Janine Jackson interviewed independent journalist Bryce Covert about Medicaid work requirements for the May 23, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

The Nation (2/28/20)

Janine Jackson: Welcome to USA 2025, where the only immigrants deserving welcome are white South Africans, germ theory is just some folks’ opinion, and attaching work requirements to Medicaid and SNAP benefits will make recipients stop being lazy and get a job.

Everything old is not new again, but many things that are old, perverse and discredited are getting dusted off and reintroduced with a vengeance. Our guest has reported the repeatedly offered rationales behind tying work requirements to social benefits, and the real-world impacts of those efforts, for many years now.

Bryce Covert is an independent journalist and a contributing writer at The Nation. She joins us now by phone from Brooklyn. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Bryce Covert.

Bryce Covert: Thank you so much for having me back on.

JJ: Most right-wing, top-down campaigns rely on some element of myth, but this is pretty much all myth: that there’s a problem: Medicaid and also SNAP benefits discourage recipients from seeking work, that this response will increase employment, that it will save the state and federal government money, and that it won’t harm those most in need. It’s layer upon layer of falsehood, that you have spent years breaking down. Where do you even start?

BC: That’s a great place to start, pointing out those claims essentially are all false, and I think it’s important to know, the reason we know that those things are false is because we have years of experience in this country with work requirements in various programs, and they have produced the same results over and over again.

Urban Institute (4/23/25)

So this started, essentially, with welfare, which is now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. In the 1990s, with cash assistance to families, there was a work requirement imposed on recipients in that program that still stands today. And just wave after wave of research has found these requirements did not help increase employment on a long-term basis.

Most people were not actually working after they were subjected to the work requirement, and instead it increased poverty. It reduced the recipients of these benefits. So it essentially didn’t help them get to work, but it did take away the money that they were relying on.

That pattern plays out over and over again, and we have some newer evidence in Medicaid because, up until the first Trump administration, states could not impose a work requirement in Medicaid. The Trump administration allowed waivers to do so. Only one state actually did it. But Arkansas, the state that did impose this work requirement, kicked over 18,000 people off the program with no discernible impact on employment.

JJ: And it has to do with a misunderstanding about who Medicaid recipients are, and their relationship to the workplace, period, right?

BC: Right. Most Medicaid recipients are either working, or have some good reasons for why they’re not working. Either they can’t find full-time work, or they have conflicts, like they’re taking care of family members.

People are disabled, many of them have an official disability and they’re on the actual disability program, but many more are disabled and can’t get on that program. It is a very difficult program to enroll in. The burdens to enrollment are super, super high. And others say it’s because they are in school, or they’re trying to find work, or they’re retired.

So among those who aren’t working, there’s not a lot who are in any good position to go out and start working. And that’s true of a lot of recipients of other public benefits as well. So when you talk about imposing a work requirement on people in Medicaid, what you’re doing is adding administrative burden, which is to say extra steps they have to take to keep getting their benefits, that aren’t going to actually change the situation they’re facing when it comes to their employment.

Think Progress (4/13/17)

JJ: When you wrote about Mississippi, I know, with TANF, you were saying you had to prove you had a job, or were searching for one, before you could get help with childcare. And if people would just take a second and think, how do you search for a job or hold a job without childcare? So it’s not even logical. It’s more a kind of moral, strange misunderstanding of why people are outside of the workforce.

BC: I think this applies to other programs, too. It’s hard to get to work if you don’t have health insurance like Medicaid to get yourself healthy and in a good working position. If you’re not able to get food stamps and buy food for yourself, it’s going to be hard to be out there looking for a job.

These are basic necessities, and I think that’s another really important point to make here, is that Republicans have tried to paint lots of different programs as “welfare,” because that word is very stigmatizing. But what we’re talking about with Medicaid is healthcare. We are talking about feeling as if we need to force people to work—although really what we’re doing is forcing them to document on some pieces of paper that they’re working, which is an important distinction—in order to get healthcare, in order to take care of their bodies and be healthy.

Same with food stamps. We’re saying “you must work in order to eat.” These are basic, basic necessities that people need simply to survive.

JJ: And then we hear about the “dignity” of work. You need to work because there’s dignity there, and yet somehow a person whose grandfather owned the steel mill doesn’t need that dignity. Wealthy people who don’t work somehow are outside of this moral conversation.

BC: Yeah, and we’re talking about imposing work requirements on SNAP and Medicaid, which is what Republicans say they want to do, in the service of tax cuts for the wealthy. Essentially, they are literally paying for tax cuts for the wealthy, to return more money to the rich, by cutting programs for the poor. And those rich people, many of them do not work, or these tax breaks help them to avoid work—the inheritance tax, for example. So that moral obligation to work does not apply.

New York Times (5/14/25)

JJ: The New York Times column recently, from four Trump officials—I don’t remember the headline, but it was something like, “If You Can Work, You Must.” They didn’t marshal any evidence. They didn’t have data, just vibes. Those are some racist, racist vibes, aren’t they?

BC: Yes. That is an important point, that all of this cannot be separated out from racism.

I mean, the conversation over welfare and TANF in the 1990s, that was all race. It was about white Americans feeling like Black Americans were getting the dole, and were too lazy to work and had to be forced to work. The numbers at the time did not bear that out. More white Americans were getting cash assistance than Black ones.

But it’s a really deep-seated belief among Americans, and I think when you see, as in that op-ed, for example, or other places where Republicans are trying to call these other programs “welfare,” it’s barely even just a dog whistle. It is pretty blatant that they are trying to paint other programs as things that help Black people who are too lazy to work.

It’s all caught up in that idea, even though, again, the numbers do not bear this out. White people are more likely to be on these programs. We see equal employment rates among both populations. This is not actually a problem to solve for, but it is one I think a lot of Americans, unfortunately, really believe.

The Nation (6/8/23)

JJ: I’m going to ask you about media in another second. I just wanted to pull up another point about the racism, which is that it’s not just the mythologizing and the “welfare queen,” that those of us who are old enough will remember. But you wrote about how states with larger Black populations have stricter rules, and how when states were asked for exemptions on pushing these work requirements, they exempted majority white counties. So it’s not just the racism in the rationale, the racism in how it plays out is there too?

BC: Absolutely. I mean, these policies hit Black people more heavily. They are more stringently applied in Southern states that have higher Black populations, that are more hostile to their Black populations. And like you said, in the first Trump administration, when states were seeking exemptions, it was more majority white populations who got them. This is just really a fundamental racist myth we have in this country that’s proven very hard to shake, that Black people are lazy and rely on the government to get by and must be forced to work, when just nothing about the actual numbers and data bears that out.

JJ: I sometimes feel like reporters, even if they’re well-intentioned and trying to make it personal, they can kind of make it a thought experiment for folks who are better off. If you were struggling, wouldn’t you take the time to fill out a form? It’s just paperwork. Couldn’t you go across town to the office and fill out that form? And it just represents a total disconnect, experiential disconnect between anyone who has ever had to deal with this and those who have no idea about it at all and just kind of parachute in and say, Oh wow, filling out a form. What’s the big deal?

Bryce Covert: “This is not about, in fact, helping people to work. This is, instead, about kicking people off the program.” 

BC: Yeah, I think most well-off Americans have no idea how hard it is to apply for these programs, to stay on these programs, the paperwork that’s involved, the time that’s involved. And also when we’ve seen work requirements in Medicaid, for example, they are set up in a very complex way. Arkansas’s website was only available during the working day, and then it would shut down, and you couldn’t log your work requirement hours at night. I think that belies the fact that this is not about, in fact, helping people to work. This is, instead, about kicking people off the program.

You can see that in the fact that the reason Republicans are talking about work requirements right now is because they need to find spending savings to pay for the tax cuts. If this were not about kicking people off and spending less on benefits, then this wouldn’t be part of this current conversation about their “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” So these are huge administrative burdens, and it’s also a big burden for something that is a deep necessity. I think the mental impact, the emotional impact of being made to jump through these huge hoops for something as basic as food, it’s really extreme.

For example, I recently had to go to the DMV to get my Real ID. I had to go to the office in person. I had to wait for hours. I had to bring all the right paperwork. It was a huge burden, but this was for something that would just make it a little easier to travel on an airplane.

Think about going through the same process, having to show up somewhere in person, waiting for hours, making sure you have all the right documentation, and if you don’t, then you don’t get the thing that you’re seeking, but what we’re talking about is whether or not you get healthcare. What we’re talking about is whether you get food stamps. I think it’s an experience that’s hard for people who haven’t gone through it to grasp.

New York Times (5/13/25)

JJ: To bring it back to today, May 21, some coverage that I’m reading straight up says some 8.6 million people are going to find themselves uninsured. Other stories matter-of-factly describe work requirements, and some Republicans’ anger that they’re not going to kick in sooner, as about “offsetting” the tax cuts for the wealthy, as though we’re just kind of recalibrating, and this is going to balance things in a natural way.

I guess I would say I’m not getting the energy that there are 14 million children who rely on both Medicaid and SNAP, and there’s children who could lose healthcare and food at the same time, and that includes 20% of all children under the age of five. From news media, I’m getting Republicans versus Democrats; I’m not so much getting children versus hunger.

BC: Yeah, I think, unfortunately, these kinds of political debates tend to be covered like they are just political back and forth. Democrats think this, Republicans think that. It is legitimately harder to explain to people what this will mean in real life. I have reported on the impact of work requirements. For example, I went to Arkansas when they were in effect. It’s hard to report on. The people who are impacted are vulnerable. They have chaotic lives. They may not even know that they are subject to it.

Unfortunately, I think it’s likely that if this passes and these cuts are implemented, we will see more stories about what happens, because it will be a little easier to say concretely, “This kid right here doesn’t get food or healthcare anymore.” But it would be nice to have that conveyed ahead of time, so the public understood what was happening before it went into effect.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with independent reporter Bryce Covert. You can find her work online at BryceCovert.com. Bryce Covert, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

BC: Yeah, thank you for having me.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Janine Jackson interviewed independent journalist Bryce Covert about Medicaid work requirements for the May 23, 2025, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

The Nation (2/28/20)

Janine Jackson: Welcome to USA 2025, where the only immigrants deserving welcome are white South Africans, germ theory is just some folks’ opinion, and attaching work requirements to Medicaid and SNAP benefits will make recipients stop being lazy and get a job.

Everything old is not new again, but many things that are old, perverse and discredited are getting dusted off and reintroduced with a vengeance. Our guest has reported the repeatedly offered rationales behind tying work requirements to social benefits, and the real-world impacts of those efforts, for many years now.

Bryce Covert is an independent journalist and a contributing writer at The Nation. She joins us now by phone from Brooklyn. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Bryce Covert.

Bryce Covert: Thank you so much for having me back on.

JJ: Most right-wing, top-down campaigns rely on some element of myth, but this is pretty much all myth: that there’s a problem: Medicaid and also SNAP benefits discourage recipients from seeking work, that this response will increase employment, that it will save the state and federal government money, and that it won’t harm those most in need. It’s layer upon layer of falsehood, that you have spent years breaking down. Where do you even start?

BC: That’s a great place to start, pointing out those claims essentially are all false, and I think it’s important to know, the reason we know that those things are false is because we have years of experience in this country with work requirements in various programs, and they have produced the same results over and over again.

Urban Institute (4/23/25)

So this started, essentially, with welfare, which is now known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. In the 1990s, with cash assistance to families, there was a work requirement imposed on recipients in that program that still stands today. And just wave after wave of research has found these requirements did not help increase employment on a long-term basis.

Most people were not actually working after they were subjected to the work requirement, and instead it increased poverty. It reduced the recipients of these benefits. So it essentially didn’t help them get to work, but it did take away the money that they were relying on.

That pattern plays out over and over again, and we have some newer evidence in Medicaid because, up until the first Trump administration, states could not impose a work requirement in Medicaid. The Trump administration allowed waivers to do so. Only one state actually did it. But Arkansas, the state that did impose this work requirement, kicked over 18,000 people off the program with no discernible impact on employment.

JJ: And it has to do with a misunderstanding about who Medicaid recipients are, and their relationship to the workplace, period, right?

BC: Right. Most Medicaid recipients are either working, or have some good reasons for why they’re not working. Either they can’t find full-time work, or they have conflicts, like they’re taking care of family members.

People are disabled, many of them have an official disability and they’re on the actual disability program, but many more are disabled and can’t get on that program. It is a very difficult program to enroll in. The burdens to enrollment are super, super high. And others say it’s because they are in school, or they’re trying to find work, or they’re retired.

So among those who aren’t working, there’s not a lot who are in any good position to go out and start working. And that’s true of a lot of recipients of other public benefits as well. So when you talk about imposing a work requirement on people in Medicaid, what you’re doing is adding administrative burden, which is to say extra steps they have to take to keep getting their benefits, that aren’t going to actually change the situation they’re facing when it comes to their employment.

Think Progress (4/13/17)

JJ: When you wrote about Mississippi, I know, with TANF, you were saying you had to prove you had a job, or were searching for one, before you could get help with childcare. And if people would just take a second and think, how do you search for a job or hold a job without childcare? So it’s not even logical. It’s more a kind of moral, strange misunderstanding of why people are outside of the workforce.

BC: I think this applies to other programs, too. It’s hard to get to work if you don’t have health insurance like Medicaid to get yourself healthy and in a good working position. If you’re not able to get food stamps and buy food for yourself, it’s going to be hard to be out there looking for a job.

These are basic necessities, and I think that’s another really important point to make here, is that Republicans have tried to paint lots of different programs as “welfare,” because that word is very stigmatizing. But what we’re talking about with Medicaid is healthcare. We are talking about feeling as if we need to force people to work—although really what we’re doing is forcing them to document on some pieces of paper that they’re working, which is an important distinction—in order to get healthcare, in order to take care of their bodies and be healthy.

Same with food stamps. We’re saying “you must work in order to eat.” These are basic, basic necessities that people need simply to survive.

JJ: And then we hear about the “dignity” of work. You need to work because there’s dignity there, and yet somehow a person whose grandfather owned the steel mill doesn’t need that dignity. Wealthy people who don’t work somehow are outside of this moral conversation.

BC: Yeah, and we’re talking about imposing work requirements on SNAP and Medicaid, which is what Republicans say they want to do, in the service of tax cuts for the wealthy. Essentially, they are literally paying for tax cuts for the wealthy, to return more money to the rich, by cutting programs for the poor. And those rich people, many of them do not work, or these tax breaks help them to avoid work—the inheritance tax, for example. So that moral obligation to work does not apply.

New York Times (5/14/25)

JJ: The New York Times column recently, from four Trump officials—I don’t remember the headline, but it was something like, “If You Can Work, You Must.” They didn’t marshal any evidence. They didn’t have data, just vibes. Those are some racist, racist vibes, aren’t they?

BC: Yes. That is an important point, that all of this cannot be separated out from racism.

I mean, the conversation over welfare and TANF in the 1990s, that was all race. It was about white Americans feeling like Black Americans were getting the dole, and were too lazy to work and had to be forced to work. The numbers at the time did not bear that out. More white Americans were getting cash assistance than Black ones.

But it’s a really deep-seated belief among Americans, and I think when you see, as in that op-ed, for example, or other places where Republicans are trying to call these other programs “welfare,” it’s barely even just a dog whistle. It is pretty blatant that they are trying to paint other programs as things that help Black people who are too lazy to work.

It’s all caught up in that idea, even though, again, the numbers do not bear this out. White people are more likely to be on these programs. We see equal employment rates among both populations. This is not actually a problem to solve for, but it is one I think a lot of Americans, unfortunately, really believe.

The Nation (6/8/23)

JJ: I’m going to ask you about media in another second. I just wanted to pull up another point about the racism, which is that it’s not just the mythologizing and the “welfare queen,” that those of us who are old enough will remember. But you wrote about how states with larger Black populations have stricter rules, and how when states were asked for exemptions on pushing these work requirements, they exempted majority white counties. So it’s not just the racism in the rationale, the racism in how it plays out is there too?

BC: Absolutely. I mean, these policies hit Black people more heavily. They are more stringently applied in Southern states that have higher Black populations, that are more hostile to their Black populations. And like you said, in the first Trump administration, when states were seeking exemptions, it was more majority white populations who got them. This is just really a fundamental racist myth we have in this country that’s proven very hard to shake, that Black people are lazy and rely on the government to get by and must be forced to work, when just nothing about the actual numbers and data bears that out.

JJ: I sometimes feel like reporters, even if they’re well-intentioned and trying to make it personal, they can kind of make it a thought experiment for folks who are better off. If you were struggling, wouldn’t you take the time to fill out a form? It’s just paperwork. Couldn’t you go across town to the office and fill out that form? And it just represents a total disconnect, experiential disconnect between anyone who has ever had to deal with this and those who have no idea about it at all and just kind of parachute in and say, Oh wow, filling out a form. What’s the big deal?

Bryce Covert: “This is not about, in fact, helping people to work. This is, instead, about kicking people off the program.” 

BC: Yeah, I think most well-off Americans have no idea how hard it is to apply for these programs, to stay on these programs, the paperwork that’s involved, the time that’s involved. And also when we’ve seen work requirements in Medicaid, for example, they are set up in a very complex way. Arkansas’s website was only available during the working day, and then it would shut down, and you couldn’t log your work requirement hours at night. I think that belies the fact that this is not about, in fact, helping people to work. This is, instead, about kicking people off the program.

You can see that in the fact that the reason Republicans are talking about work requirements right now is because they need to find spending savings to pay for the tax cuts. If this were not about kicking people off and spending less on benefits, then this wouldn’t be part of this current conversation about their “One Big, Beautiful Bill.” So these are huge administrative burdens, and it’s also a big burden for something that is a deep necessity. I think the mental impact, the emotional impact of being made to jump through these huge hoops for something as basic as food, it’s really extreme.

For example, I recently had to go to the DMV to get my Real ID. I had to go to the office in person. I had to wait for hours. I had to bring all the right paperwork. It was a huge burden, but this was for something that would just make it a little easier to travel on an airplane.

Think about going through the same process, having to show up somewhere in person, waiting for hours, making sure you have all the right documentation, and if you don’t, then you don’t get the thing that you’re seeking, but what we’re talking about is whether or not you get healthcare. What we’re talking about is whether you get food stamps. I think it’s an experience that’s hard for people who haven’t gone through it to grasp.

New York Times (5/13/25)

JJ: To bring it back to today, May 21, some coverage that I’m reading straight up says some 8.6 million people are going to find themselves uninsured. Other stories matter-of-factly describe work requirements, and some Republicans’ anger that they’re not going to kick in sooner, as about “offsetting” the tax cuts for the wealthy, as though we’re just kind of recalibrating, and this is going to balance things in a natural way.

I guess I would say I’m not getting the energy that there are 14 million children who rely on both Medicaid and SNAP, and there’s children who could lose healthcare and food at the same time, and that includes 20% of all children under the age of five. From news media, I’m getting Republicans versus Democrats; I’m not so much getting children versus hunger.

BC: Yeah, I think, unfortunately, these kinds of political debates tend to be covered like they are just political back and forth. Democrats think this, Republicans think that. It is legitimately harder to explain to people what this will mean in real life. I have reported on the impact of work requirements. For example, I went to Arkansas when they were in effect. It’s hard to report on. The people who are impacted are vulnerable. They have chaotic lives. They may not even know that they are subject to it.

Unfortunately, I think it’s likely that if this passes and these cuts are implemented, we will see more stories about what happens, because it will be a little easier to say concretely, “This kid right here doesn’t get food or healthcare anymore.” But it would be nice to have that conveyed ahead of time, so the public understood what was happening before it went into effect.

JJ: We’ve been speaking with independent reporter Bryce Covert. You can find her work online at BryceCovert.com. Bryce Covert, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

BC: Yeah, thank you for having me.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).

Common Dreams (5/14/25)

This week on CounterSpin: On a Sunday night, not when officials do things they’re most proud of, House Republicans passed a plan to give more money to rich people by taking it from the non-rich. Call it what you will, that’s what’s ultimately happening with the plan to cut more than $700 billion from Medicaid in order to “offset,” as elite media have it, the expense of relieving millionaires from contributing to public coffers. Even the feint they’re using—we’re not cutting aid, just forcing recipients to work, like they should—is obvious, age-old and long-disproven, if evidence is what you care about. Thing is, of the millions of people at the sharp end of the plan, most are children, who have no voice corporate media feel obliged to listen to. We’ll nevertheless talk about them with independent journalist Bryce Covert.

Washington Post (5/11/25)

Also on the show: You may have seen an editorial in the Washington Post indicating that, despite what you have heard for years, from trans people and from doctors and medical associations that work with trans people, maybe it’s OK for you to still entertain the notion that, weirdly, on this occasion, it’s not science but talkshow hosts who have it right, and trans kids are just actually mentally ill. We’ll talk about that with journalist and trans rights activist Erin Reed, of Erin in the Morning.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

These restrictions are another example of Beijing’s repression of the 12-million strong Uyghurs in the northwestern region of Xinjiang, although authorities appear to want to project a sense of normalcy to the rest of the world, the report said.

Uyghurs who apply to visit family abroad must disclose the purpose of their trip and an invitation from the relative, along with personal details, including their address, work status and other relevant documents, according to those who have recently left Xinjiang or met with relatives from the region.

Authorities will also restrict travel by allowing only one family member to go at a time, using other family members as leverage to ensure their return, several Uyghurs told HRW.

Applicants may also need a “guarantor,” often another official, and failing to comply puts family members at risk of punishment.

Once abroad, Uyghur travelers cannot engage with activists or speak critically about the Chinese government. They also must return within a specified time frame, ranging from a few days to several months.

For business trips, Uyghurs are only allowed to visit certain countries, such as Kazakhstan, and are banned from traveling to “sensitive” nations with large Muslim populations like Turkey.

“The modest thaw in China’s travel restrictions has allowed some Uyghurs to briefly reunite with loved ones abroad after having no news for years, but the Chinese government’s travel restrictions are still used to oppress Uyghurs in Xinjiang and in the diaspora,” said Yalkun Uluyol, China researcher at Human Rights Watch, or HRW, in the report.

“The Chinese government continues to deny Uyghurs their right to leave the country, restrict their speech and associations when abroad, and punish them for having foreign ties,” he said.

Still tightly controlled

For nearly a decade, Chinese authorities have clamped down harshly on Uyghurs and other Turkic groups in Xinjiang, putting an estimated 1.8 million in concentration camps in the name of stamping out terrorism and religious extremism.

They began confiscating Uyghurs’ passports during a “strike hard” campaign in 2016 and imprisoned some for contacting people abroad.

RELATED STORIES

China uses London travel show to promote its narrative of Xinjiang in the West

EXPLAINED: Is China taking away people’s passports?

Chinese authorities impose travel ban in Xinjiang, citing COVID-19 prevention

China expands recall of passports to Uyghurs outside of Xinjiang

In spring 2024, authorities began allowing Uyghurs from overseas who were not critical of China’s policies to make restricted visits to Xinjiang. They also have returned the passports of some Uyghurs and allowed them to apply for travel abroad.

Despite the slight relaxation of travel restrictions, the process is still tightly controlled and limited, according to HRW’s interviews with 23 Uyghurs outside China between October 2024 and February 2025, and a review of relevant official documents.

While abroad, travelers are closely monitored, and upon return, their passports are confiscated, and they are questioned about their trip and contacts.

Uyghurs living abroad can sometimes visit Xinjiang after a strict and lengthy vetting process. Those with foreign passports still need approval from local police and a neighborhood committee.

Once they arrive in Xinjiang, some are questioned or told to stay in hotels instead of family homes.

Join the tour

Uyghurs living abroad who apply for a visa to enter China face thorough background checks, and even attending nonpolitical events or sending their children to Uyghur-language schools can lead to a visa denial, the report said.

Some are directed by Chinese diplomatic missions abroad to join official tours to Xinjiang, requiring personal information and approval from various Chinese authorities, including local police, the local public security bureau and counterterrorism unit, and a neighborhood committee.

Uyghurs holding foreign passports are additionally required to renounce their Chinese citizenship to participate in such tours, the report said.

Those who join them say they are a safer option with a quicker and easier visa application process, rather than traveling on their own and risking police interrogation and possible detention.

While on the tours, Uyghur are closely monitored by Chinese minders, must obtain permission to visit their families, must speak Mandarin Chinese and must participate in propaganda activities with provided scripts that praise the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s policies in Xinjiang.

Through controlled visits and tours, the Chinese government keeps a tight grip on the Uyghur diaspora. Some Uyghurs stay silent or avoid activism and cultural activities, hoping to reconnect with their families and visit the region.

“Uyghurs are facing stringent conditions and requirements if they want to briefly reunite or even just to communicate with family members in China,” Uluyol said in the report. “Being able to contact or visit loved ones abroad shouldn’t be a privilege granted to a few Uyghurs, but is a right that the Chinese government is obligated to respect.”

Edited by Malcolm Foster.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Roseanne Gerin for RFA English.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

More than two years after ProPublica sued the Navy over its failure to provide public access to military courts, the Department of Defense has for the first time directed U.S. military branches to give advance public notice of preliminary hearings, a crucial milestone in criminal cases.

These “Article 32” hearings end with a recommendation about whether the case should move forward, be dismissed or end in a nonjudicial punishment.

DOD General Counsel Caroline Krass issued the guidance earlier this year, directing the secretaries of the Navy, Army, Air Force and Homeland Security (which oversees the Coast Guard) to post upcoming preliminary hearings, provide access to certain court records and publish results of military trials — known as courts-martial — on a public website.

But legal experts say the new guidance falls short of the conditions laid out in a federal law requiring the military to dramatically increase public access to its justice system.

The military has long resisted opening its proceedings to the public. The 2016 law, passed after revelations about rampant sexual assault in the armed forces, instructs the DOD to develop policies similar to civilian courts that provide public access to “all stages of the military justice system.” The federal court system gives the public wide-ranging, real-time electronic access to hearing schedules and filings in all but the most sensitive criminal cases.

In contrast, the military typically withholds all court records while cases are active and keeps records secret indefinitely if a defendant is found not guilty. It also grants no public records access to cases in the preliminary hearing stage, including reports recommending whether cases should be dismissed or move forward to court-martial.

Experts say the lack of transparency robs the public of the ability to understand whether the military justice system operates fairly and how the branches are responding to issues like sexual assault within the ranks.

The new guidance doesn’t change any of that. It requires the military to disclose outcomes of court-martial hearings, but not until up to seven days after they conclude. Records from trials and appeals don’t have to be made public until 45 days after the record is “certified,” which can be months after a trial or appeal concludes.

And the new guidance requires the military to give at least three days’ notice of upcoming preliminary hearings in its courts. That gives anyone interested in attending a preliminary hearing just a few days to obtain clearance to enter a military base where the hearing is scheduled to be held and travel to the base, possibly across the country. Getting clearance to enter a military base can take a week or more depending on the location.

Even then, attendees wouldn’t know the significance of the case or even the accused’s full name unless they were directly involved. The Navy began posting notices of preliminary hearings late last year on its court website, but those postings currently lack the full name of the accused and don’t explain what the person is accused of beyond a crime category.

“The preliminary hearing phase is often when public interest in a controversy is highest,” said Franklin Rosenblatt, associate professor at the Mississippi College School of Law and president of the National Institute of Military Justice. “News media, affected communities and others now have more of a glimpse into the military justice process than they had before. But ultimately these are half measures. This is not the kind of contemporaneous access to criminal dockets that the rest of the country has come to expect.”

ProPublica’s lawsuit seeks contemporaneous access to court records at all levels, including to cases that resulted in acquittals, and a ruling that this kind of information is presumed open unless the military shows on a case-by-case basis that there’s a compelling need to withhold it.

The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and 34 media organizations have filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the military’s opaque practices don’t comply with federal law and decades of court rulings, including several from the U.S. Supreme Court. ProPublica is represented in the suit by its deputy general counsel, Sarah Matthews, and by pro bono attorneys at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

“We’re happy to see some incremental progress, but it is far less than what the First Amendment and a congressional mandate demand,” said Matthews. “Three days is often not enough time to get access to the base, and since the Navy withholds charge sheets until a case is over, the public won’t even know what the hearing is about or whether it’s worth attending. And the Navy still withholds all court records while the case is happening, only releasing a tiny fraction of the record months or even years after a case has ended, and then only if the defendant is found guilty.”

Matthews said this practice “makes it virtually impossible for the public and press to know if military courts are treating service members fairly and if justice is being done.”

The Navy does not comment on pending litigation, a spokesperson said.

In a December motion, attorneys representing the Navy, then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other defendants asked a judge to dismiss the suit, arguing that decisions about military policy on court access are not up to the judicial branch and that the First Amendment does not require contemporaneous or “unfettered” access to such records and hearings. ProPublica opposed that motion in January.

The Navy has repeatedly and broadly invoked the federal Privacy Act as a reason to withhold military court records, a law ProPublica argues does not apply because the act does not trump the First Amendment or permit blanket sealing of court records. The DOD has also acknowledged it can release records despite the Privacy Act.

The Navy’s handling of a high-profile arson case prompted ProPublica’s lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of California’s U.S. District Court. In 2020, the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard caught fire and burned for more than four days. The ship was destroyed, a more than $1 billion loss to the Navy.

The Navy prosecuted Seaman Recruit Ryan Mays on charges of aggravated arson and willfully hazarding a vessel. ProPublica found there was little to connect him to the blaze, including no physical evidence that Mays — or anyone — set the fire.

Mays was found not guilty at his court-martial in 2022, and ProPublica sued that year over the Navy’s refusal to release any court documents associated with his case.

ProPublica has asked the court to order the secretary of defense to issue proper rules for the release of records, hearing schedules and other information. The government tried to get that part of the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that Austin was allowed to decide how to implement the law.

A federal judge ruled last year that ProPublica’s claims against Austin should move forward. The judge wrote that ProPublica has “plausibly alleged that the issued guidelines are clearly inconsistent with Congress’ mandate.”

A recent independent federal review of the military justice system by a panel of experts recommends that the DOD fully comply with the 2016 law by developing electronic access to public dockets and providing “direct public access to pretrial, trial and appellate court-martial records at the time of filing.”

“More accurate data and greater transparency are needed to enhance trust and confidence in the system,” the review states.

Do You Have a Tip for ProPublica? Help Us Do Journalism.

Megan Rose contributed reporting.

This content originally appeared on ProPublica and was authored by by Ziva Branstetter.

Work requirements have largely failed to boost employment in significant ways because these requirements do not attack the core barriers to work, such as weak macroeconomic conditions, the volatile nature of low-wage employment, and caregiving responsibilities.

In fact, the primary barrier to work for low-income adults who want steady hours of employment is the state of the macroeconomy—conditions that are far beyond their control. Low-income adults’ employment rises when overall unemployment is low, and they work more hours and earn more as a result. When unemployment is high, however, low-income adults are often the first to lose their jobs and see large hour declines as well.

The report also compares the demographic and safety net profile of all adults ages 18 to 59 and adults who are on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or food stamps) and Medicaid. Those receiving SNAP and Medicaid are disproportionately likely to be women and nonwhite, and they are also less likely to have a college education—only 15% of adults on SNAP and Medicaid have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Further, adults on SNAP and Medicaid are much more likely to have an elderly person in the household.

“Work requirements for safety net programs are a punitive solution that solves no real problem. They do not reliably increase employment, but they do kick people off essential benefits like food assistance and health care,” said Hilary Wething, EPI economist and author of the report. “If policymakers are genuinely concerned about improving access to work, they should support policies like affordable child and elder care.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

But the claim is misleading. Google had its servers in China before exiting the country in 2010. The primary reason for the American tech giant’s departure from the Chinese market was its refusal to comply with the Chinese government’s content censorship.

The claim was shared on Douyin, a Chinese version of TikTok, on March 10, by a user “Li Sanjin Alex Sees the World” with more than 3 million followers. 

Commenting on the U.S.’s latest decision to ban Tiktok, the user claimed the U.S. specifically “targeted” the Chinese app by creating a new law to push it out although it complied with all American domestic laws.

“Someone might say China [also] banned it [foreign social media platforms] anyway. Facebook, Twitter, Google, it’s all equal [banned in China]. You are dead wrong,” said the user.

“As long as they keep their data at home [in China] … you can develop in the Chinese market at will. Google, they disagreed. [to follow the domestic regulations] So they gave up the Chinese market.”

“Li Sanjin Alex Sees the World” was among many Chinese online users who criticized the U.S.’s move to ban TikTok, while citing Google’s decision to exit China as an example to “compare” how both the American and Chinese government “treat” foreign companies differently. 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last Wednesday calling for the app’s Chinese developer ByteDance to divest from the company or be booted out of U.S. app stores.

The bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, receiving 352 votes in favor, and only 65 against.

Many House legislators have argued that the app could allow Beijing to access user data and influence Americans through the wildly popular social media platform’s addictive algorithm. The White House has backed the bill, with President Joe Biden saying he would sign it if it passes Congress.

But the claim is misleading. 

Google’s China exit

A review of archived documents reveals that before Google announced its exit from the Chinese market in 2010, its servers were located within China.

The American tech giant even had joint ventures or collaborations with various Chinese companies in different businesses. 

Google also cooperated with the Chinese government’s request for self-censorship of content. 

In fact, Google stated that due to sophisticated cyber attacks originating from China and requests from the Chinese government for censorship, the company decided to redirect its “services designed for mainland China users” to servers in Hong Kong.

China has numerous laws regarding content censorship.

The “Administrative Measures for the Security Protection of International Networking of Computer Information Networks” is one example. 

Under the measure, China’s Ministry of Public Security is responsible for protecting the connection between the computer network in China and the international Internet.

“No unit or individual shall use the international networking to endanger state security, divulge state secrets, nor shall it/he/she infringe on national, social and collective interests and the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, nor shall it/he/she engage in illegal criminal activities,” the Article 4 of the measure reads. 

AFCL has previously reported on China’s increasing control over the Internet industry. 

TikTok ban?

TikTok, a highly popular app owned by a Chinese firm, faces scrutiny due to the significant control the Chinese government has over its national companies. Critics fear that this influence might allow the Chinese government to collect personal data from American users or manipulate American politics through TikTok.

The U.S.’s latest move is aimed at the ownership structure of the app, while establishing clear legal compliance norms. 

With the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, has 180 days after the law takes effect to sell the app business and hold no more than 20% of the shares to continue operating in the U.S. market.

The new bill wouldn’t remove TikTok from people’s phones. But it would prevent Apple and Google from distributing the app from their app stores, and maintaining the app via updates, which would eventually make the app unusable. 

The bill would also ban U.S. websites from hosting TikTok.

Edited by Taejun Kang and Malcolm Foster.

Asia Fact Check Lab (AFCL) was established to counter disinformation in today’s complex media environment. We publish fact-checks, media-watches and in-depth reports that aim to sharpen and deepen our readers’ understanding of current affairs and public issues. If you like our content, you can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram and X.

This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by By Rita Cheng for Asia Fact Check Lab.

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

This article is produced in collaboration with The Texas Tribune and the PBS series FRONTLINE. Sign up for newsletters from The Texas Tribune and from FRONTLINE.

After a teenage gunman killed 10 people at Santa Fe High School in 2018, Texas lawmakers mandated that all school police officers receive training to better prepare them for the possibility of confronting a mass shooter. The law, which required that such training occur only once, didn’t apply to thousands of state and local law enforcement officers who did not work in schools.

Four years later, officers who descended on Uvalde’s Robb Elementary School, a vast majority of whom were not school police, repeatedly acted in ways that ran contrary to what active shooter training teaches, waiting 77 minutes to engage the gunman. An investigation published in December by ProPublica, The Texas Tribune and FRONTLINE revealed that about 30% of the 116 state and local officers who responded in May 2022 did not get active shooter training after graduating from police academies. Of those who had, many received such instruction only once in their careers, which at least eight police training experts say is not enough.

As part of the investigation, the news organizations conducted a nationwide analysis to examine active shooter training requirements and found critical gaps in preparedness between children and law enforcement. While at least 37 states require active shooter-related drills in schools, typically on a yearly basis, no states mandate such training for officers annually.

Instead, decisions about active shooter training are often left to individual school districts and law enforcement departments, creating a patchwork approach in which some proactively provide such instruction and others do not.

The month after the news organizations’ investigation was published, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s office released a scathing report that detailed a slew of failures during the Robb Elementary response. While visiting Uvalde, he told reporters that law enforcement agencies should immediately prioritize active shooter training.

The federal report recommended that officers receive eight hours of such instruction annually. Only Texas, however, comes close to meeting the Department of Justice’s suggested standards, according to the newsrooms’ nationwide analysis. Last year, the state mandated that all officers, not just school police, take 16 hours of active shooter training every two years.

About a dozen states also increased training requirements after the Uvalde shooting, but many continue to fall short of what police training experts say is needed.

The gaps in training requirements begin before officers’ first day on the job.

While police academies in nearly every state require some form of active shooter training, five states — California, Georgia, Ohio, Washington and Vermont — do not require it for all recruits. A spokesperson for the police standards agency in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Vermont police standards agency said the police academy curriculum is being reviewed but she could not comment on whether it will expand active shooter training to all officers. Officials with police standards agencies in the other three states said they are considering adding active shooter training to their police academy curriculum.

Once officers graduate from police academies, the lack of training requirements becomes more pronounced.

Only two states — Texas and Michigan — have laws that require active shooter training for all officers once on the job. While Texas requires recurring instruction, training in Michigan is given once after officers graduate from police academies. Some states mandate active shooter training one time in a particular year, leaving out officers who were not employed at the time. Other states require training only for school police, as Texas did before the Uvalde shooting, and only two of them — Illinois and Mississippi — require it more than once.

While a majority of states require frequent active shooter-related drills in schools, 13 don’t require such instruction. They include Colorado and Connecticut, which had two of the worst mass shootings in history: the 1999 Columbine school massacre and the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary. Spokespeople for the school safety departments in both states said districts are conducting drills despite the absence of a state mandate but did not provide records that confirm their assertions.

Active shooter training can be expensive, but state lawmakers should commit to providing the necessary instruction if they want law enforcement to be better prepared for a mass shooting, police training experts said. John Curnutt, assistant director at Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center, said Uvalde is a “horrible example” of when training was needed but hadn’t been practiced enough.

“There’s a higher price that’s paid than the one that we probably could have paid upfront to get ready for it,” Curnutt said.

The table of information below is best viewed on our website.

About this Research

To confirm the most up-to-date active shooter training requirements for law enforcement and schools across the country as of 2023, we contacted education departments and law enforcement standards agencies in every state. We examined both state laws and regulations.

In our analysis of schools, we included all mandated lockdown and active shooter drills, though some education departments said other types of drills can help prepare students and staff as well. In addition to the 37 states that explicitly require active shooter-related drills, we noted several others that have laws mandating safety drills but allow districts to decide which types of drills to conduct. We did not include those in our total count because the options could range from active shooter drills to earthquake drills.

For law enforcement, we collected information about how many hours of active shooter training are required for recruits going through police academies and for officers once they are on the job. We also asked for statewide data showing how many officers had taken such courses, but few states could provide that information. While we included only states’ current training mandates, four states — Alabama, North Carolina, Maine and Pennsylvania — required officers to train in a particular year but then not again, meaning that only those who were employed at that time received the one-time instruction.

This content originally appeared on Articles and Investigations - ProPublica and was authored by by Lexi Churchill and Lomi Kriel.

“Ukraine is and will remain France’s priority. The defense of the fundamental principles of international law is being played out in Ukraine,” he told a Kyiv news conference alongside his counterpart, Dmytro Kuleba, on January 13.

“Russia is hoping that Ukraine and its supporters will tire before it does. We will not weaken. That is the message that I am carrying here to the Ukrainians. Our determination is intact,” said Sejourne, who was making his first foreign journey since being appointed to the position on January 11.

WATCH: After Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a "partial mobilization" in fall 2022, over 300,000 reservists were drafted into the war in Ukraine, which Russia calls a "special military operation." A year later, women formed The Way Home initiative to demand that their family members be discharged and sent back home. The women wear white shawls as a symbol of their protest.

Kuleba thanked Sejourne for making his journey to Kyiv despite “another massive shelling by Russia. I am grateful to him for his courage, for not turning back."

Sejourne arrived in the Ukrainian capital within hours of a combined missile-and-drone attack by Russia that triggered Ukrainian air defenses in several southern and eastern regions early on January 13.

Sejourne's visit represented the latest Western show of support for Kyiv in its ongoing war to repel Russia's 22-month-old full-scale invasion.

"For almost 2 years, Ukraine has been on the front line to defend its sovereignty and ensure the security of Europe," Sejourne said on X, formerly Twitter. "France's aid is long-term."

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Ukraine has struggled to secure further funding for its campaign from the United States and the European Union, the latter of which is grappling with opposition from member Hungary.

The French Foreign Ministry posted an image of Sejourne and said he'd "arrived in Kyiv for his first trip to the field, in order to continue French diplomatic action there and to reiterate France's commitment to its allies and alongside civilian populations."

"Despite the multiplying crisis, Ukraine is and will remain France's priority," AFP later quoted Sejourne as saying in Kyiv. He said "the fundamental principles of international law and the values of Europe, as well as the security interests of the French" are at stake there.

Earlier, the General Staff of Ukraine's military said Russia had launched 40 missiles and attack drones targeting Ukrainian territory.

It said Ukrainian air defenses shot down eight of the incoming attacks and 20 others missed their targets. It said the Russian weapons included "winged, aerobic, ballistic, aviation, anti-controlled missiles, and impact BPLAs."

They reportedly targeted the eastern Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk regions.

RFE/RL cannot independently confirm claims by either side in areas of the heaviest combat.

Air alerts sounded in several regions of Ukraine.

A day earlier, Polish radio and other reports quoted recently inaugurated Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk as saying he would visit Ukraine soon to discuss joint security efforts and to talk about Polish truckers' grievances over EU advantages for Ukrainian haulers.

Tusk, a former Polish leader and European Council president who was sworn in for a new term as Polish prime minister in mid-December, has been a vocal advocate of strong Polish and EU support for Ukraine.

"I really want the Ukrainian problems of war and, more broadly security, as well as policy toward Russia, to be joint, so that not only the president and the prime minister, but the Polish state as a whole act in solidarity in these issues," Tusk said.

The U.S. Congress has been divided over additional aid to Ukraine, with many Republicans opposing President Joe Biden's hopes for billions more in support.

An EU aid proposal of around 50 billion euros ($55 billion) was blocked by Hungary, although other members have said they will pursue "technical" or other means of skirting Budapest's resistance as soon as possible.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that delays in aid can severely hamper Ukrainians' ongoing efforts to defeat invading Russian forces.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

“Ukraine is and will remain France’s priority. The defense of the fundamental principles of international law is being played out in Ukraine,” he told a Kyiv news conference alongside his counterpart, Dmytro Kuleba, on January 13.

“Russia is hoping that Ukraine and its supporters will tire before it does. We will not weaken. That is the message that I am carrying here to the Ukrainians. Our determination is intact,” said Sejourne, who was making his first foreign journey since being appointed to the position on January 11.

WATCH: After Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a "partial mobilization" in fall 2022, over 300,000 reservists were drafted into the war in Ukraine, which Russia calls a "special military operation." A year later, women formed The Way Home initiative to demand that their family members be discharged and sent back home. The women wear white shawls as a symbol of their protest.

Kuleba thanked Sejourne for making his journey to Kyiv despite “another massive shelling by Russia. I am grateful to him for his courage, for not turning back."

Sejourne arrived in the Ukrainian capital within hours of a combined missile-and-drone attack by Russia that triggered Ukrainian air defenses in several southern and eastern regions early on January 13.

Sejourne's visit represented the latest Western show of support for Kyiv in its ongoing war to repel Russia's 22-month-old full-scale invasion.

"For almost 2 years, Ukraine has been on the front line to defend its sovereignty and ensure the security of Europe," Sejourne said on X, formerly Twitter. "France's aid is long-term."

Live Briefing: Russia's Invasion Of Ukraine

RFE/RL's Live Briefing gives you all of the latest developments on Russia's full-scale invasion, Kyiv's counteroffensive, Western military aid, global reaction, and the plight of civilians. For all of RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Ukraine, click here.

Ukraine has struggled to secure further funding for its campaign from the United States and the European Union, the latter of which is grappling with opposition from member Hungary.

The French Foreign Ministry posted an image of Sejourne and said he'd "arrived in Kyiv for his first trip to the field, in order to continue French diplomatic action there and to reiterate France's commitment to its allies and alongside civilian populations."

"Despite the multiplying crisis, Ukraine is and will remain France's priority," AFP later quoted Sejourne as saying in Kyiv. He said "the fundamental principles of international law and the values of Europe, as well as the security interests of the French" are at stake there.

Earlier, the General Staff of Ukraine's military said Russia had launched 40 missiles and attack drones targeting Ukrainian territory.

It said Ukrainian air defenses shot down eight of the incoming attacks and 20 others missed their targets. It said the Russian weapons included "winged, aerobic, ballistic, aviation, anti-controlled missiles, and impact BPLAs."

They reportedly targeted the eastern Kharkiv, Luhansk, and Donetsk regions.

RFE/RL cannot independently confirm claims by either side in areas of the heaviest combat.

Air alerts sounded in several regions of Ukraine.

A day earlier, Polish radio and other reports quoted recently inaugurated Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk as saying he would visit Ukraine soon to discuss joint security efforts and to talk about Polish truckers' grievances over EU advantages for Ukrainian haulers.

Tusk, a former Polish leader and European Council president who was sworn in for a new term as Polish prime minister in mid-December, has been a vocal advocate of strong Polish and EU support for Ukraine.

"I really want the Ukrainian problems of war and, more broadly security, as well as policy toward Russia, to be joint, so that not only the president and the prime minister, but the Polish state as a whole act in solidarity in these issues," Tusk said.

The U.S. Congress has been divided over additional aid to Ukraine, with many Republicans opposing President Joe Biden's hopes for billions more in support.

An EU aid proposal of around 50 billion euros ($55 billion) was blocked by Hungary, although other members have said they will pursue "technical" or other means of skirting Budapest's resistance as soon as possible.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has warned that delays in aid can severely hamper Ukrainians' ongoing efforts to defeat invading Russian forces.

With reporting by RFE/RL's Ukrainian Service

This content originally appeared on News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and was authored by News - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.

The report comes as oil and gas and their allies on Capitol Hill are working feverishly to halt a sensible and long overdue Biden administration rule to charge fossil fuel companies more to ensure that taxpayers do not cover oil and gas cleanup costs, which range between $35,000 and $200,000 per well, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

The report found that cleaning up more than 89,000 wells on federal lands could cost between $2.9 billion and $17.7 billion, with a midrange estimate of $6.2 billion. Nearly 90% of the potential high-end cleanup bill is in just five states: New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and California, with almost 65% of the potential tab in New Mexico and Wyoming alone, according to the report.

“The boom and bust nature of the oil and gas industry puts taxpayers at higher risk for well cleanup because, when prices fall for oil and gas, bad actors have an economic incentive to just walk away from their wells, leaving taxpayers in the lurch,” said Alan Zibel, a research director with Public Citizen. “Industry lobbyists are downplaying the risks of another oil and gas bust as the industry rakes in record profits. But the current boom won’t last forever, and the U.S. government needs to be prepared for the next bust. Despite oil industry and Republican pushback, strong public protections for oil and gas drilling on public lands are sorely needed.”

In the summer 2023, the Bureau of Land Management began a rulemaking process to ensure drilling companies start paying higher royalty costs to cover the costs of orphaned wells. The Biden administration’s proposed rule builds on legislation passed in 2022 hiking royalties charged to fossil fuel companies for drilling on public lands.

Corporations awarded a lease to drill on federal land must post a bond. If the leasing corporation abandons an exploration site, goes bankrupt, or fails to plug a well securely, the posted bond covers the cost of doing so. Because current the bonding requirements are decades old, the bonds are often insufficient to cover the expenses today, handing taxpayers a bill for the difference.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee will consider the “Restoring American Energy Dominance Act” introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), which, if enacted, would require the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw the Biden administration rule proposal before it is finalized.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

This content originally appeared on The Intercept and was authored by Prem Thakker.

Photograph Source: Bryancalabro – CC BY-SA 3.0

Earlier this month, Arizona joined a growing list of twenty states in legalizing over-the-counter (OTC) birth control — and it’s about time! On July 6th, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs issued an order that allows adults to purchase contraceptives without a prescription, though they’ll still have to take a blood pressure test for screening purposes. This is a huge win for women’s medical freedom in the Grand Canyon state. Ending Rx requirements reinforces the right to self-medicate, discards flimsy safety concerns, and reduces barriers to access for uninsured patients. Other states should follow suit.

Placing restrictions on birth control interferes with women’s ability to self-medicate —  an essential right intertwined with self-ownership, a pillar of individual liberty. Now, Arizonan women can decide whether to try for children now, a few years from now, or never — and they can do it without a doctor’s consent.

While there are plenty of cultural objections to granting people unfettered access to birth control, the most common of these is an understandable misconception: the idea that birth control is essentially chemical abortion. That’s inaccurate. Whereas abortions terminate pregnancies, standard birth control prevents ovulation or fertilization of the ovum to avoid pregnancy entirely.

The truth is prescriptionless access to the pill benefits everyone — even culturally conservative women, who may take it as acne medication.

Most people agree that taking pharmaceuticals without a physician’s supervision is dangerous. Yet, OTC access to contraceptives is an exception to our phobia of reckless drug consumption. A survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 60% of the participants “strongly favor” OTC access to “the pill”. Many polls show that most people support widening access by eliminating prescription requirements. Even experts agree that the risks are minor. Over 100 countries legally permit OTC sales of oral contraceptives. It is difficult to argue that maintaining prescription requirements can be done purely for safety.

In fact, there are plenty of OTC drugs that are a lot more dangerous than contraceptives. Take first-generation antihistamines such as Diphenhydramine (Benadryl), for example. These are readily available over-the-counter, yet high dosages can cause cognitive impairment, hallucinations, and seizures. Or take Tylenol, one of the most common OTC pain relievers, which in large quantities can lead to liver failure and death. There is even already a form of oral contraceptive available without prescription and no age requirements: the Plan B pill. This form of emergency contraception contains ten times the amount of progestin (a synthetic hormone used to prevent pregnancies). If teenagers can freely buy emergency contraceptives, adults should be able to do the same with standard birth control.

Prescription requirements are a prohibitive obstacle for Arizonans without health insurance. In 2019, approximately 800,000 Arizona residents were uninsured. Arizonans typically lack insurance coverage due to immigration status or not qualifying for Medicaid and paying out-of-pocket for doctor’s visits. The high costs of obtaining prescription drugs without insurance have driven Arizonans to seek medications across the border in Mexico. One study found that 90% of US women who obtained contraceptives in Mexico did so to avoid prescription requirements.

For Undocumented immigrants, crossing the border to buy contraceptives means taking a chance they’ll be deported. Ending the prescription requirements eliminates that risk, saving time and money for the uninsured. Governor Hobbs does not have a great record for reducing the role of government in our daily lives, but this standing order is a pleasant surprise. Eliminating this onerous requirement for a relatively safe drug validates medical freedom of female Arizona residents, ignores weak safety concerns, and reduces the hassle of obtaining birth control. Loosening prescription requirements is a policy that Arizona can and should extend beyond contraceptives. For now, this is a wonderful win for medical liberty.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Peter Clark.

The post What the Fight Over Work Requirements is Really All About appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Shawn Fremstad – Tori Coan.

This week, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy plans to hold a vote on a bill that would raise the nation’s debt limit, but only in conjunction with extraordinarily steep spending cuts and new barriers to accessing income support programs. This is the next milestone in House Republicans’ attempt to play a game of dangerous political brinkmanship with the U.S. economy, trying to force through harmful and deeply unpopular federal spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt limit. This approach recklessly flirts with bringing on the economic catastrophe of a government default in the short term.

Speaker McCarthy’s proposal would slash spending across federal programs for the next decade, cutting federal resources for everything from child care programs to environmental protection safeguards. If these deeply unrealistic spending cuts actually came to pass, the human toll would be enormous, and economic growth would be deeply damaged.

The McCarthy proposal also resurfaces a completely inaccurate but alarmingly persistent conservative claim: the idea that government anti-poverty programs are unnecessarily generous, bloated, and are keeping people out of the workforce who should otherwise be supporting themselves entirely through income earned in the labor market. The proposal seeks to severely restrict access to Medicaid health coverage and food stamps by imposing onerous requirements to prove that recipients are working or looking for work. Past evidence about these types of burdensome reporting requirements shows clearly that they will not actually lead to increased employment but will deprive vulnerable families of vital support.

Income support programs are not keeping people out of the workforce

The implicit claim that the U.S. labor market is hobbled by a too-generous welfare state is awfully hard to see in the data. Job growth in 2021 and 2022 hit its highest two-year stretch in the nation’s history. The unemployment rate is currently at a near-historic low. The prime-age employment-to-population ratio hit its highest point in March 2023 in more than 20 years. In general, many low-wage workers have seen the benefits of a tight labor market in the pandemic recovery, as employers have raised wages to attract and retain workers. In short, when jobs are available, workers have rushed to fill them. And while food assistance programs and other safety net supports are a vital lifeline to keep many out of poverty, the benefits are nowhere near enough on their own to fully support the cost of living for many families. Where has the idea come from that there’s an urgent need to address these supposedly too-comfortable benefits keeping people out of the workforce?

The premise of adding more onerous work and reporting requirements is also based on an inaccurate picture of who currently receives federal assistance through these programs. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently noted, nearly two-thirds of adults with Medicaid already work. Since the early 2000s, many safety net and income support programs have actually shifted toward requiring proof that recipients are also working or looking for work, but the gains of this shift have been near-impossible to see in terms of increased employment. Since 1990, all new investments in safety net spending have gone toward families with at least some labor market earnings. Those who are unable to find or do work under the current requirements are already in extremely difficult circumstances, and taking away the few safety net supports they have available would be economically devastating.

Those who are unable to find or do work under the current requirements are already in extremely difficult circumstances, and taking away the few safety net supports they have available would be economically devastating.

The U.S. safety net is in serious need of reforms, but not because of inaccurate claims that its excess generosity keeps people out of work. Public spending in the United States as a share of GDP is extremely low relative to other rich nations, and we spend far less to fight poverty than other comparatively wealthy countries. Low-income people already spend a ridiculous amount of energy attempting to prove and maintain their eligibility for these modest supports.

Imposing additional “work requirements” would restrict access to Medicaid and food stamps

Burdensome work reporting requirements are about making the benefits system more sluggish and difficult to access, and do nothing to boost employment. Existing reporting requirements already impose too-high a bureaucratic burden to accessing needed help. Passing these more burdensome requirements being called for by Speaker McCarthy would require people in need of assistance to devote even more of their bandwidth to dealing with forms and make-work bureaucratic tasks, rather than spending that time and energy looking for good work in meaningful and productive ways. The solution should be to reduce the amount of “means-testing” required and to make programs more readily accessible, not to restrict them further.

The biggest problem with the U.S. safety net is that our programs don’t help as many people, or as effectively, as they should.

Further, Speaker McCarthy’s claims that this proposal would put the United States on a path to “fiscal responsibility” and lower inflation are laughable. The biggest driver of deficits for the last 20 years has been a steady trend toward ever-larger tax cuts for corporations and the richest U.S. households. No one who actually wants to reduce the federal deficit should be looking to do that on the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable Americans.

The strongest “incentive” that people have to enter or reenter the workforce already exists—they need income to survive and provide for themselves and their families. If they’re not already working but want to, there is likely a very good reason. Many people simply can’t afford or access quality child care, or quality care for other family members, and need to take on those responsibilities themselves rather than entering the paid workforce. People with disabilities may struggle to find jobs that accommodate their needs appropriately, or that provide adequate health coverage. Many can’t find jobs with the fair and predictable scheduling they need. Others may stay out of the workforce because of a persistent lack of economic opportunities available in their neighborhoods, towns, or cities—a lack of opportunity often caused by systemic public and private disinvestment in communities of color or rural areas.

Any policymaker serious about getting people who want to work into the workforce should be looking to address these problems, rather than taking away lifelines to food and health care.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Samantha Sanders.

An alliance of senior advocacy groups, progressive organizations, and labor unions demanded Wednesday that Congress quickly approve legislation to increase the debt limit without any conditions, warning the House GOP's pursuit of steep spending cuts is risking an "economic calamity" and imperiling key benefits.

In a letter shared exclusively with Common Dreams, Social Security Works, MoveOn, Indivisible, and nearly 30 other organizations implored Democratic and Republican congressional leaders "in the strongest possible terms to swiftly pass a clean debt limit bill."

"There are real disagreements among elected officials about the role of government, budgetary matters, and tax policy," the letter reads. "We understand that and welcome a robust debate and seeing where the American people stand. There's a time and place for that debate. This is not that time. The entire economy and the financial security of every working family is at stake."

The letter, also signed by the Alliance for Retired Americans and the AFL-CIO, comes days after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a speech on Wall Street that his caucus is assembling and preparing to vote on legislation that would lift the debt ceiling for roughly a year while slashing federal spending and imposing punitive new work requirements on recipients of Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.

But it's unclear whether McCarthy will even have enough votes to get such a measure through the GOP-controlled House, given that Democrats are unanimously opposed and some far-right Republicans have already criticized the outlined package, claiming it wouldn't cut spending aggressively enough.

"Kevin McCarthy is holding the debt limit hostage, and can't even get his caucus to agree on a ransom demand," Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, told Common Dreams. "He is endangering the benefits that seniors rely on to survive, just to score political points."

"The only solution," Lawson added, "is for McCarthy to release his hostage and work with Democrats to pass a clean debt limit."

"Only a clean debt limit bill is standing up for seniors and working families."

If Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling—an arbitrary borrowing limit that progressives want abolished—the U.S. is expected to default on its debt sometime this summer, an outcome that experts say would be devastating for the U.S. and global economies.

A default could also have major implications for Social Security and Medicare, potentially causing payment delays and other disruptions.

In a memo released earlier this year, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM)—a signatory to Wednesday's letter—warned that "if Congress fails to raise or suspend the debt limit and allows the government to default on its legally binding financial obligations, an economic catastrophe would likely result and payment of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits would be jeopardized."

"The Treasury Department must have cash to pay benefits when they are due," the group explained. "Every month, the Treasury Department is required by law to make over $90 billion in payments to the 65 million retirees, disabled workers, widows, widowers, children, and spouses who receive Social Security benefits. The Treasury may not have enough incoming revenue to make those payments without the authority to cash in these securities."

"Absent the legal authority to borrow beyond the current ceiling," NCPSSM added, "Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other payments will not be made on time and in full unless Congress approves an increase in the debt limit."

\u201cIt's long past time for \n@SpeakerMcCarthy and @HouseGOP to prioritize protecting seniors, families, and people with disabilities over political gain! \n\n#BackOffOurBenefits\u201d

— Social Security Works (@Social Security Works) 1681754240

House Republicans have previously floated plans to raise the Social Security retirement age—a move that would cut benefits across the board—but McCarthy insisted Monday that his caucus would not touch Social Security and Medicare in their debt limit proposal, which has yet to be finalized.

In their letter on Wednesday, the senior advocacy coalition recalled that "at this year's State of the Union, everyone stood up and clapped in agreement with President Joe Biden, signifying that they stand up for seniors and working people who rely on Social Security and Medicare."

"Only a clean debt limit bill is standing up for seniors and working families," the groups argued. "Certainly, cutting Social
Security or Medicare as a condition for raising the debt ceiling is not standing up for seniors. Nor is cutting Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, energy assistance, or any of the other myriad domestic programs that our families, retirees, and communities depend on to make ends meet."

"More fundamentally, risking an economic recession and threatening the financial security of every working family in this country would be a failure of Congress to fulfill its duty," the letter continued. "Congress raised the debt limit repeatedly without conditions during President Trump's four years in office. It should take that same step now, without delay. This should not be political. Rather, it is simply part of the job that everyone in Congress chose to seek."

On Wednesday morning, the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus released a plan to avert a U.S. default if the House GOP refuses to agree to a clean debt limit increase by this summer.

The proposal would suspend the debt ceiling through December 31 and "establish an independent commission—modeled after a Pentagon panel that determines which military bases to close—to recommend a package to stabilize the debt and deficit, which would be voted on by Congress," Axios reported.

The White House quickly threw cold water on the proposal, with press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre saying that "our position continues to be not to negotiate... over a default."

Social Security Works tweeted that the White House is "absolutely right," calling the Problem Solvers Caucus' framework "a terrible plan" and cautioning that "a 'fiscal commission' is code for cutting Social Security and Medicare behind closed doors."

"Congress must pass a clean debt limit increase, with NO CUTS to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other program," the group wrote.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy told the New York Stock Exchange on Monday that his caucus will not pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling unless it includes steep federal spending cuts and work requirements for key aid programs, a position that Democratic lawmakers slammed as dangerous and foolish hostage-taking.

"There never has been and never will be anything fiscally responsible about refusing to pay America's bills, risking millions of jobs, or threatening economic ruin," said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee. "Republicans have apparently learned nothing from their past failures, so I'll make it clear: The best thing they can do for the American people is to let the hostage go, stop the chaos, and end this reckless brinksmanship with a vote for a clean raise of the debt ceiling."

The Wall Street audience, though, applauded McCarthy's (R-Calif.) speech, in which he attempted to blame President Joe Biden for a looming debt default that would have catastrophic impacts on the U.S. and global economies. McCarthy also pledged to oppose any new tax increases, a message that appeared to go over well on Wall Street.

"Speaker McCarthy went to Wall Street to spread Republicans' message to billionaires and corporate executives: They want hardworking families to pay the cost of keeping the government up and running, while corporations get away with paying as little as possible in taxes—and they're willing to hold our entire economy hostage to get it done," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said in a statement.

"House Republicans' proposed budget cuts threaten economic disaster and American jobs, all to protect billionaires and giant corporations," Warren continued. "Independent analysis from Moody's shows congressional Republicans' budget cuts could throw 720,000 to over 2.5 million Americans out of work. That's a nonstarter. President Biden must hold firm on behalf of working families, and insist Republicans raise the debt limit swiftly and cleanly as they did time and time again under President Trump."

Biden has repeatedly called for legislation that raises the debt ceiling without any accompanying conditions, but the House Republican majority has insisted on reverting federal spending to fiscal year 2022 levels—which would force painful spending cuts across a range of programs, from housing to education to healthcare.

McCarthy repeated that demand Monday, telling the NYSE that the House will vote in the coming weeks on a bill that would raise the debt ceiling for a year, cap federal spending at FY 2022 levels, and limit spending growth over the next decade to 1% annually.

"If you agree, join us," McCarthy told the Wall Street audience. "Join us in demanding a reasonable negotiation and responsible debt ceiling agreement that brings spending under control."

The Republican leader said the GOP measure will also include new work requirements for recipients of federal nutrition assistance and Medicaid—mandates that experts say could deprive millions of families of food aid and health coverage. (Most SNAP and Medicaid recipients who are able to work already do so.)

McCarthy accused the Biden administration of weakening work requirements, an apparent reference to the administration's 2021 decision to rescind Trump-era guidance that gave states a green light to attach work requirements to Medicaid benefits.

But as Joan Alker of the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families pointed out in response to McCarthy's remarks, "There were no Medicaid work requirements in effect when Biden took office."

"In 2018, Arkansas briefly implemented Medicaid work requirement, which was a disaster, didn't promote work, but did create lots of red tape, and caused 18,000 to lose their health coverage," Alker wrote on Twitter. "A federal court stopped it. Appeals court upheld the ruling and no other state implemented [work requirements for Medicaid]."

McCarthy insisted that "trillions" of dollars in federal spending would be cut under the GOP's plan and demanded that the president meet with him to negotiate, but the Republican leader offered few specific details in his Monday speech.

"The speaker doubled down on the MAGA majority's threats to hold the economy hostage and keep the nation from paying its bills, but couldn't even articulate the ransom demands," said Liz Zelnick, director of Accountable.US' Economic Security and Corporate Power program. "McCarthy offered nothing by vague promises of a plan with unspecified spending cuts, a guarantee big corporations won't pay a penny more in taxes, and no assurances he even has enough votes to pass it in the House."

"While MAGA extremists in Congress can't seem to agree on the degree to which to punish seniors, workers, and low-income Americans with cuts to crucial safety nets," Zelnick added, "they're in complete alignment that no billionaire or profiteering corporation should pay their fair share."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. will default on its debt for the first time ever this summer if Congress doesn't raise the limit, a looming disaster that top economists have said is "frightening."

In 2011, when Biden was vice president, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded after the GOP obstructed efforts to lift the debt ceiling. Republicans ultimately secured a deal with the Obama administration to impose federal spending cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling increase, an agreement that undermined the U.S. economy's recovery from the Great Recession.

"House Republicans instigated the first-ever downgrade in America's credit rating, spiking costs for working families and bringing the United States to the brink of a devastating recession," Boyle said Monday. "Almost 12 years later, Speaker McCarthy and extreme MAGA Republicans are dragging our nation down the same treacherous path."

"The speaker's blatant attempt to dodge responsibility and shift blame," Boyle added, "only underscores that the greatest threat to our nation's economy, the well-being of American families, and our record-breaking recovery is Speaker McCarthy and his MAGA allies."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Led by Rep. Matt Gaetz and other far-right members of the House GOP, Republican lawmakers are intensifying their push to establish new work requirements for millions of people who receive Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance, an effort that progressives slammed as a cruel attack on the poor.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Republicans, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), have rallied around work requirements as a key demand as they use the ongoing debt ceiling standoff as leverage to pursue steep spending cuts and other policy changes.

"The debate in some ways resembles the Republican-led campaign against so-called welfare queens in the 1990s, when a politically resurgent GOP—then under the leadership of House Speaker Newt Gingrich—secured a dramatic restructuring of the government's social safety net," the Post noted. "The resulting overhaul, enacted by President Bill Clinton, slashed cash benefits for millions of Americans in ways that GOP leaders now cite as a model."

In a February letter to President Joe Biden, Gaetz (R-Fla.) and four other House Republicans favorably cited the 1996 welfare reform law—which doubled extreme poverty—as an example of bipartisan cooperation that should be replicated to avert a catastrophic debt default.

During a press conference last month, Gaetz cast his call for tougher work requirements as an attempt to extract a "broader contribution" from "couch potatoes," which is often how Republicans demean people who receive federal food aid and other benefits—even though most who get such assistance work.

"The legislators that want new work requirements for food stamps and Medicaid are the same ones working to eliminate the estate tax so that billionaire heirs never have to work a day in their lives," the Patriotic Millionaires, a group that supports tax hikes on the rich, tweeted Tuesday. "It's not about work, it's about hurting the poor."

A recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that legislation introduced by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) would strip Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from more than 10 million people, including 4 million children.

Research has repeatedly shown that SNAP work requirements, which add significant complexity and administrative burdens to the process of obtaining benefits, aren't effective at boosting employment.

"SNAP recipients who can work, do work," Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) said Tuesday. "Yet they do not earn enough to escape poverty. Taking away SNAP doesn't help anyone find work, it just makes them hungry and ensures the cycle of poverty continues."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) echoed his colleague, writing on Twitter that "adding draconian hurdles to receive food assistance and benefits makes it harder for people to get back on their feet, not easier."

"The GOP should call it what it is—a cut to benefits," he added.

"Republicans still haven't released a budget, but they're continuing to make their priorities clear: They want to protect wealthy donors while cutting food assistance and healthcare from families."

As for Medicaid, state experiments with work requirements have proven disastrous. In Arkansas, a state that briefly imposed work requirements on Medicaid recipients during the Trump era before a judge intervened, more than 18,000 people lost health coverage due to the rules.

Some Republicans, including Gaetz and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), want to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients nationwide, a move that would compound massive coverage losses stemming from the recent end of pandemic protections.

In February, Gaetz unveiled the Medicaid Work Requirements Act, which would mandate that adults deemed "able-bodied" work at least 120 hours a month, volunteer for at least 80 hours a month, or take part in a work training program for at least 80 hours a month to remain eligible for Medicaid benefits.

"Republicans still haven't released a budget, but they're continuing to make their priorities clear: They want to protect wealthy donors while cutting food assistance and healthcare from families," tweeted the Senate Budget Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

In a statement to the Post on Tuesday, White House spokesman Michael Kikukawa indicated that Biden will oppose adding new work requirements to SNAP and Medicaid as part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling.

"The president has been clear that he will oppose policies that push Americans into poverty or cause them to lose healthcare," said Kikukawa. "That's why he opposes Republican proposals that would take food assistance and Medicaid away from millions of people by adding burdensome, bureaucratic requirements."

As the GOP ramps up its assault on SNAP and other critical programs, members of the Senate Democratic caucus are urging the Biden administration to do everything in its power to bolster and expand federal food aid, which was slashed for many families earlier this year when pandemic-related enhancements lapsed.

In a letter to the heads of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Social Security Administration (SSA) earlier this week, a dozen Senate lawmakers called for action to remove "administrative burdens that create barriers to food security" for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients.

"SSI recipients are low-income people at least 65 years old, or blind or disabled adults or children," the lawmakers wrote. "To help alleviate food insecurity, SSA and USDA must create a seamless path to ensuring that SSI recipients and applicants can obtain SNAP benefits, one with minimal administrative burden. SNAP is the nation's largest anti-hunger program and SNAP benefits translate to fewer people in poverty and a healthier population."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Jake Johnson.

"The Obama administration attempted to prevent dangerous derailments like the one in East Palestine by mandating better brake systems on freight trains. But this effort was watered down thanks to corporate pressure, first by writing in many exemptions to the proposed rules and then, under Trump, by repealing the requirement altogether."

"Reporting from The Lever indicates that Secretary Pete Buttigieg has no intention of reinstating or strengthening the brake rule rescinded under Trump. Additionally, The Lever reports that the train was not being regulated as a high-hazard flammable train, despite it clearly being both high-hazard and flammable. These types of failures to protect the public are invited by perpetual lax enforcement and laziness toward even getting back to the too-low regulatory standards under Obama."

"Now, all eyes are on Secretary Buttigieg. For too long he has been content to continue the legacy of his deregulatory predecessor, Elaine Chao, rather than immediately moving to reverse her legacy upon becoming Secretary. Norfolk Southern's environmental disaster is the latest in a long string of corporate malfeasance committed right under the Secretary's nose. As I've warned before, corporations do not respect Buttigieg as a regulator.

"Chao justified letting trains run without proper brakes because the safety requirement failed a so-called cost-benefit analysis. As we've covered before, this type of analysis is invariably weighted against fully accounting for the health and environmental benefits a regulation provides. Secretary Buttigieg should call out the brake rule repeal for the horrendous decision it was, start working to implement a new rule, take Norfolk-Southern to task, and push back on corporations deciding how the DOT regulates them. Anything short of that only signals to the railroads that this type of incident will be tolerated. That is not an acceptable message from the Secretary of Transportation."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

In a last-ditch bid to revive the expanded Child Tax Credit in some form by year's end, the White House has reportedly suggested to congressional Democrats that it is willing to accept a compromise deal that adds more stringent work requirements to the anti-poverty program—a reversal of President Joe Biden's previous opposition to such restrictions and a move that some progressives condemned.

The Child Tax Credit (CTC) boost enacted in 2021 did not contain a work requirement, meaning the poorest families were eligible for the CTC for the first time. But the CTC enhancement, which brought about historic reductions in U.S. child poverty, expired at the end of last year due to the opposition of Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who refused to support a renewal of the expanded CTC unless a "firm work requirement" was added.

"Just a complete disconnect from the reality of who benefitted from this policy and why."

At the end of 2021, the CTC reverted to its previous form, which essentially already contains a work requirement given that only families with at least $2,500 in yearly earned income are eligible for the credit—a regressive design that excludes the very poorest from benefits.

Biden publicly opposed Manchin's 2021 push to add a work requirement to the boosted CTC, but Politico reported Monday that the White House has "privately signaled to Democrats that it would support a compromise deal to revive the expanded Child Tax Credit, even if it includes work requirements."

Research indicates that work requirements do little to boost employment, the purported goal of those who support adding them to social programs. However, work requirements do often succeed at denying benefits to vulnerable people, including many who are eligible.

"The evidence shows the red tape associated with work requirements can cause people to lose access to vital supports, even when they are working or should be exempt," Elaine Waxman and Heather Hahn of the Urban Institute observed last year. "Unfortunately, work requirements are not merely a mechanism for program integrity to prevent ineligible applicants from receiving services—they can also be an intentional mechanism to reduce program access for people who are eligible."

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated around 80% of the child poverty-reducing impact of the boosted CTC was attributable to the provision that made families with zero or very little earned income eligible for the full credit of up to $3,600 annually per child. That money was paid out in monthly sums, helping families afford food and other necessities amid the pandemic and resulting economic turmoil.

"Just a complete disconnect from the reality of who benefitted from this policy and why," Rebekah Entralgo, managing editor of Inequality.org, tweeted in response to news of the Biden White House's about-face on work requirements. "The expanded CTC lifted millions of children out of poverty precisely because it was fully available to families too poor to pay income taxes."

Politico's reporting came amid growing pessimism that congressional Democrats—who hold a slim majority in both chambers until next month—will be able to secure a tax-related deal with Republicans before the end of the year. Republicans have been pushing for a batch of corporate tax cuts, which Democrats have said they're willing to entertain in exchange for a revival of the CTC enhancement, which the GOP has opposed.

"The package, which negotiators are hoping to slip into the omnibus, would be less substantial than the Child Tax Credit expansion Democrats passed in 2021, due to cost limitations and the need to win over 10 Senate Republicans," Politico reported Monday. "Whereas that 2021 version boosted payments across the board, for example, this time the focus is more on expanding the percentage of recipients who qualify for the current $2,000 yearly maximum, according to those involved in the process."

"The parents of roughly 19 million children don't receive that full amount as of now, either because they earn too little or aren't working at all," the outlet added.

Murshed Zaheed, a progressive strategist, argued Monday that "reviving an anti-poverty measure... shouldn't come at the expense of giving more corporate tax breaks and adding cruel work restrictions demanded by Manchin—especially after passing an $800B+ military bill."

"This would be a shameful cave by Biden and Democrats," Zaheed added.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.