
JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Aftermath of Alabama’s Supreme Court Ruling on IVF
Policy Brief #171 – Health and Gender
by Devyne Byrd
Alabama’s Supreme Court ruling, declaring frozen embryos as extrauterine children under state law, sends shockwaves across the nation in the wake of the Dobbs decision. The decision prompts immediate action from Alabama lawmakers to protect IVF practices amidst bipartisan concern over its implications, highlighting the ongoing debate over reproductive rights as a pivotal issue in the upcoming 2024 election.
Echoes of Suffering: A Cry for Ceasefire from Gaza’s Heart
Brief #126 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Aziza Taslaq
Within the chaos of relentless bombardments and displacement, Gazans like Samah plead urgently for a cease-fire, their lives shattered by the ongoing conflict. Their plea highlights the urgent need to end the cycle of suffering and work towards a future of peace and justice.
A Christian Perspective on the War in Gaza: Seeking Peace Amidst Suffering
Brief #125 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Aziza Taslaq
Amid the turmoil of the Gaza conflict, Tom, a Christian in the USA, emphasizes empathy and peace, distancing individuals from broader political tensions. Despite feeling overwhelmed by the devastation and media coverage, Tom advocates for compassion, highlighting the human toll and the importance of ceasefire for reconciliation and hope.
Political Bipartisanship Needs to be Rescued
OP ED
by: U.S. Resist News
Amidst the deepening chasm of political polarization, the call to rescue political bipartisanship echoes urgently. Exploring the causes and proposed solutions, this article navigates the turbulent waters of contemporary American politics with an aim to revive cooperation and restore faith in democratic governance.
The Politics of Passion, Courtesy of The Ink
SPECIAL GUEST OP ED
by: Anand Giridharadas
In an era defined by Big Feelings and societal upheaval, Anand Giridharadas delves into the dichotomy between the politics of passion embraced by the right and the cerebral approach adopted by today’s electoral left. As millions grapple with anxiety, fear, and existential questions, Giridharadas warns against dismissing the power of emotion and passion in political discourse, highlighting its potential to address the deep-seated uncertainties of our time.
Congress Struggles to Regulate Social Media Content
Brief #108 – Technology Policy Brief
by : Mindy Spatt
In the ongoing struggle for social media regulation, Congress grapples with complex challenges and CEO resistance, while state-level initiatives present contrasting approaches. In the midst of skepticism towards Mark Zuckerberg’s apology, urgent calls for comprehensive legislative action resonate against a backdrop of legal battles and heightened Supreme Court scrutiny.
Checking in on 14 Years of Obamacare: Part 1
Policy Brief #170 – Health and Gender
by Geoffrey Small
In its fourteenth year since enactment, the ACA, or Obamacare, aims to improve healthcare accessibility, affordability, and innovation. Despite premium increases, studies show significant progress in reducing uninsured rates, particularly among minorities and the LGBTQ community, highlighting strides towards healthcare equity since its implementation.
Addressing the Modern Refugee Crisis in the US: Policies and Solutions
Brief #157 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by: Inijah Quadri
In the face of the modern refugee crisis, the United States faces complex challenges in providing sanctuary to those fleeing persecution and violence. Recent policies and solutions propose increasing refugee admission caps, streamlining resettlement processes, and ending harmful border policies to uphold humanitarian obligations while balancing security concerns.
Israel-Gaza War Updates
Brief #124 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Ibrahim Castro
Amidst the relentless onslaught in the Israel-Gaza conflict, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow for ‘total victory’ exacerbates the humanitarian crisis, with international condemnation mounting. As airstrikes escalate and regional tensions simmer, calls for ceasefire intensify amidst fears of broader Middle East escalation.


Facial Recognition: The Worst AI Has To Offer
Facial Recognition: The Worst AI Has To Offer
Technology Policy Brief #107 | By: Mindy Spatt | January 24, 2024
Photo taken from: www.amnesty.org
__________________________________
Facial Recognition Technology uses software to evaluate similarities between face images. Computer generated filters transform images into numbers and symbols that cam be compared. It was what enables you to sign into your phone by just looking at it, and is also used to identify an individual in a database of photos or determine the similarity between two facial images
There’s no question that Facial Recognition Technology reflects and even enhances racial bias. Still, Vermont is the only state in the U.S. that has instituted a near total ban on it and only a handful of states limit its use. The technology’s earliest and most criticized applications have been in law enforcement, but other uses may be in the offing. The General Services Administration is carrying out a study to test potential racial bias in facial recognition technology systems that it is considering using as identifiers for accessing federal benefits.
Policy Analysis
The GSA’s announcement, in August 2023, describes current methods of facial recognition identity verification as “often inequitable.” These inequities have been documented by numerous advocates, academics, and critics. In an article in Scientific America titled ‘Police Facial Recognition Technology Can’t Tell Black People Apart’ in May of the same year, authors Thaddeus and Natasha Johnson said their research confirmed that inequities in policing can actually be exacerbated by the use of facial recognition, and concluded that law enforcement agencies that deploy automated facial recognition technologies over-arrest Black people. “We believe this results from factors that include the lack of Black faces in the algorithms’ training data sets, a belief that these programs are infallible and a tendency of officers’ own biases to magnify these issues.” The criticisms aren’t new, but, the authors note that despite efforts to improve the bias in facial recognition algorithms, it still mostly fails at identifying anyone other than white men.
Reading this, one might wonder: why bother? Shouldn’t the GSA and law enforcement be seeking technologies that promote rather than deny equity? How useful will it be in other fields, like healthcare? The Johnson’s research indicates that a bigger data set alone won’t cure the problem, since the ways facial recognition interacts with other racist policies and biases are the problem.
Amnesty International has criticized the way geographic racism and facial recognition technology interact, calling the technology “digital stop and frisk”. In a study of New York City, Amnesty found the that boroughs that were subject to high rates of discriminatory stop-and-frisks by law enforcement are the same areas where facial recognition is being most heavily deployed. Amnesty also correlated higher proportions of people of color with higher numbers of CCTV cameras with facial recognition components.
Gideon Christian, PhD, is a Canadian researcher who studies the racial and gender impacts of facial recognition technology. According to Christian, “There is this false notion that technology unlike humans is not biased.” In fact, he said, “technology has been shown (to) have the capacity to replicate human bias. Christian, whose research is funded by the Canadian government, found wildly disparate rates in facial recognition accuracy between white men- 99%, and black women-35%.
While states have been slow to take action, many cities have limited or banned the use of facial recognition by law enforcement including Portland (Both Maine and Oregon), San Francisco and Boston, New York city has yet to do so. Amnesty’s Matt Mahmoudi, an Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights Researcher, concluded that “Banning facial recognition for mass surveillance is a much-needed first step towards dismantling racist policing,” and Amnesty is urging New York to join the ban bandwagon.
Engagement Resources
- How Black Americans view the use of face recognition technology by police, By Emily A. Vogels and Andrew Perrin.
- Ban Facial Recognition, an interactive map that shows where facial recognition surveillance is happening, where it’s spreading to next, and where there are local and state efforts to rein it in.
- Petition: Halt Dangerous Face Recognition Technologies.
Check out usrenewnews.org/AI for more news on AI technologies and trends. Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.

The Week That Was: Global News In Review
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Foreign Policy Brief #114 | By: Ibrahim Castro | January 22, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.vox.com
__________________________________
Surging violence in Ecuador
Ecuador has seen a sharp increase in violence and activity by organized crime in the last few months. The uptick in violence has taken homicide rates to unprecedented levels. Ecuador’s homicide rate surged from 13.7 per 100,000 people in 2021 to 25.9 in 2022. In 2023, it escalated further to about 45 per 100,000, placing Ecuador among the top three most violent Latin American countries, alongside Venezuela and Honduras.
Gang violence in the streets of Ecuador is related to unrest inside prisons, where overcrowding and lack of state control has enabled gang members to launch around 14 massacres that have taken the lives of more than 600 people since 2019. Ecuador’s president has declared war on gangs, many of which are responsible for the recent waves of violence that saw the storming of a TV station on-air and explosions around the nation that shocked the international community. The unrest appears to be in response to President Daniel Noboa’s efforts to tackle cocaine trafficking, in particular by putting gang leaders in new high-security prisons.
Ecuador borders cocaine-producing Colombia and Peru and has become a major shipment point. Both its neighbors have stepped up controls on their frontiers in response to the violence. President Noboa declared a 60 day state of emergency last Monday and a nationwide curfew from 11:00 pm-05:00 am every night.
Iran strikes Iraq, Pakistan, and Syria
On January 16, Iran launched missile strikes into Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, claiming to have hit two strongholds of the anti-Iran insurgent group Jaish al-Adl, what it calls an “Iranian terrorist group”, though Pakistan says it killed two children. Iran announced the attack in Pakistan at the same time as its strikes in Iraq and Syria. Pakistan stated the strikes were a clear violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Less than two days later, Pakistan hit back with fighter jets in Iran’s Baluchistan province claiming to have hit hideouts of anti-Pakistan insurgents operating from Iranian soil. Iran says three women, two men and four children were killed in the strike. Iran and Pakistan share a 560 mile border and the two, which normally share good relationships, have now had relations turn sour with the back and forth missile attacks.
In Iraq, Iran claims to have targeted an operations center of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency in its strikes. Yet Iraqi and Kurdish authorities instead say the house of a well-known businessman was hit. In Syria, Iran claims to have fired missiles at Islamic State militants in response to a bombing that killed scores of people at a commemoration for the famed Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in central Iran on Jan. 3, 2024. The strikes by Iran in addition to other ongoing conflicts are stoking fears of a wider conflict that could engulf the entire Middle East and spread to other regions.
Ethiopia-Somaliland deal
Somaliland, a breakaway region of Somalia struck a deal with Ethiopia in hopes of being recognised as an independent country. For Somalia, Somaliland is an integral part of its territory. Somaliland is still not recognised by any country, Western governments are unlikely to recognise it until African countries do. The countries on the continent have held off, following the African Union’s longstanding policy against redrawing national boundaries inherited from colonialists. Without recognition, Somaliland struggles to attract investment and is cut off from international finance. For Somalia any suggestion that it could make a deal with another country or that parts of it could be leased without the approval of Somalia is highly contentious. Somalia has stated it is prepared to go to war to stop Ethiopia recognising the breakaway territory of Somaliland and building a port there.
Check out usrenewnews.org/globalnews for more Global News coverage. Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.

Can the Law Stop Trump from Becoming President?
Can the Law Stop Trump from Becoming President?
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #117 | By: Abigail Hunt | January 23, 2024
Photo taken from: www.cnn.com
__________________________________
If there were a Guinness world record for most felony indictments by a U.S. President, Donald Trump would be the winner by a good margin. Trump faces 91 state or federal felony charges in four separate jurisdictions in New York, Georgia, Washington D.C., and Florida. In New York, Trump faces a maximum total of 136 years in prison for 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree; the trial for these charges begins March 25. The federal elections case regarding Trump’s activities during the January 6th insurrection in the Capitol is set to begin March 4th and carries a maximum possible punishment of 55 years. In Georgia, Trump faces a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) charge. If convicted on a RICO charge, Trump must serve a minimum of five years in prison, the only charge which carries a minimum sentencing requirement; it has a maximum of 20 years. In addition, Trump faces 12 other felony charges in Georgia. Finally, in Florida, Trump faces 450 years for mishandling classified documents; the trial there begins May 20.
Politicians in several states are already attempting to remove Trump from the ballot, reasoning that he violated the 14th Amendment by his actions on January 6th, 2021, and is ineligible to run for President. The 14th Amendment provides for Equal Protection and Other Rights, and in Section 3, the Disqualification from Holding Office clause clearly states as follows:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
In Maine, the secretary of state removed Trump from the ballot, and in Colorado, the state Supreme Court did the same. Trump is appealing the decision in both cases. In other states, such as Minnesota and Michigan, the courts threw out similar lawsuits on procedural grounds. In Oregon, the state Supreme Court, largely democratic, will make a decision soon on Trump’s ballot eligibility. In Massachusetts, courts will begin hearing the case January 22nd and must have a decision a week later.
The forecast for Trump House: Part Two still looks relatively good. Trump is the GOP frontrunner by a long shot – the nearest challenger is Nikki Haley, but her predicted chances for November stand at 12 percent compared to Trump’s current 68 percent ranking. What happens if Trump is convicted? The Hill published a survey of Trump supporters which showed that a quarter of them would no longer support Trump as their Presidential nominee if he were convicted. However, almost all of those surveyed felt the charges against Trump were undeserved, politically motivated, and, if you’ll pardon the pun, trumped up.
The thing is, Trump could be convicted in every case and still become President if he got enough votes. The only way the law could prevent a second Trump term through disqualification would be through the 14th Amendment clause. There are few requirements to become President of the United States – any candidate must be a natural-born citizen, have lived in the country for at least 14 years, and be at least 35 years old. Being a felon is not a disqualifier. It seems the only hope of limiting Trump’s second climb to power lies with Supreme Courts at the state and federal levels. Ultimately, discussion and debate regarding the outcome of the various state lawsuits and felony charges is just noise – none of it prevents Trump from becoming President again.
Engagement Resources
- U.S. Department of Justice. Title 52- Voting and Elections- Subtitle I and II. Civil Rights Division.
- Ballotpedia. Ballot access for presidential candidates.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.

Governor Abbott and “Illegal Immigrants”
Governor Abbott and “Illegal Immigrants”
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #116 | By: Abigail Hunt | January 22, 2024
Photo taken from: www.bostonglobe.com
__________________________________
In the weeks leading up to Christmas, deep in the heart of Texas, Governor Greg Abbott signed a law into effect giving state law enforcement a broader right to arrest individuals crossing into Texas illegally (set to go into effect in March 2024) and directing the setup of flotation barricades and miles of razor wire barriers along the Rio Grande River. The physical deterrents so far have not limited the flow of illegal immigrants. It is estimated that in December 2023 a record 300,000 people crossed into Texas from Mexico. Despite the criminal enhancement for lack of documentation in crossing, and the decreased acceptance for asylum seekers, the flow of humanity crossing the southern border continues. Abbott’s decrees are violations of federal law and of a recent Supreme Court decision specifically about illegal immigrants, but that was in Arizona. Abbott is hedging his bets that the current Supreme Court, historically infamous already for its conservatism, will rule in his favor on what he believes is a valid state constitutional rights violation. Abbott is now on notice from the government regarding this federal violation of law.
In Eagle Pass, Texas, the New York Times spoke to citizens facing the real costs of immigration every day. Each month, the local fire department responds to an average of seven calls a day for emergencies related to people crossing the border – the ambulance cost for just these calls is $150,000/month.
The people crossing our border are coming from somewhere. In 2023, of the 2.4 million illegal immigrants crossing the southern border, most came from Mexico (717,333), Venezuela (266,071), Guatemala (220,085), Honduras (213,686), Colombia (159,539), Cuba (142,352), and Ecuador (116,229). Estimates from the Department of Homeland Security state that 4 million of those crossing the border have been expelled back to their own countries.
Because our government is run by people, like Governor Abbott, who grew up in the mid-20th century, they continue to use immigration policies and tactics previously shown to be failures. The fact is, the United States is a first-world nation that borders a third-world nation. The opportunities available in the U.S. are a tempting draw for those whose lives are in real threat of violence daily. People do not leave a place where they are healthy and happy to move elsewhere. A failure to acknowledge the root causes means we will continue to struggle with an ever-expanding migration of desperate and destitute foreigners seeking solace and refuge, barriers be damned.
Engagement Resources
- The New York Times. David Firestone. Defiance Tries to Usurp Washington’s Role, Jan. 1, 2024.
- PBS. Timeline: Guatemala’s Brutal Civil War, March 7, 2011.
- Reuters. Julia Symmes Cobb. What is happening in Ecuador? January 10, 2024.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.

America’s Declining Global Leadership Role
America’s Declining Global Leadership Role
OP ED | By: U.S. Resist News | January 17, 2024
Photo taken from: www.lowyinstitute.org
__________________________________
As the world transitions into a complex geopolitical era marked by the rise of new powers and diffuse threats, the United States stands at a crossroads of influence and strategy. Since the end of World War II, it has wielded considerable influence through its military might, economic prowess, and cultural appeal. However, the emergence of multipolar dynamics, cybersecurity threats, and shifting economic landscapes necessitates a reevaluation of its global strategy. This Op Ed aims to delve into the nuanced aspects of American foreign policy, reflecting on its historical leadership and envisaging its path forward amidst these evolving challenges.
Before we evaluate America’s role in the world, it’s crucial to broaden our definition of leadership. Global leadership in today’s world must extend beyond military might and economic leverage to include strong moral character. This entails championing democratic governance, respecting human rights, ensuring equality of opportunity, and uniformly advocating for essential services like education and health care for all. Such leadership also involves fostering collaborative relationships among nations, adhering to the rule of law, and seeking peaceful resolutions to conflicts. We are no longer just a collection of sovereign states, although some might think and pretend we are. We lie in an inter-dependent inter-connected world.
As we look at current global and foreign policy issues, it appears as if tragically the moral character of America’s leadership status in the world has begun to slip, as the following what have we done wrong examples illustrate.
Analysis—What Have We Done Wrong
Failing to do more to address the rise of autocracies: Over the past twenty years the world has witnessed the rise of autocratic governments. China and Russia are perhaps the largest autocratic powers but many other countries are following suit, challenging the moral character of America and other democracies. Quite often these autocracies are built on the strength of charismatic personalities, such as Trump, Bolsonaro or Milei who have little political knowledge and experience but are able to generate a tidal wave of populist support. The United States has been trying to stand up to these autocratic powers, mainly by exercising its military strength and economic might. While this seems to be a bottom line needed approach to deal with issues such as Ukraine and Taiwan, it needs to be coupled with support for democratization in these countries, and the building of democratic alliances as the US has been doing recently with NATO.
Inconsistent human rights policies: Most people, even non-Americans understand that the United States has long positioned itself as a champion of human rights and democracy. Yet, this stance is often juxtaposed against geopolitical realities. For example, in navigating relations with strategic partners like Saudi Arabia, the U.S. faces the challenge of balancing its advocacy for human rights with pragmatic considerations of security and economic interests. Global events, such as the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the recent suppression of democratic movements in Hong Kong, further test the U.S.’s resolve and approach. It is imperative that U.S. policy not only addresses these issues but also reflects a consistent and committed stance on promoting human rights universally.
Turning our backs on immigration: A strong pro-immigration policy used to be one of America’s strengths. We are known as a land of immigrants. But no longer. In recent years the US has seen a movement towards more restrictive immigration policies, marked by tightened regulations and a heated public discourse. This shift represents a larger trend of nationalism and skepticism towards globalization. The tightening of U.S. borders, the controversial debates over DACA and the travel ban, and the overall portrayal of immigrants in political rhetoric have raised questions about the nation’s historical identity as a melting pot. The implications of these policies extend beyond domestic politics, affecting international relations, and the U.S.’s reputation as a land of opportunity and refuge.
Trying to have it both ways on climate change: Global warming, climate change, and the loss of biological diversity are issues that affect the quality of life in all countries. The United States was one of the countries originally responsible for raising global awareness about these issues, and bringing countries together to sign the landmark Paris Agreement. However, under President Trump the US ceded its leadership role in global environmental policy. The Biden Administration has sought to reverse this trend and passed a major piece of legislation aimed at bringing the US in line with the global goal of creating a carbon neutral world by 2050 and restoring biodiversity
However, domestic challenges remain, particularly in balancing environmental policies with economic interests. The debate over energy policy, especially in the context of the shale gas revolution and the Keystone XL pipeline, underscores the complex interplay between economic growth and environmental stewardship; they highlight the challenges the U.S. faces in balancing these two critical aspects.
Failing to address the global challenges of technology: The world currently is facing unprecedented global leadership policy challenges related to seemingly ever-growing use of technology. The role of artificial intelligence, the threat to people’s privacy and security, the use of misinformation and fake news are but a few of the technology issues that all countries are facing. The United States, the European Union and others are making initial attempts to develop regulations to deal with these issues; but ultimately they need to be addressed at a global level. America has an opportunity to provide the leadership that’s needed to bring countries together and develop a set of regulations that can protect privacy, dispel fake news, and guard against the abuses of AI.
The U.S. should develop a comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy. This strategy should prioritize public-private partnerships and international collaboration, focusing on safeguarding critical infrastructure and setting even higher global standards for cyber conduct.
The Root Cause: Political Divisiveness and A Failure to Address the Importance of Global Engagement
Internal political divisiveness is a major reason America’s global leadership role is in decline. The ‘America First’ doctrine, characterized by skepticism towards multilateral agreements and an emphasis on national interests, has led to a reevaluation of international commitments. While it is essential for the U.S. to protect its sovereignty and security, excessive America firstness challenges our role as a global leader. Retreating from international accords and institutions not only affects global governance but also raises questions about the future of international cooperation and American leadership in the world. We are living in a highly connected inter-dependent world, and American foreign policy needs to do more to reflect this.
Internal policy factors seem to be propelling a noticeable drift towards authoritarianism and a retreat from cooperative internationalism. Countries that once looked to the U.S. as a model for democracy are now witnessing its internal struggles and questioning its commitment to global democratic ideals. The U.S. must navigate this era of rising autocrats and declining democratic norms by reaffirming its commitment to democratic values and strengthening its alliances. This includes addressing domestic issues of polarization and governance that undermine its international credibility and leadership.
In redefining its role for a complex future, the United States must consolidate its historical influence with a renewed commitment to moral and ethical leadership. This entails not only advocating for human rights and strengthening international institutions, but also proactively addressing the challenges of a multipolar world and the domestic implications of global policies. Recognizing the need for a dynamic and responsive foreign policy, the U.S. should prioritize diplomatic engagement, technological innovation, and a steadfast adherence to global cooperation and responsibility.
By embracing flexibility alongside a firm commitment to its foundational values, the U.S. can navigate the evolving geopolitical landscape, fostering stability, and prosperity in an interconnected world. As it stands at the crossroads of tradition and transformation, the U.S.’s pursuit of a balanced, principled, and forward-looking strategy will be imperative in shaping a more peaceful and sustainable planet.
Engagement Resources
- Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org): Offers in-depth analysis and resources on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs.
- Brookings Institution (brookings.edu): Provides research and policy recommendations on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy and global economic issues.
- The Aspen Institute (aspeninstitute.org): Engages in policy discussions on various global issues, including U.S. leadership and international relations.
- The Atlantic Council (atlanticcouncil.org): Focuses on international affairs, providing analysis and policy solutions for U.S. engagement in global challenges.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.

TikTok and Its Effects on Young People
TikTok and Its Effects on Young People
Technology Policy Brief #106 | By: Steve Piazza | January 16, 2024
Photo taken from: www.today.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary
TikTok offers a number of thoughtful, well-stated guidelines and actions that promote safe and healthy participation on the popular social media platform. Those who choose to explore the platform’s policies are given detailed suggestions on being proactive, such as how to block their own access to a particular objectionable video creator by long pressing on a video. They also have the opportunity to report questionable or offensive material.
Other safeguards include content controls and restriction modes that can be self-imposed. In fact, for users 16 and under the default social setting is private, which allows a user to approve followers. Over 16, it’s set to public, though that can be changed at any time.
TikTok even offers support on a number of topics regarding well being. Users are provided clear language on substance-abuse, eating disorders, bullying and more. In some instances, users are encouraged to speak to someone for additional support.
Nonetheless, as with other social media environments, there are no guarantees protecting young people against harmful influences while using TikTok. Even such a thorough presence of policies such as TikTok’s cannot conceal the fact that there are many negative effects on the most vulnerable users.
Policy Analysis
TikTok ranks sixth as the most used social media platform behind YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and WeChat. As of 2022, TikTok reported 1.2 billion users, and by the fourth quarter of that year it had been downloaded over four billion times. According to Business of Apps, though it’s largest demographic is 25 to 34 years old, 44.1% of its total users are under 24 and of those under 17 the percentage is just over 20%
TikTok has a number of benefits for young users. Besides the entertainment value, the platform offers the opportunity for teenagers to feel part of a community of users, It also serves as a means to help them understand the world they live in. It can serve as a resource for everything from providing insights on a wide array of emotional and mental health issues, as well as perspectives on many current events.
The main problem with TikTok is that it is also simply a social media platform, which means that like its competitors, it employs algorithms designed to influence choices to keep users engaged. That might not be so bad if a kitten popping out of a cardboard box results in similar content being offered. It’s when a user chooses a video more serious in nature that is of concern.
Without notice, the recommendations can end up leading to a series of videos that are inappropriate or dangerous. It’s possible that an unsuspecting viewer witnesses a barrage of negative content ranging from disinformation to cyber bullying. In some instances, users are even provided links/passwords to private portals of videos displaying violence or pornography.
Though not unique to TikTok, the mere convenience of endless swiping through countless videos of any kind that can leave younger users spellbound for large amounts of time is bad enough. But succumbing to the platform’s seemingly endless journey down a rabbit hole of adverse content can lead to serious issues, such as a negative self-esteem and/or body image, and eventually alienation. It’s unsettling to think that something as simple as curiosity can lead to feelings of isolation, which sadly puts some on the path to loneliness, depression, and possibly suicide.
According to Statista, despite the fact that over 70% of individuals considered Gen Z, Millennial, and Gen X believe that TikTok is addictive, only an average of just under 25% of these three groups feel the platform has negative mental health effects. Such dissonance is not atypical for active users participating voluntarily in social activities, cyber or not.
Of course, it doesn’t help that users are easily drawn to the content they find appealing, and for youngsters even more so. Neither does the large amount of screen time that makes their experience increasingly open to hazards. Minimizing usage might have some effect, but nothing short of abstinence is 100% protected. Of course this is not realistic, particularly for current returning users. Therefore, it’s up to the platforms themselves to continue to develop a way to stand behind the integrity of their products and protect children.
With an unwieldy number of users, TikTok already faces an uphill battle employing a security system that works effectively to protect its users. But with all the protections in place, workarounds still exist and savvy youngsters know how to exploit the loopholes. Perhaps AI designed safeguards are necessary to correct this. The caveat, of course, is that it’s the manipulated algorithms, something that’s at the very core of artificial intelligence, that got us here in the first place.
Engagement Resources
- Click on the following link to visit the TikTok Safety Center and review the guidelines firsthand: https://www.tiktok.com/safety/en/
- The Child Rescue Coalition has a concise list of ways to help keep users safe located here.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.

Why Former President Trump’s Presidential Immunity Arguments Should Be Rejected
Why Former President Trump’s Presidential Immunity Arguments Should Be Rejected
Civil Rights Policy Brief #217 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | January 12, 2024
Photo taken from: www.ny1.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary: Presidential immunity in the United States is a legal doctrine that provides a defense for former and current presidents from certain legal claims. While the doctrine is not mentioned in the text of the U.S. Constitution or any federal statute, it has been recognized by United States Supreme Court case law, although in a rather incomplete fashion.
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Fitzgerald. This case established that a former President is absolutely immune from a civil action for damages regarding conduct within the “outer perimeter of their duties.” The dissent, however, mentioned that they would not have allowed absolute immunity but immunity only for certain specified acts of the President. In 1997 the court decided Clinton v. Jones. That court ruled that there is no presidential immunity defense in a criminal case against a president for acts that occurred prior to when he took office. These cases establish the immunity doctrine but apply only to certain civil actions and to incidents occurring before the person became president. No court has ever ruled on acts occurring during a presidential term in a state or federal criminal case against a current or former President.
Former President Donald Trump in 2023 was charged in four separate criminal cases. He is also a party in a civil defamation lawsuit filed against him by E. Jean Carroll. The former President has raised the presidential immunity defense in his defamation case, which was ultimately rejected. In the federal election subversion case against him, Trump raised the defense, which was rejected by the trial judge. That case was subsequently appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which held a hearing on the immunity issue on January 9th, 2024. And in the Georgia election subversion case, former President Trump invoked the presidential immunity case in filings made with the court to have the case dismissed. Rulings in the cases and on whether the immunity defense will be allowed have not been issued in either election subversion case so far.
Policy Analysis: What is the defense of presidential immunity and why is it so important in Trump’s criminal cases?
The rationale for the doctrine of presidential immunity is that if a person performing duties in his official capacity, such as a President of the United States, had to consistently deal and respond to a barrage of civil lawsuits then the official might be hesitant in exercising his duties for fear of injuring one individual. The official’s duties are designed for him or her to act in the public interest and the best interests of the community and the defense is designed to permit unfettered official action without fear of individual retribution.
But while that rationale protects a president from a suit for civil damages, the cases against Trump are criminal cases and are for incidents he took while he was currently holding the office of President. What it boils down to is whether a president can and should be held accountable for criminal conduct. Because of his actions surrounding the 2020 presidential election it is clear that Mr. Trump engaged in actions to subvert the results of the national election in Georgia and a number of other states. In the Georgia state election subversion case, Mr. Trump is accused of trying to pressure Georgia officials of manipulating the results of the vote tally in the state to favor him. And in the federal election subversion case, Mr. Trump is accused of inciting an insurrection in order to prevent Congress from certifying the election win for Joe Biden and preventing the peaceful transfer of power. These acts are prohibited by federal and Georgia state law and would have resulted in criminal charges and the potential for imprisonment for any ordinary person engaging in those acts.
Yet Trump’s arguments for why he should be afforded the defense of presidential immunity is dangerous because it threatens to make a president not accountable to the laws of the United States. In Trump’s federal election case before Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Judge denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case because she said, “…that position [as President] does not confer a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass” and she is correct. Because if Trump were to succeed in his argument, there would conceivably be no situation where Trump would be held criminally liable for any acts he takes in the future. He would simply be given a free hand to do what he wants and whatever he pleases even if his conduct and actions were prohibited by law. And he would probably be emboldened to do more knowing that there would be no consequences to him personally. This is not what was intended by the presidential immunity defense. No man or woman is above the law and the consequences that go along with violating the law. Former President Trump should not be afforded the presidential immunity defense in order to demonstrate that the laws apply equally to everyone. The courts should keep this in mind when they finally craft their rulings in the Trump criminal cases. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Politico – interactive map tracking former President Trump’s four criminal cases with updates.
- Protect Democracy – non – profit group’s info page on presidential immunity with some history on the issue.
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.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.

Abortion Restrictions Continue as Women Stockpile Medication
Abortion Restrictions Continue as Women Stockpile Medication
Health and Gender Policy Brief #169 | By: Geoffrey Small | January 11, 2024
Photo taken from: www.plannedparenthood.org
__________________________________
A newly published JAMA Internal Medicine research letter has indicated that women are stockpiling abortion pills in the United States. With recent state developments in restricting access to abortion procedures, women across the U.S. are feeling the impact of their waning reproductive rights by taking precautions that were unimaginable in the Roe v. Wade era. As studies are being published measuring the fallout of the Supreme Court’s reversal, a moderate pro-abortion ballot proposal in Arkansas is gaining a lot of criticism in a state that has a total abortion ban. In Texas, the appellate court and their Supreme Court has ruled that hospitals can ban certain emergency abortion procedures, as shown in Kate Cox’s renown court battle. These restrictive measures may lead to a new norm where rates of stockpiling abortion medication and access inequality may grow.
Policy Analysis
On January 2nd, The JAMA network published a research letter that indicated women were stockpiling mifepristone and misoprostol. The data was measured through a European online telemedicine service called Aid Access. The letter states that from September 2021 to April 2023, 48,400 requests from the U.S. were made for “advance provision”, a category for women who are currently not pregnant. In states where abortion bans were administered, these particular requests increased ninefold. Socio-economic and racial inequities to accessibility were also indicated in the letter. There was a greater proportion of requests from white unmarried women, at least 30 years old, who live in urban areas that had less overall poverty. On January 3rd, the FDA finalized a rule change that would allow mail-order abortion pills to be ordered within the United States.
Women are taking more precautionary measures as the nation debates state restrictions. The Arkansas Advocate reported in November that a ballot proposal, submitted by the nonprofit For AR People, would require an amendment to Arkansas’ total abortion ban. This proposal came after the non-profit’s internal polling indicated that 51 percent of Arkansas citizens supported limited reproductive rights. If the state votes in favor of the ballot, Arkansas will codify abortions through 18 weeks of pregnancy and in cases of rape, incest, or a life-threatening pregnancy. However, some online advocates argue that the 18-week ban would still enshrine a more restrictive constitutional measure when compared to the 24-week Roe v. Wade timeline. Many advocates also agree that the 24-week timeline is arbitrary and support complete unrestricted access.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed a ruling in December that would have allowed Kate Cox to receive an abortion that was diagnosed with a lethal abnormality. This forced her to leave the state to terminate her non-viable pregnancy.
Also, on January 2nd, the federal court of appeals in Texas ruled that hospitals cannot be required to perform emergency abortions, in order to stabilize a patient’s life, after federal guidance from the Biden Administration stated the procedures are necessary in hospitals receiving Medicare. The federal court ruled that the Biden Administration overstepped its authority, because the requirement ran counter to state laws.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on the FDA approval of access to abortion medication this summer. The future of reproductive rights is still uncertain even for mifepristone, a drug that was approved 20 years ago by the FDA. If anyone needs access to this federally sanctioned medication, please visit Aid Access in the link below.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Links

Fadi’s Story: The Challenges to Palestinian Identity
Fadi’s Story: The Challenges to Palestinian Identity
Foreign Policy Brief #113 | By: Aziza Taslaq | January 9, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.foreignpolicy.com
__________________________________
Fadi’s roots trace back to the village of Tetaba, situated near Safad in Palestine. However, his grandparents were compelled to relocate to Lebanon in 1948 as a consequence of the displacement caused by Israeli forces seizing their homes and lands. This historical event, known as the Nakba, led to Fadi’s family obtaining travel documents as they became part of the Palestinian diaspora. Based on the Geneva Convention, the travel document aimed to protect civilians during armed conflicts and facilitate the rights of Palestinian refugees, including international travel and access to various services.
Born in one of the Gulf countries, Fadi faced challenges early on. Until the year 2000, he couldn’t enter most Gulf countries due to his lack of a Palestinian ID. The Palestinian ID, issued by the Palestinian Authority, is a crucial identification card for residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To obtain it, individuals must contact the Palestinian Ministry of Interior or local authorities, submit required documents like proof of residency and birth certificates, and follow the specific process outlined by the authorities. The Palestinian ID, issued by the Palestinian Authority, serves as a local identification and proof of residency for residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. On the other hand, the Palestinian Travel Document, also issued by the Palestinian Authority, is used as a substitute for a passport, enabling international travel for Palestinians who do not hold a national passport or ID, such as refugees. This limitation extended to Fadi’s professional life as local companies showed a preference for native residents, creating hurdles for Fadi and other Palestinians in similar situations.
Love knows no borders. Fadi met his future wife online while he was living in the Gulf, and she was living in Jordan. Despite the physical distance, their relationship deepened through virtual interactions. Driven by a strong connection, he made the heartfelt decision to travel to Jordan to formally engage her, bridging the gap between their two locations and taking their relationship to the next level. Attempting to unite post-marriage in the Gulf proved futile as Fadi’s request for his fiancée’s relocation was denied due to his possession of a travel document instead of a valid Palestinian ID. Consequently, Fadi chose to move to Jordan, and the couple built a life together, facing additional challenges due to his identity status.
In Jordan, Fadi encountered obstacles in his pursuit of a career as he lacked identity documentation. The struggles extended to his daughters when their mother’s attempt to secure Jordanian residency for them was denied, linking their status to their father’s. The only two possible scenarios for them to acquire residency were either through divorce or the father’s death. This situation significantly complicated Fadi’s family life.
In an attempt to find a resolution, Fadi journeyed to Bahrain in 2016 to secure a Palestinian passport from the Palestinian Embassy, valid for five years. Despite his endeavors, challenges persisted. Upon the passport’s expiration, a visit to the Palestinian Embassy in Jordan only deepened his frustration. He learned that possessing solely a Palestinian Passport is insufficient for entry into Palestine, even for tourism; a Palestinian ID is also required. This raises inquiries about the rationale behind these restrictions.
Currently engaged in remote work as a sales representative, Fadi utilizes his sales and communication expertise. He encounters persistent challenges due to global conflicts impacting his company. While appreciative of the international support for the Palestinian cause, he underscores the complexities with official identification documents and governmental institutions. Fadi emphasizes his inability to either return to or visit Palestine, expressing frustration with the dire circumstances in Gaza.
Fadi’s close ties to the ongoing conflict in Palestine are evident through his wife’s aunts, who are married to Palestinians, and his friends residing in the West Bank. These personal connections underscore the extensive impact of the war. The economic hardships and travel constraints imposed have resulted in the separation of families, highlighting the broader implications of the persistent conflicts in the region.
Despite residing outside Palestine, Fadi’s awareness of the internal conditions and political dynamics has grown. He remains critical of Zionism, emphasizing the denial of basic rights to Palestinians while Israelis enjoy dual passports and the ability to reside in various countries. Fadi’s story sheds light on the resilience and determination of Palestinians facing identity challenges and calls for global recognition of their rights and a just resolution to the ongoing conflicts in the region.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.

Is Russia’s President Putin Afraid of Alexei Navalny?
Is Russia’s President Putin Afraid of Alexei Navalny?
Foreign Policy Brief #112 | By: Yelena Korshunov | January 8, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk – Illustration by Chris Tilbury; images © Michał Siergiejevicz
__________________________________
Alexei Navalny is one of the leaders of the Russian opposition and a leading opponent of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. Navalny gained initial fame for his investigations into corruption in Russia. The biggest exploration published by Navalny in 2021 was a lavish Black Sea property he claimed is owned by Putin. The investigation with an accompanying two-hour YouTube video claimed the property cost $1.35 billion and was paid for “with the largest bribe in history.” The report alleges that the property, located along Russia’s southern Black Sea coast, is 39 times the size of Monaco and features a casino inside an 11-mile mansion, along with an ice rink and vineyards.
Alexei Navalny is of Russian and Ukrainian descent. He grew up in a city named Obninsk, located about 62 miles southwest of Moscow. When the USSR has collapsed, his parents became the basket-weaving factory owners. Being a child Alexei spent summertime with his grandmother in Ukraine. Navalny developed his career as a lawyer, businessmen, and politician. He graduated from the People’s Frienship University of Russia with a degree in law and then studied finance at the Financial University of the Goverement of Russian Federation. Later Navalny received a scholarship for the 6-month Yale World Fellows program at Yale.
After an attempted poisoning by a chemical warfare agent from the Novichok group and subsequent treatment in Germany, Navalny returned to Russia on January 17, 2021. Novichok is a family of nerve agents some of which are binary chemical weapons. The agents were developed at the state chemical research institute by the former Soviet Union and Russia between 1971 and 1993. Navalny accused Putin of being responsible for his poisoning.
Right after landidng at the Moscow’s airport, Navalny was immediately arrested on a number of charges, including creating an “extremist community.” The same month he was thrown into correctional colony #2 in the city of Pokrov.
However, on the eve of the presidential elections in Russia in March, 2024, since December 6, 2023, Navalny had not been connected via video link at court hearings, and his lawyers and associates had not been informed where he was. The oppositionist last appeared at a court hearing via video link on November 28. After that, at all meetings, the correctional facility didn’t connect the politician to video conferencing. According to his representatives, the colony officials explained this by saying that there had been an “accident” and there was no electricity.
Navalny’s disappearance was preceded by the arrest of three lawyers who at different times represented his interests: Igor Sergunin, Vadim Kobzev and Alexei Liptser. In October, they were taken into custody on charges of participation in an “extremist community.”
In Navalny’s last publication on his website https://navalny.com, dated December 7, he calls Russians to vote against Vladimir Putin: “Presidential elections will take place on March 17, 2024. On this day, we encourage everyone to come to the polling stations and vote against Vladimir Putin. This can be done by checking the boxes for any other candidate.”
“Use the 100 days before the vote to campaign against Putin and his power’, Navalny encourages. “Without a doubt, we are in for a parody of the electoral procedure. And the final results will, as usual, be falsified. But any election, even the most fraudulent one, is a time of doubt. People think about who is in power and why he is there. The main task of the Russian opposition, the task of all honest citizens, is to answer these doubts with all their might. Putin will harm Russia. He must go. Putin views these elections as a referendum on approval of his actions. Referendum on approval of the war.”
On December 25, it finally became known where Alexei Navalny is located. He was transferred to correctional colony IK- 3 “Polar Wolf” in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region above the Arctic Circle. The colony to which Navalny was moved has a very bad reputation. Until that moment, there had been no contact with the opposition politician for 19 days. “We found Alexei Navalny,” the politician’s press secretary, Kira Yarmysh, wrote on her X (formerly Twitter) account. “He is located in IK-3 in the village of Kharp, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region. The lawyer saw him today. Alexey is fine.”
On December 26, Navalny’s associates published his first letter after being transferred, “I am your new Ded Moroz [Grandpa Frost, Russia’s analog to Santa Claus]. So what? I have a sheepskin coat, a hat with earflaps, soon they will give me felt boots, and within 20 days of the transfer I have grown a beard. True, there are no deer, but there are huge, fluffy, very beautiful shepherd dogs… The 20 days of the transfer were quite tiring, but I was still in a great mood, as befits Ded Moroz.” With these words Aleksei Navalny tries to cheer up his supporters and desperate family, but the real conditions of the colony he is in are awful. The next brief will give the reader a tour into its walls.
- Aleksei Navalny and his family. Photo from navalny.com
- Aleksei Navalny under arrest. Photo from dzen.ru
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.