This week, I was proud to cosponsor the #JusticeInPolicingAct. This is the most far reaching attempt in decades to reform policing in America and to rebuild trust between police and the communities they are sworn to protect. It is long overdue.
Our bill would:
- Ban racial profiling
- Ban chokeholds & require body cams
- Empower the Justice Department to investigate & correct police misconduct
- Make it easier to hold abusive officers accountable, and, if they're fired, to keep them from getting rehired elsewhere.
The bill places strict limits on transfers of military equipment to law enforcement. I want local cops look like cops, not like the 82nd Airborne parachuting into a war zone. I will also fight for additional safeguards against enlisting the military to police dissent.
We have this chance because the overwhelming majority of Americans saw what happened to George Floyd, and understand it is part of a pattern of racial bias that requires comprehensive reform, not just the punishment of a few bad cops who were caught on video.
I'm glad that Republican leaders in Congress have thus far indicated they want to work with us, and that the Fraternal Order of Police has said we should not let this opportunity for change pass us by. insidernj.com/press-release/…
Many activists rightly ask us to reimagine the role police play in our country, and whether we make police do too much, like respond to mental health crises. Our bill funds local efforts to shift priorities & training, and promotes tactics that deescalate violent situations.
That said, I don't think "defund the police" is a good slogan or idea. Smaller forces would more likely take on a bunker mentality, focusing on self protection rather than the community policing tactics that earn trust. Wealthy communities would just pay for private cops.
Remember - it is Congressional Republicans who are trying to defund the police, by continuing to block the HEROES Act. That bill is all about helping state and local governments keep first responders on the job. They have zero standing to demagogue this issue.
There is a reason I invited the daughter of a fallen police officer to be my guest for this year's State of the Union. I respect anyone who spends his or her life doing a dangerous job to protect others. Let's honor those who uphold this ideal and hold accountable all who do not.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Persian Gulf countries like the UAE and Qatar don't gift planes to a US president or buy his worthless crypto coins for nothing. So what are they getting for their investment? Here are a few immediate examples. 1/
One - Trump is lifting a ban on exports of advanced chips to the Saudi & UAE AI industry. The ban aimed to keep this technology from leaking to China, and ensure that democracies, not mass surveillance dictatorships, lead global development of AI. 2/ finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-rew…
Two - Trump just decided to blow past Congressional objections and approve a helicopter and fighter jet maintenance deal with the UAE. Members of Congress had held the deal up because of the UAE's support for militias committing mass murder in Sudan.
Spare a thought for the small business owners who had to beg and borrow to pay a $145,000 tax on that $100K shipment of product that happened to arrive while the most extreme China tariff was in place, only to see their president back down with zero Chinese concessions. 1/
It could have been worse, so it's good Trump is caving again. But what now? Aggregate tariffs on China stay around 55%. China could repackage some promises on fentanyl to get that down a bit more but not by much. And we seem stuck with a 10% tariff/tax on all foreign imports. 2/
That's a permanent inflationary tax on us all - including on stuff like bananas and rubber for tires that can't be made in the US. It's a double tax on companies that manufacture in the USA - increasing the cost of parts & materials they import and tariffs on what they export. 3/
ICE's leaders seem drunk on the idea that the president can give them unrestrained power. But they work for the people of a pluralistic country, not for one man. The legitimacy this agency will need to continue to exist in a democratic society depends on them remembering that. 1/
When DHS was proposed, critics argued a democracy like ours should not have a single, big, powerful internal security ministry. I was less worried then - until the first Trump term, when we started seeing armed DHS elements with no insignia showing up at political protests. 2/
Democrats in Congress should say now how they'll bring DHS back within the rule of law once they have the power. Anyone with arrest authority should identify themselves, wear uniforms, no masks, and have the same duty to refuse unlawful orders as members of the military. 3/
When I ran the State Department's human rights bureau, few Senators were more interested in our work than Marco Rubio.
If I'd purged from our annual reporting references to stolen elections in Venezuela or unjust imprisonment in China, he'd have called for my resignation. 1/
The State Department is required by law to issue these annual public reports on human rights violations for every country. They are supposed to be "full and complete," covering every major category of human rights abuse, including "prolonged detention without charges." 2/
The point is to force us to be honest about the foreign governments we're dealing with - so that if the president wants to sell arms to a foreign country, or have a chummy relationship with its leader, he can't deny it's torturing prisoners or refusing to hold free elections. 3/
Democrats should take immediate action to force a vote in Congress on Trump's Canada/Mexico tariffs.
Make every House and Senate Republican either break with the president or own the economic consequences.
Can Democrats do this in the minority? Yes, they can. 1/
Trump used his emergency economic powers to impose the tariffs. Under the law, when presidents declare an "emergency," any member of Congress can move to terminate that emergency, and that motion is "privileged," meaning it must get an up or down vote. 2/sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/R46…
My guess is a handful of Republicans would vote against these inflationary tariffs if the choice were forced on them. Trump could still veto a successful resolution to terminate the emergency. But that would just further highlight how alone he is in taking us off a cliff.
Not surprising JD would echo the arguments of the original "America First" fascist sympathizer Charles Lindbergh who tried to keep us from stopping Hitler.
Lindbergh similarly accused Jewish & British Americans of putting their original homelands' interests ahead of America.1 /
That Ukrainian-American man JD is scolding wasn't even asking us to fight Russia - just to arm Ukrainians so they could protect themselves, and our allies, from a Chinese backed Russian invasion of Europe.
He had a clearer sense of America's interests and values than our VP. 2/
I think it's wonderful that Americans of Polish, Jewish, Indian, Irish, Arab and other heritage have long urged us to care about the places their families came from. Every past president told them America is a friend to freedom everywhere. Too bad this one disagrees.