JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Role of the Judiciary Against The Other Branches of Government – A Historical Background (Civil Rights Policy Brief #244)
Just this week a number of reports have surfaced that detailed President Trump’s frustration with the Supreme Court and both the federal and state level judiciary in general.
Trump’s Big Beautiful Gifts to Artificial Intelligence Companies (Technology Policy Brief # 149)
In his first few days in office, Donald Trump announced a $500 billion joint venture with OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank to invest in growing the US’s AI infrastructure and rescinded former President Joe Biden’s executive order requiring safety submissions from AI developers. His big, beautiful bill showers much more money in the industry, and aims to eliminate state oversight or regulation of AI companies as well.
The Future of Student Loans in Trump’s Presidency (Education Policy Brief #203)
Since Trump’s attack on the Department of Education, there has been some confusion surrounding the future of student loans. During the Biden Administration, there were discussions on a $20,000 loan forgiveness plan for each borrower, but that has since been struck down by the Supreme Court. Since then, there have been no discussed plans of mass loan forgiveness, but instead, mandatory loan repayments will be enacted.
Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration: A Busy 4-Month History
It is no secret the disdain the Trump Administration has shown towards the Justice system in America. On Truth Social, President Donald Trump has blasted the judges who have ruled against his agenda as “Crazed”, “Trump Hating”, and rogue, “activist judges” who hate the legal system.
Justice Delayed: The Mounting Crisis of America’s Immigration Court Backlog (Immigration Policy Brief #144)
There are over 3 million cases currently pending in U.S. immigration courts, with the trend steadily rising since 2012, according to Syracuse University’s TRAC project. These cases reflect more than just bureaucratic dysfunction—they represent a failing immigration system. The problem goes beyond inefficient government & red tape; it’s a legal & human rights crisis affecting families, asylum seekers, & entire communities.
The Hidden Burden: How Tariffs Hurt Marginalized Communities and Lower-Income Americans (Economic Policy Brief #87)
Since his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump has reignited a trade war strategy similar to his first term, escalating tariffs against China, Mexico, and the European Union.
Economic Crossroads: Are Tariffs Ending North American Relations? (Economic Policy Brief #86)
Since his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump has reignited a trade war strategy similar to his first term, escalating tariffs against China, Mexico, and the European Union. These tariffs, framed as efforts to “protect American jobs,” have significantly raised the cost of imported goods such as electronics, food, clothing, and raw materials. While intended to support domestic industries, the policy has instead imposed hidden costs on American consumers—especially those from lower-income and marginalized communities.
The Distinction Between Law and Policy And The Role of The Courts
he beginning of President Trump’s second term saw a slew of executive orders on a number of policies and also saw numerous responses to those orders. More than two hundred legal challenges have been brought to oppose the implementation of these executive orders. The results have been mixed.
JUNE OP ED: Trump’s Assault on Our Country’s Organizational Fabric
The Trump administration is taking a wrecking ball to institutions—government and non-government alike– that support democracy and protect our citizens. The administration seems to be fixated on destroying organizations that provide social services to those in need, and those who speak out against Trump and his policies. There is the false rationale that damaging or destroying these organizations will help reduce the budget deficit; and or that that these organizations wrongfully support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. But these are not well founded claims and don’t justify the government’s actions. The Trump administration appears to have no grand strategy in going after these organizations. The assaults are taking place in a seemingly mean-spirited way with little forethought to their impact on the quality of life and democratic framework of our society. Below are some examples.
Economic Crossroads: Are Tariffs Ending North American Relations? (Economic Policy Brief #86)
Economic Crossroads: Are Tariffs Ending North American Relations?
Economic Policy Brief #86 | Saiabhiram Akkaraju | May 28, 2025
Since his re-election in 2024, President Donald Trump has reignited a trade war strategy similar to his first term, escalating tariffs against China, Mexico, and the European Union. These tariffs, framed as efforts to “protect American jobs,” have significantly raised the cost of imported goods such as electronics, food, clothing, and raw materials. While intended to support domestic industries, the policy has instead imposed hidden costs on American consumers—especially those from lower-income and marginalized communities.
Contrary to popular belief, tariffs are not paid by foreign exporters. They are effectively a tax paid by U.S. importers, who typically pass the increased cost on to American consumers in the form of higher prices. This economic structure means that the burden of tariffs is shouldered domestically, often by those who can least afford the added expense.
Analysis
The 2024–2025 tariff escalation represents a continuation—and intensification—of Trump’s earlier trade policies. However, the focus has shifted toward even broader categories of goods, now encompassing essentials like groceries, school supplies, construction materials, and medical equipment. The economic consequence is a rise in prices for basic necessities, with particularly harsh impacts on Black, Latino, Indigenous, and low-income households, who spend a larger share of their income on these goods.
In response, key U.S. trading partners have imposed retaliatory tariffs—taxes on U.S. exports designed to mirror or punish U.S. trade actions. For example, China has targeted American agricultural products, and the EU has increased tariffs on U.S. machinery and vehicles. These countermeasures have caused sharp declines in export demand, hurting U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and small business owners. The resulting farm bankruptcies, job losses in manufacturing hubs, and shrinking revenues in export-dependent sectors have rippled through many communities—especially rural areas and small towns that are economically vulnerable.
Additionally, minority-owned businesses are experiencing disproportionate hardship. These businesses often operate on thinner profit margins and rely heavily on imported goods and materials. Rising costs make it harder for these entrepreneurs to compete, grow, or even survive. Many have been forced to raise prices, reduce services, or shut down altogether.
While the stated goal of the tariffs is to incentivize domestic production, the short-term result has been increased financial pressure on American consumers and small businesses, without sufficient domestic supply chains ready to absorb demand. Economists from institutions such as the Brookings Institution, Economic Policy Institute, and Tax Foundation have repeatedly shown that such policies, absent comprehensive supply chain investments, increase inequality and economic hardship among working-class Americans.
Engagement Resources
- Economic Policy Institute (EPI)
Researches the economic effects of trade policies and advocates for policies that uplift working-class and marginalized communities.
https://www.epi.org - Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program
Provides current data and analysis on the impacts of tariffs on urban, minority, and low-income communities across America.
https://www.brookings.edu/program/metropolitan-policy-program/ - Prosperity Now
Focuses on economic equity and building wealth for low-income communities and communities of color, addressing the fallout of harmful economic policies like tariffs.
https://prosperitynow.org
The Distinction Between Law and Policy And The Role of The Courts
The Distinction Between Law and Policy And The Role of The Courts
Policy Summary: The beginning of President Trump’s second term saw a slew of executive orders on a number of policies and also saw numerous responses to those orders. More than two hundred legal challenges have been brought to oppose the implementation of these executive orders. The results have been mixed. At times, courts have upheld actions the Trump Administration has supported (just this month the Supreme Court has upheld Trump’s actions to bar transgender troops from the military). While at other times courts have rendered decisions that the Trump Administration opposes (a Rhode Island judge’s order to temporarily resume federal funding for certain foreign aid programs, the Supreme Court’s temporary order to bar deportation flights from Texas). Despite this uneven record the Trump Administration has lashed out at the courts for not being supportive of the agenda the Administration is trying to pursue. One statement that the Administration has used is “judicial tyranny” to describe the legal environment in the United States today.
In March, Chief Judge Boasberg ordered deportation flights to turn around and return to Texas. The planes did not but it still led to some calls for the judge to be impeached. Chief Justice John Roberts then issued a rare statement that said, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Roberts also this month stated that the job of the judiciary is “to check the excesses of Congress and the executive.”
That led to a response from Vice – President J.D. Vance who called the statement from the Chief Justice “a profoundly wrong sentiment.” This followed the Vice – President’s remarks in February where he stated on X “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
While these competing statements and others concerning the power and independence of the judiciary continue, attacks on judges and the judiciary are ongoing.
Policy Analysis: The Chief Justice had anticipated inflamed rhetoric against the judiciary in general and against court personnel. At the end of 2024 in December, the Chief Justice issued his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary where he denounced violence directed toward federal judges and wrote that attempts to intimidate judges for rulings we disagree with were “inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed. The Chief Justice is correct in stating that judges should be free to perform the duties of their job free from threats of violence, harassment and intimidation.
But there is an element not being aadressed in this discussion of judicial independence and judicial deference to executive power and that is the distinction between law and policy. The comments made by Vice – President Vance implies that because a majority of the voters who voted for Donald Trump and Republicans that the President and the White House should have free reign to implement their policy agenda. But what the Vice – President misses here and what the Chief Justice never brought up is that law and policies are not the same. The laws of this country – the Constitution, the federal statutes and case law – provide the legal framework about how the government can act. If the government simply ignores the boundaries that the law has provided, then there would be no reason for any administration – Republican or Democrat – to follow the law. Policies on the other hand, are the chosen ways that an administration choses to enact a particular government goal. This means that a certain policy – for example, immigration policy – can be implemented in any number of ways. There is no set way to put immigration policy in practice; that would be at the discretion of the administration in power with the caveat that the implementation be done within the bounds of the laws on the books.
It appears that the Vice – President has made an error and thinks that laws are the same as policies when they are in fact not. Because certain immigration executive orders have been temporarily put on hold the Vice – President believes that courts are not allowing the administration to implement the will of the people. But he gets this wrong because the courts have not stated that no immigration policy can be implemented at all.
The Trump Administration can still implement an immigration policy. It just can’t use the one it has chosen at the moment because in some manner the policy does not follow the current laws and is therefore legally defective. That determination comes from a court of law which should be for the most part unbiased. A court is much more well – versed in the legal framework and it is up to the court to explain why a certain policy may be outside the accepted legal framework. A court of law has nothing to do and does not abide by the will of the people but simply compares the contested policy with the law and determines if it can go forward or must be blocked. There is no reason for it to defer to the executive branch because its duty is to reign in an individual or government branch if they stray too far outside the bounds of the law.
Too often IT many important cases about policies are brought before a court of law to decide and ordinary folk often believe that a court is deciding on the propriety of a certain policy. But that is not the case. A court simply decides if the policy is legally permissible under the law while political actors decide on the best course of action to take to implement a policy within the law. If the Vice – President can understand this distinction, then he and this Administration can understand why courts and the Supreme Court have handed down the decisions that they have. Courts are not blocking a policy entirely but are instead saying it cannot be done in this manner and must be modified to comport with current law. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
U.S. Supreme Court – the high court’s 2024 report on the state of the federal judiciary.
JUNE OP ED: Trump’s Assault on Our Country’s Organizational Fabric
JUNE OP ED: Trump’s Assault on Our Country’s Organizational Fabric
By The USRESIST NEWS Team
The Trump administration is taking a wrecking ball to institutions—government and non-government alike– that support democracy and protect our citizens. The administration seems to be fixated on destroying organizations that provide social services to those in need, and those who speak out against Trump and his policies. There is the false rationale that damaging or destroying these organizations will help reduce the budget deficit; and or that that these organizations wrongfully support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices. But these are not well founded claims and don’t justify the government’s actions. The Trump administration appears to have no grand strategy in going after these organizations. The assaults are taking place in a seemingly mean-spirited way with little forethought to their impact on the quality of life and democratic framework of our society. Below are some examples.
Non-Profit Organizations
Politico reports how the Trump administration is mounting a sweeping offensive on America’s nonprofit sector, deploying a blend of funding cuts, the elimination of tax benefits, and bureaucratic paralysis. In just over two months, at least 10,000 nonprofit workers have lost their jobs, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Non-profits providing essential services including housing, education and domestic violence support — and who are already scrambling in an uncertain economic environment — now face an even steeper funding and staffing drought.
Government Agencies
The administration’s DOGE initiative resulted in the seemingly arbitrary dismantling of several government agencies that service those in need. These include USAID, that provides health and education services to poverty stricken people in developing countries; the National Labor Relations Board that protects the rights of private-sector employees to organize and bargain collectively for better wages and working conditions; the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, that monitor banking practices and the safety of consumer products; and the Department of Education that oversees federal education policy and administers funding for educational programs at the federal level. Although federal judges have ruled several of these closings unconstitutional ( Claiming Congress, not the Executive, is the branch of government responsible for shutting down agencies), most of these agencies remain closed or shells of what they once were.
Law Firms
The Administration is taking efforts to close American law firms with lawyers that had previously represented positions adverse to Trump. These retributive actions include issuing executive orders and presidential memorandums limiting the ability of attorneys to obtain access to government buildings, stopping any consideration for future employment with the government, canceling government contracts, and preventing any company that uses such a firm from obtaining federal contracts. Several firms, such as Paul Weiss and eight others have made deals with the administration to provide pro bono services in order to avoid sanctions and restore access to government contracts. Others, such as Wilmer Hale have been successfully pushing back on the government’s efforts. District Judge Richard Leon, commenting in one of these cases said “The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding Fathers knew this!”
Educational Institutions
The Administration has been carrying out what appears to be a personal vendetta against certain Ivy League colleges, especially Harvard and Columbia. The attempted take down of Harvard includes efforts to control the university’s curriculum, staffing and admissions policies; its admissions of foreign students, its research grants and its non-profit status. The administration is basing its attacks on what they say is the prevalence of antisemitism at Harvard, but there is little data to support this charge. Harvard has pushed back with well-articulated legal challenges, which federal judges are reviewing.
Columbia has taken a different tack agreeing to make certain changes in staffing and the management of protests in exchange for being able to continue with federally funded research.Columbia acquiesced to most of the administration’s demands in a memo that laid out measures including banning face masks on campus, empowering security officers to remove or arrest individuals, and taking control of the department that offers courses on the Middle East from its faculty.
Media
The Trump administration has signaled its dislike of media organizations that oppose its policies. Recent effort targeted at media interference include a $60 billion lawsuit against CBS for what it claims was a misleading interview with Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024; shutting down the Voice of America; ceasing funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio, and barring the Associated Press from attending press briefings in the Oval Office.
Looking at these actions in total can be cause for alarm and despair. They reflect the efforts of an administration that lacks tolerance for diversity of opinion and free speech; that values the wealth of the few over the well-being of the many; and that fails to see the important role government has in uniting rather than dividing our country and supporting our people.
The World’s Spiritual Leaders: Who They Are and How Big Their Flocks Are
The World’s Spiritual Leaders: Who They Are and How Big Their Flocks Are
Brief # 172 Social Justice Policy | By Inijah Quadri | May 23, 2025
Policy Issue Summary
In an era marked by escalating global crises—from climate change and geopolitical conflicts to rising authoritarianism and social inequality—spiritual leaders continue to wield significant influence over billions worldwide. Their roles transcend religious rituals, often intersecting with geopolitics, human rights, and social justice. This article profiles the current heads of major global faiths—Catholicism, Tibetan Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Anglicanism, and Eastern Orthodoxy—examining their leadership styles, political entanglements, and the size of their followings. These figures shape not only the spiritual lives of their adherents but also the moral frameworks through which societies interpret justice, peace, and progress.
Analysis
Pope Leo XIV (Catholicism)
On May 8, 2025, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost became the first American to ascend to the papacy, taking the name Pope Leo XIV. With a background as a missionary in Peru and head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops, he inherits a Church of approximately 1.4 billion adherents. His early messages have emphasized peace, particularly in conflict zones like Ukraine and Gaza, and he has signaled a commitment to continue the social justice initiatives of his predecessor, Pope Francis. However, his American roots and the political leanings of his family have raised questions about the potential for increased politicization within the Church.
The 14th Dalai Lama (Tibetan Buddhism)
At 89 years old, the 14th Dalai Lama remains a symbol of compassion and resilience for approximately 20 million Tibetan Buddhists worldwide. Living in exile in India since 1959, he continues to advocate for nonviolence and human rights. In a recent statement, he declared that his successor would be born outside of Chinese-controlled Tibet, a move that challenges Beijing’s claims over the reincarnation process and underscores the ongoing struggle for Tibetan autonomy.
Chief Rabbis David Yosef and Kalman Ber (Judaism)
In 2024, Rabbi David Yosef and Rabbi Kalman Ber were appointed as the Sephardic and Ashkenazi Chief Rabbis of Israel, respectively. Their appointments continue the Yosef family’s significant influence within Israeli religious circles. Together, they oversee the spiritual guidance of Israel’s Jewish population, which numbers around 7 million, and play pivotal roles in matters of religious law, conversion, and kosher certification. Their leadership also impacts the broader Jewish diaspora, which totals approximately 15 million globally.
Grand Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb (Sunni Islam)
As the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar since 2010, Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb is a leading authority for Sunni Muslims, who constitute the majority of the world’s 1.9 billion Muslims. He has been a vocal advocate for interfaith dialogue and recently called for restraint and dialogue between India and Pakistan amid rising tensions. His leadership emphasizes moderation and has significant influence over Islamic education and jurisprudence worldwide.
Shankaracharyas (Hinduism)
Hinduism, with over 1.2 billion adherents, does not have a single spiritual leader but is guided by various Shankaracharyas who head monastic institutions established by Adi Shankaracharya. In a historic event at the 2025 Maha Kumbh Mela, three prominent Shankaracharyas united to issue a joint directive advocating for the protection of ‘Sanatan Dharma’ and the banning of cow slaughter. This collaboration highlights a growing trend toward unity among Hindu spiritual leaders in addressing contemporary social and political issues.
Archbishop of Canterbury (Anglican Communion)
The Anglican Communion, comprising approximately 85 million members, is currently without a spiritual leader following the resignation of Archbishop Justin Welby in late 2024. The process to appoint his successor has been fraught with delays and criticisms of mismanagement. This leadership vacuum comes at a time when the Communion faces internal divisions over issues such as LGBTQ+ inclusion and the role of women in the Church.
Patriarch Kirill (Eastern Orthodoxy)
Patriarch Kirill has led the Russian Orthodox Church since 2009, overseeing a flock of approximately 100 million believers. His tenure has been marked by a close alignment with the Russian state, particularly evident in his support for Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This stance has drawn criticism from other religious leaders, including Pope Francis, and has raised concerns about the politicization of the Church. Despite this, Patriarch Kirill continues to exert significant influence over Orthodox Christianity in Russia and beyond.
Wrap-Up
In a world grappling with multifaceted crises, the influence of spiritual leaders remains profound. Their guidance not only shapes the spiritual lives of their followers but also impacts global discourses on peace, justice, and human rights. As these leaders navigate the complexities of modernity, their actions and teachings will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping the moral and ethical contours of our global society.
Engagement Resources
- The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama (http://dalailama.com/): Official website providing teachings, schedules, and news related to the Dalai Lama.
- Chief Rabbinate of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Rabbinate_of_Israel): Information on the roles and responsibilities of Israel’s Chief Rabbis.
- Al-Azhar Official Website (https://www.azhar.eg/): Resources and publications from Al-Azhar University and the Grand Imam.
- Sringeri Sharada Peetham (https://www.sringeri.net/): One of the prominent monastic institutions in Hinduism, providing insights into the teachings of the Shankaracharyas.
- Church of England – Archbishop of Canterbury (https://www.churchofengland.org/): Updates on the appointment process for the new Archbishop of Canterbury.
- Russian Orthodox Church – Official Website (https://www.patriarchia.ru/en/): News and statements from the Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Kirill.
Week That Was: Global News In Review
Week That Was: Global News In Review
Brief # 202 Foreign Policy | By Ibrahim Castro | May 27, 2025
Israel faces increasing international pressure
The Annapurna Express, Published: May 24, 2025, 5:17 p.m.,
https://theannapurnaexpress.com/story/54598/
International pressure has been mounting as Israel continues its bombardment and siege of Gaza. The renewed assault has left thousands more dead in just the last weeks since the breaking of the ceasefire deal in January 2025. Over 52,615 Palestinians are reported to have been killed, though the true number is likely to be far higher and to remain unknown until international journalists and aid agencies are allowed into the strip. Last week, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, warned that Israel’s escalating aggression and prolonged blockade have pushed the population to the brink of famine, stating Palestinians are enduring “what may be the cruelest phase of this cruel conflict”. The UN has released projections that up to 14,000 children are at risk of dying of famine in the Gaza strip if aid is not allowed in soon.
The United States recently suggested it had reached a direct ceasefire arrangement with Hamas, but the Israelis did not agree to it, and it has disappeared from the bargaining table . The announcement of the deal comes after criticism from the White House that Israel has purposely prolonged the war on Gaza. The leaders of the United Kingdom, France, and Canada together threatened to take concrete actions against Israel, including targeted sanctions. The U.K. has suspended its free trade talks with Israel and the EU foreign minister has announced that the bloc would review its trade relations with Israel. Ireland has announced it would present plans to ban trade of goods with Israeli businesses in occupied Palestinian territories. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated on a German public broadcaster ARD that the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza “can no longer be justified on the grounds of a fight against Hamas”.
The steps taken thus far have mostly been symbolic and have not translated into direct action or relief, yet they signal growing grievances towards Israel from its traditional western allies over its renewed and prolonged assault on Gaza.
Unrest in Bolivia as Evo Morales is out of the presidential race
Former Bolivian President Evo Morales waves during an event at which he proclaims himself as a candidate for the presidency in the 2025 elections, in Cochabamba, Bolivia, April 19, 2025.
Bolivia’s former leader Evo Morales launched his fourth presidential bid this year, ignoring the Bolivian constitution, which only allows three terms in office. A power struggle between Morales and his former ally and finance minister, President Arce, has fractured their dominant Movement Toward Socialism party, or MAS, forcing Morales to break off and create his own political party. Morales wasBolivia’s first Indigenous president who governed the country from 2006 until his ouster in 2019.
Last week Bolivia’s pro-government supporters and security forces confronted protesters loyal to the former president in street clashes, the second such violent escalation as fears of further unrest in the Andean nation continue to grow. The protesters and counter protesters exchanged throws of firecrackers, homemade explosives and stones in the city of El Alto, while riot police unleashed tear gas on the crowds. Morales has repeatedly promised that Bolivia would “convulse” if the electoral tribunal bars him from the race, heightening a sense of crisis in the run-up to the deeply polarized vote scheduled for Aug, 17 2025. The tribunal has recently disqualified former President Evo Morales from running in the August presidential vote.
Floods in Australia
An aerial photo shows flooding at Settlement Point Road in Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia, EPA May 23, 2025
Last week parts of Australia got months worth of rain in just a few days. Rescuers have worked on reaching thousands of affected people. Four bodies have been retrieved from floodwaters in New South Wales, more than 50,000 people remained isolated for days and an estimated 10,000 properties have been damaged in the record-breaking flooding in New South Wales. Flood waters have begun to subside in some areas and weather conditions have improved in recent days. The Climate Council, an Australian research group, stated that these kinds of disasters were no longer simply “natural”. The latest research for Australia showed more rain was falling during these flooding events. Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, acknowledged the rising frequency of these events during a visit to the affected areas.
International Sanctions on Syria Removed
US President Donald Trump meets with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [Handout/Saudi Press Agency via Reuters]
The Trump administration has removed sanctions on Syria, following a surprise policy pivot during a diplomatic trip to the Gulf states. The US State Department, at the same time issued a waiver to a 2019 law, the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, which established additional sanctions and financial restrictions on institutions and individuals related to the conflict in Syria. The waiver would now, according to the State Department “enable our foreign partners, allies, and the region to further unlock Syria’s potential”.
The European Union has expressed its concern as to whether the new Syrian government would govern in a more pluralistic manner, respecting the rights of minorities and women. Despite these reservations the EU has also decided to lift economic sanctions in an effort to help the war-torn country recover. The sanctions relief comes on the heels of Syrian rebels’ recent ouster of dictator Bashar al-Assad, who suppressed pro-democracy protests in 2011, triggering a decade-long civil war and the installing of sweeping international sanctions.
ASEAN Summit in Malaysia
Laos’ Prime Minister Sonexay Siphandone, Myanmar’s Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs Aung Kyaw Moe, Singapore’s Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, Thailand’s Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, Vietnam’s Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar, Ibrahim, Philippines’ President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hun Manet, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto, and Prime Minister of Timor-Leste Xanana Gusmao join hands for a group photo as they attend the 46th ASEAN Summit, at the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, May 26, 2025. REUTERS/Hasnoor Hussain TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY
US Tariffs are high on the agenda of the ongoing ASEAN summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Malaysia’s foreign minister has called on Southeast Asian nations to deepen regional economic integration and present a united front in their attempt to address the current global trade uncertainties resulting from US tariffs. Developing Southeast Asian nations were slapped with rates ranging from 17% on the Philippines, 49% Cambodia, 36% Thailand, 32% Indonesia, 24% on Brunei , and 24% on the host country Malaysia. The group could use its collective industrial muscle as leverage over the Trump administration in sectors like electric vehicles, semiconductors and critical minerals.
The bloc has also called for an increase in efforts for a ceasefire in Myanmar, as the conflict has spilled over borders, with a growing number of refugees fleeing to neighbouring ASEAN nations and a rise in trans-border crime. The regional bloc has so far led fruitless diplomatic efforts to end Myanmar’s conflict since the military staged a coup and deposed civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi in February 2021.
Habeas corpus: What is it, and can it be suspended? (Elections & Politics Brief #185)
Habeas corpus: What is it, and can it be suspended?
Elections & Politics Brief #185 | Nate Iglehart | May 18, 2025
One of the most fundamental aspects of a fair and just legal system is the ability to challenge one’s detention, often referred to as “habeas corpus”. Habeas corpus is an old but crucial pillar of justice, dating back to the 13th-century Magna Carta, which stated that “No man shall be arrested or imprisoned…except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land.”
Without a recourse to challenge detention, a government could jail someone without having to justify its decision to a judge. As a result, someone detained, regardless of whether they committed a crime or not, would have no way of ensuring their rights are protected, as there would be no judge to guarantee due process.
The Founding Fathers of the U.S. knew this and enshrined habeas corpus in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. But in recent weeks, the Trump administration has seemingly decided the Constitution is far more flexible than ever before, with key administration officials suggesting the suspension of habeas corpus to assist in Donald Trump’s deportation campaign as it grates against judges across the country.
Analysis
In the face of what he calls “activist judges”, Donald Trump has not backed down from stretching both the Constitution and the justice system to fit his needs, defying court orders and having his allies try to impeach judges who rule against his efforts to deport perceived criminal migrants. For the moment, the courtroom battles seem likely to continue into the coming months.
But in early May, the White House deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, suggested that the Trump administration was eyeing ways to suspend habeas corpus, calling it a “privilege”. His justification is one that the administration has been leaning on intensely: that the arrival and presence of illegal migrants in the U.S. constitutes an “invasion,” which would give the administration extensive emergency powers.
More recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem echoed the idea that migrants illegally crossing the border from Mexico could warrant a suspension of habeas corpus.
Now, there are times when habeas corpus can, and has, been suspended, primarily in times of rebellion and invasion. Across American history, it’s been suspended four times: once under the threat of a British invasion of New Orleans in 1814, once under President Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War in 1861, once under President Theodore Roosevelt during a 1905 rebellion in the Philippines, and once under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in Hawaii after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Each suspension, save for the case during the Civil War, was ordered after being authorized by Congress, as while the original phrasing of habeas corpus doesn’t specify which government branch can suspend it, most legal experts agree that only Congress can do it. In the Civil War case, Lincoln faced such backlash after skipping congressional authorization that he went back and requested (and received) it.
There is also a decent breadth of legal precedent regarding who gets habeas corpus rights. In the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court ruled that only Congress can suspend the writ of habeas corpus. Justice Clarence Thomas has also recently suggested that habeas corpus was indeed a constitutional right of national citizenship.
But that point of national citizenship is an important delineation, as the Trump administration would argue that habeas corpus doesn’t apply to noncitizens. Trump’s argument has some legal basis, as in 2020, the Supreme Court tossed out a decision by a lower appellate court allowing an illegal immigrant to file a writ of habeas corpus to overturn his asylum claim denial.
However, this line of argument runs into a sizable hurdle, as that 2020 decision applied more to his asylum claim instead of the detention. Additionally, a separate decision in the 2008 case of Boumediene v. Bush ruled that foreign nationals, at Guantánamo Bay in this case, needed to have meaningful habeas corpus reviews by civilian judges.
Whether or not Trump will try to suspend habeas corpus is an open question, depending on whether both judges and Congress believe illegal immigration constitutes an “invasion.” But Miller’s suggestion is an indication of the growing influence of the far-right in the Trump administration’s already hardline immigration policy.
Stephen Miller himself was a key immigration policy advisor in Trump’s first term and has come back the second time around with bigger plans. These plans are largely in line with the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a checklist from far-right activists for Trump’s second term.
From sending troops to the southern border to limiting refugee admissions and revoking the temporary protected status of thousands of migrants, Trump’s policies are in line with that wish list.
While Miller himself has distanced himself from Project 2025, Trump brought in Russell Vought, an architect of the project. But here, there is a little gray around what Project 2025 believes regarding habeas corpus.
The actual text of Project 2025 doesn’t explicitly reference habeas corpus, and the Heritage Foundation’s Guide to the Constitution does explicitly say, “in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), the Supreme Court confirmed that only Congress possesses the constitutional power to suspend the writ.”
But it also focuses on many questions about following legal decisions and whether habeas corpus can be violated if there’s another avenue for contesting one’s detention. This has been an argument the Trump administration has made in recent court hearings regarding its deportation efforts.
Only time will tell if habeas corpus can, and will, be suspended. But the questions raised about how far the Trump administration is willing to push its power are troubling, especially with the fate of millions of undocumented immigrants on the line.
Engagement Resources
- The American Immigration Council is a nonprofit group that coordinates litigation, research, and advocacy for immigration policies.
- The American Constitution Society is a legal organization that advocates for a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution.
- The Federalist Society is a conservative and libertarian legal organization that advocates for a more fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution.
The Prison-Industrial Complex: Profiting Off Punishment in America (Economic Policy Brief #85)
The Prison-Industrial Complex: Profiting Off Punishment in America
Economic Policy Brief #85 | Inijah Quadri | May 16, 2025
The prison-industrial complex (PIC) in the United States represents a deeply entrenched system where incarceration is commodified, intertwining the interests of government agencies and private enterprises. This nexus has transformed the U.S. criminal justice system into a profit-driven enterprise, often at the expense of marginalized communities.
As of 2025, the United States operates approximately 1,566 state prisons, 98 federal prisons, 3,116 local jails, 1,277 juvenile correctional facilities, 133 immigration detention centers, and 80 Indian country jails. Collectively, these facilities confine about 1.9 million individuals nationwide. State prisons hold the majority, with over 1 million incarcerated, followed by local jails housing approximately 619,000 individuals. Federal prisons detain about 209,000 people, while juvenile facilities, immigration detention centers, and Indian country jails account for the remainder. This extensive network underscores the scale and complexity of the U.S. incarceration system.
Private prison corporations, notably GEO Group and CoreCivic, have capitalized on policies that favor mass incarceration. Recent legislative developments, such as the Laken Riley Act, have expanded the criteria for detention, promising increased profits for these entities. These companies have secured lucrative contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), anticipating a surge in detainee numbers.
Beyond detention facilities, the exploitation extends to prison labor. In states like Alabama, incarcerated individuals work for corporations like McDonald’s and Home Depot under conditions likened to modern-day slavery. Despite generating significant revenue for the companies—estimated at about half a billion dollars annually—the workers receive minimal compensation, and refusal to work can lead to severe penalties.
This system disproportionately affects Black and Brown communities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and incarceration. The PIC’s entrenchment in American society raises critical questions about justice, equity, and the true cost of profit-driven punishment.
Analysis
The prison-industrial complex is sustained by a confluence of factors that prioritize profit over rehabilitation and justice. Private prison companies, such as GEO Group and CoreCivic, have been instrumental in shaping policies that ensure a steady influx of inmates. These corporations have invested heavily in lobbying efforts, with the two largest for-profit prison companies spending $1.7 million and $1.3 million respectively, on federal lobbying in 2024. Such financial influence has led to the enactment of laws that favor incarceration, including mandatory minimum sentences and stringent immigration policies.
The economic incentives for incarceration extend beyond the prison walls. Incarcerated individuals are often compelled to work under exploitative conditions, producing goods and providing services for major corporations. In Alabama, for instance, prisoners are employed by private companies like Home Depot, Wayfair, and McDonald’s through a state-run work program that generates significant revenue. Despite prisoners earning wages, the state garnishes 40% and imposes additional fees. Refusing work can result in harsh penalties, including denial of family visits and transfer to high-security prisons with poor conditions, deterring parole chances.
The racial disparities within the PIC are stark. Black Americans are incarcerated at disproportionately high rates, with one out of every three Black boys born today expected to be sentenced to prison, compared to one out of six Latino boys and one out of 17 white boys. This overrepresentation is not reflective of higher crime rates but is indicative of systemic biases within the criminal justice system. Policies such as the “War on Drugs” have disproportionately targeted communities of color, leading to mass incarceration and the subsequent disenfranchisement of these populations.
The PIC also perpetuates a cycle of poverty and incarceration. Individuals released from prison often face significant barriers to reintegration, including limited access to employment, housing, and education. These challenges are compounded by the stigma associated with incarceration, leading to high recidivism rates and a continuous supply of labor for the prison system.
Efforts to dismantle the PIC face significant challenges. Powerful lobbying by private prison companies influences legislation, while public perception often supports punitive measures over restorative justice. However, grassroots movements and advocacy groups continue to push for reforms, highlighting the need for a justice system that prioritizes human dignity over profit.
Engagement Resources
- Critical Resistance (https://criticalresistance.org/): An organization dedicated to dismantling the prison-industrial complex through grassroots organizing and advocacy.
- The Sentencing Project (https://www.sentencingproject.org/): Provides research and advocacy on criminal justice reform, focusing on reducing incarceration rates and addressing racial disparities.
- Prison Policy Initiative (https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html): Offers data-driven insights into the U.S. criminal justice system, highlighting the impacts of mass incarceration.
- Incarcerated Workers Organizing Committee (IWOC) (https://incarceratedworkers.org/): A union for incarcerated workers advocating for labor rights and the abolition of prison slavery.
- Worth Rises (https://worthrises.org/): A nonprofit organization working to dismantle the prison industry and end the exploitation of those it targets.
- States of Incarceration (https://statesofincarceration.org/): A national public history project exploring the history and impact of mass incarceration in the U.S.
- Liberation Library (https://www.liberationlib.com/): Provides books to incarcerated youth, promoting education and empowerment as tools for liberation.
The Little Covered Big War in Congo and Rwanda (Foreign Policy Brief #201)
The Little Covered Big War in Congo and Rwanda
Foreign Policy Brief # 201 | Damian DeSola | May 20, 2025
To the average westerner, and especially to Americans, the African continent seems to be politically and economically monolithic. One could recall instances where an interviewed passerby on Jay Leno or Jimmy Kimmel’s show would refer to Africa as a country. This point of view makes the western public less capable of discerning and debating foreign policy as it relates to Africa. Therefore, it is the mission of this brief to inform readers of an infamous armed group that has made headlines for its brutality and human rights abuses, but whose history and status remain vague in the casual reader’s news feed: M23.
Origin of Ethnic Disputes in Rwanda and Eastern Congo
Before delving into the complex nature of this rebel group and the conflict it perpetuates, the ethnic tensions established by European colonization throughout Rwanda and Congo must be explored. During the Belgian colonial rule in sub-Saharan Africa, the three ethnic groups of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa, collectively known as the Banyarwanda, who had been living together for thousands of years, were labeled and turned into a caste system. The Belgians assigned the minority Tutsi as the ruling class, the majority Hutu the working class, and the 1% Twa below the Hutu as tribespeople.
As Belgium prepared and enacted decolonization policies, years of oppressive Belgian-backed Tutsi monarchy and enforced class structure coalesced into immense hatred between the two ethnicities. Tensions culminated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide of Tutsi, Twa, and “Tutsi-aligned” Hutu by radical Hutu militias.
The genocide resulted in a massive refugee crisis, especially of Tutsi, who crossed into the existing Congolese Banyarwanda communities in the Kivu region of the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). All Tutsi that settled in the DRC since the region’s decolonization in the 1960s have experienced discrimination from native Congolese. Even as certain Tutsi families have achieved massive wealth and influence in the Kivu region, they still find their rights as business owners and political actors to be precarious due to Kinshasa’s (capital of the DRC) reluctance and incapacity to provide adequate security and civil protections of Banyarwanda residents.
M23 Predecessor: The CNDP (2006-2009)
M23 originates from the Tutsi military elite that remained after the dissolution of its predecessor, the Congrès national pour la défense du people (National Congress for the Defence of the People, CNDP) that occurred on 23 March 2009: hence the name M23. The CNDP was a Rwandan-backed Congolese rebel group that formed in reaction to the failed military integration efforts of disparate rebel groups across the DRC after the Second Congo War. It was a coalition of Eastern Congolese Hutu and Tutsi military elites.
The stated purpose of the CNDP was to return the approximately fifty-five thousand Congolese Tutsi refugees in Rwanda and the dissolution of the anti-Tutsi Hutu-led Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, FDLR). These stated goals continued into CNDP’s successor the M23. However, experts believe the true purpose of both rebel groups is more closely related to controlling Eastern Congo mineral mines, protecting local business interests, and maintaining dubious autonomy of Banyarwanda communities in the Kivu region.
After the Congolese military and other militias routed the CNDP, an attempt to integrate the CNDP was partially successful after the March 23rd treaty. The autonomy of the CNDP within the Congolese army allowed the rise of Congolese Tutsi military leader and notorious war criminal Bosco Ntaganda; the Congolese assigned him to lead the integrated CNDP in the Kivu region of Congo. As the DRC focused on removing Ntaganda from power and dispersing the former CNDP out of Kivu, mutinies began to take place throughout CNDP’s ranks. Eventually, the mutineers and their leaders retreated to Rwanda to reorganize and soon declared themselves the M23.
The Original M23 (2012-2013)
Led by Ntaganda, Sultani Makenga, and other senior ex-CNDP and Rwandan miliary officers, the M23 comprised mostly out of former CNDP Tutsi rebels. In April 2012, the newly formed M23 began asserting control over Kivu. Before their defeat in late 2013, M23 gained control over valuable mines and major cities, including the largest eastern city of the DRC, Goma.
After M23’s successes due to an incoordinate Congolese military, an international coalition made up of UN troops and regional militaries pushed M23 out of the DRC and into neighboring M23-friendly Uganda and Rwanda. On 5 November 2013, M23 admitted its defeat. M23 split into regional entities, effectively pacifying it for the following decade.
Throughout the evolution of M23, Rwanda played an outsized role in supporting the group and its predecessor. By sheltering M23 leaders, and supplying them with arms, recruits, military officers, and other forms of necessary support, Rwanda has taken advantage of these rebels. Kigali has benefitted from the access to minerals, a buffer zone created by the rebels, and the instability of its large neighboring rival. While denying all involvement in M23, evidence collected by the UN has shown irrefutable proof of Rwanda’s complicity in aiding M23’s abhorrent activity in the Eastern DRC.
The European Union and the United States have condemned and sanctioned M23 and Rwandan leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UN’s Human Rights Watch (UNHRW) has found evidence of the group engaging in heinous acts of mass murder, rape, summary execution, and the forced recruitment of children and young men into their ranks under threat of death. The UNHRW has also identified the Rwandan Military (RDF) to be aiding M23’s conflict against the DRC as well as engaging similar underage recruitment and crimes against humanity.
When defeated in 2013, Ntaganda handed himself over to the US Embassy in Rwanda who transferred him to the ICC. In 2019 the ICC found him “guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity,” and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Furthermore, a Congolese military court sentenced Makenga along with other M23 officers to death in absentia for treason and war crimes. Makenga and others sentenced remain part of M23 or at large.
The M23 Today (2019-Present)
After years of relative peace, M23 recently reignited conflict across Kivu and Eastern DRC, once again retaking mineral rich land and occupying cities, including the vital Goma. The stagnant peace talks between the DRC and M23 and lack of urgency on the part of the DRC allowed time for M23 to regroup on the borderlands of Mt. Sabyinyo. In early 2019, the first modern M23 attacks occurred. These coincided with multiple terrorist attacks in the Eastern DRC that Rwanda and the DRC attributed to Islamist extremists. Rwanda and the DRC agreed to allow a Rwandan police contingent to operate on Congolese territory to root out these extremists, but the Congolese population presented fierce resistance to legal Rwandan actions on DRC territory. The insecurity Rwanda felt from these protests prompted an increase of support for M23 to provide a regional buffer.
M23 escalated their attacks alongside Rwandan military units, continually expanding their territory which now extends across both Uganda and Rwanda’s border with the DRC. The UNHRW has found evidence of M23, Rwanda, the DRC, and DRC-aligned militias using artillery to decimate displacement camps. Multiple attempts by the DRC to defeat M23 have failed. Multinational coalitions comprising of regional partners, French diplomats, UN experts, and the African Union, engaged in efforts throughout the crisis. However, these diplomatic and military attempts have shown little result. In certain cases, M23 has returned certain villages and cities to occupation by Kenyan forces, but they still retain control over an extensive amount of Eastern DRC.
Recently, the DRC and M23 have begun peace talks in Doha, Qatar. While both sides show confidence and vow to work towards a lasting cessation of armed conflict, indications from inside sources paint pictures of reluctance and unwillingness to engage in necessary forms of trust building. M23 states it finds the DRC’s adverse attitude to releasing suspected M23 members from custody to be a sign of stagnation in any progress towards peace. Furthermore, the United States has recently shown interest in facilitating a peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda in hopes of gaining access to the mineral-rich land currently occupied by M23. The International Monetary Fund gave notice that the DRC is facing financial instability due to M23’s occupation of tantalum and gold mines.
Conclusion
This article provides an overview of M23’s history and ongoing conflict in Eastern DRC. The group, its Rwandan backers, the DRC, and the militias it backs, have all come under scrutiny for gross human rights abuses for purposes that remain vague. While news feeds focus on Ukraine and Israel, cases like M23’s go underreported and unnoticed. The near-nonexistent coverage by western news sources prevents any attention or real discussion of the situation. Without exposure to even a fraction of complex conflicts like that of the Congo, Rwanda, and M23, there cannot be national conversations that would lead to potential solutions. Meanwhile, the United States’ interest in peacemaking is exclusively based on a desire for mineral access.
The story of ethnic conflict in the Congo is far from over and atrocities against human beings will continue. It is our duty, with the liberty of information access and stable national security, to engage in conflict analysis and conversation for the sake of the millions of displaced people whose lives remain under constant threat.
Engagement Resources
- International Rescue Committee Democratic Republic of the Congo crisis profile
- UN brief history of Rwanda
- International Committee of the Red Cross: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Ukrainian Refugees and American Citizens Mistakenly Ordered to Leave the U.S. Within Seven Days
Ukrainian Refugees and American Citizens Mistakenly Ordered to Leave the U.S. Within Seven Days
In early March, 2025 Reuters reported that the administration of Donald Trump was planning to deprive about 240,000 Ukrainian refugees of their legal status by terminating humanitarian programs. According to the Reuters sources, the decision was expected in April. In response, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt dismissed the report on X, calling it “more fake news” and stating, “No decision has been made at this time.” Meanwhile, the Trump administration has already begun revoking parole status for over 500,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, who had been living in the U.S. under temporary humanitarian programs. The administration said cases would be reviewed on “a case-by-case basis.”
One such program, Uniting for Ukraine (U4U), allowed American citizens to sponsor Ukrainian refugees displaced by Russia’s 2022 invasion. Approximately 240,000 Ukrainians are currently residing in the U.S. under this initiative. An additional 20,000 Ukrainians who entered the U.S. through Mexico early in the war were also granted parole, which provides temporary work authorization and protection from deportation.
On April 3, many Ukrainians legally residing in the U.S. under humanitarian parole received alarming emails from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stating their parole had been revoked and that they must self-deport. The messages declared, “It is time for you to leave the United States,” and warned that their parole would expire in seven days. The letter further threatened: “Do not attempt to remain in the United States — the federal government will find you.”
The notifications sparked panic and fear, especially as the war in Ukraine continues. Russian forces still occupy parts of the country and regularly bombard civilian areas. Since the war began on February 24, 2022, all civilian air travel to and from Ukraine has been suspended.
It is not known exactly how many people received such letters, but among them were also Russian political refugees under humanitarian parole, permanent residents, and even some US citizens. One of them was Nicole Micheroni, a 40-year-old U.S. citizen and an immigration attorney from Massachusetts. Nicole told MSNBC that the Department of Homeland Security sent her the notice telling her that “it is time for you to leave the United States…If you do not depart the United States immediately you will be subject to potential law enforcement actions that will result in your removal from the United States.” Another U.S. citizen, Carmen Bello, an immigration attorney from the Boston area, told NBC Boston that she, too, received a notice of parole termination obligating her to leave the country.
The next day, DHS issued a follow-up email to recipients acknowledging the error and stating that “no action will be taken” and “the terms of your parole as originally issued remain unchanged at this time.”
Despite the retraction, fear and confusion linger among people who fled their country where a devastating war still continues taking human lives every single day. Milena, a mother of three from eastern Ukraine, now lives in New Jersey under humanitarian parole. Her hometown has been seized by Russian forces, and she has no home to return to. Her husband remains in Ukraine, fighting with the national army. Milena has been working in a local store in NJ for nearly three years, paid taxes, and supported her three kids. Her eldest son, Eugene, a high school senior, was recently accepted to college that he is eager to start in August.
Milena is one of those who received the DHS deportation email ordering her and her children to leave the U.S. within 7 days. “What should we do?” she asked tearfully. “Our neighbors in Ukraine, an old couple who were unable to escape from the town, wrote to me that Russians have moved into our apartment. We have nowhere to go back to. My children still suffer from nightmares and still need therapy. The youngest still wets the bed from the trauma caused by horrors we experienced when we fled the town under fire. We thought we were safe here and the suffering is behind for my kids. What awaits us now?”
During his campaign, President Trump claimed he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, bragging about a close relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Yet after three months in office, the war continues unabated, with Russian shelling intensifying and no de-escalation in sight. Trump’s approach appears more focused on meeting Kremlin demands than seeking a fair resolution, potentially forcing Ukraine to surrender territory and resources.
Refugees like Milena, who were granted legal entry, work low-wage jobs that Americans do not hurry to take. They support the U.S. economy by paying taxes, renting houses, and contributing as consumers. Now, they are being used as pawns in Trump’s political games.
While the Trump administration seeks to reduce refugee numbers, other countries recognize their value. A report by Poland’s National Development Bank (BGK) found that Ukrainian immigrants—Poland’s largest immigrant group at 1.5 million—contributed more in taxes than they received in benefits. Ukrainians now comprise about 5% of Poland’s workforce and accounted for €3.6 billion in tax and social contributions in 2024, boosting GDP growth by up to 2.4%.
In contrast, the Trump administration appears to overlook the contributions of refugees to the U.S. economy. Today, more and more Americans, and even some of Trump’s supporters, face the reality and begin to question the consequences of his policies. Many fear that the promise to “make America great again” is instead ruining the constitution and the entire foundations of law, democracy, and economic stability with the speed of a pen stroke.
Engagement Resources
- Citizen who was ordered to leave the U.S. in 7 days says she’s heard nothing from federal officials, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/citizen-ordered-leave-us-dhs-rcna201451
- Ukrainian refugees mistakenly told they must leave US in email mix-up, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/04/ukrainian-refugees-us-email-00273926
- Trump administration accidentally tells Ukrainian refugees they must leave U.S. immediately, citing an “error”, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-accidentally-tells-ukrainian-refugees-they-must-leave-u-s-immediately-citing-an-error/
- Ukrainian immigrants have “positive impact on Poland’s GDP and budget”, finds report, https://notesfrompoland.com/2025/03/15/ukrainian-immigrants-have-positive-impact-on-polands-gdp-and-budget-finds-report/
The Department of Justice Voting Section’s Shift In Priorities
The Department of Justice Voting Section’s Shift In Priorities
Civil Rights Policy Brief #243 | Rodney A. Maggay | May 7, 2025
A number of news outlets have recently reported that the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division Voting Section has changed their mission statement and its priorities.
After Harmeet Dhillon was ratified by the U.S. Senate (by a 52 – 45 vote) to become the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the Department of Justice, new mission statements were sent out to a number of sections in the Civil Rights Division. While the Civil Rights Division’s voting work has historically been focused on ensuring that marginalized voters were not discriminated against in their efforts to vote and that race was not used as a factor in drawing districts and implementing voting procedures, the Division will now shift away from those priorities. The Division will now focus on pursuing cases to ensure “elections [are] unmarred by fraud, errors or suspicion.” The new mission statement also adds that the Division will enforce President Trump’s latest executive order on elections titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”. However, that order has been challenged with a lawsuit and U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar – Kotelly has granted a preliminary injunction to pause implementation of the executive order until the legal issues are resolved at trial.
Policy Analysis: The news of the change in the mission statement of the Civil Rights Division’s voting rights efforts is significant and not in a good way.
The Civil Rights Division’s core functions were to enforce the nation’s civil rights and voting laws, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One tenet that underscored both Acts was its focus to eliminate discrimination against people of color in the use of facilities, education and access to federally assisted programs. Notably, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about voting rights which were expanded the next year with the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act continued the theme of prohibiting discrimination by attempting to bar discriminatory voting laws and procedures used by states, many of them in the South. It was these two laws that were primarily being enforced by the Civil Rights Division.
Now, that priority is being changed under the Trump Administration. Instead of pursuing and bringing cases that see communities of color and other groups encountering barriers to vote, the Division will now pursue cases that might suggest “fraud, errors or suspicion.” This is key because this aligns with one of President Trump’s biggest complaints – that American elections are not secure and caused him to be robbed of the 2020 presidential election. However, President Trump’s complaints about 2020 and a stolen election have been consistently proven false by experts and scholars. But with this new shift in the priorities of the Division’s Voting Section, President Trump is now given a fresh opportunity to continue to peddle his false election lies. Furthermore, the Division will now be tasked with looking for problems in voting that are exceedingly rare and nearly non – existent (fraud, non – citizens voting in significant numbers). These efforts will take away from the efforts to prevent discrimination in certain voting districts around the country and allow states and districts to implement discriminatory voting procedures without having to face pushback from the federal government. The government will have less power to investigate the obstacles minority communities face when trying to vote and instead be tasked with investigating other less pressing matters.
While the change in the mission statement is a big signal of the change in the Division’s priorities, there were other incidents that predicted this change was coming and was imminent. For the last month, the Department of Justice has slowly and quietly withdrawn and shut down active voting rights cases that were brought under the Biden Administration. With 29 cases still active, that number is expected to decrease dramatically in the next few months as government attorneys petition to withdraw the cases. Additionally, the section voting chief and five managers in the unit were reassigned from their voting rights work to positions in a complaint adjudication office handling inter – employee complaints. It was an unusual decision because of the wealth of expertise these persons had in voting rights law. And finally, the move to the Civil Rights Division to investigate fraud was unnecessary because the few fraud cases that did arise were investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ’s Criminal Division. There was no need to move those cases to the Civil Rights Division. These events signaled the change that was coming and the election lies that the Trump Administration wants to pursue despite minimal evidence of election fraud to the contrary. LEARN MORE,
Engagement Resources
Democracy Docket – DOJ lawyers explain their concerns in Division’s shift in priorities.
The Guardian – review of the removal of the DOJ Voting Unit’s leadership personnel.