Saturday, April 11, 2020


He Could Have Seen What Was Coming: Behind Trump’s Failure on the Virus


Eric Lipton, David E. Sanger, Maggie Haberman, Michael D. Shear, Mark Mazzetti and Julian E. Barnes
4/11/2020

WASHINGTON — “Any way you cut it, this is going to be bad,” a senior medical adviser at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Dr. Carter Mecher, wrote on the night of Jan. 28, in an email to a group of public health experts scattered around the government and universities. “The projected size of the outbreak already seems hard to believe.”
© Erin Schaff/The New York Times President Trump has repeatedly 
that no one could have seen the effects of the coronavirus coming.

A week after the first coronavirus case had been identified in the United States, and six long weeks before President Trump finally took aggressive action to confront the danger the nation was facing — a pandemic that is now forecast to take tens of thousands of American lives — Dr. Mecher was urging the upper ranks of the nation’s public health bureaucracy to wake up and prepare for the possibility of far more drastic action.

“You guys made fun of me screaming to close the schools,” he wrote to the group, which called itself “Red Dawn,” an inside joke based on the 1984 movie about a band of Americans trying to save the country after a foreign invasion. “Now I’m screaming, close the colleges and universities.”


His was hardly a lone voice. Throughout January, as Mr. Trump repeatedly played down the seriousness of the virus and focused on other issues, an array of figures inside his government — from top White House advisers to experts deep in the cabinet departments and intelligence agencies — identified the threat, sounded alarms and made clear the need for aggressive action.

The president, though, was slow to absorb the scale of the risk and to act accordingly, focusing instead on controlling the message, protecting gains in the economy and batting away warnings from senior officials.
© T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times

 Dr. Robert Kadlec with the Department of Health and Human Services ran an exercise with the White House Task Force in February that helped convince some in the administration to push for taking more urgent action against the virus.

Even after Mr. Trump took his first concrete action at the end of January — limiting travel from China — public health often had to compete with economic and political considerations in internal debates, slowing the path toward belated decisions to seek more money from Congress, obtain necessary supplies, address shortfalls in testing and ultimately move to keep much of the nation at home.

Unfolding as it did in the wake of his impeachment by the House and in the midst of his Senate trial, Mr. Trump’s response was colored by his suspicion of and disdain for what he viewed as the “Deep State” — the very people in his government whose expertise and long experience might have guided him more quickly toward steps that would slow the virus, and likely save lives.

Decision-making was also complicated by a long-running dispute inside the administration over how to deal with China. The virus at first took a back seat to a desire not to upset Beijing during trade talks, but later the impulse to score points against Beijing left the world’s two leading powers further divided as they confronted one of the first truly global threats of the 21st century.

The shortcomings of Mr. Trump’s performance have played out with remarkable transparency as part of his daily effort to dominate television screens and the national conversation.

But dozens of interviews with current and former officials and a review of emails and other records revealed many previously unreported details and a fuller picture of the roots and extent of his halting response as the deadly virus spread:

■ The National Security Council office responsible for tracking pandemics received intelligence reports in early January predicting the spread of the virus to the United States, and within weeks was raising options like keeping Americans home from work and shutting down cities the size of Chicago. Mr. Trump would avoid such steps until March.

■ Despite Mr. Trump’s denial weeks later, he was told at the time about a Jan. 29 memo produced by his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, laying out in striking detail the potential risks of a coronavirus pandemic: as many as half a millions deaths and trillions of dollars in economic losses.

■ The health and human services secretary, Alex M. Azar II, directly warned Mr. Trump of the possibility of a pandemic during a call on Jan. 30, the second warning he delivered to the president about the virus in two weeks. The president, who was on Air Force One while traveling for appearances in the Midwest, responded that Mr. Azar was being alarmist.

■ Mr. Azar publicly announced in February that the government was establishing a “surveillance” system in five American cities to measure the spread of the virus and enable experts to project the next hot spots. It was delayed for weeks. The slow start of that plan, on top of the well-documented failures to develop the nation’s testing capacity, left administration officials with almost no insight into how rapidly the virus was spreading. “We were flying the plane with no instruments,” one official said.




C. Douglas Mcmillon, Mike Pence are posing for a picture: Vice President Mike Pence visiting a Walmart distribution center in Gordonsville, Va. this month. He was put in charge of the coronavirus task force after Mr. Trump clashed with Alex M. Azar II, the health and human services secretary.3 SLIDES © Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

Vice President Mike Pence visiting a Walmart distribution center in Gordonsville, Va. this month. He was put in charge of the coronavirus task force after Mr. Trump clashed with Alex M. Azar II, the health and human services secretary.

■ By the third week in February, the administration’s top public health experts concluded they should recommend to Mr. Trump a new approach that would include warning the American people of the risks and urging steps like social distancing and staying home from work. But the White House focused instead on messaging and crucial additional weeks went by before their views were reluctantly accepted by the president — time when the virus spread largely unimpeded.

When Mr. Trump finally agreed in mid-March to recommend social distancing across the country, effectively bringing much of the economy to a halt, he seemed shellshocked and deflated to some of his closest associates. One described him as “subdued” and “baffled” by how the crisis had played out. An economy that he had wagered his re-election on was suddenly in shambles.

He only regained his swagger, the associate said, from conducting his daily White House briefings, at which he often seeks to rewrite the history of the past several months. He declared at one point that he “felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic,” and insisted at another that he had to be a “cheerleader for the country,” as if that explained why he failed to prepare the public for what was coming.

Mr. Trump’s allies and some administration officials say the criticism has been unfair. The Chinese government misled other governments, they say. And they insist that the president was either not getting proper information, or the people around him weren’t conveying the urgency of the threat. In some cases, they argue, the specific officials he was hearing from had been discredited in his eyes, but once the right information got to him through other channels, he made the right calls.

“While the media and Democrats refused to seriously acknowledge this virus in January and February, President Trump took bold action to protect Americans and unleash the full power of the federal government to curb the spread of the virus, expand testing capacities and expedite vaccine development even when we had no true idea the level of transmission or asymptomatic spread,” said Judd Deere, a White House spokesman.

There were key turning points along the way, opportunities for Mr. Trump to get ahead of the virus rather than just chase it. There were internal debates that presented him with stark choices, and moments when he could have chosen to ask deeper questions and learn more. How he handled them may shape his re-election campaign. They will certainly shape his legacy.

The Containment Illusion

By the last week of February, it was clear to the administration’s public health team that schools and businesses in hot spots would have to close. But in the turbulence of the Trump White House, it took three more weeks to persuade the president that failure to act quickly to control the spread of the virus would have dire consequences.

When Dr. Robert Kadlec, the top disaster response official at the Health and Human Services Department, convened the White House coronavirus task force on Feb. 21, his agenda was urgent. There were deep cracks in the administration’s strategy for keeping the virus out of the United States. They were going to have to lock down the country to prevent it from spreading. The question was: When?





Traders at the New York Stock Exchange on March 9, when stocks suffered their worst single-day decline in more than a decade. Two days later, Mr. Trump announced restrictions on travel from Europe 
5 SLIDES © Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times

There had already been an alarming spike in new cases around the world and the virus was spreading across the Middle East. It was becoming apparent that the administration had botched the rollout of testing to track the virus at home, and a smaller-scale surveillance program intended to piggyback on a federal flu tracking system had also been stillborn.

In Washington, the president was not worried, predicting that by April, “when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away.” His White House had yet to ask Congress for additional funding to prepare for the potential cost of wide-scale infection across the country, and health care providers were growing increasingly nervous about the availability of masks, ventilators and other equipment.

What Mr. Trump decided to do next could dramatically shape the course of the pandemic — and how many people would get sick and die.

With that in mind, the task force had gathered for a tabletop exercise — a real-time version of a full-scale war gaming of a flu pandemic the administration had run the previous year. That earlier exercise, also conducted by Mr. Kadlec and called “Crimson Contagion,” predicted 110 million infections, 7.7 million hospitalizations and 586,000 deaths following a hypothetical outbreak that started in China.

Facing the likelihood of a real pandemic, the group needed to decide when to abandon “containment” — the effort to keep the virus outside the U.S. and to isolate anyone who gets infected — and embrace “mitigation” to thwart the spread of the virus inside the country until a vaccine becomes available.

Among the questions on the agenda, which was reviewed by The New York Times, was when the department’s secretary, Mr. Azar, should recommend that Mr. Trump take textbook mitigation measures “such as school dismissals and cancellations of mass gatherings,” which had been identified as the next appropriate step in a Bush-era pandemic plan.

The exercise was sobering. The group — including Dr. Anthony S. Fauci of the National Institutes of Health; Dr. Robert R. Redfield of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Mr. Azar, who at that stage was leading the White House Task Force — concluded they would soon need to move toward aggressive social distancing, even at the risk of severe disruption to the nation’s economy and the daily lives of millions of Americans.

If Dr. Kadlec had any doubts, they were erased two days later, when he stumbled upon an email from a researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was among the group of academics, government physicians and infectious diseases doctors who had spent weeks tracking the outbreak in the Red Dawn email chain.

© Kevin Frayer/Getty Images A worker at a Starbucks 
at an airport in Beijing in January checks a customer’s temperature.

A 20-year-old Chinese woman had infected five relatives with the virus even though she never displayed any symptoms herself. The implication was grave — apparently healthy people could be unknowingly spreading the virus — and supported the need to move quickly to mitigation.

“Is this true?!” Dr. Kadlec wrote back to the researcher. “If so we have a huge whole on our screening and quarantine effort,” including a typo where he meant hole. Her response was blunt: “People are carrying the virus everywhere.”

The following day, Dr. Kadlec and the others decided to present Mr. Trump with a plan titled “Four Steps to Mitigation,” telling the president that they needed to begin preparing Americans for a step rarely taken in United States history.

But over the next several days, a presidential blowup and internal turf fights would sidetrack such a move. The focus would shift to messaging and confident predictions of success rather than publicly calling for a shift to mitigation.

These final days of February, perhaps more than any other moment during his tenure in the White House, illustrated Mr. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to absorb warnings coming at him. He instead reverted to his traditional political playbook in the midst of a public health calamity, squandering vital time as the coronavirus spread silently across the country.

Dr. Kadlec’s group wanted to meet with the president right away, but Mr. Trump was on a trip to India, so they agreed to make the case to him in person as soon as he returned two days later. If they could convince him of the need to shift strategy, they could immediately begin a national education campaign aimed at preparing the public for the new reality.

A memo dated Feb. 14, prepared in coordination with the National Security Council and titled “U.S. Government Response to the 2019 Novel Coronavirus,” documented what more drastic measures would look like, including: “significantly limiting public gatherings and cancellation of almost all sporting events, performances, and public and private meetings that cannot be convened by phone. Consider school closures. Widespread ‘stay at home’ directives from public and private organizations with nearly 100% telework for some.”

The memo did not advocate an immediate national shutdown, but said the targeted use of “quarantine and isolation measures” could be used to slow the spread in places where “sustained human-to-human transmission” is evident.

Within 24 hours, before they got a chance to make their presentation to the president, the plan went awry.

Mr. Trump was walking up the steps of Air Force One to head home from India on Feb. 25 when Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, publicly issued the blunt warning they had all agreed was necessary.

But Dr. Messonnier had jumped the gun. They had not told the president yet, much less gotten his consent.

© Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times 

Dr. Deborah Birx eventually helped convince Mr. Trump that stricter measures needed to be taken.On the 18-hour plane ride home, Mr. Trump fumed as he watched the stock market crash after Dr. Messonnier’s comments. Furious, he called Mr. Azar when he landed at around 6 a.m. on Feb. 26, raging that Dr. Messonnier had scared people unnecessarily. Already on thin ice with the president over a variety of issues and having overseen the failure to quickly produce an effective and widely available test, Mr. Azar would soon find his authority reduced.

The meeting that evening with Mr. Trump to advocate social distancing was canceled, replaced by a news conference in which the president announced that the White House response would be put under the command of Vice President Mike Pence.

The push to convince Mr. Trump of the need for more assertive action stalled. With Mr. Pence and his staff in charge, the focus was clear: no more alarmist messages. Statements and media appearances by health officials like Dr. Fauci and Dr. Redfield would be coordinated through Mr. Pence’s office. It would be more than three weeks before Mr. Trump would announce serious social distancing efforts, a lost period during which the spread of the virus accelerated rapidly.

Over nearly three weeks from Feb. 26 to March 16, the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the United States grew from 15 to 4,226. Since then, nearly half a million Americans have tested positive for the virus and authorities say hundreds of thousands more are likely infected.

The China Factor

The earliest warnings about coronavirus got caught in the crosscurrents of the administration’s internal disputes over China. It was the China hawks who pushed earliest for a travel ban. But their animosity toward China also undercut hopes for a more cooperative approach by the world’s two leading powers to a global crisis.

It was early January, and the call with a Hong Kong epidemiologist left Matthew Pottinger rattled.

Mr. Pottinger, the deputy national security adviser and a hawk on China, took a blunt warning away from the call with the doctor, a longtime friend: A ferocious, new outbreak that on the surface appeared similar to the SARS epidemic of 2003 had emerged in China. It had spread far more quickly than the government was admitting to, and it wouldn’t be long before it reached other parts of the world.

Mr. Pottinger had worked as a Wall Street Journal correspondent in Hong Kong during the SARS epidemic, and was still scarred by his experience documenting the death spread by that highly contagious virus.

Now, seventeen years later, his friend had a blunt message: You need to be ready. The virus, he warned, which originated in the city of Wuhan, was being transmitted by people who were showing no symptoms — an insight that American health officials had not yet accepted. Mr. Pottinger declined through a spokesman to comment.

It was one of the earliest warnings to the White House, and it echoed the intelligence reports making their way to the National Security Council. While most of the early assessments from the C.I.A. had little more information than was available publicly, some of the more specialized corners of the intelligence world were producing sophisticated and chilling warnings.

In a report to the director of national intelligence, the State Department’s epidemiologist wrote in early January that the virus was likely to spread across the globe, and warned that the coronavirus could develop into a pandemic. Working independently, a small outpost of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Center for Medical Intelligence, came to the same conclusion.

By mid-January there was growing evidence of the virus spreading outside China. Mr. Pottinger began convening daily meetings about the coronavirus. He alerted his boss, Robert C. O’Brien, the national security adviser.








The early alarms sounded by Mr. Pottinger and other China hawks were freighted with ideology — including a push to publicly blame China that critics in the administration say was a distraction as the coronavirus spread to Western Europe and eventually the United States.

And they ran into opposition from Mr. Trump’s economic advisers, who worried a tough approach toward China could scuttle a trade deal that was a pillar of Mr. Trump’s re-election campaign.

With his skeptical — some might even say conspiratorial — view of China’s ruling Communist Party, Mr. Pottinger initially suspected that President Xi Jinping’s government was keeping a dark secret: that the virus may have originated in one of the laboratories in Wuhan studying deadly pathogens. In his view, it might have even been a deadly accident unleashed on an unsuspecting Chinese population.

During meetings and telephone calls, Mr. Pottinger asked intelligence agencies — including officers at the C.I.A. working on Asia and on weapons of mass destruction — to search for evidence that might bolster his theory.

They didn’t have any evidence. Intelligence agencies did not detect any alarm inside the Chinese government that analysts presumed would accompany the accidental leak of a deadly virus from a government laboratory. But Mr. Pottinger continued to believe the coronavirus problem was far worse than the Chinese were acknowledging. Inside the West Wing, the director of the Domestic Policy Council, Joe Grogan, also tried to sound alarms that the threat from China was growing.

Mr. Pottinger, backed by Mr. O’Brien, became one of the driving forces of a campaign in the final weeks of January to convince Mr. Trump to impose limits on travel from China — the first substantive step taken to impede the spread of the virus and one that the president has repeatedly cited as evidence that he was on top of the problem.

In addition to the opposition from the economic team, Mr. Pottinger and his allies among the China hawks had to overcome initial skepticism from the administration’s public health experts.

Travel restrictions were usually counterproductive to managing biological outbreaks because they prevented doctors and other much-needed medical help from easily getting to the affected areas, the health officials said. And such bans often cause infected people to flee, spreading the disease further.

But on the morning of Jan. 30, Mr. Azar got a call from Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield and others saying they had changed their minds. The World Health Organization had declared a global public health emergency and American officials had discovered the first confirmed case of person-to-person transmission inside the United States.

The economic team, led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, continued to argue that there were big risks in taking a provocative step toward China and moving to curb global travel. After a debate, Mr. Trump came down on the side of the hawks and the public health team. The limits on travel from China were publicly announced on Jan. 31.

Still, Mr. Trump and other senior officials were wary of further upsetting Beijing. Besides the concerns about the impact on the trade deal, they knew that an escalating confrontation was risky because the United States relies heavily on China for pharmaceuticals and the kinds of protective equipment most needed to combat the coronavirus.

But the hawks kept pushing in February to take a critical stance toward China amid the growing crisis. Mr. Pottinger and others — including aides to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — pressed for government statements to use the term “Wuhan Virus.”

Mr. Pompeo tried to hammer the anti-China message at every turn, eventually even urging leaders of the Group of 7 industrialized countries to use “Wuhan virus” in a joint statement.

Others, including aides to Mr. Pence, resisted taking a hard public line, believing that angering Beijing might lead the Chinese government to withhold medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and any scientific research that might ultimately lead to a vaccine.

Mr. Trump took a conciliatory approach through the middle of March, praising the job Mr. Xi was doing.

That changed abruptly, when aides informed Mr. Trump that a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman had publicly spun a new conspiracy about the origins of Covid-19: that it was brought to China by U.S. Army personnel who visited the country last October.

Mr. Trump was furious, and he took to his favorite platform to broadcast a new message. On March 16, he wrote on Twitter that “the United States will be powerfully supporting those industries, like Airlines and others, that are particularly affected by the Chinese Virus.”

Mr. Trump’s decision to escalate the war of words undercut any remaining possibility of broad cooperation between the governments to address a global threat. It remains to be seen whether that mutual suspicion will spill over into efforts to develop treatments or vaccines, both areas where the two nations are now competing.

One immediate result was a free-for-all across the United States, with state and local governments and hospitals bidding on the open market for scarce but essential Chinese-made products. When the state of Massachusetts managed to procure 1.2 million masks, it fell to the owner of the New England Patriots, Robert K. Kraft, a Trump ally, to cut through extensive red tape on both sides of the Pacific to send his own plane to pick them up.

The Consequences of Chaos

The chaotic culture of the Trump White House contributed to the crisis. A lack of planning and a failure to execute, combined with the president’s focus on the news cycle and his preference for following his gut rather than the data cost time, and perhaps lives.

Inside the West Wing, Mr. Navarro, Mr. Trump’s trade adviser, was widely seen as quick-tempered, self-important, prone to butting in and obsessively anti-China.

So it elicited eye rolls when, after being prevented from joining the coronavirus task force, he circulated a memo on Jan. 29 urging Mr. Trump to limit travel from China, arguing that failing to confront the outbreak aggressively could be catastrophic, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars in economic losses.

The uninvited message could not have conflicted more with the president’s approach at the time of playing down the severity of the threat. And when aides raised it with Mr. Trump, he responded that he was unhappy that Mr. Navarro had put his warning in writing.

From the time the virus was first identified as a concern, the administration’s response was plagued by the rivalries and factionalism that routinely swirl around Mr. Trump and, along with the president’s impulsiveness, undercut decision making and policy development.

Faced with the relentless march of a deadly pathogen, the disagreements and a lack of long-term planning had significant consequences. They slowed the president’s response and resulted in problems with execution and planning, including delays in seeking money from Capitol Hill and a failure to begin broad surveillance testing.

The efforts to shape Mr. Trump’s view of the virus began early in January, when his focus was elsewhere: the fallout from his decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s security mastermind; his push for an initial trade deal with China; and his Senate impeachment trial, which was about to begin.

Even after Mr. Azar first briefed him about the potential seriousness of the virus during a phone call on Jan. 18 while the president was at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Mr. Trump projected confidence that it would be a passing problem.

“We have it totally under control,” he told an interviewer a few days later while attending the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. “It’s going to be just fine.”

Back in Washington, voices outside of the White House peppered Mr. Trump with competing assessments about what he should do and how quickly he should act.

The efforts to sort out policy behind closed doors were contentious and sometimes only loosely organized.

That was the case when the National Security Council convened a meeting on short notice on the afternoon of Jan. 27. The Situation Room was standing room only, packed with top White House advisers, low-level staffers, Mr. Trump’s social media guru, and several cabinet secretaries. There was no checklist about the preparations for a possible pandemic, which would require intensive testing, rapid acquisition of protective gear, and perhaps serious limitations on Americans’ movements.

Instead, after a 20-minute description by Mr. Azar of his department’s capabilities, the meeting was jolted when Stephen E. Biegun, the newly installed deputy secretary of state, announced plans to issue a “level four” travel warning, strongly discouraging Americans from traveling to China. The room erupted into bickering.

A few days later, on the evening of Jan. 30, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff at the time, and Mr. Azar called Air Force One as the president was making the final decision to go ahead with the restrictions on China travel. Mr. Azar was blunt, warning that the virus could develop into a pandemic and arguing that China should be criticized for failing to be transparent.

Mr. Trump rejected the idea of criticizing China, saying the country had enough to deal with. And if the president’s decision on the travel restrictions suggested that he fully grasped the seriousness of the situation, his response to Mr. Azar indicated otherwise.

Stop panicking, Mr. Trump told him.

That sentiment was present throughout February, as the president’s top aides reached for a consistent message but took few concrete steps to prepare for the possibility of a major public health crisis.

During a briefing on Capitol Hill on Feb. 5, senators urged administration officials to take the threat more seriously. Several asked if the administration needed additional money to help local and state health departments prepare.

Derek Kan, a senior official from the Office of Management and Budget, replied that the administration had all the money it needed, at least at that point, to stop the virus, two senators who attended the briefing said.

“Just left the Administration briefing on Coronavirus,” Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote in a tweet shortly after. “Bottom line: they aren’t taking this seriously enough.”

The administration also struggled to carry out plans it did agree on. In mid-February, with the effort to roll out widespread testing stalled, Mr. Azar announced a plan to repurpose a flu-surveillance system in five major cities to help track the virus among the general population. The effort all but collapsed even before it got started as Mr. Azar struggled to win approval for $100 million in funding and the C.D.C. failed to make reliable tests available.

The number of infections in the United States started to surge through February and early March, but the Trump administration did not move to place large-scale orders for masks and other protective equipment, or critical hospital equipment, such as ventilators. The Pentagon sat on standby, awaiting any orders to help provide temporary hospitals or other assistance.

As February gave way to March, the president continued to be surrounded by divided factions even as it became clearer that avoiding more aggressive steps was not tenable.

Mr. Trump had agreed to give an Oval Office address on the evening of March 11 announcing restrictions on travel from Europe, where the virus was ravaging Italy. But responding to the views of his business friends and others, he continued to resist calls for social distancing, school closures and other steps that would imperil the economy.

But the virus was already multiplying across the country — and hospitals were at risk of buckling under the looming wave of severely ill people, lacking masks and other protective equipment, ventilators and sufficient intensive care beds. The question loomed over the president and his aides after weeks of stalling and inaction: What were they going to do?

The approach that Mr. Azar and others had planned to bring to him weeks earlier moved to the top of the agenda. Even then, and even by Trump White House standards, the debate over whether to shut down much of the country to slow the spread was especially fierce.

Always attuned to anything that could trigger a stock market decline or an economic slowdown that could hamper his re-election effort, Mr. Trump also reached out to prominent investors like Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chief executive of Blackstone Group, a private equity firm.

“Everybody questioned it for a while, not everybody, but a good portion questioned it,” Mr. Trump said earlier this month. “They said, let’s keep it open. Let’s ride it.”

In a tense Oval Office meeting, when Mr. Mnuchin again stressed that the economy would be ravaged, Mr. O’Brien, the national security adviser, who had been worried about the virus for weeks, sounded exasperated as he told Mr. Mnuchin that the economy would be destroyed regardless if officials did nothing.

Soon after the Oval Office address, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and a trusted sounding board inside the White House, visited Mr. Trump, partly at the urging of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law. Dr. Gottlieb’s role was to impress upon the president how serious the crisis could become.

But in the end, aides said, it was Dr. Deborah L. Birx, the veteran AIDS researcher who had joined the task force, who helped to persuade Mr. Trump. Soft-spoken and fond of the kind of charts and graphs Mr. Trump prefers, Dr. Birx did not have the rough edges that could irritate the president. He often told people he thought she was elegant.

On Monday, March 16, Mr. Trump announced new social distancing guidelines, saying they would be in place for two weeks. The subsequent economic disruptions were so severe that the president repeatedly suggested that he wanted to lift even those temporary restrictions. He frequently asked aides why his administration was still being blamed in news coverage for the widespread failures involving testing, insisting the responsibility had shifted to the states.

During the last week in March, Kellyanne Conway, a senior White House adviser involved in task force meetings, gave voice to concerns other aides had. She warned Mr. Trump that his wished-for date of Easter to reopen the country likely couldn’t be accomplished. Among other things, she told him, he would end up being blamed by critics for every subsequent death caused by the virus.

Within days, he watched images on television of a calamitous situation at Elmhurst Hospital Center, miles from his childhood home in Queens, N.Y., where 13 people had died from the coronavirus in 24 hours.

He left the restrictions in place.

Mark Walker contributed reporting from Washington, and Mike Baker from Seattle. Kitty Bennett contributed research.

Mark Walker, Mike Baker and Kitty Bennett contributed reporting.
Trump administration shuttered pandemic monitoring program, then scrambled to extend it

By Zachary Cohen, CNN, Fri April 10, 2020

(CNN)As early indications of China's coronavirus outbreak emerged in late December, the Trump administration notified Congress it would still follow through with its plan to shutter a US Agency for International Development surveillance program tasked with detecting new, potentially dangerous infectious diseases and helping foreign labs stop emerging pandemic threats around the world.

The administration ultimately backtracked nearly three months later, granting an emergency six-month extension for the program known as PREDICT on April 1. The extension allowed the US to provide "emergency support to other countries for outbreak response including technical support for early detection" of the virus that causes the disease Covid-19, according to a notice posted by University of California-Davis, one of the project's implementing partners.

But by that time, the coronavirus outbreak had already been declared as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization and had claimed the lives of more than 4,300 people in the US.

Spillover

The administration planned to launch a successor project for PREDICT sometime in 2020 but did not appear to have an interim plan until that happened.

The PREDICT program's cancellation and the subsequent scramble to secure an emergency extension reflects the Trump administration's broader pattern of dismantling or downsizing key offices and programs focused on protecting the US from a pandemic, despite multiple warnings in recent years about the need to prepare for such an event.
It is also indicative of the Trump administration's seeming lack of urgency in the months leading up to the coronavirus outbreak in the US, even as the disease was beginning to ravage countries overseas.

The PREDICT program was launched in 2009 and is tasked with monitoring zoonotic infectious diseases -- those that normally exist in animals but can jump to humans -- in an effort to help stop pandemics before they emerge. Nearly 75% of all new, emerging or re-emerging diseases affecting humans at the beginning of the 21st Century are zoonotic, according to USAID.

While there is still some disagreement among scientists regarding the exact origins of coronavirus, researchers agree that it was the result of "zoonotic spillover," exactly the type of virus the PREDICT program was tasked with monitoring.

Sen. Angus King, an Independent from Maine, wrote to USAID in late November to express concerns over the plan to end the PREDICT surveillance program, which was written before the US had clear information related to the emerging coronavirus outbreak in China.

"The work that these projects do may help our country and our world to avoid future catastrophic epidemic and pandemic events akin to Ebola and HIV," King said in the letter.
USAID officials responded on December 31 to inform King that PREDICT would not be renewed after it expired in March 2020, despite concerns raised by the Maine Independent that canceling it before a replacement program was up and running could hinder the US ability to track possible pandemics.

"As planned, PREDICT is scheduled to end in March 2020 following the expiration of its second, five-year period of performance. While PREDICT is closing, the Bureau for Global Health at USAID is planning a successor project, which we intend to award through a competitive procurement process in 2020," wrote Richard Parker, assistant administrator for the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs, according to a copy of the letter obtained by CNN.

"The new program will seek to continue our investments in this critical area, by focusing on mitigating risks associated with the spillover of emerging viruses from animals, based on a more-informed understanding of what is needed at the country level to address these risks," he added.

The letter is dated on the same day that China reported its first cases of an unknown virus to the World Health Organization, marking the first public acknowledgment of the coronavirus outbreak in the Wuhan region.

'Great ironies'

In an interview on Tuesday, King called the administration's December response "one of the great ironies," given how rapidly the outbreak has spread in the months since and President Donald Trump's initial comments downplaying the situation in China earlier this year.
CNN previously reported that two top administration officials last year listed the threat of a pandemic as an issue that greatly worried them, undercutting Trump's repeated claims that the pandemic was an unforeseen problem.

Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Tim Morrison, then a special assistant to the President and senior director for weapons of mass destruction and biodefense on the National Security Council, made the comments at the BioDefense Summit in April 2019.
"Of course, the thing that people ask: 'What keeps you most up at night in the biodefense world?' Pandemic flu, of course. I think everyone in this room probably shares that concern," Azar said, before listing efforts to mitigate the impact of flu outbreaks.

Technically, PREDICT ended in September, two months prior to King's letter to USAID after its second, five-year contract expired, but was given a "no cost extension" so implementing partners could allow some core staff to finish work that was still in progress, according to Christine Kreuder Johnson of UC Davis One Health Institute.

"We just had a few things that were remaining to do both on the in country side as well as on the global side. That's what carried us through this whole year," she said, referring to the initial no-cost extension.

But the situation changed in January once the scale of the outbreak became clearer.

USAID administrator makes long-planned departure as coronavirus crisis rages

PREDICT staff were deployed to several countries almost immediately to provide technical assistance with testing and additional supplies as needed.

For months, those efforts were funded by a limited pool of funds the program had left over from the previous year, as USAID worked to secure an emergency extension, Johnson told CNN.

That extension came more than two months after the first case of coronavirus was confirmed on US soil. USAID announced on March 31 that a $2.26 million extension had been granted for the program and would take effect on April 1.

"With the $2.26 million extension, the PREDICT project will continue to provide technical expertise to support detection of SARS CoV-2 cases in Africa, Asia and the Middle East to inform the public health response. The project will also investigate the animal source or sources of SARS CoV-2 using data and samples collected over the past 10 years in Asia and Southeast Asia," the UC Davis notice posted on March 31 said.


'All hands on deck'

Still, the future of the program remains unclear once the six-month extension expires. While Johnson says PREDICT implementing partners plan to apply for the new contract award when the competition opens this spring, details about the new program remain murky. A USAID spokesperson emphasized that it will "build on the lessons learned and data gathered" during PREDICT's 10-year run.

"USAID is currently developing the STOP Spillover Project that will focus on strengthening national capacity to develop, test and implement interventions to reduce the risk of the spillover, amplification, and spread of zoonotic pathogens in animal and human populations," they told CNN.

Johnson told CNN that implementing partners are already communicating with other colleagues who work in the same field, as the current situation will require "all hands on deck," regardless of who is awarded the next contract.

But she also acknowledged that there will likely be inevitable challenges going forward.
"The kind of work that we're doing requires a lot of forward thinking on the preparedness front in between epidemics. It's always really easy after a huge epidemic to get Congress and other funding mechanisms behind public health, but what happens in terms of these emerging zoonotic diseases, which is the wildlife health sector, needs to be strengthened," she said.

CNN's Jennifer Hansler contributed reporting
It's positively alpine!' Disbelief in big cities as air pollution falls


Hannah Ellis-Petersen in Delhi, Rebecca Ratcliffe in Bangkok, Sam Cowie in São Paulo,Joe Parkin Daniels in Bogotá and Lily Kuo in Beijing  THE GUARDIAN 4/11/2020

The screenshots began to circulate on Delhi WhatsApp groups last week, captioned with varying expressions of disbelief. Having checked the air quality index, something of a sadistic morning ritual among residents of India’s capital, most could not believe their eyes.

Gone was the familiar menacing red banner, indicating how each intake of breath is really just a toxic blast on the lungs, replaced instead by a healthy, cheerful green. Could it really be that Delhi’s pollution levels now fell into the category of … “good”? “It’s positively alpine!” exclaimed one message.

A nationwide lockdown imposed across India almost two weeks ago to stop the spread of the coronavirus – the largest lockdown of its kind attempted anywhere – has led to widespread chaos and suffering, especially among the country’s 300 million poor. Yet in Delhi, the world’s most polluted city, it has also resulted in some of the freshest air the capital has seen in decades.






a large long train on a steel track: An aerial view of empty street on the first day of lockdown in São Paulo, Brazil. Photograph: 3 SLIDES © Provided by The Guardian

An aerial view of empty street on the first day of lockdown in São Paulo, Brazil. Photograph: Reuters

It is a lockdown silver lining being repeated across the world, as toxic megacities such as Bangkok, Beijing, São Paulo and Bogotá, where varying coronavirus restrictions have been imposed, all reported an unprecedented decline in pollution. Yet it is countered with one cruel irony: with most residents of these cities strictly confined to their homes, few have any way to appreciate this newly fresh air, except through an open window or a during speedy trip to the supermarket.

In Delhi, air quality index (AQI) levels are usually a severe 200 on a good day (anything above 25 is deemed unsafe by World Health Organization). During peak pollution periods last year they soared well into a life-threatening 900 and sometimes off the measurable scale. But as Delhi’s 11m registered cars were taken off the roads and factories and construction were ground to a halt, AQI levels have regularly fallen below 20. The skies are suddenly a rare, piercing blue. Even the birdsong seems louder.

Dr Shashi Tharoor, a politician and author who has been vocal on environmental issues, said he hoped that it was a wake-up call. “The blissful sight of blue skies and the joy of breathing clean air provides just the contrast to illustrate what we are doing to ourselves the rest of the time,” said Tharoor. “Today the typical Delhi AQI hovers around 30 and one blissful afternoon, after a spurt of rain, it dropped to 7.”

“Seven,” Tharoor exclaimed again in disbelief. “In Delhi! Pure joy!”.

Tharoor’s sister Smita, who was visiting from London when the lockdown was imposed and found herself stuck in Delhi, was equally effusive. As someone with asthma, she said the city’s air, normally thick with pollution, was usually a health nightmare. But now: “The air is clear, the skies are blue. I see the evening stars with clarity and hear the chirruping of excited birds at this unexpected bonus they have received.”

While India’s powerful car lobby has long disputed that cars are a major cause of Delhi’s pollution, Sunita Narain, director of the Centre for Science and Environment, said the lockdown and resulting rapid drop in pollution showed once and for all just what a polluting role vehicles had in the city.

Narain also stressed that while she wished Delhi was like this “all the time”, adding: “I don’t want people to say ‘Oh, environmentalists are celebrating this lockdown:’ we are not. This is not the solution. But whatever the new normal is post-Covid-19, we have to make sure we take this breath of fresh air and think about the serious efforts we need to deal with pollution in Delhi.”

It is not just Delhi experiencing the clearest skies in years. As pollution dropped to its lowest level in three decades this week this week, residents of Jalandhar in Punjab woke up to an incredible sight in the distance: the Dhauladhar mountain range in Himachal Pradesh. The peaks, which are over 120 miles away, had not been sighted on the Punjab horizon for almost 30 years.

It is the absence of cars on some of the world’s most congested roads that seems to be making the most crucial differences. Thailand’s capital, Bangkok, which only last month had closed schools because the pollution got so bad, has experienced a similar transformation in the air since partial lockdown, mainly due to the fall in road traffic. “We can see quite a big gap between the air quality standard that we have [compared with this time last year],” says Tara Buakamsri, Thailand director for Greenpeace.

But residents of Bangkok lamented how the places to enjoy the fresh air were swiftly disappearing. Playgrounds, sporting grounds and even parks, a rare source of solace in the bustling, intensely urban environs of Bangkok, have all now been shut. “I feel sad for the old people who use the park to hang out and meet friends. I think they will be so sad at home,” said Nantawan Wangudomsuk, 31, a producer who used to run in the parks.

Across South America’s most populous city of São Paulo, ground zero of Brazil’s brewing coronavirus crisis, notorious traffic queues and smoggy horizons are also giving way to calm streets and clearer skies.

During weekday rush-hour, downtown São Paulo’s João Goulart elevated highway – nicknamed Minhocão, the Big Worm – normally heaves with traffic as thousands of cars cram four narrow lanes and beeping motorbikes weave through daringly small spaces. But with the city’s coronavirus lockdown, Minhocão now resembles a small-town avenue instead of a major road in a metropolis of 12 million people.

“The air is certainly better,” said Daniel Guth,an urban mobility consultant. “I’ve felt the improvement in air quality both as a cyclist and as a quarantined citizen,” he laughed. “We should use this as a moment to reflect on what transport methods we should prioritise when this crisis is over.”

Despite being under lockdown, many Paulistas, as the city’s residents are known, are still finding ways to enjoy the cleaner air, taking to windows and apartment balconies for nightly pot-banging protests against Brazil’s far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, who has repeatedly dismissed the coronavirus as just “a little flu”.

Bogotá, the sprawling mountaintop capital of Colombia, is also usually choking with traffic so bad that officials occasionally ban cars for entire days. But since the nationwide coronavirus quarantine took hold on 24 March, exhaust fumes have fallen as the city ground to a halt. Yet the newly fresh air has been taunting Bogotá’s residents, who are allowed to leave home only for food and medicines, not even a daily dose of outdoor exercise. “Without a doubt this pandemic is helping us improve air quality,” said Carolina Urrutia, Bogotá’s district environment secretary. “With the city shut down, we are able to focus our efforts on other environmental factors.”

Cali, Colombia’s third city and usually a smokey, congested metropolis, has also been spared from the usual forest fires, allowing residents to breathe fresher air. “The thick cloud that usually hangs over us has been lifted,” said Christian Camilo Villa, an air quality activist and Cali resident. “The concern is that it will return when the quarantine ends.”

Indeed, the fear among environmentalists and residents is that, rather than attempting to maintain the low levels of pollution in the world’s biggest capitals, when industry and cars kick back into action post-lockdown, the situation will go back to square one, and perhaps even worsen, as people and industry attempt to make up for the lost months.

The signs from China, which is coming out of the other side of the coronavirus outbreak and where lockdowns are loosening up, are not positive. For the first four weeks after the Chinese new year holiday in late January, when the coronavirus outbreak was at its worst, pollution levels fell 25% across the country. But since early March, levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution have begun to inch back up as the country gets back to work with factories, businesses and power plants re-opening and traffic returning.

Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst for the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, said: “The big question is whether government stimulus measures lead to pollution levels rebounding above the levels before the crisis, like happened after the 2008 financial crisis.
White House rejects bailout for Postal Service battered by coronavirus

REPUBLICANS HAVE TRIED TO DESTROY OR PRIVATIZE THE USPS FOR DECADES
THEY SABOTAGED IT EARLY IN THE NEW CENTURY,  BY BURDENING IT WITH PAY NOW FOR PENSION BENEFITS LATER,AFTER IT WAS MAKING A PROFIT,   (WHICH NO CORPORATION IN AMERICA DOES) CAN'T HAVE THAT FOR THE TAXPAYERS NOW CAN WE  IRONICALLY IT WAS THE ANARCHIST KROPOTKIN WHO OBSERVED THAT THE INTERNATIONAL POSTAL UNION WAS A MODEL OF LIBERTARIAN ORGANIZATION OF GOVERNMENT.

Jacob Bogage WASHINGTON POST 4/11/2020

Through rain, sleet, hail and even a pandemic, mail carriers serve every address in the United States, but the coronavirus crisis is shaking the foundation of the U.S. Postal Service in new and dire ways.
© Erik S Lesser/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock A U.S. Postal Service carrier wears a mask and gloves as personal protective equipment while making deliveries in Washington, D.C., on April 1.
The Postal Service’s decades-long financial troubles have worsened dramatically as the volume of the kind of mail that pays the bills at that agency ― first-class and marketing mail ― withers during the pandemic. The USPS needs an infusion of money, and President Trump has blocked potential emergency funding for the agency that employs around 600,000 workers, repeating instead the false claim that higher rates for Internet shipping companies Amazon, FedEx and UPS would right the service’s budget.

Trump threatened to veto the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security, or Cares, Act if the legislation contained any money to directly bail out the postal agency, according to a senior Trump Administration official and a congressional official.

“We told them very clearly that the president was not going to sign the bill if [money for the Postal Service] was in it,” the Trump Administration official said. “I don’t know if we used the v-bomb but the president was not going to sign it, and we told them that.”

Instead, Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) added a last minute $10 billion Treasury Department loan to the Cares Act, to keep the agency on firmer ground through the spring of 2020, according to a Democratic committee aide.

Lawmakers had originally agreed to a $13 billion direct grant of money to the Postal Service, which wouldn’t have had to be repaid. But that effort was blocked by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who warned such a move could blow up the relief bill. A committee aide said Mnuchin told lawmakers during negotiations: “You can have a loan or you can have nothing at all.”

Only the $10 billion loan to the Postal Service made it into law, over Mnuchin’s objections.


Without the loan, which still has not been approved by the Treasury Department, USPS would be “financially illiquid,” by Sept. 30, according to estimates provided to lawmakers. Advocates for the Postal Service worry the agency is in a vulnerable position. As its main funding source dwindles, the Postal Service could be seen as ripe for a makeover; conservatives have long talked about privatizing the mail delivery in the United States.

The Postal Service projects it will lose $2 billion each month through the coronavirus recession, while postal workers maintain the nationwide service of delivering essential mail and parcels, such as prescriptions, food and household necessities, to fill in the gaps for other delivery companies.

That work often comes at great personal risk. Nearly 500 postal workers have tested positive for the coronavirus and 462 others are presumptive positives, USPS leaders told lawmakers. Nineteen have died; more than 6,000 are in self-quarantine because of exposure.


And while the Trump Administration and Mnuchin pushed through private-sector bailouts in the Cares Act — $350 billion to the Small Business Administration loan program, $29 billion to passenger airlines and air cargo carriers, and economic incentives for the construction, energy and life sciences industries, among others — Mnuchin has signaled any postal relief funds in a “Phase IV” stimulus package currently under negotiation would amount to a poison pill.

Postmaster General Megan Brennan asked lawmakers Thursday for another $50 billion — $25 billion to offset lost revenue from declining mail volume due to the coronavirus and $25 billion for “modernization” — plus another $25 billion Treasury loan and a mechanism to pay down $14 billion in existing public debt.

House Democrats, led by Virginia Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, cautioned that without the funding, the Postal Service may not make it past September without missing payrolls or service interruptions. Senate Republicans insist the $10 billion loan from the Cares Act provided sufficient short-term liquidity, the staffer said, and the Senate would not vote to extend more money to an agency unlikely to make good on its borrowing.

“I’m so frustrated at how difficult it has been for a long time to galvanize attention and action around an essential service,” Connolly said in a phone interview. “And maybe the pandemic forces us all to refocus on this service and how essential it is and how we need to fix it while we can before it gets into critical condition.”

Trump has long been antagonistic of the post office, calling it once in a tweet Amazon’s “delivery boy.” The Postal Service often serves as a vendor for Amazon, UPS, FedEx and other shipping companies, delivering the “last mile” service to often rural and remote areas. It is a crucial service for the Postal Service, for which package delivery is a growing part of its business.

Much of Trump’s invective on the Postal Service is aimed at Amazon’s founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post. Trump has advocated for increasing the prices on Amazon deliveries, against the recommendation of shipping experts and the agency’s own Board of Governors, a majority of whom Trump appointed.

“They should raise, they have to raise the prices to these companies that walk in and drop thousands of packages on the floor of the post office and say, ‘Deliver it',” Trump said at a news conference Wednesday. “And they make money, but the post office gets killed. Okay? So they ought to do that and we are looking into it and we’ve been pushing them now for over a year.”

But raising rates too much would lead private-sector competitors to develop their own cheaper methods to deliver packages, said Lori Rectanus, director of physical infrastructure at the Government Accountability Office. And even if a rate increase generates revenue, the total would be marginal to the total U.S. Postal Service debt, almost all of which comes from a congressional requirement to prepay pension and retiree health care costs for all employees, even those who haven’t yet retired.

Under normal market conditions, the Postal Service nearly breaks even, save for the pension account debt, despite cratering volume on deliveries in recent years. In 2010, USPS delivered 77.6 billion items of first-class mail, on which it makes a lucrative profit margin. In 2019, it only delivered 54.9 billion first-class items. The service handled 3.1 billion packages in 2010, and 6.2 billion in 2019, although processing packages doesn’t earn the agency as much revenue as first-class mail delivery.


But the coronavirus has completely upended consumer behavior and the quantity of items in the mail. Volume in the first week of March declined 30 percent, postal agency officials told lawmakers. At the end of June, the agency projects volume to be down 50 percent, and it could lose $23 billion over the next 18 months.

“We are at a critical juncture in the life of the Postal Service,” Brennan, the postmaster general, said in a statement. “At a time when America needs the Postal Service more than ever, the reason we are so needed is having a devastating effect on our business.”

The Postal Service has faced financial troubles for more than a decade, as digital communication morphed and took off, giving lawmakers many opportunities to debate its future. The Postal Service is so foundational to the country that it’s enumerated in the Constitution.

The agency’s troubles have renewed conservative conversations about structural changes in the agency that would force it to act more like a corporation, with steps such as eliminating the prepaid pension requirement, and easing its universal service obligation to deliver to every address in the United States, including ones so remote.
“If we’re concerned about the Postal Service and its workers,” said Romina Boccia, an economist at the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, “the best thing we can do is to free up the Postal Service to operate like a business so they can try to get back into the black.”
BULLSHIT THEY CAN NEVER RUN IN THE BLACK NEVER HAVE NEVER WILL
HENCE THE NAME SERVICE VS. COMPANY, INC OR CORP.

Staff writers Josh Dawsey and Jeff Stein contributed to this report.
THE WEEK OF THE PINK SUPER MOON 
TRUMP PRIVATIZES LUNA

President Trump has decided to turn his attention to mining the moon during this difficult time for the nation.

According to documents released by the White House, Donald Trump paused his efforts around the growing coronavirus crisis to sign an executive order.

This order will leave the US free to mine the moon for resources.

The document says the order rejects the 1979 global agreement known as the Moon Treaty .




The Moon Treaty of 1979It was deliberated and developed by the Legal Subcommittee for the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) from 1972 to 1979. ... Specifically, the Moon Treaty applies to the Moon and other celestial bodies in the solar system excluding the Earth.Oct 24, 2011

The Moon Treaty: failed international law ... - The Space Review




This treaty says any activity in space should conform with international law.
The order states: "Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space.

"Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and the United States does not view it as a global commons."

Trump now wants to 'mine the moon for resources' because causing havoc on Earth obviously isn't enough for him

INDEPENDENT UK

Picture: CHRIS KLEPONIS / POOL/iStock/Getty/Twitter

In news that no one expected to read in the middle of a pandemic, Donald Trump has signed an executive order to mine the moon for resources.

Yes, that is something that the president of the United States actually did while hundreds of thousands of his citizens are being impacted by a deadly virus. Priorities!

In a document released by the White House, Trump's order controversially rejects the 1979 global Moon Treaty agreement, which stated that any activity in space should abide by international law.

According to Trump's order, it states that:

Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space.

Outer space is a legally and physically unique domain of human activity, and the United States does not view it as a global commons.

In response, the Russian space agency has accused Trump of trying to 'privatise space.' In a statement, Roscosmos said:

Attempts to expropriate outer space and aggressive plans to actually seize territories of other planets hardly set the countries (on course for) fruitful cooperation.

For some, this may bring back memories of the Cold War 'space race' between the US and the Soviet Union but for many, they have just been left baffled that Trump would choose to concentrate on this during one of the most testing periods the world has experienced for a generation.

This isn't a million miles away from the premise of the sci-fi film Moon, where mankind attempts to harvest minerals from our lunar friend. Even that movies director, Duncan Jones, was a bit taken aback when he heard this news.

Let's not forget that in June 2018, Donald Trump tweeted that the moon was 'a part of Mars' so we cannot wait to see how this is going to play out.

SEE
DECEPTION POINT DAN BROWN

THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS ROBERT HEINLEIN 


CAPITALISM IN SPACE 


Moon Treaty - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Moon_Treaty

The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, better known as the Moon Treaty or Moon Agreement, is a multilateral treaty ... After ten more years of negotiations, the Moon Treaty was created in 1979 as a ... It proposed to do so by having the state parties produce an "international ...
History · ‎Provisions · ‎Legal status · ‎List of parties

Moon Agreement - unoosa
https://www.unoosa.org › oosa › ourwork › spacelaw › treaties › intromoo...

The Agreement was adopted by the General Assembly in 1979 in resolution 34/68. ... of the Outer Space Treaty as applied to the Moon and other celestial bodies, ... are the common heritage of mankind and that an international regime should be ... on Outer Space · Space Object Register · Publications · Did you know?

Outer Space - United Nations Treaty Collection
https://treaties.un.org › Pages › ViewDetails

Agreement governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial ... 34/68of the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 5 December 1979. ... which States are obliged to observe in their international relations, as set forth in ...

The 1979 Moon Agreement - A Space Law analysis on Space ...
https://www.spacelegalissues.com › the-1979-moon-agreement

Jul 17, 2019 - The 1979 Moon Agreement reaffirms and elaborates on many of the ... This text is the genesis of what has become known as “Space Law”. ... not yet parties to the international treaties governing the uses of outer space to ratify ...

Moon Treaty - McGill University
https://www.mcgill.ca › iasl › centre › research › space-law › moon-treaty

The "Moon Treaty" Opened for signature at New York on 18 December 1979 ... International co-operation in pursuance of this Agreement should be as wide as ... prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this article.

Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and ...
https://www.nti.org › learn › treaties-and-regimes › agreement-governing-...

Oct 26, 2011 - The Moon Agreement was signed in December 1979 following an initiative by the ... The Moon Agreement supplements the Outer Space Treaty and ... as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the ...

The Moon Agreement of 1979: What Relevance to Space ...
https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl › 2010/09 › the-moon-agreement-of-19...

Sep 3, 2010 - It also expresses a desire to prevent the Moon from becoming a source of international conflict. As a follow-on to the Outer Space Treaty, the ...

• Chart: The Countries That Signed The Moon Treaty | Statista
https://www.statista.com › Topics › Space exploration

Jul 19, 2019 - The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and ... also known as the Moon Treaty or Moon Agreement, was created in 1979 to ... It also seeks to avoid the Moon becoming a space for international conflict.



Aug 19, 2015 - Hans-Kurt Lange, who worked as an illustrator in NASA's Future Projects Division, modeled 2001's space suits on NASA's, using the same ...


Mar 27, 1997 - The genius is not in how much Stanley Kubrick does in "2001: A Space Odyssey," but in how little. This is the work of an artist so sublimely ...

Apr 4, 2018 - Kubrick may have set out to make a science-fiction film, but 2001: A Space Odyssey, which turns 50 this week, is closer to home than we think, ...