Costco defends its diversity policies as other US companies scale theirs back

Another reason to shop at Costco:

Costco is pushing back on a shareholder proposal that urges the wholesale club operator to conduct an evaluation of any business risks posed by its diversity, equity and inclusion practices. Investors were expected to vote on the recommendation during the company’s annual meeting Thursday.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank based in Washington, submitted the proposal, arguing that Costco’s DEI initiatives hold “litigation, reputational and financial risks to the company, and therefore financial risks to shareholders.”

The think tank has made a similar proposal to Apple, and like some American companies that already scaled back or retreated from their diversity policies, cited a U.S. Supreme Court decision in July 2023 that outlawed affirmative action in college admissions.

Costco officials could not be reached for comment on the DEI proposal.

But Costco’s board of directors voted unanimously to ask shareholders to reject the motion. The board said it believes “our commitment to an enterprise rooted in respect and inclusion is appropriate and necessary. The report requested by this proposal would not provide meaningful additional information.”

Source: Costco defends its diversity policies as other US companies scale theirs back

List of other companies not abandoning DEI:

Top 5 Companies Sticking True to DEI Programs















‘Everything’s on the table,’ minister says about Canada’s response to Trump’s order on gender

Probably not:

Gender Equality Minister Marci Ien says that President Donald Trump’s executive order that the U.S. government will only recognize male and female genders from now on is “highly disturbing,” with worrying implications for members of the transgender community.

Ms. Ien said she will be meeting with Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly on Thursday to discuss how the order will affect Canada, including whether a travel advisory should be issued to warn gender-diverse Canadians planning to visit the United States.

The two ministers will also talk about whether Canada should create a special carve-out in the Safe Third Country Agreement with Washington, so that transgender asylum seekers who come to Canada’s border would not be automatically sent back to the U.S.

Asylum seekers coming to either Canada or the United States must make a refugee claim where they first arrive, but human-rights and refugee advocates argue that the U.S. can no longer be considered safe for trans people.

“Everything’s on the table,” Ms. Ien said in an interview. “Canada already opens its doors to 2SLGBTQI+ people who are fleeing aggression. Canada already does that, and I don’t see why we stop doing that. Did we ever think that the United States would be one of those countries? I don’t know about that. That’s new.”

Her remarks contrast with those of Immigration Minister Marc Miller, who in an interview on Tuesday said that despite Mr. Trump’s measures, he still regards the U.S. as a safe place under the agreement….

Source: ‘Everything’s on the table,’ minister says about Canada’s response to Trump’s order on gender

Tasha Kheiriddin: Trump’s agenda poses risks for Canada far beyond tariffs [DEI]

Likely one of the lessor risks compared to many other executive orders and probably overstated. Canadians pursuing economic opportunities in the USA have more pressing reasons to do so than DEI:

…The second impact will come from the death of DEI. Even prior to Trump’s return to office, American companies were dumping DEI in droves: Amazon, Meta, Walmart, McDonald’s, Boeing, Ford and John Deere all scrapped their programs in the last six months. On Monday, Trump revoked all “radical and wasteful” federal DEI programs by executive order.

This will affect Canadian companies in several ways. American parent companies may feel pressured to dump DEI policies in their Canadian subsidiaries, so as not to run afoul of the new American ethos, and to remain competitive.

Trump could also turn these policies into a bargaining chip in his trade and tariff negotiations. And they could spur a new brain drain: Canadian talent who want to operate in a non-DEI environment may choose to head south, where they will have greater opportunities for advancement….

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Trump’s agenda poses risks for Canada far beyond tariffs

Trump administration puts federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff on leave

The Trump administration is moving to put employees in federal diversity, equity and inclusion programs on paid leave by 5 p.m. Wednesday.

The move, which calls for agencies to develop a “reduction-in-force action” against the employees, comes after Trump signed executive orders ending DEI programs in the federal government.

In one of the orders, entitled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” Trump accused former President Joe Biden of encouraging discrimination in “virtually all aspects of the federal government” by promoting diversity programs….

Source: Trump administration puts federal diversity, equity and inclusion staff on leave

Change to Birthright Citizenship Would Affect Visa Holders, Too

One of the better overviews, covering the politics, legal aspects and operational practicalities (some familiar to Canadian issues under the Conservative government in 2012):

President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship declares that babies born to many temporary residents of the United States — not just those in the country illegally — must be denied automatic citizenship, a dramatic rejection of rights that have been part of the Constitution for more than 150 years.

If the courts do not block the order, babies born to women living legally, but temporarily, in the United States — such as people studying on a student visa or workers hired by high-tech companies — will not automatically be recognized by the federal government as U.S. citizens if the father is also not a permanent resident.

Aides to Mr. Trump had told reporters on Monday morning that the order would apply to “children of illegal aliens born in the United States.” In fact, the language in the order Mr. Trump signed, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” goes much further.

“It’s a shocking attack on people in this country who are here lawfully, played by the rules and are benefiting the country,” said David Leopold, the chair of the immigration practice at the law firm UB Greensfelder. “We’re talking about people who are doing cutting-edge research in the United States, researchers, people who are here to help us.”

The order was part of a barrage of actions that Mr. Trump authorized on Monday to carry out his vision of a country with far less immigration. Despite claims he repeated on Monday that “I’m fine with legal immigration; I like it,” the president’s new orders would also severely curtail the options of those looking to enter the United States legally.

Many of the president’s closest advisers, including Stephen Miller, his deputy chief of staff and the architect of his immigration policy, have urged a tough line on birthright citizenship. During Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Miller and other aides pushed to make sure that immigrants could no longer establish what they call an “anchor” in the United States by having a baby who automatically becomes an American citizen.

In addition to targeting birthright citizenship, Mr. Trump on Monday barred asylum for immigrants seeking to cross the southern border, imposed an indefinite suspension of the legal refugee system, terminated several legal pathways for immigrants put in place by the Biden administration and declared the existence of an “invasion” from immigrants aimed at giving the federal government broad powers to stop all kinds of people from entering.

The executive order regarding birthright citizenship says that right will be denied for babies born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents with green cards, including women who are “visiting on a student, work or tourist visa” if the father is not a citizen or a legal permanent resident. In that case, the order says, “no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship.”

There are serious questions about how Mr. Trump’s administration would impose such a dramatic change in policy.

Currently, the citizenship of babies born in the United States is documented in a two-step process.

First, the state or territorial government will issue a birth certificate confirming where and when the birth took place. The birth certificate does not include any information about the immigration status of the baby’s parents.

Second, when that baby (or the parents, on the child’s behalf) applies for a passport, the birth certificate showing that the baby was born on U.S. soil is enough to prove citizenship. No other documentation is required.

Mr. Trump’s executive order indicates that in 30 days, all federal agencies will be required to confirm the immigration status of the parents before issuing documents like a passport.

Left unclear, however, is how that would be put into practice.

One option would be for state agencies to check the immigration status of parents and include that information on birth certificates. Then, when passports are requested, the federal government would be able to determine which babies qualify for automatic citizenship.

It could take years, however, for states to put in place a system that checks the immigration status of all parents — assuming they are willing to do so. The federal government could establish guidelines for the required information, but it would most likely be up to the states to decide how and whether to gather that data from parents when they issue a birth certificate.

If the states do not overhaul the birth certificate process, the federal government could seek to enforce Mr. Trump’s order by requiring people applying for passports to present both a birth certificate and proof of their parents’ citizenship status when they were born.

That could become extremely cumbersome, legal experts said, particularly for people with complicated family dynamics or missing legal documents.

Several White House officials did not respond to questions seeking clarification about how the order might be carried out.

Legal scholars and immigration advocates said on Tuesday that they were stunned by the breadth of the order.

Advocates are hoping that judges will step in and put it on hold before it is set to take effect on Feb. 20. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court in New Hampshire on Monday night challenging the order, just hours after the president signed it.

And on Tuesday, attorneys general from 22 states and two cities sued Mr. Trump to block the executive order. Rulings by either judge could temporarily suspend the order, prompting what could be a monthslong legal battle that could end up before the Supreme Court.

“It’s very clear that they mean to double down on their nativistic anti-immigrant agenda, and that denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. has got to be a core part of their plan,” said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. “If we were to repeal birthright citizenship, it would create a legal vehicle for intergenerational stigma and discrimination that would undo the very core of this grand American experiment.”

Birthright citizenship in the United States was put in place after the Civil War to allow Black people to be citizens. The 14th Amendment says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Before the amendment was ratified in 1868, even free Black men and women could not become citizens.

Mr. Trump argues that his administration is within its rights to interpret what the writers of the amendment meant.

“The 14th Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States,” his executive order said.

Many lawyers say that is flatly wrong. In their legal brief, the A.C.L.U.’s lawyers argued that the meaning of the 14th Amendment had been settled law for more than 125 years. They cited an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark, in which they said the Supreme Court “emphatically rejected the last effort to undercut birthright citizenship.”

“The executive order is certainly unconstitutional,” said Cecillia Wang, the A.C.L.U.’s national legal director. “It’s fair to say that if the court were to uphold Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, it would lose all legitimacy in the eyes of the people and in the history books.”…

Source: Change to Birthright Citizenship Would Affect Visa Holders, Too

Trump’s executive orders on immigration could prompt rise in asylum claims in Canada, experts say

Changes do raise question regarding underlying premise of Safe Third Country Agreement along with specific implications for non-binary and trans persons. Monthly asylum claims data will provide confirmation or not, as well as extent:

U.S. President Donald Trump’s raft of policy changes on his first day in office, including rolling back rights of transgender people and ending citizenship as a birthright in the United States, are expected to lead to a rise in claims for asylum in Canada, immigration experts say.

He signed a suite of executive orders on Monday evening tightening up immigration rules, including to bolster the U.S.’s southern border. The White House confirmed that he plans to suspend refugee resettlement in the U.S., end asylum for illegal border crossers, and enhance vetting and screening of foreign nationals.

Among the slew of executive orders is one reversing a policy that means anyone born in the U.S. automatically becomes an American citizen. Citizenship as a birthright is guaranteed by a constitutional amendment and is one of the measures in the President’s program expected to prompt legal challenges. Speaking to reporters as he signed the orders Monday evening, the President said he thought the orders would withstand such challenges.

Canadian immigration lawyer Yameena Ansari said the change to the birthright rule, if implemented, would mean that some children born to immigrants in the U.S. may be stateless, which she said breached international law. She predicted that such a policy could lead to more minors turning up at the Canadian border to seek a safe haven.

“Trump is breaching the U.S.’s own international-rights commitments by making large swaths of the population stateless,” she said.

In his inaugural address on Monday, Mr. Trump said the U.S. government would also adopt a policy of recognizing only male and female genders. He signed an executive order on Monday night effectively reversing the gender-related policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

In 2022, the Biden administration permitted U.S. citizens to select a gender-neutral “X” on passports.

Mr. Trump is expected to direct the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that official government documents, including passports and visas, only recognize twogenders.

Canadian immigration lawyer David Garson said since Mr. Trump’s election victory he has received multiple inquiries from non-binary and transgender Americans, as well as U.S. parents of transgender children, about moving to Canada.

He said the policy changes are likely to spark more asylum claims at the Canadian border from anxious people, including transgender U.S. citizens fearful of infringement of their rights. He also predicted an increase in asylum claims from pregnant, undocumented migrants who fear not just deportation, but that their child could be stateless if born in the U.S.

Mr. Trump’s executive orders would mean “more people coming to Canada or the Canadian border over all,” Mr. Garson said.

Executive orders rolling back transgender rights and further tightening up asylum in the U.S. could also have an impact on its Safe Third Country Agreement with Canada, experts predict.

Under the agreement, most foreign nationals claiming asylum at the border are automatically returned to the U.S., but immigration experts say Mr. Trump’s policies may lead to a reassessment of whether the U.S. is now safe for particular groups.

The changes in the U.S. could lead to the consideration of more “carve-outs,” meaning that some groups – as currently with unaccompanied minors – are not sent back to the U.S.

Immigration lawyer Maureen Silcoff said that under refugee law, Canada has an obligation to consider whether there are marked differences between Canadian and American standards of protection.

“Legally speaking. it could mean that the Governor in Council might decide to de-designate the U.S. as a safe third country,” she said….

Source: Trump’s executive orders on immigration could prompt rise in asylum claims in Canada, experts say

Trump rescinds Biden’s census order, clearing a path for reshaping election maps

Sigh…

Among the dozens of Biden-era executive orders that President Trump revoked on Monday was one that had reversed the first Trump administration’s unprecedented policy of altering a key set of census results.

Since the first U.S. census in 1790, no resident has ever been omitted from those numbers because of immigration status. And after the Civil War, the14th Amendment has called for the population counts that determine each state’s share of U.S. House seats and Electoral College votes to include the “whole number of persons in each state.”

Biden’s now-revoked 2021 order affirmed the longstanding practice of including the total number of persons residing in each state in those census results. It was issued in response to Trump’s attempt during the national tally in 2020 to exclude millions of U.S. residents without legal status.

Biden’s order also effectively ended a Trump administration-initiated project at the Census Bureau to produce neighborhood block-level citizenship data using government records. That data, a GOP redistricting strategist once concluded, could be “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” when voting districts are redrawn.

It’s not clear yet if the second Trump administration would revive these census-related efforts. In his new order, Trump said revoking Biden’s order “will be the first of many steps the United States Federal Government will take to repair our institutions and our economy.”

Conservative groups behind the “Project 2025” plan have included adding a citizenship question among their priorities for a conservative administration. And a growing number of Republican members of Congress, including Rep. Chuck Edwards of North Carolina, have introduced bills that call for using the next head count to tally non-U.S. citizens living in the country and then subtract some or all of those residents from what are known as the congressional apportionment counts.

Trump’s second term is set to end before final decisions have to be made on what questions the 2030 census will ask and who ends up getting included in the apportionment counts.

Source: Trump rescinds Biden’s census order, clearing a path for reshaping election maps

Trump Executive Orders of Interest

Many of these will be subject to litigation. Similarly to the Harper government’s titles of legislation, the titles have political rather than more neutral language. A selection of the one’s I will be watching in particular and expect considerable commentary and likely legal challenges:

Citizenship

PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP [ACLU and others already submitted a legal challenge, and it appears to be framed more broadly than just women not in the USA legally as it includes temporary residents such as international students and workers. Indian media has particularly flagged impact on H1-B and other visa holders.]

Section 1.  Purpose.  The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.  The Fourteenth Amendment states:  “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race. 

But the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.  The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  Consistent with this understanding, the Congress has further specified through legislation that “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a national and citizen of the United States at birth, 8 U.S.C. 1401, generally mirroring the Fourteenth Amendment’s text.  

Among the categories of individuals born in the United States and not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States at the time of said person’s birth was lawful but temporary (such as, but not limited to, visiting the United States under the auspices of the Visa Waiver Program or visiting on a student, work, or tourist visa) and the father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Sec. 2.  Policy.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

Immigration

PROTECTING THE UNITED STATES FROM FOREIGN TERRORISTS AND OTHER NATIONAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY THREATS

Section 1.  Policy and Purpose.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

(b)  To protect Americans, the United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those aliens approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans or our national interests.  More importantly, the United States must identify them before their admission or entry into the United States.  And the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.

PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AGAINST INVASION

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the prior administration invited, administered, and oversaw an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.  Millions of illegal aliens crossed our borders or were permitted to fly directly into the United States on commercial flights and allowed to settle in American communities, in violation of longstanding Federal laws.

Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against innocent Americans.  Others are engaged in hostile activities, including espionage, economic espionage, and preparations for terror-related activities.  Many have abused the generosity of the American people, and their presence in the United States has cost taxpayers billions of dollars at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Enforcing our Nation’s immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States.  The American people deserve a Federal Government that puts their interests first and a Government that understands its sacred obligation to prioritize the safety, security, and financial and economic well-being of Americans.

This order ensures that the Federal Government protects the American people by faithfully executing the immigration laws of the United States.

SECURING OUR BORDERS

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the United States has endured a large-scale invasion at an unprecedented level.  Millions of illegal aliens from nations and regions all around the world successfully entered the United States where they are now residing, including potential terrorists, foreign spies, members of cartels, gangs, and violent transnational criminal organizations, and other hostile actors with malicious intent.

Deadly narcotics and other illicit materials have flowed across the border while agents and officers spend their limited resources processing illegal aliens for release into the United States.  These catch-and-release policies undermine the rule of law and our sovereignty, create substantial risks to public safety and security, and divert critical resources away from stopping the entry of contraband and fugitives into the United States.  

We have limited information on the precise whereabouts of a great number of these illegal aliens who have entered the United States over the last 4 years.

This cannot stand.  A nation without borders is not a nation, and the Federal Government must act with urgency and strength to end the threats posed by an unsecured border.

REALIGNING THE UNITED STATES REFUGEE ADMISSIONS PROGRAM

Section 1.  Purpose.  Over the last 4 years, the United States has been inundated with record levels of migration, including through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).  Cities and small towns alike, from Charleroi, Pennsylvania, and Springfield, Ohio, to Whitewater, Wisconsin, have seen significant influxes of migrants.  Even major urban centers such as New York City, Chicago, and Denver have sought Federal aid to manage the burden of new arrivals.  Some jurisdictions, like New York and Massachusetts, have even recently declared states of emergency because of increased migration.

The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees.  This order suspends the USRAP until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.

CLARIFYING THE MILITARY’S ROLE IN PROTECTING THE TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF THE UNITED STATES

Section 1.  Purpose.  (a)  As Chief Executive and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, I have no more solemn responsibility than protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.  The protection of a nation’s territorial integrity and national boundaries is paramount for its security.

(b)  The Armed Forces of the United States have played a long and well-established role in securing our borders against threats of invasion, against unlawful forays by foreign nationals into the United States, and against other transnational criminal activities that violate our laws and threaten the peace, harmony, and tranquility of the Nation.  These threats have taken a variety of forms over our Nation’s history, but the Armed Forces have consistently played an integral role in protecting the sovereignty of the United States.

(c)  Threats against our Nation’s sovereignty continue today, and it is essential that the Armed Forces staunchly continue to participate in the defense of our territorial integrity and sovereignty.  A National Emergency currently exists along the southern border of the United States.  Unchecked unlawful mass migration and the unimpeded flow of opiates across our borders continue to endanger the safety and security of the American people and encourage further lawlessness.  Accordingly, through this order, I am acting in accordance with my solemn duty to protect and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States along our national borders.

DEI

ENDING RADICAL AND WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT DEI PROGRAMS AND PREFERENCING

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military.  This was a concerted effort stemming from President Biden’s first day in office, when he issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.”

Pursuant to Executive Order 13985 and follow-on orders, nearly every Federal agency and entity submitted “Equity Action Plans” to detail the ways that they have furthered DEIs infiltration of the Federal Government.  The public release of these plans demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination.  That ends today.  Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.

DEFENDING WOMEN FROM GENDER IDEOLOGY EXTREMISM AND RESTORING BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Section 1.  Purpose.  Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers.  This is wrong.  Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being.  The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system.  Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.

This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts.  Invalidating the true and biological category of “woman” improperly transforms laws and policies designed to protect sex-based opportunities into laws and policies that undermine them, replacing longstanding, cherished legal rights and values with an identity-based, inchoate social concept.

Accordingly, my Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male. 

Government

RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CAREER SENIOR EXECUTIVES

Career Senior Executive Service (SES) officials are charged to “ensure that the executive management of the Government of the United States is responsive to the needs, policies, and goals of the Nation and otherwise is of the highest quality,” as required by section 3131 of title 5, United States Code.  SES officials have enormous influence over the functioning of the Federal Government, and thus the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans.  

As the Constitution makes clear, and as the Supreme Court of the United States has reaffirmed, “the ‘executive Power’ — all of it — is ‘vested in a President,’ who must ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”  Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197, 203 (2020).  “Because no single person could fulfill that responsibility alone, the Framers expected that the President would rely on subordinate officers for assistance.”  Id. at 203–04.  

The President’s power to remove subordinates is a core part of the Executive power vested by Article II of the Constitution and is necessary for the President to perform his duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Because SES officials wield significant governmental authority, they must serve at the pleasure of the President. 

Only that chain of responsibility ensures that SES officials are properly accountable to the President and the American people.  If career SES officials fail to faithfully fulfill their duties to advance the needs, policies, and goals of the United States, the President must be able to rectify the situation and ensure that the entire Executive Branch faithfully executes the law.  For instance, SES officials who engage in unauthorized disclosure of Executive Branch deliberations, violate the constitutional rights of Americans, refuse to implement policy priorities, or perform their duties inefficiently or negligently should be held accountable. 

RESTORING ACCOUNTABILITY TO POLICY-INFLUENCING
POSITIONS WITHIN THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE

Section 1.  Purpose.  Article II of the United States Constitution vests the President with the sole and exclusive authority over the executive branch, including the authority to manage the Federal workforce to ensure effective execution of Federal law.  A critical aspect of this executive function is the responsibility to maintain professionalism and accountability within the civil service.  This accountability is sorely lacking today.  Only 41 percent of civil service supervisors are confident that they can remove an employee who engaged in insubordination or serious misconduct.  Even fewer supervisors –- 26 percent — are confident that they can remove an employee for poor performance.

Accountability is essential for all Federal employees, but it is especially important for those who are in policy-influencing positions.  These personnel are entrusted to shape and implement actions that have a significant impact on all Americans.  Any power they have is delegated by the President, and they must be accountable to the President, who is the only member of the executive branch, other than the Vice President, elected and directly accountable to the American people.  In recent years, however, there have been numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership.  Principles of good administration, therefore, necessitate action to restore accountability to the career civil service, beginning with positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.

RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP

Section 1.  Purpose.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference.  Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.  Under the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.  Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

Birthright Citizenship Defined America. Trump Wants to Redefine It.

Good long and informative read:

When the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, it defined the United States nearly as deeply as the nation’s founding documents. “It’s certainly the most important change in the Constitution since the Bill of Rights,” the historian Eric Foner told me.

The amendment grants citizenship to almost everyone born inside the country — a rare policy for an advanced economy in the 21st century. Among the 20 most developed countries in the world, only Canada and the United States allocate citizenship using the legal principle of jus soli, the right of soil.

President-elect Donald J. Trump has vowed to overturn territorial birthright citizenship. “We’re going to have to get it changed,” he told NBC News during his first extended interview after winning the election in November. “We’re going to end that because it’s ridiculous.”

Trump has said that he will release an executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of “illegal aliens” on the first day that he takes office. Members of his team have told The New York Times that his administration will not issue passports and Social Security cards to children born to undocumented parents. These moves will inevitably be challenged in court, where the fate of birthright citizenship is likely to be decided.

Efforts to end birthright citizenship for the children of unauthorized migrants date back more than four decades, but Trump’s return will most likely present one of the greatest challenges in the 14th Amendment’s 157-year history. Legal arguments that were once regarded as fringe have moved to the mainstream. The Supreme Court has proved itself willing to break with historical precedent in cases involving other conservative priorities, like abortion and presidential immunity. And Trump, who campaigned on the idea of restricting birthright citizenship, is entering office with a majority of the vote….

Source: Birthright Citizenship Defined America. Trump Wants to Redefine It.

Ahead of Day 1, Trump’s Team Works to Temper Expectations on Immigration

Reality. But still expect degree of “shock and awe.” Risks disappointing base and perhaps reducing some anxiety given contrast between rhetoric and action:

President-elect Donald J. Trump vowed throughout his campaign to carry out the “largest deportation program in American history,” including a “Day 1” effort to send millions of immigrants “back home where they belong,” and putting “no price tag” on the effort.

But as he transitions from the campaign to the White House, Mr. Trump’s team is encountering a harsh reality of immigration policy: Easier said than done.

In public remarks and private conversations with members of Congress, Mr. Trump’s immigration team has conceded that his aspirations for mass deportations will be both costly and time-consuming.

Stephen Miller, the architect of Mr. Trump’s immigration agenda and his pick to be deputy chief of staff, met with congressional Republicans on Wednesday for a “level setting” of expectations and needs for immigration enforcement, according to a congressional member who participated in the meeting.

Tom Homan, Mr. Trump’s pick to oversee the deportations, has told Republicans to expect a phased approach that first prioritizes those with a criminal record, rather than a national sweep of any immigrant with uncertain or contested legal status. And he has made clear there is, indeed, a price tag for the efforts, saying they will need Congress to approve billions of additional dollars to carry them out.

That is a tall order on Capitol Hill, where Republicans hold slim majorities and Democrats are all but certain to oppose the funding of a mass deportation effort. Some lawmakers expect that after an initial wave of deportations of those easiest to remove, Mr. Trump will spend the rest of his time in office haggling with Congress over money for more.

“Congress needs to fund this deportation operation,” Mr. Homan told Fox Business in December. “It’s going to be expensive, and everybody is focused on how expensive it’s gonna be.”

Mr. Trump will still find ways to call attention to his early efforts to crack down, such as spotlighting deportations in Democratic-led cities or work site raids in the first days of his presidency. While appearing on Donald Trump Jr.’s podcast in November, Mr. Homan said the public should expect immigration action that creates “shock and awe.”…

Source: Ahead of Day 1, Trump’s Team Works to Temper Expectations on Immigration

Trump’s A.G. Pick Adds Huge Asterisk to Birthright Citizenship

One really has to wonder whether these hearings are worthwhile given the high degree of politicization and polarization and the resulting evasiveness:

Pam Bondi, Donald Trump’s nominee for the next U.S. attorney general, refused to give a basic yes or no answer, during her confirmation hearing Wednesday, regarding her views on birthright citizenship, which is etched into the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

“You’ve testified repeatedly to this committee that you will uphold the laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United States,” said Democratic Senator Alex Padilla. “Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the land, and will you defend it regardless—a child born of the United States—regardless of their parents’ immigration status?”

Bondi refused to answer the question. “Senator, I will study birthright citizenship, I would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship—”

“Ma’am, you’re asking to be considered to serve as the attorney general of the United States, and you still need to study the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution?” Padilla retorted. “That is not helping me have more confidence in your ability to do this job.”

Bondi’s nonanswer is deference to President-elect Trump, who said he’d end birthright citizenship via executive order on Meet the Press in December.

The Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Source: Trump’s A.G. Pick Adds Huge Asterisk to Birthright Citizenship