September, 16 2009, 02:05pm EDT
Public Interest and Civil Rights Groups Speak Out Against Unfounded Attacks on Mark Lloyd
More than 50 organizations call on the FCC and Congress to support the work of the FCC diversity officer and to correct the record on localism and diversity policies
WASHINGTON
On Wednesday, more than 50 civil rights, public interest and
grassroots organizations sent a letter to the Federal Communications
Commission and congressional leaders supporting Mark Lloyd, the
associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the FCC, and
the agency's longstanding mission to promote localism, diversity and
competition in the media.
In recent weeks, Mr. Lloyd has been unfairly attacked on cable TV
and radio talk shows with false and misleading information about his
role and responsibilities at the FCC. A respected scholar and public
servant, Lloyd was hired by the agency to expand media opportunities
for women, people of color, small businesses, and those living in rural
areas.
The full text of the letter and a list of signatories is below:
September 16, 2009
To: FCC Commissioners and Congressional Leaders
We, the undersigned, ask you to speak out against the falsehoods and
misinformation that are threatening to derail important work by
Congress and the Federal Communications Commission on media and
technology policies that would benefit all Americans.
In recent weeks, Mark Lloyd, the associate general counsel and chief
diversity officer of the FCC, has come under attack by prominent cable
TV and radio hosts, and even by some members of Congress, who have made
false and misleading claims about his work at the agency.
Mr. Lloyd is a respected historian, an experienced civil rights
leader, and a dedicated public servant. He was hired by the FCC to
"collaborate on the policies and legal framework necessary to expand
opportunities for women, minorities, and small businesses to
participate in the communications marketplace." His important work
should not be hindered by lies and innuendo.
As the leading media policymakers in Washington, we ask you to speak
out against these unfounded attacks, stand publicly behind Mr. Lloyd,
and make clear your commitment to carrying out the core mandate of the
FCC -- as enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934 -- to promote
localism, diversity and competition in the media.
Let us be clear as to what "localism" actually means. Broadcasters
get hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of subsidies in exchange for
a basic commitment to serve the public interest. Broadcasters are
expected to be responsive to their local communities. Localism has been
a cornerstone of broadcast regulation as long as there has been
broadcast regulation. It has nothing to do with censorship or
interference with local programming decisions. Localism is simply about
public service, not about any political viewpoint. Local public service
programming and political talk radio, whether liberal or conservative,
are not mutually exclusive.
Likewise, as the Supreme Court has recognized, "Safeguarding the
public's right to receive a diversity of views and information over the
airwaves is ... an integral component of the FCC's mission." Diversity
of media ownership is a crucial issue, and the agency must address the
fact that women and people of color are vastly underrepresented among
media owners using the public airwaves.
But diversity is also about closing the digital divide: People of
color, the poor, and rural Americans are far less likely to have
high-speed Internet access at home or share in the benefits of
broadband. Diversity is about creating opportunities and broadening
participation; it should go without saying, but it has absolutely
nothing to do with censorship.
The third tenet of the FCC's mission is competition. Those using
their media megaphones to slander and distort the views of Mr. Lloyd
and others may not want competition. But the FCC's job, in its own
words, is "to strengthen the diverse and robust marketplace of ideas
that is essential to our democracy." The overriding goal must be more
speech, not less -- more radio stations, more cable channels and more
Web sites.
At the core of President Obama's media and technology agenda is a
commitment to "diversity in the ownership of broadcast media" and a
pledge to "promote the development of new media outlets for expression
of diverse viewpoints." Now is the time to further that agenda, not to
retreat from it.
We ask you, as leaders on these key media issues, to draw a line in
the sand now, speak out against the unfounded attacks, and redouble
your efforts to enact a policy agenda that will strengthen our economy,
our society and our democracy.
Sincerely,
Josh Silver
Free Press
Wade Henderson
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Winnie Stachelberg
Center for American Progress
James Rucker
ColorOfChange.org
Stephanie Jones
National Urban League Policy Institute
Brent Wilkes
League of United Latin American Citizens
Larry Cohen
Communications Workers of America
Alex Nogales
National Hispanic Media Coalition
Bernie Lunzer
The Newspaper Guild
Communications Workers of America
Kimberly Marcus
Rainbow PUSH Coalition's Public Policy Institute
Malkia Cyril
Center for Media Justice
Andrew Schwartzman
Media Access Project
John Kosinski
Writers Guild of America West
Sandy Close
New America Media
Amalia Deloney
Media Action Grassroots Network
Angelo Falcon
National Institute for Latino Policy
Michael Calabrese
New America Foundation
Gigi Sohn
Public Knowledge
Rinku Sen
Applied Research Center
John Clark
National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians
Communications Workers of America
Graciela Sanchez
Esperanza Peace and Justice Center
Mimi Pickering
Appalshop
Steven Renderos
Main Street Project
Hal Ponder
American Federation of Musicians
Tracy Rosenberg
Media Alliance
Terry O'Neill
National Organization for Women
Roger Hickey
Campaign for America's Future
Andrea Quijada
New Mexico Media Literacy Project
Jonathan Lawson
Reclaim the Media
DeAnne Cuellar
Texas Media Empowerment Project
Chris Rabb
Afro-Netizen
Loris Ann Taylor
Lisa Fager
Bediako
Industry Ears
O. Ricardo Pimentel
National Association of Hispanic Journalists
Todd Wolfson
Media Mobilizing Project
Erica Williams
Campus Progress
Gary Flowers
Black Leadership Forum
Eva Paterson
Equal Justice Society
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr
Hip Hop Caucus
Cheryl Contee
Jack and Jill Politics
Dr. E. Faye Williams
National Congress of Black Women
Emily Sheketoff
American Library Association
Ari Rabin-Havt
Media Matters Action Network
Kathryn Galan
National Association of Latino Independent Producers
Roberto Lovato
Presente
Joshua Breitbart
People's Production House
Karen Bond
National Black Coalition for Media Justice
Tracy Van Slyke
Media Consortium
Shireen Mitchell
Digital Sisters, Inc
Media and Technology Task Force
National Council of Women's Organizations
Ariel Dougherty
Media Equity Collaborative
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Trump Bid to Block $4.9 Billion With 'Pocket Rescission' Blasted as 'Authoritarianism 101'
"Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar.
Aug 30, 2025
Democracy defenders and members of Congress are condemning US President Donald Trump's effort to use a "pocket rescission" process to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid as authoritarian and illegal.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Friday shared on social media Trump's letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) about the move. According to a White House fact sheet linked in a subsequent post, much of the money was headed for the US Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump has gutted.
As The Associated Press explained:
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to September 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.
What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it's a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.
Shortly after the OMB social media posts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that OMB Director Russ Vought was helping shutter USAID, writing on the platform X: "Since January, we've saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And with a small set of core programs moved over to the State Department, USAID is officially in closeout mode. Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails. Congrats, Russ."
Meanwhile, Rubio's former congressional colleagues and others are sounding the alarm over the administration's effort.
"America is staring down next month's government funding deadline on September 30," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It's clear neither Trump nor congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown. With Trump's illegal 'pocket rescission': They seem eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their healthcare costs, compromising essential services, and further damaging our national security."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) also put pressure on GOP lawmakers, saying that "this is wrong—and illegal. Not only is Trump gutting $5 billion in foreign aid that saves lives and advances America's interests, but he's doing so using an unlawful 'pocket recission' method that undermines Congress' power of the purse. I urge my Republican colleagues to say hell no."
While most Republicans on Capitol Hill have backed Trump's endeavors to claw back funding previously appropriated by Congress, GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted against his $9 billion rescission package earlier this year.
Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also spoke out against Trump's new move, noting in a Friday statement that under the US Constitution, Congress has "the power of the purse," and the Government Accountability Office "has concluded that this type of rescission is unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional scholar, similarly stressed that "Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed. Trump's 'pocket recissions' are lawless and absurd. If a president opposes legislative spending decisions, he can veto them, subject to override, but once passed, he must execute on them."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, declared in a Friday statement that with the pocket rescission move, the Trump administration "demonstrated yet again its contempt for Congress' power of the purse and the Constitution's separation of powers."
"With this Constitution-mocking action, the administration is bringing us closer to a shutdown on September 30, and it doesn't seem to care," Gilbert said. "We call on Congress to push back, pass and abide by appropriations packages, and fight the administration’s illegal impoundments that harm regular Americans."
"This is not just a constitutional crisis, it's a matter of global justice," she added. "The congressionally appropriated funds that the Trump administration illegally aims to cancel support economic development programs to empower the world's most vulnerable and impoverished, and address some of the ravage of catastrophic climate change in developing nations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tariffs Bound for Supreme Court After Another Legal Loss
If the president's policies are struck down, the administration may have to repay billions of dollars in duties, which customs and trade experts warn "would be a logistical nightmare."
Aug 29, 2025
As working-class Americans endure the pain from US President Donald Trump's tariff war, the Republican signaled that he plans to keep fighting for the levies after a loss at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Trump is the first president to impose tariffs by citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. In a 7-4 ruling, the appellate court's majority found that most of his tariffs are illegal.
The court said that "tariffs are a core congressional power" and "we discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the reciprocal tariffs and trafficking tariffs."
The decision affirms a May ruling from the US Court of International Trade, which also found that Trump exceeded his authority.
Friday's ruling is paused until October 14, to give the White House time to appeal to the nation's highest court. Trump suggested he would do so in a post on his Truth Social platform, writing:
ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else. If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America. At the start of this Labor Day weekend, we should all remember that TARIFFS are the best tool to help our Workers, and support Companies that produce great MADE IN AMERICA products. For many years, Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Politico noted that the Friday decision opens the door "for the administration to potentially have to repay billions worth of duties," and pointed to recent warnings from customs and trade experts "that repayments would be a logistical nightmare, and would likely trigger a wave of legal challenges from other businesses and industry groups seeking reimbursement."
Trump's latest legal loss on the tariff front follows various analyses and polling that show the harm his policies are causing. One Accountable.US report from this month highlights comments from grocery executives about passing costs on to consumers, and a recent survey found that 90% of Americans consider the price of groceries a source of stress.
Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee also released a related report earlier this month. As JEC Ranking Member Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said at the time, "While President Trump promised that he would expand our manufacturing sector, this report shows that, instead, the chaos and uncertainty created by his tariffs has placed a burden on American manufacturers that could weigh our country down for years to come."
Another mid-August analysis from the Century Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative details the surging cost of school supplies as American families prepared for the 2025-26 academic year. TCF senior fellow Rachel West said that "from his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US 'Denying and Revoking' Visas of Palestinian Officials Ahead of UN General Assembly
The Palestinian presidency said the decision—which comes as more and more nations formally recognize Palestine's statehood—"stands in clear contradiction to international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement."
Aug 29, 2025
The Trump administration said Friday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio "is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority" ahead of next month's United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The US State Department said Friday that "the Trump administration has been clear: It is in our national security interests to hold the PLO and PA accountable for not complying with their commitments, and for undermining the prospects for peace."
"Before the PLO and PA can be considered partners for peace, they must consistently repudiate terrorism—including the October 7 massacre—and end incitement to terrorism in education, as required by US law and as promised by the PLO," the statement continues.
No US administration in modern times has ever demanded that Israel repudiate its generations-long illegal occupation and settler colonization of Palestine, its ongoing genocide in Gaza, or any other violation of international law or human rights.
"The PA must also end its attempts to bypass negotiations through international lawfare campaigns, including appeals to the [International Criminal Court] and [International Court of Justice], and efforts to secure the unilateral recognition of a conjectural Palestinian state," the State Department added. "Both steps materially contributed to Hamas' refusal to release its hostages, and to the breakdown of the Gaza ceasefire talks."
The ICC last year issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and the forced starvation of Palestinians that is driving a famine that has killed at least hundreds of Palestinians and is starving hundreds of thousands more. The ICJ is currently weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa—not the PA.
As for ceasefire talks, Matthew Miller, who served as a State Department spokesperson during the Biden administration, recently admitted that Israel habitually torpedoed ceasefire agreements each time they were nearing a conclusion in what he called a sustained effort to "try and sabotage" a deal. Miller repeatedly stood at his podium and told reporters that Hamas was to blame for thwarting a truce.
Miller added that Netanyahu openly admitted to US officials that he wanted to continue the Gaza war for "decades."
It is not clear which Palestinian officials will have their visas denied or revoked. The office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement responding to the US announcement that "this decision stands in clear contradiction to international law and the UN Headquarters Agreement—which effectively shields UN member-state officials from US immigration policies—particularly since the state of Palestine is an observer member of the United Nations."
This isn't the first time the US has blocked Palestinian officials from attending a General Assembly. In 1998, the Regan administration denied then-PLO Chair Yasser Arafat a visa and the General Assembly was convened in Geneva instead of New York. There have already been numerous calls to relocate this year's General Assembly to the Swiss city following the US move.
The US announcement comes as more and more countries formally recognize Palestinian statehood or move to do so amid Israel's genocidal assault, siege, and famine in Gaza, which, combined, have left more than 230,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing and the strip in ruins.
Approximately 150 of the UN's 193 member states have officially recognized Palestine. Since October 2023, countries including Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, and Spain have either recognized Palestine or announced their intent to do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular