More than 50 officials in President Joe Biden’s administration across a dozen agencies have been involved with efforts to pressure Big Tech companies to crack down on alleged misinformation, according to documents released on Aug. 31.
Senior officials in the U.S. government, including White House lawyer Dana Remus, deputy assistant to the president Rob Flaherty, and onetime White House senior COVID-19 adviser Andy Slavitt, have been in touch with one or more major social media companies to try to get the companies to tighten rules on allegedly false and misleading information on COVID-19, and take action against users who violate the rules, the documents show.
In July 2021, for instance, after Biden said that Facebook was “killing people” by not combating misinformation effectively, an executive at Meta reached out to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, a Biden appointee, to say that government and Meta teams met after the remarks “to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.”
The same executive later wrote to Murthy saying, “I wanted to make sure you saw the steps we took just this past week to adjust policies on what we are removing with respect to misinformation, as well as steps taken to further address the ‘disinfo dozen,’” including removing pages linked to the group.
The White House publicly pressured social media companies to take action against a group that officials dubbed the “disinformation dozen,” which a nonprofit claimed were producing the bulk of “anti-vaccine misinformation” on the platforms. Also in July 2021, Murthy said Facebook hadn’t done enough to combat misinformation.
Flaherty, director of digital strategy for the White House, told Slavitt and others in April 2021 that White House staff would be briefed by Twitter “on vaccine misinfo,” with the meeting including “ways the White House (and our COVID experts) can partner in product work,” according to one of the messages.
In another exchange that year, a Department of Treasury official working on “mis, dis, and mal-information” told Meta workers that the deputy Treasury secretary wanted to talk about “potential influence operations.”
In a text in February 2021, meanwhile, U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Director Jen Easterly wrote to another agency official that she was “trying to get us in a place where Fed can work with platforms to better understand the mis/dis trends so relevant agencies can try to prebunk/debunk as useful.”
The documents were part of a preliminary production in a lawsuit levied against the government by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, later joined by experts maligned by federal officials.
“If there was ever any doubt the federal government was behind censorship of Americans who dared to dissent from official Covid messaging, that doubt has been erased,” Jenin Younes, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance who is representing some of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. “The shocking extent of the government’s involvement in silencing Americans, through coercing social-media companies, has now been revealed.”
‘Censorship Enterprise’
Plaintiffs said the massive pressure campaign amounted to a “Censorship Enterprise” because it involved so many officials and agencies.
Government lawyers only identified 45 officials at five agencies—the Department of Homeland Security, CISA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Murthy’s office—who communicated with social media companies on misinformation, although documents they produced showed others were involved, including officials at the Census Bureau and the Departments of Treasury and State.
Responses from the Big Tech companies also revealed more officials involved with the effort.
Meta has disclosed that at least 32 federal officials, including top officials at the White House and the Food and Drug Administration, were in communication with it about content moderation. Many of the officials weren’t identified in the response by the government.
YouTube disclosed 11 officials not divulged by the government and Twitter identified nine, including senior officials at the State Department.
“The discovery provided so far demonstrates that this Censorship Enterprise is extremely broad,” plaintiffs said, adding later that “it rises to the highest levels of the U.S. Government, including numerous White House officials.”
Additionally, the FBI wasn’t identified even though the agency recently said, after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the bureau reached out before the 2020 election, that it routinely issues communications to social media companies.
To read more and see all of the documents, click here…
JPM: “Clients Will Feel More Comfortable Buying Stocks After We See Panic Selling”
One week ago, as stocks tumbled after the bear-market rally fizzled halted abruptly by the 200dma, even Goldman’s biggest trading desk bull, Scott Rubner, capitulated and responding to client questions whether this is the time to sell, he said yes, and warned that as markets enter September, traditionally the weakest month for stocks, with CTAs turning full-blown sellers (see “Now It Gets Ugly: CTAs Turn Short, Have Over $8BN To Sell This Week“), it’s time to play defense (a call which he has doubled down on in his latest note from Friday which we will discuss shortly and is available to pro subscribers).
But it’s not just Goldman (and Bank of America) that warn there is more pain to come: somewhat shockingly – at least to those who still read and believe the weekly notes from Marko Kolanovic – JPMorgan desk trader Andrew Tyler echoed Goldman’s (and BofA’s) skepticism and on Friday wrote that “after 5, consecutive days of selling, we received a number of questions about whether we had seen panic selling. We have not.”
As Tyler explains (maybe to the likes of Kolanovic who will be shocked that it is possible to work at JPMorgan and to have a bearish view of things) what we are seeing is not a bull market but rather a “multi-quarter bear market”, and one of its hallmarks is that it can be characterized as “orderly selloff”, which is to be expected with hedge fund net leverage still extremely low and far greater than normal bearishness (via puts) than in normal selloffs.
As such, JPMorgan still awaits “one of those ‘flush days’ where you have VIX spike to the 40-50 range, the market falls ~4%, and you begin getting calls from relatives about which assets to sell.”
As Tyler concludes “some clients have mentioned that after they see an event like that, then they would feel more comfortable buying dips.”
California Governor Gavin Newsom has quietly solicited millions of dollars in campaign donations from state vendors, key people, employees, or their affiliated corporate political action committees.
While progressives decry corporate money in politics, Governor Gavin Newsom has embraced the highly unethical practice of soliciting campaign cash from state contractors.
Our auditors at OpenTheBooks.com found 979 state vendors who gave $10,561,828 in political donations to Newsom during his 2010, 2018, recall election, and 2022 election cycles. Meanwhile, these companies reaped $6,201,978,173 in state payments.
These donations represented the equivalent of more than 40-percent of the current cash on hand – $24 million – in the governor’s campaign committee as of 08/01/2022, according to disclosures.
We created an interactive map displaying by ZIP Code all of the governor’s campaign contributions—by name and employer, amount donated, when, and where located – across America. Just click a pin (ZIP Code) and scroll down to see the results that render in the chart beneath the map.
We reached out to Newsom and his press secretary Daniel Lopez requesting comment — giving the governor a chance to defend his fundraising practice. We will update the piece if the Newsom responds on the record.
Since 1940, however, individuals and entities negotiating or working under federal contracts have been prohibited from giving political cash to federal candidates, parties, or committees. In California, however, this political patronage is perfectly legal (at least for now).
Here are some of the companies who gave campaign cash to Gov. Newsom and separately received state payments. In all these examples, the donations came from the organization itself or its executives, employees, subsidiaries, partners, or political action committees during Newsom’s 2010, 2018 and 2022 election cycles.
I. MAJOR HEALTH CARE COMPANIES – Gave $691,615 in campaign donations and received $1.9 billion in state payments.
Anthem Blue Cross (health insurance provider) received $844,875,535 in state payments while donating $69,305 during Newsom’s 2018 and 2022 elections— $40,000 of that was during the 2022 cycle.
UnitedHealth Group (managed health care and insurance provider) received $544,245,717 in state payments while donating $120,900 between the 2018 and 2022 cycles — $62,000 was donated in the 2022 cycle. Even the Chief Compliance Officer Joy Hia donated $500 to the 2022 campaign.
Centene Corporation (Fortune 500 managed care company) and Health Net, LLC, a major subsidiary, which provides health plans for those with Medicare and Medicaid, received $206,155,778 in state payments while donating $242,550. The company itself donated $121,800 while then-CEO Michael Neidorff gave $120,400 between 2018 and 2022. Not included is an additional $120,400 from wife Noemi Neidorff. Michael Neidorff passed away on April 7, 2022.
Kaiser Permanente received $172,217,805 while employees donated $35,910 including the vice president of government relations, Gary Cohen ($5,000 | 2018 election). Blue Shield of California received $74,283,100 in state payments while donating $102,550 including $70,200 from the company and $32,350 from key executives and employees. Masimo Corporation, a health-tech company, received $3,820,654 in state payments and gave $120,400 to Newsom’s 2018 and 2022 races – half of the donations came in 2022.
II.MAJOR UTILITY COMPANIES – Gave $405,601 in campaign donations and received $430,416,420 in state payments
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) based in San Francisco heavily criticized for its role in the California wildfires and recently came out of bankruptcy. The company received $323,777,292 in state payments (FY2021) and gave $123,929 in donations for the 2018 election. These donations included five and six figure gifts from five C-suite execs including CEO Geisha Williams ($10,000). Due to continuing scandals, Newsom stopped taking donations from PG&E after his election in 2018. The company also gave $358,000 between 2011-2018 to Newsom’s wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s charity.
Edison International, with subsidiaries Southern California Edison and consultancy, Edison Energy, LLC, received $100,575,389 in state payments and gave $67,850 in campaign donations through the company, key employees, and staff. Additionally, the company’s trade association, Edison Electric Institute, donated $15,000 to Newsom’s 2018 race.
Calpine Corporation, the largest generator of electricity from natural gas and geothermal sources in the United States with 33 facilities in California received $3,134,154 in state payments and gave $109,822 in campaign donations. CEO Thad Hill gave $10,000 and other top execs gave $12,500 to Newsom.
California Water Service Company (Cal Water) received $2,121,724 in state payments and gave $94,000 between Newsom’s 2018 and 2022 campaigns.
California American Water Company, a subsidiary of American Water – the largest publicly-traded water and wastewater utility in the U.S. – received $807,861 in state payments and gave $10,000 through their employees PAC in the 2018 election. American Water also gave at least $5,000 to the governor’s wife’s charity in 2019.
III. MAJOR TELECOM COMPANIES – Gave $241,959 in campaign donations and received $420.3 million in state payments
AT&T received $260,394,271 in state payments and donated $82,210 to Newsom’s 2018 campaign. Public affairs executive Ken McNeely donated $17,000 between the 2010 and 2018 campaigns and also co-chaired the 2019 Flip The Script Gala for The Representation Project, a non-profit founded by Gavin Newsom’s wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom.
Verizon received $130,184,875 in state payments and donated $46,700 with the majority of the donations ($45,000) through the company itself.
Telrite Holdings (Life Wireless) received $9,102,033 in state payments and donated $10,000 to the 2018 campaign. California operates its LifeLine, the free phone program for low-income residents.
Comcast received $20,627,409 in state payments and donated $103,049. The company itself gave $29,200. Employees gave $73,849 including senior executive vice president David Cohen, based in Philadelphia, who gave $29,200 to the 2018 election. The company also gave at least $15,000 to The Representation Project (Newsom’s wife’s charity).
IV. BIG LAW – top nine firms gave $198,142 in campaign donations and received $28.6 million in state payments
We found nine law firms that reaped $28,615,984 in state payments and gave $198,142 in campaign cash to the governor. These donations came the law firms, principals, partners, key employees, or staff.
Top donors included Nixon Peabody who gave $94,272 and received nearly $2.2 million in payments; Perkins Coie who gave $36,400 and received $1.4 million in payments; and Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe donated $31,710 to Newsom and received $4.3 million in state payments. Others prominent firms backing the governor and receiving millions of dollars in state payments included: Loeb and Loeb ($11,850) and Munger Tolles & Olson ($5,750).
V. BIG BANKS – Gave $186,836 in campaign donations and received $781 million in state payments.
Bank of America received $508,725,231 in state payments while donating $13,026. $10,000 came through their state and federal political action committee in 2018 while $3,026 was donated by employees.
Citigroup received $264,640,535 in state payments while donating $147,050. CEO William Mills donated $24,600 to Newsom’s 2018 race. The Citigroup state political action committee donated $110,600 between the 2018 and 2022 races.
Wells Fargo received $7,578,648 in state payments while donating $26,760 to Newsom’s 2018 race – staff gave $21,760 and the bank’s PAC donated $5,000.
OTHERS
Two railway companies with quasi-marketplace monopolies reaped nearly $47,505,454 in state payments during fiscal year 2021 and gave $112,400 in campaign donations to Newsom since 2010. BNSF Railway Company received $40,411,142 in state payments and gave $26,200 between the 2018 and 2022 campaigns. Union Pacific Railway Company received $7,094,312 in state payments and gave $86,200 in the 2018 and 2022 elections.
Ten California based Native American tribes donated over $841,800 to Newsom’s campaign fund and their benefits are harder to quantify. Although those tribes received $8,753,578 in state payments (FY2021), their casinos are a highly regulated state business (in addition to many other interests before the state).
Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s non-profit loophole
While the governor was soliciting state vendors for campaign donations, Mrs. Newsom, the first partner, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, solicited state vendors for donations to her charity, The Representation Project.
Major corporations with state contracts or business before the state gave the charity five and six figure gifts. The Sacramento Bee and Washington Post previously identified the companies and today we know just how much those corporations reaped in state agency payments. (23 and Me is the only donor that wasn’t on the state vendor list, however, they had an interest in 2021 state legislation regulating the use of consumer genetic data.)
IRS 990 informational returns for The Representation Project show that Siebel-Newsom took $1.5 million in salary from 2013-2021 and another $1.6 million in payments to her private company, Girls Club Entertainment since 2012.
Summary
In all the examples identified above, no quid-pro-quo is alleged or implied; however, the patterns are troubling. In fact, the individual transactions are legal at arm’s length.
But that’s precisely the problem. Politicians preside over, in essence, a legalized money-recycling scheme aimed at monetizing incumbent political power.
Newsom didn’t answer our question as to whether soliciting state contractors for campaign cash was ethical. Meanwhile, California residents are left with skyrocketing taxes and an increasingly bleak future.
We can blame Governor Newsom, but he is just a reflection of today’s broken culture of public service.
Methodology: We matched companies donating to Newsom For California 2010, 2018, 2022, as disclosed by the California State Board of Elections, to state payment transactions from fiscal year 2021– which we compiled through 442 California Public Record Act requests. To the extent that the information contains government errors, our report will reproduce those errors. No quid pro quo or illegal activity by any elected official, company or individual referenced in this piece is implied or intended. Gavin Newsom was elected governor in 2019.
We have requested comment from the governor and The Representation Project, the first partner’s public charity.
In 2019, then-President Donald Trump used a dubious emergency declaration to try to divert funds to build his border wall, despite the fact Congress had repeatedly refused to authorize any such expenditure. As I wrote at the time, Trump’s emergency declaration was bogus because there was no genuine emergency, the relevant statutes didn’t give him the power to transfer military funds even if he could declare an emergency, using eminent domain to build a border wall would cause grave harm to Americans as well as migrants, and Trump’s actions could set a dangerous precedent, if allowed to stand. Liberal Democrats also condemned Trump’s border wall diversion, citing many of these same considerations. Then-candidate Joe Biden was among them.
Unfortunately, President Biden’s recent decision to cancel up to $600 billion in student loan debt for borrowers earning up to $125,000 per year ($250,000 for married couples) has much in common with Trump’s border wall diversion. It too uses a dubious assertion of emergency powers to circumvent Congress’ power of the purse in order to promote a harmful policy the president could not have pushed through otherwise. As Elizabeth Goitein, a leading liberal expert on emergency powers, points out in the Washington Post, in both instances the president was using emergency powers to “to get around Congress, when Congress has considered a course of action and rejected it.”
As policy, Biden’s loan cancellation plan is every bit as dubious as Trump’s border wall. It’s likely be a huge waste of resources at a time when we are already facing a looming fiscal crisis. It is highly regressive (especially, if as progressive Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell points out, you consider beneficiaries’ likely lifetime earnings, as well as their current incomes). Economist Jason Furman, former Chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argues that it will make inflation worse. It also creates perverse incentives for universities and future college students, both of whom will face less pressure to cut already bloated education costs. For these reasons, the left-liberal Washington Post editorial board is right to decry the loan cancellation as a “regressive, expensive mistake.”
Like Trump’s wall-building project, Biden’s loan cancellation plan is a policy beloved by the president’s base, but likely to inflict grave harm on innocent people for no good reason. In one case, the victims are property owners and migrants. In the other, taxpayers and low-income workers hurt by inflation.
Biden has, however, managed to outdo Trump in the sheer scale of his raid on the treasury. Whereas the “former guy” (as Biden calls him) sought to divert about $10 billion in Pentagon and drug interdiction funds to the border wall, Biden’s loan forgiveness plan exceeds that sum many times over, possibly shelling out as much as $600 billion. Biden is making executive usurpation of Congress’ spending power great again – indeed, even greater than under Trump!
Admittedly, Trump’s plan might still have been even worse, if you consider the non-pecuniary costs, such as losses to property owners and migrants, as well as costs to the Treasury and taxpayers. But that’s damning Biden’s plan with very faint praise, indeed.
The legal justification for Biden’s plan also rivals Trump in its bogus reliance on emergency powers. The Justice Department’s legal rationale for the plan relies on a provision of the 2003 HEROES Act, enacted in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, which gives the secretary of education the authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs” in order to ensure that, as a result of a war or national emergency “recipients of student financial assistance under title IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals.”
The statute defines “affected individuals” as anyone who is “(A) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (C) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary.” The administration’s argument is that most beneficiaries of the loan forgiveness plan come under D, in the sense that they have suffered “direct economic hardship” as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the “national emergency” in question.
But, for the overwhelming majority, there is simply no proof that Covid is preventing them from paying back their loans or even making it significantly harder to do so. As the Washington Post points out, the unemployment rate for college graduates is just 2 percent. Only a small minority of loan recipients actually suffered anything like sufficient “economic hardship” as a result of Covid to significantly affect their ability to repay their loans.
The HEROES Act might reasonably be interpreted to allow the administration to reduce the loan burdens of borrowers who suffered prolonged unemployment during the pandemic, or whose ability to work was seriously impaired by getting the disease. But that’s a far cry from giving it the authority to indiscriminately cancel loans for vast numbers of people, most of whom cannot plausibly claim to be unable to pay their loans because of Covid, or even that Covid has made it significantly harder for them to do so.
In reality, the administration’s emergency rationale here is blatantly pretextual, much like Trump’s emergency power rationale for the border wall diversion. Under the guise of addressing the Covid emergency, Biden is seeking to achieve a longstanding left-wing policy goal that he couldn’t push through Congress. Trump tried to do the much the same thing, but for the right-wing objective of building the wall.
Fordham law Professor Jed Shugerman, a progressive sympathetic to Biden’s move on policy grounds, nonetheless takes issue with the emergency power rationale:
As a progressive who was deeply disturbed by the Trump administration’s abuse of power and executive power and invoking emergency powers, like building a wall, it seems too convenient now for progressives to embrace emergency power references by a new president, when we were so troubled a few years ago. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We should be tired of the use of emergency powers.
I am no progressive myself. But I too was “deeply disturbed” by Trump’s border wall diversion (which I forcefully criticized), and I too am “tired of the use of emergency powers.” If we want to prevent Trump – or any future GOP president – from circumventing Congress and raiding the Treasury for partisan purposes, we should not let Biden get away with it, either.
Shugerman points out that the Administration’s ultra-broad interpretation of the power delegated to the executive under the HEROES Act runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on the “major questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to “speak clearly when authorizing an [executive branch] agency to exercise powers of “vast economic and political significance.” If the statute is ambiguous, courts must presume that Congress have not given the agency the power in question.
The Court has recently used the major questions doctrine to strike down dubious Covid-related uses of emergency powers by the Trump and Biden administrations in the CDC eviction moratorium and OSHA vaccine mandate cases. Much the same logic applies here. The authority to cancel hundreds of billions dollars in student loan debt held by people whose claims to be victims of the Covid pandemic are highly tenuous, is pretty obviously a power with “vast economic and political significance.” And, at the very least, it is far from clear that the HEROES Act really gives the executive that power.
Even if the Act were clear on this subject, such broad delegation might violate constitutional nondelegation requirements, which limits Congress’ power to transfer legislative powers to the executive. Several recent decisions, including the vaccine mandate ruling, suggest that the Court may be interested in reviving nondelegation.
Shugerman and others have argued that the Biden administration should instead rely on section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which authorizes the Secretary of Education to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption,” related to loans authorized by the Federal Direct Loan Program. I will take up that argument in a future post.
So far, the administration does not seem to be relying on this sweeping theory – which would give the executive the power to cancel any and all federal student loan debt at any time, even in the absence of a national emergency. But that could change if the loan forgiveness program is challenged in court, and the emergency power rationale starts to look like a loser.
It may be that the loan cancellation plan cannot be challenged in court, because no one will have standing to do so. This issue creates yet another potential parallel with Trump’s border wall funding diversion. The Trump administration also relied on standing and other procedural arguments to try to prevent courts from considering the merits. Perhaps Biden will imitate Trump’s strategy on this point, as well. This is another issue I plan to take up in a future post.
For now, I will end by reiterating Shugerman’s point about the need to curb pretextual abuses of emergency powers. Those who rightly objected when the Republican goose did it, should equally condemn similar behavior by the Democratic gander.
In 2019, then-President Donald Trump used a dubious emergency declaration to try to divert funds to build his border wall, despite the fact Congress had repeatedly refused to authorize any such expenditure. As I wrote at the time, Trump’s emergency declaration was bogus because there was no genuine emergency, the relevant statutes didn’t give him the power to transfer military funds even if he could declare an emergency, using eminent domain to build a border wall would cause grave harm to Americans as well as migrants, and Trump’s actions could set a dangerous precedent, if allowed to stand. Liberal Democrats also condemned Trump’s border wall diversion, citing many of these same considerations. Then-candidate Joe Biden was among them.
Unfortunately, President Biden’s recent decision to forgive up to $600 billion in student loan debt for borrowers earning up to $125,000 per year ($250,000 for married couples) has much in common with Trump’s border wall diversion. It too uses a dubious assertion of emergency powers to circumvent Congress’ power of the purse in order to promote a harmful policy the president could not have pushed through otherwise. As Elizabeth Goitein, a leading liberal expert on emergency powers, points out in the Washington Post, in both instances the president was using emergency powers to “to get around Congress, when Congress has considered a course of action and rejected it.”
As policy, Biden’s loan cancellation plan is every bit as dubious as Trump’s border wall. It’s likely be a huge waste of resources at a time when we are already facing a looming fiscal crisis. It is highly regressive (especially, if as progressive Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell points out, you consider beneficiaries’ likely lifetime earnings, as well as their current incomes). Economist Jason Furman, former Chair of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, argues that it will make inflation worse. It also creates perverse incentives for universities and future college students, both of whom will face less pressure to cut already bloated education costs. For these reasons, the left-liberal Washington Post editorial board is right to decry the loan cancellation as a “regressive, expensive mistake.”
Like Trump’s wall-building project, Biden’s loan cancellation plan is a policy beloved by the president’s base, but likely to inflict grave harm on innocent people for no good reason. In one case, the victims are property owners and migrants. In the other, taxpayers and low-income workers hurt by inflation.
Biden has, however, managed to outdo Trump in the sheer scale of his raid on the treasury. Whereas the “former guy” (as Biden calls him) sought to divert about $10 billion in Pentagon and drug interdiction funds to the border wall, Biden’s loan forgiveness plan exceeds that sum many times over, possibly shelling out as much as $600 billion. Biden is making executive usurpation of Congress’ spending power great again – indeed, even greater than under Trump!
Admittedly, Trump’s plan might still have been even worse, if you consider the non-pecuniary costs, such as losses to property owners and migrants, as well as costs to the Treasury and taxpayers. But that’s damning Biden’s plan with very faint praise, indeed.
The legal justification for Biden’s plan also rivals Trump in its bogus reliance on emergency powers. The Justice Department’s legal rationale for the plan relies on a provision of the 2003 HEROES Act, enacted in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, which gives the secretary of education the authority to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs” in order to ensure that, as a result of a war or national emergency “recipients of student financial assistance under title IV of the Act who are affected individuals are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to that financial assistance because of their status as affected individuals.”
The statute defines “affected individuals” as anyone who is “(A) is serving on active duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (B) is performing qualifying National Guard duty during a war or other military operation or national emergency; (C) resides or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by any Federal, State, or local official in connection with a national emergency; or (D) suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency, as determined by the Secretary.” The administration’s argument is that most beneficiaries of the loan forgiveness plan come under D, in the sense that they have suffered “direct economic hardship” as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the “national emergency” in question.
But, for the overwhelming majority, there is simply no proof that Covid is preventing them from paying back their loans or even making it significantly harder to do so. As the Washington Post points out, the unemployment rate for college graduates is just 2 percent. Only a small minority of loan recipients actually suffered anything like sufficient “economic hardship” as a result of Covid to significantly affect their ability to repay their loans.
The HEROES Act might reasonably be interpreted to allow the administration to reduce the loan burdens of borrowers who suffered prolonged unemployment during the pandemic, or whose ability to work was seriously impaired by getting the disease. But that’s a far cry from giving it the authority to indiscriminately cancel loans for vast numbers of people, most of whom cannot plausibly claim to be unable to pay their loans because of Covid, or even that Covid has made it significantly harder for them to do so.
In reality, the administration’s emergency rationale here is blatantly pretextual, much like Trump’s emergency power rationale for the border wall diversion. Under the guise of addressing the Covid emergency, Biden is seeking to achieve a longstanding left-wing policy goal that he couldn’t push through Congress. Trump tried to do the much the same thing, but for the right-wing objective of building the wall.
Fordham law Professor Jed Shugerman, a progressive sympathetic to Biden’s move on policy grounds, nonetheless takes issue with the emergency power rationale:
As a progressive who was deeply disturbed by the Trump administration’s abuse of power and executive power and invoking emergency powers, like building a wall, it seems too convenient now for progressives to embrace emergency power references by a new president, when we were so troubled a few years ago. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. We should be tired of the use of emergency powers.
I am no progressive myself. But I too was “deeply disturbed” by Trump’s border wall diversion (which I forcefully criticized), and I too am “tired of the use of emergency powers.” If we want to prevent Trump – or any future GOP president – from circumventing Congress and raiding the Treasury for partisan purposes, we should not let Biden get away with it, either.
Shugerman points out that the Administration’s ultra-broad interpretation of the power delegated to the executive under the HEROES Act runs afoul of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on the “major questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to “speak clearly when authorizing an [executive branch] agency to exercise powers of “vast economic and political significance.” If the statute is ambiguous, courts must presume that Congress have not given the agency the power in question.
The Court has recently used the major questions doctrine to strike down dubious Covid-related uses of emergency powers by the Trump and Biden administrations in the CDC eviction moratorium and OSHA vaccine mandate cases. Much the same logic applies here. The authority to cancel hundreds of billions dollars in student loan debt held by people whose claims to be victims of the Covid pandemic are highly tenuous, is pretty obviously a power with “vast economic and political significance.” And, at the very least, it is far from clear that the HEROES Act really gives the executive that power.
Even if the Act were clear on this subject, such broad delegation might violate constitutional nondelegation requirements, which limits Congress’ power to transfer legislative powers to the executive. Several recent decisions, including the vaccine mandate ruling, suggest that the Court may be interested in reviving nondelegation.
Shugerman and others have argued that the Biden administration should instead rely on section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which authorizes the Secretary of Education to “enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption,” related to loans authorized by the Federal Direct Loan Program. I will take up that argument in a future post.
So far, the administration does not seem to be relying on this sweeping theory – which would give the executive the power to cancel any and all federal student loan debt at any time, even in the absence of a national emergency. But that could change if the loan forgiveness program is challenged in court, and the emergency power rationale starts to look like a loser.
It may be that the loan cancellation plan cannot be challenged in court, because no one will have standing to do so. This issue creates yet another potential parallel with Trump’s border wall funding diversion. The Trump administration also relied on standing and other procedural arguments to try to prevent courts from considering the merits. Perhaps Biden will imitate Trump’s strategy on this point, as well. This is another issue I plan to take up in a future post.
For now, I will end by reiterating Shugerman’s point about the need to curb pretextual abuses of emergency powers. Those who rightly objected when the Republican goose did it, should equally condemn similar behavior by the Democratic gander.
A few months ago, I started congratulating winning lawyers in many of the cases I note. I don’t do this because I necessarily agree with the lawyers; I do it because I want to tip my hat to fellow professionals who have successfully served their clients.
Maybe they served the greater good or improvement of the law as I see it, and maybe they didn’t. But their job isn’t to serve humanity or America or justice writ large; it’s to serve their clients, and they succeeded at their job.
I especially feel that because my job is to teach law students, and to teach law students to do a good job for their clients; if some law students read these cases and see me congratulating people with whose positions the students suspect I disagree, all the better. And to the extent it’s pleasant for people to see their names in e-print, well, I’m happy to give them such pleasure, which I think they’ve earned through their efforts (again, regardless of whether I agree with them).
Now sometimes I won’t congratulate the winning lawyers, for instance because I don’t have the time to look up the details, or because I forget, or because the result is complex enough that I’m not sure it’s quite a victory. And perhaps there might be a position that’s so remarkably odious that I can’t bring myself to congratulate someone who successfully litigated it (though I don’t recall this ever happening since I started the practice I’m discussing here). But my general plan here is to acknowledge the professional successes of my fellow lawyers regardless of my views on their position.
(Note that some of this is a bit of an oversimplification; for instance, prosecutors’ job is to serve their clients—the public—by seeing justice done, not just by securing convictions, though presumably prosecutors who do win a case generally believe that they were indeed properly serving the public, whether or not I agree. But it’s still a pretty good general guide to my thinking on the matter.)
Elite NYC Private School Director On Leave After Admitting To ‘Sneaking’ Political Agenda Into Classrooms
Jennifer “Ginn” Norris, director of student activities at the Trinity School – who was placed on leave following the Project Veritas report – told the undercover news organization that she and other teachers had been turning the $60,000 per year Upper West Side school into a place “where conservatives would not feel comfortable.”
An administrator from a Manhattan private school admitted on undercover video that she hates “horrible” white students who have been pushing back against the far-left ideology she abuses her position to promote.
“There’s always groups of teachers who want to do these [activist] things but the administration just wouldn’t let us,” said Norris. “So, we’ve been just sneaking things in [through] the cracks.”
Norris also said that with a new progressive administration in place, she no longer “felt like a double agent,” and could freely promote her political views.
“I don’t hide how I feel, but I can’t pretend I’m [not] promoting an agenda even though I clearly am with all the stuff I’m doing,” she said.
In her role, Norris has the opportunity to bring in guest speakers twice a week. She said that while she allowed students to vote on which speaker would come to campus, she made sure to not put any Republican or conservative voice “on the plate” for them to consider.
“So, you guys wouldn’t let Republican perspectives on campus?” the undercover journalist asked.
“I won’t,” Norris replied.
“I’m in charge as far as [the administration] are concerned,” she added. “So, if they want to [bring Republican speakers], then somebody else has to do it. Because—not on my watch, I guess.”
In another exchange, Norris told the journalist that students at her school are encouraged to attend left-wing demonstrations, particularly those that are anti-Trump, anti-gun, and pro-abortion.
“They went to the women’s rights marches after Trump. They went to all the gun ones, the March For Our Lives,” Norris said, noting that students still have to serve detention for missing classes, but teachers will “talk about social justice” with them during those hours.
“So it’s like the punishment of detention, but it’s not punishment at all,” she said.
At one point in the conversation, Norris suggested she has problems with white male students who dare to disagree with them.
“Unfortunately, it’s the white boys who feel very entitled to express their opposite opinions and just push back,” Norris said. “There’s a huge contingent of them that are just horrible.”
When asked about what she thinks of “Republican white guys,” she replied that she thinks they’re “really awful people” who “need to go.”
“They’re so protected by capitalism. It makes me sad.” she said. “I think they’re really awful people. That’s kind of what I’m afraid of with my white students that are rich.”
This video is the latest episode of Project Veritas’ four-part series “The Secret Curriculum,” which exposes efforts to indoctrinate children with socialist ideology. It is unclear where or when the footage was taken, but the dates on the clip reads June 12 and 15.
Eric Trump, the second son of President Donald Trump, shared the video on Twitter, saying he feels sad to see this as a former Trinity student.
“I went to Trinity in the early 90’s,” he wrote. “The school was fantastic. It is so sad to see this nonsense… It is truly a disgrace to some of the amazing teachers I once had.”
Trinity’s principal Stephen Kolman and Norris couldn’t be immediately reached for comment regarding the content of the video.
FBI agents seized over 11,000 documents and photographs without classified markings from the home of former President Donald Trump, according to an inventory released on Sept. 2.
Agents during the Aug. 8 raid at Mar-a-Lago seized 11,179 materials that were not marked classified, the inventory says.
They also took 103 documents marked classified, including some marked top secret.
The warrant, approved by U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart days earlier, enabled agents to seize any documents with classification markings, as well as containers in which the documents were located and any containers stored or found together with the documents.
It also let agents seize information regarding the retrieval, storage, or transmission of national defense information or classified material; any government and/or presidential records created between Jan. 20, 2017, and Jan. 20, 2021; and any evidence “of the knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of any government and/or Presidential Records, or of any documents with classification markings.”
A property receipt, or inventory list, was given to a Trump lawyer as agents left, but the more detailed inventory list was submitted to a federal court on Friday on the orders of a judge.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, is considering whether to appoint a special master to review the materials the government seized and separate out those that may be privileged.
The more detailed receipt also shows that the government seized 1,673 magazines/newspapers/press articles and other printed media, some dating back to 2008; 48 empty folders with classified banners; 42 empty folders labeled “return to staff secretary/military aide”; 19 articles of clothing/gift items; and 33 books.
The original inventory listed no gifts or clothing, no folders, and no books.
It primarily listed boxes of items, miscellaneous documents, some classified, and binders of photographs.
The government later acknowledged that it seized three passports from Trump that have since been returned.
Spokesman Responds
Taylor Budowich, a Trump spokesman, said the new list “only further proves that this unprecedented and unnecessary raid of President Trump’s home was not some surgical, confined search and retrieval that the Biden administration claims, it was a SMASH AND GRAB.”
“These document disputes should be resolved under the Presidential Records Act, which requires cooperation and negotiation by NARA, not an armed FBI raid,” he added.
The investigation started after a referral from the National Archives and Records Administration.
The agency received boxes of documents from Mar-a-Lago in January and identified some with classified markings. Officials notified the Department of Justice, which later gained access to the materials and confirmed the markings.
Insiders Are Dumping Stocks At The Fastest Pace In Months
Having aggressively bought the f**king dip off the March 2020 lows, supported a tsunami of free money spewing forth from every government orifice, it appears that ‘insiders’ have little interest in catching the falling knife now that The Fed has turned its back.
As Bloomberg reports, corporate insiders dumped their own shares aggressively in August, with some 2,150 executives hitting the sell button, the most since November 2021 on a net basis.
“It’s yet another signpost, another signal that there is a high degree of uncertainty around the future,” Quincy Krosby, LPL Financial’s chief global strategist, said by phone.
“The view is that, with regards to both selling and buying, corporate insiders know what they’re doing. It adds to this general sense of uncertainty that’s already out there.”
The surge in insider-selling matches the slumping sentiment toward third-quarter operating margins, with expectations falling to 16.08% from 16.87% over the past eight weeks, data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence show.
“A tremendous amount of weakness was clearly anticipated ahead of summer’s earnings, but even more is expected, given the pace of negative revisions picked up as the breadth of weakness spread beyond growth in recent weeks to include value stocks,” Gina Martin Adams, chief US equity strategist at Bloomberg Intelligence, said in a note.
And don’t forget, it’s that time of the month again…
Finally, we note that it wasn’t just ‘insiders’, global equity funds had outflows of $9.4 billion in the week to Aug. 31, the fourth-largest redemptions this year, according to EPFR Global data cited by BofA. US equities had the biggest exodus in 10 weeks, while $4.2 billion left global bond funds.
A few months ago, I started congratulating winning lawyers in many of the cases I note. I don’t do this because I necessarily agree with the lawyers; I do it because I want to tip my hat to fellow professionals who have successfully served their clients.
Maybe they served the greater good or improvement of the law as I see it, and maybe they didn’t. But their job isn’t to serve humanity or America or justice writ large; it’s to serve their clients, and they succeeded at their job.
I especially feel that because my job is to teach law students, and to teach law students to do a good job for their clients; if some law students read these cases and see me congratulating people with whose positions the students suspect I disagree, all the better. And to the extent it’s pleasant for people to see their names in e-print, well, I’m happy to give them such pleasure, which I think they’ve earned through their efforts (again, regardless of whether I agree with them).
Now sometimes I won’t congratulate the winning lawyers, for instance because I don’t have the time to look up the details, or because I forget, or because the result is complex enough that I’m not sure it’s quite a victory. And perhaps there might be a position that’s so remarkably odious that I can’t bring myself to congratulate someone who successfully litigated it (though I don’t recall this ever happening since I started the practice I’m discussing here). But my general plan here is to acknowledge the professional successes of my fellow lawyers regardless of my views on their position.
(Note that some of this is a bit of an oversimplification; for instance, prosecutors’ job is to serve their clients—the public—by seeing justice done, not just by securing convictions, though presumably prosecutors who do win a case generally believe that they were indeed properly serving the public, whether or not I agree. But it’s still a pretty good general guide to my thinking on the matter.)
