Biden administration

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      The landmark sweatshop case that shaped Biden’s labor secretary pick

      by

      Julie Su, President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Labor, was just 26 and two years out of Harvard Law School when she took on the defining case of her career that led to profound immigration and labor reforms.In 1995, as a staff attorney at the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Su led a team of lawyers to secure legal immigration status and $4m in stolen wages for 72 enslaved Thai nationals in a garment sweatshop in El Monte, California. The case eventually led to federal protections for victims of human trafficking. Su, a Wisconsin-born daughter of Chinese immigrants, later earned a MacArthur genius award for her representation of the garment workers.“She’s a creative, rigorous, incredibly committed public servant,“ said Ai-Jen Poo, a labor activist and the president of the National Domestic Workers Alliance. “Growing up in an immigrant household and working as a civil rights lawyer gives her a unique perspective on both the incredible opportunities and the inequities that exist in this country.”Su, now the deputy labor secretary, was nominated to lead the labor department in February, to replace outgoing Marty Walsh. She’s facing an uphill battle to confirmation, though, with business lobbying groups and prominent Republicans campaigning against her. That was on display in the first confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee, where Republicans criticized her record as California’s labor secretary and a handful of moderate Democrats remained noncommittal about voting her through. (The Senate narrowly confirmed Su as deputy secretary in 2021 by three-vote margin, along party lines.)Labor advocates say Su’s political career has been shaped by the enduring legacy of the El Monte sweatshop case – a grassroots campaign that “turned my life upside down and changed me forever”, Su has written.If confirmed, the veteran civil rights attorney and California’s former top labor official – who’s endorsed by the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus and more than a dozen Asian American advocacy groups – would be the first Asian American cabinet secretary to serve under Biden.After federal and state authorities freed the Thai garment workers in a pre-dawn raid, they were immediately sent to an immigration detention center and forced into orange prison uniforms. Su and her team secured their release after a week.The workers, most of whom were women and undocumented, had been locked up in a factory surrounded by barbed wire, forced to toil from dawn to midnight for less than $1 an hour – some for as long as seven years.The case pushed Congress to pass a landmark anti-trafficking law in 2000, which established a federal taskforce on human trafficking and created a new visa category for victims of crimes who assist law enforcement.“The combination of having been a non-profit attorney representing workers of color in civil rights litigation, then moving into government, is unique among people in higher ranks of government,” said Julia Figueira-McDonough, an attorney who has worked for Su for more than a decade at both Advancing Justice and the California labor commissioner’s office. “She has a level of empathy and compassion that comes from her personal experience.”Over the past three decades, as California’s labor commissioner and labor secretary, Su has spearheaded programs to educate and protect garment workers who still toil in sweatshop conditions.Poo, of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, worked closely with Su while she was the California labor commissioner from 2011 to 2018. She said Su was particularly skilled at bringing together diverse stakeholders, including community organizers, business owners and elected officials, to address issues affecting domestic workers. In 2014, Su launched a sweeping “Wage Theft Is a Crime” campaign to inform low-wage workers of their rights and how to report labor law abuses.The El Monte case played a pivotal role in Su’s career, but it also won her detractors. Some community organizers said Su, and the media, greatly exaggerated her involvement in the seminal 1995 anti-sweatshop movement that catapulted her to fame.“Julie and the Legal Center completely hijacked the case from the Thai community and turned the spotlight on themselves,” said Chanchanit Martorell, founder and executive director of the Thai Community Development Center, one of the social services groups that helped liberate, resettle and obtain redress for the garment workers.In a 2020 letter to Biden opposing Su’s nomination for deputy secretary, Martorell noted that, in contrast with Su’s stated position as “lead attorney”, she played only a “minor role” winning the multimillion-dollar settlement against the clothing manufacturers, nor was she responsible for securing the garment workers’ release from immigration detention. More experienced lawyers bore the brunt of the legal work, including filing briefs, Martorell said, and social services groups attended to the survivors’ housing and basic daily needs.“For the Thai community that stands for social justice,” she said, “we really consider her exploiting the case for her own self-aggrandization as a betrayal.”Stewart Kwoh, then the executive director at the Legal Center (now known as Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California), said that Su and her team put in thousands of hours preparing garment workers for their depositions. He said that Su learned to speak some Thai and kept in touch with the workers long after the case settled. At the same time, he said, the settlement was the result of a multiyear, grassroots effort involving many LA-based lawyers and organizers whose roles were diminished in the news coverage.“In my view, it was a collective victory, but we don’t control the media,” said Kwoh, who worked with Su at Advancing Justice for 17 years. “There were a lot of people who contributed to it, and they should all take credit for the work done.”As the California labor secretary, a post she held from 2019 to 2021, Su expanded apprenticeship programs that trained workers without college degrees and initiatives to curtail wage theft. But she also faced fierce criticism from Republicans for the $30bn in unemployment fraud the state lost during the pandemic, and from business groups for helping craft AB5, a law that required companies to classify some independent contractors as employees.Kent Wong, the director of the UCLA Labor Center who has known Su since the mid-1990s, said the heat she had received for the unemployment fraud scandal is unfair, since it was a result of an overwhelmed, outdated system ill-equipped to handle an avalanche of demands for cash assistance.“It was a problem in the making for decades,” he said. “To hold the last person in charge responsible is wrong.”Meanwhile, Wong said, her stance on policies like AB5 is precisely what makes her such a qualified candidate for labor secretary.“We’ve seen unbridled corporate greed during the pandemic, epitomized by the Silicon Valley Bank scandal,” he said. “To have someone who’s dedicated her life to supporting a living wage and the end of exploitation is a huge breakthrough.”The committee is expected to vote this week on whether to advance Su’s confirmation to a full vote in the Senate. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      UN rebukes Washington over reports it eavesdropped on secretary general

      by

      The United Nations has raised concerns with the United States over reports that it eavesdropped on the private conversations of the UN secretary general, António Guterres, and other senior officials.“We have made it clear that such actions are inconsistent with the obligations of the United States as enumerated in the Charter of the United Nations and the convention on the privileges and immunities of the United Nations,” said a UN spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, on Tuesday.The comments followed a number of articles reporting that leaked Pentagon files appear to show Washington was closely monitoring conversations between the secretary general and his aides.The Washington Post reported this week that the documents included embarrassing allegations that Guterres had expressed frustration with the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and “outrage” when his plans to visit a war-torn region of Ethiopia were rebuffed.It followed a BBC report last week that the US felt Guterres was too sympathetic to Russian interests when he helped broker the Black Sea grain deal amid fears of a global food crisis. According to the broadcaster, one classified Pentagon file indicated that Guterres preferred to preserve the deal even if it meant accommodating Russian interests.The UN’s implied rebuke on Tuesday comes as Washington scrambles to contain the fallout of the worst leaks of US intelligence in at least a decade.The classified reports were part of a trove of hundreds of secret national security documents, published on the online gaming platform, Discord, and revealed secrets about US, allied and Ukrainian military deployments, US penetration of Russian intelligence and military networks, and US intelligence eavesdropping on key allies, including South Korea and Israel.Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old air national guardsman was arrested last week on suspicion of leaking hundreds of secret defence documents and charged under the Espionage Act. In response to the leaks, Pentagon has moved to tighten access to classified information while the Department of Defense reviews its security procedures.According to the BBC, a Pentagon assessment describing private conversations between the UN chief and his deputy, concluded: “Guterres emphasised his efforts to improve Russia’s ability to export,” and that he would do this, “even if that involves sanctioned Russian entities or individuals”.The secretary general’s approach, one document reportedly said, was “undermining broader efforts to hold Moscow accountable for its actions in Ukraine”.The documents viewed by the Post suggest that Guterres was “really pissed off” after an appearance with Zelenskiy in March. During the visit, Guterres was reportedly surprised Ukrainian officials photographed him at a public presentation of medals to uniformed soldiers and later shared the images in a way that suggested Guterres had congratulated Ukrainian military personnel.The secretary general, who has repeatedly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a violation of the UN charter and international law, “emphasized that he made a point of not smiling the entire time”, according to the leaked US assessment.Last week, Dujarric said Guterres was “not surprised” that he was allegedly spied on by the US. “Unfortunately, for various reasons, it allows such private conversations to be distorted and made public.”The US has a long history of eavesdropping on allied leaders, including United Nations officials.The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of dozens of world leaders, including the then German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and UN diplomats, according to revelations made public by the whistleblower Edward Snowden.And in 2003, a secret memo detailed an “aggressive surveillance operation” against UN security council delegations in New York as part of a campaign to win support for going to war against Iraq. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden approves Alaska gas exports as critics condemn another ‘carbon bomb’

      by

      The Biden administration on Thursday approved exports of liquefied natural gas from the Alaska liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, a document showed, prompting criticism from environmental groups over the approval of another “carbon bomb”.The US energy department approved Alaska Gasline Development Corp’s (AGDC) project to export LNG to countries with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement, mainly in Asia. Backers of the roughly $39bn project expect it to be operational by 2030 if it receives the required permits.The project, for which exports were first approved by the administration of Donald Trump, has been strongly opposed by environmental groups.“Joe Biden’s climate presidency is flying off the rails,” said Lukas Ross of Friends of the Earth. Ross pointed out this was the second US approval of a “fossil-fuel mega-project” in as many months.The Biden administration last month approved the ConocoPhillips $7bn Willow oil and gas drilling project on Alaska’s North Slope, prompting criticism of Biden’s record on the climate crisis.Alaska LNG includes a liquefaction facility on the Kenai peninsula in southern Alaska and a proposed 807-mile (1,300-km) pipeline to move gas stranded in northern Alaska across the state.Frank Richards, the president of Alaska-owned AGDC, said the company will review the 51-page decision as it develops the project, which he said will “provide Alaskans and US allies with a significant source of low-emissions, responsibly produced energy consistent with international environmental priorities”.The Biden administration undertook an environmental review of Alaska LNG, concluding it has economic and international security benefits and that opponents had failed to show the exports were not in the “public interest”.The Biden administration modified the previous approval to prohibit venting of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide associated with the project into the atmosphere.Earthjustice, an environmental law firm, said the approval of the project cleared the way for additional lawsuits seeking to stop the project.The Biden administration is trying to approve more US LNG exports as it competes with Russia, traditionally one of the world’s largest energy exporters. Critics say the Ukraine conflict is a “false justification” for a rush to natural gas.An expansion of LNG terminals on the Gulf coast would double or even triple current capacity to deliver natural gas, which a report by Climate Action Tracker researchers said would keep carbon emissions above levels needed for net zero.Russia is under pressure from western sanctions for its invasion of Ukraine, and the US has boosted LNG exports to Europe after Moscow cut gas pipeline shipments to the continent.Reuters contributed to this report More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden administration seeks to expand health coverage to Dreamers

      by

      The Biden administration is seeking to allow immigrants known as Dreamers, who were brought to the US as children by undocumented parents, greater access to health insurance through federal programs, the White House said on Thursday.The proposal would allow participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or Daca, to access to health insurance under Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges, it said.“Healthcare should be a right. I’ve worked hard to get more Americans health insurance than ever before,” Joe Biden said on Twitter, adding the move would give “Dreamers the same opportunities.”The proposed rule comes as efforts to further protect Dreamers stalls in Congress and faces legal challenges. About 580,000 people were enrolled as of last year in the Obama-era 2012 Daca program, which grants protection from deportation and work permits.An expansion would allow Daca recipients to enroll in coverage under the joint federal-state Medicaid program or through private insurers participating in the exchanges established by the 2010 ACA law also passed under Democratic then President Barack Obama and Biden, his vice-president.Eight US states have already expanded state insurance access to health coverage regardless of immigration status, according to data from the healthcare policy organization Kaiser Family Foundation.Biden promised during his 2020 presidential campaign to protect “Dreamers” and their families after Republican then President Donald Trump tried to end Daca. Biden this week said he plans to seek a second four-year term but has not formally announced his re-election bid.The president, in a video, reiterated his call for Congress to establish a pathway to citizenship for Daca recipients, adding: “While we work toward that goal … we need to give Dreamers the opportunities and the support they deserve.”One source familiar with the plan said it could take months or longer to finalize through the federal regulatory process.Democratic representative Pramila Jayapal, chair of the congressional progressive caucus, which last month urged the administration to expand access, called the move “a long overdue step toward immigrant justice”.Republicans, however, have cast doubt on Daca and other immigration reforms.Texas and other US states with Republican attorneys general are challenging the program in court. More

    • 275 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      To protect abortion access, the FDA should decline to enforce a mifepristone ban | David S Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouché

      by

      On Friday, the nation faced dueling decisions from federal judges regarding the first drug in a medication abortion: mifepristone. A judge in Texas ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) likely improperly approved the drug, putting mifepristone’s approval on hold while the case plays out (though this order won’t take effect until late Friday this week). Minutes later, a judge in Washington state ruled that the FDA could not change the status quo regarding mifepristone’s availability.In response to these two cases and two other less-publicized cases involving the FDA and medication abortion, the agency needs to chart a course consistent with its mission to protect patient health and to follow the evidence. As the Biden administration has stated, protecting medication abortion is a public health imperative now that states can ban all abortion outright. If the agency does not respond to these conflicting rulings in a manner tailored to provide the greatest access possible to medication abortion, it will be telling of Biden’s commitment to reproductive justice.Though the case in Texas has garnered enormous attention, it is not the only case thrusting the FDA into the center of the abortion debate. The others have the opposite goal of improving access to the drug. The litigation in Washington state, not widely discussed until Friday, centered around the FDA’s special and onerous regulation of medication abortion. Eighteen state attorneys general sued the FDA arguing that the agency’s overregulation is not justified by the statute or the drug’s safety and must be lifted. If successful on appeal, this would ensure mifepristone is treated like other prescription drugs – prescribed through any provider and accessible at any pharmacy.Plaintiffs in two other cases are pushing even further, trying to use the FDA’s special regulation of mifepristone to argue that a state cannot ban or overregulate the drug. These lawsuits, filed respectively by the generic manufacturer of mifepristone in West Virginia and a physician in North Carolina, might restore access to medication abortion across the country. The plaintiffs argue that federal approval of mifepristone trumps state abortion laws, essentially forcing all states to allow medication abortion as regulated by the FDA.The FDA is caught in the crosshairs. Though the agency prides itself on scientific independence and seeks to avoid the appearance of partisanship, any reaction the agency has to these cases – even a decision not to act – will appear political to one side. Nonetheless, the FDA must push forward to ensure access to this critical drug.Starting with the two cases just decided, the agency can comply with both by announcing that it will exercise enforcement discretion. Enforcement discretion allows the agency to provide safe harbor for technical violations of law. So even if mifepristone becomes an unapproved drug per the Texas order, the agency could announce that it would not pursue action against the entities that market or dispense the drug to maintain the status quo as required by the Washington case.This would not require the agency to “ignore” the Texas order, as some have suggested. Rather, enforcement discretion is a normal part of the FDA’s operation and only relevant if the drug becomes unapproved as ordered. The FDA could exercise this discretion without being ordered to by the Washington court, but the Washington case provides enormous political cover for the agency to use this discretion.Repercussions for patient and public health could result from the FDA failing to clearly exercise its enforcement discretion. Clinicians may turn to a different medication abortion regimen that does not include mifepristone and is outside of current FDA regulation. Though alternative regimens will be vital to maintaining abortion access if mifepristone becomes inaccessible, they are slightly less effective and, more importantly, will upend what has been the uniform, established protocol for a medication abortion in the United States for over two decades. Relatedly, confusion is sure to reign after the Texas decision unless the FDA speaks in a clear and timely voice. Already, certain abortion providers have indicated that they will continue to dispense mifepristone regardless of the order in Texas unless the FDA tells them they cannot.As requested by plaintiffs in the Washington case, the FDA could also start the process to remove the unnecessary barriers to accessing mifepristone, which every relevant medical organization agrees are not medically necessary. These barriers make abortion less accessible without any benefit for patient safety. Though the FDA has repealed parts of these unduly restrictive rules over the last decade, the FDA should abandon the remaining restrictions, which are also contradicted by the best evidence. These policies do not make the agency seem evenhanded; they make it seem unscientific. The agency should not wait for the Washington court to order this – it should start the process now.In the pre-emption cases, the FDA could help the effort to restore access to early abortion in states with abortion bans by embracing the theory that the federal agency’s regulation of medication abortion trumps state law. The Department of Justice has already signaled its agreement, but the FDA has been silent. The FDA has spent decades assessing the risks and benefits of medication abortion, examining and re-examining the evidence even decades after its approval in 2000. States should not be able to override that authority and create a public health crisis by banning a safe and effective medication.The agency, however, has appeared unwilling to remove the remaining unnecessary barriers to mifepristone or support pre-emption at this juncture. Indeed, it has said nothing about pre-emption and is opposing the attorneys general in the Washington case – a fact that may surprise people who think the Biden administration is doing all it can to support abortion access. Given the current public health crisis, the FDA must be bolder in its support of reproductive healthcare.Try as it might, the FDA cannot escape the abortion debate. Instead of trying to play both sides, the agency must act now by following the science and protecting the public’s health to the best of its ability. Protecting access to safe abortion is the way to do that.
      David S Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University, is a co-author of Obstacle Course: The Everyday Struggle to Get an Abortion in America, a board member of the Abortion Care Network and a consulting attorney with the Women’s Law Project
      Greer Donley is a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a board member of the Women’s Law Project
      Rachel Rebouché is the dean of the Temple University Beasley School of Law and a faculty fellow at the Center for Public Health Law Research More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden team to propose strict vehicle pollution limits to boost EV sales

      by

      The Biden administration will propose strict new automobile pollution limits requiring that all-electric vehicles account for as many as two of every three new vehicles sold in the US by 2032 in a plan that would transform the US auto industry.Under the proposed regulation, expected to be released by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday, greenhouse gas emissions for the 2027 through 2032 model years for passenger vehicles would be limited to even stricter levels than the auto industry agreed to in 2021.“This is a massive undertaking,” said John Bozzella, the president of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, told the New York Times, which first reported on the proposed limits. “It is nothing short of a complete transformation of the automotive industrial base and the automotive market.”The auto industry is expected to push back against the plan, which comes nearly two years after carmakers pledged to make electric vehicles comprise half of US new car sales by 2030 as part of a history-making transition from gasoline-powered engines to battery-powered vehicles. Environmental groups have applauded the ambitious limits proposed by the Biden administration.The proposal would require at least 54% of new vehicles sold in the US to be electric by 2030, four percentage points higher than the 2021 goal that the industry previously agreed to, and up to 67% of new vehicles by 2032. The 2021 agreement came after strong pressure from President Biden, who signed an executive order setting a target for half of all new vehicles sold in 2030 to be zero-emissions vehicles.The president also wants automakers to raise gas mileage and cut tailpipe pollution between now and model year 2026, which would be a significant step toward his pledge to cut US planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030.Electric vehicles accounted for only 7.2% of US vehicle sales in the first quarter of the year, but the share of EV sales is on the rise – last year it was 5.8% of new vehicle sales.The EPA declined to offer details ahead of Wednesday’s announcement, but confirmed in a statement that, as directed by Biden’s order, it is “developing new standards that will … accelerate the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future, protecting people and the planet”.The proposed regulation isn’t expected to become final until next year. More