SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 07 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
David Rosen, drosen@citizen.org, (202) 588-7742
Angela Bradbery, abradbery@citizen.org, (202) 588-7741
Andrew Smith Must Recuse Himself From Revisions to FTC's Online Children's Privacy Protections
Groups Flag Numerous Conflicts of Interest, Evidence of Bias in ‘Desert of Crap’ Remarks
WASHINGTON
Andrew Smith, director of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection, should recuse himself from any discussions about or decisions regarding revisions to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), six groups said in a letter sent to the agency today.
"It will be impossible for the American people to have faith in the FTC's COPPA review process if Mr. Smith maintains a central role in it," the letter reads.
In July, the FTC requested comments on dozens of questions about the current and future operation of COPPA, raising fears that the agency is trying to weaken the law and put children at greater risk. Smith validated these concerns at a Better Business Bureau conference in September when he said the FTC was worried YouTube would become a "desert of crap" without behaviorally targeted ads, to which children are uniquely vulnerable. Smith's remarks, reflecting industry talking points, show that he has prejudged the issues to be considered in the COPPA rulemaking and that he is more worried about protecting big tech profits than children, the groups believe.
In addition, conflict of interest rules prohibit Smith from making decisions about or even discussing 120 companies, many of which base their business on behavioral advertising, such as Facebook and Twitter, and many of which target children, such as Disney. However, these rules don't prohibit him from working on general policy matters - even if they are a top priority of the companies he once represented. Due to the extraordinary breadth of conflicts involving many big tech and data companies, Smith should be recused from rulemaking matters affecting them, including revisions to COPPA, the groups maintain.
The groups that signed the letter are the Center for Digital Democracy, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Media Alliance, the Revolving Door Project, the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy and Public Citizen.
Read the letter here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
AOC Commits to Opposing ‘Any Spending on Arms for Israel,’ Including Iron Dome
The progressive congresswoman has been named as a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender.
Apr 01, 2026
A private meeting between Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and an increasingly influential progressive New York City organization on Tuesday evening revealed new evidence of Israel's "weakening position," as one journalist observed, as the potential 2028 presidential contender committed to voting against any military funding for the Middle Eastern superpower, including for "defensive" weapons.
To the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), whose New York City chapter Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) met with on Tuesday, the congresswoman's failure to vote against a 2021 funding package for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system—instead voting "present"—represented a significant betrayal of the fight for Palestinian rights and against Israel's violent anti-Palestinian policies.
The congresswodefeman further angered solidarity organizers in 2024 when she voted in favor of a resolution to adopt a definition of antisemitism that conflates the term with criticism of Israel, and last year she voted against an amendment to strip Iron Dome funding from a must-pass defense spending bill. She then voted against the Defense Appropriations Act itself, which included spending for offensive weapons for Israel.
On Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez was clear when asked by a DSA organizer whether she would support an arms embargo on Israel, which has killed more than 72,000 Palestinians in Gaza since beginning its US-backed assault there in 2023; is currently joining the US in attacking Iran; and has killed over 1,000 people in the region in the last month as it's pledged to use Gaza as a "model" for its attacks on Lebanon.
“I have not once ever voted to authorize funding to Israel, and I will never,” Ocasio-Cortez said in response to the question. “The Israeli government should be able to finance their own weapons if they seek to arm themselves."
A member asked to clarify in a follow-up question, asking specifically, “If the moment presents itself in Congress, will you commit to voting ‘no’ for any spending on arms for Israel, including so-called ‘defensive capabilities?’”
“Yes,” Ocasio-Cortez replied, according to a partial recording of the meeting.
DSA members who attended the forum also reported that Ocasio-Cortez committed to opposing the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of antisemitism, which claims that "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor," and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," are examples of anti-Jewish bias.
The positions expressed by Ocasio-Cortez at the DSA forum have already been embraced by other progressive lawmakers like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), but some observers noted that Ocasio-Cortez committed to voting against all military funding for Israel as she's been named a potential contender for the 2028 presidential race.
Political strategist Chris Sosa said Ocasio-Cortez's clear position against all weapons for Israel "will echo across the Democratic Party" and is a sign of a new "common litmus test" for candidates.
"Whatever Israel’s level of popularity is right now is its ceiling, because Israel is going to take a huge part of the blame for the financial crisis and likely recession about to hit us," said Ryan Grim of Drop Site News, referring to the growing economic turmoil that's resulted from the US-Israeli war on Iran. "And while the global economy is on its knees, Israel will *still* be pushing for the war on Iran to continue. And people will have had more than enough."
"Alexandria Ocasio-Corronez breaking against Israel here is a major sign of their weakening position," added Grim.
A poll released last month by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies found that more US voters now view Israel negatively than positively. In 2023, 47% of Americans viewed Israel in a positive light, versus 24% who had negative views of the country's government.
At Groundwork DSA, a faction within the organization that aims for the DSA to "become a genuine, mass political party," one organizer noted that Ocasio-Cortez's position sets her apart from other Democrats who are thought to be likely presidential contenders, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris, who refused to back an arms embargo during her 2024 campaign.
Neither Newsom nor Harris "will be ideologically willing to even consider an arms embargo against Israel," wrote organizer J. Kraush ahead of Tuesday's forum. "More importantly, they can not be swayed on the topic, precisely because there is no political or financial benefit for them to move. We can expect them to receive millions in funding from Zionist organizations such as AIPAC, especially if AOC remains a front-runner."
While establishment Democrats continue to back military funding for Israel, Ocasio-Cortez's commitment "is the right thing to do and the leadership Democratic voters want to see," said progressive organizer Daniel Denvir.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Accused of ‘Intimidation Tactic’ for Attending Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Hearing in Person
In an unprecedented move, Trump arrived at the court after accusing conservative justices of being "disloyal" for ruling against him in previous cases.
Apr 01, 2026
President Donald Trump is being accused of trying to "intimidate" the US Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments on his attempt to kill birthright citizenship.
Trump broke nearly 250 years of precedent as he arrived at the high court on Wednesday morning to personally observe the proceedings, which no sitting president has done.
As Kathryn Watson, a reporter for CBS News, explained, historically, "presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers."
Trump was in attendance as the justices—three of whom he appointed—mulled what could be their most consequential decision in decades: whether to uphold an executive order that would strip away a fundamental guarantee of citizenship enshrined in the US Constitution.
Making it all the more unnerving were the president's comments about the high court on Tuesday night in the Oval Office after letting reporters know he was "going" to keep tabs on Wednesday's proceedings.
He specifically zeroed in on the Republican-leaning justices, describing those he appointed as “disloyal” for ruling against him in previous cases. While describing the liberal justices as rank partisans, who’ll vote against him no matter what, he said the conservatives were “very different.”
"They want to show how honorable they are, so a man can appoint them, and they can rule against him and be so proud of it," Trump said.
"Some people would call it stupidity," Trump went on. "Some people would call it disloyal."
The court is expected to rule this summer on the legality of Trump’s executive order declaring that the children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically become US citizens.
A lower court has already ruled against Trump's order, declaring it in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War and plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments from the Trump administration seeking to undo that fundamental understanding, including ones advanced over a century ago by a former Confederate officer who also helped to establish the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation for over half a century.
If the court votes to uphold Trump's executive order, hundreds of thousands of American citizens could become effectively stateless.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it could also throw the citizenship of tens of millions more into doubt, as it would effectively require people with legal birth certificates to "prove" their parents' legal status.
Trump's effort to strip millions of people of their citizenship comes as his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ultimately deport "100 million people" from the country—a number that far exceeds the population of undocumented immigrants in the US.
DaMareo Cooper explained on Tuesday for Common Dreams that the Supreme Court's decision will determine "whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law":
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach.
Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows. Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Allowing the Trump administration to determine who counts as a citizen takes on even more weight in light of another likely unconstitutional executive order signed by the president on Tuesday, requiring DHS to create a "citizenship list" to determine who is allowed to vote in the 2026 election.
Given these extraordinary stakes, many observers fear that Trump’s appearance before the Supreme Court's deliberations on Wednesday is designed to send a message to the justices he's accused of being "disloyal."
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Trump's arrival at the high court an “intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.”
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The separation of powers is pure fiction at this point."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Constitution Is Not a Suggestion': Supreme Court Told to Protect Birthright Citizenship
One critic warned that upholding President Donald Trump’s executive order “would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides.”
Apr 01, 2026
As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship, several legal experts, advocacy groups, and commentators warned about the dire consequences that would come from not striking it down.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, published an analysis on Monday explaining that, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court wouldn't even be entertaining arguments for upholding Trump's order because it so obviously violates the plain text of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution," wrote Waldman. "This has been the law for more than 150 years. The amendment overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, which said that even free Black Americans could not be US citizens. The Supreme Court in 1898 confirmed the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it ruled that children born here are citizens, even if their parents are not."
Waldman argued that "Donald Trump tried to Sharpie this out of the Constitution" with his executive order, but insisted that the 14th Amendment is "open and shut," making it easy for the Supreme Court to rule against the president.
The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie echoed Waldman's arguments in a Wednesday column, writing that "there are few lines in the Constitution that are as straightforward as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment," whose "explicit aim... was to settle the question of American citizenship for good."
Bouie also dissected assorted arguments made by right-wing legal scholars in support of Trump's executive order, finding that they fail to offer "any new evidence regarding the drafting of the 14th Amendment, the intent of its framers, or the public meaning as understood at ratification."
"The evidence in favor of the traditional view of the citizenship clause is overwhelming," Bouie added. "To rule otherwise is to say, in essence, that two plus two equals five."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, argued that the Supreme Court must strike down Trump's order because "the Constitution is not a suggestion, and its guarantees do not shift with the political winds of any one president."
"When the courts allow one president to change the definition of American citizenship with a stroke of a pen, it puts every American citizen at risk," Solomón added. "The Supreme Court must reject these unconstitutional overreaches before they cause irreversible harm to our families and our nation’s future."
Garrett Epps, legal affairs editor at Washington Monthly, warned that failing to uphold the 14th Amendment would create "an exploitable non-citizen class" who would live in the country without any constitutional rights or protections.
Picking apart Trump aide Stephen Miller's remarks about denying citizenship to children of a "foreign labor class," Epps argued that the real goal of the Trump administration's attack on the 14th Amendment isn't strictly mass deportations, but the elimination of rights to an entire group of US-based workers.
"As a practical matter," explained Epps, "reinstating a hereditary, lifelong, inferior status—which, after all, is what removing 'full political rights, including welfare and the right to vote' would mean—recreates the conditions for the growth of a racialized slave economy."
TV host and activist Padma Lakshmi, writing in a Wednesday New York Times column, also pointed to the horrific impact that eliminating birthright citizenship would have on families across the country.
"If the Supreme Court doesn't block this executive order, it would create a mess of legal and logistical consequences," Lakshmi argued. "Confusion would replace certainty, opening the door to discrimination and a patchwork of rules governing noncitizens’ access to our society. Hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States would be thrown into legal limbo every year."
The end result, Lakshmi said, "would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular