Jeff Sessions Attorney General

How Jeff Sessions could change the Justice Department (By: Jeff Zeleny; CNN)

Under the Obama administration, Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch dedicated Justice Department resources to areas such as civil liberties, voting rights, same-sex marriage, environmental and consumer protection. Elections have consequences, however, and President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Justice Department, Jeff Sessions, has a new mandate.

Sessions, the 69-year-old Alabama senator, is likely to change course and place a greater emphasis on more traditional criminal law areas such as drug and immigration enforcement. He would take a narrow view of the scope of federal authority in other areas and emphasize respect to the states.

Resources aren't endless, and as head of the department, Sessions will have to consider where to devote his. Under the Obama administration, for example, DOJ brought a lawsuit challenging Arizona's controversial immigration law. Its lawyers also fought back hard against a lawsuit brought by states challenging the President's executive orders on immigration. And in the area of gay rights, the administration chose not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in 2011, a federal law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

"The average American may have a hard time seeing how shifts in enforcement priorities within the Justice Department affect their daily lives, but the impact can be substantial," said Steve Vladeck, CNN legal contributor and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

"Whether it's in how much (or how little) to enforce anti-discrimination laws against local governments or private employers, how aggressively to enforce (or not enforce) drug laws, or taking a different position on the relationship between the federal government and the states with respect to immigration, the environment and other hot-button topics, how resources are allocated has potentially monumental substantive policy implications," Vladeck added.

"Sessions will bring a dramatically different ideological vision for the role of the Justice Department, " said Jonathan H. Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University. "This will occur across the board and because of his years on the Senate Judiciary committee, his influence may also extend to judicial nominations."

Critics of Sessions are preparing for the worst. They say a man who has encouraged the investigation of Hillary Clinton, and who himself lost a chance to serve on the federal judiciary in 1986 after allegations of racism, shouldn't get the job as America's top lawyer.

"It is a blatantly inflammatory act in a time of heightened focus on violence and injustice of communities of color," said Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice.

One area that Sessions is sure to target is immigration.

Immigrant rights attorneys -- still stung by the fact that Obama's executive orders were blocked-- were quick to respond to the nomination, saying it should "send chills down the spines of all Americans."

"Under Trump, Sessions was pushed from the fringe into the center of American politics," said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. "As a result, women, immigrants, the Black community, the LGBTQ community & anyone who cares about justice/equality for all are being pushed out."

But Sen. Ted Cruz, who himself was under consideration for the post, struck back at Sessions' critics at an appearance at the conservative Federalist Society on Friday and said that Sessions is a necessary change of course from the Obama years.

"We need all hands on deck," Cruz said, and noted that many of the lawyers in the room might land in the new administration. "Do not follow the example of the previous administration," he warned, speaking about the need for deregulation and a reining in of the power of administrative agencies. "We must rebuild our legal culture," Cruz said.

Supporters of Sessions say he will help change the way Washington works: "He is not intimidated by the liberal media or the Washington establishment," said Jim DeMint, president of the Heritage Foundation. "He should easily be confirmed."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, set to take over as the top Democrat on the Judiciary panel, warned it might not be smooth sailing.

"Senator Sessions has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee for many years so he's well aware of the thorough vetting he's about to receive," she said. "While many of us have worked with Sen. Sessions closely and know him to be a staunch advocate for his beliefs, the process will remain the same: a fair and complete review of the nominee."

Scott PruittHead of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Donald Trump’s EPA Pick Imperils Science—And Earth (By: Eric Pooley; Time)

Scott Pruitt has questioned whether toxic mercury is a public health danger, shut down his environmental unit while contamination soaredand put industry interests before the publics.

As the Senate prepares for Scott Pruitt’s Jan. 18 confirmation hearing, much of the debate over Donald Trump’s choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency has centered on Pruitt’s doubts about global climate change. And though it would be genuinely appalling to have an EPA Administrator who doesn’t accept basic climate science, the trouble with Pruitt goes deeper. As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Pruitt has shown he is not only a relentless opponent of EPA standards for climate pollution. He has been a relentless opponent of basic pollution limits as well, the kind that protect us from mercury, smog, arsenic and other deadly air toxics. He questions whether toxic mercury pollution is hazardous to public health. He shut down his office’s Environmental Protection Unit. And now he wants to do for the United States what he did for Oklahoma.

For six years as Attorney General, Pruitt kept very busy doing the bidding of his financial supporters in the oil and gas industry. E&E News reported last month that, after being elected in 2010, he folded his office’s Environmental Protection Unit, which investigated things like water contamination and illegal dumping, and launched a new “Federalism Unit” devoted to filing legal challenges against the EPA—at least 14 of them, 13 of which had industry players as co-parties to the suits and financial contributors to Pruitt’s political causes. A Pruitt spokesman says others absorbed the environmental unit’s duties. But its budget was zeroed out by 2014, and one former state environmental official has come forward to say that Pruitt “hasn’t really done anything to protect Oklahomans.”

Mercury is a deadly neurotoxin that damages the brains of “the developing fetus and young children,” according to the American Academy of Pediatrics. It is spewed into the air from coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources before settling into lakes and waterways and contaminating the fish we eat. But Pruitt’s challenges against the EPA’s mercury standards include a tidy piece of scientific denial, claiming “the record does not support the EPA’s findings that mercury… pose[s] public health hazards.” After that legal challenge failed, Pruitt sued a

second time to block the mercury rules—even though virtually all power plants had already complied with them at a fraction of the expected cost.

Thanks in part to the EPA rules Pruitt opposed, mercury levels in Atlantic Bluefin tuna are rapidly declining. But Oklahomans aren’t so lucky. While Pruitt was busy trying to kill national mercury rules, the number of Oklahoma lakes listed for mercury contamination was climbing. This year, the state lists 40 lakes with fish consumption advisories due to mercury levels—up from 19 listed in 2010. Eight lakes were added just this year. Another Attorney General might have been trying to identify the sources of this pollution. But Pruitt was apparently too busy suing the EPA.

Pruitt also attacks limits on ground-level ozone—better known as smog—despite the fact that ozone problems are acute and worsening in Oklahoma. The latest American Lung Association report gave all Oklahoma counties surveyed an “F” for ozone problems and found that the number of high ozone days had increased in most counties as compared to 2010-’12.

Pruitt’s approach to public service in Oklahoma suggests that as EPA Administrator he will mainly represent the energy industry. He took over $300,000 from energy interests for his own campaigns and directed millions from them to affiliated political groups that supported his pro-pollution agenda. To cite just a few examples, he accepted tens of thousands of dollars from Exxon, Devon Energy and Oklahoma Gas & Electric executives within weeks of taking action on behalf of those companies—going so far as to take a letter drafted by Devon Energy attorneys, copying it onto state government stationery and sending it to the EPA above his signature. While there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing, the New York Times called this an “unprecedented, secretive” alliance between Pruitt and top energy producers. Yet Pruitt has defended it, saying, “That’s actually called representative government in my view of the world.”

Pruitt uses overheated rhetoric to describe sensible environmental rules. During his reelection campaign, his website railed against “oppressive regulations [that] are stifling our ability” to sustain the economy. He promised to be “vigilant in protecting the rights of our entrepreneurs,” by which he meant, apparently, giving the oil and gas industry whatever it wanted.

By opposing pollution limits, Pruitt claims to be protecting the Constitution and advancing the cause of freedom. But these arguments don’t hold water. In making our air cleaner, the EPA is enforcing the Clean Air Act, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by Congress. The courts have repeatedly ruled that the EPA has a legal obligation to protect Americans from dangerous pollutants. And the rules Pruitt sued over are designed to give maximum authority to the states and enormous flexibility to businesses.

Pruitt’s legal knowledge and methodical approach could make him extremely effective at tearing down clean air protections. He is focused, strategic and careful, hiding his dangerous positions behind legalese. It will be up to the Senate, during his confirmation hearing, to lay bare the truth about Pruitt.

Betsy DeVosSecretary of Education

Trump picks billionaire Betsy DeVos, school voucher advocate, as education secretary(By: Emma Brown; Washington Post)

Betsy DeVos is hardly a household name, but the Michigan billionaire and conservative activist has quietly helped change the education landscape in many states, spending millions of dollars in a push to expand voucher programs that give families taxpayer dollars to pay for private and religious schools.

Now DeVos is poised to spread her preference for vouchers nationwide. President-elect Trump named her as his nominee for education secretary, a pick that suggests he aims to follow through with campaign promises to expand the movement toward “school choice” — including vouchers and charter schools — in an effort to break up a public education system that he called “a government-run monopoly.”

Trump’s pick has intensified what already was a polarized debate about school choice. Advocates for such choice see in the Trump administration an extraordinary opportunity to advance their cause on a national scale, whereas teachers unions and many Democrats fear an unprecedented and catastrophic attack on public schools, which they see as one of the nation’s bedrock civic institutions.

As a billionaire Republican power broker with no professional experience in schools, DeVos is an unconventional choice to lead the federal education bureaucracy. And while her views on choice are well known, it is unclear how she would lead a department with responsibilities that sprawl from administering student loans to enforcing civil rights in schools.

She has said little about Common Core, for example, and her ties to organizations that support the K-12 academic standards — including as a board member of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, started by former Florida governor Jeb Bush — raised concern for Trump supporters, who saw her nomination as a sign that the president-elect is wavering on his vehement opposition to the standards.

From her Twitter account Wednesday, DeVos linked to a website where she wrote that she had initially believed in the standards but became disenchanted with them as they “got turned into a federalized boondoggle.” “I am not a supporter — period,” she wrote.

Many Republicans on Capitol Hill are hoping that DeVos will shrink the Education Department’s role in public schools and leave more decisions to states and districts.“Betsy DeVos is an excellent choice,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, adding that he expects DeVos to stop the Obama administration’s effort to turn the federal government into a “national school board.” Alexander led a recent bipartisan effort to pass the Every Student Succeeds Act, which shifted power to the states.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the education committee, said she plans to scrutinize DeVos’s record and ask her about her qualifications, priorities and plans. Murray also said she would

press DeVos to explain — given Trump’s statements about immigrants, women, Muslims and others — how she “will ensure the safety and respect of all students, of all backgrounds across this country.”

DeVos, 58, grew up in Michigan, where her father, Edgar Prince, made a fortune supplying auto parts to manufacturers. She graduated from Calvin College, a Christian liberal arts school in Grand Rapids, Mich., and married Dick DeVos Jr., an heir to the Amway direct-sales fortune. Together, they founded the Windquest Group, which invests in technology and manufacturing.

They wield powerful influence in Michigan, where she is a former chair of the state GOP and he was the Republican nominee for governor in 2006. They also are major donors to GOP candidates and conservative causes nationwide. During 2016, they gave $2.7 million to Republican candidates and political action committees, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics. The DeVoses also have donated millions of dollars to the arts and to Christian organizations.

But they are perhaps most ardent about their support for school choice, leading a movement to promote vouchers and charter schools. DeVos founded and serves as chairman of the American Federation of Children, a platform she has used to support candidates who endorse vouchers and charter schools and to attack candidates who don’t.

Three decades ago, there were no state voucher programs. Now, according to the advocacy group EdChoice, about 400,000 children in 29 states are going to private schools with the help of public dollars.

DeVos is working toward a scenario in which “all parents, regardless of their Zip code, have had the opportunity to choose the best educational setting for their children,” she said in 2013.

Trump has proposed redirecting $20 billion in federal spending toward a grant program for states to expand vouchers and charter schools. He has also said that he wants to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to persuade states to devote another $110 billion toward vouchers.

Research on voucher programs shows mixed results. Several recent studies have found that voucher recipients’ math and reading test scores decline after they transfer from public to private schools. But other studies have found that voucher recipients are more likely to enroll in and complete college.

Public school advocates fear that redirecting dollars from public to private schools not only weakens public education but also gives taxpayer support to institutions that don’t have the same obligation to serve all students — including those in need or who have learning disabilities.

Vouchers also send money to religious schools, a fact that provoked political resistance and legal challenges. “Americans are always free to send their children to private and religious schools, but raiding the public treasury to subsidize private businesses and religious organizations runs against the public trust and Constitution,” said Rabbi Jack Moline, president of Interfaith Alliance, adding that Trump’s nomination “suggests he has little regard for . . . the principle of separation of church and state.”

She had warm words for Trump on Wednesday. “I am honored to work with the President-elect on his vision to make American education great again. The status quo in ed is not acceptable,” DeVos tweeted. “Together, we can work to make transformational change to ensure every student has the opportunity to fulfill his or her highest potential.”

Tom PriceSecretary of Health & Human Services

How Trump’s Health Secretary wouldReplace Obamacare(By: Tami Luhby; CNN)

One of Tom Price's top priorities as health secretary would be to dismantle the health reform law that his two predecessors spent six years implementing. Price, an orthopedic surgeon who chairs the House Budget Committee, has long decried Obamacare as a threat to quality and affordable health care. Before entering politics, Price spent nearly 20 years in private practice as an orthopedic surgeon. He also served as medical director of the orthopedic clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital and as an assistant professor at Emory University's School of Medicine. Price then spent four terms in the Georgia State Senate. In 2004, he was elected to the House of Representatives and was Budget Committee chair in 2015.

Tax credits to buy insurance on the individual market. Incentives to sock money away in Health Savings Accounts. Limits on employer-sponsored plans. High-risk pools to cover the sick. These are some of the ways Tom Price, Donald Trump's choice as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, would replace Obamacare. Price has long been an opponent of Obamacare. The Georgia Republican says the health reform law has hiked premiums and limited access to doctors.

Price is likely to have a major impact on the Trump Administration's effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. He is one of the few Republican lawmakers with a detailed plan on how to replace Obamacare. His most recent bill, The Empowering Patients First Act of 2015, bears many similarities to Trump's vision for health care reform. Also, it limits using federal funds to pay for abortions and protects health care providers who don't want to perform abortions for religious reasons.

Conservatives are cheering Price's selection, saying he will put patients first and adhere to Republican ideals. Some health care experts, however, say the nominee's plan would help the healthy and rich, while hurting those who are older, sick or poor.

Here's what Price's plan would do:

Buying individual coverage: Like many Republican proposals, Price would give refundable tax credits to those who buy policies in the individual market.

Price actually lays out how much people would receive. The credits would be adjusted by age, ranging from $1,200 for those age 18 to 35 to $3,000 for those age 50 and up.

This provision would help enrollees who make too much to receive Obamacare's federal subsidies. Middle class Americans -- a single person earning more than $47,520 or a family of four with an income of at least $97,200 -- have complained about the high cost of unsubsidized Obamacare premiums.

Under Obamacare, lower-income enrollees receive subsidies that can lower the cost of coverage to just under 10% of their annual income.

Obamacare's subsidies are much more generous for those who qualify. Take a 27-year-old with an income of $25,000 a year. He can receive an average of $1,920 in subsidies to pay for the benchmark Obamacare plan, which will cost an average of $3,624 in 2017, according to federal data. But under Price's plan, he'd only receive $1,200 to offset the price. Likewise, a family of four earning $60,000 would receive $8,232 in Obamacare subsidies, on average, to pay for a benchmark plan costing an average of $13,080. That family would receive only $6,000 under Price's plan.

Those with even lower incomes -- individuals with incomes below $29,700 or a family of four with an income below $60,750 -- receive additional subsidies to lower their deductibles and co-pays under Obamacare.

A large share of the uninsured are low income so they would need substantial credits to allow them to buy coverage on the individual market, said Gordon Mermin, senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research group.

Another way Price's plan would hurt the poor is the elimination of Medicaid expansion that would accompany a repeal of Obamacare. Ryan and Trump have said they would maintain some protection of low-income adults, but Price doesn't mention any substitute.

Older Americans would also likely see their premiums rise under Price's plan. Obamacare restricts insurers from charging older enrollees more than three times what they charge the young. But Price's plan eliminates that rule. While Americans older than 50 would receive larger tax credits than younger folks, it would likely not cover the same share of the deductible.

Price would provide a $1,000 one-time refundable tax credit for contributions and would increase the amount people could sock away in these accounts, up from the current $3,350 for individuals and $6,750 for families. He would broaden eligibility, protect the accounts from bankruptcy proceedings and allow older Americans to transfer their required minimum distribution from their retirement accounts into their Health Savings Account (HAS).

HSAs are mainly used by wealthier Americans who have extra funds to put away, said Timothy Jost, an emeritus professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law. It does little for those struggling to afford their premiums and out-of-pocket costs. "It will mostly benefit people in higher income brackets who want to shelter income," Jost said.

Employers will likely cut back on coverage to avoid hitting the cap, Jost said. One of the simplest ways to do this is to further hike deductibles and out-of-pocket payments. The average deductible for an individual soared to $1,221 this year, up from $747 a decade ago.

Pushing high risk pools for the sick: Similar to other Republican plans, Price would require carriers to insure Americans with pre-existing conditions as long as they are continuously covered. Covering the majority of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions through a national high risk pool would cost an estimated $178 billion a year, according to a 2014 Commonwealth Fund report.