JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
A World Without USAID: Deadly Impact
40% of the U.S. population line our coasts. That equates to approximately 130 million people residing in coastal counties. In addition to those who retire seaside, entire economies are integrated into the coastal industries of fishing, tourism, energy, shipbuilding, and recreation. Even a cursory glance using google maps shows how tightly clustered the built space is, all on only 10% of the total U.S. land mass. Shoreline communities have five times the population density as compared to the U.S. average.
Elon Musk’s Government Influence and Political Dynamics
This is the second of two briefs examining Elon Musk’s extensive role in government and politics, including his actions under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and his close ties to the Trump administration. Recent reports indicate that Musk had used his personal wealth to finance President Donald Trump’s campaigns while also threatening to fund challengers against those who fail to support Trump’s platform. Critics question whether this practice makes politicians indebted to Musk, an arrangement some regard as an extreme extension of the Citizens United ruling on campaign contributions.
Elon Musk: Innovation, Influence, and Ideological Evolution
Elon Musk, born on June 28, 1971, in Pretoria, South Africa, has become a central figure in technology, business, and politics. As the founder and CEO of companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, Musk has significantly influenced sectors ranging from electric vehicles to space exploration and artificial intelligence.
An Update on Trump’s Mass Deportation Efforts (Immigration Policy Brief #141)
As we enter the second month of Donald Trump’s return to office, his stance on immigration remains as hardline as ever—if not more extreme. He has ramped up his rhetoric against so-called “criminals,” but communities across the country are feeling the tangible effects of his deportation policies. Friends, neighbors, workers, and community members are being forcibly removed, leaving behind fractured families and economic instability.
American Dream
Our United States of America stands as a beacon of unity, prosperity and shared purpose in the pursuit of a better life. Here, diversity is accepted and celebrated as our greatest strength. Americans, regardless of background, work together to build a future where all can thrive, knowing that individual success is tied into the well-being of the entire community.
Over a month of Trump: An explanation of new US Foreign Policy
It has been over a month now of the reelected Trump administration, in only a short time Donald Trump has managed to completely rewrite US foreign policy. Old allies are now possible enemies, old enemies are allies. There’s the possibility of the United States annexing and taking land by force, trade wars are on the rise and US soft power and global aid are now a thing of the past.
Civil Rights; Will The Supreme Court Have The Last Word On Trump Executive Orders and Policies?
40% of the U.S. population line our coasts. That equates to approximately 130 million people residing in coastal counties. In addition to those who retire seaside, entire economies are integrated into the coastal industries of fishing, tourism, energy, shipbuilding, and recreation. Even a cursory glance using google maps shows how tightly clustered the built space is, all on only 10% of the total U.S. land mass. Shoreline communities have five times the population density as compared to the U.S. average.
The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You: A Tribe’s Response to the Measles Outbreak
Seminole, Texas is where I graduated high school, where I met my best friends, where I played football, and where I drank my first beer. Seminole is where I learned to pick myself up by the bootstraps, that no one is better than me, and that hard work coupled with perseverance will get you far. Seminole is where I learned the value of a handshake, that a person is only as good as their word, how to overcome adversity, and that it takes a Tribe to solve our biggest problems.
AI Wars Are Escalating: The US vs. China, Elon Musk vs. Sam Altman, and JD Vance vs. the World.
JD Vance’s appalling speech at the Paris Artificial Intelligence Summit announcing that the US will not agree to minimal international safety standards or consumer protections was not surprising given the Trump administration’s deregulatory fervor and fervent billionaire support. But with lucrative government contracts hanging in the balance, two of those billionaires are feuding. Sam Altman, CEO of Open AI, recently said no to Elon Musk’s offer of $97.4 billion to purchase his company. Musk also heard no from 21 technology workers at DOGE, formerly the US Digital Service, who quit their jobs saying they refused to use their skills to “dismantle critical public services.”
Ownership in Emerging Frontiers: Outer Space and Cyberspace
Ownership in Emerging Frontiers: Outer Space and Cyberspace
Foreign Policy Brief #177 | By: Inijah Quadri | February 10, 2025
Featured Photo From: techradar.com
__________________________________
The ownership of outer space and cyberspace has become a critical issue as humanity expands its activities into these domains. Outer space, once the realm of government-led exploration, is now increasingly commercialized with private companies launching satellites, planning lunar missions, and pursuing asteroid mining. Similarly, cyberspace, the digital environment that underpins global communication and commerce, is witnessing debates over data sovereignty, digital monopolies, and intellectual property.
Both outer space and cyberspace are often described as global commons—areas intended for shared use and benefit. However, the lack of clear, universally accepted regulations on ownership and usage has sparked controversies. In outer space, the question arises over who owns resources extracted from celestial bodies, while in cyberspace, concerns center on who controls digital infrastructure and data.
These issues are not just theoretical. They carry profound implications for global equity, security, and the sustainable use of resources. Without cohesive policies, there is a risk of exploitation, conflict, and inequitable distribution of the benefits from these emerging frontiers.
Analysis
Outer Space
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, the cornerstone of international space law, establishes that outer space is not subject to national sovereignty. Article II of the treaty prohibits any nation from claiming ownership of celestial bodies. However, as private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin lead the charge into space exploration, the treaty’s limitations are becoming evident.
For instance, the United States and Luxembourg have enacted laws allowing private companies to own resources mined from celestial bodies. While these laws aim to encourage investment and innovation, they challenge the treaty’s spirit by creating a legal gray area about the commercialization of space resources. The Moon Agreement of 1979 sought to address such concerns but failed to gain widespread adoption, leaving critical gaps in governance.
Cyberspace
Unlike outer space, cyberspace lacks a unified international treaty. Ownership in cyberspace is largely governed by a patchwork of national laws, international agreements, and corporate policies. Intellectual property rights protect digital content and software, while data sovereignty laws dictate how information can be stored and transferred across borders.
However, cyberspace governance faces significant challenges. Major tech companies dominate the digital landscape, controlling vast amounts of user data and the infrastructure of the internet. This concentration of power raises questions about monopolies, data privacy, and the equitable distribution of digital resources. The global nature of cyberspace complicates regulation, as legal frameworks vary widely between countries.
Policy Recommendations
To address the challenges of ownership in outer space and cyberspace, an international coalition could establish a new framework akin to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
For outer space, this could include:
- Guidelines for resource extraction to ensure equitable access.
- Mechanisms for resolving disputes between nations and private entities.
- Collaborative efforts to prevent the militarization of space.
For the cyberspace, this could include:
- International agreements on data privacy and cybersecurity.
- Regulations to address digital monopolies and ensure fair competition.
- Public-private partnerships to enhance the transparency and accountability of tech companies.
This framework would ensure that activities in these domains are conducted transparently, sustainably, and equitably, with shared benefits for all nations. By defining clear guidelines for resource extraction in space and data governance in the cyberspace, this initiative could prevent conflicts and promote cooperation in these rapidly evolving frontiers.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
The Con Man’s Coffers: Trump’s Unfettered Leveraging of Government Power to Reap Personal Profits Soars Yet Again
The Con Man’s Coffers: Trump’s Unfettered Leveraging of Government Power to Reap Personal Profits Soars Yet Again
Elections & Politics #143 | By: Nicholas Gordon | February 9, 2025
Featured Photo By: news.berkeley.edu
__________________________________
Inked deals for new Trump-branded properties overseas, increased stock sales to foreign investors in the Trump Organization’s media and cryptocurrency sectors, business partnerships with companies funded by foreign governments – all of these actions by a sitting U.S. president signify an unprecedented leveraging of presidential power for personal profit, and they’re all in a day’s work for President Donald Trump.
With the Trump Organization’s recent release of a so-called voluntary ethics agreement bluntly stating that the organization will continue to make deals with private foreign companies—which is a further desecration of the unethical “ethics agreement” of Trump’s first term—government watchdog groups say that foreign leaders could buy influence with the new administration, exacerbating Trump’s historical corruption. By failing to divest while pursuing new business opportunities overseas, Trump could compromise national security, letting his own financial interests shape his foreign policy decisions.
Analysis
President Trump is once again flagrantly violating his ethical obligations to serve the best interests of the American people in favor of gaining profit for his family business. The man who once campaigned on the slogan to “drain the swamp” of wealthy D.C. insiders and backscratchers has instead refashioned the swamp to his advantage, using his properties as transactional meeting points during his first administration, and flooding his rotten swamp with billionaire cronies and groveling loyalists at the start of his second term.
Heading into his first presidential term, Trump faked a pledge to divest from his business empire by claiming to have placed his business holdings in a trust overseen by his son, Eric Trump. In actuality President Trump remained the sole beneficiary, earning a reported $2.4 billion from multiple ventures, including charging government officials and members of the U.S Secret Service exorbitant fees to stay at his properties.
Now, newly emboldened at the start of his second term by the Supreme Court ruling of Presidential immunity and by having Republican control of congress—not to mention by facing zero accountability for taking over $13 million in payments from foreign governments in his first term—Trump is mixing his family business and government power with absolute disregard for presidential conflicts of interest.
To Name But a Few Examples
The Trump Organization has new deals in the works for hotels and golf resorts in India, Indonesia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam, and is pursuing potential projects in Israel. Eric Trump is close business partners with the Saudi Arabia-based real estate company Dar Al Arkan, which is directly connected to the Saudi royal family.
The Trump Media & Technology Group, which owns the social media platform Truth Social, and a new cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial, has publicly traded stock coveted by foreign investors. Steve Witkoff, who is in business with Trump’s World Liberty Financial, currently serves as Trump’s Middle East envoy. Devin Nunes, the CEO of Trump Media, now serves as the Chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.
At a recent press conference, Trump said that DAMAC Properties—a Dubai-based real estate firm partnered with the Trump Organization on a Trump-branded golf course in the Middle East—will invest billions of dollars to build data centers in the U.S. with support from the federal government.
The conflicts of interest list goes on. Though due to Trump’s obstruction and lack of transparency, including his refusal to release his tax returns, all of which is abetted by his allies, the American public is left in the dark regarding the full extent of the ways Trump is capitalizing on his presidency.
None of this amplified wanton blending of Trump’s executive office of the Presidency with his personal financial interests should come as a surprise, however.
In his first term, Trump severely violated the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses which states that federal government officials cannot receive profits from foreign governments, or from the federal government itself, beyond their standard government salary.
On Inauguration Day for his second term, Trump rescinded former President Biden’s ethics requirements for government officials and did not issue a new ethics pledge in its place for political appointees joining his administration to sign, a standard practice for incoming presidents. Trump no more expects his staff to abide by conflict of interest protocols ensuring ethical standards for their work while holding public office or in government agencies than he expects of himself.
Engagement Resources:
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
- Through investigations, legal actions, and innovative policy reform, CREW works to ensure Americans have an ethical democracy that is transparent and accountable.
- Campaign Legal Center
- A nonprofit that monitors ethical violations committed by Democratic and Republican lawmakers and candidates.
- Open Secrets
- A nonpartisan, nonprofit whose mission is to “serve as the trusted authority on money in American politics” by providing accurate data, analysis, and tools for policymakers and citizens.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
A Refugee’s Tale. Halina. | Real story. All names are changed.
A Refugee’s Tale. Halina. | Real story. All names are changed.
Foreign Policy Brief #176 | By: Yelena Korshunov | February 9, 2025
Featured Photo From: euronews.com
__________________________________
Halina dragged heavy bags filled with humanitarian bean cans to the apartment door, her numb hand fumbling for the key in her pocket. Her feet ached with exhaustion. She had stood for hours in a crowded subway, clutching these precious bags of free food.
Once a confident businesswoman who had built a successful cosmetics company in Ukraine, Halina was now working as a home attendant in New York. The good news was that her surgery and chemotherapy were behind her. Now, she was in the final week of daily radiation treatments. “That’s it for now,” the doctor had said. Fingers crossed. She wondered if her hair would ever grow back —or if the war, the chemo, and the stress had stolen more from her than just her home.
Sometimes, Halina imagined that if she closed her eyes tightly, she would open them to find herself back in her sunlit house with cherry trees outside the window. But when she did open them, she was still here, in a small apartment in the Bronx. Her daughter Margarita would soon come home from school. Then Halina would leave for her evening home attendant shift. Later, her elder daughter, Sophia, would return from work. By that time, Halina would be too exhausted to eat dinner. The three of them would lie down together, talking—about school, work, soccer, their new life. About anything except the war.
Margarita is a high school senior. Last fall, when she arrived in the U.S. under the Unite for Ukraine (U4U) program with her mother and sister, she had joined the junior class at a public school while remotely completing her final year in a Ukrainian high school. The pressure was enormous—two schools, a new country, unfamiliar customs. The British English she had learned in Ukraine was not enough for fluent conversation or making friends. “Last spring, a counselor told me I had to attend summer school because I was ‘undocumented imigrant,’” Margarita recalled. “I told her, ‘I’m a legal refugee—we have visas.’ But the way she said it scared me. What if she got us into trouble, even though we’re here legally?” Fortunately, the principal and teachers were kind. Some students helped her, too. As a talented soccer player, Margarita had earned a full scholarship to a local soccer club and joined her school team. “That was the best part of starting life here,” she said. The practices and games felt familiar, like home. “But it’s hard to make friends. The other girls have known each other for years. Their parents drive them to visit colleges, and they talk about it. I have nothing to add.”
Halina doesn’t have a car. She doesn’t have time and money to take Margarita on college visits. She had to focus on her cancer treatments and work as much as she could. The family was barely covering rent and basic needs. New York is expensive, but at least there is work. Halina never told her former clients and employees in Ukraine that she was now a home attendant. On social media, she only posted pictures of New York’s dazzling skyline and festive holiday decorations. One day, she told herself she would go back. One day, she might even rebuild her business, ruined by the war.
The year they arrived in the U.S., Sophia had been a college senior—remotely. On February 24, 2022, the day Russia attacked Ukraine, all Ukrainian universities had switched to online learning. Campus life had disappeared overnight. No more lectures in packed auditoriums, no more coffee-fueled study sessions, no more lazy afternoons joking with friends. Everything changed. That damned day, none of them would ever forget.
During those many long months of war, air raid sirens froze their minds and bodies with fear. Halina, Sophia, and Margarita would wake in the middle of the night to the deafening howl and run to the cellar of their house, hearts pounding. Even now, sirens triggered Sophia’s fear. The blare of a fire truck or ambulance on a New York street still made her body tense, her hands instinctively covering her head. But at least now, after nearly two years under a peaceful sky, she could sleep through the night.
Sophia had earned her Ukrainian undergraduate diploma last summer. She dreamed of getting a master’s degree. How incredible it would be to study in New York. But she has no time. With their mother still recovering from cancer, Sophia has to work full-time commuting three hours a day, sometimes longer, to her work and back home. The salary was barely above minimum wage, but it was what the family needed. At 21, she had no time for friends, no boyfriend, no campus life. Maybe one day, in the future.
There is no fairy-tale ending to this story today. No Richard Gere lookalike had stepped out of a sleek Mercedes to rescue a pretty woman from poverty. This is real life—the life of one refugee family among thousands, struggling for survival, for food, for shelter. They had been wrenched from their homes, their comforts, their once-flourishing country beneath the bright blue Ukrainian sky. But they are alive and safe. They work, they pay taxes, they endure. And perhaps, one day, they will thrive again.
P.S. Yesterday, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has suspended the Unite for Ukraine (U4U) program following a new executive order on border protection.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
A Comparison of Biden and Trump’s January 20th Pardons
A Comparison of Biden and Trump’s January 20th Pardons
Civil Rights Policy Brief #235 | By: Rod Maggay | February 9, 2025
Featured Photo Credit From: nbcmontana.com
__________________________________
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides: The President…shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
Additionally, the United States Department of Justice has an Office of the Pardon Attorney. This office has been in existence for more than 130 years. The office accepts applications and reviews and investigates requests for executive clemency. They review all applications and make recommendations to the President whether to accept or deny a person’s request for clemency. The President does not have to accept the office’s recommendations and can decide on his own whether to grant clemency. Nor does the President have to go through the review procedure that the DOJ office provides. If a President desires, he can simply issue clemency or a pardon. Supreme Court precedent has also interpreted the constitutional clause about pardons to include commutations of sentence, pardons and commutations that are conditional, reductions in fines and amnesties.
On January 20, 2025, Inauguration Day, outgoing President Joe Biden issued a number of pardons to multiple members of his family, including his son Hunter. He also issued pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci, Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Schiff and other members of the House January 6th Committee and Gen. Mark Milley. With the exception of his son Hunter, no criminal charges had been filed against any of the other persons receiving a pardon from President Biden. Because of this, the pardons to these people except his son are referred to as pre-emptive pardons.
Later in the day on January 20th after President Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President, the President issued a blanket pardon to the approximately 1,500 persons who had been convicted and imprisoned for their roles in the January 6th insurrection. President Trump’s order contained pardons, commutation of sentences and dismissal for those whose criminal trials have not yet concluded. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: Despite loud calls questioning the legality and constitutionality of the pardons and commutations of sentences issued by both President Biden and Trump on the same day, the history of the pardon clause included in the Constitution and as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court shows that the President is the exclusive holder of the “pardon power” and can issue pardons as he or she sees fit. Even though the U.S. Government has an Office of the Pardon Attorney at DOJ, that office is there to simply investigate and review the requests they receive for federal clemency and then issue their recommendation. The President is under no obligation to abide by the Office’s recommendation and can issue clemency even if the Office did not review the case and regardless of what the Office of the Pardon Attorney says. Both Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump were simply executing their power on January 20th.
While the pardons issued by President Biden are valid despite questions as to why they were issued prior to a person being charged with a crime, there is historical precedent to show that issuing the pardons pre – emptively is appropriate. Fifty-one years ago, President Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency because of the Watergate scandal. He would likely have been impeached and subsequently charged with a crime but neither happened. President Gerald Ford later issued a pre – emptive pardon to Nixon even though no charges were levied against him. President Ford’s pardon has never been tested in court and shows that pre – emptive pardons, like the ones President Biden issued, are valid.
But while Presidents are given wide latitude in issuing pardons, they are often controversial and are often criticized for partisan reasons. President Biden’s pardons to his family are controversial because it raises the question as to whether his family may have more troublesome episodes and dealings than has been revealed. But when contrasted with President Trump’ pardon of more than 1,500 January 6th persons connected with the insurrection the difference is clear and shows that President Trump’s pardons are more foolish. Trump is pardoning people who have committed violent crimes against the U.S. These violent crimes include destruction to property, use of a deadly weapon and obstruction of law enforcement. Additionally, many were convicted, many more pleaded guilty and a handful were even convicted of sedition. And there were a number of fatalities that day, as a Capitol Police officer was killed as well as one of Donald Trump’s supporters. Pardoning these violent offenders is much different than President Biden pardoning men and women who Trump vowed to get revenge on because they were simply doing their job investigating him, such as Reps. Cheney and Schiff. By using the pardon power pre – emptively, Joe Biden is using the power to protect good people from Trump’s stated goal of retribution and for simply doing their job, like Dr. Anthony Fauci. Trump is simply trying to change the narrative around Jan. 6th and is simply giving a free pass to those with violent tendencies. Trump’s pardons still won’t change the narrative that he instigated the insurrection on that day to try and subvert an election he lost.
While the pardons issued by both Presidents will likely stand, politicians on both sides of the aisle have not been shy about expressing their disgust with Trump’s pardons. Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell have made it known that they highly disapprove of Trump pardoning and commuting the sentences of hundreds of rioters. And, in an interesting move, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed an order that bars any convicted Jan. 6th rioter from being employed in an Illinois state job. While this only applies to the State of Illinois, it shows that politicians will not let Trump’s foolish pardons be the last word on what happened on Jan. 6th. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – information page on clemency and pardons.
- President Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum – history and analysis of President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.
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 rodwood@email.com.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
It’s Tempting To Do Nothing But
It’s Tempting To Do Nothing But
February Op Ed | February 13, 2025
Featured Photo By: npr.org
__________________________________
We are only two + weeks into the Trump administration. Despite the administration’s onslaught of deeply troubling and misguided policies. People feel tired from the hard fought election campaign. It is too soon to do anything they surmise; it is tempting to do nothing; better sit back and chill for a while and wait for a later date to re-engage.
This appears to be a path many people are choosing. This despite the onslaught of wicked administration actions such as the release 1,500 people convicted of helping overturn the government on January 6; the termination of department Inspector Generals, and leaders of the FBI, the Justice Department and other agencies; the purging of demographic language on the websites of the CDC, NIH, and other health agencies; the suspension of foreign assistance; the efforts to deport thousands of migrants; the imposition of tariffs on Canada, Mexico and other countries; and so much more. A concerning shift towards authoritarianism appears to be hardening while the spicket of democracy is turning off
Despite all this there has been little pushback. Few efforts to voice opposition.
At US RESIST NEWS we feel it is not too soon to take action, to speak out. But how do we do that? What can we do? Here are some suggestions both for individual citizens and concerned organizations.
- Develop a new platform that targets the needs of working class Americans, including youth, women, seniors ,and those living in rural areas; don’t abandon the Democrat’s long-standing commitment to civil rights but stress issues that cut across racial, ethic, and gender lines, such as basic economic fairness and moral decency.
- Make full use of the courts. Just as Trump used the courts; use the courts to register complaints about Trump’s actions; request injunctions to halt the implementation of administration policies. And appeal any rejections of claims that the courts might hand down; delay delay delay, and during the delays speak out.
- Take to the streets; maybe in small numbers at first; but organize marches and demonstrations that request a halt to unjust policies; mobilize those most affected to participate, e.g. often African-American, Latino and other minorities. Plan and organize at least one mega -march in Washington.
- Make a call for leadership : Many people wonder “where are our leaders?” Why aren’t those established leaders like Presidents Obama, the Clintons, and others saying more doing more? And where are the leaders on the so-called deep bench that the Democrats are supposed to have like Josh Shapiro, Corey Booker, and others? Why can’t we hear them? We need to call out to them to do more.
- Engage religious leaders: Given the overwhelming immorality of the new administration, it is important to counter their actions and policies with a moral voice. Leaders from our country’s different spiritual traditions need to come together and speak out against the immorality of the new administration. Look at the attention that was given to a Episcopalian Archbishop of Washington, Reverend Budde, who spoke out against Trump to his face. We need to hear more from spiritual leaders like Reverend Budde.
- Organize big picture electoral system reform campaigns: It’s time the democrats and others coalesce in support of reforms that are distorting our election system such as the need for the President to be elected by popular vote, not the electoral college. Our favorite would be a campaign to reverse Citizens United and get big money out of politics. In an age of oligarchy, where the divide between what those at the top and those at the bottom make, such a campaign would be likely to succeed.
- Organize for the mid-term elections; compile a list in every Congressional district of democratic Congressional candidates; organize events for them such as rallies, debates, and house parties.
- Use the media and the social media; create ads in support of key issues such as abortion, access to housing, education, and healthcare; make constant use of pro-democrat social media posts; emphasize personal stories; hire a good PR/advertising firm and start advertising now
- Organize boycotts of right-wing products and services, such as X, Fox News, Trump Hotels. It is tempting right now to sit back and do nothing. It is tempting to say” what will be will be; you get what you voted for.” But if we take this posture we run the risk that what the new administration is starting to do will harden into something much deeper and difficult to dislodge. The time to start to push back is now.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The Hypocrite in Chief’s War on Women
The Hypocrite in Chief’s War on Women
Health & Gender Policy #178 | By: Evan Wechman | February 8, 2025
Featured Photo By: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images
__________________________________
Trump has been president for under a month, and he is already going to great lengths to restrict a woman’s right to an abortion. At first, after the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court that Trump helped assemble, it appeared that abortion would be left to the states.
However, Trump has gone further by promising to be the most pro-life president the country has ever had. Just hours after addressing the annual anti-abortion March for Life in a prerecorded video, he signed executive orders restricting a woman’s right to choose.
With the power of the pen, President Trump is enforcing the Hyde Amendment, ending the use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote abortion. This is in direct contrast to former President Biden, who allowed federal funds for groups to discuss abortion as an option. In addition, the former president used taxpayer funding for elective abortions by categorizing it as healthcare and permitted Medicaid funding to pay for travel care for abortions.
Also, Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum reinstating the Mexico City Policy which prohibits foreign organizations receiving U.S. global health funding from providing or mentioning abortion as an option with other sources of financing.
According to The White House Facts Sheet released on January 25th, “President Trump promised to protect and defend a vote of the people, from within the states, on the issue of life. Today’s executive actions build on the long list of accomplishments from the first Trump Administration to support the sanctity of every human life and prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. “
Analysis
It’s one thing to be personally opposed to abortion, but it’s a different story to decide for the entire nation that abortion is unacceptable. Trump at first said he was going to let the states decide whether abortion would be legal in their province. However, like many other positions, Trump seems to be singing a different tune now.
Through his new enactments, he is making it much more difficult for women to make their own reproductive decisions. For instance, a woman who lives in a state with restrictive abortion laws can no longer use Medicaid to help her travel to a state that allows more rights to reproductive freedom.
Even groups dedicated to women’s health like Planned Parenthood are in jeopardy of not even being able to discuss abortion as an option since they receive federal funds.
Trump is dictating the health and safety of all women based on his personal beliefs. This will eat away at the fabric of the country, which has always been about personal freedom. If a pregnant woman wants to consider abortion, Trump is having his values override her choice.
The reality is if Trump gets his way and there are no legal abortions in the nation, then we will return to a time where women are forced to seek help from bad doctors performing services in dark alleys. But abortions will still happen. The safety however of these women will be in jeopardy.
Likewise, a 2022 study by The National Academy of Sciences found that Trump’s anti-abortion restrictions led to approximately 108,00 deaths of women and children in poor nations during his first term. This is because Trump cut funding for non-profits that provided health services for sexually transmitted diseases with U.S. taxpayer money but used other revenue streams to provide abortions.
Trump’s actions are beyond hypocritical. He is attempting to take the moral high ground by acquiescing to pro-life groups, but he is in no position to impose his ethics on others. He pardoned about 1500 defendants involved in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
This dangerous attempt to overturn the election led to the loss of life, various injuries, and the overall safety of our country. It is beyond logic for Trump to pardon friends of his whose actions resulted in death but continue to strip away a woman’s right to choose, putting her safety and welfare at risk.
But for President Trump, this is not about logic. It is about power.
Engagement Resources:
-
About Us – Reproductive Freedom for All Organization of over 4 million members who fight for access to abortion, birth control, and protections from pregnancy discrimination.
-
Planned Parenthood | Official Site Planned Parenthood works to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and education.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Jack Smith’s Honorable but Frustrating Journey to Prosecute Trump ; January 2025
Jack Smith’s Honorable but Frustrating Journey to Prosecute Trump; January 2025
Civil Rights Policy Brief #234 | By: Rod Maggay | Submitted: January 17, 2024
__________________________________
Policy Summary: Per Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith issued two final reports to Attorney General Merrick Garland. The reports were regarding two federal cases that the Special Prosecutor was pursuing – one in South Florida regarding Mr. Trump’s mishandling of classified documents and a second one in Washington, D.C. accusing Mr. Trump of election interference in the 2020 election.
Despite facing criminal charges in these two trials, Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. As a result of his win and his return to the White House in January 2025, Special Prosecutor Jack Smith made the decision to wind down the two criminal cases and voluntarily dismiss the cases before the cases would come up for trial. On January 10, 2025, Jack Smith resigned from the position of Special Prosecutor with the DOJ. But before he departed, he submitted to Attorney General Merrick Garland two final reports on his investigations. The report on the classified documents case was split in two – one detailing the evidence against Donald Trump and a second one detailing the evidence against two other men who were charged with Mr. Trump in that case. Because the two other men – Walt Natua and Carlos de Oliviera – are still facing ongoing prosecution in the case, AG Garland has decided not to release the final report regarding that case. However, the final report about the investigation into Mr. Trump’s election interference case was eventually released prior to Mr. Trump’s inauguration. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The resignation of Jack Smith marks the end of a journey that could be deemed as incomplete. For the last two years, Jack Smith and his prosecutorial team investigated the events of President Trump’s efforts to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. They pursued the facts and researched the law. Yet the election interference case (and the classified documents case) never made it to trial. It would be very easy to assume that this did not happen because Mr. Trump was not responsible or guilty of trying to interfere in the election. That was not the case. Jack Smith made sure to state when he resigned that Mr. Trump engaged in an “unprecedented criminal effort” to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Additionally, Jack Smith stated that the evidence was there to convict Donald Trump. The only reason why the trials did not go forth was because of DOJ policy that prohibits prosecuting a sitting President.
While that is an unfortunate turn of events, it begs the question as to what evidence Jack Smith and his team compiled. The release of the final report in the election interference case (but not the classified documents case) provides some fascinating details at what President Trump would have faced in court. Trump’s tweets were not immediately provided to Jack Smith’s team for months because of delays from Elon Musk. It also took Smith more than a year to acquire incriminating text messages between Representative Scott Perry and Trump DOJ official Jeffrey Clark which provided an outline of how to subvert the election. Additionally, there were witnesses who Trump tried to prevent from testifying, including then Vice – President Mike Pence. And, Smith released how specific statements by Trump led to a response from the mob of rioters on January 6th. Specifically, Trump’s statements and tweets singled out Vice – President Mike Pence for his refusal to overturn the election. These communications led to those at the rally to go look specifically for the Vice – President before he was ushered to safety. The report makes clear that all of the evidence collected by the Special Prosecutor and his team would have been more than enough to present to a jury and more likely enough to convict the former President of trying to subvert the 2020 election.
One interesting revelation, which would not have been presented to a jury, was Jack Smith’s decision to not charge Donald Trump with the grave charge of “inciting insurrection.” The federal insurrection charge had not been used in more than a century. And its previous use had been against outsiders trying to overthrow a lawful government as opposed to a current politician trying to retain power. It was not clear if the federal statute would have applied to a President (or other politician trying to remain in power). In the end, Jack Smith decided not to charge the former President under this statute. This clearly demonstrates that Jack Smith was interested more in following where the facts and law took his investigation rather than following a partisan course based on revenge or retribution. While he probably could have charged Trump with “inciting insurrection” Jack Smith made the noble decision to not charge Trump, allowing only charges that were warranted and supported by evidence.
But in the end it was all for naught. Jack Smith’s investigation was halted when Trump won election back to the White House. But the evidence he compiled is now there for all to see. But in his court filing dismissing the case Jack Smith made sure to state that even if the prosecution did not go forward it did not change “the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution[’s case].
Engagement Resources
- U.S. Department of Justice – full text of Jack Smith’s final report on the election interference case.
- Politico – news site’s analysis of Jack Smith’s final report on the 2020 election interference case.
- CBS News – news site’s analysis of the classified documents case and its current status.
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 rodwood@email.com.
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism, so please consider donating to keep democracy alive today!
The Uncertainty of the Student Loan Crisis in the Age of Trump
The Uncertainty of the Student Loan Crisis in the Age of Trump
Education Policy Brief #198 | By: Evan Wechman | January 26, 2024
Photo by Good Free Photos on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
Former President Joe Biden was passionate about providing access to student loans so anyone, regardless of financial status, could pursue higher education. Throughout his term, he successfully forgave the student loan debt of over 5.3 million borrowers, totaling over $188.8 billion.
These forgiveness programs were primarily for low-income earners who would be saddled with debt for many years after finishing their education. He also excluded any debt from students who were defrauded by for-profit universities.
However, if the debt could not be discharged, he at least sought to make the payments easier through his SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education) plan. SAVE cut many payments in half and forgave other debts altogether.
But many Republicans argued this was a clever way around the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on a complete student loan forgiveness program. Therefore, many provisions are on hold as Democrats and Republicans plan to battle it out in court.
The Biden administration also made it easier for individuals seeking bankruptcy protection to include student debt under their new guidelines. For years before former President Biden took office, it was nearly impossible to walk away from student debt when filing for bankruptcy.
Now that President Trump has taken the reigns again, many of the successes of the Biden team in this realm remain uncertain. From outright student loan forgiveness to tax deductions for student debt, many Republicans on Team Trump are seeking to roll back much of Biden’s proposals.
Though President Trump has not been very specific about how we will attack the student loan issue, he did describe Biden’s debt forgiveness efforts as “vile” and “not even legal.”
Policy Analysis:
To predict how the Trump administration will handle both student loan forgiveness and modification, one must look only at his track record.
The President has not only called for the elimination of the Department of Education but has ridiculed Biden’s attempts at helping individuals navigate their student debt.
The well-respected quote from Maya Angelou should be remembered. “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time,” she said.
Trump and his allies have shown time, and again they are interested in protecting their rich, upper-class allies while neglecting people with fewer resources. For example, the dismantling of the Department of Education will set back public education for the public which consists of many families just trying to help their children achieve a good education.
Likewise, when Trump refers to Biden’s efforts to help those manage their student debt as “vile,” we should take him at his word. He sees nothing positive in helping people with few options create a better life rather than being saddled with debt as adults.
Trump doesn’t have to worry about how student debt will affect his cronies. The likes of Elon Musk and other billionaires will not have to fret about how their children will pay back high-interest loans.
Even smaller efforts like enabling student debt to be included in bankruptcy protection are not important to this administration. Trump has no problem with many of his businesses using bankruptcy laws to protect their assets, but when it’s for the working class, he and other Republicans question the legality of such measures.
During Trump’s first term, he tried to eliminate Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) but failed. Since PSLF is a Congressional program, Trump may try to sway his allies in the House to end the program, which helps qualify more individuals for student loan forgiveness.
As for how the new administration will handle debt incurred by fraudulent for-profit universities, one must only remember the controversy surrounding Trump University where they manipulated students into spending money on courses with little substance.
We as a nation can’t afford to trust someone who would prey on young people trying to better themselves.
Engagement Resources
- Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC) | A people-powered movement representing over 2 million supporters: A non-profit organization dedicated to ending the student debt crisis through advocacy, education, and outreach.
- StudentLoanJustice.Org – Student Loan Justice: Oldest and largest citizen group fighting to end all federally owned student loans by executive action, and the return of bankruptcy protection to all student loans.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Disaffection and Abandonment: The European Far-Right Drift
Disaffection and Abandonment: The European Far-Right Drift
Foreign Policy Brief #175 | By: Damian DeSola | January 24, 2025
Photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash
__________________________________
The far-right in Europe is rising once again. Following a trend that has taken ahold of much of the modern democratic world, Europe’s various national and supernational far-right populist parties have shown a dramatic surge in popularity. With a range of social and economic effects, along with the ossified and ineffectual traditional parties, the extreme has become greatly appealing to Europeans. Populists use familiar concepts, stoking hate for immigrants, lashing against supposed decadent social justice, and highlighting the overall alienation Europeans feel from their governing officials.
Examples of this are found across the continent.
In France, the National Rally party, led by Marine Le Pen, earned a shocking 31% of the European Parliament’s elections. This was followed by the decision of current French president Macron to call a snap election, which was won only because competing left-wing and centrist candidates tactically stepped aside in the second round of elections to avoid splitting their tickets.
For both Germany and Austria, far-right parties have had their best showing in their electorates since World War II. In Germany, The Alternative for Germany (AfD), has won a state election for the first time in its history. While still unpopular with most Germans, 19% of Germans view the party favorably, a record high for AfD. The Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) won 29% of the parliamentary vote in 2024, positioning the party’s leader, Herbert Kickl, to potentially become the Austrian Chancellor.
This past year, Reform UK has also achieved five parliamentary seats, the first in its history. Under a month later, violent riots broke out in July and August of 2024; these riots were sparked by a mass stabbing in Southport, which was followed online by false claims that the attacker was a Muslim immigrant. The riots lasted six days, fueled by online fascists, Islamophobic organizations, and neo-Nazis.
Furthermore, in Slovakia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Finland have all seen elections, both local and national, resulting in far-right parties gaining positions in government.
Analysis
Why are these far-right parties gaining so much traction in Europe? The answer will be familiar to Americans. The main factors can be traced to xenophobia, cost of living, and an overall feeling of disconnection from traditional parties.
Much of this reaction comes from the rapid increase in the cost of living that has come with the aftereffects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic turmoil caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine. Slow growth, rising inflation, and increases in the cost of housing, energy, and food, which is exasperated by massive wealth inequality, have set the stage for discontent across the continent.
Turmoil and climate change in Africa and the Middle East has resulted in a massive influx of immigrants to Europe from both regions. Hundreds of thousands have made the perilous journey across the Mediterranean to escape war and dictatorship. Unfortunately, Europe was woefully unprepared, and it countries have been incapable of managing the crisis. The presence of an “other”, along with economic turmoil, has resulted in Europeans turning their stress into hate. Hence, a massive uptick in racist attacks and nationalist rhetoric by far-right parties.
While healthy democracies would be capable of managing a rise in far-right nationalism, establishment center-left and center-right parties have been more focused on maintaining their positions of power. By refusing to acknowledge or take meaningful action on issues of wealth inequality and cost of living, establishment parties should not be astonished that their voter bases have become disaffected.
It is a troubling trend. As ideas of populism, majoritarianism, and isolationism continue to grow unchecked by usual democratic institutions, liberal political foundations are increasingly under threat. Assumptions of equality under the law, freedom of speech, free and fair elections, freedom of religion, gender equality, racial equality, and many other liberal ideals that have been taken for granted could very well be dissolved across the European continent.
A prime example is found in Hungary, a nation that can be referred to as an “illiberal democracy.” It is in this small nation where the framework for modern European nationalism can be found. The ruling party, Fidesz, crushes all opposition through the stifling of free press, corruption of elections, the promotion of Hungarian nationalism, Euroscepticism, and even visions of Hungarian territorial expansion.
The European Union and local democratic powerhouses (e.g. Germany, France) have done little more than writing a strongly worded letter to Hungary. The leading parties of what are meant to be local defenders of European democracy have proven incapable of implementing policy that can effectively combat the rising tide of illiberal influence on the continent.
Instead of shrugging shoulders, alarm bells should be ringing across liberal Europe. Europeans must rapidly organize, debate, and implement solutions to combat the massive threat of illiberalism. The people and leaders of Europe that consider themselves defenders and advocates for civil liberties and democracy must stand up now, lest they sleepwalk into a new era of European autocracy and division.
Engagement Resources
- Politico.eu mapping of the far-right rise in Europe
- Change in freedom map from the Freedom House Index
- Podcast covering the far-right resurgence in Europe from the Center for a New American Security
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
The Impact of Autonomous Drones on Privacy and Security
The Impact of Autonomous Drones on Privacy and Security
Social Justice Policy Brief #171 | By: Inijah Quadri | January 23, 2025
Photo by Kaleb Kendall on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Issue Summary
Autonomous drones have rapidly integrated into various sectors, including delivery services, agriculture, surveillance, and emergency response. Equipped with advanced technologies such as high-resolution cameras and artificial intelligence, these drones operate with minimal human intervention. While they offer numerous benefits, their proliferation raises significant concerns regarding privacy and security.
The ability of drones to capture detailed images and data from the environment poses potential infringements on individual privacy. Instances of drones capturing images of individuals without consent have been reported, leading to public discomfort and legal challenges.
Moreover, the autonomous nature of these drones introduces security vulnerabilities. Unauthorized access or hacking of drones can lead to misuse, including unauthorized surveillance or data breaches. The increasing use of drones by governmental agencies for surveillance purposes further complicates the balance between security and civil liberties.
Analysis
Autonomous drones are incredibly useful in many situations. For example, they are used for deliveries, like Amazon Prime Air, and during natural disasters. Drones equipped with thermal imaging can locate stranded individuals and deliver essential supplies to hard-to-reach areas. However, there have been reports of drones capturing images of people without their consent, which has caused public discomfort and raised legal concerns.
While regulations exist, the integration of autonomous drones into civilian airspace has often outpaced the development of comprehensive regulatory frameworks. In many regions, existing laws do not adequately address the unique challenges posed by autonomous drone technology. This regulatory gap allows for potential misuse and raises questions about accountability and oversight.
Privacy concerns are paramount. Drones can inadvertently or deliberately capture images and data of individuals in private settings without their knowledge or consent. Such intrusions can lead to a sense of surveillance and erode public trust in technology. The psychological impact, which may be referred to as “drone anxiety,” reflects the societal unease with pervasive surveillance capabilities.
Security risks are equally pressing. Drones are susceptible to hacking, which can result in unauthorized control and potential harm. While the FAA requires commercial drone operators to obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate, recreational drone use is more loosely regulated, raising concerns about accountability and misuse by untrained individuals. The accessibility of drone technology further adds to the challenge. With DIY drone kits widely available, even hobbyists can create sophisticated devices, bypassing traditional regulatory oversight. Indeed, the use of drones for malicious purposes, such as smuggling contraband into restricted areas, has been documented, highlighting the need for robust security measures.
While manufacturing does not require a license, drones remain subject to FAA registration rules. As of 2024, over 850,000 drones have been registered in the U.S., underscoring their rapid proliferation and potential for misuse.
Addressing the privacy and security challenges posed by autonomous drones requires a multifaceted approach that balances innovation with safeguarding individual rights. Policymakers must establish clear, enforceable guidelines for drone operations, including stringent privacy safeguards, mandatory data encryption, and restricted use of surveillance technologies. Public awareness campaigns are essential to inform citizens about their rights and the capabilities of drone technology, while transparency initiatives, such as public disclosure of drone usage policies, can build trust and encourage community engagement.
Additionally, investment in robust cybersecurity measures, such as encrypted communication channels and anti-hacking technology, is crucial to prevent security breaches when drones are in use. Governments and private entities should also prioritize developing counter-drone technologies to neutralize malicious drones and ensure public safety without hindering legitimate use. There is a need to align drone deployment with societal values and human rights principles.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available:
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/): A leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world, including issues related to drone surveillance.
- Center for Democracy & Technology (https://cdt.org/): Focuses on policy analysis and advocacy concerning privacy and security in emerging technologies.
- Future of Privacy Forum (https://fpf.org/): An organization that addresses privacy concerns in the context of new technologies, including autonomous drones.
- International Association of Privacy Professionals (https://iapp.org/): Provides resources and education on privacy issues, relevant to understanding the implications of drone technology.
- Drone Service Providers Alliance (https://dspalliance.org/): An organization dedicated to promoting safe and secure drone operations through education and advocacy.
_______________________________________________________________
Wanna stay in-the-know? Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.