Leaving the Paris Climate Accord
Repealing Net Neutrality
Reshaping National Monuments
Reinstating the Mexico City Policy
Increasing Military Spending
Reforming Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Allowing Development of Natural Resources on Federal Land
Withdraw from UNESCO
Mandate 2016 - What did Trump Get Done Last Time he was in Office?
On the Heritage foundation’s website, they boast about how the Trump Administration embraces Heritage Foundation Policy Recommendations from Mandate 2016. What exactly did Trump get done that was straight out of the mandate's playbook?
Leaving the Paris Climate Accord
In August 2017, Trump announced the U.S. was ending its funding and membership in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
Summary:
Under the agreement, the U.S. had previously submitted a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) in which we committed to reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. In his announcement, Trump stated that “as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the Paris Agreement” including the NDC and contributions to the Green Climate Fund
In 2021, The United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on Biden’s first day in office
Heritage Foundation Link:
Article:
L.tak, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Mandate 2016:
Clarify the Treaty Process. Which international agreements constitute treaties requiring Senate advice and consent in accordance with Article II of the Constitution is often subject to dispute. This uncertainty persists despite internal regulations adopted by the State Department, originally in 1955 and updated most recently in 2006, known as the Circular 175 (C-175) procedure. The C-175 procedure lays out eight factors for determining whether an international agreement should be negotiated as a treaty subject to Senate advice and consent or as an “international agreement other than a treaty.” While reasonable, these criteria leave substantial room for interpretation that ill-serves the constitutional process and America’s negotiating partners who cannot be certain of the status, permanence, and legality of an agreement with the U.S. The next Administration should work with Congress to examine past practice on how various subjects have been treated historically (treaty, executive agreement, or congressional-executive agreement) and specify the issues or contexts that should mandate consideration of international agreements as treaties under Article II. The purpose of this examination should be to update and modernize the C-175 procedure in order to restore its original role as an effective mechanism for distinguishing various forms of international commitments. (2016 Blueprint for a New Administration - p. 50)
Repealing Net Neutrality
In December 2017, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman proposed ending the 2015 network neutrality rules. Net neutrality refers to the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
Summary:
On April 25, 2024, the FCC commission voted to reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015
After President Donald Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rolled back the Obama-era net neutrality rules in 2017, internet service providers (ISPs) gained free reign to slow down certain websites and to censor online content. While ISPs have generally been well-behaved since the repeal, the lack of regulation leaves the Internet vulnerable. Americans must mount a bipartisan effort to reinstate net neutrality, ensuring equality of access and the right to Free Speech.
At its most basic, net neutrality is the term given to laws that ensure ISPs––such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast––treat all Internet communications equally. In practice, the rules have two major implications. First, they dictate that ISPs cannot charge higher rates in exchange for faster speeds. Second, they prevent ISPs from censoring certain websites, which in turn guarantees that ISPs’ politics do not affect online search results. In 2015, as part of its Open Internet Order, the Obama administration passed this version of net neutrality. Tech leaders celebrated the move. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler called it a decisive win for Free Speech, stating that “no one — whether government or corporate — should control free open access to the Internet.”
When the Republican-led FCC repealed these net neutrality rules in December 2017, Ajit Pai, the FCC’s then newly selected chair, lauded the move, saying deregulation would spark creativity. He called the internet “the greatest free-market innovation in history.” And when describing the internet’s inception, Pai claimed that private entrepreneurs –– and certainly not “heavy-handed government regulation” –– are to thank for its success.
Biden fired Ajit Pai when he took office.
Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
Past Issues with Internet Service Providers
In 2007, Verizon Wireless cut off access to a text messaging program directed by Naral Pro-Choice America (now Reproductive Freedom for All), an abortion rights group. When pressed about the issue, Verizon claimed that it would block any “content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of [its] users.” It was only after a public outcry that Verizon reversed its decision. The 2007 Verizon-Naral controversy shows that when an ISP finds it politically expedient, it can simply choose which websites or programs to block altogether.
Similarly, the same year, AT&T censored the band Pearl Jam when they criticized George Bush during their performance at Lollapalooza. Playing a cover of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall,” the band sang “George Bush, leave this world alone… George Bush, find yourself another home.” During a webcast of the band’s performance, AT&T monitors cut the two lines. After facing criticism from free speech activists, AT&T publicly apologized, vowing to improve. Though more than a decade old, these events highlight ISP censorship before the Obama-era net neutrality laws. Without these regulations, further violations become virtually inevitable.
Mandate 2016:
Even quantified costs may often fail to capture the true impacts, as regulators cannot estimate intangibles, the costs of which could dwarf the direct compliance burden. One of the most significant regulations adopted in 2015 after contentious debate is the Federal Communication Commission’s misnamed “Open Internet Order.” As a result of these new rules, not only will investment and growth in the Internet be chilled, but innovation itself will be hindered, as firms find themselves compelled to ask permission from the FCC prior to making service changes. Neither the effects of this rule, nor possible alternatives to this regulatory approach, were analyzed in any formal way. The President’s budget should defund all activities related to the Open Internet Order. (2016 Blueprint for Reform - p. 18)
Reshaping National Monuments
Heritage’s recommendation to prohibit Land Acquisition (Cap and Reduce the Size of the Federal Estate) was adopted by Trump when he issued two executive orders effectively shrinking the size of national monuments in Utah.
Summary:
The Trump administration announced a dramatic reduction in size of both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. The blowback from supporters of National Monument protection was swift, and fierce.
Patagonia’s response was the most prominent, as they ran a simple, yet forceful digital ad proclaiming “The President Stole Your Land” in bold white letters on a black background
H.R. 4558 Created a “Management Council” that would determine the management plan for all lands
- In effect, this bill hands complete control of these lands to the State of Utah while all Americans fund the operating costs. That’s right, roughly 12,000 people in Garfield and Kane Counties will decide how these lands are managed, what is allowed and not allowed, while 330 million Americans pay for their decisions. To add insult to injury, the bill requires the Federal Government to transfer ownership of Hole in the Rock road to the State of Utah for FREE.
- This opens the door to a lot of potential harm on these lands – more oil and gas development? More mining, grazing and logging? More fences, shutting off hiking, climbing, fishing and hunting access? It’s all up for grabs.
- Here is a video showing Leland Pollock, the Garfield County Commissioner who wants to run Utah’s next National Park
In 2021, Biden restored these national monuments, which was obviously opposed by Republican lawmakers.
John Fowler from Placitas, NM, USA, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
An advertisement from He Gets Us, a campaign promoting the forgiving nature of Jesus, showing an oil executive washing the feet of a Native American woman.
Mandate 2016:
The Secretary should make no new purchases through the Land and Water Conservation Fund or additions to the National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition, the Secretary should immediately begin to sell lands and property already designated as unwanted in land-use plans. The Secretary should also use to the fullest extent the department’s authority to sell lands to the private sector and nonprofits, using the proceeds to cover the cost of sale and pay down the national debt, by the close of FY 2017. Increased state and private ownership of lands will maximize land value and result in better environmental stewardship. Local land ownership will also best meet the concerns and needs of the citizens residing near federal lands. Moreover, the profits generated by the execution of such plans will help reduce National Park maintenance backlogs and pay down the national debt. (2016 Blueprint for a New Administration - p. 18)
Reinstating the Mexico City Policy
This executive order prevents taxpayer money from funding international groups involved in abortion and ending funding to the United Nations Population fund. On Jan. 23, 2017, in his first pro-life action, Trump signed an executive order today reinstating the Mexico City Policy.
Summary:
The Mexico City Policy announced by President Reagan in 1984 required nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of Federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations. This policy was in effect until it was rescinded on January 22, 1993 (Bill Clinton’s third day in office).
An amendment introduced by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen D-N.H., would have provided $665 million in federal funding for "family planning and reproductive health care" to pro-abortion organizations around the world. At the same time, it would have hindered the Trump administration’s efforts to expand USAID funding to pro-life and faith-based groups, including faith-based charity agencies that hold to a traditional, biblical view of marriage.
Heritage Foundation Link:
Article:
Mandate 2016:
Immediately upon taking office, the President should issue executive orders reinstating the Mexico City Policy, preventing taxpayer money from funding international groups involved in abortion, and ending funding to the United Nations Population Fund. (2016 Blueprint for a New Administration - p. 20)
Increasing Military Spending
Trump’s budget calls for a $54 billion increase in military spending to improve capacity, capability, and readiness of America’s armed forces.
Summary:
The White House unveiled its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2020 and, to the apparent surprise of some military planners, the White House is calling for a top line national defense budget of $750 billion. Pentagon officials had reportedly anticipated a budget of $733 billion, which would have been a 2.4 percent increase over last year’s. They got a 4.7 percent increase instead. According to the supporting documentation, the request is intended to provide the Department of Defense with the resources to “remain the preeminent military power in the world, ensure balances of power in key regions remain in America’s favor, and advance an international order that is the most conducive to U.S. security and prosperity.”
Since becoming president, Donald Trump has overseen historic increases in defense budgets, fawned over military equipment, installed a number of defense industry insiders in top Pentagon positions and made a major push to sell weapons overseas.
Yet Trump’s record tells a different story. All three of his hand-picked defense secretaries had ties to the defense industry: Jim Mattis was a member of the General Dynamics board of directors, Pat Shanahan was an executive with Boeing, and Mark Esper was Raytheon’s top lobbyist. Mattis also returned to his board position shortly after leaving the Pentagon, showing the revolving door between industry and the Defense Department.
Mandate 2016:
At the conclusion of the national security review, the President should outline the conclusions so that the public and Congress understand the gravity of the U.S.’s national security gaps. The President should publicly articulate the vital interests of the United States, the current and future threats facing those interests, where the DOD is unable to defend those interests, and the plan for closing the gaps. Many of these gaps will require significant investments over the course of many years, so the President must deliberately seek the support of the American public and Congress. National security capabilities are expensive, but the President should present a clear case for why national security investments are necessary and then work with Congress to ensure that the resources are provided to the DOD. (2016 Blueprint for a New Administration - p. 9)
Reforming Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
The Trump administration adopted and is in favor of strengthening existing work requirements in order to receive benefits
Summary:
In his new budget, President Trump proposes to cut Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) by $21 billion over ten years. The cuts include a 10 percent reduction in the annual block grant funding for states and an end to the $608 million TANF Contingency Fund, which gives states additional funds at times of economic distress. Among its programmatic changes to TANF, the budget proposes:
A rigid “universal engagement” requirement that all parents participate in work activities for at least 20 hours. While universal engagement plans claim to take into account the unique circumstances of families, a rigid hour minimum is inconsistent with the individualized approach that they purport to foster. Under universal engagement, all families, including those facing an immediate crisis or with a medical or mental health issue, would be at risk of losing their cash assistance if they don’t meet the minimum requirement. The proposal doesn’t provide any detail on the types of activities in which parents must participate but, if proposals from other Republican policymakers are any indication, it would favor immediate work over education, training, and family stabilization.
A shift to employment outcome measures and away from the current official measure of TANF’s performance, the Work Participation Rate. The budget proposes measuring the number of TANF recipients who take a job, those who are still employed two quarters later, and their earnings. While such measures could help us better understand how well TANF gets and keeps people in jobs, they lack a way to determine how many families in need TANF actually serves in the first place. Without that, states could improve their performance on employment targets by keeping the families facing the biggest barriers to work out of the program entirely.
Heritage Foundation Link:
Article:
Mandate 2016:
Reform broad-based categorical eligibility. Federal law permits states to enroll individuals in food stamps if they receive a benefit from another program, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. However, under an administrative option in TANF called broad based categorical eligibility (BBCE), ”benefit” is defined so broadly that it includes simply receiving distributed pamphlets and 1–800 numbers.68 This definition, with its low threshold to trigger a “benefit,” allows individuals to bypass eligibility limits—particularly the asset requirement (how much the applicant has in resources, such as bank accounts or property).69 Adopting the BBCE option has even allowed millionaires to enroll in the food stamp program.70 The Trump Administration proposed to close the loophole with a rule to “increase program integrity and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse.”71 The regulation was not finalized before the end of the Trump Administration. (2016 Blueprint for a New Administration - p. 21)
Allowing Development of Natural Resources on Federal Land
The Trump administration opened off-shore drilling and on federal lands. Executive Order 13783 directed Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to commence federal land coal leasing activities.
Summary:
President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to find new ocean expanses in the Atlantic and the Arctic for offshore drilling isn’t likely to reach its goals anytime soon, but instead will kick off a yearslong review and legal battle
“This executive order starts the process of opening offshore areas to job-creating energy exploration,” he said. “It reverses the previous administration’s Arctic leasing ban and directs Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to allow responsible development of off-shore areas that will bring revenue to our treasury and jobs to our workers.”
Despite Trump’s assertion that the nation needs to wean itself of foreign oil, U.S. oil imports have declined in recent years as domestic production boomed amid improved drilling techniques opening up once unreachable areas.
Heritage Foundation Link:
Article:
Mandate 2016:
The Secretary should discard the current proposed 2017–2022 offshore oil and gas lease plan and develop a new plan opening access to all federal waters (excepting marine sanctuary areas and areas statutorily withheld until 2022 pursuant to the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006). The lease plan should strongly encourage state participation, recognizing that the best environmental policies are sight-specific and situation-specific. America is the only country whose territorial waters are largely off-limits to energy production. Opening America’s coasts to resource development presents tremendous economic opportunity for coastal states. (2016 Blueprint for a New Administration - p. 30)
Withdraw from UNESCO
In October 2017, Trump announced he was putting an end to U.S. membership in the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Summary:
According to UNESCO’s website, this is their vision: “Since wars begin in the minds of men and women, it is in the minds of men and women that peace must be built. UNESCO uses education, science, culture, communication and information to foster mutual understanding and respect for our planet. We work to strengthen the intellectual and moral solidarity of humankind and bring out the best in our shared humanity.”
In late 2017, the State Department announced it would leave UNESCO the following year over a perceived anti-Israel bias, financial woes and other concerns. Nikki Haley, who was the U.S. ambassador to the UN at the time, praised UNESCO's purpose but claimed the group's "extreme politicization has become a chronic embarrassment."
Mandate 2016:
In observance of U.S. law, the U.S. should provide no funding to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Under current law, this proposal has no savings, but reversal of the current policy could result in $383 million in arrears payments and an annual assessment of $57 million based on the current UNESCO budget. (2016 Blueprint for Balance - p. 121)