newyorker--2020-07-26--Trump’s Dangerous Attempt to Create a Federal Police

Last week , President Trump deployed camouflaged border-patrol agents to Portland , Oregon , which has seen almost two months of protests following the murder of George Floyd .
The agents have reportedly escalated the violence at protests outside a federal courthouse , and have detained and arrested protesters without explanation on the streets .
Trump has since deployed federal law-enforcement agents to Kansas City , Seattle , and Chicago , and has promised to send a “ surge ” of agents to cities across the country , including New York , Detroit , and Philadelphia .
In response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to Attorney General William Barr and the acting Secretary of Homeland Security , Chad Wolf , demanding “ immediate action to withdraw your forces.
” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said , in a statement , that “ the House is committed to moving swiftly to curb these egregious abuses of power immediately , ” raising questions about how much power Congress has to curb the sprawling Department of Homeland Security .
To discuss some of these questions , I spoke by phone with Carrie Cordero , a senior fellow at the Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNN contributor , who specializes in homeland-security law .
During our conversation , which has been edited for length and clarity , we discussed the history of sending federal forces to states and cities , the shaky legal basis for Trump ’ s actions , and how the creation of D.H.S .
gave the President vast new powers .
What limits are there on a President , without the consent of state or local officials , sending federal forces into a city or state , for what he defines as the protection of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re about to find out because this isn ’ t an area , at least in modern times , that has been tested .
We ’ ll see whether there are some potential Tenth Amendment challenges based on whether his activity is federal policing activity , which is arguably impermissible .
But I think the Department of Homeland Security does , under current law , have broad authority to be able to deputize their officers to assist other law-enforcement organizations .
And I think it ’ s that ability—to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his new executive order on protecting monuments , that is giving them their purported legal basis to operate .
The Tenth Amendment has to do with federalism , so the challenges would be on that basis ?
Right .
The Tenth Amendment restricts authorities that are not articulated in the Constitution as being for the federal government , and retains those for the state .
So , historically , that has been interpreted to mean that policing activity , in particular , is something that is reserved for state and local authorities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ this other way to go at it , which is through the protection of federal facilities and monuments .
And they do have legitimate authority to protect those facilities .
What about in terms of the specific statutory authorization that D.H.S .
has ?
I think that , under D.H.S.
’ s existing authority , they have authority to protect these federal facilities .
So , for example , in Portland , that would be something like the federal courthouse .
But they still have to adhere to the Fourth Amendment and First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so one area where we ’ ll probably see some legal activity has to do with potential civil-rights violations .
They can not , in the course of carrying out their lawful function , violate people ’ s civil rights—that in itself would be a violation of federal law .
And so , when D.H.S .
officers do things like detain people without sufficient probable cause , or use aggressive force in a way that is unwarranted , I think they are exposing themselves to potential litigation over civil-rights violations .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I assume it wouldn ’ t mean that the whole deployment was illegal , correct ?
Yes , that would fall back on certain officers , which is why the deployment of these officers to activities that are not within their mission is problematic .
They ’ re lawfully authorized to protect the federal courthouse , for example , but they should have done that by deploying a perimeter around the federal facility , and then protecting it .
That ’ s different from sending officers or agents out into the streets of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So that ’ s where I think the boundaries of what they ’ re doing start to fall apart .
D.H.S .
is less than twenty years old—it was formed after 9/11 .
If Donald Trump had wanted to do this , but there was no Department of Homeland Security , what would he have done ?
And how has D.H.S .
changed the capabilities that Presidents have ?
It would have been a lot harder .
What D.H.S .
has done is combined all these different entities that perform different functions .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect against terrorism .
That was the main mission focus when the department was created , in 2002 .
Then what ’ s happened is , over time , it fell into being the largest law-enforcement force in the country .
When you count all of the federal law-enforcement officers that reside under the big umbrella of D.H.S.
, there are more than sixty thousand of them .
That dwarfs any other federal law-enforcement agency , including the combination of the F.B.I.
, the D.E.A.
, and the A.T.F .
I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress actually intended .
What they were trying to do was to enable better coördination in order to protect against homeland-security threats .
They didn ’ t intend to create a national police force .
That happened through a combination of factors , including the sheer size of the law-enforcement force available within D.H.S .
and its ability to use its deputizing authority—because D.H.S .
has legal authority to deputize officers to perform other functions and to assist in other law-enforcement activities .
That can have a useful function if you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a particular threat , but the department is using that in a very , very robust way to marshal all of its law-enforcement capacity to serve this political agenda , which here is to have a show of force in cities that the President interprets to be needing more “ law and order.
” And then you layer on top of that two things .
One , there are very , very weak internal controls within D.H.S .
itself .
For example , there ’ s no overarching set of law-enforcement guidelines .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversight and accountability .
Each agency component has its own different oversight functions , but there ’ s nobody coördinating that at the secretary level .
And then you layer on top of that the high turnover in political appointees and the President having gutted the Senate-confirmed leadership of that department .
And you end up with a politically malleable leadership willing to use this robust law-enforcement force and capacity .
Do we know who he has been sending from D.H.S.
?
It looks like the Border Patrol , which is within Customs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the acting chief of that .
I don ’ t know whether they formally deputized those officers , but the way that they could do it would be to deputize them to assist the Federal Protective Service , which is supposed to protect the courthouse .
There are some reports that BORTAC [ the Border Patrol Tactical Unit ] was used last week .
That might have been the individuals that we saw in photographs who look like they ’ re in military-style fatigues .
BORTAC is a component of Customs and Border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paramilitary , high-intensity unit—the kind of people who are trained to go into a high-intensity drug-trafficking-enforcement action against a cartel or something .

Last week, President Trump deployed camouflaged border-patrol agents to Portland, Oregon, which has seen almost two months of protests following the murder of George Floyd. The agents have reportedly escalated the violence at protests outside a federal courthouse, and have detained and arrested protesters without explanation on the streets. Trump has since deployed federal law-enforcement agents to Kansas City, Seattle, and Chicago, and has promised to send a “surge” of agents to cities across the country, including New York, Detroit, and Philadelphia. In response to these actions, fifteen mayors signed a letter to Attorney General William Barr and the acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad Wolf, demanding “immediate action to withdraw your forces.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, in a statement, that “the House is committed to moving swiftly to curb these egregious abuses of power immediately,” raising questions about how much power Congress has to curb the sprawling Department of Homeland Security.
To discuss some of these questions, I spoke by phone with Carrie Cordero, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a CNN contributor, who specializes in homeland-security law. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed the history of sending federal forces to states and cities, the shaky legal basis for Trump’s actions, and how the creation of D.H.S. gave the President vast new powers.
What limits are there on a President, without the consent of state or local officials, sending federal forces into a city or state, for what he defines as the protection of people or places?
I think we’re about to find out because this isn’t an area, at least in modern times, that has been tested. We’ll see whether there are some potential Tenth Amendment challenges based on whether his activity is federal policing activity, which is arguably impermissible. But I think the Department of Homeland Security does, under current law, have broad authority to be able to deputize their officers to assist other law-enforcement organizations. And I think it’s that ability—to be able to deputize them to perform other functions—combined with his new executive order on protecting monuments, that is giving them their purported legal basis to operate.
The Tenth Amendment has to do with federalism, so the challenges would be on that basis?
Right. The Tenth Amendment restricts authorities that are not articulated in the Constitution as being for the federal government, and retains those for the state. So, historically, that has been interpreted to mean that policing activity, in particular, is something that is reserved for state and local authorities. What the Administration is doing is finding this other way to go at it, which is through the protection of federal facilities and monuments. And they do have legitimate authority to protect those facilities.
What about in terms of the specific statutory authorization that D.H.S. has?
I think that, under D.H.S.’s existing authority, they have authority to protect these federal facilities. So, for example, in Portland, that would be something like the federal courthouse. But they still have to adhere to the Fourth Amendment and First Amendment protections and civil liberties, and so one area where we’ll probably see some legal activity has to do with potential civil-rights violations. They cannot, in the course of carrying out their lawful function, violate people’s civil rights—that in itself would be a violation of federal law. And so, when D.H.S. officers do things like detain people without sufficient probable cause, or use aggressive force in a way that is unwarranted, I think they are exposing themselves to potential litigation over civil-rights violations.
That would hit specific officers or units, but I assume it wouldn’t mean that the whole deployment was illegal, correct?
Yes, that would fall back on certain officers, which is why the deployment of these officers to activities that are not within their mission is problematic. They’re lawfully authorized to protect the federal courthouse, for example, but they should have done that by deploying a perimeter around the federal facility, and then protecting it. That’s different from sending officers or agents out into the streets of Portland to detain or arrest people. So that’s where I think the boundaries of what they’re doing start to fall apart.
D.H.S. is less than twenty years old—it was formed after 9/11. If Donald Trump had wanted to do this, but there was no Department of Homeland Security, what would he have done? And how has D.H.S. changed the capabilities that Presidents have?
It would have been a lot harder. What D.H.S. has done is combined all these different entities that perform different functions. The purpose of the department was really to protect against terrorism. That was the main mission focus when the department was created, in 2002. Then what’s happened is, over time, it fell into being the largest law-enforcement force in the country. When you count all of the federal law-enforcement officers that reside under the big umbrella of D.H.S., there are more than sixty thousand of them. That dwarfs any other federal law-enforcement agency, including the combination of the F.B.I., the D.E.A., and the A.T.F.
I don’t think that’s what Congress actually intended. What they were trying to do was to enable better coördination in order to protect against homeland-security threats. They didn’t intend to create a national police force. That happened through a combination of factors, including the sheer size of the law-enforcement force available within D.H.S. and its ability to use its deputizing authority—because D.H.S. has legal authority to deputize officers to perform other functions and to assist in other law-enforcement activities. That can have a useful function if you’re trying to bolster manpower to respond to a particular threat, but the department is using that in a very, very robust way to marshal all of its law-enforcement capacity to serve this political agenda, which here is to have a show of force in cities that the President interprets to be needing more “law and order.”
And then you layer on top of that two things. One, there are very, very weak internal controls within D.H.S. itself. For example, there’s no overarching set of law-enforcement guidelines. There’s no coördinating mechanism for oversight and accountability. Each agency component has its own different oversight functions, but there’s nobody coördinating that at the secretary level. And then you layer on top of that the high turnover in political appointees and the President having gutted the Senate-confirmed leadership of that department. And you end up with a politically malleable leadership willing to use this robust law-enforcement force and capacity.
Do we know who he has been sending from D.H.S.?
It looks like the Border Patrol, which is within Customs and Border Protection. Mark Morgan is the acting chief of that. I don’t know whether they formally deputized those officers, but the way that they could do it would be to deputize them to assist the Federal Protective Service, which is supposed to protect the courthouse.
There are some reports that BORTAC [the Border Patrol Tactical Unit] was used last week. That might have been the individuals that we saw in photographs who look like they’re in military-style fatigues. BORTAC is a component of Customs and Border Protection. It’s basically a paramilitary, high-intensity unit—the kind of people who are trained to go into a high-intensity drug-trafficking-enforcement action against a cartel or something.
That would be an example of using a law-enforcement capacity that is totally outside of their mission, and, what is more important, outside of their training. If you take BORTAC, or even if you take run-of-the-mill Border Patrol officers, whose job is to intercept people trying to enter the country illegally between lawful points of entry—that’s what Border Patrol does. They’re trained to do that mission. They’re not trained to conduct public safety in the context of protests within cities, unrelated to border activities, where people are exercising their First Amendment rights. And so then that’s where you start to see violations of civil rights, because it’s not their mission. It’s really not even fair to put them in that position.
Is one problem here that Border Patrol has special powers within a hundred miles of the borders, which includes places like Portland?
Yeah. This so-called hundred-mile zone enables them, for example, to set up checkpoints. So last year, I was outside the El Paso area—and if you are driving from El Paso into New Mexico, it’s not right on the border, but you go through a checkpoint, and they’re allowed to do that for the purpose of enforcing border security, in line with their mission. But Portland happens to fall into the hundred-mile border-enforcement-territory practice or authority just because it happens to be seventy or eighty miles from the Pacific Ocean, because they’re not doing border security in Portland. They’re purportedly assisting in the protection of the federal facilities there.


newyorker--2020-07-26--The Cryptic Crossword: No. 67

The Cryptic Crossword: No. 67

Some clues have been edited for clarity .
Subscribers can find explanations of the original puzzle ’ s answers in @ @ @

Some clues have been edited for clarity. Subscribers can find explanations of the original puzzle’s answers in our archive.


newyorker--2020-07-26--“Theatre Can’t Miss This Moment”: An Interview with Audra McDonald

Audra McDonald came out of Juilliard in 1993 , a twenty-two-year-old with a lyric soprano as pristine as sterling silver , and quickly forged one of the most celebrated careers in Broadway history .
A year out of school , she was cast as Carrie Pipperidge in a Lincoln Center revival of “ Carousel , ” in what was hailed as a breakthrough in “ color-blind casting , ” and won her first Tony Award for the role .
More Tonys followed , for “ Master Class , ” “ Ragtime , ” and “ A Raisin in the Sun.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Porgy and Bess ” and “ Lady Day at Emerson ’ s Bar and Grill , ” in which she played a broken Billie Holiday .
She remains the only performer ever to win six Tonys and the only one to win in all four available categories .
McDonald ’ s plan for this summer was to play Blanche DuBois in “ A Streetcar Named Desire , ” but , like all live theatre , the production was derailed by the pandemic .
Instead , she ’ s been quarantined at her home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Will Swenson ( her co-star in a 2007 production of “ 110 in the Shade ” ) , their four children ( three from previous marriages and a toddler , Sally ) , plus their eleven-year-old dog and “ about five hundred frogs on the outside , ” McDonald said recently .
Nevertheless , she has not been idle .
In April , she appeared , along with Meryl Streep and Christine Baranski , in a memorable rendition of “ The Ladies Who Lunch , ” as part of an online concert for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This month , she performed a virtual concert from a space off her garage which she calls the “ Chill Room.
” And then there ’ s the racial reckoning that has spilled over from the Black Lives Matter protests into the theatre world .
In June , McDonald co-founded Black Theatre United , along with performers such as Phylicia Rashad , Wendell Pierce , and Billy Porter .
At its inaugural town hall , McDonald moderated a conversation with Sherrilyn Ifill , of the N.A.A.C.P .
Legal Defense and Educational Fund .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was in her teen stepson ’ s bedroom ; the “ Chill Room ” was undergoing an emergency chimney repair , and Sally could be heard singing in the hallway .
“ As much as we try to stay energetic for her , we just can ’ t replicate a three-year-old ’ s energy , ” McDonald said .
“ Although we did just find some caterpillars in our garden , and we ’ re going to watch them turn into butterflies.
” Our conversation—about her own metamorphoses , from a demoralized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a suicide attempt , to a Broadway eminence to a community advocate—has been edited and condensed .
The theatre , like many industries , has been thrust into a big , belated moment of racial reckoning .
As one of the most prominent , if not the most prominent , Black theatre artists in America , how have you been thinking about what your role should be ?
You need to do what you can to make more space .
Every time that we are able to get into the room , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create more space .
I can ’ t tell you how many young African-American women , students or whatnot , come up to me and say , “ I watched you as a kid , and I remember thinking , If she ’ s doing Broadway , then I can do it .
And I can do it as a soprano .
I don ’ t have to do it in the way that society would mainly see me—a sassy beltress.
” Did you have people like that growing up ?
For me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of course .
Ella Fitzgerald .
Obviously , she never did Broadway , but that was Ella ’ s voice .
That was no one else ’ s voice except Ella ’ s .
And , then , Lillias White I just adored .
I had the album of “ The Wiz , ” which I listened to over and over again .
I never thought that I would have the career that I ended up having , but I could at least be there .
There was at least space to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve always used my voice to call attention to issues that I thought were important .
I ’ ve been on the board of Covenant House for four or five years now , doing work with homeless youth , trying to give them shelter and education and food and dignity .
With Black Theatre United , it ’ s about all of us saying , “ We can ’ t sit on the sidelines .
We can lament everything going on , but how can we as a group effect change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own ?
” As Sherrilyn Ifill said in that town hall , “ Everybody has to use the tools in your hand.
” So much of the conversation has been about institutional change .
What does that look like to you ?
When you look at Broadway or theatre in general , it may look , like , “ Well , there was a Black person in that ensemble ” or “ someone was playing the Black best friend ” or “ you just had ‘ Tina ’ on Broadway.
” But , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backstage , there ’ s no color in the I.A.T.S.E.
, in the wardrobe union , the hair-and-makeup union , the stage managers .
People in casting—I can ’ t think of a single person of color .
Maybe I ’ m wrong , but the fact that I can ’ t get one to come to my head is a problem .
There are so few directors of color .
When you run into issues with the way a script is being dealt with or with people who aren ’ t being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the trouble would be solved if you had other people of color in the room saying , “ Well , this is why you ’ re getting blowback right now , ” or “ Just open your mind to this , ” or “ Why are we not telling more of these people ’ s—our people ’ s—stories ?
” You have no one in the room thinking about that , because they can have the privilege to not have to think about that , especially when a large percentage of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s just a white landscape .
The playwright Jeremy O. Harris tweeted that the most Tony Award-winning actor and the only living playwright with two Pulitzer Prizes—meaning you and Lynn Nottage—are both Black women , but you can ’ t say that of any of the major artistic directors in New York City .
Exactly .
Artistic directors , producers .
That should not be the case .
Honestly , this feels like real change now .
There are going to be too many people watching and too many people demanding that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeing it in regional theatres in Utah that are putting out statements .
And we have this generation , Gen Z , that is very aware of where they put their money , and they can get behind a cause or call out specific organizations or shows and bring a lot of unwanted attention in a very quick and powerful way .
Theatre can ’ t miss this moment .
Theatre will be left in the dust , I think , if we don ’ t make substantive changes .
In an alternate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blanche DuBois right now in Williamstown .
Has any of this made you feel differently about how you want to use your own presence onstage , your own choice of projects ?
I ’ ve always chosen my projects with a great amount of integrity .
I played a Black woman who was killed by police brutality in “ Ragtime.
” I ’ ve done “ A Raisin in the Sun , ” by one of the greatest Black female playwrights the theatre has known .
And I played Billie Holiday—it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a terrible , slow car wreck .
And there are things that I have fought for and things that I continue to fight for .
I ’ m thinking of the role that I ’ m playing on “ The Good Fight ” right now .
That was chosen very specifically , and they have writers of color on their staff .
When things come down the pike that don ’ t feel right or are not explored in a way that feels authentic to Black people , Black women , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Nyambi Nyambi , Michael Boatman , Cush Jumbo , all of us .

Audra McDonald came out of Juilliard in 1993, a twenty-two-year-old with a lyric soprano as pristine as sterling silver, and quickly forged one of the most celebrated careers in Broadway history. A year out of school, she was cast as Carrie Pipperidge in a Lincoln Center revival of “Carousel,” in what was hailed as a breakthrough in “color-blind casting,” and won her first Tony Award for the role. More Tonys followed, for “Master Class,” “Ragtime,” and “A Raisin in the Sun.” And then more, for “Porgy and Bess” and “Lady Day at Emerson’s Bar and Grill,” in which she played a broken Billie Holiday. She remains the only performer ever to win six Tonys and the only one to win in all four available categories.
McDonald’s plan for this summer was to play Blanche DuBois in “A Streetcar Named Desire,” but, like all live theatre, the production was derailed by the pandemic. Instead, she’s been quarantined at her home in Westchester, with her husband, Will Swenson (her co-star in a 2007 production of “110 in the Shade”), their four children (three from previous marriages and a toddler, Sally), plus their eleven-year-old dog and “about five hundred frogs on the outside,” McDonald said recently. Nevertheless, she has not been idle. In April, she appeared, along with Meryl Streep and Christine Baranski, in a memorable rendition of “The Ladies Who Lunch,” as part of an online concert for Stephen Sondheim’s ninetieth birthday. This month, she performed a virtual concert from a space off her garage which she calls the “Chill Room.”
And then there’s the racial reckoning that has spilled over from the Black Lives Matter protests into the theatre world. In June, McDonald co-founded Black Theatre United, along with performers such as Phylicia Rashad, Wendell Pierce, and Billy Porter. At its inaugural town hall, McDonald moderated a conversation with Sherrilyn Ifill, of the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund. When I reached McDonald by Zoom, she was in her teen stepson’s bedroom; the “Chill Room” was undergoing an emergency chimney repair, and Sally could be heard singing in the hallway. “As much as we try to stay energetic for her, we just can’t replicate a three-year-old’s energy,” McDonald said. “Although we did just find some caterpillars in our garden, and we’re going to watch them turn into butterflies.” Our conversation—about her own metamorphoses, from a demoralized student at Juilliard, where she survived a suicide attempt, to a Broadway eminence to a community advocate—has been edited and condensed.
The theatre, like many industries, has been thrust into a big, belated moment of racial reckoning. As one of the most prominent, if not the most prominent, Black theatre artists in America, how have you been thinking about what your role should be?
You need to do what you can to make more space. Every time that we are able to get into the room, I think it’s your job to create more space. I can’t tell you how many young African-American women, students or whatnot, come up to me and say, “I watched you as a kid, and I remember thinking, If she’s doing Broadway, then I can do it. And I can do it as a soprano. I don’t have to do it in the way that society would mainly see me—a sassy beltress.”
Did you have people like that growing up?
For me, Lena Horne and Diahann Carroll, of course. Ella Fitzgerald. Obviously, she never did Broadway, but that was Ella’s voice. That was no one else’s voice except Ella’s. And, then, Lillias White I just adored. I had the album of “The Wiz,” which I listened to over and over again. I never thought that I would have the career that I ended up having, but I could at least be there. There was at least space to be taken up by Black women.
I’ve always used my voice to call attention to issues that I thought were important. I’ve been on the board of Covenant House for four or five years now, doing work with homeless youth, trying to give them shelter and education and food and dignity. With Black Theatre United, it’s about all of us saying, “We can’t sit on the sidelines. We can lament everything going on, but how can we as a group effect change in some grander way than just on our own?” As Sherrilyn Ifill said in that town hall, “Everybody has to use the tools in your hand.”
So much of the conversation has been about institutional change. What does that look like to you?
When you look at Broadway or theatre in general, it may look, like, “Well, there was a Black person in that ensemble” or “someone was playing the Black best friend” or “you just had ‘Tina’ on Broadway.” But, a lot of times when you go backstage, there’s no color in the I.A.T.S.E., in the wardrobe union, the hair-and-makeup union, the stage managers. People in casting—I can’t think of a single person of color. Maybe I’m wrong, but the fact that I can’t get one to come to my head is a problem.
There are so few directors of color. When you run into issues with the way a script is being dealt with or with people who aren’t being seen for certain roles, a lot of the trouble would be solved if you had other people of color in the room saying, “Well, this is why you’re getting blowback right now,” or “Just open your mind to this,” or “Why are we not telling more of these people’s—our people’s—stories?” You have no one in the room thinking about that, because they can have the privilege to not have to think about that, especially when a large percentage of the audience is white as well. It’s just a white landscape.
The playwright Jeremy O. Harris tweeted that the most Tony Award-winning actor and the only living playwright with two Pulitzer Prizes—meaning you and Lynn Nottage—are both Black women, but you can’t say that of any of the major artistic directors in New York City.
Exactly. Artistic directors, producers. That should not be the case. Honestly, this feels like real change now. There are going to be too many people watching and too many people demanding that things look different. I’m seeing it in regional theatres in Utah that are putting out statements. And we have this generation, Gen Z, that is very aware of where they put their money, and they can get behind a cause or call out specific organizations or shows and bring a lot of unwanted attention in a very quick and powerful way. Theatre can’t miss this moment. Theatre will be left in the dust, I think, if we don’t make substantive changes.
In an alternate universe, you’d be playing Blanche DuBois right now in Williamstown. Has any of this made you feel differently about how you want to use your own presence onstage, your own choice of projects?
I’ve always chosen my projects with a great amount of integrity. I played a Black woman who was killed by police brutality in “Ragtime.” I’ve done “A Raisin in the Sun,” by one of the greatest Black female playwrights the theatre has known. And I played Billie Holiday—it’s terrible what happened to her. It was a terrible, slow car wreck. And there are things that I have fought for and things that I continue to fight for. I’m thinking of the role that I’m playing on “The Good Fight” right now. That was chosen very specifically, and they have writers of color on their staff. When things come down the pike that don’t feel right or are not explored in a way that feels authentic to Black people, Black women, we speak up. Delroy Lindo, myself, Nyambi Nyambi, Michael Boatman, Cush Jumbo, all of us.


newyorker--2020-07-25--Obama Passes Cognitive Test by Reciting the First Fifty Digits of Pi

WASHINGTON ( The Borowitz Report ) —Barack Obama recently passed a cognitive test that required him to recite the first fifty digits of pi , the former President has disclosed .
Obama took the test voluntarily , he said , in order to reassure his employers at Netflix that he was “ of sound mind.
” “ Netflix has made a big investment in me as a producer , and I thought it was important for them to know that I was all right upstairs , ” Obama said .
The former President said that he enjoyed taking the test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to memorize and then recite a hundred verses of the Iliad .
“ That was actually a lot of fun , ” Obama said .
“ Greek is such a beautiful language.
” Although he passed the test , Obama said that there were moments when he felt “ rusty ” and “ not as sharp as I was back in the day.
” “ I definitely need to do some more mental exercises , ” he said .
“ One hour of three-dimensional chess with Bill Gates every morning isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Barack Obama recently passed a cognitive test that required him to recite the first fifty digits of pi, the former President has disclosed.
Obama took the test voluntarily, he said, in order to reassure his employers at Netflix that he was “of sound mind.”
“Netflix has made a big investment in me as a producer, and I thought it was important for them to know that I was all right upstairs,” Obama said.
The former President said that he enjoyed taking the test, including a section that required him to memorize and then recite a hundred verses of the Iliad.
“That was actually a lot of fun,” Obama said. “Greek is such a beautiful language.”
Although he passed the test, Obama said that there were moments when he felt “rusty” and “not as sharp as I was back in the day.”
“I definitely need to do some more mental exercises,” he said. “One hour of three-dimensional chess with Bill Gates every morning isn’t getting it done.”
Read More Satire from the Borowitz Report


newyorker--2020-07-25--Homeland Security Was Destined to Become a Secret Police Force

In a press conference on Tuesday , Chad Wolf , the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security , responded to media reports that unidentified federal agents using unmarked vehicles have been arresting protesters in Portland , Oregon .
Since early July , men in military-style uniforms have waged battle against protesters there , using tear gas and nonlethal munitions ; video and photographs coming out of Portland have shown scenes of urban warfare , with what looks like a regular army moving on unarmed protesters night after night .
On behalf of the D.H.S .
and its uniformed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed presence in Portland .
He asserted that his agency was doing exactly what it was created to do .
He was right .
The rationale for the creation of the D.H.S.
, as laid out by the George W. Bush Administration , was that the knowledge , skills , and capabilities that could have stopped the 9/11 attacks were spread out among many government agencies , with no single body in charge of fighting terrorism .
The proposal for creating the department presented hypothetical examples of failures to coördinate among different agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waters , for instance , the Coast Guard had the power to stop it for inspection , but it was up to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deal with the people on board , and up to Customs and Border Protection or the Department of Agriculture to stop any dangerous or illegal cargo .
The examples made D.H.S .
seem like something that should exist .
That logic held , though , only if you thought about travel , immigration , and trade primarily as security concerns .
There are countries that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in one—it was called the Soviet Union , and it had an agency , the Committee for State Security ( K.G.B . )
, which had its tentacles in every area of society .
The creation of the D.H.S .
marked a shift in the way that Americans think and talk about the country , and about people .
Four years ago , in an essay for the Times Magazine , the journalist James Traub traced the appearance and evolution of the word “ homeland ” in American language .
“ The rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rise of the national sense of vulnerability , ” Traub wrote .
“ As we use it now , ‘ homeland ’ means ‘ the country insofar as it is endangered.
’ ” The word had surfaced in 1997 , in a Pentagon report warning that the singular threat to U.S. security , which the Soviet Union once posed , had been replaced by a diffuse threat from different sources .
By 2001 , “ homeland ” had sudden traction—it was a word that had found its meaning .
By the time Traub @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the contenders for the Republican nomination for President—a group in which Donald Trump may have still seemed an outlier—were trafficking in fear for the land .
“ Homeland ” is also a nativist term : it refers to the country where you were born , or else it comes with the qualifier “ adopted , ” which suggests that your claim to the homeland is contingent .
( Sure enough , under Trump , the federal government has moved toward seeing naturalized citizenship as revocable . )
“ Homeland ” is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a place under assault , in need of aggressive defense from shape-shifting dangers .
The original proposal for the D.H.S .
described the agency as “ a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons ” ; one hypothetical example of an invisible enemy was “ a non-citizen that intends to enter our nation and attack one of our chemical facilities.
” The nation used to protect itself against other nations and their hostile military forces , but now it had to fear individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secret police forces are built .
Their stated purpose is to find danger where normal human activity appears to be taking place .
The D.H.S .
began with mobilizing against the foreign-born , via Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( which replaced the Immigration and Naturalization Service ) .
The logic of the secret police , however , dictates that it perpetually has to look in new places for threats .
When Bush signed the Homeland Security Act , in November of 2002 , bringing the D.H.S .
into existence , he touted it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government since Harry Truman signed the National Security Act , ” and spoke of “ ruthless killers who move and plot in shadows.
” He promised , “ We ’ re on the hunt .
One person at a time.
” Bush ’ s words echoed the promise that fuelled Vladimir Putin ’ s rise in Russia .
In a speech that brought him to sudden prominence , in 1999 , the former K.G.B .
colonel promised to “ hunt down ” terrorists and “ snuff them out in the outhouse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they happened to be found .
The secret police , even when it looks and appears to act like an army , always has a single individual as its target .
Its goal is to make a person , alone , face the might of the state .
In Portland , the men in military-style uniforms have been picking up and detaining individuals while they are walking alone , often after a protest ends .
At the press conference on Tuesday , Wolf owned the tactic of tracking people down and picking them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ When you have five hundred , six hundred violent individuals , violent criminals across the street from you , trying to inflict harm on your property and at law-enforcement officers .
.
.
we don ’ t go into that crowd , ” he said .
“ We don ’ t try to go into a violent crowd of four hundred people and try to arrest people—that ’ s dangerous.
” Mark Morgan , the acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection , explained that his troops were using unmarked vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been attacked by protesters ; similarly , he said , his men didn ’ t have their names on their uniforms for fear of attacks on their homes and families .
The C.B.P .
is the largest law-enforcement agency in the country .
Its leader—who at the same briefing stated that his troops are highly trained and experienced in putting down riots—and his boss , Chad Wolf , were telling the nation that they are terrified of the protesters .
These men represent a government agency born of fear .
Their tactics are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear in the people they see as their enemies .
The secret police is always a terror-production machine .
Morgan has been running the C.B.P .
since July of last year ; Wolf has been at the head of the D.H.S .
since November .
Both men have the word “ acting ” before their titles , because neither has been confirmed by the Senate .
A recent lawsuit filed by advocates for asylum seekers alleges that Wolf is occupying his post illegally , because a federal statute called the Vacancies Act places @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an “ acting ” officer .
The Stanford law professor Anne Joseph O ’ Connell , who has written on Trump ’ s use of “ acting ” officials—he has employed more of them , and for longer , than past Presidents—told me via e-mail that Wolf ’ s appointment was made in violation of a different federal statute , the Homeland Security Act .
( The same point has been raised by top congressional Democrats , who last year called for an emergency review of D.H.S .
appointments . )
Under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegitimately appointed secretary would be null and void .
No one knows , however , how this restriction could be enforced , or what the consequences might be .
As we learn more about what is happening in Portland—as footage of federal troops waging war on protesters floods social media , and as the President threatens to send his foot soldiers to other large cities—we are watching the perfect and perhaps inevitable combination of a domestic-security superagency and a President who rejects all mechanisms of accountability , including the Senate confirmation process .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfect storm of fear : the legacy of fear cultivated in the wake of 9/11 , and the fear that Trump campaigned on in 2016 and continues to campaign on now .

In a press conference on Tuesday, Chad Wolf, the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, responded to media reports that unidentified federal agents using unmarked vehicles have been arresting protesters in Portland, Oregon. Since early July, men in military-style uniforms have waged battle against protesters there, using tear gas and nonlethal munitions; video and photographs coming out of Portland have shown scenes of urban warfare, with what looks like a regular army moving on unarmed protesters night after night. On behalf of the D.H.S. and its uniformed services, Wolf claimed responsibility for the armed presence in Portland. He asserted that his agency was doing exactly what it was created to do. He was right.
The rationale for the creation of the D.H.S., as laid out by the George W. Bush Administration, was that the knowledge, skills, and capabilities that could have stopped the 9/11 attacks were spread out among many government agencies, with no single body in charge of fighting terrorism. The proposal for creating the department presented hypothetical examples of failures to coördinate among different agencies. When a ship sailed into U.S. waters, for instance, the Coast Guard had the power to stop it for inspection, but it was up to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to deal with the people on board, and up to Customs and Border Protection or the Department of Agriculture to stop any dangerous or illegal cargo. The examples made D.H.S. seem like something that should exist. That logic held, though, only if you thought about travel, immigration, and trade primarily as security concerns. There are countries that think like that. I grew up in one—it was called the Soviet Union, and it had an agency, the Committee for State Security (K.G.B.), which had its tentacles in every area of society.
The creation of the D.H.S. marked a shift in the way that Americans think and talk about the country, and about people. Four years ago, in an essay for the Times Magazine, the journalist James Traub traced the appearance and evolution of the word “homeland” in American language. “The rise of ‘homeland’ … tracks the rise of the national sense of vulnerability,” Traub wrote. “As we use it now, ‘homeland’ means ‘the country insofar as it is endangered.’ ” The word had surfaced in 1997, in a Pentagon report warning that the singular threat to U.S. security, which the Soviet Union once posed, had been replaced by a diffuse threat from different sources. By 2001, “homeland” had sudden traction—it was a word that had found its meaning. By the time Traub was writing, in 2016, all of the contenders for the Republican nomination for President—a group in which Donald Trump may have still seemed an outlier—were trafficking in fear for the land. “Homeland” is also a nativist term: it refers to the country where you were born, or else it comes with the qualifier “adopted,” which suggests that your claim to the homeland is contingent. (Sure enough, under Trump, the federal government has moved toward seeing naturalized citizenship as revocable.)
“Homeland” is an anxious, combative word: it denotes a place under assault, in need of aggressive defense from shape-shifting dangers. The original proposal for the D.H.S. described the agency as “a new government structure to protect against invisible enemies that can strike with a wide variety of weapons”; one hypothetical example of an invisible enemy was “a non-citizen that intends to enter our nation and attack one of our chemical facilities.” The nation used to protect itself against other nations and their hostile military forces, but now it had to fear individuals. This is the premise on which secret police forces are built. Their stated purpose is to find danger where normal human activity appears to be taking place. The D.H.S. began with mobilizing against the foreign-born, via Immigration and Customs Enforcement (which replaced the Immigration and Naturalization Service). The logic of the secret police, however, dictates that it perpetually has to look in new places for threats.
When Bush signed the Homeland Security Act, in November of 2002, bringing the D.H.S. into existence, he touted it as “the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since Harry Truman signed the National Security Act,” and spoke of “ruthless killers who move and plot in shadows.” He promised, “We’re on the hunt. One person at a time.” Bush’s words echoed the promise that fuelled Vladimir Putin’s rise in Russia. In a speech that brought him to sudden prominence, in 1999, the former K.G.B. colonel promised to “hunt down” terrorists and “snuff them out in the outhouse,” if that’s where they happened to be found. The secret police, even when it looks and appears to act like an army, always has a single individual as its target. Its goal is to make a person, alone, face the might of the state.
In Portland, the men in military-style uniforms have been picking up and detaining individuals while they are walking alone, often after a protest ends. At the press conference on Tuesday, Wolf owned the tactic of tracking people down and picking them up at some distance from protests. “When you have five hundred, six hundred violent individuals, violent criminals across the street from you, trying to inflict harm on your property and at law-enforcement officers . . . we don’t go into that crowd,” he said. “We don’t try to go into a violent crowd of four hundred people and try to arrest people—that’s dangerous.” Mark Morgan, the acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, explained that his troops were using unmarked vehicles because police vehicles in other cities had been attacked by protesters; similarly, he said, his men didn’t have their names on their uniforms for fear of attacks on their homes and families. The C.B.P. is the largest law-enforcement agency in the country. Its leader—who at the same briefing stated that his troops are highly trained and experienced in putting down riots—and his boss, Chad Wolf, were telling the nation that they are terrified of the protesters. These men represent a government agency born of fear. Their tactics are designed to engender an equal amount of fear in the people they see as their enemies. The secret police is always a terror-production machine.
Morgan has been running the C.B.P. since July of last year; Wolf has been at the head of the D.H.S. since November. Both men have the word “acting” before their titles, because neither has been confirmed by the Senate. A recent lawsuit filed by advocates for asylum seekers alleges that Wolf is occupying his post illegally, because a federal statute called the Vacancies Act places a two-hundred-and-ten-day limit on the tenure of an “acting” officer. The Stanford law professor Anne Joseph O’Connell, who has written on Trump’s use of “acting” officials—he has employed more of them, and for longer, than past Presidents—told me via e-mail that Wolf’s appointment was made in violation of a different federal statute, the Homeland Security Act. (The same point has been raised by top congressional Democrats, who last year called for an emergency review of D.H.S. appointments.) Under the Vacancies Act, some actions of an illegitimately appointed secretary would be null and void. No one knows, however, how this restriction could be enforced, or what the consequences might be.
As we learn more about what is happening in Portland—as footage of federal troops waging war on protesters floods social media, and as the President threatens to send his foot soldiers to other large cities—we are watching the perfect and perhaps inevitable combination of a domestic-security superagency and a President who rejects all mechanisms of accountability, including the Senate confirmation process. What we are also seeing is a perfect storm of fear: the legacy of fear cultivated in the wake of 9/11, and the fear that Trump campaigned on in 2016 and continues to campaign on now.


newyorker--2020-07-25--One-Star Reviews of Early-Parenthood Milestones

Time period between order and delivery is unnecessarily long .
First of all , I tried to order this baby for six months before I finally got my confirmation code .
This was very annoying , as the ease of this process seems to vary indiscriminately .
My neighbor got her last baby confirmation by surprise—she didn ’ t even remember ordering one .
Then there ’ s the fact that all promotional material states “ nine months ” to delivery , but this is less than accurate .
My baby arrived two weeks after the anticipated due date and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fees .
I wasn ’ t even issued an apology for the delay , just the excuse that “ babies come on their own schedule.
” I never have this problem with Amazon .
Read the fine print .
My experience with pregnancy was less than stellar .
I was ecstatic when I received my confirmation , but it went downhill from there .
I experienced a lot of negative side effects during the process .
I was nauseated , fat , pimply , and really depressed—just horrible customer service .
I mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars in medical bills for this baby and I don ’ t even get the advertised “ glow ” ?
!
I feel cheated .
Apparently these side effects are common knowledge among the community but aren ’ t widely discussed .
Be warned .
I suffered through a completely unmedicated birth and all I got was a third-degree tear and this dumb baby .
Twenty-eight hours of excruciating pain to bring a kid into the world and I didn ’ t even get a goddam sticker .
When I was told I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and happy with the decision to do things “ naturally , ” I thought there would be an actual incentive .
Nope .
Just the same baby that you ’ ll get with the drugs , with the added bonus of feeling everything as your insides are ripped apart by a Minotaur .
There ’ s not even a social-media badge or special license-plate offering .
Don ’ t bother .
C-sections are only “ easy ” if you don ’ t mind being filleted like a fish .
After hours of fruitless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me as an emergency substitute .
It was all very rushed , though luckily the results were positive .
A year later , however , my torso still doesn ’ t look or feel right .
Honestly , I ’ m unsure if I ’ ll even bother with childbirth again .
This is my second time through and both times the experience was less than stellar .
I wasn ’ t even offered a coupon code after my first negative review .
Not a good way to retain customers .
Talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Russian roulette ?
Try breast-feeding !
It ’ s like an LOL Surprise , but it ’ s your body .
You know those flesh sacks you ’ ve been carrying around since puberty ?
Sometimes they are completely useless—SURPRISE !
Advertisements are misleading .
I was recommended breast-feeding by many of my friends who swore they ’ d had a great experience and absolutely raved about it .
But their “ beautiful bonding experience ” was my “ time-consuming anxiety spiral.
” Also , it gave me bleeding nipples .
Hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Since none of these babies seem to come marked with a model number ( this is a huge oversight in the manufacturing process , BTW ) , I purchased multiple after-market manuals , hoping one of them would contain the correct instructions to get my baby to go into sleep mode .
It has been fourteen months and I still haven ’ t been able to program the baby to sleep consistently .
I have tried everything .
Is this a special feature or is mine defective ?
Either way , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t waste your money .
As bad as you think it ’ s going to be .
No exceptions .
I was told there ’ s a window in which this can be done quickly and efficiently and relatively cleanly .
The window does not exist .
There is just this room—the living room , which is now covered in towels and smells like a barnyard .
Do not attempt while pregnant .
Advertisements state that potty training is a perfectly safe activity to engage in while pregnant .
I disagree .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with my first kid before the birth of his sister , to avoid two in diapers .
Bad plan .
As soon as the second kid was delivered the first kid immediately rebooted to his previous settings and none of my progress was saved .
Very frustrating and cost me more in extra laundry in the long run .

Product Name: Pregnancy
Time period between order and delivery is unnecessarily long.
First of all, I tried to order this baby for six months before I finally got my confirmation code. This was very annoying, as the ease of this process seems to vary indiscriminately. My neighbor got her last baby confirmation by surprise—she didn’t even remember ordering one. Then there’s the fact that all promotional material states “nine months” to delivery, but this is less than accurate. My baby arrived two weeks after the anticipated due date and the hospital wouldn’t waive delivery fees. I wasn’t even issued an apology for the delay, just the excuse that “babies come on their own schedule.” I never have this problem with Amazon.
Read the fine print.
My experience with pregnancy was less than stellar. I was ecstatic when I received my confirmation, but it went downhill from there. I experienced a lot of negative side effects during the process. I was nauseated, fat, pimply, and really depressed—just horrible customer service. I mean, I’m paying thousands of dollars in medical bills for this baby and I don’t even get the advertised “glow”?! I feel cheated. Apparently these side effects are common knowledge among the community but aren’t widely discussed. Be warned.
Product Name: Childbirth
I suffered through a completely unmedicated birth and all I got was a third-degree tear and this dumb baby.
Twenty-eight hours of excruciating pain to bring a kid into the world and I didn’t even get a goddam sticker. When I was told I’d be so proud of myself and happy with the decision to do things “naturally,” I thought there would be an actual incentive. Nope. Just the same baby that you’ll get with the drugs, with the added bonus of feeling everything as your insides are ripped apart by a Minotaur. There’s not even a social-media badge or special license-plate offering. Don’t bother.
C-sections are only “easy” if you don’t mind being filleted like a fish.
After hours of fruitless labor, the C-section was offered to me as an emergency substitute. It was all very rushed, though luckily the results were positive. A year later, however, my torso still doesn’t look or feel right. Honestly, I’m unsure if I’ll even bother with childbirth again. This is my second time through and both times the experience was less than stellar. I wasn’t even offered a coupon code after my first negative review. Not a good way to retain customers.
Product Name: Breast-feeding
Talk about luck of the draw!
Do you like Russian roulette? Try breast-feeding! It’s like an LOL Surprise, but it’s your body. You know those flesh sacks you’ve been carrying around since puberty? Sometimes they are completely useless—SURPRISE!
Advertisements are misleading.
I was recommended breast-feeding by many of my friends who swore they’d had a great experience and absolutely raved about it. But their “beautiful bonding experience” was my “time-consuming anxiety spiral.” Also, it gave me bleeding nipples. Hard pass.
Product Name: Sleep Training
All the manuals are wrong.
Since none of these babies seem to come marked with a model number (this is a huge oversight in the manufacturing process, BTW), I purchased multiple after-market manuals, hoping one of them would contain the correct instructions to get my baby to go into sleep mode. It has been fourteen months and I still haven’t been able to program the baby to sleep consistently. I have tried everything. Is this a special feature or is mine defective? Either way, no manual seems to work, so don’t waste your money.
Product Name: Potty training
As bad as you think it’s going to be. No exceptions.
I was told there’s a window in which this can be done quickly and efficiently and relatively cleanly. The window does not exist. There is just this room—the living room, which is now covered in towels and smells like a barnyard.
Do not attempt while pregnant.
Advertisements state that potty training is a perfectly safe activity to engage in while pregnant. I disagree. I spent months working through potty-training scenarios with my first kid before the birth of his sister, to avoid two in diapers. Bad plan. As soon as the second kid was delivered the first kid immediately rebooted to his previous settings and none of my progress was saved. Very frustrating and cost me more in extra laundry in the long run.


newyorker--2020-07-25--America’s Looming Primary-Care Crisis

America’s Looming Primary-Care Crisis

Beverly Jordan is a partner at a family-medicine clinic in Enterprise , Alabama .
Enterprise is situated in “ wiregrass country ” —a largely rural region , encompassing southeastern Alabama and parts of Georgia and Florida , named for the ubiquitous vegetation that takes root in its sandy soil .
Her clinic is one of a few offering primary care in the area ; like many independent medical practices across the U.S. , it has been gutted by the coronavirus pandemic .
Even though her practice received a lifeline from the federal government ’ s Paycheck Protection Program ( P.P.P @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pay cut , reduce staff hours , and lay off two new physicians who were about to start work .
“ For the first time in my career , we ’ re really just planning short-term , ” she told me recently .
“ We ’ ve never had this level of insecurity.
” For decades , health care was America ’ s indomitable industry .
While employment in other sectors—retail , manufacturing , construction—rose and fell with the business cycle , clinics , hospitals , and medical practices steadily added jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care ’ s trajectory .
Hospitals now find themselves in dire financial straits as they forgo revenue from elective procedures , and a surge in unemployment is shifting patients from private insurance plans to Medicaid , which is less remunerative for doctors .
Some rural hospitals , whose financial footing was already tenuous , are facing the prospect of closure .
Among the most vulnerable parts of the nation ’ s health-care system are family-medicine , internal-medicine , pediatric , and obstetrics-and-gynecology clinics .
With COVID-19 precautions in place , in-person appointments have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survey of primary-care doctors found that nearly a fifth had temporarily closed their practices , owing to the pandemic , and two in five had laid off or furloughed staff .
Primary-care clinics are tasked with keeping people healthy , and decades of research have shown that the care they provide is associated with better outcomes and lower costs .
As my colleague Dhruv Khullar has written , the health consequences of these clinics ’ closures could be significant .
Vaccination rates for children have already begun to fall ; patients are missing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are going unfilled .
Chronic conditions could worsen ; life expectancies could drop .
Even before the pandemic , primary care was in crisis .
Primary-care doctors were already among the most poorly compensated physicians in the country ; for medical students burdened with debt , those smaller salaries lessened the specialty ’ s allure .
Experts have long warned of a shortage of doctors providing foundational forms of outpatient care , especially in rural areas .
Last year , the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that more than fourteen thousand primary-care physicians were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this article , I spoke with more than twenty primary-care physicians , from New York City to rural Nebraska and suburban Colorado .
They work in single-physician practices , in multi-specialty groups , or as part of hospital systems .
Nearly all of them described dramatic declines in revenue .
Many benefitted from the P.P.P .
; without it , some of their clinics might not have survived .
All of the physicians expressed concern about how they would navigate the uncertainty ahead .
“ This is taking us down , ” Jacqueline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the American College of Physicians , told me .
“ We ’ re not going to have a vaccine and herd immunity for probably a year—so , is this sustainable for a year ?
The reality is , it ’ s probably not , certainly not for most small practices.
” If many of them go out of business , the consequences for Americans ’ health could be profound and enduring .
What ’ s at stake is not just a pattern of health outcomes but the shape of the health-care system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients interact with their doctors and the path that American health care takes in the future may be about to shift .
The challenges facing primary care are rooted in the structure of the American health-care system .
This system wasn ’ t designed at any one moment ; instead , it has accreted over time , with each new layer seeking to compensate for the deficiencies of what came before .
One of the most consequential layers is fee-for-service payment , which was codified as part of the Social Security Amendments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a fee-for-service setup , the payer , usually a health insurer or government agency , pays the health-care provider a set fee for any given service .
Break your arm , and your insurance company might pay one fee for an X-ray , another for a splint , and a third for a follow-up visit .
Though conceptually simple , the system has obvious flaws .
It encourages health-care providers to offer more services , in order to earn more revenue , without necessarily controlling for quality .
If one surgeon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no complications , but a second ’ s is complicated by infection , leading to a series of follow-up visits , their fees are still the same ; in fact , the second hospital may make more money .
“ In a fee-for-service payment system , ” Atul Gawande has written , “ we are actually penalized for making the effort to organize and deliver care with the best service , quality , and efficiency we can.
” To address this problem , government programs and insurers have come up with alternative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost philosophical , level , many of them still operate on a fee-for-service principle .
In the nineteen-eighties , Medicare changed its approach to inpatient hospitalizations so that a single global fee covered a particular admission ; in this system , a hospital is reimbursed at one payment level for a broken leg , at another for pneumonia , and at a third for sepsis .
More recently , the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 pushed Medicare reimbursements away from a pure fee-for-service model and toward others that pay based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Still , for the most part , it ’ s the provision of services that indicates that care has happened .
Ultimately , when physicians are paid , it ’ s the number of office visits , lab tests , and surgeries that matters .
The fee-for-service principle reverberates through the whole health-care system , but it has especially dire consequences for primary care , because it favors discrete medical episodes over ongoing and preventative treatment .
Payers routinely reimburse health-care providers for specialized procedures at high rates , but primary-care visits—which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or smoking and diet counselling—generate lower revenues .
This imbalance is due , in large part , to the Relative Value Update Committee ( R.U.C . )
, an extraordinarily powerful group of doctors that advises the federal government on reimbursement rates for physicians .
The R.U.C .
consists of thirty-one doctors convened by the American Medical Association ; it ’ s structured such that each specialty has an equal say .
On the R.U.C.
, urology , thoracic surgery , and head-and-neck surgery have , individually , about the same representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Medicare and Medicaid Services ( C.M.S . )
, which has final authority to set payment rates for Medicare , has in many years accepted the R.U.C.
’ s recommendations nearly ninety per cent of the time .
Primary-care groups and health-care policy experts have long contended that the R.U.C.
’ s choices favor procedures over the counselling , education , and chronic-disease management that form the basis of primary care .
Twenty years ago , Don Berwick , the co-founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and a mentor of mine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health-care reimbursement in a speech that has since become famous in industry circles .
Addressing an audience at the institute ’ s annual meeting , Berwick told the story of a Montana forest fire , from 1949 , that killed most members of a team of firefighters .
When the firefighters finally realized the imminent danger posed by the blaze , they tried to outrun it—but they did so while shouldering heavy equipment , including their Pulaskis , special firefighting axes that combine an axe head with an adze .
The firefighters did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scenario , their old tools no longer served them ; many died carrying them .
The health-care system , Berwick said , was falling into the same trap : clinging to a sometimes burdensome tool , no matter the circumstances .
“ Our Pulaski , ” he argued , “ is the encounter—the visit.
” A better health-care system could only be built if “ scientists , professionals , patients , payers , and the health-care workforce ” agreed “ that the product we choose to make is not visits .
Our product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Barack Obama , in a recess appointment , made Berwick the acting administrator of C.M.S .
; he resigned , in 2011 , when he concluded that he would be unable to win confirmation from Republicans in the Senate .

The coronavirus pandemic is exacerbating a shortage of primary care in this country. Photograph from Alamy
Beverly Jordan is a partner at a family-medicine clinic in Enterprise, Alabama. Enterprise is situated in “wiregrass country”—a largely rural region, encompassing southeastern Alabama and parts of Georgia and Florida, named for the ubiquitous vegetation that takes root in its sandy soil. Her clinic is one of a few offering primary care in the area; like many independent medical practices across the U.S., it has been gutted by the coronavirus pandemic. Even though her practice received a lifeline from the federal government’s Paycheck Protection Program (P.P.P.), Jordan had to take a pay cut, reduce staff hours, and lay off two new physicians who were about to start work. “For the first time in my career, we’re really just planning short-term,” she told me recently. “We’ve never had this level of insecurity.”
For decades, health care was America’s indomitable industry. While employment in other sectors—retail, manufacturing, construction—rose and fell with the business cycle, clinics, hospitals, and medical practices steadily added jobs. But the pandemic has changed health care’s trajectory. Hospitals now find themselves in dire financial straits as they forgo revenue from elective procedures, and a surge in unemployment is shifting patients from private insurance plans to Medicaid, which is less remunerative for doctors. Some rural hospitals, whose financial footing was already tenuous, are facing the prospect of closure.
Among the most vulnerable parts of the nation’s health-care system are family-medicine, internal-medicine, pediatric, and obstetrics-and-gynecology clinics. With COVID-19 precautions in place, in-person appointments have dropped precipitously. In May, a survey of primary-care doctors found that nearly a fifth had temporarily closed their practices, owing to the pandemic, and two in five had laid off or furloughed staff. Primary-care clinics are tasked with keeping people healthy, and decades of research have shown that the care they provide is associated with better outcomes and lower costs. As my colleague Dhruv Khullar has written, the health consequences of these clinics’ closures could be significant. Vaccination rates for children have already begun to fall; patients are missing screenings proven to save lives; prescriptions are going unfilled. Chronic conditions could worsen; life expectancies could drop.
Even before the pandemic, primary care was in crisis. Primary-care doctors were already among the most poorly compensated physicians in the country; for medical students burdened with debt, those smaller salaries lessened the specialty’s allure. Experts have long warned of a shortage of doctors providing foundational forms of outpatient care, especially in rural areas. Last year, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that more than fourteen thousand primary-care physicians were needed to eliminate existing shortages.
For this article, I spoke with more than twenty primary-care physicians, from New York City to rural Nebraska and suburban Colorado. They work in single-physician practices, in multi-specialty groups, or as part of hospital systems. Nearly all of them described dramatic declines in revenue. Many benefitted from the P.P.P.; without it, some of their clinics might not have survived. All of the physicians expressed concern about how they would navigate the uncertainty ahead. “This is taking us down,” Jacqueline Fincher, an internist and the president of the American College of Physicians, told me. “We’re not going to have a vaccine and herd immunity for probably a year—so, is this sustainable for a year? The reality is, it’s probably not, certainly not for most small practices.” If many of them go out of business, the consequences for Americans’ health could be profound and enduring. What’s at stake is not just a pattern of health outcomes but the shape of the health-care system as a whole. The way that patients interact with their doctors and the path that American health care takes in the future may be about to shift.
The challenges facing primary care are rooted in the structure of the American health-care system. This system wasn’t designed at any one moment; instead, it has accreted over time, with each new layer seeking to compensate for the deficiencies of what came before. One of the most consequential layers is fee-for-service payment, which was codified as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1965—the law that created Medicare and Medicaid. In a fee-for-service setup, the payer, usually a health insurer or government agency, pays the health-care provider a set fee for any given service. Break your arm, and your insurance company might pay one fee for an X-ray, another for a splint, and a third for a follow-up visit. Though conceptually simple, the system has obvious flaws. It encourages health-care providers to offer more services, in order to earn more revenue, without necessarily controlling for quality. If one surgeon’s hip-replacement operation is successful, with no complications, but a second’s is complicated by infection, leading to a series of follow-up visits, their fees are still the same; in fact, the second hospital may make more money. “In a fee-for-service payment system,” Atul Gawande has written, “we are actually penalized for making the effort to organize and deliver care with the best service, quality, and efficiency we can.”
To address this problem, government programs and insurers have come up with alternative payment schemes—but, at a fundamental, almost philosophical, level, many of them still operate on a fee-for-service principle. In the nineteen-eighties, Medicare changed its approach to inpatient hospitalizations so that a single global fee covered a particular admission; in this system, a hospital is reimbursed at one payment level for a broken leg, at another for pneumonia, and at a third for sepsis. More recently, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 pushed Medicare reimbursements away from a pure fee-for-service model and toward others that pay based on the quality of health care provided. Still, for the most part, it’s the provision of services that indicates that care has happened. Ultimately, when physicians are paid, it’s the number of office visits, lab tests, and surgeries that matters.
The fee-for-service principle reverberates through the whole health-care system, but it has especially dire consequences for primary care, because it favors discrete medical episodes over ongoing and preventative treatment. Payers routinely reimburse health-care providers for specialized procedures at high rates, but primary-care visits—which might include chronic-disease management, routine vaccinations, or smoking and diet counselling—generate lower revenues. This imbalance is due, in large part, to the Relative Value Update Committee (R.U.C.), an extraordinarily powerful group of doctors that advises the federal government on reimbursement rates for physicians. The R.U.C. consists of thirty-one doctors convened by the American Medical Association; it’s structured such that each specialty has an equal say. On the R.U.C., urology, thoracic surgery, and head-and-neck surgery have, individually, about the same representation as all of pediatrics. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (C.M.S.), which has final authority to set payment rates for Medicare, has in many years accepted the R.U.C.’s recommendations nearly ninety per cent of the time.
Primary-care groups and health-care policy experts have long contended that the R.U.C.’s choices favor procedures over the counselling, education, and chronic-disease management that form the basis of primary care. Twenty years ago, Don Berwick, the co-founder of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and a mentor of mine, called for a total reimagining of health-care reimbursement in a speech that has since become famous in industry circles. Addressing an audience at the institute’s annual meeting, Berwick told the story of a Montana forest fire, from 1949, that killed most members of a team of firefighters. When the firefighters finally realized the imminent danger posed by the blaze, they tried to outrun it—but they did so while shouldering heavy equipment, including their Pulaskis, special firefighting axes that combine an axe head with an adze. The firefighters did not recognize that, in this new scenario, their old tools no longer served them; many died carrying them.
The health-care system, Berwick said, was falling into the same trap: clinging to a sometimes burdensome tool, no matter the circumstances. “Our Pulaski,” he argued, “is the encounter—the visit.” A better health-care system could only be built if “scientists, professionals, patients, payers, and the health-care workforce” agreed “that the product we choose to make is not visits. Our product is healing relationships.” In 2010, President Barack Obama, in a recess appointment, made Berwick the acting administrator of C.M.S.; he resigned, in 2011, when he concluded that he would be unable to win confirmation from Republicans in the Senate.
Among other things, the structural bias in favor of procedures and office visits has prevented telemedicine—which could make outpatient care more affordable, accessible, and consistent—from gaining a foothold. For decades, Medicare only paid for telemedicine visits if a patient lived in a designated “rural” area or received the treatment in a medical setting; effectively, for many people, telemedicine had to take place in a doctor’s office. The pandemic has changed this equation. In March, the federal government expanded the list of telemedicine services eligible for Medicare reimbursement. Clinics across the country, seeing telemedicine as both a way to provide care and a financial lifeline, raced to embrace phone and video visits almost overnight. “I was so close to getting a ninety-year-old woman to turn on a video call,” Lalita Abhyankar, a family-medicine doctor in New York City, told me. Abhyankar persisted because she’s found that, on the whole, patients become enthusiastic about virtual visits after trying them. Doctors, for their part, have found value in the glimpses that such visits offer of their patients’ home lives. Early in the COVID-19 crisis, when I began conducting telemedicine visits with my own patients, I was surprised to discover that the technology created a feeling of camaraderie. The power dynamic diminished; conversing from our respective apartments, we were on equal footing.
For all the promise of this ongoing telemedical experiment, the future of primary care as a whole remains unclear. C.M.S. has said that the current dispensation is only a temporary emergency accommodation; if support for telemedicine stops before the pandemic does, our country will be taking a big risk. One preview of what might happen comes from studies assessing health outcomes after a patient’s primary-care doctor retires. Such patients don’t face a society-wide diminution in access to primary care; in many cases, they can switch to another physician without undue difficulty. Even so, a recent review of these studies found that nearly all patients experienced unfavorable outcomes, among them difficulty renewing prescriptions and increased use of high-cost care.
Labor economists have long studied a phenomenon called hysteresis: in economics, it refers to a situation in which high unemployment caused by a particular event develops an inertia of its own, remaining elevated even after the initial cause has abated. Nobody is quite sure what causes hysteresis. Do workers’ skills erode? Or do firms find that they can get along with fewer workers? In any case, now that the pandemic has caused extended mass unemployment, hysteresis could play a major role in our society—and our health care. In theory, a physician can sit out the lean times and return to practice once patient volume rebounds; during the Great Depression, for instance, some small-town doctors made house calls and accepted barter payments until the crisis ended. But the situation today is different. A modern medical practice needs physical space, an electronic records system, malpractice insurance, and back-office support to handle the byzantine medical coding on which reimbursement depends. Hanging out a shingle in twenty-first-century America requires more than a diploma; it requires capital.
Patients may also respond in an enduring way to what seems to be a temporary disruption of the doctor-patient relationship. In ordinary times, engaging people in the treatment of chronic conditions can be a fraught endeavor: a patient who’s easily persuaded to take an antibiotic for a urinary-tract infection might nevertheless resist taking a medication aimed at preventing complications from high blood pressure down the road. Regular checkups help patients develop and maintain fragile habits that the pandemic may have disrupted. “I have a diabetic patient who finally came in and hadn’t taken insulin in six weeks,” Gary LeRoy, a family physician in Ohio and the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told me. “It’s, like, ‘Why the heck did you not call?’ But, then, I don’t like going to the dentist—and if my dentist says, ‘Well, we’re not doing visits now,’ I think, Yay! I don’t have to go to the dentist,” he said. “It gives you an excuse to not do the right thing for yourself.”
There are steps that governments and insurers could take now to prevent the crisis from worsening. Many commercial insurers and state-administered Medicaid programs still don’t reimburse video visits at the same rates as in-person care; parity is even less common for telephone visits, which are particularly useful for the elderly and for those in low-income or rural communities who don’t have access to high-speed Internet. Some surveys of primary-care practices show that more than half of them haven’t yet received reimbursement for most of their telemedicine visits in recent months—a significant problem at a time of financial strain.
Through the CARES Act and subsequent legislation, Congress has allocated a hundred and seventy-five billion dollars for health-care expenses attributable to the pandemic. How that money will be spent, however, remains unclear; those funds are also supposed to cover aid for hospitals and COVID-19 care for the uninsured, among other things, and a hundred and seventy-five billion sounds less impressive when set against the $3.6 trillion that America spent on health care in 2018. The P.P.P. has helped some primary-care practices, but this is only a temporary lifeline. Without either an increase in funding or a direct allocation aimed at primary care, it seems likely that many clinics will never receive the money they need to stave off closure.
Some policymakers and providers have proposed a more drastic response to the pandemic—one that’s long been contemplated by health-policy experts and is already getting a test drive as part of the Affordable Care Act. Instead of continuing to reimburse providers through a fee-for-service system, the federal government could shift payment for primary care and similar specialties to a so-called capitation model. Under this system, practices are reimbursed on a per-person, per-month basis, usually with some portion of the payment tied to quality measures, such as adjusted mortality and excess hospitalizations. Since the A.C.A.’s passage, C.M.S. has been shifting toward this payment model, using health-care networks called Accountable Care Organizations (A.C.O.s). (Texas’s U.T. Southwestern, Wisconsin’s ThedaCare, and New York and New Jersey’s Montefiore are examples of A.C.O.s.) Despite these efforts, most primary-care practices are still paid mainly on a fee-for-service basis.
“A crisis is a terrible thing to waste,” the economist Paul Romer once said. The weaknesses that have left our primary-care system so vulnerable to the pandemic have been understood for decades, yet change has come at a glacial pace; it’s been easy to ignore the system’s flaws because health-care spending has grown over time, with many health-care organizations prospering as a result. Why undertake dramatic change when there is always more money to go around? Before the 2008 financial crisis, Charles Prince, who was then the C.E.O. of Citigroup, was asked why his bank continued to participate in the speculative real-estate market, given concerns that the bubble would soon burst. “When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated,” he said. “But, as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance.” For much of American health care, the music has stopped. The best way to address the emergency is by embracing a better system.
More Medical Dispatches