JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
The Sidelined War: Myanmar’s Fight for Freedom
The Sidelined War: Myanmar’s Fight for Freedom Foreign Policy Brief #171 | By: Damian DeSola | December 8, 2024 Photo by Pyae Sone Htun on Unsplash __________________________________ On February 1, 2021, Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw, forcefully overthrew the...
The Dangerous Future of the Department of Education
The Dangerous Future of the Department of Education Education Policy Brief #95 | By: Evan Wechman | December 08, 2024 Photo by Pixabay __________________________________ Policy Summary: With President-elect Donald Trump preparing to make radical changes from United...
What does the Economic Nobel Laureate Letter mean for the Election?
What does the Economic Nobel Laureate Letter mean for the Election?
Elections & Politics #138 | By: Arvind Salem | November 3, 2024
Featured Photo: npr.org
__________________________________
As the election approaches, with the economy being one of, if not, the most important issues, twenty three Nobel Laureate economists signed an open letter endorsing Kamala Harris for President. The letter, signed by over half the living Nobel economic laureates, was spearheaded by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor, who won the prize in 2001. This is the second letter that Stiglitz coordinated this election: he led an effort in June to support President Biden, with that letter being signed by fifteen Nobel Laureate economists.
For Harris, the economy is a key vulnerability that might give her more credibility in the swing states and for the voters that ultimately decide the election. This includes voters in states like Michigan, where economic tensions burst into a major strike from the United Auto Workers (UAW) against the Big Three car companies last year, and in Pennsylvania, where Harris doesn’t seem to enjoy the same robust support among blue-collar workers in the state that Biden did. Trump’s closing arguments accentuate the increasing support his economic agenda has among voters in urban areas. Even strategically, the choice of J.D. Vance was an attempt from Trump to appeal to disaffected white voters in Appalachia, harnessing their dissatisfaction with the economy.
Analysis:
Of course, Donald Trump isn’t going to change his economic policy based on these opinions. He dismissed the letter in June as from “worthless out of touch” economists. Even in the vice-presidential debate, JD Vance criticized the advice of academic economists on issues such as free trade, and Tim Walz generally agreed with that sentiment (although he was considerably less harsh).
However, the key takeaway is that academic consensus in economics is behind Harris despite overall pessimism about the economy, and despite the economy being a perceived strength for Trump. In particular, these economists reinforced their preference for free trade, as they criticized Trump’s proposed tariffs, as well as arguing against President Trump’s regressive tax cuts. They concluded that both would “lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality”. Trump’s tariff proposal specifically has drawn criticism from multiple angles, with the Tax Foundation noting that the proposed tariffs and the likely retaliation from trading partners would lower the U.S. long-run GDP by 1.7%. Finally, these economists grounded their larger argument on the importance of the rule of law, as well as economic and political certainty, for economic success, noting that Trump represents a much larger threat to both of those than Harris does.
In relation to the election, this endorsement makes it clear that Harris’s vulnerability on the economy is more a messaging problem rather than a policy one. Her policies are clearly good for the American economy and in the closing stretch of the election she needs to stress the real, proven appeals of her policies in relation to Trump’s phantom appeal.
Engagement Resources:
- The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a non-partisan, non profit organization that aims to educate the public on fiscal policy issues and promote fiscal responsibility. Readers interested in the issues discussed in this article may be interested in subscribing or donating to this organization.
- The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a nonpartisan research and policy institute that seeks to build a nation where everyone has the resources they need to thrive. It does this through research and advocacy on a variety of fiscal policy issues on both the federal and state level. Readers interested in fiscal policy may wish to donate or otherwise contribute to this organization.
- The Economic Policy Institute is a nonpartisan, non-profit think tank that aims to highlight the needs of low- and middle-income workers in economic policy discussions. To accomplish this goal they conduct research on working America, propose public policy solutions to the problems plaguing working America, and assess government policies’ on low and middle-income workers. Readers interested in broader economic issues may be interested in donating to this organization.
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.
Elon Musk’s Worrying Involvement in the 2024 Election
Elon Musk’s Worrying Involvement in the 2024 Election
Elections & Politics #137 | By: Arvind Salem | November 3, 2024
Featured Photo: npr.org
__________________________________
Ahead of the 2024 election, Elon Musk has emerged as one of Trump’s key allies, endorsing Trump and repeatedly praising him, with Trump returning in kind. Politically, Musk occupies a unique niche. He is simultaneously one of the richest men on earth, a media mogul, and a lightning rod of controversy: a profile that mirrors President Trump himself. Given their similarities, it is unsurprising that Trump and Musk should find themselves as natural allies; however, the degree of involvement that Musk is displaying in the 2024 election goes beyond the typical businessman endorsement.
Musk didn’t always favor President Trump. Prior to his endorsement of him this election cycle, he supported Ron Desantis in the primary, criticized Trump’s reaction to the 2020 election, and didn’t think he would make a good president after the 2016 election cycle. However, behind-the-scenes ideological shifts, his anti-Biden viewpoints, and the attempted assaination attempt on President Trump in Butler, convinced Elon to endorse Trump, and both parties seemed to have largely abandoned their former animosity towards each other.
Musk is hardly the first businessman to make a presidential endorsement or get involved in political causes. However, he is the first who has gotten involved in the actual operation of a campaign. Traditionally, billionaires relegate their involvement to an endorsement and a check, but Musk’s current conduct is more in the realm of a political operative than an endorsing businessman. In contrast to fellow business mogul Jeff Bezos, who stopped the Washington Post from endorsing a candidate, Musk has not been shy of using his media control to help President Trump’s election chances, frequently posting supportive messages on his X account with more than 200 million followers, while his position as owner means that he will always have that platform no matter what he says. However, this is still not the extent of his involvement. He has founded America PAC, an organization that the Trump campaign is relying on for grassroots outreach to voters in key swing states, encouraging up to 1 million voters to support President Trump and has already spent over 80 million dollars. Trying to build up this political operation in such a short time is unprecedented, and several Republican operatives expressed concerns that the data from America PAC and its subcontracted firms are less than reliable.
Analysis:
Of course, Elon Musk isn’t expending all of this effort for no reward: President Trump has made it clear that Elon will get a government position at the very least. President Trump has said that he would appoint Elon as the Secretary of Cost-Cutting, although the exact rank of that position is yet to be determined (appointing Elon to cabinet would be complicated given his extensive business holdings and commitments). Trump and Elon are also aligned on the goal of going to Mars as soon as possible, with Trump significantly prioritizing U.S. space superiority, through the creation of the Space Force in his first term and Musk focusing on getting to Mars through Space X.
However, appointing political supporters to government positions isn’t unprecedented, and especially given these obvious areas of political alignment, entertaining these conversations isn’t crazy. If the goal is cost-cutting, appointing one of the most successful business leaders in America is hardly an illogical choice. The problem with this Trump-Musk relationship is that both of Elon’s companies (SpaceX and Tesla) are supported by the government, especially through government contracts, which the President has discretion over. An analysis by the New York Times found that SpaceX and Tesla have received over $15 billion in government contracts over the last decade, which is many multiples of what Elon is contributing to President Trump’s election efforts. Additionally, Tesla’s electric cars have benefitted from policies designed to incentivize electric cars to reduce carbon emissions, with Tesla receiving $9 billion in federal subsidies since 2018. Given the interaction Elon Musk has not only with the government as client, but also agencies under executive control such as the National Labor Relations Board and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which have both investigated Musk’s companies, favor with President Trump would be extremely lucrative for him; especially if he receives a position where he is in charge of evaluating the very regulators/ regulations that are currently causing him trouble.
Engagement Resources:
- Harris for President Readers who want to stop this alliance from gaining power may wish to support the Harris campaign through this website.
- The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School is an organization that promotes reforms to American democracy. Readers worried about the health of democracy in light of these developments may wish to visit this website for more information.
- ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are opposed to President Trump on this website and can support races at all levels across the country.
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 Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #166 | By: Abran C | November 01, 2024
Featured Photo: Collage by Breann Bracewell for U.S. Resist News, 2024
__________________________________

Officials, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, attend a plenary session in the outreach/BRICS Plus format at the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, Oct. 24, 2024 AFP/Getty Image
BRICS Summit
Last week a three-day BRICS (stands for Brazil Russia, India, China, South Africa) summit was held in the southwestern Russian city of Kazan. It was the first meeting of the group of major emerging economies Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa since it expanded earlier this year to include Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The group now consists of 10 member states, however 20 heads of state, including the UN secretary general Antonio Guterres made their way to Russia to attend the summit. The favorable attendance of multiple non-member heads of state looking to join the bloc presented a win to Vladimir Putin. The Russian president has been trying to court more and more non-Western allies due to sanctions and cutting of ties following the invasion of Ukraine. Though not formally on the summit’s agenda, the war came up repeatedly by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who called for “a just peace” in Ukraine in line with international law and General Assembly resolutions.
During the summit Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, voiced their commitment to jointly introduce an alternative international payment system that would not be dependent on the US dollar. Something that Russia desperately needs and certainly benefits from having other countries join in. Other than the five members who joined earlier this year, more countries have expressed their interest in joining the group. Turkey, Azerbaijan and Malaysia have formally applied to become members. If Turkey were to join it would become the first NATO member state to join the BRICS bloc, a likely stress point for NATO and EU member states. The BRICS member states make up 3.27 billion people, or 41.13 % of the world’s population. The BRICS countries account for 35% of global GDP, while the G7 only represents 30%. As the group continues to expand its role and influence in global affairs will grow as well.

Soldiers march in a parade for the 70th anniversary of North Korea’s founding day in Pyongyang, North Korea, on Sept. 9, 2018.
North Korean Troops in Russia
North Korea has sent about 10,000 troops to Russia to train and likely fight inside Ukraine in the coming weeks, according to NATO and Pentagon officials. Some of the North Korean soldiers were believed to be already heading for the Kursk border region, where Russia has been struggling to push back a Ukrainian incursion. Adding North Korean soldiers to the war will likely stoke geopolitical tensions on the Korean Peninsula and the wider Indo-Pacific region, including Japan and Australia. South Korea’s president, Yoon Suk Yeol , has already vowed to respond to North Korea’s deployment of troops to Russia, including by potentially supplying offensive weapons to Ukraine.
Israel strikes Iran continuing tit-for-tat
Last week, Israel carried out waves of airstrikes in and around Iran’s capital, Tehran. These strikes mark a new round in the ongoing tit-for-tat exchanges of “retaliatory” responses that Israel and Iran have been launching at each other for months now. The attacks primarily targeted military sites in and around the capital. This direct exchange of fire began in April, when Iran launched its first-ever direct attack on Israel—using about 300 missiles and drones—in response to an Israeli airstrike on an Iranian consulate in Syria. In July, Israel killed a top Hezbollah commander in an airstrike in Beirut and Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in an explosion in Tehran. In late September, Israel assassinated Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Brig-Gen Nilforoushan, a high-ranking Iranian official, in Beirut. Following these assassinations, on October 1, Iran again launched ballistic missiles at Israel, stating the action was in retaliation for the assassination of Haniyeh in its capital and retribution for Nasrallah, and Nilforoushan.
Now, in late October, we are witnessing another round of violence, with Israel responding to Iran’s response, in a seemingly endless cycle of “limited-strategic-retaliatory responses”. US officials have said that “this round of strikes should be the end of the direct exchange of fire between Israel and Iran” and an end to the escalating situation. The Iranian government has downplayed the impact of the attacks, requested a Security Council meeting on the matter and stated that Iran was obligated to defend itself and would respond.

A woman buys soup from a street vendor during a power outage in Havana, Monday Oct.21, 2024 (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa)
Blackouts in Cuba
The Cuban government has started to restore power to the millions of residents left in the dark during a nationwide power outage last week. The country’s main power grid collapsed, leaving the entire country without electricity.The crisis was compounded by the passage of hurricane Oscar over the island, which flooded rivers, streets and tore down power lines across eastern Cuba, killing at least seven people. The government acknowledged the critical state of its system, blaming the 62-year old-trade embargo imposed by the United States as the reason for the blackouts. Cuba’s government has relied on the aid of its allies for its necessities – namely Russia and Venezuela. But those countries, now facing their own difficulties, have cut supplies to the island heavily. Since restoring the grid the island has returned to the status quo, which still entails regular power cuts of up to 20 hours a day. The crisis has left a deep uncertainty about the island’s future and ability to provide for itself.

José Mujica, a former president of Uruguay, voting at a polling station in Montevideo, the country’s capital, during primary elections in June. Credit… Eitan Abramovich/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Elections in South America
Two South American countries, Chile and Uruguay, are currently holding nationwide elections. A third country, Bolivia, is experiencing political instability in anticipation of elections next year. In Chile, the moderate right made gains in regional elections. While President Gabriel Boric’s leftist coalition avoided a crushing defeat, the outcome suggests to some a potential return to right-wing politics ahead of the 2025 presidential election. Yet the extreme right remains on the sidelines, Chile’s far-right Republicans did make some gains at the municipal level, but fell short of forecasted expectations.
Uruguay cast ballots last week in a presidential election, where a center-left rural mayor pulled ahead of the conservative incumbent candidate, pushing the race into a second round of voting. In a country of 3.5 million, over 2.7 million eligible voters cast their ballots, resulting in a reported turnout of more than 88% by the time the polls closed. In Uruguay, voting in presidential and congressional contests is compulsory. While other states in the region have faced more divisive politics and distrust of government, Uruguay’s electorate remains largely content with the country’s politics and the steady growth of the economy.
In Bolivia, former president Evo Morales survived an assassination attempt last week after unidentified men opened fire on his car. The attack has intensified tensions in the ongoing power struggle between the ex-president and his ally-turned-rival, current President Luis Arce. This incident coincides with a bitter split at the highest levels of the ruling Movement Toward Socialism party and has raised fears of continued conflict as the 2025 presidential election approaches.
For more updates, articles, in-depth analysis and weekly reviews on Global News, click here.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
A Tale of Two Januarys | Why this former Republican is voting for Kamala Harris
A Tale of Two Januarys | Why this former Republican is voting for Kamala Harris
Elections & Politics #136 | By: Rudolph Lurz | October 31, 2024
Featured Photo: abcnews.go.com
__________________________________
I spent most of my adult life in the Republican Party. I enthusiastically supported John McCain in 2000 and 2008. I voted even more enthusiastically for Mitt Romney in 2012. My ideology is grounded in fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, strong national defense, and federalism.
I worked as a legislative intern for a GOP state senator to learn about policy formation. I was more than a right-leaning voter. I was a true believer in the party of Lincoln, Teddy, and Reagan. Like many Republicans, I saw an opportunity in the primary season of 2015-2016. I could not wait to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect the next Republican President of the United States.
Then Donald Trump came down his golden escalator.
I recognized that Trump was the demagogue that the Founders feared. I wrote that the only way for Republicans to win was for Trump to lose. I noted that his anti-immigrant fear mongering was reminiscent of the 19th Century No-Nothing Party and had dark roots reaching down to the worst parts of human nature.
I posted way too often on Twitter. I advocated for Governor Kasich. I pleaded with my friends to stop Trump’s path to the nomination.
Then he won it. Then I woke up to the news that Pennsylvania had been called and America had just elected Donald Trump.
I stayed a Republican for a little while longer. Hoping that members of my party would stand up to him. Instead, they all bent the knee.
I became a blue dog Democrat after that. There was space for a McCain/Romney Republican in the Democratic Party. I wrote passionately in 2020 to endorse Joe Biden. I celebrated with my liberal colleagues even though I disagreed with 90% of Biden’s platform.
The Republic was more important than tax cuts. Trump had to be defeated.
I thought it was over. Then January 6th happened. And somehow the cowardly GOP decided to forget about that, too. Trump is back.
Once again, the only choice is the Democrat standing in his way. That person is Kamala Harris. She must become the 47th President of the United States.
Analysis
There is a myriad of reasons to vote for Kamala Harris. I disagree with most of her policies. I’m voting for her anyway.
To me, 2024 is the choice between two Helsinkis and two Januarys.
The first Helsinki is the disastrous meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. From that podium in Finland’s capital, Trump sided with Putin over America’s own intelligence services.
Far from “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” indeed. President Reagan would roll over in his grave if he witnessed a so-called Republican groveling before his Russian counterpart.
President Trump openly praised Russia’s dictator while criticizing NATO allies and threatened to pull out of the treaty that has guaranteed Western security for multiple generations.
President Biden secured a coalition to keep Ukraine standing following a brutal attack from Russian invaders. When Biden went to Helsinki, it was to announce NATO’s expansion. Finland and Sweden are now both NATO countries. Ukraine’s flag still flies over Kiev and NATO has never been stronger.
Which version of foreign policy more closely aligns with traditional conservative ideology? It’s absolutely Biden and Harris leading the free world instead of retreating into appeasement and isolationism.
My conservative friends talk often about how 2017-2019 were great years. President Trump was inexperienced with wielding executive power. He also had fairly competent leadership serving alongside him. General Kelly and General Mattis are American heroes.
By the end of his term, the good folks were gone. The only ones that remained were sycophants. The only test that mattered was fealty to Trump.
General Mattis didn’t have a job in 2020 and Betsy DeVos still did. Competence doesn’t matter to Trump. Blind obedience does.
Trump the Sequel will not have the competent supporting actors of Trump 2017. It will be a freak show that looks more like Q-Anon’s finest than Trump’s first West Wing. Have you seen the typical lineups at CPAC lately?
General Mattis, General Kelly, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan are long gone.
Matt Gaetz, Mike Flynn, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene are leading the GOP vanguard now.
You’re not going to get conservative policy wins with this Mos Eisley Cantina band of weirdos in charge of the country. 2017 and 2018 weren’t great to begin with. They’re not coming back in Trump’s second term. It will look more like that Madison Square Garden nightmare than bill signing celebrations in the Rose Garden.
The most important thing to me is a choice between two Januarys.
We can inaugurate Kamala Harris on January 20th after a resounding win that sends Trump back to retirement at Mar-a-Lago. Normal Republicans like Nikkii Haley and Governor Sununu can have a place at the table again.
Or we can elect Trump. We can watch Vice President Harris certify Trump’s victory on January 6th. We can watch those same losers that desecrated the Capitol 4 years ago celebrating in the same spot. We can watch the imprisoned rioters step out of jail on January 20th when Trump is inaugurated and pardons them all, like a dystopian reprise of that scene in Air Force One when the terrorist colonel gets released from prison while the other prisoners cheer. We can watch our children celebrate Ashli Babbitt Day as Trump declares her martyrdom.
Then we can all watch Donald Trump take his second oath of office on Martin Luther King Day while Joe Biden and Kamala Harris glare in silence.
That is the darkest timeline. But we can prevent it.
I don’t want four more years of chaos. I want the adults back in charge of the GOP. To my fellow conservatives, you don’t have to sacrifice your principles by swearing fealty to a narcissist. In the words of Owen Wilson’s character at the end of the film, Wedding Crashers, “I’m not standing here asking you to marry me. I’m just asking you not to marry him.”
You don’t have to like Kamala Harris. You don’t have to like her policies. It’s not marriage. It’s one vote in the booth on one day to ensure we don’t have four more years of lunacy.
One vote for Trump won’t create fascism. It will create modern feudalism. Trump isn’t a dictator. He’s a sad feudal lord who wants to turn the country into his personal fiefdom. If Trump wins, the GOP will forever be united to Trump’s vision and legacy. A vote for Kamala is temporary. A vote for Trump is forever.
I’d like to have the confidence to put the news on TV without the President of the United States saying obscene things that I would not want my young daughters to hear. I’d like the confidence to criticize the President at lunch at Applebee’s without wondering if there’s a red hat in a neighboring booth who’s going to stand up and try to fight me.
Trump will not bring back the glory years. He’ll bring back division, destruction, and embarrassment.
I choose the Helsinki where NATO thrives. I choose the January that allows my daughters to watch the first female President take the oath of office.
I choose Kamala Harris. I hope you do as well.
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.
Trump’s Political Waltz with Putin and Zelensky As Election Day Approaches
Trump’s Political Waltz with Putin and Zelensky As Election Day Approaches
Foreign Policy #165 | By: Yelena Korshunov | October 29, 2024
Featured Photo: vanityfair.com
__________________________________
Trump on Putin. “I’m going to hit you…”
Former US president and incumbent Republican candidate for the presidency, Donald Trump has never hidden his enthusiastically warm attitude towards Russian president Vladimir Putin. The influence of Russia on the course of the presidential elections in 2016 has been investigated by the FBI, and 11 suspects are wanted in relation to this case. Trump denies any Russian interference in this matter and, on the threshold of the 2024 presidential elections, feeds voters new details of his past interaction with Putin in regards to the war in Ukraine.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal published on October 18th, Trump said that he threatened to strike Moscow if Russia attacks Ukraine, “I said to Putin, ‘Vladimir, if you go after Ukraine, I am going to hit you so hard, you’re not even going to believe it. I’m going to hit you right in the middle of fricking Moscow.’” According to Trump, Putin’s answer was “No way”. Trump’s private relationship with Putin could be different than what he presents to the public. It’s unclear how the conversation was developed after Putin’s ambiguous response.
What’s remarkable is that in February 2022 Trump described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “genius” and “savvy” that sounds very contradicting to his own words about threatening Russia’s dictator.
In an interview with Elon Musk in August, Trump said that while serving as US president, he warned Vladimir Putin that “bad days would come” if Russia attacks Ukraine. According to the former president, this was the last time he spoke with Putin.
John Micklethwait, the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg, interviewed Trump asking him about a new book by the journalist Bob Woodward that includes an unnamed aide saying Trump and Putin had spoken as many as seven times since Trump left office in 2021. The editor posed questions about his and Putin’s long-scrutinized relationship, particularly in light of Mr. Trump’s criticism of military aid to Ukraine. However, Trump declined to comment on whether he’d talked with the Russian president since leaving the White House. However, he added, “If I have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing.”
Trump on Zelensky. “The greatest salesman I’ve ever seen…”
Donald Trump recently stated that Ukrainian president Vladimir Zelensky bears personal responsibility for the fact that he “allowed” the Russian invasion of Ukraine to begin. In an interview with a republican PBD podcast author Patrick Beth-David, Trump said, “I think Zelensky is one of the greatest salesmen I’ve ever seen. Every time he comes in, we give him $100 billion. Who else got that kind of money in history? There’s never been. And that doesn’t mean I don’t want to help him, because I feel very badly for those people. But he should never have let that war start. That war is a loser.”
At the end of September, Zelensky and Trump met at Trump Tower in New York. This was their first face-to-face meeting in five years. Speaking to reporters at the beginning of the meeting, Zelensky said that “we have a common view that the war in Ukraine must be stopped, and Putin cannot win.” Trump stated that if he wins the election, he will “quickly resolve the issue” with the war. He told reporters that “we have very good relations [with Zelensky], and I also have very good relations, as you know, with Putin. And I think if we win [the elections], we will solve this very quickly.” As Zelensky commented later in October, at a meeting with Trump, he [Zelensky] said that to protect Ukraine, it [Ukraine] needs to either join NATO or have access to nuclear weapons. He later made an additional comment that this does not mean that Ukraine is going to produce nuclear weapons itself. Recently, Zelensky told the New Yorker [magazine] that he believes Trump “doesn’t really know how to stop the war” and called Trump’s running mate JD Vance “too radical” and “dangerous” for suggesting that Ukraine should give up its territory to end the conflict.
Policy Analysis
The atmosphere of the presidential race is heating up as the date of elections gets closer. The latest survey published on Monday, October 21st by The Washington Post shows that the candidates are racing neck-and-neck across the country’s seven states that can swing in favor of either candidate. The other Harris-Trump polls across the country demonstrate nearly the same picture. A promise to end the war in Ukraine is a winning point designed to attract votes. On the one hand, Trump wants to show that he is a strong leader who threatened Putin, warning him to not even think about invading Ukraine. But at the same time, his position to stop the war consists of leaving the conquered territories to the invader– that is actually a direct demand made by Putin. Getting an official recognition of the right to annex the violently captured lands to Russia, Putin would achieve his goal.
This political waltzing on debris of the ruined cities and thousands of taken lives seems to have nothing in common with establishing peace in the world. Many politicians, not only in Ukraine, but throughout the world agree that this step would only temporarily stop Putin, who would win time to strengthen his position and accumulate weapons. His next attack on the territory of European states will not be long in coming.
Engagement Resources
-
Trump Says It Would Be a ‘Smart Thing’ if He Had Talked to Putin, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/us/politics/trump-bloomberg-putin.html
-
Musk interview on X: Trump blames US President Biden for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine,https://www.euronews.com/2024/08/13/musk-interview-trump-blames-us-president-biden-for-russias-invasion-of-ukraine
-
In Rambling Interview, Trump Blames Zelensky, Not Putin, for Ukraine War, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/us/politics/trump-zelensky-putin-ukraine-war.html
-
Trump Trashes Zelensky As ‘Greatest Salesman On Earth’ As He Visits U.S., https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/09/24/trump-trashes-zelensky-as-greatest-salesman-on-earth-as-he-visits-us/
-
Trump meets Zelensky and says it’s time to end Russia’s war, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7810y11dyjo
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
A Billionaire and A Buffon Join Forces
A Billionaire and A Buffon Join Forces
Technology Policy #119 | By: Mindy Spatt | October 28, 2024
Featured Photo: foxnews.com
__________________________________
It’s easy to laugh at Elon Musk’s childish dance onstage with Trump and even easier to laugh at Trump’s moves, especially when they replace an actual campaign speech. The comedy shows have been having a field day with the antics of the two, but the combination is more frightening than funny. Both are unhinged; one has unlimited money, and the other is on the brink of having unlimited power.
Analysis
Elon Musk has put himself, his money, and his social media company with 106.23 million subscribers in the US, front and center in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Frank Bruni, writing in the New York Times, put it this way: Musk, who turned X into a digital Trump pep rally … is essentially cartwheeling across Pennsylvania with fistfuls of money for anyone with any inkling to vote for the madman of Mar-a-Lago.”
The Musk/Trump axis of evil also caught the attention of Le Monde, which recently editorialized: “Little by little, the social media network has been transformed into an informal mouthpiece for the Republican candidate.” A recent look at my “for you” tab on Twitter confirms this. Although I only subscribe to liberal media and politicians, what X has for me includes:
This little Chinese woman got me fired up “Kamawa is sooooo Stoopid”
@MJTruthUltra
Voter ID should be required nationwide
@elonmusk
BREAKING: Total Air & Plumbing just sent their entire company to the polls to vote early for Donald Trump.
@VoteHarrisOut
HAPPENING NOW: Here is footage of the historic line at the Madison Square garden in New York City where Trump will host a rally in 5 hours. This election is over.
@dom_lucre
One reason for Musk’s enthusiasm may be that Trump has said as President, he would make Musk head of a government efficiency commission, a role Musk would use to eliminate regulations he views as anti-business, especially his own businesses, which hold many government contracts.
Not only would Musk have the authority to get rid of regulations, but he also intends to get rid of numerous federal agencies. He might start with the EPA, which made Musk angry by fining SpaceX $140,000 for illegally dumping water at one of its facilities.
And what of the former employees of the agencies Musk wants to eliminate? Trump has gushed over Musk’s brutality with layoffs, which includes not honoring Twitter’s severance agreements with former executives. Musk instituted mass layoffs at Twitter that purged almost 80% of the workforce, and wholly eliminated the trust and safety teams.
Trump, in an interview on X with Musk, said, “I look at what you do, you walk in and you just say, ‘You want to quit?’ They go on strike – I won’t mention the name of the company – but they go on strike, and you say, ‘That’s okay, you’re all gone. You’re all gone. Every one of you is gone,” Those comments sparked the United Auto Workers to file a complaint against the two for intimidation.
Another reason for Musk’s enthusiasm is likely the substantial tax benefits he stands to reap from the billionaire cuts Trump has promised. With a role in the government, he could also see additional tax benefits that certain federal officials can claim. Although conflict of interest statutes don’t permit government employees from official involvement in companies they have a financial stake in, Trump and others in his administration mostly ignored that rule in the past and will likely do so again.
Trump and Musk are also aligned in their extremely transphobic views. Trump’s bizarre rants about sex change operations at schools have a more serious underside; he would eliminate federal funding from schools that teach acceptance and inclusivity, an agenda that Musk, angry about his own child’s transition, is enthusiastic about.
It’s not hard to imagine how their unholy alliance will react if Trump loses the election. Constant tweets about election officials cheating, accusations of corruption and collusions, the unlimited number of lawsuits Musk could file, and another armed insurrection. This time, I’ll know about it in advance if I remember to check my Twitter feed.
Engagement Resources:
- How Elon Musk Uses X to Support the Far Right and Its Financial Interests, By Arnaud Leparmentier August 13, 2024, https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/08/13/how-elon-musk-uses-x-to-support-the-far-right-and-its-financial-interests_6714673_4.html
- UAW Files Federal Labor Charges Against Donald Trump And Elon Musk For Attempting To Intimidate And Threaten Workers, August 13, 2024, https://uaw.org/uaw-files-federal-labor-charges-against-donald-trump-and-elon-musk-for-attempting-to-intimidate-and-threaten-workers/
- Elon Musk plans a ‘bonfire of nonsense regulations’ By Timothy Cama, Oct. 22, 2024 https://www.eenews.net/articles/elon-musk-plans-a-bonfire-of-nonsense-regulations/
- Elon Musk Could Get a Huge Tax Break From Donald Trump, By Katya Schwenk and Lucy Dean Stockton, Oct. 23, 2024 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/elon-musk-trump-tax-break-election-2024-1235141380/
Stay in-the-know with the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist News 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 Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Two
The Right To Vote in the U.S. Constitution – Part Two
Civil Rights Policy Brief #221 | By: Rod Maggay | October 27, 2024
Featured Photo by: theregreview.org
__________________________________
In the first part of this series on the right to vote in the United States, we examined the source of the right to vote found in the U.S. Constitution and how the constitutional framework with regards to voting has been incomplete. We additionally examined some of the constitutional amendments that have been passed to try and remedy some of those gaps. The second part in this series will examine how Congress has tried to address voting rights through federal legislation.
Policy Summary: After the Civil War Congress passed a number of constitutional amendments to try and manage and limit the restrictions states used to limit who could vote in elections. However many states, particularly in the South, simply refused to abide by the new amendments. States took it upon themselves to add more and more restrictions through a variety of methods. Some states passed new state constitutions with new voting restrictions that exempted white voters from the new restrictions, e.g. whites being exempted from poll taxes and literacy tests. Some states even implemented the “white primary” which only allowed white voters to participate. Physical violence was also employed to intimidate and harass voters and in some cases to physically beat (and sometimes murder) voters in order to keep them away from polling places. Combined with Jim Crow laws that were used to impose a white supremacy mindset, states were able to skirt what the new constitutional voting rights amendments prohibited.
In the mid twentieth century, Congress decided to get involved with the issue of voting rights amid the growing Civil Rights Movement. Two pieces of legislation were passed in the 1950’s – the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 – but these acts were broad bills that dealt with a wide range of civil rights topics and only briefly touched on voting rights. It was not until 1965 that Congress passed the Voting Rights Act that dealt specifically with voting rights. The law outlawed voting qualifications that denies or abridges a right to vote on “account of race, color or membership in a language minority group.” LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided the Federal Government with more substantial tools to fight voter suppression tactics that were still being employed by some states. The most significant was Section 5 of the Act that required the Federal Government to first approve any changes that a state or local county wanted to make to a voting procedure, more popularly known as “pre – clearance.” This procedure no longer left it to the states alone to decide what voting laws to implement. The Federal Government now had a say and could approve or disapprove a state’s voting law. If it found the proposed law racially discriminatory in any way, the Federal Government could now “veto” the proposed rule and prevent it from going into effect. And, Section 6 (now Section 8) allowed “federal observers” to monitor a jurisdiction’s voter registration functions to ensure that race was not being used to deny a person from registering to vote. The entirety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is significant because it took the absolute power of the states over voter eligibility and the right to vote and shared it with the federal government to ensure that discriminatory practices were kept to a minimum.
But while the Act made broad strides in protecting the right to vote, the Act is only limited to discriminatory tactics that are based on race, color and membership in a minority language group. It does not provide protections based on gender, sexual orientation or on a person’s immigrant status. States may not pass rules that are obviously based on race or color but they are still finding subtle ways to insert a restriction or prohibition that touches on race or color. In March 2024 a rule in Arizona requiring a person to register their birthplace in order to vote was struck down. This was because Arizona already had a rule struck down stating that they could not require proof of citizenship as a requirement to vote and it was believed the birthplace requirement could have been used to determine a voter’s citizenship status. And Alabama and Virginia have recently received notices from the U.S. Department of Justice to prohibit their removal of voters from their state’s voter rolls in the weeks and days leading up to Election Day on November 5th. Virginia’s methods were especially onerous as they were comparing lists of non – citizens with lists of currently registered voters to determine who should be removed. Virginia was also breaking the Quiet Period Provision of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) which provides that voter roll maintenance and removal of voters cannot be done within 90 days of an election. And in Texas, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) won a victory in a case where Texas sought to limit who may provide assistance to a voter seeking help and instructions to fill out their ballot, as Texas wrongly believed that any assistance was evidence of voter fraud.
What these scenarios demonstrate is that states can still find a way to discriminate and suppress the vote in ways that do not directly involve race or color. In these cases, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not apply to protect a citizen’s right to vote. It shows that when it wants to the federal government can do more. But what if the next wave of state voter suppression bills are aimed at LGBQT persons? Or aimed at out of state college students? Or aimed at those who support certain rights like reproductive rights or immigrant issues? States have been known to change minimum voting threshholds and eligibility to try and ensure that abortion restrictions don’t get overturned. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, because it is based solely on race, would be helpless to protect these voters. What is needed from Congress is a more comprehensive voter eligibility and protection bill that would cover more than race or color instead of addressing these gaps piecemeal. History has demonstrated that states will simply ignore new laws (e.g. the post Civil War constitutional voting amendments) but if Congress can enact a broad and sweeping bill with strong enforcement provisions (like what the VRA of 1965 has) that protects more beyond race and color then Congress will go a long way to protecting voting rights, even more than what was first envisioned when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Department of Justice – DOJ guidance on removal from voter lists and cleanup efforts.
- DOJ Civil Rights Division – department’s guide on federal observers and election monitoring.
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!
A Win for Democracy: Two Georgia Judges Rule Election Board Must Certify Election Results
A Win for Democracy: Two Georgia Judges Rule Election Board Must Certify Election Results
Civil Rights Policy Brief #221 | By: Rod Maggay | October 26, 2024
Featured Photo by: apnews.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary: On October 14, 2024, Judge Robert McBurney of the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta Judicial Circuit issued a final order in the civil action Adams v. Fulton County. That is a case brought by a Republican member of the election board in Fulton County, Georgia in order to determine whether her duties as a member of the board were “discretionary” and whether she was entitled to “full access” to all “election materials.” This lawsuit came together as a result of new rules implemented by the Georgia State Election Board. These package of rules were not passed by the Georgia State Legislature but were instead passed by the board. The rule regarding certification of an election in the county allowed local boards to conduct “reasonable inquiry” before certifying the results of an election. The rule passed the board by a vote of 3 – 2 with all of the Republicans on the board voting in favor of the rule. In addition to the final order issued by Judge McBurney, Judge Thomas Cox, another Fulton County Superior Court judge in a separate case brought challenging the new election board rules declared the rules, including the new rule on the certification of elections, “illegal, unconstitutional and void.” LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The decisions reached by both Judge McBurney and Judge Cox regarding the process of certifying elections in Georgia is significant. Judge Cox’s decision provided the foundation of why the new election board rules could not stand. Because the rules had been initially passed by only the Georgia State Elections Board itself and not the Georgia State Legislature, the rules could not be inconsistent with any law passed by the Legislature. Judge Cox found the rules were and were thus unconstitutional and void. Additionally, Judge Cox found that the election board did not have the authority to pass the rules, which added another layer as to why the board rules were invalid. The rules were in effect constitutionally devoid of force as a rule of law.
But it was Judge McBurney’s order that many saw as quite possibly having the most effect on the upcoming 2024 presidential election. What many supporters of the Republican members of the elections board were hoping for was a decision that would permit members on the election board the right to refuse to certify the election results. This was a frightening proposition because if members of the election board were allowed discretion to certify an election, a member could conceivably delay or permanently hold up the certification of an election for any reason. The rule had no legal standards that could be used to help guide an election board member’s decision to not certify. A board member could simply do it, even base it on partisan reasons, or even refuse to have certain votes counted or included in the final tally. But Judge McBurney’s order made clear that the duties of the election board members were ministerial when it came to certification of election results. Judge McBurney explained that many duties of election board members were in fact discretionary which allowed them to examine the facts of a situation and/or case and then make a decision before deciding on a course of action. But he made clear that there was no discretion in certifying an election and that their duties in this scenario were ministerial which meant that, under state law, they had a mandatory duty to certify an election. They had no discretion to exclude ballots or to make determinations as to the validity of a set of ballots over another. Nor could they make the unilateral determination that a fraud or errors had occurred. Judge McBurney did not see it appropriate that a board member could as one person act as “investigator, prosecutor, jury and judge” and unilaterally determine error or fraud because then their act of refusing to certify an election would allow one person to silence Georgia voters. And with many officials aligned with former President Trump’s stolen election conspiracy theories, it would be quite conceivable that partisan reasons would be used to delay certification. And it could even lead to a manipulation of the results of the vote tally in a Georgia county. But with these two orders from these two judges, the possibility that a Georgia election administrator could delay certification on their own accord seems less likely. It was a win for democracy in Georgia the last week courtesy of Judge McBurney and Judge Cox.
Engagement Resources
- Brennan Center for Justice – background info on the certification process in key battleground states.
- ProPublica – background info on the certification battle in Georgia and how the battle behind the scenes ended up in court.
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!
Harris and Trump Will Treat Our European Allies Differently
Harris and Trump Will Treat Our European Allies Differently
Foreign Policy #164 | By: Damian DeSola | October 25, 2024
Featured Photo: cbsnews.com
__________________________________
The United States finds itself in a tumultuous time. Both at home and abroad, our country’s staying power is being tested. As we prepare for an election that is days away, the world is watching as we choose one of two very different views of foreign affairs to lead us through the next four years. One debate not often mentioned is the future relationship between the United States and its European allies. This brief shall discuss the European policy strategies of Trump and Harris if either were to be elected.
During his term, Trump preferred unilateral actions and bilateral over multilateral agreements with European nations, shown through his withdrawing the U.S. from multiple multinational agreements. He also has a mixed relationship with NATO. While he has shown to see value in the organization, he has also threatened members with possible revocation of security guarantees unless they “pay more” into the alliance.
In terms of Ukraine, it is a mixed bag. He claims he has great relationships with both Putin and Zelensky and says that he would end the war if he were reelected. He also blames Ukraine and Biden for starting the war in the first place. It suffices to say that our current commitments to Ukraine would be in the air if he were reelected.
Vice President Harris has said that, if elected, she will work to actively improve our allied relationships. She is in favor of working with our European allies multilaterally by including all relevant security and economic partners in strategy development and internal negotiations. This multilateral strategy also includes working with international organizations such as NATO and the EU. Under a Harris administration, Ukraine will also continue to receive US aid as their struggle against Russia persists.
Analysis
Now, which course of action would be the most beneficial for the United States and for our European allies? Simply put, a Harris administration would make policy decisions that would improve the security of the United States and democratic Europe in comparison to a Trump administration. A multilateral diplomatic strategy with our European partners would improve the security status of both our continents.
In terms of international diplomacy, the multilateral doctrine that Harris espouses would be healthier for our friendly European relations. In comparison, Trump’s preference for dealing directly with individual European countries undermines their trust as we seek unity in democratic Europe over disunity. Multilateral agreements, while initially messier, will ensure the implementation of comprehensive and effective approaches to existing and future security issues (e.g. Ukraine, Israel, China).
Something that specifically needs clearing up for most Americans is NATO defense spending. NATO requires member nations to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense spending. In 2017 at the start of Trump’s presidency, only four countries met the 2% requirement; by 2020, this reached nine of thirty nations. After the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, not only did NATO membership grow with the induction of Finland and Sweden, but the number of nations meeting the 2% threshold reached twenty-three out of thirty-two as of 2024. The increase is a result of common ground found between nations, as is the purpose of NATO, not from “tough negotiating”.
With regards to the Ukraine war with Russia, Harris will either continue our current aid strategy or expand it to allow further leeway with Ukrainian usage of Western weaponry. It is also likely she would be vocal supporter of agreements that will allow Ukraine to integrate into the rest of democratic Europe.
Trump’s likely policy towards Ukraine is murky. What can be said is that he would much rather the war end on any terms rather than exclusively Ukrainian ones. The freedom of Ukraine to choose the path it overwhelmingly desires, to join the Western bloc, will be left uncertain. Trump may prefer a peace that leaves Ukraine neutral, and therefore vulnerable to a near-certain second invasion after Russia regroups its military.
One of these two views of European policy will be a reality soon. In a short time, the American people will determine the fate of our transatlantic partnerships, as well as our own fate.
Engagement Resources
- NATO’s official website where you can learn more about the inner working of the organization.
- The EU’s official website where you can better understand the history, purpose, and governmental abilities of the multinational union.
- The official Ukrainian support platform where you can support Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
The Politics of Funding Climate Disasters
The Politics of Funding Climate Disasters
Environment Policy #175| By: Allie Amato | October 24, 2024
Featured Photo: bloomberg.com
__________________________________
Back in the 80s, the United States on average faced what would now total a billion-dollars in natural disaster relief about every four months. The latest estimates from The Fifth National Climate Assessment find that our country is hit with a billion-dollar disaster every three weeks. Many experts point to climate change exacerbating these major disasters, making them more frequent, deadly, and devastating. On the heels of Hurricane Helene and Milton tearing through the Southeastern coast, a recent analysis shows exactly that. The record heat in the Gulf of Mexico reportedly increased Helene’s rainfall by 10% and intensified the damaging winds by 11%. Helene left 220 people dead while the impact of Milton killed at least 11. So many lives have already been lost, so much infrastructure reduced to rubble, and lawmakers have dedicated so little funding to mitigate the growing pile of natural disasters. While a short-term spending bill that included funding for FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) successfully passed through the House and Senate ahead of Helene, it’s important to note that 100 Republican members of Congress voted to block it. Several Democrats in Congress even elected not to vote at all.
In the lead-up to, and aftermath of Hurricane Helene and Milton, we’ve seen public officials politicizing climate disasters. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Vice President Kamala Harris have been sparring in the media over DeSantis’ office rejecting Harris’ attempt to reach him following Helene. Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump has been spreading misinformation about the Biden Administration’s storm response. Among Trump’s false claims are that FEMA’s funding is spent because all their money went to programs for immigrants, and that the government is withholding aid to Republican disaster victims. Meantime, Congress is quietly recessing amidst this chaos and Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said last weekend he has no intentions of calling Congress back in session despite recent major natural disasters. Johnson says they already gave FEMA $20 billion, that should suffice, right? Well, not according to top budget advisers to President Biden, who previously predicted the country would need to ante up $128 billion in new spending each year to respond to climate emergencies such as this.
First, the good news is that the Biden Administration has approved $441 million in assistance to Helene survivors and $349 million to help rebuild communities. So far, FEMA has mobilized 600 staff members including search and rescue teams and disaster response units across Florida. The government has also approved 100% reimbursement for debris removal efforts for the next three months, but it’s also a job that DeSantis believes will take a year to fix.
The bad news is that these are merely temporary solutions. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says FEMA can meet “immediate needs” following both storms, but the agency ultimately lacks enough funding to make it through the rest of hurricane season which concludes at the very end of November. The fact of the matter is, that the increase and severity of climate disasters must be addressed with additional resources and long-term, thoughtful solutions. Our nation also needs more lawmakers who understand the dire straits our environment is in. If Congress refuses to address before the election the impact human-made climate change has on these disasters, then it’s our civic duty to elect those who will take the action that’s needed.
Engagement Resources
- Register to vote because the entire House of Representatives and 34 Senate seats are up for election this year.
- Americares is providing rush emergency relief to survivors of Hurricane Helene and Milton. Just a $10 donation can provide up to $200 in aid.
- Center for Disaster Philanthropy has responded throughout the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season and provides both immediate/long term assistance.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless, independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to continue in helping to protect democracy and empower citizenship.
