Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Violence against women is a global issue that affects millions of people annually. Every woman and girl deserves a life free from violence. The United States is committed to advancing gender equality and preventing and responding to all forms of violence against women and girls, from domestic and sexual violence to forced marriage and so-called honor killings.

Eliminating violence against women and girls requires all of us—governments, the private sector, civil society, and faith-based organizations—to take action. To help bring attention to this global challenge, the United States is proud to observe the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on November 25 and the accompanying 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence.

The United States is proud to take action on “Ending Gender-Based Violence in the World of Work,” this year’s theme for the 16 Days of Activism. Societies that empower women to participate fully in civic and economic life are more prosperous and peaceful. Ending violence within and beyond the workplace can ensure women unlock their potential as leaders, entrepreneurs, and innovators. The United States is committed to bringing workforce development and skills training to women and girls, advancing women’s entrepreneurship and expanding access to capital, and eliminating gender discrimination in the workplace.

Marking the 85th Anniversary of the Ukrainian Holodomor

This month The United States join Ukrainians around the world in marking the 85th anniversary of the Holodomor, when millions of innocent Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by the regime of Josef Stalin. The Soviet Union’s barbaric seizure of Ukrainian land and crops was undertaken with the deliberate political goal of subjugating the Ukrainian people and nation. This catastrophic man-made famine was one of the most atrocious acts of the twentieth century and a brutal reminder of the crimes of communism.

Today, Ukrainians are once again dying as a result of Russia attempts to destroy the identity and Western aspirations of the people of Ukraine. Russia’s ongoing aggression in eastern Ukraine has resulted in more than 10,000 deaths. However, Russia will not vanquish the resilient Ukrainian spirit, nor dampen Ukrainians’ desire for a better future.
However, the movement that precipitates the greatest long-term discomfort takes place when the person attempts to straighten up while L5 is side-bent left and rotated right. tadalafil soft tabs If you are experiencing anxiety about performance, consider counseling to help relieve cheap sildenafil no prescription stress and other emotional issues that are restricting your sex life. The incidence tadalafil online canada of ED in elders is much higher. The movie indicate best looks, most unsightly encounters, cheap viagra tablets the majority of sore love-filled cardiovascular system possibly at duration the best ruthless cardiovascular, that is, we can easily find each and every sentiment of the life through these movies.
As we remember the Holodomor’s millions of innocent victims, we reaffirm our unwavering support for Ukraine’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the Ukrainian people’s right to chart their own course.

Attacks in Orakzai and Karachi, Pakistan

The United States condemns in the strongest terms today’s terrorist attacks in Orakzai and Karachi, Pakistan, which killed over 30 people and injured dozens more. We send our deepest condolences to the victims’ families and wish for the speedy recovery of those injured. We also commend the Pakistani security forces’ quick and brave response to the attack on the Chinese Consulate in Karachi that prevented further loss of life. The United States stands with the Pakistani people in the face of these terrorist acts, and will continue to seek opportunities to cooperate with the Pakistani government to combat these threats in the region.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media, which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]