ACE

Tag: Donald Trump

  • Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    Understanding Title 42: The Intersection of Public Health and Immigration

    What is Title 42?

    Title 42, established under the Public Health Service Act of 1944, grants the U.S. government authority to expel individuals recently present in a country with a communicable disease. Section 362 of the act allows the Surgeon General to halt the “introduction of persons or property” to prevent the spread of disease. While rarely used in modern history, Title 42 became a key immigration enforcement tool during the first Trump administration.

    The first recorded use of Title 42 occurred in 1929 to restrict entry from China and the Philippines during a meningitis outbreak. Decades later, on March 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked the policy to limit the spread of COVID-19 across state and national borders.

    Implementation and Impact

    During the first two years of its enforcement, Title 42 was used around 2.5 million times to deport migrants entering the U.S. It gave border control agents the authority to expel migrants without offering the opportunity for them to seek asylum, although families and children traveling alone were exempt from this provision. Beginning in January 2023, migrants coming from Mexico could request a Title 42 exemption through the CBP One app if they met vulnerability criteria.  

    In April 2022, the CDC announced that Title 42 was no longer necessary and would be terminated in May 2022, citing increased vaccination rates and improved treatments for COVID-19. However, several Republican-led states challenged this decision, and the case went to the Supreme Court. While the Court allowed continued enforcement of Title 42 before it heard arguments, it dismissed the case the following year. Title 42 expired in May 2023.

    Arguments in Favor of Title 42

    Supporters of Title 42, including the Trump administration, argued that the policy was necessary to limit the spread of COVID-19 in detention centers and, by extension, within the United States. In a 2020 briefing, President Trump stated that his actions to secure the northern and southern border under Title 42 would “save countless lives.” The Trump administration’s declaration of a COVID-19 national emergency on March 18th, 2020, framed stricter immigration policy as a matter of public health.

    Some states also supported Title 42 to prevent a surge in migration that could overwhelm their border facilities. Texas, for example, argued that lifting the policy would place an undue burden on the state, leading it to implement Operation Lone Star, which allocated state resources to border security.

    The policy also received occasional bipartisan support, and was willfully enforced by the Biden administration until the CDC attempted to terminate Title 42 in April 2022. In early 2022, at least nine Democrats argued that Title 42 should be extended. President Biden also debated whether or not the policy should end. In January 2023, he expanded the scope of Title 42 to include migrants originating from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Venezuela. 

    Arguments Against Title 42

    Critics of Title 42 argue that it violates international norms, particularly Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right to seek asylum. While the U.S. did not ratify the declaration, it played a key role in its creation and remains a signatory. Additionally, since 1980, U.S. law has recognized the right to seek asylum, rendering Title 42’s restrictions controversial in the context of global and domestic asylum norms.

    Public health experts also questioned the policy’s effectiveness in controlling COVID-19. There is no statistical evidence linking Title 42 expulsions to a reduction in COVID-19 cases. Instead, critics suggest that overcrowding in detention centers may have worsened public health conditions. One migrant described being held in “crowded conditions” for days without COVID-19 testing before being transported in similarly congested vehicles. Additionally, a senior advisor to the Trump administration pushed for the use of Title 42 before COVID-19, raising concerns about whether the policy was implemented for genuine public health reasons. 

    Opponents also contend that Title 42 subjected migrants to precarious conditions. Doctors Without Borders emphasized that mass expulsions left individuals without access to shelter, food, medical care, or legal representation. A fire in a migrant detention center, which killed 39 people, underscored these risks; surveillance footage showed detainees trapped in locked cells while guards failed to intervene. Critics also argue that the policy’s implementation often resulted in asylum seekers being detained in poor conditions and returned to the dangers they had fled.

    Future Prospects

    While Title 42 was invoked as a measure to protect public health, its effectiveness in achieving those goals remains debated. Proponents argue it was an effective solution that addressed co-occurring public health and immigration crises, while opponents argue it invited human rights violations and had a counterproductive impact on public health. Internal documents collected from the Trump administration in February 2025 suggest that President Trump aims to reinstate Title 42 policies, labeling unauthorized migrants as “public health risks” that “could spread communicable diseases like tuberculosis.” The Trump administration previously shut down the CBP One app, which assisted migrants in requesting Title 42 exemptions. The policy continues to evoke mixed reactions, and if reintroduced, past experiences may provide insights into its potential impact.

  • Journalist Accidentally Added to Military Planning Chat: What You Need to Know

    Journalist Accidentally Added to Military Planning Chat: What You Need to Know

    On March 13, The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently added to a Signal group chat that included senior Trump administration officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The group chat—titled “Houthi PC small group”—contained sensitive information about U.S. military operations. Two days after Goldberg was added to the chat, Hegseth sent details about upcoming airstrikes on Yemen, including specifics about weapon type, timing, and human targets. About two hours after Hegseth’s chat, the first of the air strikes began to fall on Yemen, killing at least 53 people. 

    After the strikes were confirmed, Goldberg determined that the group chat was legitimate. He subsequently left the chat due to concern about the highly classified nature of the information being shared. Goldberg noted that the members of the group chat did not seem to notice that he had been added to the group chat or that he had left, despite the group’s creator being notified of Goldberg’s departure.

    Concerns and Controversy

    The existence of the group chat has raised concerns regarding national security and potential violations of federal law. National security and legal experts say that Michael Waltz, Trump’s national security advisor, may have breached the Espionage Act by creating the Signal group chat and communicating classified war planning information. The Espionage Act prohibits unauthorized access to or distribution of sensitive national defense information.

    While Signal is commonly used by government officials for logistical coordination, it is generally not employed for classified military communications. Instead, the federal government maintains secure communication channels specifically for such discussions. Experts warn that classified messages on Signal could be vulnerable to leaks in the event of a cybersecurity breach or the theft of an official’s device.

    ​​Beyond security risks, the use of disappearing messages in discussions of official acts raises concerns about compliance with federal records retention laws. Under these laws, official communications related to government actions must be preserved as part of the public record. Some messages in the Signal chat, however, were reportedly set to be automatically deleted after a few weeks.

    Trump Administration Response 

    The Trump administration has denied that the group chat contained classified information or “war plans.” White House Press Secretary Katherine Levitt dismissed Goldberg’s report as a “hoax written by a Trump-hater.” When asked about the leak on March 24, President Trump denied knowledge of the situation and downplayed the controversy, stating that The Atlantic was “not much of a magazine.”

    Officials in the administration have continued to assert that the group chat did not involve sensitive military details. Hegseth maintained that “nobody was texting war plans,” while Waltz took responsibility for accidentally adding Goldberg to the group chat, stating that the journalist’s number was listed under someone else’s name.

    Full Transcript Released

    In response to the Trump administration’s denial, The Atlantic published the full transcript of Hegseth’s attack plans on Yemen. These texts include information such as the types of aircraft being used in the strike and the timing of the strikes. In response to the release of the full transcript, the Trump administration and senior officials such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio have maintained that no classified information was leaked, nor would the leaked information have “put in danger anyone’s life or the mission.”

  • English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

    English as the New Standard: Understanding Language Policies Under Trump

    English as the Official Language of the U.S.

    On March 1st, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order declaring English as the official language of the United States. This marks the first time the country has ever designated an official language in its nearly 250-year history. Currently, thirty states have already established English as their official language, with Alaska and Hawaii recognizing several native languages as official state languages in addition to English.

    Generally, an official language is the language used by the government to conduct its day-to-day operations. President Trump’s order rescinds a policy established during the Clinton administration that required federal departments and organizations with federal funding to provide “extensive language assistance to non-English speakers.” However, it allows such agencies to keep their current language policies if they choose. In line with the order’s principles, Trump removed the Spanish-language version of the White House website within his first few days in office. 

    Public Response

    The order drew criticism from human rights organizations, who argue that it harms immigrant communities and those seeking to learn English by reducing access to language assistance. Others stress that the order will make it more difficult for non-English speakers to access governmental services such as voting, healthcare, or English as a Second Language (ESL) education programs. Since the executive order could cause a considerable population of U.S. residents to lose access to these government programs, some have labeled it “a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate against immigrants.” 

    Immigration advocacy organizations have also emphasized the order’s potential impacts on the citizenship application process. Currently, applicants can complete the citizenship test and interview in their native language if they meet certain age and residency criteria. If the Trump administration expands the English-only standard to the citizenship application process, advocates fear several residents who completed a years-long application process would be disqualified from citizenship on the basis of their native language. 

    On the other hand, some argue the order has more benefits than drawbacks. In the text of his executive order, Trump argues that an official language will “create a more cohesive and efficient society,” suggesting that eliminating ESL requirements will push non-English speakers to improve their English language skills. ProEnglish, an advocacy organization that aims to codify English as the official language of all U.S. states and territories, argues that conducting government business in languages other than English creates “cultural-linguistic segregation” that disrupts “the ideal of the melting pot”. 

    Other supporters argue that the executive order was the common-sense culmination of a decades-long effort. Vice President J.D. Vance introduced a bill to codify English as the official language of the U.S. in 2023, stating, “This commonsense legislation recognizes an inherent truth: English is the language of this country.”

    While the order does not require federal agencies and their beneficiaries to halt ESL programs and accommodations, the impacts of the order on non-English-speaking communities are likely to become clear in the coming months.

  • What is the Department of Government Efficiency? 

    What is the Department of Government Efficiency? 

    President-Elect Donald Trump recently began announcing his presidential cabinet nominations, tapping Congresspeople, former Republican presidential nominees, and close allies. As the leader of the executive branch, the President must appoint about 4,000 officials, including the members of his cabinet, who serve as heads of executive departments. Some cabinet positions, including UN Ambassador, require confirmation by the Senate and typically involve confirmation hearings. In the midst of his cabinet nominations, Trump introduced an idea for a new executive department that has caused debates about executive power. 

    The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

    On Tuesday, November 12th, 2024, Trump announced that he would be creating a new executive department, the Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire businessmen Elon Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he is creating the new department to “dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies.” Also known as DOGE, the department aims to provide “outside guidance” to the government and foster “an entrepreneurial approach” to government spending. The department is slated to last until July 4th, 2026, giving it a deadline to accomplish its objective of cutting government spending. It is still unclear as to how the department will officially be created or funded, as creating new federal departments requires congressional approval. If Congress does not move forward with establishing DOGE, Musk and Ramaswamy may act as advisors to the President rather than as leaders of an official executive department.  

    Who are the proposed heads of the Department of Government Efficiency?

    • Elon Musk: Musk is a businessman worth over 303 billion dollars and the co-founder of over seven companies, some of the most notable being Tesla and SpaceX. Throughout Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, Musk has been a staunch supporter, attending rallies, giving at least $130 million in campaign donations, and hosting a $1 million raffle in the swing state of Pennsylvania for those who registered to vote. At Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in October, Musk stated that he wanted to reduce the federal budget by “at least $2 trillion,” about 30% of the federal government’s total fiscal spending in 2024. 
    • Vivek Ramaswamy: Ramaswamy made political news in early 2023 when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination. His policy positions included militarizing the southern border, ending the funding of sanctuary cities, diversifying healthcare insurance options, abolishing the Department of Education, and increasing the voting age to 25. Ramaswamy founded Roivant Sciences, a biotech company focused on applying technology to drug development. He previously signaled support for cutting government spending when he announced his plans to cut the number of federal workers through “reduction of force” regulations when he was campaigning for president in 2023.

    Your opinion matters! Click Here to let us know how you feel about the issues discussed in this brief!

  • Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Protecting Our Democracy Act: Weighing the Pros and Cons

    Background

    The Protecting Our Democracy Act (PODA) is a bill under consideration in Congress that aims to protect the integrity of the democratic process. The bill was originally passed in the House in 2021. It was received in the Senate in late 2021, where it failed to pass due to the use of a filibuster. It was reintroduced to the House in 2023, where it remains.

    PODA’s provisions center around three main goals:

    • Shifting power from the executive to the legislative branch: PODA would limit presidential powers, reassert Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending decisions, and require congressional approval of presidential emergency declarations. PODA would also codify Congress’s subpoena and investigatory power, giving the legislative branch greater oversight of the executive branch.
    • Preventing corruption: PODA would require greater presidential transparency, enact new protections for both inspectors general and whistleblowers, and codify the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses, which prevent government officials from receiving profits from foreign officials or states. It would also reinforce the Hatch Act of 1939, which limits the political activities of federal employees and other government officials involved with federally-funded programs.
    • Strengthening election integrity laws: PODA also prohibits foreign election assistance in the form of donations and would require greater transparency in digital political advertisements.

    Arguments in Favor of the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    One of the main arguments in support of PODA is that gradual institutional decay has undermined congressional authority. PODA’s proponents point to resistance to congressional oversight by former Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama as evidence of this phenomenon. They argue that the recent growth of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch can be mitigated through PODA’s provisions, which give Congress clear authority to enforce subpoenas, reassert congressional power over federal spending, and restrict a president’s use of emergency declarations. Proponents believe that this would effectively reform the balance of power between the two branches and restore the democratic process to the federal government.

    PODA’s supporters also emphasize a need for greater defenses against corruption and abuses of power. They point to the Trump administration’s refusal to disclose tax returns, dismissals of inspectors general, and issuance of pardons for corruption charges against close associates as evidence of the need for greater oversight of the executive branch. They believe that reinforcing the Hatch Act would keep federal programs fair and non-partisan, reduce corruption, and prevent political patronage. Supporters also believe that government whistleblowers need greater protections. A poll conducted by Marist in 2020 found that 86% of American voters agree that there should be more legal protections for federal employees who report fraud. Whistleblower protections are also popular across party lines. Supporters of PODA believe that the bill would provide these popular protections by granting whistleblowers increased anonymity and a private right of action if outed by other government officials.

    Finally, proponents of PODA argue that the bill will prevent foreign interference in elections. The federal ban against foreign interference in national elections has not been updated since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision, which allowed corporations and other organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns and elections. PODA’s supporters believe that this outdated policy has allowed foreign interests to fund campaigns, pay for digital advertising, and conduct social media campaigns freely, potentially spending almost $1 billion total on U.S. elections in the past decade. If passed, the bill intends to decrease foreign influence by explicitly banning foreign assistance in elections and requiring political groups to report all attempts by foreign actors to influence campaigns or elections.

    Arguments Against the Protecting Our Democracy Act

    The main argument against PODA is that the bill interferes with the separation of power between the three branches of government. Opponents of PODA argue that its provisions diminish the executive branch by requiring congressional oversight of the presidential pardon, a constitutionally-granted presidential power. Critics also believe that PODA would diminish the judicial branch by attaching new definitions to constitutional language that courts have already ruled upon, overriding court decisions and further upsetting the balance of power. Specifically, they point to PODA’s new definition of emoluments, which expands the definition to include payments arising from commercial transactions at fair market value. In light of this, opponents believe that PODA’s passage would upset the American political system of checks and balances by tipping the scales too far in the direction of the legislative branch.

    Opponents of PODA also point to the bill’s protections for whistleblowers and inspectors general as a key reason to oppose the proposal. They believe that the increased protections and anonymity for whistleblowers make it difficult for the federal government to vet claims, shielding poorly-performing employees from scrutiny. They also believe that requiring congressional oversight for firing Inspectors General decreases government efficiency and intrudes on internal operations.

    Critics also believe that PODA is politically-motivated. They argue that the bill specifically targets former President Trump and his administration’s actions. As such, they believe that PODA’s proponents only support it with the intent of politically damaging Trump and that the bill’s provisions are unnecessary.

    Conclusion

    In summary, PODA supporters argue that the bill would restore congressional authority, defend against government corruption and abuses of power, and prevent foreign interference in elections. Critics argue that PODA is a politically-motivated bill that would interfere with the constitutional separation of powers, make it difficult to vet whistleblower claims, and decrease the efficiency of the federal government. 
    After its introduction to the Senate in December 2021, PODA entered committee, where it has remained for the last three years. Even with its recent reintroduction to the House, it is unlikely to pass the Senate in its entirety unless the filibuster is abolished.