Understanding the Public Lands Rule

By: Kunjal Bastola

Edited by: Connor Tooman and grace wu

On Thursday, April 18, the Department of the Interior announced the Public Lands Rule to promote the conservation of land and wildlife.[1] This rule guides the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the protection of clean water and wildlife habitats, restoration of lands and waters where necessary, and consideration of science, data, and Indigenous knowledge when making decisions.[2] The 245 million acres of land managed by the BLM are primarily used for industrial purposes, such as ranching and drilling, but this new rule allows the BLM to offer “restoration and mitigation leases” to companies intending to use the lands for conservation purposes.[3] This has the effect of putting “conservation, recreation, and renewable energy development on equal footing with resource extraction.”[4] Before this, the BLM offered leases to oil and gas companies, mining firms, and ranchers, contributing to the United States’ high amount of greenhouse gas emissions.[5] While the new rule doesn’t erase the damages done by mining and drilling on public lands, it makes some headway in mitigating those damages and potentially converting the use of public lands from environmentally harmful tactics to more sustainable uses. 

Under President Biden, the BLM has increased its focus on mitigating the effects of climate change and development, but there is more to be done. This rule has been in the works since it was first proposed in April 2023. The final rule came after a 90-day comment period during which the BLM held five public meetings and received over 200,000 comments, with the vast majority of them supporting the rule.[6] “Today’s final rule helps restore balance to our public lands as we continue using the best-available science to restore habitats, guide strategic and responsible development, and sustain our public lands for generations to come,” said Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in a statement.[7] 

While this new rule is a huge step forward for environmentalists, the decision does not come without some pushback, especially from fossil fuel industry groups and Republican officials. National Mining Association President and CEO, Rich Nolan, said in a statement that “this rule will obstruct responsible domestic mining projects and compound permitting challenges, further deepening our already grave foreign mineral import reliance.”[8] John Barrasso, a Republican senator from Wyoming, calls the rule a threat to the “Wyoming way of life,” saying he plans to introduce a Congressional Review Act “to repeal this outrageous rule.”[9] 

As the debate over how to administer public lands continues, converting lands previously used for the extraction of fossil fuels to lands used for the restoration and replenishment of wildlife habitats is a huge step forward for the Biden administration and environmentalists. With droughts and wildfires running rampant throughout the country’s lands, steps must be taken to mitigate the effects of climate change before the damage it causes becomes irreversible. The Public Lands Rule is a step in the right direction, but there is still a lot more work to be done. 

Notes: 

  1. “Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands,” Bureau of Land Management, April 18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

  2.  “Public Lands Rule,” Bureau of Land Management, Accessed May 22, 2024. https://www.blm.gov/public-lands-rule. 

  3. Kiley Price, “The Biden Administration Makes Two Big Moves To Conserve Public Lands, Sparking Backlash From Industry,” Inside Climate News, April 23, 2024, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23042024/todays-climate-biden-public-lands-conservation/. 

  4. Maxine Joselow, “ The U.S. just changed how it manages a tenth of its land,” The Washington Post, April 18, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/18/biden-public-lands-conservation-rule/.  

  5. Maxine Joselow, “ The U.S. just changed how it manages a tenth of its land,” The Washington Post, April 18, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/18/biden-public-lands-conservation-rule/.  

  6. “Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands,” Bureau of Land Management, April 18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

  7. “Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands,” Bureau of Land Management, April 18, 2024, https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

  8. “New BLM Conservation Rule Will Obstruct Responsible Domestic Mining, Deepen Import Reliance,” National Mining Association, April 18, 2024, https://nma.org/2024/04/18/new-blm-conservation-rule-will-obstruct-responsible-domestic-mining-deepen-import-reliance/. 

  9.  John Barasso, “Barrasso: BLM Rules Threatens Wyoming Way of Life,” April 18, 2024, https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=4B3DBFE1-45F9-4DD4-AEB4-41FD8B19CE08.  

Bibliography:

Barrasso, John. “Barrasso: BLM Rules Threatens Wyoming Way of Life.” April 18, 2024. https://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=4B3DBFE1-45F9-4DD4-AEB4-41FD8B19CE08.  

“Biden-Harris Administration finalizes strategy to guide balanced management, conservation of public lands.” Bureau of Land Management. April 18, 2024. https://www.blm.gov/press-release/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-strategy-guide-balanced-management-conservation.  

Joselow, Maxine. “ The U.S. just changed how it manages a tenth of its land.” The Washington Post. April 18, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/04/18/biden-public-lands-conservation-rule/. 

“New BLM Conservation Rule Will Obstruct Responsible Domestic Mining, Deepen Import Reliance.” National Mining Association. April 18, 2024. https://nma.org/2024/04/18/new-blm-conservation-rule-will-obstruct-responsible-domestic-mining-deepen-import-reliance/. 

Price, Kiley. “The Biden Administration Makes Two Big Moves To Conserve Public Lands, Sparking Backlash From Industry.” Inside Climate News. April 23, 2024. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23042024/todays-climate-biden-public-lands-conservation/. 

“Public Lands Rule.” Bureau of Land Management. https://www.blm.gov/public-lands-rule.

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the Future of AI Regulations

By: Eliana Aemro Selassie

Edited by: Micah Sandy and Alexandria Nagy

On March 13, 2024, the European Parliament approved the Artificial Intelligence Act, a series of safety measures and regulations that also ensure there is flexibility for AI corporations to foster innovation and technological advancements [1]. The act is the first “comprehensive regulation on AI by a major regulator” in the world, marking a monumental milestone in the regulation of AI [2]. As AI has become increasingly powerful and new advancements in the field have increased the ability of AI algorithms to operate without human input, governments are becoming more concerned with regulating these innovations, especially since they can be weaponized for harm. The EU is at the forefront of these regulations by being the first governing body to produce an act with tenable measures to regulate AI.

IBM defines AI as “Technology that enables computers and machines to simulate human intelligence and problem-solving capabilities” [3]. AI has been extremely impactful because of its ability to conduct complex tasks that would typically require human input and direction. In the last year, AI has undergone considerable developments, specifically generative AI which has dramatically increased the capacity of AI to conduct tasks free of human input [4]. The independent abilities of generative AI poses many potential benefits since it simplifies complex and mundane tasks typically done by humans. Generative AI is particularly easy to integrate into the workplace because its rapid summarizing capacity has surpassed the limits of human memory, reduces the need for humans to conduct mundane tasks, and increases overall productivity. 

Nonetheless, AI also poses many security and privacy risks to individuals and societies [5]. When AI-driven tools are used in policing, they disproportionately target low-income people and people of color as a result of biased algorithms. Stanford University also describes the potential harms of using AI in legal matters, notably sentencing decisions means “This dangerous reality means that an algorithmic estimate of an individual’s risk to society may be interpreted by others as a near certainty—a misleading outcome even the original tool designers warned against.” [5]. AI also poses privacy risks, since algorithms are designed to make decisions autonomously and without human intervention, a factor that can lead these algorithms to rapidly collect and analyze data [6]. The use of AI in biometrics is another growing concern for governments and individuals alike, given AI’s extensive ability to use and analyze facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, and iris recognition, making tracking and identifying people a much simpler process [7]. Many view this as a substantial privacy violation and note the potential for these biometrics to be weaponized for harmful means.

The EU’s new act aims to address these risks posed by AI and do so in a manner that supports both citizens and corporations. The act is unprecedented because it provides a distinct framework for the specific uses of AI for both business owners and citizens. It acknowledges that most AI systems are largely harmless, and instead aims to mitigate and minimize the larger risks posed by harmful algorithms, to ensure the safety of EU citizens. The act divides AI algorithms into 3 categories: high-risk, limited-risk, and minimal-risk. High-risk AI refers to AI that is used in any context that poses a threat to the safety, privacy, and well-being of European citizens, corporations, and infrastructure. This refers to the use of AI in things like critical infrastructure, notably transportation, the employment and management of workers, law enforcement, and migration and border control management. Any AI system that falls into this category requires extensive security measures and accuracy approvals from the European Parliament. Limited-risk AI refers to AI algorithms with limited transparency, which pose risks to users as a result of the lack of available knowledge and information on how the software operates. These algorithms are subject to supervision and security but to a lesser extent than the high-risk algorithms. Finally, minimal-risk means that there are no regulations outlined in the act because those softwares do not pose a severe threat [8].

Another critical component of the act that sets it apart and signals it as a sign of progress is that it takes a human-centered approach. One of the primary goals of the act is that it pushes to keep European technology at the forefront of AI research while ensuring that the democratic and civil rights of European citizens are also protected. These measures came as a result of the Conference on the Future of Europe (COFE), which was made up of a series of citizen’s proposals including increased AI regulations and laws. One of the proposals suggested “enhancing EU’s competitiveness in strategic sectors” through AI law and another encouraged creating “a safe and trustworthy society, including countering disinformation and ensuring humans are ultimately in control”. The act reflects this proposal since one of the key components is that it bans any AI applications that “threaten citizens’ rights” [1].

Another key component of the act is that it outlaws the use of biometrics in law enforcement except in particularly drastic circumstances like a terrorist attack and requires judicial authorization to do so. The act bans emotion recognition software from being used in the workplace and schools and forbids AI that “manipulates human behaviour or exploits people’s vulnerabilities”. Nonetheless, the act upholds COFE’s efforts to prevent technological innovation from being stunted. It accommodates the use of AI in public works, public policy, and infrastructure, enforcing the use of extra precautions and protective measures in these circumstances to allow AI to facilitate technological progress without putting citizens at risk. This ultimately demonstrates how the EU AI Act is unprecedented in nature, working to target the specific risks that dangerous algorithms may pose while simultaneously preventing scientific progress from being delayed. Brando Benifei, the Internal Market Committee co-rapporteur of the European Parliament described the act saying “We finally have the world’s first binding law on artificial intelligence, to reduce risks, create opportunities, combat discrimination, and bring transparency. Thanks to Parliament, unacceptable AI practices will be banned in Europe and the rights of workers and citizens will be protected” [1].   

Given the extent of this progress in Europe, it calls into question the potential for similar AI regulations to be created elsewhere in the world. The government of the United States has similarly made strides to regulate AI, notably in the White House which has developed a blueprint for the AI Bill of Rights. The proposed bill emphasizes the potential for AI to produce biased and discriminatory algorithms, unfairly collect social media data and violate privacy, and provide unsafe patient care and medical systems. The Bill breaks down different types of AI into 5 categories: safe and effective systems, algorithmic discrimination protections, data privacy, notice and explanation, and human alternatives, consideration, and fallback. Its ultimate goal is to address the safety and discriminatory concerns of AI in a similar fashion to the EU AI Act [9]. However, bipartisan disputes and the importance of technological innovation in the United States question whether the Bill or similar legislation will soon be enacted [10]. Nonetheless, the EU AI Act shows considerable progress in global policy-making to ensure that as AI advances and becomes increasingly complex, policies to regulate these advancements are implemented alongside it, thus ensuring the protection of people and allowing for technological developments.

Notes:

  1. European Parliament. 2024. “Artificial Intelligence Act: MEPs adopt landmark law | News.” European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law.

  2. EU Artificial Intelligence Act. n.d. “The EU Artificial Intelligence Act.” EU Artificial Intelligence Act | Up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU AI Act. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/. 

  3. IBM. n.d. “What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?” IBM. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-intelligence.

  4. Shaner, Kyle. 2024. “Examining the potential benefits and dangers of AI.” University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/02/examining-the-potential-benefits-and-dangers-of-ai.html. 

  5. Stanford University. n.d. “SQ10. What are the most pressing dangers of AI?” One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100). Accessed May 21, 2024. https://ai100.stanford.edu/gathering-strength-gathering-storms-one-hundred-year-study-artificial-intelligence-ai100-2021-1-0. 

  6. Sher, Gai, Ariela Benchlouch, and Barnes Cellino. 2023. “The privacy paradox with AI.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/privacy-paradox-with-ai-2023-10-31/. 

  7. Yurdasen, Deniz. 2023. “How Artificial Intelligence (AI) Is Used In Biometrics.” Aratek. https://www.aratek.co/news/how-artificial-intelligence-ai-is-used-in-biometrics. 

  8. European Commission. n.d. “AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future.” Shaping Europe's digital future. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai. 

  9. The White House. n.d. “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP.” The White House. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/. 

  10. Matthews, Dylan. 2023. “The AI rules that Congress is considering, explained.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23775650/ai-regulation-openai-gpt-anthropic-midjourney-stable. 

Bibliography:

EU Artificial Intelligence Act. n.d. “The EU Artificial Intelligence Act.” EU Artificial Intelligence Act | Up-to-date developments and analyses of the EU AI Act. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/.

European Commission. n.d. “AI Act | Shaping Europe's digital future.” Shaping Europe's digital future. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai.

European Parliament. 2024. “Artificial Intelligence Act: MEPs adopt landmark law | News.” European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240308IPR19015/artificial-intelligence-act-meps-adopt-landmark-law.

IBM. n.d. “What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?” IBM. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.ibm.com/topics/artificial-intelligence.

Matthews, Dylan. 2023. “The AI rules that Congress is considering, explained.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23775650/ai-regulation-openai-gpt-anthropic-midjourney-stable.

Shaner, Kyle. 2024. “Examining the potential benefits and dangers of AI.” University of Cincinnati. https://www.uc.edu/news/articles/2024/02/examining-the-potential-benefits-and-dangers-of-ai.html.

Sher, Gai, Ariela Benchlouch, and Barnes Cellino. 2023. “The privacy paradox with AI.” Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/privacy-paradox-with-ai-2023-10-31/.

Stanford University. n.d. “SQ10. What are the most pressing dangers of AI?” One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence (AI100). Accessed May 21, 2024. https://ai100.stanford.edu/gathering-strength-gathering-storms-one-hundred-year-study-artificial-intelligence-ai100-2021-1-0.

The White House. n.d. “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP.” The White House. Accessed May 21, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill-of-rights/.

Yurdasen, Deniz. 2023. “How Artificial Intelligence (AI) Is Used In Biometrics.” Aratek. https://www.aratek.co/news/how-artificial-intelligence-ai-is-used-in-biometrics.

Is Time Running Out for Tiktok?

By: Morgan Dreher

Edited by: Isabel Gortner and Sarah Wachs

Is TikTok officially banned? This question has infiltrated headlines and social media feeds in the past few years, only to end up a false alarm – but this time is different. On April 24, 2024, President Joe Biden signed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This legislation gives TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, nine months to divest from the app, potentially adding three months if a sale is pending. [1] The government cites national security concerns as its justification for the ban, but the legitimacy of these concerns is questionable. 

The bill’s framing searches for a loophole to appear as a regulation, while its effects are more similar to those of a ban. It “prohibits distributing, maintaining, or providing internet hosting services for a foreign adversary controlled application,” but TikTok and ByteDance are the only companies explicitly named in the bill, suggesting that it is intended as a targeted ban. [2] If ByteDance does not divest from TikTok, the app will no longer be available through Apple and Google app stores in the United States and the inability to install updates and bug fixes will undermine the functionality of the app over time. [3] There may be potential workarounds such as virtual private networks (VPNs) that users employ to hide their locations. Nevertheless, only time will tell the speed and degree to which 170 million American users may lose access to TikTok. [4]

The Act was passed with haste: it was introduced in March and passed one month later. [5] This diversion from Congress’ usual speed implies that their national security concerns are pressing. Because Chinese law requires organizations to provide their data to China’s government upon request, US government officials fear the weaponization of data harvested from TikTok. [6] In addition, they worry the Chinese government will attempt to use the app as a political tool by influencing users with propaganda and censorship. [7] Interestingly, other countries have expressed similar concerns, with some banning the app on government devices, [8] and India banning the app entirely in 2020. [9]

So, will ByteDance make the sale? It appears that even if they wanted to, it is not feasible, “not commercially, not technologically, not legally.” [10] It is not possible to transfer all of TikTok’s source code and algorithm from ByteDance to an American company, as Chinese regulation would not permit it, and these resources are essential to maintaining the app. [11] Plus, petitioners of the Act point out that isolating the app as an American platform would create an “island,” disconnecting Americans from the global engagement currently fostered on the app. [12] So with the sale off the table, is it time to say goodbye to TikTok? Signs say not yet.

This is not the first time TikTok has been threatened in the United States. Former President Donald Trump attempted to eradicate the app in 2020 through an executive order but was blocked by federal judges who claimed he did not adequately prove a national security risk. [13] About three years later, Montana attempted a statewide ban of TikTok, but a federal district judge similarly blocked the state for lacking proof of a threat and for First Amendment concerns. [14] It is no surprise that these same grounds are bringing into question the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.

Issues detected in the Act range from Due Process violations to “unlawful taking of private property without just compensation,” but TikTok is suing the United States government on the grounds of a First Amendment violation. [15] This case will be examined under strict scrutiny. This means that for the US government to interfere with free speech, they must demonstrate a compelling reason by showing that the threat is real. [16] In addition, the government must prove that its solution is the narrowest possible, and so far they have done neither. [17]

Legal precedent clarifies that a hypothetical threat to national security is not a sufficient reason to block freedom of speech. [18] While US government officials have expressed their concerns over what might happen, they have no concrete proof of a threat. Meanwhile, TikTok claims they never have and do not plan on sharing US user data with the Chinese government. [19] Furthermore, the Act also does not oblige with the second requirement of strict scrutiny, which necessitates that it be the least restrictive option for the specified aims. Even though TikTok has invested $2 billion in “Project Texas,” a design for a firewall between US TikTok data and ByteDance, [20] the government claimed it was an inadequate solution because ByteDance would keep the algorithm and source code. [21] This means the government must prove in court that “Project Texas'' will not suffice, and that there is no less restrictive way of achieving national security. 

Of course, there is always a possibility this case is decided in favor of the government, given the conservative nature of the legislation and the courts. This could set a dangerous precedent moving forward – after all, this is the first time Congress has holistically banned an entire speech platform. [22] The Act also specifies that platforms focused mostly on “product reviews, business reviews, and travel information” are exempt, [23] meaning that the government is restricting certain types of speech they view as “disfavorable.” [24] In an age of media censorship, this precedent could have a domino effect allowing the government to ban entire platforms and discriminate between types of speech.

But do not fret about losing TikTok yet – the Constitution is on the side of the 170 million United States TikTok users. The US government has a lofty task ahead of them to withstand strict scrutiny, and so far they have not demonstrated any qualification under the standards. However, the fact that this Act was passed in the first place is an indicator of the time in which we are living. Freedom of speech is one of multiple constitutional rights that is under siege. These rights are inextricably linked to our democracy – as our rights are stripped away, we lose our power as a people. No matter whether you are a TikTok user, this legislation indicates a dire concern for the American people.

Notes:

  1. “What a Tiktok Ban in the US Could Mean for You,” AP News, April 24, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-divestment-ban-what-you-need-to-know-5e1ff786e89da10a1b799241ae025406.

  2. Congress.gov, "H.R.7521 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act," March 14, 2024. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521. 

  3. “What a Tiktok Ban in the US Could Mean for You.”

  4. Bobby Allyn, “Legal Experts Say a Tiktok Ban without Specific Evidence Violates the First Amendment,” NPR, May 14, 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas.

  5. Paul Matzko, “A TikTok Ban Passes, But the Courts Are Next,” Cato at Liberty, April 24, 2024. https://www.cato.org/blog/tiktok-ban-passes-courts-are-next.

  6. Caitlin Yilek, “Why U.S. Officials Want to Ban Tiktok,” CBS News, April 24, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tiktok-ban-congress-reasons-why/. 

  7. Yilek, “Why U.S. Officials Want to Ban Tiktok.”

  8. “Which Countries Have Banned TikTok and Why?” Euronews, March 14, 2024. https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/14/which-countries-have-banned-tiktok-cybersecurity-data-privacy-espionage-fears.

  9. Krutika Pathi, “Here’s What Happened When India Banned Tiktok,” PBS, April 24, 2024. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/heres-what-happened-when-india-banned-tiktok.

  10. Ashley Capoot, “TikTok Sued the U.S. Government to Block a Ban. Here’s What Happens Now,” CNBC, May 8, 2024. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/08/tiktok-sued-the-us-government-to-block-a-ban-heres-what-happens-now.html.

  11. TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Ltd. “Petition for Review of Constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act,” DocumentCloud, May 7, 2024. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24651190-tiktok-petition.

  12. TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Ltd. “Petition for Review of Constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.”

  13.  Allyn, “Legal Experts Say a Tiktok Ban without Specific Evidence Violates the First Amendment.”

  14.  Matzko, “A TikTok Ban Passes, But the Courts Are Next.”

  15.  TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Ltd. “Petition for Review of Constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.”

  16.  Allyn, “Legal Experts Say a Tiktok Ban without Specific Evidence Violates the First Amendment.”

  17.  Allyn, “Legal Experts Say a Tiktok Ban without Specific Evidence Violates the First Amendment.”

  18.  Allyn, “Legal Experts Say a Tiktok Ban without Specific Evidence Violates the First Amendment.”

  19. “What a Tiktok Ban in the US Could Mean for You.”

  20.  Allyn, “Legal Experts Say a Tiktok Ban without Specific Evidence Violates the First Amendment.”

  21.  Yilek, “Why U.S. Officials Want to Ban Tiktok.”

  22. TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Ltd. “Petition for Review of Constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.”

  23. Congress.gov, "H.R.7521 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act." 

  24. TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Ltd. “Petition for Review of Constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.”

Bibliography:

Allyn, Bobby. “Legal Experts Say a Tiktok Ban without Specific Evidence Violates the First Amendment.” NPR, May 14, 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1251086753/tiktok-ban-first-amendment-lawsuit-free-speech-project-texas.

Capoot, Ashley. “TikTok Sued the U.S. Government to Block a Ban. Here’s What Happens Now.” CNBC, May 8, 2024. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/08/tiktok-sued-the-us-government-to-block-a-ban-heres-what-happens-now.html.

Congress.gov. "H.R.7521 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act." March 14, 2024. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521. 

Matzko, Paul. “A TikTok Ban Passes, But the Courts Are Next.” Cato at Liberty, April 24, 2024. https://www.cato.org/blog/tiktok-ban-passes-courts-are-next.

Pathi, Krutika. “Here’s What Happened When India Banned Tiktok.” PBS, April 24, 2024. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/heres-what-happened-when-india-banned-tiktok.

TikTok Inc., and ByteDance Ltd. “Petition for Review of Constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.” DocumentCloud, May 7, 2024. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24651190-tiktok-petition.

“What a Tiktok Ban in the US Could Mean for You.” AP News, April 24, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-divestment-ban-what-you-need-to-know-5e1ff786e89da10a1b799241ae025406.

“Which Countries Have Banned TikTok and Why?” Euronews, March 14, 2024. https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/03/14/which-countries-have-banned-tiktok-cybersecurity-data-privacy-espionage-fears.

Yilek, Caitlin. “Why U.S. Officials Want to Ban Tiktok.” CBS News, April 24, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tiktok-ban-congress-reasons-why/. 

The US Takes Last Place: The Problem of Paid Parental Leave

By: Morgan Dreher

Edited by: Isabel Gortner

Imagine welcoming a child into the world, and having a year off of work to be with your baby, all while being paid. This concept sounds radical to many people in the United States but is conventional in most other industrialized nations. The United States is the only wealthy country in the world without a national program for paid parental leave, with only 21% of employees having access to this type of leave, [1] and 46% of employees not even having access to unpaid, job-protected parental leave. [2] These numbers are even more bleak for low-income families, with a mere 12% of low-income workers receiving paid leave. [3] Since low-income workers are already less likely to be able to afford unpaid time off, this gap in access to paid leave perpetuates issues of economic disparity. [4] Public opinion is clearly in support of paid parental leave, with 82% of Americans across political identifications supporting the concept. [5] Yet, the United States lags behind every other industrialized nation in this domain, and evidence shows we should be making an effort to catch up.

First, there are distinctions between different types of parental leave. While traditional maternity leave applies to a mother who gives birth, parental leave more broadly applies to any new parent, including adoptive and foster parents. While unpaid leave is self-explanatory, paid leave signifies compensation at a certain percentage of the employee’s typical wage, and can be accompanied by stipulations or waiting periods. Another significant factor is job protection, which is a guarantee that the parent will retain their job throughout their leave. Parental leave can exist as its own policy, or it can also fit under the umbrella of family leave. 

Paid parental leave has vast health benefits for parents and children alike. Research suggests that poor mental health is common for mothers after birth, and paid leave of at least two to three months protects against this issue significantly. [6] Leave also has significant health benefits for the child, such as extending the duration of breastfeeding, [7] and decreasing infant mortality rates. [8] Research also reveals the importance of providing parental leave rather than just maternity leave, as paid leave improves the mental health of fathers, [8] and “increases gender-equitable norms and leave uptake.” [9] It even benefits employers, “with positive effects towards worker productivity, morale, job satisfaction, and reduced job turnover.” [10]

So, what does current policy look like in the United States? The US has several programs in place, although they are far from measuring up to the national programs belonging to every other country in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). [11] The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) requires employers in the US to allow their employees 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected family leave during the first year after birth, adoption, or start of foster care – but this policy has several caveats. [12] For example, this only applies to companies with over 50 employees, and the parent must have worked 32 full-time weeks the year prior to their leave, meaning small businesses are exempt from compliance and new hires and part-time workers are not covered. [13] This leaves 40% of US employees ineligible, and another large portion who cannot afford an unpaid leave. [14] Since then, the Federal Employee Paid Leave Act, implemented in 2020, makes full-paid leave available to certain federal employees. [15][16] This is an extension of FMLA, and although Congress attempted to make eligibility criteria less strict in 2021, certain groups such as USPS employees remain ineligible. [17] 

In general, parental leave policies are notably more generous in every other OECD nation as well as EU countries. For example, according to an article by Baum II and Ruhm, “Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, and Sweden provide at least 11 months of leave paid at more than two-thirds of earnings.” [18] Additionally, Switzerland offers 100% wage replacement for eight weeks of leave. [19] Sweden is particularly generous, with 480 days of paid leave per family. In this case, both parents are allotted 240 days but have the option to transfer up to 150 of those days to the other parent. [20] 

While these policies provide extensive leave, they are not free from issues, either. Offering leave to each parent is intended to encourage gender parity and fathers taking a larger role in caretaking, but the ability to transfer leave between spouses has proven counterproductive to this goal, with women taking the majority of the leave. [21] One reason for this is women seeking to continue breastfeeding, but gender norms also play a part in the continuity of these heteronormative roles. [22] As a result, women take significantly more leave than men, contributing to the wage gap and less female participation in the workforce. [23] Thus, policies like Sweden’s, which allot 90 “use it or lose it” days to each parent are effective in creating a “higher employment rate of women (78.0%) than the E.U average (6.7%).” [24] Another issue abroad has arisen with policy in China, where the extension of maternity leave has led to increased employment discrimination towards women. [25] Thus, while these generous policies are beneficial to families, their increased duration accentuates the importance of policies that encourage employment equity and participation of fathers in caretaking. 

Since the US has no national mandate for paid parental leave, some states have taken matters into their own hands. Currently, 13 states and the District of Columbia have implemented mandatory paid family leave programs. [26] Almost all of these states, excluding New York, utilize social insurance plans to pay the employees on leave, meaning employees’ payroll taxes fund the programs. [27] Although these programs are not as generous in terms of duration and pay compared to programs abroad, they are still effective. California’s Paid Family Leave (PFL) program offers eight weeks of leave per parent with 60-70% wage replacement, after completing an application process. [28] This policy has led to improved child health and maternal mental health, improved employment outcomes for mothers, and has little financial cost to employers. [29]

So, where does the US go from here? One option is the FAMILY Act, which was introduced to the Senate in 2021. [30] This legislation would provide 12 weeks of paid family leave to all US workers, with flexible criteria, and pay according to a sliding scale based on income. [31] Given the efficacy of state programs like California’s PFL, and widespread public support, this seems like a logical next step. However, the bill has not seen any progress, and some believe it will never be passed due to our rising debt ceiling and Congress’ resistance to expanding the “social safety net.” [32] Given these concerns, it is unlikely that the United States’ paid parental leave program will ever begin to resemble the programs implemented by other OECD countries. Nonetheless, California’s PFL program is still effective, meaning smaller-scale reform is worthwhile. Passage of the FAMILY Act would certainly be instrumental to the health of our nation, but in the meantime, states can continue to pass and improve their own programs for their residents. Overall, the United States is moving in the right direction, but it is critical to the well-being of our families that we collectively push for a more generous and widespread approach to paid parental leave. 


Notes:

  1. Krystin Arneson, “Why doesn't the US have mandated paid maternity leave?” BBC, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210624-why-doesnt-the-us-have-mandated-paid-maternity-leave.

  2. Sarah Coombs, “Paid Leave Is Essential for Healthy Moms and Babies,” National Partnership for Women & Families, 2021. https://nationalpartnership.org/report/paid-leave-is-essential-for/.

  3. Emily Peck, “Paid family leave still out of reach for most American workers,” Axios, 2023. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/01/fmla-paid-family-leave-policy-america.

  4. H. K. Davison and Adam S. Blackburn, “The Case for Offering Paid Leave: Benefits to the Employer, Employee, and Society,” Compensation and Benefits Review 55, no. 1 (October), 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687221131728.

  5. Arneson, “Why doesn't the US have mandated paid maternity leave?”

  6. Amy Heshmati, Helena Honkaniemi, and Sol P. Juárez, “The effect of parental leave on parents’ mental health: a systematic review,” The Lancet Public Health 8, no. 1 (January), 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.

  7. Heshmati, Honkaniemi, and Juárez, “The effect of parental leave on parents’ mental health: a systematic review.” 

  8. Coombs, “Paid Leave Is Essential for Healthy Moms and Babies.”

  9. Maria I. Olsson, “Gender Gap in Parental Leave Intentions: Evidence from 37 Countries,” International Society of Political Psychology 44, no. 6 (January): 1163-1192, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12880.

  10. Davison and Blackburn, “The Case for Offering Paid Leave: Benefits to the Employer, Employee, and Society.”

  11. Davison and Blackburn, “The Case for Offering Paid Leave: Benefits to the Employer, Employee, and Society.”

  12. Lauren Hansen, “Parental Leave Policies: What Employers Should Know (2023),” TechnologyAdvice, 2023. https://technologyadvice.com/blog/human-resources/parental-leave-policies-for-business.

  13. Hansen, “Parental Leave Policies: What Employers Should Know (2023).”

  14. Davison and Blackburn, “The Case for Offering Paid Leave: Benefits to the Employer, Employee, and Society.”

  15. “Paid Parental Leave for Federal Employees,” n.d. U.S. Department of Commerce, Accessed February 23, 2024. https://www.commerce.gov/hr/paid-parental-leave-federal-employees.

  16. “The Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Benefit,” CRS Reports, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12420.

  17. “Paid Parental Leave Is Available to Most Federal Employees—But Some May Not Know About It,” Government Accountability Office, 2024. https://www.gao.gov/blog/paid-parental-leave-available-most-federal-employees-some-may-not-know-about-it.

  18. Charles L. Baum II and Christopher J. Ruhm, “The Effects of Paid Family Leave in California on Labor Market Outcomes,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35, no. 2 (February): 333-356, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21894.

  19. Hansen, “Parental Leave Policies: What Employers Should Know (2023).”

  20. Rosalind Smith, “The 5 best countries for parental leave,” Mauve Group, 2022. https://mauvegroup.com/innovation-hub/blog/the-5-best-countries-for-parental-leave.

  21. Gemma Mitchell, “Shared Parental Leave: Can Transferable Maternity Leave Ever Encourage Fathers to Care?” Industrial Law Journal 52, no. 1 (March): 149–178, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac015.

  22. Mitchell, “Shared Parental Leave: Can Transferable Maternity Leave Ever Encourage Fathers to Care?”

  23. Olsson, “Gender Gap in Parental Leave Intentions: Evidence from 37 Countries.”

  24. Heewon You, “Parental Leave Practice in Sweden and Gender Equality,” Lund University Publications, 2023. https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=9118994&fileOId=9118997.

  25. Guo Tian, “The Legal System of the Maternity and Parenting Leave Under the Background of China’s “Three-Child” Policy: From the Perspective of the Right to Equal Employment,” Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, (February), 369-389, 2023. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-99-2_28

  26. “State Paid Family Leave Laws Across the U.S,” Bipartisan Policy Center, 2024. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/state-paid-family-leave-laws-across-the-u-s/.

  27. “State Paid Family Leave Laws Across the U.S.”

  28. “Celebrating 20 Years of Paid Family Leave,” n.d. EDD, Accessed February 23, 2024. https://edd.ca.gov/en/disability/paid-family-leave/.

  29. Lindsey R. Bullinger, “The Effect of Paid Family Leave on Infant and Parental Health in the United States,” Journal of Health Economics 66 (July): 101-116, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.05.006.

  30. Congress.gov, "S.248 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): FAMILY Act," February 4, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/248.

  31. Molly W. Williamson, “Getting To Know the New FAMILY Act,” Center for American Progress, 2023. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/getting-to-know-the-new-family-act/.

  32.  Peck, “Paid family leave still out of reach for most American workers.”

Bibliography:

Arneson, Krystin. 2021. “Why doesn't the US have mandated paid maternity leave?” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20210624-why-doesnt-the-us-have-mandated-paid-maternity-leave.

Baum II, Charles L., and Christopher J. Ruhm. 2016. “The Effects of Paid Family Leave in California on Labor Market Outcomes.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35, no. 2 (February): 333-356. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21894.

Bullinger, Lindsey R. 2019. “The Effect of Paid Family Leave on Infant and Parental Health in the United States.” Journal of Health Economics 66 (July): 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.05.006.

“Celebrating 20 Years of Paid Family Leave.” n.d. EDD. Accessed February 23, 2024. https://edd.ca.gov/en/disability/paid-family-leave/.

Congress.gov. "S.248 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): FAMILY Act." February 4, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/248.

Coombs, Sarah. 2021. “Paid Leave Is Essential for Healthy Moms and Babies.” National Partnership for Women & Families. https://nationalpartnership.org/report/paid-leave-is-essential-for/.

Davison, H. K., and Adam S. Blackburn. 2022. “The Case for Offering Paid Leave: Benefits to the Employer, Employee, and Society.” Compensation and Benefits Review 55, no. 1 (October). https://doi.org/10.1177/08863687221131728.

“The Federal Employee Paid Parental Leave Benefit.” 2023. CRS Reports. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12420.

Hansen, Lauren. 2023. “Parental Leave Policies: What Employers Should Know (2023).” TechnologyAdvice. https://technologyadvice.com/blog/human-resources/parental-leave-policies-for-business.

Heshmati, Amy, Helena Honkaniemi, and Sol P. Juárez. 2023. “The effect of parental leave on parents’ mental health: a systematic review.” The Lancet Public Health 8, no. 1 (January). https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00311-5.

Mitchell, Gemma. 2023. “Shared Parental Leave: Can Transferable Maternity Leave Ever Encourage Fathers to Care?” Industrial Law Journal 52, no. 1 (March): 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac015.

Olsson, Maria I. 2023. “Gender Gap in Parental Leave Intentions: Evidence from 37 Countries.” International Society of Political Psychology 44, no. 6 (January): 1163-1192. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12880.

“Paid Parental Leave for Federal Employees.” n.d. U.S. Department of Commerce. Accessed February 23, 2024. https://www.commerce.gov/hr/paid-parental-leave-federal-employees.

“Paid Parental Leave Is Available to Most Federal Employees—But Some May Not Know About It.” 2024. Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/blog/paid-parental-leave-available-most-federal-employees-some-may-not-know-about-it.

Peck, Emily. 2023. “Paid family leave still out of reach for most American workers.” Axios. https://www.axios.com/2023/02/01/fmla-paid-family-leave-policy-america.

Smith, Rosalind. 2022. “The 5 best countries for parental leave.” Mauve Group. https://mauvegroup.com/innovation-hub/blog/the-5-best-countries-for-parental-leave.

“State Paid Family Leave Laws Across the U.S.” 2024. Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/state-paid-family-leave-laws-across-the-u-s/.

Tian, Guo. 2023. “The Legal System of the Maternity and Parenting Leave Under the Background of China’s “Three-Child” Policy: From the Perspective of the Right to Equal Employment.” Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, (February), 369-389. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-99-2_28

Williamson, Molly W. 2023. “Getting To Know the New FAMILY Act.” Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/getting-to-know-the-new-family-act/.

You, Heewon. 2023. “Parental Leave Practice in Sweden and Gender Equality.” Lund University Publications. https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=9118994&fileOId=9118997.