The White House is seeking to dramatically reduce the power of the Environmental Protection Agency, slashing dozens of programs and laying off 20% of the agency’s staff. The proposed budget cut plans to cut the EPA’s budget by 25% to $6.1 billion, and cut its workforce by 20% to 12,400 employees, in the 2018 fiscal year that begins 1 October. The plans require the complete elimination of EPA programs on climate change, toxic waste cleanup, environmental justice and funding for Native Alaskan villages. It would slash funding to states for clean air and water programs by 30% percent as well.
According to sources that have seen preliminary directives from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Trump administration wants to cut spending by EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) by more than 40% from roughly $510 million to $290 million.
The cuts target scientific work in fields including climate change, air and water quality, and chemical safety. EPA’s $50 million external grant program for environmental scientists at universities would be eliminated altogether. Cuts in the new budget memo include climate, air, and energy research would fall from $91.7 million to $45.7 million. Research in chemical safety and sustainability would drop from $89.2 million to $61.8 million. Water-related science falls from $107.2 million to $70.1 million. The budget for sustainable healthy communities plunges from $139.7 million to $75.8 million. The OMB memo also states that the EPA would no longer contribute to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a multiagency task force that coordinates federal research on global change.
The OMB office says the cuts are needed to help reduce the burden that EPA regulations place on industry and state and local governments. Environmental scientists, regulators, and current and former EPA officials warn the reductions would devastate the agency’s efforts to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment.
The Trump administration’s final 2018 budget request is scheduled to be released on March 16th. It is not clear whether the administration will keep the steep EPA cuts in its final request to Congress, or whether Congress will approve the cuts. Many federal lawmakers, as well as state and local officials, have already expressed strong opposition to some of the cuts.
The new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a long EPA foe, has suggested that he will push back against parts of the preliminary White House plan. Some senior Republicans in Congress have also expressed doubts about the larger Trump administration budget plan driving the EPA cuts.
It calls for boosting discretionary defense spending in 2018 by $54 billion, and paying for that increase by cutting discretionary spending at civilian agencies such as EPA. The shift would likely require Congress to change a 2011 law, called the Budget Control Act, that imposes caps on domestic spending—but Democrats in the Senate have already said they would block any change unless it also includes spending increases for civilian programs.
Read more
In January, President Trump said he wanted to empower local law enforcement to act as immigration officers and help with the “investigation, apprehension, or detention” of immigrants in the country illegally. Traditionally, local police departments are not involved in immigration enforcement and those duties are carried out by federal authorities.
Police chiefs from cities across the U.S. are resisting the move by the administration to enlist local police officers to help deport undocumented immigrants. In a joint letter sent to Congress, 61 sheriffs and police chiefs wrote, “We can best serve our communities by leaving the enforcement of immigration laws to the federal government. Threatening the removal of valuable grant funding from jurisdictions that choose not to spend limited resources enforcing federal immigration law is extremely problematic.” The White House plan would also withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Some of the cities that have vowed not to participate in the involvement of immigration laws include Los Angeles, Newark, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Seattle, Providence and Denver. Many expressed concerns that immigrants already wary of reporting crimes or being interviewed as witnesses will retreat further into the shadows.
Trump’s plan is not a new idea but is not regularly practiced throughout the country. A 1996 federal law opened up the possibility for local agencies to participate in immigration enforcement on the streets and do citizenship checks of people in local jails. Immigration and Customs Enforcement trained and certified roughly 1,600 officers to carry out these checks from 2006 to 2015.
The Obama administration phased out all the arrest power agreements in 2013, but still let agencies check whether people jailed in their jurisdiction were citizens. If an inmate is found to be in the country illegally, the department typically notifies federal authorities or hands them over to immigration officers. Today, more than 30 local agencies participate in the jail program.
Experts said Trump’s outreach to local law enforcement will create an even bigger split between sanctuary cities that keep police out of immigration enforcement and those eager to help the new president bolster deportations.
During the election, Trump found support among some law enforcement officers who viewed him as more pro-police than his Democratic opponent. But even officers who privately said they had voted for him- are not eager to help with his immigration agenda. Many officers feel that they have enough on their plate. They are too busy answering 911 calls, arresting robbers, stopping erratic drivers and solving homicides to add federal immigration enforcement to their to-do lists.
Read more
The Trump administration announced that it will enforce federal laws barring the use of marijuana, reversing an Obama administration policy that gave wide latitude to states to determine their own pot laws. Eight states – Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Maine – and Washington, D.C. have legalized both medicinal and recreational marijuana. The Obama administration had opted not to enforce federal prohibitions in states that had passed legislation legalizing the drug. It’s classified as a Schedule 1 drug — putting it in the same category as heroin — and the government can restrict cross-state shipment and financing as a result.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the Trump administration would prioritize enforcement in states that have passed laws allowing for the recreational—rather than medical—use of the drug. Just a day after the announcement, publicly traded shares of marijuana-related companies were tumbling and executives at recreational marijuana businesses were expressing their disappointment in the announcement.
The announcement was not a surprise to legalization advocates after Trump’s nomination of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions as attorney general. Many advocates feel that Mr. Sessions has been “the single biggest opponent to legalization in the US Senate.”
In August 2013, a four-page directive issued by then-Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole essentially instructs that a hands-off approach be taken by the federal government in states that have voted on laws to legalize marijuana, regardless of the fact that marijuana is illegal at the federal level. The directive has been dubbed the “Cole Memo”.
President Trump has issued differing stances on marijuana legalization. In the 1990s, Trump told the Miami Herald that the US needed to “legalize drugs to win” the war on drugs. And in an interview with Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly a year ago, Trump said he was in favor of medical marijuana “a hundred percent” while also calling Colorado’s recreational marijuana industry “a real problem.”
The industry is still new and is estimated to be worth over $6 billion so the reversal will cost some states millions in revenue and a loss of jobs. Recreational marijuana retailers in Oregon sell about $7 million worth of cannabis every week, or about $364 million a year.
In 2016, the marijuana industry in Colorado created more than 18,000 new full-time jobs and over $1 billion in retail sales. The industry also generated over $1 billion in additional economic activity such as growers renting warehouse space and the purchases of sophisticating lighting and irrigation equipment. Marijuana retailers also boost the economy when they rely on other companies, like contractors, lawyers and bookkeeping services, to conduct their own businesses. If the Trump Administration’s promise of a crackdown does take effect- all of this new found revenue will be lost.
Read more
President Trump signed legislation to repeal a Dodd-Frank anti-corruption measure requiring oil and mining companies to disclose payments to governments. The rule had required public oil, gas and mineral extraction companies to disclose annually its payments to both foreign governments and the U.S. government.
According to lawmakers, these disclosures help fight corruption in resource-rich countries. The requirement was the Cardin-Lugar Anti-Corruption Provision of 2010’s Dodd-Frank Act – signed by former President Barack Obama and named for former Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. The regulation was widely support from Democrats, who argued the transparency requirement could reduce instances of corruption in resource-rich countries overseas.
The goal of the rule is to prevent foreign leaders from skimming off the payments that drillers and miners make to their countries. It was put in place to stop the corruption that enriches the politically connected but deprives regular people of their country’s mineral wealth.
The oil industry had fiercely lobbied against the measure. The resource extraction rule has been controversial since it was mandated in 2010, which is why it took six years for it to be finalized. Exxon, Chevron (CXW) and the National Mining Association were among the dozens of entities to submit comments opposing the rule.
Longtime ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who is now secretary of state, personally lobbied against the rule, flying to Washington, D.C., to meet with then-Senator Richard Lugar in 2010 to try to get the measure removed from Dodd-Frank. The American Petroleum Institute, the chief U.S. energy lobbying organization”s main argument against the rule was that it puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage, because their foreign competitors are not subject to the requirements.
However, many major European drillers like BP, Total and Royal Dutch Shell, Russian oil and gas giants Rosneft and Gazprom, as well as Canadian firms must report what they pay to foreign governments. The U.S. rules would have forced some Chinese and Brazilian firms to do so as well.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement that the provision in question “would have put American oil and natural gas companies at a disadvantage on the world stage, and actually could have threatened the safety of American workers abroad.”
Lawmakers used the Congressional Review Act, a seldom-used legislative route that essentially fast-tracks the regulatory repeal process. By accessing the provisions laid out, it allows lawmakers to expedite a resolution that requires little notice before introduction and is not subject to filibuster. It also requires only a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate to pass.
Read more
Immediately after swearing in Sessions as attorney general, President Trump signed three new executive orders addressing crime and immigration. One executive order seeks to increase penalties on those found guilty of assaulting police officers. A second order directs law enforcement agencies to increase intelligence sharing while going after drug cartels. A third order directs Attorney General Sessions to prioritize fighting “illegal immigration” alongside drug trafficking and violent crime.
President Trump also green-lighted construction of a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico, a proposal he repeatedly mentioned while campaigning. The wall is just one component of sweeping action Trump took to clamp down on immigration to the U.S. “Building this barrier is more than just a campaign promise, it is a common-sense first step to securing our border. This will stem the flow of drugs, crime, and illegal immigration into the United States. And yes, one way or another, as the President has said, Mexico will pay for it,” White House spokesman Sean Spicer said.
Other actions recently taken by President Trump include:
- Ending federal grant funding to sanctuary cities and states, which opt out of reporting undocumented immigrants.
- Ordering the Department of Homeland Security to allocate funds or establish contracts for the construction or operation of detention facilities.
- Ending the policy known as “catch and release,” under which some immigrants are released from detention while they await a hearing with an immigration judge.
- Prioritizing the deportation of immigrants who have committed crimes.
During the White House press briefing on Wednesday, Spicer reiterated earlier statements that the President’s priority would be on criminals. “His priorities, first and foremost, are the people in this country that seek to do us harm,” he said.
Reactions to the immigration actions were swift from eight immigration and refugee-rights groups who joined a conference call to denounce the new orders. They argue that the orders make the U.S. less safe and tear apart families and communities across the country. Advocates said the executive orders are “anti-immigrant, anti-refugee and anti-religious freedom”. None of the advocacy organizations that were on the call had been briefed or received any guidance from the Trump Administration on the orders and future immigration plans.
Advocacy groups are preparing to take legal action and provide lawyers to protect people who are concerned about pending visa applications, hate crimes and continued confusion at the U.S. border. Many mayors of U.S. cities who have adopted sanctuary policies have said they are ready and willing to push back on Trump’s funding plans.
Read more
New York City taxpayers will pay $75 million to settle a class action lawsuit against the New York Police Department over its issuing of nearly 1 million legally baseless criminal summonses over several years because they were under pressure to meet quotas. The summonses were later dismissed for lack of evidence. The settlement must be approved by U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet.
The suit was filed in a federal court in 2010 on behalf of people who were hit with 900,000 court summonses that were later dismissed because of legal deficiencies. The settlement would allow people issued court summonses for offenses such as trespassing, disorderly conduct and urinating in public to receive a maximum of $150 per person per incident for their trouble.
The lawsuit argued police were routinely ordered to issue summonses “regardless of whether any crime or violation” had occurred to meet quotas. It cited claims by two whistleblower officers who said they were forced into quotas by precinct superiors. The quota allegations were denied in the settlement agreement.
Under the agreement, the city said the NYPD must update and expand training and guidance reiterating to officers and their superiors that quotas are not allowed, and officers must not be mandated to make a particular number of summonses, street stops or arrests.
A total of $56.6 million would be set aside, and individual payments could end up lower if more claims are made. Any funds not paid go back to the city, which is also paying $18.5 million in legal fees. Possible class members would be notified through social media and other advertisements.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs called it the largest false-arrest class-action lawsuit in city history. The 2010 lawsuit includes summonses filed from 2007 through at least 2015. About one-quarter of the summonses issued during that time frame were dismissed for legal insufficiency, according to data in the lawsuit. Legal insufficiency is not necessarily a lack of evidence but may be that an officer wasn’t clear enough in explaining why someone was ticketed.
The class action suit came amid a growing outcry over the NYPD’s encounters with minorities. The lead plaintiff in the case, Sharif Stinson, said he was stopped twice outside his aunt’s Bronx building in 2010 when he was 19 and was given disorderly conduct summonses by officers who said he used obscene language. The officers didn’t specify what the language or behavior was, and the tickets were dismissed.
Read more
Lawmakers quietly closed the investigation into the lead poisoning of the water system in Flint, Michigan in December 2016. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s findings blamed state officials, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the EPA.
The Flint water crisis began when the city’s unelected emergency manager, appointed by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, switched the source of Flint’s drinking water from the Detroit system to the corrosive Flint River to save money. The water corroded Flint’s aging pipes, causing poisonous levels of lead to leach into the drinking water. The impoverished city was under state control at the time.
Between 6,000 and 12,000 children were been exposed to drinking water with high levels of lead and they may experience a range of serious health problems.
The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, issued two separate letters announcing that the investigation was finished and that Snyder was without guilt because it was the Environmental Protection Agency’s fault Flint’s water source was shifted to a contaminated source. After the April 25, 2014 switch to Flint River water from back-up to temporary primary source, city residents began complaining about their water’s color, taste, and odor.
Thirteen people have been charged in the Flint Water Crisis and its cover-up. Former MDEQ employees Michael Prysby and Stephen Busch were charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, tampering with evidence, a treatment violation of the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act, and a monitoring violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Former city water plant operator Michael Glasgow was charged with willful neglect of office, a misdemeanor, and felony tampering with evidence. Glasgow accepted a plea deal with prosecutors, admitting to filing false information about lead in Flint water and agreeing to cooperate in other prosecutions.
Liane Shekter-Smith was charged with misconduct in office and willful neglect of duty; Adam Rosenthal was charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, tampering with evidence, and neglect; Adam Cook was charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to engage in misconduct in office, and neglect of duty. From the MDHHS, Nancy Peeler, Corinne Miller, and Robert Scott were charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to commit misconduct in office, and willful neglect of duty.
On December 20, 2016, false pretenses, conspiracy to commit false pretenses, willful neglect of duty and misconduct in office charges against former Emergency Managers Darnell Earley and Jerry Ambrose; and false pretenses and conspiracy to commit false pretenses charges were filed against former Flint Utilities Administrator Daugherty Johnson and former Flint Department of Public Works director Howard Croft. Many residents are outraged that Governor Rick Snyder has survived the investigation unscathed since some of the officials charged reported directly to him.
The closing of the investigation came as Flint Mayor Karen Weaver told residents they should still not drink the water. The city’s lead pipes have not yet been replaced.
Read more
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has decided to drop a series of lawsuits to buy plots of lands in Hawaii after public backlash. Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan purchased the 700-acre waterfront estate on Kauai for $100 million in 2014. They filed a series of eight lawsuits to buy out several hundred people’s stake of 13 plots on eight acres partitioned during the 1850s.
Many of the plots of land involved in the suits are “kuleana lands” which were granted to native Hawaiian tenant farmers between 1850 and 1855 and hold special rights including access, agricultural uses, gathering, water and fishing rights.
The suit was met with heavy criticism by some Hawaiians including hundreds who planned to protest outside Zuckerberg’s estate. The suits would have forced hundreds of residents, including Native families, off their land in order to make his Hawaiian beachfront property as private as possible.
He initially defended the move, saying the purpose of the quiet title action was to identify property owners who were unaware of their stake in the land. “Quiet title actions are the standard and prescribed process to identify all potential co-owners, determine ownership, and ensure that, if there are other co-owners, each receives appropriate value for their ownership share,” Zuckerberg’s lawyer, Keoni Schultz, said earlier in January.
Zuckerberg published a letter in the local Hawaiian newspaper The Garden Island saying it was clear the decision to file the suits over his ownership of the beachfront property on the island of Kauai was a mistake. Zuckerberg said he initially misunderstood the quiet title process and hoped to work with the community to find a better solution.
“To find a better path forward, we are dropping our quiet title actions and will work together with the community on a new approach,” he said. “We understand that for native Hawaiians, kuleana are sacred and the quiet title process can be difficult. We want to make this right, talk with the community, and find a better approach.”
“Upon reflection, I regret that I did not take the time to fully understand the quiet title process and its history before we moved ahead. Now that I understand the issues better, it’s clear we made a mistake,” he said. “The right path is to sit down and discuss how to best move forward. We will continue to speak with community leaders that represent different groups, including native Hawaiians and environmentalists, to find the best path.”
In June 2016, Zuckerberg faced criticism for building a 6 foot stone wall enclosing his 700 acre property. Many residents said it blocked breezes and obstructed ocean views. Others argued that while it is his right to build on his property-it did not feel very neighborly.
Read more
President Obama has commuted more sentences than any other president in U.S. History. He recently commuted the sentence of some high profile prisoners. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, Puerto Rican independence activist Oscar López Rivera and retired U.S. Marine Corps General James Cartwright had their sentences commuted as part of more than 200 commutations issued on January 17th.
Chelsea Manning is now set to be freed on May 17, after Obama shortened her sentence from 35 years to seven. Manning is already the longest-held whistleblower in U.S. history. Manning leaked more than 700,000 classified files and videos to WikiLeaks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and U.S. foreign policy. While serving her sentence she has seen long stretches of solitary confinement and has been denied medical treatment related to her gender identity. She attempted to commit suicide twice last year.
Puerto Rican independence activist Oscar López Rivera has been imprisoned for almost 35 years with a lot of that time served in solitary confinement. In 1981, López Rivera was convicted on federal charges including seditious conspiracy—conspiring to oppose U.S. authority over Puerto Rico by force. In 1999, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN, but López Rivera refused to accept the deal because it did not include two fellow activists, who have since been released. Under Obama’s commutation order, López Rivera will be released on May 17th as well.
U.S. Marine Corps General James Cartwright also received a pardon. Last year, Cartwright, a retired U.S. Marine Corps general with 40 years of service behind him, admitted that he lied to the FBI during an investigation into who leaked classified information to a New York Times reporter. The top secret information leaked, was about Stuxnet, a secret U.S. cyberwarfare operation against Iran. He was due to be sentenced this month. Cartwright’s defense team had asked for a year of probation and 600 hours of community service, but prosecutors had asked the judge overseeing his case to send him to prison for two years.
President Obama granted another 330 commutations on the last day of his presidency, January 19th. The majority of the sentences commuted Thursday were for nonviolent drug offenses. Throughout his presidency, Obama has granted 1,715 commutations—more than any other president in U.S. history. Of those, 568 inmates had been sentenced to life in prison.
In Obama’s second-term, he had made great effort to try to remedy the consequences of decades of excessive sentencing requirements that he said had imprisoned thousands of non-violent drug offenders for too long. To be eligible for a commutation under Obama’s initiative, non-violent offenders had to have been well behaved while in prison and already served 10 years, although some exceptions to the 10-year rule were granted.
Obama personally reviewed the case of every inmate who received a commutation. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates said the administration reviewed all applications that came in by an end-of-August deadline which was more than 16,000 in total.
Read more
