered a 1990 US law prohibiting funding towards any UN body which recognizes Palestine as a state. Up to this time, the United States was providing 22% of the funding for UNESCO. The organization responded by suspending US voting rights two years later, delegating the US as a non-member observer. After years of limbo, Trump’s decision to leave unilaterally puts any hopes of rectifying the dispute to rest.
Analysis
Historical sites can have a lot more political power than some would expect. UNESCO’s decision last July to designate part of the West Bank city of Hebron as not only a Palestinian world heritage site, but one that is actively endangered can be seen as a strong repudiation of Israel’s actions in the region. Historical sites have often been used by the state to justify pushing Palestinians out of certain regions. UNESCO’s activism in this area caused them to be accused of not “truly promoting culture and education” by a State Department spokesperson.
While leaving UNESCO may have seemed fated to be since 2011, following through on this departure can have lasting effects on the ability of the United States to maintain power and influence around the world. Reneging on our agreements makes us look untrustworthy, and only serves to breed division. Other countries may follow our lead and stop payments towards UNESCO. If the hope of the Trump administration was really to maintain a balance between Israeli and Palestinian interests on the international level, leaving UNESCO only makes that harder. With one of the biggest sponsors of Israel no longer funding the organization, Israel may be forced to make more concessions to the Palestinians. Ultimately, this is still a victory for conservatives, who broadly oppose the UN as a whole.
Engagement Resources
- Explore UNESCO: UNESCO does a lot more than designate world heritage sites. You can learn more on their website.
- Donate to the American Task Force on Palestine: The ATFP is a nonprofit organization based in Washington that aims to educate the American people about the national security interests of the U.S. in establishing a Palestinian state.
- Learn more about UNESCO’s decision to designate Hebron as a world heritage site: Here is an article written for The Guardian in July examining the full implications of UNESCO’s decision, which may have been a major factor in the decision to leave.
This brief was compiled by Colin Shanley. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact colin@usresistnews.org.
Raising the Debt Ceiling
Summary
In a meeting with Congressional leaders on Wednesday, September 6, Trump proposed potentially eliminating the national debt ceiling.
The conversation began with plans in the House to temporarily raise the debt limit in order to provide financial aid for states affected by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma. Republican leadership had planned on an eighteen-month extension, but were opposed by Conservative Republicans ideologically opposed to raising the debt ceiling without accompanying fiscal reform.
Democrats ultimately bargained down to a three-month extension, which would allow the issue to resurface mid-December. The shorter extension period benefits Democrats particularly, as it will allow the debt ceiling debate to resurface sooner – in mid-December – which is a critical bargaining tool for the minority party. The bill raising the debt ceiling for three months passed.
When meeting with Trump about the proposal, though, the president expressed confusion about why raising the debt ceiling was an issue that necessitated a vote at all. Once explained, Trump expressed support for a removal of the debt ceiling entirely. Democratic leaders at the meeting did not take an outward stance, but said they would bring the proposal back to their caucuses.
What is the Debt Ceiling?
The debt ceiling defines the total amount of money the government can borrow to meet its financial obligations. Rather than allowing the government to spend money, it is a statement on how the government plans to repay money it has already borrowed and spent. The debt ceiling was originally created in the early 1900s to allow the Treasury Department did not have to ask Congress’ permission to issue bonds every time it needed to pay bills. Since then it has remained the blanket tool to manage government debt, and has been raised throughout the years by Congressional vote.
Until relatively recently, the debt ceiling was raised automatically whenever Congress passed a new budget – a practice known as the Gebhardt Rule. However, in 2011 a Republican-controlled House changed the practice, only voting to raise the debt ceiling if the bill was accompanied by equal spending cuts and reforms.
Raising the debt ceiling commensurate with the needs of the budget is critical – if the government defaulted on its debt it would trigger an economic crisis. Given the seriousness of what is at stake with the debt ceiling, separating the vote on the debt ceiling away from an automatic accompaniment to the budget was a strategic political ploy, allowing both parties at times to use it as a bargaining chip whenever there were serious disagreements about fiscal policy.
There are alternatives to the debt ceiling as a means of keeping up with government spending, but none have ever been seriously pursued by Congress.
Trump Moves Towards Decertifying Iran Deal
Plans for Iran Nuclear Deal
Summary
The Iran Nuclear Deal, which has been repeatedly maligned by President Trump as an “embarrassment” and “the worst deal ever” may be left in an uncertain position this Sunday, as Trump plans to decertify the agreement. The agreement, formed in 2015 with Iran, China, Russia, France, the UK, and Germany, agreed to remove economic sanctions on the Middle Eastern state in return for their cooperation in reducing their nuclear program. Trump already issued waivers of sanctions relief in September, as per the agreement, but the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act requires him to now either certify the agreement every 3 months or pass it on to Congress to review new potential sanctions.
The cause of Trump’s skepticism in regards to the deal is Iran’s continued testing of ballistic missiles, which they argue are purely in the interest of self-defense. While this testing does not expressly violate the 2015 agreement, Iran has assured foreign leaders that they are willing to discuss limits to its military program. In regards to the decertification of the deal, Iranian Foreign Defense Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif asserted that “If Washington decides to pull out of the deal, Iran has the option of withdrawal and other options”.
Analysis
While Republican lawmakers were on board to criticize the Iran deal during its initiation, Barbara Slavin of the Atlantic Council has argued that they are far less critical of the deal now that they don’t have a president in office who will veto any attempt to end it. Republican leaders prominent in American foreign relations such as Bob Corker and Ed Royce are both now condemning Trump’s disdainful treatment of international agreements. This propensity to avoid the responsibility of killing the deal seemingly extends to the White House, considering Trump’s decision to leave the question of sanctions up to Congress after decertifying, rather than simply electing not to issue sanction waivers to Iran in September.
It’s not surprising that finding a Republican willing to follow through on rhetoric and dismantle the Iran deal is such an elusive task; there’s really no upside. Iran is hesitant to trust the U.S. already and making tangible progress on reducing aggression was hard earned. Reneging on our agreements so quickly only serves to strengthen the voices of hardliners in Iran who would rather see the country fully pursue militarism. Also, even just the suggestion of sanctions could create a hesitancy for foreign businesses to re-invest in the Iranian economy, which has been crushed by pre-agreement sanctions.
Engagement Resources
- Support the Center for Human Rights in Iran: The CHRI is an independent, nonprofit organization working to protect human rights in Iran through reporting and media outreach. You can donate on their website.
- Read a longform article by the Atlantic which evaluates the merits of the Iran deal
- Call your representatives and ask that they commit to vote against sanctions if Trump decertifies the deal.
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.
Cuban Diplomats Expelled in Response to Health Incidents
US-Cuba Relations
Summary
The rebuilding of U.S.-Cuban relations experienced a strange hitch on Tuesday, as the Trump administration expelled 15 Cuban diplomats following an alleged attack on the U.S. embassy in Havana. The nature of the attack remains a mystery, as the only evidence is a shared set of inexplicable symptoms experienced by 21 U.S. diplomats and family members, as well as several Canadian diplomats. The symptoms, which began appearing among the victims shortly after the November U.S. election, and lasted until August, included hearing loss, dizziness, headache, fatigue, cognitive issues, and difficulty sleeping, according to a report made by the U.S. embassy. Several diplomats were awakened during the night by strange sounds which seemed to disappear when they left the room or moved into a different area.
While the State Department is yet to officially declare any cause for these symptoms, the theory popularly ascribed to by the media and their government contacts is that of a sonic attack.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla announced to the U.N. general assembly that the Cuban government was not involved, but an investigation has thus far been inconclusive. Raul Castro has also authorized FBI agents to take part in the investigation, in the interest of full transparency.
Analysis
The question of who is behind the attacks still remains a conundrum, even months after the initial reports. Many scientists deny or at least question the plausibility that the symptoms could have been created by a sonic attack. Other explanations such as an electromagnetic device or biological attack are similarly incapable of confidently explaining how the diplomats could be attacked so inconspicuously. A U.S. official told CNN that Castro would not have been as personally assuring if the Cuban government was responsible. The most likely interpretation is that the guilty party is someone with a vested interest in the destruction of U.S.-Cuban relations. This is a dangerous time for any kind of diplomatic interference, as President Castro is stepping down next year, marking the first time since the 1959 revolution that the Cuban presidency will not be in the hands of a member of the Castro family.
Over the past several years, relations between the U.S. and its Communist-led, island neighbor have been slowly improving after decades of tension. In December of 2014, President Obama and President Castro announced the beginning of a thawing process of hostility between the two nations, following talks between the leaders facilitated by Pope Francis and hosted mostly in Canada. The agreement included the lifting of travel and trade restrictions, as well as the reopening of both embassies. American tourists flocked to Cuba, and a closer partnership between the countries seemed forthcoming, until the 2016 election. Trump announced in June that he was “canceling the last administration’s completely one-sided deal with Cuba” in order to “expose the crimes of the Castro regime”. An overreaction by Trump to the still dubious claims that the Cuban government was behind the attack could deteriorate the delicate diplomatic relationship his predecessor fought to leave as part of his legacy in the latter half of his final term.
Engagement Resources
- Donate to the Center for Democracy in the Americas: The CDA is an independent, non-profit organization pushing for more friendly U.S. policy towards Cuban sovereignty. They were a key player in convincing the Obama administration to change diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2014. You can donate on their website.
- Support Engage Cuba: Engage Cuba is the leading coalition of private companies and organizations working to end the travel and trade embargo on Cuba. They focus specifically policy in the interest of strengthening ties between Cuban and U.S. businesses. You can donate or learn about ways to encourage your representative to support pro-Cuban policy 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.
The United States Flag and Free Speech Under the First Amendment
Presidential Statement
Given on September 22, 2017
Summary
In a speech given in Alabama on September 22, 2017, President Donald J. Trump made derogatory remarks towards African-American National Football League (NFL) players who had been engaging in a silent symbolic protest prior to the start of NFL games. During the playing of the national anthem, several players either chose to remain seated or took a knee until the end of the anthem. President Trump chastised the players in a Twitter post on September 24, 2017, saying that the players kneeling were “disrespecting our Flag & Country.” In subsequent NFL games, players continued their silent protest prior to the playing of the anthem. LEARN MORE
Analysis
President Trump’s Twitter post that said NFL players who were kneeling were “disrespecting our Flag & Country” is ignorant of the message of the players’ silent protest and unaware of the case law regarding the use of the flag to communicate a message. First, it is clear that the issue of kneeling is a divisive issue with arguments of merit on both sides. Colin Kaepernick, the NFL player who first kneeled in protest during the playing of the national anthem in 2016, did so because he did not want to show pride in a flag for a country that “oppresses black people and people of color.” President Trump is trying to distract from that specific message by saying it is disrespecting the country while Vice – President Pence further confused the issue by saying the protests disrespected soldiers. The response and statements by the President and Vice – President make it clear that they are unable to craft a response that directly addresses the message of the protests – racial oppression against blacks and people of color.
In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson decided that the burning of the American flag as an act of protest was protected by the First Amendment as a form of symbolic speech. This case is instructive when viewed in the context of NFL players kneeling before the playing of the national anthem at a sporting event. The court declared that the act of burning the American flag was protected speech under the First Amendment because it was conduct that had the intent of conveying a particularized message that would be understood by those who saw the flag being burned. In the NFL protests, the players are not physically desecrating the flag (which the Supreme Court permitted) but are merely refusing to stand at attention in order to express their disappointment at the oppression and killing of minorities in America. If a person can be permitted to pour gasoline on an American flag and light it on fire to protest American policies then surely athletes refusing to stand at attention for a few moments as a form of silent protest is a permitted action under the First Amendment, too. The Supreme Court has justifiably protected non-verbal expression and the non-threatening symbolic gestures undertaken by the players also deserve the full protections of the First Amendment. LEARN MORE.
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – article and information on the NFL controversy.
- Non-Profit Anti-Racism Coalition – web page of an alliance of groups and individuals committed to ending institutional racism.
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.
Trump Administration Rolls Back Birth Control Mandate
Rollback of Obama-era Mandate
Issued on Friday, October 6, 2017
Summary
On Friday, October 6, the Trump administration expanded the rights of employers with religious or moral convictions to deny contraceptive insurance coverage to their employees. Employers can now opt out of including birth control in their health insurance plans, rolling back Obama-era requirements. While Obama was president, his administration believed birth control is an essential part of women’s health and should not place a financial burden on women. The Trump administration is now saying that contraceptive insurance imposes a “substantial burden” on the freedom of religion and could promote “risky sexual behavior” among adolescents. Some religious groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Roman Catholic nuns, applaud the new rule saying it allows them to practice their religious beliefs. Frustrated activists like the Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, Dana Singiser argue, “if you truly want to reduce the need for abortion, invest in women’s health and preventative care.” LEARN MORE
Analysis
Sixty-two million women gained no-cost contraception coverage under Obama’s mandate and hundreds of thousands of them could lose this benefit under Trump’s rule. Lawyers and activists are already working to block the rule, and a couple of states have filed lawsuits saying the rules violate the First Amendment. The Obama administration’s mandate did not require women to use contraceptive insurance, but ensured that employers provided it. With this structure, women were in control of their own decisions regarding birth control and did not need to worry about the costs associated with it. Many believe that this structure is better because women could still observe their own religion with the option of free birth control if that aligned with their beliefs. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Bustle – Learn more and make a stand against Trump’s birth control rule. This site provides great reading material and advocacy ideas.
- Planned Parenthood – Learn about the progress the United States has made to provide contraceptives, why it is so important, and how this new rule threatens it all.
- 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.