White House Insisted It Had 16,000 Complaints Of Social Media Bias Turned Over To The FTC; The FTC Has No Record Of Them

from the oh-really? dept

One less noticed feature of the White House's anti-Section 230 executive order was the claim that the White House had over 16,000 complaints about social media bias that it would turn over to the FTC to help it... do something to those big mean social media companies:

In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

This wasn't the first time that Trump had claimed to possess thousands of complaints about social media bias. In August of 2018 (9 months before the White House claims to have set up a tool to receive such complaints), the President said the White House had "literally thousands and thousands of complaints coming in."

think Google is really taking advantage of a lot of people, and I think that’s a very serious thing, and it’s a very serious charge. I think what Google and what others are doing — if you look at what’s going on at Twitter, if you look at what’s going on in Facebook — they better be careful, because you … Can’t do that to people. You can’t do it. We have tremendous — We have literally thousands and thousands of complaints coming in, and you just can’t do that. So I think that Google and Twitter and Facebook, they’re really treading on very, very troubled territory, and they have to be careful. It’s not fair to large portions of the population.

At the time I filed a FOIA request to see if I could get the details of these "complaints." A few months later, I was told there were no responsive records, but it was possible other parts of the government had them. I tried another part of the government, as well, and they emailed me on March 12th (the same day that the much of where I live started to shut down due to the pandemic) to tell me they regretted the delay, and since it had taken so long for them to respond, they were assuming I was no longer interested, and were closing my FOIA request unanswered.

Nice of them.

Of course, now that the White House was claiming a specific amount (over 16,000) and saying it was passing them along to the FTC, you might think it would be a new opportunity to find out about these complaints. Turns out... no. Ryan Singel filed a FOIA request for those complaints and the FTC says the White House never sent over the complaints:

The FTC has not received the aforementioned complaints. We have located 10 complaints received through the Consumer Sentinel Network that mention this topic area and they are enclosed.

As you might expect, the 10 included complaints are pretty ludicrous. To be clear, I expect that even if the White House can turn up 16,000 such complaints that they will almost all be totally ludicrous. But these are pretty silly. Here are just a few.

I have 2 trademarks on my methodology of teaching from the US Government that work in conjunction with each other to show that my reseach is linked to a specific way of educating. Members of the ITEEA group have promoted policy that seems to breach research methodologies, PhD methodologies, publications, degrees and almost all of this inter-relates with federal funds in various ways. I have reported this numerous times to many agencies. The primary points of the issues are available published on this blogpost: www.steamedu.com/usdoe - at the bottom of the page are links to evidence for federal attorneys, the FBI and other related offices, and now yours. In lieu of today's executive order signed by the president and Section 230, it seems as though websites that we not currently curbing the spread of misinformation can now be held libel. I will assume this applies to PAC group websites, related social media sites both created by them and by groups. I am no longer sure if individuals and or site publishers would be held libel for potential slander and fraud issues and would like your group to please help direct me to a path of justice on behalf of the people, our taxes, our policies and the future of integrity in education and possibly in publishing. Thank you.

Good luck with that.

Facebook is completely removing first amendment rights of their users. It should not be deemed a platform if they are allowed to edit restrict people from using their voices on social media. Today after waking up at 6 AM and not being on social media for at least eight hours I woke up to a restriction block on my page saying that I could not re-share any more news stories until next Monday. Consequently the reason why I believe I was blocked is because I've been sharing new stories that are talking about the Minneapolis riots and Trump Signing his executive order that helps us against restricting social media network information. I truly believe they have taken this opportunity to silence my first amendment right to share the information with my timeline because they don't like the fact that I am not supporting Joe Biden! This is a complete miss use of their platform privileges and they need them stripped away immediately and they need to be held liable for taking peoples first amendment rights

Uh huh.

I made polictical statements, which have King James Bible, Conservatives, Republican views, my account was suspended for 30 days. In which Democrate, and Independent's post are fine to Facebook Community Standards. Since then Trump signed an Executive Order that Social Media's have violated people's First Amendment Rights of Free speech to ALL, I expect and apology, and NO FUTHER CENSORSHIP !

And then:

Twitter harassment has been ongoing for years, but now it's to a massive level and they are trying to thwart my right to be a Candidate for Governor, 2024 in New Hampshire. They have locked me out of 5 different Twitter accounts, delete my following and don't allow me lawful access to the site, to my own virtual property and those rights. They also are violating the Sherman Act. They have been sued, are in lawsuits now, and have an Executive Order they are violating, and they are trying and disrupting my campaign account @NHCandidate2024. They tried to force me to delete a second tweet, that is perfectly lawful and did not violate any terms of anything, they are trying to prevent me from using the Twitter site, and they continue to harass and bully. It is imperative the that FTC address these out of control website staff that are actually harassing users, severing free speech, and targeting people's accounts. They have been bullying me, and don't like my reach or voice, and ability to tell the truth and believe in everyone's rights, not just those I agree with. They have altered their "rules" and even when nothing violates them, they harass users and try to force them into removing comments, only to then continue to harass and bully and deny access to the USER's virtual property, housed in their website. They have given themselves improper authority and have continued to bully and target the majority of users (conservatives) and then allow for death threats and mutations of people on another political side. The FTC as well as every other organization, and law makers must terminate their ever growing abuses to people, and give them consequences. They cannot shut down and lock out users based on their lies and biases. They are also searching, and found nothing other than the use of the word idiot, a lawful word and that was the best they could to to retailaite and close my account. The exact tweet being b(6) only an IDIOT reads a single article, does no research and believes that slanted written story. And does no other research, go away moron, too stupid to get it https://t.co/LNoyl3Tjl6Apr 27, 2020, 7:18 PM I don't even know what that comment was in response to, but it was obviously someone I blocked that was in fact trolling me. There is no threat any other harassment, it's a comment and many of them get strong and drastic responses, since the trolls are so vile. Twitter cannot continue to lock out accounts based on no violations at all, and use those fake lock outs to justify closing out accounts. I am running and going to use all social media as anyone else running as the right to do, without being bullied by Twitter or anyone else. Time to fix their illegal activity. It's criminal and they need consequences and fines and some need more consequences, including investigating their own sites. Twitter is liable for distrupting anyone's right to contact me on my Twitter account for my campaign and they owe criminal restitution, and civil damages as well.

Slow down there, champ.

Anyway, the FCC is now sitting on a bunch of these style of complaints now as well, filed in the ongoing comment period. However, the FTC is apparently still waiting for more than just the 10 it received directly. The White House promised to deliver over 16,000 complaints, but the FTC is apparently still there, waiting.

Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, executive order, foia, ftc, social media, white house

Confused Critic Of Section 230 Now In Charge Of NTIA

from the well-that's-unfortunate dept

Multiple experts on Section 230 have pointed out that the NTIA's bizarre petition to the FCC to reinterpret Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is complete nonsense. Professor Eric Goldman's analysis is quite thorough in ripping the petition to shreds.

Normally we expect a government agency like NTIA to provide an intellectually honest assessment of the pros/cons of its actions and not engage in brazen partisan advocacy. Not any more. This petition reads like an appellate brief that would get a C- in a 1L legal writing course. It demonstrated a poor understanding of the facts, the law, and the policy considerations; and it ignored obvious counterarguments. The petition is not designed to advance the interests of America; it is designed to burn it all down.

As we mentioned, it seemed likely that the petition was written by Adam Candeub, a lawyer who was only hired a few months ago by the NTIA. Readers may recognize Candeub's name because he represented the white nationalist Jared Taylor in a failed lawsuit against Twitter for kicking him off the platform. At the time of the lawsuit, I engaged in an email discussion with Candeub in which he tried to justify his lawsuit, and it included the same sort of nonsense and debunked legal theories we now see in the NTIA petition. In that email exchange, he told me that "Section 230 doesn't help Twitter" because "if an internet firm starts to edit or curate others' comments -- creating its own content, it loses this immunity." That, of course, is incorrect.

Indeed, the California courts agreed with me (and basically every other court) in ruling that Section 230 protected Twitter's decision to remove Candeub's client.

Of course, in the past couple of years since all of that went down, Candeub has continued his quixotic quest to reimagine Section 230 to say what he wants it to say, rather than what the plain language of the law, and basically every court on record (and the authors of the law) have said that it actually says.

And now he'll get to do that as the guy in charge of NTIA. Axios is reporting that Candeub has been promoted to become the acting head of NTIA. Given Candeub's activism on this issue it's an odd role for him, and, as has happened so often in this particular administration, a destruction of historical norms. NTIA has historically been extremely balanced and avoids direct political advocacy type positions. It certainly appears that it will be taking a different approach under Candeub, and that approach includes a blatant misrepresentation of key laws about the internet. Historically, NTIA has been an important agency in protecting the open internet -- but now it should be seen as hostile to such an open internet. And that's disappointing for its legacy.

Filed Under: adam candeub, cda 230, executive order, fcc, free speech, intermediary liability, ntia, section 230

So Now We Needed Another Ridiculous Executive Order About TikTok That Goes Beyond The President's Authority?

from the come-on-now dept

A week after issuing his first ridiculous executive order about TikTok, barring any transactions involving the company if it is still owned by ByteDance, President Trump decided he needed to issue a second executive order about TikTok, this one more directly ordering ByteDance to sell it. The authority used in this one is different. The first one was using the IEEPA, which is what Trump has used to claim "national security" reasons for imposing tariffs on China without Congressional approval. This time he's using 50 USC 4565, which allows the US treasury to block certain mergers, acquisitions and takeovers that might impact national security.

Except, here Trump is using that in reverse. ByteDance bought Musical.ly (and made it TikTok) two years ago. Trump didn't raise a peep at the time. To turn around now, two years later, and pretend that he can order the deal unwound is just silly.

Even if you don't trust ByteDance/TikTok, you should be absolutely concerned about this for multiple reasons: it's a clear and blatant abuse of power by the President. Allowing any President to just declare a foreign-owned company a problem and try to force it to sell to an American company is going to cause all sorts of long-term problems for the US. What's to stop foreign governments from doing the same to us? China is probably just itching to do something similar in retaliation. Second, to reach back two years and try to unwind a merger at this point based on this flimsy legal theory is just crazy as well. It's clear that this is nothing more than vindictiveness on the part of the President.

If there are real security issues with TikTok, then there should be due process. There should be investigations and evidence. Not just a childish, narcissistic President suddenly declaring that an entire company must be sold.

Filed Under: china, donald trump, due process, executive order, merger review, retaliation
Companies: bytedance, tiktok

DHS Is Engaging In Domestic Surveillance To Protect The Homeland Against Threats To Statues

from the i'm-sorry-i-don't-make-the-rules dept

The DHS doesn't mind engaging in domestic surveillance. After all, it's the Department of Homeland Security, so its purview is the homeland and everyone in it. The problem is the American public has rights and that is always something to consider, however briefly, when doing things like flying drones over American cities or, more questionably, placing people engaged in First Amendment expression under surveillance.

The DHS is now directly engaged in policing free speech. Demonstrations triggered by a Minnesota police officer's killing of an unarmed Black man are occurring on a daily basis. In some cities, the protests have never stopped. Federal agents -- including (inexplicably) a task force from the DEA -- have stepped in to investigate suspected federal crimes. However noble and correct the goal, the physical manifestation of this effort has been unidentified federal officers -- clad head-to-toe in war gear -- dragging people off the street and into unmarked vehicles.

Those who've experienced this say they were questioned aggressively by officers who refused to identify themselves and released with zero paperwork documenting their seemingly unconstitutional detainment or what criminal acts they were suspected of committing.

The DHS is prepared to take its Gestapo act nationwide with the blessing of the president. Any city with a crime problem, or a protest problem… or a "liberal" mayor can expect a swarm of DHS components to step in and start intimidating the protesting populace.

As is the case with any mission involving surveillance, you need to be prepared for the creep. No, this creep belongs to the mission supported by your average DHS foot soldier -- one dressed like he's in Fallujah and believes he has seen the enemy. And it is you. (By "you," I mean your average American standing within rental-car-driving distance of any federal property.)

The DHS is expanding its mission. This fortuitous move accompanies the extension of its leash by President Trump, who seems to feel people expressing their displeasure with law enforcement violence and racism should be intimidated into silence. Lawfare -- generally known as the home of pro-surveillance commentators -- has obtained a document showing the DHS is expanding its enforcement and surveillance efforts to cover other federal property: namely, the statues and monuments protesters have been vandalizing or destroying.

A document provided to Lawfare on July 19 from the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) describes personnel as “collecting and reporting on various activities in the context of elevated threats targeting monuments, memorials, and statues”—and it gives legal guidance concerning the “expanded intelligence activities necessary to mitigate the significant threat to homeland security” posed by such activities.

The document, titled “Job Aid: DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) Activities in Furtherance of Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, Statues, and Combatting Recent Criminal Violence,” is not classified. Its three pages each bear the heading “UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” But it clearly indicates that at least parts of the intelligence community are being tasked with monitoring and collecting information on some protest activities.

Try not to live or work too close to national monuments, Americans. You are the newest threat to the homeland's security. Participation trophies erected to victims of the War of Northern Aggression are sacrosanct if they're owned and operated by the US of A.

One DHS official says this is fine. (Likely more of them feel the same way, but this is the one Lawfare got on the record.) Ken Cuccinelli says statues and such are "federal facilities," and therefore as important to the nation's security as actual government buildings or government databases. And it's not just the federal stuff. The South may rise again yet.

It appears to also include planned vandalism of Confederate (and other historical) monuments and statues, whether federally owned or not.

Thank god this country is coming to the defense of long-dead white men. That's what's important in the wake of white officers killing unarmed Black men.

The memo leverages federal law as a truncheon against anyone who might harbor ill will against federal property which, it must be repeatedly noted, includes monuments erected to racists who engaged in treason. Say what you will about the current president, but at least he hasn't engaged in treason in an openly racist fashion. Yet.

So, in order to ensure the existence of certain people and their progeny, the DHS will be ramping up its domestic surveillance in hopes of catching those violently or non-violently opposed to icons representing America's racist history. Here's what the DHS is permitted to do in response to Trump's executive order demanding the protection of icons who presided over a secession that didn't even last as long as Heinz colored ketchup.

I&A personnel are required to use the least intrusive collection techniques feasible and sufficient when collecting [US person information] or when collecting intelligence or information within the United States. ... I&A personnel are permitted to engage in physical surveillance, the use of mail covers, and the use of monitoring devices only to the extent permitted by and consistent with [rules limiting their use to counterintelligence investigations]. I&A personnel are not permitted to engage in electronic surveillance or unconsented physical searches. Use of these techniques within the United States will be coordinated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation….

Oh, good. Whoever wrote this must be unfamiliar with most of the terms used in the memo they wrote. I'm not sure where they got their info, but it was likely surreptitious and removed from court oversight. You cannot combine "least intrusive method" and "coordinated with the FBI" and still expect "least intrusive" to remain "least intrusive." As for the mail cover part, does the DHS really feel the "liberal anarchists" routinely blamed by the administration are communicating via snail mail? "Hey, we're going to tear down a racist monument later this week. As soon as I can find what's left of my 'forever' stamps, I'll send you the details."

As for the ban on "unconsented physical searches," it would appear dragging people into unmarked vans for searches and questioning -- as observed in Portland, Oregon -- would violate the DHS's internal rules.

The DHS is supposed to focus on threats, according to this memo. But the threats include those against non-living sculptures and government buildings. Nothing forbids the DHS from going "open source" and surveilling even more protected speech: social media posts by American citizens. Whatever's published publicly can be observed without troubling any Constitutional amendments. But should the DHS do this, especially when the only thing "threatened" is some statues of questionable societal value?

The memo does at least tell DHS personnel they can't engage in surveillance of protected speech. But the rest of it gives them all the excuses they need to ignore this Constitutional guidance. Free speech apparently isn't free if it includes disparagement of national monuments that agents and officers can construe as potentially threatening.

While we may agree there is value in protecting certain federal property from attacks or vandalism, the inclusion of non-entities whose replacement value is up for discussion twists this into an easily-abusable avenue for increased domestic surveillance. As Lawfare points out, it's kind of absurd to extend efforts to prevent harm to government functions to include literally symbolic entities.

We will leave for another day the almost philosophical question of what level of damage might reasonably be said to impede the purpose or function of a statue. Suffice it to say that DHS analysts are now authorized to collect intelligence on threats to inflict such damage—though apparently not damage that falls short of impeding a statue’s “purpose or function,” whatever that may be.

The memo cautions against unjustified surveillance but surrounds it with vague directives like this one, where actions not overtly worshipful of a federally-erected monument could be perceived as an impediment to its "purpose or function." Most monuments are erected in hopes of respectful adoration. Standing in the way of intended adoration may be enough to welcome the unblinking gaze of the DHS's many eyes.

This isn't how America is supposed to work. Political speech deserves the utmost in First Amendment protections. There's a long list of federal crimes federal agencies could be concerning themselves with. But the DHS and the administration have decided idolatry is a proud tradition that must be upheld. The president loves his symbols. And the DHS's activities -- observed with horror by American citizens engaged in peaceful protests -- are Trump's jingoistic words made flesh.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, dhs, domestic surveillance, donald trump, executive order, statues, surveillance

House Government Appropriations Bill Would Bar FTC & FCC From Doing Anything Related To Trump's Inane Anti-230 Executive Order

from the congress-makes-the-laws,-folks dept

It's appropriations season (isn't it always?), and as the House Appropriations Committee digs into the various ways in which it funds the government a friendly little birdie pointed me to a fun little tidbit buried in the House's Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill for 2021:

If you can't read that it says:

The Committee includes a new provision prohibiting the Federal Trade Commission or Federal Communications Commission from taking certain actions related to Executive Order 13925 of May 28, 2020

And just what is Executive Order 13925? Why it's Donald Trump's inane anti-Section 230 Executive Order that, among other things, tries to order two independent agencies -- the FTC and the FCC -- to take certain actions regarding a made up, nonsensical interpretation of Section 230.

Of course, as we've pointed out, the President doesn't get to change the law all by himself -- and that includes the interpretation of the laws. And he's also not supposed to direct independent agencies like the FCC and the FTC to do things he wants them to do (hence the "independent" part of "independent agencies.") Congress writes the laws. Congress gets to handle what the FCC and FTC have authority over. And, at least on the House side, they don't think that either the FCC or the FTC should be doing anything at all regarding Section 230.

Now, it's unlikely this little tidbit survives to the final appropriations bill, but it is a little bit of a slap pointed at the White House for its weird nonsensical (and totally misguided) obsession with reinterpreting Section 230.

Filed Under: appropriations, content moderation, donald trump, executive order, fcc, ftc, section 230

Trump's 'Safe Policing' Executive Order Does Nothing To Address The Root Causes Of Police Misconduct

from the admin-staff-apparently-paid-by-the-word dept

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order in response to protests around the nation triggered by the cold-blooded killing of a black man by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

To be fair, it's much more restrained than the law enforcement-focused directive Trump released shortly after being elected. That one -- sent out under the misleading title "Law and Justice" -- basically told America disliking cops was wrong and possibly per se Unamerican. Here's a direct quote from the administration's opening shitpost, which has since been disappeared from the White House's site:

President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it.

True to his word, President Trump has continued to honor America's cops, even when America's cops have shown they don't deserve the public's undying (or dying as it were...) support, much less the Leader of the Free World's. But the administration must know the public isn't buying what Trump is pushing on the cop front. It has buried this page and hit the archived version with a transitional popup directing users away from the Internet Archive's saved versions. Nasty stuff indeed and something that shows the administration will back the blue the most when the blue isn't embarrassing itself (and the administration) publicly.

Forced into doing something else than donning a Blue Lives Matter cheerleader outfit, Trump and his team have released a new executive order -- one promising to reform police departments from the outside using [checks Order] some paperwork cops will probably never fill out completely.

First, the order says cops are mostly good:

Law enforcement officers provide the essential protection that all Americans require to raise their families and lead productive lives. The relationship between our fellow citizens and law enforcement officers is an important element in their ability to provide that protection. By working directly with their communities, law enforcement officers can help foster a safe environment where we all can prosper.

Then it says some (but not very many!) are bad:

Unfortunately, there have been instances in which some officers have misused their authority, challenging the trust of the American people, with tragic consequences for individual victims, their communities, and our Nation. All Americans are entitled to live with the confidence that the law enforcement officers and agencies in their communities will live up to our Nation’s founding ideals and will protect the rights of all persons. Particularly in African-American communities, we must redouble our efforts as a Nation to swiftly address instances of misconduct.

So, how does the administration plan to address these instances of misconduct? Through reporting, mostly. There's nothing in here that's even remotely daring -- not like the Democrats likely-doomed plan to end qualified immunity and increase the likelihood of success when prosecuting bad cops.

The order says cops must have more credentials. Specifically named are de-escalation procedures and and use-of-force techniques. This doesn't include a chokehold ban, but that's likely because this sort of ban would have to be implemented at state level. However, it does make federal funding reliant on a chokehold ban, but it leaves a large loophole for cops to exploit.

…[P]rohibit the use of chokeholds — a physical maneuver that restricts an individual’s ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation — except in those situations where the use of deadly force is allowed by law.

Enter the "reasonably scared" cops who are too paralyzed in fear to do anything but choke someone to death. Not exactly the deterrent the current situation calls for.

But it does include a carrot, even if the administration isn't willing to cut a switch. Local departments will only be able to obtain certain federal funds if they are implementing these directives or "in the process" of seeking approved credentialing. The latter suggests cop shops can get federal money just by filling out procedural paperwork in lieu of actual credential work in perpetuity (or until the next regime change anyway).

A database of police misconduct will also be constructed, but it will be of very limited public utility.

The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall include a mechanism to track, as permissible, terminations or de-certifications of law enforcement officers, criminal convictions of law enforcement officers for on-duty conduct, and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for improper use of force. The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall account for instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation related to the use of force.

Here are the caveats. It won't be searchable. All information will be sanitized by the DOJ before publication, ensuring officers are separated from their misdeeds.

The Attorney General shall regularly and periodically make available to the public aggregated and anonymized data from the database…

Again, federal funds are tied to participation, but federal funds can be acquired in other ways that don't involve police departments sending out aggregated data for DOJ rinsing every so often. And while police departments will continue to release mugshots and personal info of those only accused of crimes, citizens won't be able to see even "anonymized" data on cops accused of crimes until they're "afforded fair process."

The order also won't demand cops decouple themselves from social problems they're ill-equipped to solve. There's no defunding proposal here, only a requirement that cops may eventually have to participate in some more training on handling these problems.

The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate, identify and develop opportunities to train law enforcement officers with respect to encounters with individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction…

The funding for this is discretionary but involves a tug-of-war between the Department of Health and Human Services and the DOJ. Who would win? The department the president thinks is partially responsible for the supposed coronavirus "panic?" Or the "law and order" side Trump always takes when the general sad state of policing is highlighted in the press?

The only confirmation you need that this mild "reform" effort won't actually do any serious reforming is the Sergeants Benevolent Association's (SBA) show of support for the new executive order. The administration burned a few hundred words budging the dial hardly at all and the SBA -- backer of the worst of the worst NYPD officers -- is happy to hear it. The SBA "commends" the White House for invoking a police-friendly dialog that suggests cops aren't really bad, they're just a little under-trained and underfunded.

This won't change anything. And that's exactly what this administration wants. The Trump Administration realized doing nothing wasn't an option. So it did as little as possible. Cops are still safe from accountability and transparency. All that hangs in the balance are unenumerated federal funds they can probably get by without. Business as usual with the veneer of change: that's the DC way.

Filed Under: donald trump, executive order, police, police brutality, safe policing