Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:
___
Dec. 6
The Washington Post on the Senate and a shrinking window to protect press freedom
In 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland established new, but long-needed, press protections barring federal prosecutors from pursuing journalists’ communication records with confidential sources except in extreme circumstances. But these protections are only as good as the administration controlling the Justice Department.
President-elect Donald Trump, who has espoused hostility toward journalists and seeks to elevate people who share this feeling to powerful positions in government, is weeks away from taking over federal law enforcement agencies. In other words, Congress has little time left to codify Mr. Garland’s policy into law. The Senate can — and should — do that in the lame-duck session.
In January, the House of Representatives passed such a bill without opposition. The legislation — the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, or Press Act — would prevent the federal government from using legal tools such as subpoenas and search warrants to go after reporters’ information, except in cases where doing so would prevent violence or terrorism. The measure would also bar prosecutors from demanding that third parties, such as phone companies or internet providers, hand over journalists’ data.
That legislation has since languished in the Senate, but a spokesperson for Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) said the majority leader supports the bill and intends to pass it next week. Senators could attach it to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, which lawmakers are negotiating now. Two conservative Republicans — Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Mike Lee (Utah) — already support the bill, and there are probably a few others who would like to see it pass, given the broad bipartisan support it has enjoyed in previous years.
The trouble, however, is Mr. Trump. Last month, he posted an all-caps demand on Truth Social that Republicans “KILL” the bill. Although his decision to weigh in on the legislation was unexpected, his opposition is unsurprising, given his first administration’s efforts to root out government leakers by obtaining the phone and email records of reporters at multiple outlets, including The Post. His Justice Department even obtained a gag order preventing executives at the New York Times from informing editors at the paper that the government was seeking the email logs of four reporters to uncover their sources.
The president-elect’s social media missive makes it less likely that Republican senators who support the measure will back it now, but they should keep in mind that this is not a partisan issue. Administrations from both parties have pursued journalists’ sources in recent years, including the Obama Justice Department, which seized phone records of the Associated Press in 2013 and conducted electronic surveillance of Fox News’s James Rosen in an aggressive attempt to expose leakers.
Such overreach disserves the public, regardless of whether it happens under a Democratic or Republican president. Confidential sources have been critical to exposing government abuses, such as the CIA’s waterboarding of al-Qaeda prisoners. One Pulitzer Prize-winning report from Mississippi Today’s Anna Wolfe relied on confidential sources to uncover the misuse of welfare funds in the state; now she and her editor face a court order to give up their sources or risk jail time. If journalists cannot protect their sources’ identities, whistleblowers might be unwilling to reveal information the public deserves to know.
Critics of the bill, such as Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton (R), contend that it would encourage more government leaks, potentially damaging national security. But over the past few years, Mr. Garland’srules do not appear to have increased controversial leaks or damaged national security.
Meanwhile, the need to protect journalists is as clear as ever. Kash Patel, whom Mr. Trump has chosen to replace Christopher A. Wray as FBI director, has said he would “come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections.” He added, “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”
State and federal government accountability systems are more developed than they used to be, but they still often fall short. When they do, responsible media remain essential outlets for whistleblowers and other public-spirited individuals seeking to expose official wrongdoing. That will be true under Mr. Trump, but also under the next Democratic president. Mr. Schumer should stay firm in his stated intention to advance the Press Act before this Congress’s session ends — and the Republicans who understand its merits should support it. ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/12/06/press-act-senate-schumer-journalism-garland/
___
Dec. 6
The New York Post on food insecurity in the US
It is an astonishingly large number: 5.3 billion. That’s how many meals were distributed by the nation’s largest domestic hunger relief organization, Feeding America, in 2023 alone. In a country of more than 330 million people, it is evidence of how widespread and persistent food insecurity remains in the United States.
Food insecurity is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the lack of access to enough food for an active and healthy life. More than 13 percent of Americans — 47 million people — experienced food insecurity in 2023; the rates are even higher in Black and Latino communities. In some of the poorest regions of America, mostly rural areas in the South, food insecurity among children is as high as 48 percent. But it is present in every county in the country.
While lawmakers in local, state and federal government struggle to find long-term solutions, Feeding America, a network of roughly 200 food banks and 60,000 food pantries and meal programs, is filling the void every day for tens of millions of Americans. It is one of the organizations supported by The New York Times Communities Fund.
Feeding America needs help to continue this essential frontline work. The average cost of a single meal may be only $3.99, but when that is multiplied by the millions of meals required, it adds up to $33 billion that families need and don’t have for groceries. After a temporary boost during the Covid pandemic, food donations and government funding have fallen off sharply, even as the demand remains steady.
Some of that demand is a lingering effect of the inflation that peaked in 2022, but some food costs are still stubbornly high.
Another problem is that nearly half of Americans who are food insecure are unlikely to qualify for federal programs like SNAP because many have incomes that are too high to be eligible. Most families of four that receive SNAP benefits have incomes below $40,560. Feeding America estimates that that leaves around 20 million people in a no man’s land, where they can neither afford sufficient food nor qualify for help to pay for it.
Racial disparities are also striking. Nationwide, roughly one-quarter of Black Americans experience food insecurity, as compared with 10 percent of white non-Hispanic Americans, according to a report by Feeding America. In some parts of the rural American South, roughly two-thirds of Black people are experiencing food insecurity.
Solving this crisis will require a host of policy responses, including expanding SNAP eligibility and the child and earned-income tax credits, improving access to school lunch programs and building more affordable housing, which would ease some of the pressure on family budgets. In the meantime, you can help by donating to Feeding America and similar organizations. No one should go hungry in the richest nation on Earth.
ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/opinion/communities-fund-feeding-america.html
___
Dec. 8
The Wall Street Journal on Trump and a path to citizenship for Dreamers
Donald Trump sat for an interview with NBC News that was released on Sunday, and most of it was focused on the usual media preoccupations of whether Mr. Trump will arrest his opponents or deport millions of illegal migrants. Readers can judge his comments.
As we read the transcript, however, the most interesting note was what the President-elect said about the so-called dreamers, who were brought here illegally as children but are now adults and still in legal limbo. Here’s the exchange:
NBC’s Kristen Welker: “What about dreamers, sir? . . . You said once back in 2017 they, quote, ‘Shouldn’t be very worried about being deported.’ Should they be worried now?”
Mr. Trump: “The dreamers are going to come later (after criminal aliens are deported), and we have to do something about the dreamers because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age. And many of these are middle-aged people now. They don’t even speak the language of their country. And yes, we’re going to do something about the dreamers.”
Ms. Welker: “What does that mean? What are you going to do?”
Mr. Trump: “I will work with the Democrats on a plan. And if we can come up with a plan, but the Democrats have made it very, very difficult to do anything. Republicans are very open to the dreamers.”
That’s great to hear. If Mr. Trump is willing to deal on the dreamers, Democrats should shift from their first-term opposition to any immigration deal. The country will be better for it.
___
Dec. 8
The Guardian on the fall of Assad
Bashar al-Assad’s downfall came not with a bang but a whimper. The Syrian dictator reportedly fled his home in the wake of a blitzkrieg advance by a coalition of anti-government rebels. By Sunday morning he was gone – leaving armed groups as the country’s dominant political players. A spirit of anti-Assad sentiment surged across Syria, manifesting itself through displays of both celebration and defiance. The question now is whether this unleashed energy – brutally suppressed by fear and authoritarian control – will become a unifying force in building a new nation or, rather, a precursor to deeper divisions.
The fall of the House of Assad, which has ruled Syria for more than half a century, should be a warning to dictatorial regimes. Mr Assad’s departure underscores a broader truth: societies cannot indefinitely tolerate systemic abuses, such as state-sponsored propaganda, corruption and violence. The fish rots from the head down. Mr Assad’s Syrian state collapsed from within, having spent more than a decade pursuing a reign of terror that only fuelled the very unrest it sought to suppress. The regime’s collapse raises pressing questions about Syria’s future. With weak institutions and a frail civil society, the risk of disintegration looms large.
Syria’s prospects depend on both internal and external forces, and notably on Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a former al-Qaida offshoot turned moderate Islamist faction. Credited with Mr Assad’s overthrow, Mr Jolani drove the strategic shift from jihadism to national liberation. In 2021, he declared that he had no intention of waging war against the west, and for the past five years he has overseen a semi-technocratic government in Idlib province for 3 million people under Turkish protection. HTS has avoided extreme sharia interpretations, but remains designated a terrorist group. Critics say it is corrupt and intolerant of dissent. However, Mr Jolani’s outreach to tribes, minorities and former foes has bolstered his national legitimacy, while even Moscow – once Mr Assad’s protector – may engage to secure its military bases.
Mr Jolani relies on allies, including the Turkish-backed militia groups collectively called the Syrian National Army, which has a thuggish reputation. Re-elected on a pledge to return 3 million refugees, Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, seeks stability in Syria, but fears that US-backed Kurdish regions in Syria may stir autonomy demands at home. Israel sees an Islamist-led Damascus as a threat, but finds comfort in Hezbollah’s inability to defend the Assad regime, as it prioritises the defence of its Lebanese bases. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with their financial resources, could aid Syria’s reconstruction, but their past support for Mr Assad complicates their role. Encouragingly, Arab leaders said they would seek to avoid reigniting a 13-year-old civil war after talks in Qatar.
Syria will never be the same. Ordinary Syrians have endured unimaginable horrors under the Assad regime. But they have written this chapter of history. Their newfound freedom is shadowed by the daunting task of rebuilding lives and infrastructure. A shared hope to avoid violent vendettas must guide efforts toward a just settlement. The Syrian people were often forsaken. In this moment of fragile hope, the world must not fail them again. A concerted international effort toward political stability, reconciliation and reconstruction is essential to ensure their sacrifices lead to a lasting peace.
___
Dec. 10
The Boston Globe on holding Trump to presidential transition rules
Longstanding laws and norms govern how one presidential administration is supposed to hand off power to the next. They’re designed to ensure a smooth transfer while at the same time imposing some ethical guardrails during the interim period as incoming presidents make key personnel decisions.
President-elect Donald Trump is flouting some of those rules as he prepares to take office Jan. 20 — and by all accounts will continue flouting them, unless members of his own party start insisting.
Breaking with his predecessors, Trump is funding his transition with unlimited donations from undisclosed sources — dark money that could even include foreign donations. He’s avoided a customary arrangement that binds transition officials to ethics rules. And he tried to shield his nominees from undergoing the customary FBI background checks meant to ferret out misconduct or any red flags in their background.
Nothing about that serves the public interest.
Start with the money. To fund salaries, office space, and other expenses during their transition and inauguration, president-elects have relied on a combination of public support and disclosed private donations.
Trump’s transition has largely been funded by dark money interests, and unlike past presidents he hasn’t imposed any contribution limits or transparency requirements. The public doesn’t know who is funding the transition, or how much they’re giving.
But we can certainly guess: Trump’s deep-pocketed private-sector allies like Elon Musk, wannabe oligarchs for whom the lack of any limits or transparency amounts to an unprecedented opportunity to influence the incoming administration.
In other respects, Trump is ignoring the Presidential Transitions Act of 1963, a federal law that sets out the basic guidelines for one president to hand over power to the next. Among other things, it sets various deadlines, which presidents and candidates have always abided by in the past.
Last month the Trump transition team signed one of several required agreements with the Biden administration, blowing through the Oct. 1 legal deadline by nearly two months. That memorandum of understanding allows his transition to send landing teams of personnel to each federal agency to begin receiving briefings and other information to ease the Jan. 20, 2025 power transfer. He also begrudgingly signed an agreement allowing the normal FBI background checks into his nominees and appointees, after Senate Republicans insisted.
But Trump has refused to enter into other legally mandated agreements, including one that would release federal funding for office space, technology, and other transition needs. That’s because that pact includes strict ethics rules barring conflicts of interests by Trump and his team once sworn into office.
Instead, the Trump transition intends to implement his own ethics plan, something the law does not contemplate or allow.
Crucially, the agreements Trump refuses to sign would also provide for up to $7.2 million in federal funding for the transition in exchange for limits on outside donor contributions and disclosure requirements. By ignoring this rule, Trump can continue to raise unlimited funds to set up his administration while keeping the sources of that money under wraps.
The Biden administration and lawmakers must use every lever at their disposal to hold Trump and his incoming administration to the spirit and letter of the laws aimed at protecting the American people and national interests.
That begins with transparency from the General Services Administration, which oversees the transition, about whether Trump’s failure to follow the rule is affecting the ability of the agency to facilitate the transfer of power — a task important for ensuring the continual protection of Americans’ public health, safety, and security.
Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter last month to General Services Administrator Robin Carnahan asking how Trump’s refusal to follow the law has affected the transition.
Members of the Senate should also refuse Trump’s call to circumvent the confirmation requirements for members of his administration.
Trump has called for using recess appointments to put members of his cabinet who would otherwise need Senate confirmation in place without this vetting. Such appointments are meant to be used in emergency situations when the Senate is unable to convene to fill a cabinet-level vacancy – not to get around the Senate’s constitutional duty to advise and consent to these appointments.
Some Republicans, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, have raised alarms at Trump’s approach.
“It is so important that we not shortchange the confirmation process for Cabinet appointments in particular,” Collins said in an interview with the Portland Press Herald. “I do not agree with the president that we should forgo background checks and have recess appointments where we would not have hearings on these very important appointments.”
But lawmakers should do more than disagree with Trump’s approach — they must refuse to play along.
ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/12/10/opinion/trump-transition-rules-laws-transparency/