Politics

By Miriam Raftery

Photo: Doris Bittar, a Lebanese-Palestinian woman with a Jewish husband, wants a resolution that protects everyone equally without infringing on free speech rights.

March 12, 2025 (El Cajon) – El Cajon’s City Council once again waded into contentious waters at yesterday’s meeting, weighing a resolution to condemn antisemitism, with the Council majority refusing to remove a definition of antisemitism that has drawn controversy.

Mayor Bill Wells and Councilman Gary Kendrick introduced a resolution to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as an education resource for police and other city departments.  The agenda report on the item notes a rise in antisemitism since the Oct. 7,2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Even before then, a 2022 FBI report found that though Jewish people are only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they were the victims of 60 percent of religious-based hate crimes.

Mayor Wells recalled learning about the Holocaust as a child and believing such “cruelty and blind bigotry” would not happen again. But recently, antisemitism has become “rampant” on college campuses, in cities, and in countries around the world, according to the mayor.  “I’m asking the City Council today to help us write a resolution stating that antisemitism is wrong and should be condemned,” he said.

Councilman Gary Kendrick, coauthor of the resolution, told of his mother’s trauma from living in Czechoslovakia in 1939 and seeing close friends who were Jewish, as well as her employer, hauled away by Nazis.  They were never seen again.  “We need to protect Jewish refugees from discrimination,” said Kendrick, adding that he wants to add an amendment to the resolution to “formally condemn all racism against any immigrant, refugee or asylum seeker...This is supposed to be a city of love, not hate.”

Thirteen people spoke on the resolution, most voicing opposition.

Vicky Estrella noted that some international organizations have concluded that some of Israel’s retaliatory actions in Gaza constitute “genocide” such as bombings of schools and hospitals. “They have destroyed the whole country...We should be free to speak out against this kind of oppression, as we did against the holocaust,” she said, adding, “This is a ploy to silence criticism against what Israel is doing.”

Doris Bittar, a Lebanese-Palestinian woman married to a Jewish man, wants protection for people on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict.  “Discrimination is up by 300 percent in Arab and Palestinian communities,” she told the Council.  She also voiced concern about a Columbia University student whose green card was revoked by the Trump administration because he helped organize pro-Palestinian protests which the administration equates to supporting Hamas, a designated terror group. His lawyer denies any ties to Hamas. “He’s in a Louisiana prison,” Bittar noted. “What allowed that to happen?  This definition (of the IHRA).”  She wants any resolution to be “meaningful to all groups” and to be sure that it does not “squash our First Amendment Rights.”

Multiple speakers said they are members of Jewish Voices for Peace. They opposed the resolution, suggesting it conflates anti-Zionism, or opposition to the Israeli state, with anti-Semitism; meaning discrimination, violence or dehumanizing action toward Jews.

Summer Ismail with the Council of Islamic Relations said,  “America is all about free speech,” but said in some U.S. states such as Arkansas, it’s now illegal to boycott Israel.  She told the mayor, “I would like to work with you to come up with a better definition of anti-Semitism” and also “address anti-Muslim hatred.”

Liat, a who spoke in favor of the resolution but did not give her last name, however, maintained that the resolution “does not limit free speech.” She said that Jewish Voices for Peace does not represent most American Jews, citing a study that found 95 percent of American Jews consider Isarel an essential part of their Jewish identity.  She noted that the IHRA definition has been “adopted by 95 percent of all Jewish organizations, 37 countries, 33 U.S. states and even the global imams’ council.”

During Council discussion, Councilmember Michelle Metschel said adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism would bring in “a political agenda.”  She asked who the bill’s sponsor, the Antisemitism Task Force of San Diego, is, since an Internet search found no reference to any so-named organization.  Metschel said she opposes antisemitism, but felt this resolution would “stir up chaos.” She said she reached out to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and proposed tabling the resolution until after the ADL issues a report due the third week in April.

She also objected to having Council vote on adopting the IHRA’s definition without being provided the 11 points in that definition. In addition, she called for Councilmembers to “sit down with the community” to discuss the issue with members of the Jewish community, as well as with church groups and Muslim groups to “have a community that is united.”

Kendrick said,  “I’m okay with tabling it....I want to be sure that there’s no limitation on free speech,” adding, “I heard some pretty good testimony today, and I would like to talk with people from all sides.”

But Mayor Wells objected. “I’d be opposed to that.” He insisted that Israel is not an apartheid state, as one speaker claimed, stating that while there are 2.1 million Arabs in Israel, Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon have almost none.  He called Jewish Voices for Peace a “hard-core Marxist group that is a danger to America” and likened the liberal Jewish group to the Ku Klux Klan. Wells disputed Metschel’s contention that El Cajon has not had any antisemitic actions in recent years, noting that a Jewish doctor was shot and killed last year.  However, authorities have not found the shooting by a disgruntled patient to be a hate crime.

Councilman Phil Ortiz said of the IHRA definition, “I don’t see anything in here that is going to stifle any kind of free speech.” He said if the resolution passes and a city employee were to post criticism regarding deaths of children in Gaza on social media, “nobody is getting fired” in the city for such actions.

Councilman Steve Goble opined, “I think you can be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic.”  He said he would support any group being harassed or murdered, and indicated he would support the measure despite concerns it could “open Pandora’s box.”

Metschel said she would consider supporting the resolution if the IHRA definition was removed, which the mayor would not support.

The Council voted 4-1, with Metschel voting no, to direct the city manager to draft a revised version of the resolution, which is expected to be heard in two weeks.

By Miriam Raftery

March 10, 2025 (San Diego) -- As President Donald Trump rolls out hefty tariffs on imported goods from America’s biggest trading partners—Mexico, Canada, and China,  American businesses and consumers are bearing the brunt, with higher prices on everything from steel and lumber to food and consumer products.

The action has drawn opposition even from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, normally a staunch Republican ally. In a press release, the Chamber warns, “Tariffs on Canada and Mexico will have a real, devastating impact on thousands of small businesses across the nation — and on all Americans in the form of higher prices.”

While the U.S. Chamber shares concerns about border security and the scourge of fentanyl, unfair trading practices, tariffs on Canada and Mexico won't solve those problems and instead would lead to higher prices for Americans, the business organization states.

Chamber President and CEO Suzanne Clark, in her annual State of American Business, said pointedly. “"The bottom line is this: tariffs are a tax paid by Americans and their broad and indiscriminate use would stifle growth at the worst possible time.”  She stressed that to boost economic growth, America must participate in the global economy. That includes seizing opportunities to increase trade. 

Trump has justified the tariffs as intended to encourage production of goods made in America and ultimately boost the economy.

He signed an executive order on February 1^st to impose 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, and 10% on Chinese imports. He did so by declaring a national emergency over undocumented immigration and drug trafficking. Trump later paused the Mexican and Canadian tariffs by 30 days and extended an exemption for the auto industry.

China meanwhile countered by announcing hefty new duty charges on numerous American goods ranging from cars and agricultural machinery to crude oil, coal and liquified natural gas.

Next up in mid-February, Trump announced a whopping 25% tariff on steel and aluminum imports,  metals that are used in many consumer products from vehicles to cookware. He also called for reciprocal tariffs on any goods that other countries tax,  a move that economists warn could create chaos for the global business community.

He’s also pledged to soon add tariffs on products from other countries, including a 25% tariff on some goods from our allies in Europe as well as tariffs on imports from India.

On March 4^th,  Trump doubled the tariff on Chinese imports to 20%.

After Trump doubled the Chinese tariffs, China imposed tariffs of up to 15% on numerous American farm exports and levied export controls on some two dozen American companies, Associated Press reports.

Canada slapped tariffs on over $100 billion worth of American goods over just 21 days. One  Canadian province removed all U.S.-made alcoholic beverages from store shelves, replacing them with Canadian liquor.  Canadian travelers have begun cancelling visits to the U.S., harming the American tourism industry.

Mexico’s President Claudia Sheibaum has said her country will also impose retaliatory tariffs but has not yet provided details. 

In early March, Trump postponed the 25% tariffs on some Mexican and Canadian imports for a month, crediting Mexico’s president with working to reduce drug smuggling and illegal border crossings, though the U.S. has also ramped up border security under the Trump administration.

The impacts have sent the stock market tumbling, fueling fears of a recession. Trump has said he doesn’t know if a recession can be avoided.

The effects of the Trump tariffs are also being felt locally.

Brent Schertzer, managing director of apartment developer Holland Partner Group, told the San Diego Union Tribune that tariffs on steel and other building materials could add millions of dollars to large construction projects. He said that material suppliers will have no choice but to charge more for steel, or risk going out of business.

Alan Gin, a professor of economics at the University of San Diego, told KUSI Fox 5 that some of the biggest cost hikes for Americans will include vehicles, oil and gas, electronics, and groceries — further fueling the inflation that have already caused hardships for many U.S. households.

East County News Service

March 10, 2025 (San Diego) – The Greater San Diego Association of Realtors (SDAR), San Diego County’s largest trade association for San Diego-area real estate professionals, recently honored California Senator Pro Tem Emeritus Toni Atkins with the “Golden State Private Property Champion Award” for her dedication and significant contributions to protect California’s private property rights for homeowners and renters.

An SDAR resolution presented to Atkins said that Atkins has demonstrated unwavering dedication to the State of California through her extensive public service, notably in the California State Assembly and State Senate.

It said, “Atkins has been a steadfast advocate for housing accessibility and property rights, authoring and championing legislation to expand homeownership opportunities and protect private property.” SDAR noted that Atkins authored Senate Bill 9, the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, which simplifies the process for homeowners to create duplexes or subdivide properties, which increased housing supply and affordability.

The resolution also said, “Senator Atkins played a pivotal role in the creation of the California Dream for All program, a shared appreciation loan initiative that has enabled thousands of families across California to achieve homeownership. Senator Atkins has consistently supported legislation aimed at protecting consumer rights and enhancing access to affordable housing, thereby strengthening the economic stability and well-being of California residents. Her leadership has been instrumental in addressing California’s housing crisis, promoting fair housing initiatives, and ensuring the protection of consumer and commercial private property rights.”

Atkins was honored at SDAR’s “New Laws and Industry Outlook” conference that featured up-to-date information on new laws and regulations affecting the industry and what to expect just over-the-horizon for real estate. More than 350 people attended the event.

Atkins, a Democrat, is running for governor in 2026 after current Gov. Gavin Newsom hits a term limit. She made history as only the third person in 150 years and the first woman to hold both of the state Legislature’s top jobs, including speaker of the Assembly (2014) and president pro tempore of the Senate (2018-2023). Due to term limits, she left her Senate seat after November 2024. She was the first woman and first openly gay person to lead California’s upper legislative chamber.

Atkins came to California in 1985 to work at a women’s health clinic before getting elected to the San Diego City Council in 2000. In 2005, after former Mayor Dick Murphy’s resignation, her council colleagues elected her deputy mayor to lead the city until voters chose Jerry Sanders as Murphy’s replacement.

By Suzanne Potter, California News Service

March 9, 2025 (Los Angeles) -- The American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association are suing the Trump administration over a threat of funding cuts and investigations of schools that integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion into their policies or lessons.
The letter schools received purports to reinforce anti-discrimination laws - but casts efforts to hire or help disadvantaged people of color as a form of discrimination.
Roderick Castro, assistant superintendent of educational services at Santa Rosa City Schools, noted that the letter criticizes using race as a factor in hiring and training.
"A letter like this is basically giving them the directive to abandon those," said Castro. "That cuts us off at the knees. We're looking for educators to be more representative of the students that are in the classrooms. It's a blow, more of a gut punch, to us."
The letter is critical of courses that involve certain racial groups. Castro said ethnic studies classes rightly lift up students' cultural heritage.
And he said he thinks teachers and students should be free to examine the facts about topics like slavery or civil rights.
Schools were given until last Friday to comply with the Trump administration's anti-DEI directive, and many colleges are pulling back, even reevaluating campus groups like the Black Student Union.
Chuck Flores, PhD, is an associate professor of educational administration at California State University-Los Angeles and UCLA - and teaches social justice and educational leadership at Cal State LA.
"We have to provide an open forum for all people of all races to discuss what it is that we need to achieve as a country," said Flores. "Eliminating DEI doesn't really go in that direction. I just feel that we're going down a dark hole we're not going to be able to pull out of, if people don't wake up and start taking a stand for what's right."
The letter from the Department of Education also says diversity and social justice are not valid reasons to take race or a proxy for race into account for admissions and financial aid.

Council fields questions and concerns regarding County’s project planned on Caltrans property

Story and photos by Karen Pearlman 

March 6, 2025 (Lemon Grove)  – The controversy and concerns surrounding a planned interim housing project at Troy Street and Sweetwater Road continues to drive a wedge between residents and members of the Lemon Grove City Council -- and looks to be headed for discussion in a future closed session. 

San Diego County-spearheaded the temporary housing project, an $11.1 million plan to build up to 70 tiny homes for people experiencing homelessness on Caltrans-owned property in Lemon Grove. The project was the subject of a special  Lemon Grove City Council meeting held March 4 at the Roberto Alvarez Auditorium. 

The cabins are expected to start construction this year and be finished sometime in 2026. 

The meeting included a presentation by four county staff members and brought out nearly 200 residents plus other interested individuals packing the auditorium. Some said they have been asking for the City Council to listen to their concerns and act on their behalf since last July. 

First-term Lemon Grove Mayor Alysson Snow and veteran City Councilmember Jennifer Mendoza were candid about the need for housing in the city.  

Mayor Snow (photo, right, with Councilmember Mendoza) said, “I understand that there is a population of people here in Lemon Grove who don’t want these cabins. There’s also a population of people who absolutely, desperately need these cabins... a population who really need help, and this is a big help to that.” 

Mendoza said she has long been part of the Interfaith Shelter Network that advocates for those individuals who are homeless, and said there is a dire need for Lemon Grove to step up for those living on the street or in their vehicles. 

Newly elected Lemon Grove councilmembers Jessyka Heredia and Steve Faiai as well as newly appointed councilmember Yadira Altamirano -- who previously served on the council in 2019-20 -- peppered the county staff with questions and concerns about who would be living in the homes, how they would be chosen and why their presence could impede the safety of residents. 

All three said they understand the need to house those who are living on the street, but expressed interest in making unhoused Lemon Grove residents the top priority when considering who should live in the cabins—not homeless people from other areas.

Photo, left:  tiny homes in El Cajon, courtesy of Meridian Baptist Church in El Cajon

A majority of the approximately three dozen speakers shared concerns, including the close proximity of the planned cabins to a school, potentially reduced property values, a liquor store across the street and the exorbitant cost, which will also include annual charges of $3 million for ongoing operations needs. 

A contingent of those opposed to the plan to house a mixture of unsheltered veterans, senior citizens, transitional aged youths and adults held little back at the nearly four-hour meeting. 

Former Lemon Grove City Council member Liana LeBaron called out Snow, who defeated LeBaron in the race for mayor last year, and called the project “a money grab.” 

“County officials’ intentions are to put people who are suffering from drug and alcohol addiction and severe mental health issues right next to a preschool,” LeBaron said. 

LeBaron encouraged the Council to meet in closed session to take legal action against the county about the cabins “and plan a strong legal fight against the project,” and told them to “stand up for us.” 

Larry Bonamo, who said he is a longtime resident of the city and who owns a Spring Valley business directly across the street from the site, said while “we all want to help the homeless,” those individuals experiencing homelessness who have mental illness and drug problems “don’t want to live by rules and regulations” and should not be in the area. 

He said Spring Valley, which “turned down the project”, will be impacted the most. 

Initially, the project was supposed to bring 150 sleeping cabins to Spring Valley. Objections from Spring Valley residents to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors about the location of the cabins near residences and protected sites led to the county’s decision to move the project to Lemon Grove, but with less than half the number of cabins originally planned.

Last July, Supervisors voted 4-0 to move forward on the project, with then-chair Nora Vargas absent, a vote that came two days before a previously planned community forum in Lemon Grove about the project. 

Bonamo said the project “doesn’t do anything for the homeless in Spring Valley or Lemon Grove.” 

“We don’t need another 70 to 140 people,” he added. “We already have enough problems here at this location. We the business people and the citizens have to deal with shopping carts, trash, fights, property they’re using as a toilet, bothering our customers, breaking into homes, breaking into cars.” 

While county staff told those at the meeting that coordinated referrals and intakes into the program would be led by the county’s Office of Homeless Solutions and would exclude those with certain criminal backgrounds such as registered sex offenders, arsonists or active felony warrants, many in attendance said they didn’t believe that. 

Amy Reichert, who lost a 2023 bid for county supervisor in District 4 (which encompasses Lemon Grove) to Monica Montgomery Steppe, said that residents of the city had been lied to when Snow told residents that the project would house working families and seniors.  

“Cabins only accommodate two people,” Reichert said. “These... are not habitable for a family of four.” 

Four people who have been homeless or currently are experiencing homelessness spoke in favor of the cabins, including Rachel Hayes (photo, left), who said she has been “homeless for over 10 years, including in Lemon Grove and probably in every city in San Diego... and in almost every shelter in San Diego.” 

Hayes said she found housing through Alpha Project about 1½ years ago in permanent, supportive housing. 

She credited the nonprofit’s wraparound services as being crucial to her ability to feel safe, then shared the importance of being able to have a home with a door that shuts. 

"Not everybody out there are drug addicts or mentally ill,” Hayes said. “I support these cabins and you (elected officials) are brave to go ahead and do this. If I were on the streets, that’s where I would want to be, in one of your cabins. Because you have a door that you can close and with that door comes peace, serenity and dignity.” 

A few city councilmembers and former elected officials from other jurisdictions also attended, with two speaking out about the need for compassionate care for those who are unhoused.  

El Cajon City Councilman Steve Goble (photo, right) shared that he is proud of the success of his city’s tiny homes project, on the grounds of Meridian Baptist Church on Third Street since 2022. 

“Forty-two women have gone through those cabins, and 78 percent have gone on to permanent housing,” said Goble, who helped hammer nails to build those cabins. 

Snow acknowledged that Lemon Grove is without shelter and without resources, and that the City needs to step up. 

“We send our people who are unhoused out to (other) communities to get services,” she said. 

Since 2022, the County has been exploring emergency housing options as part of the Compassionate Emergency Solutions and Pathways to Housing Implementation Plan.  

The plan outlines community desire for non-congregate shelters such as sleeping cabins, safe parking and RV parking options. 

The Troy Street site can host up to 70 sleeping cabins, restrooms, laundry, and onsite services, county staff said at the meeting.  

Onsite services would include case management, housing navigation to permanent housing options, access to behavioral health services for those who have the needs, access to public benefits, employment or support with disability benefits, credit repair and other supportive services. 

By Chris Jennewein, Times of San Diego, a member of the San Diego Online News Association

Photo:  President Donald Trump addresses Congress.  Screenshot from C-SPAN

March 5, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) - President Donald Trump told Congress Tuesday that “the American dream is surging bigger and better than ever before” and promised that new tariffs on Mexico — despite worrying San Diego businesses — will help achieve that goal.

• Read: Full text of President Trump’s address to Congress

Local Assemblyman working to minimize surveillance pricing, while new FTC chairman blocks public comments

By G. A. McNeeley 

March 5, 2025 (San Diego) -- Most people might not know that companies with an online presence are using personal information about customer’s buying habits to charge them a higher price for products, if they think you’re likely to pay it. This is a practice known as “surveillance pricing.” 

This practice has spread in recent years, according to consumer and privacy watchdogs, and it’s become increasingly difficult to escape, no matter how often we clear our cookies or tighten our privacy settings. 

But with the new Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman blocking consumer comments and not taking action at a national level, state legislators are stepping up to the plate. 

San Diego Assemblyman Introduces Bill To Prohibit Surveillance Pricing 

Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-78) from San Diego told KPBS, “What we have found is a growing body of evidence where companies are being encouraged to use surveillance pricing, using your own personal data from your cell phone, from the IP address attached to your home computer, to modulate the pricing on goods and services that you pay.” 

“That runs completely afoul to what we believe should be a direct, very basic consumer interest that you should pay the same price for the same product, regardless of who you are,” Ward adds. 

Ward has introduced AB-446 (2025-2026 Legislative Session), to prohibit surveillance pricing in California. 

“At a time when prices for basic necessities are rising across the board, it is more critical than ever to ensure that people are not being unfairly charged higher prices due to their actual or perceived characteristics,” said Ward, in a press release. “The right to fair pricing should not be a privilege for the few but a fundamental protection for all. One product, one price.” 

Ward pointed out that price discrimination can prey on people in poorer neighborhoods. 

“If they are farther away from some stores and it’s a lot harder to get certain products, companies know this and they are increasing the prices for some products at those very stores because you don’t have as many options,” Ward told KPBS. 

Ward’s staff said his assembly bill, AB-446, will soon be heard by the California Assembly’s privacy committee. 

Other California Lawmakers Are In Agreement 

In many cases, surveillance pricing is legal, but some California lawmakers want to change that. 

“You walk into a grocery store, you’re surveilled,” Kristin Heidelbach told KQED. Heidelbach is the Legislative Director for United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Council, which is backing AB-446, which “would prohibit a person from setting a price offered to a consumer-based, in whole or in part, upon personally identifiable information, as defined, gathered through an electronic surveillance technology, as defined, including electronic shelving labels.” 

“They have all the tools they need to track you from the time you walk inside the grocery store,” Heidelbach added. “Then retailers take those data points, and they will adjust the price… while you’re standing in a store. They can track on your phone how many times you’ve looked up something. You go to pick up a gallon of milk, and it’s one price, and then by the time you get up to the front, the price has already fluctuated.” 

California already has some protections in place in the form of The California Consumer Privacy Act, which limits the amount of information that businesses can collect and use to make decisions about consumers. “But, more can be done,” Maureen Mahoney, Deputy Director of Policy & Legislation for the California Privacy Protection Agency, wrote in an email to KQED. 

“Consumers shouldn’t have to worry that where they live or how they browse a store will be used to determine how much they pay for important purchases,” Mahoney added, in her email. 

State Senator Aisha Wahab has introduced a couple of bills (SB-384 and SB-259) that would restrict companies from using algorithms for dynamic pricing. She said she expects pushback from a variety of industries, and not just in Silicon Valley, as dynamic pricing has become a big money maker. 

“But I have always seen my job as a policymaker is to put safeguards there to protect the average person,” Wahab told KQED. 

With an established history of leading in the consumer privacy space, California lawmakers are joining those in other states like Colorado, Georgia, and Illinois to pick up where federal regulators are expected to leave off. 

FTC Publishes Surveillance Pricing Report 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its preliminary “surveillance pricing” report, which examined the hidden techniques companies can use when determining how much to charge particular individuals. 

The FTC found that retailers use data such as scrolling habits, purchase history, and location in charging people different prices for the same product. Even how long we take to respond and engage with emails is tracked and incorporated into pricing. 

The variables used by companies include, “where the consumer is, who the consumer is, what the consumer is doing, and prior actions a consumer has taken, such as clicking on a specific button or element on webpage, watching a video, or adding a particular item to their cart or wish list,” said the FTC study. 

According to the report, companies could collect “real-time information about a person’s browsing and transaction history,” and then decide whether to offer coupons based on assumptions derived from that data. 

The FTC’s report also cited how corporate consultants have been pushing for surveillance pricing. “Personalized pricing strategies, once considered a futuristic concept, have become a cornerstone of modern business strategy,” said the Cortado Group. 

The FTC study is only preliminary, and doesn’t state whether the pricing is illegal or not. 

New FTC Chairman Cancels Request For Public Comments 

When the FTC initially published the report, it sought input from consumers and businesses about how surveillance pricing had affected them. After President Donald Trump took office, new FTC chairman Andrew Ferguson canceled the agency’s request for public comments to continue the inquiry. 

Ferguson and Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissented from the decision to release the report, arguing that it was premature. 

“The Commission should allow staff to do its work and issue a final, fact-based report, rather than rush to meet a nakedly political deadline to present something, anything, to the public,” they stated last week. 

Ferguson, the new Trump appointed FTC chairman, is a Big Law alumni who defended large companies from antitrust cases and opposed consumer gains such as the commission’s non-compete ban. He opposed releasing the pricing study, and one of the first things he did as chairman was to shut down public comments for it. So it looks like this might be the end of the FTC looking into surveillance pricing. 

Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya called attention in a statement to Ferguson's move, writing that one of his first acts as agency head was “to quietly remove the opportunity for the public to comment” on surveillance pricing. 

It’s too early in California’s legislative session to determine which prospective measures will succeed in making it to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk. It’s common practice for lawmakers to change a measure’s language substantially as it moves through committees with the help of other lawmakers, lobbyists, and privacy and consumer advocates. 

But the study said there is much more work to do. This means it is up to states like California to continue the work the FTC started, in the form of legislation, advocacy and legal action, as the study only presents a sliver of information the FTC hopes to acquire. As the study says, there is a lot they still don’t know about how surveillance pricing works. 

Sources: 

https://www.kpbs.org/news/quality-of-life/2025/02/28/bill-aims-to-prohibit-surveillance-pricing-based-on-customers-online-behavior 

https://a78.asmdc.org/press-releases/20250206-assemblymember-ward-introduces-ab-446-prohibit-businesses-engaging 

https://www.kqed.org/news/12028137/california-lawmakers-take-on-predatory-surveillance-pricing 

https://consumerwatchdog.org/privacy/surveillance-pricing-is-up-to-us-now/ 

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/402809/new-ftc-chair-cancels-request-for-comments-on-sur.html 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/bedoya-statement-emergency-motion.pdf

By Miriam Raftery

March 3, 2025 (Washington D.C.) – Threats issued by President Donald Trump targeting colleges, universities and student protesters are illegal and unconstitutional, according to legal and civil liberties experts.

Today, Trump posted on his social media account, “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came.  American students will be permanently expelled or depending on on the crime, arrested.NO MASKS!”

The post comes on the heels of two executive orders issued by Trump which seek to pressure higher education officials to target immigrant students and staff for exercising First Amendment freedom of spech rights, including pro-Palestinian protesterrs or students critical of the U.S. government, culture, institutions or founding principals. Today's Truth Social post goes further, demanding that even students who are U.S. citizens be expelled and imprisoned for participating in campus protests if deemed "illegal.".

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have both issued statements criticizing Trump’s actions for pressuring colleges and universities to engage in conduct that would violate the U.S. Constitution and other laws. While violence and/or intimidation of individuals based on religious views, such as anti-Semitism, or national origin are already illegal and should not be tolerated on campuses, freedom to express controversial ideas is a core principal of higher education—and the ability to criticize governments and their policies is a critical component of our democracy, the civil rights legal experts make clear.

Below are their statements, both issued today.

Foundation for Individual Rights

Statement on President Trump’s Truth Social post threatening funding cuts for ‘illegal protests’

President Trump posted a message on Truth Social this morning that put social media and college campuses on high alert. ...

Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct, but the president does not have unilateral authority to revoke federal funds, even for colleges that allow “illegal” protests. 

If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding by taking it to federal court, or via notice to Congress and an administrative hearing. It is not simply a discretionary decision that the president can make.  

President Trump also lacks the authority to expel individual students, who are entitled to due process on public college campuses and, almost universally, on private campuses as well.

Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.

As FIRE knows too well from our work defending student and faculty rights under the Obama and Biden administrations, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later. 

Even the most controversial political speech is protected by the First Amendment. As the  Supreme Court reminds us, in America, we don’t use the law to punish those with whom we disagree. Instead, “[a]s a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” 

Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard. 

However, students who engage in misconduct must still receive due process — whether through a campus or criminal tribunal. This requires fair, consistent application of existing law or policy, in a manner that respects students’ rights.

President Trump needs to stand by his past promise to be a champion for free expression. That means doing so for all views — including those his administration dislikes.

American Civil Liberties Union

After Trump Admin Threats, ACLU Sends Letter of Support to Universities, Urging Them to Protect Campus Speech

ACLU makes clear the government cannot threaten funding to universities for fostering an environment of free speech and free inquiry

The American Civil Liberties Union today published an open letter to colleges and universities nationwide urging them to reject any federal pressure to surveil or punish international students and faculty based on constitutionally protected speech. This letter is prompted by two executive orders — Executive Order 14161, titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and other National Security and Public Safety Threats” signed on Jan. 20, 2025, and Executive Order 14188, titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” signed on Jan. 29, 2025 — and related communications from the White House.

The guidance is especially timely after an early morning Truth Social post from President Trump threatening to stop federal funding for “any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” and proposing that “agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came.”

“It is disturbing to see the White House threatening freedom of speech and academic freedom on U.S. college campuses so blatantly. We stand in solidarity with university leaders in their commitment to free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director of the ACLU and co-author of the letter. “Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, harkens back to the McCarthy era and is at odds with American constitutional values and the basic mission of universities.”

According to the ACLU, the White House is attempting to pressure university officials to target immigrant and international students, faculty, and staff, including holders of non-immigrant visas and lawful permanent residents or others on a path to U.S. citizenship, for exercising their First Amendment rights. The letter outlines four key principles universities should adhere to when addressing campus speech:

• Colleges and universities should encourage robust discussion and exploration of ideas by students, faculty, and staff, regardless of their nationality or immigration status.
• Nothing obligates universities to act as deputies in immigration law enforcement — to the contrary, universities do not and should not veer so far from their core mission for good reasons.
• Schools must protect the privacy of all students, including immigrant and international students.
• Schools must abide by the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

“The federal government cannot mandate expulsion of students or threaten funding cuts to punish constitutionally protected speech on campus,” said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “While the administration can enforce Title VI to ensure a learning environment free from harassment, it cannot force universities into adopting restrictive speech codes that silence the viewpoints the government disfavors.”

This is the fourth set of guidance from the ACLU to universities since 2023. Dozens of ACLU affiliates have taken legal action, conducted know your rights trainings, or issued additional guidance related to protest on campuses.

Related Documents

• Open Letter to U.S. College and University Presidents: Protect Speech on Campus

This story was originally published by ProPublica

By Brett Murphy and Anna Maria Barry-Jester, ProPublica

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

Photo:  Malnutrition, cc via Bing

March 3, 2025 (Washington, D.C.) - For weeks, some of the federal government’s foremost authorities on global health have repeatedly warned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other leaders about the coming death toll if they carried out the Trump administration’s plan to end nearly all U.S. foreign aid around the world.

Enrich told The New York Times he released the memos, which multiple other officials contributed to, after learning he was being placed on leave, as thousands of others at the agency have been. The memos were circulated to the staff and obtained by ProPublica.

 

The documents identify several key senior policymakers behind the scenes while also puncturing the administration’s claims of a careful, deliberative review of USAID programming. The records also represent the government’s most explicit concerns to date memorialized by a senior official from inside Trump’s administration.

 

The State Department, USAID and Elon Musk did not respond to questions about this story. Rubio and Marocco did not respond to a request for an interview.

 

Since the inauguration, Rubio, Musk and Marocco have taken dramatic steps to incapacitate USAID, the largest foreign aid donor in the world, by firing its employees and halting operations. The global health bureau was one of the first parts of the agency targeted for mass layoffs.

 

Then, last week, they abruptly cancelled 10,000 foreign aid projects, which account for 90% of USAID’s humanitarian operations and about half of the State Department’s. Lifesaving programs that were still operating around the world were forced to close down immediately.

 

Following a series of lawsuits challenging their constitutional authority to lay off or place on leave thousands of employees and freeze nearly all foreign aid, Rubio and Marocco have defended their actions by arguing that the president has the right to cancel programs, and that they were conducting a careful review of the government’s foreign aid programs to make sure they aligned with Trump’s agenda. The administration says it is rooting out waste and fraud, while Musk has publicly vowed to destroy USAID altogether.

 

However, as ProPublica reported Saturday, officials throughout the government say the process was actually cursory and haphazard, so much so that the programs’ contract officers, who have oversight of individual programs and are aid groups’ primary contacts, had no idea what had been canceled or why.

 

Enrich’s memos offer additional evidence calling into question the administration’s claims in court while projecting the dire consequences that will play out for both the U.S. and vulnerable people around the world.

 

One of the documents said that the sweeping cuts to foreign aid promise to reignite outbreaks of preventable, deadly illnesses; fuel instability in war-torn areas; and put the U.S. at risk for outbreaks of infectious disease. “This will no doubt result in preventable death, destabilization, and threats to national security on a massive scale,” it says.

 

Take tuberculosis, which kills more than 1.25 million people a year and is already the deadliest infectious disease on the planet. New infections are expected to surge by 30% more as a result of the terminations, and disruptions to treatment will cause people to develop drug resistance, making any future treatment options far more difficult and costly, the memo said.

 

That global surge will inevitably lead to more cases in the U.S. USAID staff forecast there would be around 80 additional cases of multi-drug-resistant TB here each year because of the cuts across USAID, the memo added. Even a few dozen cases would cost the U.S. millions in tax dollars; it takes nearly $500,000 on average to treat someone with the most drug-resistant forms of the illness, the memo notes.

 

Enrich’s bureau also warned that the foreign aid cuts will destabilize entire regions around the globe. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, the U.S. withdrawal of aid has led health services to collapse as an ongoing conflict flares, the memos noted. They said more than 400 mpox patients were left stranded and that more than a million people face critical shortages of food and water, supplies the U.S. has promised to provide. Malnutrition, cholera and measles are all projected to increase as well.

 

Across the Sahel, the transition zone between Africa’s northern deserts and southern savannahs, malaria season is fast approaching. The U.S. has already purchased mosquito nets, diagnostic tests and treatments that cannot be delivered, according to multiple people with direct knowledge of the programs. Canceled programs there and elsewhere are expected to cause between 12 million and 18 million additional malaria infections over the next year, the document estimates.

 

And those infections are likely to be more deadly. Spread via mosquito, malaria is particularly lethal for children under 5. The U.S. was paying to help roll out drugs that are highly effective at preventing children from getting sick or dying. Those programs have been canceled.

 

The potential for death and the spread of disease is not new to Rubio or his top aides who ordered the mass termination of nearly all foreign aid programs, according to the documents and interviews.

 

USAID staff repeatedly lobbied to keep the most critical programs running, sharing specifics about patients served for individual programs and the likely harm of cutting them with political appointees, sometimes on multiple occasions. In response, political leadership “wholly prevented” staff from implementing Rubio’s promise to continue lifesaving aid, according to Enrich’s memo.

 

In public statements and court filings, Rubio and Marocco have said there was a waiver exemption process in place for lifesaving programs to remain funded and online.

 

But behind the scenes, the few employees remaining at USAID struggled to get basic information, like how to submit waivers to Marocco for approval. And when organizations did get an approved waiver, they couldn’t restart work because the administration still hadn’t paid them. (The Trump administration has refused to reimburse almost $2 billion to foreign aid contractors for work they’ve already completed.)

 

Agency staff had no way to send payments to organizations because their access to the financial systems had been severed, one memo said.

 

On Feb. 8, global health staff learned that Rubio planned to cancel many programs the bureau had identified as lifesaving. Those in the bureau appealed to Borkert and Mark Lloyd, an assistant administrator at the agency, to keep those operations alive. (Borkert and Lloyd did not respond to questions about this story.)

 

Lloyd asked for more information. But that same day, staffers in the bureau also received a response from DOGE. “I am hearing that Global Health is conducting supplemental reviews of awards slated for termination by Secretary Rubio and Acting Deputy Administrator Marocco,” DOGE adviser Jeremy Lewin emailed Enrich, according to one of Enrich’s memos. “This is delaying the timely processing of these termination notices and is unacceptable. … Bureaus should not be conducting their own policy and program reviews before acting on these termination instructions.” (Lewin did not respond to questions for this story.)

 

Enrich also said he received written instructions to pause approving waivers for lifesaving humanitarian assistance, a directive he passed along to the rest of his bureau, which had been working to identify the programs that needed money the most.

 

In a subsequent exchange spelled out in one memo that illustrates the frequently conflicting guidance, Enrich said that two political appointees, Tim Meisburger and Laken Rapier, along with Bokert, shouted at him during a Feb. 13 meeting that there had never been a pause, and instructed him to draft another memo to correct the “false narrative in the media that there had ever been a pause” on the bureau’s waivers for lifesaving programs. (Meisburger and Rapier did not respond to questions about this story.)

 

During a meeting on Feb. 24, Meisburger and Lloyd told those in the bureau to not bother trying to submit waivers for programs involving infectious diseases like mpox, polio and Ebola because they wouldn’t be approved, according to Enrich.

 

Then, two days later, the administration suddenly terminated about 10,000 programs across the State Department and USAID. Agency staff responsible for maintaining those contracts say they were not consulted before the move. Enrich immediately reached out to Borkert and others to warn them of the “grave impacts on lifesaving activities,” he said in the memo.

 

Borkert responded, indicating that many of the programs were terminated by mistake. “There is an acknowledgement some may have been sent out in error and we have the ability to rescind,” Borkert wrote to Enrich. “We need to identify what those are.”

 

In recent days, government officials and aid groups have told ProPublica that the administration appears to be trying to reverse-engineer its most sweeping actions to figure out which lifesaving operations were canceled. Staff have been told to report information about terminated contracts to agency leaders. It’s not clear what programs, if any, will be restored.

 

“It is an incompetent mess,” one official said.

 

ProPublica plans to continue covering USAID, the State Department and the consequences of ending U.S. foreign aid. We want to hear from you. Reach out via Signal to reporters Brett Murphy at 508-523-5195 and Anna Maria Barry-Jester at 408-504-8131.