#Administrative Procedure Act

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Don Moynihan at Can We Still Govern?:

Elon Musk’s and Vivek Ramaswamy’s proposal for changing government has, thus far, been disheartening. They want to change things, but it is hard to take the whole enterprise seriously when you have to spend a lot of time sorting through their mixture of vagueness, misstatements, and hyperbole. Doing so made made me realize: I don’t think Muskawamy themselves actually know what they are doing.

Like Trump, they don’t know much about government, except as businessmen. Like Trump, they are serial bullshitters, who do not seem to value basic public service tasks and, for Musk in particular, given to conspiracy theories. And there is the rub. They will make big promises without knowing if they can fulfill them, and wild claims without knowing if they are true. But the point is to hold our attention, to convey the message that the government is broken, and to justify radical actions, even if the consequences of those actions are unknown, or, clearly damaging to state capacity. One thing is clear: for all the “government should work like a business” rhetoric, private organizations are typically not led by people who oppose the mission of the organization, make sweeping reorganizations that are not informed by basic operational facts, or make a habit of denigrating their employees. This is because that sort of toxic leadership would get you fired. But this is the sort of vibe that Musk and Ramaswamy are bringing to the table. Previously, I broke down some of their claims about federal spending. Now, lets look at what they have been saying about the federal personnel system, and sort out fact and fiction.

They Can’t Fire Lots of Employees, But Can Encourage the Best Ones to Leave

One problem with Muskawamy is that they can’t give a straight answer about what they will do and how they plan to do it. It will be amazing, and historic, but lets not get into the details. “It’s going to be very easy,” said Elon Musk’s Mom, who is apparently sitting in on her big boy’s meetings. Their claims will work for a MAGA audience, or for people who do not understand how government works, but start to vaporize when forced to engage with reality. And soon they will actually be in power, so reality will start to matter.

Lets take the example of firing employees. As a presidential candidate, and until relatively recently, Ramaswamy claimed that the president could fire 75% of federal civilian employees. Ramaswamy uses the trick of citing an old and obscure law, claiming that it enables radical actions, and hope that no-one checks up on the details. In this case, he refers to the Reorganization Act of 1977. But, the Reorganization Act was about reorganizations of federal agency structure, not layoffs. The Act also requires the President to go to Congress to get permission to pursue his actions. Also, the Act has expired. And in 1983 the Supreme Court found its mechanisms of operating to be unconstitutional!

In short then, Ramaswamy claims that an expired and unconstitutional piece of legislation from the Carter era gives Trump a power unmentioned in the legislation. This also applies to the claim that the President can unilaterally eliminate agencies. Again, reorganization authority has expired, so the President does not have this power. Only Congress can create or eliminate an agency or Department.

Notably, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed with Musk (which was presumably written by someone from a Trump-aligned think tank like Heritage or America First Policy Institute), Ramaswamy is no longer talking about the Reorganization Act. At this point, it is no longer feasible to pretend this gimmick is real. That does not mean that his other promises are realistic, just that they reflect more sophistication. Instead, Muskawamy rely on Section 3301 of Title V, Code of Federal Regulations, to promise “large-scale firings.” That section gives the President power to “prescribe such regulations for the admission of individuals into the civil service in the executive branch as will best promote the efficiency of that service.” I am emphasizing the “into” because the section is clearly about hiring, not firing. (See more from Nicholas Bednar on this point).

Jennifer Nou, an administrative law professor at the University of Chicago told me it is “likely illegal” that the President can pursue mass firings based on this Section 3301, with the uncertainty of the “likely” reflecting less the plain text of the law than how far certain Judges will allow Trump to go. She also points out that adverse action policymaking is limited to the Office of Personnel Management, and would require a new rule that has to follow the timing and evidence of the Administrative Procedure Act, a constraint that Muskawamy explicitly reject. Even if such mass firings were feasible, they are bad personnel policy. Jennifer Pahlka points out that Part 351 of Title V means that reductions in force must first eliminate specific term and temporary positions, those under various special authorities, plus those in the first three years of service, before reaching career employees, and then prioritizing non-veterans first.1 This means younger employees, and employees with specific skills like digital expertise, will be the first to go.

[...] Muskawamy promise to make cuts that “use existing laws to give [employees] incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.” This, they can do. The Clinton administration did so in the 1990s to reduce the number of employees. The criticism of this approach is a) it will never generate the numbers that Muskawamy are claiming need to go, b) the people most likely to leave are those who are at retirement age, or feel confident that they can land a job in the labor market. In other words, this is not a good tool for sorting good from bad employees, and is most likely to be used by people with the most marketable skills, while keeping in place employees who doubt that they can land a job in the private sector.

[...]

Return-to-Office Policies

Muskawamy also have promised to compel federal employees to return to the office five days a week. If you think this is about performance, it doesn’t make a lot of sense that Muskawamy both want a) to move more jobs out of DC, and b) want all DC employees in the office five days a week. In fact, they are pretty up front that the purpose of return to work policies is not to improve government efficiency, but that it “would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome.” Here are some basic things about return-to-office that Muskawamy would benefit from understanding.

People differ on the value of remote work and telework. But it is certainly not clear that in-person work is better. Private companies that have adopted return-to-office policies have seen slower growth.

Telework can be a useful tool to attract a broader pool of employees. This is especially likely to be true if your headquarters is in an expensive region like DC. Federal managers I have spoken with consistently say that telework and remote work (where an employee is hired with no expectation of an in-office work) allows them to access a much broader pool of talent then they could otherwise find.

The idea that telework is some public sector perk while the real America is toiling at their offices is false. Private sector companies use remote work at about the same rate as public organizations.

Most federal work is in-person. About 54% of federal employees work fully on-site, and the remainder can use telework. If you exclude remote workers, which is about 10% of federal employees, almost 80% of regular hours work occur in-person, and 61% of work for those who are telework eligible.

The suitability of telework depends on the task. For TSA staff or Veterans Health doctors, telework does not make sense. And guess what? Those sort of jobs are mostly not offered telework options! About 94% of work occurs in person in Veterans Affairs, and about 85% of work at Homeland Security. By contrast, the rate for the National Science Foundation is about 42%, which mirrors university-style work environments that they are similar to. (Anyone who actually cares about this sort of detail, and agency justifications for their use work of telework can find more information here).

Forcing employees back to the office will have to contend with labor agreements that provide telework options. Social Security is one of a number of agencies that have rushed telework options in collective bargaining agreements. If you are genuinely interested in improving public services, there are other more productive fights to pick with public sector unions.

Since the federal government is a vast employer with lots of different jobs and needs, it is entirely possible to build policies around remote work that are nuanced and will improve services. A one-size-fit-all approach is dumb, and the use of punitive return-to-office policies to drive people out is going to hurt state capacity. And guess what? The federal government largely has the former type of policy, delegating authority to agencies, requiring them to justify the use of telework vs. in-person with an emphasis on pushing them toward at least half of work to be in-person. Muskawamy want the dumb one-size-fits-all policy.

Don Moynihan wrote a solid Substack piece on how the federal government under Trump/Musk/Ramaswamy’s axis of evil would become a toxic employer by encouraging a brain drain exodus of qualified employees out of the federal government.

[nationallawreview]

Lawsuit Challenges CFPB’s ‘Buy Now, Pay Later’ Rule

On Oct. 18, 2024, fintech trade group Financial Technology Association (FTA) filed a lawsuit challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) final interpretative rule on “Buy Now, Pay Later” (BNPL) products. Released in May 2024, the CFPB’s interpretative rule classifies BNPL products as “credit cards” and their providers as “card issuers” and “creditors” for purposes of the Truth…

[naturalresourcestoday]

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Effort to Compel Amended Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan

A federal appeals court turned away Jan. 19 a case that sought to force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to update its recovery plan for the grizzly bear. The decision cast recovery plans as being outside the scope of a federal statute’s provision allowing for petitions to amend agency rules. The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit seeking to compel amendment of USFWS’ framework…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

FTC vs surveillance pricing

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

In the mystical cosmology of economics, "prices" are of transcendental significance, the means by which the living market knows and adapts itself, giving rise to "efficient" production and consumption.

At its most basic level, the metaphysics of pricing goes like this: if there is less of something for sale than people want to buy, the seller will raise the price until enough buyers drop out and demand equals supply. If the disappointed would-be buyers are sufficiently vocal about their plight, other sellers will enter the market (bankrolled by investors who sense an opportunity), causing supplies to increase and prices to fall until the system is in "equilibrium" – producing things as cheaply as possible in precisely the right quantities to meet demand. In the parlance of neoclassical economists, prices aren't "set": they are discovered.

In antitrust law, there are many sins, but they often boil down to "price setting." That is, if a company has enough "market power" that they can dictate prices to their customers, they are committing a crime and should be punished. This is such a bedrock of neoclassical economics that it's a tautology "market power" exists where companies can "set prices"; and to "set prices," you need "market power."

Prices are the blood cells of the market, shuttling nutrients (in the form of "information") around the sprawling colony organism composed of all the buyers, sellers, producers, consumers, intermediaries and other actors. Together, the components of this colony organism all act on the information contained in the "price signals" to pursue their own self-interest. Each self-interested action puts more information into the system, triggering more action. Together, price signals and the actions they evince eventually "discover" the price, an abstraction that is yanked out of the immaterial plane of pure ideas and into our grubby, physical world, causing mines to re-open, shipping containers and pipelines to spark to life, factories to retool, trucks to fan out across the nation, retailers to place ads and hoist SALE banners over their premises, and consumers to race to those displays and open their wallets.

When prices are "distorted," all of this comes to naught. During the notorious "socialist calculation debate" of 1920s Austria, right-wing archdukes of religious market fundamentalism, like Von Hayek and Von Mises, trounced their leftist opponents, arguing that the market was the only computational system capable of calculating how much of each thing should be made, where it should be sent, and how much it should be sold for.

Attempts to "plan" the economy – say, by subsidizing industries or limiting prices – may be well-intentioned, but they broke the market's computations and produced haywire swings of both over- and underproduction. Later, the USSR's planned economy did encounter these swings. These were sometimes very grave (famines that killed millions) and sometimes silly (periods when the only goods available in regional shops were forks, say, creating local bubbles in folk art made from forks).

Unplanned markets do this too. Most notoriously, capitalism has produced a vast oversupply of carbon-intensive goods and processes, and a huge undersupply of low-carbon alternatives, bringing the human civilization to the brink of collapse. Not only have capitalism's price signals failed to address this existential crisis to humans, it has also sown the seeds of its own ruin – the market computer's not going to be getting any "price signals" from people as they drown in floods or roast to death on sidewalks that deliver second-degree burns to anyone who touches them:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91151209/extreme-heat-southwest-phoenix-surface-burns-scorching-pavement-sidewalks-pets

For market true believers, these failures are just evidence that regulation is distorting markets, and that the answer is more unregulated markets to infuse the computer with more price signals. When it comes to carbon, the problem is that producers are "producing negative externalities" (that is, polluting and sticking us with the bill). If we can just get them to "internalize" those costs, they will become "economically rational" and switch to low-carbon alternatives.

That's the theory behind the creation and sale of carbon credits. Rather than ordering companies to stop risking civilizational collapse and mass extinction, we can incentivize them to do so by creating markets that reward clean tech and punish dirty practices. The buying and selling of carbon credits is supposed to create price signals reflecting the existential risk to the human race and the only habitable planet known to our species, which the market will then "bring into equilibrium."

Unfortunately, reality has a distinct and unfair leftist bias. Carbon credits are a market for lemons. The carbon credits you buy to "offset" your car or flight are apt to come from a forest that has already burned down, or that had already been put in a perpetual trust as a wildlife preserve and could never be logged:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/03/18/greshams-carbon-law/#papal-indulgences

Carbon credits produce the most perverse outcomes imaginable. For example, much of Tesla's profitability has been derived from the sale of carbon credits to the manufacturers of the dirtiest, most polluting SUVs on Earth; without those Tesla credits, those SUVs would have been too expensive to sell, and would not have existed:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/11/24/no-puedo-pagar-no-pagara/#Rat

What's more, carbon credits aren't part of an "all of the above" strategy that incorporates direct action to prevent our species downfall. These market solutions are incompatible with muscular direct action, and if we do credits, we can't do other stuff that would actually work:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/31/carbon-upsets/#big-tradeoff

Even though price signals have repeatedly proven themselves to be an insufficient mechanism for producing "efficient" or even "survivable," they remain the uppermost spiritual value in the capitalist pantheon. Even through the last 40 years of unrelenting assaults on antitrust and competition law, the one form of corporate power that has remained both formally and practically prohibited is "pricing power."

That's why the DoJ was able to block tech companies and major movie studios from secretly colluding to suppress their employees' wages, and why those employees were able to get huge sums out of their employers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation

It's also why the Big Six (now Big Five) publishers and Apple got into so much trouble for colluding to set a floor on the price of ebooks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Apple_(2012)

When it comes to monopoly, even the most Bork-pilled, Manne-poisoned federal judges and agencies have taken a hard line on price-fixing, because "distortions" of prices make the market computer crash.

But despite this horror of price distortions, America's monopolists have found so many ways to manipulate prices. Last month, The American Prospect devoted an entire issue to the many ways that monopolies and cartels have rigged the prices we pay, pushing them higher and higher, even as our wages stagnated and credit became more expensive:

https://prospect.org/pricing

For example, there's the plague of junk fees (AKA "drip pricing," or, if you're competing to be first up against the wall come the revolution, "ancillary revenue"), everything from baggage fees from airlines to resort fees at hotels to the fee your landlord charges if you pay your rent by check, or by card, or in cash:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/07/drip-drip-drip/#drip-off

There's the fake transparency gambit, so beloved of America's hospitals:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/13/a-punch-in-the-guts/#hayek-pilled

The "greedflation" that saw grocery prices skyrocketing, which billionaire grocery plutes blamed on covid stimulus checks, even as they boasted to their shareholders about their pricing power:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-12-war-in-the-aisles/

There's the the tens of billions the banks rake in with usurious interest rates, far in excess of the hikes to the central banks' prime rates (which are, in turn, justified in light of the supposed excesses of covid relief checks):

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-11-what-we-owe/

There are the scams that companies like Amazon pull with their user interfaces, tricking you into signing up for subscriptions or upsells, which they grandiosely term "dark patterns," but which are really just open fraud:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-10-one-click-economy/

There are "surge fees," which are supposed to tempt more producers (e.g. Uber drivers) into the market when demand is high, but which are really just an excuse to gouge you – like when Wendy's threatens to surge-price its hamburgers:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-06-07-urge-to-surge/

And then there's surveillance pricing, the most insidious and profitable way to jack up prices. At its core, surveillance pricing uses nonconsensually harvested private information to inform an algorithm that reprices the things you buy – from lattes to rent – in real-time:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/05/your-price-named/#privacy-first-again

Companies like Plexure – partially owned by McDonald's – boasts that it can use surveillance data to figure out what your payday is and then hike the price of the breakfast sandwich or after-work soda you buy every day.

Like every bad pricing practice, surveillance pricing has its origins in the aviation industry, which invested early on and heavily in spying on fliers to figure out how much they could each afford for their plane tickets and jacking up prices accordingly. Architects of these systems then went on to found companies like Realpage, a data-brokerage that helps landlords illegally collude to rig rent prices.

Algorithmic middlemen like Realpage and ATPCO – which coordinates price-fixing among the airlines – are what Dan Davies calls "accountability sinks." A cartel sends all its data to a separate third party, which then compares those prices and tells everyone how much to jack them up in order to screw us all:

https://profilebooks.com/work/the-unaccountability-machine/

These price-fixing middlemen are everywhere, and they predate the boom in commercial surveillance. For example, Agri-Stats has been helping meatpackers rig the price of meat for 40 years:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/04/dont-let-your-meat-loaf/#meaty-beaty-big-and-bouncy

But when you add commercial surveillance to algorithmic pricing, you get a hybrid more terrifying than any cocaine-sharks (or, indeed, meth-gators):

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/tennessee-police-warn-locals-not-flush-drugs-fear-meth-gators-n1030291

Apologists for these meth-gators insist that surveillance pricing's true purpose is to let companies offer discounts. A streaming service can't afford to offer $0.99 subscriptions to the poor because then all the rich people would stop paying $19.99. But with surveillance pricing, every customer gets a different price, titrated to their capacity to pay, and everyone wins.

But that's not how it cashes out in the real world. In the real world, rich people who get ripped off have the wherewithal to shop around, complain effectively to a state AG, or punish companies by taking their business elsewhere. Meanwhile, poor people aren't just cash-poor, they're also time-poor and political influence-poor.

When the dollar store duopoly forces all the mom-and-pop grocers in your town out of business with predatory pricing, and creating food deserts that only they serve, no one cares, because state AGs and politicians don't care about people who shop at dollar stores. Then, the dollar stores can collude with manufacturers to get shrunken "cheater sized" products that sell for a dollar, but cost double or triple the grocery store price by weight or quantity:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/27/walmarts-jackals/#cheater-sizes

Yes, fliers who seem to be flying on business (last-minute purchasers who don't have a Saturday stay) get charged more than people whose purchase makes them seem to be someone flying away for a vacation. But that's only because aviation prices haven't yet fully transitioned to surveillance pricing. If an airline can correctly calculate that you are taking a trip because you're a grad student who must attend a conference in order to secure a job, and if they know precisely how much room you have left on your credit card, they can charge you everything you can afford, to the cent.

Your ability to resist pricing power isn't merely a function of a company's market power – it's also a function of your political power. Poor people may have less to steal, but no one cares when they get robbed:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/19/martha-wright-reed/#capitalists-hate-capitalism

So surveillance pricing, supercharged by algorithms, represent a serious threat to "prices," which is the one thing that the econo-religious fundamentalists of the capitalist class value above all else. That makes surveillance pricing low-hanging fruit for regulatory enforcement: a bipartisan crime that has few champions on either side of the aisle.

Cannily, the FTC has just declared war on surveillance pricing, ordering eight key players in the industry (including capitalism's arch-villains, McKinsey and Jpmorgan Chase) to turn over data that can be used to prosecute them for price-fixing within 45 days:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/07/ftc-issues-orders-eight-companies-seeking-information-surveillance-pricing

As American Prospect editor-in-chief David Dayen notes in his article on the order, the FTC is doing what he and his journalistic partners couldn't: forcing these companies to cough up internal data:

https://prospect.org/economy/2024-07-24-ftc-opens-surveillance-pricing-inquiry/

This is important, and not just because of the wriggly critters the FTC will reveal as they use their powers to turn over this rock. Administrative agencies can't just do whatever they want. Long before the agencies were neutered by the Supreme Court, they had strict rules requiring them to gather evidence, solicit comment and counter-comment, and so on, before enacting any rules:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/10/18/administrative-competence/#i-know-stuff

Doubtless, the Supreme Court's Loper decision (which overturned "Chevron deference" and cut off the agencies' power to take actions that they don't have detailed, specific authorization to take) will embolden the surveillance pricing industry to take the FTC to court on this. It's hard to say whether the courts will find in the FTC's favor. Section 6(b) of the FTC Act clearly lets the FTC compel these disclosures as part of an enforcement action, but they can't start an enforcement action until they have evidence, and through the whole history of the FTC, these kinds of orders have been a common prelude to enforcement.

One thing this has going for it is that it is bipartisan: all five FTC commissioners, including both Republicans (including the Republican who votes against everything) voted in favor of it. Price gouging is the kind of easy-to-grasp corporate crime that everyone hates, irrespective of political tendency.

In the Prospect piece on Ticketmaster's pricing scam, Dayen and Groundwork's Lindsay Owens called this the "Age of Recoupment":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/03/aoi-aoi-oh/#concentrated-gains-vast-diffused-losses

For 40 years, neoclassical economics' focus on "consumer welfare" meant that companies could cheat and squeeze their workers and suppliers as hard as they wanted, so long as prices didn't go up. But after 40 years, there's nothing more to squeeze out of workers or suppliers, so it's time for the cartels to recoup by turning on us, their customers.

They believe – perhaps correctly – that they have amassed so much market power through mergers and lobbying that they can cross the single bright line in neoliberal economics' theory of antitrust: price-gouging. No matter how sincere the economics profession's worship of prices might be, it still might not trump companies that are too big to fail and thus too big to jail.

The FTC just took an important step in defense of all of our economic wellbeing, and it's a step that even the most right-wing economist should applaud. They're calling the question: "Do you really think that price-distortion is a cardinal sin? If so, you must back our play." Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

https://clarionwriteathon.com/members/profile.php?writerid=293388

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/24/gouging-the-all-seeing-eye/#i-spy

[mariacallous]

 Our Nation has made tremendous progress in advancing the cause of equality for LGBTQI+ Americans, including in the military.  Despite their courage and great sacrifice, thousands of LGBTQI+ service members were forced out of the military because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  Many of these patriotic Americans were subject to a court-martial.  While my Administration has taken meaningful action to remedy these problems, the impact of that historical injustice remains.  As Commander in Chief, I am committed to maintaining the finest fighting force in the world.  That means making sure that every member of our military feels safe and respected.

     Accordingly, acting pursuant to the grant of authority in Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, I, Joseph R. Biden Jr., do hereby grant a full, complete, and unconditional pardon to persons convicted of unaggravated offenses based on consensual, private conduct with persons age 18 and older under former Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), as previously codified at 10 U.S.C. 925, as well as attempts, conspiracies, and solicitations to commit such acts under Articles 80, 81, and 82, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 880, 881, 882.  This proclamation applies to convictions during the period from Article 125’s effective date of May 31, 1951, through the December 26, 2013, enactment of section 1707 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 (Public Law 113-66).

     The purpose of this proclamation is to pardon only offenses based on consensual, private conduct between individuals 18 and older that do not involve any aggravating factor, including:  

     (1)  conduct that would violate 10 U.S.C. 893a, prohibiting activities with military recruits or trainees by a person in a position of special trust;      (2)  conduct that was committed with an individual who was coerced or, because of status, might not have felt able to refuse consent;      (3)  conduct on the part of the applicant constituting fraternization under Article 134 of the UCMJ;      (4)  conduct committed with the spouse of another military member; or      (5)  any factors other than those listed above that were identified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in United States v. Marcum as being outside the scope of Lawrence v. Texas as applied in the military context, 60 M.J. 198, 207–08 (2004).

     The Military Departments (Army, Navy, or Air Force), or in the case of the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, shall provide information about and publicize application procedures for certificates of pardon.  An applicant for a certificate of pardon under this proclamation is to submit an application to the Military Department (Army, Navy, or Air Force) that conducted the court-martial or, in the case of a Coast Guard court-martial, to the Department of Homeland Security.  If the relevant Department determines that the applicant satisfies the criteria under this proclamation, following a review of relevant military justice records, the Department shall submit that determination to the Attorney General, acting through the Pardon Attorney, who shall then issue a certificate of pardon along with information on the process to apply for an upgrade of military discharge.  My Administration strongly encourages veterans who receive a certificate of pardon to apply for an upgrade of military discharge.  

     Although the pardon under this proclamation applies only to the convictions described above, there are other LGBTQI+ individuals who served our Nation and were convicted of other crimes because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.  It is the policy of my Administration to expeditiously consider and to make final pardon determinations with respect to such individuals.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-sixth day of June, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-eighth.                              JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

[scotusrulingsandrhetoric]

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), was a United States Supreme Courtdecision that held agency decisions to not undertake enforcement proceedings is "committed to agency discretion by law" (5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)) and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act. From Wikipedia

[communistkenobi]

the other day I was going through the blog of a self-identified terf who had shown up in my notifications, and I saw them say that they wanted people to stop using asab terminology (assigned sex at birth) and instead use osab (observed sex at birth). which like at a basic level is very funny - don’t like the words being used to describe your body, hm? I can’t imagine what that feels like - but it does reveal this very particular commitment that anti-trans and anti-intersex reactionaries have to insisting that sex is just a natural objective fact, that all sexual and gendered violence is a result of men neutrally observing and then responding to the self-evident sexual properties of women. As if the act of observation is not political! It is a request to naturalise the assumptions of the people doing the observing. More fundamentally, it is a request to enshrine through language the assumptions of patriarchy, that sex is a complete and distinct property of the body that can be observed without interpretation, that it is self-evident. Observation itself is defined as a complete process; any part of the object under investigation that is not in view of the observer is rendered irrelevant. Thank god we’re just talking about sex, a very simple element of the human body that is easily cordoned off from the body its attached to!

And of course this wilfully ignores an obvious part of why trans and intersex people call attention to the assigned nature of sex. “Observed sex at birth” is already the first step in the assignment process, it is already implicated in the act of assignment, because the ritual of observing sex at birth is based on the assumption that this is a part of the body that is uniquely worthy of observation. The obvious follow-up question is why is sex worthy of observation in the first place? What assumptions go into the calculation of ‘worthiness’? If it’s so worthy of observation, who gets to be the observer? What are the consequences of this observation process? And if this is so important, how you do record the results of this observation process? Through a series of administrative, medical, and legal assignment procedures, perhaps? What if someone makes a mistake carrying out these procedures? What if the observer observes something they aren’t expecting (and where do those expectations come from)? What if they can’t observe anything? What do they do?

If you take this distinction seriously, if you insist ‘observation’ is somehow less politically or socially contingent than ‘assignment,’ you are advocating for a horrifically nihilistic worldview, one in where the ‘observations’ society makes about sex are all made natural. It is a request that is based on a political pursuit to fully enshrine patriarchy as a natural part of human life. I observe that the subjugation of women produces adverse educational, social, economic, and medical outcomes for them - I guess it’s just because women are naturally inferior. I mean what else could it possibly be? The doctors did a genital inspection on them when they were a baby. It says F right here on the birth certificate

[philosopherking1887]

More good things the Biden administration is doing: OSHA heat safety rules for workers

Remember when Texas and Florida passed laws preventing local and municipal governments from implementing their own heat safety rules and said that if heat is such a big problem, OSHA should make rules that apply to everyone? If not, NPR can remind you. OSHA has now accepted the challenge, moving much faster than they usually do:

OSHA National News Release U.S. Department of Labor July 2, 2024 Biden-Harris administration announces proposed rule to protect indoor, outdoor workers from extreme heat WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Labor has released a proposed rule with the goal of protecting millions of workers from the significant health risks of extreme heat. If finalized, the proposed rule would help protect approximately 36 million workers in indoor and outdoor work settings and substantially reduce heat injuries, illnesses, and deaths in the workplace. Heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S. Excessive workplace heat can lead to heat stroke and even death. While heat hazards impact workers in many industries, workers of color have a higher likelihood of working in jobs with hazardous heat exposure. “Every worker should come home safe and healthy at the end of the day, which is why the Biden-Harris administration is taking this significant step to protect workers from the dangers posed by extreme heat,” said Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su. “As the most pro-worker administration in history, we are committed to ensuring that those doing difficult work in some of our economy’s most critical sectors are valued and kept safe in the workplace.” The proposed rule would require employers to develop an injury and illness prevention plan to control heat hazards in workplaces affected by excessive heat. Among other things, the plan would require employers to evaluate heat risks and — when heat increases risks to workers — implement requirements for drinking water, rest breaks and control of indoor heat. It would also require a plan to protect new or returning workers unaccustomed to working in high heat conditions. “Workers all over the country are passing out, suffering heat stroke and dying from heat exposure from just doing their jobs, and something must be done to protect them,” said Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Douglas L. Parker. “Today’s proposal is an important next step in the process to receive public input to craft a ‘win-win’ final rule that protects workers while being practical and workable for employers.” Employers would also be required to provide training, have procedures to respond if a worker is experiencing signs and symptoms of a heat-related illness, and take immediate action to help a worker experiencing signs and symptoms of a heat emergency. The public is encouraged to submit written comments on the rule once it is published in the Federal Register. The agency also anticipates a public hearing after the close of the written comment period. More information will be available on submitting comments when the rule is published. In the interim, OSHA continues to direct significant existing outreach and enforcement resources to educate employers and workers and hold businesses accountable for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s general duty clause, 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) and other applicable regulations. Record-breaking temperatures across the nation have increased the risks people face on-the-job, especially in summer months. Every year, dozens of workers die and thousands more suffer illnesses related to hazardous heat exposure that, sadly, are most often preventable. The agency continues to conduct heat-related inspections under its National Emphasis Program – Outdoor and Indoor Heat-Related Hazards, launched in 2022. The program inspects workplaces with the highest exposures to heat-related hazards proactively to prevent workers from suffering injury, illness or death needlessly. Since the launch, OSHA has conducted more than 5,000 federal heat-related inspections. In addition, the agency is prioritizing programmed inspections in agricultural industries that employ temporary, nonimmigrant H-2A workers for seasonal labor. These workers face unique vulnerabilities, including potential language barriers, less control over their living and working conditions, and possible lack of acclimatization, and are at high risk of hazardous heat exposure.

[bemusedlybespectacled]

I don't understand the chevron law thing, could you explain it like I'm five? Should we be working towards fixing whatever the courts just fucked up?

So, okay, I am condensing like a semester of a class I took in 2017 into a very short explanation, but:

It would be really annoying for Congress to individually pass laws approving every new medicine or listing out every single poison you can't have in tap water, so instead there are agencies created by Congress, via a law, to handle a specific thing. The agencies are created by Congress but overseen by the executive branch (so, the president), which is why we say things like "Reagan's EPA" or "Biden's DOJ" - even though Congress creates them, the president determines how they do the thing Congress wants them to do, by passing regulations like "you can't dump cyanide in the local swimming pool" and "no, you can't dump strychnine, either."

However, sometimes people will oppose these regulations by saying that the agency is going beyond the task they were given by Congress. "The Clean Air Act only bans 'pollutants,' and nowhere in the law does it say that 'pollutants' includes arsenic! You're going beyond your mandate!" To which the experts at the EPA would be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided arsenic is a pollutant." On the flip side, the EPA could be like, "We, the experts at the EPA, have decided that arsenic isn't a pollutant," and people would oppose that regulation by being like, "But the Clean Air Act bans 'pollutants,' and it's insane to say that arsenic isn't a pollutant!" So whose interpretation is correct, the government's or the challengers'?

Chevron deference basically put heavy weight onto how the agency (i.e. the government) interpreted the law, with the assumption that the agency was in the right and needing pretty strong evidence that they were interpreting it wrong (like, blatantly doing the opposite of a clear part of the law or something). If there was any ambiguity in how the law was written, you'd defer to the agency's interpretation, even if that interpretation was different depending on who was president at the time.

(Note: there are other ways of challenging regulations other than this one, like saying that they were promulgated in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious" – basically, not backed by any evidence/reasoning other than "we want it." Lots of Trump-era regulations got smacked with this one, though I think they'd be better at it if Trump gets a second term, since they've now had practice.)

Chevron deference wasn't all good – remember that the sword cuts both ways, including when dickholes are in power – but it was a very standard part of the law. Like, any opposition to a regulation would have some citation to be like "Chevron doesn't apply here" and every defense would be like "Chevron absolutely applies here" and most of the time, the agency would win. Like, it was a fundamental aspect of law since the 80s.

The Supreme Court decision basically tosses that out, and says, "In a situation where the law is ambiguous, the court decides what it means." That's not completely insane – interpreting law is a thing judges normally do – but in a situation where the interpretation may hinge on something very complicated outside of the judge's wheelhouse, you now cannot be like, "Your Honor, I promise you that the experts at NOAA know a lot about the weather and made this decision for a good reason."

The main reason it's a problem is that it allows judges to override agencies' judgements about what you should do about a thing and what things you should be working on in the first place. However, I don't think there's really a way of enshrining that into law, outside of maybe adding something to the Administrative Procedure Act, and that would require a Congress that isn't majority Republican.

I will say that kind of I expected this to happen, just because IIRC Gorsuch in particular hates Chevron deference. IMO it's a classic case of "rules for me but not for thee" – Scalia and other conservatives used to rely on Chevron because they wanted their presidents to hold a ton of unchecked power (except for the EPA), but now that we've had Obama and Biden, now conservatives don't like Chevron because it gives the presidents they don't like unchecked power.

[opencommunion]

I've seen a few posts circulating about the occupation cutting off electricity to hospitals, but nothing about them doing the same thing to prisons:

"The Palestinian Prisoners' Club stated that more than 5250 prisoners, including 39 female prisoners and over 170 children, are facing a real catastrophe. This follows the occupation's decision since yesterday to cut off electricity and water from some prisons, including the Naqab prison where more than 1,400 prisoners are held. The occupation also continues to close the canteen and withdraw limited food and cooking utensils used by prisoners for meal preparation. The Club confirmed that the catastrophe is escalating with the increase in arrest campaigns in the West Bank, which have targeted more than 200 prisoners since October 7th. This will inevitably lead to a significant overcrowding in detention centers, investigation centers, and prisons that receive detained prisoners. The Club stated on Thursday that raids of prisoners' sections, carried out by armed suppression forces accompanied by police dogs, are ongoing and have targeted all sections in the prisons to confiscate all prisoners' belongings, especially electrical tools. The Prisoners' Club further explained that the escalating retaliatory measures carried out by the prison administration, under the orders of the occupation's military leadership, which has been in charge of the prisons since October 7th, the day of Al-Aqsa Flood battle, have reached measures that directly affect the fate and lives of the prisoners. This comes especially after isolating the prisoners through intensified isolation measures imposed by the occupation, such as suspending visits by lawyers and families and imposing difficulties and procedures on the work of Palestinian human rights institutions." (via RNN Prisoners)

Keep in mind that in addition to criminalizing all acts of resistance, including speech, the occupation practices "administrative detention" (incarceration without trial or charge), imprisoning Palestinians—including children—simply for being Palestinian. The occupation's prisons play a key role in their genocidal strategy. Do not look away.

[charmedreincarnation]

Let me share you some examples of people outside of a spiritual realm using the law of consciousness. Reading about placebo opened my eyes to realize whether I believe it or not, use it or not, it is always operating.

1. During wartime, particularly in World War II, when medical supplies were limited, the use of a saline solution as a placebo became prevalent. One notable figure associated with this practice is Henry Beecher, a medic during the war. When morphine, a powerful painkiller, was scarce, Beecher resorted to injecting injured soldiers with a saline solution (a mixture of salt and water) as a substitute.The fascinating observation was that many soldiers responded positively to the saline placebo, reporting a reduction in pain. Beecher’s experience led him to further investigate what is now known as the placebo effect. He discovered that even inert substances like saline could elicit a therapeutic response in individuals, highlighting the power of belief and the mind’s influence on healing. Using saline as a placebo during wartime was a practical solution to address the scarcity of medical resources. It allowed healthcare providers to provide some form of treatment while conserving limited supplies for critical cases. The phenomenon observed in these wartime placebo administrations contributed to our understanding of the placebo effect and its role in medical practices.

2. And then there was another placebo test done with surgeries demonstrated the power of the placebo effect in the context of surgical interventions for knee pain.

The study, often referred to as the “fake leg surgery” study, focused on patients with osteoarthritis in the knee. Participants were randomly assigned to either receive real arthroscopic surgery or undergo a sham procedure where no actual surgical intervention took place. The sham surgery involved making small incisions and mimicking the actions and sounds associated with the actual procedure.The surprising finding was that both groups, those who underwent real surgery and those who had the sham surgery, reported similar improvements in their knee pain and functionality. This suggested that the positive outcomes experienced by the participants were not necessarily due to the physical intervention but rather to psychological factors such as the placebo effect.

3. The most fascinating one was this one: The study aimed to explore the role of mindset in reversing some aspects of aging.

In this experiment, Langer and her team created a simulated environment reminiscent of the 1950s to immerse a group of elderly participants. The participants were instructed to act as though they were 20 years younger and encouraged to engage in activities that required physical and mental activity. It aimed to create an atmosphere where the participants felt as if they were stepping back in time.The results of the experiment were described as astonishing. Participants reportedly experienced improvements in various areas, including physical health, cognition, and overall well-being. The study suggested that by changing one’s mindset and engaging in an environment that challenges typical aging stereotypes, individuals may experience positive effects on various aspects of their lives.

4. The Man Who Overdosed on Placebo" is a story about a 26-year-old man, often referred to as "Mr. A," who was part of a clinical trial for an antidepressant drug. In a desperate state of mind, he attempted suicide by ingesting 29 capsules of what he believed to be the experimental drug. This act was triggered by his depression, which had worsened after a breakup with his girlfriend.

However, unbeknownst to him, the pills he had taken were not the actual antidepressant, but rather placebos - essentially inert substances, often sugar pills, used in clinical trials as a control group. Despite this, Mr. A's vitals showed alarming signs similar to those of a drug overdose, reflecting the power of belief over the physical body, a phenomenon known as the "nocebo effect."

The nocebo effect is essentially the evil twin of the placebo effect. While the placebo effect can lead to improvements in health due to positive expectations, the nocebo effect can cause negative symptoms or even exacerbate existing ones due to negative expectations. In this case, Mr. A exhibited symptoms of an overdose solely because he believed he had taken an overdose.

5. Sam Londe, is one of the best but sad classic example of the nocebo effect, as detailed in Dr. Joe Dispenza's book "You Are the Placebo."

Sam Londe was diagnosed with esophageal cancer, a condition known for its grim prognosis. His doctors informed him that he didn't have much time left to live. Accepting this diagnosis, Londe quickly became bedridden and his health deteriorated rapidly, following the trajectory his doctors had predicted.However, upon his death, an autopsy revealed a surprising fact: there was not enough cancer in his body to have caused his death. The small tumor in his esophagus was not large enough or in a position to interfere with his swallowing or breathing. Essentially, Londe didn't die from cancer; he died from believing he was dying of cancer.

This case demonstrates the power of the mind over the body, both positively (the placebo effect) and negatively (the nocebo effect). In this case, Londe's negative beliefs about his prognosis led to physical symptoms and ultimately his death.

I've seen dozens of examples where of stuff like this particularly in the realms of hexing and witchcraft. Honestly, the same could probably be said about subliminals. But it doesn't matter much.Why? Because they work. It's all about observation and choice. You could say it’s the mind but the mind operates on logic. This goes beyond the mind and to your true being, what observes the mind observing the pain in the first place.

Actually I was talking to someone who had been struggling with shifting for a while about this and it really resonated with her which is why I decided to share it. She took a water bottle, labeled it shifting juice and just assumed that when she finishes the bottle she has “full access to shifting powers” is that how it works. Nope. Did she shift after two years of struggling. Yep. It doesn’t matter what story you create yourself whether you want to use logic or not whatever you assume and persist in and know as a fact will harden into truth and therefore reality.I just wanted to share this story bc I find it absolutely hilarious how we sometimes take it so seriously yet it can be so easy. I know placebo is just an assumption. It’s like when you tell children you checked under their bed for the monsters and drafted them and they assume so so they can sleep soundly at night. Call it whatever you want assumption, placebo, it’s all just words and each community calls it something different but at the end of the day it works wether you know the truth behind it or not.

[bitchesgetriches]

and bitches how do I get sterilized (afab) i thought i might want kids in my 30s but i cant really risk it can i i just dont know what to do

Hi sweetness. I suspect a lot of people are in your boat right now. Personally, I got my first IUD implanted in January of 2017. NOTE THE TIMING. I also had a friend get her tubes tied around that time.

The most important thing to remember is that getting sterilized as an AFAB person is over 99% effective and pretty damn permanent. So if you think you just can't risk getting pregnant SOON, but you might want to SOME DAY... then don't get sterilized. Explore another option. Again, I have an IUD and thoroughly recommend it.

It's a fairly simple out-patient procedure, but as with any surgery, it comes with health risks. Sterilization for AMAB people is slightly less risky. Make sure to take all that into account.

So if you truly want to get sterilized, here's what I (a non-doctor) recommend:

The very first step is to make sure you have a primary care physician and health insurance. Your PCP is the one who will refer you for the surgery. Make an appointment and tell them this:

"I would like to be sterilized via a tubal ligation. I've carefully considered this for a long time, and after doing significant research and discussing it with my loved ones, I've determined it's the best decision for my future."

A lot of people get pushback from their doctors when they request sterilization. That's why you want to make it abundantly clear that this is not a sudden whim, but something you've put serious thought into. And married folks will sometimes be asked to clear it with their spouse first (that happened when my husband requested a vasectomy).

They might try to talk you out of it. They may flat out refuse to refer you. If this happens, just calmly say: "Thank you for your time. Since you won't help me with my healthcare needs, I will be seeking a new primary care physician at this time." Then get yourself a new doctor.

Under the ACA (the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare) the procedure will be completely free with your insurance. That's why it's important to make sure you have health insurance before you request the procedure. The Trump administration is sure to try repealing the ACA again (in his first term, John McCain was literally the deciding vote on overturning the ACA, and he's fucking dead now and congress is full of MAGA sycophants). So you need to work quickly in case your sterilization will no longer be covered.

I strongly recommend you seek more advice from healthcare professionals. @plannedparenthood is also a great resource for everything to do with reproductive healthcare. But this should help you get the ball rolling.

Good luck, my dear. Here's more of our advice:

How to Prepare for a Post-Roe World (Bonus Episode) 

How To Get an Abortion 

How (and Why) to Take Back Reproductive Rights: On Pulling Weeds and Fighting Back 

Did we just help you out? Say thanks with a Patreon donation!

[nationallawreview]

US District Court Sets Aside the FTC’s Noncompete Ban on a Nationwide Basis

On August 20, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final rule banning noncompetes is unlawful and “set aside” the rule. “The Rule shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on its effective date of September 4, 2024, or thereafter.” The district court’s decision has a nationwide effect. The FTC is very likely to appeal to the…

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Elizabeth Warren for Time Magazine:

To everyone who feels like their heart has been ripped out of their chest, I feel the same. To everyone who is afraid of what happens next, I share your fears. But what we do next is important, and I need you in this fight with me. As we confront a second Donald Trump presidency, we have two tasks ahead. First, try to learn from what happened. And then, make a plan.

Many political experts and D.C. insiders are already blaming President Joe Biden’s economic agenda for Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Even though the Biden economy produced strong economic growth while reining in inflation, incumbent parties across the globe have been tossed out by voters after the pandemic. American voters also showed support for Democratic economic policies, for example, approving ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage in Alaska and to guarantee paid sick leave in Missouri.

[...] What comes next? Trump won the election, but more than 67 million people voted for Democrats and they don’t expect us to roll over and play dead. We will have a peaceful transition of power, followed by a vigorous challenge from the party out of power, because that’s how democracy works. Here’s a path forward.

First, fight every fight in Congress.

We won’t always win, but we can slow or sometimes limit Trump’s destruction. With every fight, we can build political power to put more checks on his administration and build the foundation for future wins. Remember that during the first Trump term, mass mobilization—including some of the largest peaceful protests in world history—was the battery that charged the resistance. There is power in solidarity, and we can’t win if we don’t get in the fight. During the Trump years, Congress stepped up its oversight of his unprecedented corruption and abuses of power. In the Senate, Democrats gave no quarter to radical Trump nominees; we asked tough questions and held the Senate floor for hours to slow down confirmation and expose Republican extremism. These tactics doomed some nominations entirely, laid the groundwork for other cabinet officials to later resign in disgrace, and brought scrutiny that somewhat constrained Trump’s efforts.

When all this work came together, we won some of the toughest fights. Remember Republicans’ attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act? Democrats did not have the votes to stop the repeal. Nevertheless, we fought on. Patients kept up a relentless rotation of meetings in Congress, activists in wheelchairs performed civil disobedience, and lawmakers used every tactic possible—late night speeches, forums highlighting patient stories, committee reports, and procedural tactics—to draw attention to the Republican repeal effort. This sustained resistance ultimately shifted the politics of health care repeal. The final vote was a squeaker, but Republicans lost and the ACA survived.

Democrats should also acknowledge that seeking a middle ground with a man who calls immigrants “animals” and says he will “protect” women “whether the women like it or not” is unlikely to land in a good place. Uniting against Trump’s legislative agenda is good politics because it is good policy. It was Democratic opposition to Trump’s tax bill that drove Trump’s approval ratings to what was then the lowest levels of his administration, forcing Republicans to scrap all mention of the law ahead of the 2018 midterm election and helping spark one of the largest blue waves in recent history.

Second, fight Trump in the courts.

Yes, extremist courts, including a Supreme Court stocked with MAGA loyalists, are poised to rubber-stamp Trump’s lawlessness. But litigation can slow Trump down, give us time to prepare and help the vulnerable, and deliver some victories.

Third, focus on what each of us can do.

I understand my assignment in the Senate, but we all have a part to play. During the first Trump administration, Democrats vigorously contested every special election and laid the groundwork to take back the House in the 2018 midterms, creating a powerful check on Trump and breaking the Republican trifecta. Whether it’s stepping up to run for office, supporting a neighbor’s campaign, or getting involved in an organization taking action, we all have to continue to make investments in our democracy—including in states that are passed over as “too red.” The political position we’re in is not permanent, and we have the power to make change if we fight for it.

Finally, Democrats currently in office must work with urgency.

While still in charge of the Senate and the White House, we must do all we can to safeguard our democracy. To resist Trump’s threats to abuse state power against what he calls “the enemy within,” Pentagon leaders should issue a directive now reiterating that the military’s oath is to the Constitution. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer must use every minute of the end-of-year legislative session to confirm federal judges and key regulators—none of whom can be removed by the next President. To those feeling despair: I understand. But remember, every step toward progress in American history came after the darkness of defeat. Abolitionists, suffragettes, Dreamers, and marchers for civil rights and marriage equality all faced impossible odds, but they persisted. Now it is our turn to pull up our socks and get back in the fight.

Elizabeth Warren wrote a well-written op-ed in Time encouraging Senate Democrats to confirm loads of judges and other jobs requiring Senate confirmation while we still have the majority and also fight back against the Trump tyranny.

[profeminist]

"The Biden administration on Monday announced new rules designed to safeguard the privacy of abortion providers and patients seeking the procedure, a move which comes in response to threats from conservative prosecutors putting abortion in their crosshairs.

"The rules announced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will bar doctors, insurers and other health-care groups from making health information available to state officials investigating, prosecuting, or filing a lawsuit against a patient or provider. 

They shield both people crossing state lines to seek a legal abortion and those who are not covered under a given state’s abortion ban due to being a rape survivor, for example.

The new regulations update the healthy privacy law known as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, which dates to 1996 and did not anticipate today’s uncertain reproductive rights landscape. 

Prior to the new rules taking effect — which won’t happen for at least two months — it will remain legal for organizations to share private health information with law enforcement investigating crimes." 

Read the full piece here: https://therecord.media/hhs-privacy-protections-reproductive-healthcare

[noenvyy]

Bill H.R. 9495--Declares Certain Non-profits terrorist organizations

Please read and share and CALL YOUR SENATORS

EMERGENCY: Earlier today, MAGA Republicans in Congress just rammed through legislation that could give Donald Trump the power to destroy organizations that oppose him—including MoveOn.1

Even more terrifying, 15 Democrats voted in favor of the bill.2

The bill, H.R. 9495, gives the Treasury Department—i.e., the Trump administration—unilateral power to declare a nonprofit to be a "terrorist-supporting organization" and strip its tax-exempt status.3 Organizations that oppose him could be shut down with just a swipe of a pen from Trump.

While Trump's Cabinet appointees soaked up the news cycle, the House tried to push this thoroughly dangerous bill under the radar last week. Two-thirds of the House was initially needed to pass the bill. But now Speaker Mike Johnson has figured out a new way to require only a simple majority to pass the bill, and the House voted to pass the bill earlier today.

H.R. 9495 was originally written to attack organizations showing support for Palestinians, and it is a dire threat to nongovernment organizations trying to support the Palestinian people suffering in the current war, but it could give the Trump administration the ability to declare any organization as "supporting terrorists"—with no proof, no burden of evidence, no due process.4,5

More than 150 religious, reproductive health, immigrant rights, human rights, racial justice, LGBTQ+, environmental, and educational organizations, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, have spoken up against this awful bill.6

The House tried to push through the bill with a two-thirds majority procedure last week, and 52 Democrats voted for it.7 Today they needed only a simple majority, and the House passed the bill with the support of 15 Democrats. We cannot allow a MAGA-controlled Senate in January to pass this bill.

This bill is different. If it passes, it has the possibility to silence any organization that Trump targets. And considering his history of retribution, we know he won't miss out on this opportunity to try to shut us down. It's an especially frightening prospect given Trump's previous attempt to designate anti-MAGA protesters and pro-Palestinian advocates as terrorists, and to vilify those he disagrees with as the "enemy from within."10

We need to sound the alarm in a major way to stop H.R. 9495 and prevent Trump from shutting down nonprofit organizations!

Please, please please, flood the Senate with calls to make it very clear that we will not abide by this attack on our First Amendment rights. We need to step up before it's too late. Use this link to find and contact your representatives: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Take Action: Tell Congress to OPPOSE H.R. 9495

1. Visit the IS Action Center to sign a petition to oppose H.R. 9495. 

2. Call your Congressional Representative TODAY and urge them to vote NO on H.R. 9495 when it comes up again for a vote. You can find contact information for your Member of Congress here. And the list of California representatives who already voted yes on previous votes here.

3. Social Media Engagement: Post on your platforms and tag your Representative to urge them to oppose H.R.9495.

Sample posts:

ACTION NEEDED As a constituent of [@RepresentativesSocialMedia] and a staunch supporter of the nonprofit sector, I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 9495. This bill may be well-intentioned but it erodes due process and jeopardizes vital services for vulnerable communities.

Nonprofits are critical to our communities. H.R. 9495 may mean well, but it threatens due process and risks harming those we serve. [@RepresentativesSocialMedia], vote NO on #HR9495. #ProtectNonprofits 

Sample script for calling your representative:

I’m calling to urge you to oppose H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, scheduled for a vote later today. This bill poses a direct threat to nonprofits by granting the Treasury Secretary unchecked power to label organizations as “terrorist supporting” and strip their tax-exempt status. Even worse, this can happen without evidence, intentional links, or any requirement to disclose the reasons for the designation. The lack of due process and accountability leaves nonprofits defenseless against vague and potentially politically motivated accusations.

While the bill includes provisions for tax relief for American hostages—a noble cause—this should not come at the expense of jeopardizing nonprofit operations and democratic values. These provisions should be separated into their own bill that doesn’t include the unchecked harm to nonprofits. 

Please oppose H.R. 9495 to protect nonprofits and the communities they serve. Thank you for your time and consideration.

____________________________________________________________

Sources:

1. "HR 9495: Bill Threatening Nonprofits Passes House," Nonprofit Quarterly, November 21, 2024 https://act.moveon.org/go/200463?t=8&akid=416946%2E34090080%2EE7NXm5

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. "Congress Is About to Gift Trump Sweeping Powers to Crush His Political Enemies," The Intercept, November 10, 2024 https://act.moveon.org/go/200453?t=10&akid=416946%2E34090080%2EE7NXm5

5. Ibid.

6. "Civil Society Letter to House Opposing H.R. 9495," ACLU, September 20, 2024 https://act.moveon.org/go/198929?t=12&akid=416946%2E34090080%2EE7NXm5

7. "House GOP Moves to Ram Through Bill That Gives Trump Unilateral Power to Kill Nonprofits," The Intercept, November 15, 2024 https://act.moveon.org/go/200452?t=14&akid=416946%2E34090080%2EE7NXm5

8. "No Labels files DOJ complaint about groups boycotting its 2024 presidential ballot access effort," CBS News, January 18, 2024 https://act.moveon.org/go/186092?t=16&akid=416946%2E34090080%2EE7NXm5

9. "MoveOn.org and Bucks man defend post-insurrection petition in NAC, Worthington defamation claim," Phillyburbs.com, June 7, 2021 https://act.moveon.org/go/200454?t=18&akid=416946%2E34090080%2EE7NXm5

10. "Scalise preps vote on terrorism bill decried as a gift for Trump," MSNBC, November 19, 2024 https://act.moveon.org/go/200446?t=20&akid=416946%2E34090080%2EE7NXm5