Corporate Influence in Government
Mr. Trump's Unsafe Neighborhood: 33 Ways Trump's Cruel Policies Are Bad for America's Kids
Alan Zibel Corporate Influence in Government, Trump's Threat to Democracy	Clean Cars, Taking on Trump
It's impossible to forget the scenes of sobbing migrant children separated from their parents, placed in cages, running away from clouds of tear gas, cooped up in a tent city and appearing in court alone.
These horrifying events show all too clearly how the chaos-creating Trump administration has turned cruelty to children into official government policy.
But President Donald Trump's anti-child policies are not limited to immigrants. They are emblematic of an administration whose antipathy to all children is apparent on virtually every issue, and especially so for low-income kids and children of color.
From the environment to health care to education to product safety, the interests of the largest U.S. corporations are far more important to the Trump administration than the health, safety and well-being of America's children.
Here are 33 ways Donald Trump, along with his corporate-allied cronies and ideological extremists have put America's children at risk:
Undermined efforts to improve the quality of school lunches: The Trump administration has rolled back the Obama administration's efforts to serve more nutritious foods to students, allowing chocolate milk and other sugary, salty, fatty foods that lead to obesity and poor health. Trump's agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, said that it "doesn't do any good to serve nutritious meals if they wind up in the trash can." but nutrition experts say the rules put children's health at risk.
Nixed protections for transgender students: Only a month after taking office, Trump rescinded an Obama-era position that transgender students can use bathrooms that correspond with students' gender identity. A year later, the U.S. Department of Education said it no longer would investigate complaints filed by transgender students who are denied access to bathrooms. Most recently, the Trump administration has explored defining gender as an unchangeable biological condition, a change that would exclude transgender people from civil rights protections.
Faked concern about school shootings: Trump did nothing after 17 high school students were gunned down in Parkland, Fla. Instead of action that would actually make schools safer, Trump proposed to arm teachers, and his administration set up a sham commission to study school safety issues that intentionally chose to ignore the role of guns in school violence. While Trump briefly endorsed some gun-control measures and observed accurately that that the gun lobby has "great power over" Republicans, the Trump administration has avoided the gun control issue, save for a promised ban on ultra-dangerous "bump stocks" which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire more quickly.
Repealed education standards: Early in the administration, Trump signed measures getting rid of standards for teacher-training programs and accountability rules designed to ensure that schools serve poor and minority students.
Placed protections for minority students at risk: The Education Department, under pressure from conservative groups, is dismissing large numbers of civil rights complaints and evaluating whether to eliminate Obama administration's 2014 school discipline guidance, which encourages school officials to address the disproportionately large number of students of color who are suspended and expelled, and even jailed. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos called for $1 million proposed cut to the Education Department's civil rights office, a move a House Democrat described a "slap in the face" for minority students.
Separated children from their parents, put them in cages and held them in detention camps: Trump's cruel and unnecessary family separation policy resulted in thousands of kids being separated from their parents, placed in cages, held in a tent city in Texas and appearing alone in court. These policies were enacted over the objections of career federal officials. The Trump administration then took months to reunify families and gave out inaccurate data about how many children had been reunified. Most recently, the Associated Press reported that workers at a tent city detention camp holding 2,300 teenagers in the Texas desert did not use FBI fingerprint background checks for its workers, increasing the risk that people with criminal histories could have contact with the boys and girls between 13 and 17 years old.
Used tear gas on children, and then said it wasn't not so bad: After U.S. agents used tear gas in a confrontation with a crowd of migrants at the border with Mexico, Trump claimed that "the tear gas is a very minor form of the tear gas itself" and denied it was used on children despite photos of children running away from tear gas used by federal agents.
Left undocumented children and young adults in limbo: Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has curbed enforcement of immigration laws against undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. Trump claimed he supported a "bill of love" to protect the Dreamers, but didn't support actual legislation. Instead, Trump demanded strict anti-immigrant measures such as his unnecessary border wall proposal. As a result, the issue remains unresolved, and about 800,000 Dreamers remain in limbo.
Tried to deprive immigrants of social services: The Trump administration wants to deny green cards and visas to legal immigrants who use federal benefits such as Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance. This cruel proposal could cause fear and uncertainty for immigrant families and result in millions of eligible children going without food assistance, health coverage and more. Immigration officials would have latitude to to reject immigrants' applications due to low incomes, deterring immigrants from legal paths to citizenship and causing immigrants and their family members to forego critical benefits for fear of the consequences.
Discussed ending the right to citizenship for children of immigrant parents: Trump said he would issue an executive order ending the right to U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States. This unconstitutional move was even dismissed by House Speaker Paul Ryan.
Explored rolling back housing segregation rules: Enduring patterns of residential segregation in the U.S. have made it difficult for low-income children to climb the economic ladder, but the Trump administration is considering getting rid of a rule requiring local governments to combat residential segregation or lose federal funding. This rule, enacted by the Obama administration in 2015, is designed to promote low-income housing in wealthier areas that have long resisted such housing. Without this regulation, housing segregation and discriminatory practices will persist, making it far harder for low-income children to advance in American society.
Killed internet privacy rules: Just two months after being sworn in, Trump signed legislation getting rid of regulations banning internet companies from selling customers' browsing histories without their permission. Without this rule, internet companies will be able to target children with ads. Federal rules already prohibit data collection from children under 13 without parental consent, but teenagers are ripe targets for invasive advertising.
Signed a tax bill that shafted low-income families: Trump and Congressional Republicans did the bidding of big donors by enacting massive tax cuts for large corporations and wealthy individuals. After passing these irresponsible cuts, Republican lawmakers and Trump's top economic adviser pivoted to talk of cutting back on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other programs claiming that the government can't afford them.
Threatened drastic budget cuts: The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened, but failed to enact, draconian cuts to federal programs that benefit kids. After lawmakers reached a bipartisan compromise budget deal that provided a huge spending boost to the military as well as social programs, Trump quickly got grumpy about the deal he had just signed. He pushed for brutal cuts to children's health insurance, and other spending that lawmakers already approved. Thankfully, this plan failed.
Failed to prevent lead poisoning: The Trump administration's first budget proposed to eliminate two federal programs that aim to reduce children's risk of exposure to lead paint, which impedes brain development. It then took a court order to get the administration to revise federal standards for lead paint and lead dust exposure. These new proposed rules include tighter standards for lead dust on floors and window sills but still put children at risk by failing to include tighter standards for lead in paint and soil.
Ousted the top EPA official for children's health: The Trump administration placed Dr. Ruth Etzel, director of the EPA's Office of Children's Health Protection, on administrative leave in September 2018. Etzel, a pediatrician and renowned child health expert, told CNN she suspected that the administration objected to a major lead poisoning report nearing completion. "Maybe saving children doesn't matter anymore," Etzel told CNN. "If you watch their actions and not just listen to their words, you find out they're not walking the walk that they would be walking if they really wanted to eliminate childhood lead poisoning."
Delayed an update of standards for lead in drinking water: The Trump administration has delayed new federals standards for lead and copper in drinking water. After several delays, the EPA now says it plans to release these proposed standards next year. Meanwhile, more cities are facing public health crises over lead levels in their tap water.
Refused to ban a pesticide that causes brain damage in kids: Trump's EPA refused to ban chlorpyrifos, a brain-damaging pesticide sold by Dow Chemical Co., which contributed $1 million to Trump's inauguration and whose CEO met with Trump several times. Though a federal appeals court has now ordered the Trump EPA to ban the pesticide, the Trump administration hasn't stopped carrying water for chemical companies and agriculture giants. Trump's Department of Justice has asked for a rehearing of this case with a larger panel of judges. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue even asserted that banning the dangerous chemical would prevent farmers from using and "effective and economical crop protection tool."
Pushed to let teenage farm workers handle pesticides: The Trump administration has solicited public comment on whether to repeal an Obama-era requirement barring children under 18 from handling pesticides on farms. This limitation, enacted in 2015, is one of the few national regulations on child farm labor and is especially important because early exposure to pesticides can cause cancer and neurological damage.
Dialed back protections for people who live near chemical plants: One in three kids attends school close to a dangerous chemical facility. But the Trump administration tried to delay enforcement of rules designed to ensure communities are prepared for chemical plant disasters. Trump's EPA even proposed to delete important accident-prevention regulations. Fortunately, a federal appeals court ruled against the Trump EPA, saying it could no longer delay disaster-prevention and safety measures to promote emergency preparedness measures and sharing of information about chemical threats.
Tried to throw out a climate-change lawsuit filed by children: A group of young people between 10 and 25 sued the federal government in 2015 for failing to stop climate change, arguing that they have the right to live in a safe climate. The Trump administration tried to get the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the case before the scheduled trial date, complaining about the cost of the litigation, but the court allowed the case to proceed.
Deleted a mention of the impact of climate change on children: Trump's EPA deleted warnings about climate change from rules on power plant carbon emissions. Another Trump EPA regulation on greenhouse gases in cooling units eliminated language noting that children, the elderly and the poor are "most vulnerable to climate-related health effects."
Worked to weaken rules for mercury emissions from power plants: The Trump administration is reviewing whether to undermine protections that reduce mercury, arsenic, lead and other air pollutants from power plant emissions. Mercury pollution is particularly hazardous to kids, damaging the nervous system of children and fetuses.
Ignored the health benefits of environmental rules: The Trump argument has argued, absurdly, that the government shouldn't even consider health benefits — such as curbing soot in the air — when deciding whether to go ahead with federal rules, arguing that these benefits are an unintended effect of the rule. Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, seemed oblivious to the real public benefits to the health of vulnerable populations like children and the elderly, calling such benefits "fuzzy math."
Closed a federal office that focused on children's health: The EPA closed the National Center for Environmental Research, which provides millions of dollars in grants each year and runs fellowships to study the effects of chemicals on children's health. Though EPA officials claimed the research grants would still be funded, staffers at the center were reassigned.
Cut off funding for a teen pregnancy prevention program: The Trump administration defunded a program that uses evidence-based initiatives to reduce teen pregnancy rates, but then was blocked from doing so by a federal judge.
Tried to get rid of families' health care: The White House and Republican lawmakers spent months trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The 2010 health care law benefited low-income children tremendously, spurring parents who were newly eligible for health care to sign up their children for existing health care programs and use more preventive care. Thankfully, the Trump administration failed in its effort to repeal Obamacare, but has still worked to harm children and families by slashing spending on advertising for Obamacare signups and trying to sabotage Obamacare by getting rid of the mandate that Americans carry health insurance. Under Trump, the Justice Department even declined to defend the law's ban on denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions or charging them higher rates.
Allowed health insurers to sell skimpy insurance plans: Children and families will be harmed by the Trump administration's decision to allow health insurance companies to sell junk health care plans that lack coverage for such essentials as prescriptions and quality maternity care. Those with these plans may find themselves responsible for significant expenses, forcing them to go into debt and even bankruptcy. While these inexpensive plans could target healthy young adults who use little healthcare, but children and families tend to use healthcare more often and would be harmed.
Undermined efforts to encourage breastfeeding: Despite the consensus recommendation of public health experts and doctors, the Trump administration sought to dilute a World Health Organization resolution favoring breastfeeding over the use of infant formula, helping out the infant formula industry.
Failed to ensure food safety in trade negotiations: The new North American trade deal's includes restraints on domestic food safety and inspection programs and requires the U.S. to accept food imports that do not meet U.S. safety or inspection standards. The trade pact also maintains limits on food inspection at the border and adds new rules limiting audits of countries' food safety programs. It also fails to fix rollbacks of U.S. food labeling policies that previously were challenged by Canada and Mexico, including country-of-origin labels for meat and dolphin-safe labels for tuna.
Appointed an opponent of product-safety regulations to run government's product safety watchdog: Trump's acting head of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Anne Marie Buerkle, is a former right-wing congresswoman with a record of opposing strong mandatory health and safety regulations. Another CPSC commissioner, Dana Baiocco, spent her professional career defending corporations in product safety cases.
Reached a weak settlement over stroller problems: The CPSC sued a maker of jogging strollers over reports that the front wheel could detach suddenly and injure parents and kids. The agency reached a settlement requiring the stroller manufacturer, Britax, to repair defective strollers but still avoid calling these repairs a recall. Two Democratic commissioners were highly critical of this arrangement, writing that "an agreement that provides relief without anyone being fully alerted to the nature of the relief is pretty much no relief at all" and expressed concerns that other companies will seek similar treatment.
Put young nursing home workers at risk: The Trump administration has proposed to repeal a policy that protects 16 and 17-year-old nursing assistants from getting injured in nursing homes and health care jobs. Trump's Labor Department apparently has no problem with young workers operating dangerous patient lifts on their own, without training or assistance from an adult worker. However, occupational safety experts have concluded that most youths do not have the ability to properly assess the risks of using this equipment.
Did Trump Squelch The FBI's Office Relocation Plans?
Robert Weissman Corporate Influence in Government, Trump's Threat to Democracy	Taking on Trump
U.S. House Democrats have released emails that raise serious concerns about whether President Donald Trump personally directed government officials to prevent the relocation of the FBI's headquarters from its Pennsylvania Avenue location in Washington, D.C.
These documents suggest the need for further scrutiny of whether the decision was made in an effort to avoid potential competition from commercial developers who might be interested in building a new hotel at the FBI site, which would compete with the Trump International Hotel, located on the same street. (Before Trump got into presidential politics, he even expressed interest in redeveloping the FBI site.)
Trump's D.C. hotel opened before the 2016 presidential election. It was constructed in a public building, the Old Post Office, and has created the highly unusual situation of a president deriving financial benefit from a business located just blocks from the White House. The hotel has become a watering hole for those seeking to influence the Trump administration.
This president leases property from the United States government, in plain violation of the lease terms that say it cannot be leased to a government official. His hotel hosts foreign governments and trade associations that hold dozens of events there in order to curry favor with him.
Trump's interference in an office relocation decision, which would replace the FBI's deteriorating headquarters with a new suburban site, implies the purpose of protecting ill-gotten profits from a government property where Trump is plainly violating the lease terms.
If Trump is willing to do this, of course we should worry that his business operations are affecting his policies on Saudi Arabia, taxes and clean water rules.
No impact on his business operations is too petty to escape his concern. No law, rule or modicum of ethical decency is sufficient to deter his readiness to abuse his power in service of his narrow, narrow interests.
These revelations make clear yet again that the only way for Trump to escape from the pervasive conflicts of interest that are defining his presidency is to divest all of his business holdings, immediately.
Ignored Benefits: Trump Nixing $2.1 Trillion in Benefits Via Regulatory Cuts
Alan Zibel Climate & Energy, Corporate Influence in Government, Regulatory Safeguards	Taking on Trump
President Trump often claims that cutting back on regulations will help the U.S. economy. But the Trump administration's zeal for slashing "red tape" conceals an often-ignored reality: regulations provide massive benefits to consumers, workers and the economy.
In fact, a new Public Citizen analysis [PDF] finds that the Trump administration wants to deprive Americans of more than $2.1 trillion in benefits, in the form of improved health, enhanced safety and a more energy-efficient economy, over the next two decades by enacting reckless deregulatory rollbacks.
If Trump achieves this misguided goal, the potential loss would amount to about $16,700 per household, far exceeding any cost savings for businesses. The research highlights how Trump's crusade against regulations is the product of special-interest lobbying rather than a serious effort to promote economic growth.
Cost-benefit analysis has been part of federal rulemaking since the 1980s. Under an order signed by President Reagan in 1981, federal agencies must analyze whether the potential societal benefits of regulations outweigh the potential costs. This sort of analysis is routinely used by business groups to derail life-saving regulations despite valid concerns about the difficulty of assigning dollar values to hard-to-quantify benefits such as clean air and human life. But federal agencies have devoted exhaustive study in recent years demonstrating the economic benefits of those rules.
Public Citizen's examination of 13 rules repealed, delayed or targeted for repeal by the Trump administration found that more than $105 billion in benefits, on average, will be lost every year from 2020 through 2040 if the Trump administration erases these rules or enacts toothless replacements. These at-risk benefits amount to $836 per year for every U.S. household, vastly exceeding the rules' average annual costs of nearly $21 billion. The benefits are also far higher than the administration's claimed savings of at least $570 million per year through regulatory rollbacks.
Public Citizen's analysis primarily uses economic cost-benefit numbers developed when these rules were proposed or enacted during the Obama administration rather than misleading numbers published by the Trump administration to justify their repeal. In some cases, we use numbers from expert sources that calculate the benefit to consumers or workers, rather than to the entire economy.
Benefits of Targeted or Eliminated Rules, 2020-2040 ($ Billions)
Annual Benefit (Low)
Annual Benefit (High)
Average Yearly Benefit
Clean Car Standards EPA/NHTSA $8.55 $119.40 $63.98
Fiduciary Labor $17.00 $17.00 $17.00
Glider' truck pollution EPA $6.00 $14.00 $10.00
Energy efficient light bulbs Energy $3.60 $14.20 $8.90
Ozone EPA $1.50 $3.50 $2.50
Overtime Labor $1.20 $1.20 $1.20
Methane EPA $0.50 $0.60 $0.55
Battery backup efficiency Energy $0.26 $0.46 $0.36
Public lands methane Interior $0.21 $0.40 $0.31
Air conditioner efficiency Energy $0.21 $0.33 $0.27
Packaged Boiler efficiency Energy $0.09 $0.30 $0.20
Oil rig safety Interior $0.16 $0.16 $0.16
Air compressor efficiency Energy $0.03 $0.07 $0.05
TOTALS $39.31 $171.63 $105.47
Costs of Targeted or Eliminated Rules, 2020-2040 ($ Billions)
Annual Cost (Low)
Annual Cost (High)
Average Yearly Cost
Clean Car Standards EPA/NHTSA $9.19 $22.60 $15.90
Fiduciary Labor $1.00 $3.20 $2.10
Glider' truck pollution EPA n/a n/a n/a
Energy efficient light bulbs Energy $0.00 $1.80 $0.90
TOTALS $11.99 $29.70 $20.83
Public Citizen's analysis excludes some important rules. For example, it does not include the impact of replacing Obama-era rules regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Though that rule was initially expected to bring large economic benefits, many of those benefits have been achieved far earlier than expected as inexpensive natural gas forces the retirement of coal power plants. Additionally, the Obama-era carbon rules were not allowed to go into effect due to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, Public Citizen's analysis also does not include the rollback of a rule curtailing mercury pollution from power plants, as power plant owners have already made the necessary upgrades to implement the rule, and several states might still require the use of such equipment. If we had included the benefits from those rules, our $2.1 trillion lost benefit figure would be far higher.
Under an executive order signed by President Clinton in 1993 and a similar order signed by President Obama, federal regulators almost always proceed only with new regulations when monetized benefits outweigh the costs. This kind of calculation tends to overstate the costs of rules, primarily based on information provided by industry, and underestimate benefits. Often missing from these calculations are benefits such as privacy, averted pain and suffering, democracy, equality and fairness. Often, the benefits of new regulations are immense, such as efforts to mitigate global climate change, and far greater than just those benefits that agencies can calculate. In many cases, particularly for pollution and energy efficiency standards, the economic benefits of regulation often dramatically exceed the costs.
A case in point is Trump's s recent proposal to roll back automotive fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards. Despite objections from career EPA career officials, the administration implausibly claimed that the rollback would result in increased safety as consumers would be more likely to buy new cars without the added cost of fuel economy technology. In fact, improved fuel economy can motivate consumers to buy newer car models.
An analysis by Trump's own EPA acknowledges that the Trump rollback plan would increase emissions of air pollutants both from vehicle tailpipes and from fuel refining at a societal cost of $800 million to $1.2 billion through 2026. Meanwhile, one analysis finds that freezing federal vehicle standards at 2020 levels would boost consumer spending on gasoline by $20 billion in 2025, lead to 60,000 fewer jobs and an $8 billion decline in gross domestic product in 2025.
Still, the Trump administration as well as corporate-allied critics, focus obsessively and exclusively on regulatory costs without acknowledging or taking into account regulatory benefits. One of the Trump administration's early actions was an executive order that conveniently ignored the "benefit" side of the cost-benefit equation by directing federal agencies to repeal at least two federal regulations for every new rule they issue. (Public Citizen is suing the Trump administration over the legality and constitutionality of the deregulatory executive order) This sort of approach would be better described as cost-cost analysis. In the Trump administration's view, regulatory benefits are not even part of the picture.
The Trump administration also has put key rules on ice despite the considerable net benefits. For example, the administration has refused to publish in the Federal Register four beneficial energy efficiency rules, and even appealed a federal judge's ruling that it must do so, prefferring to battle in court rather than simply implement the law. Trump officials have also worked to undermine the regulatory process, particularly by cooking the books and lowering or eliminating consideration of benefits that are lost when rules are repealed.
When trying to repeal rules its industry allies dislike, the Trump administration often employs logic that is sloppy at best. For example, under former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the agency last year proposed to repeal pollution requirements for super-polluting diesel freight trucks created by dropping old engines into new truck bodies. This "glider truck" proposal was virtually devoid of any evidence or analysis of why the repeal was necessary, ignoring the agency's legal responsibility to demonstrate its rules are the product of reasoned decision-making based on sound science and economics. Given that a glider truck can emit up to 450 times the particulate matter and up 43 times the nitrous oxide of new trucks, these issues deserve a serious, professional review. The repeal would cost Americans $6 billion to $14 billion in benefits every single year. More recently, the EPA's acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler, has backed down on Pruitt's plan to not enforce the glider rule but still appears likely to proceed with a repeal.
The Trump administration has even failed to consider the possibility that federal rules may benefit the public. In a proposal to roll back offshore drilling safety standards, the Interior Department neglected to mention any benefit to society that would be forgone if the rule were to be repealed. The benefits, including avoided natural resource damage, personal injuries, the cost of spill containment and impact to commercial fishing, could add up to $163 million per year, according to government calculations. Yet, the Interior Department only calculated the safety rule's costs to oil and gas companies. As Sen. Bill Nelson (D.-Fla.) wrote in a letter to the Interior Department, the proposal "places its entire justification on oil company profits and completely ignores potential economic costs to the lives and safety" of oil industry workers and coastal communities.
Trump officials also are undermining efforts to incorporate forecasts of the economic damage caused by climate change into government rule-writing. The Obama administration calculated that, based on the global damages from climate change, each ton of carbon emissions would cost the world economy $54 in 2030. But the Trump administration lowered this figure to $7 a ton, a move that artificially diminishes the climate change impact of the administration's deregulatory agenda.
In a similar vein, the EPA has proposed eliminating ancillary benefits, known as co-benefits, from its cost-benefit calculations. For example, power plant regulations intended to reduce mercury levels in the air can also have the extra benefit of curbing soot in the air. And rules designed to lower carbon emissions also reduce other kinds of pollution. Just as the Trump administration wishes to study the impact of regulatory changes on employers and jobs, it should take the impacts on public health just as seriously.
Although pro-corporate think tanks and analysts have developed a cottage industry of generating fanciful estimates of the cost of regulation, overall costs are not consequential compared with the size of the U.S. economy. Thus, analysts at Goldman Sachs studied whether job growth and capital spending have been stronger in sectors and companies that were more highly regulated before the most recent election and found "no evidence that employment or capital spending accelerated more after the election in areas where regulatory burdens are higher." They found the results "not surprising," partly because "the estimated costs of regulation are not that high." Relatedly, a study by a libertarian economist at George Mason University found no correlation between increased federal regulation and the formation of startups or tendency of workers to switch jobs or move for new jobs.
Americans have seen firsthand that cutting regulations can lead to economic devastation. The deregulation of Wall Street in the 1990s and 2000s led to the financial crisis of 2008 and the Great Recession, cost Americans up to $14 trillion, destroyed 8.7 million jobs and caused workers' pension funds to lose nearly a third of their value. The Trump administration's deregulatory obsession is costing America, massively. The "deconstruction of the administrative state" may sound appealing in abstract terms, but in blocking and rolling back key rules, the administration is inflicting needless pain on Americans every single day.
This Labor Day Trump Leaves Workers Behind
Shanna Devine Corporate Influence in Government, Regulatory Safeguards, Worker Health & Safety	Taking on Trump
Presidential candidate Donald Trump promised, "under a Trump Presidency, the American worker will finally have a president who will protect them and fight for them." This Labor Day, a year and a half into Trump's term, that claim is utterly broken. The Trump administration is failing to fulfill one of its most fundamental duties, which is to protect workers from injuries, a new report by Public Citizen shows.
The administration, often working in partnership with the congressional GOP and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has scuttled or weakened several standards that help the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protect workers.
These were purely commonsense measures. One ensured that businesses could be fined for failing to record employees' injuries as required by law for the duration of time that they are required to maintain those records. Another required employers to transmit to OSHA records of their employees' injuries and illnesses, and would have allowed for non-personally identifying data to be posted on the web. Meanwhile, the administration has eroded a long-awaited rule to protect workers from beryllium, a cancer-causing toxic metal. Perhaps most outrageous of all, it worked to undo a requirement that employers comply with safety requirements as a condition for receiving federal contracts.
Among OSHA's current shortcomings, it has been without a permanent leader for the duration of the Trump administration, and staffing and enforcement activity have declined. Those hoping for a change of attitudes should the U.S. Senate ever confirm the administration's OSHA nominee likely will be disappointed. That nominee, Scott Mugno, was recently the chairman of the Chamber's OSHA subcommittee. That subcommittee's primary work has been to block or undo standards created by OSHA.
The Chamber's work to block OSHA rules is diametrically opposed to OSHA's mission. Standards that address recognized workplace hazards are the primary tool at OSHA's disposal to ensure that employers maintain safe workplaces and undertake enforcement efforts against those that do not.
In the absence of a dedicated standard to address a hazard, OSHA must rely on the catch-all "general duty" clause, which requires employers to maintain safe workplaces. While the clause is well-intended, it is often used in response to tragedies rather than to prevent them, and it's more difficult to enforce than standards. Consider the following example. California is one of three states that has a law to protect workers from extreme heat. OSHA has no such standard. Over the past five years, California alone has issued 50 times more violations for unsafe heat conditions than OSHA has issued on that subject nationwide while relying on the general duty clause.
There are many other priorities that Trump's OSHA could undertake if it were dedicated to protecting workers rather than ingratiating itself to businesses. Health care workers, for instance, suffer more injuries requiring time away from work than employees of any other industry. Solutions are available, and providers that have implemented them have typically recouped their costs in about four years. But OSHA has not taken action.
Poultry workers, meanwhile, suffer from musculoskeletal injuries at rates several times those who work in other industries. But the poultry industry has been pressing for increasing line speeds—a leading contributor to musculoskeletal disorders—rather than addressing the epidemic of debilitating injuries. OSHA has acknowledged those dangers, but has rejected a petition by worker rights groups to slow down line speeds within slaughter plants.
Despite the benefits of regulations for workers and the U.S. economy at large, the Trump administration has repeatedly acted as a mouthpiece for industry and argued that regulations place an unfair burden on the economy and businesses. In the first month of Trump's presidency, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donohue stated, "We look forward to working with the administration to identify the regulations doing the most harm." That same day Trump signed Executive Order 13771, which directs federal agencies to eliminate two existing regulations for every new regulation issued.
This Labor Day, the administration's efforts to block commonsense worker safety measures has become business as usual.
In Split Decisions, Judge Kavanaugh Sided With Corporations 87% of the Time
Rick Claypool Corporate Influence in Government
During his 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh decided or wrote an opinion against the public interest 87 percent of the time in split-decision cases in five key areas, including consumer, environmental and worker rights cases, Public Citizen found in a report (PDF) released today.
Kavanaugh has participated in more than 1,000 cases and written hundreds of opinions while on the court of appeals, most of which were decided by three-judge panels. A significant proportion of those cases were decided on a 3-0 basis, which often reflected consensus among judges across the political spectrum. In other cases, the judges disagreed with one another and therefore issued 2-1 decisions.
Of the 101 split-decision cases involving Kavanaugh, Public Citizen analyzed his decisions and opinions in five areas: consumer and regulatory issues and administrative law, environmental protection, worker rights, claims alleging police or human rights abuses, and antitrust. The report found that Kavanaugh has overwhelmingly reached conclusions favorable to business interests and opposed to consumers, workers, environmental protectionsand victims of human rights abuses:
In 18 of 22 cases involving consumer and regulatory issues or matters of administrative law, Kavanaugh sided with corporations against agencies, or with agencies against public-interest challengers.
In 11 of 13 environmental cases, Kavanaugh sided with corporations or states challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other federal agencies for being too protective of the environment, or against environmental groups seeking stronger environmental enforcement.
In 15 of 17 cases involving worker rights, Kavanaugh sided with employers against employees or employees' unions, or with employers against the National Labor Relations Board.
In seven of seven cases involving victims suing for compensation over police or human rights abuses, Kavanaugh sided with the alleged abuser and against the victims.
In two oftwo cases, Kavanaugh sided with merging companies and against antitrust enforcement agencies.
Additionally, the report found that during his tenure, Kavanaugh has:
Been inconsistent on the issue of deference to agency action;
Favored a standard benefitting corporations on the issue of standing;
Imposed high bars to citizen access to the courts, but treated corporations differently;
Opposed independent agencies; and
Been highly skeptical of civil rights claims.
For detailed analysis and the full list of cases reviewed, read the full report.
Photo by Claire Anderson on Unsplash
This site is brought to you by Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit organization that has been standing up to corporate power and holding government accountable since 1971.
Visit us at citizen.org
House Democrats: Anti-Regulatory Legislation "Dead on Arrival"
Postal Banking Could Help the USPS's Bottom Line While Serving Millions of Struggling Families Mainstream Banking Has Left Behind
Remembering Workers Who Died or Suffered on the Job Must Also Include Safeguards Against Heat
Tax Day 2019: It's Time to Release the Returns, Repeal the Tax Scam, and Reinvest in America
More Public Citizen blogs
CitizenVox
Copyright © 2018 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved.