The Third Red Scare – The Atlantic

Report on the Contraction of U.S. Civic Space and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes recent actions by the United States federal government that have resulted in a significant contraction of civic space. These actions are examined through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Challenges to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The administration’s actions represent a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The erosion of fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression as outlined in Target 16.10, is a central concern.

Erosion of Fundamental Freedoms and Public Access to Information

• Suppression of Political Expression: The federal government has engaged in a campaign to limit political expression, reminiscent of historical periods of repression. This includes the prosecution of political opponents and the dismissal of government employees perceived as disloyal.
• Pressure on Media Institutions: Media organizations have faced investigations and threats, such as the withholding of merger approvals, contingent on adherence to the administration’s political agenda. This undermines the goal of ensuring public access to information and protecting press freedom (Target 16.10).
• Restrictions on Assembly and Speech: Actions such as an executive order demanding charges for flag burning and attempts to legally designate protest movements like antifa as terrorist organizations directly threaten freedoms of speech and assembly.

Undermining the Rule of Law and Access to Justice

The principle of equal access to justice (Target 16.3) is compromised when legal and administrative tools are used for partisan purposes.

1. Targeting of Dissenting Voices: Foreign students, academics, and commentators critical of government policy have faced visa revocations and deportation attempts, creating a chilling effect and unequal application of the law based on political views.
2. Coercion of Legal and Business Sectors: The administration has barred law firms from government work and pressured businesses through regulatory threats, discouraging association with causes deemed politically unfavorable and limiting access to legal representation for targeted groups.

Impact on Social and Educational Development Goals

The administration’s policies extend beyond political institutions, affecting progress on key social development goals related to education, gender equality, and the reduction of inequalities.

Threats to SDG 4: Quality Education

The autonomy and integrity of educational institutions, critical for achieving SDG 4, have been systematically targeted.

• Financial Coercion of Universities: Federal funding has been withheld from prominent universities to force compliance with the administration’s political agenda. This jeopardizes the financial stability and academic freedom essential for quality higher education.
• Creation of a Climate of Fear: The targeting of student protesters and academics has created a “chilling effect” on campuses, discouraging open discourse and critical inquiry into politically sensitive topics, thereby diminishing the quality of education.

Setbacks for SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

Specific policies have targeted marginalized groups, undermining efforts to achieve gender equality and reduce inequalities based on origin, identity, or other status.

• Discrimination Based on Gender Identity (SDG 5): The administration has demonstrated hostility toward transgender people, including efforts to remove them from the armed forces and erase their presence from government materials. This campaign, described as a “Sapphire Scare,” is a direct affront to gender equality.
• Targeting of Immigrants and Non-Citizens (SDG 10): The aggressive use of immigration enforcement to detain and deport non-citizens for their political speech, such as the case of Rumeysa Özturk, exemplifies the creation of a system where rights are unequally applied, contrary to the goals of SDG 10.

Civil Society Resistance and the Role of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

Despite the pressure on civic institutions, a robust response from civil society organizations demonstrates the importance of partnerships (SDG 17) in defending democratic principles and the rule of law.

Legal and Public Advocacy

1. Litigation by Civil Liberties Organizations: Groups such as the ACLU and the AAUP have filed numerous lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions, using the legal system to protect fundamental freedoms and uphold the tenets of SDG 16.
2. Public Mobilization and Boycotts: Public outrage, organized boycotts, and online campaigns, such as the response to the temporary removal of Jimmy Kimmel’s television show, have proven effective in reversing corporate capitulation to government pressure.

This organized resistance, leveraging a mature civil liberties infrastructure, stands in contrast to the more muted opposition during previous eras of repression. It highlights the critical role of a strong and active civil society as a partner in safeguarding the institutional foundations necessary for all sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most central SDG in the article. The text extensively discusses the erosion of fundamental freedoms, attacks on the justice system, and the weakening of accountable institutions. The administration’s actions, such as prosecuting political opponents, silencing dissent, pressuring the media, and disregarding legal precedents, directly undermine the principles of peace, justice, and strong governance.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article highlights how the administration’s crackdown disproportionately targets specific groups. This includes noncitizens, such as the Turkish Ph.D. student Rumeysa Özturk and the British commentator Sami Hamdi, as well as transgender people who were pushed out of the armed forces. These actions create and exacerbate inequalities by targeting individuals based on their nationality, political views, and gender identity.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: The article details a “frontal attack on everything that has to do with universities and colleges.” This includes withholding federal funding from institutions like Harvard and Columbia to force political compliance, creating a “chilling effect” that discourages academic freedom, and punishing professors and students for their political expression. These actions compromise the integrity and quality of education.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The article connects the current administration’s actions to a “Lavender Scare” by describing a campaign of “aggressive hostility toward transgender people,” such as pushing them out of the armed forces. It also notes a “disdain for feminism,” evidenced by the removal of materials on women’s achievements from government websites, which relates to promoting gender equality.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article discusses the role of civil society in resisting the administration’s repressive actions. It highlights the work of organizations like the ACLU and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in filing lawsuits and organizing opposition. This demonstrates the importance of partnerships between civil society organizations to protect rights and uphold democratic principles.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. The article is replete with examples of this target being undermined. These include the president’s statement “We took the freedom of speech away,” the investigation of media companies, blocking reporters from the White House, revoking visas for online criticism, and the jailing of a citizen for sharing a meme.
• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The administration’s push for the “prosecution of the president’s political opponents” and its use of the Justice Department to settle political scores directly contravene the promotion of the rule of law and equal justice. The targeting of specific individuals for their speech, while others are not, demonstrates an unequal application of the law.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article describes how institutions like the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are being used for political ends, such as when its chair threatened media companies to force the suspension of a TV show (Jimmy Kimmel Live) and leveraged merger approvals to install a “Trump-friendly ombudsman” at CBS. This undermines the accountability and impartiality of such institutions.
• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The policy of pushing transgender people out of the armed forces is a clear example of a discriminatory practice. Similarly, snatching up and attempting to deport foreign students for criticizing Israel is a discriminatory practice based on nationality and political opinion.
• Target 5.c: Adopt and strengthen sound policies and enforceable legislation for the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. The article describes actions that are the opposite of this target, such as the campaign against transgender people, which it calls a “Sapphire Scare,” and the removal of information about women’s achievements from government websites.
• Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are… inclusive and effective learning environments for all. The article describes how the administration’s attacks on higher education have created a “chilling effect,” where professors and students “ceased speaking publicly” for fear of retaliation. This creates an environment of fear that is not inclusive or effective for learning and free inquiry.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 16.10.1 (Number of verified cases of… arbitrary detention… of journalists, … and human rights advocates): The article provides specific cases that could be counted under this indicator. Examples include the jailing of a retired police officer for “more than a month… after sharing a Facebook meme,” the detention of Rumeysa Özturk, a Ph.D. student, for her writing, and the detention of Sami Hamdi, a political commentator, for his speech.
• Implied Indicator (Number of journalists or media outlets denied access to government briefings): The article explicitly states that the administration “blocked AP reporters from the White House press pool.” This action can be quantified and used as an indicator of restrictions on press freedom.
• Implied Indicator (Number of visas revoked or individuals deported based on political expression): The article mentions the administration “revoked the visas of six foreigners who had criticized Kirk online” and “snatched up and attempted to deport foreign students studying at U.S. universities who had criticized Israel.” These are quantifiable actions that measure the suppression of speech among noncitizens.
• Implied Indicator (Amount of federal funding withheld from educational institutions for political reasons): The article notes that the administration “withheld funding for high-profile universities such as Harvard and Columbia with the goal of forcing their capitulation to the administration’s political agenda.” The total monetary value of this withheld funding could serve as a direct indicator of political pressure on academia.
• Implied Indicator (Number of government employees dismissed for perceived political disloyalty): The article mentions the administration has “fired government employees for taking positions perceived as less than entirely loyal to Trump” and “pushed [transgender people] out of the armed forces.” These dismissals can be tracked as an indicator of the politicization of the civil service and military.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theatlantic.com