Mexico Has a Major Role to Play in Undoing Trump’s Disastrous Migration Policies

By Maureen Meyer and Elyssa Pachico


This is the first in a two-part series about how the Biden White House can reverse the Trump administration’s cruel and ineffective migration policies and the need for expanded regional cooperation. The first installment focuses on Mexico, the second will focus on the United States and the U.S.-Mexico border.

The incoming Biden administration offers a chance for a massive reset of the Trump administration’s illegal and unprecedentedly cruel and ineffective policies. While expectations are high for dramatic changes in U.S. policy, they will take time to implement. The Biden administration is tasked with not only undoing the Trump administration’s harmful policies, but also responding to a likely surge of migrants and asylum seekers at the border as a result of ongoing violence and persecution, crippling poverty, and the devastating impact of two hurricanes that have destroyed infrastructure and livelihoods in Central America.

Although eyes are on likely policy changes with Biden, the Mexican government also has a central role to play in addressing regional migration flows. It too should change its approach.

When President Andrés Manuel López Obrador assumed office in December 2018, he initially committed to following a more humanitarian approach, pledging funds for a regional development plan to address economic drivers of migration. But as a result of U.S. pressure, lofty goals for U.S.-Mexico engagement on development in Central America and a welcoming stance to migrants were quickly put on the back burner.

With the Biden administration promising to override many of Trump’s policies and restore asylum at the border, the Mexican government also has a major opportunity to turn away from facilitating the cruelties and failures of the Trump administration’s approach and implement rights-respecting migration policies. These should include the following:
Invest in Mexico’s asylum system

Mexico already has the legislation and regulations in place to meet the standards outlined by international law and treaties for attending to refugees and asylum seekers.

Between 2013 to 2019, asylum requests in Mexico increased by over 5,300 percent.


Indeed, Mexico’s legal definition of who can qualify for protection, including “persons who have fled their country because their lives, security or freedom have been threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order,” is broader than the United States, offering greater possibilities of obtaining protection. The problem is creating greater access to asylum in the face of growing demand.

Between 2013 to 2019, asylum requests in Mexico increased by over 5,300 percent. While requests went down significantly in 2020, as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns and migration restrictions, as of October 2020, the number of requests received by Mexico’s refugee agency COMAR (32,272) is already 53 percent greater than the total for 2018.

This trend is not going to reverse itself, especially as COVID-travel restrictions are lifted and the need for protection persists. Prioritizing COMAR’s expansion is urgently needed to prepare for the rise in asylum seekers that we should expect across the region as the violence, persecution, poverty, and climate change disasters driving people from their homes continues.

López Obrador’s 2021 budget plan includes a proposed 14.3 percent cut to COMAR’s budget. However, the agency is likely to receive additional funds through a now-defunct office that was coordinating migration efforts on Mexico’s southern border, bringing the total budget to USD$4.865 million.

Even with these additional funds, a larger budget for COMAR is essential, particularly given that, under a new law passed in September 2020, the agency is taking on the additional responsibility of supporting over 345,000 internally displaced Mexicans. COMAR has benefitted from significant support from the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) in recent years, enabling the Mexican agency to improve its processing of cases and increase staff. However, the asylum officers themselves must be paid by the Mexican government. Without Mexican government investment, COMAR will be limited in the number of agents it can hire to make the final determination on cases. All this is why COMAR’s head, Andres Ramirez, has urged providing the agency with additional funds to fully meet their needs and growing demand.

COMAR has expanded its presence in Mexico, with offices in seven cities, both in southern Mexico and more recently in Tijuana and Monterrey in the north. Additionally, Ramirez recently announced that they will soon be opening an office in Saltillo, Coahuila. While this expanded capacity is important, one priority moving forward should be to ensure that COMAR has a substantial presence at the ports of entry in southern Mexico. This ensures that asylum seekers don’t have to make the dangerous trip to a border town to request asylum at a COMAR office or through a shelter.

Currently, if an asylum seeker presents themselves at a port to request asylum, they will be taken into custody by the National Migration Institute (Instituto Nacional de Migración, INM) and held in detention for at least a few days until their paperwork is filed. In order to avoid detention, asylum seekers must attempt to travel undetected to a border town where COMAR has offices—Tapachula, Palenque, and Tenosique—to request protection.

In far too many cases, crimes occur in between the port of entry and these border towns. For years, the 38-mile trek between the Guatemala-Mexico border crossing at El Ceibo and the town of Tenosique has been fraught with danger, including documented cases of sexual assault, robbery, and kidnapping as migrants seek to avoid the main highways and are subsequently preyed upon by criminal gangs. Increasing processing capacity at the Mexico-Guatemala border could reduce risks faced by asylum seekers, as they would then have a document enabling them to legally travel within the state where they submitted the asylum request.
Build up alternatives to detention for asylum seekers in Mexico

Stationing COMAR agents at the ports of entry and increasing their presence in southern Mexico should go hand in hand with furthering alternatives to detention for asylum seekers in Mexico.

Mexico already has an “alternatives to detention” program which releases asylum seekers from detention and places them with shelters for housing in coordination with the UN Refugee Agency. Several thousand people have been released from detention since this program started in 2016.

However, given its limited scope and a lack of a standardized protocol regarding who qualifies for release, thousands more are often held in detention for the duration of their asylum claims. Given the conditions in detention centers, which often lack sufficient food, access to legal assistance, and healthcare, some asylum seekers end up dropping their claims just to be released.

COMAR and the INM should develop an improved system for communication and cooperation to improve and streamline procedures.


Expanding alternatives to detention for all asylum seekers, apart from exceptional cases, is also an important measure to protect the health of this population during the COVID-19 pandemic. A detention center in Chiapas reportedly registered at least one COVID-19 outbreak in October, with 19 migrants testing positive for the virus. Given poor conditions in detention shelters and the INM’s failure to take actions to prevent and contain COVID-19, Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) is now requiring authorities to implement protection measures in two detention centers in Chiapas, including Siglo XXI, the country’s largest.

On November 18, the Mexican government took another important step to limiting detention for asylum seekers when they published reforms to their immigration and refugee and political asylum laws that prohibits holding migrant children in immigration detention centers, including children traveling with their families. The responsibility for housing this population has now been transferred to Mexico’s child welfare agency (Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia).
Ensure migration agents are facilitating access to asylum

Because of their central role in the detention and processing of migrants, there is an urgent need for INM agents to effectively perform their current role in screening potential asylum seekers and fully informing them of their right to seek protection in Mexico.

As has been widely documented, INM agents frequently prioritize detention, dissuasion, and deportation over adequately informing detained migrants of their right to seek protection in Mexico. This is illegal according to Mexican and international law on asylum—any detained migrant who wishes to request asylum in Mexico should be provided prompt access to COMAR.

Apart from improved training for INM agents to ensure that they are clearly communicating to asylum seekers their rights, messaging from INM leadership is important to underscore that Mexico is living up to its international commitments to provide international protection to those in need. The statement issued by the INM in response to the migrant caravan that originated in Honduras in early October, threatening to criminally prosecute any migrant who crossed into the country in violation of health protocols, appeared to deviate from this commitment.

Current and past commissioners have removed thousands of agents for alleged acts of corruption.


Furthermore, COMAR and the INM should develop an improved system for communication and cooperation to improve and streamline procedures. This includes ensuring that once an asylum request is admitted by COMAR, asylum seekers are provided with a humanitarian visa by the INM so that they can work while waiting for their claim to be processed.
Remove the National Guard from handling migration enforcement tasks

In 2019, after increased pressure by the Trump administration on migration, the López Obrador administration began deploying the newly created National Guard force to accompany migration agents at checkpoints and in other operations.

At its peak last year after the U.S.-Mexico migration agreement, there were nearly 12,000 National Guard members deployed to the southern border region. In October 2020, the Mexican government reported around 4,950 guard members in Chiapas and Tabasco, the southern border states that are among Mexico’s principal migrant corridors.

The National Guard, created to help address record violence rates in Mexico, is currently handling a wide range of public security and other functions in Mexico. While it is officially a police body, in practice it is funded, directed, and staffed primarily by members of the military.

The National Guard should not play a role in handling migration enforcement in Mexico because military personnel are not trained to come into regular contact with civilians, including migrants and asylum-seeking families and children. This has led to incidents like the Guard using what the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights described as “concerning” levels of force against migrants in January 2020, as well as reports of the Guard threatening and harassing migrant shelters.

Between January and September 2020, the CNDH registered 209 complaints of human rights violations involving members of the National Guard, including a dozen complaints of abuses against migrants and their family members. The commission’s first recommendation against the National Guard, issued on October 29, 2020, was regarding the Guard’s actions, alongside the INM, in response to the January 2020 migrant caravan. The commission signaled that the INM violated the victim’s rights by allowing members of the National Guard to revise migrants’ migration status and detain them, that the National Guard had used arbitrary and disproportionate force against the migrants, and that both authorities failed to protect the rights of the children that were in the caravan. Because of the inherent risks in having a military-led force like the Guard handle migration enforcement, the Mexican government should withdraw the National Guard from these operations.

Instead, the Mexican government should invest additional resources in professionalizing the INM, enhancing internal accountability mechanisms, and having sufficient personnel. This includes fully establishing its civil service for agents, clear profiles for those joining the institute and applying for leadership positions, and moving forward with efforts to improve and solidify training and to evaluate the effectiveness of these courses. The INM must also strengthen internal controls over their agents. Although the current and past commissioners have removed thousands of agents for alleged acts of corruption, these dismissals should not replace having an operational internal affairs unit within the INM capable of carrying out continual investigations of potential wrongdoing and referring certain cases for prosecution.

As long as the INM works with security forces for migration enforcement operations, these collaborations should establish clear protocols that regulate and limit the use of force during migration enforcement operations, ensure the training of all agents on such guidelines, and establish oversight and accountability mechanisms.
Implement policies that account for the unique risks and obstacles faced by unaccompanied children, women, Afro-descendant, and LGBT+ migrants and asylum seekers

Migrants in Mexico face a dangerous journey: they are highly vulnerable to threats by criminal groups and corrupt officials. Few of these crimes are ever investigated. The Mexican government can help reduce the risks facing migrants by taking steps to strengthen the investigation and prosecution of abuses like robbery, extortion, kidnapping, rape, assault, and other crimes and by facilitating migrants’ ability to denounce these crimes.

Some populations face unique risks when transiting through Mexico. As documented by Amnesty International, LGBT+ migrants face discrimination and violence, often at the hands of Mexican officials, as a result of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Of the LGBT+ asylum seekers interviewed by the UN Refugee Agency for a 2016 study, two-thirds said they’d experienced sexual and gender-based violence in Mexico after crossing the southern border. Under Mexican law, those who have suffered gender-related persecution are eligible for applying for asylum, but LGBT+ migrants report that Mexican authorities never properly informed them about their rights to do so.

LGBT+ asylum seekers and migrants also have special protection needs if they are sent to migration detention centers, but Mexico’s official policies don’t acknowledge this: instead, transgender women are frequently held in cells reserved for men; LGBT+ people are kept in isolation and report experiencing widespread sexual harassment and discrimination.

Black African and Caribbean migrants face a particularly harsh and dangerous journey—often having had to trek almost all of South and Central America to get to Mexico. And with a record number of migrants from African countries traveling through Mexico in 2019, authorities need to reckon with the racism, lack of visibility, language barriers, and restricted access to legal aid that this population reports experiencing.

The incoming Biden administration aims to provide $1 billion a year in support to Central America.


In November 2019, when the Congressional Black Caucus visited Black migrants from Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere in Tijuana, Members of Congress were told about the physical and sexual violence, racism, and other traumas faced by Black migrants on their journey. In some cases, the challenges of waiting for any response to their status by Mexican migration authorities have pushed African and Caribbean migrants to make deadly choices. In October 2019, at least two migrants from Cameroon died when a group of migrants opted to travel by sea off of the Chiapas coast and their boat capsized. As a growing number of extracontinental migrants, as well as Afro-Hondurans, petition for asylum in Mexico, authorities should examine ways to support Afro-descendant asylum seekers who are facing greater obstacles because of systemic racism and discrimination—this should include continuing the campaigns they have enacted with UNHCR to combat xenophobia in the country.

There are also ways that the Mexican government can collaborate with the United States in providing protection for asylum seekers who face special vulnerabilities and who aren’t safe in Mexico. One such area concerns unaccompanied migrant children in Mexico who have U.S.-based family members. If it’s in the best interest of the child to be reunited with a parent in the United States—regardless of the parent’s immigration status—both Mexico and the United States should develop ways to ensure that this happens.
Don’t deviate funds from Central America development programs

The López Obrador administration pledged to prioritize investment in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, in order to help address the poverty, climate change-related phenomena, and other problems driving migration. On the president’s first day in office, he signed a memorandum with the governments of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, to develop an integral development plan for the region. The Trump administration voiced support for this (although much of the U.S. government’s promised $5.8 billion are funds that were previously committed), as did the European Union.

One cornerstone program, run by Mexico’s international development agency, AMEXCID, is meant to help rural farmers; another offers educational grants and job training opportunities. However, there have been widespread reports regarding a lack of clarity over where the money is actually going and how authorities are running the programs. A September 2020 Associated Press report found that some of the money destined to the development programs was actually spent on transporting migrants and asylum seekers to Mexico’s southern border and improving conditions within Mexico’s migrant detention centers.

Because of the pandemic, these funds have now been put on hold without any programs actually being implemented in Central America (although the Mexican government’s annual report on activities from September 2020 affirms that beneficiaries from El Salvador and Honduras have signed up for the programs).

The incoming Biden administration—which aims to provide $1 billion a year in support to Central America—is a major opportunity for López Obrador to recommit to his original pledge. Refocusing on addressing the root causes of migration is especially critical given the economic impact of COVID-19 and the devastation wrought by Hurricanes Eta and Iota, which will fuel future migration in the region.

While Mexico is grappling with its own economic recession, there may be opportunities to partner with the United States and other potential donors, including the European Union and Canada, and the development banks, to implement specific programs targeted at addressing economic factors driving migration. Any projects should ensure transparency so that the funds are being executed appropriately and partnered with parallel efforts to combat corruption and strengthen the rule of law.
Preparing for future migration flows at Mexico’s southern and northern borders

Through aggressive enforcement efforts, Mexico is trying to build its own “border wall” at its southern frontier with Guatemala. In a recent example, when a group of migrants and asylum seekers from Honduras attempted to journey northwards in October, both Guatemalan and Mexican authorities detained and deported nearly the entire group.

Few cases of crimes against migrants are ever brought to justice, meaning perpetrators have little to fear from the government.


A migration surge at Mexico’s southern border is inevitable. If Mexico continues to double down on policies of mass detention and deportation, the results will be a humanitarian disaster as more people are detained in inhumane and overcrowded detention centers, more asylum seekers with valid claims are deported back to harm, and more migrants are pushed into taking ever-more dangerous routes. The focus on detaining large numbers of migrants will also increase the risk of deadly COVID-19 outbreaks in detention centers as long as the pandemic persists. The Mexican government needs to take action now to prepare for future arrivals at its southern border in a way that’s humane, law-abiding, and rights-respecting.

At Mexico’s northern border, the Biden administration and the Mexican government need to work together to address the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Trump policies, and prepare for the next wave of migration. We should expect that, even if Mexico and Guatemala continue with migration crackdowns in Mexico’s south, large numbers of migrants and asylum seekers will still be able to make it to Mexico’s northern border, either by traveling on their own or enlisting smugglers who pay off corrupt officials (indeed, the number of people apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border in October suggests we’re already experiencing the first wave of migration as a result of the COVID-19 economic crisis and persistent violence).

In addition to new arrivals, there are over 60,000 asylum seekers who were returned from the United States to Mexico under Trump’s cruel “Remain to Mexico” program. Many are based in Mexican border towns, but others have relocated elsewhere in the country (Monterrey, Saltillo, Mexico City and even southern Mexico). Expectations about Biden’s election might draw some of these people—as well as others under the program who opted to return to their home countries, given the dangers they were experiencing in Mexico—to come back up to the northern border.

To better prepare for this expected increase in arrivals, the Mexican government should increase its efforts to provide asylum seekers at the northern border with adequate housing and medical services. Notably, in 2019, the Lopez Obrador government cut federal funds for supporting local governments work with migrants at the northern border. The Mexican government also announced in 2019 intentions to build temporary shelters in six border towns, but only two ended up opening (in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez). This means civil society organizations are largely working alone in struggling to meet demands for shelter and access to health services. If the Mexican government doesn’t do more to prepare for a significant increase in arrivals at its northern border, and coordinate its efforts with civil society and international humanitarian bodies, we’ll likely see more tent camps popping up in border cities, more violence against asylum seekers, and conditions that facilitate the spread of COVID-19.

The Mexican government also needs to better protect migrants and asylum seekers along its northern border. The endemic violence against this population is well documented. Few cases of crimes against migrants are ever brought to justice, meaning perpetrators have little to fear from the government. This needs to change.

There is much the Mexican government can do to develop a plan for dealing with increased migration in a way that prioritizes safety and access to protection. If Mexico sticks to an enforcement approach focused on detaining and deporting as many people as possible, it will endanger thousands of people fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries, push migrants into using more remote routes where they are exposed to greater harm and danger, it could exacerbate the COVID-19 pandemic, and it will ultimately fail to curb migration over the long term as it is not addressing the reasons why people are migrating in the first place.

The Biden administration has a momentous task ahead to dismantle the policies and programs that have shut the U.S. doors to migrants and asylum seekers—but the Mexican government also has a pivotal role to play in addressing regional migration flows and in providing protection to those in need.

What Does Success Look Like for a Climate Czar?

Meghan L. O'Sullivan, Bloomberg News


WILMINGTON, DE - NOVEMBER 24: Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry speaks after being introduced by President-elect Joe Biden as he introduces key foreign policy and national security nominees and appointments at the Queen Theatre on November 24, 2020 in Wilmington, Delaware. As President-elect Biden waits to receive official national security briefings, he is announcing the names of top members of his national security team to the public. Calls continue for President Trump to concede the election as the transition proceeds. Photographer: Mark Makela/Getty Images North America


(Bloomberg Opinion) -- President-elect Joe Biden’s decision to create a new cabinet-level position for climate-related issues — and to choose so prominent a figure as former Secretary of State John Kerry to fill it — demonstrates Biden’s sincerity over putting climate at the very center of U.S. foreign policy. It is easy to understate the importance of this appointment, given the flurry of czars created by most new administrations.

However, if Kerry’s position works as intended, this could mark the beginning of a significant transformation of U.S. foreign policy. It won’t be easy: Such a shift goes against the grain of how foreign policy has traditionally been formulated and executed.

Taking climate more seriously means going far beyond simply rejoining the Paris accords and participating fully in other international forums related to climate. It means integrating climate policy into all aspects of foreign policy and marshaling many instruments of U.S. national power — economic, diplomatic and rhetorical — to coerce, compel and incentivize countries to address climate change.

Given the seriousness of the challenge, one can make a strong case that this shift is long overdue. Yet, placing decarbonization at the heart of U.S. foreign policy will have repercussions well beyond climate change, potentially altering the geopolitical landscape in fundamental ways.

Realistically, there is a finite number of issues the U.S. has the bandwidth and leverage to work in any bilateral or multilateral relationship, and a focus on climate will likely come at the expense of advancing more traditional national-security issues such as nonproliferation, counterterrorism and possibly human-rights advocacy.

This is not simply a question of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Tradeoffs are inherent in national security. Balancing foreign-policy priorities can involve fraught choices — an extreme example being how the U.S. turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear pursuits in order to secure its support in repelling the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Biden administration will face similar dilemmas as it elevates climate to the top of its global concerns.

One relationship where two of its high priorities will come into conflict is that with Saudi Arabia. Alongside climate, the Biden team promises to put a renewed emphasis on human rights and respect for democracy. Biden has pledged to hold a “Summit of Democracies” early in his presidency. On the campaign trail, Biden vowed to treat the Saudis like “the pariah that they are.”

However, a foreign policy that makes a top priority of climate would recognize the importance of working with potential spoilers such as the Saudis, and ensuring that they have a stake in a successful energy transition. The U.S. would need to invest itself in the success of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 — the blueprint for diversifying the country’s economy away from oil — not undermine it.

As of now, most foreign-policy professionals are new to the idea that climate should be infused into their every interaction. Environmental issues have been seen more as “an issue-area expertise” than as an essential competency for every national-security expert. That will need to change.

Another challenge will be the link between how aggressively U.S. leaders can push the climate issue abroad in relation to the extent of progress made at home.

There is always a connection between domestic and international policy, but here it is particularly prominent. For instance, the world will be looking for the U.S. not only to rejoin the Paris Agreement, but to put forward a much more ambitious “national determined contribution” — the individual pledge made by each nation on greenhouse gas emissions. A credible one will require significant action at home, beyond even the measures such as the Barak Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan.

Likewise, a foreign policy on climate-turbo will need to involve intensive efforts to convince developing countries to abandon coal plants that are still economically viable. Yet doing so will be nearly impossible unless the U.S. can demonstrate similar measures within its own borders.

Quite apart from the execution of diplomacy, this drive to put climate at the heart of global interactions will also create challenges for policy formulation.

Many questions remain about how this new post will fit into the traditional bureaucracy. Two models — one formal and one informal — seem possible. The first is the position of the director of national intelligence, created at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to coordinate the more than a dozen intelligence agencies existing and overlapping within the U.S. government. Many who have worked inside them would agree that more coordination was necessary, but would also admit that this post took years to find its footing, and is less powerful than the technically subservient director of the CIA in some respects.

The second potential model is the Office of the Vice President under Dick Cheney. Cheney became arguably the most powerful vice president in history, not only by the force of his personality and longstanding relationships. He also expanded the traditionally skeletal staff of the vice president to a size that allowed his office to be omnipresent in the interagency process. In most every meeting convened by the National Security Council, Cheney’s staff played a prominent role, putting forward opinions and proposals that others knew to take seriously.

It is easy to see how parallels will be drawn, particularly if Kerry’s staff — likely to be of significant size — is placed in the White House.

The jobs of national security advisor and secretary of state will be altered — both positively and negatively — by the existence of a cabinet-level climate czar. The national security advisor will need to resolve heated debates over conflicting priorities. The secretary of state will need to coordinate closely with the climate team to ensure that foreign counterparts — most prominently the Chinese — are not able to pit parts of the U.S. government against itself. The people in these two posts, and those serving them, will spend significant time both harnessing and deflecting the power of Kerry and his team.

All this may give the impression that the climate czar is an unnecessary creation, bound to complicate the smooth workings of a foreign-policy team that needs to move quickly in a troubled and complex world.

The opposite seems more likely: That Biden created this position precisely because the bureaucratic hurdles and execution challenges of making climate change central to U.S. foreign policy will be so great. Moreover, Kerry is likely the appropriate pick for the job, given the stature and stamina that will be required to do it successfully.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Meghan L. O’Sullivan is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. She is a professor of international affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School, chair of the the North American Trilateral Commission, and a member of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations and the board of Raytheon Technologies Corp. She served on the National Security Council from 2004 to 2007.

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

How Porsche's new e-fuel plant could pave the way for guilt-free classic-car motoring

Porsche and Siemens plan to build the world's first industrial-scale e-fuel plant. The gas will be safe for use in vintage Porsches -- and your car.


Chris Paukert Dec. 2, 2020 


If Porsche has its way, your classic 911 may be sucking down sustainably produced synthetic gas before you know it.Porsche

Porsche and Siemens Energy have announced plans to link arms for a new e-fuel factory. The German companies say the pilot project will result in the world's first industrial-scale plant for carbon-neutral synthetic fuel. The facility will be located in Southern Chile in a bid to capitalize on the country's strong wind energy, which will be used to power the plant sustainably.

The plan calls for an initial pilot production phase to produce around 130,000 liters of fuel -- over 34,000 gallons -- as early as 2022. Additional phases call for a dramatic ramp to 55 million liters by 2024 (over 14.5 million gallons) by 2024 and 550 million liters (145 million gallons) by 2026.

Wind energy will power the electrolyzers to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. CO2 will then be filtered out of the air and processed with the aforementioned hydrogen to create synthetic methanol. A proprietary methanol-to-gasoline process provided under license by Exxon Mobil results in e-gas. Porsche says the liquid fuel will be safe without modification for all of its cars, including classic models.

Porsche, which is initially investing around 20 million euros (roughly $24 million, £18 million or AU$33 million) in the project, sees the creation of carbon-neutral gasoline as a complement to the auto industry's drive toward electrification, not as competition with it. Company officials have already gone on the record saying that Porsche plans to electrify 50% of its new-car offerings by 2025, making use of both battery-electric and plug-in hybrid technology. But the German automaker still sees the potential for synthetic fuels to power all of the world's existing gas-powered models -- especially Porsches -- particularly in parts of the world where developing an electric car charging infrastructure proves problematic.
Dubbed Haru Oni, this new e-fuel plant will be erected in Chile to take advantage of the country's strong and steady wind energy.Porsche/Siemens Energy

During a virtual media roundtable on Wednesday, Michael Steiner, Member of the Executive Board for Research and Development at Porsche, reiterated:

[T]he main strategy for Porsche is to push e-mobility ... but in addition, at least Europe, [we] will be dependent on importing a lot of energy. In 10 years. In 20 years. Maybe even 30 years from now. If we have to import energy, we could choose whether we import fossil energy or renewable energy. It [e-gas] is not a direct competition to e-mobility, it is in addition to e-mobility. Something that we see as an important second track.

Porsche will be the main customer for this e-fuel initially, using the synthetic gasoline in so-called "beacon projects" including its race cars, at Porsche Experience Centers and in vehicle trials.

Porsche's home continent figures heavily into the plans for this e-fuel, as the European Union has been aggressively pushing automakers and the fossil fuel industry to go carbon-neutral via the European Green Deal policy strategy. E-fuel is seen as preferable to biofuel, because the latter's production process can impact forests and their ecosystems, as well as compete with crops that form part of the food chain.

70 years of the Porsche Effect, from the 356 to the 919 See all photos

+41 More

There are a lot of moving parts to this e-fuel commercialization challenge, including some unexpected ones. For instance, once the plant is up and running at scale, the plan is to ship refined fuel from Chile to Europe using a transport process that is carbon-neutral, which in itself is likely to be a significant logistical (if not technological) challenge. Additionally, Porsche is also already engaging world governments in conversation to get a handle on the potential tax ramifications of moving to e-fuel, as gasoline has baked-in carbon-tax costs in most world markets that raise the price of the fuel. Finding success in the latter endeavor will be a key part of making e-fuel cost-effective enough to end up at your corner gas station.

As part of the Volkswagen Group, Porsche will look to see if other divisions in the company are interested in participating in this initiative going forward. Furthermore, Porsche's Steiner says that the company is open to other automakers taking an interest in the project as well.

Newly-pardoned Mike Flynn calls for Trump to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law then order military to hold a re-run election - and claims the alternative is 'CIVIL WAR'

Trump pardoned his former national security advisor before Thanksgiving

Flynn blasted out article by 'We the People Convention' calling for martial law

It called for Trump to 'immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law'
Wants to 'suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections'

Says only the military can be trusted to carry this out

Comes as AG Bill Barr said there was not evidence of fraud to overturn election
Trump continues to claim without evidence election was 'rigged'

By GEOFF EARLE, DEPUTY U.S. POLITICAL EDITOR FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED:  2 December 2020

Days after he got a pardon from President Trump, former national security advisor Mike Flynn is calling for the president to declare martial law and have the military conduct a revote of the election he lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russia contacts during the transition, then sought to withdraw his plea, blasted out advertisement that the group We the People Convention printed in the Washington Times.

It urges Trump, who has called the election 'rigged,' to declare a 'limited form of martial law' and have the military – who reports to him directly as commander in chief – conduct the revote.

+6



President Donald Trump's former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who received a pardon last week, blasted out an article calling on Trump to declare martial law

'When the legislators, courts and/or Congress fail to do their duty under the 12th Amendment, you must be ready Mr. President to immediately declare a limited form of Martial Law, and temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections, for the sole purpose of having the military oversee a national re-vote,' according to the text, written byTom Zawistowski, who heads the Ohio Tea Party-affiliated group.

It points to President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War as an example.

'A vote that assures a fair election in every jurisdiction and reflects the true will of the people. Federal candidates only. Paper ballots. No computers. Hand-counted with both parties watching every vote. Only registered voters. Photo ID to prove residence. Conducted safely with everyone wearing masks and six feet apart, just like we did in Ohio,' he writes.

'Only then can the winning candidate be accepted as legitimate by a true majority of We the People who must give our consent to be justly governed! Unfortunately we are at a point where we can only trust our military to do this because our corrupt political class and courts have proven their inability to act fairly and within the law.'

Trump continues to say the election was 'rigged'

+6



The article by a Tea Party-affiliated group calls on the president to have the military conduct a new election

+6
Flynn tagged his lawyer Sidney Powell as well as White House aide Dan Scavino and media figures who have been sympathetic to Trump

+6
Tom Zawistowki authored the release calling for Trump to declare martial law







Flynn, a retired General who was forced out as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the Obama administration, added his own comment: 'Freedom never kneels except for God,' he wrote in a Tweet.

To raise alarm, the article points to 'Democrat/Socialist federal officials plotting to finish gutting the US Constitution after 100 years of trying.'

In making the case to Trump, it echoes the president's own attacks on Big Tech and the media.

'You must also act, like Lincoln did, to silence the destructive media’s one-sided propaganda designed and proven to influence the election outcome, and end the unlawful censorship of Big Tech, to restore the confidence of the American People in our electoral process or we cannot continue as a nation. Failure to do so could result in massive violence and destruction on a level not seen since the Civil War. Limited Martial Law is clearly a better option than Civil War!'

Trump himself has repeatedly refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, although he told reporters in a combative weekend session he would leave the White House if the Electoral College certifies the election for Joe Biden.

'Certainly I will. But you know that,' he said.

Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

'To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,' Barr told the AP.

After Trump using his expansive pardon power on Flynn's behalf, the New York Times reported Tuesday he had discussed pardoned for his children as well as for lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Flynn tagged his lawyer Sidney Powell as well as White House aide Dan Scavino and media figures who have been sympathetic to Trump.

Rachel Vindman, the wife of national security lawyer Col. Alexander Vindman, who was forced out by Trump after impeachment, tweeted in response to Flynn's missive: 'He’s a disgrace to the uniform and, in a broader sense, to all Americans.'

Wrote Trump's niece Mary Trump: 'This traitor needs to be court-martialed.'

Senior military brass have long sought to keep the military away from domestic politics, and some top leaders distanced themself from the decision to accompany Trump across Lafayette Park to visit St. John's Church following protests that were followed by looting.

Trump has conducted a post-election purge of top military officials.

At a White House press briefing Tuesday, press secretary Kayleigh McEnany brought up Flynn when asked whether Trump was considering pardons for his own family members. She referenced Flynn's recent pardon.

She called Flynn 'a three-star general ... who had his life ruined. He was a valiant hero who served his country both on the battlefield and then came to work in government,' she said.

She called Flynn, who commanded an intelligence brigade and went on to run the Defense Intelligence Agency, a 'war hero' who suffered an 'egregious miscarriage of justice.'

'We are finally glad that justice was served for a war hero, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn,' she said. Trump also called Flynn a 'war hero' in an April tweet.

A Defense Intelligence Agency release upon Flynn's retirement from his 33-year military career does not mention any specific battlefield heroism. NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers 'presented Flynn with the Defense Distinguished Service Medal for his exceptional job at the helm of DIA during a time of skyrocketing requirements, a shifting security landscape and reduced resources,' according to the release.

THE MIKE FLYNN SAGA: HOW TRUMP APPOINTEE BECAME INCENDIARY STORY


Mike Pence was a career Army intelligence officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq and was still in uniform as a three-star general when he became Barack Obama's head of Defense Intelligence in July 2012.

But he fell out badly with the Obama administration, was forced out in July 2014 and moved into private intelligence consulting.


2015

December 10: Flynn is paid to travel to Moscow and sits beside Vladimir Putin at dinner celebrating propaganda outlet RT (right). His consulting business has Russian clients

2016

February: Flynn signs up to provide national security advice to the Trump campaign; in the next few months he is floated as a possible running mate

July 20 : Flynn leads 'lock her up' chants at the Republican National Convention and claims Obama concealed the actions of Osama bin Laden

July 31: FBI open counter-intelligence investigation Crossfire Hurricane into group of Trump aides, including Flynn, for possible Russian influence. In 2014 an FBI informer had told agents he saw Flynn spending time at a dinner in the UK with a Russian woman with ties to Kremlin intelligence; the information is included in their investigation. Flynn is code-named Crossfire Razor

November 4: Trump wins the election, and meets Obama who advises him not to hire Flynn. Trump ignores the advice and makes him national security adviser designate

November 30: Obama's ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, makes the first of what will be 48 requests by Obama and Obama-eras officials to 'unmask' a redaction from intelligence reports which covers up Flynn's name

December 2016


Flynn meets Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak (right) at Trump Tower and exchanges calls and messages throughout the month.

December 29: Hours after Obama announces sanctions on Russia for election interference, they speak and Flynn says it will be 'reviewed' when Trump takes power. The call is heard by intelligence agents who monitor Kisylak's calls and details are included in intelligence reports. The next day Putin says Russia won't retaliate for the sanctions

2017

January 4: FBI drafts report saying there is 'no derogatory information on RAZOR [Flynn].' But 20 minutes later FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok tells case agent 'don't close RAZOR,' and '7th floor involved' meaning FBI leadership. He also emails lover Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer, about the Logan Act - a never-enforced 1799 law banning private people from interfering in foreign relations. 'Razor still open,' he writes and calls news 'serendipitously good'. 'Phew, but yeah, that's amazing that he is still open. Good I guess,' Page replies. Strzok respond: 'Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time I'm guessing :)'

January 5: Obama holds Oval Office briefing on Russian election interference with Joe Biden, CIA director John Brennan, FBI director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and deputy attorney general Sally Yates. He asks Comey and Yates to stay behind and says he has 'learned of the information' about Flynn's call to Kislyak. Comey mentions the Logan Act

January 6: Obama's top intel figures - Brennan, Clapper and Comey - give the Trump team including Trump a briefing on Russia at Trump Tower

January 10: Joe Biden is most senior Obama official to request an 'unmasking' of an intelligence report which reveals Flynn's name

January 12: Bombshell Washington Post report reveals Flynn's call to Kislyak on December 29, 'according to a senior U.S. government official' saying: 'What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?' It mentions the Logan Act

January 14: Flynn tells Pence he did not discuss sanctions; in coming days Trump officials repeat this on television - including Mike Pence the following day

January 20: Trump is inaugurated; Flynn becomes national security advisor

January 22: The Wall Street Journal reveals Flynn is subject to a counter-intelligence investigation over links to Russia

January 23: Strzok and Andrew McCabe the FBI Deputy director exchange messages planning to interview Flynn

January 24: Two FBI agents - Peter Strzok and one whose name remains secret - go to the White House and interview Flynn in his West Wing office. Their notes say he denies talking about sanctions with Kislyak and said 'if I did I don't remember'

January 26 and 27: Yates tells White House counsel Don McGahn that Flynn has lied to Mike Pence and other officials, is therefore compromised, could be blackmailed by Russia, and other aspects of his conduct are worrying which she can't tell McGahn because they are classified

January 28: Flynn sits in the Oval Office to take part in Trump's first call with Putin

+6



February 9: Washington Post reveals Flynn did discuss sanctions and publishes interview in which he repeats denial 'categorically.' After the story is published, he tells the newspaper a different version - that he may have discussed sanctions

February 10 and 11: Trump says he will 'look into' Flynn but the aide is at Mar-a-Lago dinner with Shinzo Abe

February 13: Washington Post reveals that McGahn was warned about Flynn by Yates. Flynn resigns admitting he 'inadvertently' misled Pence, prompting Pence to mislead on Face the Nation in January

February 14: Trump meets Comey and says Flynn is 'a good guy' and 'I hope you can see your way to letting this go.'

March 30: Flynn offers to testify to Congress - at the time both House and Senate are Republican-controlled - or the FBI on Trump-Russia in exchange for immunity from prosecution; nobody takes up the deal offer

May 9: Trump fires Comey, and on May 17 Robert Mueller is appointed special counsel

May 10: Senate Intel Committee subpoena Flynn for his contacts with Russia; he cites Fifth Amendment; they later subpoena in more detail, and by early June he turns over documents voluntarily


November 5: Mueller's investigators revealed to be ready to indict Flynn and his son Michael Jr. on multiple charges. They are looking at his foreign lobbying and even whether he plotted to kidnap a Turkish cleric from the U.S. and deliver him to Turkey - but are also wiling to strike a deal to let his son off if he flips

November 16: Mueller team interview Flynn for first time

November 22: Flynn withdraws from 'joint defense deal' with Trump, suggesting a deal is in the works

December 1: Flynn signs a plea deal with Mueller; he will plead guilty to lying to the FBI at the White House interview. In exchange his son gets out of charges, and Flynn himself escapes charges of failing to register his lobbying for foreign entities. He appears in court and admits under oath lying to the FBI and affirms that he understands the deal. 'I recognize that the actions I acknowledged in court today were wrong, and, through my faith in God, I am working to set things right,' he says. The White House says: 'The false statements involved mirror the false statements to White House officials which resulted in his resignation in February of this year.'

December 2: Trump tweets: 'I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI'

2018

January: Flynn is repeatedly interviewed as he cooperates with Mueller and sentencing is repeatedly deferred

June 7: Obama deputy national security advisor reveals in book that Obama administration first learned of Flynn's December 2016 communications with Kislyak from Trump transition team members and not from 'unmasking' his name in intelligence reports

December 18: Flynn appears in court for sentencing hearing; Mueller's recommendation is little or no jail time. But Judge Emmet Sullivan says 'arguably you sold your country out' and asks why he was not charged with 'treason.' Sentencing is deferred

2019

June 12: Flynn fires Covington & Burling, his white shoe law firm, and hires new lawyer Sidney Powell, who had told him on Fox News to ditch his plea deal

August 30: Flynn files motion accusing prosecutors of conning him into a guilty plea by withholding exculpatory material while other parts of the government trying to 'smear' him as a Russian agent

December 16: Judge rejects Flynn's motion after reviewing Intel Inspector General report into the FBI and DOJ actions before the 2016 election and sets sentencing date for January 28

2020

January 7: Prosecutors say they want up to six months for Flynn; a week later he files to ask to withdraw his guilty plea 'because of the government's bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement.' A week later he asks for probation if he can't get out of his deal. Sentencing is deferred until February 20

February 14


Attorney General Bill Barr appoints political appointee Jeffrey Jensen, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, to examine Flynn's prosecution

April 29

New notes released by Jensen show Strzok discussing keeping Flynn as a target on January 4 2017. They also show an unnamed FBI official's notes from around the interview with Flynn on January 24 2017, saying: 'What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?' Trump starts a tweet storm which lasts into the next day, saying: 'What happened to General Michael Flynn, a war hero, should never be allowed to happen to a citizen of the United States again!'

May 7

Department of Justice says it is withdrawing support for prosecuting Flynn saying the interview in the West Wing was 'untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn' and that it was 'conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.' But career prosecutors who have led the case quit just before the move is announced

May 12

Judge Emmet Sullivan puts a hold on prosecutors dropping the case and the next day appoints a 'friend of the court,' former Mafia prosecutor and retired federal judge John Gleeson to argue against the DOJ's motion to dismiss, causing uproar among Flynn's supporters

May 13

A series of senior Obama officials are named as having asked for 'unmaskings' of intelligence reports which resulted in Flynn's name being uncovered, in newly-declassified documents. But it later emerges intelligence report of his call to Kislyak used his full name so people with access to it could understand who the Russian was speaking to, which also means leaking his name is not a crime

May 21

Three-judge appeals panel orders Judge Sullivan to explain legal basis for not accepting prosecution request to drop Flynn's conviction

May 22

FBI director Christopher Wray launches 'after-action review' of bureau's investigation

June 24

Federal appeals judges rule 2-1 that Sullivan has to dismiss the case. Trump takes a victory lap, tweeting 'Great!'

July 4

Flynn tweets a video of himself taking 'the oath,' a bizarre ceremony linked to the QAnon conspiracy theory, which ends the Oath of Allegiance by saying 'where we go one, we go all,' a QAnon slogan

July 9

Judge Sullivan asks the entire D.C. appeals circuit to hear the case 'en banc' and overturn the order to dismiss. An unnamed member of the appeals circuit made the same request and the judges voted to hear it 'en banc' August 31, legally ignoring Sullivan's request

August 31

Entire D.C. appeals circuit rules against Flynn, sending the case back to Sullivan and allowing him to hold an inquiry into DOJ handling of the prosecution

September 29

Sullivan holds hearing where Flynn's lawyer reveals she briefed Donald Trump personally on the case and asked him not to pardon her client

November 25

President Trump announces the night before Thanksgiving he has granted Flynn a 'Full Pardon,' calling it a 'Great Honor' and wishing him and his family 'Congratulations'

No-kill, lab-grown meat gets world's first regulatory approval

Singapore cleared the way for the sale of cultured chicken made by U.S. startup Eat Just.

By Joseph Guzman | Dec. 2, 2020

credit: Eat Just Inc.


Story at a glance

The real chicken product is made from animal cells sourced through a biopsy of a live animal.
The cells are then grown in bioreactors and fed nutrients including amino acids, carbohydrates, minerals, fats and vitamins, which then grow the cells into meat.

The process doesn’t require the slaughter of any livestock, providing a safer, healthier and more sustainable meat product, the company says.

San Francisco start-up Eat Just has received the world’s first regulatory approval to sell its lab-grown chicken meat.

The company announced on Tuesday that after a rigorous consultation and review process its cultured chicken product has been approved for sale in Singapore as an ingredient in chicken bites.

The real chicken product is made from animal cells sourced through a biopsy of a live animal. The cells are then grown in bioreactors and fed nutrients including amino acids, carbohydrates, minerals, fats and vitamins, which then grow the cells into meat. The process doesn’t require the slaughter of any livestock, providing a safer, healthier and more sustainable meat product, the company says.

“I think the approval is one of the most significant milestones in the food industry in the last handful of decades,” Eat Just co-founder and CEO Josh Tetrick said in a statement.

“It’s an open door and it’s up to us and other companies to take that opportunity. My hope is this leads to a world in the next handful of years where the majority of meat doesn’t require killing a single animal or tearing down a single tree.”

Eat Just says no antibiotics are used and its cultured chicken has an “extremely low and significantly cleaner microbiological content than conventional chicken.”

The approved chicken bites will initially debut in a Singapore restaurant with plans for wider expansion into retail establishments.

The move comes during a time of heightened awareness about the meat industry’s effects on the environment.

Alternatives to traditional meat products have been growing in popularity recently among fast-food chains.

Plant-based protein maker Beyond Meat currently provides meat alternatives to Carl’s Jr, Del Taco and Dunkin’, while Burger King has seen success with its Impossible Whopper, a plant-based version of its famous Whopper sandwich

MILKWEED

The big lie from Donald Trump

BY STEVE ISRAEL, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 12/02/20 

In a few weeks, Joe Biden will be sworn in as president and it will be the end of the time that Donald Trump has in office. It is also likely to be the start of the most dangerous phase of the current movement. Now that Trump is about to be unfettered by all the pesky advisers, generals, and bureaucrats, he could be more disruptive than ever.

Trump has inflicted us with some little lies each day, adding up to about 20,000 of them, according to the Washington Post. They include “total exoneration” by the special counsel, Hurricane Dorian bearing down on Alabama, and Barack Obama separating children. Such little lies have run the gamut from silly, like how the noise from windmills causes cancer, to serious, like his birther claims about Obama. They have been delivered to us in relentless waves of disinformation and calumnies.

But Trump and his minions had never created one big lie that is sustained, amplified, and repeated over and over until it is hard not to believe it. The big lie gathers all the little ones. It all adds up to one understandable and unifying theory. Now he has one big lie reduced to an easily digested but entirely bogus claim that he actually won the election.

Just yesterday he tweeted “we won Michigan by a lot!” and “fraudulent election results in Arizona” and “fake election results in Nevada!” You would think that fraud of this magnitude, across so many states, would yield a scintilla of evidence. But that is the beauty of the big lie. It relies not on evidence but on emotion. It fortifies intuition, clears out possible doubt, and explains what seems inexplicable. It also works. Polls show that 70 percent and 80 percent of Republicans believe the election was rigged. A new survey from Bright Line Watch revealed that almost half of Republicans expect Trump to be inaugurated in January.

That is what the big lie does. It turns wishful thinking into radical reality. It lands with clarity on a certain segment of the electorate that was studied by the political scientists Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood in the 2018 book “Enchanted America.” They describe that group as intuitionists. These are people on both sides of the aisle who rely upon their intuitions to make judgments. They tend to reject established scientific facts, subscribe to conspiracy theories, are more swayed by emotional appeals, embrace populist ideals, and are intolerant of democratic norms.

What happens when the big lie gathers steam, first with the intuitionists, then across a population? Jochen Bittner of the German newspaper Die Zie gave us a chilling glimpse in a New York Times column this week. He described another big lie known as the “stab in the back” myth that took hold in Germany after World War One. Its core claim, he explains, was that Imperial Germany never lost the war. “Military officers, monarchists, and right wingers spread the myth that if it had not been for political sabotage by Social Democrats and Jews back home, the army would never have had to give in,” he wrote. This despite indisputable fact.

That big lie paved the path for Adolf Hitler and his even bigger murderous lies. There is obviously no comparison between the Holocaust and Trump. But the “stab in the back” tactic, used by authoritarians on the left and the right, has proven effective. Big lies spread because they are easily grasped and instantly confirm our biases. They remove us from the truths and the institutions which unite us. They validate suspicions, bolster resentments, and sometimes license violent action. Perhaps it was a plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan, to attack a church in Charleston or a synagogue in Pittsburgh, or to bomb a mosque in Minnesota.

Trump is unlikely to attend the inauguration in January. Doing so would only “legitimize” Biden in his calculation. But do not let his absence fool you. His last day in office could also be the first day of a loud lie meant to undermine the new administration, resourced by hundreds of millions of dollars and the echo chamber of his media allies.

When we can no longer separate fact from fiction, when news no longer informs but incites, when we cannot even agree on basic truths of who won and lost an election, that is where the big lie flourishes, eclipsing all the little lies and even the light of our democracy.

Steve Israel represented New York in the House over eight terms and was chairman with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. He is now the director of the Institute of Politics and Global Affairs at Cornell University. 

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

Factbox: Who is Agnes Chow, the Hong Kong activist jailed over a 2019 protest?

By Reuters Staff

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Agnes Chow, 23, a prominent Hong Kong democracy activist, was jailed on Wednesday for 10 months on charges related to unlawful assembly near the city’s police headquarters during last year’s anti-government protests.

WHO IS AGNES CHOW?

Chow, along with prominent activists Joshua Wong and Nathan Law, founded the now-disbanded democracy group Demosisto in 2016. The party was dissolved hours after Beijing passed a contentious national security law for the city on June 30 amid fears it could be targeted under the legislation. Chow was most recently arrested in August under the new security legislation on suspicion of “colluding with foreign forces,” a charge that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

POLITICS:

Chow, who has a strong youth following, became active in politics in the former British colony at the age of 15 and played a leading role in pro-democracy protests in 2014 that paralysed parts of the city for 79 days. The so-called Umbrella movement protests were aimed at securing universal suffrage for the former British colony. They were largely peaceful, but not successful. In 2018, she was banned from running in a Legislative Council by-election under rules to curb independence advocacy. Chow said at the time: “Hong Kong Demosisto has never had a pro-independence stance but we believe Hong Kong people have the right to self-determination on the future of Hong Kong.” Chow also featured prominently in the anti-government protests last year, alongside Wong and Law, who is now in exile in Britain.

OVERSEAS LOBBYING:

Fluent in Japanese, Chow has a sizable following in Japan, particularly on social media and had travelled to the country frequently before her arrest. Chow often tweeted in Japanese and has been dubbed the “goddess of democracy” by Japan’s media. Under the national security law, Beijing punishes what it broadly defines as sedition, secession, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces with up to life in jail. Her YouTube channel has 325,000 subscribers.

Google violated U.S. labor laws in clampdown on worker organizing, regulator says

By Paresh Dave




OAKLAND, Calif. (Reuters) - The National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on Wednesday accusing Alphabet Inc’s Google of unlawfully monitoring and questioning several workers who were then fired for protesting against company policies and trying to organize a union.

The U.S. labor regulator found Google unlawfully placed employees on administrative leave and terminated them for accessing documents related to how the company polices internal forums, according to the complaint. The agency also found unlawful Google policies for accessing documents and meetings rooms as well as its tactics for investigating employees because all of the efforts were aimed at deterring workplace organizing, the complaint said.

Google said it was confident it acted legally.

“Google has always worked to support a culture of internal discussion, and we place immense trust in our employees,” it said. “Actions undertaken by the employees at issue were a serious violation of our policies and an unacceptable breach of a trusted responsibility.”

Google said the workers breached information security rules.

Their firings capped two years of battling between Google and its workforce, particularly in the United States. At issue is how much input the rank and file has on which projects the company takes on and how it handles sexual misconduct and other workplace matters.

At least five people fired after leading efforts to rally colleagues partnered with the Communications Workers of America union to petition the NLRB to challenge Google.


One of the fired workers, Laurence Berland, described Wednesday’s complaint as significant “at a time when we’re seeing the power of a handful of tech billionaires consolidate control over our lives and our society.”

The NLRB did not include in its complaint several other allegations sought by the workers, who said they would appeal.

Google has until Dec. 16 to formally respond to the NLRB. The case, which could lead to reinstatement of fired workers and changes in company policies, is scheduled to be tried in front of an administrative law judge on April 12.


Reporting by Paresh Dave in Oakland, California; Editing by Tom Brown and Grant McCool

The U.S. has spent billions stockpiling ventilators, but many won’t save critically ill COVID-19 patients

By Tom Bergin

(Reuters) - With the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping across its shores earlier this year, the U.S. government in April announced orders for almost $3 billion of ventilators for a national stockpile, meant to save Americans suffering from severe respiratory problems brought on by the disease.



FILE PHOTO: A ventilator of Hamilton Medical AG is transported on a conveyor at a plant in Domat/Ems, Switzerland March 18, 2020. REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann/File Photo

But of the 140,000 machines added since then by the government to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, almost half were basic breathing devices that don’t meet what medical specialists say are the minimum requirements for ventilators needed to treat Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, the main cause of death among COVID-19 patients, according to a Reuters review of publicly-available device specifications and interviews with doctors and industry executives.

Only about 10% are full intensive care unit (ICU) ventilators of a type that doctors and ventilator specialists say they would normally use to intubate patients suffering from Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome or ARDS, the Reuters review found. The remainder - or about 40% - are transport ventilators normally employed for shorter periods but are considered sophisticated enough to be used long enough for ARDS patients to recover.

A September study by 22 ventilator specialists published in the official journal of the American College of Chest Physicians found half the models added to the stockpile were not suitable for treating ARDS.

The Reuters analysis is the first to examine the numbers of machines and their ability to save lives, according to those familiar with their use and published standards, and to tally the purchase cost to American taxpayers. The analysis is based on publicly-disclosed order details along with peer-reviewed studies about what types of ventilators are suitable for treating ARDS, interviews with medical specialists and World Health Organization guidance.

Many of the machines don’t meet the requirements of ARDS patients and their presence in the stockpile gives “a false sense of security,” Sajid Manzoor, director of adult respiratory therapy at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. “The COVID patients are so sick when they have ARDS. For the patients’ benefit we really need to stick with the full ICU ventilators,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is responsible for making purchases for the national stockpile, said that an interagency task force on ventilators made recommendations on which models and quantities to procure in March, a time of “extreme projections for respiratory care needs.”


With little known about COVID-19 at the time, the HHS “was preparing for the worst possible scenario,” the spokeswoman said. HHS declined to share the medical advice it relied upon in setting its minimum requirements or in selecting devices.

She added that the federal government has since adjusted its response as more clinical data has become available about the treatment of COVID-19. For instance, she said, the HHS is now procuring kits to provide alternatives to intubation, such as plastic tubes that deliver oxygen into the nose.

Today, the United States is engulfed in a deadly escalation of the virus with more than 1.1 million new infections last week. The country has reported more than 268,000 coronavirus-related deaths in total since the pandemic began.

There is currently no ventilator supply crisis in the United States as other treatments, including steroids, have reduced the need for intubation. HHS and manufacturers of the more basic devices said they can have a role in dealing with less acute cases of COVID.

But three respiratory specialists with ICU experience, and who have published papers on ventilator use, told Reuters that the government should have only added machines that could be used for dealing with ARDS. With limited resources, they said, the focus in the spring should have solely been on machines that could save the most critically ill -- and it was those types of machines that were in short supply at the time.

In a situation where the vast majority of patients in intensive care have serious respiratory issues, “you need complex ventilators to be able to support them,” said Dr Michael Christian, a London-based doctor who specializes in critical care medicine and an author of the September study.

The U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, the country’s largest store of medical supplies for use in a crisis, is intended to provide life-saving equipment in emergencies.

Respiratory care specialists – including HHS staff - have over the past decade said in congressional hearings and studies that the national stockpile should contain devices to help patients suffering from respiratory failure in the event of a flu-type pandemic.

Unlike full ICU ventilators, breathing devices that are designed as transport machines are meant to be used for short periods - typically hours – such as for getting critically-ill patients to ICU or treating non-critical breathing issues, rather than the weeks that COVID-19 patients can spend on a machine. As a result, the more basic versions frequently lack the lung-protecting features that would allow them to be used for more than hours, and experts say they have little chance of saving the lives of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

“MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IDEAL”

As COVID-19 swept through China and Europe early in the year, governments around the world scrambled to procure ventilators, mechanical devices that push carefully calibrated volumes of air and oxygen into the lungs via a tube in the windpipe. They are crucial for the care of people with respiratory failure, which is the primary killer of patients with COVID-19, the disease coronavirus causes.

In February, HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the U.S. stock of ventilators would not be sufficient to tackle a pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, the stockpile held some 14,000 machines, mostly sophisticated transport ventilators capable of dealing with severe respiratory distress.


In late March, President Donald Trump vowed the United States would make or otherwise procure 100,000 additional ventilators. Over the following weeks, the HHS announced a flurry of orders.

The HHS spokeswoman said there was a deliberate move to diversify the types of devices held in the stockpile to also include models designed for use in transport or temporary field hospitals in addition to those that meet requirements for use in ICUs.

“In the event that the infection curve could not be flattened, HHS was identifying and recommending procurement of as many respiratory care devices as available to meet the needs of healthcare facilities, even if those devices may not have been ideal,” she said.

Of the roughly 140,000 machines the stockpile had received by October, about 15,000 were ventilators that are specifically designed for use in intensive care units. Those machines cost on average about $21,600, according to HHS contract notices.

It also received some 58,000 machines that were designed for use while transporting critical patients to an ICU or within health facilities but also have some complex features such as pressure controls and the ability to vary oxygen levels that, according to medical specialists, could help COVID-19 patients suffering severe respiratory distress for days or potentially even weeks while they recover. The average cost of those kinds of machines added to the stockpile was about $16,800.

The government also spent about $450 million on roughly 66,000 units spanning four models that are designed for transporting critically ill patients for short periods and for providing care to patients with less acute respiratory problems. These devices, which are unlikely to save the lives of critically-ill COVID-19 patients, cost on average about $7,900 each.


None of the four models meet the minimum requirements for functionality for treating severely affected COVID-19 patients as identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) in guidance published in March, the Reuters analysis found.

Combat Medical, the maker of one of the models, said its device could help less acute COVID-19 patients. Manufacturers of the two other devices, Hill-Rom Holdings Inc’s and ResMed Inc, acknowledged that their devices did not meet all the WHO standards and also that their devices could help less acute COVID-19 patients.

“PUTS THE PATIENTS AT RISK”

A fourth model, made by a partnership between General Electric Co and Ford Motor Co., was the pNeuton. According to its specifications and experts familiar with the device, the pNeuton is not suitable for intubating severe COVID-19 patients with ARDS over a long period of time.

When California in July asked for 500 ventilators from the national stockpile, it received the pNeuton. But California, according to the state’s department of public health, needed more full-featured ventilators, prompting it to go back to the national stockpile. HHS then sent 500 ICU ventilators to the state, allowing California to also keep the pNeutons, both parties said.

Ford referred questions about the machine’s capabilities to General Electric, which declined to comment on whether it was suitable for treating COVID-19 patients with ARDS. According to a user manual for the pNeuton, it “has been specifically designed for patient support during transport and non-critical care unit mechanical ventilation.”

Richard Branson, a professor at the University of Cincinnati who has advised officials overseeing the national stockpile, said sending pNeutons when hospitals need ventilators that are suitable for intubating COVID-19 patients could have consequences.

“It’s a risk because if they get something they are not expecting and it isn’t capable of meeting the patients’ needs, then that puts the patients at risk,” he said. Without the right equipment at the right time, Branson said, “the patient won’t survive.”


Reporting by Tom Bergin; Editing by Tom Lasseter and Cassell Bryan-Low