JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
The Growing 2025 Anti-Trump Protests: Hands Off, No Kings Day, and More
In just over 100 days of Trump 2.0, a reinvigorated Democratic opposition has taken shape. AOC and Bernie have been headlining rallies across the country. Cory Booker broke the record for the longest filibuster in Senate history. Beto O’Rourke is back on the road, holding town halls across Texas. Together, along with others, they’re making it clear: the fight is on. These examples all show how Democrats are fighting against the actions of the Trump administration, raising awareness around the authoritarian tendencies of the administration, & importantly testing the waters for potential runs.
Israel’s Use of AI in Gaza Sparks Protest at Tech Companies in the U.S.
The Israeli military uses Artificial Intelligence to find and target Hamas fighters, but with a civilian death toll estimated at 52,000, critics allege the system is not reliable and may even be providing cover for widespread bombing and ethnic cleansing. And that US companies are complicit.
American Policy in Africa: US Retreats as China Advances
On 22 April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed plans to reorganize the State Department with the justification of increasing efficiency, rooting out ‘radical political ideology’, and delivering Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The details of the plan focus on reducing the size of the State Department and its budget over time: consolidating regional bureaus and embassies, shutting down redundant offices, and ending non-statutory programs that the administration determines to be irrelevant to American interests.
Old Growth Forest Policy Made at the 19th Hole
Through an Executive Order issued March 1, 2025, there is to be an expansion of American timber production that meets goals to achieve “sound forest management, reduce time to deliver timber, and decrease timber supply uncertainty.” Approximately 100 million acres, the equivalent of 60% of our national forests, are to be within earshot of a chainsaw. In so doing, the Trump administration declares this a “new era” in national forest management. Legally protected forest land and parts of old growth forest are slated be part of the expanded production.
The Trump Administration and the University Communities: Part 1, Funding Suspension
In April 2025, the Trump administration escalated its efforts to reshape American higher education by suspending billions in federal grants to elite universities — including Harvard, Columbia, and others — accused of promoting “critical race theory,” “transgender ideology,” and other Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. This move is part of a broader campaign to reorient education policy around conservative cultural values and dismantle what the administration frames as liberal dominance within academia.
A Primer on Political Interest Groups
Political interest groups play a central role in shaping policy in the United States. From corporate-funded lobbying arms to grassroots-driven caucuses, these groups influence electoral outcomes, legislative priorities, and public discourse. Their power lies in their ability to mobilize voters, fund campaigns, and set political agendas, often behind closed doors. The disproportionate influence of wealthy donors and elite organizations has made representative democracy more vulnerable to manipulation, with policies reflecting corporate interests rather than the public good. Understanding these interest groups is essential not just to map where power lies, but to challenge it.
Danger in Economic Uncertainty: A Lesson From Trump’s Tariff Policies
The dust is still being settled a month after the U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day.” He was never coy about his desire to wield tariffs to achieve his geopolitical goals. Both in his previous administration and on the campaign trail, he promised that they are the way to rebuild American manufacturing and repair trade imbalances.
The Trump Administration and University Communities: Part II
Following the initial wave of federal funding suspensions, the Trump administration has intensified its campaign to reshape American higher education. The effort has moved beyond merely withholding grants and now seeks deeper operational control over elite universities. This expansion marks an unprecedented federal intervention into how universities govern themselves, raising alarms over the future of academic independence in the United States. The campaign has expanded into direct interventions at major institutions, citing issues ranging from anti-Semitism management to alleged ideological bias in curricula. Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the University of Michigan have become central battlegrounds in this escalating conflict, responding with legal challenges, public protests, and high-profile statements defending academic freedom.
Resistance is Not Futile: Upholding Civil Rights and Constitutional Norms to withstand Trump’s Autocratic Aims
In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has pursued a sinister goal of autocracy by relentlessly attacking any and all forms of opposition and repressing civil rights and liberties.
Danger in Economic Uncertainty: A Lesson From Trump’s Tariff Policies
Danger in Economic Uncertainty: A Lesson From Trump’s Tariff Policies
The dust is still being settled a month after the U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day.” He was never coy about his desire to wield tariffs to achieve his geopolitical goals. Both in his previous administration and on the campaign trail, he promised that they are the way to rebuild American manufacturing and repair trade imbalances.
However, between the worst stock sell-off since the pandemic and the reactions from decades-old allies and partners, Trump’s tariffs have widely destabilizing. The uncertainty that it is forcing businesses to operate under will only further hurt the American economy.
In response Trump has retreated from his initial effort to post huge tariffs on all countries. However, he has retained his 10% universal tariff while also deciding that a trade war with China (complemented with a whopping 145% total tariff rate) was the right move.
Since then, exceptions have been granted to certain industries and Trump has claimed that over 200 trade deals are in the works with other countries, although he hadn’t given specifics about any of the deals other than saying they will finish negotiations over the next month. It’s even unclear if the U.S. and China are having negotiations regarding their trade war, as Trump and Chinese officials contradict each other.
Analysis
It is widely understood by economists that uncertainty is bad for business; it makes businesses more reluctant to hire and invest, and leads to lower sales on top of the actual price that tariffs extract from importers. If they don’t know how the future is going to look, why forgo having flexibility to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances?
This uncertainty, coupled with the pace at which Trump makes these policy pivots, is making business leaders looking into the long-term are wary of making the normal long-term investments that stimulate the economy. Expanding locations, placing bulk input orders from abroad, hiring more staff; all of these moves, which generate economic activity, start getting second-guessed by business owners.
Companies that import the materials for their products also are about to face widespread supply chain disruptions. The tariff price in many cases will get passed onto the consumer, but in many cases, the imports might not happen at all, because the tariffs are simply too high. Even just receiving foreign materials will be impacted, as the Los Angeles port expects a 35% drop in cargo from Asia starting in May.
While it is certainly true that there are big name companies that have announced huge investments into the U.S. moving forwards, namely Apple’s $500 billion pledge over the next four years, those investments will take a long time to bear any fruit. The global economic landscape can change drastically between then and today, as Trump himself has shown.
“We will have to pull every lever we have in our arsenal to mitigate the impact of tariffs,” said Procter & Gamble’s Chief Financial Officer, Andre Schulten, on a media call with Reuters. His company is waiting on stability to make any changes, because those decisions often have “a lead time of multiple months, sometimes years and reversing them has similar lead times.”
And that hesitation doesn’t just affect domestic companies. Foreign companies looking to invest in the U.S. are hitting the pause button, eyeing how demand and inflation in the U.S. are going to be affected with tariffs constantly looming.
By taking the U.S. down this road, Trump is tying a tourniquet around the investment from both abroad and at home that could be key in what Trump claims he wants to do: bring back American manufacturing. While some major companies are pledging investment in the U.S., the smaller business owners who Trump claims to be looking out for are being thrown onto their back foot by his tariffs and his manic policy backpedals.
Until these tariffs are stabilized, and the Trump administration remembers that economic ambiguity is contractionary, the American economy will begin to lose its premier position, and the doorway for a new economic order that rips the U.S. off of its pedestal inches further and further open.
Engagement Resources
- The International Monetary Fund is a global organization that offers policy advice, research data, and financial assistance to over 191 nations.
- The Peterson Institute for International Economics is an independent, nonprofit think tank that focuses on researching the global economy.
- The Global Business Alliance is a non-profit that advocates for international companies investing in the U.S., and tracks the current tariff landscape.
The Trump Administration and University Communities: Part II
The Trump Administration and University Communities: Part II
Education Brief #202 | Valerie Henderson | April 26, 2025
Following the initial wave of federal funding suspensions, the Trump administration has intensified its campaign to reshape American higher education. The effort has moved beyond merely withholding grants and now seeks deeper operational control over elite universities. This expansion marks an unprecedented federal intervention into how universities govern themselves, raising alarms over the future of academic independence in the United States. The campaign has expanded into direct interventions at major institutions, citing issues ranging from anti-Semitism management to alleged ideological bias in curricula. Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and the University of Michigan have become central battlegrounds in this escalating conflict, responding with legal challenges, public protests, and high-profile statements defending academic freedom.
Analysis
The administration’s approach now extends far beyond cutting grants. Federal officials have initiated formal investigations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, accusing several universities — notably Columbia and Harvard — of failing to adequately address incidents of anti-Semitism on campus. While serious action against discrimination is warranted, critics argue that the investigations have been selectively applied to institutions perceived as politically liberal, suggesting a strategic use of civil rights law to discipline ideological opponents.
At the same time, Columbia and Yale have been specifically cited for alleged “political indoctrination” within their humanities and social science curricula. According to internal Department of Education documents leaked in April 2025, federal agencies are proposing that universities revise course offerings, remove DEI offices, and modify faculty hiring practices to demonstrate “political neutrality” as a precondition for maintaining federal support.
The University of Michigan, in particular, has drawn scrutiny for its extensive DEI initiatives and has been warned that its federal research grants — including major NIH and NSF funding — may be restricted unless it complies with new ideological guidelines. In parallel, the administration has proposed measures to monitor and potentially regulate university endowments and foreign gift disclosures, aimed especially at Harvard and Yale, which possess among the largest endowments in the country.
Although concerns about free expression and anti-discrimination are legitimate topics for debate, the broader pattern of selective enforcement, financial coercion, and operational interference paints a picture of an administration seeking to remake American universities in a politically conservative image.
Pushback
In response, these institutions are not remaining silent. Harvard University has announced its intent to file a constitutional challenge against the administration, arguing that the funding threats and investigations violate the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and academic freedom. Harvard President Claudine Gay stated in an open letter that “academic institutions must be able to pursue inquiry without political interference,” framing the administration’s actions as an existential threat to independent scholarship.
Columbia University has similarly pledged to contest federal actions in court, emphasizing that “political loyalty tests” are incompatible with the mission of higher education. Yale University has joined a coalition led by the American Council on Education to prepare collective litigation against the Department of Education, while simultaneously launching a public campaign to defend the principles of inclusive academic discourse.
The University of Michigan has taken a slightly different approach, passing emergency resolutions through its Board of Regents affirming its commitment to DEI values and academic freedom, even in the face of potential federal funding cuts. Michigan officials have vowed to seek alternative funding sources, including partnerships with private philanthropies and state support, should federal grants be withheld.
These responses reflect a growing consensus across the higher education sector: universities must resist federal attempts to dictate academic content and governance under the guise of enforcing civil rights or patriotic education standards.
Opinion
The Trump administration’s widening crackdown represents not only an assault on funding but a direct attempt to engineer the intellectual landscape of American higher education. Universities like Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Michigan are not merely protecting their financial interests; they are defending the core democratic idea that education must remain free from political coercion.
Efforts to fight anti-Semitism are essential and must continue. However, using civil rights enforcement as a selective political weapon, while simultaneously demanding ideological conformity, threatens to undermine the very freedoms that universities are charged to protect. Suppressing research into race, gender, and history; punishing institutions for offering diverse viewpoints; and conditioning academic survival on political loyalty are tactics more befitting authoritarian regimes than democratic governance.
At stake is more than just the future of a few elite universities. The broader American commitment to free inquiry, critical thinking, and democratic learning hangs in the balance. The pushback by Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Michigan is a defense not just of their own autonomy, but of the idea that universities serve society best when they are free to explore, critique, and illuminate — without fear of political retribution.
Sources for Information
- The Chronicle of Higher Education – https://www.chronicle.com
- Pew Research Center: Education & Society – https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/education
- Inside Higher Ed – https://www.insidehighered.com
Resistance is Not Futile: Upholding Civil Rights and Constitutional Norms to withstand Trump’s Autocratic Aims
Resistance is Not Futile: Upholding Civil Rights and Constitutional Norms to withstand Trump’s Autocratic Aims
Civil Rights Brief # 242 | Nicholas Gordon | April 30, 2025
In his first 100 days in office, President Trump has pursued a sinister goal of autocracy by relentlessly attacking any and all forms of opposition and repressing civil rights and liberties. Trump’s radical, tyrannical actions have weakened opposition and undermined liberal democracy by: purging the government of democratic career civil servants and replacing them with incompetent loyalists; weaponizing government agencies, in particular the Department of Justice; simultaneously pardoning supporters who’ve engaged in acts of domestic terrorism while prosecuting law-abiding rivals; demonizing immigrants and minority groups; and threatening and punishing private citizens and public institutions, while rewarding billionaire donors and cronies with political favors and government contracts. Here’s a look at how Trump’s pernicious actions in each of those areas mirror The Authoritarian Playbook as defined by the nonprofit organization Protect Democracy; and a rundown on the ways that political leaders and private citizens can work to defend the integrity of the legal system and the American civic framework, and the independence of government agencies.
Analysis
Authoritarian leaders seek to rid the government of professional civil servants and replace them with loyalists. Trump has installed incompetent loyalists in key roles in numerous government agencies including the Pentagon, State Department, and the CIA. Trump’s picks not only lack the leadership experience for their designated roles, but they share Trump’s propensity for spreading disinformation, lies, and conspiracy theories, all of which sows public mistrust in key institutions and undermines democratic norms, putting the American people at risk. To cite but a few of the egregious examples, Trump chose “scandal-plagued” Kristi Noemas Homeland Security Secretary; the quickly exposed former Fox News blowhard Pete Hegseth as the Secretary of Defense; the conspiracy-theory super-spreader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services; the trafficker of lies and conspiracy theories Kash Patel as the Director of the FBI; and the fan of Russian propaganda Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence.
Trump’s politicization and weaponization of the Department of Justice has included the termination or reassignment of career DOJ officials in positions of national security, ethics oversight, and public corruption investigations. Trump’s executive order for a takeover of independent regulatory agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), would exacerbate corruption by reducing oversight and shielding him and his billionaire cabinet members and business associates from accountability. Trump’s executive order “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government” is a pretense that aims to enable his administration to do the very opposite. The order requires the intrusive step that the Attorney General “shall take appropriate action to review the activities of all departments and agencies exercising civil or criminal enforcement authority of the United States,” thus giving the Attorney General unprecedented power under Trump.
Autocrats also blame, bully, threaten, and punish civic institutions and private citizens viewed as rivals. In his first one hundred days in office, Trump has attacked rival politicians, media outlets, law firms, democratic fundraisers, judges, critics, universities, and business leaders. Trump’s simultaneous firing of prosecutors who investigated his role in the January 6 riot on the U.S. Capitol and his pardoning of nearly 1600 people convicted of offenses in the riot, including those who unleashed violent attacks on police officers, makes it clear that he tolerates political violence from his supporters over the rule of law. Trump’s mass deportation of immigrants without due process, including defying a court order requesting details on a wrongful deportation, further shows his contempt for the American legal system.
The Way Forward for Democracy
Independent judges still have power granted by the rule of law to block Trump’s attacks on private citizens and public institutions. Political leaders and lawyers must continue to defend judicial independence, the rule of law, and the U.S. constitution at large. Under the constitution, the First Amendment provides for the protection of fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Major news organizations must take a stand for the integrity of independent journalism against threats from Trump over concern for their future profits. Through fact-based and fair reporting, the free press can continue to document the Trump administration’s violations of civil rights, so that the American people can hold the administration accountable.
Supporting and protecting the ethical work of career civil servants will help sustain democracy. Professional civil servants and nonpartisan policy specialists play a critical role in promoting transparency and accountability in the work of government bureaucracy. They help uphold democratic rules and norms, and standards of justice by investigating and prosecuting crimes, regulating the media and the economy, and helping ensure free and fair elections.
The American sociopolitical system has a venerable history of enabling citizens to affect political policies and legislation. Private citizens can continue to express their views through voting, town hall meetings, and protests and demonstrations, demanding equality and justice, and the civil rights that make for a strong democracy. We must not let these rights slip away.
Engagement Resources:
- Common Cause
- A nonpartisan organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy
- Civil Service Strong
- Nonprofit committed to supporting a career, non-partisan civil service and the people who power it
- Just Security
Independent, non-partisan law and policy journal focused on national security, democracy and the rule of law, and human rights
USResist News Magazine: April 2025 #2
We are pleased to send you the current issue of USRESIST SHARE—our bi-weekly magazine of the latest news Briefs by our Reporters. USRESIST SHARE is intended to deepen your understanding of today’s leading public policy and political issues. We hope you’ll enjoy and welcome your feedback.
Trump’s Bromance With Big Tech Hits Some Bumps
Trump’s Bromance With Big Tech Hits Some Bumps
Tech billionaire support for Donald Trump is paying off in some of the expected ways, such as extraordinary access and deregulation. But Trump has wreaked havoc on the stock market, disappointed his crypto backers, and failed to save Mark Zuckerberg from a grilling at the Federal Trade Commission.
Big Tech Access to the President
The stock market meltdown was underway on April 10 when Trump boarded Air Force One and headed to his golf club in Miami for a tournament sponsored by wealthy corporate backers including Tik Tok. The next day he extended the deadline for Tik Tok owner Byte Dance to sell its US business for 90 days- the second time he’d given the company an extension.
Back in Washington, Mark Zuckerberg was closing on a $23 million home In Washington, D.C., the third most expensive real estate sale in that city’s history. He’d been in town unsuccessfully lobbying Trump for help dodging an antitrust trial that started April 14 despite Zuckerberg’s entreaties. The Federal Trade Commission alleges Meta’s purchase of WhatsApp and Instagram was a deliberate strategy to kill Facebook’s competition, and the government’s lawyers did not go easy on Zuckerberg when he testified.
Zuckerberg is also looking to Trump to go to bat for him with the European Union, which holds Meta to far more stringent standards than it faces here in the US. Meta has been hit with over $3 billion in fines by the European Union for violations of its privacy and antitrust rules. At the Munich Security Conference in February where JD Vance attacked the US’s European allies, Meta executive Joel Kaplan suggested Meta was being treated unfairly and warned of US retaliation. “When companies are treated differently in a way that is discriminatory against them, then that should be highlighted to that company’s home government,” he said. “So I think we will do that with President Trump.”
Trump Gives to Crypto and Takes From Crypto
The Winklevosses and other Crypto billionaires bet big on Trump, expecting a lax regulatory environment or no regulations at all. Or no one to enforce them. The US Justice Department has already shuttered the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, a division devoted to monitoring fraud in the crypto industry.
The staff heard the news from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose credentials for that role include his defense of Trump in the 2024 criminal trial in which Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies. His announcement criticized former president Joe Biden, who, according to Blanche, “used the justice department to pursue a reckless strategy of regulation by prosecution.”
Blanche said there will be an about-face at the Justice Department, which will now focus on “prosecuting individuals who victimize digital asset investors, or those who use digital assets in furtherance of criminal offenses such as terrorism, narcotics and human trafficking, organized crime, hacking, and cartel and gang financing”.
As expected, President Trump signed into law a bill that loosens cryptocurrency regulations by eliminating IRS requirements that crypto trading platforms be treated as brokers and that they track and report user activity, reversing the Biden policy of strengthening crypto tax reporting.
But the Bitcoin bros, who fell in love when Trump promised to make the US the “Bitcoin superpower of the world,” lost some of that loving feeling when they realized that Bitcoin would not serve as the core currency of the new national crypto reserve Trump is starting. Instead, he will use his currency, USD1, a Stablecoin. Unlike Bitcoin, which doesn’t have central management, USD1 is solely managed by Trump’s World Liberty Financial. “As President Trump has directed, we are going to keep the U.S. the dominant reserve currency in the world, and we will use Stablecoins to do that,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.
Tariffs Are On, Tariffs Are Off
Trump did back off of tariffs for tech products- for now- but Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and other tech billionaires have already lost billions. Trump has also cut federal funding for AI research and his immigration policies are leading to an industry that depends on immigrant talent. And, after the wild ride of the last 3 months, even his buddies know there’s no there’s no telling what he’ll do next. The question is whether the tech billionaires will continue to do his bidding if he fails to do theirs.
Engagement Resources
The Tech Oversight Project, https://techoversight.org, Punish Bad Actions from Big Tech.
Here’s How Much Bay Area Tech Billionaires Lost As A Result In Recent Tariff-Induced Market Turmoil By Aidin Vaziri, April 15, 2025
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/billionaires-market-losses-20275770.php
The Tech Accountability & Competition Project at Yale School of Law, https://law.yale.edu/mfia/projects/tech-accountability-competition-project
The TAC Project aims to promote and enforce comprehensive legal regimes that require technology companies, digital platforms, and other public and private actors exerting power in the digital space to reduce harms arising from their business models and practices and respect the rights of all people affected by their products and services.
Social Media Platforms Pursue Hatred While Claiming to Promote Free Speech
Social Media Platforms Pursue Hatred While Claiming to Promote Free Speech
Technology Brief #128 | Naja Barnes | April 20, 2025
Amid the current political unrest, citizens have voiced their concerns through social media. Voicing one’s differences of opinions without government interference is an American right, but that right has since been under attack.
Social media is a tool used to connect and inform people across the world, but it also is being weaponized to censor free speech, a basic right under the Constitution’s First Amendment. However social media platforms are not government entities, and therefore are not bound by the First Amendment.
Consequently the lines of what is considered an infringement of free speech are being blurred.
Analysis
Censorship of speech through the use of algorithms and moderation practices of social media has happened before, during political movements. In 2020, the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and the cases of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and George Floyd brought on a political movement and nationwide protests in support. This was made possible due to the use of social media and its ability to reach a widespread audience. However, during the BLM movement, users of Instagram noticed that their algorithm alsowere suppressing stories and posts surrounding the movement. This type of censoring through the use of algorithms and moderation is not an infringement on free speech because social media platforms are private entities; meaning that they can censor any information they deem inappropriate for their platform.
Leaders of social media platforms mistakenly argue that their platforms support free speech. For example Elon Musk’s claims that his platform X encourages all forms of speech, including hate speech. However X routinely censors posts that critique Musk, have left-leaning views, and discuss LGBTQ+ issues.
In conclusion, free speech is being mistakenly promoted as a feature of social media platforms, like X. The real reason for free speech is to allow citizens to lawfully express their opinions, critique their government, and promote safe discourse. So far, there has been little room to do so under major social media platforms, and the future of free speech remains uncertain.
Engagement Resources
- ‘Rules aren’t clear anymore’: Trump crackdown on student protesters sends shock waves across US universities
https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/us/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-protests-free-speech/index.html - Freedom of speech is shifting under the Trump administration. We’re exploring how
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/07/nx-s1-5327154/free-speech-trump-first-amendment
How ICE Works (Immigration Policy Brief #144)
How ICE Works
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was created in 2003 as a component of the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration laws inside the United States and investigate transnational crime. Twenty‑two years later, the agency employs more than 20,000 personnel across more than 400 domestic and foreign offices. Since President Donald Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, 2025, enforcement has accelerated—32,809 arrests in the first fifty days alone—and detention centers have exceeded their funded capacity of 41,500 beds, holding up to 47,600 people as at March 12. These pressures have revived longstanding concerns about transparency, cost, and civil‑rights protections. This Brief explains how ICE is organized, how it selects and processes cases, and which institutions oversee its work.
Analysis
ICE is currently led by Acting Director Todd Lyons, appointed on March 9, 2025, together with Deputy Director Madison Sheahan. Four headquarters directorates—Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor, and Management & Administration—form the agency’s core.
ICE identifies most targets through three pipelines. First, Secure Communities automatically matches the fingerprints of local arrestees against DHS databases, triggering detainers when immigration violations appear. Second, 456 active 287(g) agreements deputize state or local officers to issue immigration detainers and conduct interviews under ICE supervision. Third, Border Patrol routinely transfers apprehended border crossers to ERO custody once they move beyond the immediate border zone.
After ICE files a Notice to Appear, cases move to the Executive Office for Immigration Review; detained individuals may request bond hearings under EOIR’s Chapter 9.3 guidance. According to a December 2024 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the median processing time for immigration court cases between fiscal years 2016 and 2023 was 394 days. However, cases involving detained individuals had a significantly shorter median processing time of 52 days. This indicates that detained single-adult cases often conclude in under two months. Removals are carried out by ERO’s Removal Division using ICE Air charter and commercial flights.
ICE detains migrants in roughly 110 facilities that include service‑processing centers, private contract prisons, and county jails. DHS‑OIG inspections covering FY 2020–23 found persistent deficiencies in environmental health, medical staffing, and grievance systems and calculated that ICE paid about $160 million for guaranteed beds that went unused. A 2024 GAO audit concluded that ICE publicly undercounts tens of thousands of detainees and recommended fuller data disclosure.
Oversight layers include ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the DHS Inspector General, and congressional committees that commission GAO studies. Federal courts provide a final backstop through habeas petitions and class‑action litigation. Policy analysts point to three immediate levers for the improvement of ICE: publish complete detention and Alternatives‑to‑Detention data, renegotiate guaranteed‑bed contracts to align with forecast need, and expand the Intensive Supervision Appearance and case management programs, which ICE reports yields high court‑appearance compliance at a fraction of detention costs.
ICE’s Effectiveness Under Trump 2.0
Since President Donald Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has intensified its operations. In the first 50 days, ICE made 32,809 enforcement arrests, nearly matching the total number of at-large arrests for the entire fiscal year 2024. As reported, quite a number of these arrests involved individuals with criminal convictions or pending charges.
The administration has faced criticism for aggressive enforcement tactics. Notable incidents include the mistaken deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident with legal work authorization, who was sent to El Salvador despite judicial protections. Additionally, the arrest of Juan Francisco Mendez in Massachusetts, who was forcibly removed from his vehicle despite not being the intended target, has raised concerns about due process and civil rights violations.
Similarly, in March 2025, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student and Fulbright scholar at Tufts University, was arrested by plain-clothes ICE agents near her home in Somerville, Massachusetts. Her detention followed the co-authorship of an op-ed in The Tufts Daily supporting Palestinian rights. Despite a lack of evidence linking her to terrorist activities, Öztürk was swiftly transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana without prior notice or access to legal counsel. A federal judge later ordered her transfer back to Vermont, citing significant constitutional concerns regarding her arrest and detention.
In the same vein, on April 14, 2025, Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian Buddhist and former Columbia University student, was detained by ICE during his naturalization interview in Vermont. Mahdawi, known for his peaceful activism and interfaith dialogue, had no criminal record. His arrest has been criticized as a violation of free speech and due process, with legal advocates arguing that he was targeted for his political beliefs.
In another case, Kseniia Petrova, a Russian scientist affiliated with Harvard Medical School, was detained by ICE at Boston Logan Airport in February 2025 after returning from a trip to France. Authorities cited the improper declaration of biological materials as the reason for her detention. However, supporters argue that the action was disproportionate and possibly influenced by her opposition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Petrova remains in ICE custody in Louisiana, facing potential deportation.
These incidents reflect a broader pattern of ICE’s aggressive tactics, including warrantless street and home arrests. These reports and many others indicate that ICE agents have conducted operations without judicial warrants, often using deceptive practices such as impersonating local law enforcement to gain entry into homes. Such actions have raised serious concerns about violations of the Fourth Amendment and the erosion of due process protections for noncitizens.
As deportations surge and detention fills to the brim, the question may no longer be whether ICE is effective, but at what cost—and to whom?
Engagement Resources
- Detention Watch Network (https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org): A national coalition dedicated to shutting down immigration detention and stopping the expansion of ICE facilities.
- Mijente (https://mijente.net): A grassroots Latinx and Chicanx organization that has been at the forefront of the Abolish ICE movement. Mijente organizes campaigns to end deportations, defund ICE and CBP, and protect immigrant communities (for example, pressuring tech companies to stop collaborating with ICE).
- Freedom for Immigrants (https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org): A nonprofit working to abolish immigration detention, support detained people, and shift toward community-based support.
- No More Deaths (https://nomoredeaths.org): A volunteer humanitarian group focused on ending the death and suffering of migrants in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. They provide water, medical aid, and support in the desert, and campaign against Border Patrol violence and surveillance.
Deporting Democracy: The Crackdown on Foreign Student Visas (Immigration Policy Brief #143)
Deporting Democracy: The Crackdown on Foreign Student Visas
Immigration Brief # 143 | Morgan Davidson | April 22, 2025
Institutions of higher education are under attack. Since the return of the Trump administration, more than 1,500 international students and recent graduates from over 240 institutions, across at least 45 states and Washington, D.C., have had their F-1 academic and J-1 exchange visas revoked.
As a doctoral student in the U.S. education system, this is not just a headline to me: it is personal. My cohort is evenly split between domestic and international students, with classmates hailing from Europe, Asia, and Africa. These are scholars who believe in democracy, who left their home countries, sometimes at great personal risk, with the hope of contributing to American society, promoting democratic values, and advancing human knowledge.
Now, under this administration, those students are being driven out. We have already seen the cases: Rumeysa Öztürk, the Turkish Fulbright scholar from Tufts; Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian student activist from Columbia; Kseniia Petrova, the Russian researcher at Harvard Medical School. Bright, promising individuals have been detained or deported without due process.
This is not about making America great. It is about making it smaller, meaner, and less relevant on the global stage. When we push the world’s brightest minds away, we do not just lose students, we lose allies, ideas, and innovation.
This article is a call to action: end the mass revocations of student visas now.
Analysis
The Trump administration has weaponized immigration law to target international students under the guise of national security. Visa revocations are happening through obscure bureaucratic mechanisms that deny due process and operate entirely outside public view. Agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are acting with virtually no transparency. Students often receive no warning that their F-1 or J-1 visas have been revoked; they find out only when they are detained at airports, during class, or in their homes by masked, unidentified agents.
Universities and faculty are blindsided. SEVIS, the database schools use to track international student status, is often updated after a student has already been detained. By the time administrators are aware, it is too late to intervene.
These decisions are frequently based on AI-driven surveillance of social media, targeting students who post pro-Palestinian content or criticism of U.S. foreign policy. The case of Rumeysa Öztürk, a Turkish Fulbright scholar detained after co-authoring a campus op-ed, makes clear: this is not about lawbreaking. It’s about silencing speech.
This isn’t the return of free speech. It’s the criminalization of dissent.
This wave of visa revocations is not random: it’s political profiling. International students who speak out against U.S. foreign policy, especially in defense of Palestinian rights, are being systematically targeted. The Trump administration justifies these actions with obscure “national security” claims, but offers no evidence that student activism poses a real threat to the country.
Meanwhile, where are the voices of the “Genocide Joe” protesters? Trump has escalated U.S. support for Israel and launched a direct crackdown on the protesters themselves, yet many of those same movements have gone quiet.
The consequences of this crackdown stretch far beyond individual students. By detaining scholars like Mahmoud Khalil or Kseniia Petrova, neither accused of any crime, the U.S. sends a chilling message: free speech is conditional, and foreign-born dissent is unwelcome. As a result, brilliant students are turning to other countries. China, in particular, is stepping in to attract those driven out of the U.S., offering academic refuge where America offers detention cells.
This isn’t protecting America- it’s punishing the people who believed in it.
International students aren’t just visitors. They contribute billions to the economy, drive innovation in research and technology, and strengthen global cooperation. In my own program, these students are not foreign radicals. They are peers and friends from across the world who believe in the ideals of American democracy. Many have risked their safety, left family behind, or were forced to cut ties to be part of that vision.
By revoking their visas and targeting their voices, the U.S. is sending a dangerous message: political opposition is unwelcome. When a nation punishes peaceful dissent, that’s not strength. It’s outright authoritarianism.
We don’t just lose students. We lose allies, ideas, and innovation. These actions don’t just harm students. They undercut American influence. China & European countries are welcoming the talent we are actively pushing away. In the long run, this isn’t just a moral failure, it’s a strategic one.
When students feel safer speaking freely in Beijing than in Boston, something is deeply wrong.
The Biden and Obama administrations didn’t get everything right on immigration, but they didn’t turn international students into political targets. What we’re seeing now is unprecedented — and unacceptable. There must be an immediate suspension of foreign student visa revocations, restoration of due process rights, and a serious legislative review of ICE’s unchecked authority.
Academic freedom and international education are cornerstones of American influence and credibility. If we continue down this path, we won’t just lose students; we’ll lose what made America worth coming to in the first place.
Engagement Resources
- American Immigration Council
Explore how immigration policies affect families, the economy, and communities across the U.S.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ - American Immigration Council – Student Visa Resources
Legal explanations and policy analysis on student visa rights, terminations, and advocacy options.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/ - The Intercept – Civil Liberties & Surveillance Reporting
In-depth investigative reporting on ICE, AI surveillance, and civil liberties in higher education.
https://theintercept.com/
The Administration Efforts to Avoid a Judicial Ruling
The Administration Efforts to Avoid a Judicial Ruling
On April 9, 2025 the House of Representatives voted on the No Rogue Rulings Act bill. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). H.R. 1526 would prohibit a federal district court judge from issuing an injunction or prohibition regarding a case unless the injunction or prohibition only applied to the parties of the particular case before the district judge’s court. The bill passed the House by a vote of 219 – 213 in favor of the bill, almost exclusively on party lines. One Republican voted against the bill, Rep. Mike Turner from Ohio.
The bill is in response to President Donald Trump and other Republicans anger at having a number of the President’s executive orders and policy proposals temporarily paused or put on hold by an order from a district court judge. During the first two months of the Trump Administration there have been seventeen nationwide injunctions that have been issued against a Trump Administration executive order or policy proposal. The injunctions have been comprised of temporary restraining orders (TRO) and preliminary injunctions (PI) and most have been applied nationwide. When a TRO or PI are issued in ordinary cases between parties the injunction usually prohibits one of the parties from taking a certain action before the case can be resolved at trial. But since cases brought against a Trump Administration executive order or policy affect the entire country as a whole, the TRO’s and PI’s that have been issued inevitably prohibited the executive order or policy proposal from being implemented for the time being nationwide. The No Rogue Rulings Act is intended to prevent federal district judges from issuing these injunctions by modifying how they may be implemented.
The bill will now move to the Senate where passage in that chamber seems highly unlikely. LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis
Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration the President and many of his supporters have been angry that many of their executive orders and policy proposals have been temporarily halted and paused by the courts. Some GOP members have even openly called for judges to be impeached when a judge has issued rulings that they disagreed with. This prompted a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts who stated, “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” Nevertheless, GOP outrage at judges and the judiciary as a whole have persisted during the first two months of President Trump’s term.
The No Rogue Rulings Act bill has intensified this conflict because the bill and the changes and modifications it will provide are not necessary. It is merely a partisan reaction to rulings Republicans do not agree with and so now they are trying to “move the goal posts” to give their policy proposals a greater chance of success if challenged in a court of law. The purpose behind TRO’s and PI’s is not to rule whether a policy is good or bad. A temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction are often issued at the beginning of a case and merely questions whether a party should be prohibited from doing something while the case moves through trial. It is temporary in nature. A court could decide to allow a policy to be implemented or it could decide to block it’s implementation permanently. A permanent injunction would only come after a trial. A pause does not mean that a policy proposal is instantly rejected. This is what Trump Administration officials are failing to grasp about nationwide injunctions being put on pause temporarily.
Rep. Mike Turner, the only Republican to not support the No Rogue Rulings Act pointed out that “the judicial system works” and that this bill is not necessary. He also pointed out that even if a district judge issued a temporary national injunction like in the recent immigrant deportations flight case, the Supreme Court was there to strike down and overturn the injunction. The judiciary has protections and protocols in place to ensure that a party can appeal and still have their case heard on the merits. Rep. Hank Johnson from Georgia, a Democrat, called it a judicial system, “working exactly as it should.”
Predictably, the bill has gotten a very partisan response which has illustrated the underlying issues. Rep. Pramila Jaypal (D-WA) stated, “If you don’t like the injunctions, don’t do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That simple” with the implication being that Trump is trying to change the rules because most of his actions are illegal. Republicans have countered that the bill is necessary because a constitutional crisis has emerged where radical “activist judges” have improperly usurped the power of the Executive Branch of the Government to implement their preferred agenda. But the fact of the matter is that Republicans have introduced a bill that is neither needed nor necessary. It is simply feigned indignation for their inability to craft an executive order or policy proposal that can withstand scrutiny during the early stages of a case. They’ve forgotten that these TRO’s and PI’s are temporary and that they can still win their cases at trial even though their policy is temporarily paused. And even if they don’t prevail at trial, the Trump Administration and their allies can appeal to the appropriate appeals court and eventually the Supreme Court. There is no need to change the scope and national reach of a federal district court’s ability to issue an injunction simply because a policy can’t be implemented right now. The No Rogue Rulings Act does nothing but exposes the Republicans and Trump Administration’s hostility towards the judiciary strictly for partisan reasons. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- The Hill – analysis of the No Rogue Rulings Act bill.
- National Public Radio (NPR) – how the effort to rein in judges has divided the GOP.
Understanding What the U.S. Department of Education Did
Understanding What the U.S. Department of Education Did
Brief # 200 Education Policy | Valerie Henderson | April 22, 2025
The U.S. Department of Education (DOE), established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, promotes student achievement, ensures equal access to education, and enforces federal laws prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs. Historically, it manages Pell Grants, student loans, Title I programs for low-income students, and special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). It also oversees civil rights compliance in educational institutions.
Over time, the DOE’s scope has expanded through legislation such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and the Higher Education Act (1965), and subsequent reauthorizations including the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015).
Analysis
Initially a support system for states, the DOE has increasingly influenced local education policy through conditional funding. Federal initiatives like Common Core, Race to the Top, and standardized testing requirements reflect deeper federal engagement.
Critics argue this undermines local autonomy, while supporters emphasize its role in ensuring nationwide equity—particularly for marginalized populations. While federal funding comprises only 8–10% of total education spending, the conditions attached give it significant policy leverage.
Advocates warn that dismantling the DOE would harm students depending on federal services, particularly children with disabilities and those in underfunded schools. Meanwhile, proponents of abolishment believe local control would promote innovation and reduce bureaucracy.
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education. A day later, the administration ordered the transfer of federal student loan responsibilities to the Small Business Administration (SBA). This move bypassed pending legislation and triggered concern among legal scholars and policy experts, as the SBA lacks statutory authority and infrastructure to handle the complex $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio.
A March 11 reduction in force eliminated nearly one-third of DOE staff, impairing its capacity to carry out core functions. Simultaneously, the SBA—facing its own 43% staff cut—was ill-equipped to manage the scale and complexity of federal student aid, which includes varied loan types, forgiveness programs, and FAFSA infrastructure.
Universities like Seton Hall have publicly reaffirmed their commitments to DEI programs and warned of looming financial instability. Investigations into more than 50 universities have already resulted in the suspension of DEI-related federal grants, with billions in funding at stake.
Without a statutory transfer of authority, legal experts argue that the SBA may be unable to enforce current student loan agreements, potentially violating the Higher Education Act of 1965. Civil rights enforcement under Title VI, Title IX, and IDEA is also at risk if the DOE is dissolved without new federal mechanisms. Experts caution that, without congressional approval, this reorganization faces strong legal resistance. The abrupt withdrawal of federal oversight could severely compromise protections for marginalized students, amplify educational inequities, and destabilize the national education landscape.
I do not support efforts to abolish the Department of Education, as doing so would significantly harm students who depend on federally mandated services, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds and children with disabilities. The Department plays an essential role in protecting civil rights, funding special education programs, and ensuring equitable access to education across all states. Without its oversight, local disparities in funding, quality, and inclusiveness would likely widen. While there is room for reform and improved collaboration with states, dismantling the DOE would strip away necessary protections and support systems that millions of students rely on daily.
Engagement Resources
- National Education Association (NEA)
Advocates for public education policies that strengthen public schools, enhance educational opportunities, and improve educator working conditions.
https://www.nea.org - Education Trust
Engages in research and advocacy aimed at closing achievement gaps and promoting educational equity across socioeconomic and racial groups.
https://edtrust.org - Center on Education Policy (CEP)
Provides nonpartisan, evidence-based research on public education, helping policymakers understand the implications of educational policies and practices.
https://www.cep-dc.org