Eddie Ryan, Benjamin Escobar, Bori Ferra, Ksenia Polyarskaya
Vol. 3 No. 1
I. Introduction
Any president is charged with the Executive Branch of government and granted numerous avenues by which to alter its proceedings. The executive order is perhaps the most consequential of these, for it allows the commander in chief to make broad policy changes without Congressional approval in one fell swoop. Beyond this, the executive order represents a larger action – a political or social stance. It is not only done to garner certain results within a federal department, it is to communicate to the country, and the rest of the world, what the executive administration’s priorities are, and how the given moving part which the order articulates plays into that vision. In this way, the executive order becomes as much a part of the president’s political platform as it does a part of the president’s administrative direction. In this paper, we set out to understand the way in which the executive order fulfills these functions under the broader heading of “separation of powers.” Our study involves four policy realms in which key executive orders have been recently issued, and we employ a comparative approach so as to identify how the executive order has worked across different administrations and issues. Overall, we argue for the power of the executive order to enact sweeping change, the transient nature of such change from administration to administration, and the relevance of language to the formation and implications of such orders.
II. LGBTQ+ Discrimination in Child Welfare Agencies
The reach of executive orders can extend all the way into your family life – quite literally. On June 24, 2020, former president Trump signed an executive order titled “Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children”.[1] This order was directed toward the Department of Health and Human Services, and in essence, is an instruction list of approaches and policies that the Department should adopt. The resulting instructions exhibit much about the prevailing attitudes, understandings, and approaches of the former administration, and the power that executive orders have in manifesting them. With the element of accountability thus clearly in mind, it becomes prudent to take a look at the executive order to understand how this order – this platform – can impact family life directly, as well as to understand what families are impacted, for better or for worse.
The executive order appears to envision three broad areas regarding child welfare. The first surrounds creating “robust partnerships” between state agencies and public, private, faith-based and community organizations. The alleged goals would include development of community-based, abuse-prevention and family support services and holding states accountable for recruiting an adequate number of foster and adoptive parents. The second regards “improving” resource allocation to both caregiver and those in case for foster and adoptive families. It appears to take the view that HHS should increase the availability of training, funding and grants, and support kinship care. The third surrounds improving oversight from the federal government over key child welfare requirements and approaches. Among other things, this would invoke executive power to direct the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to advise states on the possible use of federal funds to support high-quality legal representation for parents and children.[2]
Though broad, these three prongs provide a strong interpretive base to understand the Trump administration’s view on child welfare’s connection to various communities, faith-based agencies, and federal agencies. A significant portion of this regards understanding the relationship between executive orders and anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.
The significance to the LGBTQ+ community of a so-named “Child Welfare” executive directive may not be immediately obvious. Perhaps most relevant is the anti-LGBTQ+ coding in the language, as well as the way in which the order props up “faith-based agencies”. A key difference in approaching child welfare, adoption, foster care, and more from a private, faith-based organization as opposed to a public organization has to do with certain values that those faith-based organizations would wish to prioritize in their child welfare approaches. These can be benign but are often detrimental, especially when it comes to anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs and practices, as LGBTQ+ family issues are usually at the forefront of discourse surrounding faith-based agencies.[3]
The first prong reveals quite plainly the overlay of the executive order’s approach. With regard to creating “robust partnerships” between state agencies and public, private, faith-based and community organizations, the approach notably displays a strong desire to move toward private organizations as opposed to public organizations.[4] This is significant, because private organizations often enjoy a greater amount of discernment and liberty than public organizations when it comes to behaviors, actions, and restrictions they can utilize to dictate the access and approach to their services. Public organizations, on the contrary, often must adhere to stricter compliance obligations, particularly in terms of discrimination. A contemporary example of this is the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where a private business contested refusal of service in regard to discrimination against an LGBTQ+ client due to religious expression.[5] The federal regulations that would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation that would apply to a public service were not established as existing for a private business. While an example that touches on a private business as opposed to an organization, the provision of service rules that a child welfare organization would be subject to could fall along similar lines.[6] Thus, the pivot away from public and towards private in the realm of child welfare may very well represent a pivot toward ease of discrimination, whether intentionally or unintentionally. There is a traceable directionality for our focus – if LGBTQ+ discrimination issues become the picture, private faith-based organizations are the canvas, and child welfare policies and Orders are the frame.[7]
Faith is an oft-cited reason for discrimination against LGBTQ+ persons. In propping up “faith-based agencies”, the government is moving away from a stance of equal opportunity for all, and toward a stance that gives credence to those who would deny rights or processes to those who operate outside of the agency’s beliefs. To be sure, there are faith-based agencies that accommodate, accept, and engage with LGBTQ+ parents and families – this is not a form of discrimination that exists across the board. Still, it is prevalent enough to represent a clear form of anti-LGBTQ+ coding in policy via the enactment of this executive order.
With this established, it is worth engaging with this executive order contextually with other legal issues surrounding child welfare occuring at the time of its issuance. Notably, a high-profile legal case was, and still is, in the midst of the court system. Oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the case, namely Fulton v City of Philadelphia, would take place mere months after the executive order in question was issued.[8]
Fulton v City of Philadelphia involved a conflict surrounding Catholic Social Services, who had a policy of not licensing same-sex couples to be foster parents. Because of this, the City of Philadelphia barred Catholic Social Services from placing children in foster homes unless they agreed to comply with nondiscrimination requirements that are part of all foster care agency contracts.[9],[10] The agency sued the City of Philadelphia, claiming the Constitution (notably, the First Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause) grants the agency the right to opt out of the nondiscrimination requirement.[11] The prominence of this case underscores the relevance of the Trump administration’s executive order to contemporary conflicts in the legal system or political controversies and debates. This furthers an argument that the executive order may represent a part of a political platform as much as it may be representing a piece of an administrative directive.
An important portion of this is the question of funding that the executive order brings forth. Part of the intent of the executive order is to, “[Improve] Access to Adequate Resources for Caregivers and Youth”[12]. While the terms “funding” or “money” are not explicitly mentioned, each of the goals identified within this as part of the executive order involve directives that require funds. “Expanding educational options”, “Increasing the availability of trauma-enforced training”, “Supporting guardianship”, and “Enhancing support for kinship care and youth exiting foster care” are the four enumerated goals within this overarching section of “Improving Access to Adequate Resources for Caregivers and Youth”.[13] It is fair to note that each of these clearly indicates expansions or implementations of policies, approaches, or practices that would require funding, if not immense amounts of funding. Insofar as an executive order is one that establishes an administration’s approach and a political platform, it can then be surmised that this administration engages with a desire and platform to increase in funding for “public, private faith-based, and community organizations” in regard to the above-mentioned goals.
This notion of a call for increased funding is significant to consider. As any of the goals are propped up under the umbrella of, in part, “faith-based” organizations, it is a call for increased funding for organizations that may operate under standards distinct to public organizations, notably when it comes to standards that may discriminate against LGBTQ+ parents and families.
It is worth mentioning that this is not to say that an increase of funding for child welfare programs is to be discredited. Indeed, rather, a call for funding in this matter represents a tension. The calls for funding, for expansion, for education, are each not necessarily engaging with a notion of recognizing the disproportionate representation of queer youth, disabled youth, or youth of color in foster case and adoption systems. The call for funding is distinctly separate from a call to help those youth who may be at the most disadvantaged when it comes to foster care and adoption. Rather, the funding is to support existing systems, right up to the explicit articulation of “faith-based” systems.[14]
With this in consideration, it is worth spending time to consider whether this executive order, inherently or by proxy, intentionally or unintentionally, extends existing inequalities (in this case, in the child welfare system) by aiding in a call for funding that may perpetuate and even further prop up systemically discriminatory practices and procedures. The tertiary indications and directives, such as funding which has been exhibited here, must not be lost when considering an executive order. Indeed, it is these smaller-level characteristics of executive orders that often may represent the true moving parts and actions of both a presidential administration and the federal agencies that fall under it. One can plainly make the case this does, in fact, perpetuate systemically discriminatory practices and procedures in the child welfare system.
“Faith-based” language, and language that indicates and perhaps even provides a directive for funding, is an absolute must to understand when it comes to federal policy and legal considerations. With the coded languages practices that have been laid out previously, and the notable directive language that has been laid out here, it is remarkable the degree to which this executive order can be considered as propping up and even furthering systemically discriminatory practices, not the least of which would discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, parents, and families.
Furthermore, this executive order does not represent the only form in which administrative approaches engaged in anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in child welfare. During the Trump administration, a similar issue arose surrounding Miracle Hill Ministries (the largest, taxpayer-funded, state-contracted foster care agency in the state of South Carolina). Miracle Hill Ministries’ practices include only accepting foster parents who meet its religious criteria, which excludes families who do not adhere to evangelical Protestant Christian beliefs and families headed by same-sex couples regardless of faith.[15]
Where an issue arises surrounding Miracle Hill is in federal regulation, as federal regulation bars discrimination in federally funded child welfare programs. Therefore, the Governor of South Carolina asked the Department of Health and Human Services under Trump for a waiver on the regulation, which they obliged. In this manner, Miracle Hill Ministries in South Carolina had been given a license to discriminate against not just LGBTQ+ families (though this is most germane for our discussion), but also even other religious individuals – both clear forms of discrimination.[16]
Lawsuits have been filed by such prominent groups as the ACLU against both the state of South Carolina and the Department of Health and Human Services. The argument revolved around the simple idea that child welfare agencies must adhere to nondiscrimination regulations, and furthermore that child welfare practices must put the interests of children in their care above the interests of individual agencies, particularly “faith-based” agencies. This is yet another example of child welfare issues that surrounded the executive order issued by the Trump administration.[17]
Especially since it concerns a contentious part of child welfare policy, namely LGBTQ+ discrimination, former president Trump’s “Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children” executive order is very informative to our discussion of the executive order’s role in policy. This particular order reveals the remarkable power of an executive order to manifest political platform ideals as much as administrative direction, particularly when it comes to coded language and calling for funding for specific priorities. Whether or not the language is specific, the power the order holds in achieving such priorities and directives must not be underestimated. This executive order is merely one example of this power, and can help us understand contemporary issues surrounding child welfare and LGBTQ+ civil rights, as well as the moving parts to the issuance and power of an order.
III. Federal Housing Policy in relation to Racial and Sexual Discrimination
Despite the advances made in affordable housing over the past century, systemic racism has persisted through gentrification, lack of Section 8 housing access and racial wealth disparities. A look into executive orders of Barack Obama, Donald J. Trump, and Joseph Biden will show the various and contrasting takes on their “improvement” of American policies and the gravity of the housing executive orders on the lives of American citizens.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 with the intention to expand on previous legislation by prohibiting discrimination in the sale, rent, and financing of housing based on race and other factors. Its VII Amendment is commonly known as the Fair Housing Act. This was the first time in American history that legislation banned racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing; still, problems persisted in black and brown communities. One such issue stems from the formation of the “black ghetto”, which came as a result of racist legislation, harmful economic and labor practices and physical violence to keep blacks out of certain places. In stark contrast to the early 1900s, approximately 70% of Black people were residing in Northern cities by 1970.[18]
The pernicious impacts of ghettoization on black Americans were not fully overcome by the 1968 Fair Housing Act. Due to the high percentage of income spent on housing, low-income families were not able to afford quality living conditions. The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and the amending Housing Act of 1937 created the Section 8 Program. One of the goals of the Act was to ensure low-income families had a chance to get “decent housing and a suitable living environment” outside of public housing units. Nowadays, it works on a voucher system. The first step to receiving Section 8 is to meet numerous requirements and receive a voucher when they become available; many families spend years on the waiting list. If the family unit “passes” the income requirements, then they have the ability to find an apartment or house with a voucher, and their local housing authority sends payments directly to the landlords. Depending on the income status of the family, the Section 8 voucher can cover some or all of the holder’s rent, usually somewhere between 30-40%.[19] In reality, Section 8 housing perpetuates the binary between white and black/brown communities as well as continues to ensure that “poor” people cannot escape low-income housing. In the United States, landlords can refuse to take Section 8 vouchers, even if their property is eligible and the program covers the rent. Thus, landlords of property in higher-income neighborhoods do everything in their power to trap families in the poorest neighborhoods. Additionally, it is an unfair assumption that families only spend 30-40% of their income on rent, since the Fair Market Rent Value might be incredibly high.[20]
In the early 2000s, there was a dramatic increase in mortgage lending typically equipped with fraudulent and predatory promises in the US. These risky loans complicated the mortgage system and many assets were sold to individuals multiple times, leading to one of the greatest financial crises since the Great Depression.[21] Former U.S. President Barack Obama vowed to change the housing market and lending infrastructure to stabilize America’s financial health. One of the first initiatives was to strengthen the Federal Housing Administration with the proposal of the Housing Affordable Modification Program in 2009. It was a loan modification program to help struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure, and it attempted to aid homeowners who paid more than 31% of their gross income toward mortgage programs.[22] Additionally, Obama introduced a legal requirement to the Fair Housing Act called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) that “federal agencies and federal grantees actively address and work to eliminate housing discrimination and segregation”.[23] Albeit a self-explanatory requirement, this obligation was not effectively accounted for until the written regulation.[24] This rule attempted to remedy the gap by obligating federal agencies and federal funding recipients to take proactive steps to address longstanding patterns of segregation, discrimination, and disinvestment. Simply put, this mandate ensured that not only there was no discrimination, but that federal agencies were working proactively to make their municipalities more equitable and accountable.
As Donald J. Trump took office in 2017, many housing policies and mandates were overruled. In 2019, President Trump proposed to decrease the budget for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by 9.6 billion or 18 percent below 2019 congressionally enacted funding levels.[25] He intended to reduce many housing benefits by increasing rents and imposing harsher work requirements on Section 8 recipients and families who receive housing assistance from PHAs and private owners subsidized by HUD. On July 29th of 2020, former president Trump tweeted the following: “I am happy to inform all of the people living their Suburban Lifestyle Dream that you will no longer be bothered or financially hurt by having low income housing built in your neighborhood. Your housing prices will go up based on the market and crime will go down. I have rescinded the Obama-Biden AFFH Rule. Enjoy”. In the midst of the COVID-19 virus and the Black Lives Matter movement, Donald Trump called suburbia “hell-ridden with crime” and argued that he was the only person able to provide “law and order”. In revoking the 2015 rule, The Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice directive defined fair housing in a broader manner as “housing that, among other attributes, is affordable, safe, decent, free of unlawful discrimination, and accessible under civil rights law”.[26] The “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” plan was also redefined to “any action rationally related to promoting any of the above attributes of fair housing”. In replacing the AFFH, President Trump and his administration eliminated the necessity for accountability and Obama-era proposed detailed plans in following Fair Housing mandates.
Throughout his presidential term, Donald Trump and the Department of Housing and Urban development attacked civil rights not only of Fair Housing Act recipients but also transgender and nonbinary people seeking shelter. On July 23, 2020, the HUD formally announced the rollback of a previous rule that protected transgender people from discrimination by homeless shelters and other housing services receiving federal funds. Specifically, the rule titled Making Admission or Placement Determinations Based on Sex in Facilities Under Community Planning and Development Housing Programs “reconsidered its 2016 Rule and determined that providers should be allowed to consider biological sex in placement and accomodation decisions in single-sex facilities… and establish a policy that places and acommodates individuals on the basis of their biological sex, without regard to their gender identity”.[27] Without clear and deliberate protections, trasngender people were barred from seeking shelter and vulnerable to mistreatment, abuse, and refusals of service. Not only did this revision “allow” shelters to consider the biological sex of people, it also allowed them to consider “religious beliefs”.
Despite Donald Trump’s efforts to invoke racial stereotypes and continue to promote the harmful effects of housing policies, on August 8th, 2020, he signed four executive actions directing federal agencies to provide additional relief to those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Focusing on student loans, payroll taxes, unemployment benefits, and housing, the order did not extend the Cares Act Eviction Moratorium. This Act was the “federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic by establishing a 120-day eviction moratorium for evictions based on non-payment of rent for certain covered properties”.[28] The “Executive Order on Fighting the Spread of COVID-19 by Providing Assistance to Renters and Homeowners” focused on the following aspects:[29]
(a) The Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Director of CDC shall consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 from one State or possession into any other State or possession.
(b) The Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall identify any and all available Federal funds to provide temporary financial assistance to renters and homeowners who, as a result of the financial hardships caused by COVID-19, are struggling to meet their monthly rental or mortgage obligations.
(c) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall take action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law to promote the ability of renters and homeowners to avoid eviction or foreclosure resulting from financial hardships caused by COVID-19. Such action may include encouraging and providing assistance to public housing authorities, affordable housing owners, landlords, and recipients of Federal grant funds in minimizing evictions and foreclosures.
(d) In consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of FHFA shall review all existing authorities and resources that may be used to prevent evictions and foreclosures for renters and homeowners resulting from hardships caused by COVID-19.
Civil rights advocates, minorities, and immigrants have never expected the Trump administration to focus on the Fair Housing act, yet his harmful and discriminatory policies impacted lives of many minorities for the entirety of his presidential term.
President Biden’s administration began with seeking reversal of Trump-Era Housing Discrimination Rules. Six days after being sworn into office, on January 26 2021, Biden’s administration published a Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies.[30] While addressing the history of racist, discriminatory and harmful policies, the president aims to “work with communities to end housing discrimination, to provide redress to those who have experienced housing discrimination, to eliminate racial bias and other forms of discrimination in all stages of home-buying and renting, to lift barriers that restrict housing and neighborhood choice, to promote diverse and inclusive communities, to ensure sufficient physically accessible housing, and to secure equal access to housing opportunity for all”. He aimed to do so with the help of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in examining the effects of the “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice” rule, and the “HUD’s Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard”. Biden concluded that the Secretary should take any means necessary to affirmatively further fair housing and HUD’s duty to administer the Fair Housing Act (including AFFH). The Biden administration also vowed to extend housing protections for the LGBTQ community, including transgender individuals. In April 2021, the Housing and Urban Development Secretary Marcia Fudge withdrew a Trump-era rule that would allow federally funded single-sex shelters to discriminate against tenants based on gender identity.[31] Thus, the HUD reaffirmed the Equal Access Rule allowing transgender and gender-nonconforming people to be housed in shelters in accordance with their gender identity. Additionally, Biden’s Infrastructure Plan aims to allocate 213 billion dollars for housing issues in hopes of helping low-income households and home buyers. He aims to help housing policy and eliminate discriminatory practices with 5 key elements.
First, he proposed to “produce, preserve, and retrofit more than a million affordable, resilient, accessible, energy efficient and electrified housing units”. Second, Biden aims to build 500,000 Affordable houses for low and middle income buyers and aiding the housing shortage. Biden also intends to focus on the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act and the expansion of the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. The NHIA Calls for the creation of a new federal tax credit that will produce new equity investment dollars for the development and renovation of 1-4 family housing in distressed urban, suburban, and rural neighborhoods while the Low Income Housing Tax Credit provides a tax incentive to construct or rehabilitate affordable rental housing for low-income households. Third, Biden is asking Congress to authorize a grant program that would provide funding to areas that eliminate exclusionary zoning laws. Fourth, he has earmarked $40 billion to repair and update public housing. Fifth, his administration aims to create a $27 billion Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator “to mobilize private investment into distributed energy resources [electricity-producing resources such as rooftop solar panel units, natural gas turbines and wind turbines]; retrofits of residential, commercial and municipal buildings; and clean transportation in underserved communities that clean energy initiatives have not helped.[32]
Overall, the last couple of months of Biden’s presidency has been revolving around bringing the nation back to a sense of normalcy. Many of the aspects of doing so required overruling of Trump-Era executive orders and memoranda. Housing Policy has been historically affecting marginalized communities, and it is a telling facet that the president of the United States is willing to learn, listen, and reform policy that has been affecting black and brown communities, minorities, immigrants and LGBTQ+ individuals for many generations.
IV. Municipal Policing, Gun Laws and Public Safety
In 2020, a year troubled with one of the worst pandemics the world has ever experienced, protests to police brutality reached heights that have never been achieved since the 1960s. The Obama administration was relatively inactive in terms of regulating and amending the problem of police brutality; however, the establishment of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing provided some form of regulation of the police force.[33] In said task force, a team of eleven people well-versed and experienced in matters such as civil liberties, civil injustice and law enforcement were instructed to meet with state, local and federal law enforcement, and identify the best methods of policing that not only reduce crime effectively, but also increase the trust of the public in their approximate police force.[34]
The President’s Task Force was a direct response to the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Darren Wilson, the officer who killed Michael Brown, was found to have done no wrongdoing and then exonerated of any criminal offense – twice.[35] The actual court case of former officer Wilson left many to believe that Wilson was wrongfully exonerated, and that a fundamental attribution error was undoubtedly present. The father of the prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch, was a police officer who died from a gunshot wound fired by a black man, a situation that has undeniable relevance to the case of Michael Brown.[36] After thorough investigation of state, local and federal policing all across the country, especially a thorough investigation in Missouri, the President’s Task Force found that a much larger emphasis needs to be placed on increasing the relations and interaction between law enforcement and its respective community.[37]
The acquisition and use of military grade weapons and equipment by local and state law enforcement has been and currently is a topic of immense importance. Many argue that it is unconstitutional for a state regime to have access to weapons that are utilized in international warfare, as the threats that municipal police forces encounter on a daily basis do not warrant a violent response. Since 2015, there have been 135 unarmed black people who have been killed in America.[38] Additionally, the excessive military funding that is provided to American police forces has also come into question, namely over its putative necessity. There are approximately 12,000 police forces across America who have had access to military funding, which has been estimated to cost 7.4 billion dollars.[39]
Gun-control, especially in the US, has always been a heavy topic, so much so that many decide to not even discuss it, losing the imminent risk of spurring up a conversation that may have the potential to become dangerous. President Barack Obama then proceeded to initiate Executive Order 13688 on January 16, 2015, in accordance with the surge of wrongful policing all across the country at the time, coupled with civilian unrest due to the lack of response by the United States government.[40] Executive Order 13688, titled “Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition”, was put in place to “identify actions that can improve Federal support for the appropriate use, acquisition, and transfer of controlled equipment by State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies (LEAs)”.[41] Subcategories of this order are detailed and outlined to describe how and when equipment and supplies are to be transported, and what kind of equipment is not permitted to be available for municipal police forces to use.
Executive Order 13688 (EO 13688) entails seven different subsections, each outlined and deliberated by the then-president of the United States, in order to properly address the “civilian unrest” during that time frame of American society.[42] EO 13688 puts in place the federal interagency Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group (LEEWG) in order to establish and develop recommendations to improve federal support for the acquisition, use and/or transfer of controlled equipment by LEAs. For the purpose of this review, and to ensure proper understanding of the relationship between municipal policing and executive action by former offices, the following three subsections of Executive Order 13688 have been deemed most critical.
The first subsection to be detailed is titled, “Establishment of Federal Government-wide Prohibited Equipment Lists”, enumerates those items which LEAs cannot obtain from federal agencies. These include “Tracked Armored Vehicles, Bayonets, Grenade Launchers” and others.[43] The second subsection is titled, “Establishment of Federal Government-wide Controlled Equipment Lists”. This portion identifies categories of equipment such as “Wheeled Armored or Tactical Vehicles, Specialized Firearms and Ammunition” and others as ones which LEAs can acquire through specific procedures. The order makes clear that the Working Group “urges LEAs to give careful consideration to the appropriateness of acquiring such equipment for their communities”.[44]
The main purpose of this list is not to completely deny the purchase, use and/or transfer of any of the aforementioned items, but rather to ensure that when the purchase, use and/or transfer of these items come into question, extreme caution and careful consideration is utilized to the utmost severity. Any LEA that wished to obtain any of the aforementioned items after the date of October 1, 2015, must abide by the code of standards/conduct detailed and outlined in EO 13688.[45]
The third subsection to be detailed is titled, “Required Protocols and Training for LEAs that Acquire Controlled Equipment”. This subsection holds that LEAs that received equipment “must adopt General Policing Standards, including community policing, constitutional policing, and community input and impact principles” as well as “specific controlled equipment standards on the appropriate use, supervision, evaluation, accountability, transparency, and operation of controlled equipment.” An additional stipulation requires yearly training on General Policing and Specific Controlled Equipment Standards.[46]
The full meaning and implication that EO 13688 had not only for the nation, but for those who wished to obtain special and newly exclusive equipment (mainly LEAs), was that acquisition was much more difficult. When LEAs decide to use federal funds to obtain the weapons, they must plan early and decisively. After the application of EO 13688, any LEA that requested acquisition of the listed weapons would have to wait at least one calendar year before the entire process would go through.[47] EO 13688 more extensively mandates that an organization with newly-funded controlled equipment provide documentation and reports regarding training, public notice and internal policies.[48] In order to be transparent, former president Barack Obama first enacted EO 13688 due to the calls of his cabinet, the American people, and reports from war veterans which stated that officers in Ferguson after the death of Michael Brown were more heavily armed in American communities than these very same veterans were in war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. For Republicans like Rep. Duncan Hunter and Sen. Rand Paul to side with the opposite party on police regulation, as they partially did in pointing out excessive police militarization, is proof enough that a change was and is required in this country for municipal policing to be dealt with accordingly.[49]
Former president Donald J. Trump then proceeded to entirely dismantle EO 13688. After the surprising rescission of EO 13688, former president Trump stated that the 1033 program is “an excellent program that enhances community safety”.[50] The 1033 program was first established in 1977, and labeled as the military surplus transfer program, in which it was meant to accomplish what it is directly named after. Any and all leftover military equipment owned and operated by the United States Department of Defense is eligible to be transferred to municipal police across the nation. After the riots in Ferguson, LEAs all over the country have received “494 mine-resistant vehicles, at least 800 pieces of body armor, more than 6,500 rifles, and at least 76 aircraft[s].”[51] Studies show that there is a direct correlation between a decrease in police trust amongst people coupled with an increase in crime, and obtaining SWAT (a form of police militarization) in order to stop “crime”. According to Jonathan Mummolo, “[Obtaining SWAT] is consistent with anecdotal evidence of suspects reacting violently to SWAT teams or with militarized policing lowering trust in police, thereby hindering criminal investigations and promoting crime.”[52] As made clear by the findings of Mummolo, not only does an increase in police militarization lower the overall trust that citizens have in police forces, but it also causes the single thing that they are called to stop: increases in crime.[53]
When EO 13688 was still in application across the United States, policing was occurring, rather than militarization. Since 2015, after EO 13688 was pulled and replaced by the 1033 program and after the death of Michael Brown, there have been a plethora of police occurrences when previously controlled equipment have been utilized in civilian settings, such as neighborhoods or parks. One such occurrence happened in Standing Rock, North Dakota, where municipal police utilized “armored vehicles, automatic rifles, sound cannons, concussion grenades, attack dogs, pepper spray, bean bag bullets, riot gear, and other offensive military weapons” against peaceful protest.[54] In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, peaceful protestors responding to the death of Alton Sterling were met with thousands of officers dressed in full armor, armored vehicles, and automatic weapons.[55] The protestors had nothing.
Proceeding with the seemingly overarching theme of senseless death due to the hands of police officers, George Floyd was killed at the hands of officer Derek Chauvin on May 25, 2020.[56] After the murder, of which Chauvin was found guilty of in the court of law on April 20, 2021, protests and riots sparked all over the country in support for not only the black community, but in direct opposition to municipal policing across the country, as millions of Americans felt as if the actions undertaken by the officers were unnecessary and brutal.[57]
EO 13929 was passed on June 16, 2020 by former president Donald J. Trump in direct response to this killing, and to the thousands of protests all across the country.[58] EO 13929 details “State and local law enforcement agencies must constantly assess and improve their practices and policies to ensure transparent, safe, and accountable delivery of law enforcement services to their communities.”[59] In order to fully feel that justice was done and that America is still truly the “greatest country in the world”, Americans needed to feel that our policing system was, in a sense, fixed. EO 13929 improved policing in the sense that it coupled the goals of municipal policing alongside the recent awareness of issues such as mental health. EO 13929, titled “Safe Policing for Safe Communities”, accomplished this by connecting police forces with social services nationwide in order for said police to be better equipped to tackle issues such as mental health, addiction and homelessness.[60] In a study conducted by Megan Welsh and Mounah Abdel-Samad, US cities across the nation establish “maintenance and order” in regards to homelessness by establishing “civility” laws, which fundamentally render homelessness a crime. An ordinance against “homelessness” can be standing, sitting, or resting in a public place.[61] From the same study done by Welsh and Abdel-Samad, 52.2% of all homeless people in the San Diego area report that they are harassed by police to either relocate or disperse on a consistent basis.[62] EO 13929 has coupled many problems that police have in regards to handling certain demographics and certain situations, but does not tackle the main issue of the disproportionate assault and/or harassment of colored people by police.
V. Coastal Resource Extraction and Climate Change
The Obama administration’s focus on coastal resource extraction in tandem with off-shore energy regulation illustrates both the environmental legacy which Obama hoped to impart as well as the early workings of interaction between Obama and Trump era executive activities. In December of 2016, President Obama issued Executive Order 13754, entitled “Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience”. This directive sought mainly to protect the Bering sea, which lies between Alaska and eastern Russia and has experienced substantial ice melting over the past several decades, from potentially deleterious forms of development and oil drilling. In particular, the order states that the US had “resolved to confront the challenges of a changing Arctic by working to conserve Arctic biodiversity; support and engage Alaska Native tribes; incorporate traditional knowledge into decision making; and build a sustainable Arctic economy that relies on the highest safety and environmental standards, including adherence to national climate goals”.[63] This represents the president’s effort to establish the context behind the policy measures along with his vision for their impact.
The order begins by defining a “Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area” in which any practices deemed environmentally hazardous will face restrictions or bans. This provision obliquely reveals the care presidents must pay to already existing laws: both the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and a 1990 agreement between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics appear in the section which actually outlines the borders of the new protectorate Bering Sea region.[64] Section three of the order, entitled “Withdrawal” makes clear both the areas of foreclosure and the specific activities which were no longer to take place there. First, the order delineates “(1) the area currently designated by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management as the Norton Basin Planning Area; and (2) the Outer Continental Shelf lease blocks” within the listed area as spaces of withdrawal from disposition by leasing.[65] Here, the former president exercised his authority under existing legislation to curb oil and gas drilling in the many territorial areas which fall under his purview.
The most important feature of this order is that “Obama used an obscure provision of the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Land Act to announce what he said would be a permanent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along wide areas of the Arctic and the Atlantic coast”.[66] It is first useful to understand both the actual basis for and legal confines of this policy. Though often circumventions of Congress, executive orders still require administrations to adhere to pertinent laws; such laws can even serve as the grounds of an order. This is clear for executive order 13754, as Obama prefaces the text by stating “Under the authority granted to me in section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1341(a)…”[67] Passed in August of 1953, this act essentially extended the constitutional, legal, and political jurisdiction of the United States to any coastal, submerged lands “lying seaward” – in other words, within three miles of the shore – of states already under US patronage.[68] The act grants the Secretary of the Interior or, when applicable, the Secretary of Energy the right to offer leases to private, competitive bidders for rights to use the land and its resources, especially for the types of oil and gas exploration and development on which a later amendment to the act provided regulations.[69] This authority is specifically given in section a) of 43 U.S. Code § 1337 such that “The Secretary is authorized to grant to the highest responsible qualified bidder or bidders by competitive bidding…any oil and gas lease on submerged lands of the outer Continental Shelf which are not covered by [other] leases”.[70] This legislation is both revealing and multifaceted. Historically, one might view it as a contribution to a delayed continuation of American westward expansion, here for the sake of resource consolidation. Legally, it represents a bit of a watershed moment for US economic expansion as it pertains to or conflicts with environmental law and sensibility. Through its provision of authority to the Secretary of the Interior to interact with private commercial bidders, the act fortifies federal government involvement in the private sector. This represents one arena in which meaningful alterations to the “separation of powers” in the US, at least in the sphere of resource extraction, were forged.
Crucially, the National Security clause and the National Defense Areas clause of the 1953 act afford the president the power to suspend leasing rights and oil and gas exploration and development at its discretion. The code grants the federal government both the authority “to suspend operations under any lease” during “a state of war or national emergency” as well as the ability to “designate…areas restricted from exploration and operation that are part of the outer Continental Shelf needed for national defense”.[71]As with other forms of partnership between the federal government and the private sector, especially when US territory is of concern, this text crucially ties final authority over the land back to the executive branch. Under the auspices of a national emergency or state of war declaration, the president essentially retains the right to suspend oil and gas drilling done by private companies operating on a lease. It is plausible that these two categories are somewhat fungible. In other words, as swiftly as a president can push an executive order through, they could declare a national emergency that would halt the oil and gas drilling activities on outer continental shelf lands. This aligns with the powers granted elsewhere in the act, such as the federal government’s declaration of ownership and primary control over submerged lands bordering coastal states and the subordination of state law to federal law in such regions. Given the new attention to climate change and environmental prudence in today’s policy discussions, further research on the way in which a president could deploy a national emergency solely on the grounds of the climate crisis is needed. Perhaps flashes of this kind of policy could emerge upon a closer study of Executive Order 13754.
By definition, the act introduces legal interaction between the federal apparatus and those state governments whose land borders the coastal areas in question. First, the code discusses various avenues by which royalties may be provided to states.[72] Second, and of special interest, is the process by which states may qualify for partial compensation from the federal government for physical or environmental damage incurred through private drilling and development.[73] This would come in the form of a portion of the oil and gas drilling revenue, which seems retrospectively a bit ironic in the current climate-focused milieu. This portion of the act appears to provide an apology in advance for harmful environmental consequences wrought by oil and gas development in the form of a subsidy of money coming from the activities which caused the harm in the first place.
In crafting Executive Order 13754, the Obama administration relied upon this legislation as grounds to dictate oil and gas drilling activities in outer Continental Shelf lands, as well as in the Bering Strait. The most significant directive issued by the outgoing administration in this order concerns its attempt to limit future oil and gas leasing and drilling, namely for the purpose of mitigating environmental damage done by these practices. The relevant section is entitled section three, “Withdrawal”. First, it “prevents consideration of these areas for future oil or gas leasing for purposes of exploration, development, or production”, with the specific areas enumerated later in the order.[74] Second, it outlines its commitments and motivations in doing so, stating that the withdrawal “furthers the principles of responsible public stewardship entrusted to this office and takes due consideration of the importance of the withdrawn areas to Alaska Native tribes, wildlife, and wildlife habitat” along with affirming “the need for regional resiliency in the face of climate change”.[75] A brief examination of the text thus reveals the two-pronged approach many executive orders take to contentious issues: there is both a legal prescription and a values statement here.
The legal prescription offered by the administration, which was to prevent further oil and gas exploration and development in areas which are defined in the order (a move, one should note, which did not impact existing leasing operations in these areas) rests on the broad authorities granted to the Executive Office by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953. With its provision to the president of the right to oversee and control such operations in submerged coastal lands, the OCS Act made such lands presidential purview, mainly for the purpose of encouraging such development. Therefore, President Obama essentially took advantage of his authority to stimulate or halt development projects as granted to his office in 1953 when he signed Executive Order 13754. The value statement does not escape the legal realm, for its part. This is because the commitment to dialogue with Native tribes, however genuine, undoubtedly complicates the question of federal jurisdiction over coastal lands, particularly in the targeted Alaskan regions near the Bering Strait; this appears to be a matter for further examination. In its emphasis on “regional resiliency in the face of climate change”, however, the Obama administration aims to communicate its own feelings on the climate crisis to the public as well as to relevant stakeholders. This sort of statement is intriguing from a legal perspective, since it speaks to the executive ambitions actually served by the relevant legislative and pragmatic backing. As timing constitutes another key facet of an analysis of executive orders, highlighting this value statement in view of the fact that order 13754 came out in the interim between the Obama and Trump administrations seems telling.
A swift response to order 13754 came in the early months of the Trump administration through Executive Order 13795. Entitled, “Implementing an America First Offshore Energy Strategy” the April 28, 2017 order actually reversed 13754. One notes first that the language used in executive orders and other forms of unilateral presidential directives tends to provide clues to the administration’s goals (both in terms of what it hopes to convey, and what it may hope to hide) and to the way executive policy gets done. The rebuke which Trump offered to Obama’s effective outgoing ban on offshore drilling is perhaps less abrasive on paper than in rhetoric: it comes embedded within a softer but no less foreboding focus on reconsideration of past energy policy. The careful reader will still perceive the blatant distinctions in mindset reflected in these two orders, even when the language is calibrated in this way.
In the crucial section two, the Trump administration states that its policy will “encourage every exploration and production, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, to maintain the Nation’s position as a global energy leader…while ensuring that any such activity is environmentally safe and responsible”.[76] This indicates the change in administrative zeitgeist from environmental consciousness to profit prioritization, as Trump openly declines to continue Obama’s initiative of cutting back on offshore drilling. The bit about environmental responsibility must be viewed as lip-service, since Obama’s move to stop drilling was itself merely a prerequisite for such responsibility. Sections three through six propose modifications to the existing energy policy framework, with all aimed at deregulation. These measures include an injunction to the Secretary of Commerce against expanding National Marine Sanctuary spaces, a “Modification of the Withdrawal of Areas of the Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition”, and a call for the Secretary of the Interior to reexamine the regulatory regime of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).[77] The second of these particularly demonstrates the administration’s goal of reducing as much climate-conscious regulation of the energy industry as possible, as it is the most direct counter to Obama’s attempts to reduce outer Continental Shelf lands available for drilling leases.
In section seven of the “America First” energy order, the policy agenda set forth in section two gets cemented. This section contains instructions to reconsider well-control regulation in all oil, sulfur and gas operations on the Continental shelf, and to do so consistently with the new “rule” set in section two.[78] It is significant to note how the executive order can advance not just one policy, but an entire framework surrounding it. By outlining its energy policy vision – one which regards the actions of the Obama administration as unnecessarily restrictive of resources – and then surrounding this statement with sections directing officials in various federal agencies to revise practices in accordance with the new policy, the administration can effectively upend prior procedure and codify a disparate (but equally ephemeral) set of policies.[79]
Coastal resource extraction provides a highly informative case study in both the priorities of these presidents and the capabilities of the executive order. This is due both to the timing of the two orders here outlined and to the rich legal and economic implications of a matter like off-shore drilling. In examining these orders, one encounters a microcosm of the larger societal debate on climate change which displays the power of the executive branch to make sweeping changes when Congress will not comply, but which also illustrates the lack of durability of these changes beyond their birth term.
VI. Conclusion
In this paper, we have attempted to analyze the capacity of the executive order to impact policy both across time and under different leadership. In the case of discriminatory child-welfare policy, we discovered the remarkable power of an executive order to manifest political platform ideals as much as administrative direction, particularly when it comes to coded language and calling for funding for specific priorities. With regard to both housing and policing, we gained a better understanding of the role executive orders can play in either bolstering or slowly extirpating deeply entrenched systemic bigotry. On climate change, it became clear that executive policy is vulnerable to quick reversals, a worrying insight considering the degree of sustained, progressive change needed to counter such a colossal threat. Broadly speaking, an analysis on these terms reveals both the impact of legal “coding” and how the executive order renders executive policy rather mutable from election to election. As matters in each of these four areas intensify, one should closely monitor the specific language and chains of implementation outlined in new executive orders, all with an eye to the impact and durability of the policies.
Executive Orders, Programs and Rules
E.O. 13930 “Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children”
E.O. 13945 “Fighting the Spread of COVID-19 by Providing Assistance to Renters and Homeowners”
E.O. 13688 “Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition”
E.O. 13929 “Safe Policing for Safe Communities”
E.O. 13795 “Implementing an America First Offshore Energy Strategy”
E.O. 13754 “Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience”
Housing Affordable Modification Program
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
HUD – “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice”
Memorandum “Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of
Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies”
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing
Works Cited
[1] Federal Register. Executive Order 13930: Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children. (June 24, 2020). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/29/2020-14077/strengthening-the-child-welfare-system-for-americas-children
[2] Id.
[3] Currey Cook, Trump Signs Anti-LGBTQ Child Welfare Executive Order, Lambda Legal (June 30, 2020). https://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20200630_trump-admin-child-welfare-executive-order
[4] Federal Register. Executive Order 13930: Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children. (June 24, 2020). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/29/2020-14077/strengthening-the-child-welfare-system-for-americas-children
[5] Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 584 U.S. 16-111 (2018). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
[6] Id.
[7] Federal Register. Executive Order 13930: Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children. (June 24, 2020). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/29/2020-14077/strengthening-the-child-welfare-system-for-americas-children
[8] Oyez, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (Nov. 4, 2020) https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-123
[9] Id.
[10] ACLU, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (March 18, 2021) https://www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia
[11] Scotus Blog, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Nov. 4, 2020). https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia-pennsylvania/
[12] Federal Register. Executive Order 13930: Strengthening the Child Welfare System for America’s Children. (June 24, 2020).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] Leslie Cooper, Trump’s Anti-LGBTQ Agenda Will Keep Foster Children From Having A Loving Home, ACLU (May 30, 2019 11:30am) https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbtq-rights/lgbtq-parenting/trumps-anti-lgbtq-agenda-will-keep-foster-chidren-having-loving
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Massey, Douglas S. America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences: Volume 1. The National Academies Press (2001)
[19] Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Vouchers Fact Sheet (2021) https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8
[20] Illinois Fair Market Rent for 2021, https://www.rentdata.org/states/illinois/2021 (last visited May 5, 2021).
[21] Colin MacArthur and Sarah Edelman, Don’t Blame Federal Housing Programs for Wall Street’s Recklessness, Center for American Progress (Apr 13, 2017, 9:00 am) https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/04/13/430424/2008-housing-crisis/
[22] Julia Kagan, Home Affordable Modification Program, Investopedia (Dec 14, 2020). https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/home-affordable-modification-program.asp
[23] Poverty and Race Research and Action Council, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH), (June 23, 2020). https://prrac.org/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing/#:~:text=Affirmatively%20Furthering%20Fair%20Housing%20(AFFH)%20is%20a%20legal%20requirement%20that,eliminate%20housing%20discrimination%20and%20segregation
[24] Federal Register, Department of Housing and Urban Development: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing,
Vol. 80, No. 136, (July 16, 2015). https://www.nhlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Affirmatively-Furthering-Fair-Housing-2015.pdf
[25] Department of Housing and Urban Development, Congressional Justifications Introduction (2020)https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2020HUD%20CongressionalJustifications3-18-19.pdf
[26] Nick Vadala, What is the Fair Housing Rule and How will its Appeal Affect Philly?, The Philadelphia Inquirer.
(Aug. 2, 2020). https://www.inquirer.com/news/affh-fair-housing-rule-philadelphia-trump-obama-20200801.html.
[27] Federal Register, Making Admission or Placement Determinations Based on Sex in Facilities Under Community Planning and Development Housing Programs, (July 24, 2020). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/07/24/2020-14718/making-admission-or-placement-determinations-based-on-sex-in-facilities-under-community-planning-and
[28] Snell and Wilmer, Residential Eviction Protections Under the CARES ACT – What Landlords and Tenants May Need to Know About Eviction Actions, JDSupra (Sep 4, 2020). https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/residential-eviction-protections-under-25224/
[29] Federal Register, Executive Order 13945: Fighting the Spread of COVID-19 by Providing Assistance to Renters and Homeowners, (Aug 8, 2020). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/14/2020-18015/fighting-the-spread-of-covid-19-by-providing-assistance-to-renters-and-homeowners
[30] The White House, Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies: Memorandum for the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Jan. 26, 2021). https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-redressing-our-nations-and-the-federal-governments-history-of-discriminatory-housing-practices-and-policies/
[31] Ashraf Khalil, Housing Agency Ends Trump-Era Anti-Transgender Shelter Rule, WGN Radio (April 22, 2021 3:40 pm). https://wgnradio.com/news/political-news/housing-agency-ends-trump-era-anti-transgender-shelter-rule/
[32] Natalie Campisi, How President-Elect Joe Biden Proposes to Change Housing Policies, Forbes Advisor (Nov 9, 2020 4:16 pm). https://www.forbes.com/advisor/mortgages/biden-housing-policies
[33] Authenticated US Government Information, Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (Jan 16, 2015). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201500033/pdf/DCPD-201500033.pdf
[34] Id.
[35] Jake Halpern, The Cop: The Man Who Shot Michael Brown, The New Yorker (Aug 3, 2015). https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/10/the-cop
[36] NBC News, Prosecutor in Michael Brown Case Has Deep Family Ties to Police (Aug 20, 2014 9:18 am). https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/prosecutor-michael-brown-case-has-deep-family-ties-police-n183911
[37] Authenticated US Government Information, Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (Jan 16, 2015). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-201500033/pdf/DCPD-201500033.pdf
[38] Cheryl W. Thompson, Fatal Police Shootings of Unarmed Black People Reveal Troubling Patterns, NPR
(Jan 25, 2021, 5:00 am). https://www.npr.org/2021/01/25/956177021/fatal-police-shootings-of-unarmed-black-people-reveal-troubling-patterns
[39] Brian Barrett, The Pentagon’s Hand-Me-Downs Helped Militarize Police. Here’s How, Wired (Jun 2, 2020 4:54 pm). https://www.wired.com/story/pentagon-hand-me-downs-militarize-police-1033-program/
[40] Bureau of Justice Assistance, Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (2015).
[41] Id.
[42] Audra Thomas, What You Need to Know About Executive Order 13688, Police 1 (Aug 22, 2016). https://www.police1.com/jag/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-executive-order-13688-7PjAN7e7PZBrCzAz/
[43] Bureau of Justice Assistance, Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (2015).
[44] Id.
[45] Audra Thomas, What You Need to Know About Executive Order 13688, Police 1 (Aug 22, 2016). https://www.police1.com/jag/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-executive-order-13688-7PjAN7e7PZBrCzAz/
[46] Bureau of Justice Assistance, Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order 13688: Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition (2015).
[47] Audra Thomas, What You Need to Know About Executive Order 13688, Police 1 (Aug 22, 2016). https://www.police1.com/jag/articles/what-you-need-to-know-about-executive-order-13688-7PjAN7e7PZBrCzAz/
[48] Id.
[49] Kanya Bennett, Trump Just Gave Thousands of Bayonets and Hundreds of Grenade Launchers Back to Police, ACLU (Aug 28, 2017 3:00 pm). https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/trump-just-gave-thousands-bayonets-and-hundreds-grenade
[50] Id.
[51] Human Rights Watch (Accessed May 6, 2021) https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/media_2020/07/HASC%20Letter%20on%201033%20Program_June30.pdf
[52] Jason Mummolo, Militarization Fails to Enhance Police Safety or Reduce Crime but May Harm Police Reputation, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (Sep 11, 2018). https://www.pnas.org/content/115/37/9181#ref-14
[53] Id.
[54] ACLU, ACLU Standing Rock Letter to Justice Department (Nov 4, 2016) https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-standing-rock-letter-justice-department
[55] ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana Responds to Police Misconduct and Excessive Use of Force at Baton Rouge Protests (July 11, 2016). https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-louisiana-responds-police-misconduct-and-excessive-use-force-baton-rouge?width=700&height=540&inline=true
[56] Amy Forliti, Steve Karnowski, and Tammy Weber, Chauvin guilty of murder and manslaughter in Floyd’s death, AP News (Apr 20, 2021) https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-live-updates-04-20-2021-955a78df9a7a51835ad63afb8ce9b5c1
[57] Id.
[58] Federal Register, Executive Order 13929: Safe Policing for Safe Communities (June 16, 2020). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/19/2020-13449/safe-policing-for-safe-communities
[59] Id.
[60] Id.
[61] Megan Welsh and Mounah Abdel-Samad, “You’re an Embarrassment”: Un-housed people’s understandings of policing in downtown San Diego, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society, Vol. 3 Iss. 3 p. 33-49 (2018). https://ccjls.scholasticahq.com/article/6330-you-re-an-embarrassment-un-housed-people-s-understandings-of-policing-in-downtown-san-diego
[62] Id.
[63] Obama White House Archives, Executive Order 13754: Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience (Dec 9, 2016). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-bering-sea-climate-resilience
[64] Id.
[65] Id.
[66] Marianne Lavelle, 2016: Obama’s Climate Legacy Marked by Triumphs and Lost Opportunities, Inside Climate Policy (Dec 26, 2016). https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26122016/obama-climate-change-legacy-trump-policies/
[67] Obama White House Archives, Executive Order 13754: Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience (Dec 9, 2016). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-bering-sea-climate-resilience
[68] Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 43 USC Chapter 29, Subchapter III: Outer Continental Shelf Lands (Sep 7, 2017). https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Outer-Continental-Shelf/Lands-Act-History/Outer-Continental-Shelf-Lands-Act.pdf
[69] Id.
[70] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 43 U.S. Code § 1333 – Laws and regulations governing lands, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1333
[71] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 43 U.S. Code § 1333 – Laws and regulations governing lands, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/43/1333
[72] Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 43 USC Chapter 29, Subchapter III: Outer Continental Shelf Lands (Sep 7, 2017). https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/oil-and-gas-energy-program/Leasing/Outer-Continental-Shelf/Lands-Act-History/Outer-Continental-Shelf-Lands-Act.pdf
[73] Id.
[74] Obama White House Archives, Executive Order 13754: Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience (Dec 9, 2016). https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-bering-sea-climate-resilience
[75] Id.
[76] Federal Register, Executive Order 13795: Implementing an America-First Off-Shore Energy Strategy (Apr 28, 2017) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/03/2017-09087/implementing-an-america-first-offshore-energy-strategy
[77] Id.
[78] Id.
[79] Kimberly VanWyhe, Executive Order: Offshore Drilling Back On, American Action Forum (May 10, 2017). https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/executive-order-offshore-drilling-back/