JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Affirmative Action: Rescinding Obama-Era Policies
Trump administration is rescinding seven Obama-era policies which encouraged schools to look at race as one among many factors in admissions. The seven affirmative action policies are among 24 documents rescinded on the Department of Justice’s website. The DOE/DOJ claim that the documents advocate policy preferences beyond the requirements of the Constitution
China Prepares to Shield Economy from Effects of U.S. Trade War
Recent reports indicate that China has temporally ceased its work on the structural reforms on national economic systems and is shifting its focus to policies that are more geared to supporting general economic growth.
Did the Supreme Court Decide a Free Speech or “Pro – Life” Case?
Brief #48---Civil Rights Policy Summary In October 2015, the California State Legislature passed the Reproductive FACT (Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency) Act. The law was aimed at crisis pregnancy centers (CPC's), which are typically...
Making a Splash in Trumpland
In 2010, after the deadliest and most expensive offshore oil spill in U.S. history, the “Deepwater Horizon” spill, former U.S. president, Barack Obama, implemented a policy to ensure that a conservation council would advocate conservation and sustainable use of US waters. The Bureau of Ocean management called Obama’s policy,
President Trump Suggests Depriving Immigrants of Constitutional Due Process Protections
Brief #47---Civil Rights Policy Summary On June 24, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted remarks that suggested that immigrants who cross the border into the United States be denied certain legal protections. In his tweet, the President said, "We cannot allow all of...
The United States Leaves the UN Human Rights Council
Brief #44---Foreign Policy Policy Summary On June 19th, Mike Pompeo announced that the United States was finally following through on threats to depart from the United Nations Human Rights Council, calling it “an exercise in shameless hypocrisy - with many of the...
Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy Impacts Mental Health of Migrant Children
This policy is troubling not only for its civil and human rights violation, but also the horrendous and long-term effects on the mental health of the children. One magazine suggests such traumatic experiences will create angrier and more aggressive children, and can even lower the IQs of these children.
When the Second Amendment Threatens the First
Policy Summary Thursday marked yet another tragedy attributed to premeditated gun violence. This time, it occurred in the offices of the Capital Gazette in Annapolis, Maryland. Jarrod Ramos, the suspect, entered the news room with a legally purchased shotgun. He...
Supreme Court Protects Cell Phone Privacy Rights
Brief #46---Civil Rights Policy Summary On June 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the Carpenter v. U.S. case. The question before the Court was whether the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, including location and...
15 States Join Hawaii’s Challenge to Travel Ban Enforcement
Motion to Appeals Court
Issued on July 10, 2017
Policy Summary
On July 10th the state of Hawaii motioned for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to broaden the exemptions that the Supreme Court granted, while it’s deliberating on the fate of the travel ban. Hawaii’s bid is bolstered by endorsements from 15 other left-leaning states including California and New York. Hawaii wants the Supreme Court’s exemption to be expanded to all family members, arguing that failure to do so would cause undue emotional and physical hardship on American citizens.
Analysis
The success of this motion hinges on the definition of what a bona fide relationship is. As when the Supreme Court decided to rule on the Travel Ban, it exempted those with a “bona fide relationship” with a U.S Citizen or National while it deliberates. The Trump administration then proceeded to define a bona fide relationship as parents, parents-in-law, spouses, fiancés, children, and children-in-law, thus exempting them from the ban. Consequently, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews and siblings-in-law, would be subjected to the ban. In other words, Hawaii is arguing that arbitrarily exempting some familial relationships, while still enforcing others was not the intent of the Supreme Court, and thus should be corrected by a lower court.
Engagement Resources
- Local Options for Protecting Immigrants – This document hosted by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights notes what steps local governments can take to protect immigrants against federal government actions.
- Find a Congressional Town Hall Meeting Near You – Search by town and state or zip code to find a congressional Town Hall scheduled near you. Voice your concerns about the Travel Ban and other Trump Administration policies directly to your Representative or Senator.
- Immigration Volunteer Search – Search for immigration volunteer opportunities near you, and do your part to help those under siege from Trump’s policies.
This brief was compiled by William Lucier. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact william@usresistnews.org.
Budget Lessons from Kansas
Repealed Legislation
Passed June 7, 2017
Policy Summary
Earlier this June, the Kansas state legislature voted to pass Senate Bill 30, a bill that would override many of the large tax cuts that were championed by Governor Brownback. Governor Brownback attempted to veto the passage of S.B. 30, but was overridden by the legislature in a surprising move by the State senators in his party. The Brownback administration led a series of tax cuts beginning in 2012—but these cuts led to a decline in state revenues so stark that the state budget was facing a $900 million deficit. The new taxes introduced by S.B. 30 will raise $1.2 billion, revenue that the state plans to use towards bolstering K-12 education.
Analysis
Kansas’ Senate Bill 30 has been held up as an example for conservative lawmakers across the country—state conservatives were not afraid to reverse their previous anti-tax policies once they realized how much the tax cuts were hurting the state. The 2012 Kansas tax cuts led to a state budget crisis that led Kansas to cut services and was thought to be responsible for the state’s declining job and economic growth. As a result, the state’s bond credit rating was also downgraded—compromising the state’s ability to borrow funds and further complicating the state’s fiscal standing. The tax cuts also likely increased tax avoidance in the state, further exacerbating Kansas’ budget shortfall.
Kansas’ 2012 tax cuts—now repealed by SB 30—have been described as “Exhibit A” in how not to pass tax legislation. Unfortunately, Kansas’ model was used as a blueprint for the GOP’s national tax plan—a plan that may soon be passed as part of the efforts to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. The House bill included tax cuts of roughly $765 billion over the next decade. The decrease in revenue would be made up by making drastic cuts to Medicaid and Medicare (read more U.S. RESIST NEWS coverage about Health Care).
The Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan, non-profit think tank, found in an analysis that proposed Republican tax cuts would reduce economic growth and add $3.7 trillion to the country’s debt in the next year. Economists fear that a national bill would result in an even worse version of Kansas’ budget woes—and lead to dire consequences for the economy as well (read more here and here about the effect of these tax plans on jobs).
In the Senate, political pressures—including from moderate Republicans—led analysts to believe that the Senate bill would have fewer tax cuts. But the Senate bill, finally publicized late in June, includes nearly as much in tax cuts as the House bill. Voting on the bill has been delayed, but only time will tell what the ultimate health care bill looks like—and how deep its cuts will be.
Engagement Resources
- Call your Senators to voice your thoughts and feelings about the health care bill and its potentially dangerous tax cuts.
- Check the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities for research and briefs about proposed tax policy in the United States.
- Use the resources at org to see what your state legislatures’ recent actions on state budgets—especially their recent coverage of state budget conflicts.
Foreign Policy Flip-Flop: NATO Policy
This is the second in a series of U.S. RESIST NEWS Briefs that chronicle the flip-flop nature of many of the Trump administration’s foreign policies.
NATO Commitments
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, was founded in 1949 as a response to rising global threats. NATO is the paramount international defense alliance, and its members are some of the beacons of stability and democracy across the globe. Because of President Trump’s malleable position, the United States —NATO’s largest contributor and the cornerstone of the alliance— regularly has its priorities questioned and its commitment scrutinized.
FLIP
On the campaign trail, President Trump regularly criticized NATO, claiming the United States should reconsider its involvement and famously remarking that NATO may be obsolete. He refused to commit to Article V, NATO’s concept of mutual defense, and this lack of assurance may be the most dangerous aspect of his rhetoric. President Trump’s obsession with NATO members paying their fair share continued after his election, and he reaffirmed his comments about the obsolete nature of the alliance.
FLOP
In April of 2017, President Trump defended himself, clarifying that he didn’t know very much about NATO and emphasizing that it was obsolete. Right before his first foreign trip, he stated how confident he was that NATO members would help — even though the only time Article V was ever invoked was immediately following 9/11. Yet when the President finally made his address to NATO, he refused to recommit to mutual defense (to the surprise of his international delegation) and instead focused on the 2% defense spending benchmark.
Our national security is threatened by the President’s muddled stance towards our most important coalition. Secretary of State Tillerson seems resolute in his support for the NATO alliance, and he expressed that “of course” the United States does support Article V. United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley also restated this commitment, and even claimed that the United States has never faltered on its responsibilities to the alliance. Whatever the case, the Trump administration must bolster our most important military and political alliance for the sake of our country and the entire democratic world.
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Religious Pre-school
Supreme Court Ruling
Announced on June 26, 2017
Policy Summary
On the grounds of free exercise of religion, the Supreme ruled in favor of a Missouri church this week who had been denied state funding to refurbish their playground surface. The case Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, arose after the state of Missouri would not allow state funds to be given to the church’s preschool to resurface the playground with tire chips, citing the state Constitution’s Blaine Amendments. These amendments forbid the state from financially supporting “any church, sector or denomination of religion.” In a 7 to 2 ruling, it was decided by the justices that the original decision violated the federal constitution because it “expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character.”LEARN MORE
Analysis
Though this case appears to be purely about a playground, to many it has much broader implications. School choice advocates have already heralded the ruling as a victory as they believe that it opens the door for state funding in the form of education vouchers to be used at any school, including religious ones. However on the opposite end, many see the ruling as a potential threat to the rights guaranteed by the separation of church and state. Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU, expressed disappointment in the decision, stating that “religious freedom should protect unwilling taxpayers from funding church property, not force them to foot the bill.” However, Mach also acknowledged that the ruling is specific to playground resurfacing grants, thus not giving the government “unlimited authority to fund religious activity.” Still, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor see the long-term implications of the decision, calling it a “radical mistake.” LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union– Fight for the separation of church and state and the right to say no to your federal dollars being sent to religious institutions with the ACLU, an organization fighting to protect civil liberties for almost 100 years.
- Learn more about vouchers with the National Coalition for Public Education. The NCPE has declared that if action is taken to implement a voucher program, they will not be silent. The group’s mission is to defend the public school system.
- Click here to learn how to contact your state legislators! Speak to them about your feelings in regards to voucher programs.
This brief was compiled by Cindy Stansbury. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact, cindy@usresistnews.org.
Cities, Companies, Universities Bypass Trump on Climate
Private and Public Actions
Policy Summary
After President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accord on June 1st, private and public actors have both vowed to lead the country’s fight against climate change. The coalition “We Are Still In” released a statement on June 5th declaring their intent to “ensure the U.S. remains a global leader in reducing carbon emissions.” The signatories are an amalgamation of cities, states, businesses, and universities representing over a third of the US population, accounting for $7.6 trillion of the US economy, and including over 20 Fortune 500 companies, such as Apple, Google, and Nike. 13 states have formed the US Climate Alliance in an effort to reduce national emissions, while 340 mayors have adopted Paris Accord goals for their cities. Additionally, Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and billionaire, has pledged to meet the $15 million funding gap left by the US for UN operations under the Paris Accord.
Analysis
While the public and private backlash to Trump’s decision induces environmental optimism, coalitions, cities, and businesses face major hurdles without federal support. Due to their limited size, city climate initiatives neglect some of the most emissions-intensive activities, such as agriculture, cement production, natural resource extraction, air travel, and power production, which often occur outside city limits. Moreover, “city policies would be rendered ineffective if sources of emissions relocate to evade them.” Burdensome restrictions in certain cities and states may cause companies to move their production to less stringent locations. The national coalitions and agreements may also face compliance issues; some signatories may not have the resources to be effective or may have signed on purely for publicity purposes. And while some actors, such as Nike and New York City, have released specific goals to reduce emissions and commit to renewable energy, others have no detailed plans to work with. Obviously, the commitment from companies, cities, and states to fight for the health of our planet is a positive sign with the potential to reduce emissions and to encourage environmentally conscious technologies and behaviors; but without a federal commitment to fight climate change, it will be difficult for these coalitions to save the world.
Engagement Resources
- Encourage your representatives to commit to the goals of the Paris Climate Accord
- Contact Your State Governor
- Contact Your Mayor – locate mayors by name, city, or population size.
- We Are Still In – explore the coalition of US government and business leaders who have declared support for climate action to meet the Paris Accord; encourage your affiliates to join.
This brief was compiled by Conor Downey. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact conor@usresistnews.org
DoJ Information Sharing, Past and Upcoming Congressional Interviews, Key Witnesses
This past week, news of the Russia investigations was relatively quiet; the biggest stories were about witnesses who are expected to testify in upcoming congressional hearings, and information gathered, expected, or wanted by the congressional committees.
DoJ and Special Counsel
In special counsel Mueller’s DoJ probe, the week has mainly brought musings of incoming and outgoing associates. A new prosecutor, Andrew Goldstein, joined the team after leading the renowned anti-corruption unit of the Manhattan US attorney’s office. Goldstein worked under Preet Bharara, the former US attorney who was abruptly fired by President Trump in March. Goldstein’s corruption unit is known for prosecuting public corruption, financial fraud, and white collar crime.
Another revelation in the DoJ’s Russia world is a recent Washington Post story which details the extensive questioning of former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Cater Page by the FBI in March. These interviews, which took place prior to the appointment of a special counsel to the FBI’s investigation, were reportedly confirmed by Page, who continues to deny any wrongdoing or collusion while associated with the Trump campaign. The FBI’s evidence against Page allegedly came from a dossier compiled by a former British spy; the dossier allegedly indicates extensive cooperation and communication between the Trump campaign and the Russian government leading up to the 2016 election, and is the basis of much speculation about campaign associates and their foreign connections. Page maintains that the allegations that he met and communicated with Russian officials during the campaign–and that the campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election–is a politically motivated ‘witch hunt.’
Senate Intelligence Committee
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation had a significant informational accomplishment this week: committee leaders told the press that they had come to an agreement with DoJ officials which allows them to see former FBI Director James Comey’s infamous memos detailing his interactions with the president prior to his dismissal. The Senate Intelligence Committee, along with other congressional committees conducting Russia investigations, has been eager to get ahold of Comey’s memos after his testimony last month. Ranking member Mark Warner also mentioned that the committee expected upcoming testimony from Trump’s son-in-law/adviser Jared Kushner. In other news, Warner also revealed that former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who is a central figure in many of the federal and congressional Russia investigations, had said he would speak with the Senate Intelligence Committee if he was granted immunity. Flynn is reportedly seeking immunity and may already be cooperating with the FBI and DoJ, according to some Democratic lawmakers.
House Intelligence Committee
The House Intelligence Committee’s investigation is also picking up speed, and members expect a handful of upcoming interviews and hearings. Although many of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee Russia hearings have been public so far, the House committee seems to be shifting more towards gathering classified information and conducting closed sessions. Next month, the committee will interview Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign communications adviser, who voluntarily agreed to testify in a closed session. Caputo, who used to work in Moscow and has substantial connections to Russia, denies any collusion on the part of the Trump campaign but does acknowledge that Russia clearly interfered in the electoral process. Caputo also has close connections to Trump adviser Roger Stone; Stone has also agreed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about the specifics of the Russian cyber attacks (under the name Guccifer2.0) and the release of classified information to Wikileaks and other sites. Stone, who has talked about his early communications with the hacking sites and the perpetrators, has denied any wrongdoing and offered to testify publicly, but committee leaders say they will conduct their interviews in a closed setting. In other closed interviews this past week, the House Intelligence Committee spoke with former Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, whose email was one of the early hacks during the campaign. The committee also expects to interview former Trump campaign national security adviser JD Gordon sometime in the next few weeks. Although the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation appears to be gaining ground with its long list of interviews, its members are still somewhat split along partisan lines, evidenced by the various lines of inquiry the committee is pursuing. In another closed interview expected next month, the committee will hear from Susan Rice, former national security adviser to Obama, about allegations that she leaked or mismanaged classified intelligence documents concerning the names of Trump campaign and transition associates.
Senate Judiciary Committee & Subcommittee
This week leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee requested FBI surveillance documents related to Russia’s election interference. Chairman Chuck Grassley and chairman of the committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, Lindsey Graham, sent their written request to Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. Their letter specifically asked for FBI and DoJ warrant applications for Russia and election-related surveillance; all such warrant applications go through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Mueller in the Spotlight, Congressional Intelligence Hearings, Cybersecurity Concerns
This week, news of the Russia investigations centered largely on special counsel Robert Mueller, on whom the White House and some Republican lawmakers have been attempting to cast doubt. Mueller met last week with the Senate Intelligence Committee and followed up this week with the Senate Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees. The purpose of these meetings was to establish boundaries and informational jurisdiction between the concurrent Russia investigations. In Congress, the most noteworthy Russia investigation hearing this week was from Jeh Johnson, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary, who testified to the House Intelligence Committee about the DHS’s knowledge of and reaction to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Senate Intelligence Committee also heard testimony from state election officials, federal intelligence officials, and cybersecurity experts. Finally, President Trump revealed via Twitter that he had not recorded any conversations with James Comey, despite his earlier insinuations to the contrary.
DoJ and Special Counsel
Special counsel Mueller was the target of commentary from both the White House and Congress this week, following last week’s revelations that President Trump had considered dismissing him. Trump condemned Mueller’s relationship with James Comey in a Fox interview on Friday, seeming to call into question Mueller’s objectivity as well as that of his investigation’s legal team. The same day Republican Rep. Andy Biggs also criticized Mueller’s integrity, highlighting both his relationship with Comey and his “highly partisan” investigative team. Despite the ongoing tension surrounding Mueller and his probe, the White House has reaffirmed Trump’s commitment not to fire Mueller, and also reiterated its perennial assertion that there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the election, and therefore no reason for the administration to impede the DoJ’s investigation. However, if President Trump does continue to discredit Mueller on the basis of a conflict of interest–his relationship with Comey–this could provide more ostensibly legitimate grounds for the administration to attempt to shut down or divert Mueller’s investigation.
During the past week, Mueller has met with leaders of the House Intelligence Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee about their contemporaneous Russia investigations. Both committees appeared positive about the ongoing independence and progression of their respective investigations, but no details were given.
Senate Judiciary Committee
A reminder for the sake of clarification: both the Senate Judiciary Committee (Chairman: Chuck Grassley) and the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism (Chairman: Lindsey Graham) are investigating Russian intervention in the 2016 election–the Subcommittee’s investigation began in earnest prior to the full committee’s involvement and was narrowly focused, but the latter is now taking more matters into consideration. The full Judiciary Committee is also probing the Comey firing, the possibility of collusion by the Trump campaign, and obstruction of justice, including DoJ interference in FBI investigations during the current and former presidential administrations; ranking member Dianne Feinstein had been urging Grassley to expand the scope of their investigation into Comey for some time, although the two committee leaders have disagreed on many parts of their probe. Feinstein and other Democratic committee members are set on hearing more testimony from intelligence community officials involved in or knowledgeable about the election and Russia’s interference, but it remains to be seen whether their Republican colleagues will be as willing to press forward with these lines of questioning.
House Intelligence Committee
This week the House Intelligence Committee heard anticipated testimony from former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson. Johnson testified about when the DHS and other arms of the intelligence community first became aware of Russian hacking and cyber manipulation during the 2016 election, and what efforts were made during that time to ensure and enhance electoral cybersecurity. Johnson told the committee that he had become increasingly concerned about the possibility of cyber attacks in the wake of the DNC hacks; he said the DNC had declined DHS support following the initial attacks. Johnson had wanted to strengthen electoral security by designating electoral infrastructure as ‘critical infrastructure’–a federal designation which would offer additional legal and intelligence protections and safeguards–but when he spoke with state officials he felt that many had wrongly interpreted his proposal as federal overreach, so he continued to probe other electoral cybersecurity measures. Johnson testified that as he was reaching out to state election officials, the DHS became aware of cyber “scanning and probing activities” in some states’ voter registration data. Throughout the election, the DHS and intelligence community at large, along with lawmakers and the White House, made bipartisan appeals to states to strengthen and monitor their electoral infrastructure with DHS aid. Johnson and other members of the intelligence community also released reports and warnings, both classified and unclassified, about the Russian government’s role in perpetrating the electoral cyberattacks. However, a key point that Johnson’s testimony highlighted was that despite the clear Russian interference and ongoing threat, the 2016 election was so charged with allegations of ‘hacking’, ‘rigging’, and deception on both sides that it became difficult for federal bodies–in particular, the outgoing administration–to make any claims or allegations, even if backed by strong evidence, without seeming partisan in some way.
Following Johnson’s testimony, ranking member Rep. Adam Schiff gave an interview on NPR in which he underscored the necessity for nonpartisan rejection of foreign electoral interference in the future; if nothing else, Johnson’s hearing made it clear that notwithstanding abundant evidence and a very real threat, the intelligence community at large had felt as if their hands were tied to some degree during such a tumultuous and antagonistic election. Schiff also indicated that the House Intelligence Committee will seek testimony from DNC officials regarding the initial DNC hacks. CNN reported that the committee will hear from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta next week about the hacking of his email account during the election, and TIME announced that the committee will also hear soon from the Trump campaign’s digital director, Brad Parscale.
Senate Intelligence Committee
While the House Intelligence Committee heard from Johnson, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing for multiple cybersecurity, intelligence, and election officials, who testified about Russian hacking and cyber attacks during the election. Many of the officials’ testimonies reaffirmed the notion that the 2016 election was not the last we will see of foreign/Russian intervention in American democratic processes. Testimony from the hearing confirmed that 21 states’ electoral systems were hacked or probed by Russian intelligence, although it is difficult to verify specific cyber intrusions; current DHS Secretary John Kelly did not reveal which states were affected, although reports indicate that two states, Illinois and Arizona, are confirmed subjects of the incursion. Reports also indicate that potentially thousands of voter records containing personal data were infiltrated and stolen, and in at least one case altered–unsuccessfully. Like Johnson, other DHS officials testifying to the Senate called for increased communication and cooperation between federal and state governments to prevent future attacks and secure electoral infrastructure. Additional testimony from cybersecurity and computer science experts highlighted the technological vulnerability of the U.S.’s electoral infrastructure, including voting machines which could potentially be susceptible to hacking and manipulation. All of the committee’s interviews, however, affirmed that in the 2016 election no votes had been manipulated by the Russian cyber attacks. It is not clear whether voters [votes] were influenced by Russian efforts to sway media and public opinion during the election.
House Oversight Committee
The new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rep. Trey Gowdy, told reporters this week that under his leadership the committee will not continue their investigation into Russian electoral interference, nor will they probe any questions of obstruction of justice in relation to Trump and Comey. Gowdy said that other House committees, namely Intelligence and Judiciary, should maintain jurisdiction in House Russia investigations.
House Judiciary Committee
A new player may enter the congressional Russia investigations game: the House Judiciary Committee. This week Democrats on the committee urged its chairman, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), to reconsider launching their own investigation into Russian intervention in the election and other related questions, citing a ‘responsibility’ as well as a jurisdictional mandate to probe these issues. House Judiciary Democrats had previously pushed for investigations into the election, but Goodlatte and other Republicans on the committee are wary of launching yet another congressional probe into a sitting president of their own party. However, given ongoing pressure from Democrats and increasingly compelling and intriguing investigative leads, the House Judiciary Committee may take more concrete steps in the coming months.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Foreign Policy Flip-Flop: Syrian Intervention
This is the first in a series of U.S. RESIST NEWS Briefs that chronicle the flip-flop nature of many of the Trump administration’s foreign policies.
Syrian Intervention
President Trump does not have a consistent policy on Syria nor Bashar al-Assad, and this confusing stance damages American interests in the region. The Assad regime uses chemicals weapons on its own people, colludes with Russia to maintain an authoritarian state, and fails to uphold even the most basic democratic principles. So how does Trump view this issue? We don’t really know.
FLIP
Back in 2013, President Trump seemed to agree with the Obama Administration’s position to renege on its “red line” on Syria. He talked about coalition-building with the Russians, and his America First policy (which is mostly an amalgamation of rhetoric and lofty ideals) led many to believe that Syrian intervention was out of the question. Only days before his missile strike, many White House staffers informed the press that regime change was no longer on the agenda of the United States.
FLOP
Yet in early April 2017, after another chemical weapons strike by the Assad regime, President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at a military facility outside of Homs, Syria. Trump was reportedly very disturbed by the pictures of children affected by chemical weapons, yet this decision disappointed many of his supporters on the alt-right. While his administration still flounders on developing a coherent policy in regards to Syria, Trump appears to have no problem engaging in the Middle East.
Having a confusing policy regarding the most dangerous state in the Middle East will only open up the United States to more criticisms and failures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Tillerson continues to speak of peace and accountability with the Assad regime, and US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has repeatedly suggested that America is interested in forced regime change. Not only does President Trump change his mind without justification, but his international delegation fails to send a single message regarding our policy towards Syria and Assad.
Healthcare Vote Delayed due to Lack of Support
Proposed Legislation
Senate Vote Delayed until after July 4th Recess
Policy Summary
On Tuesday, Republican strategist and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell was forced to delay the vote on the repeal and replace of the Affordable Care Act. He had ambitiously planned to push the bill that he wrote behind closed doors through the Senate before the July 4th recess, but could not unite the Republican party to ensure the 50 votes he needs. With 52 Republicans in the Senate, the bill can afford to lose only two Republican votes. However, four conservative Republican senators have voiced their opposition to the bill saying it does not go far enough to repeal Obamacare and lower premiums. On the other hand, more moderate Republicans that benefitted from expanding Medicaid in their states oppose the bill because their constituents would be disproportionately hurt by the bill’s massive cuts to Medicaid. All in all, Democrats are united in their opposition and at least 8 or 9 Republicans do not support the current bill. LEARN MORE
Analysis
With only 17% of Americans supporting the Republican health care bill, it is not surprising that Senators are hesitant to pass it. The CBO report explains that while the bill would reduce the federal deficit, it would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 22 million over the next decade. The majority of the bill’s savings would come from Medicaid cuts, leaving that states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare disproportionately hurt by the new legislation. McConnell is determined to edit the bill and rally the necessary support and schedule a vote later this month. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Moveon.org – This site provides opportunities to resist Trump and Trumpcare in a variety of different ways. Sign petitions, call senators, learn more, donate to the cause, etc.
- Swing Left – This site tracks districts where House winners won by thin margins and encourages voters to vote Democrat in the 2018 election to restore a progressive House majority. This is crucial for every aspect of politics, including health care because the House has a huge impact on what bills become laws.
- As always, contact your state’s elected officials and voice your concerns.
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.
Tax Implications of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
Issued on June 26, 2017
Policy Summary
On June 26, 2017, in a separation of church and state case, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer. In a 7 – 2 decision, the court ruled that the “express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect or other religious entity violated the rights of Trinity Lutheran Church…under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying the church an available public benefit on account of its religious status.” With this decision, it should also be noted that under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) 501(c)(3), churches qualify for exemption from federal income tax. And under Section 137.100.5 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, real property used for charitable purposes are exempt from taxation for state, county or local purposes. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The stance taken by the church that they were discriminated against for a public benefit exposes a glaring hypocrisy – how a church desperately wanted a seat at the table for a discretionary public benefit while taking advantage of a tax law that permits it to not contribute funds for the same public benefit. What is even more shocking is that David Cortman of Alliance Defending, an organization supporting Trinity Lutheran Church in the case, stated that Missouri’s denial of funding “imposes special burdens on nonprofit organizations with a religious identity.” What burden is Trinity Lutheran Church suffering in this case? The church, unlike other groups, already has the privilege of not paying state and local property taxes. Yet they’ve come forward and demanded to be reimbursed for improvements made to their property. This case illustrates how the discrimination issue is being distorted. Discrimination cases often employ the term ‘similarly situated’ which, when used in this case, highlights the unequal position that churches have in the U.S. that others do not have and why the case was likely decided in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church incorrectly. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Freedom From Religion Foundation – nonprofit group protecting the principle of separation of state and church.
- Americans United – nonpartisan organization dedicated to the principle of church-state separation.
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.
