Secretary Rubio – It's Not Too Late To Prioritize Human Rights
Pending the legal fall-out, last week marked a turning point in U.S. foreign policy away from safeguarding and defending human rights. As part of a planned reorganization, approximately 80 percent of employees in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the U.S. Department of State are expected to be put on administrative leave and democracy and human rights organizations in the U.S. and around the globe began receiving notifications that all but two previously awarded grants for this year have been cancelled.
These drastic cuts, if carried out, lack strategy and foresight, and contrary to public messaging, the vast majority of these programs have nothing to do with any 'woke' agenda. Instead, many of these programs are designed to protect fundamental freedoms. These cuts would put America on its back foot as it faces challenges from rights-violating countries like China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.
Many Americans want to eliminate wasteful spending. But a mandate to cut waste is not a directive to compromise national security. Ordinary Americans deserve to know that the types of programs being cut weaken America and undermine our ability to counter emboldened adversaries.
I have just returned from a trip to South Korea where I met with incredible leaders in civil society devoted to defending human rights in North Korea and holding the Kim regime accountable. Many of the grants fund cost-effective and life-saving information access efforts that educate ordinary North Koreans on the goodness of the U.S. and the truth about the outside world. North Koreans who have left North Korea universally acknowledge that access to information was what motivated them to escape in the first place. The U.S. has already degraded critical information access efforts conducted by Radio Free Asia which ended radio broadcasts into North Korea at the end of April. That information void is being backfilled by the Chinese Communist Party and flooding North Korea with pro-China information through other means. Other grants fund research on the Kim regime's forced labor programs. Forced labor serves as a critical funding source that lines the private coffers of the regime and may even be used for the regime's development of weapons — including weapons that can be used to strike the continental U.S. In other words, these grants advanced U.S. national security. Without essential support, many of these organizations will not exist by the end of the year.
Similarly, some of the most important human rights organizations countering the malign influence of the CCP will also be severely hit. Bethany Allen at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute covered this topic in great detail when 'stop work orders' were issued and grants were temporarily suspended earlier this year, warning that many groups may face extinction if cuts proceed. Suffice it to say that some of the most important organizations advocating for basic freedoms for Hong Kongers, Uyghurs, Tibetans, and others persecuted by the CCP will be diminished in capacity if not outright shuttered if things proceed as planned. Among other valuable reasons, these groups are often a critical source of information to the U.S. government and civil society about the CCP. Losing access to these resources at the same time the U.S. is increasing efforts to counter the CCP is counter-productive and potentially crippling to U.S. foreign policy.
It's fair to ask why these organizations do not have more diversified funding streams. But to put it simply, the private sector has too often found funding for human rights programs to be at odds with its financial interests and desire for market access, particularly when it comes to China.
And that's where the US has historically come in. The US is the only country in the globe with the technical skills and capacity, historical involvement, and funding to support human rights efforts at scale.
This is to say nothing of the loss of institutional capacity. Many of the State Department staff who may be cut have saved innumerable lives. They have burned the midnight oil to secure the release of political prisoners, rescued and provided safe haven to political dissidents in closed societies, all while advancing U.S. interests. These individuals deserve promotions and to be honored for their public service, not put on leave and removed from careers devoted to the American people and advancing the cause of freedom.
If cuts to these critical programs in Asia are any indicator, these measures will not just hamstring global civil society efforts to safeguard and defend human rights, they may downright end them, at least as we know them. Apart from a swift change in course, generations of people around the globe will feel the reverberations and impacts of these decisions for years to come.
So what can be done?
First, Secretary Rubio has the authority to change course at any time. His congressional legacy of advancing human rights and freedom hangs in the balance and that legacy risks being permanently tarnished. The Trump administration's own legacy of advancing human rights through its promotion of religious freedom in the first term similarly hangs in the balance. At minimum, grant funding for 2025 should be restored as organizations were counting on these budgets to continue their operations through the end of the year. Critical staff at DRL should also be retained. Some programs at DRL, no doubt, can and should be cut strategically, but dropping nearly all pre-existing human rights programming is like cutting off a limb and expecting US foreign policy to be able to function.
Second, Congress must act. As a conservative administration, a decision to pivot away from Reagan's peace through strength policy paradigm which recognizes the essential values of possessing both a strong national defense as well as a strong arsenal of tools to defend human rights, merits serious questioning. The legacy and success of peace through strength stands on its own and a pivot from those successful policies requires justification. Furthermore, Congress has historically led on human rights and that means that many programs administered by DRL are congressionally mandated and appropriated. Congress must stand its ground in ensuring the continuation of those programs and work tirelessly to appropriate funding next year to try to at least mitigate some of the damage from proposed cuts.
Finally, individuals and the private sector must step up to fill in the void. Now, not next year, is the time to give generously to support civil society organizations in need. Their continued existence may depend on it.
I have faith in the resilience of civil society's ability to weather this storm. But leaving so many groups in the lurch without funding and technical support from the U.S. is incredibly consequential. As Ronald Reagan aptly said, 'Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.' May that not happen on our watch.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump stuns Wall Street, Washington with controversial BLS nominee
President Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is breaking the mold of his predecessors and causing alarm among economists of all stripes Commissioners of the BLS are usually academics or career civil servants with decades of experience in statistics and economics. But EJ Antoni, who Trump nominated to lead the agency after firing former BLS chief Erika McEntarfer on the heels of a disappointing jobs report earlier this month, has more bona fides as a pundit and conservative advocate than he does as a statistician. The choice of Antoni to lead a statistical division whose data is scrutinized by businesses and governments all over the world is getting major backlash from the economics profession and sparking concerns about the politicization of bedrock-level economic data. 'E.J. Antoni is completely unqualified to be BLS Commissioner,' Harvard University economist Jason Furman, who worked for the Obama administration, wrote on social media. 'He is an extreme partisan and does not have any relevant experience.' Stan Veuger, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, echoed Furman's words. 'He's utterly unqualified and as partisan as it gets,' he told the Washington Post. Who is EJ Antoni? Antoni has been the chief economist of the Heritage Foundation's center on the federal budget for the past four months. The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank that produced the wide-ranging Project 2025 policy agenda. Project 2025 took aim at the 'permanent political class' in Washington, and many of its budget-cutting recommendations have been carried out by the Trump administration. He held two research fellowships at Heritage prior to his current position and two other fellowships at the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group led by billionaire Steve Forbes. Antoni submitted his doctoral dissertation in 2020, in which he defends positions associated with 'supply-side economics,' a conservative policy doctrine that became popular in the 1980s. Besides stints as an adjunct at a community college and as an instructor at his alma mater of Northern Illinois University, he's held no other academic posts. By comparison, McEntarfer worked for 20 years as an economist with the Census Bureau. Her predecessor William Beach was the chief economist for the Senate Budget Committee, and his predecessor Erica Groshen spent 20 years as an economist at the New York Federal Reserve and referees for about a dozen academic journals. Antoni is a frequent guest on a number of conservative media outlets. While BLS makes it a point to produce — rather than interpret — economic data, Antoni has been hitting talking points on recent BLS releases in media appearances, a stark contrast with the agency's typical cut-and-dry communications. Discussing the dismal July jobs report, he emphasized job growth among native-born Americans on former Trump adviser Steven Bannon's internet podcast. 'There was some good news in the report, too, that we should definitely highlight,' he said. 'All of the net job growth over the last 12 months has gone to native-born Americans.' The Heritage Foundation did not respond to a request for an interview with Antoni. Backlash from economists Economists aren't mincing their words about Antoni's credentials. One economist at the University of Wisconsin refuted one of Antoni's recent papers, showing it contained basic statistical mistakes and finding that it wasn't possible to replicate its results — an academic kiss of death. Alan Cole, an economist with the conservative Tax Foundation think tank, described the errors in the paper as 'stunning.' 'Stunning errors in a tweet are bad, but worse to do it in long form, where there's more time and effort involved,' he wrote on social media. Conservative economists have also been blasting the firing of McEntarfer after the July jobs report showed that a meager 106,000 jobs have been added to the economy since May. Trump accused the agency — without any evidence — of producing 'rigged' data, which many economists have said is poppycock. 'The totally groundless firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer … sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau,' William Beach, a Trump appointee who preceded McEntarfer as head of the BLS, wrote online. Warnings to senators Antoni is expected to be easily confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate after he appears before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which will also need to approve his nomination. Antoni's critics are waging a long-shot effort to turn GOP members of the committee against the nominee ahead of his likely confirmation. Friends of the BLS, a group that advocates for the agency and that's chaired by Beach and his predecessor Erica Groshen, called out Antoni in a statement Wednesday, describing the debate about his nomination as 'contentious.' 'BLS now … faces the additional challenge of a contentious debate over the nominee for the next Commissioner, Dr. EJ Antoni,' they said. Groshen told The Hill they hope the nomination process will be 'very thorough.' 'The responsibility of the Senate HELP committee … is particularly important at this time,' she added. The Hill reached out to all Republican members of the committee about Antoni's qualifications, most of whom didn't respond. A representative for Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she wouldn't be commenting on the nomination prior to the hearing. What would politicized labor data look like? Antoni has already floated some massive changes to BLS data releases, including canceling regular monthly reports in favor of quarterly releases — a change that would alter the entire cadence of economic data output and affect nearly every private and public sector model of the U.S. economy. He told Fox News before his nomination that 'the BLS should suspend issuing the monthly jobs reports, but keep publishing more accurate, though less timely, quarterly data,' since BLS data is often subject to revision. Former BLS chiefs told The Hill they're keeping an eye on a regulatory standard known as OMB Directive No. 3, which governs the rules of BLS releases, for any sign that agency data could become politicized. 'Violations of that would be very unusual, and therefore indicative of something unusual underneath it,' Groshen said. Antoni has delivered some conflicting remarks on BLS data revisions, attributing them to 'incompetent' leadership under McEntarfer during his appearance on Bannon's podcast and then noting later that the problems pre-dated her time as agency commissioner. 'I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems,' he said before adding that 'this is not a problem unique to the Trump administration.' Real problems with BLS data In fact, the downward revisions in the July jobs report that prompted Trump's firing of McEntarfer were due to the late reporting of educational employment figures by state and local governments, along with the more pronounced seasonal effects in that sector since teachers don't work in the summer. That's fairly typical for the agency, current and former employees of the BLS told The Hill. Political narratives aside, the BLS has seen a substantial drop in survey response rates in the aftermath of the pandemic, a decline that has made the data less reliable, but that has affected statistical agencies in a number of countries beyond the U.S. 'This is not a failure of the BLS … This is a phenomenon that is worldwide,' Erica Groshen told The Hill. 'This is a slow-moving train wreck,' she added, exhorting CEOs across the economy to make a priority of the surveys. 'There is no silver bullet. Believe me – people have been looking for it for a long time.' Economists have been lamenting the survey response rates for years. 'Like Orwellian newspeak, [the U.S. employment report] can often mean the reverse of what it says it means. The household and establishment surveys portray contrasting pictures of employment (and both have shocking response rates),' UBS economist Paul Donovan wrote earlier this month, having noted declines since 2023.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Russiagate scandal demands prosecutions, overhaul of the FBI and CIA
Once again, newly released documents and damning evidence conclusively substantiate what many Americans have long suspected. Russiagate was a conspiracy — hatched, implemented and relentlessly promoted by top officials in the CIA, FBI and across the Obama-Biden-Clinton political machine to rig a presidential election and undermine a duly elected president. It also corrupted the very institutions essential to protecting American liberty. Despite the mountain of evidence and exhaustive investigations, those responsible for this travesty remain unpunished. Former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, among other intelligence officials, have lied to Congress and the American public about their reliance on the discredited Steele dossier — a report paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC — while simultaneously engineering different versions of critical intelligence assessments to cover their tracks. Although the intelligence community and its leaders publicly maintained that the notorious dossier played no role in the official assessment concerning ' Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections,' newly declassified oversight reviews flatly contradict these claims. The record shows that Brennan and Clapper prepared a classified, compartmented version of the assessment specifically for President Obama and senior officials, which cited the dossier to bolster key judgments about Russian election interference. Later, when sanitized versions were released to Congress and the public, all references to the dossier had been scrubbed away. Special Counsel John Durham's investigation verified that Brennan, Clapper, then-Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey were all briefed, even before the 2016 election, on the Clinton campaign's plan to concoct a false Trump-Russia narrative. Still, the FBI — with full knowledge that the Steele dossier was riddled with falsehoods — deployed it to secure baseless FISA warrants against Trump advisor Carter Page and launch the Crossfire Hurricane investigation (the FBI'S codename for the operation), with the intent of sabotaging Trump's campaign and subsequent presidency. Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act litigation exposed much of this corruption years before the Durham report. Court-obtained documents, such as the 'electronic communication' that launched Crossfire Hurricane, revealed the flimsy and third-hand nature of the intelligence used as pretext. Other records uncovered by Judicial Watch showed how high-ranking Justice Department officials, such as Bruce Ohr, maintained close ties with Christopher Steele and Fusion GPS, acting as a conduit for anti-Trump smears even after Steele was fired as an informant by the FBI for leaking to the media. Ohr's communications disclosed that so-called 'intelligence' on Trump-Russia ties was being laundered to the Clinton campaign and other government insiders. It goes deeper. Declassified supplements to the Durham report lay out how activists tied to George Soros' Open Society Foundations, aided by operatives within the Obama FBI and intelligence community, sought to plant and spread the bogus narrative about Trump colluding with Russia even before the FBI operations officially began. Hacked emails and foreign intelligence corroborated this extraordinary collusion between campaign operatives, federal law enforcement, and the media — a clear case of government being weaponized for partisan ends. Leaders at the FBI — Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok — and at the CIA, and their superiors in the Obama White House, knew precisely what was unfolding. They were using the intelligence community's credibility to spread what they knew to be their own fiction as if it were truth. Yet, they pressed ahead anyway, smearing Trump and creating excuses to spy on his campaign. Their collusion made a mockery of the rule of law, resulting in illegal warrants, fabricated evidence, and years of phony investigations. Recent Judicial Watch lawsuits have further exposed how shamelessly courts and legal systems were deceived, with virtually no oversight or meaningful hearings. For all it revealed, the Durham investigation resulted in one modest plea deal and few and failed prosecutions. If no one is held to account, Americans' confidence in government will be shaken by the toxic message that in Washington, the bigger the crime, the less likely it is to be punished. The FBI and Justice Department, and their enablers in the Obama White House, engineered the most egregious abuse of power and corruption in modern American history. The public deserves justice — not just in the form of reports and hearings, but through criminal prosecution of the officials who orchestrated and covered up this conspiracy. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and every enabler involved must be brought before a court of law. No spin can excuse years of perjury, abuse, and violations of civil liberties. It is not enough to claim that 'mistakes were made' or offer platitudes about trust. Laws were broken. Rights were trampled. Our democracy was threatened. News of criminal referrals for perjury by some of the players is a good start, but only that. Nor will prosecution alone suffice. The FBI and CIA need fundamental reform. Trump's recent executive orders aimed at ending the 'weaponization of government' are steps in the right direction. These agencies have proven incapable of policing themselves. From rubber-stamp FISA courts to politicized counterintelligence and persecution of whistleblowers, these agencies are built on unaccountable power. Significantly cutting back the Justice Department and dismantling the FBI should be on the table. America is a republic, not a banana republic. It's time for accountability, reform and a sharp reminder to the deep state: in America, the people are sovereign, not unelected bureaucrats.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The US May Have Already Lost the AI Race to China Due to a Key Weakness
You might have heard of an "AI race" heating up between the US and China, a bitter rivalry between two global adversaries that could shape the direction of world history. At least, that's how some in the US feel. While China has repeatedly tried to establish a geopolitical friendship with the richest nation in the world, officials and pundits in the US have doubled down, reframing artificial intelligence as the 21st century's nuclear bomb. In the meantime, China may have gotten a massive lead — by actively investing in its power grid, while the United States' is quickly running out of capacity to power immensely power-hungry AI models. As Fortune reports, Americans who've had a look at China's technological development firsthand found that the two country's aren't even in the same league, given China's next-level power grid. "Energy is considered a solved problem," wrote Rui Ma, editor of the US publication Tech Buzz China. "Everywhere we went, people treated energy availability as a given," she continued. "This is a stark contrast to the US, where AI growth is increasingly tied to debates over data center power consumption and grid limitations." AI is a notoriously energy-intensive technology. The data centers powering large language models like ChatGPT are immense labyrinths of computer chips, which suck down resources like power and water in order to keep up with demand. As Fortune notes, this effectively makes electricity the key bottleneck for expanding AI infrastructure. That's caused some critical shortages in the US. Short on energy and hopped up on fantasies of an arms race, American companies are resorting to all kinds of bizarre strategies to get their juice. Elon Musk's xAI, for example, is running 35 portable methane gas generators in the parking lot of one of its main datacenters in Memphis, encircling nearby communities in a cloud of noxious smog. China has no such problems. In 2024, China was responsible for nearly 65 percent of the world's renewable energy construction, installing so many solar panels and wind turbines that it caused the country's CO2 emissions to drop for the first time — despite record-high demands for energy. Whether or not the US can catch up remains to be seen. President Donald Trump previously made an off-the-cuff remark about attaching coal power plants to data centers directly. It's an unfortunate conundrum in an age when energy demand in the US has never been higher. In the meantime, China keeps chugging along, seemingly unperturbed by any energy bottlenecks — and the Trump administration's posturing. More on AI: AI Datacenters Are Raising Nearby Residents' Electric Bills Solve the daily Crossword
