JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
SEC Proposes Climate Change-related Corporate Disclosure Requirements
Brief #140 – Environmental Policy
By Stephen Thomas
The administration of President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Vice President Kamala D. Harris is attempting to hold public corporations accountable for their impacts on global warming, ensuring in the process that investors know whether the firms in which they have a financial stake are taking climate change seriously.
Trans Rights Are Human Rights, But State Legislatures Say Otherwise
Brief #37 – Social Justice
By Alexandra Ellis
2022 is the year of unprecedented anti-trans-legislation. The question becomes, why? It seems every day conservative media is reporting a new anti-trans bill being introduced in State legislatures. No one is saved from this debate: including parents of LQBTQIA+ youth and multinational corporations like Disney.
Is Internet Isolationism Possible?
Brief #57 – Technology
By JA Angelo
Internet isolation has been the talk of the block recently as Russia continues to invade Ukraine. However, many do not know what internet isolationism means. Isolationism is an international relations term used to describe a country that cuts itself off from the outside world. Therefore, internet isolationism is when a country prevents the use of the Internet to disseminate outside information to its citizens.
Agroforestry: An Ancient Agriculture for a Modern Farm Bill
Brief #139 – Environment
By Jacob Morton
Agroforestry is an ancient agricultural system that not only produces food, but “supports biodiversity, builds soil horizons and water tables, and sequesters carbon from the atmosphere.” In 2023, our current Farm Bill will be up for renewal, meaning Federal legislators will have the opportunity to reevaluate how we choose to financially support our food and agricultural industries and services. As legislators prepare to craft and vote on the next Farm Bill, we must press our representatives to support funding for agroforestry projects and farm system transitions.
How Texas Senate Bill 8 Opened The Door To Vigilante Laws And Why These Laws Pose Such A Danger
Brief #186 – Civil Rights
By Rodney A. Maggay
In 2021 the State of Texas passed an anti – abortion law with a unique enforcement mechanism. Under the law, any private citizen could sue the person who tries to get an abortion, the doctor who performs the procedure or the clinic who provided the abortion procedure to a woman.
The Ukraine Crisis: Situation Update #7
Ukrainian forces have retaken the Kyiv region and other surrounding areas over the weekend as Russian troops have begun a withdrawal from certain areas of Ukraine. The ongoing invasion has proven to be much more difficult than it seems Russian military officials had expected. About two-thirds of Russian troops have left the Kyiv region and are already in Belarus or on their way there. Though the withdrawal is seen as victory in holding back Russian forces, they are likely to regroup, resupply, and gather reinforcements which may instead intensify fighting later on in other regions.
As Cannabis is Increasingly Being Legalized, What Are Its Health Risks and Benefits?
Brief #148 – Health and Gender Policy
By Inijah Quadri
In 36 states, medicinal marijuana is permitted, and in 14, it is lawful to consume marijuana recreationally. On the subject of legalizing marijuana, this article examines papers published in top economic, public policy, and medical publications, concentrating on the health repercussions of cannabis legalization.
Will the United States Adopt Europe’s Digital Markets Act?
Brief #56 – Technology
By JA Angelo
The European Union continues to lead the way in developing tech policies. In its most recent efforts, the EU passed the Digital Markets Act regulating big tech firms’ efforts to monopolize e-commerce, digital advertising, app stores, and other digital tools we rely on daily to organize our lives. The new law means that Google can no longer send targeted ads without its user’s consent and that Apple would need to offer mobile apps outside of the App Store.
House Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana: Manufacture, Distribution and Possession
Brief #151 – Health and Gender
By Stephen Thomas
By a vote of 220-204, the U.S. House of Representatives Friday, April 1, passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act or the MORE Act aimed at decriminalizing the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. New York Democrat and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler introduced the legislation, an unsuccessful version of which the House passed in 2020.
What Motivates Covid Conspiracy Believers?
What Motivates Covid Conspiracy Believers?
Health and Gender Policy Brief #140 | By: S Bhimji | November 2, 2021
Header photo taken from: AP News
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health & gender policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: BBC Science Focus Magazine
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As of Sept 2021, there are still close to 70 million adult Americans who have not been vaccinated against Covid. Despite all types of incentives, these folks have refused to get the shot. President Biden had signaled that he would have liked most of the country to be vaccinated by July 2021 but as of now, there are millions who adamantly refuse to be vaccinated.
About 51% of these individuals have religious and personal reasons for not getting the shot and the rest have all types of superstitious beliefs. Some believe that the government is trying to control the population with the vaccine, others believe that Bill Gates has something sinister to do with the vaccine and yet there are others who believe that the vaccine will turn them into zombies.
Many businesses have mandated that their workers be vaccinated in order to remain employed; in addition, unvaccinated individuals now are prevented from entering many public places and cannot travel by air with certain airlines. As the delta variant spreads rapidly there is concern that the epidemic may not end soon.
But what is happening to these unvaccinated individuals in terms of their health, employment, and quality of life?
Policy Analysis
A recent study from the Netherlands surveyed 5,745 participants during the months of April and Dec 2020. The focus of the study was to primarily determine what was happening to the superstitious individuals who refuse to be vaccinated.
This study just published reveals that individuals who believe in Covid 19 conspiracies are less likely to undergo testing for Covid 19 but when tested are more likely to be positive for the virus.
Further, these individuals were more likely to lose their jobs, more likely to break coronavirus rules to hide the fact that they are not vaccinated, and face social isolation in both personal and professional life. The end result was a loss of income, below-par overall well-being, and a poor quality of life.
The study authors wrote, “one basic property of conspiracy theories is that they are consequential, even if a conspiracy theory is extremely implausible according to logic or scientific evidence, if it seems real to a perceiver, it has a genuine impact on attitudes, emotions, and behavior.”
The conclusion of the study was that the type of ‘conspiracy belief’ helps the individuals cope with the challenges they are facing and in the end it also has significant repercussions for public and private health, as well as overall social and financial well-being.

Photo taken from: Tulane News
Geoffrey Dancy, an expert in conspiracy theories suggests that such beliefs are common during times of stress because they help explain events that are beyond logical explanation or control. Further, he notes that conspiracy theorists find great comfort in blaming something else or someone else for a mega issue like a pandemic. For example, these individuals may suspect that the government has engineered a vaccine that will control the population or that the pharmaceutical companies will produce a vaccine that makes them vulnerable to other diseases.
One thing is for sure, conspiracy theorists are fanatical about their delusional beliefs- a feature that is common in psychosis and other mental health problems.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.

Understanding delusions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3016695/#:~:text=A%20delusion%20is%20a%20belief,or%20her%20level%20of%20intelligence.

Geoff Dancy:
https://liberalarts.tulane.edu/departments/political-science/people/geoff-dancy

The science of superstition – and why people believe in the unbelievable. https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-superstition-and-why-people-believe-in-the-unbelievable-97043
Offshore Turbines a Windfall for the Transition to Cleaner Energy
Offshore Turbines a Windfall for the Transition to Cleaner Energy
Environmental Policy Brief #136 | By: Todd J. Broadman | November 3, 2021
Header photo taken from: New York Post
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: Inspire Clean Energy
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Today, 67,000 wind turbines are spinning kilowatts of energy throughout the country. That is the wind behind President Biden’s back in his recent wind energy initiative; that, and his pledge is to cut the nation’s fossil fuel emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The cost to make and deploy wind energy has gone down over 50 percent since 2008. The administration wants to seize the moment; the plan is to install 30 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind turbines in U.S. waters by 2030.
Dubbed “wind farms,” the Dept. of the Interior has already begun the process of identifying locations in federal seas that are optimal for wind energy in the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of Maine and off the coasts of the Mid-Atlantic States, North Carolina and South Carolina, California and Oregon. By 2025, these locations are slated to be leased to developers. This phased roll-out comes on the heels of the first major commercial offshore wind farm that has received approval by the Biden administration – off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.
Overall, wind represents less than 10 percent of the country’s total power generation with most of it coming from states in the central plains. The wind rich states of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma in the Dakotas are aggressively expanding their wind capacity. In Texas, wind provides more than 30 percent of total electricity.
For perspective, wind provides nearly 50 percent of energy in Denmark, Ireland and Germany. While the US installed a record 17GW of wind capacity in 2021, Europe, home to a majority of the world’s offshore wind, had nearly twice that capacity installed in 2020. The UK alone is planning on 40GW. China has even more ambitious plans for wind energy: they are looking at 73GW by the end of this year.
There are incentives in the recent spending bill for utility companies. The package includes a $150 billion program that would pay electric utilities to increase the amount of electricity they purchase from zero-carbon sources such as wind and solar, with penalties for those that do not make the transition. The investment will also be used to modernize the grid and improve its capacity for both solar and onshore and offshore wind energy sources.
Policy Analysis
Environmentalists are weighing in as the administration anticipated. “In order for Americans living in coastal areas to see the benefits of offshore wind, we must ensure that it’s done with care for the surrounding ecosystem by coexisting with fisheries and marine life – and that’s exactly what this investment will do,″ said Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Environmental and cost challenges are far greater on the west coast. Pacific waters are much deeper and get deep closer to shore compared to the US’ Atlantic coastline. That makes it more difficult to affix turbines to the seafloor. There is a new technology in the form of floating wind farms.
Environmental hurdles will include potential harm to endangered species, conflicts with military activity, damage to underwater archaeological sites, or harm to local industries such as tourism. As they have in response to other offshore wind farms, commercial fishing groups and coastal landowners will likely try to stop the projects. In the Gulf of Mexico, where oil and gas exploration are a major part of the economy, fossil fuel companies could fight the development of wind energy as a threat to not only their local operations but their entire business model.
Though wind turbine prices are dropping across the board (now hovering around $750 per kilowatt of energy they generate), taller wind turbines require larger volumes of raw materials, both for their larger size and for the extra material required to provide structural reinforcement to keep them standing. Countries in Northern Europe, for example, where land for wind farms is more expensive, stand to gain more from bigger turbines than the US does, he notes. The global trend is towards installing fewer and bigger turbines.
Though wind turbine prices are dropping across the board (now hovering around $750 per kilowatt of energy they generate), taller wind turbines require larger volumes of raw materials, both for their larger size and for the extra material required to provide structural reinforcement to keep them standing. Countries in Northern Europe, for example, where land for wind farms is more expensive, stand to gain more from bigger turbines than the US does, he notes. The global trend is towards installing fewer and bigger turbines.

Photo taken from: Power Technology
The world’s largest offshore wind turbine is in China. It is 800 feet tall and the blades are the size of 10 football fields. These goliaths are likely the future of wind energy. In the U.S., the average rotor diameter in 2020 was about 125 meters (410 feet)—longer than a football field. Wind speeds are greater at higher altitudes and turbines will be taller to capture this increase.
And size comes with a carbon footprint: a two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tons of steel that requires 300 tons of iron ore and 170 tons of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. From construction to demolition though, the energy payback on a turbine can be less than a year. Payback times for CO2 and energy consumption range from 6 to 17 months for offshore installations. Each has a life cycle of less than 30 years. It takes energy to dismantle and recycle them.
As mentioned, the U.S. government issued the final federal approval for the (Martha’s Vineyard) Vineyard Wind project, a utility-scale wind farm that has been over a decade in the planning. The wind farm’s developers plan to install 62 giant turbines in the Atlantic Ocean with enough capacity to power 400,000 homes with clean energy. In June, the Biden administration announced a competitive lease sale for the New York Bight, an area between New York and New Jersey, that could generate 7GW of energy, enough to power more than 2.6 million homes. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will be responsible for auctioning the additional, new offshore lease sales, by 2025.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.

https://www.utilitydive.com/ – provides in-depth journalism and insight into the most impactful news and trends shaping the utility industry

https://www.power-grid.com/ – provides information and thought-leadership about the electricity delivery industry.

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/ – is the only global media brand dedicated to the wind power industry.

https://theconversation.com/us – is a nonprofit, independent news organization dedicated to unlocking the knowledge of experts for the public good.
Semaglutide: Is it The Panacea for Weight Loss?
Semaglutide: Is it The Panacea for Weight Loss?
Health & Gender Policy Brief #139 | By: S. Bhimji | November 1, 2021
Header photo taken from: Every day Health
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more health and gender policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: Medpage Today
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
There are over 70 million Americans who are considered obese and 99 million more who are said to be overweight. Today obesity has replaced smoking as public health enemy number one. Obesity has repercussions beyond just excess weight- it negatively affects almost every organ in the body and shortens the lifespan.
Studies show that even achieving a minimum of 5% of initial weight loss in obese individuals can result in a marked lowering of the risk factors for heart disease as well as preventing the onset of type 2 diabetes.
Over the years, many drugs have been developed to reduce body weight but most have proven to have dangerous side effects and the weight loss is not significant even after 1 year. The other option is for obese individuals to undergo surgery. Bariatric surgery has been shown to produce significant weight loss and improve risk factors for heart disease.
Unfortunately, not only do many individuals not meet the criteria for surgery, the surgery is prohibitively expensive and can lead to life-threatening complications, which are not rare. Most important, regaining weight after surgery within the first year is very common. Only about a third of individuals who undergo surgery can prevent weight gain. And for patients without healthcare insurance, the cost of weight loss surgery can run as high as $35K.
Now a new drug has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of obesity- called Semaglutide. Many think it is perhaps the best and safest drug on the market- but does it work?
Policy Analysis
Semaglutide was developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes but it was observed that many obese diabetics also lost a significant amount of weight while lowering their blood sugars. This led to a clinical trial involving over 1,960 obese adults. At a dose of 2.4 mg administered weekly by injection, participants lost a significant amount of weight compared to those treated with a placebo and lifestyle changes.
The weight loss began within the first 4 weeks of starting treatment and by the end of week 68, there was an average of 33.7-pound weight loss in the majority of obese individuals. Besides weight loss, Semaglutide also lowered blood pressure, reduced waist circumference, decreased blood glucose and cholesterol levels- all risk factors for heart disease.
Overall the study revealed that more than 50% of participants lost 15% of their initial body weight and at least a third lost 20% body weight- which is far superior to previous weight-loss drugs. The most common adverse effects in the trial were related to the gastrointestinal system which included nausea, vomiting, bloating, and diarrhea.
To date it appears to be the most effective drug treatment for weight loss when it is combined with lifestyle changes; There is an oral form of the drug now available for weight loss today- sold under the trade name Rybelsus.

Photo taken from: Medpage Today
Despite the hype, it should be noted that animal studies have shown the oral agent to cause pancreatitis and thyroid tumors in rodents. No such findings have been observed in humans but it may be too early.
Another clinical trial is set to assess the oral formula and also look more closely at potential adverse effects that can occur in the long term.
For obese consumers, the bad news is that this agent is not covered by insurance and the cost per month ranges from $800-$1300, depending on which pharmacy you buy it from and if you have a discount coupon. Without a government subsidy, it is unlikely that many obese individuals (who are also poor/unemployed) will be able to afford the cost of this drug.
To lose weight, you need to take the drug for about a year and hence a year’s supply would cost about $12K-$15K, which is still far cheaper than surgery AND SAFER.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on hyperlinks to visit resource website.

Obesity
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight

Prescription Medications to Treat Overweight & Obesity
Weight-loss (Bariatric) Surgery
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/bariatric-surgery
Climate Change Poses A National Security Threat Says 2 New U.S. Government Reports
Climate Change Poses A National Security Threat Says 2 New U.S. Government Reports
Environmental Policy Brief #134 | By: Katelyn Lewis | November 1, 2021
Header photo taken from: NRDC
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: Medium
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In dual reports, the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Intelligence Council reached the same conclusion: Climate change poses an exacerbating, adverse effect on national security.
“To keep the nation secure, we must tackle the existential threat of climate change,” the DoD Climate Risk Analysis (DCRA) report said.
Both evidence-based reports were released on Oct. 21 in response to Executive Order 14008.
The DCRA report outlines key security implications of climate change both nationally and internationally; its role in climate policy and responsibilities; and considerations and prioritizations for the Department’s actions.
“The unprecedented scale of wildfires, floods, droughts, typhoons, and other extreme weather events of recent months and years have damaged our installations and bases, constrained force readiness and operations, and contributed to instability around the world,” the report said. “Climate change touches most of what this Department does, and this threat will continue to have worsening implications for U.S. national security.”
For example, the Report outlines how more drought and flooding events will lead to reduced water supply and an inundation of critical assets, leading to a competition for scarce natural resources as well as a heavier demand for defense support, humanitarian assistance, and disaster response. These climate hazards will also reduce agricultural production and damage infrastructure, prompting “heightened social and political tensions [and] increased likelihood of migration, conflict, and/or competitors using instability to expand influence.”
Meanwhile, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) focuses on climate change’s geopolitical implications abroad. It finds that the risks to U.S. national security interests will increase through 2040 as countries around the world respond to “the intensifying physical effects of climate change” as well as the political and financial upheavals they are likely to spawn.
The NIE report breaks down the risks and changes in levels of risk into three categories – geopolitical tensions over climate responses, climate exacerbated geopolitical flashpoints, and climate effects impacting country-level instability.
It concludes that unified international action to reach the Paris Agreement’s greenhouse gas emissions goals globally may be nearly impossible to achieve as “most countries will face difficult economic choices and probably will count on technological breakthroughs to rapidly reduce their net emissions later.”
Meanwhile, developing and vulnerable countries trying to cope with climate change may look to the U.S. for help, increasing demands on “diplomatic, economic, humanitarian, and military resources,” according to the report.
“The United States and others […] are in a relatively better position than other countries to deal with the major costs and dislocation of forecasted change, in part because they have greater resources to adapt, but will nonetheless require difficult adjustments,” the report says. “Climate impacts such as excessive heat, flooding, and extreme storms will prove increasingly costly, require some military shifts, and increase demands for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.”
Policy Analysis
The mirroring reports were released just 10 days before world leaders gather to meet for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP26, in Glasgow, Scotland, which begins on Oct. 31.
On the same day the Defense and Intelligence reports were issued, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security released its “Strategic Framework for Addressing Climate Change.” The guide outlines the department’s efforts “to safeguard the homeland from the immediate impacts of climate change, while pursuing long-term solutions that support resilient, prosperous communities and safeguard critical national security interests.”
All three documents, as well as a fact sheet released by the White House, establish the threat climate change poses for the U.S. on multiple fronts as well as what actions the Biden Administration’s leadership hopes to focus on going forward.
They offer good insight into U.S. President Joe Biden’s focus for the conference, and show his administration’s efforts to analyze the current climate situation as well as what strategic steps top officials advise to move the U.S. forward to mitigate its adverse consequences.
Ahead of COP26, Biden also released a $1.75 trillion social and climate change spending framework on Thursday, Oct. 28. A big portion of that spending, at about $555 billion, is allocated to “make it easier to buy electric vehicles, install solar panels, retrofit buildings and manufacture wind turbines and other clean-energy equipment in the United States,” The Washington Post reports.

Photo taken from: CNN
“The legislation, coupled with executive actions, could help Biden halve U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in less than nine years compared with 2005 levels,” the Post reports. “Documents from the White House and analyses by independent experts suggest the legislation will reduce U.S. annual carbon dioxide emissions by about a gigaton, nearly a sixth of its current annual emissions.”
While Biden’s social and climate change spending framework would make a major investment toward producing clean energy and combating climate change, its release just three days before COP26 begins – and uncertain passage through Congress – slightly weakens the pressure he may be able to apply on other countries to ramp up their actions against greenhouse emissions.
Without established laws or federal spending toward climate action already in place, Biden heads into COP26 as a leader of one of the richest, developed countries with only ideas, not solidified actions, on how the U.S. will address climate change and cut its greenhouse gas emissions fast enough to mitigate global warming trends.
The Intelligence report reaches a similar, dismal conclusion. In particular, it outlines how perceptions of insufficient contributions to reduce greenhouse emissions, countries’ inability to meet net-zero pledges, and resistance to transition away from fossil fuels, among others, will increase and intensify geopolitical tensions.
“Countries are arguing about who should act sooner and competing to control the growing clean energy transition,” it says. “Global momentum is growing for more ambitious greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but current policies and pledges are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals.”
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on hyperlinks to visit resource website.

Reuters – “Factbox – What are the climate change provisions in the U.S. budget bill framework?” (Oct 28, 2021) – https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-spending-climate/factbox-what-are-the-climate-change-provisions-in-the-u-s-budget-bill-framework-idUSKBN2HI2VS

The Washington Post – “White House, intelligence agencies, Pentagon issue reports warning that climate change threatens global security” (Oct. 21, 2021)
The Washington Post – “New Budget Deal Marks the Biggest Climate Investment in U.S. History” (Oct. 28, 2021) – https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/28/climate-biden-build-back-better/

The White House – “Fact Sheet: Prioritizing Climate in Foreign Policy and National Security” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/21/fact-sheet-prioritizing-climate-in-foreign-policy-and-national-security/

Virginia Mercury – “What’s in – and out – of Biden’s $1.75 trillion social spending and climate bill” (Oct. 28, 2021) – https://www.virginiamercury.com/2021/10/28/biden-pitches-new-1-75-trillion-spending-blueprint-to-dems-that-drops-paid-family-leave/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=4daef262-6da7-44af-bb89-d03f65ecb956
Writer’s Sources
Click or tap on hyperlinks to visit resource website.

National Intelligence Council – “National Intelligence Estimate: Climate Change and International Responses Increasing Challenges to US National Security Through 2040” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/NIE_Climate_Change_and_National_Security.pdf

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary for Policy – “Department of Defense Climate Risk Analysis” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://media.defense.gov/2021/Oct/21/2002877353/-1/-1/0/DOD-CLIMATE-RISK-ANALYSIS-FINAL.PDF

U.S. Department of Homeland Security – “DHS Strategic Framework For Addressing Climate Change” (Oct. 21, 2021) – https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs_strategic_framework_10.20.21_final_508.pdf
Surveillance Technology: A Useful Tool or a Threat to Our Security
Surveillance Technology: A Useful Tool or a Threat to Our Security
Technology Policy Brief #65 | By: Stephan Lherissen | October 26, 2021
Header photo taken from: Freedom House
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more technology policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: The Boston Globe
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Cities around the nation are adopting legislation that puts limits on the use of surveillance technology by their respective police forces. These cities are at the forefront of policy that could be adopted nationally by the federal government. These laws are being considered by some and established by others in response to growing criticism that these technologies do not respect the rights and privacy of citizens.
The cities of New York City, San Francisco, and Cambridge Massachusetts and many others have passed legislation giving their cities authority over police surveillance programs. They mean to create transparency around police usage of these technologies.The technologies can include facial recognition technology, license plate reader data, “Stingray” cell phone locaters and backscatter “X-Ray vans.”
The focus of some of these laws and ordinances has been to create guards against facial recognition technology if not outright ban it. It has been proven that the technology is inaccurate and biased, especially when used against communities of color.
Policy Analysis
Establishment of these laws throughout the country was spurred in part by the fear that these technologies go against the rights of citizens and stampede over civil rights protections. Both federal and state protections were considered. The stories about the laws enacted in different cities are similar. In every city lawmakers are interested in protecting their populace. To do that they need effective legislation that gives them the power to demand transparency and accountability from the police.
The function of facial recognition technology is to identify a suspect when their face is matched up with a face in a database. Sometimes those databases can be unknown to the public. License plate readers are devices that can scan the license plates of a car that passes by. Stingray cell phone locators are cell phone surveillance devices that mimic cell towers and send out signals to trick cell phones in the area into transmitting their locations and identifying information. X-Ray vans use x-ray radiation to look through the walls of buildings or the side of trucks.
On July 15, 2020 the Public Oversight of Surveillance Technology (POST) Act was signed into law in New York City. The law requires the New York City Police Department to reveal to the public the scope of its surveillance activities and the equipment that is used for such activities. The bill explains the process by which the department will share their surveillance efforts to the public.
In 2019, before New York City passed its surveillance legislation, San Francisco enacted an ordinance that banned the use of facial recognition technology in the city. In addition to the ban on facial recognition technology the ordinance called for transparency when it came to the actions and efforts of police departments in their use of surveillance tech.

Photo taken from: The Intercept
In 2018 Cambridge, Massachusetts went further than the other cities with the terms of its ordinance. In the Cambridge ordinance the community was put in charge of police surveillance actions. The ordinance requires police to seek City Counsel permission before buying, acquiring, or using new surveillance technologies In Cambridge the city was trying to find a balance between the privacy of its citizens and the need to keep citizens safe.
The action of creating laws to limit the use of surveillance technology has also been taken up by the federal government. The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are open about their policies when it comes to the use of certain surveillance technology. Despite this the federal government seeks further openness when it comes to public information.
The Senate is also targeting the use of a particular facial recognition tool called Clearview AI as well as prohibiting the purchase of location data and personal data without a warrant by the U.S. government. A new Congressional bill called The First Amendment is not for sale would also outlaw the use of technology generated data that was obtained duplicitously.
Because of abuses of power by law enforcement, people around the country are asserting their own powers as citizens that have civil and personal rights when it comes to how their data is used and how they are tracked by law enforcement. Police departments in certain cities are now required to reveal their actions and techniques when it comes to surveillance of their fellow citizens.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/21/data-surveillance-bill/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/21/data-surveillance-bill/

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1265


https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-face-it-this-is-risky-tech-20180814-story.html#


Future of School Mask Mandates Remains Uncertain
Future of School Mask Mandates Remains Uncertain
Education Policy Brief #60 | By: Lynn Waldsmith | October 28, 2021
Header photo taken from: nymag.com
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more education policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: Chalkbeat
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Growing numbers of school districts are easing mask mandates in the face of pressure from Republican state lawmakers, strong opposition from parents and as the latest wave of Covid-19 appears to be declining in many parts of the country.
While the Biden administration has recommended universal masking in schools, more than 30 governors have refused to implement such mandates — and some have banned them altogether. Most notable is the ongoing public battle between the federal government and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who maintains that only parents have the right to order their children to wear masks.
Yet more than half of Florida’s students live in counties where mask mandates are in place. A Florida judge is expected to rule by Nov. 5 in a lawsuit where six school boards are challenging the state Dept. of Health rule designed to prevent student mask requirements. The state says parents or guardians should have the right to opt out of mask requirements. Districts face state financial penalties for adopting policies that require students to wear masks to try to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Policy Analysis
After DeSantis began to withhold funding from Florida districts that were enforcing mask mandates, the U.S. Education Department launched a civil rights investigation into Florida’s ban on mask mandates in schools, arguing it could harm students with disabilities. The Biden administration has also threatened similar action against several other states, but to date the strategy has produced no tangible results.
Meanwhile, U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, in a recent “Axios on HBO” interview, said he’s reluctant to withhold federal funding from states that won’t enforce school mask mandates.
“I don’t know that holding funds from students is the best approach,” Cardona said. “Ultimately, the students need more support, not less.”
According to Burbio, which tracks the developments and runs a dashboard on schools:
- About 42 percent of students live in states that have mask mandates for all schools.
- Nearly 31 percent live in states that have removed school mask mandates, though local districts have flexibility to mandate masks.
- About 24 percent of public K-12 students live in “legal limbo” states where state-level mandate bans face legal challenges and some districts require masks.
- Less than 3 percent of students live in states where local districts do not have the power to require masks.
The trend for face coverings in schools appears to be shifting away from state control towards local authority, and to encouraging mask wearing rather than requiring it. Burbio’s most recent data shows 78 percent of the 500 largest districts still require masks, with many of the schools that have made a change making face coverings optional.
In Michigan, for example, more than half of all students attend a school with a mask mandate. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan Dept. of Health and Human Services Director Elizabeth Hertel have the power to enact a statewide mask mandate, but have asked local health and education leaders to enact their own rules.

Photo taken from: National Review
As in many parts of the country, that approach has led to vitriol, personal attacks and even death threats against members of local school boards and health departments from angry parents who vehemently oppose mask mandates for their children in the name of personal freedom.
“Conditions are continuing to deteriorate and have become even more volatile at the local level,” Norm Hess, executive director of the Michigan Association for Local Public Health, told The Detroit Free Press. The association has formally pleaded for a statewide school mask mandate.
“One of the reasons we had heard from the state that it was preferable to have local orders is the notion that people would be more likely to comply with a local order than with a statewide order, but we are not finding that to be true.”
The shift towards making mask-wearing optional in more schools is likely also partly due to the waning of the U.S. delta wave, which hit just as schools were preparing to return from summer break. According to The Washington Post’s tracking, new daily coronavirus cases have fallen about 60 percent nationwide since a mid-September peak.
When the 2021-2022 school year began, every state was in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s worst Covid-19 community-transmission category, “high,” meaning they were all recording at least 100 new weekly cases per 100,000 residents or had a case positivity rate of 10 percent or more. Now, at least 9 states have dropped to the “substantial” level, the second worst of the four categories.
At the local level, there’s even more reason for optimism, since the CDC has 171 counties, or 5.3%, in its “moderate” or “low” transmission categories. At those levels, the agency has more relaxed guidelines for schools.

Photo taken from: CQ Press Library
However, it’s not clear how winter weather will impact Covid-19 transmission levels going forward. While the future of mask mandates remains uncertain in America’s schools, the question of vaccine mandates for students also looms on the horizon, especially now that pediatricians may be able to start vaccinating children ages 5-11 years against Covid-19 in a matter of weeks.
Advisers to the Food and Drug Administration have now endorsed the shots for younger children in that age group, concluding that the benefits outweigh the risks. The FDA is now expected to grant emergency use authorization, clearing the way for 28 million kids to receive the vaccine.
California recently became the first state to announce Covid-19 vaccines will be required for in-person learning for K-12 age groups after the FDA grants full approval for children. It remains to be seen, however, how many states will follow California’s lead.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.

Prevalence of Mask Policies in US K-12 Schools:

Guidance for COVID-19 Prevention in K-12 Schools:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/k-12-guidance.html
Level of Community Transmission of COVID-19, by State/Territory:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_community

US coronavirus cases and state maps:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/national/coronavirus-us-cases-deaths/

Coronavirus in the U.S./ Latest Map and Case Count:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
Supreme Court Passes On Chance To Modify The Qualified Immunity Doctrine
Supreme Court Passes On Chance To Modify The Qualified Immunity Doctrine
Civil Rights Policy Brief #177 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | October 24, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Atlantic
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more civil rights policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: Reason Magazine
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
In Rivas – Villegas v. Cortesluna, Officer Daniel Rivas – Villegas responded to the scene of a 911 call. Upon arriving at the home he found a mother and her two daughters barricaded in a room trying to hide from the mother’s boyfriend. Ramon Cortesluna, the mother’s boyfriend, was in possession of a chainsaw and was destroying items in the house. The officers perceived he was carrying a knife. The officers shot him with two non – lethal beanbag shots at which point Cortesluna began to cooperate. He lay on the floor and Officer Rivas – Villegas placed his knee on Cortesluna’s back and removed the knife from his pocket.
Afterwards, Cortesluna sued Officer Rivas – Villegas for excessive force. The case was tried and subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that Officer Rivas – Villegas was not entitled to qualified immunity in the case because the facts in the case were similar to the case LaLonde v. County of Riverside. The court indicated that this case showed there was “clearly established law” which meant that the Rivas – Villegas case had to follow the Lalonde case and deny immunity to Officer Rivas – Villegas. Cortesluna would then be permitted to sue the officer for his injuries. However, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit’s decision and declared that Officer Rivas – Villegas was entitled to the qualified immunity defense.
In City of Tahlequah v. Bond, another officer also responded to a 911 call. When the officers arrived on the scene, they found the woman’s ex – husband drunk and refusing to leave the woman’s home. The officers approached the ex – husband who then grabbed a hammer and raised it in a manner that indicated he might throw the hammer at the officers. The officers then shot and killed him. The estate of the victim then sued the two officers for excessive force but the officers were found not liable because of the qualified immunity defense. The case was appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals which reversed and found that the officers were not entitled to the defense. An appeal was then made to the United States Supreme Court which reversed the Court of Appeals and ruled that the officers were not liable because “the officers plainly did not violate any clearly established law.”
Policy Analysis
The qualified immunity doctrine is one of the most controversial legal doctrines today and has come under heightened scrutiny in the current environment focusing on police misconduct and calls for law enforcement reform.
The doctrine of qualified immunity offers a defense to law enforcement officers (and other state and local officials) for their official conduct so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known. Without this defense most officers would lose the civil suits brought against them. For a plaintiff to prevail they would have to show a “clearly established law” which would probably mean pointing to a factually similar case. However, because officers always invoke the defense when sued there is rarely a case to point to that has similar facts and which has held the officer liable. It is a Catch – 22 situation since courts are asking plaintiffs to show “clearly established law” when in reality there are no such cases since the legal defense prevents an officer from being held responsible.
There had been hope that either of these two cases would have resulted in a landmark case that could have overruled or modified the doctrine. Use of the doctrine had become so skewed and generated some head scratching results that Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor – two justices on opposite ends of the political spectrum – both questioned the validity of the defense and called for a reexamination of the legal doctrine. Prior cases had seen officers invoke the legal defense and prevail even though the officers were engaged in some egregious conduct.

Photo taken from: Komorn Law
Officers who stole evidence and as much as $225,000 in cash in a California case were held not liable to the plaintiff only because they invoked the qualified immunity defense. Officers in Idaho were also found not liable even though their excessive actions caused the complete destruction of plaintiff’s home, again only because they claimed the qualified immunity defense.
And officers who killed a person they mistook for a suspect escaped liability by again using the qualified immunity doctrine as their defense. The doctrine was not meant to provide an absolute immunity shield for police officers but that is what the doctrine has evolved into. The Supreme Court could have taken steps to rein in the most extreme applications of the doctrine or even eliminate it but sadly chose not to in the two cases this term. Other options to reform the doctrine have been presented, most notably from Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and his bill “Ending Qualified Immunity Act” but nothing definite has been passed in Congress thus far. The two cases at the Supreme Court offered the best opportunity at the moment but the Court failed to take the issue up.
It remains to be seen if Congress or the Supreme Court will address the doctrine and make the necessary modifications so that citizens can hold police officers accountable for their conduct.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.
Engagement Resources
![]()
Ending Qualified Immunity Act Bill – press release from Sen. Ed Markey’s office introducing bill.

Constitutional Accountability Center – opinion piece from center advocating for elimination of the qualified immunity doctrine.
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 3
The U.S. House Select Committee Investigation of the January 6 Attack on the Capitol: Part 3
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #30 | By: Erika Shannon | October 27, 2021
Header photo taken from: The New Civil Rights Movement
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more elections and politics policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: Getty Images
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
As the investigation into the January 6th Capitol Riots continues, it is becoming clear that getting to the bottom of that day’s events will be no easy task. There were already hurdles to overcome with the formation of a committee to investigate the day’s events; now that the committee is working towards piecing together what truly happened, more obstacles stand in the way. While companies like Facebook are working with the panel to turn over requested information, other subpoenaed parties are doing their best to avoid speaking with the congressional panel.
Former Trump Administration Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has ignored the subpoena issued by the House Select Committee. If Bannon continues to refuse to comply with their investigation, the Committee will be holding him in contempt of Congress. A 26-page contempt report has already been issued wherein the panel documented its repeated attempts to make contact with Bannon regarding his testimony. According to Bannon, he has executive privilege in these matters, meaning that a president can keep certain documents or discussions with advisers private. However, since there is a new sitting president, the House Select Committee argues that protection rests with President Biden, who has already waived executive privilege when releasing an earlier document per the panel’s request.
Besides dealing with those who refuse to cooperate, the House Select Committee is now being sued by former President Donald Trump in an attempt to stop documents related to the riots from being handed over to the panel. Trump himself has been urging former Trump Administration officials not to comply with the subpoenas, again citing executive privilege. Donald Trump is clearly unfamiliar with the idea surrounding executive privilege; since he is not the current sitting president, executive privilege no longer pertains to this situation. The move is not a shocking one coming from Trump, as turning to the courts and filing lawsuit was a move used by him throughout his presidency to keep potentially embarrassing documents out of the public realm. In a statement from Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson, he makes it clear that the panel will continue to fight their way to the records they need, regardless of Trump’s efforts to delay or obstruct their probe.
Policy Analysis
Though it seems that making any headway is impossible, the House Select Committee is doing their best to continue to gather any relevant information. Earlier this month, the committee issued subpoenas related to the “Stop the Steal” rally that took place on January 6th.
The subpoenas seek depositions from Ali Abdul Akbar AKA Ali Alexander, and Nathan Martin, who are connected to permit applications for the rally that day. The committee wants records from those two, as well as records from Stop the Steal LLC, an organization that was affiliated with the event.
Recently, the House Select Committee also subpoenaed former Department of Justice Official Jeffrey Clark. Clark was allegedly involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election and interrupt the peaceful transfer of power. The committee’s subpoena seeks deposition testimony, as well as records, from Clark as part of their probe into the January 6th Capitol riots. There is skepticism of whether or not he will appear at his deposition, or ignore the subpoena the way Steve Bannon did.

Photo taken from: Yahoo Finance
The congressional committee has a long way to go before their investigation is over, but there are some people who are willing to help it along. There are reports that at least five former members of the Trump Administration have voluntarily spoken with the House Committee. When they were texted or emailed by counsel for the committee asking if they were interesting in speaking with them, these five former staffers came forward. It is assumed that some of they may have information worth sharing, while others are hoping to avoid any legal repercussions in the future.
It has been a roller coaster ride from the start for this House Select Committee, and it will likely continue to be as the investigation continues. There is still work to be done, and it is clear that not all who were involved in that day’s events are going to come forward of their own free will. The committee will continue to figure out how to handle those who refuse to cooperate so that they can compile and complete their report.
This brief is part of an ongoing series on the Select Committee’s investigation; further updates will be provided as the investigation continues.
Engagement Resources

To see the latest news from the House Select Committee, visit their homepage.
To submit a tip to the House Select Committee, click here.
Climate Change, Silent Killer of the World’s Precious Coral Reefs
Climate Change, Silent Killer of the World’s Precious Coral Reefs
Environment Policy Brief #133 | By: Jacob Morton | October 22, 2021
Header photo taken from: World Atlas
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more environmental policy briefs from the top dashboard

Photo taken from: Mongabay
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
14 percent of the world’s coral reefs perished within just ten years from 2009 through 2019, says a report released earlier this month by the International Coral Reef Initiative, a partnership of countries and organizations that works to protect the world’s coral reefs. The cause? Climate change. Pollution from human sewage and agricultural runoff, which cause harmful algal blooms, as well as heavy metals and other industrial chemicals from manufacturing industries, were cited as major contributors as well. Destructive fishing practices that harm coral reefs also earned a dishonorable mention.
The report presents an analysis of data collected by more than 300 scientists in 73 countries. Its editors concluded that “Since 2009, it’s a constant decline [of coral populations] at the global level.” According to the editors, what is particularly alarming is the trajectory of this decline. They point out that the first major global coral bleaching event occurred in 1998, but afterwards, most of the affected reefs seemed to bounce back. Today, they report, “That no longer appears to be the case.”
The report does note, however, that around 900 species of coral exist, and “some appear more resilient to the heat and acidification that accompany climate change.” Unfortunately, as researchers in the report point out, “those tend to be slower-growing and not the more familiar, reef-building varieties that support the richest biodiversity.” Despite this, editors of the report provide some optimism, stating that, “Many of the world’s coral reefs remain resilient and can recover if conditions permit.” They emphasize that if the world can limit the amount of global warming, these corals could still potentially recover, or at least regenerate over time.
Policy Analysis
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “Climate change is the greatest global threat to coral reef ecosystems,” and the clearly evidenced warming of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans “are primarily due to greenhouse gases derived from human activities.” NOAA explains that, “As temperatures rise, mass coral bleaching events and infectious disease outbreaks are becoming more frequent. Additionally, carbon dioxide absorbed into the ocean from the atmosphere has already begun to reduce calcification rates in reef-building and reef-associated organisms by altering seawater chemistry through decreases in pH,” a process known as ocean acidification.
A report by NOAA’s Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary explains this process: “Rising (or even falling) water temperatures can stress coral polyps, causing them to lose algae (or zooxanthellae) that live in the polyps’ tissues. This results in “coral bleaching,” so called because the algae give coral their color and when the algae “jump ship,” the coral turns completely white. The algae also give coral polyps the food they need to survive.” The report adds that, “While a bleached coral is not dead, and corals can survive bleaching events, they are under greater stress, are less resistant to other threats such as disease, and are thus subject to mortality.”
Additionally, the ocean absorbs approximately one-third of the atmosphere’s excess carbon dioxide. As humans emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, our oceans absorb more of the excess CO2, which alters the water’s pH, resulting in a more acidic ocean. “In order for a coral reef to grow, it must produce limestone (or calcium carbonate) at a rate that is faster than the reef is being eroded. Ocean acidification slows the rate at which coral reefs generate calcium carbonate, thus slowing the growth of coral skeletons.” Compounding these affects, as global warming worsens, “sea level rise; changes in the frequency, intensity, and distribution of tropical storms; and altered ocean circulation,” all create harsher conditions for coral reefs.
While the report by the International Coral Relief Initiative (ICRI) makes clear that tackling climate change should be our top priority for saving coral reefs, it stresses that “reducing pollution is also critical.” If corals are to be as healthy as is necessary to survive the warming temperatures that are already here to stay, we must reduce the amounts of pollution that cause algal blooms and murky and toxic waters in coral ecosystems.

Photo taken from: Walking on Life
Coral reefs occupy a small percentage of the sea floor, but according to the ICRI report, they collectively support “an estimated $2.7 trillion per year in goods and services.” The fish that live amongst them supply a critical source of protein for human consumption; their large limestone branching formations protect coastlines from storms; and their well-known beauty attracts billions of dollars in tourism revenue.
According to Dr. David Obura, chairperson of the coral specialist group for the International Union for Conservation of Nature and a contributing editor to the ICRI report, the 14 percent decline in the planet’s living coral reefs that took place between 2009 and 2019, is deeply concerning. Obura says, “In finance, we worry about half-percent declines and half-percent changes in employment and interest rates.”
A 14 percent decline in an ecosystem that supplies so much revenue globally, should be concerning to everyone. As Obura points out, “Coral reefs are the canary in the coal mine telling us how quickly [things] can go wrong.”
Just a week after the release of the ICRI report, United Nations world leaders met to discuss a new global biodiversity agreement (much like the Paris Agreement on Climate Change), called the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). The UN’s draft GBF sets targets for protecting marine and land habitats and reducing pesticides and plastic waste. The agreement is expected to set “21 targets and 10 milestones for governments to meet by the end of the decade. These include protecting a minimum of 30% of the world’s oceans and land, reducing pesticide use by at least two-thirds, eliminating plastic waste, and increasing financial resources dedicated to biodiversity to at least US$200 billion annually.”
For coral reefs, some leaders are pushing to protect the most pristine reefs that still remain. Dr. Obura, however, says “this approach would not suffice.” Obura argues, “People are so dependent on reefs around the world, we need to focus a lot of effort on the mediocre reefs, or all the other reefs, as well. We need to keep them functioning so that people’s livelihoods can continue.” The UN’s GBF agreement is set to be finalized in Spring 2022.
Engagement Resources

The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) – A global informal partnership between Nations and organizations which strives to preserve coral reefs and related ecosystems around the world.

The Center for Biological Diversity (The Center) – Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need to survive.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – IUCN is a membership Union composed of both government and civil society organizations. It harnesses the experience, resources and reach of its more than 1,400 Member organizations and the input of more than 18,000 experts. This diversity and vast expertise make IUCN the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it.
Writer’s Sources

Einhorn, C. (2021, October 5). Climate change is devastating coral reefs worldwide, major report says. The New York Times. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/04/climate/coral-reefs-climate-change.html.

NOAA. (2011, April 4). Coral bleaching and ocean acidification are two climate-related impacts to coral reefs. How is climate change affecting coral reefs? Retrieved October 22, 2021, from https://floridakeys.noaa.gov/corals/climatethreat.html.
NOAA. (2015, March 3). How does climate change affect coral reefs? NOAA’s National Ocean Service. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/coralreef-climate.html.

The sixth status of corals of the world: 2020 report. GCRMN. (2021, October 8). Retrieved October 22, 2021, from https://gcrmn.net/2020-report/.

Willige, A. (2021, October 18). UN’s 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework could become the new ‘Paris agreement for nature’. ThePrint. Retrieved October 22, 2021, from https://theprint.in/world/uns-2022-global-biodiversity-framework-could-become-the-new-paris-agreement-for-nature/751267/.
The Changing Faces of American Drone Warfare Policy
The Changing Faces of American Drone Warfare Policy
Foreign Policy Brief #135 | By: Reilly Fitzgerald | October 19, 2021
Header photo taken from: The Print
Follow us on our social media platforms above
Browse more TBA policy briefs here

Photo taken from: Stimson Center
Policy Summary
[SSB theme=”Official” align=”center” counter=”true” ]
Drones have been a weapon of choice for previous Presidential administrations from George W. Bush to Joe Biden. Drones have been used all across the globe by the United States military and the intelligence community, especially by the Central Intelligence Agency. Drone warfare has tested the rule of law in many instances from surveillance usages for intelligence and law enforcement purposes, to the extra-judicial killing of an American citizen like Anwar Al-Awlaki; who was executed via drone by the Obama administration without his constitutional right to due process of law.
The issue of drones is one that is coming into further examination in recent weeks as President Joe Biden ordered a drone strike within Afghanistan on August 29th which killed innocent civilians and numerous civilians. The Afghanistan debacle has drawn criticism from political circles in the United States, in the international community, and other foreign policy experts; and so far the solution of the United States government is to pay the families of the victims for their losses.
Policy Analysis
According to data published by the Council of Foreign Relations in 2017, in an article by Micah Zenko called “Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data”, President Obama authorized over 500 drone strikes in his time as President of the United States; these strikes were mostly limited to Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. This data shows the number of drone strikes in each country between the years of 2004 (pre-Obama) to 2017. The number of strikes clearly rises on almost a yearly basis.
Documents have come to light regarding the ‘rules’ that President Trump had while in office for his use of drones. According to the ACLU, President Trump changed the policy of using drones in response to a direct attack, to using it as a retaliatory measure against just the mere threat of violence against US interests. According to US News on March 8th of 2021, the Department of Defense (DOD) confirmed that the federal government (DOD, White House, etc) were starting to review these policies and attempt to make changes toward a more legal footing regarding the use of drones inside (and outside) of conflict zones and other standards regarding the presence of the target, or the presence of civilians.

Photo taken from: Voanews
Drones capabilities and policies have been the subject of many national discussions since the US left Afghanistan at the end of August. Those within the administration, like Secretary of State Antony Blinken, have touted the United States’ ability to strike “over the horizon” via our extensive drone warfare capabilities. These were the same capabilities that killed 12 Afghan citizens in a mistaken US drone strike.
It is unclear if the Biden administration will make much progress toward bringing the drone program towards a more legal footing than previous Presidents. Our ability to conduct these strikes with accuracy in former warzones (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc) is going to be directly impacted by the lessening of our intelligence collection in these places.
During the war in Afghanistan, the US intelligence community had an extensive presence throughout the country. Many of these assets are now either out of the country, or unable to conduct intelligence due to the lack of American (and allied) personnel in Afghanistan.
Engagement Resources
Click or tap on image to visit resource website.

Just Security (https://www.justsecurity.org/ )
Just Security is based at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law. Just Security writes on many issues regarding American foreign policy and international security issues.

Human Rights Watch, Afghanistan
(https://www.hrw.org/asia/afghanistan# ) – Human Rights Watch investigates and reports on abuses happening in all corners of the world. We are roughly 450 people of 70-plus nationalities who are country experts, lawyers, journalists, and others who work to protect the most at risk, from vulnerable minorities and civilians in wartime, to refugees and children in need.

ACLU, National Security Project
(https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security) – The ACLU National Security Project is dedicated to ensuring that U.S. national security policies and practices are consistent with the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights.
