whatthisweek-blog

[whatthisweek-blog]

So what’s going on in the Senate?

Cabinet confirmations, among other things. Most recently:

The Senate confirmed Betsy DeVos this week after Senate Dems pulled an all-nighter to voice their opposition to DeVos’s Secretary of Education nom. Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, had to cast a tie-breaking vote to confirm DeVos. A tie-break by the VP is unheard of in a Cabinet member confirmation. 

DeVos, a philanthropist who has donated money to many elected officials and political causes, has drawn ire for her nomination. Why? She has no particular experience in education (a lot of Ed Secs have been commissioners of public education systems or career school administrators), nor has she any personal experience with public education systems. 

Her most notable education policy stance is her advocacy for “school choice” vouchers. We mostly associate school choice with charter school decisions; however, DeVos’s views (as well as the comments President Trump made re: vouchers on the campaign trail) go much further than charters. Trump’s education plan advocates for allotting $20 billion in federal money (along with $110 billion state dollars) towards funding vouchers for students in the US. That is a massive amount of money to pledge to voucher programs (which makes a lot of people wonder – where will this money come from? What initiatives will be sacrificed in favor of it?), especially for a program that has produced mixed results. More over, allocating funding for vouchers over say, local publics schools has its drawbacks, particularly in rural areas that don’t have that many schools for students to choose from. 

In related news, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) proposed a bill to abolish the Department of Education.  

Senate Dems were back at it with another all-nighter leading up to the confirmation vote for Senator Jeff Sessions (with a 52-47 vote) (R-AL), who’s up for Attorney General. The night was not without controversy. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was shut down while speaking on the Senate floor by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for violating Rule XIX (19), saying she was “impugning” Sessions. 

How did she impugn him? Warren was reading a letter penned by Coretta Scott King, widow of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., where she urged Congress not to confirm Jeff Sessions’s appointment to a federal judgeship in 1986. Specifically, King wrote, “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters. For this reprehensible conduct, he should not be rewarded with a federal judgeship.” In her statement, she continued, “I believe his confirmation would have a devastating effect on not only the judicial system in Alabama, but also on the progress we have made toward fulfilling my husband’s dream.” Sessions was not approved for that judgeship amid concerns and accusations of racism by his former colleagues when he was a prosecutor in Alabama. Scott King’s ‘86 letter is officially a part of the Congressional Record.

Sessions’s nomination for Attorney General has been nearly as contested as DeVos’s. Sessions has emphasized that he’d bring a “law and order” approach to the Justice Department. That’s troubling to many concerned about civil rights, police oversight, and immigration.

President Trump has wasted no time after Sessions’s confirmation. He signed three new executive orders that will fall into the new Attorney General’s turf, including the creation of a “Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety,” “Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers,” and “Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking” (yes, I will give y’all a primer on these later). Not as if the new AG wasn't busy enough.

Mitch McConnell’s comments re: Liz Warren have turned into a rally cry for Democrats, especially after some of her male, Democratic colleagues read the letter as part of their speeches on the floor that night. “She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted” has become a supercharged meme, along with the hashtag #LetLizSpeak.

Tonight, the Senate is expected to hold a confirmation vote for Trump’s Health and Human Services pick, Rep. Tom Price (R-GA). Price, an orthopedic surgeon, has been one lawmaker that has led a charge to dismantle the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which has garnered him much Republican support.

Trump’s election has sparked a surge in civic participation and elected officials are being forced to take notice and action. Senate Dems have made moves to showcase their opposition on the Senate floor. Yet they have an uphill battle ahead of them – Democrats are in the minority in both the House and the Senate, along with losing the executive branch. And with new leadership in the Senate (Chuck Schumer (D-NY) was named Senate Minority Leader after Harry Reid retired) and a contested DNC chair race, the party needs to regroup and rebuild.

Coming soon: the House (they’re up to plenty), Yemen, Russia, the DNC chair race, Neil Gorsuch, and whatever else comes our way.

[whatthisweek-blog]

So long, Sally (and the spillover re: that immigration EO)

Remember that immigration executive order I wrote about last week? No? Go on, I’ll wait, dear. Got it? Okay.

The hubbub from last weekend didn’t end. Despite the stays issued on the action in federal court, the Trump administration was still enforcing the order. On Monday night, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates (an Obama administration official who had agreed to stay on until Trump’s pick was confirmed) announced that she was uncertain that the executive order was lawful and instructed DOJ lawyers not to defend the action in court. Following this revelation by Yates, President Trump fired her. The press release announcing her termination stated that she “has betrayed the Department of Justice”  and added that she is “weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.” The announcement was so dramatic that it led many, including The New York Times, to call the move Nixonian:

“Ms. Yates’s order was a remarkable rebuke by a government official to a sitting president, and it recalled the so-called Saturday Night Massacre in 1973, when President Richard M. Nixon fired his attorney general and deputy attorney general for refusing to dismiss the special prosecutor in the Watergate case.”

– “Trump Fires Acting Attorney General Who Defied Him,” New York Times

Meanwhile, the administration still struggles with challenges to the EO. Not only does it look like at least 60,000 people were impacted by the travel ban (as opposed to the 109 figure cited by President Trump), there are still legal challenges. Most recently, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked almost every part of the immigration order, citing that the states of Washington and Minnesota had demonstrated “immediate and irreparable injury.” U.S. District Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote “the executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of employments, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.” He also rejected the federal government’s arguments that the travel ban fell within the President’s national security authorities. DOJ requested a stay on the suspension, which an appeals court later rejected. The 9th Circuit heard oral arguments in the Trump immigration case tonight; you can listen to those arguments here.

The halt on this order has irked President Trump…to say the least.  More over, the administration’s initial move to press on with the ban (DHS has since halted its implementation) despite court orders, as well as the President taking to social media to disparage the judge has alarmed observers who have hoped that our system of checks and balances would hold this administration accountable. To be continued.

[whatthisweek-blog]

What’s up, Dodd(-Frank)?

I can’t resist a corny post title. Moving on…

Even though the administration is still cleaning up from last week’s slew of policy changes, President Trump made some moves to change the financial landscape. He signed an executive order on “Core Principles for Regulating the United States Financial System.” The new order is short and vague, but seems to take a few swings at Dodd-Frank, which Trump had vowed to repeal on the campaign trail.

What’s Dodd-Frank again?

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law in 2010 by the Obama administration. Drafted and ultimately passed in response to the 2008 global financial crisis, it intends to decrease some risks in the financial system. It’s a hefty bit of legislation (2,000+ pages), but here are some highlights.

Parts of Dodd-Frank created several oversight agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (prevents predatory lending and requires lenders to give consumers information in a digestible, easy to understand way), the Federal Insurance Office (monitors the insurance industry and access to products for “traditionally underserved communities”), and the Office of Credit Ratings (reports on credit ratings from agencies like Moody’s and Standard & Poor).  Dodd-Frank also established the Volcker Rule, which prohibits proprietary trading (when a firm trades its own money to make a profit). There’s also a whistle blower protection provision, which offers those who report corruption/security violations to the government a financial reward.

Proponents of Dodd-Frank say the legislation cuts down unnecessary risk and protects investors and consumers. Others argue that it creates cumbersome rules and regulations that firms have to follow as a result of an overreaction to the 2008 financial crisis. Trump, who has called Dodd-Frank a “disaster,” seems to have signed an order that will allow the Treasury to revise provisions of the act.

In addition to this EO, President Trump’s new presidential memorandum directs the Department of Labor to reexamine its fiduciary rule, which is slated to be rolled out later this year.

Fiduci-what?

A fiduciary manages another person/party’s financial assets and has both the legal and ethical obligation to act in their client’s best interests – putting a client’s interests regarding say, their retirement accounts, before a firm’s bottom line. DOL’s new rule expands who is treated as a fiduciary; these standards would apply to any professional making a financial recommendation, rather than someone you pay regularly for financial advice on a portfolio or something. Trump’s memo tasks DOL to review the rule and determine whether it will “harm investors due to a reduction of Americans’ access to certain retirement savings offerings, retirement product structures, retirement savings information, or related financial advice,” or is “likely to cause an increase in litigation, and an increase in the prices that investors and retirees must pay to gain access to retirement services.” If the answer to his queries is “yes” to any of the above, DOL has to either revise or rescind the rule. Critics see this as a win for Wall Street, arguing that it eases up potential regulations and liabilities firms will deal with while making consumers susceptible to unsavory practices. It doesn’t help that many see Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp” as broken already after he appointed a few former Goldman Sachs employees to serve in his administration.

What else ya got?

Trump also signed another executive order that basically says for every new regulation an executive agency proposes, it needs to identify two to repeal. It also tosses in the idea of a regulatory budget, which restricts the number of regulation costs agencies can put on people and businesses each year. The order is also a vague one, so we don’t have a lot of insight in how it’s going to play out. Just another thing to watch?

[whatthisweek-blog]

Week one, part two. Let’s go.

We’re not done here! A few new developments this weekend – let’s dive in.

Kanika, what’s this new executive order on refugees about?

Donald Trump signed one of his most controversial executive orders yet – it suspends all refugees from entering the US for 120 days, indefinitely barred Syrian refugees, and blocked entry into the United States for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, even if they had a visa or permanent residency status (White House officials have since said that green card holders will not be barred by this executive order). The order detained over 100 travelers last night, including some children and elderly people. Several of those attempting to enter the US were students or scientists. They were detained for hours without access to legal representation.

While the White House states this policy is in the best interest of US national security, opponents of the ban state that it will only foster adversarial views towards the United States in the Middle East and beyond. And don’t think these are just liberal talking points – the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has stated that “large policy changes like an immigration or tourist moratorium would impose far greater costs than benefits.  

Additionally, the administration argues that the US needs to strengthen the refugee vetting process, but outlines no new procedures to do so just yet. The United States currently has one of the most vigorous refugee screening processes in the world. 

International leaders, such as Justin Trudeau from Canada and Angela Merkel of Germany, have spoken against the Trump administration’s actions. Protests have broken out at international airports and in cities across the country. Lawmakers, predominately Democrats, denounced the order, asserting that it was a thinly veiled attempt at a Muslim ban. 

Wait, so is this a Muslim ban or no?

The Trump administration has denied that this is a Muslim ban. But many lawmakers aren’t convinced, as the focus of this EO is on seven Muslim majority countries. 

While the White House justified the selection of these nations citing an Obama administration travel advisory from February 2016, the circumstances are not the same – Congress and President Obama designated these countries as dangerous to visit. The current administration also compared this policy to a 2011 visa policy for Iraqi refugees, but that’s not cut and dry either. DHS under Obama issued more stringent screening processes for Iraqi refugees seeking visas after two Iraqi citizens had created roadside bombs in Iraq before they sought asylum in the United States. So in response to a national security threat and Congressional outcry, the process of approving Iraqi refugees for visas slowed down.

The order also states that the administration would prioritize asylum claims “made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality” once admissions start up again; in an interview on Friday, Trump said he would prioritize Christian refugees from the Middle East over Muslims.

Meanwhile, former NYC Mayor and Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani hasn’t exactly helped quelled the notion that this is a Muslim ban. During a FOX News appearance, Giuliani said he helped draft the order, saying that Trump had asked him to “show [him] the right way to do [the Muslim ban] legally,” so the order emphasizes “danger” rather than religion. 

So what happened and what’s next?

Federal judge Ann Donnelly issued a stay halting national deportations on the immigration order last night after the ACLU filed habeas corpus petitions on behalf of two detained Iraqis, Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi. Their detainment sparked particular outcry, as both had worked with US military forces in Iraq as interpreters. Donnelly cited When asked for a list of those being detained, the federal government could not provide one. While Judge Donnelly ruled that no one should be removed or sent back, reports have surfaced that Customs and Border Protection are not complying with this order. Some detainees have (most likely without realizing and unwittingly) signed paperwork that surrenders their visas. And lawyers from organizations like the ACLU have confirmed cases where people are being forced back to their countries of origin despite court orders permitting them to stay in the US. Democrats have said that they are drafting legislation to combat the order; they plan to introduce these measures this week.

The controversy of the order is accented by its messy implementation. Several reports state that officials that would have reviewed the order before it was issued (including Homeland Security and senior officials at the State Department [who the Trump administration just fired]), did not see it until it was finalized, forcing them to scramble to interpret and implement. Additionally, DHS officials had initially interpreted that green card holders wouldn’t be impacted by the order, but were overruled by White House officials Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller.

Okay. Speaking of Bannon…what’s this whole thing about the National Security Council?

Yes…that. The National Security Council (NSC) advises and assists the President in national security and foreign policy matters. Chaired by the President, its statutory attendees are the Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Energy. 

Typically, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence serve on the Principals Committee as the military and intelligence advisors, respectively. However, the new presidential memo states that these two officials are no longer regular attendees. They will now only sit in when issues discussed are deemed relevant to “their responsibilities and expertise.”

The memo also gives Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief White House strategist, a regular seat on the Principals Committee. Having a political strategist serve in a capacity that, say, a general would typically serve, is unprecedented. Bannon was formerly the head of Breitbart News, a far-right news website that appeals to white supremacist, racist, neo-Nazi (often referred to as “alt-right”) readers. His appointment as chief strategist was not without controversy; he has described himself as a “Leninist” that “wants to destroy the state.” 

Further, some say Bannon and Stephen Miller, Trump’s policy advisor, have personally crafted some of Trump’s most controversial executive orders (see: refugee/immigration order above). This shakeup has caused great alarm; former Ambassador and Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice called the restructuring “stone cold crazy” and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) expressed grave concern.

Anything else?

Trump signed an EO barring political appointees who worked in federal government from lobbying the agencies they worked for for five years. He also presented a memo that requests the Pentagon to draft a plan in the next 30 days detailing a strategy to defeat ISIS. Additionally, he signed a memo calling for a “a great rebuilding of the armed services of the United States, developing a plan for new planes, new ships new resources, and new tools for our men and women in uniform.” Earlier this week, Trump had issued a hiring freeze, which applied to all federal agencies except for the military.

We’ve got a lot in store this week. Get some sleep. Ask some questions.

/kk

[whatthisweek-blog]

Week one was...eventful

It’s been a week, y'all. But it's been an action-packed one, so these updates will be in two parts.

Trade

Trump signed an executive order withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), fulfilling one of his many campaign promises within the first days of his administration. TPP is a free trade agreement between 12 countries that border the Pacific Ocean and comprise of approximately 40% of the world economic output. Under the benefits of TPP, countries expected reductions in tariffs and boosted economic growth, with the possibility to foster closer relationships with respect to economic policies and regulations. The other countries participating are Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Canada, Brunei, Australia, and New Zealand.  Automobile manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and agriculture are just some of the industry that would be affected by TPP. TPP would have been considered President Obama’s landmark achievement on trade. Obama faced criticism from the Democratic Party, with both congressional leaders and presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton arguing that TPP would ship American jobs overseas. The deal would increase competition between the cooperating countries labor forces. The deal would also require countries that currently do not do so to abide by international labor laws. Some GOP lawmakers did support the agreement; Senator John McCain (R-AZ) “called the decision [to withdraw from TPP negotiations] ‘a serious mistake’.” China, a nation with the growing influence in the region, is noticeably absent from TPP; however, with the US withdrawing, China can further secure its economic influence in the region. 

Trump has also vowed to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. This, in conjunction with the Mexican wall construction, makes some speculate that there's a global trade war on our hands.

Abortion

I addressed updates related to abortion in this ask. If you have any other questions (or if there’s something I missed that you want me to write about), let me know!

Science & Environment

President Trump has endorsed the developments of both the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines, both of which were ultimately scrapped during the Obama administration’s tenure and stirred widespread protests. Proponents of pipeline development argue that these projects will create jobs as it bolsters oil and energy production. A State Department analysis found that Keystone would create about 4,000 construction jobs if constructed in a two-year period and a total of 50 permanent jobs once put into operation. The memo invites TransCanada, the company trying to develop the Keystone, to re-submit its permit application for consideration.

The Meskwaki and several Sioux tribal nations have strongly opposed the Dakota Access Pipeline, arguing that the government failed to consider environmental concerns, potential water contamination, and regulations/established treaties between the federal government and Native American tribes (the pipeline would potentially endanger sacred Native American sites and burial places -- remember Standing Rock?). Environmental groups have also opposed these pipelines, fearing chemical leaks and further contributions to climate change. The Army Corps of Engineers previously denied the project a necessary easement to construct Dakota Access, but the memo asks for the agency to reconsider.

Trump also announced a new policy called "Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals For High Priority Infrastructure Projects." Opponents are concerned that this order would take shortcuts or omit typical evaluations for projects at a great risk and cost to the environment. He also directed the Secretary of Commerce (Wilbur Ross is his unconfirmed pick for the job) to look into streamlining the permit process for domestic manufacturers and create  a plan for “Made in the USA” pipelines, which prioritize the use of materials and equipment produced in the US whenever possible.

And let’s not forget the leaked memos stating that the EPA, USDA, and other federal agencies could not update blogs and social media accounts. These orders also instructed that all communication with the press should be authorized and vetted by the White House. The National Parks Service previously came under fire after retweeting a side-by-side aerial shot from Obama's 2009 inauguration and Trump's own last week. Several NPS Twitter accounts appeared to defy orders, tweeting things like climate change statistics; while those tweets were removed from official accounts, several NPS employees created "alt" parks social media accounts as a form of protest. 

The EPA has received special attention by the Trump administration; EPA scientists were ordered to stop publishing their research and that all data should not be published unless approved by the White House. The science community, up in arms that years of data either risk removal or political partisanship, have moved to organize a March for Science. Scientists have even encouraged others to run for office.

(Fun fact -- not many scientists run for office! I've written about this phenomenon before in the Brown Political Review)

Immigration

In "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," Trump took aim at sanctuary cities that have vowed to protect undocumented immigrants. The EO would strip sanctuary cities of federal grants (except those that pertain to law enforcement) and create a weekly comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such" undocumented immigrants. This states that deporting undocumented immigrants that have committed criminal offenses are a priority; however, the language suggests that all approximate 11 million undocumented immigrants would be prioritized for deportation, as those who were not inspected by border control committed a criminal misdemeanor or those who remained in the country on visitor visas, committed fraud. This is an expansion of the Obama administration's policies to deport undocumented immigrants who committed serious crimes. It also mentions adding an additional 10,000 border patrol officers.

He also signed a separate EO committing to fulfill one of his infamous campaign promises to build a wall along the Mexican border; this order requests the Secretary of Homeland Security (Sec. John Kelly) to begin planning the design and construction of the wall, as well as produce "a comprehensive study of the security of the southern border, to be completed within 180 days of this order,” and “project and develop long-term funding requirements for the wall, including preparing Congressional budget requests for the current and upcoming fiscal years.” The order also instructs the DHS secretary to allocate resources towards constructing and operating detention facilities. Finally, it instructs executive agencies to report and tally all sources of federal aid provided to Mexico’s government in the last five years.

The announcement of this EO spurred President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico to cancel a visit to the Oval Office. Additionally, the administration faced backlash when officials said that a 20% tariff on Mexican goods might be implemented to pay for the wall's construction.

Housing

This didn't happen this week, but it's something I haven't seen enough coverage of so I'm including it. Two versions of the Local Zoning Decisions Protection Act of 2017 (this link leads to the House bill, but there’s Senate bill of the same nature) aim to reverse HUD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH). AFFH aims to bolster the Fair Housing Act by creating a geospatial database that would allow housing authorities/HUD grantees to examine patterns of segregation, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in housing opportunity. Agencies that received HUD funds already were required to comply with Fair Housing rules; AFFH asked these housing authorities use this data to examine fair housing patterns and set priorities and goals accordingly. Lawmakers objecting to AFFH cite government overreach in local planning decisions as justification for overturning it.

Stay tuned for Part 2! And as always, questions, comments, and suggestions are welcome!

[whatthisweek-blog]

is Donald Trump a fascist?

Y’all have been seeing “fascism” come up in political discussions lately. But what does it mean to be a fascist? While I know what fascism is, I wanted to make sure this explanation had some historical context (I like context, after all). So here’s a primer on fascism from friend and historian, Gabriella:

In the 72 years since the end of World War II, the West has written a clearly defined narrative about the heroes and the villains in that chapter of world history. The story goes that in the face of pure evil and the unquenchable desire for conquest and world domination, the United States arrived at the eleventh hour, bolstered the brave and weary Allied troops and cured the blight of Fascism that plagued Europe and threatened the rest of the globe. It was a victory for Democracy.

As time wore on and the abominations committed by these totalitarian regimes were brought to light, the words “Fascist” and “Nazi” became synonymous with “evildoer” or even “demon” – ways to label the archetypical supervillain. As the years since 1945 turned to decades, these words came to signify an ideological extremist (i.e. “feminazi”) or even a petty tyrant (i.e. grammar-nazi). Now it seems as if anyone who is a staunch opponent of another’s political views can be labelled a “fascist.” Through overuse and hyperbole, the idea of “fascism” seems to have loss its specificity. So what is fascism anyway? Can the ideas about governance that wreaked so much havoc on the world order in the first half of the 20th century still be around today? In order to better answer those questions, one needs to put fascism in its original context.

Fascism is a political philosophy that was conceived by Benito Mussolini, who was appointed Prime Minister of Italy in 1922 and would rule as dictator for the next twenty-one years. Mussolini explained his philosophy as follows: “The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.” In other words, he advocated a political system in which the government dictated the rights and responsibilities of its people based on its own interest. In Mussolini’s mind the interest of the state was synonymous with his own interest as he sought to be the authoritarian ruler of Italy, its lone savior, who would solve all its problems and make it a major player on the world stage.

In 1922, this message resonated with the many of the Italian people. Three years prior to Mussolini’s rise, the world’s major powers came together to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, a conflict that had devastated Europe and left 9 million casualties in its wake. Not only was Italy hurting from the loss of people and property, but also it was humiliated by the peace terms, which did not award the nation the spoils it sought in return for abandoning its alliance with Germany and fighting with the Allied powers, changing the tide of the war. Furthermore, political unrest, rioting and violence sparked fear that a Communist uprising like the Russian Revolution of 1917 would threaten the middle and upper classes. The story of the Czar of Russia and his family being summarily executed by the radical Bolshevik revolutionaries made Mussolini’s promise of peace and protection in exchange for individual liberties seem to some like a fair trade.

Furthermore, Mussolini spoke of returning Italy to its stature as the world’s most powerful empire – the glory days of Ancient Rome. In fact, the term takes its name from the fasces, an ax tied among a bundle of wooden rods that was used as a symbol of power and authority in Ancient Roman society. And what a speaker he was! As the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it, “his facts were often wrong, and his attacks were frequently malicious and misdirected; but his words were so dramatic, his metaphors so apt and striking, his vigorous, repetitive gestures so extraordinarily effective, that he rarely failed to impose his mood.” It was this level of skilled oratory that hypnotized the masses and contributed to Mussolini’s rise to power along with the ascension of other fascist dictators including Adolf Hitler in Germany and Francisco Franco in Spain. These men would abolish free speech and press in their nations, employ secret police to kill political opponents, conquer sovereign nations, and eventually sponsor the genocide of over six million European Jews and other marginalized groups during the Holocaust.

Even today scholars are studying the social, political, cultural, economic, etc. conditions that led to the rise of Fascism, curious to know how individual figures were able to mesmerize their respective nations and enlist many of their citizens to commit countless atrocities before the world responded. A key question is whether this phenomenon could happen again. If one goes by the Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of fascism as “a political system based on a very powerful leader, state control of social and economic life, and extreme pride in country and race, with no expression of political disagreement allowed,” then the answer is most likely an affirmative. History has already seen several dictators perpetrate forms of genocide within their respective nations after Mussolini and Hitler were in their graves. Right-wing extremists, like neo-Nazis, advocate for a resurgence of fascist ideology, and Nationalism is seemingly on the rise. While World War is hopefully not on the horizon and one cannot predict the future, it is important to recognize and identify rhetoric and/or policies that echo the spirit of Mussolini’s philosophy. As Benjamin Franklin said, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

[whatthisweek-blog]

What's an executive order? Are Trump's a big deal?

An executive order (sometimes I’ll refer to them as an EO/EOs) is a rule issued by the President to the executive agencies of government about certain policies and procedures. It’s one of several executive actions a president can take (via Article II of the Constitution). The President can’t create a new law or appropriate money through executive orders – to do either, Congress needs to take action and authorize such acts. Executive orders are a president’s way to pursue policy and procedural changes within the confines of current law. 

All executive orders should be published in the Federal Register and are considered binding. They can nevertheless be subject to legal objection.

Often when a president moves to issue an executive order on a significant policy issue, it signals a frustration or failure to advance their agenda through conventional means (Congress). 

There are also presidential memoranda, which are considered a rung lower than executive orders, that outline an administration’s stance on an issue. The President can also issue proclamations and directives. 

Trump signing executive orders is not controversial in and of itself – many new presidents exercise executive actions during their first few weeks in office (Trump hasn’t signed as many EOs in his first few days as Obama did in 2009). However, it’s the content of these orders that’s turning heads. And while some of Trump’s executive actions don’t do more than highlight his administration’s priorities, others carry procedural and policy shifts that have big consequences. Further, it’s unclear whether the White House has sought appropriate input and legal guidance prior to their issuance of these EOs. 

Important questions! Thanks for asking; I feel like not a lot of people understand what executive orders are or what they tell us.

[whatthisweek-blog]

What does the executive order regarding reproductive healthcare actually mean? - Meagan Derbyshire :) P.S. I like your blogggggg

Thanks Meagan! Great question.

This executive order reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which directs the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold funding from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to provide counsel or information on abortion services. Typically, this policy has only required these organizations to certify that they will not “perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning” if they receive US global family planning assistance money. First implemented by President Ronald Reagan, the policy’s application has oscillated depending on the president in office (Bill Clinton rescinded the policy, George W. Bush reinstated it, and Barack Obama rescinded it again). This policy grants exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or medical threat’s to the mother’s life.

However, this new executive order seems to expand the policy to apply the certification to NGOs that receive any other US global health assistance, such as HIV/AIDS funding. For example, organizations like the WHO or UNICEF would not be able to receive funding from the US for any public health programs, even if these NGOs use non-US funding to provide abortion counseling or related services. The new policy would impact programs that operate through USAID, the Department of State, and The Department of Health and Human Services (including the CDC, NIH, and FDA). 

In related news, the House of Representatives passed HR 7, or the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017, which states that no federal funds can pay for or subsidize abortion services. Additionally, HR 7 prohibits federally funded health plans, such as Medicaid and the health plans of military members, to include coverage for abortion. HR 7 makes the Hyde Amendment, a rider that has been annually extended for about 40 years, a permanent law (Hyde states the same provision as HR 7). HR 7 and Hyde both make exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and a medical threat to the mother’s life. While Hyde has typically been included without controversy, calls to remove it have grown; a Hyde repeal was a part of the 2016 Democratic Party platform. Opponents of Hyde argue that this amendment disproportionately impacts young women, low-income women, and women of color, who may otherwise scramble for money to cover the procedure or opt for a less safe option. Bills like HR 7 have been passed before, but have been defeated due to Senate filibuster.

[whatthisweek-blog]

Hi, I wanted to ask, where can I find the executive orders that Trump signs and read them for myself? I don't want to get all my information from sensationalized news articles. I would still like to know what he is signing and where can I find them. Thank you :)

Hi!Here are the links to the executive orders (the same links that I provided in the post):1. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000159-be8f-da97-a9dd-becf15ae00012. http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/trump-obamacare-executive-order/If you're asking why these aren't coming from a government source/website, it's because they haven't been posted on the Federal Register website (where you'd usually find them) and I haven't seen them made available by the administration in any other way.

[whatthisweek-blog]

Trump was inaugurated. How’d he kick off his presidency?

The inaugural post naturally follows the Inauguration of one Apprentice star, Donald J. Trump, as 45th president of the United States. And while so much has happened since yesterday, from an unusually dark (and factually inaccurate) post swear-in speech and a plagiarized Inauguration cake, to a larger than expected turnout at the Women’s March on Washington D.C. and sister city marches and now Press Secretary Sean Spicer lying about Inauguration attendance (not to mention Kellyanne Conway suggesting Spicer provided “alternative facts”*), here are some policy updates we’re going to dive into today.

The Trump administration kicked off with a couple of executive orders. The first executive order, as detailed in this memo, ordered a freeze of federal regulations that are currently pending review. This type of order isn’t particularly unprecedented (Obama did something similar when he first entered office in 2009), but halts some of the last-minute rules the previous administration had worked to put into place. The executive order also freezes any regulations that were approved but haven’t gone into effect yet and any orders that were sent to the Office of the Federal Register, but haven’t been published. Some of the rules that are impacted by this order include:

Several new energy efficiency standards from the Department of Energy (for items like air conditioners, heat pumps, ceiling fans, commercial boilers, and walk-in coolers)

A rule that increases the amount that immigrants seeking EB-5 visas promise to invest in job-creating opportunities.

A rule that orders oil and gas pipeline operators to promptly report leaks

A rule that further restricts rail shipment of crude oil

The placement of bumblebees on the endangered species list

The second executive order took aim at The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or (informally) Obamacare. It directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Trump’s pick, Tom Price, hasn’t been confirmed) and other agencies to slow down implementation of ACA, particularly the individual mandate. Yet the text of the order doesn’t unravel ACA; rather, it sets the stage for the administration and GOP’s promise to change the law. 

Trump also reversed cuts to interest premiums on Federal Housing Administration fees, which would have potentially saved eligible homeowners around $500 a year. Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro finalized the reduction in the administration’s last days. 

Meanwhile, the Justice Department formally requested that a Texas court delay hearings about whether its voter ID law is “intentionally discriminatory” against people of color. The law requires Texans to present approved identification when voting, such as a driver’s license, election ID certificate, a US passport, or military ID card. The law also recognizes handgun licenses as proper identification, it does not accept federal or state government ID or student ID. The department was also granted a delay in the initial hearing for the Baltimore Police consent degree, citing new leadership as reason for the delay. Civil rights groups question these moves, fearing that the new administration will undo work towards voter protection and police reform. 

Speaking of civil rights, President Trump tapped Jones Day lawyer John Gore to serve as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Gore’s appointment has sparked controversy, as he represented North Carolina’s university system against a challenge to the state “bathroom bill” law, which prohibits transgender individuals from using the restroom that aligns with their preferred gender identity.

DOJ also ruled that Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, would not be breaking anti-nepotism laws by serving as a senior White House adviser. With this appointment, Kushner is subject to conflict-of-interest laws. 

These first actions, as well as the revamp of the official White House website, have provided a first look at what the Trump administration’s priorities may be going forward. Trump’s first full week in office begins tomorrow – from promises to renegotiate NAFTA to a visit from Britain Prime Minister Theresa May…it’s going to be a big week in potential policy. And he’s going to have a few…distractions coming his way.

Questions? Comments? Suggestions about what to write next? Let me know!

Coming up – what Congress is up to + what they have planned, Trump’s Cabinet picks, and a lot more.

–

*The Trump camp’s relationship with the press deserves a post of its own.