JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Exploring Different Types of Immigrants & Immigration Realities (Immigration Policy Brief #140)
The Trump administration has recently begun redefining its view on what it sees as the appropriate options for gender in the education system. The newly released Trump executive order on “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” released on January 29 seeks to prohibit federal funding for schools that are teaching gender ideology and critical race theory in the classroom.
The Dangers for Schools Amid the Trump Gender War
The Trump administration has recently begun redefining its view on what it sees as the appropriate options for gender in the education system. The newly released Trump executive order on “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” released on January 29 seeks to prohibit federal funding for schools that are teaching gender ideology and critical race theory in the classroom.
Trump on USAID: The End of American Soft Power
In the three weeks of Donald Trump’s second term as President of the United States, he has singlehandedly stunted America’s ability to project soft power. Taking actions like ending most foreign aid and withdrawing from treaties like the Paris Climate Agreement, Trump’s America First isolationist policies will be devastating to the United States’ credibility and strength, and to the rest of the human race’s ability to remain safe, healthy, educated, and alive.
Who’s Being Deported? Our Neighbors, Friends, and the Workforce (Immigration Policy Brief #139)
Given the start of the Trump era and ICE raids occurring across the country it is timely to remind people who immigrants are and more importantly who they are not. The initial figures released by ICE at the start of the new era of raids on immigrants reported that they had arrested 472 people on average in the first 3 days.
Ownership in Emerging Frontiers: Outer Space and Cyberspace
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
The Con Man’s Coffers: Trump’s Unfettered Leveraging of Government Power to Reap Personal Profits Soars Yet Again
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.
A Refugee’s Tale. Halina. | Real story. All names are changed.
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.
A Comparison of Biden and Trump’s January 20th Pardons
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.”
It’s Tempting To Do Nothing But
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.
The Harm That AI Can Cause
The Harm That AI Can Cause
Technology Policy Brief #123 | By: Inijah Quadri | January 02, 2025
Photo by Google DeepMind on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Issue Summary
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of social media platforms, transforming how information is curated, shared, and consumed. AI refers to advanced computational systems capable of tasks such as problem-solving, pattern recognition, and decision-making. Unlike traditional algorithms that follow predefined rules, AI algorithms learn and adapt through vast data analysis, allowing them to predict user behavior and make complex decisions. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram utilize AI to enhance user experiences, tailoring content to individual preferences and moderating online interactions. However, the integration of AI into social media also introduces significant societal challenges, including ethical concerns, privacy issues, and the amplification of harmful content.
The rise of AI-generated misinformation, including deepfakes and algorithmic biases, has raised alarms about its influence on public opinion and democratic integrity. Misinformation—particularly in the form of AI-enhanced disinformation—has already impacted critical political events, such as elections and social movements. Meanwhile, privacy concerns are growing as platforms harvest user data to feed AI algorithms, often without transparent consent mechanisms or adequate safeguards.
Global policymakers are increasingly recognizing the urgency of regulating these intertwined technologies. In the United States, efforts to regulate AI remain fragmented. While some states have implemented privacy laws, Congress has yet to pass comprehensive federal legislation addressing AI’s societal impacts, leaving a regulatory void. Efforts are underway to craft policies that balance innovation with public interest, but the rapid evolution of AI poses a challenge to existing regulatory frameworks, necessitating a proactive and collaborative approach.
Analysis
The intersection of social media and artificial intelligence amplifies existing concerns about misinformation and privacy while introducing new ethical dilemmas. High-profile figures like Elon Musk have voiced concerns about the unchecked growth of AI, calling for proactive regulation to mitigate potential risks. Others, such as President Donald Trump, have primarily emphasized its impact on jobs and economic growth.
AI algorithms, designed to optimize user engagement, inadvertently prioritize sensationalist or polarizing content, creating echo chambers that reinforce existing beliefs and biases. This occurs because AI systems are designed to optimize for metrics such as click-through rates and time spent on the platform, which often correlate with emotionally charged and polarizing material. These echo chambers intensify political polarization and erode trust in institutions, as seen in landmark events like U.S. Presidential Elections and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Privacy violations are another critical issue. Social media platforms collect and monetize vast amounts of personal data to refine AI-driven personalization tools. This has led to widespread criticism over opaque data practices, with regulatory responses like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) setting a benchmark for user privacy protections. However, global enforcement remains inconsistent.
The ethical challenges posed by AI are vast and complex. Deepfake technology, for example, has been weaponized to spread disinformation, manipulate public opinion, and create fraudulent content with devastating consequences for individuals and communities. Unlike traditional media tools, AI-driven systems utilize advanced neural networks to create hyper-realistic forgeries, which require computational power and machine learning capabilities not available in standard social media algorithms. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in AI systems—often described as “black box” algorithms—makes it difficult for users and regulators to understand or challenge the decisions these systems make.
Addressing these challenges requires a balanced approach that ensures accountability and transparency without stifling innovation. Policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society must work together to develop ethical standards and legal frameworks that protect users while fostering technological progress. Sure, whether the private sector can self-regulate responsibly is a contentious issue. Critics argue that profit-driven motives often conflict with the ethical safeguards needed to protect public interest. But by engaging with the resources below, stakeholders can collaborate to create a digital ecosystem that aligns technological innovation with ethical principles, ensuring a safer and more equitable future for all.
Engagement Resources: Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available:
- AI Now Institute (https://www.ainowinstitute.org/): Focused on the social implications of AI, with policy recommendations to guide ethical development and deployment.
- Center for Humane Technology (https://www.humanetech.com/): Advocates for technology that prioritizes human values and addresses the ethical challenges of AI and social media.
- Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) (https://www.eff.org/): Protects civil liberties in the digital sphere, emphasizing privacy and responsible AI use.
- Stanford Internet Observatory (https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io): Conducts research on social media’s role in information integrity and the abuse of emerging technologies.
- Deeptrace Labs (http://www.deeptracetech.com/): Offers tools and insights for detecting and mitigating deepfake content, a growing AI threat.
- Partnership on AI (https://www.partnershiponai.org/): Promotes responsible AI practices and fosters dialogue among global stakeholders.
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.
An Explanation As To Why Special Prosecutor Jack Smith Asked To Dismiss Trump’s Two Criminal Cases
An Explanation As To Why Special Prosecutor Jack Smith Asked To Dismiss Trump’s Two Criminal Cases
Civil Rights Policy Brief #233 | By: Rod Maggay | December 27, 2024
__________________________________
Policy Summary: On November 25, 2024 Special Prosecutor Jack Smith filed a motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to voluntarily dismiss the felony charges brought against former President Donald Trump. The four charges brought against the former President were initially filed in August 2023 and were conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. All charges related to Mr. Trump’s attempt to reverse his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. The case before Judge Tanya Chutkan never went to trial as the proceedings were delayed as the appeals process took its course. Hours after Special Prosecutor Smith’s filing to dismiss, Judge Chutkan granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Additionally on the same day, Special Prosecutor Smith also filed a motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Special Prosecutor had also brought charges against Mr. Trump in Florida regarding the former President’s handling of sensitive documents and classified documents after he left office in 2020. The case in Florida had been dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon after the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, which Judge Cannon had relied on to dismiss the charges. The Special Prosecutor appealed the dismissal to the Eleventh Circuit. However, the Special Prosecutor and his team relented and filed a motion to dismiss their appeal.
The motions for dismissal in the two cases have been filed because of Mr. Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election and his upcoming inauguration in January 2025 for a second term as President of the United States.
Policy Analysis: What needs to be made clear about the Jack Smith’s decision to file the motions to dismiss the charges in both cases against Mr. Trump is that they were not based on the merits of the case or the strength of the evidence against the former president.
When Donald Trump defeated Vice – President Kamala Harris in the 2020 election, it marked a stunning win that meant more than returning Mr. Trump to the White House for the next four years. His win presented a challenge as to whether or not the criminal cases against him could proceed to trial and whether he could be sentenced while serving his duties as President. According to U.S. Department of Justice policy from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), DOJ has determined that the Constitution prohibits the prosecution of a sitting President in order to not distract him from the incredible duties he has to manage. While this is a reasonable and logical course of action with regard to those who will serve in the position in the future, the situation was complicated because of the ongoing nature of the criminal cases prior to Election Day. The charges were brought when Mr. Trump was a private citizen although some of the acts alleged against Mr. Trump occurred while he was serving in his first term. Had Mr. Trump lost the election, the criminal cases would have for certain continued and a felony conviction, if one was imposed against Mr. Trump, could have, however unlikely, set up Mr. Trump for a custodial sentence. But Mr. Trump won the election and the Special Prosecutor had no choice but to have the felony charges and his appeal dismissed. With Mr. Trump set to be inaugurated in January, it becomes near impossible to proceed with the two cases in light of the Department of Justice’s policy with regard to prosecuting a president.
But, there is a silver lining even if it is a very small one. Per DOJ special counsel regulations, Jack Smith is required to file a final report with the Attorney General. Mr. Smith will likely put all of the evidence required and list all of the challenges that came with bringing the two cases against Mr. Trump. The Attorney General will then have the option to release the final report for everyone to see. Merrick Garland will likely chose to release the report as he has released all previous reports from Mr. Smith. However, if the final report is delayed and the decision is left to the new Attorney General appointed by Mr. Trump (likely nominee Pam Bondi) the new AG could decide to not release the final report. This could become key because the Special Prosecutor has repeatedly claimed that they had a very strong case against Mr. Trump. In one of the motions to dismiss that was filed, Mr. Smith said that the DOJ prohibition on prosecuting a president, “[did not] turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind.” And, he also mentioned that with regard to the concept of presidential immunity that helped delay the cases that the principal of immunity is temporary, implying that future charges may still be possible (the statute of limitations for the charges against Mr. Trump will expire before he leaves office making it unlikely he would be indicted for these charges again). And, the conviction in the hush money case in New York could still apply to the President after he leaves office. These are small consolations, if at all, but these are the cards the Special Prosecutor had left to play after Election Day. If the final report is released, the public can review all of the evidence and decide for themselves the gravity of Mr. Trump’s crimes and whether their decision to return him to the White House was in the best interests of the United States of America. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Department of Justice (DOJ) – the OLC memo “A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution” that formed the basis for not prosecuting a sitting president.
- Public Citizen – letter to Congress supported by 75 organizations asking Congress to overturn the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.
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!
Trump and Vance Fail to Offer Solutions to School Violence
Trump and Vance Fail to Offer Solutions to School Violence
Education Policy Brief #196 | By: Evan Wechman | December 28, 2024
Photo by Jose Alonso on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
The conversation about school shootings has recently been turned up a notch. After the deadly incident at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison Wisconsin two weeks ago, the nation has again turned its attention to this heated topic.
Since the deadly massacre at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, there have been many studies on the effects these incidents have on students at such schools.
Most have concluded that there are many long-lasting effects on young students who have been present at school shootings, even if they have escaped unscathed. The consequences are numerous and not always apparent immediately after a school shooting.
For example, there is overwhelming evidence that survivors at such schools often suffer from absenteeism, depression, post-traumatic stress, and even drug abuse. The data indicates that even students present at school shootings where there are no fatalities are less likely than other students to graduate high school, and on average, earn significantly less money in employment when they reach their 20’s.
School shootings have risen in frequency since the Columbine incident and are now at their highest levels in the last 25 years.
Professor Maya Rossin-Slater who has studied the impact on student survivors at schools in Parkland and Sandy Hook, as well as incidents at less high-profile schools where no deaths occurred, has found the consequences are harming both the mental health and education of these children.
“Attention in the media on gun violence in schools tends to focus on the mass, indiscriminate, horrific events like Sandy Hook and Parkland and the victims, their families and friends,” Rossin-Slater said. “But there are many more shootings that take place at American schools in which nobody dies. Our research shows that children exposed to these shootings nevertheless experience massive disruptions in their learning and later economic well-being.”
Policy Analysis:
Though the consequences of such trauma are prevalent, the GOP has not given up its connection with the NRA. Vice President-elect JD Vance has said on the campaign trail that enacting stricter gun laws will not stop school shootings. This is in line with what has been a major talking point for the NRA.
Vance has also said schools need tighter security such as stronger doors, better windows and more school resource officers. He has come under fire for his remarks about school shootings being a” fact of life.” Though his team has said Vance’s comments were taken out of context, it seems he is missing the forest for the trees.
Vance, while acknowledging the despair of the current state of school violence, is not offering any solutions to the future trauma our students will endure.
Rather, his language suggests that once the Trump administration takes office, the GOP and NRA will still be joined at the hip and the focus will solely be on heightened security.
However, this will not do anything to curb the detrimental effects on students’ mental health and their ability to learn. He doesn’t offer a plan to deal with these consequences, which is very dangerous.
On the other hand, the current administration deserves credit for trying to change the status quo. President Biden and Vice President Harris have both acknowledged a change in course is essential. They are pleading for stricter gun laws such as more stringent background checks and a ban on assault rifles.
Unfortunately, with the Trump regime set to take office in a few weeks, such common-sense laws seem unlikely to be considered.
Engagement Resources
- Sandy Hook Promise — Preventing Gun Violence: Provides education and empowers youth and adults to prevent violence in schools, homes, and communities.
- Alliance for Gun Responsibility – Preventing Gun Violence: The Alliance for Gun Responsibility works to save lives and eliminate the harms caused by gun violence in every community through advocacy, education, and partnerships.
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.
Who’s On Trump’s Cabinet- Part 3: Health and Education
Who’s On Trump’s Cabinet- Part 3: Health and Education
Elections & Politics #138 | By: Arvind Salem | Submitted December 25, 2024
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
Health and Education were not what swung this election, but issues of education and healthcare still hold much sway with moderates and formed a key part of Trump’s appeal. This Brief continues the process of exploring how to hold Cabinet appointments like these accountable, using the express motivations and goals that either Trump or they themselves have set (regardless of if those goals themselves are admirable or not, although most are).
Robert F Kennedy Jr.
RFK Jr. burst onto the political scene with his run as a third party candidate in the 2024 election. RFK Jr. strayed from his family political heritage, including his namesake, by abandoning the Democratic party and running as a third party candidate. Throughout the campaign, he began shifting further to the right, and eventually found himself endorsing Trump after dropping out.
However, more so than any of Trump’s other cabinet picks, RFK Jr. is extremely polarizing. He frequently contradicts established health authorities and peddles countless health conspiracy theories. While the public health establishment has been under fire ever since their handling of COVID-19, RFK Jr’s public health policy perspectives often find themselves outside the realm of orthodox political debate. He has spread numerous anti-vaccine theories (including that vaccines cause autism), advocated against fluoridating water (when the CDC recommends it), embraced hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment and raw milk (both of which contradict the guidance of the FDA). He also has no public health or medical degree. This isn’t an empty exercise in credentialism, but leads to natural skepticism on what his basis is for questioning established medical consensus, especially as he will be given the power to shape public policy on many of these issues.
Many of RFK Jr’s policy positions fall within the context of railing against the existing public health establishment for making American children unhealthier and increasing the incidence of chronic diseases like autism and diabetes. If RFK Jr. can lower these chronic disease numbers, despite the unorthodox tactics he may use to do so, he would be successful. However, if he did this by, for example, recommending less vaccinations, lower chronic disease numbers would have to be weighed against a potential increase in infectious diseases like the flu that would presumably result if less people take vaccines).
Mehmet Oz
One of RFK Jr’s most prominent staff members is set to be Dr. Mehmet Oz. Like RFK Jr, Oz is a politically prominent figure: he was the Republican nominee for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania and eventually lost to Senator John Fetterman. Unlike RFK Jr., Oz has more of a medical background: he was a celebrity physician with a daytime show (that was discontinued when he ran for Senate and advocated for medically dubious,pseudoscientific treatments).
The crux of Dr. Oz’s proposed policies, which he outlined in 2020 for his 2022 Senate race, is to replace Medicare with a private Medicare advantage plan, essentially privatizing Medicare. However, a coalition of Democratic Senators led by Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has concerns based on his financial ties to United Health Group. Oz invested over $550,000 in the company, which stands to gain massively if Oz’s privatized Medicare plan is implemented.
Much of Oz’ appeal comes from his promise to cut down the bureaucracy and ensure better health outcomes while being more efficient. Therefore, to measure his success, it is sufficient to examine his effect on the number of Americans covered by Medicare and the expenditures of the agency.
Linda McMahon
McMahon is a veteran of the first Trump administration- where she was head of the Small Business Administration. She is also a major donor to President Trump. Trump’s vision for the Department is largely to dismantle it and send education back to the states, and McMahon will largely be responsible for executing that vision. While there likely isn’t enough Congressional support to eliminate the Department of Education, McMahon will still have the power to, and likely will, institute programs like school vouchers and expanding access to homeschooling.
Once again, measuring success in education will be quite simple. Standardized tests like the NWEA within the United States can measure educational achievement relative to historical benchmarks. Additionally, there is already a test known as the “nation’s report card” (The National Assessment of Educational Progress), while the PISA test can compare U.S. students to their OECD counterparts. With a well-known litany of standardized tests in the United States, measurement isn’t a problem, and looking at these tests will determine if these educational policies improve student achievement, determining if McMahon was successful as an Education Secretary.
Conclusion:
All of these picks share Trump’s vision and are being given a broad mandate to execute it. Although these issues are muli-faceted and complex, the evaluative framework given in this series of briefs represents a sound, rational measurement of determining if these Cabinet officials succeed in accomplishing their goals. We all benefit from a healthier and more educated America, and I sincerely hope that these officials are able to make that vision into a reality.
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 Ethics Report on Matt Gaetz
The Ethics Report on Matt Gaetz
Elections & Politics #142 | By: Arvind Salem | December 27, 2024
Collage by Breann Bracewell for U.S. Resist News
__________________________________
Policy Summary
Just before Xmas the House Ethics Committee released a bombshell report on the conduct of former Representative Matt Gaetz. The report not only alleges numerous ethical violations, but state law violations as well. The release of the report was controversial as Gaetz had already left Congress, following the announcement of his selection as Trump’s Attorney General nominee (although he later withdrew his name from consideration). The committee also previously voted to keep its findings secrets, but later reversed course. The Committee is split between 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, but 2 Republicans voted for the report’s release.
The report alleges four main categories of ethical impropriety: commercial sex, illegal drug use, excessive gifts, and obstruction of Congress. For commercial sex, the report alleges that Gaetz paid over $90,000 to 12 different women in connection to sex or drug use. One of those women was allegedly a minor at the time of the encounter. Gaetz explicitly denied this in a written response to the committee. For illegal drug use, per the testimony of women involved with Gaetz, he allegedly used ecstasy and cocaine, while outside evidence pointed to potential use of cannabis: all three of which are banned for recreational state use by Florida law. Regarding excessive gifts, Gaetz allegedly accepted gifts past the $250 limit by accepting a private plane trip and hotel accommodations for a trip to the Bahamas. Gaetz denied this accusation but failed to produce any proof to the committee that he paid for these himself. Gaetzs’ behavioral pattern included providing scant documentation to the committee, not voluntarily interviewing with the committee, and also not responding to a subpoena he faced for testimony. The report concluded that these actions represented obstruction of Congress.
Policy Analysis
Matt Gaetz political future after his Congressional tenure is largely uncertain. In Republican circles, Gaetz has been thrown out as a name that could run for Florida governor in 2026 and Gaetz himself seems to be considering running for Senator Rubio’s likely vacant seat (as he becomes Secretary of State). The presence of the report definitely harms his candidacy on both fronts.
For his part, Gaetz criticized the report as a sham witch hunt and is using it as evidence of left-wing targeting to fuel donations. Gaetz especially criticized the release of his report after he left the House, the fact that he was not able to confront his accusers or witnesses, and he was given no opportunity to debate or rebut the contents of the report (although as the committee argued in their report, Gaetz was given ample opportunity to contribute but was less than eager). Gaetz is also attempting to maintain conservative credibility by avowing his previous self and promising that he’s changed away from his womanizing, drinking, and smoking past. He appears to still have the support of President Trump, who is still the kingmaker in the Republican party, meaning that Gaetz political future, especially in Republican politics, is still very much alive.
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center : The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy and argues against many practices today such as gerrymandering and mass incarceration. Readers who are concerned about the health and protection of our democracy in light of this may wish to support the Brennan Center and help it advance its proposed reforms.
- ActBlue : ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are against Matt Gaetz on this site and may wish to donate money to further that cause.
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 2024 U.S. Election and Its Impact on Domestic and Foreign Policy
The 2024 U.S. Election and Its Impact on Domestic and Foreign Policy
Elections & Politics #141 | By: Inijah Quadri | December 23, 2024
Photo by The Now Time on Unsplash
__________________________________
Policy Issue Summary
The 2024 U.S. presidential election has concluded with former President Donald Trump securing a non-consecutive second term, defeating incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris. This outcome signifies a substantial shift in both domestic and foreign policy directions for the United States.
Domestically, the Trump administration has outlined plans to implement sweeping changes, including mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, significant tax cuts, and the establishment of “freedom cities.” These initiatives aim to reshape the socio-economic landscape, emphasizing conservative values and economic deregulation.
On the international front, the administration intends to adopt an “America First” stance, reassessing trade agreements, imposing universal tariffs—particularly targeting Chinese imports—and reevaluating the United States’ involvement in international alliances such as NATO. These policies are poised to redefine America’s role on the global stage, with potential implications for international trade and geopolitical stability.
Analysis
The administration’s proposed mass deportation of millions of undocumented immigrants represents one of the most aggressive immigration policies in recent history. This initiative is expected to have profound effects on communities, labor markets, and the economy. Critics argue that such measures could lead to labor shortages in key industries and humanitarian concerns, while supporters believe it will uphold the rule of law and national security.
In economic policy, the planned tax cuts and deregulation are designed to stimulate economic growth and enhance competitiveness. However, these measures may also result in decreased federal revenue and increased income inequality. The proposal to establish “freedom cities” reflects an ambition to create hubs of innovation and economic activity, though details on implementation and funding remain sparse.
Additionally, the administration’s focus on cultural issues, such as the elimination of wokeness in universities, indicates a commitment to countering progressive ideologies in education and promoting conservative values. This move is likely to intensify debates over academic freedom and ideological diversity in higher education.
Internationally, the administration’s intent to impose universal tariffs, especially on Chinese imports, signals a shift towards protectionist trade policies. While aimed at protecting domestic industries, such measures could provoke trade wars, leading to increased consumer prices and strained international relations.
The reevaluation of the United States’ role in NATO and the proposed push for a settlement in Ukraine favorable to Russia suggest a significant realignment of foreign policy priorities. These actions may undermine traditional alliances and alter the balance of power in regions like Eastern Europe, raising concerns among allies about America’s commitment to collective security.
Furthermore, the administration’s approach to international conflicts and defense strategies, including the potential use of military force to manage domestic protests, reflects a more assertive and unilateral stance. This posture may lead to increased domestic and global tensions, and challenges to international norms.
To ensure stability and equity in the administration’s approach, a balanced strategy is recommended across key areas. On immigration, pairing enhanced border security with pathways to legal status for contributing residents could preserve labor markets and uphold humanitarian values. Economic reforms should prioritize inclusive growth through tax credits for low-income groups, while international policies could emphasize multilateral diplomacy and cooperation to maintain alliances and global credibility. A transparent and consultative approach to implementing domestic and foreign strategies will also ensure broad-based support and long-term success.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on the resource URL to visit links where available
- Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org): Provides expert insights and analysis on how U.S. elections influence global diplomacy and international policies.
- Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu): Offers in-depth research on the implications of U.S. domestic and foreign policies post-election.
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (www.csis.org): Engages in strategic discussions and provides analyses of U.S. military commitments and geopolitical strategies following the election.
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 End of Birthright Citizenship? A Question of Legal Rights and National Identity
The End of Birthright Citizenship? A Question of Legal Rights and National Identity
Immigration #138 | By: Morgan Davidson | December 19, 2024
US RESIST NEWS has asked Morgan Davidson, one of our outstanding Reporters, to chronicle and analyze Trump administration efforts to deport 11,000 Immigrants.
Photo by Courtney Hedger on Unsplash
__________________________________
Summary
Birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of America’s identity as a nation of immigrants, has come under scrutiny with President Trump signaling his intention to end it following electoral victories and Republican control of Congress.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, declares:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This provision unequivocally grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ citizenship. It ensures citizenship is not tied to lineage, race, or political allegiance—principles central to America’s democratic values.
This article explores the history and importance of the Fourteenth Amendment, the practicalities of its birthright citizenship provision, the motivations behind Trump’s push to amend it, and the legal and political hurdles such a move would entail. While the Trump administration may hesitate to pursue a constitutional amendment, given the high thresholds and obstacles involved, reversing this constitutional right would have profound and long-lasting impacts on the social and legal fabric of the United States.
Analysis
The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 to address the injustices of slavery, ensuring that children born to formerly enslaved individuals would be recognized as full citizens. This amendment sought to dismantle the racial and social hierarchies of the time by guaranteeing that citizenship could not be denied based on race or ancestry. This was especially vital in the Reconstruction-era South, where laws were designed to strip Black Americans of their rights.
Birthright citizenship remains vital today, ensuring that all individuals born on U.S. soil have access to rights such as education, healthcare, and civic participation. It prevents the creation of a stateless underclass, where children of non-citizen parents could be left without legal identity, vulnerable to exploitation. The policy also strengthens diplomatic relations. Foreign diplomats, military personnel, and international workers posted in the U.S. benefit from birthright citizenship as it allows their children to have American citizenship, fostering positive ties between countries. Many other nations, including Canada, the UK, France, and Brazil, also grant citizenship to children born on their soil, reflecting the global recognition of birthright citizenship’s importance.
If birthright citizenship were revoked, defining citizenship would require alternate criteria such as lineage, residency, or legal status of parents. Such systems risk creating legal ambiguities and would likely exclude significant groups, deepening inequalities and undermining principles of inclusivity central to American identity. Historical precedents, like apartheid South Africa or Germany under the Nuremberg Laws, demonstrate the dangers of restrictive citizenship policies.
Motivations Behind Trump’s Push
The push to amend or eliminate birthright citizenship is rooted in a mix of political, ideological, and cultural motivations. At its core, it reflects a growing hostility toward immigrants, driven by fears about national security and economic stability. This sentiment aligns with nationalist ideologies that prioritize a narrowly defined concept of American identity, often excluding those who do not fit a particular racial, ethnic, or cultural mold.
For Trump and his allies, challenging birthright citizenship is a way to redefine what it means to be American—shifting the narrative from inclusivity to one that is more exclusive, based on heritage and ethnicity. This approach resonates with certain segments of the electorate who feel threatened by demographic changes and the loss of traditional power structures.
Revoking or limiting birthright citizenship would create a permanent underclass of individuals born in the U.S. but denied citizenship. This would institutionalize inequality, forcing millions into legal limbo. History shows that stripping marginalized groups of citizenship often leads to systemic oppression. For example, in Nazi Germany, the Nuremberg Laws revoked citizenship from Jews, paving the way for persecution. Similarly, apartheid-era South Africa denied full citizenship rights to Black South Africans.
Legal and Political Hurdles
The attempt to revoke birthright citizenship would face significant constitutional, legislative, and political hurdles. To alter the Fourteenth Amendment, a constitutional amendment would likely be necessary. Proponents argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants, but this conflicts with the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which upheld birthright citizenship for children of non-citizen parents.
Any law restricting birthright citizenship would likely violate the Fourteenth Amendment and face immediate legal challenges. These challenges would likely lead to a lengthy court battle, possibly requiring Supreme Court intervention. Changing citizenship laws through legislation would also face significant political opposition, making it difficult to pass such laws in a deeply divided Congress.
While some have proposed executive orders to end birthright citizenship, legal experts widely agree that this would exceed presidential authority. Any such action would almost certainly be blocked by the courts, as it would conflict with the constitutional provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A Path Forward
Rather than dismantling birthright citizenship, the U.S. should focus on addressing the root causes of immigration challenges. This can be achieved through comprehensive immigration reform that balances national security with compassion, ensuring fair and efficient processes for asylum seekers and immigrants. Establishing programs that provide clear and accessible pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. can create a more inclusive system, allowing individuals to contribute fully to society. Additionally, the U.S. should support social and economic policies aimed at reducing migration pressures in countries of origin, such as investments in education, healthcare, and economic development. By addressing these underlying factors, the U.S. can reduce the need for restrictive measures like ending birthright citizenship, fostering a more humane and sustainable immigration system that benefits both immigrants and the nation as a whole.
Engagement Resources
- ACLU: Advocacy for immigrant rights and challenges to unconstitutional policies.
https://www.aclu.org - American Immigration Council: Research on the benefits of birthright citizenship and the role of immigrants in the U.S. economy.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org - Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR): Legal analysis of birthright citizenship and challenges to its revocation.
https://ccrjustice.org
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.
Transgender Students Need Protection from Trump’s Assault on Title IX
Transgender Students Need Protection from Trump’s Assault on Title IX
Education Policy Brief #196 | By: Evan Wechman | December 21, 2024
Photo by Katie Rainbow 🏳️🌈
__________________________________
Policy Summary:
With President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration just weeks away, many Democrats are anxious about how Trump will treat transgender students. Back in April, President Biden enacted a new provision to the 1972 Title IX Law, strengthening protections for LGBTQ students and expanding rights for students who may identify with a different gender than the one assigned at birth.
These regulations infuriated the Republican Party, especially devout followers of Trump. The President-elect has vowed repeatedly to roll back any protections for transgender students. In a radio interview in early May he said “We’re gonna end it on Day 1.” He added “It will be terminated.”
Title IX was enacted in 1972 and is a federal civil rights law that states ““No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
President Biden has since expanded those protections for not only sex, but gender identity as well. Many Republicans however have said Congress didn’t intend for such protections when Title IX was initially passed.
Even near the end of the campaign, Trump ramped up his attacks on transgender issues. Both Trump and his allies who were running for election openly criticized Vice President Kamala Harris for her statements supporting transgender rights.
At the recent rally at Madison Square Garden shortly before election day, Trump said “We will get … transgender insanity the hell out of our schools, and we will keep men out of women’s sports.”
Policy Analysis:
The issue of transgender athletes is largely on hold right now and may not be decided by the courts for some time. However, the Trump team’s views on pulling back protections for transgender students seems to have hit a chord with his voters and many average Americans.
This is very disconcerting considering Title IX was an attempt at equality for all students. Unfortunately, if Trump has his way, transgender students will be at a severe disadvantage and remain vulnerable to verbal and physical assaults.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Biden administration’s efforts to create a more inclusive education system. The rhetoric by Trump and his followers have put many transgender students at further risk for harm.
Transgender youth since the election have found themselves calling suicide and crisis hotlines out of fear of how their lives will be affected now that Trump will be taking power.
Many such students fear at the very least Trump will exclude them from their choice on their use of pronouns, bathrooms, and locker rooms. All of this seems silly and more of a wedge issue than anything else, since there is little evidence that education is significantly hampered by such student choices.
However, at the most dangerous, America can see an uptick in violence against transgender students and an increase in suicide rates among this population.
For example, the number of crises calls pleading for help is disturbing. For the week after election day, the Rainbow Youth Project, an organization that assists LGBTQ+ students received almost double the number of calls to its crisis hotline that it receives in a typical month.
One can only imagine the number of calls such hotlines will receive if such protections are eliminated. The aim of Title IX was to create a system of equality and inclusivity for all students and not just the ones Trump seems to favor. There is absolutely no reason to put young lives in jeopardy because they may see their gender differently that how President Trump sees things.
This country has enough on its plate without being divided further while putting students’ lives at risk.
Engagement Resources
- National Sexual Violence Resource Center: Provides research & tools to advocates working on the frontlines to end sexual harassment, assault, and abuse with the understanding that ending sexual violence also means ending racism, sexism, and all forms of oppression.
- U.S. Department of Education: Promotes student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access for students of all ages.
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 Disastrous Impact of Disinformation on the Election
The Disastrous Impact of Disinformation on the Election
Technology Policy Brief #122 | By: Mindy Spatt | December 21, 2024
Photo by Element5 Digital
__________________________________
SUMMARY
Just how big was the impact of disinformation on the election of Donald Trump?
Leading up to the election, commentators and experts issued numerous warnings about disinformation, and how easily it could be spread through social media. Post-election analysis shows those concerns were well founded; not only did disinformation impact voters, it substantially swayed the results.
ANALYSIS
Disinformation isn’t a new concern, but concerns about it were amplified in the months before the presidential election. Between artificial intelligence, social media platforms eliminating guardrails, and a Trump-fueled atmosphere where lies are normal and often unchallenged, the extent to which disinformation had a decisive impact on the election is unprecedented.
In October, a joint report by the FBI and CISI (the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) warned that “Generative AI-enabled tools have lowered the barrier for foreign malicious actors to conduct more sophisticated influence campaigns” including “inauthentic news articles, … synthetic pictures and deepfakes” being disseminated “at greater speed and scale across numerous US- and foreign-based platforms.”
Trump is, of course, no stranger to disinformation; during some rallies, his entire speeches were a string of outlandish lies. Spreading those was a cornerstone of his campaign strategy, aided by Elon Musk’s X, and Musk himself, often seen gloating and giggling at Trump’s side.
Immigration is a perfect example. Trump repeatedly described hordes of undesirable migrants besieging the United States, sucking up public benefits and good jobs and roaming the streets brazenly committing violent crimes.
The actual statistics on border security don’t support these claims, especially the most alarming ones about violent criminals, but that didn’t stop Trump from sticking Harris with responsibility for the pretend problem. Her reasoned response that Trump had killed immigration reform in Congress didn’t stop him. Nor did the fact that apprehension and release numbers were similar during the Biden and Trump administrations.
And there was the famous fabrication that Haitian immigrants were eating dogs and cats, a bizarre story that was debunked on national TV immediately after Trump said it. Still, it went viral, and its repercussions kept it in front and center in the media for weeks.
Another deceptive video featured a Haitian man who claimed he had voted in two counties in Georgia. That video was traced to Russia, and the featured man wasn’t actually Haitian. Trumps’ most successful ad played on fears of immigrants and fears of transgender people, claiming Vice President Harris was giving gender reassignment surgeries to violent “illegal” immigrants in prisons.
Trump was also able to exploit a false narrative on the country’s economic state as well; polling on views about the country’s financial situation in 2024 found that despite a robust economy by most indicators people reported extremely negative views of it. The research company Ipsos reported that Harris polled higher among people who understood that inflation had declined over the past year; Trump did better among the people who believed the opposite. .
Ipsos also found that media source “affects people’s understandings of what’s true or not. Notably, Americans who primarily get their news from Fox News and conservative media and social media/other are more likely to answer questions about inflation and crime incorrectly than Americans writ large. “
It is easy to say why commentators including Darrell West of the Brookings Institute concluded that “false claims affected how people saw the candidates, their views about issues such as the economy, immigration, and crime.” Now we all have to live with the disastrous results.
Engagement Resources
- How Disinformation Defined the 2024 Election Narrative, Darrell West, Nov. 7, 2004,
- Misinformation Decided the US Election, J. Bradford Delong, Nov 11, 2024,
- Disinformation From Adversaries and Americans Swamped 2024 Election, Rebecca Beitsch Nov. 8, 2024,
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 New Era of Corruption: Financial Conflicts of Interests for President-Elect Donald Trump and his Incoming Administration
A New Era of Corruption: Financial Conflicts of Interests for President-Elect Donald Trump and his Incoming Administration
Elections & Politics #140 | By: Nicholas Gordon | December 12, 2024
Photo by Carlos Herrero
__________________________________
Summary
For a President-elect who ran a campaign on claims to support the working-class and with renewed vows to ‘drain the swamp’ of D.C. government elites, Donald Trump has appointed a problematic number of billionaires with corporate conflicts of interest to his incoming cabinet. This is not new territory for Trump: the cabinet from his first presidency was the richest cabinet in U.S. history and had an onslaught of ethics violations, including the misuse of taxpayer funds, inaccurate financial reporting, and quid pro quo political favors, with numerous cabinet officials embroiled in ethics scandals during Trump’s four years in office. By appointing a cadre of crony billionaires to prominent government positions, Trump is now making a mockery of his pledge to support blue-collar Americans. Here’s a brief breakdown of some of Trump’s uber-wealthy cabinet picks and their conflicts of interest.
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and a diehard Trump enabler whom Trump recently appointed to his newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) which aims to “cut government spending”, currently receives billion-dollar government contracts and subsidies for his satellite- and vehicle businesses. Musk’s new government position may give him unlimited power to shape regulations, contracts, and budgets in favor of his personal business interests, and to the detriment of his competitors. As Musk’s relations with Trump evolve and his role within the administration takes shape, this column will analyze the effects of his conflicts of interest.
Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire businessman and former presidential candidate, was appointed by Trump to co-chair DOGE. As the founder of a pharmaceutical company and an investment firm, Ramaswamy could have conflicts of interest in his DOGE role to reduce federal regulations. As outside advisors not subject to senate confirmation hearings, Musk and Ramaswamy will not be required to abide by conflict of interest laws, nor to disclose their financial interests.
David Sacks, a billionaire venture capitalist and Silicon Valley insider who invested in his pal Musk’s space technology company SpaceX, will serve as the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar,” another new position created by Trump that will not require Senate confirmation. Sacks has significant investments and connections in both the AI and Crypto worlds.
Linda McMahon, billionaire co-founder of World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) along with her husband Vince McMahon, is Trump’s nomination for Education Secretary. A huge donor to the Trump campaign, Linda McMahon has ties to a far-right think tank that promotes cutting federal education funding, and expanding school privatization, which could lead to more for-profit schools and less equal opportunity for children. A lawsuit filed on behalf of five men against Linda McMahon alleging that McMahon and her husband ignored acts of child sexual abuse during their tenure heading the WWE was recently paused by a federal judge in Marlyand while the court deliberates state law for such cases.
Howard Lutnick, Trump’s billionaire choice for Commerce Secretary, is a pro-cryptocurrency investment banker with reported financial ties to China. Lutnick’s significant gains from China appear to be in direct violation of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits federal officeholders from receiving payments of any kind from a foreign state or its representatives.
Additional ultra-rich Trump picks and nominees with potential conflicts of interest include: Kash Patel, for FBI Director, who runs a supposed ‘non-profit’ with links to MAGA-branded merchandising; Doug Burgum, proposed Secretary of the Department of the Interior, who has close connections with magnates from the oil and gas industries; Scott Bessent, for Treasury Secretary, who has made enormous profits as a Wall Street hedge fund capitalist; Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, for Surgeon General, hawks her own line of vitamins, including selling them on the Trump-owned social media platform Truth Social; and Paul Atkins, the CEO of a financial services consultancy who Trump nominated for head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is an advocate for the crypto industry, favoring de-regulation.
As the chief shareholder of Trump Media and Technology Company (DJT), Trump himself stands to gain enormous financial profit from his presidency, as he leverages the value of the shares in his company to acquire businesses and invest in crypto-currency markets, members of which have also been major donors and supporters of Trump. And just as Trump violated the Emoluments Clause in his first presidency by capitalizing on foreign government officials staying at his hotels and clubs and using his golf clubs, he will continue to do so in his second presidency, refusing to divest and using his Executive Office to rake in millions of dollars for his family business.
The President-elect and his federal officeholders have a responsibility to serve the best interests of the American people while avoiding conflicts of interest and ethics violations, and exercising transparency in their government work and business dealings. But as Trump made clear in his first presidential term, he will not hold himself or his wealthy allies accountable. Moreover, as the conservative-led Supreme Court has granted Trump presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, we could be heading into an era of unprecedented U.S. government corruption. US RESIST NEWS will be keeping a close watch on how the conflicts of interest of the President-elect and his government officials play out.
Engagement Resources:
- Campaign Legal Center: Advancing Democracy Through Law: Works to defend democracy and the rule of law, protect the Constitution, and fight for Americans’ rights.
- Public Citizen: Champions citizens’ interest, defends democracy, resists corporate power, and “fights to ensure that the government works for the people.”
- Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington: CREW: Provides in-depth legal analysis and investigations of government officials who “sacrifice the common good to special interests and personal gain.”
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.