ReportWire

Tag: civil-rights law

  • The Trump Admin Appointees Who Love Buchanan and Bukele

    [ad_1]

    DURING THE BIDEN PRESIDENCY, Paul Dans—director of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation–spearheaded plan for the next conservative administration—started on a lesser-known facet of the controversial program. In order to carry out Project 2025’s extensive policy framework for reconfiguring the federal government, Dans began mocking up a personnel database, one he reportedly envisioned as a “conservative LinkedIn” that would provide the next Republican occupant of the White House with thousands of appointment-ready, MAGA-devoted job candidates to fill out the political workforce. To test the ideological mettle of those who wanted to be included in the database, Dans required applicants to fill out a questionnaire that asked for specifics on their political beliefs and the names of public figures they most admired.

    In June, more than 13,000 responses to that survey were obtained and published by Distributed Denial of Secrets, a nonprofit online library of “leaked and hacked datasets.” The responses show that the men and women who bought into the Project 2025 pitch frequently professed extreme beliefs and questionable political affinities, including support for authoritarian leaders abroad, deep respect for racialist thinkers, and severe condemnations of U.S. civil rights law. And in the months since Donald Trump returned to the White House, many of these MAGA hopefuls have taken up positions in the federal government and are implementing the administration’s policies.

    In reviewing the leaked materials, I have identified a number of deeply concerning questionnaire responses that can be connected to people who now hold positions of influence as newly minted assistant secretaries, senior advisers, and policy analysts across the federal government. Such responses offered praise for extremists and authoritarians popular among the new right, including El Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, and American right-wing thinker Pat Buchanan, and reflected beliefs that might call into question the applicants suitability for government employment. For instance, the man now responsible for running the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights seems to have attacked the “civil rights state,” and many respondents railed against the country’s changing demographics.

    The acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, Dillon McGregor, apparently effusively praised El Salvador’s authoritarian president in one survey response that was included in the leaked database and contained personal information matching McGregor. Nayib Bukele “has imposed his will in defense of the rights of his people, against widespread domestic tyranny and corruption which masqueraded as democracy,” one of the answers states. It then condemned American institutions and implied that the United States needs its own Bukele:

    We are in a similar situation in the US, where the very “democratic” institutions of our republic serve almost solely to undermine the lives of our people and their futures, the integrity of our economy and standing aboard, bleeding our nation dry and poisoning what little blood we have left.

    First elected president of El Salvador in 2019, Bukele has overseen the repeal of the country’s presidential term limits and the erosion of civil liberties, all of which he has justified through the unilateral imposition of an indefinite “state of emergency” that began in 2022. Bukele has also been a close collaborator of President Trump, agreeing to hold in the megaprison he built, CECOT, people deported by the administration—including the illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Another detainee, Andry Hernández Romero, a gay hairstylist, reported after being released from CECOT that he was beaten and sexually abused by guards during his incarceration; he described the facility as “hell on earth.” McGregor did not respond to my requests for comment on his apparent praise of Bukele.

    Another questionnaire response listed “the civil rights state” as the public policy issue he was most passionate about in his Project 2025 questionnaire response. This author of this response gave the name Craig Trainor—which is the name of the individual who is now the acting assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education, where in February he authored an especially strident “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges and universities, threatening their federal funding if they ran afoul of the current administration’s interpretation of civil rights law. Trainor also did not respond to my requests for comment, but the personal identifying information in the unredacted version of the database provided to me by DDoSecrets matched his own. The full response maintains that “the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its subsequent innovations has become, what the late Angelo Codevilla called, ‘the little law that ate the Constitution.’” Institutional fruits of the Civil Rights Act, it asserts, “are antithetical to the American founding, its Christian moral foundation and traditions, the Constitution, and a free and well-ordered society.”1

    Support our independent political journalism by signing up for a free or paid Bulwark subscription.


    THE LEAKED DATABASE also connected the names of several current employees at the Office of Personnel Management to politically extreme statements. That office, which functions as a sort of HR department in most administrations, has, in the Trump administration, been the hub of efforts to make it possible to remove civil servants on political grounds, a policy usually referred to as “Schedule F” reclassification. A representative of OPM declined to comment when I asked if the responses represented OPM culture or reflected ongoing discussions within the agency.

    Let’s look at a few of the responses apparently tied to OPM personnel.

    Noah Peters is a DOGE agent who now works as an OPM senior adviser. Questionnaire responses tied to that name praise both Bukele and preeminent paleoconservative Pat Buchanan.2 In particular, Buchanan is put forward as the “one person, past or present,” most responsible for the respondent’s political philosophy, while Bukele is identified as “one living public policy figure” admired by the respondent. “I greatly admire Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador,” the answer states. “He has done what was thought impossible: successfully curb criminal gang violence in Central America. In doing so, he has given back freedom to his citizens– freedom to walk the streets without fear.” Peters did not respond to my requests for comment.

    According to reporting by the New York Times, Peters was already being considered for a position in the Department of Labor as part of Project 2025 two years ago. In January of this year, 404 Media determined Peters was the likely author of at least one early OPM memo trying to make it easier to fire civil servants and replace them with dedicated partisans.

    Christopher Smith was a policy adviser with OPM until August, according to government monitoring company LegiStorm. A questionnaire answer given under that name and with corresponding personal information also emphasized Buchanan’s influence and specifically praised Buchanan’s 2001 book The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization as “a biting commentary on the importance of establishing, maintaining, and cherishing national identity.” The respondent credits the book with making him “place a great deal of emphasis on community, shared values, and common history- all of which are rebutted by the modern orthodoxy of multiculturalism, open borders, and a million iterations of America as an ‘idea’ rather than a nation.” Smith declined to comment when contacted.

    Brandon Mayhew has, since May, been a senior adviser at OPM. A set of questionnaire responses submitted under that name argued that authoritarian Viktor Orbán’s regime in Hungary ought to serve as a model for the United States. “I think [Orbán] has the right idea of fusing faith, family, and nationhood to create a very poignant political blend,” said one answer. “This is a political blend that promote [sic] the longevity and security of Hungary as a nation and state (something that can certainly not be said for many western European states who are self-immolating). I think Orban’s simple method is something we should be importing en masse in our own political order.” Mayhew also did not respond to my questions.

    Megan “Meg” Kilgannon, formerly of the right-wing Family Research Council, is now director of strategic partnerships for the Department of Education. Questionnaire answers tied to that name might serve as a synecdoche of the extremism now deemed acceptable for political appointees. Kilgannon declined to comment when reached by phone, but the personal information included in the unredacted version of the database provided to me by DDoSecrets matched hers. The Department of Education did not respond to emails requesting comment on Kilgannon’s apparent responses.

    The answers under Kilgannon’s name heap praise on far-right intellectuals Buchanan and Sam Francis. “The writing and philosophies of Pat Buchanan and Sam Francis have been foundational in my political formation,” one answer reads. “Over the years they are proven right again and again.” Another answer praising one of Buchanan’s books emphasizes that “demographics are drivers of social change, in both positive and negative ways.”

    Kilgannon is just one of many people currently serving in the executive branch who appear to have cited Buchanan as a key influence. But she was the only one I saw who also apparently cited the late Sam Francis, a close friend of Buchanan’s and a major figure on the hard right. In 1995, Francis was let go by the conservative Washington Times, where he had been a columnist, after fellow right-wing provocateur Dinesh D’Souza drew attention to racist comments he’d made at an Atlanta convention. Francis had declared white people needed to “reassert our identity and our solidarity, and we must do so in explicitly racial terms through the articulation of a racial consciousness as whites,” a belief he would continue to espouse until his death a decade later.

    Because of their openly racialist views, Francis and Buchanan over the years were increasingly deemed verboten by the conservative mainstream. In 1992, National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. wrote that Buchanan was “politically,” if not personally, antisemitic. A few years later, Donald Trump publicly called Buchanan “a Hitler lover” and “an antisemite.” And in a 2022 article in Vanity Fair, Alec Dent wrote that Francis “spent his final years largely confined to the fever swamps of explicitly white supremacist organizations.”

    If, as the Reagan-era maxim goes, “personnel is policy,” then in light of these questionnaire responses we should not be surprised that the second Trump administration continues attacking Americans’ civil rights, undermining free and fair elections, and prioritizing white immigration.


    SEVERAL RESPONSES connected to other people who have staffed the second Trump administration specifically cited a prominent 2020 book critiquing civil rights laws—in one case, referencing the book in support of a claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 “essentially replaced the original Constitution.” Another answer mentioned Curtis Yarvin, the neoreactionary monarchist, as one of the “more exciting contemporary thinkers” who’d influenced the respondent. Yet another listed the “demographic transformation of the United States and the Western World” as the respondent’s most important issue.

    While none of the individuals mentioned above confirmed to me that they had filled out the Project 2025 form, despite the matching names and corresponding personal information, three other individuals who self-identified as “liberals” in responses included in the database told me they remembered filling out the Project 2025 questionnaire, either to “gum up” the application process or to keep an eye on the effort. A fourth didn’t respond to an email I sent but had published a YouTube video in September 2023 that showed her filling out the form. Additionally, one conservative whose information was included in the leak agreed with some of the sentiments connected to his name during a brief phone conversation, but stated he couldn’t remember filling out the form and maintained the wording of the answers did not “sound like me.”

    The Heritage Foundation did not respond to my questions about the published database, or answer an earlier request for comment sent by left-leaning news outlet the Intercept.

    Share this story with a friend or family member.

    Share

    1

    The answer, in all fairness, does not condemn the concept of civil rights in toto, and indeed allows that a hypothetical Civil Rights Act of 2025 should still “prohibit intentional discrimination.”

    2

    For the benefit of younger readers, Pat Buchanan had a long career first as a staffer for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, and then as a right-wing pundit—punctuated by three runs for the presidency, in 1992, 1996, and 2000. The 1992 campaign is perhaps most memorable for his inflammatory speech at the Republican National Convention. A prominent far-right thinker, Buchanan has been obsessed with the relative “decline” of European populations for decades, as evinced by his books The Death of the West (2001) and Suicide of a Superpower (2011). In the acknowledgements section of the latter, as progressive nonprofit Media Matters pointed out, Buchanan gives “special thanks” for research assistance to an anti-immigration activist who’d written for the white-nationalist site VDare. A few years earlier, that activist had pleaded guilty to karate chopping a black woman on the head after allegedly calling her the N-word.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Civil Rights Undone

    Civil Rights Undone

    [ad_1]

    In late 2020, even as the instigators of insurrection were marshaling their followers to travel to Washington, D.C., another kind of coup—a quieter one—was in the works. On December 21, in one of his departing acts as attorney general, Bill Barr submitted a proposed rule change to the White House. The change would eliminate the venerable standard used by the Justice Department to handle discrimination cases, known as “disparate impact.” The memo was quickly overshadowed by the events of January 6, and, in the chaotic final days of Donald Trump’s presidency, it was never implemented. But Barr’s proposal represented perhaps the most aggressive step the administration took in its effort to dismantle existing civil-rights law. Should Trump return to power, he would surely attempt to see the effort through.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    Since the legislative victories of the civil-rights movement in the 1960s, legal and civil rights for people on the margins have tended to expand. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 were followed by voting provisions for Indigenous people and non-English speakers, a Supreme Court guarantee of the right to abortion, increased protections for people with disabilities, and formal recognition of same-sex marriage. The trend mostly continued under presidents of both parties—until Trump. Though his administration could be bumbling, the president’s actions matched his rhetoric when it came to eroding civil-rights enforcement.

    Under Trump, the Justice Department abandoned its active protection of voting rights. The Environmental Protection Agency ignored civil-rights complaints. The Department of Housing and Urban Development scaled back investigations into housing discrimination. Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court, for their part, have whittled away at landmark civil-rights legislation and presided over the end of affirmative action.

    In a second term, the most effective way for Trump to continue rolling back protections would be to dismantle disparate-impact theory. Under the theory, the federal government can prohibit discriminatory practices not just in instances of malicious and provable bigotry, but also in cases where a party’s actions unintentionally affect a class of marginalized people disproportionately.

    The theory is important because discrimination can be perpetuated without ill intent; even seemingly benign or neutral policies can perpetuate a legacy of bias, or create new inequities. But disparate impact is also essential because landlords, business owners, and municipal officials who do wish to discriminate have learned how to operate without expressing overt bigotry. Under disparate impact, the government’s burden is not to prove that these actors intended to discriminate, only that their actions resulted in discrimination.

    For decades, lawyers have invoked disparate impact as a means of fighting discrimination. The standard has been applied across the federal government. After the housing crisis of 2008, the DOJ brought a series of lawsuits against banks that had charged higher mortgage rates and fees to minority borrowers, winning hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements from the lenders. In 2015, the DOJ released a damning report on the practices of the police department in Ferguson, Missouri, after an 18-year-old Black man, Michael Brown, was shot and killed by a police officer. Disparate impact was mentioned at least 30 times in the report, including in its main takeaway: “African Americans experience disparate impact in nearly every aspect of Ferguson’s law enforcement system.”

    Many conservatives have long been suspicious of disparate impact. The most principled objections center on the claims that it invites government overreach and inefficiency, that it impedes state and local policy development, and that it always entails some degree of ghost-chasing—in a country as unequal as America, discerning what exactly contributes to a disparate outcome can be difficult.

    But these philosophical and practical objections to the theory have always served to disguise a more visceral disdain. Many conservatives simply believe that ensuring equality is not a legitimate federal priority. In the Trump era, as the Republican Party has embraced white nationalism, its leaders have been emboldened to abandon the guise. They edge closer to the line once held by the architects of Jim Crow: Equality is undesirable because people are not equals; some of us might not even be people.

    Trump himself has always had a preternatural gift for identifying and channeling grievance; white backlash against civil-rights legislation was one of the major forces behind his advancement to the presidency, and that backlash can be traced directly to disdain for civil-rights legislation and enforcement. Once Trump was in office, one of his early targets was HUD. In 2020, the department finalized a rule that demolished its discriminatory-effect standard, which had been the basis for enforcement at the department for at least 40 years. Trump’s HUD secretary, Ben Carson, said that the move would spur efficiency at the local level without undermining the department’s antidiscrimination work. But Carson has long been a skeptic of desegregation; during his 2016 presidential campaign, he described desegregation efforts in cities as “failed socialist experiments.” Ultimately, Carson’s attempt to undermine the discrimination standard was stymied by lawsuits. But the cause of fighting bias suffered nevertheless. In 2020, at the end of Carson’s tenure, the number of secretary-initiated complaints had gone from several dozen in 2015 to three.

    Trump did serious damage to disparate impact as president; there’s little question that he would finish the job if given another chance. A second Trump administration could go beyond simply abandoning the theory, perhaps even bringing lawsuits seeking to declare the entire concept unconstitutional. Trump could thus attack civil-rights law from both sides, sabotaging the government’s capability to adjudicate cases while also arguing that it should not have that capability in the first place. If this two-pronged strategy succeeds, it will be difficult for any future administration to undo the changes. With today’s conservative-dominated judiciary and high levels of political polarization, any substantive changes Trump makes to civil-rights enforcement could effectively become permanent.

    Without disparate impact, the DOJ would lose its primary tool for addressing brutality in police departments, and current efforts to finally enforce environmental laws in communities of color and hold cities accountable for creating slums in Black and Latino neighborhoods would be stalled. Given the damage that has already been done by the courts, there is a future—perhaps a likely future—in which the remaining foundations of the civil-rights era are undone. If Trump were to win in 2024, he would see the victory as a mandate to tear everything down now.


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “Civil Rights Undone.”

    [ad_2]

    Vann R. Newkirk II

    Source link