For Consideration On September 21, 2010 A Resolution, To Modify The: Fill & Download for Free

This list is not counting Trump threatening to nuke Iran or fast-tracking oil drilling in nature reserves in Alaska (which happened last week). Nor does it count his march against science, the environment nor any of his perverse sexual, unpatriotic, or just downright rude personal faux pas.No… this is simply a list of all of his human rights violations.Trump Administration Civil and Human Rights RollbacksSince Trump took office in January 2017, his administration has worked aggressively to turn back the clock on (y)our nation’s civil and human rights progress. Here’s how.2017On January 27, Trump signed an executive order – the first version of his Muslim ban – that discriminated against Muslims and banned refugees.On January 31, under new Chairman Ajit Pai’s leadership, the Federal Communications Commission refused to defend critical components of its prison phone rate rules in federal court – rules that were ultimately struck down in June.On February 3, Trump signed an executive order outlining principles for regulating the U.S. financial system and calling for a 120-day review of existing laws, like the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The order was viewed as Trump’s opening attack on consumer protection laws.On February 3, the FCC rescinded its 2014 Joint Sales Agreement (JSA) guidance, which had led to the only increase in television diversity in recent years.On February 3, FCC Chairman Pai revoked the Lifeline Broadband Provider (LBP) designations for nine broadband service providers, reducing the number of providers offering broadband and thus decreasing the competitive forces available to drive down prices.On February 7, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.J. Res. 57, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn a Department of Education accountability rule that clarifies states’ obligations under the Every Student Succeeds Act. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes this resolution.On February 9, Trump signed three executive orders “to fight crime, gangs, and drugs; restore law and order; and support the dedicated men and women of law enforcement.” The orders, though vague, were viewed suspiciously by civil rights organizations.On February 10, Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell of Washington wrote to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos after the centralized resource website for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) became inaccessible to the public for more than a week. On February 17, DeVos issued a statement blaming the previous administration for neglecting the site.On February 21, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo updating immigration enforcement guidance, massively expanding the number of people subject to detention and deportation. The guidance drastically increased the use of expedited removal and essentially eliminated the priorities for deportation.On February 22, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights jointly rescinded Title IX guidance clarifying protections under the law for transgender students.On February 23, Attorney General Sessions withdrew an earlier Justice Department memo that set a goal of reducing and ultimately ending the department’s use of private prisons.On February 27, the Department of Justice dropped the federal government’s longstanding position that a Texas voter ID law under legal challenge was intentionally racially discriminatory, despite having successfully advanced that argument in multiple federal courts. The district court subsequently rejected the position of the Sessions Justice Department and concluded the law was passed with discriminatory intent.On March 6, the Department of Justice withdrew its motion for a preliminary injunction against North Carolina’s anti-transgender HB 2 law.On March 6, Trump signed a revised executive order restricting travel to the United States by citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen and drastically cutting back refugee admissions.On March 6, a week after Trump called on lawmakers to repeal the Affordable Care Act during his address to Congress, House Republicans released a proposal to replace the ACA with a law that would end the Medicaid program as we know it and defund Planned Parenthood.On March 6, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed ending the collection of data on LGBTQ individuals with disabilities, removing questions on LGBTQ demographics from the Centers for Independent Living Annual Program Performance Report survey.On March 10, the Department of Housing and Urban Development withdrew a survey proposed in the Federal Register meant to assess the efficacy and replicability of HUD-funded programs to address LGBTQ youth homelessness. According to its own data, 40 percent of young people experiencing homelessness identify as LGBTQ, so ensuring that its programs are adequately meeting the needs of young LGBTQ people is critical to HUD meeting its own mission. After significant public outcry, the assessment survey was eventually reinstated.On March 13, the Department of Health and Human Services released a draft of the annual National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants, which gathers data on people who receive services funded through the Older Americans Act. HHS’s draft collection instrument omitted the questions on sexual orientation and gender identity asked on the previous year’s survey. After receiving nearly 14,000 comments on the data collection proposal and after facing bipartisan opposition from Congress, HHS restored the question on sexual orientation but omitted a question that yielded information on gender identity.On March 16, the Trump administration released a budget blueprint that proposed a $54 billion increase in military spending that would come from $54 billion in direct cuts to non-defense programs. The blueprint also proposed spending $4.1 billion through 2018 on the beginnings of construction of a wall through communities on the U.S.-Mexico border.On March 17, the Department of Housing and Urban Development removed links to four key resource documents from its website, which informed emergency shelters on best practices for serving transgender people facing homelessness and complying with HUD regulations.On March 22, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes. The White House issued a statement supporting the Senate’s motion to proceed to this legislation on July 24.On March 27, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed a Department of Education accountability rule finalized last year that would clarify states’ obligations under the Every Student Succeeds Act.On March 27, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order. The order, signed by President Obama, represented a much-needed step forward in ensuring that the federal contractor community is providing safe and fair workplaces for employees by encouraging compliance with federal labor and civil rights laws, and prohibiting the use of mandatory arbitration of certain disputes.On March 29, the U.S. Census Bureau asserted that there was “no federal data need” to justify the collection of sexual orientation and gender identity data in the American Community Survey (ACS). The bureau’s original submission to Congress included a table suggesting that it planned to collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity in the ACS starting in the next iteration of the survey – but by the end of the day, the bureau hastily removed any reference to these topics in a revised submission. During the Obama administration, at least four federal agencies asked the bureau to add these questions.On March 29, The Washington Post reported that the Department of Education decided to terminate the Opening Doors, Expanding Opportunity grant program, which helps local districts devise ways to boost socioeconomic diversity within their schools.In a March 31 memo, Sessions ordered a sweeping review of consent decrees with law enforcement agencies relating to police conduct – a crucial tool in the Justice Department’s efforts to ensure constitutional and accountable policing. The department also tried, unsuccessfully, to block a federal court in Baltimore from approving a consent decree between the city and the Baltimore Police Department to rein in discriminatory police practices that the department itself had negotiated over a multi-year period.On April 3, Attorney General Jeff Sessions tried to back out of a consent decree to address civil rights violations by the Baltimore Police Department.On April 11, the administration proposed removing a question from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) regarding preschool suspension and expulsion. Without access to valid and reliable data, parents, advocates, educators, service providers, researchers, policymakers, and the public will not have the information they need to ensure early childhood settings are developmentally appropriate and nondiscriminatory.On April 13, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which overturned the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ final rule updating the regulations governing the Title X family planning program – a vital source of family planning and related preventive care for low-income, uninsured, and young people across the country.On April 14, the Department of Justice voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit challenging North Carolina’s anti-transgender HB 2 after the law was modified – although private challenges continued.On April 26, Trump released an outline of a tax reform plan that was viewed largely as a tax giveaway for the wealthy and big corporations.On April 26, Trump signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos to conduct a study on the federal government’s role in education.On May 2, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 1180, the Working Families Flexibility Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On May 4, Trump signed an executive order that he claimed overturned the Johnson Amendment (though it did not), which precludes tax-exempt organizations, including places of worship, from engaging in any political campaign activity and would curtail the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act.On May 11, Trump signed an executive order creating the so-called Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity headed by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has a history of trying to suppress the vote in Kansas.On May 12, Sessions announced in a two-page memo that DOJ was abandoning its Smart on Crime initiative that had been hailed as a positive step forward in rehabilitating drug users and reducing the enormous costs of warehousing inmates.On May 23, Trump released his fiscal year 2018 budget that included massive, unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy and large corporations, which would be paid for by slashing basic living standards for the most vulnerable and by attacking critical programs like Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicaid, food assistance, and more.On May 23, Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposed eliminating the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) and transferring its functions to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This would have impeded the work of both the OFCCP and the EEOC as each have distinct missions and expertise, and would have thereby undermined the civil rights protections that employers and workers have relied on for almost 50 years.On June 5, Trump released an infrastructure plan that focuses on putting public assets into private hands, creating another giveaway to wealthy corporations and millionaires at the expense of working families and communities.On June 6, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued unclear new instructions on transgender student discrimination.On June 8, OCR’s acting head sent a memo to OCR staff discouraging systemic investigations in favor of individual investigations of discrimination.On June 14, DeVos decided to delay implementation of and to renegotiate the Borrower Defense to Repayment and Gainful Employment regulations – important regulations that had been designed to protect students from predatory conduct by for-profit schools.On June 14, the Department of Education withdrew, without explanation, a 2016 finding that an Ohio school district discriminated against a transgender girl.On June 15, the administration rescinded President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, an initiative that – had it gone into effect – would have offered a pathway to citizenship for immigrant parents with children who are citizens or residents of the United States.On June 27, Labor Secretary Acosta requested information on the Obama-era overtime rule, signaling his intent to lower the salary threshold of the overtime rule.On June 27, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 3003, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On June 27, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 3004, Kate’s Law, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On June 28, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division sent a letter to 44 states demanding extensive information on how they maintain their voter rolls. This request was made on the same day that President Trump’s so-called Commission on Election Integrity sent letters to all 50 states demanding intrusive and highly sensitive personal data about all registered voters.On July 24, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.J. Res 111, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s final rule on forced arbitration clauses. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes the resolution. The White House issued a statement on October 24 opposing the Senate companion resolution.On July 26, Trump declared in a series of tweets that he was barring transgender people from serving in the military. He followed through with a presidential memo on August 25, though the issue is still being challenged in the courts.On July 26, the Department of Justice filed a legal brief arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation – a decision that contravened recent court decisions and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance.On August 1, The New York Times reported that the “Trump administration is preparing to redirect resources of the Justice Department’s civil rights division toward investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.” In a move without recent precedent, this investigation and enforcement effort was planned to be run out of the Civil Rights Division’s front office by political appointees, instead of by experienced career staff in the division’s educational opportunities section.On August 2, Trump announced his support of Republican-backed legislation that would slash legal immigration in half over a decade.On August 7, the Justice Department filed a brief in the Supreme Court in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute arguing that it should be easier for states to purge registered voters from their rolls – reversing not only its longstanding legal interpretation, but also the position it had taken in the lower courts in that case.On August 28, Sessions lifted the Obama administration’s ban on the transfer of some military surplus items to domestic law enforcement – rescinding guidelines that were created in the wake of Ferguson to protect the public from law enforcement misuse of military-grade weapons.On September 5, Sessions announced that the administration was rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.On September 7, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission arguing that businesses have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ customers.On September 12, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 3697, the Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On September 15, the Department of Justice ended the Community Oriented Policing Services’ Collaborative Reform Initiative, a Justice Department program that aimed to help build trust between police officers and the communities they serve.On September 22, DeVos announced that the Department of Education was rescinding guidance related to Title IX and schools’ obligations regarding sexual violence and educational opportunity.On September 24, Trump issued the third version of his Muslim ban which, unlike the previous versions, was of indefinite duration.On September 27, the Trump administration and Republican leadership in Congress unveiled tax principles that would provide trillions in dollars of unnecessary tax cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy corporations.On October 2, DeVos rescinded 72 guidance documents outlining the rights of students with disabilities, though it wasn’t until October 21 until the public learned of the rescissions.On October 4, the Department of Justice filed a brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit against the president’s transgender military ban.On October 5, Sessions reversed a Justice Department policy which clarified that transgender workers are protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.On October 6, the Department of Justice issued sweeping religious liberty guidance to federal agencies, which will create a license to discriminate against LGBTQ individuals and others.On October 8, the White House released a list of hard-line immigration principles – a list of demands that included funding a border wall, deporting Central American children seeking sanctuary, and curbing grants to sanctuary cities, effectively stalling any possible bipartisan agreement on a bill to protect Dreamers.On October 12, Trump signed an executive order to undermine health care and, later that day, announced that he would end subsidies for certain health care plans.On October 27, the Department of Education announced it was withdrawing nearly 600 policy documents regarding K-12 and higher education.On November 1, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule on forced arbitration. Overturning the rule will enable big banks, payday lenders, and other financial companies to force victims of fraud, discrimination, or other unlawful conduct into a “kangaroo court” process where their claims are decided by hired arbitration firms rather than by judges and juries – harming consumers and undermining civil rights and consumer protection laws.On November 6, the Trump administration announced it will terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Nicaragua.On November 14, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 1, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes. The White House subsequently issued statements supporting this legislation on November 30 (the Senate version) and on December 18 (the conference report).On November 16, the Federal Communications Commission voted to gut Lifeline, the program dedicated to bringing phone and internet service within reach for people of color, low-income people, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, with particularly egregious consequences for tribal areas. They also voted to eliminate several rules promoting competition and diversity in the broadcast media, undermining ownership chances for women and people of color.On November 20, the Trump administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation in 18 months for approximately 59,000 Haitians living in the United States.On November 24, Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). As a member of Congress, Mulvaney supported abolishing the consumer bureau and has in the past referred to the CFPB as a “sick, sad” joke.On December 4, the Department of Labor proposed changing its longstanding position codified in regulation that prohibited employers from pooling together tips and redistributing them to workers who don’t traditionally earn tips.On December 12, the Department of Justice wrote to acting Census Bureau Director Ron Jarmin requesting a question about citizenship on the 2020 Census. It was an untimely and unnecessarily intrusive request that would destroy any chance for an accurate count, discard years of careful research, and increase costs significantly.On December 21, it was reported that Sessions rescinded 25 guidance documents, including a letter sent to chief judges and court administrators to help state and local efforts to reform harmful practices of imposing fees and fines on poor people.2018On January 4, Sessions rescinded guidance that had allowed states, with minimal federal interference, to legalize marijuana. This move will further reignite the War on Drugs.On January 8, Trump re-nominated a slate of unqualified and biased judicial nominees, including two rated Not Qualified by the American Bar Association.On January 8, the administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for nearly 200,000 Salvadorans.On January 11, the Trump administration released new guidelines that allow states to seek waivers to require Medicaid recipients to work – requirements that represent a throwback to rejected racial stereotypes.On January 12, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing Kentucky to require Medicaid recipients to work.On January 16, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Mulvaney’s leadership announced it would reconsider the agency’s payday lending rule.On January 17, the administration announced its decision to bar citizens from Haiti from receiving H2-A and H2-B visas.On January 18, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a proposed rule to allow health care providers to discriminate against patients, and within the department’s Office for Civil Rights, a new division – the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division – to address related claims.On January 18, the CFPB abruptly dropped a lawsuit against four online payday lenders who unlawfully made loans of up to 950 percent APR in at least 17 states.On January 25, the Census Bureau announced that the questionnaire for the 2018 End-to-End Census Test will use race and ethnicity questions from the 2010 Census instead of updated questions recommended by Census Bureau staff. This suggests that the Office of Management and Budget will not revise the official standards for collecting and reporting this data, despite recommendations from a federal agency working group to do so.On February 1, The New York Times reported that the Department of Justice was effectively closing its Office for Access to Justice, which was designed to make access to legal aid more accessible.On February 1, reports surfaced claiming Trump’s Labor Department concealed an economic analysis that found working people could lose billions of dollars in wages under its proposal to roll back an Obama-era rule – a rule that protects working people in tipped industries from having their tips taken away by their employers.On February 1, multiple sources reported that acting Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Mick Mulvaney had transferred the consumer agency’s Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity from the Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending division to the director’s office. The move essentially gutted the unit responsible for enforcing anti-lending discrimination laws.On February 2, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing Indiana to require some Medicaid recipients to work.On February 12, the Trump administration released its Fiscal Year 2019 budget proposal, which would deny critical health care to those most in need simply to bankroll the president’s wall through border communities. The proposal would also eliminate the Community Relations Service – a Justice Department office established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which has been a key tool that helps address discrimination, conflicts, and tensions in communities around the country.On February 12, the Trump administration released an infrastructure proposal that would reward the rich and special interests at the expense of low-income communities and communities of color and leave behind too many American communities and those most in need.On February 12, BuzzFeed News reported that the U.S. Department of Education would no longer investigate complaints filed by transgender students who have been banned from using the restrooms that correspond with their gender identity. On the same day, the department released a statement saying Trump’s budget “protects vulnerable students” – a dubious claim.On February 26, the U.S. Department of Education proposed to delay implementation of a rule that enforces the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The rule implements the IDEA’s provisions regarding significant disproportionality in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities with regard to race and ethnicity.On March 5, the Trump administration approved Arkansas’ request to require some Medicaid recipients to work.On March 5, the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education released a new Case Processing Manual (CPM) that creates greater hurdles for people filing complaints and allows dismissal of civil rights complaints based on the number of times an individual has filed.On March 5, a Department of Housing and Urban Development memo announced Secretary Ben Carson’s consideration of revising the agency’s mission statement and removing anti-discrimination language and promises of inclusive communities.On March 12, Attorney General Sessions announced the Justice Department’s ‘school safety’ plan – a plan that civil rights advocates criticized as militarizing schools, overpolicing children, and harming students, disproportionately students of color.On March 14, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 4909, the Student, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On March 23, Trump issued new orders to ban most transgender people from serving in the military – the latest iteration of a ban that he had initially announced in a series of tweets in July 2017.On March 23, Trump signed a spending bill that included the STOP School Violence Act, which civil rights organizations are concerned will exacerbate the school-to-prison pipeline crisis, further criminalize historically marginalized children, and increase the militarization of, and over-policing in, schools and communities of color.On March 26, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced that he had directed the Census Bureau to add an untested and unnecessary question to the 2020 Census form, which would ask the citizenship status of every person in America.On April 3, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos restored recognition of for-profit school accreditor ACICS, which the prior administration had terminated as a federal aid gatekeeper based on ACICS’s documented failures to set, monitor, or enforce standards at the schools it accredited, including the now-defunct Corinthian, ITT, and FastTrain.On April 6, Attorney General Sessions announced that he had notified all U.S. Attorney’s offices along the southwest border of a new “zero tolerance” policy toward people trying to enter the country – a policy that quickly, and inhumanely, separated hundreds of children from their families.On April 10, a federal official announced that the Department of Justice was halting the Legal Orientation Program, which offers legal assistance to immigrants.On April 10, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to push for work requirements for low-income people in America who receive federal assistance, including Medicaid and SNAP.On April 11, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced that it will stop asking 16- and 17-year-olds to disclose voluntarily and confidentially their gender identity and sexual orientation on the National Crime Victimization Survey.On April 17, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting S.J. Res. 57, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s guidance on indirect auto financing. The sole purpose of the resolution is to undermine the ability of the CFPB to enforce laws against racial and ethnic discrimination in auto lending, which is why The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes it.On April 25, Secretary Ben Carson proposed changes to federal housing subsidies that could triple rent for some households and make it easier to impose work requirements.On April 26, the Trump administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation in 12 months for approximately 9,000 Nepalese immigrants.On May 3, Trump signed an executive order creating a White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative tasked with working on “religious liberty” issues across federal agencies. The order deleted protections for beneficiaries receiving federally funded services from religious groups.On May 4, the Trump administration announced it would terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation in 18 months for approximately 57,000 Honduran immigrants.On May 7, the Trump administration approved New Hampshire’s request to require some Medicaid recipients to work or participate in other “community engagement activities.”On May 11, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released changes to its Transgender Offender Manual that rolled back protections allowing transgender inmates to use facilities, including bathrooms and cell blocks, that correspond to their gender identity.On May 13, The New York Times reported that the Department of Education had “effectively killed investigations into possibly fraudulent activities at several large for-profit colleges where top hires of Betsy DeVos, the education secretary, had previously worked” by reassigning, marginalizing, or instructing its fraud investigators to focus on other matters.On May 18, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced it would be publishing three separate notices to indefinitely suspend implementation of the 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule.On May 21, Trump signed a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which repealed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) guidance on indirect auto financing.On May 21, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On May 22, the Trump administration issued a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) designed to block access to health care under Title X and deny women information about their reproductive health care options.On May 24, Trump signed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, which will undermine one of our nation’s key civil rights laws and weaken consumer protections enacted after the 2008 financial crisis. The law rolls back more expansive Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data requirements for banks that generate fewer than 500 loans or lines of credit each year, thereby exempting 85 percent of banks and credit unions.On May 24, the Department of Education announced that it does not plan to implement rules designed to protect students in online degree programs from being taken advantage of by schools that load students up with debt but offer useless degrees, and instead plans to delay implementation of the rules and rewrite them.On June 6, Mick Mulvaney fired all 25 members of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Consumer Advisory Board.On June 8, a Department of Justice filing argued that the Affordable Care Act’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional. The brief was signed by Chad Readler, a Justice Department official who Trump nominated (and Senate Republicans confirmed) to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.On June 11, Attorney General Sessions ruled that fear of domestic or gang violence was not grounds for asylum in the United States.On June 11, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director L. Francis Cissna announced the creation of a denaturalization task force in a push to strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship.On June 11, the Department of Justice announced that it would delay implementation of a permanent program for collecting information on arrest-related deaths until Fiscal Year 2020, a full five years after the Death in Custody Reporting Act was signed into law and two years after DOJ last published its near-final compliance guidelines.On June 12, the Department of Justice sued the state of Kentucky to force it to “systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the registration records.” This voter purge lawsuit was filed one day after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s voter purges in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.On June 18, Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, announced that the United States was withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council.On June 27, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 6139, the Border Security and Immigration Reform Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On July 3, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rescinded guidance from the Departments of Justice and Education that provides a roadmap to implement voluntary diversity and integration programs in higher education consistent with Supreme Court holdings on the issue.On July 10, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced cuts to navigator funding for outreach to hard-to-reach communities for the fall 2018 Affordable Care Act open enrollment period.On July 25, the Department of Education proposed new borrower defense rules, which would further exacerbate inequalities – making the already unfair and ineffective student loan servicing system even more harmful to all students, particularly to borrowers of color. The proposal would strip away student borrower rights, end key deterrents of predatory school conduct, and make it nearly impossible for students hurt by school misconduct to get loan relief.On July 26, the Trump administration failed to meet a court-ordered deadline to reunite children and families separated at the border.On July 30, Jeff Sessions announced the creation of a religious liberty task force at the Department of Justice, which many saw as a taxpayer funded effort to license discrimination against LGBTQ people and others.On August 10, the Department of Labor encouraged the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) staff to grant broad religious exemptions to federal contractors with religious-based objections to complying with Executive Order 11246, and deleted material from a prior OFCCP FAQ on sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination protections that previously clarified the limited scope of allowable religious exemptions.On August 13, Secretary Ben Carson proposed changes to the Obama-era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, which aimed to combat segregation in housing policy.On August 15, the Federal Register published a Trump administration proposal to restrict protest rights in Washington, D.C. by closing 80 percent of the White House sidewalk, putting new limits on spontaneous demonstrations, and opening the door to charging fees for protesting.On August 29, The New York Times reported that the Department of Education is preparing rules that would “narrow the definition of sexual harassment, holding schools accountable only for formal complaints filed through proper authorities and for conduct said to have occurred on their campuses. They would also establish a higher legal standard to determine whether schools improperly addressed complaints.”On August 30, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief opposing Harvard College’s motion for summary judgement in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Harvard, choosing to oppose constitutionally sound strategies that colleges and universities use to expand educational opportunity for students of all backgrounds.On September 5, the Trump administration sent sweeping subpoenas to the North Carolina state elections board and 44 county elections boards requesting voter records be turned over by September 25. Two months before the midterm elections, civil rights advocates worried this effort would lead to voter suppression and intimidation.On September 6, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services announced a proposal to withdraw from the Flores Settlement Agreement. The Flores Agreement is a set of protections for underage migrant children in government custody.On September 13, the National Labor Relations Board proposed weakening the “joint-employer standard” under the National Labor Relations Act, which would make it difficult for working people to bring the companies that share control over their terms and conditions of employment to the bargaining table.On October 1, a policy change at the Department of State took effect saying that the Trump administration would no longer issue family visas to same-sex domestic partners of foreign diplomats or employees of international organizations who work in the United States.On October 10, the Department of Homeland Security’s proposed ‘public charge’ rule was published in the Federal Register. Under the rule, immigrants who apply for a green card or visa could be deemed a ‘public charge’ and turned away if they earn below 250 percent of the federal poverty line and use any of a wide range of public programs.On October 12, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest opposing a consent decree negotiated by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to overhaul the Chicago Police Department.On October 15, Trump vetoed a resolution, passed by both chambers of Congress, that would have terminated his declaration of a national emergency on the southern border with Mexico.On October 16, the administration released its fall 2017 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. The document details the regulatory and deregulatory actions that federal agencies plan to make in the coming months, including harmful civil and human rights rollbacks.On October 19, the Department of Justice ended its agreement to monitor the Juvenile Court of Memphis and Shelby County and the Shelby County Detention Center in Tennessee, which addressed discrimination against Black youth, unsafe conditions, and no due process at hearings.On October 21, The New York Times reported that the Department of Health and Human Services is considering an interpretation of Title IX that “would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with” – effectively erasing protections for transgender people.On October 22, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued new guidance on the Affordable Care Act’s 1332 waivers that would expand a state’s flexibility to establish insurance markets that don’t meet the requirements of the ACA.On October 24, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that federal civil rights law does not protect transgender workers from discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.On October 30, Axios reported that Trump intends to sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship. In a tweet the following day, Trump said “it will be ended one way or the other.”On October 31, the administration approved a waiver allowing Wisconsin to require Medicaid recipients to work. It was the first time a state that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act was allowed to impose work requirements.On November 5, the Department of Justice filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to circumvent three separate U.S. Courts of Appeals on litigation concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.On November 7, on his last day as Attorney General, Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum to gut the Department of Justice’s use of consent decrees.On November 8, the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice announced an interim final rule to block people from claiming asylum if they enter the United States outside legal ports of entry.On November 8, the Department of Labor rolled back guidance issued by the Obama administration that clarified that tipped workers must spend at least 80 percent of their time doing tipped work in order for employers to pay them the lower tipped minimum wage.On November 16, the Department of Education issued a draft Title IX regulation that represents a cruel attempt to silence sexual assault survivors and limit their educational opportunity – and could lead schools to do even less to prevent and respond to sexual violence and harassment.On November 23, the Office of Personnel Management rescinded guidance that helped federal agency managers understand how to support transgender federal workers and respect their rights (initially issued in 2011 and updates several times since), replacing it with vaguely worded guidance hostile to transgender working people.On December 11, Trump declared that he would be “proud to shut down the government” – which he did. It resulted in the longest government shutdown in U.S. history (35 days), which harmed federal workers, contractors, their families, and the communities that depend on them.On December 14, BuzzFeed News reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development was quietly advising lenders to deny DACA recipients Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans.On December 18, the Trump administration’s School Safety Commission recommended rescinding Obama-era school discipline guidance, which was intended to assist states, districts, and schools in developing practices and policies to enhance school climate and comply with federal civil rights laws.On December 21, following the recommendation of Trump’s School Safety Commission, the Departments of Justice and Education rescinded the Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline. Both departments jointly issued the guidance in January 2014.2019On January 3, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration is considering rolling back disparate impact regulations that provide anti-discrimination protections to people of color, women, and others.On January 4, The Guardian reported that the Trump administration has stopped cooperating with and responding to UN investigators over potential human rights violations in the United States.On January 23, the Department of Health and Human Services granted a waiver to South Carolina to allow state-licensed child welfare agencies to discriminate in accordance with religious beliefs.On January 25, the Department of Homeland Security began implementing the Migrant Protection Protocols – also known as the Remain in Mexico policy – which forces Central Americans seeking asylum to return to Mexico, for an indefinite amount of time, while their claims are processed.On January 29, the Department of Justice reversed its position in a Texas voting rights case, saying the state should not need to have its voting changes pre-cleared with the federal government. Career voting rights lawyers at the department declined to sign the brief.On February 6, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) – under the direction of Trump-appointed Director Kathy Kraninger – released its plan to roll back the central protections of the agency’s 2017 payday and car-title lending rule.On February 15, Trump announced that he would declare a national emergency on the southern border – an attempt to end-run the Congress in order to build a harmful and wasteful border wall.On February 22, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule to significantly undermine the Title X family planning program’s ability to properly serve its patients and to provide its hallmark quality care. The rule’s provisions will have far-reaching implications for all Title X-funded programs, the services provided, and the ability of patients to seek and receive high-quality, confidential family planning and preventive health care services.On February 25, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On February 26, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.J. Res. 46, a resolution terminating the national emergency on the southern border declared by President Trump, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports. On September 25, the White House issued a statement opposing the Senate’s companion resolution.On March 5, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 1, the For the People Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On March 7, the Department of Labor issued a proposed revision to the overtime rule, which proposes to raise the salary threshold to an amount ($35,308) far lower than the Obama Labor Department’s previously finalized rule ($47,476).On March 11, the Trump administration released its FY 2020 budget proposal, which requested $8.6 billion for a southern border wall, requested an inexplicably and irresponsibly low figure for 2020 Census operations, and proposed deeply troubling cuts to the social safety net – including cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP.On March 12, the Department of Defense issued guidance for enacting the transgender military ban to begin in 30 days.On March 25, the Trump administration said in an appeals court filing that the entire Affordable Care Act should be struck down.On April 11, the Trump administration ordered all federal agencies to put important policy decisions on hold until they have been reviewed by the White House, making it take even longer for independent regulators to respond to problems like risky lending practices.On April 12, Politico reported that the Trump administration will not nominate (or renominate) anyone to the 18-member U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.On April 17, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed a rule (eventually published on May 10) seeking to restrict housing assistance for families with mixed-citizenship status. The agency’s own analysis showed that the proposal could lead to 55,000 children becoming temporarily homeless.On April 19, the Department of Health and Human Services published a proposal to reverse an Obama-era rule that required the data collection of the sexual orientation and gender identity of youth in foster care, along with their foster parents, adoptive parents, or legal guardians.On May 2, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a final rule to allow health workers to cite religious or moral objections to deny care to patients, which will substantially harm the health and well-being of many people in America – particularly women and transgender patients.On May 6, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) published a final rule targeting home care workers – who are mostly women of color – designed to stop them from paying union dues and benefits through payroll deduction.On May 6, the Office of Management and Budget proposed regulatory changes that could result in cuts in federal aid to millions of low-income Americans by changing how inflation is used to calculate the definition of poverty.On May 20, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 1500, the Consumers First Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On May 22, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed changing the Obama-era Equal Access Rule to allow homeless shelters to deny access based on a person’s gender identity.On May 24, the Department of Health and Human Services announced a proposed rule to weaken the non-discrimination protections (Section 1557) of the Affordable Care Act. The rule, if implemented, would harm millions of people in America by allowing health care providers to deny care to marginalized communities and worsen already existing health disparities.On June 3, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On June 6, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a final rule that delayed the compliance date for the agency’s 2017 payday and car-title lending rule.On June 10, acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan announced that immigration hardliner Ken Cuccinelli was the new acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Five months later, the new acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, named Cuccinelli to be the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. A federal judge and the Government Accountability Office, respectively, said that Cuccinelli’s appointments were illegal.On June 12, Trump asserted executive privilege to block congressional access to documents related to the addition of an untested citizenship question to the 2020 Census.On June 21, it was reported that Trump had directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to conduct a mass roundup of migrant families. The following day, the president announced that the raids were delayed, but has continued to threaten them.On July 1, the Department of Education rescinded the “gainful employment” rule that identified higher education programs that routinely left students with unaffordable debt. The rule had been designed to ensure that students who needed to borrow loans were able to reap the benefit of their investment in education.On July 3, the Department of Housing and Urban Development removed requirements that applicants for homelessness funding maintain anti-discrimination policies and demonstrate efforts to serve LGBT people and their families, which had been included in Notices of Funding Availability for several prior years.On July 8, the State Department created the Commission on Unalienable Rights aimed at providing review of the role of human rights in American foreign policy. Seven of the appointees to commission have disturbing anti-LGBT records.On July 15, the administration moved to end asylum protections for most Central American migrants – deeming anyone who passes through another country ineligible for asylum at the U.S. southern border.On July 15, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 582, the Raise The Wage Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On July 23, the Trump administration published a notice in the Federal Register that expands expedited removals to a wider range of undocumented immigrants. The move threatens same-day deportation for anyone who cannot immediately show they have been in the United States continuously for two years without a hearing, oversight, review, or appeal. It also threatens to trigger massive racial profiling and roundups for immigrants and citizens in the United States.On July 23, the Trump administration proposed a rule that could cut more than 3 million people from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – or food stamps – after Congress blocked similar efforts in 2018.On July 25, Attorney General William Barr announced that the federal government will reverse a nearly two-decade moratorium to resume the federal death penalty.On July 31, Bloomberg Law reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to issue a proposed rule to amend the agency’s “disparate impact” regulations that provide anti-discrimination protections to people of color, women, and others. If enacted, millions of people in America would be more vulnerable to housing discrimination – with fewer tools to challenge it. The proposal was officially published in the Federal Register on August 19.On August 7, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raided seven food processing plants in Mississippi and arrested 680 undocumented immigrants – representing the largest workplace raid in more than a decade. The raids – part of this administration’s dangerous, anti-immigrant agenda – left some children parentless and locked out of their homes after school.On August 12, the administration announced its final “public charge” rule, which makes it more difficult for immigrants who come to the United States legally to stay as permanent residents if they have used (or are viewed as likely to use) public benefits.On August 13, Bloomberg Law reported that the Department of Justice is urging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to change its position and urge the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that businesses can discriminate against LGBTQ workers.On August 15, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) unveiled a proposal that would allow government contractors to fire LGBTQ employees, or workers who are pregnant and unmarried, based on the employers’ religious views.On August 16, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination against transgender people. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions previously reversed an Obama-era DOJ policy which clarified that transgender workers are protected from discrimination under Title VII.On August 16, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services sent letters, first reported in the Boston area, stating that the agency will no longer consider most deferrals of deportation for people with a serious medical condition – asking people in extreme medical need to leave the country within 33 days.On August 19, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the Trump administration acted lawfully when it rescinded the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in September 2017.On August 21, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan announced that the administration was moving forward with new rules aimed at ending the decades-old Flores settlement agreement that ensures constitutional protections for children in immigrant detention facilities. Without the protections of Flores, the government can hold immigrant children indefinitely, and in prison-like conditions, with no hope for a timely release and no mandate for appropriate care of traumatized children.On August 23, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not prohibit discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.On August 23, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Attorney General Barr promoted six judges to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which sets binding policy for deportation cases. All six of the judges have high rates of denying immigrants’ asylum claims, and four of them fill seats that the Trump administration created in 2018.On August 28, the Trump administration announced that some children born to U.S. military members and government employees working overseas wouldn’t automatically be considered U.S. citizens.On August 30, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced final new “borrower defense” regulations that rolled back protections for student borrowers against predatory recruiting and other school misconduct put in place in 2016.On September 3, the Trump administration announced that it would divert $3.6 billion of funding for military construction projects to fund the president’s harmful and wasteful wall along the southern border.On September 11, multiple reports confirmed that the Trump administration would not grant Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Bahamians impacted by Hurricane Dorian. The denial of protected status follows the Trump administration’s termination of the TPS designation for several other countries.On September 17, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 1423, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal (FAIR) Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On September 19, the Department of Education proposed removing gender-based harassment – including harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and nonconformity with gender stereotypes – from the Civil Rights Data Collection’s definition of harassment or bullying on the basis of sex.On September 23, acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan announced that the administration would soon end a federal immigration policy (commonly referred to as “catch and release”) that allows migrant families seeking asylum in the United States to remain in this country while their asylum applications are pending.On September 24, the Department of Labor released its final overtime rule, which raises the salary threshold to an amount far lower than the Obama Labor Department’s previously finalized rule.On September 27, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division filed a statement of interest in defense of a Roman Catholic archbishop’s decision that led to the firing of a gay, married teacher – yet another move by the Trump administration to use religion as a shield against core anti-discrimination principles that protect LGBTQ people.On October 1, the Department of Agriculture unveiled a new proposal to take away some state flexibility in setting benefit levels under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – the administration’s third attempt in the past year to kick people off food stamps.On October 4, Trump signed a proclamation to deny visas to legal immigrants who are unable to prove they will have health care coverage or the ability to pay for it within 30 days of their arrival to the United States.On October 7, the Department of Labor released a proposed tip rule that would eliminate the “80/20 rule,” which says that when a tipped worker is assigned non-tip-generating ‘side work’ that takes up more than 20 percent of their time, the employer can’t take the tip credit and must instead pay the worker the full minimum wage.On October 22, a Department of Justice proposal published in the Federal Register proposed to begin collecting DNA samples from immigrants crossing the border, creating an enormous database of asylum-seekers and other migrants.On October 23, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 4617, the Stopping Harmful Interference in Elections for a Lasting Democracy (SHIELD) Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On October 25, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a new policy to narrow who can qualify for waivers of fees associated with applications for green cards, U.S. citizenship, work permits, and other benefits.On October 25, Attorney General William Barr issued two decisions, made through his certification power, that will limit immigrants’ options to fight deportation.On November 1, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule to undo requirements that its grantees ensure that federal taxpayer dollars are not used to fund discrimination.On November 1, the Department of Education issued a final regulation permitting religious colleges and universities to ignore nondiscrimination standards set by accrediting agencies.On November 18, the Social Security Administration published in the Federal Register a proposal to slash Social Security disability benefits – which could cut benefits for up to 2.6 million people with disabilities.On December 3, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On December 10, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) revealed a proposed rule that would prohibit the use of official time by union representatives to assist in federal workplace anti-discrimination claims.On December 11, memos obtained by NPR revealed that Secretary Betsy DeVos overruled career staff in the Department of Education’s Borrower Defense Unit, who recommended to the department’s political leadership that defrauded student borrowers deserve no less than full relief from their student debts (the secretary instead provided only partial or no relief to most such borrowers).On December 12, the Trump administration approved a waiver allowing South Carolina to require most Medicaid recipients to work.On December 18, Attorney General William Barr announced the launch of Operation Relentless Pursuit, which was projected to funnel $71 million to law enforcement in seven cities – Albuquerque, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, Memphis, and Milwaukee – under the guise of combating violent crime. Operation Relentless Pursuit replicates the most devastating aspects of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which flooded America’s streets with cops and dramatically increased incarceration rates, especially in Black and Brown communities.On December 27, HuffPost reported that the Department of the Interior removed “sexual orientation” from a statement in the agency’s ethics guide regarding workplace discrimination.On December 30, the Department of Labor announced a proposed rule setting out new standards for when the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs could issue predetermination notices for preliminary findings of discrimination. The rule would make it more difficult to identify and remedy potential discrimination in federal contractor and subcontractor workplaces, negatively impacting the right of federal contract workers to be free from unlawful employment discrimination.2020On January 3, the Trump administration filed a brief in June Medical Services v. Gee, urging the Court to allow a Louisiana abortion access law to go into effect. The civil rights community filed briefs urging the Court to strike down the restrictive law, highlighting the law’s impact on Black women.On January 7, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a proposal that would gut the agency’s 2015 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule. HUD’s proposal would leave people of color, women, and other protected communities already harmed by unfair and unequal housing policies at a further disadvantage.On January 13, The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration would divert $7.2 billion of funding from the Pentagon to fund the president’s harmful and wasteful wall along the southern border.On January 13 (and subsequently on February 11 for the Senate companion resolution), the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.J. Res 76, a resolution under the Congressional Review Act to overturn Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’s borrower defense rule. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports this resolution.On January 13, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On January 16, nine federal agencies issued proposed rules eliminating the rights of people receiving help from federal programs to (i) request a referral if they have a concern or problem with a faith-based provider and (ii) receive written notice of their rights. The changes would encourage agencies to claim broader religious exemptions to deny help to certain people while receiving federal funds.On January 23, the Department of State announced a new regulation aimed at denying pregnant people visas to prevent them from traveling to the United States. The regulation represents an attack against pregnant people living in countries without access to the Visa Waiver Program and immigrant women, particularly those of color, and with low incomes.On January 30, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released block grant guidance to allow states to cap Medicaid spending – essentially putting forward the notion that we should ration health care for the most vulnerable people in our nation.On January 31, the Trump administration announced an expansion of its Muslim ban, which will expand restrictions on additional countries including Myanmar (also known as Burma), Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania.On February 5, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 2474, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On February 10, the Trump administration released its Fiscal Year 2021 budget proposal, which included $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the ACA over 10 years, cuts to SNAP by $182 billion over 10 years, cuts assistance for some people with disabilities through Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income, and reduces the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by $21 billion over 10 years, among other drastic cuts.On February 13, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed to amend the Equal Participation of Faith-Based Organizations rule that removes safeguards to prevent discrimination.On February 14, the Trump administration announced the deployment of law enforcement tactical units from the southern border as part of an arrest operation in sanctuary cities across the country. This includes the deployment of members of the elite tactical unit known as BORTAC, which acts as a Border Patrol SWAT team.On February 20, the White House published a memo (dated January 29) signed by Trump that granted Secretary of Defense Mark Esper the authority to ignore the collective bargaining rights of civilian employees working for the Department of Defense.On February 25, the Department of Justice sided with the plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, to oppose race-based affirmative action at Harvard University in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals.On February 26, the Department of Homeland Security expanded two pilot programs, the Humanitarian Asylum Review Process (HARP) for Mexican nationals and Prompt Asylum Claim Review (PACR), that fast-track the asylum process for migrants at the U.S. border. The American Civil Liberties Union argues that both programs deny asylum seekers due process since it is nearly impossible for the migrants to access legal help.On February 26, the Department of Justice created a Denaturalization Section in its immigration office to prioritize stripping citizenship rights from naturalized immigrants who commit certain crimes.On February 27, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in support of a Kentucky wedding photographer who is challenging a city ordinance banning businesses from discriminating against gay customers. The photographer, Chelsey Nelson, refused to photograph same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs.On February 28, the Department of Justice proposed regulations increasing fees for immigrants and requiring asylum seekers to pay a $50 fee to have their cases heard in court. Fees for permanent residence permits would increase by $990, to a total of $2,750, and the cost for naturalization of new citizens would increase by $445, to $1,170.On March 6, the Department of Justice issued a rule saying that DNA data samples from migrants taken into federal custody after trying to cross the U.S. border can be stored and shared among federal agencies.On March 10, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 2486, the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On March 17, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs announced a decision to temporarily exempt and waive certain affirmative action requirements connected to federal contracts for coronavirus relief.On March 20, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention imposed a 30-day restriction on all nonessential travel into the United States from Mexico and Canada – an effort, led by Stephen Miller, to use public health laws to reduce immigration.On March 24, Attorney General William Barr signed a statement of interest arguing against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s transgender athlete policy, which allows athletes to compete as the gender with which they identify.On April 20, the Trump administration extended its March 2020 CDC rule on border restrictions until May 20, 2020.On April 22, Trump signed an executive order to temporarily ban the issuance of green cards to people seeking permanent residency in the United States – a move that was viewed as a shameless manipulation of the pandemic to justify the administration’s xenophobic policies.On April 30, the Department of Education issued guidance, flouting congressional intent under the CARES Act, that directs school districts to share millions of dollars designated for low-income students with wealthy private schools.On May 6, the Department of Education released its final rule on Title IX that raises the bar of proof for sexual misconduct, bolsters the rights of those accused, and introduces new protections that include sexual harassment. If the rule takes effect, it will silence sexual assault survivors and limit their educational opportunity.On May 12, the Department of Agriculture appealed an injunction that blocked the agency from proceeding with cuts to the SNAP program (food stamps). The new requirements, if the USDA wins its appeals, would strip 688,000 Americans of their food benefits.On May 12, the Department of Health and Human Services eliminated sexual orientation and gender identity and tribal data collection in the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS, which collects case-level information on all children in foster care and those who have been adopted with title IV-E agency involvement).On May 14, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 6800, the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On May 15, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent a letter of impending enforcement action to the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference and six school districts declaring that Title IX requires schools to ban transgender students from competing in school sports based on their gender identity and threatening to withhold funding from Connecticut schools if they do not comply.On May 19, the Trump administration announced the indefinite extension of its CDC order that allows federal authorities at the border to immediately return migrants to their home countries.On May 26, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest in an Alabama federal court in support of the state’s onerous absentee ballot requirements that put Black voters and voters with disabilities at risk during the COVID-19 pandemic.On May 29, Trump vetoed a bipartisan resolution to overturn a Department of Education rule and hold Secretary DeVos accountable for failing to provide relief to students defrauded by for-profit colleges.On May 29, Trump issued a presidential proclamation aimed at restricting the entry of graduate students and researchers from China.On June 1, police officers and the National Guard dispersed peaceful protesters outside the White House using teargas and flash-bang explosions so that Trump could pose for photos, while holding up a Bible, in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.On June 3, the Department of Justice filed a brief in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to allow religious-affiliated adoption agencies to refuse child placement into LGBTQ homes. The Justice Department is not a party to the case.On June 12, the Department of Health and Human Services issued its final rule rolling back the non-discrimination protections (Section 1557) of the Affordable Care Act. The rule will promote discrimination in medical care.On June 14, The Washington Post reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development will propose a rule that would roll back Obama-era guidance requiring single-sex homeless shelters to accept transgender people.On June 15, a 161-page regulation from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice was published in the Federal Register that would make it exceedingly difficult for migrants to claim asylum in the United States.On June 19, the Department of Justice filed a statement of interest arguing that the Equal Protection Clause permits Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bars trans girls and women from school sports teams.On June 22, Trump issued a proclamation to expand and extend his April 22 order that suspends some immigration from outside the United States. The new proclamation extends the initial green card ban in the April proclamation until December 31, 2020, and includes additional significant restrictions on several categories of temporary guest worker visas.On June 24, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 51, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On June 24, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 7120, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On June 24, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy supporting H.R. 3985, the Just and Unifying Solutions To Invigorate Communities Everywhere (JUSTICE) Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposes.On June 25, the Trump administration filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the entire Affordable Care Act should be invalidated – saying “the remainder of the ACA should not be allowed to remain in effect.” The brief was filed in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic.On July 7, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued its final rule on payday and car-title lending – undoing consumer protections and threatening to devastate communities of color that are already facing the worst fallout of the pandemic.On July 7, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a notice in the Federal Register proposing changes to the Civil Rights Data Collection, including removal of several questions regarding school and district characteristics, discipline, school finance and data disaggregation.On July 8, the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice issued a proposed rule that would bar asylum seekers from countries with disease outbreaks. The proposal does not say whether it would only apply during a global pandemic, but instead would depend on determinations made by the Attorney General and Homeland Security secretary in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services.On July 14, the Department of Justice filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate Medicaid work requirements in Arkansas after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that blocked the work requirements.On July 14, the federal government carried out its first execution in more than 17 years and has since carried out four additional executions during Trump’s presidency.On July 15, the Trump administration finalized a rule proposed by the White House Council on Environmental Quality to change how the federal government implements the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is the federal law, signed by President Nixon in 1970, that safeguards air, water, and land by requiring environmental assessments of major infrastructure projects. The Trump administration’s rule limits the number of projects that require in-depth environmental review and no longer requires federal agencies to weigh a project’s vulnerability to climate change or impact on global warming.On July 16, the Commission on Unalienable Rights (the formation of which was announced in July 2019 by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo) released a draft report to the public. Experts described the report as undermining decades of human rights progress.On July 21, Trump signed a memorandum attempting to ban undocumented immigrants from counting toward congressional apportionment following the 2020 Census.On July 23, Secretary Carson terminated the Obama-era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule, replacing it with a new rule called “Preserving Community and Neighborhood Choice.” AFFH aimed to combat segregation in housing policy.On July 28, acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf issued a memorandum to drastically curtail the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program while the agency decides whether to rescind the program completely. The memo is in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June 2020 that found the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it rescinded the program in September 2017.On July 30, NPR reported that the U.S. Census Bureau would be cutting census door-knocking a month short. On August 3, the bureau released a statement confirming that both field data collection and self-response would be ending a month early on September 30.On August 6, Trump appointed J. Christian Adams to serve on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) and was sworn in one week later. Adams, who was a member of the president’s sham voter suppression commission, was appointed to the USCCR on the 55th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.On August 8, Trump signed a series of politically motivated executive actions amid the coronavirus pandemic. One of the memos he signed defers payroll taxes from September through December 2020. Trump also said that, if reelected, he would permanently terminate the payroll tax. In a letter to Senate Democrats on August 24, Stephen Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that such a move would deplete Social Security by mid-2023.On August 18, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) signaled its intent to create burdensome new rules for its conciliation process that could tip the scales in favor of employers and potentially expose workers who file workplace discrimination claims, as well as potential witnesses, to retaliation.On August 19, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) released an updated draft policy on gender and women’s empowerment that eliminated any reference to transgender people or contraceptives.On August 21, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 8015, the Delivering for America Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On August 26, Eric Dreiband, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent letters to the governors of Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York (all Democrats) requesting information under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) about the coronavirus response of public nursing homes in their states. The move, which occurred during the Republican National Convention, was viewed as a political move targeting Democrats to distract from the president’s failed response to the pandemic.On August 26, the Department of Education issued a “Dear Educators and Stakeholders Letter” announcing the withdrawal of eight guidance documents, including in its rationale that previous support the department expressed for diversity was advocating for “policy preferences and positions beyond the requirements of the Constitution and Title VI.”On August 31, the Department of Education issued a notice in the Federal Register that it had rescinded almost 100 guidance documents issued since the 1990s.On September 2, Trump sent a memorandum to the attorney general and the director of the Office of Management and Budget that threatened to pull federal funding from “anarchist jurisdictions” – cities “that are permitting anarchy, violence and destruction.” This was also viewed as a political move targeting cities where people are protesting police brutality and systemic racism.On September 3, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an opinion letter abandoning its long-standing interpretation of Section 707 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.On September 4, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a final rule that severely weakens the disparate impact tool under the Fair Housing Act, which will make millions of people more vulnerable to housing discrimination.On September 4, Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, sent a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies instructing them to end anti-racist trainings that address white privilege and critical race theory – caalling them “divisive, anti-American propaganda.”On September 8, the Department of Justice filed a brief in support of an Indiana Catholic school that was sued for firing a teacher in a same-sex marriage.On September 8, a whistleblower complaint from a Department of Homeland Security official alleged that top DHS officials, including Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli, directed analysts to downplay threats from violent white supremacy and Russian election interference.On September 17, the AP reported that the Department of Education is threatening to withhold some federal funding from Connecticut school districts if they follow a state policy that allows transgender girls to compete as girls in high school sports.On September 22, Trump issued an executive order prohibiting federal agencies, federal contractors, and grantees from engaging in anti-discrimination workplace diversity trainings the Administration deemed “divisive.”On September 22, the Department of Labor proposed a rule that would make it easier for employers to misclassify workers and deny them minimum wage and overtime protections.On September 24, the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued its final rule to gut the disparate impact tool under the Fair Housing Act, which will make it harder to challenge systemic racism by housing providers, financial institutions, and insurance companies that deprive people of the services and opportunities they need.On September 30, the State Department told Congress that it would allow only 15,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2021 fiscal year, which began the following day.On October 1, the White House issued a Statement of Administration Policy opposing H.R. 8406, the HEROES Act, which The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights supports.On October 6, Microsoft revealed that the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) contacted the company over its commitments to increasing diversity. According to Microsoft, “the OFCCP has focused on whether Microsoft’s commitment to double the number of Black and African American people managers, senior individual contributors and senior leaders in our U.S. workforce by 2025 could constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, which would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.” The OFCCP contacted Wells Fargo for the same reason.On October 7, the Trump administration filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to halt the 2020 Census count early. The application was filed after the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s ruling that the administration could not stop the count at the end of September.On October 8, a Justice Department memo suspended all diversity and inclusion training for the department’s employees and managers in compliance with Trump’s recent executive order banning anti-bias trainings.On October 21, Trump signed an executive order that could expand his ability to hire and fire tens of thousands of federal employees. The order would allow federal agencies to reclassify certain workers, which would strip them of job protections. The national president of the American Federation of Government Employees referred to the order as “the most profound undermining of the civil service in our lifetimes.”On November 1, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of the Treasury approved Georgia’s waiver request under Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, which allows the state to exit the federal marketplace without creating a state-based marketplace to replace it. This will endanger coverage and access to care for tens of thousands of people.On November 2, Trump signed an executive order establishing the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission to “promote patriotic education.” The commission, teased by Trump in remarks on September 17, was viewed as a political move aimed at censoring the teaching of American history and as an attack on The New York Times’ Pulitzer-Prize winning 1619 Project, which details this nation’s history beginning when the first enslaved Africans were brought to America.On November 9, in a memo to U.S. attorneys, Attorney General William Barr authorized the opening of election fraud investigations “if there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual State.” The memo, for which there was no factual basis, was viewed as an attempt to sow chaos and led to the resignation of Richard Pilger, director of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Election Crimes branch.

WWI was almost over by the time the Balfour Declaration was declared on November 2, 1917. What should have been disclosed was the earlier secret Sykes-Picot Agreement in which Britain and France carved up the Middle East between them. That disclosure would have probably resulted in a break in relations between Britain and the Hashemites. It would also probably have ended Lawrence's efforts to encourage the Arab Revolt as a strategy to support Britain's war effort.The major antagonists of WWI had resolved into Britain, France and Russia against Germany and the Ottoman Empire. The Hapsburgs were sideline players.Before the war, T.E. Lawrence and Gertrude Bell were involved in persuading the Hashemite Prince Faisal to organize the Bedouin tribes in the Hejaz (Western Arabia adjoining the Red Sea) to revolt against the Ottoman Empire. Lawrence, working out of British-held Egypt, was sincerely interested in wresting Arabia from the grip of the Turks and he and Faisal accomplished the seemingly impossible task of organizing the Bedouin tribes of the Hejaz into an effective fighting force.To make a very long story a little shorter, Faisal's Bedouins became General Allenby's right wing in his drive from Gaza northeast through Beersheba, then Jerusalem, to Damascus. Faisal and Lawrence's army began its “Allenby right wing” operations after it took Aqaba, then moved north along the Hejaz Railway, joining Allenby on his march though Judea and Samaria to Damascus.Faisal became King of Syria for the short time before the Sykes-Picot Agreement was produced, revealing Anglo-French treachery. Faisal was shunted to Iraq and a major portion of what had been designated Coele-Syria and Palestine was gifted to another Hashemite, Abdullah, eventually becoming the Kingdom of Transjordan. The Hashemites had been thrown out of the Hejaz by the Saudis, and Britain, embarrassed by its broken promises to the Hashemites, particularly Faisal, made them a gift of property it did not own, and a people with no previous ties to the new rulers.At first, a Jewish Homeland in the remaining western portion of Palestine, that is west of the Jordan River, seemed feasible. Faisal and Chaim Weitzmann worked together to incorporate the aims of the Balfour Declaration into plans for the future of Western Palestine. See, Faisal-Weitzmann Agreement.(The following excerpt by no means encompasses the volume of correspondence, codicils, retractions and explanations involved in this complex transaction. Including it here would not be helpful to the purpose of its inclusion, which is to argue that the existence of the Balfour Declaration before the Arab Revolt would not, in and of itself, have necessarily precluded the Hashemites from allying with Britain.)“Faisal–Weizmann Agreement1919 agreementThe Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was a 3 January 1919 agreement between Emir Faisal, the third son of Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, King of the short-lived Kingdom of Hejaz, and Chaim Weizmann, a Zionist leader who had negotiated the 1917 Balfour Declaration with the British Government, signed two weeks before the start of the Paris Peace Conference. Together with a letter written by T. E. Lawrence in Faisal's name to Felix Frankfurter in March 1919, it was one of two documents used by the Zionist delegation at the Peace Conference to argue that the Zionist plans for Palestine had prior approval of Arabs.”One thing is clear. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was the adamant, dedicated, relentless, violent Jew-hater whose subversive speeches and actions exploited Arab and Jewish fears to create an atmosphere in which propaganda and hate-speech replaced discussion, and extremism expanded and hardened. This became an implacable enemy to reconciliation.The much longer story of the events of the first half of the 20th Century involving the Arabs, Jews and Palestine requires a much longer reading list. And the same subject continues to produce avalanches of writings to this day, as follows:EDIT: IF I DIDN'T MAKE THIS CLEAR IN THE ORIGINAL ANSWER BY THE USE OF QUOTATION MARKS, THE FOLLOWING IS NOT MY WORK. IT'S APPENDED AS A GUIDE TO ADDITIONAL READING.“Churchill White Paper2019-07-21 21:06:04*Document #1 Pages 2–4 *Document #2 Pages 5–11 *Document #3 Pages 11–15 *Document #4 Pages 15–17 *Document #5 Page 17*Enclosure in #5 Pages 17–21 *Document #6 Pages 21–28 *Document #7 Pages 28–29 *Document #8 Pages 29–30 *Document #9 Pages 30–31Pages 17–21, "British Policy in Palestine" sometimes known as the "Churchill memorandum"The Churchill White Paper of 3 June 1922 (...sometimes referred to as "British Policy in Palestine". The official name of the document was Palestine Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation.It was made up of nine documents and "Churchill's memorandum" was an enclosure to document #5.[1])was drafted at request of Sir Winston Churchill partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. While maintaining Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers by immigration as of right and not on suffrance.Contents1 Antecedents1.1 Emergent resistance1.2 at Cairo and Jerusalem1.3 Jaffa riots1.4 in London2 Statement of policy in Palestine3 Subsequent developments4 See also5 References6 Bibliography7 External linksAntecedentsEmergent resistanceOn 23 October 1918 following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration was established over Levantine provinces of the former Ottoman Empire. Earlier, on 1 October 1918, General Allenby had been authorized to permit the hoisting of the Arab flag at Damascus.[2]An Arab government was announced on 5 October 1918 and gained de facto independence after the withdrawal of the British forces on 26 November 1919. During 1918, Muslim-Christian Associations were set up across Palestine with a view to opposing Zionism and later established the Palestine Arab Congress to further that objective.[3]On the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration in November 1918 there were non-violent protests.[4]Petitions against Zionist policy were delivered to Ronald Storrs as well as the Governor of Jaffa.[3]In early 1919, the first Palestinian Arab Congress rejected political Zionism. Palestine was seen as part of an independent Syria under Faisal bin Hussein.[5]It was decided to send a delegation to Damascus and representatives attended the Syrian National Congress in Damascus on 8 June 1919 [6]"to inform Arab patriots there of the decision to call Palestine Southern Syria and unite it with Northern Syria".[7]The Arab Kingdom of Syria was an unrecognized state proclaimed as a Kingdom on 8 March 1920 and existed until 25 July 1920.[8][9]During its brief existence, the kingdom was led by Faisal, the son of Sharif Hussein bin Ali. Despite its claims to the territory of Greater Syria, Faisal's government controlled a limited area and was dependent on Britain which, along with France, generally opposed the idea of a Greater Syria and refused to recognize the kingdom.[10]Shortly after the Jerusalem riots of early April, the San Remo conference at the end of April 1920, awarded the Palestine mandate to Britain and the authorities decided to refuse permission for the convening of a second Palestinian Arab Congress intended to address the new situation.[11]In a lecture given at the UN[12],Rashid_Khalidi noted that the Palestine reaction to the Declaration was delayed by the continuing closure of newspapers for two years and the dismal post war circumstances of the country. The military administration had decided not to publish the Balfour Declaration for fear of the consequences. After the appointment of Herbert Samuel was known, on 28 April 1920 in Acre, General Bols informed the "representatives of all communities" that the mandate and declaration would be included in the peace treaty with Turkey. The Palin Commission speculated that, in view of all the later "misunderstandings", it might have been wiser to have published the declaration in the first instance and avoid the confusion. It was not until May of 1920 that the text of the Balfour Declaration was read out in Nablus by Sir Louis Bols.[13]Wikisource has original text related to this article:Palin Reportat Cairo and JerusalemSee also: Cairo Conference (1921) and Sharifian SolutionMusa Kazim al-Husayni, ex-mayor of JerusalemThe Executive Committee of the third Palestine Arab Congress, headed by Musa Kazim al-Husseini, met the new High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, who refused to give them any official recognition unless they accepted British policy for a Jewish national home.[14]Having been rebuffed in their attempt to have discussions with Churchill in Cairo, on 28 March 1921, the committee instead met Churchill in Jerusalem for that part of the Cairo conference and presented a memorandum detailing their complaints; while he assured the committee that in respect of the second part of the Balfour Declaration,"if one promise stands so does the other", he said that it was a matter of policy and the Arabs could do nothing other than accept it and the consequences, including Jewish immigration.[15]In Cairo, Palestine had been discussed with Emir Abdullah who argued that he should be given control of the entire area of Mandate Palestine responsible to the High Commissioner. Alternatively he advocated a union with Iraq. Churchill rejected both demands. Responding to Abdullah's fear for a Jewish kingdom west of the Jordan, Churchill decreed it was not only not contemplated "that hundreds and thousands of Jews were going to pour into the country in a very short time and dominate the existing population", but even was quite impossible. "Jewish immigration would be a very slow process and the rights of the existing non-Jewish population would be strictly preserved." About British policy in Palestine, Herbert Samuel added that "There was no question of setting up a Jewish Government there ... No land would be taken from any Arab, nor would the Moslem religion be touched in any way."[16]Jaffa riotsSee also: Haycraft CommissionThe May 1921 riots in and around Jaffa were the subject of a report published on 1 October 1921, determining the main cause as being due to Arab discontent about Jewish immigration and perceived pro-Jewish bias by Mandatory authorities. Its remit was expanded to include looking into any recent disturbances in Palestine so also considered the unpublished Palin report into the April 1920 Jerusalem riots. The White paper was intended to address the issues that had been identified.[17]in LondonSee also: Palestinian Arab CongressThe fourth congress, on 25 June 1921, voted to send a six-man delegation to London which left Palestine on 19 July 1921. After a short visit to Cairo, the delegation went to Rome where they were received in audience by Pope Benedict XV who expressed sympathy with their cause. The delegation (usually referred to as the Palestinian Arab or Muslim-Christian Delegation) arrived in London on August 8.[18]Three members of the delegation went to Geneva and joined the Syrian–Palestinian Congress to put their case to the League of Nations and to protest the draft mandate.[19]The president of the delegation was Musa Kazim al-Husseini. Its secretary was Shibli al-Jamal (Dr. Fu'ad Samad, assistant secretary) and the other 4 delegates were Tawfiq Hammad, Amin al-Tamimi, Ibrahim Shammas, Mu'in al-Madi.[20]Three meetings with Churchill were had in August and other discussions and correspondence with Colonial Office officials along with meeting Weizmann in November all of which were fruitless since the delegation effectively wanted the policy abandoned altogether and the British were not prepared to countenance anything other than minor adjustments. Finally, the draft of the proposed Palestine constitution was sent to the delegation in February and their response marks the first document published in the white paper.[21]Statement of policy in PalestineSee also: Balfour Declaration and Mandate for PalestineSir Herbert Samuel, seated centre, with Jerusalem church leaders and British officials, 1922.On 3 June, 1921, Samuel made a speech (quoted from in paragraph 6 of the 1 March, 1922 document #2 of the white paper) which McTague describes as a necessary effort, after more than three years, to define the Balfour Declaration.[22]As one author put it, quoting a 6 June 1920 report to the Foreign Office, "..what struck me most of all was that nobody seemed to know what the Zionist policy of His Majesty’s Government meant."[23]Churchill quoted Samuel in the first full parliamentary debate of 14 June, 1921 on Palestine[24]and wherein he defended the policy and the mandates arguing that it had all been agreed prior, it was important for Britain to keep its word and that provided immigration were properly regulated then that would benefit the economy.[25]It was Herbert Samuel who insisted, on returning to London in May, on a "definitive" interpretation of the Declaration. Although supporting the principle, the policy restricted the interpretation of a "national home," geographically excluding the territory east of the Jordan River; politically, by defining it in terms of "development of the existing community"; and numerically, limiting future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country".[26]The "British Policy in Palestine" (enclosure in document #5 of the white paper) was accepted by the Zionist Organization (document #7 of the white paper) and rejected by the Palestinians (document #6 of the white paper)[27]Shortly thereafter, the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate that incorporated the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25.[28][29]The vote was subsequently overruled by a vote of 292 to 35 in the House of Commons.[28][i]The white paper, formalized as a Palestine Order in Council in August[32],reaffirmed the British commitment to a national home, promised that Palestine would not become a Jewish State and that Arabs would not be subordinated to Jews. Fieldhouse further says that the white paper "interpreted and subtly modified the harshness of the mandate." It pointed out that the Balfour Declaration did "not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish national home, but that such a home should be founded in Palestine" and affirming the right to Jewish immigration but subject to the concept of "economic absorptive capacity".[33]Evyatar Friesel says that the terms of the Churchill Memorandum and the Mandate were "clearly contradictory". There was a "double obligation" to Jew and non-Jew. The idea of a national home in Palestine as a whole was refuted while accepting that Jews were in Palestine "as of right and not on sufferance".[34]Renton, while noting that Zionist commitments in the Mandate went beyond the Declaration in recognizing the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, along with the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country" and that Britain had to secure the establishment of a "Jewish national home" also says that the Mandatory had the responsibility for developing self-governing institutions for the whole population of Palestine, not just Jews, and for "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine". The problem was that neither the declaration nor the Mandate defined the national home; the rights of the "non-Jewish" population and how they might be affected by the creation of the national home, and how they were to be "safeguarded", were not specified. These loose terms did not provide any clarity as to how the country should be governed, or its essential purpose, a fundamental deficiency inherited from the Declaration.[35]In the matter of the claim put forward by the Palestinian Arab delegation with respect to the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, Kedourie notes that McMahon was asked about the matter and that his letter of 12 March, 1922 only "added to the confusion". Although Samuel pressed for publication, Shuckberg considered nothing would be gained not least because the Palestinian Arab delegation had already been given a different argument for the exclusion of Palestine from McMahon's pledge. Kedourie also opines that it is doubtful that publication would have put an end to the argument and that the reply given in the white paper correspondence was "by no means" an answer to the claim.[36]Subsequent developmentsIn February 1923, following a change in government, Cavendish, in a lengthy memorandum for the Cabinet, laid the foundation for a secret review of Palestine policy:It would be idle to pretend that the Zionist policy is other than an unpopular one. It has been bitterly attacked in Parliament and is still being fiercely assailed in certain sections of the press. The ostensible grounds of attack are threefold:(1) the alleged violation of the McMahon pledges; (2) the injustice of imposing upon a country a policy to which the great majority of its inhabitants are opposed; and (3) the financial burden upon the British taxpayer. ...[37]His covering note asked for a statement of policy to be made as soon as possible and that the cabinet ought to focus on three questions: (1) whether or not pledges to the Arabs conflict with the Balfour declaration; (2) if not, whether the new government should continue the policy set down by the old government in the 1922 White Paper; and (3) if not, what alternative policy should be adopted.[38]Stanley Baldwin, replacing Bonar Law, in June 1923 set up a cabinet subcommittee whose terms of reference were:examine Palestine policy afresh and to advise the full Cabinet whether Britain should remain in Palestine and whether if she remained, the pro-Zionist policy should be continued.[39]The Cabinet approved the report of this committee on 31 July 1923. Describing it as "nothing short of remarkable", Quigley noted that the government was admitting to itself that its support for Zionism had been prompted by considerations having nothing to do with the merits of Zionism or its consequences for Palestine.[40] As Huneidi noted, "wise or unwise, it is well nigh impossible for any government to extricate itself without a substantial sacrifice of consistency and self-respect, if not honour."[41]The wording of the declaration was thus incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine, a legal instrument that created Mandatory Palestine with an explicit purpose of putting the declaration into effect and was finally formalized in September,1923.[42] Unlike the declaration itself, the Mandate was legally binding on the British government.[42] In June, 1924, Britain made its report to the Permanent Mandates Commission for the period July 1920 to the end of 1923 containing nothing of the candor reflected in the internal documents; the documents relating to the 1923 reappraisal stayed secret until the early 1970s. [43]See alsoSykes-Picot AgreementReferences^ David W. Schmidt (2011). Partners Together in This Great Enterprise. Xulon Press. pp. 388–. ISBN 978-1-61996-058-9.^ Hansard, [1]: HC Deb 31 October 1918 vol 110 c1640W^ a b Porath 1974, p. 32.^ United Nations 1978, p. 43.^ Palestine Factionalism in the National Movement (1919-1939)^ A Survey of Palestine - prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. Reprinted 1991 by The Institute of Palestine Studies, Washington. Volume II. ISBN 0-88728-214-8. p.946^ Kayyali, Abdul-Wahhab Said (1981) Palestine. A Modern History Croom Helm. ISBN 086199-007-2. pp.60-63.^ Kuhn, Anthony John (15 April 2011). "Broken Promises:The French Expulsion of Emir Feisal and the Failed Struggle for Syrian Independence". Carnegie Mellon University/H&SS Senior Honors Thesis: 60.^ Antonius, George (1938). The Arab Awakening: The Story of the Arab National Movement (Reprint ed.). H. Hamilton. p. 104. ISBN 1626540861.^ Itamar Rabinovich, Symposium: The Greater-Syria Plan and the Palestine Problem in The Jerusalem Cathedra (1982), p. 262.^ Porath 1974, p. 102.^ Khalidi, Rashid (2 November 2017). "100 years of the Balfour Declaration and its impact on the Palestinian People". United nations The Question of Palestine. United Nations. Retrieved 15 July 2019.^ Sahar Huneidi; Sarah Huneidi (7 April 2001). A Broken Trust: Sir Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians. I.B.Tauris. pp. 28, 43. ISBN 978-1-86064-172-5.^ Khalidi, Rashid (2006) The Iron Cage. The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-85168-582-0. p.42.^ Abd al-Wahhāb al- Kayyali (1968). Palestine: A Modern History. Croom Helm. p. 99.^ Report on Middle East Conference held in Cairo and Jerusalem, March 12th to 30th, 1921, Appendix 19, p. 109-111. British Colonial Office, June 1921 (CO 935/1/1)^ Bernard Regan (30 October 2018). The Balfour Declaration: Empire, the Mandate and Resistance in Palestine. Verso Books. pp. 110–112. ISBN 978-1-78663-248-7.^ Mctague 1983, p. 183.^ Linda Marie Saghi Aidan, PhD (13 September 2005). Beliefs and Policymaking in the Middle East: Analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-1-4535-0663-9.^ Ingrams 2009, pp. 137–139.^ Porath 1974, pp. 141-146.^ McTague 1983, pp. 159–163.^ Eldin, Munir Fakher (2014). "British Framing of the Frontier in Palestine, 1918– 1923: Revisiting Colonial Sources on Tribal Insurrection, Land Tenure, and the Arab Intelligentsia" (PDF). Journal of Palestine Studies. 60: 42.^ [2], HC Deb 14 June 1921 vol 143 cc265-334|quote ="These words (national home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turning to Palestine, should he enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."^ McTague 1983, p. 167.^ Howard Morley Sachar. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. Knopf, 2007. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-375-71132-9.^ Elie Kedourie; Sylvia G. Haim (22 May 2015). Zionism and Arabism in Palestine and Israel. Routledge. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-1-317-44273-8.^ a b Huneidi 2001, p. 58.^ Hansard, Palestine Mandate: HL Deb 21 June 1922 vol 50 cc994-1033 (outcome of the vote cc1033 on next page)^ Hansard, Colonial Office: HC Deb 04 July 1922 vol 156 cc221–343 (outcome of the vote cc343)^ Mathew 2011, p. 36.^ M. Cherif Bassiouni; Shlomo Ben Ami (23 April 2009). A Guide to Documents on the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli Conflict: 1897–2008. BRILL. pp. 82–. ISBN 978-90-474-2878-7.^ D. K. Fieldhouse (6 April 2006). Western Imperialism in the Middle East 1914–1958. OUP Oxford. pp. 155 and 199. ISBN 978-0-19-928737-6.^ Friesel, Evyatar (1993). "Through a peculiar lens:Zionism and Palestine in British diaries, 1927–31". Middle Eastern Studies. 29 (3): 435–436.^ James Renton (2010). "Chapter 1:Flawed Foundations the Balfour declaration and the Palestine mandate". In Rory Miller (ed.). Britain, Palestine, and Empire: The Mandate Years. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. p. 194. ISBN 978-0-7546-6808-4.^ Elie Kedourie (19 February 1976). In the Anglo-Arab Labyrinth: The McMahon-Husayn Correspondence and Its Interpretations 1914–1939. Cambridge University Press. pp. 248–249. ISBN 978-0-521-20826-0.^ Quigley 2011, p. 269.^ Huneidi 1998, p. 33.^ Cohen 2010, p. 6.^ Quigley 2011, p. 279.^ Huneidi 1998, p. 37.^ a b Renton 2016, p. 16.^ Quigley 2011, p. 280-2.^ Churchill concluded the Commons debate with the following argument: "Palestine is all the more important to us... in view of the ever-growing significance of the Suez Canal; and I do not think £1,000,000 a year... would be too much for Great Britain to pay for the control and guardianship of this great historic land, and for keeping the word that she has given before all the nations of the world."[30] Mathew described Churchill's manoeuvre as follows: "...the judgment was overturned by a large majority in the Commons, a result not of a sudden opinion shift but of Churchill's skillful opportunism in turning at the last minute a general debate on funding for the colonies worldwide into a vote of confidence on the government's Palestine policy, emphasizing in his concluding remarks not a Zionist argument but imperial and strategic considerations.[31]BibliographyIngrams, Doreen (2009). Palestine papers: 1917–1922: seeds of conflict. Eland. ISBN 978-1-906011-38-3.McTague, John (1983). British Policy in Palestine, 1917-22. University Press of America. p. 286. ISBN 0-8191-2934-8.Quigley, John (2011). "Britain's Secret Re-Assessment of the Balfour Declaration.The Perfidy of Albion". Journal of the History of International Law. 13 (2).Huneidi, Sahar (1998). "Was Balfour Policy Reversible? The Colonial Office and Palestine, 1921–23". Journal of Palestine Studies. 27 (2): 23–41. doi:10.1525/jps.1998.27.2.00p0033m. JSTOR 2538282.Cohen, Michael J. (2010). "Was the Balfour Declaration at risk in 1923? Zionism and British imperialism". Journal of Israeli History. 29 (1).Renton, James (2016). "Flawed Foundations: The Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate". In Miller, Rory (ed.). Britain, Palestine and Empire: The Mandate Years. Routledge. pp. 15–37. ISBN 978-1-317-17233-8.Porath, Yehoshua (1974). The emergence of the Palestinian-Arab national movement, 1918-1929. Cass. ISBN 978-0-7146-2939-1.United Nations (1978). The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1988. United Nations. p. 278.External linkstext of the Churchill White Paper, 1922 at UNISPALtext of the 1922 White Paper from the Avalon ProjectKey documents of Mandatory Palestine1910sDamascus Protocol The Future of Palestine McMahon–Hussein Correspondence Sykes–Picot Agreement Balfour Declaration Hogarth Message Bassett Letter Declaration to the Seven Anglo–French Modus Vivendi Anglo-French Declaration Faisal–Weizmann Agreement King-Crane Commission Report1920sSan Remo Resolution Palin Commission Report Paulet–Newcombe Agreement Haycraft Commission Report Churchill White Paper League of Nations Mandate Constitution Palestinian Citizenship Order1930sShaw Commission Report Western Wall Commission Report Hope Simpson Report Passfield White Paper MacDonald Letter Peel Commission Report Woodhead Commission Report White Paper of 19391940sBiltmore Programme Harrison Report Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Report (Survey of Palestine) Statement of Information Relating to Acts of Violence Morrison-Grady PlanBevin PlanUNSCOP Ad Hoc Committee United Nations Partition Plan for PalestineAmerican trusteeship proposal for Palestine Israeli Declaration of IndependenceHistoryTimelineAftermathDiplomacy and peace proposals in the Arab–Israeli conflictTo 19481914 Damascus Protocol1915 McMahon–Hussein Correspondence1916 Sykes–Picot Agreement1917 Balfour Declaration1918 Declaration to the Seven /Anglo-French Declaration1919 Faisal–Weizmann Agreement1920 San Remo conference1922 Churchill White Paper1937 Peel Commission1939 White Paper1939 London Conference1946 Morrison-Grady Plan1947 Bevin Plan1946–47 London Conference1947 UN Partition Plan1948 American trusteeship proposal1948–911948 UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 1941949 Armistice agreements / Lausanne Conference1950 Tripartite Declaration1964 Palestinian National Covenant1967 Khartoum Resolution / UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2421973 UNSC Resolution 338 / UNSC Resolution 3391974 Israel–Syria disengagement agreement / UNSC Resolution 3501978 UNSC Resolution 425 / Camp David Accords1979 UNSC Resolution 446 / Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty / UNSC Resolution 4521980 UNSC Resolution 4781981 UNSC Resolution 4971983 Israel–Lebanon agreement1991–present1991 Madrid Conference1993 Oslo Accords1994 Gaza–Jericho Agreement / Israel–Jordan peace treaty1995 Beilin–Abu Mazen agreement1998 Wye River Memorandum1999 Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum2000 Camp David Summit / Clinton Parameters2001 Taba Summit2002 Beirut Summit and peace initiative / Road map2003 Geneva Initiative2004 UNSC Resolution 1559 / UNSC Resolution 15662005 UNSC Resolution 1583 / Sharm El Sheikh Summit / Israeli disengagement from Gaza / Agreement on Movement and Access2006 UNSC Resolution 17012007 Annapolis Conference2010 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks2013 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks2019 Warsaw Conference2019 Trump peace plan)”

The Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) is an international agreement that amends the two treaties which form the constitutional basis of the European Union (EU). The Treaty of Lisbon was signed by the EU member states on 13 December 2007, and entered into force on 1 January 2009.It amends the Maastricht Treaty (1992), known in updated form as the Treaty on European Union (2007) or TEU, and the Treaty of Rome (1957), known in updated form as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2007) or TFEU.It also amends the attached treaty protocols as well as the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM).Prominent changes included the move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in at least 45 policy areas in the Council of Ministers, a change in calculating such a majority to a new double majority, a more powerful European Parliament forming a bicameral legislature alongside the Council of Ministers under the ordinary legislative procedure, a consolidated legal personality for the EU and the creation of a long-term President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The Treaty also made the Union's bill of rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, legally binding. The Treaty for the first time gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU, and established a procedure by which to do so.The stated aim of the treaty was to "complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam [1997] and by the Treaty of Nice [2001] with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action".Opponents of the Treaty of Lisbon, such as former Danish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Jens-Peter Bonde, argued that it would centralize the EU,and weaken democracy by "moving power away" from national electorates.Supporters argue that it brings more checks and balances into the EU system, with stronger powers for the European Parliament and a new role for national parliaments.Negotiations to modify EU institutions began in 2001, resulting first in the proposed Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, which would have repealed the existing European treaties and replaced them with a "constitution". Although ratified by a majority of member states, this was abandoned after being rejected by 55% of French voters on 29 May 2005 and then by 61% of Dutch voters on 1 June 2005.After a "period of reflection", member states agreed instead to maintain the existing treaties and amend them, to bring into law a number of the reforms that had been envisaged in the abandoned constitution. An amending "reform" treaty was drawn up and signed in Lisbon in 2007. It was originally intended to have been ratified by all member states by the end of 2008. This timetable failed, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in June 2008 by the Irish electorate, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in October 2009 after Ireland secured a number of concessions related to the treaty.The need to review the EU's constitutional framework, particularly in light of the accession of ten new Member States in 2004, was highlighted in a declaration annexed to the Treaty of Nice in 2001. The agreements at Nice had paved the way for further enlargement of the Union by reforming voting procedures. The Laeken declaration of December 2001 committed the EU to improving democracy, transparency and efficiency, and set out the process by which a constitution aiming to achieve these goals could be created. The European Convention was established, presided over by former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and was given the task of consulting as widely as possible across Europe with the aim of producing a first draft of the Constitution. The final text of the proposed Constitution was agreed upon at the summit meeting on 18–19 June 2004 under the presidency of Ireland.The Constitution, having been agreed by heads of government from the 25 Member States, was signed at a ceremony in Rome on 29 October 2004. Before it could enter into force, however, it had to be ratified by each member state. Ratification took different forms in each country, depending on the traditions, constitutional arrangements, and political processes of each country. In 2005, referendums held in France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution. While the majority of the Member States already had ratified the European Constitution (mostly through parliamentary ratification, although Spain and Luxembourg held referendums), due to the requirement of unanimity to amend the treaties of the EU, it became clear that it could not enter into force. This led to a "period of reflection" and the political end of the proposed European Constitution.In 2007, Germany took over the rotating EU Presidency and declared the period of reflection over. By March, the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, the Berlin Declaration was adopted by all Member States. This declaration outlined the intention of all Member States to agree on a new treaty in time for the 2009 Parliamentary elections, that is to have a ratified treaty before mid-2009.Already before the Berlin Declaration, the Amato Group (officially the Action Committee for European Democracy, ACED) – a group of European politicians, backed by the Barroso Commission with two representatives in the group – worked unofficially on rewriting the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (EU Constitution). On 4 June 2007, the group released their text in French – cut from 63,000 words in 448 articles in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe to 12,800 words in 70 articles.In the Berlin Declaration, the EU leaders unofficially set a new timeline for the new treaty:21–23 June 2007: European Council meeting in Brussels, mandate for Intergovernmental Conference (IGC)23 July 2007: IGC in Lisbon, text of Reform Treaty7–8 September 2007: Foreign Ministers’ meeting18–19 October 2007: European Council in Lisbon, final agreement on Reform Treaty13 December 2007: Signing in Lisbon1 January 2009: Intended date of entry into forceDraftingJune European Council (2007)On 21 June 2007, the European Council of heads of states or governments met in Brussels to agree upon the foundation of a new treaty to replace the rejected Constitution. The meeting took place under the German Presidency of the EU, with Chancellor Angela Merkel leading the negotiations as President-in-Office of the European Council. After dealing with other issues, such as deciding on the accession of Cyprus and Malta to the Eurozone, negotiations on the Treaty took over and lasted until the morning of 23 June 2007. The hardest part of the negotiations was reported to be Poland's insistence on square root voting in the Council of Ministers.The European Round Table Of Industrialists (ERT) Members contributed to the preparation of the Lisbon Agenda, which sought to make Europe the ‘most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ by the year 2010. But the implementation of the Agenda was less impressive than the declarations made at its adoption by the European Council in March 2000. ERT Members constantly stressed the need for better performance by national governments towards achieving the Lisbon targets within a specified timeframe that otherwise risked remaining beyond Europe's grasp. In subsequent years, ERT regularly contributed to the debate on how to ensure better implementation of the Lisbon Agenda across all EU Member States, including on ways to foster innovation and achieve higher industry investment in Research & Development in Europe.The agreement was reached on a 16-page mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference, that proposed removing much of the constitutional terminology and many of the symbols from the old European Constitution text. In addition, it was agreed to recommend to the IGC that the provisions of the old European Constitution should be amended in certain key aspects (such as voting or foreign policy). Due to pressure from the United Kingdom and Poland, it was also decided to add a protocol to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (clarifying that it did not extend the rights of the courts to overturn domestic law in Britain or Poland). Among the specific changes were greater ability to opt out in certain areas of legislation and that the proposed new voting system that was part of the European Constitution would not be used before 2014 (see Provisions below).In the June meeting, the name 'Reform Treaty' also emerged, finally clarifying that the Constitutional approach was abandoned. Technically it was agreed that the Reform Treaty would amend both the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) to include most provisions of the European Constitution, however not to combine them into one document. It was also agreed to rename the treaty establishing the European Community, which is the main functional agreement including most of the substantive provisions of European primary law, to "Treaty on the Functioning of the Union". In addition, it was agreed, that unlike the European Constitution where a charter was part of the document, there would only be a reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to make that text legally binding.After the council, Poland indicated they wished to re-open some areas. During June, Poland's Prime Minister had controversially stated that Poland would have a substantially larger population were it not for World War II.Another issue was that Dutch prime minister Jan-Peter Balkenende succeeded in obtaining a greater role for national parliaments in the EU decision-making process, as he declared this to be non-negotiable for Dutch agreement.Intergovernmental Conference (2007)Portugal had pressed and supported Germany to reach an agreement on a mandate for an Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) under their presidency. After the June negotiations and final settlement on a 16-page framework for the new Reform Treaty, the Intergovernmental conference on actually drafting the new treaty commenced on 23 July 2007. The IGC opened following a short ceremony. The Portuguese presidency presented a 145-page document (with an extra 132 pages of 12 protocols and 51 declarations) entitled the Draft Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community and made it available on the Council of Ministers website as a starting point for the drafting process.In addition to government representatives and legal scholars from each member state, the European Parliament sent three representatives. These were conservative Elmar Brok, social democratic Enrique Baron Crespo and liberal Andrew Duff.Before the opening of the IGC, the Polish government expressed a desire to renegotiate the June agreement, notably over the voting system, but relented under political pressure by most other Member States, due to a desire not to be seen as the sole trouble maker over the negotiations.October European Council (2007)The October European Council, led by Portugal's Prime Minister and then President-in-Office of the European Council, José Sócrates, consisted of legal experts from all Member States scrutinising the final drafts of the Treaty. During the council, it became clear that the Reform Treaty would be called the 'Treaty of Lisbon', because its signing would take place in Lisbon—Portugal being the holder of the presidency of the Council of the European Union at the time.At the European Council meeting on 18 and 19 October 2007 in Lisbon, a few last-minute concessions were made to ensure the signing of the treaty.That included giving Poland a slightly stronger wording for the revived Ioannina Compromise, plus a nomination for an additional Advocate General at the European Court of Justice. The creation of the permanent "Polish" Advocate General was formally permitted by an increase of the number of Advocates General from 8 to 11.Despite these concessions and alterations, Giscard d’Estaing stated that the treaty included the same institutional reforms as those in the rejected Constitution, but merely without language and symbols that suggested Europe might have ‘formal political status’. These ‘more symbolic than substantial’ concessions were designed ‘to head off any threat of referenda’ which had killed the Constitution.At the meeting of the European Council in October 2007, Portugal insisted that the Treaty (then called the 'Reform Treaty') be signed in Lisbon, the Portuguese capital. This request was granted, and the Treaty was thus to be called the Treaty of Lisbon, in line with the tradition of European Union treaties. The Portuguese presidency was appointed to the job of organising the programme for a signing ceremony.The signing of the Treaty of Lisbon took place in Lisbon, Portugal on 13 December 2007. The Government of Portugal, by virtue of holding Presidency of the Council of the European Union at the time, arranged a ceremony inside the 15th-century Jerónimos Monastery, the same place Portugal's treaty of accession to the European Union (EU) was signed in 1985.Representatives from the 27 EU member states were present, and signed the Treaty as plenipotentiaries, marking the end of treaty negotiations. In addition, for the first time an EU treaty was also signed by the presidents of the three main EU institutions.Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom did not take part in the main ceremony, and instead signed the treaty separately a number of hours after the other delegates. A requirement to appear before a committee of British MPs was cited as the reason for his absence.Approval by the European ParliamentEditOn 20 February 2008, the European Parliament voted in favour of a non-binding resolution endorsing the Lisbon Treaty by 525 votes in favour and 115 against, on the basis of an analysis of the treaty's implications by the Parliament's rapporteurs Richard Corbett and Inigo Mendez de Vigo. They had been the Parliament's rapporteurs on the constitutional treaty.All EU member states had to ratify the Treaty before it could enter into law. A national ratification was completed and registered when the instruments of ratification were lodged with the Government of Italy. The month following the deposition of the last national ratification saw the Treaty enter into force across the EU.Under the original timetable set by the German Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the first half of 2007, the Treaty was initially scheduled to be fully ratified by the end of 2008, thus entering into force on 1 January 2009. This plan failed however, primarily due to the initial rejection of the Treaty in 2008 by the Irish electorate in a referendum, a decision which was reversed in a second referendum in October 2009. Ireland, as required by its constitution, was the only member state to hold referendums on the Treaty. In the UK, the European Union (Amendment) Bill was debated in the House of Commons on 21 January 2008, and passed its second reading that day by a vote of 362 to 224; Prime Minister Gordon Brown was absent that day; the Bill was proposed to the Commons by David Miliband.The Czech instrument of ratification was the last to be deposited in Rome on 13 November 2009.Therefore, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force on 1 December 2009.ImpactThe exact impact of the treaty on the functioning of the EU left many questions open (uncertainties which have led to calls for another new treaty in response to the economic crisis in the late 2000s).When its impact is assessed, the biggest winners from Lisbon have been Parliament, with its increase in power, and the European Council. The first months under Lisbon arguably saw a shift in power and leadership from the Commission, the traditional motor of integration, to the European Council with its new full-time and longer-term President.The split between the Commission and European Council presidents involved overlap, potential rivalry and unwieldy compromises, such as both presidents attending international summits, in theory each with their own responsibilities, but inevitably with a considerable grey area. There was some expectation that the posts might be merged—as permitted under the new treaty—in 2014, when their two mandates expired.Parliament has used its greater powers over legislation, but also for example over the appointment of the Commission to gain further privileges from President Barrosoand it used its budgetary powers as a veto over how the External Action Service should be set up.It also applied its new power over international agreements to rapidly block the SWIFT data sharing deal with the US and threatened to do so over a free trade agreement with South Korea.The redistribution of separated powers was affected by the ratification process. Like the Commission, the Council of Ministers has, relatively, lost power due to Treaty of Lisbon. Its dynamic has also changed as member states have lost their veto in a number of areas. Consequently, they have had to come up with stronger arguments faster in order to win a vote.The Presidency of the Council, which continues to rotate among Member States every six months, has lost influence: the prime minister of the country in question no longer chairs the European Council, and its foreign minister no longer represents the EU externally (that is now done by the High Representative).As an amending treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon is not intended to be read as an autonomous text. It consists of a number of amendments to the Treaty on European Union ("Maastricht Treaty") and the Treaty establishing the European Community ("Treaty of Rome"), the latter renamed 'Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union' in the process. As amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, the Treaty on European Union provides a reference to the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, making that document legally binding. The Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Charter of Fundamental rights thus have equal legal value and combined constitute the European Union's legal basis.A typical amendment in Treaty of Lisbon text is:“Article 7 shall be amended as follows:(a) throughout the Article, the word "assent" shall be replaced by "consent", the reference to breach "of principles mentioned in Article 6(1)" shall be replaced by a reference to breach "of the values referred to in Article 2" and the words "of this Treaty" shall be replaced by "of the Treaties";”The Commission has published a consolidated text (in each community language) which shows the previous Treaties as revised by the Treaty of Lisbon.The fifty-five articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union enshrine certain political, social, and economic rights for both European Union citizens and residents, into EU law. It was drafted by the European Convention and solemnly proclaimed on 7 December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission. However its then legal status was uncertain and it did not have full legal effectuntil the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty on 1 December 2009.In the rejected Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe the charter was integrated as a part of the treaty itself. In the Lisbon Treaty, however, the charter is incorporated by reference and given legal status without forming part of the treaties. The EU must act and legislate consistently with the Charter and the EU's courts will strike down EU legislation which contravenes it. The Charter only applies to EU member states as regards their implementation of EU law and does not extend the competences of the EU beyond its competences as defined in the treaties.Central BankThe European Central Bank gained the official status of being an EU institution, and the European Council was given the right to appoint presidents of the European Central Bank through a qualified majority vote. On a related topic, the euro became the official currency of the Union (though not affecting opt-outs or the process of Eurozone enlargement).JudiciaryUnder the Treaty of Lisbon, the Court of First Instance has been renamed the General Court. The Civil Service Tribunal and the European Court of Justice (formerly named the Court of Justice of the European Communities, and formally called only Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon), along with the General Court, were established as sub-courts of a new EU institution named the Court of Justice of the European Union.The jurisdiction of the courts continued to be excluded from matters of foreign policy, though new jurisdiction to review foreign policy sanction measures, as well as certain 'Area of Freedom, Security and Justice' (AFSJ) matters not concerning policing and criminal cooperation, were added.The treaty has expanded the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council of Ministers by having it replace unanimity as the standard voting procedure in almost every policy area outside taxation and foreign policy. Moreover, taking effect in 2014, the definition of a qualified majority has changed: a qualified majority is reached when at least 55% of all member states, who comprise at least 65% of EU citizens, vote in favour of a proposal. When the Council of Ministers is acting neither on a proposal of the Commission nor on one of the High Representative, QMV requires 72% of the member states while the population requirement remains the same. However, the "blocking minority" that corresponds to these figures must comprise at least 4 countries. Hence, the voting powers of the member states are based on their population, and are no longer dependent on a negotiable system of voting points. The reform of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council was one of the main issues in the negotiation of the Lisbon Treaty.The earlier rules for QMV, set in the Treaty of Nice and applying until 2014, required a majority of countries (50%/60%) voting weights (74%), and population (62%). Between 2014 and 2017 a transitional phase is taking place where the new QMV rules apply, but where the old Nice treaty voting weights can be applied when a member state formally requests it. Moreover, from 2014 a new version of the 1994 "Ioannina compromise" allows small minorities of EU states to call for re-examination of EU decisions.The treaty instructs that Council deliberations on legislation (that include debate and voting) will be held in public (televised), as was already the case in the European Parliament.The Presidency of the Council of Ministers, rotates among member states every six months, with a "Trio" formed by three consecutive Presidencies in order to provide more continuity to their conduct. However, the Foreign Affairs Council (one configuration of the Council of ministers), is no longer chaired by the representative of the member state holding the Presidency, but rather by the person holding the newly created post of High Representative.Additionally the Euro Group sub-unit of ECOFIN Eurozone countries was formalized.European CouncilThe European Council officially gains the status of an EU institution, thus being separated from the Council of ministers. It continues to be composed of the heads of state or government of the Union's member states along with the (nonvoting) President of the European Commission and its own president.The President of the European Council is appointed for a two and a half year term in a qualified majority vote of the European Council. A president can be reappointed once, and be removed by the same voting procedure. Unlike the post of President of the European Commission, the appointment of the President of the European Council does not have to reflect the composition of the European Parliament.The president's work involves coordinating the work of the European Council, hosting its meetings and reporting its activities to the European Parliament after each meeting. This makes the president the lynchpin of negotiations to find agreement at European Council meetings, which has become a more onerous task with successive enlargement of the EU to 28 Member States. The president also chairs informal summits of the 19 Member States which use the euro as their currency. Additionally, the president provides external representation to the Union on foreign policy and security matters when such representation is required at the level of heads of state or government (bilateral summits and G8/G20).Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Council is charged with setting the strategic priorities of the Union, and in practice with handling crises. It has a key role in appointments, including the Commission, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the members of the Board of the European Central Bank; the suspension of membership rights; changing the voting systems in the treaties bridging clauses. Under the emergency break procedure, a state may refer contentious legislation from the Council of ministers to the European Council if it is outvoted in the Council of ministers, notwithstanding that it may still be outvoted in the European Council.The legislative power of the European Parliament increases, as the codecision procedure with the Council of the EU is extended to almost all areas of policy. This procedure is slightly modified and renamed ordinary legislative procedure.In the few remaining areas, called "special legislative procedures", Parliament now has either the right of consent to a Council of the EU measure, or vice versa, except in the few cases where the old Consultation procedure still applies, wherein the Council of the EU will only need to consult the European Parliament before voting on the Commission proposal. Council is then not bound by the Parliament's position but only by the obligation to consult it. Parliament would need to be consulted again if the Council of ministers deviated too far from the initial proposal.The Commission will have to submit each proposed budget of the European Union directly to Parliament, which must approve the budget in its entirety.The Treaty changes the way in which MEP seats are apportioned among member states. Rather than setting out a precise number (as it was the case in every previous treaty), the Treaty of Lisbon gives the power to the Council of the EU, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Parliament and with its consent, to adopt a decision fixing the number of MEPs for each member state. Moreover, the treaty provides for the number of MEPs to be degressively proportional to the number of citizens of each member state. A draft decision fixing the apportionment of MEPs was annexed to the treaty itself and had Lisbon been in force at the time of 2009 European Parliament elections the apportionment would have been:In the meantime, Croatia's seats, when it joins, will be supernumerary.The number of MEPs will be limited to 750, in addition to the President of the Parliament. Additionally, the Treaty of Lisbon will reduce the maximum number of MEPs from a member state from 99 to 96 (affects Germany) and increases the minimal number from 5 to 6 (affects Malta).National ParliamentsThe Treaty of Lisbon expanded the role of Member States' parliaments in the legislative processes of the EU by giving them a prior scrutiny of legislative proposals before the Council and the Parliament can take a position. The Treaty of Lisbon provides for national parliaments "to contribute to the good functioning of the Union" through receiving draft EU legislation, seeing to it that the principle of subsidiarity is respected, taking part in the evaluation mechanisms for the implementation of the Union policies in the area of freedom, security and justice, being involved in the political monitoring of Europol and the evaluation of Eurojust's activities, being notified of applications for EU accession, taking part in the inter-parliamentary cooperation between national parliaments and with the European Parliament.The Treaty of Lisbon allows national parliaments eight weeks to study legislative proposals made by the European Commission and decide whether to send a reasoned opinion stating why the national parliament considers it to be incompatible with the principle of subsidiarity. National parliaments may vote to have the measure reviewed. If one third (or one quarter, where the proposed EU measure concerns freedom, justice and security) of national parliaments are in favour of a review, the Commission would have to review the measure and if it decides to maintain it, must give a reasoned opinion to the Union legislator as to why it considers the measure to be compatible with subsidiarity.CommissionThe Commission of the European Communities will officially be renamed European Commission.The Treaty of Lisbon stated that the size of the Commission will reduce from one per member state to one for two thirds of member states from 2014, with an equal rotation over time. This would have ended the arrangement which has existed since 1957 of having at least one Commissioner for each Member State at all times. However, the Treaty also providedthat the European Council could unanimously decide to alter this number. Following the first Irish referendum on Lisbon, the European Council decided in December 2008 to revert to one Commissioner per member state with effect from the date of entry into force of the Treaty.The person holding the new post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy automatically becomes also a Vice-President of the Commission.Foreign relations and securityHigh RepresentativeIn an effort to ensure greater coordination and consistency in EU foreign policy, the Treaty of Lisbon created a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, de facto merging the post of High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy. The High Representative is Vice-President of the Commission, the administrator of the European Defence Agency but not the Secretary-General of the Council of Ministers, which becomes a separate post. He or she has a right to propose defence or security missions. In the proposed constitution this post was called the Union Minister of Foreign Affairs.The High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy is in charge of an External Action Service also created by the Treaty of Lisbon. This is essentially a common Foreign Office or Diplomatic Corps for the Union.Under the Treaty of Lisbon, Member States should assist if a member state is subject to a terrorist attack or the victim of a natural or man-made disaster (but any joint military action is subject to the provisions of Article 31 of the consolidated Treaty of European Union, which recognises various national concerns). In addition, several provisions of the treaties have been amended to include solidarity in matters of energy supply and changes to the energy policy within the EU.The treaty foresees that the European Security and Defence Policy will lead to a common defence for the EU when the European Council resolves unanimously to do so, and provided that all member states give their approval through their usual constitutional procedures.Additionally, the area of defence has become available to enhanced co-operation, potentially allowing for a defence integration that excludes member states with policies of neutrality. Countries with significant military capabilities are envisioned to form a Permanent Structured Cooperation in Defence.Legal consolidationPrior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Union comprised a system of three legal pillars, of which only the European Communities pillar had its own legal personality. The Treaty of Lisbon abolished this pillar system, and as a consolidated entity, the European Union succeeded the legal personality of the European Communities. Therefore, the EU is now able to sign international treaties in its own name. The European Union gained for example membership of the World Trade Organization immediately after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, since the European Communities was already a member of that organisation.Enlargement and secessionA proposal to enshrine the Copenhagen Criteria for further enlargement in the treaty was not fully accepted as there were fears it will lead to Court of Justice judges having the last word on who could join the EU, rather than political leaders.The treaty introduces an exit clause for members wanting to withdraw from the Union. This formalises the procedure by stating that a member state must inform the European Council before it can terminate its membership, and a withdrawal agreement would then be negotiated between the Union and that State, with the Treaties ceasing to be applicable to that State from the date of the agreement or, failing that, within two years of the notification unless the State and the Council both agree to extend this period. There have been several instances where a territory has ceased to be part of the Community, e.g. Greenland in 1985, though no member state had ever left at the time the Lisbon Treaty was ratified. Before the Lisbon Treaty came into force, the question of whether a member state had a legal right to leave the union was unclear. On 30 March 2017, the United Kingdom gave notice of Britain's intention to leave the European Union.After negotiating a Brexit withdrawal agreement, UK left the Union on 31 January 2020.A new provision in the Treaty of Lisbon is that the status of French, Dutch and Danish overseas territories can be changed more easily, by no longer requiring a full treaty revision. Instead, the European Council may, on the initiative of the member state concerned, change the status of an overseas country or territory (OCT) to an outermost region (OMR) or vice versa.This provision was included on a proposal by the Netherlands, which was investigating the future of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba in the European Union as part of an institutional reform process that was taking place in the Netherlands Antilles.Revision proceduresThe Lisbon Treaty creates two different ways for further amendments of the European Union treaties: an ordinary revision procedure which is broadly similar to the present process in that it involves convening an intergovernmental conference, and a simplified revision procedure whereby Part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which deals with Union policies and internal actions, could be amended by a unanimous decision of the European Council subject to ratification by all member states in the usual manner.The Treaty also provides for the Passerelle Clause which allows the European Council to unanimously decide to move from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting, and move from a special legislative procedure to the ordinary legislative procedure.Ordinary revision procedureProposals to amend the treaties are submitted by a Member State, the European Parliament or the European Commission to the Council of Ministers who, in turn, submit them to the European Council and notify member states. There are no limits on what kind of amendments can be proposed.The European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, votes to consider the proposals on the basis of a simple majority, and then either:The President of the European Council convenes a convention containing representatives of national parliaments, governments, the European Parliament and the European Commission, to further consider the proposals. In due course, the convention submits its final recommendation to the European Council.Or the European Council decides, with the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a convention, and set the terms of reference for the inter-governmental conference itself.The President of the European Council convenes an inter-governmental conference consisting of representatives of each member-state's government. The conference drafts and finalises a treaty based on the convention's recommendation or on the European Council's terms of reference.EU leaders sign the treaty.All member states must then ratify the treaty "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements", if it is to come into force.Simplified revision procedureProposals to amend Part three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union are submitted by a Member State, the European Parliament or the European Commission to the Council of Ministers who, in turn, submit them to the European Council and notify member states. Proposed amendments cannot increase the competences of the Union.The European Council, after consulting the European Parliament and the Commission, votes to adopt a decision amending Part three on the basis of the proposals by unanimity.All member states must approve the decision "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements", if it is to come into force.The Passerelle ClauseThe treaty also allows for the changing of voting procedures without amending the EU treaties. Under this clause the European Council can, after receiving the consent of the European Parliament, vote unanimously to:allow the Council of Ministers to act on the basis of qualified majority in areas where they previously had to act on the basis of unanimity. (This is not available for decisions with defence or military implications.)allow for legislation to be adopted on the basis of the ordinary legislative procedure where it previously was to be adopted on the basis of a special legislative procedure.A decision of the European Council to use either of these provisions can only come into effect if, six months after all national parliaments had been given notice of the decision, none object to it.United Kingdom opt-out for justice and home affairsUnder the former third pillar, the Council of Ministers could adopt measures relating to justice and home affairs. These laws did not come within the body of European Community law, and had only the optional jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The Commission could not bring enforcement action against any member state for failing to implement or for failing to correctly implement third pillar measures.The UK and Ireland had a flexible opt-out from justice and home affairs measures and could choose to participate in them on a case-by-case basis.Under the Treaty of Lisbon, the limitations on the powers of the Court of Justice and the Commission would be lifted after a transitional period of five years which expired on 30 November 2014.In order to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and to enforcement actions by the Commission, the UK negotiated an opt-out which allowed them the option of a block withdrawal from all third pillar measures they had previously chosen to participate in.In October 2012 the UK government announced that it intended to exercise this opt-out and then selectively opt back into certain measures.The use of this opt-out by the UK did not affect the UK's flexible opt-out from justice and home affairs measures, or Ireland's identical opt-out.