JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Murky World Of Sports Betting
Brief #166 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by: Reilly Fitzgerald
In the murky world of sports betting, a $330 billion industry teetering on the edge of legality, the line between fair play and corruption is becoming increasingly blurred. As leagues, athletes, and law enforcement grapple with the pervasive influence of sports betting, the integrity of competition hangs in the balance.
The Tech Companies Feting and Financing Trump
Brief #112 – Technology Policy Brief
by : Mindy Spatt
Despite his controversial legacy, Donald Trump continues to garner significant financial backing from influential tech moguls like Steve Schwarzman and David Sacks. These tech titans, who once voiced their opposition, are now rallying behind Trump, driven by his anti-regulation stance that aligns with their business interests.
Story of Pulitzer winner Vladimir Kara-Murza, an oppositionist imprisoned in Russia: Part 2
Brief #145 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Yelena Korshunov
Imprisoned Russian opposition leader and Pulitzer winner Vladimir Kara-Murza continues to embody resilience and the fight for democracy in the face of severe repression by the Putin regime. As international calls for his release grow louder, his unwavering commitment to freedom and justice serves as a powerful testament to the enduring spirit of dissent in Russia.
TIME FOR A U.S. MIDDLE EAST PEACE POLICY
JUNE OP ED
by: U.S. Resist News Staff
President Biden must seize the opportunity to champion a bold Middle East Peace Policy, recognizing Palestinian statehood and endorsing international legal decisions to restore U.S. credibility. By leading efforts towards a two-state solution and a Marshall Plan for regional reconstruction, the U.S. can foster lasting peace and stability in the Middle East.
Louisiana Requiring Display of Ten Commandments In All Public Schools Is Unconstitutional
Brief #225 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by: Rod Maggay
Louisiana’s House Bill No. 71, which mandates the display of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms, is a brazen assault on the separation of church and state. This divisive legislation not only tramples on constitutional rights but also risks alienating non-Christian students in a state-funded endorsement of one religion.
Tackling the Thirst: Water Scarcity and the Rise of Innovative Conservation Technologies
Brief #169 – Environment Policy Brief
by : Inijah Quadri
Water scarcity, exacerbated by factors such as climate change and population growth, poses a significant threat to over 2 billion people worldwide. Innovative conservation technologies offer hope in mitigating the effects of water scarcity, from precision agriculture to smart water management systems.
Will Artificial Intelligence Save California… or Ruin It?
Brief #111 – Technology Policy Brief
by : Mindy Spatt
Artificial intelligence holds the potential to both revive California’s tech industry and jeopardize the integrity of its elections, as Supervisor Dean Preston cautions. With groundbreaking AI legislation on the line and facing intense opposition from industry players, California stands at a critical juncture in shaping its future.
The Week That Was: Global News In Review
Brief #144 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Abran C
This week’s global news highlights significant events, including the Biden administration’s new asylum ban at the US-Mexico border and Human Rights Watch’s alarming report on mass killings of Ethiopian migrants by Saudi border guards. Additionally, unrest in New Caledonia over French electoral reforms and Haiti’s ongoing crisis under interim Prime Minister Garry Conille draw international attention.
The Effect of Unpaid Student Loans on the Economy
Brief #92 – Education Policy Brief
by: Arvind Salem
Explore the economic ramifications of unpaid student loans amid the backdrop of the CARES Act and subsequent policy measures enacted by Presidents Trump and Biden. Delve into the complexities of student loan forgiveness proposals, legal challenges, and the efficacy of existing relief programs like the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) initiative.
Cryptocurrencies: Economic Implications and Challenges
Cryptocurrencies: Economic Implications and Challenges
Economic Policy Brief #60 | By: Inijah Quadri| April 08, 2024
Featured Photo: www.cawnetworkusa.com
__________________________________
The rise of cryptocurrencies has ushered in a new era in the global financial system. With Bitcoin, Ethereum, and thousands of other digital currencies gaining traction, the potential for a seismic shift in how transactions are conducted, wealth is stored, and investments are made is increasingly evident. This transition towards a more digitized economy presents significant opportunities, including enhanced transactional efficiency, financial inclusion for the unbanked, and the reduction of transaction costs. However, it also poses profound challenges, such as regulatory hurdles, market volatility, security concerns, and its impact on traditional banking and monetary policy.
Before delving deeper into the implications of cryptocurrencies, it is essential to understand what they are. Cryptocurrencies are digital or virtual currencies that use cryptography for security and operate on a technology called blockchain, making them decentralized by nature. Unlike traditional digital currencies issued by governments (fiat), cryptocurrencies operate independently of a central authority. This fundamental difference highlights the unique nature of cryptocurrencies and sets the stage for their potential to revolutionize the financial system.
Analysis
Cryptocurrencies offer a decentralized alternative to traditional fiat currencies, operating independently of central banks and governmental oversight. Despite their intangible nature, cryptocurrencies are ‘real’ in the sense that they represent value and can be used for transactions. They don’t have a physical form like coins or notes but exist as digital entries in a blockchain. Blockchain technology is a decentralized ledger that records all transactions across a network of computers, ensuring security and transparency. Cryptocurrencies are created through a process called mining, where individuals or companies use powerful computers to solve complex mathematical problems that validate transactions and add them to the blockchain, earning cryptocurrencies in return.
For instance, consider a simple cryptocurrency transaction using Bitcoin. Alice wants to send Bitcoin to Bob. She initiates the transaction by entering Bob’s digital wallet address and the amount to send. This transaction request is broadcast to the blockchain network, where miners verify the transaction and add it to a new block in the blockchain. Once the transaction is confirmed, Bob receives the Bitcoin. This process eliminates the need for a central authority, like a bank, facilitating direct and efficient transfers. These fundamental aspects have implications for monetary sovereignty, as the control over the money supply and interest rates could shift away from national authorities. The adoption of cryptocurrencies on a large scale could undermine the ability of countries to implement effective monetary policies, potentially destabilizing economies.
Market volatility also remains a significant challenge. The price of cryptocurrencies can experience dramatic fluctuations, as seen in the Bitcoin price surge to nearly $65,000 in April 2021 before halving in value just months later. While the price at the time of this writing has risen to yet another high, such volatility can be attributed to speculative trading, and regulatory news, and are often swinging from time to time. This unpredictability poses risks for both individual investors and the broader financial system, particularly if cryptocurrencies become intertwined with traditional financial institutions.
Security concerns also loom large. The decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies makes them targets for hackers and cybercriminals. High-profile incidents, such as the $530 million hack of the Coincheck exchange in 2018, underscore the vulnerabilities in digital currency exchanges and wallets.
Despite these challenges, the transition to cryptocurrencies holds promise for enhancing financial inclusion. Over 1.5 billion adults worldwide remain unbanked, with no access to a traditional bank. This is not limited to poor countries, as a sizeable percent of the US adult population is unbanked too. Cryptocurrencies, accessible via smartphones, could bridge this gap, offering a means to store value, make payments, and access credit without the need for a bank account.
Regulatory clarity is essential for the continued adoption and integration of cryptocurrencies into the global economy. The case of Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, underscores the urgent need for regulatory oversight. His arrest and the subsequent collapse of FTX highlighted the risks of mismanagement and fraudulent activities within the cryptocurrency space. This incident serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the importance of transparency, regulatory compliance, and robust security measures to protect investors and maintain market integrity.
The current regulatory scenarios for cryptocurrencies are varied, ranging from outright bans to comprehensive legal frameworks aimed at integrating them into the financial system while addressing concerns such as fraud, money laundering, and market stability. Governments and financial institutions are grappling with how to regulate digital currencies to prevent money laundering, protect consumers, and ensure financial stability without stifling innovation. An optimal regulatory approach involves balancing the need for innovation and the protection of consumers and the financial system. For example, regulations could require cryptocurrency exchanges to implement standard security measures, disclose risk factors to users, and obtain licenses to operate, ensuring a safer ecosystem for digital currencies. The European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, proposed in 2020, exemplifies efforts to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets.
The transition to cryptocurrencies presents a paradigm shift with far-reaching implications for the global economy. While the potential benefits are significant, navigating the accompanying challenges will require thoughtful regulation, robust security measures, and continued innovation. As this transition unfolds, stakeholders across the financial spectrum must engage in open dialogue and collaboration to harness the benefits of digital currencies while mitigating their risks.
Engagement Resources
- Blockchain and Cryptocurrency Regulation 2021, Global Legal Insights (https://www.globallegalinsights.com/): Provides insights into the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology across various jurisdictions.
- Coin Center (https://www.coincenter.org/): A non-profit research and advocacy center focused on public policy issues facing cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies.
- The World Bank – Financial Inclusion (https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/financialinclusion/overview): Offers resources and research on how digital financial services, including cryptocurrencies, can enhance financial inclusion globally.
- Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/): Conducts research on the rapidly growing area of alternative finance, including cryptocurrencies, to inform policy and practice.
- International Monetary Fund (IMF) – Digital Currencies (https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2023/04/12/IMF-Approach-to-Central-Bank-Digital-Currency-Capacity-Development-532177): The IMF provides analysis and policy advice on the macroeconomic implications of digital currencies and their impact on the global financial system.
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.
Rahma’s Journey: Navigating Pregnancy Amidst Hardship in Gaza
Rahma’s Journey: Navigating Pregnancy Amidst Hardship in Gaza
Foreign Policy Brief #135 | By: Aziza Taslaq | April 05, 2024
Featured Photo: www.middleeastmonitor.com
__________________________________
In Gaza, life resembles a relentless uphill climb, especially for soon-to-be mothers like Rahma, who, at seven months pregnant, faces each day as if scaling a mountain. Rahma, a 25-year-old resident of Khan Younes, confronts the formidable challenges of pregnancy amidst the turmoil of Gaza. This marks her first pregnancy, with no prior experience of motherhood. Compounded by the uncertainty surrounding her husband’s whereabouts as a civil defense member, Rahma finds solace amidst the rubble with her mother, two sisters, and a young brother in Rafah. Their familial bond serves as a beacon of hope amidst the destruction wrought by an Israeli airstrike, which razed not only their home but also that of Rahma’s husband’s family.
First off, there’s not enough food to go around. Rahma finds it really tough to get her hands on good, nutritious food that she and her little one need. Vitamins? Forget about it. And during Ramadan, when she’s fasting, it’s even harder. It’s like trying to run a marathon without proper fuel. Clean water is also hard to come by, which makes things even trickier.
On top of all that, Rahma can’t even get the important medical tests she needs to make sure her baby is healthy. Imagine not being able to see a doctor when you’re worried about your little one! It’s because the hospitals don’t have the right tools. So, she’s left feeling really anxious about any problems that might pop up during her pregnancy. Plus, her body aches all over, but she can’t get the treatment she needs to feel better.
Looking ahead, Rahma faces additional challenges in the process of giving birth and feeding her newborn. With no access to hospitals, Rahma is uncertain about how she will navigate childbirth. The traditional method, involving the assistance of a “Dayeh” at home, may be her only option, adding to her anxiety about the safety and well-being of herself and her baby. Furthermore, the scarcity of food in Gaza presents obstacles to breastfeeding, raising concerns about how Rahma will nourish her newborn. While she may seek assistance from charities for formula milk, the availability and accessibility of such support remains uncertain.
But it’s not just the physical stuff that’s weighing Rahma down. The constant fear of violence and not knowing what’s going to happen next is really tough on her mind. She’s always worrying about how she’s going to keep her baby safe in such a dangerous place. Seeing all the scary stuff that happens during wars has left her feeling really scared and unsure about the future.
Rahma’s not alone in all this. There are lots of other moms-to-be in Gaza going through the same struggles. Can you believe that over 52 thousand women are in danger? That’s a lot of moms facing the same tough times, but even in the darkest of days, Rahma finds strength in her community. They stick together and help each other out, which gives her hope that she can make it through this tough time.
Rahma’s journey is a reminder that even when things seem really hard, there’s always hope. She’s like a shining light in the darkness, showing us that even in the toughest times, people can find strength and keep going. She’s a real hero for all the moms out there facing tough times.
For more articles and in-depth analysis on the conflict in Gaza, click here. Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy 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.
Is Judge Cannon Tilting The Classified Documents Case In Trump’s Favor?
Is Judge Cannon Tilting The Classified Documents Case In Trump’s Favor?
Civil Rights Policy Brief #222 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | April 05, 2024
Featured Photo by Indy Silva for U.S. Resist News, 2024
__________________________________
The Honorable Aileen Cannon is a federal district judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida who was appointed to the bench by President Trump in 2020. The jurisdiction of the court covers nine counties in Southern Florida including Broward, Miami – Dade and West Palm Beach. Cases that are appealed are heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Judge Cannon has been the presiding judge in two cases involving former President Donald Trump. She presided over the civil case Trump v. United States (2022), which was the case where President Trump challenged the FBI search of his Mar – a – Lago residence in August 2022. And in 2023 Judge Cannon was assigned the criminal case United States v. Trump which was about the former President’s mis – handling of sensitive national defense documents. Judge Cannon has been accused of issuing orders that mischaracterize the law and the facts of the case in order to give the former President an unfair advantage in both court cases.
On December 1, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ordered Judge Cannon to dismiss the civil case brought by the former President. The court reasoned that Judge Cannon improperly exercised jurisdiction by hearing the case and that the Judge even improperly raised legal positions that the President’s lawyers did not mention.
In 2023, Judge Cannon issued a number of orders that inexplicably created a delay in the criminal case. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith and his team have pushed for a trial schedule but have instead seen Judge Cannon take more than a month to grant a hearing on the trial schedule issue and suspend the deadlines for motions related to the use of classified information in the case. When the prosecutors requested a December 18, 2023 deadline for a response to a motion from the former President’s legal team, Judge Cannon inexplicably denied the special prosecutor’s request even though the defense attorneys had not even responded yet.
Recently, Judge Cannon issued an order regarding jury instructions in the case that was considered premature since a jury had not even been impaneled yet. (Jury instructions are only requested when a jury is selected, as a jury may not even be needed due to a case settling or being dismissed). Her order requested two sets of jury instructions that rest on an inaccurate reading of two statutes at issue in the case – the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act.
Due to these orders and scheduling delays imposed by Judge Cannon on the case, it is being discussed whether Judge Cannon is intentionally trying to help the former President by delaying the trial or even tilting it in Mr. Trump’s favor. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Judges are ordinarily given a reasonable amount of discretion as to how to manage cases, especially when it comes to scheduling a trial and scheduling deadlines for when motions must be filed. They are constrained in their actions and what they can rule on by the law – the statutes and case law – which often provides a general framework as how a trial will generally proceed. What has made discussion around Judge Cannon’s handling of the two Trump cases that have appeared in her courtroom significant is that her orders are orders that should never have been made in these kinds of cases, according to national defense attorneys who are familiar with these specialized cases. It is highly unlikely that any other judge in the U.S. would have disregarded established law or taken an inordinate amount of time to issue an order as Judge Cannon has. Because of her actions, it has become a talking point among the public if Judge Cannon is trying to intentionally delay Trump’s criminal trial until after the November 2024 election.
What is notable about Judge Cannon’s actions in the case is that she is taking longer than necessary to issue rulings. One theory about this is that her deliberate slow pace might be a tactic to prevent the Special Prosecutor’s team from appealing her order and ruling, thus delaying the case even further. If there is no ruling on an important issue, then there is no legal basis to make an appeal yet. Judge Cannon had been forcefully overruled in the prior Trump civil case that she presided over and she may be hesitant to issue a ruling now that could be overruled again. Additionally, an appeal could also start the process of having her forcefully removed from the case, which could be something she would want to avoid.
Even with all of those lingering questions, Judge Cannon issued another order, which raised the question whether she was competent to oversee the case. Judge Cannon requested two sets of jury instructions from the parties. That was an odd request in and of itself since it was premature to request jury instructions when a jury had not even been seated yet. But what made her request even more bizarre was when she asked for instructions as to whether, under the Presidential Records Act, the classified documents at issue are “personal” or “presidential.” This is completely irrelevant as that statute only lists how documents are classified and has no bearing on Trump’s hoarding of documents. By mentioning it in her courtroom, Judge Cannon is trying to make it an issue when it has no connection to Trump’s criminal trial. But if her request for these bizarre jury instructions proceed, it could distort the trial and make the trial about the minor issue of how presidential documents are categorized instead of what is really the heart of the case – whether Trump violated the law by willfully retaining sensitive national security documents that he should have never have kept after his presidency ended. Trials are events that are specifically focused on a set of issues and not a place to inject irrelevant discussions on issues that are minor at best, like how documents are categorized. For Judge Cannon to focus on these trivial issues for trial plays into Trump’s hand to delay and obfuscate what the case is really about.
The case is still ongoing with many potential avenues to go down but Judge Cannon’s actions in the case deserve close scrutiny as the case proceeds. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- The Hill – article on Florida procedures and how Judge Cannon was assigned the Trump classified documents case.
- United States Courts – infopage on how to file a judicial complaint against a judge.
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 Democracy 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!
Do States Have the Right to Deport Immigrants? A Look at Texas Immigration Law
Do States Have the Right to Deport Immigrants? A Look at Texas Immigration Legislature
Social Justice Policy Brief #160 | By: Devyne Byrd | April 03, 2024
Featured Photo: www.nytimes.com
__________________________________
The courts continue to fight over the constitutionality of Texas’s new immigration law which is being criticized as the harshest immigration policy in modern US history. Texas Governor Abbot signed what is known as SB4 in December 2023, which made illegally entering Texas a state crime and authorized state law enforcement to stop, arrest, and jail migrants. It also grants de facto deportation powers to state judges by allowing them to deport migrants to avoid prosecution. The law has currently been blocked by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after they granted a preliminary injunction. This comes after the Supreme Court denied emergency motions filed by the Biden Administration to block enforcement.
President Biden and the Justice Department have adamantly opposed the bill, stating it is unconstitutional and that immigration enforcement is exclusively under federal authority. The administration cites the Supremacy Clause, the doctrine that federal law preempts conflicting state laws, as the prevailing Constitutional objection. They also emphasize the foreign relation disputes the bill has caused with the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemning SB4, saying it “categorically rejects any measure that allows state or local authorities to exercise immigration control, and to arrest and return nationals or foreigners to Mexican territory.” Mexico has stated that they will not accept the migrants Texas deports into their territory.
Following the short window that Texas was allowed to enforce the immigration law, Republican-controlled states moved to follow suit, considering bills that would echo the immigration policies in SB4. Louisiana legislators will consider Bill 388 which allows local and state law enforcement to arrest people on suspicions that they crossed the border illegally where they would face up to a year in prison. Oklahoma, Tennessee, and New Hampshire have all put similar bills into motion.
Civil and immigrant rights organizations have criticized SB4 and the follow-up immigration laws in other states over concerns that the laws are very likely to lead to racial profiling. Law enforcement would be empowered to question someone’s immigration status without cause or justification which will likely lead to Hispanic populations being heavily profiled and policed. The law does not specify any additional training or knowledge of the immigration process that would expand on the context surrounding the inquiry into immigration status other than suspicion.
Engagement Resources
- Inspired by Texas, Republicans in Other States Eye Immigration Bills – An article discussing the domino effect SB4 has had in other Republican-led states.
- Extreme Texas immigration law stays paused, but SCOTUS may have the last word – An article covering the legal journey of SB4 through the appeals and Supreme Court
Wanna stay in-the-know? Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
The Chilling Effect of Republican Education Policy
The Chilling Effect of Republican Education Policy
Education Policy Brief #90 | By: Rudolph Lurz | April 02, 2024
Featured Photo: www.pen.org
__________________________________
The term “chilling effect” is relatively new. It entered the modern legal vernacular in the 1950s and 60s during the Red Scare, as policy makers like Joseph McCarthy sought to find hidden communists in the public sphere. It is now ubiquitous in legal briefs, and a central part of any 1st Amendment course at American law schools. The Free Speech Center of Middle Tennessee State University defines the term as “deterring free speech and association rights protected by the First Amendment as a result of government laws or actions that appear to target expression.”
Generally speaking, when legal experts and policy makers analyze bills and executive actions, it is not a positive thing to receive a chilling effect label. It is a warning that the proposal requires revision. It signals that an action can have a harmful effect if it progresses. The prudent response to a chilling effect accusation is to return to the drawing board and make sure the language contained in the proposal is clear, unambiguous, and will not have the unintended consequence of stifling free speech or individual liberty.
Recent policy initiatives from conservative policy actors have run through the red-light warnings of chilling effect designations. Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, commonly referred to as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, is one recent example of chilling effect becoming policy. The designed outcome of that legislation was to prevent the instruction of gender identity or sexual orientation in K-3 classrooms.
The language contained within the legislation was purposely vague. What constitutes “instruction”? Is it a classroom discussion? A storybook on the bookshelf that has a character with two moms? A rainbow paperweight on the teacher’s desk?
As legal challenges to the law unfolded, Florida’s educators were caught in a chilling effect no man’s land. The law, despite the rationale of protecting young learners, was quickly expanded to all K-12 classrooms in the state. Florida’s educators, not wanting to risk losing their jobs or licenses, removed any potentially controversial materials or covered their bookshelves with construction paper.
Other initiatives added to the deep freeze taking place in the Sunshine State. HB 1069 made it easier for books to be challenged for containing pornographic content. The Stop W.O.K.E. Act targeted the instruction of controversial content that would make students upset, such as critical race theory. The end result was districts removing thousands of books from library bookshelves, and teachers walking on proverbial eggshells as they wrote and executed lesson plans in their own classrooms.
From classrooms to libraries to courtrooms, the message is clear. A chilling effect is the end goal for Republicans. As conservatives blow past legal stop signs, any efforts to reverse the deep chill through litigation will always run behind the laws going into effect.
Analysis
Politically, these measures are wise. Republicans, and most sane people for that matter, are generally opposed to pornographic content in elementary schools. Parents want to protect their kids. Most folks would like to be assured that little Johnny is learning about mathematics, science and history instead of debating gender identity in the classroom.
The actual implementation of these initiatives is more complicated. What defines “pornography”? Associate Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously stated, “I know it when I see it,” when referring to obscene content.
The various school and library laws being implemented across the country provide just as much ambiguous leeway when challenging educational materials as pornographic or obscene.
If a lesbian kiss or a gay protagonist expressing romantic feelings for a crush can be challenged as pornographic content, then it is not surprising to see districts removing books by the thousands from school libraries.
It is safer for public school districts to bring books down than leave them up and face lawsuits and brigades of out-of-town partisans turning school board meetings into screaming matches.
Just this month, and well over a year after “Don’t Say Gay” became Florida law, a settlement was reached that clarified how the law was to be implemented. That settlement made clear that discussion of LGBTQ+ issues was acceptable, along with individual teachers’ expressions of their own beliefs, such as a picture with their same-sex spouse or a rainbow flag displayed in the classroom, as long as they were not formal topics of instruction in the curriculum. Governor DeSantis considered it a win, because the law was not repealed.
Why shouldn’t he consider it a win? Don’t Say Gay was signed into law almost two years before the legal settlement that thawed some of the chilling effects on expression and discussion. It might be months or years before further judicial decisions put books labeled as “pornographic” back on library bookshelves.
The goal of conservative policy actors is to freeze any so-called “woke” content in schools and society at large. Since they cannot legally do that, the best they can do is pass purposefully vague legislation which forces people to self-regulate their speech and behavior.
By self-regulate, let me be clear, I mean stifle or repress.
Since the courts will always be months or years behind the policies, the chill will remain in effect long before the legal thaws arrive to make freedom of expression safe again.
Educators, students, and free thinkers are left out in the cold.
Engagement Resources
- Initial Guidance from Florida Education Association (Florida’s largest teachers’ union), on implementation of the Parental Rights in Education Act can be found here.
- PEN America. (2023 ). Educational Intimidation [Report].
- Full terms of court settlement can be found here.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy 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.
Former President Donald Trump’s Gag Order
Former President Donald Trump’s Gag Order
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #126 | By: Arvind Salem | April 02, 2024
Featured Photo: www.bloomberg.com
__________________________________
On April 15th, the first criminal trial of a former president will begin. Donald Trump will defend himself from allegations that he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. For more information and analysis beyond these essential details, readers are welcome to read my original coverage of this trial here.
However, just because the trial hasn’t begun doesn’t mean that the sparring on this case hasn’t commenced, and the result of one of those battles was recently made clear when a judge issued a gag order on former President Donald Trump, barring him from publicly attacking or directing anyone to attack any witnesses, jurors or prosecutors serving on the case. This includes Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, a key witness in this case and someone that former President Donald Trump is prone to disparaging. Notably, the order does not prevent Trump from attacking District Attorney Alvin Bragg or Judge Juan Merchan, who are both public figures.
Rationalizing this order, the judge pointed to Trump’s history of making “threatening, inflammatory, denigrating” statements against people involved in his cases. Punishments for violating the order include being held in contempt of court, fined or even jailed.
Former President Donald Trump has publicly blasted the judge for this ruling, even attacking Judge Merchan’s daughter. Trump posited on Truth Social that: “Maybe the Judge is such a hater because his daughter makes money by working to ‘Get Trump’ and when he rules against me over and over again, he is making her company, and her, richer and richer. . .How can this be allowed?” Trump’s attack refers to the fact that the Judge Merchan’s daughter is a Democratic political consultant, who of course has a vested interest in seeing him convicted and losing the election.
Policy Analysis:
Supporters of Trump have been quick to point out the obvious implications of limiting freedom of speech for someone who could very well be the President of the United States in a few months. Yet this very line of argument illustrates the complications of prosecuting a president, but also how former President Donald Trump’s team may be trying to have it both ways. In the courtroom, they rightfully want the President to be treated like anyone else and not adversely affected by the political baggage that he carries. But if former President Trump is to be divorced from his political history inside the courtroom then why is he using political motivations as a scapegoat for why this gag order was issued to him? He actively attempts to shoehorn political implications into the case whenever it benefits him (such as arguing that he needs full free speech rights in order to fully campaign).
In fact, the judge was more lenient with him due to this unique situation as he did not want to “trample his ability to defend himself publicly.” If former President Donald Trump gets the benefit of the extra leeway being a candidate provides, he also has to realize that incendiary language that comes from him can easily translate into action, or at least massive influence whenever he expresses any opinion.
Engagement Resources:
- ActBlue: ActBlue allows people to donate to a host of Democratic organizations, candidates, and causes. Readers are likely to find organizations that are supporting the Trump indictment on this site and may wish to donate money to further that cause.
- Winred: Winred allows people to donate money to Republican candidates to support their campaign. Readers interested in supporting former President Donald Trump or other members of the Republican party may find that this is a useful way to convey their support and help the Republican cause.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter. Your support is crucial in safeguarding fearless independent journalism. If you appreciate our content, please consider donating today to help protect democracy and empower citizenship.
Who Attacked The Moscow Concert?
Who Attacked The Moscow Concert?
Foreign Policy Brief #134 | By: Arvind Salem | April 01, 2024
Featured Photo: www.apnews.com
__________________________________
Less than a week after President Putin’s landslide re-election, gunmen attacked the Crocus City concert hall outside Moscow, shooting and killing people before burning the whole building. This marked the deadliest terrorist attack in Russia in over a decade: killing over 139 people and injuring 180 more.
The group that has claimed responsibility, and has been determined as responsible by U.S. intelligence, is Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K), with Khorasan referring to a historical region that included parts of Iran, Turkmenistan and Afghanistan. ISIS-K emerged in late-2014 and has a reputation for being extremely brutal. They have already carried out extremely high profile and damaging attacks: including the attack on Kabul Airport in 2021, killing 13 U.S. troops during the evacuation of Afghanistan. However, the group has recently been on the wane as the Taliban, a group that ISIS-K deems too moderate, have attempted to defeat the group, leading to a fall in their attacks in Afghanistan, yet their bombings still continue.
Further, ISIS-K has a historical vendetta against Russia that motivated their attack. Most notably, they despise Russia for their support of the Syrian government and against ISIS in the Syrian Civil War. Aspects of their hatred stretch even farther: ISIS disapproved of Russia for its brutal tactics in the various Chechen wars stretching back to the 1990s. In 2022, ISIS-K claimed responsibility for an attack near Russia’s embassy in Kabul, killing 6 people.
Policy Analysis:
Despite their historic feud, the Kremlin is not pinning this attack on ISIS-K, but rather has pinned this attack on Ukraine. Of course, this would be extremely politically expedient for Putin: furthering support for his war on Ukraine. Putin has been active in pushing this narrative: he has not mentioned ISIS in connection with the attacks. Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova accused the United States of pinning this attack on ISIS to take away focus from Ukraine’s involvement.
On the other side, Ukraine levied an accusation that this was a false flag operation commissioned by Putin to rally support for the war against Ukraine and mobilize Russian forces. This wouldn’t be the first time Putin is suspected of a false flag operation. In 1999, a series of apartment bombings by “Chechen terrorists” killed more than 300 Russians and injured 1,700 more. The bombings served as a pretext for Vladimir Putin to launch the second Chechen war. However, the “Chechen terrorists” turned out to be employees of the Federal Security Service, or F.S.B. Putin, of course, disputed that these people were involved in the bombing, and when numerous journalists attempted to investigate this claim they all wound up poisoned or shot dead. Despite these historical circumstances it is clear that ISIS is truly behind these attacks.
Yet, the divisive response to this attack underscores the flaws in the way that most observers tend to view foreign policy: everyone is either allied with Russia or allied with the United States. In the Cold-War and post Cold-War era, this framework could neatly capture most developments in foreign policy. However, with ISIS, they are only out for themselves, and defy any broader foreign policy framework or alliance that they are placed in. Therefore, instead of working together to fight ISIS, the United States and Russia are too focused on fighting each other to join forcs and attack ISIS.
Engagement Resources:
- UNHCR : The UNHCR is a UN Refugee Agency that helps displaced families in conflict zones, including Ukraine. Readers who are concerned about the mobilization of the Russian military to attack Ukraine may wish to support them by donating through this organization.
- Save the Children: Save the Children is an organization that organizes humanitarian aid for children. Those worried about Ukrainian children in light of the Russia-Ukraine War may wish to donate through this organization.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy 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.
Checking in on 14 Years of Obamacare: Part 2
Checking in on 14 Years of Obamacare: Part 2
Health and Gender Policy Brief #172 | By: Geoffrey Small | April 01, 2024
Featured Photo: www.news.gallup.com
__________________________________
March 2024 highlights fourteen years since The ACA (Affordable Care Act) has been enacted. When it was passed more than a decade ago, there were three primary goals of the ACA, or more popularly referred to as Obamacare. According to HealthCare.gov, the first was to make affordable health insurance more available for the American public. The second goal was to encourage states to expand their Medicaid coverage to all individuals whose income is significantly below the federal poverty level. Finally, the ACA would provide federal support to “innovative medical care delivery methods designed to lower the costs of health care generally.” This part in the series will analyze the ACA’s impact on the expansion of Medicaid coverage in each state.
Policy Analysis
Medicaid, along with Medicare, was introduced during the Social Security Amendments of 1965. Medicare is a federal health insurance program that covers everyone over the age of 65, and some people who suffer from specified disabilities or conditions. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that provides coverage for individuals who have a low enough income to qualify. Medicaid funding works by states accepting matched federal funding upon agreeing to baseline healthcare coverage standards that the federal government establishes. Even though Medicare was universally established and administered in 1965, states had to agree to opt into Medicaid to receive matched funding from the federal government. By 1982, all states agreed to offer the baseline Medicaid program. When the ACA was introduced, the individual market was significantly overhauled. The ACA required that all U.S. citizens have healthcare coverage, or face a financial penalty, while insurers had to provide coverage for essential health needs regardless of pre-existing conditions. These policy changes required states to administer an expanded Medicaid market for previously uninsured individuals and those having coverage hardships due to pre-existing conditions.
Photo taken from KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation)
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study concluded that 10 states have not fully adopted the ACA’s expanded coverage requirements. As of March 20th, 2024, Wyoming, Texas, Wisconsin, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina have not adopted all of the expanded requirements under the ACA. The KFF study indicates many of these states still have a strong opposition to withdrawing work requirements from their Medicaid coverage guidelines. In 2017, the Trump administration notified state governors that the 1115 waiver under the 1965 Social Security Amendments can be used to establish work-requirement policies in order for individuals to qualify for Medicaid. This waiver was originally designed for states to develop innovative policies in advancing Medicaid coverage that may conflict with federal regulations.
The Affordable Care Act is considered a massive overhaul of our healthcare system. A 14-year debate has since ensued between scholars, policymakers, and the mainstream media related to the three primary goals. Within each goal lies nuanced data detailing the progress our society has made since the law was passed. Studies show the ACA expansion of Medicaid standards have directly impacted the reduction of previously uninsured individuals. Some states still refuse to apply the expansion implemented by the ACA. The Trump administration’s changes to the 1115 waiver were designed to allow some states to restrict their Medicaid access. However, the Biden administration has worked to reverse the Trump administration changes to the 1115 waiver, which undermined ACA expansion, by denying new work waiver applications from states and legally challenging existing state legislation for work requirements.
This is the second part in a series. For Part 1 of the Obamacare series, click here. For the rest of the series, click here.
Stay in-the-know! Always get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to ‘Keeping Democracy Alive’ by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you to aide in protecting fearless independent journalism.
Continued Bloodshed Marks the 3rd Year of the Russian War on Ukraine
Continued Bloodshed Marks the 3rd Year of the Russian War on Ukraine
Foreign Policy Brief #133 | By: Yelena Korshunov | March 29, 2024
Featured Photo: www.news.sky.com
__________________________________
“We were sitting in the kitchen when we heard a loud explosion. It was very close,”- my mom said to me on the phone. Today is March 15th, she is in Odessa, a beautiful city on the Ukrainian Black Sea shore. She is not willing to leave her homeland to become a refugee at 86. Since February 24, 2022, my days start with news from Ukraine and especially from my hometown. On the morning of March 2nd at 6:00 am the news was sad and tense, “Russian missile hit the residential building at night. 10 people were killed, 4 kids among them.” 7:30am: “ 13 people killed, 5 kids among them. A family of three – all killed. Rescue work continues. There may still be people under the rubble.” And later that day the photos. Pictures of happy smiling families, laughing children, big-eyed babies. They all were killed by “Russian peace” that night.
Today, March 15th, I called my Odessa friends, “Are you safe? Everybody’s alive?” “I am. It’s a nightmare, people are laying on the streets,” my school friend in Odessa said. At the time I called her, all these people were still laying in puddles of their blood, still warm. Minutes ago they were alive rushing to work, school, and shopping. They had plans for that day. Had dreams. Loved. None of them will ever love again, kiss their children, pet their pets. They will never see a blossom that is coming so soon with this beautiful Spring.
21 killed, more than 70 injured in the morning of March 15th. That was only the first strike, and right after, when nearby residents and first responders arrived in a rush to help the wounded, another drone targeted a crowd of rescuers. I remember this terrorist’s strategy of a delayed attack very well from the time I lived in Jerusalem. They had activated an explosive device on Ben Yehuda street in the heart of the city. A lot of people were killed and injured. When ambulances arrived there was a car blocking their way to the attacked street. When people rushed to the car to move it making a pass for the ambulance, it was exploded by a bomb stuffed with nails causing even more deaths, wounds, and torn off bodies of those who tried to save the others’ lives.
Recently the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said he held military meetings to identify Russia’s “most vulnerable spots” where Ukrainian forces could cause the “most damage.” “The more the Russian state loses and the greater the price of its aggression, the closer the end to this war will be,” he said. According to Forbes, since the beginning of 2024, there have been 11 Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian enterprises related to the oil industry– mainly oil refining. On March 12, fires due to drone strikes occurred at oil depots in the Nizhny Novgorod and Oryol regions in Russia. The Nizhny Novgorod Oil Refinery, one of the largest in Russia, had to shut down its unit. On March 13, authorities in the Rostov region announced that downed drones had fallen on the territory of the Novoshakhtinsky oil refinery.
Since the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the border regions of the Russian Federation have been subject to Ukrainian shelling and drone attacks. In recent days, attacks on Belgorod and the Belgorod region have become more intense amid reports of battles with Russian formations fighting on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the border areas of the region. As a result, at least 20 people in Belgorod have already been killed and more than a hundred injured, according to statements by the regional governor. While Belgorod residents try to get the attention of the authorities, a popular Russian TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov called the complaints of Belgorod residents about the shelling a “vile hysteria.”
Spring is coming. Sakura have started blooming in DC, while across the ocean the third year of shelling and murder is blowing out lives as easy and fast as leaves from the trees. What happens if a Ukrainian shield is ultimately broken by Russia’s bombs? Will we still enjoy blooming trees under the peaceful American sky? Or will it be our men’s turn to take up arms and defend our land from Putin’s seizing ambitions?
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy 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.
Suggestions for the Democratic Party’s Foreign Policy Platform
Suggestions for the Democratic Party’s Foreign Policy Platform
OP ED | By: U.S. Resist News | March 29, 2024
Featured Photo: www.currentaffairs.org
__________________________________
We are living in an inter-connected, interdependent world. Any going back to an isolationist foreign policy, as the Republicans seem to suggest, would be unrealistic and counter-productive to US interests. On the other hand continuations of the reckless overseas military interventions, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, would be greatly unpopular and foolish.
The Democratic Party needs to adopt a foreign policy that combines a continued emphasis on protecting US national security with a strong commitment to promoting a democratic world order. We should continue our effort to build alliances with democratic countries to counter the aggressive actions of authoritarian states such as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and others. We should collaborate with other countries and the United Nations to curtail conflicts within and between nations and address the humanitarian and governance needs of failed states like Haiti, Sudan, and Syria. We should work with like-minded countries to contain the spread of weapons of mass destruction and hopefully eliminate them.
Bringing a just end to wars in Ukraine and Gaza should be a major goal of US foreign policy. Continued American funding and strategic support for Ukraine in their conflict with Russia should be a top priority. Russia’s expansionist efforts in Ukraine and elsewhere should be contained. The Biden administration must moderate its weapons support for Israel until and unless they stop their seemingly genocidal-like war in Gaza. Aid to Palestinians in Gaza must be allowed to flow freely, and the US should join the chorus of other nations advocating for a two state solution to the Palestinian situation. Hamas must be branded as a terrorist organization and their efforts curtailed.
We should maintain our mixed policy of cooperation, competition, and containment towards the Chinese. The South China Sea should remain an open waterway, and the independence of Taiwan should be protected. Trade with China should be sanctioned but carefully reviewed to guard against price gouging, US worker displacement and goods that contaminate the environment.
The United States should work to strengthen the fairness and effectiveness of global institutions starting with the United Nations, and participate their efforts to deal with global issues such as climate change, immigration, world health, human rights, and the misuse of social media.
Stay informed with the latest insights from our dedicated reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy 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.