Pentagon pulls money from overseas projects to pay for border wall

The move drew an angry response from Democrats, who say the administration is "trampling" on Congress' power of the purse.


Defense Secretary Mark Esper. | Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo


By CONNOR O’BRIEN and DAVID ROGERS 04/28/2020

Defense Secretary Mark Esper is restoring more than half a billion dollars in funding for military construction projects in the U.S. that were put on hold to help fund President Donald Trump's border wall, and instead will take money from projects that are primarily overseas.

The move, which is laid out in a memo dated Monday and obtained by POLITICO, drew an angry response from Democrats, who say the administration is "trampling" on Congress' power of the purse

Altogether, $545.5 million in previously withheld funds, all for projects in the U.S. with award dates in 2020, will be allowed to move forward.

"To enable the execution of certain projects scheduled for award in calendar year 2020, I direct you to release funding associated with 22 currently deferred projects within the United States totaling $545.526 million," Esper wrote in the memo to acting Pentagon Comptroller Elaine McCusker.

Esper removed 22 projects from the list of border-related deferrals, all of which have award dates in 2020. Of these, $160 million is for two projects at West Point, where Trump is slated to speak at commencement ceremonies. Another $62.6 million is for a middle school project at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, where Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is up for reelection in November.

To fill the hole left by restoring the $545.5 million, Esper proposes in his memo to substitute a new set of about 19 projects totaling an equal amount. Most of these projects are overseas and were funded by Congress from fiscal 2020 Overseas Contingency Operations appropriations outside the military base budget. The projects are in countries such as Germany, Japan, Norway, Spain and Jordan.

This is significant because lawmakers specify in the annual appropriations bills that OCO funds are to be spent for projects overseas, and here they will be used for a wall in the U.S. Moreover, the appropriations to fund the new list of deferred projects were approved by Congress after the president’s emergency border declaration.

A Pentagon spokesperson did not immediately comment.

In all, the Trump administration has funneled $3.6 billion from military construction coffers to fund barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrats on Capitol Hill have attempted to undo Trump's border wall gambit in annual defense policy and spending bills. They have rejected calls to replenish funding for the projects that were redirected to build barriers on the southern border, arguing the move would validate Trump's gambit.

The move by Esper drew quick backlash Tuesday from top Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee.

In a statement, Appropriations Chairwoman Nita Lowey of New York and the Military Construction Subcommittee Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, accused the Trump White House of playing politics with national security and "making an end run around Congress by attempting to backfill these projects on its own."

"Even worse, Trump is doing this by canceling funding for critical European Deterrence Initiative projects that were designed to bolster real national security needs and prevent Russian aggression against American allies and partners in Europe," Lowey and Wasserman Schultz said

"Once again, the Trump administration is putting domestic political considerations ahead of national security, and Trump is trampling on Congress’ power of the purse in the process. The American people deserve better, but they will only get it when congressional Republicans join us and stand up to this out-of-control President," they added.

Trump so far has siphoned nearly $10 billion from the defense budget for the border using unobligated military construction funds and other accounts.

The Pentagon in February reprogrammed $3.8 billion from fighter jets, shipbuilding and National Guard equipment accounts for the border wall. Using money from weapons accounts already appropriated by Congress also drew the ire of some Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Esper has also taken heat from Democrats for deploying 540 additional troops to the border to assist the Department of Homeland Security during the coronavirus pandemic.

‘I love Diamond & Silk’: Trump backs Fox News personalities who spread coronavirus conspiracies
The conservative video-bloggers’ status at the network is unclear.

President Donald Trump with Lynette 'Diamond' Hardaway and Rochelle 'Silk' Richardson during a news conference at the White House on Feb. 27. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
By QUINT FORGEY 04/28/2020

President Donald Trump on Tuesday voiced his support for conservative video-bloggers Diamond and Silk, the pro-Trump duo who have promoted coronavirus conspiracy theories and been absent from their usual Fox News appearances.

“Haters keep saying they hate Diamond and Silk, but you can’t hate what you ain’t never loved!” the sisters, whose real names are Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, wrote on their shared Twitter account Monday evening.

Trump shared that message Tuesday morning, writing online: “But I love Diamond & Silk, and so do millions of people!”

The president’s social media post came after CNN reported Saturday that Fox Nation, Fox News’ digital streaming service, had not uploaded a new episode of Diamond and Silk’s weekly show since April 7, and they had not appeared on the network’s broadcast since March.

Diamond and Silk, who have spoken at Trump rallies and are regulars on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends” morning show, have propagated various baseless coronavirus claims over the past month as the outbreak ravaged the United States. A Fox News spokeswoman did not immediately return a request for comment on their status with the company.

Although Fox News retains a stable of pro-Trump commentators, the president has grown increasingly frustrated with the network, despite its opinion hosts’ almost unflinchingly positive coverage of his administration.

“.@FoxNews just doesn’t get what’s happening! They are being fed Democrat talking points, and they play them without hesitation or research,” Trump wrote in a multi-part Twitter screed Sunday.

Diamond and Silk out at Fox News after they claimed coronavirus death toll is fabricated to hurt Trump: report

April 27, 2020 By Matthew Chapman


On Monday, The Daily Beast reported that Fox News is cutting ties with right-wing video-blogging duo Diamond and Silk, after they used their platform to promote conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic.

“After rising to prominence during the 2016 election, Lynette ‘Diamond’ Hardaway and Rochelle ‘Silk’ Richardson leveraged their newfound celebrity into regular sycophantic appearances on Fox News, resulting in President Donald Trump raving about their performances, featuring them at rallies, and treating them as ‘senior advisers,'” reported Lachlan Cartwright and Justin Baragona. “The social-media personalities were eventually tapped to provide weekly videos for Fox Nation after it launched as a subscription-based online video network. Their episodes, essentially 5-7 minute distillations of their freeform live-streams, appeared like clockwork on the streaming service until earlier this month.”

“Diamond & Silk have used their heavy social-media presence to be at the forefront of right-wing misinformation about the COVID-19 outbreak,” continued the report. “For instance, during their March 30 livestream, the duo claimed that the number of American coronavirus deaths has been inflated to make Trump look bad.” Diamond proclaimed “Where are the bodies?” and speculated the virus could be being “deliberately spread.” Silk has also suggested the virus could be a bioweapon manufactured by the “deep state.”

Fox News has been struggling for weeks to balance the pressures of right-wing allies of Trump who want to spread counternarratives on the pandemic, and the necessity to provide accurate public health information.

Recently, Fox Business host Trish Regan was cut after calling the pandemic an “impeachment scam.” However, some major Fox hosts who have sought to downplay the virus, like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham, are still employed.

‘Unhinged grifters’: Internet reacts to Diamond and Silk being booted off of Fox News

April 27, 2020 By Matthew Chapman


On Monday, right-wing vloggers Diamond and Silk were reportedly ousted as Fox News contributors after promoting a series of conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic.

Commenters on social media had a number of reactions — including to ask why the president of the United States was not being held to the same standard — or, for that matter, higher-ranking TV personalities at Fox.

Fox News has reportedly canned controversial personalities Diamond & Silk aka Rock & Burlap. I never rejoice in anyone’s termination, however these Trump-loving siblings have been pushing some dangerous #coronavirus conspiracy theories. https://t.co/yItD2oPftD #DiamondandSilk
— AprilDRyan (@AprilDRyan) April 27, 2020


Congrats to new OAN hosts Diamond & Silk. https://t.co/c8rKguotYF
— Daniel W. Drezner (@dandrezner) April 27, 2020


FOX just fired Diamond & Silk for promoting disinformation about Covid-19.
Because Diamond and Silk are held to a higher standard than, y’know, America’s president.
— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) April 27, 2020

I mean think what kind of unhinged grifters you’d have to be for Fox News to nope out https://t.co/iXVCIL5O8Z
— shauna (@goldengateblond) April 27, 2020

Getting fired from Fox for espousing dangerous, unfounded theories about the coronavirus largely seems to depend on how big a star you are and how big your platform is.
Trish Regan, Diamond & Silk are small potatoes that don’t bring in many viewers, thus are easier to cut. https://t.co/kb2isTn7Kc
— Nathan McDermott (@natemcdermott) April 27, 2020

Was what Trish Regan said much different than what Sean Hannity has said? No, not really.
Is what Diamond & Silk have been saying much different than what Tucker Carlson or Laura Ingraham have said on their shows? No, not really.
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) April 27, 2020

Diamond & Silk “argued that the number of American coronavirus deaths has been inflated to make Trump look bad” on their livestream
So did Fox host Tucker Carlson and senior political analyst Brit Hume on Carlson’s Fox News show! https://t.co/pPsa8lHKgG
— Matthew Gertz (@MattGertz) April 27, 2020

ON WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY

EDUCATION USA 

Teachers union: 'Scream bloody murder' if schools reopen against medical advice

Schools in most states have been ordered to stay closed the rest of the year or strongly urged to do so.


A sign taped to the front door of an elementary school. | Rick Bowmer/AP Photo

By NICOLE GAUDIANO 04/28/2020

The nation's two biggest teachers unions say they would consider strikes or major protests if schools reopen without the proper safety measures in place or against the advice of medical experts — raising the possibility of yet more school disruptions.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, previewing a reopening plan first with POLITICO, said funding is needed for a host of public health measures for schools, including personal protective equipment. Collective bargaining, strong enforcement of safety standards and protections from retaliation will be important for teachers and staff so they feel safe to speak up as schools try new approaches, she said.

If schools are reopened without proper safety measures, “you scream bloody murder,” Weingarten said. “And you do everything you can to ... use your public megaphones.”

Teachers are united after more than two years of strikes for more state funding and they have “tremendous power” as advocates for children's safety, said Lily Eskelsen García, president of the National Education Association. She didn’t rule out strikes if state leaders move prematurely on a reopening of schools, and she said she believes parents would protest too.

“You put all things on the table when it comes to student safety,” Eskelsen García said. "And ... I don't think we'll be alone."

Teachers are preparing for the possibility of staggered class times, temperature taking, physical distancing and other measures that will create an unrecognizable K-12 classroom experience for students when schools eventually reopen.

Governors in some states have already lifted some restrictions on small businesses like hair salons and elective surgeries. But the eventual reopening of schools will represent a major step, driving a return to normal life — or at least a new normal — perhaps unlike anything else. President Donald Trump said Monday that governors are preparing to reopen shuttered school systems, without citing specific states.



No large scale reopening is on the immediate horizon. Schools in most states have been ordered to stay closed the rest of the year or strongly urged to do so. Trump’s three-phased plan for reopening the economy calls for reopening schools, at governors’ discretion, after about a month of declines in cases along with other criteria. “You're seeing a lot of governors get out and they want to open it up,” the president said when asked for his advice to state leaders who are weighing an economic restart.

“Many are thinking about their school system. Not a long way to go in the school system right now for this season, for this year. But I think you'll see a lot of schools open up, even if it’s for a very short period of time,” Trump said.

Absent a vaccine, Weingarten said it’s important to proceed in a safe and coordinated way “so that people feel that they’re all in.” AFT’s plan is informed by countries that have cautiously reopened classrooms, including Denmark, Norway and Germany, she said.

The union in its reopening plan will encourage its affiliates to lobby districts for five conditions before opening schools: a decline in cases over 14 days; adequate testing, tracing and isolation; public health measures like temperature taking, cleaning protocols, personal protective equipment and physical distancing measures such as staggered school times; transparency and fidelity to safety measures and enforcement; and increased funding to implement the host of changes.

Already, AFT’s affiliate in New York City, United Federation of Teachers, laid down a marker, launching a petition calling for widespread testing, temperature checks, rigorous cleaning and protective gear in every school and exhaustive tracing procedures as conditions for reopening schools.

“In places where there's a strong commitment to worker voice, we're going to get that and in places where there isn't, we're going to have to use all sorts of other vehicles, or what's going to happen is the virus will reemerge,” Weingarten said.

Eskelsen García said NEA is connecting thousands of members so they can share ideas.

Some are raising questions about what it will take to reopen, such as how you social distance in overcrowded classrooms, she said. Do they use the gym or lunch room to spread out? Nearby buildings? Do they have or need protective gear?

Some say reopening will require a lot more time from teachers and support staff, but that can’t come free.

“There will probably be some instances where we will have to look at renegotiating contracts for teachers who may be asked to do some pretty heroic things to get those schools open,” she said.

State and local leaders have already butted heads with unions during the shift to remote learning. In California, disagreements cropped up over issues like grading and student access to computers. The Chicago Teachers Union clashed with Chicago Public Schools over its decision to send home third quarter report cards. In South Bend, Ind., the local NEA affiliate filed a complaint with the state accusing the South Bend Community School Corp. of unfair labor practices, the South Bend Tribune reported.

“The safety of students, teachers and staff is chiefs' top concern when deciding when and how to reopen school buildings. New precautions will be required to do so safely, and teachers will be an important partner in making those decisions," said Carolyn Phenicie, spokesperson for the Council of Chief State School Officers.


Thomas J. Gentzel, executive director and CEO of the National School Boards Association, said during an April 2 interview that he expects issues with collective bargaining if the school year needs to be extended or if schools reach the point of reopening.

“Even in districts where the relationship between the administration and the union is generally pretty good, there can still be disagreements about what the terms of the collective bargaining agreement mean,” he said, during a discussion about remote learning.

Both Weingarten and Eskelsen García say educators and school districts must collaborate on decisions concerning reopening schools.

It’s alarming, Eskelsen García said, that Trump’s task forces to reopen the economy do not include educators, who can speak up for themselves and students. Both national unions have endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden and have been outspoken against Trump.

“We have had educators who have died from exposure in a school or working at a school that was closed,” Eskelsen García said. “So we are worried about the big people and the little people and all the people that those folks go home to.”

By contrast, a National Governors Association road map says educators should be among those included in efforts to develop and implement the framework for reopening.

“In places where governors are taking this really seriously, they’re working closely with their state unions,” Weingarten said.

The unions are lobbying Congress for at least $175 billion to distribute to states for K-12 public education and higher education to fill budget gaps, $25 billion for Title I programs for low-income kids and programs for children with disabilities and $2 billion to help address internet access issues.

Also on NEA’s lobbying list is at least $56 million for personal protective equipment for teachers, education support professionals and other school staff who interact with students and families.

“We've got to convince Congress, no, they're not pumping the brakes. They're actually going to step on the gas, because they're the only ones that can help these states,” said Eskelsen García.

---30---

EUROPE
The next pandemic: Rising inequality
The coronavirus crisis will widen economic disparities.



Homeless wait to receive meals given by volunteers during the coronavirus confinement in Paris on April 23, 2020. | Christophe Ena/AP Photo


By CHARLIE COOPER

04/28/2020 10:57 PM EDT
Facebook
Twitter
Link
More


It took the coronavirus three months to change the world. And it’s only just getting started.

As Europe begins to emerge from the awful first wave of the pandemic — and absorbs the shock of a Continental death toll that has exceeded 100,000 — the fire-fighting stage of the crisis appears to be coming to an end.

Next up? A long, slow march to a vaccine. A successful candidate, reproduced several billion times over and distributed to everyone in the world who needs it, is — at best — anywhere between nine and 18 months away, according to most experts.

With social distancing here to stay for the foreseeable future, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the next stage of the pandemic is going to change many lives for the worse.

Specifically, it’s going to exasperate existing inequalities, as the privileged buffer themselves against its pernicious effects while the world’s most vulnerable struggle not to fall through the rapidly widening economic fissures.

Take schools. Even as some countries reopen classrooms — some with limited attendance, or alternated timetables — there’s still uncertainty about how and when a generation of young people, from nursery age to postgraduate, will be able to get their education permanently back on track.

“There are hopes that schools and universities could be open in the autumn, but there is no guarantee that they would get through another academic year without needing to move online again at some point, if there’s a second wave of the virus,” said Carl Cullinane of the U.K.’s Sutton Trust think tank, which has a particular focus on inequalities in education — something he says are being “highlighted and exacerbated” by coronavirus .

At every stage of the educational journey, the virus has hit, storing up potential problems — particularly for those already at a disadvantage (children from better-off families who might have their own personal laptop are able to enjoy the benefits of online learning much more easily than children from a family with only one laptop in the household, or none).

“We try to be positive, emphasizing the range of policies and mitigation strategies that can be taken,” Cullinane said. “But it will likely be difficult to avoid long-term harm being done to this current generation, particularly if the effects are on-and-off for the next year to 18 months.”

For educational institutions that rely on funding from parents or students — in the U.K., for instance, nurseries have found themselves in particular financial trouble — the long-term future of the business is now at risk, Cullinane said.

Never mind the dilemma of how you get a 4-year-old to wear a face mask or to social distance at nursery — there might not be a nursery for them to go to, something that would put many working parents in a bind.

Pupils stepping up from primary education to secondary are also at particular risk, said Cullinane. That’s “one of the big periods where [inequalities] open up.” This year, it’s possible we could see pupils entering secondary school in September, “not having been in a school room since early March,” he added.

“It is potentially extremely damaging for, particularly, disadvantaged pupils who may not have had the support over those few months at home that other pupils might have had,” he said. “The scars of the current crisis are going to still be showing in the long term.”

Then there’s jobs. The economic hardships of lockdown, furthermore, are hitting those low-pay sectors worse than high-pay.

While well-paid employees in the financial sector can telework from home, factory-workers, waiters and receptionists can’t. Lower-paid jobs are "hit hardest now and they may not come back as fully as white-collar jobs do,” said Ian Mulheirn, a former U.K. government economist and now an executive director at former prime minister Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change think tank.

“The tradeable nature of some of the high-skill services the U.K. specializes in won’t really be affected by this massively in the long-run, but lots of these other jobs will be,” he added.

The pain is expected to be particularly keen in the service sector, as bars, cafes, restaurants, nightclubs and hotels are potentially forced to stay under lockdown long after restrictions on other sectors have eased.

In Britain, the industry association UK Hospitality is drawing up protocols for different varieties of venue under different levels of social distancing restriction. Whatever happens, said chief executive Kate Nicholls, there is more economic pain coming down the track.

Evidence from Sweden indicates that even where there is no enforced lockdown in place, people’s behaviour has still changed. “Restaurants and hotels that some of our businesses operate [in Sweden] are reporting that there is a sort of self-imposed social distancing going on by their consumers,” she said. “The town and city center restaurants are by no means full, they’re operating at sub-50 percent.”

Meanwhile, the experience of post-lockdown China and other Asian countries, where restrictions have been imposed then lifted, is also worrying. "With hotels, occupancy and revenues were 20 to 30 percent [what they would typically be],” Nicholls said. “Restaurants, when they reopened with social distancing in place, saw immediately reduced capacity and revenue 30 to 50 percent of what you would normally expect.”

With the chances of a rapid bounce back looking remote, Nicholls believes governments will need to shift from economy-wide bailout measures to targeted support for sectors, like hers, that could take the worst hit.

“It will all have been for nothing if the support that was in place for the hard lockdown … was suddenly cut off,” she said. “That would just mean we’d postponed the pain of the job losses and the business failures rather than helping to allow those businesses to survive and play their part in the economic recovery.”

The economic disruption caused by the pandemic and the lockdowns means the coronavirus is more than an immediate threat to public health; it will likely cause suffering far into the future.

The financial crash of the last decade — and the austerity that followed — contributed to a stalling in life expectancy improvements in the U.K., according to Michael Marmot, a professor of epidemiology at University College London, who tracked the negative effects.

Marmot fears a similar scar could be left by coronavirus — only bigger: “In 2009, the year after Lehman Brothers collapsed, the global economy shrank by 0.1 percent,” he said.

“Now they’re projecting a 3 percent drop,” he added, citing the International Monetary Fund’s forecast for global growth earlier this month. “It’s huge. And the poorer you are the more likely you are either to have to work outside the home — you can’t socially isolate — or to lose your job.”

All the determinants of long-term health Marmot has spent decades studying — early child development, education, employment and working conditions, having enough money to live on, healthy places and communities — will all be impacted, he believes. “In the short term there will be increases in inequalities in social conditions, which will over time lead to inequalities in health.”

Compounding the problem will be the stored-up afflictions of millions of Europeans with underlying conditions — cancer, heart disease, diabetes and others — who have not received the diagnoses, treatments or surgery that they might have done because health systems have been consumed with the coronavirus response.

In the U.K. alone, around 200,000 people every week are no longer being screened for bowel, breast and cervical cancer, according to the Cancer Research UK charity. “There will be a significant number of early cancers left undetected before these programmes can be reintroduced,” they said.

Zooming out, international inequalities are another significant worry, and not just for poorer countries, said Catherine Rhodes, executive director of the Cambridge University’s Centre for the Study of Existential Risk.

Speaking at the beginning of April, Rhodes — whose academic discipline requires her to envision the worst-case scenarios — said the impact of coronavirus on developing countries was her biggest concern.

“Even the things that seem simple here, like social distancing, that’s not going to be possible if you’re living in a slum, or a refugee camp, or any intensely crowded setting,” she said.

“What understandably gets overlooked sometimes by governments is that, of course they need to look to what their national citizens are wanting and needing,” she added. “But in an outbreak like this, if we ... just try and limit what gets into our own country, it will just keep circulating.”

The development of a vaccine will, Rhodes predicts, present deep dilemmas for policymakers. If and when we get one, the immediate question will be: how and where to distribute it? “From the point of view of a national government ... its population is not going to be happy if it sees they could have had this vaccine and [the government] let it go to other countries,” Rhodes said.

But getting vaccines to vulnerable populations around the world is precisely, she added, “what a global response will most benefit from.”

Supporting an international vaccination effort could prove politically difficult for countries struggling to find the funds to support a recovery effort — or simply trying to stop the economic bleeding.

On the macroeconomic side, the immediate painful question is how long can the current, unprecedented state intervention in markets around Europe be maintained? With the state so heavily involved in the economy, at what point (and how) do governments start deciding which companies survive, and why?

If the hospitality sector, for instance, has to stay in deep freeze for months and months to come, or if ongoing border restrictions mean airlines can’t fly, how long can the taxpayer prop up businesses in these and other worst-hit sectors?

“For policymakers, I think the challenge is that there is an economic case for supporting those sectors to return to something like a sustainable normal,” said Mulheirn from the Institute for Global Change. “But policymakers obviously have no idea where that new normal will settle.”

Addressing growing inequality and defusing the health time bomb will require governments to resist cost-cutting austerity measures, said Marmot, the professor of epidemiology.

He noted that after the financial crisis, governments argued they had no choice but to cut health and other basic services. “And what happened when the COVID-19 pandemic hit?” he said. “They threw all of that orthodoxy out of the window and said, ‘Whatever it takes.'"

“If you can do it in a pandemic you can do it for the profound problem of inequalities and resultant health inequalities in society,” he added.

Governments will face defining choices about how to square the spending circle in the months and years ahead, said Mulheirn.

Not only will demands on social support systems be greater — with millions more unemployed — there could also be increased pressure for well-funded public services, as people’s admiration for health workers’ efforts to combat the pandemic converts into political support for them to be fairly paid and resourced.

“How are these expectations going to be met,” he asked, in a likely context of widespread business failure, falling business revenues and therefore a significantly shrunken tax base?

How all this shapes politics in the months and years to come is perhaps the biggest and most consequential unknown. Traumatized economies and unequal societies in the past decade proved fertile ground for unforeseen political movements: Trump, Brexit, rising European populism.

Polling by Ifop, in France, already suggests that those who are finding lockdown the most challenging are the poorest. If there is an ever-widening divide between those who were pummeled by the pandemic, and those who (thanks to their economic security, or the nature of their work) were able to weather the blows, that will at some point find a political outlet. The only question is how strong will that reaction turns out to be.

ON WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY

Trump orders meat plants to stay open as worker deaths rise

The president declares meat-processing plants as critical infrastructure amid fears of disruptions to the food supply.

By LIZ CRAMPTON and GABBY ORR
04/28/2020

President Donald Trump on Tuesday night ordered meat-processing plants to continue operating, declaring them critical infrastructure as the nation confronts growing disruptions to the food supply.



Meatpacking plants have become incubators for the virus as employees work side-by-side in dangerous conditions. Twenty meatpacking and processing workers have died from coronavirus, and at least 6,500 have been affected, according to the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
At least 22 plants processing meat from pork to chicken have closed at some point after clusters of employees tested positive for Covid-19, according to UFCW. Trump is using the Defense Production Act to order the companies to stay open.

SOCIAL DISTANCING AT CARGILL BEEF PLANT, BROOKS ALBERTA

"Such closures threaten the continued functioning of the national meat and poultry supply chain, undermining critical infrastructure during the national emergency," the order says. "Given the high volume of meat and poultry processed by many facilities, any unnecessary closures can quickly have a large effect on the food supply chain."

The shutdowns have led to worries about meat shortages. Some economists warn that consumers could see fewer options at grocery stores starting in May if plants continue to shut down at the same pace.

But Trump played down any worries about lack of meat. "There's plenty of supply," he told the media earlier on Tuesday. "It's distribution."

Trump directed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to "take all appropriate action" to ensure that meat companies continue operating under guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.


Trump directed Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to "take all appropriate action" to ensure that meat companies continue operating under guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.



The order did not detail additional precautions companies should take to protect workers, which has led to worries among unions and other worker groups.

The Agriculture Department has deferred to the CDC and OSHA instead of issuing its own rules. OSHA, however, has not imposed mandatory safety rules and instead only issued recommendations.

In a full page ad in The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on Sunday, Tyson Foods warned “the food supply chain is breaking" and said the plant closings are leading to shortages at groceries.

The plant closings at Tyson and numerous other large meatpackers have jammed the food supply chain, leaving farmers with a backlog of hogs ready to be slaughtered and nowhere to put them. Many are euthanizing animals. House Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson said Tuesday that he's heard estimates as many as 160,000 pigs a day need to be culled because of the backup at slaughterhouses.

In comments to the media earlier on Tuesday, Trump said he would also shield meatpacking companies from legal liability from worker claims of not being adequately protection, though the order didn't spell out any specifics.

The unlikely alliance trying to rescue workplace health insurance

As millions lose employer health plans, powerful Washington groups are uniting behind a bailout of the popular coverage.


Two people walk past a closed sign at a retail store in Chicago. | Nam Y. Huh/AP Photo

By SUSANNAH LUTHI 04/28/2020

Big businesses and powerful Democrats are aligning around a proposal to bail out employer health plans in the wake of staggering losses to the insurance industry, as some worry that a surge in uninsured Americans could give new life to a stalled push for “Medicare for All.”

The business and labor interests, who have strong economic motives to keep the current system of employer-based care, are rallying behind a Democratic effort to subsidize temporary extensions of newly unemployed Americans’ workplace health plans in Congress’ next coronavirus rescue package.

But to some progressives who cheered Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) Medicare for All plan, the crisis has exposed what they see as the folly of tying employment to health coverage. Sanders, who's advocating for an emergency version of his health plan during the pandemic, ripped the idea of propping up an expensive employer system in a POLITICO op-ed Tuesday.

"Not only would health insurance corporations make massive profits off the plan—profits that come at the cost of the American taxpayers—but it would still leave tens of millions uninsured or underinsured," the former Democratic presidential candidate wrote. "And during this pandemic, a lack of insurance means more Covid-19 transmissions and more deaths."

America’s health care system since World War II has relied on the increasingly costly employer insurance market. But with 26 million people rapidly losing their jobs amid a massive health crisis, the idea of tying coverage to the workplace is facing its biggest stress test yet.

Employers, health care groups and unions badly want the employer system to emerge from the health crisis unscathed, believing it would ward off any new expansion of government health care. Joe Biden’s rise to becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee was a relief to the health care industry, which has spent the past two years attacking Medicare for All. Health care groups also oppose other more incremental government expansions, like a public option Biden and other moderate Democrats support.

“This crisis will be over — not soon enough, but it will be over — and we need to fundamentally keep that highway back to jobs and job-provided health care open,” said Ilyse Schuman, senior vice president of health policy for the American Benefits Council, which represents major employers. “That’s what Congress needs to do now, and employer-sponsored insurance plays a big role in that.”

Experts estimate the job-based insurance market has likely already lost millions of customers as unemployment skyrockets, and a growing number of insurers hoping to retain business are offering grace periods on premium payments. Few people losing their jobs sign up for temporary workplace insurance, known as COBRA plans, unless they desperately need the coverage. And it's both complicated and extremely costly, since it comes without employer subsidies that typically cover the lion’s share of monthly premiums.

Newly unemployed people losing health insurance can often find cheaper or even free coverage through the Obamacare insurance markets or Medicaid. However, President Donald Trump’s refusal to broadly reopen the Obamacare markets or make enrollment easier for those eligible may limit the safety net’s reach. Many of the poor won't be eligible for Medicaid in the remaining 14 states that have not expanded the programs under Obamacare.

While the health industry and Democrats still want to bolster Obamacare, an unusual bloc is pressuring Congress to fully subsidize workplace premiums for the uninsured. Corporations would benefit because the employer-based system supplies a big tax break for benefits they can use as a recruiting tool. Unions would keep the generous coverage they have negotiated with corporations. And hospitals and doctors could maintain the big payouts from private insurance, which are far higher than the Medicare and Medicaid rates paid by government.

Such an idea could hit the political sweet spot on Capitol Hill. Workplace plans, which covered an estimated 160 million Americans before the pandemic, remain popular. Democratic leaders in Congress know Republicans have little appetite for broadly expanding government coverage, and Biden has endorsed temporarily subsidizing workplace plans. Republicans, despite railing against insurer “bailouts” in Obamacare for years, are friendlier to employer-based insurance and may be more receptive to a deal that could prevent millions of people joining the Medicaid rolls.

The health care industry is spooked by a widely circulated projection that between 12 million and 35 million people could lose their employer health plan in the economic fallout from coronavirus. The same analysis from consulting group Health Management Associates predicts the uninsured ranks could swell from 28 million to 40 million people, while Medicaid rolls in expansion states would also grow. That prospect worries the hospital industry, which endorsed COBRA aid on Tuesday, since the safety net program typically pays much less than Medicare.

Meanwhile, the health care industry is also trying to win back Americans’ trust about the affordability of the system, just months after hospitals and physician groups helped derail an effort to ban exorbitant “surprise” medical bills. Big insurance companies are waiving deductibles and copays for their commercial plans and the Trump administration is offering Medicare payments to hospitals so they don’t charge uninsured coronavirus patients.

Industry experts downplay the idea the pandemic poses an existential threat to employer insurance, noting that once the economy rebounds the same dynamics that have made the market attractive will remain unchanged.

Still, the market has already taken a hit. Additionally the yearslong trend of small businesses dropping employee coverage will likely accelerate, either because they will have shuttered or need to cut costs.

Ultimately, the future of employer-based insurance will be steered by large corporations that are the backbone of the market, said Linda Blumberg of the Urban Institute. The uncertain prospects for recovery from this crisis, however, remain a wild card.

“I think a lot remains to be seen with regard to how strongly the labor market bounces back and how long it takes,” she said.

Unions, major insurers, hospitals and the consumer advocacy group Families USA have banded together through a group called the Alliance to Fight for Health Care, and are lobbying Congress to subsidize COBRA through the next stimulus package.

Supporters said COBRA aid would provide a backstop to hospitals and physicians, whose finances have been hurt by the cancellation of elective procedures during the crisis. Congress has already approved $175 billion to health care providers with few strings attached.

“Hospitals and providers are seeing tremendous expense and increase in uncompensated care and uninsured individuals coming in, while also seeing drops in elective procedures, so I think it’s money well spent in protecting employees in a time of crisis,” said Katie Mahoney, vice president of health policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi first pitched COBRA subsidies a month ago in a proposed alternative to the $2.2 trillion CARES Act that was ultimately approved by Congress. House Education and Labor Chairman Bobby Scott (D-Va.) and Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) earlier this month unveiled standalone legislation fully subsidizing employer premiums for laid-off or furloughed workers.

Support from unions puts pressure on progressive Democrats, the driving force behind Medicare for All, to back the policy.

Unite Here, representing mostly service workers, said Congress must subsidize workplace plans. The union’s international president, D. Taylor, estimates 95 percent of its members are unemployed during the crisis.

“The health care crisis of a lifetime requires full emergency health care coverage for those millions of hardworking Americans who, through no fault of their own, have become unemployed," Taylor said.

But the effort has raised eyebrows among some liberal policy experts, who say Democrats are overlooking the health care law they’ve spent the past 10 years defending. They said Democrats should be trying to expand that safety net at a time when health coverage independent from a workplace is more important than ever.

The law’s individual market plans are expensive but are still ultimately cheaper for the government to subsidize than employer coverage. Medicaid plans, which offer full coverage for lower-income adults in expansion states, are cheaper still. And analysts question whether the subsidies would be money well spent when they only buy temporary certainty for workers and their families, who may ultimately have to turn to the Affordable Care Act if the economy is slow to recover.

“At a time when you don’t know if people are going back to work, or where they’ll go back to work, getting them better ACA coverage would be more expedient,” said Arielle Kane, director of health policy at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Moreover, experts note, COBRA subsidies come with a huge price tag and ultimately help the middle- and higher-income people, rather than lower-income people more likely to work retail and service jobs affected by shutdowns.

“Almost no matter the employment outlook or time horizon, COBRA subsidies are unlikely to be the most cost-effective way of expanding coverage or relieving financial hardship,” said Matt Fiedler, former chief economist of the Council of Economic Advisers under the Obama administration. “They’re just not targeted on the right people.”

Congress subsidized COBRA in the last recession, before Obamacare was passed. The aid had limited reach — only about one-third of those eligible for subsidies signed up for coverage, according to a 2015 Labor Department review. Congress at the time agreed to a 65 percent premium subsidy. This time, groups are pushing to cover the entire amount.

Tom Leibfried, a health care lobbyist for AFL-CIO, acknowledged some progressives would rather expand government coverage through the crisis, but he stressed that it would be easier to work within the existing system to deliver faster relief.

“So as happened in 2009, during the Great Recession, it’s just more practical to turn to existing institutions and use those to make sure people get the care they need and don’t face financial hardship,” he said.

ON WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY

Workers turn to courts and states for safety protection as Trump declines to act

The administration has said it can't enforce social distancing and other safety recommendations.

WHERE THE HELL IS OSHA

Covid-19 safety signage hangs at the employee entrance of of a Minnesota plant. | Aaron Lavinsky/Star Tribune via AP

By REBECCA RAINEY and LIZ CRAMPTON 04/28/2020

President Donald Trump can force meatpacking plants to stay open during the pandemic, but his own administration hasn’t required employers to provide safety equipment to prevent the virus' spread.

Now, workers in a range of industries are looking to states, Congress and the courts to step in.

A judge this week ordered leading meat company Smithfield to follow federal safety recommendations at a plant in Missouri, and labor advocates hope to use the lawsuit as a model to force companies in other sectors to protect workers.

They’re also asking Democratic lawmakers to make safety standards a part of the next round of coronavirus relief. In addition, they're turning to state governments to enforce such protections.

The moves follow weeks of sparring with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, an arm of the Labor Department. OSHA has recommended employers to encourage hand washing and practice routine disinfecting, and it has issued safety guidelines for specific industries.

But those are merely guidelines, and some local OSHA offices have declined to enforce even the most basic recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. When OSHA does open an investigation into workplace safety, the process takes weeks or months to resolve.

The White House, however, issued an executive order on Tuesday night to keep meat plants open to minimize disruptions in the food supply.

“The government’s response has been delinquent, delayed, disorganized, chaotic and deadly.” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumk

“We only wish that this administration cared as much about the lives of working people as it does about meat, pork and poultry products," said Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. "If the administration had developed meaningful safety requirements early on — as they should have and still must do — this would not even have become an issue."


Labor union leaders say the federal government's and companies’ responses to the pandemic have been inconsistent, creating hazards for those in industries deemed essential.

“Thousands of workers have died and are sick. If that’s not necessary, I don’t know what is,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said Tuesday. “The government’s response has been delinquent, delayed, disorganized, chaotic and deadly.”

As a result, workers across various industries that are at high risk of exposure to the coronavirus are using their unions to negotiate for greater protections and are pressing state leaders to lead efforts. According to the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group, more than 16,000 workers have already fallen ill, and hundreds have died from Covid-19.

In New Jersey, workers at the Barnes & Noble distribution center in Monroe delivered a petition to Gov. Phil Murphy on Tuesday asking that he close the facility for two weeks due to reported cases of the coronavirus among employees. At least 100 of the 800 employees at the Middlesex County warehouse have signed the petition, according to organizers.

Unions representing roughly 10,000 correction officers, captains and wardens in New York City recently filed a lawsuit arguing the city is putting their health and safety in danger by requiring officers work 24-hour shifts and return from sick leave without first getting a negative Covid-19 test.

Dozens of McDonald’s workers organized by the union-backed Fight For $15 movement have gone on strike at restaurants in Los Angeles, Chicago, Tampa, Fla., and Memphis, Tenn., among other cities, over a lack of protective equipment and sick leave.

And earlier this month, the United Food and Commercial Workers and grocery chain Kroger called on federal and state officials to designate associates at grocery stores as “extended first responders” or “emergency personnel” so they could receive priority access to personal protective equipment like masks and gloves.

Businesses have cautioned against issuing binding new rules.

AGRICULTURE
White House points to CDC guidelines as more meatpacking workers infected


BY LIZ CRAMPTON AND HELENA BOTTEMILLER EVICH

In a letter Tuesday to local and federal leaders, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged lawmakers "to refrain from converting public health and safety guidance into regulations that may add further challenges for businesses to reopen."

The Smithfield lawsuit, filed by a local nonprofit advocating for worker rights and an anonymous longtime plant employee, is the first of its kind seeking to use the courts to force companies to abide by federal guidelines to protect workers operating in dangerous conditions.

Twenty meatpacking and processing workers have died from the coronavirus. At least 6,500 have tested positive for Covid-19, showed symptoms, missed work or been hospitalized, according to UFCW, which represents 1.3 million across the country.

The lawsuit, filed last week, underscores the weakness of the federal government’s ability to quickly police worker safety, even in a time of crisis. OSHA confirmed it has started an investigation into the Missouri plant, but it could take weeks before the plant abates the safety hazards and OSHA issues a citation or fines.

The agency also recently issued a new enforcement guidance specific to the meatpacking industry, suggesting that employers space workers six feet apart and provide barriers in between workers, among other precautions.

But those guidelines are still only recommendations, and are currently unenforceable by OSHA or the CDC.

Democrats and labor advocates have been clamoring for a provision mandating such worker safety requirements to be included in the next round of coronavirus relief.

Last week, House Education and Labor Chairman Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) introduced legislation that would require OSHA to issue an emergency standard within seven days that would lay out mandatory protections companies must provide to their workers to prevent exposure to Covid-19.

“Over the past few months, we have seen the tragic consequences of the Department of Labor’s failure to take urgent action to protect frontline health care workers and other essential employees,” Scott said when introducing the bill.

“Without an enforceable workplace safety standard to protect workers against Covid-19 infection," he added, "nurses, doctors, first responders, grocery store workers, food processors, delivery workers, and many others will continue to suffer alarming rates of infection that have already led to thousands of preventable illnesses and deaths."

But the Trump administration maintains DOL has all the enforcement tools it needs to ensure workers were being protected.

“When it comes to workplace safety we want to provide guidance and clarity and help employers do the right thing. Most are working hard to do so,” Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia said on a phone call Thursday. “But we also know that unfortunately enforcement may be needed in some cases. We have the tools we need, and we'll use them, if necessary.”

According to OSHA, the agency has received over 2,400 Covid-19 related complaints and has closed over 1,400 of them.

OSHA officials say the agency will enforce existing standards such as its safety rules regarding respiratory protection and blood-borne pathogens throughout the pandemic. But safety advocates have complained those standards don’t address risks posed by infectious illnesses like Covid-19.

Scalia also said the agency would issue citations under its broad general duty clause, which requires employers to maintain a workplace free of hazards, but that mechanism poses a high legal test.

“The human cost to America's food, retail, and commercial workers is real and growing," said UFCW President Marc Perrone. "From grocery stores to meatpacking plants, from senior care facilities to pharmacies, the impact on workers' lives from this coronavirus is beyond tragic — and this crisis must be stopped before it gets worse."

Katherine Landergan, Gabby Orr, Danielle Muoio and Ian Kullgren contributed to this report.

Brazil passes 5,000 deaths from COVID-19: official

TRUMP MINI ME CATCHING UP WITH DEATH CULT NUMBERS OF THE REAL@TRUMP April 28, 2020 By Agence France-Presse


Brazil, the South American country worst-hit by the coronavirus pandemic, has registered more than 5,000 deaths from COVID-19, the health ministry announced Tuesday.

A record 474 deaths were recorded in the last 24 hours, with the number of infections rising to 71,886, the ministry said.

The overall death toll from the pandemic in Brazil has exceeded that of China, where the virus first emerged before spreading across the world.

Right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro regularly expresses his impatience with restrictions imposed by the state governors to slow the disease’s spread and has pushed hard for economy activity to restart.

Health Minister Nelson Teich, who took office earlier this month after the controversial firing of his predecessor, said last week as the death toll hit 3,000 that it was premature to attribute the rise in deaths to a surge in COVID-19 infections.

He suggested it could instead be the result of an increase in testing.

Sao Paulo, the hardest-hit state with a third of the country’s cases, plans to gradually resume economic activity — sector by sector — from May 11.

Rio de Janeiro and southeastern Minas Gerais states are preparing similar measures, while the federal district of Brasilia and southern Santa Catarina state have already resumed certain activities.

© 2020 AFP

THE LAST WORD Flight attendants sound alarm over lack of COVID-19 protections

Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants, tells Lawrence O’Donnell in an effort to “stop spread through aviation,” regulations are needed that would require everyone in airports and aboard planes to wear a face covering.
April 28, 2020

ON WORKERS MEMORIAL DAY

Trump admin forsakes worker safety in false choice over meat supply

Workers voice concerns as meat plant re-opens amid coronavirus outbreaks

Meat plants become COVID-19 hotspots after poor handling of outbreaks

'Whack-a-mole stuff': Trump's oil rescue hits a slippery path

"The Trump administration is basically standing on the sidelines coming up with ideas that won’t help us," one person in the industry said.


The latest idea floated last week by President Donald Trump's administration calls for the Treasury Department to create a fund to lend money to struggling oil producers. 

By BEN LEFEBVRE and ZACK COLMAN 04/28/2020

President Donald Trump and his advisers are offering a barrage of increasingly urgent ideas for propping up faltering oil producers — but people in the industry are skeptical that anything will come of it.

The administration has so far jettisoned plans to buy oil for the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, nixed an idea to eliminate royalty payments for energy produced on federal lands and dropped a discussion of paying oil companies not to produce oil. The latest idea floated last week calls for the Treasury Department to create a fund to lend money to struggling oil producers — and take partial ownership stakes in the companies while requiring them to reduce their output.

“This is whack-a-mole stuff,” said one oil industry official involved in the discussions, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak frankly about the administration’s efforts. “There is a huge interest to ‘do something’ to help. But it all sounds good until step two.”

Like most parts of the economy, the oil industry has been hard hit by the coronavirus pandemic. The crash in oil prices that saw U.S. crude futures sink into negative territory last week for the first time in history rattled an industry that has weathered booms and busts for decades. Companies that had lifted U.S. oil production to record levels above 13 million barrels per day in recent months have slashed spending, laid off workers and shut down an estimated 900,000 barrels per day of output since the middle of March.

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Trump pledges financial aid to oil industry

BY BEN LEFEBVRE

But even market-driven production cuts in the U.S. and planned reductions by Saudi Arabia and Russia have failed to offset the global collapse in demand, as the spread of Covid-19 has shrunk consumption by an estimated 20 million to 30 million barrels per day.

That has left the Trump administration scrambling to try to prop up a U.S. oil industry the president regularly praises for achieving global "energy dominance."

"The energy business is very important to me, and we're going to build it up," Trump told reporters on Friday.

Two energy industry officials confirmed to POLITICO that the White House and Treasury Department have raised the idea of the government buying stakes in oil companies and forcing them to scale back production, which could push prices higher. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin indicated on Friday that taking equity stakes in companies could be on the table.

But skeptics in the industry say that would be all-but unworkable politically and financially. The government would have to buy enough shares in each company to control its production plan and would be saddled with the debt from businesses that had been in financial peril last year, when oil prices slipped to levels too low for many producers to earn a profit. And the money would most likely have to approved by the Democratically controlled House, which has shown no interest in carving out an aid program for the industry.

The skepticism over that plan comes after Congress rejected the Trump administration's request for $3 billion to buy oil for the strategic reserves. Now, the idea of lending money to companies and taking equity stake in them is drawing derision from several industry executives.

“When I heard that, it was in the context of ‘We could be totally insane and try this,’” said one person in the oil and gas industry who requested anonymity because he or she wasn't authorized to talk to the press. “Are we really talking about nationalizing our oil industry? Is the government equipped to do something like this? The answer is no.”

Spokespeople for the White House, DOE and Treasury Department did not immediately respond to questions.

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
Oil prices go negative — and Washington is paralyzed over what to do

BY BEN LEFEBVRE

The only real way the Trump White House could help is to help bring the Covid-19 outbreak under control so the public feels safe traveling again, one industry lobbyist said.

While much of the industry — including the influential American Petroleum Institute — opposes any kind of direct help from Washington, some oil producers are pressing for the White House to step in, including Continental Resources, the shale oil powerhouse company founded by Trump supporter Harold Hamm.

Oil-state senators are also publicly pitching for federal assistance. Texas Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz and North Dakota's Kevin Cramer have all pressed Trump to try to forestall a wave of bankruptcies in the oil industry.

Cornyn, who is up for reelection this year, told reporters Thursday that he met with White House officials on April 17 and talked to Mnuchin to push for more help, including asking Saudi Arabia and Russia to cut more of their own oil production.

“We must do everything we can possibly think of,” Cornyn told reporters.

But Democrats have shot down ideas as quickly as the administration has floated them. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) sent a letter Thursday to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warning him to not allow oil companies that were feeling financial heat before the pandemic to use newly authorized federal facilities to pay off their existing debts to Wall Street.

“During the federal response to this unprecedented crisis, we urge you to deploy the Federal Reserve’s resources in a way that protects taxpayer interests and avoids the bailout of an industry that has been struggling under its own short-sighted financial decisions for years,” the lawmakers wrote. “We must protect workers and communities affected by the oversupply of fossil fuels and the resulting downturn in oil and gas prices, but we can do that without carving out special rules for loans to fossil fuel corporations.”



POLITICO NEWSLETTERS
The Long Game

A newsletter from POLITICO for leaders building a sustainable future.

SIGN UP

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The Energy Department did pivot from its plan to buy oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to allowing companies to lease some of the reserve's spare capacity for extra oil, an attempt to help alleviate the lack of private storage space that has pushed prices sharply lower. And Trump drew praise for pressuring Saudi Arabia and Russia to end their market fight and reduce oil production earlier this month. But that deal from the "OPEC+" group to curtail 9.7 million barrels per day in May failed to impress the energy markets, and oil prices continued to plummet.

“The OPEC+ deal and the plan to allow companies to store oil in the SPR are mere window dressing,” said another person in the industry, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the situation. “Companies are failing and the industry is experiencing irrevocable destruction and the Trump administration is basically standing on the sidelines coming up with ideas that won’t help us.”

Still, many in the industry — which has long harbored skepticism about the role of the government in the energy markets — aren't bothered by the administration's inability to come up with a plan to bail out struggling companies.

“Problems always arise when a politician wants to do something or feels the need to do something,” said one industry lobbyist. “More often than not, what they chose to do is the wrong thing.”

Trump lies about dire intel he received on virus — and says most people thought it would blow over

 April 28, 2020 By Brad Reed

President Donald Trump on Tuesday lied about the dire intelligence assessments that he had received earlier this year about the COVID-19 pandemic, and suggested that most experts actually believed the virus would disappear.

Reuters White House correspondent Jeff Mason reports that Trump was asked about a Washington Post report this week that detailed the stark warnings about the threat of the virus that appeared in the President’s Daily Brief, but which were seemingly ignored for weeks as the president sought to downplay the threat of the pandemic.

Trump responded, according to Mason, by arguing that “most people thought earlier this year that the coronavirus was going to blow over” and then said he would have to “check when the early warnings came.”

In fact, according to the Post, daily intelligence briefs from this past January “traced the virus’s spread around the globe, made clear that China was suppressing information about the contagion’s transmissibility and lethal toll, and raised the prospect of dire political and economic consequences.”

However, sources tell the paper that Trump didn’t take these warnings seriously because he rarely has the attention span to read through the briefs.

Trump, asked about early intelligence, says most people thought earlier this year that the #coronavirus was going to blow over; he says he would have to check when the early warnings came pic.twitter.com/mOJ5Cnvzxd
— Jeff Mason (@jeffmason1) April 28, 2020