JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Ohio To Purge Eligible Voters From Voting Rolls
Brief #43---Civil Rights Policy Summary On June 11, 2018, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute. The case began in 2015 when U.S. Navy veteran Larry Harmon tried to vote in his home state of Ohio but...
Trump Administration Flip Flops on Tariffs’ Imposition
The administration decided to implement 25% tariffs on 50 billion USD of Chinese goods, despite Treasury Secretary Mnuchin indicating last week that the “trade war” would be put on hold. The tariffs are meant to address “China’s discriminatory and burdensome trade practices.“ The targeted goods contain “industry significant technology” and are related to the “Made in China 2025 program” – a strategy approved by the Chinese State Council designed to transform China into a “high tech powerhouse” in industries like robotics, Artificial Intelligence, information technology, sensors and energy.
The Justice Department’s New Abhorrent “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Policy
On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed the world, on behalf of the Trump administration, that the government will be adhering to a “Zero Tolerance Policy” with respect to illegal border entry. The policy requires criminal prosecution for every person caught entering the United States without proper inspection.
Supreme Court Sidesteps Around Gay Wedding Cake in Ruling
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to create a wedding cake to celebrate their wedding. The baker, Jack Phillips, refused citing his religious beliefs, which include opposition to same – sex marriages. Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission claiming they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti – Discrimination Act.
President Trump Angers Federal Workforce With Three Newly Issued Executive Orders
On May 25, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued three executive orders concerning employees in the federal sector.
Axing NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System
Houston, NASA appears to be having a problem. In 2012, now-president, Donald Trump famously tweeted that, “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese” and alleged that the phenomenon of climate change was a conspiracy to undermine American manufacturing.
Amazon.Com Sells Facial “Rekognition” Software to Law Enforcement
In 2016, Amazon.com first announced a new facial recognition software item called “Rekognition” and subsequently gave the product to law enforcement in Washington County, Oregon and Orlando, Florida to test.
Congress Tries to Combat Sexual Harassment
In February 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced and passed H.R. 4924 which is known as the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act.
Supreme Court Deals Blow to Workers Rights
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. That case had been consolidated with two other cases but had a similar set of core facts.
Don’t Forget About Healthcare!
Congressional Vote
Senate expected to vote early July
Policy Summary
While the Russia investigation and other scandals exploit much of the media attention, big developments may be taking shape in healthcare. The only problem is that no one knows what exactly these developments are. Instead of traditional bipartisan committee hearings, meetings with health experts, and input from industry leaders, small, select groups of Republicans are working on the bill behind closed doors, leaving Democrats and even some Republicans completely in the dark. The frustrated Republican senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, told NBC News “If you get a copy of it [the healthcare bill], will you send me a copy?” A Quinnipiac survey revealed a disapproval of the bill that passed the House by a margin of 62-17. This is not surprising considering the CBO report estimates that 23 million fewer Americans would be insured over the next decade and the money saved from over $800 billion in Medicaid cuts would be used to cut taxes for the wealthy. LEARN MORE
Analysis
Republicans could be employing the same strategy they used to get Trumpcare passed the House: release the bill hours before the scheduled vote and before CBO reports can be completed. The House vote on the healthcare bill took place less than 24 hours after leaders released the finished bill and three weeks before the CBO compiled a report. Many frustrated senators from both parties are finding it difficult to gain media and public attention on the issue because it is hard to report on a lack of information. Many are worried that by the time the bill is released and gains media attention, it will be too late. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- MoveOn – 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.
- 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.
The CHOICE Act
Proposed Policy
Announced on June 8, 2017
Policy Summary
The House of Representatives voted on Thursday, June 8 to pass the Creating Opportunity for Investors, Consumers, and Entrepreneurs (CHOICE) Act, a bill that repeals many of the regulations imposed by the Dodd-Frank Bill of 2010. The Dodd-Frank bill was itself a response to the 2007-2008 financial crisis, which many believe to have occurred as a result of the deregulation legislation enacted by the Bush Administration.
The CHOICE Act also significantly weakens the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency whose creation was authorized by the Dodd-Frank bill. Under the CHOICE Act, the CFPB would no longer be an independent agency with independent funding; it would also be stripped of investigatory and regulatory functions.
The CHOICE Act also takes aim at the rights of small investors. The bill removes some rights of shareholders of public corporations. Currently, shareholders with an investment of at least $2,000 or 1 percent stake of a company can bring up proposals to the company’s board. The bill and its merits will now be debated in the Senate, where it would need 60 votes in order to pass; Republicans would need support from Democrats in order for passage.
Analysis
Deregulating Banks & Financial Institutions
Deregulation is treated by many in government—especially Republicans—as a magic pill that will automatically increase efficiency and cut costs and “red tape.” In the case of the financial and banking sectors, however, deregulation is often followed by increases in risky investments and spending as well as a lack of transparency and accountability to customers, shareholders, and taxpayers alike.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed in 2010 in order to curb the risky investment behavior of some banks and financial institutions. Banking deregulation is believed by many critics to be one of the top contributing factors for the financial crisis of 2007-2008. For years, banking and financial regulations were relaxed (such as limits on deposits) or allowed to lapse (such as Glass-Steagall in 1999). This pattern of deregulation coincided with an evolution in creating new financial products and derivatives, which, along with lax rules for credit rating agencies, led to the financial crisis which hobbled the US and world economy for years after the crisis. Among the most important regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank were restrictions on what banks could do with their clients’ money. These regulations were meant to ensure that the country would not be faced with the tough choice of costly bank bailouts on the one hand and the catastrophic consequences of bank failures on the other.
Repealing the Dodd-Frank Act, the primary goal of the CHOICE Act, would allow banks to once again make risky investments with their clients’ money. It would also reduce the transparency and accountability of the banking and financial sector. It would give more choices to a small, select group of banks and investors, while reducing the choices for stability for the rest of the American public.
Although many of the laws, rules, and regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank have their fair share of critics, what is remarkable about the CHOICE act is its breadth in attacking the bill. By increasing regulations on mortgage lending, a consequence of Dodd-Frank was that mortgages became more difficult for many Americans to acquire. But the CHOICE Act not only weakens rules such as the Volcker rule, but also removes shareholder and investor protections, and guts the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This has been somewhat of a pattern in the still-young Trump administration; in February of this year, the President signed an executive order to relax rules that financial advisors be required to work in the best interests of their clients, and he’s also been vocal in his opposition to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Removing Protections for the Little Guy
Although the Dodd-Frank bill was passed in response to the financial crisis, the bill itself contains many sections, which attempt to regulate a large number of financial products as well as increase protections for the general public–from investors to shareholders to consumers of more basic financial products such as checking and savings accounts. The CHOICE Act broadly attacks many of these protections, limiting the extent to which large companies and banks can be held accountable.
Muzzling the Watchdogs
One of the victories of the Dodd-Frank act was the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency that has the power to investigate financial institutions and companies. Since its creation, the CFPB has led investigations of banks, predatory lenders, and credit card companies. The Bureau estimates that it has provided consumers with nearly $12 billion dollars in relief. The Trump administration has previously attempted to curb the power of the CFPB by limiting the amount that it can request in funding. The CHOICE Act goes even further, completely changing its funding structure and requiring that Congress approve Bureau investigations.
The CHOICE Act also limits the power of small investors to voice their opinions about how public companies are run. The provision, described above, has been used by investors to raise proposals to a company’s board of directors; this provision has been used to raise issues about human rights, climate change, and other practices by companies. But it is also a mechanism that protects all investors from unlimited power by these large companies.
Overall, the CHOICE Act significantly weakens many of the protections of the Dodd-Frank Act, reducing accountability for lenders large and small. Proponents of the act argue that loosening regulations will allow banks to save money, and that they will pass on those savings to consumers. However, the CHOICE act mostly represents a return to the status quo that culminated in the financial crisis.
Engagement Resources
- Call your Senator and stress how the CHOICE Act would weaken your voice and eliminating your choices. (You can use this script, originally written for calling your Congressmen.)
- Call your representatives to voice your opinion about the CHOICE Act.
- Donate to the Consumers Union, an organization that looks out for the interests of consumers.
- Add your voice to #WrongCHOICEAct on Twitter
This brief was compiled by Ivy Perez. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact ivy@usresistnews.org.
Both 4th and 9th Circuits Uphold Lower Court’s Decision to Halt Travel Ban
Judicial Rulings
Issued on May 25th and June 13th
Policy Summary
On May 25th the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 to uphold a lower court’s ruling blocking Trump’s travel ban. Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory ruled that Trump’s call during the campaign to suspend Muslim immigration could be used to establish precedent that nefarious intentions were in mind in the drafting of this order. In the ruling he stated: “Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States.” Then on June 13th, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 3-0 against the travel ban. Unlike the 4th circuit ruling the 9th circuit ruling blocked Trump’s travel ban on statutory grounds (ie. solely based on the law’s text) instead of on Trump’s past statements to determine his intent. On June 2nd the Trump Administration formally appealed the 4th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court. Then on June 6th, the Administration appealed the 9th circuit ruling.
Analysis
Attorney General Jeff Sessions stated that the administration would appeal the case to the Supreme Court. This case meets the two criteria for a Supreme Court case, the first being that the federal government is appealing the case, and the second being that it involves a nationwide injunction. Therefore, it is very likely that the Supreme Court will decide to hear the case. If the Supreme Court does decide to hear the case it is unclear which way it would rule as the conservatives have a 5-4 majority on the court. However, in a lot of recent cases, Republican-appointed Justice Anthony Kennedy has sided with the liberal justices. The 9th Circuit ruling gives latitude to conservative justices who think the law went too far, are uncomfortable with ruling on Trump’s character.
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.
- Resistance Manual – Crisis Resources: If you know someone who is facing immigration troubles, please share this compendium of legal resources and relevant nonprofit organizations with them.
- 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.
US Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord
Presidential Announcement
Announced on June 1, 2017
Policy Summary
On June 1st, President Trump turned his back on climate change and the rest of the world by announcing US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord (PCA). The historic climate agreement boasts 195 countries; only the US, Syria, and Nicaragua are not a part of the deal (Nicaragua does not believe the accord is tough enough on climate, and Syria has been entrenched in civil conflict during negotiations). Trump argued that the PCA will have devastating economic implications, disadvantaging “the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.” Trump also repeatedly expressed interest in renegotiating the agreement, but the UN and world leaders said the deal could not (and would not) be renegotiated at the request of a single nation.
Analysis
The Paris Climate Accord aims “to limit the [global] temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius” by 2100, signaling international agreement in the importance of climate change and indicating a global shift away from fossil fuels toward clean and renewable energy. The PCA was created to be nonbinding, giving ratifying countries the independence to set their own emissions reduction plans, ensuring flexibility for domestic situations and changing circumstances, and dispelling fear of penalties. The deal encourages ratifying countries to peak their greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, creates a timetable for countries to make more ambitious pledges and ratchet up efforts, and negotiates climate aid commitments for developing nations. While the agreement is nonbinding, a recent study from the Grantham Research Institute indicates that the soft diplomacy of the accord has already pushed dozens of countries to pass clean energy laws, and environmental groups have lauded the agreement for symbolizing the world’s commitment to fight climate change.
Trump’s Speech
As President Trump explained the US withdrawal from the agreement, he deployed an array of inaccuracies and misconceptions about the PCA. He harped on onerous restrictions and regulations that would burden the US and then expresses interest in renegotiating the agreement. But the goals set by the US in the Paris Accord are nonbinding; Trump can unilaterally change the commitments to protect the economy in any way he wants. He highlighted “unfairness” within the PCA by arguing that the US would be prevented from building coal plants while China and India both massively expand coal production, but the US can alter its commitments, China has canceled plans to build over a hundred coal plants for the next few years, and, on a per capita basis, the US emits twice the amount of carbon as China (eight times that of India). His attempt to trivialize the 2100 effects of the PCA as the “tiny, tiny amount” of 0.2 degrees was swiftly rebuked by the MIT researchers he was quoting who pointed out that the actual reduction would be 0.9, a reduction that large has significant impacts on the planet, and this is purely based off of country’s initial commitments (the PCA sets countries up to make more ambitious pledges every five years until 2100). Trump’s economic arguments rely on a highly disputed study from the National Economic Research Associates; the study “assumed a scenario no policy expert expects,” didn’t consider potential benefits from avoided emissions, didn’t account for greater investment in clean energy and innovation, and was funded by opponents of the PCA.
Consequences
Trump’s decision may have debilitating effects on the economy and influence of the United States. Many economic analysts worry that leaving the PCA will decrease American competitiveness by rejecting the world’s transition to a low carbon economy. The clean energy industry is projected to be a 3 trillion-dollar industry by 2030, and the Trump administration is expressing intent to pass on federal investment that is key to clean energy growth and innovation. Clean energy is poised to usurp the global energy economy and the US is squandering the chance to advance its energy market and “to create vast numbers of advanced energy jobs.” As the US leaves the helm, China may step up and fill the leadership void; both politically and economically. China has pushed climate initiatives in recent years and could use the US void to fill clean energy voids in developing countries and to corner the wind and solar manufacturing market. Withdrawal could also hurt influence by shattering diplomatic relationships, leaving the US out of continued global engagement and undercutting “diplomatic priorities across the globe”. The issue of climate change affects the entire planet and requires collaboration from every country to effectively combat it; Trump’s isolationist policies and rejection of science have removed the second-largest producer of carbon dioxide from the first international agreement to lower emissions. While the withdrawal propels a terrifying trend from the highest branches of government, optimistic citizens hope that cities, states, and businesses can drive energy transformation in spite of the Trump administration.
Engagement Resources
- Natural Resources Defense Council – an international environmental advocacy group committed to fighting Trump’s “environmental assault” and providing individuals with avenues for action.
- Town Hall Project – empowers and encourages citizens to have conversations with their representatives. Call 1-844-6-RESIST to be redirected to the office of your local Congressperson.
- Sierra Club – the nation’s largest environmental preservation organization; focuses include mitigating global warming and opposing coal; suing the Trump administration over this EO.
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.
READ Act
Proposed Legislation
Placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on June 5, 2017
Policy Summary
Aiming to give the nearly 263 million children and adolescents who are out of school worldwide access to a quality education, the READ Act or the Reinforcing Education Accountability in Development Act, has been placed on the Senate calendar after passing the House in January. The act is geared toward providing additional “direction and scrutiny” for how U.S dollars are spent in regards to promoting equal access to education worldwide, with an emphasis on developing and war-torn nations. Amending the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, this bill puts guidelines in place, such as a yearly report to Congress as well as the public on the state of global educational accessibility, in order to add more accountability for how U.S tax dollars are being put to use in the fight for universal access to education. LEARN MORE
Analysis
With a wealth of bipartisan support, this bill passed unanimously in the house carrying a goal of combating what Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ed Royce (Republican, 39th District California) has called a humanitarian crisis. Within his remarks after the passing of the bill, Royce reminded all that as many nations have been entrenched in conflict for a decade or more, entire generations of children are now failing to receive “even the most basic education.” Praising the bill’s goal of placing a renewed focus on universal education, Royce spoke of the vast benefits of quality education for all including social mobility, and stability, as well as economic growth. According to the World Bank, “an increase of one standard deviation in student reading and math scores is associated with an increase of two percentage points in annual GDP per capita growth.” LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- The Global Campaign for Education– A broad-based coalition, the campaign aims to ensure universal access to a quality education.
- Global Partnership for Education- Bringing together developing countries, donors, international organizations, civil society, teacher organizations, the private sector and foundations, GPE is a multi-stakeholder partnership and funding platform aimed at strengthening education systems in developing countries.
- UNICEF – Working in 190 countries and territories, UNICEF works to promote the rights of every child—including the right to quality education!
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.
Comey Testimony, Congressional Announcements, Expansion of Special Prosecutor’s Scope
Not surprisingly, it has been a busy week for the highest-profile investigations into Russian interference in the election and ties to the Trump campaign. The biggest story this week was the closely watched testimony given by former FBI director James Comey at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. Other developments this week include minor announcements from the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as revelations about FBI leadership and the expansion of DoJ special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team.
Senate Intelligence Committee
The Senate Intelligence held back-to-back hearings this week, first on June 7 with Dan Coats and Mike Rogers, the Director of National Intelligence and Director of the NSA, respectively, and acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. This hearing was followed by Comey’s on June 8.
The focus of the June 7 hearing was whether President Trump had asked Coats and Rogers to intervene in or undermine the FBI’s ongoing investigation. Report of this have been circled by the media since Comey’s dismissal, but both intelligence directors decline to comment on any interactions with the president and/or Comey. They said they had never felt pressure regarding the FBI investigation, but neither would specifically deny contents of the recent reports. McCabe responded similarly. The testimonies implied concerns over possible invocations of executive privilege (the mechanism by which the president can block congressional testimony), as well as concerns about publicly releasing information which could interfere with Mueller’s investigation.
In contrast, Comey’s highly anticipated testimony the following day answered many questions and prompted many more. Prior to his hearing, Comey released a written testimony in which he outlined his conversations with the president leading up to his dismissal. Comey testified that President Trump had repeatedly asked him to stay in his position, asked for his loyalty, implicitly directed him to stop investigating Flynn, and eventually fired him because of the investigation. Comey told the committee that the reasons the White House gave for his dismissal, including his conduct during the election and his mismanagement of the FBI, were lies and cause of confusion and concern. Perhaps one of the most concerning parts of Comey’s testimony was his description of the conversation he had with Trump, in which Trump told AG Jeff Sessions (Comey’s boss) and other top officials to leave the room before asking Comey to ‘let Flynn go.’ This secrecy could imply that the president knew his request was inappropriate. Another major revelation was that Comey wrote an unclassified personal memo following that conversation, which he gave to a friend to give to the press, in the hopes that the ensuing public outcry would prompt the appointment of a special counsel to take over the investigation.
Comey’s hearing shed more light on the circumstances surrounding the early stages of his investigation and his interactions with the president, but it was also swayed by partisan lines of questioning. Many senators focused their questions on the particularities of the president’s wording, and the question of Comey’s repeated assurances to Trump that he was not personally under investigation. The White House strongly refutes Comey’s testimony. The committee certainly learned more from the closed part of the hearing, and the conclusions they draw from the testimony remain to be seen. One significant point made during the hearing was that the Senate Intelligence Committee still doesn’t have physical copies of Comey’s memos, and is very eager to get them. In a broader frame, Comey underscored the necessity of a truly independent investigation into Russian intervention; he said confidently that this is neither the first nor the last time Russia will try to interfere in other nations’ political processes.
Looking ahead, the Senate Intelligence Committee will continue to review information from its hearings this week, as well as the subpoenaed documents obtained last week from Michael Flynn. Senators Burr and Warner are expected to meet with Mueller sometime in the next week to discuss how the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation will proceed, and avoid interfering with the DoJ’s criminal probe. In his hearing, Comey said he thought the two would be able to carry out parallel investigations successfully.
DoJ and Special Counsel
The Department of Justice investigation led by special counsel Mueller remains largely hidden from public view, but had a few noteworthy developments this week. One interesting update is the recent news that Mueller had been one of the Trump White House’s candidates to replace Comey as FBI director, before deputy AG Rod Rosenstein offered him the special counsel appointment. Mueller apparently met with DoJ and White House officials about FBI leadership before he was tapped to lead the Russia investigation.
In the past few weeks, Mueller has been expanding his investigative team, bringing in respected and experienced lawyers and investigators. Most notably he recently included Andrew Weissmann, who led the DoJ’s criminal fraud unit and whose record includes leading investigations into Enron and members of the mafia. Weissmann is expected to contribute valuable experience tracking money and fraud to the DoJ investigation. Another recent addition to the team is highly respected Deputy US Solicitor General Michael Dreeben. Aaron Zebley, James Quarrels, and Jeannie Rhee are colleagues from Mueller’s law firm who are also on the team.
Mueller’s investigation is expected to continue avoiding the spotlight, and it is unlikely that many details will be leaked. Mueller does have Comey’s memos, and is reportedly also investigating obstruction of justice in relation to Comey’s firing. The scope of Mueller’s investigation is expected to be large. When he took over as special counsel, he also took over all of the existing DoJ probes regarding Russia and the Trump campaign, which include investigations into Flynn, Manafort, Page, and Kushner. Mueller has indicated that he will continue to move forward with these existing investigative trails, while also pursuing other relevant lines of questioning. Unlike the congressional investigations, Mueller’s is expected to proceed much more slowly, taking time to thoroughly review and investigate information and people before questioning anyone of interest.
In other DoJ news, on June 7 President Trump nominated Christopher Wray as the new director of the FBI. The decision was met with mixed reviews; Wray has a solid DoJ background and is seen as a moderate and fairly nonpartisan law enforcement figure. However, Wray has financial ties to Republican political campaigns, as well as legal ties to Trump affiliates and businesses.
The Other Congressional Investigations
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s hearings took the spotlight this week, while the other congressional committees conducting Russia investigations proceeded normally. The Senate Judiciary Committee reached out to Comey’s friend at Columbia Law School, Prof. Daniel Richman, for copies of the memos that Comey had given him to give to the press. Trump’s personal lawyer for the Russia investigations said he will file complaints with the Senate Judiciary Committee and the DoJ regarding Comey’s ‘leaking’ of the memos. The House Intelligence Committee reaffirmed their commitment to their investigation, but are also trying to avoid potential conflicts with Mueller’s probe. They have asked White House Counsel Don McGahn for records of conversations between President Trump and Comey, if such tapes exist. The House Intelligence Committee also plans to hold more open hearings in the coming months, including a request for testimony from Jeh Johnson, former Department of Homeland Security Secretary under Obama, about the Russian government’s hacking of political organizations during the election.
This brief was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this brief, contact stella@usresistnews.org.
Rolling Back Contraceptive Coverage
Draft Ruling
Ongoing
Policy Summary
The Trump administration drafted a rule to roll back federal requirements to include contraceptives in health insurance packages. The Obama administration mandated free contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act, although it was highly controversial. The mandate saved women across the country $1.4 billion on birth control pills in 2013 alone. The new ruling would exempt any religious organizations or private and public entity with religious or moral convictions from the mandate’s requirements. If the ruling passes, hundreds of thousands of women could be denied birth control benefits. There will likely be a big push back from advocacy groups and Democrats as the ruling advances. LEARN MORE
Analysis
The religious leaders, non-profit organizations, hospitals, colleges, and other entities that disagree with the Obama administration’s expansion of contraceptive services are overstepping their boundaries and violating the rights of women over their own bodies. The option to use contraceptives is a fundamental aspect of women’s healthcare. Not providing this option on the grounds that it encourages sinful or immoral behavior implies that organizations or businesses have more authority over women’s bodies than women themselves. Access to free contraceptives is an essential component of women’s health and it should be up to each individual woman (not her employer) if she wants to use contraceptives or not. The rights of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies should come before the opinions of organizations. LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Center for Reproductive Rights – Learn more about reproductive and women’s health issues in the US and worldwide. Join, donate, and get involved in change.
- Pro-Choice America – This organization believes that all women should have complete control over their bodies and their futures. Learn more and get involved.
- 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.
Medicaid Explained
Informational Brief
Who Is Eligible
Medicaid is America’s joint federal-state national health insurance program that covers low-income citizens of all ages. Any families or pregnant women with incomes below 138% of the federal poverty line are considered low-income and are eligible for the Medicaid entitlement program. Other eligible beneficiaries include senior and disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In addition to these mandatory eligibility rules, states can also request federal funds for optional populations such as pregnant women and people with high health-related expenses that have incomes above the mandatory coverage limits.
Where the Money Comes From
The federal government matches state Medicaid spending by a one-to-one ratio or greater. States and the federal government combined spent about $476 billion on Medicaid in 2014. In 2015, Medicaid-related expenses accounted for 57% of state’s federal funds.
Where the Money Goes
Medicaid pays for the services to eligible parties indirectly by paying participating healthcare facilities rather than individual patients. Beyond the minimum federal requirements, each state has the freedom to elect additional services or providers and set their own premiums, provider rates, etc.
Medicaid Effectiveness
Medicaid costs substantially less than private insurance to cover comparable health issues and is found to be cost-effective. Under the Obama Administration’s expansion initiative, Medicaid helped reduce the number of uninsured Americans from 45 million to 29 million as of 2016. Traditionally, Republicans believe the program is too costly and try to cut back on Medicaid spending and eligibility (which is happening right now) while Democrats think it is vital to the overall well-being of American citizens and seek to expand coverage.
Engagement Resources
- LEARN MORE about how Medicaid works and get the facts straight!
- SEE THE STATS about everything Medicaid
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.
Congress Takes Bipartisan Action to Counter Attorney General Jeff Session’s Charging and Sentencing Policy
Proposed Congressional Action
Proposed on May 16, 2017
Policy Summary
On May 10, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions put forth the “Department Charging and Sentencing Policy” for all federal prosecutors. The memorandum instructs all federal prosecutors to [1] charge and pursue the most serious readily provable offense and [2] disclose to the sentencing court all facts that impact the sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimum sentences. On May 16, 2017, Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the “Justice Safety Valve Act” which would give back to federal judges discretion and flexibility in imposing a criminal sentence. Representatives Bobby Scott (D-VA) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) have introduced a companion bill in the House of Representatives. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Analysis
The policy announced by Attorney General Sessions was severely misguided. By requiring the most serious offenses to be pursued against a defendant and having him or her face a minimum mandatory sentence if convicted, the Attorney General has introduced nothing more than a formulaic application of the nation’s federal criminal laws. The traditional guidelines of proportionality, fairness, and rationality would no longer be relevant in considering how to sentence a person. Marc Mauer, Executive Director of the nonprofit group The Sentencing Project, issued a report that concluded mandatory sentences “exacerbate existing racial disparities” and that it is “unlikely that mandatory penalties…have a significant impact on enhancing public safety.” Representative Bobby Scott (D-VA) said that their bill will “give discretion back to federal judges, so that they can consider all the facts, issues and circumstances” in order to tailor each sentence on a case-by-case basis. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Sentencing Project – a nonprofit organization working for a fair and effective U.S. Criminal Justice System.
- American Civil Liberties Union – info sheet on sentencing issues.
- Criminal Justice Policy Foundation – a nonprofit group providing info on criminal drug policy reforms.
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.
A Guide to the Investigations
Since President Trump took office, he and his administration have been splashing through a constantly morphing stream of intrigue and scandal. The rapid news cycles, the influence of social media, and the growing partisanship of mainstream media, egged on by the president himself, have all made it difficult to clearly follow and understand the various elements of this increasingly convoluted story.
The locus of intrigue in the White House is the connection and possible collusion between officials and associates of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russian state actors, and the extent to which the latter influenced the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. This story has developed at a frantic pace and involves a widespread cast of characters. It is often challenging to find coherent summaries and track new developments of the ongoing investigations surrounding the president.
This blog aims to provide a clear and unbiased overview of each ongoing investigation, with regular updates on their respective developments.
The Investigations
Currently, there are at least seven ongoing investigations related to President Trump, his campaign, and the actions of Russian officials and state intelligence services during the 2016 US presidential campaign and election. These investigations include:
- the Department of Justice
- the FBI
- the Attorney General’s office
- the Special Counsel
- the Senate Intelligence Committee
- the House Intelligence Committee
- the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
- the Senate Judiciary Committee
- the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
- the Treasury Department
- the Department of Defense
DoJ and FBI
Key Actors
- Robert Mueller – special counsel in charge of DoJ investigation
- Former director of FBI (2001-2013)
- Recently appointed to head DoJ investigation by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
- Rosenstein acting in place of AG Jeff Sessions, who recused himself from the DoJ investigation
- DoJ formerly oversaw FBI investigation; faced bipartisan pressure to appoint a special counsel after President Trump fired former FBI director James Comey
- James Comey
- Former Director of FBI (2013-2017)
- Led initial probe into prominent affiliates of the Trump campaign and transition, and their ties to Russian officials
- Key persons of interest in Comey’s probe: former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign manager Paul Manafort, former policy adviser Carter Page
- After dismissal, he revealed that President Trump had pressured him to stop investigating Flynn (documented in internal FBI memos)
Internal Tension
As special counsel, Mueller has more autonomy over the investigation, but also remains under the oversight of the AG, who serves at the pleasure of the president. Mueller is widely seen as principled, ethical, and nonpartisan, but is also currently employed by the law firm that represents Paul Manafort, who is implicated in the DoJ’s investigation, as well as Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump.
Scope of Investigation
Mueller’s mandate is broad and includes investigating any and all connections between people associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government. It also includes investigating any perjury, obstruction of justice, or other crimes that occur during the investigation. This may include President Trump’s own communication with Comey and other intelligence officials.
The investigation itself continues to focus on former campaign advisers and officials, including Flynn. Recent reports indicated that a current White House official was also a person of interest. President Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner may now be implicated in the investigation, but has not been formally accused.
Potential Outcome
It is difficult to predict outcomes at this stage of the DoJ’s investigation. It’s unclear exactly when the investigation began, how long it might last, and what has been determined so far. The FBI and DoJ normally do not release much information – especially regarding ongoing investigations – to the public, and unlike Congress, they are not necessarily beholden to public scrutiny, media pressure, or popular opinion. Mueller does have the authority to criminally investigate and prosecute government officials based on the evidence he uncovers. The special counsel order under which he was appointed gives him vague and wide-ranging jurisdiction in both the scope of his investigation and the decision to indict and convict. However, it is unlikely that Mueller would try to prosecute a sitting president, especially one with a congressional majority.
Senate Intelligence Committee
Key Actors
- Richard Burr (R-NC) – chairman
- Mark Warner (D-VA) – ranking Democrat
Internal Tension
In the early stages of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Burr tried to suppress media reports about connections between Trump associates and Russian intelligence. The democratic constituency pressed Burr to accelerate the investigation.
Scope of Investigation
The focus of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation is the influence and intent of Russian state actors in the 2016 US election, and the extent to which members of Trump’s campaign were complicit in this intervention.
On January 6, the Senate Intelligence Committee declassified their initial report on Russian activities in the US election. They concluded with confidence that Russia had conducted a campaign, using both covert and overt methods, to influence and undermine the 2016 US presidential election. Their conclusions were backed by the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
The committee’s investigation has gained momentum since Comey’s dismissal. They recently requested all Trump campaign communication records related to Russia since its launch. Michael Flynn has been issued 3 subpoenas, and originally refused to cooperate. This week, Flynn agreed to release some documents related to the subpoenas. Roger Stone and Paul Manafort have reportedly complied with the committee’s document request. The committee has also requested all of Comey’s memos from the FBI, and they will soon hold an open hearing in which Comey will testify.
Potential Outcome
The Senate and House Intelligence Committees are both gathering evidence to further determine Russia’s role in the elections and Trump campaign; their findings will ultimately conclude what, if any, political and legal steps will be taken in Congress to address the situation. While the congressional intelligence committees investigating the president and his associates can technically vote to impeach, it is unlikely that they would do so under Republican control. The major power of the Senate Intelligence Committee (as well as its House equivalent) is to influence public opinion and disseminate evidence through the media, public hearings, and reports.
House Intelligence Committee
Key Actors
- Devin Nunes (R-CA) – chairman
- Adam Schiff (D-CA) – ranking democrat
- Mike Conaway (R-TX) – currently in charge of House Intelligence Committee investigation
- Took over following Nunes’ recusal
- Assisted by Republican representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney
Internal Tension
The House Intelligence Committee’s internal shakeups have made the progress of its investigation chaotic and sporadic. From the outset, they struggled to establish bipartisan collaboration; Nunes appeared to favor lines of inquiry that supported the president’s agenda and claims. He eventually became entangled in a scandal surrounding alleged mishandling of classified intelligence information, which he acquired at the White House and gave to the press and the president, ostensibly to redirect the focus of the investigation. Facing strong criticism and a congressional oversight investigation, Nunes temporarily recused himself from the committee’s investigation.
Under Conaway, the investigation has proceeded with increased bipartisan cooperation. However, since Nunes’ recusal was temporary, he will ultimately determine when and how he resumes involvement. He also maintains the power to request information, issue subpoenas, and conduct other activity on the committee unrelated to the Russian investigation, and has recently made moves to re-involve himself.
Scope of Investigation
Like the Senate Intelligence Committee, the House Intelligence Committee is investigating Russian interference in the election, and ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. In March they revealed the questions they were probing as part of their scope, but unlike the senate, they did not declassify any initial conclusions or findings that would steer their investigation. Although hampered by Nunes early on, the committee’s investigation is now proceeding in similar fashion to their Senate counterpart’s: they are requesting and collecting documents and holding hearings. They are investigating many of the same individuals, including Flynn and other former officials. The House Intelligence Committee recently held a public hearing in which former CIA Director John Brennan testified that he had seen concerning contact between Russian officials and Trump campaign associates before the election, and had passed the information on to the FBI.
This week, the committee issued their first 7 subpoenas. 4 of these are related to the Russia investigation, and target Flynn and President Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, requesting both documents and testimony. The other 3 subpoenas were issued independently by Nunes, and are for details relating to the ‘unmasking’ – declassifying names – of subjects of incidental surveillance by officials during the Obama administration. The Trump administration has used the ‘unmasking’ as a way to try to deflect attention from the Russia investigations, and it is possible that Nunes acted upon a similar intention.
Potential Outcome
The potential outcome of the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation is very similar to the senate’s, in terms of what they are able to do. It is more difficult to predict how the House investigation will proceed, because of its chaotic beginning and the uncertain role of Nunes going forward. In both congressional investigations, it has been fairly easy to track the subjects of investigation. Even when evidence isn’t released, the media frantically provides updates. However, it is dangerous to draw conclusions based on evidence-gathering activities alone. Speculative finger-pointing and sensationalism threatens the future of the congressional investigations and jeopardizes their ability to collect reliable evidence. The likely near-term outcome is that they will both continue to hold open and closed hearings and gather documents, but it is unclear whether they will reign in their investigation now that a special counsel has been appointed.
House Oversight Committee
Key Actors
- Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) – chairman (leaving Congress in late June)
- Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is expected to replace Chaffetz
- Elijah Cummings (D-MD) – ranking Democrat
Scope of Investigation
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s investigation focuses specifically on Michael Flynn, his connections to Russia, and his undisclosed financial ties to foreign governments. They are also investigating the question of whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice by asking Comey to stop investigating Flynn. They have requested all records of the president’s communication with Comey, including Comey’s own memos. The White House has not provided any documents so far.
Possible Outcome
The House Oversight Committee’s investigation is still in beginning stages, although they have uncovered some important information so far relating to payments Flynn received from the Russian government. It is not clear what direction they will take in their investigation into President Trump’s involvement in Comey’s investigation; Chaffetz’s successor may or may not be willing to go after the president and his administration.
Senate Judiciary Committee & Subcommittee
Key Actors
Senate Judiciary Committee:
- Chuck Grassley (R-IA) – chairman
- Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) – ranking Democrat
Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism:
- Lindsey Graham (R-SC) – chairman
- Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) – ranking Democrat
Scope of Investigation
The Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism has been leading an investigation into Russian intervention in the election and Flynn’s connections to Russia since early February. Most notably, they held a hearing in which former acting AG Sally Yates and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper gave testimony about Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador. The Senate Judiciary Committee also recently requested all records of President Trump’s communication with Comey from the White House and FBI.
Potential Outcome
The Senate Judiciary Committee and Subcommittee, like the other congressional committees, can request documents, records, and testimony, using subpoenas if necessary. They could bring impeachment charges, but as previously stated, this is unlikely. Their investigative activities are often public and risk partisan influence. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation seems to be moving faster than the Judiciary Committee’s, and the latter has attracted less media attention, but it remains to be seen how forceful the Judiciary Committee will be in pursuing lines of inquiry to the White House.
Treasury Department
Key Actors
Treasury Department Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Scope of Investigation
The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is investigating President Trump’s former businesses. The investigation focuses on President Trump’s casinos and hotels, and especially the Trump Taj Mahal casino, which has broken several financial rules and settled multiple times with the Treasury Department since it opened in 1990. Aside from fraud and money laundering, the Treasury Department is more broadly investigating financial ties between Trump businesses and Russia. Recently, the Treasury investigators agreed to provide information and financial documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had requested them as part of their own investigation into the president’s connections with Russia. Paul Manafort’s finances are also reportedly being investigated by the Treasury Department.
Potential Outcome
Like other federal departments, the Treasury Department’s investigations are much less public than congressional ones. It is difficult to find out what evidence they have uncovered so far, and what direction their investigation might lead. We may learn more from the Senate Intelligence Committee, as they probe more deeply into the president’s finances and business dealings. The Treasury Department itself is under executive oversight, so it is unclear if and how it might act if incriminating evidence is found.
Department of Defense
Key Actors
Department of Defense Inspector General
Scope of Investigation
The Department of Defense is investigating Michael Flynn’s finances, and centers on the question of whether Flynn intentionally hid payments from foreign governments on his security clearance paperwork. Flynn received multiple payments from Russian state agencies prior to joining President Trump’s cabinet. He had been told by the Pentagon to disclose and seek approval for any foreign payments. The DoD provided some unclassified documents related to the Flynn investigation to the House Oversight Committee, which has also been looking into whether Flynn broke the law by concealing foreign payments (and has indicated that he likely did so).
Potential Outcome
The DoD’s investigation is one of the most challenging to track and predict. The majority of the evidence they are looking at is most likely highly classified. We will probably hear more about the investigation from the House Oversight Committee than from the DoD itself. However, the secrecy of the DoD’s investigation, combined with its separation from congressional politics as well as the White House, will probably enable the investigation to proceed more freely.
This guide was written by Stella Jordan. If you have comments on this guide, contact stella@usresistnews.org.