JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
A Broken Student Loan System: Betrayal of the American Dream
Seth Frotman, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)’s Assistant Director and Student Loan Ombudsman, has resigned after sweeping changes were made in recent months by the Bureau’s new leadership headed by CFPB Director, Mick Mulvaney. Frotman addressed his resignation letter to Mulvaney, who was appointed by President Trump over deputy director Leandra English, stating that the Bureau abandoned the very consumers it was responsible for protecting by: (1) Undercutting enforcement of the law, (2) Undermining the Bureau’s independence, and (3) Shielding bad actors from scrutiny.
President Disregards America’s Tradition of Offering Asylum
Brief #50---Immigration Policy Summary In accordance with the travel ban covered in Brief 46, Trump claims he wants to “ensure that we are not admitting into our country the very threats our soldiers are fighting overseas.” Trump finds it absurd that the US offers...
Judge Demands Stalled Deportations and a Plan Amidst Chaotic Reunification Process
On August 16, Federal Judge Sabraw of San Diego extended a freeze on deportations of recently reunited families. Prior to the court ordered reunification of families who were separated at the US-Mexico Border in accordance with Trump’s Zero Tolerance Policy, Judge Sabraw banned the deportation of parents who had children taken from them at the border and were being held in US Custody.
Who Should Decide Industry Standards For Privacy Recognition Software To Prevent Misuse and Abuse?
In July 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a blog post about the results of an experiment they conducted using Amazon.com’s facial recognition software known as “Rekognition.”
Income Inequality under Donald Trump Indicates Superficiality of Current Economic Growth
Throughout his time in office, Donald Trump has never shied away from touting the economic growth that the country has seen during his presidency. He’s boasted about job growth and the healthy stock market and G.D.P. It doesn’t stop there, though Trump has continuously touted the benefits of the global trade war brought on by his administration’s tariffs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Check Your State: Register to Vote and Confirm or Change Registration
Learn if you’re eligible to vote, how to register, check, or update your information at USA.gov
California Wildfires Contend With Environmental Politics
Northern California is on fire. Throughout the summer, over 500,000 acres of Northern California has been up in flames, and has so far amounted in at least eight fatalities. One of the three massive fires has since been contained, but two are still burning, and the smoke generated is looming even as far as Oregon and Ohio. Many homes, schools and other structures are also reported to have been destroyed and it is unclear when the fires will die down.
Facebook’s Business Model Does Not Encourage Protecting Personal Data
Brief #55---Civil Rights Policy Summary: On April 21, 2010, Facebook launched Version 1.0 of the Graph API on its platform. This version remained in use on Facebook until it was closed on April 30, 2015. The Facebook Graph API worked at the application developer level...
President Trump Resorts To Bullying Tactics When Confronted With Racial Issues
On August 3, 2018, President Donald Trump remarked on his Twitter account that “Lebron James was just interviewed by the dumbest man on television, Don Lemon. He made LeBron look smart which isn’t easy to do. I like Mike!” Don Lemon, a CNN broadcaster, and LeBron James, an NBA athlete, are both African – American.
New Leads in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Investigation
After a lull in coverage roughly coinciding with Congress’ summer recess, the past two weeks have brought a flurry of reporting and speculation about various aspects of the federal and congressional Russia investigations. Special counsel Robert Mueller is again in the spotlight as his investigation progresses and new leads are being reported.
DoJ and Special Counsel
Much has been made of the recent activities of Mueller and his team. It is always worth noting that in the current media climate, small–and sometimes unverified–details tend to be overanalyzed, and overly enthusiastic reports may lead us to fallacious conclusions; this is particularly important to remember when looking at highly classified investigations and activities, since aside from leaks the DoJ will never volunteer information or verification on aspects of ongoing investigations subject to media attention. That said, there have been many recent reports on important details of the special counsel investigation, which are valuable to go through, albeit critically.
One of the most central characters in Mueller’s investigation has been former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. After last month’s reports about Mueller’s FBI raid on Manafort’s home, recent coverage indicates that Manafort is still very much in Mueller’s sights: Politico recently published a story outlining Mueller’s expanded angle of inquiry into Manafort and his finances. After seizing documents from Manafort’s home, Mueller began working with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to investigate Manafort’s financial transactions and connections. Mueller and Schneiderman’s teams are reportedly sharing evidence and information regarding those finances; although he has not been charged or formally accused of anything, Manafort is being investigated for money laundering in addition to his central role in the Trump campaign and connections to Russia. Schneiderman’s involvement in Mueller’s investigation is significant because as NY AG, he works on behalf of the state, and a president does not have the power to pardon state crimes–this means Mueller could potentially use the threat of a Schneiderman financial indictment to encourage Manafort to cooperate–perhaps even with information on former colleagues–in the Trump-Russia probe.
Another important update on Mueller’s investigation is his reported desire to interview at least 6 White House aides in connection with various discussions they attended which are relevant to the special counsel probe. The Washington Post reported that Mueller informed the White House of his intention to speak with the following people in the near future:
- Reince Priebus – former White House chief of staff
- Sean Spicer – former press secretary
- Hope Hicks – close adviser, current White House communications director
- Don McGahn – White House counsel
- James Burnham – deputy to McGahn
- Josh Raffle – White House spokesman, Kushner aide
The incidents and conversations about which Mueller seeks information include Donald Trump Jr’s initial statement about his meeting with a Russian lawyer for information on Hillary Clinton, the President’s decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, and early warnings about former national security adviser Michael Flynn from the DoJ. McGahn and Burnham were briefed by former deputy AG Sally Yates after the inauguration about the DoJ and FBI’s concern that Flynn was withholding information about his connections to Russia, and could potentially be compromised by Russian intelligence. The White House took a long time to act on these warnings; by the time Flynn resigned, information had already been made public about his misleading Vice President Mike Pence and failing to disclose important information regarding his security clearances and connections to Russian interests. Sean Spicer was implicated in the Flynn matter after responding to questions about Flynn’s communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Reince Priebus was present for some of the interactions between Trump and Comey before Comey’s dismissal, and Hicks and Raffle were present for the crafting of Donald Jr’s first statement about his Trump Tower meeting. That statement was apparently dictated by President Trump, and claimed that the meeting was about Russian adoptions. The meeting and initial White House response has become an important part of Mueller’s investigation, because of the possibility that the President knew what the meeting was actually about–obtaining damaging information on the Clinton campaign–and intentionally sought to mislead the public by personally crafting his son’s response, which Trump Jr later amended.
Mueller’s interviews with these staffers have not yet been scheduled, and the special counsel team is reportedly still looking over relevant documents provided by the White House and potentially awaiting more. The special counsel is also expected to seek interviews with more people close to the President in the near future, including son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, who has already been interviewed by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees.
Another special counsel update is Facebook’s recent revelation that an internal investigation found evidence of a widespread Russian-led campaign to disseminate politically divisive ads before and during the 2016 campaign. Facebook shared with Mueller information it found indicating that Russian interests likely spent about $100,000 on advertisements ostensibly intended to influence the US political climate and possibly the outcome of the election. The ads weren’t necessarily aimed at either candidate, but instead targeted highly controversial political and social issues. Facebook stated that over a period of about 2 years before and during the election around 3,000 separate ads were purchased by Russian operatives, and they also found a large number of fake accounts and pages connected to those ads. This evidence supports earlier US intelligence reports outlining the important role that the spread of false information on social media sites played in swaying public opinion and shifting the political climate prior to the election. Facebook has since taken steps to stop the spread of fake news, spam, and click bait. The information they gave Mueller reportedly includes details about the individuals who bought the ads in question.
Finally, in other DoJ news, new FBI director Christopher Wray recently gave a statement of confidence in Mueller’s investigation and its independent progression, as well as in the conclusions reached by the rest of the intelligence community regarding Russian interference in the election, which the President has repeatedly refuted.
House Intelligence Committee
At the end of August, the House Intelligence Committee issued identical subpoenas to the FBI and DoJ requesting documents related to the infamous–and so far unverified–dossier about Trump and his alleged deep connections to the Russian government. The subpoenas apparently came from Committee chairman Devin Nunes, who recused himself from the Russia investigation but appears to remain heavily involved in certain lines of inquiry. The subpoenas had a deadline for the 1st of September but received no response from either agency; after extending their deadline by 2 weeks, last Tuesday the Committee subpoenaed FBI director Wray and AG Jeff Sessions to testify about their refusal to comply with the initial document subpoenas. Nunes also unilaterally threatened to compel Wray and Sessions to testify, and even to hold them in contempt of Congress if they do not comply with the Committee’s request. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff later told MSNBC that the decision to subpoena the DoJ officials was not a collective one, and came as a surprise to the Democrats because they had not yet even requested voluntary disclosures from either agency. Schiff and other Democrats have decried their Republican colleagues’ fixation on the controversial dossier as being a politically motivated attempt to discredit, rather than investigate, the dossier’s contents.
Senate Judiciary Committee
Last week the Senate Judiciary Committee privately interviewed Donald Trump Jr about his pre-election Trump Tower meeting. Senate Judiciary chairman Chuck Grassley had threatened to subpoena Trump Jr, which reportedly prompted his cooperation. In his opening statement, Trump Jr denied any campaign collusion and told senators that he attended the meeting mainly to gather information on Hillary Clinton’s ‘qualifications’ for president. The interview lasted 5 hours, and Trump Jr also reportedly denied his father’s involvement in the drafting of his initial statement about the meeting. He maintained the rest of his other earlier statements about the meeting, and since the interview took place behind closed doors not much else is known about his responses. Before the Committee’s interview chairman Grassley received a call from President Trump, who pledged his support for ethanol, a key campaign issue for Grassley’s constituents. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also expected to interview Trump Jr in the near future, after hearing from others who attended the July 2016 meeting.
This blog was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this blog, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Companies Contracted to Build Border Wall Prototypes
Selection of Companies for Prototype Contracts
Announced on August 31, 2017
Additional Contracts announced on September 7, 2017
Policy Summary
On Thursday, August 31, the Trump administration announced its selection of four construction companies contracted to build prototypes of the border wall. Construction of the prototypes will take place in San Diego, where they could remain as permanent fixtures functioning as barriers in the city or be removed and relocated elsewhere, according to Ronald Vitiello, deputy commission of US Customs and Border Protection. Each prototype will be 30 feet long and 30 feet high and made of concrete. Construction for the prototypes is expected to start in early-mid September and be completed within 30 days of breaking ground, followed by a 30-60 day review by the Department of Homeland Security. DHS will test the security of the prototypes using small hand tools.
On Thursday, September 7, DHS issued additional contracts to four companies to construct border wall prototypes out of materials “other than concrete.” Two of the four companies awarded contracts are also received contracts to construct concrete border wall prototypes. These prototypes are slated to be 18-30 feet high and will also be built in San Diego. DHS did not specify what kind of materials would be used construct this group of prototypes.
Analysis
The border wall symbolizes the central promise to Trump’s campaign, which was essentially to make America safe again by stopping all Mexicans and Muslims from entering the country, thereby making America great again. Thus, there is added pressure to see the construction of the wall through. While Congress has set aside $20 million in this year’s budget to build prototypes of the wall, no money has been approved for actual border wall construction, which could cost up to $21 billion according to an internal DHS assessment. The House approved of $1.6 billion in border wall funding in 2018, a mere fraction of what construction is projected to cost, but Senate Democrats will most likely block the approved funds later this month. Therefore, prototype construction does not guarantee wall construction.
Engagement Resources
- Take Action With Southern Border Communities Coalition: SBCC formed in 2011 and has brought over 60 organizations together ensure fair border enforcement, promote policy and solutions improving quality of life in border regions, and support humane immigration reform. You can get involved with SBCC by donating and/or signing up for their newsletter.
- Support Alliance San Diego: Alliance SD, a 501(C)(3) non-profit organization responsible for creating SBCC, organizes coalitions to promote justice and social change in San Diego. You can support Alliance SD through donating, volunteering, or attending an Alliance SD event.
- 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.
Trump Travel Ban Settled in Court
Legal Decision
Settled on August 31, 2017
Policy Summary
On Thursday, August 31, Darweesh v. Trump the legal challenge in response to Trump’s travel ban was settled in a courtroom in Brooklyn. The settlement agreement stipulates that the federal government must identify and send a letter to every person who was wrongfully barred from the country, enclosing a list of free legal services that can help these individuals secure visas and/ or other documents necessary for legal entry. Though approval is not guaranteed to those who apply for visas and other legal documents, the government assured that all applications would be processed “in good faith.”
Analysis
Because the number of people affected by the travel ban is an estimate, the number of people covered by the settlement is also an estimate. While one of the goals of the settlement is to find out exactly how many were affected by the travel ban and who those people are, it is possible that people who should receive letters with free legal resources will not receive them. Additionally, the settlement does not cover individuals who were never able to reach US airports after being barred from boarding airplanes headed to the country. Thus, the scope of the agreement does not appear to match the scope of travel ban itself, and individuals who should be able to legally enter the country are still wrongfully prevented from doing so.
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 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.
Trump Moves to End DACA
Presidential Announcement
Announced on September 5, 2017
Policy Summary
On September 5, 2017, President Trump ordered an end to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Attorney General Jeff Sessions made the announcement, stating that the program will start to be phased out within the next six months. Shortly thereafter, Trump called upon Congress to “Legalize DACA!” and draft new legislation to replace the policy as part of his plan to overhaul the current immigration system. DACA is a policy established by the Obama administration in 2012 that protects young undocumented immigrants from deportation by providing those who entered the country as minors with a two-year period of deferred action from deportation and eligibility for a work permit. It is estimated that approximately 800,000 young people, known as “Dreamers,” are enrolled in DACA.
Analysis
Shutting down DACA is a hugely cruel misstep that completely upends the lives of the estimated 800,000 Dreamers, making all of these young people eligible for deportation. Many DACA recipients came to the United States at such a young age that they know no other country to be home, only to be forced back to a land that is now foreign to them.
The economic impact of ending DACA would also be devastating: shutting down the program could cost the federal government an estimated $60 billion over the next 10 years, with an overall economic impact of $200 billion according to a CATO Institute study.
Now, it is up to Congress to pass the Dream Act in order to protect the Dreamers enrolled in DACA.
Engagement Resources
- Urge Your Representative to Support the Dream Act through ACLU Action: Send a message to your representative asking them to support the Dream Act by clicking here.
- Get Involved with Here to Stay: Here to Stay is a campaign run by United We Dream aimed at defending DACA. The organization hosts local Defend DACA rallies and other events, holds community calls, and provides resources for understanding DACA, as well as mental health resources for anyone who is affected by Trump’s decision to end DACA.
- Take Action with the National Immigration Law Center: Since 1979, NILC has been exclusively dedicated to defending immigrants with low income. Through impact litigation, policy analysis and advocacy, and strategic communications, NILC advances the rights of those who came here in search of a better life. You can help NILC advance its mission by donating or attending one of their training or educational events.
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.
Trump Speaks About Involvement in Afghanistan
National Address
Speech from August 21, 2017
Policy Summary
On Monday, August 21st, President Trump spoke at Fort Myer, Virginia about future U.S. engagement in Afghanistan. He committed to victory in the region, ultimately defeating the terrorist organizations which operate in the country –including ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. While President Trump did not enumerate specific policies –claiming that providing details aids the enemy– national security staffers said there would be an increase of around 4,000 troops. This would bring the troop total to around 15,000 in a country the United States has been engaged with for almost 16 years. ACCESS THE FULL SPEECH HERE
Analysis
President Trump missed the mark on almost every tenet of this speech. First, he looked unnatural as he read from a teleprompter, clearly hoping to look presidential in his address crafted by the national security team. President Trump contradicted his former instincts about Afghanistan, previously calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops. The speech criticized Pakistan and vaguely threatened India but made no mention of a huge player in the region: China. Beyond these relatively minor mistakes, the entire pith of the plan followed poor international logic. He failed to mention our victory conditions, something which consistently injures American prospects at peace, and the idea of a military win in the Middle East is archaic and misguided. The President’s insistence on leaving out the details leaves the United States with a lot of unanswered questions, and while this plan is better than the short-guided blunder of immediate withdrawal, President Trump once again closed the door on diplomacy for the political convenience of military strength.
Engagement Resources
- American Involvement in Afghanistan — Read an easy-to-digest photographic history of the United States and Afghanistan by Business Insider
- Interactive Map and Charts — Visualize Taliban control and death tolls with this New York Times piece.
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.
North Korea Fires ICBMs Near Japan
Weapons Test
Launched on August 29th, 2017
Crisis Summary
North Korea fired an intermediate range missile into the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, August 29th, 2017. Tensions have escalated sharply this year as North Korea has already launched 13 missiles. Earlier this month, in response to harsher United Nations sanctions, the North Korean regime successfully launched missiles with the capability of carrying nuclear weapons to Guam or the mainland United States. President Trump responded with a series of tweets and harsh words, calling for “fire and fury” in retaliation. Regarding the most recent test near Japan, the Trump administration released a statement saying that “all options are on the table”. LEARN MORE
Analysis
As many Americans have seen throughout the standoff with North Korea, this administration is ill-equipped and diplomatically-incapable of handling a delicate situation. President Trump continues to make incendiary comments and remarks in an attempt to demonstrate strength. Instead, the President confuses our allies and scares the American people. Beyond the rhetoric, the Trump administration lacks appropriate strategy relevant to the crisis. The State Department is understaffed, President Trump understands little about nuclear weapons, and the administration refuses to consider peaceful methods of negotiations. Opportunities to negotiate are disappearing and North Korea may already be nuclear-capable. While the world desperately needs calm, collected, and thoughtful American leadership, President Trump delivers uncertainty, ignorance, and dangerous ideas.
Engagement Resources
- Appropriate North Korea Policy — A long piece by Tom Malinowski for Politico about a peaceful and reasonable response to North Korea
- Chinese Complications — Adam Mount writes on the biggest player in the region and how the United States can work with –or against– China.
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 Charlottesville Demonstration and the Hate Crime and Domestic Terrorism Labels
Pending Department of Justice Investigation
Launched on August 13, 2017
Policy Summary
On August 13, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Department of Justice would launch an investigation into the events of a white supremacist rally and counter – protest in Charlottesville, Virginia that left one woman dead and scores of others injured. Heather Heyer, a white woman, was killed when James Alex Fields, Jr., a man with sympathies to pro – Nazi ideology, allegedly rammed his car into a group of counter – protesters. Mr. Sessions announced that the Justice Department would “take the most vigorous action to protect the right of people to…protest against racism and bigotry.” He also said that the Justice Department would prosecute anybody that violates another person’s ability to protest. In addition, Mr. Sessions said the incident “does meet our definition of domestic terrorism.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia has highlighted the debate as to the differences between hate crimes and domestic terrorism and the implications if it is a state court case or a federal court case. From a legal standpoint, Mr. Session’s announcement, which was intended to open the door for the FBI to get involved in the situation, that the incident was a domestic terrorist incident will only affect who is involved and the scope of the investigation and not the charges that will be brought against James Alex Fields, Jr. Susan Hennessey, in a blog post for LawFare, explains how there is no charge for domestic terrorism under federal law. The label triggers an FBI “enterprise investigation” which gives the Federal Government sweeping authority to investigate any groups or networks that James Alex Fields, Jr. may have associated. An investigation this broad and the involvement of the DOJ and FBI would not occur without the “domestic terrorism” label that Sessions has announced.
What is more likely is that the incident will be labeled as a hate crime at the state court level which, when added to the murder charge, will increase the penalties that will probably be handed down with a conviction. The case will not be pursued as a federal hate crime in federal court because the federal statutes on hate crimes have very strict requirements on protected groups, which would make a conviction difficult. Also, the federal law only applies if the victim is a member of a protected group such as race, religion, color or national origin. James A. Fields, Jr. did not appear to target any person specifically based on any of those criteria. The distinction between the two labels is hate crimes added to state charges already filed serve to increase potential penalties while a domestic terrorism label authorizes greater federal involvement with states in terms of investigations into hate groups. Some states do not have the resources to conduct multi – state investigations into various hate groups which is why bringing in Federal Government resources is vital in incidents like the one in Charlottesville. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- LawFare – website with articles exploring legal terms of domestic terrorism and other legal topics.
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – webpage on the legal implications of domestic terrorism label.
- Anti – Defamation League (ADL) – webpage with suggestions to combat racism, bigotry and hate and how to get involved after the tragedy in Charlottesville, Virginia.
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.
Steel Tariffs
Jobs Proposal
Proposed on June 30, 2017
Policy Summary
The White House has officially branded the 29th week of the year “Made in America” week. As a result of this, the administration continues to promote their America first theme by trying to prioritize the importance of American products. According to the Trump team, these policies will not only boost wages but also create a plethora of jobs for manufacturing communities. Trump claims that “We’re going to end up having a level playing field, I don’t want to say anything more than level, but if the playing field were slanted a little more toward us, I would accept that also, okay?”. One of the ways that Trump plans on doing this is placing a tariff on steel. According to Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Section 232, the executive branch has the authority to “place import restrictions or tariffs on steel for national security reasons.”
Analysis
Many different groups have shown their discontent with this proposal. One of the largest, is the E.U. Reports claim that the E.U. is ready with measures such as taxes on American exports (whiskey, rum, potatoes, tomatoes) to counteract the tariff on steel. As a result, any trade barrier can result in a tit-for-tat war that would not only damage the American economy but the global economy. Brian Coulton, the chief economist at Fitch claimed: “The U.S. and the countries directly targeted by the imposition of punitive U.S. import tariffs would see the largest losses of GDP, but global repercussions would be significant, as business and household confidence falls, asset prices weaken, and trade flows are affected more widely.” In addition, many companies and industries (agricultural, etc.) have shown their dislike for this proposition because they believe prices will increase instead of decrease. They also believe that “The potential for retaliation from these trading partners are very real.” This fear is also not unfounded because the last time there was a tariff placed on steel during the Bush Administration there was a loss of 200,000 jobs in manufacturing.
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. – https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
- US House of Representatives – Contact your local representatives to take a stance against this proposed legislation – http://www.house.gov/representatives/
This brief was compiled by Vaibhav Kumar. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief please contact vaibhav@usresistnews.org.
Trump Declares Opioid Crisis a National Emergency
National Emergency Declaration
Announced on August 10, 2017
Policy Summary
On Thursday, August 10th at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, President Donald Trump announced the opioid crisis a national emergency. In addition to a symbolic gesture, this announcement allows the administration to allocate funding for expanding treatment facilities, waive some federal rules and restrictions, and supply police officers with anti-overdose strategies and equipment. The Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis recommended declaring the crisis a national emergency more than a week prior to Trump’s announcement. Trump’s delay caused some doubt as to whether or not he would make the call. LEARN MORE
Analysis
With an estimated 2.6 million addicts, most people agree that the U.S. has an opioid problem. However, not everyone agrees where to point blame or focus funding. Attorney General Mike DeWine filed lawsuits against five of the largest pharmaceutical companies for getting patients in Ohio hooked on prescription painkillers, which is often the start of an opioid addiction. Ohio is one of the states most affected by the crisis, along with New Hampshire, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Rhode Island. While most are hopeful that Trump’s announcement will be the beginning of the end of the opioid epidemic, some are concerned that his policies will focus too much on incarceration and not enough on getting addicts the treatment they need. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Fed Up – Learn more and rally for federal response to America’s opioid crisis.
- Network for Good – Explore different councils, advocacy groups, and education programs aimed at ending addiction in the United States. Donate, volunteer, and speak out against drug abuse.
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.
DeVos Signals Change in Sexual Assault Policies
Education Policy Shift
Announced on July 13, 2017
Policy Summary
Signaling that she will be revising the previous administration’s sexual assault policies, Education Sect. Betsy DeVos has left the public wondering how the Trump Administration will interpret the protections entitled by Title IX, the 1972 civil rights policy which among other things, protects victims of sexual violence at colleges and universities. In 2011 President Barak Obama issued additional guidances strengthening the protections of policy which included the loss of federal funding for colleges and universities who do not take a tough stance on rape. In addition, he asked that colleges adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard—essentially a lower bar for evidence than the “clear and convincing” standard that many schools had previously required. Prior to her announcement, three groups met with DeVos to advise her on the issue— one meeting was with sexual assault survivors, one with college university officials and one with members of men’s rights groups. LEARN MORE
Analysis
One in five women and LGBTQ students are sexually assaulted during their time in school. The Obama administration’s guidances, while not perfect, were aimed at forcefully addressing the issue. Based upon the flippant manner in which her staff has addressed the issue thus far, many fear the DeVos’s potential “alterations” would make the process of reporting a sexual assault more of a burden for the victim. In the past months, DeVos has already had to apologize for comments made by her civil rights chief Candace Jackson, who said that “90 percent of [college rapes] — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk.” Noting that these remarks made her fearful of this administrations “ engagement with the facts,” Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women’s Law Center, also expressed concern that DeVos had slotted equal time to hear from victims when being advised on the issue of sexual assault as she did for “extreme men’s rights advocates.” LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- National Women’s Law Center Through research, analysis, advocacy and public education, the NWLC works to achieve policy changes that improve the lives of women and families, including those who have become victims of sexual violence on college campuses
- End Rape on campus- Join the EROC’s Dear Betsy Campaign and send a video to Betsy Devos explaining why you value your Title IX protections.
- Feminist Campus – A project of the feminist majority foundation, Feminist Campus and its staff of National Campus Organizers works with students on college campuses across the country to effect change at the grassroots, national, and global levels
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.
