Uber and Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees, appeals court finds

By Sara Ashley O'Brien, CNN Business
Updated Fri October 23, 2020


VIDEO NOW PLAYING
Uber CEO: Let's change the system on gig work

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/23/tech/uber-lyft-california-appeal/index.html

CNNBusiness

In a blow to Uber and Lyft, a California appeals court said Thursday that the companies must reclassify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors, affirming an earlier court decision.
The ruling marks a significant development in a months-long legal fight between the companies and the state of California, which in May sued Uber and Lyft and claimed they were in violation of state law. It also puts greater pressure on the companies to successfully pass their California ballot measure which seeks to exempt them from the law.
The state has argued that by classifying their drivers as contractors, Uber and Lyft deprive those workers of benefits they are entitled to under a law that took effect January 1. The law, known as Assembly Bill 5, or AB-5, says companies can only treat their workers as independent contractors if those people are free from company control and perform work outside the company's core business.
A reclassification of their workers would represent a radical shift forced on the two businesses, which have built up massive fleets of drivers by treating them as independent contractors and not providing them benefits that they would be entitled to as employees, such as minimum wage, overtime, paid sick leave and unemployment insurance.


In August, a California court ordered Uber and Lyft to reclassify their drivers in the state as employees, delivering a win to the state. At the time, both companies had threatened to shut down if they were forced to reclassify their workers.
The ruling prompted the companies to appeal. But Associate Justice Jon Streeter of the appellate court wrote in his decision Thursday that the injunction restraining Uber and Lyft from classifying their drivers as independent contractors was valid.
"It is broad in scope, no doubt, but so too is the scale of the alleged violations," he wrote.
"Uber and Lyft have used their muscle and clout to resist treating their drivers as workers entitled to those paycheck and benefit protections," Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement after the ruling. "It's time for Uber and Lyft to play by the rules."
The change won't happen immediately. Uber and Lyft still have 30 days to comply with California's law once the appeals process finishes. That clock typically starts 61 days after the appellate court transfers jurisdiction back to the trial court, assuming the opinion is not challenged. It is unclear if Uber and Lyft would appeal Thursday's ruling to the California Supreme Court, though Uber said in a statement to CNN Business that "we're considering our appeal options."

November's election might also make that court process moot. Uber (UBER) and Lyft (LYFT) — along with delivery services that use drivers such as DoorDash, Instacart, and Uber-owned Postmates — have poured $188 million into a California ballot initiative known as Proposition 22 that aims to side-step the AB-5 law.
If Prop. 22 passes, ride-hail and delivery drivers would continue to be treated as independent contractors. There would be some concessions on benefits, including a minimum earnings guarantee based on "engaged time" when a driver is fulfilling a ride or delivery request, but not the time they spend waiting for a gig.
"This ruling makes it more urgent than ever for voters to stand with drivers and vote yes on Prop. 22," Lyft spokesperson Julie Wood said in a statement to CNN Business on Thursday.
Uber also pivoted to the vote on Prop 22 in its statement, saying that if the measure is not passed, "rideshare drivers will be prevented from continuing to work as independent contractors, putting hundreds of thousands of Californians out of work and likely shutting down ridesharing throughout much of the state."
Last month, the CEOs of both companies told the California appeals court that they planned to comply with the law if the lower court's injunction was upheld, and if Prop. 22 fails.
But compliance "would at a minimum require fundamental changes to Uber's platform," wrote Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. He said that the change would "dramatically restrict" the number of drivers Uber could hire, among other moves.
Lyft CEO Logan Green wrote that "such implementation may include ceasing rideshare operations in all or some parts of California."

-- Jill Disis contributed to this report.

Uber drivers sue over alleged 'pressure' to vote, advocate for Prop 22
By Sara Ashley O'Brien, CNN Business
Thu October 22, 2020



(CNN Business)For months, Uber drivers and passengers in California have received aggressive messaging in support of its controversial ballot initiative, Proposition 22.
Now, some Uber drivers are suing, saying the company has "unlawfully" pressured them and other drivers to support the measure.
California Proposition 22, or Prop 22, seeks to exempt Uber and other gig companies from a state labor law that would require them to classify their drivers as employees.
The class action lawsuit, filed Thursday in a San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of two Uber drivers and two nonprofit organizations, alleges that Uber (UBER) is "exerting extreme and wrongful pressure on its drivers to vote for and advocate for the passage of Proposition 22" through its usage of in-app messaging.


The lawsuit alleges this is in violation of California's Labor Code, which prohibits employers from controlling or directing the political activities of employees or attempting to coerce or influence employees' on engaging in any political action or political activity.
According to the lawsuit, first reported by The Washington Post, Uber forces its drivers to read misinformation about the ballot measure, threatens them with the loss of employment if Prop 22 fails to pass, and pressures drivers to indicate their support of it. In a screenshot included in the complaint, one of the prompts shown to drivers asks them to select "YES ON PROP 22" or "OK."

"This pressures drivers to accept Uber's position because it does not provide an option to vote no," the complaint reads.

The $185 million campaign to keep Uber and Lyft drivers as contractors in California
In a statement, an Uber spokesperson said: "This is an absurd lawsuit, without merit, filed solely for press attention and without regard for the facts. It can't distract from the truth: that the vast majority of drivers support Prop 22 and have for months because they know it will improve their lives and protect the way they prefer to work."

The lawsuit is the latest escalation in the fight over Proposition 22 in the country's most populous state. Uber, Lyft, Instacart, DoorDash, and Uber-owned Postmates have put a combined $188 million into passing Prop 22, which aims to allow companies to continue treating ride-hail and delivery drivers as independent contractors with some benefit concessions. For many weeks, Californians have been inundated with television and social media ads, email blasts, and push notifications from the Yes campaign and the gig companies about the measure.
If Prop 22 fails to pass, workers would likely be considered employees who are entitled to a minimum wage, overtime pay, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance and paid sick leave under Assembly Bill 5, a state labor law that went into effect in January.
In May, the California Attorney General and a coalition of city attorneys sued Uber and Lyft accusing them of misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and depriving them of protections they would be entitled to as employees. An Uber spokesperson said in a statement at the time that it plans to "contest this action in court." A Lyft spokesperson said it is "looking forward to working with the Attorney General and mayors across the state to bring all the benefits of California's innovation economy to as many workers as possible."
David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, told CNN Business that the lawsuit is an "indication of the strategies that will be used by the opponents of Prop. 22."
"It is not about going to war dollar for dollar," said McCuan, of the opposition, backed by labor and union organizations, which has put just roughly $15 million behind its fight to date. "It's about being strategic on how to legally challenge and set the ground for what eventually will be a broader legal battle if the ballot passes."
McCuan said that if it does pass, the battle won't end on November 3."The legal wrangling around this is just beginning," he added.
The drivers, who are being represented by Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe and nonprofit Legal Aid at Work, are seeking an injunction, an order that Uber is violating the law, and penalties under the Private Attorney General Act, which could amount to $200 million, with 75% going to the State of California.

Banksy's 'Show me the Monet' painting sells for nearly $10 million

Written by Amy Woodyatt
Banksy's take on a Claude Monet masterpiece has sold for £7.6 million ($9.8 million) following a nine-minute bidding battle, auctioneers at Sotheby's have said.

In "Show me the Monet," famed street artist Banksy reimagines Monet's "Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies" as a modern-day scene. 

The picture is complete with environmental pollution: A traffic cone and two shopping carts submerged in the otherwise idyllic scene.

Monet's original painting was one of 12 Impressionist works featuring views of the artist's Japanese bridge over his water garden, near Giverny, Northern France.

Banksy's 'Devolved Parliament' sells at auction for $12.2 million

Executed between 1897 and 1899, Monet painted the variations depicting the same idyllic view at different times of the day, during varying weather conditions and seasons.

"Show Me the Monet" sold for far above estimates, auctioneers said. Credit: Michael Bowles/Getty Images
Banksy's painting, an oil on canvas created in 2005, was showcased as part of the "Crude Oils: A Gallery of Re-mixed Masterpieces, Vandalism and Vermin" exhibition, where the artist re-imagined famous works by artists including Edward Hopper, Jack Vettriano and Vincent van Gogh.
At Wednesday's auction, which was live streamed and attended by some select clients, the tongue-in-cheek artwork was sold to an Asian private collector for £7.6 million -- above the estimate of £3-5 million, Sotheby's said.

"Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies" by Claude Monet, located in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Credit: VCG Wilson/Corbis/Getty Images

The painting is the second most expensive one from the elusive British artist.

Hundreds pose nude wearing only masks for London art installation

Last year, Banksy's "Devolved Parliament," a satirical oil painting depicting the House of Commons filled with chimpanzees, sold at auction in London for a record-breaking £9,879,500 ($12,200,000).

The artist's identity remains a secret, but in October last year the artist's former agent and photographer, Steve Lazarides, published images alleged to show him at work -- without revealing his face.

'PEOPLE LIKE THEIR PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE'

Here’s How Private Equity Firms Targeted Republican Sen. John Cornyn With Dark Money To Preserve Surprise Medical Billing

Private equity waged a yearlong dark money campaign so they could continue to profit off of emergency room patients getting hit with exorbitant medical bills. It worked.

Paul McLeod BuzzFeed News Reporter
Reporting From
Washington, DC
Posted on October 19, 2020

Pool / Getty Images
Sen. John Cornyn

WASHINGTON — Last June, Texas Sen. John Cornyn was one of many senators to tout a bipartisan bill to end surprise medical billing — patients unwittingly being hit with hefty out-of-network bills — once and for all. Then the money came.

Private equity companies launched a yearlong, nation-wide dark money campaign worth tens of millions of dollars to kill the bill, and Cornyn was in their crosshairs. The companies spent millions of dollars on ads in Texas pressuring Cornyn, while executives personally donated tens of thousands of dollars to Cornyn’s reelection campaign.


Cornyn ended up supporting a rival bill backed by private equity, and Congress, divided between the plans, did not pass anything to protect vulnerable patients from being hit with massive bills for emergency room visits. It’s a saga that played out in several key swing states where Republicans, like Cornyn, are facing tough reelection fights, and it shows how powerful industry groups can lean on Congress to block fixes to deeply unpopular — and harmful — problems, not through shady backroom deals but expensive ad campaigns that play out in public.

Back in early 2019, it seemed obvious that surprise billing would not be long for this world. Politicians unanimously agreed it was a brazenly unfair practice that exploited vulnerable patients, and needed to be banned. Surprise bills come from a gap in the system: Patients go to a hospital inside their health insurance network, only to be later hit by a hefty bill because the hospital employees who treated them turn out to be out-of-network. These out-of-network specialists can charge whatever they want.

Emergency room patients have no way to know these surprise bills are coming — after all, they are going to hospitals ostensibly covered by their insurance plan — and no recourse to stop them. Yet they had become endemic, with one 2019 study finding that 4 out of every 10 emergency room visits resulted in a surprise bill. A 60-year-old woman with COVID-19 who needed to be airlifted to a hospital for treatment was charged $52,000 for the flight, the New York Times recently reported.

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, known as HELP, drafted a bipartisan bill to end surprise billing by hamstringing both doctors and insurance companies; it would put limits on how much out-of-network medical staff could charge and require insurers to cover the costs. In June 2019, the bill passed through committee by a vote of 20–3 (Cornyn is not on the committee).

Then, in late July, a mysterious new group called Doctor Patient Unity was incorporated. Within just a few weeks, it spent $2.3 million on ads attacking the HELP bill. These ads targeted swing states where vulnerable Republicans were up for reelection. In Texas, the ads mentioned Cornyn by name, urging constituents to call him and ask him to oppose “government rate setting.”

For a while, no one knew who was paying for these ads. As the name suggests, Doctor Patient Unity claimed to represent doctors and patients. It would later be revealed that the PAC was run by the private equity giants that profit off of surprise medical billing, Blackstone Group and KKR & Co. In recent years both had bought up physician staffing firms, which hire out ER doctors, radiologists, and anesthesiologists to hospitals. These specialists are most likely to issue surprise medical bills.

For Blackstone and KKR, a lot was on the line. Both had bought up staffing firms with massive leveraged buyouts: KKR took out a $4.5 billion loan to acquire Envision Healthcare in 2018, while Blackstone borrowed $2.7 billion to buy TeamHealth in 2017. The sales were followed by a sharp rise in surprise billing. Last summer, Wall Street grew concerned that Congressional action could lower doctor fees, thus threatening the repayment of these loans. The value of Envision’s debt fell to 77 cents on the dollar, while ratings agencies Fitch and Moody’s lowered their outlooks for Envision and TeamHealth.

Doctor Patient Unity quickly became an advertising powerhouse. Through the second half of 2019, it spent a whopping $54 million on ads attacking legislation to end surprise billing, according to Bloomberg News. FEC data shows the ads ran in states with tight Senate races like North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Texas, where Cornyn is facing off against Democratic challenger MJ Hegar. Doctor Patient Unity didn’t respond to a request for comment.





In early September, KKR threw Cornyn a fundraiser in New York City. Cornyn reported $89,000 in personal donations from executives at KKR, Envision Healthcare, and Global Medical Response, an air ambulance company also owned by KKR. Air ambulances can result in surprise bills of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Private equity–owned companies charge almost twice as much for air ambulances than others.

A spokesperson for Cornyn said that KKR has long been a supporter of the senator and the fundraiser was not linked to the issue of surprise medical billing.

As momentum in Congress shifted away from the HELP bill over the fall — and towards proposals favored by ER doctors — the ad campaigns shifted as well. In October, Doctor Patient Unity was again running ads in Texas, but these no longer mentioned Cornyn by name. Instead, they attacked “big insurance companies” for pushing a government rate-setting scheme that “could mean fewer hospitals, fewer physicians, and fewer healthcare options for us all.”

When Cornyn next spoke about the HELP bill he committed to debating it and offering amendments — but not to voting for it. In a speech on the Senate floor in November, he blamed Democrats for endangering the chances of passing any health reform because they were obsessed with impeaching President Donald Trump.


Doctor Patient Unity

By December, Doctor Patient Unity’s ads had flipped from pressuring Cornyn to praising him. The ads encouraged voters to call Cornyn’s office and thank him for standing up to the HELP bill. “The good news is Senator John Cornyn opposes rate setting. He understands it’s a bad idea to put bureaucrats and big insurance companies in charge of our healthcare,” says one ad. “So call Senator Cornyn and thank him for siding with patients and physicians, not big insurers.”

A Cornyn spokesperson said that he worked with the HELP Committee to try to improve their bill, but grew concerned that insurers would drop hospitals from their networks altogether if they were no longer forced to negotiate prices. This became a big issue in Texas when insurance company Cigna dropped the Houston-based Memorial Hermann hospital system from its network earlier this year. The spokesperson said Cornyn never came out against the health committee bill, but viewed a competing plan from Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy as a better option.

Cornyn would eventually sign on to Cassidy’s bill, which is friendlier to doctors. (Cassidy is also up for reelection, though he is seen as a heavy favorite. Doctor Patient Unity also ran ads in Louisiana, and executives from KKR, Envision, and Global Medical Response personally donated at least $50,000 to Cassidy’s reelection campaign.) Under Cassidy’s plan, insurers would still have to cover emergency room bills, but out-of-network doctors would not face specific benchmark limits on how much they could charge. They would instead be able to take insurers to arbitration to negotiate rates for their services. It may seem like a minor change, but the difference between the two plans was worth billions of dollars. Power players in Congress split, with different factions supporting different bills.

Congress was supposed to pass the HELP bill last December, but politicians couldn’t get on the same page. The House Ways and Means Committee unveiled its own competing plan at the last minute, and with no consensus on which piece of legislation to back, a deal to end surprise billing collapsed.



Jim Watson / Getty Images
President Donald Trump called on lawmakers to pass legislation protecting Americans from surprise medical bills on May 9, 2019. It never happened.


But the threat to private equity wasn’t over. In March 2020, as the coronavirus pandemic swept the country, there was a push to include the HELP bill as part of the CARES Act, Congress’s $3 trillion coronavirus aid package. Doctor Patient Unity again swung into action.

Between March and April, they ran ads in Washington, DC, as well as in several states where Republican senators were in the midst of reelection races — a $200,000 ad buy in Texas, $360,000 in Louisiana, $510,000 in Georgia, $80,000 in Arizona, and $30,000 in North Carolina. With the exception of Louisiana, all of those races are tight.

It was not a strict Republican-Democrat divide. In the Senate, Republicans are trying to hold on to their majority. But Doctor Patient Unity also ran ads targeting — and thanking — Democrats in the House, which their party controls. In particular, Rep. Richie Neal, Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, played a key role in collapsing a deal to end surprise billing last December.

Cornyn had suspended his campaign activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But even as his campaign pulled spending, Doctor Patient Unity ran ads in Texas thanking him for “siding with patients and physicians, not big insurance.”

Similar scenarios were playing out in other states. Sen. Martha McSally, fighting to hold on to her Senate seat in Arizona, signed on to Cassidy’s bill in February. Sen. Thom Tillis, locked in a razor-thin race in North Carolina, signed on in March. Sens. Joni Ernst in Iowa and David Perdue in Georgia also signed on. (Sen. Susan Collins of Maine is the one notable exception as a vulnerable Republican incumbent who did stick by the HELP bill.)

Surprise billing was part of the CARES Act in the final drafting stages. But party leaders were hoping to pass the bill quickly and, if possible, unanimously. Several members came forward with concerns about the surprise billing provisions, according to congressional staff with knowledge of the negotiations.

The HELP legislation was deemed too controversial to include and it was taken out at the 11th hour. “It came very close,” said one Republican aide.

People continue to be hit by surprise bills across the country every day. And it’s not clear whether another COVID-19 aid package will pass before the election — even if one does, no one is talking about including surprise billing in the package. But in a sign of how dominantly private equity has won the debate, after spending tens of millions of dollars over the past year, Doctor Patient Unity has gone quiet and is no longer buying any ads.



MORE ON THIS
The Forces Fighting Congress’s Bill To End Surprise Billing Are Acting Like They’ve Already Won. They Likely Have. 

Paul McLeod · July 10, 2020

A Deal To End Surprise Medical Billing Was Tanked At The Last Minute

Paul McLeod · Dec. 19, 2019

A Massive Lobbying War Could Kill A Bipartisan Effort To End The Surprise Medical Billing Crisis 

Paul McLeod · Sept. 5, 2019

Paul McLeod is a politics reporter for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, DC.

Facebook Continues To Host Militant Groups And Ads Despite A Ban On Right-Wing Extremism

A new report finds “Facebook is routinely behind the curve in cracking down on domestic extremists on its platform.”

Salvador HernandezBuzzFeed News Reporter

Ryan MacBuzzFeed News Reporter
Last updated on October 20, 2020

Seth Herald / Getty Images
"Boogaloo" members, an anti-government extremist movement, during a rally at the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing, Oct. 17, 2020.

Despite efforts by Facebook to ban right-wing militant organizations, a new report published Monday has found that some of those groups continue to organize and run pages on the social network. Facebook also continues to profit from ads placed by extremists despite an announcement earlier this year that said it would ban all ads that “praise, support or represent militarized social movements.”

The report from the Transparency Tech Project (TTP), a nonprofit watchdog organization, discovered, for example, that the American Patriot Council, a right-wing group that advocated for the criminal prosecution of Michigan’s governor because of her implementation of stay-at-home orders during the early days of the coronavirus pandemic, ran an ad earlier this month that encouraged militants to attend Oct. 24 rallies in Michigan and New York.

“We The People gather across America in a show of solidarity and demand emancipation from the bondage of tyranny,” read the ad, which cost less than $100 and had the potential to reach between 500,000 and 1 million people, according to Facebook’s own metrics. “(Lawful carry & Militia strongly encouraged.)”

Facebook announced in August that it was banning right-wing militant, anarchist, and QAnon groups from its platform. But TTP found 45 pages and eight groups associated with right-wing extremist organizations two months later. Researchers at TTP also found that Facebook had accepted a handful of ads over the last two years that were used by extremists to bolster their ranks and summon people to armed rallies.

“Facebook has been directly profiting from this kind of paid messaging on its platform,” the report said. “The disturbing findings show that Facebook is routinely behind the curve in cracking down on domestic extremists on its platform.”

According to TTP, 13 of the pages and groups it found have “militia” in their name, while six pages and one group were created after the company’s August ban of “militarized social movements.”

More than 12 hours after TTP published its findings, Facebook spokesperson Sarah Pollack said that the company had already "removed thousands of Pages and Groups representing Militarized Social Movements and have been prioritizing those that are active on our platform today."

"Most of the Pages and Groups raised in this report haven’t been active since before we launched this policy in August," she said in a statement. "Regardless, most violate our policies and have since been removed."


Tech Transparency Project / Via Facebook: ads


An ad placed in early October by the American Patriot Council said that "militia" is "strongly encouraged" to attend an event to be held on Oct. 24 in Syracuse, New York. In August, Facebook said it would ban ads that “praise, support or represent militarized social movements.”

The TTP investigation comes less than two weeks after federal and state prosecutors in Michigan revealed they had charged 14 people in a bizarre plot to kidnap and possibly kill Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Those individuals allegedly conspired using Facebook.

In the Michigan plot, Facebook said it reached out to law enforcement six months before the 14 men were arrested, and that a Facebook group tied to those individuals had been banned in June. Still, a day after authorities announced the Whitmer plot, BuzzFeed News reported that Facebook continued to host multiple pages run by Michigan militant organizations, while the social network's recommendation tools continued to direct users to follow pages espousing extremist messages.

Facebook has made numerous efforts this year to counteract the use of its platform by violent extremists. The company said it had deleted more than 6,500 pages and groups “tied to more than 300 Militarized Social Movements” as of Oct. 6. But it did not completely eradicate the problem. Some groups, as TTP found, escaped the ban. Others simply reappeared with new pages under slightly altered names.

TTP also identified other organizations that have kept a presence on Facebook, including some associated with the Three Percenters, whose members have been involved in armed confrontations with federal agents in Nevada in 2014 and Oregon in 2016.

One group, Virginia Militia, paid for 61 advertisements before it was removed from the social network, including an ad in February calling for a “Muster Call.”

“Are you going to give up your rights or fight?” the ad read.

In June, BuzzFeed News found Facebook had been profiting from "boogaloo" ads that promoted extremist organizations that wanted to “fight the state.” Radicals linked to the “boogaloo movement” — a catchphrase for anti-government extremists who have advocated for another Civil War in the US — have been linked to violence this year including the alleged killing of a federal officer.

The report also found that some users had issued direct threats against public officials in private Facebook groups without action from the company. In one group titled “Pro-Police, Pro-Military, Pro-Trump,” a post suggested that Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar should be sent to Guantánamo Bay, prompting others to respond with “Just shoot the bitch” and “She needs a drone strike.” The post remained active as of Oct. 13.

In another group called “Trump’s Army” with nearly 100,000 members, one individual wrote of people demonstrating against the police killing of Breonna Taylor, “All Trump supporters should shoot them and kill them.”

It’s unclear what impact Facebook’s ban will have on militarized groups who have been using the social network for years as part of their recruitment and organizing.

The head of the national Three Percenters’ group called Facebook’s ban a “purge of conservative organizations.” But when the group itself was banned, leaders of the organization simply directed its members to a private forum on its own website.

Nigeria’s Military Shot And Killed Peaceful Protesters Who Were Calling For An End To Police Brutality

The #EndSARS movement has swept across Nigeria and the world — but the country’s president won’t acknowledge it even after protesters were slaughtered.

Ade Onibada BuzzFeed News Reporter
Posted on October 22, 2020

Nurphoto / Getty Images

When Nigeria’s president made a rare, televised address to the nation on Thursday evening, he made vague references to “ongoing developments,” namely calling on “our youths to discontinue the street protests” — not mentioning once the fact that his security forces had killed people in the streets amid the country’s most powerful protests against police brutality ever.

What Muhammadu Buhari clearly didn’t want to mention was the Nigerian military opening fire on thousands of peaceful protesters Tuesday evening, killing at least 12 and injuring several hundred. Though he didn’t acknowledge the brutal suppression — the rest of the world has.


It’s being called the “Lekki massacre,” after the shootings took place at a toll bridge in that affluent suburb. It was there that protesters have demonstrated for the past two weeks as part of an ongoing movement calling for an overhaul of Nigeria’s notorious Special Anti-Robbery Squad, known as SARS.

The violence has been condemned by world figures including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and UN Secretary-General António Guterres — but has also taken off on social media, with people using the hashtag #EndSARS to call for an end to the violence.

Buhari, in his address, scolded the protesters as “unpatriotic” and told people to “seek to know all the facts available before taking a position or rushing to judgment.” But the activists behind the End SARS social movement have for years been calling to disband a police unit that has been accused of extortion, kidnapping, harassment, torture, and extrajudicial killings — the demonstrators argue what they’re doing is the height of patriotism in Nigeria’s nascent democracy. Here’s a breakdown of how Nigeria got to this point, why the protests are happening, and who is involved:



DeboMacaroni@mrmacaronii

The heroes!!! Some of them you might or might not even know! But they have stayed up all night to send a message to the world! I hope the message is loud and clear!!!! We still dey!!! ALUTA CONTINUA 💪🏾05:31 AM - 09 Oct 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite



SARS was created in 1992 under military rule — before Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999 — to address armed robberies and kidnappings. Its officers were granted special privileges: They were allowed to use unmarked cars and wear plain clothes. Protesters say that SARS has operated with impunity, and a number of recent incidents have triggered outrage.


Policing by profiling is a common feature of the complaints against SARS. The unit’s remit to pursue robberies and fraud has meant that young Nigerians who seem "affluent" — owning an iPhone, for instance, or driving a nice car — are often considered to be criminals worth extorting for money. Police have also been known to target physical features such as dreadlocked or brightly colored hair, as well as tattoos as indicators of criminal affiliations.

Earlier this month, a clip in which SARS officials appeared to shoot a man and steal his car in broad daylight went viral, stirring a public outcry.

In response, a group of 42 young Nigerians staged a 72-hour protest outside the Lagos State House of Assembly starting on Oct. 8. That act of defiance quickly grew into the latest movement, with demonstrations happening across Africa's most populated country. Outside Nigeria, members of the country’s diaspora have staged their own protests. In all, people have protested in over 100 cities around the world in solidarity and with a clear agenda: a better Nigeria starting with the end of SARS.

In response to mounting public pressure, Buhari formally dissolved SARS on Oct. 12, promising “extensive police reform.”

But Buhari’s announcement came with caveats: Former SARS officers will remain part of the police force, redeployed to other divisions. A new task force, SWAT, will replace SARS.

Many were deeply displeased with Buhari’s caveats, and so the protests continued, leading up to Tuesday’s violence.

Mr Soro Soke #EndSARS@VickyShegzy
The reason we don't want SWAT ❌06:13 PM - 13 Oct 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite




Imoh Umoren@TheImoh
#EndSARS ✊🏿08:55 PM - 10 Oct 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite


On Tuesday morning, the governor of Lagos, Babajide Sanwo-Olu, announced a last-minute statewide 24-hour curfew, saying he was concerned that “criminals and miscreants” had infiltrated the protests. There was no evidence to suggest this had actually happened.

The news broke just before noon on Twitter and gave Lagosians until 4 p.m. to get home — in a city renowned for its traffic. Many protesters who were already out stayed put at the Lekki toll gate, where they staged a sit-in and sang the national anthem while waving Nigerian flags.

According to eyewitness accounts reported by Reuters, CNN, and the BBC, the evening turned into chaos when the power was cut and uniformed personnel — now believed to be members of the Nigerian army — barricaded protesters at the toll gate and began firing live rounds.

Some protesters fled to churches and hospitals for the remainder of the night. Lagos-based DJ Switch, whose real name is Obianuju Udeh, livestreamed the chaos to 130,000 people.


The Nigerian Army denied any involvement in the incident, dismissing reports about it as "fake news" — a term popularized by US President Donald Trump and adopted by global autocrats and dictators to dismiss any factual information that is critical of their rule and policies.

After the shootings, the Lagos governor said that “forces beyond our direct control have moved to make dark notes in our history.” He claimed that there had been no deaths recorded, despite eyewitness accounts saying otherwise.

Human rights group Amnesty International has said that at least 12 people were killed between the Lekki area and Alausa, another Lagos suburb where there were reports of violence that night.

In a statement, the organization said it had received reports of CCTV cameras being disabled before the shooting took place. Some of the protesters killed on the ground were taken away by the military, Amnesty said.

Young Nigerians and What This Moment Means


Nurphoto / Getty Images

More than 58 people are believed to have died since the protests began on Oct. 8 according to Amnesty International. In spite of the violence — and the terror of Tuesday night — the work on the ground continues, organizers and activists told BuzzFeed News.

“It has been a major roller coaster,” said an organizer, Oyin A, who declined to give her full name over fears of reprisal. “This is wrong. They didn’t do anything wrong. It was literally people just fighting for their rights.”

Oyin is one of the lead figures who helps to run the End SARS Response Unit, putting her experience in data solutions into action. The support resource group was created in a matter of days in collaboration with the Feminist Coalition, a collective of 11 young Nigerians whose mission is to champion equality for women in the country's society. Today it operates a 24-hour hotline and online team for demonstrators to access everything from legal support to medical assistance in a nation where citizens are accustomed to providing life’s daily necessities for themselves.



okeoluwasegunmoses@oluwashegzy1007
Jimoh Raji Atanda 52, father to late jimoh isiaka holding a bullet shell recovered just beside the body of his late son. Jimoh isiaka was shot multiple times by the police during #endsars peaceful protest in Ogbomoso on 10th of October 2020. He call for justice for his late son.03:19 PM - 12 Oct 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite


Protesters continue to contact the group for support outside of the city, Oyin said, despite new curfews being announced daily.

“People were still like, ‘We want to do this. We want to protest,’” said Oyin. “We see the defiance in people and the way they were still so strong-willed about it.”


The youth-led movement has been hailed for coordinating in a transparent and unifying manner, which they hope will make it a lasting force. “Young people have seen for the very first time the strength that we have in our own unity and our voice,” Oyin said. “It’s the government's biggest mistake but is also our biggest win, our biggest success.”

Unlike previous movements — such as the 2012 Occupy Nigeria campaign born in response to the removal of oil subsidies that resulted in 13 days of demonstrations — the End SARS movement is one without leaders, Oyin said.

This is in part to encourage democratic participation, and in part to ensure no one has a target on their back. But it also shows that every young Nigerian can make their own decision about whether and when to march.

“Today, I can decide I don't want to protest anymore, but another person on the street might say, ‘Well, sorry, I have not heard anything that will make me go back home,’” Oyin said.

The fight against police brutality in Nigeria is multilayered and one that has unified most communities in a nation that has been strongly divided by tribal loyalties and conflict in the past.

However the same can’t be said for Nigeria’s young queer community, who say they are often profiled, targeted, and harassed by the police on the basis of sexuality.

Matthew Blaise, a nonbinary LGBTQ activist who was filmed in the midst of one of the protests, told BuzzFeed News he was using the moment to speak for queer young Nigerians. “It is something that we all know: When cis heterosexual people are telling stories, they tend to sideline queer people. They don't tell our stories because queerness is not the default,” the 21-year-old said.




Son of the Rainbow AKA LGBTQ+ CLASS CAPTAIN🏳️‍🌈@Blaise_21
#EndSARS #Queerlivesmatter Yell it in your streets. We get killed for being queer. It’s crazy04:59 PM - 10 Oct 2020
Reply Retweet Favorite


“Queer people are always targeted. We are always targeted for just existing,” Blaise said. “So I didn’t have to have a smartphone or look extravagant. I just have to exist as a queer person to be a target for SARS.”

Blaise’s experience with SARS has been defined by multiple painful altercations and has been further compounded by laws against homosexuality that deny him even the faintest potential of pursuing justice.

In Blaise’s case, as a femme nonbinary person, the harassment is driven by anti-LGBTQ sentiments, he said.

Blaise recalled one occasion when SARS officers ambushed him. “They asked me, Why am I behaving like a woman? Am I gay? Then they asked me to unlock my phone. I did not, then five of them came out from their van with guns, then pushed me into their vehicle.”

Blaise shared that after he was ambushed, he was driven to a police station where he was beaten.

His experience is just one in hundreds of chilling anecdotes that can be attributed to SARS. Activists have been collecting accounts of alleged SARS and other police violence and posting them online to websites such as EndSARS.com.


“We're all so used to being stopped by the police. We're all so used to being harassed by the police,” Michael Sonariwo told BuzzFeed News. “Every single person — I'm not exaggerating to you — all of my guys have a SARS story.”


Michael Sonariwo
Michael Sonariwo has been arrested more than five times by SARS operatives.

The 27-year-old event promoter who was raised in Atlanta relocated to Nigeria a decade ago and is taking part in the protests and using his platform to speak up. In the space of one year, he said, he was arrested more than five times.

Despite his frequent instances of harassment, Sonariwo is able to apply perspective and echoes the sentiments of most protesters who point to groups like SARS as symptomatic of deeper issues running through Nigeria: growing economic inequality and bad leadership.

“Some policemen are making 50,000 naira a month ($130),” Sonariwo said. “They're supposed to support a family of two or three with that salary — some with 80,000 naira ($208) and support a family of three or four. So now they see young people with iPhones that cost 200,000 naira ($520). That's more than their monthly salary, and the government treats them like animals. Have you seen their barracks? You treat people like animals long enough, they'll act like it.”

Often hailed as the “giant of Africa,” in 2018 Nigeria overtook India to become the poverty capital of the world while simultaneously boasting about having Africa’s largest economy.

“We're really fighting a big fight, a fight bigger than you all think, and that's why I said everybody needs to just start talking, do anything possible,” said Sonariwo, who has issued a call to the diaspora around the world to continue to apply pressure and raise awareness.

“Do you realize how brave guys are to go on the streets with all this trauma, with all these experiences? On the streets, the government doesn't care about you," he said.

“There are people hurting on the streets, I'm privileged. I know where I'm coming from because I grew up in America. The life I lived in America is not the life I’ve lived in Nigeria,” he added.

The bravery of the Nigerians of all ages from various backgrounds who have taken to the streets to demand change has been a source of hope for many who had felt that the country was a lost cause.

“I used to be a ‘Nigeria can get better’ person, but I gave up,” said Karo Omu, who left Nigeria in 2016.


Demola Osuntoki
Karo Omu at the London demonstration calling for an end to police brutality in Nigeria.

“This is the first time I'm feeling like it could possibly get better again, after a long time.”

The 29-year-old has continued to engage with the country’s issues through her charitable organization that aims to eradicate child labor in Nigeria.

With a renewed sense of hope, Omu has helped organize demonstrations for the diaspora in London and believes that the root of Nigeria’s broader issues lies solely at the feet of the government.

“Whatever you think it is, it still comes back to the way Nigeria has been managed by the government and the way Nigeria has deteriorated over the years,” said Omu.

“It shows there's just so many cracks in the structure of the country, the government of the country, and it's not just this administration — it's been this way for many years.

“Now there's social media, you can see what's better out there. You can see how much people care about their citizens. It doesn't mean any country's perfect, but there's so much to do. From police reform to education to healthcare, and I think the lockdown also played a role because we were indoors. We've had enough time to think, and we've thought about what could be.”

The battle for what could be is one with young people at the forefront, a jolt to a culture that typically reveres age above all else.


“The youth are recognizing their power and it's really beautiful to see, but what would be even more beautiful will be some change happening,” said Omu.


Ade Onibada is a junior reporter at BuzzFeed and is based in London.

Remdesivir gets full FDA approval as coronavirus treatment

POLITICAL PRESSURE VS SCIENCE

The approval comes a week after a large-scale World Health Organization trial found remsdesivir had no substantial impact on the survival of COVID-19 patients or the length of their hospital stay

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/10/vaccine-trials-cant-detect-virus-risk.html

BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 10/22/20 

© Getty Images


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted full approval to the antiviral drug remdesivir to treat COVID-19, manufacturer Gilead announced Thursday.

FDA initially granted emergency use authorization for remdesivir in May, which allowed doctors and hospitals to use the drug to treat hospitalized patients without a full approval.

It showed modest results in reducing the hospitalizations of patients with severe cases of COVID-19. Remdesivir is administered in a hospital setting through an IV.

The approval is based on three randomized controlled trials, including one sponsored by the National Institutes of Health.

That study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month, showed that hospitalized patients receiving remdesivir recovered five days faster on average, and in patients with severe disease, seven days faster, compared to a placebo.

The study also found remdesivir also reduces the likelihood of patients requiring new or more intensive oxygen support. While it was not a primary endpoint for the study, there was evidence remdesivir may reduce the likelihood of death.

Remdesivir is now the only FDA-approved treatment for COVID-19, and is available in more than 50 countries.

“It is incredible to be in the position today, less than one year since the earliest case reports of the disease now known as COVID-19, of having an FDA-approved treatment in the U.S. that is available for all appropriate patients in need,” said Daniel O’Day, Gilead's chairman and CEO.

The approval comes a week after a large-scale World Health Organization trial found remsdesivir had no substantial impact on the survival of COVID-19 patients or the length of their hospital stays.

However, Gilead said the WHO trial design "prioritized access" to remdesivir and other investigational treatments "over the ability to draw definitive conclusions, due to the variability in the implementation of the study, standard of care controls and patient populations across trial sites."

The majority of patients treated with remdesivir receive a five-day treatment course using six vials of the intravenous drug.

Gilead currently charges private insurers $3,120 per patient for a five-day course of the treatment.

Other developed countries and direct purchasers in the U.S. government, including the Veterans Affairs hospitals, will pay $2,340 for a five-day course of the drug.

FDA advisers grapple with COVID vaccine questions

BY NATHANIEL WEIXEL - 10/22/2020

© Getty Images

Members of an expert panel advising the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on coronavirus vaccines on Thursday argued against ending clinical trials even after the first vaccine becomes available.

There is no vaccine for COVID-19 for the panel to review yet, as clinical trials are still continuing. The FDA has said it expects to reconvene the panel multiple times in the future to examine the evidence every time a vaccine manufacturer applies for emergency authorization or approval.

During the daylong remote meeting, the panel of infectious disease experts and federal scientists offered reassurances that when they do review a COVID-19 vaccine, it will not be rushed to market before it is proven safe.

"Vaccine development can be expedited; however, I want to stress that it cannot, and must not, be rushed," Marion Gruber, director of FDA’s vaccine research office, told the panel.

The clinical trials of major vaccine manufacturers are ramping up, the FDA could see initial results by the end of November. Moderna, for instance, announced Thursday its clinical trial had finished enrolling participants.

Moderna said that more than two-thirds of its trial participants had received their second dose and that the company was working toward FDA's requirement of tracking participants for two months afterwards.

FDA is requiring manufacturers to do studies of at least 30,000 people to prove if a vaccine protects and how safe it is. Those studies must include people at highest risk from COVID-19, like older adults, minorities and people with underlying health issues. 

FDA has made clear that any vaccine must be at least 50 percent effective. 

If and when a vaccine becomes available, its availability will be extremely limited for the first few months, if not longer. Federal officials are grappling with the question of whether to continue clinical trials during the time.

Patients enrolled in the blinded trials will likely want to know if they have been given a placebo. In comments submitted ahead of the meeting, Pfizer said it wants to be able to dose placebo patients with an authorized vaccine if they want it. 

The FDA has said it does not consider the emergency approval of a vaccine to be grounds for stopping blinded trials.

During the meeting, FDA's Dorian Fink, a deputy director in the agency's vaccine application division, said it is important to keep the blinded trials going as long as possible.

A vaccine authorized under emergency use is still considered experimental, he said, so more safety and efficacy data will be needed. 

Stephanie Schrag, an epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, noted there will be limited information available under an emergency authorization, which generally requires less data than full approval. 

Schrag said that if the FDA allows emergency use of a vaccine before a trial is over, experts may not have the full picture of how long it can protect people or whether the vaccine will merely prevent serious infection or completely prevent the disease.

House committee subpoenas Education Department staff over for-profit colleges
BY JORDAN WILLIAMS - 10/22/20 



Democrats on the House Education Committee have issued subpoenas for several career staff at the Department of Education as the panel investigates the owner of several for-profit colleges.

The committee had been investigating department personnel since last year over the department’s handling of Dream Center Education Holdings as it collapsed. Dream Center owns the Art Institutes, Argosy University and South University.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), says Education Under Secretary Diane Auer Jones worked for the Dream Center despite knowing two of its schools had lost accreditation.

The committee released a report from its own investigation finding that Dream Center had misled students into falsely thinking its schools were accredited and continued to receive taxpayer money. It further concluded that the Trump administration tried to protect the company from the ramifications of its actions.

Scott in a cover letter to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos asked for three unnamed senior staff members to testify in depositions next month, after accusing her of repeatedly ignoring the committee’s request for documents and interviews.

“Due to the Department’s obstruction, the Committee’s only available avenue to obtain an accurate understanding of the Department’s role in the Dream Center collapse is to pursue depositions of the knowledgeable Department officials under subpoena,” Scott wrote. “The Committee will continue its oversight of this matter with the goal of getting answers about Dream Center’s collapse.”

Department of Education press secretary Angela Morabito said in a statement to The Hill that it is “wholly unreasonable to subpoena civil servants in this case,” and added that the committee has refused to review the documents it has sent.

“Yet, instead of conducting business in a lawful, rational, and responsible way, the unhinged Democrats have resorted to badgering career civil servants to carry on what is nothing more than a witch hunt,” Morabito said.

Dream Center finalized the acquisition of its schools from Education Management in 2018. As part of the acquisition, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) downgraded the accreditation of two Art Institute campuses for a period of time.

The Commission told Dream Center in January 2018 to inform its students that the two schools were no longer accredited, the committee's report states. It says the Dream Center instead waited until June that year to give notice. Students still kept enrolling in the school during that time.

The Department of Education still provided students with loans despite the school not being accredited. To circumvent the issue, it declared the schools to be nonprofit institutions in May 2018, and made this effective as of January 2018, the day the schools lost accreditation. Jones then tried to convince the HLC to back-date the accreditation of the schools during that time, the Democrats charge.

EPA eases permitting for modifications to polluting facilities
BY RACHEL FRAZIN - 10/22/20 



© Getty

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Thursday finalized a rule that eases the permitting process for modifications made to polluting facilities.

The rule changes the way the threshold for a more stringent type of permitting is calculated, with EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler arguing that the action incentivizes industry to implement technology that would lessen air pollution.

“This rule incentivizes installation of new technologies that can both improve operator efficiency and reduce air pollution,” he said in a statement.

Whether or not facility modifications trigger the stricter air pollution permitting process is determined using a two-step process.

The first step seeks to determine whether the modification would cause a “significant emissions increase.” The second step seeks to determine whether the modification and other projects undertaken at the pollution facility within a specific time frame together result in a significant net increase in pollution emissions.

If both conditions are met, facility modifications need pre-construction permits under a program called New Source Review.

However, the new rule changes the way that the first step is calculated, accounting for both emissions increases and emissions decreases caused by the modification rather than just the increases.

The change, first proposed last year, codifies a 2018 memo from then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt which said that decreases should be considered in the first step of the process.

The new rule is the latest in a string of actions taken on by the EPA to weaken requirements or ease permitting or standards for polluters.

Earlier this month, the agency finalized a rule that could reclassify “major” sources of pollution as minor ones, allowing facilities to abide by less-stringent emissions standards.

And in July, it finalized a rule speeding up the review process for industry permits, which critics said would limit communities’ ability to fight them.

Trump's new interest in water resources — why now?

BY JEFF PETERSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 10/22/2020
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
9
© Getty Images

After spending almost four years attacking programs to protect water resources, President Trump has just issued an executive order creating a new interagency water policy committee, or “water subcabinet,” to “improve our country’s water resource management.”

Is this a genuine effort to modernize water infrastructure to “meet the needs of current and future generations,” or simply dressing up the administration’s long neglect of water resources just in time for the election; in other words, putting lipstick on a pig?

Skeptics will undoubtedly point out that, while a primary objective of the order is “reducing duplication across the federal government,” the new water subcabinet effectively duplicates the existing Water Resources Council.

Why create a new subcabinet when you already have a council made of many of the same heads of departments and agencies? The existing council has statutory powers, including the authority to establish standards for federal water and related land resources projects. The council is also charged with a biennial assessment of the “adequacy of supplies of water necessary to meet…the national interest.” Layering on a new organization has the effect of smothering the statutory framework and shifting attention to a new set of policies and objectives.

One such new policy is cutting back on existing coordination among federal agencies. Section 4 of the order laments the “hundreds of Federal water-related task forces, working groups, and other formal cross-agency initiatives” working to manage water resources and calls for a report within 90 days “on coordinating and consolidating” these efforts. Not every federal interagency coordination workgroup is doing essential work. But, the direction to evaluate these efforts and recommend restructuring in just 90 days that fall after a presidential election suggests a demolition that will take the good with the bad, setting back cooperative work by years.

There is a whiff of politically motivated urgency in the order’s demand that agencies develop, within 120 days, recommendations to improve drinking water and flood control. These are worthy goals, but the Trump administration has spent the last four years working against them. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed changes to regulations for lead in drinking water that more than double the time for replacement of lead pipes. Yet President Trump revoked requirements developed during the Obama administration to steer new federal projects away from flood risk areas.

The president also directs agencies to make recommendations, again within 120 days, for improving water quality, including implementing the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, reducing nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River watershed and continuing restoration of the Florida Everglades. Speeding restoration of these waters, and many others around the country, would be good news. But again, big improvements would be a major turnaround from past actions.

For example, for fiscal year 2018 the Trump administration proposed to zero out all funding for the $300 million Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and proposed a cut of 90 percent for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. In its budget for fiscal year 2021, however, the administration seems to have awakened to the ecological significance of the Great Lakes, or recognized their importance in swing states, because it has proposed $320 million.

Politics also played a role in funding for the Florida Everglades. Again, the Trump administration initially proposed two-thirds less than requested by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis but, after lobbying by Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the president increased proposed funding to $200 million. And, while reducing pollution in the Mississippi River is a good thing, it is offset by the recent resurrection of a major Army Corps of Engineers project that the Bush administration vetoed in 2008 in order to protect 200,0000 acres of wetlands along the river.

Aside from the order appearing just weeks prior to the election, there are other reasons to wonder whether any of the resulting recommendations will be acted on if the president is reelected. The short schedule for developing recommendations makes any meaningful public engagement difficult and reduces the chance of public support. And, the delivery date for recommendations late this year or in January of next year, means that recommendations are disconnected from the budget process, arriving after agency budgets are largely fixed.

Finally, in considering whether the Trump administration might have turned a new leaf, it is important to remember the larger context. This is the same administration that has weakened the National Environmental Policy Act, cut Clean Water Act enforcement prosecutions by 70 percent and proposed to cut funding for clean water and drinking water infrastructure projects by 28 percent in fiscal year 2021.

Although much of the new order should be viewed with skepticism, I hope we can all agree with the first line: “Abundant, safe, and reliable supplies of water are critical to quality of life for all Americans…”.

Jeff Peterson is a retired senior policy advisor at the Environmental Protection Agency and the author of “A New Coast: Strategies for Responding to Devastating Storms and Rising Seas.”

Trump order strips workplace protections from civil servants

BY REBECCA BEITSCH - 10/22/20 

A new executive order from President Trump makes it easier to hire and fire civil servants that work on policy, stripping some protections from career employees before a potential change in administration.

Federal employee unions are billing the order as the biggest change to federal workforce protections in a century, converting many federal workers to “at will” employment.

It also makes it easier to hire new employees outside of the competitive process — something critics say could be used to hire policy employees without appropriate experience.

The order specifically targets policy-related career positions, a move critics say will enable the administration to fire employees that may question their policies.

“By targeting federal workers whose jobs involve government policies, the real-world implications of this order will be disastrous for public health, the environment, the defense of our nation, and virtually every facet of our lives,” Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employee union, said in a release.

“Through this order, President Trump has declared war on the professional civil service by giving himself the authority to fill the government with his political cronies who will pledge their unwavering loyalty to him – not to America," Kelley added.

Trump’s order creates a new category of federal employment, Schedule F, and gives agencies 90 days to determine which policy-related positions should attain the new status. Those employees could then be removed for performance reasons without the opportunity to contest the decision or rely on union representation.

“Agencies need the flexibility to expeditiously remove poorly performing employees from these positions without facing extensive delays or litigation,” the order states.

The National Treasury Employees Union, another major federal workforce representative, called it “yet another in a long line of attacks on the civil service and circumvention of the laws passed by Congress to protect certain career federal employees from partisan, political interference.”

Though civil service protections are often compared to tenure for professors, they are similar to processes in place at private companies, where employees must be notified of performance issues and given a chance to improve before being dismissed.

“This is not solving some problem of ‘you can’t get rid of federal employees.’ You can. If people aren't really performing you can get rid of them. Trust me, I’ve done it,” said Andrew Rosenberg with the Union of Concerned Scientists, who previously served as deputy director for fisheries at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

“But you have to go through the appropriate steps and you have to deal with fair labor laws, which you actually should have to do," he added.

But Rosenberg sees another potential side effect of the order: current political appointees could be among employees transitioned into the new Schedule F category, a way to “burrow in” employees that typically turn over with a change in administration.

While the new category makes it easier to fire employees for performance issues, they would still be protected from being dismissed “on the basis of the employee’s partisan affiliation.”

Rosenberg gave the example of new employees hired at NOAA that have a history of questioning climate science.

“It’s always going to cut both ways,” he said, “but just gaming this out, the Trump administration can say ‘Oh, it’s not partisan. We’ve had examples [of poor performance] over four years with this person, and they really need to go.’ But Biden coming in would have to build a record showing this isn’t a partisan action.”

The Trump administration has taken numerous actions that critics say have chipped away at the nonpartisan nature of the government, from violating the Hatch Act by encouraging political speech to sidelining scientists. The administration has also moved federal agencies outside of D.C., each time resulting in a loss of as much as 70 percent of staff.

“What it seems like is little brick on top of little brick but what is actually going on is they are building a wall around politics and centralizing political power” for systems that are designed to be apolitical, said Delaney Marsco, an ethics expert with the Campaign Legal Center.