thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Professors, Journalists Call Out Fox News’ Coronavirus Misinformation In Scathing Letter

Americans consistently rate the Fox News Channel as one of the most trusted TV channels .
The average age of Fox News viewers is 65 .
It is well established that this population incurs the greatest risk from the COVID-19 pandemic .
In other words , Fox News viewers are at special risk from the coronavirus .
But viewers of Fox News , including the president of the United States , have been regularly subjected to misinformation relayed by the network—false statements downplaying the prevalence of COVID-19 and its harms ; misleading recommendations of activities that people should undertake to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommendations of untested drugs ; false assessments of the value of measures urged upon the public by their elected political leadership and public health authorities .
The misinformation that reaches the Fox News audience is a danger to public health .
Indeed , it is not an overstatement to say that your misreporting endangers your own viewers—and not only them , for in a pandemic , individual behavior affects significant numbers of other people as well .
Yet by commission as well as omission—direct , uncontested misinformation as well as failure to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been derelict in its duty to provide clear and accurate information about COVID-19 .
As the virus spread across the world , Fox News hosts and guests minimized the dangers , accusing Democrats and the media of inflating the dangers ( in Sean Hannity ’ s words ) to “ bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.
” Such commentary encouraged President Trump to trivialize the threat and helped obstruct national , state , and local efforts to limit the coronavirus .
The network ’ s delinquency was effective .
According to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who pay the most attention to Fox News are much less likely than others to say they are worried about the coronavirus .
A Pew Research poll found that 79 % of Fox News viewers surveyed believed the media had exaggerated the risks of the virus .
63 % of Fox viewers said they believed the virus posed a minor threat to the health of the country .
As recently as Sunday , March 22 , Fox News host Steve Hilton deplored accurate views of the pandemic , which he attributed to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — whipping up fear over this virus.
” Fox News reporters have done some solid reporting .
And the network has recently given some screen time to medical and public health professionals .
But Fox News does not clearly distinguish between the authority that should accrue to trained experts , on the one hand , and the authority viewers grant to pundits and politicians for reasons of ideological loyalty .
There is a tendency to accept ( or reject ) them all indiscriminately , for after all , they are talking heads who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of news .
When the statements of knowledgeable experts are surrounded by false claims made by pundits and politicians , including President Trump—claims that are not rebutted by knowledgeable people in real time—the overall effect is to mislead a vulnerable public about risks and harms .
Misinformation furthers the reach and the dangers of the pandemic .
For example , the day after Tucker Carlson touted a flimsy French study on the use of two drugs to treat COVID-19 , President Trump touted “ very , very encouraging early results ” from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a possible “ game changer.
” The basic purpose of news organizations is to discover and tell the truth .
This is especially necessary , and obvious , amid a public health crisis .
Television bears a particular responsibility because even more millions than usual look there for reliable information .
Inexcusably , Fox News has violated elementary canons of journalism .
In so doing , it has contributed to the spread of a grave pandemic .
Urgently , therefore , in the name of both good journalism and public health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lives of all Americans—including your elderly viewers—by ensuring that the information you deliver is based on scientific facts .

Americans consistently rate the Fox News Channel as one of the most trusted TV channels. The average age of Fox News viewers is 65. It is well established that this population incurs the greatest risk from the COVID-19 pandemic. In other words, Fox News viewers are at special risk from the coronavirus.
But viewers of Fox News, including the president of the United States, have been regularly subjected to misinformation relayed by the network—false statements downplaying the prevalence of COVID-19 and its harms; misleading recommendations of activities that people should undertake to protect themselves and others, including casual recommendations of untested drugs; false assessments of the value of measures urged upon the public by their elected political leadership and public health authorities.
The misinformation that reaches the Fox News audience is a danger to public health. Indeed, it is not an overstatement to say that your misreporting endangers your own viewers—and not only them, for in a pandemic, individual behavior affects significant numbers of other people as well.
Yet by commission as well as omission—direct, uncontested misinformation as well as failure to report the true dimensions of the crisis—Fox News has been derelict in its duty to provide clear and accurate information about COVID-19. As the virus spread across the world, Fox News hosts and guests minimized the dangers, accusing Democrats and the media of inflating the dangers (in Sean Hannity’s words) to “bludgeon Trump with this new hoax.” Such commentary encouraged President Trump to trivialize the threat and helped obstruct national, state, and local efforts to limit the coronavirus.
The network’s delinquency was effective. According to a YouGov/Economist poll conducted March 15-17, Americans who pay the most attention to Fox News are much less likely than others to say they are worried about the coronavirus. A Pew Research poll found that 79% of Fox News viewers surveyed believed the media had exaggerated the risks of the virus. 63% of Fox viewers said they believed the virus posed a minor threat to the health of the country. As recently as Sunday, March 22, Fox News host Steve Hilton deplored accurate views of the pandemic, which he attributed to “our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces — whipping up fear over this virus.”
Fox News reporters have done some solid reporting. And the network has recently given some screen time to medical and public health professionals. But Fox News does not clearly distinguish between the authority that should accrue to trained experts, on the one hand, and the authority viewers grant to pundits and politicians for reasons of ideological loyalty.
There is a tendency to accept (or reject) them all indiscriminately, for after all, they are talking heads who appear on Fox News, a trusted source of news. When the statements of knowledgeable experts are surrounded by false claims made by pundits and politicians, including President Trump—claims that are not rebutted by knowledgeable people in real time—the overall effect is to mislead a vulnerable public about risks and harms.
Misinformation furthers the reach and the dangers of the pandemic. For example, the day after Tucker Carlson touted a flimsy French study on the use of two drugs to treat COVID-19, President Trump touted “very, very encouraging early results” from those drugs, and promoted a third as a possible “game changer.”
The basic purpose of news organizations is to discover and tell the truth. This is especially necessary, and obvious, amid a public health crisis. Television bears a particular responsibility because even more millions than usual look there for reliable information.
Inexcusably, Fox News has violated elementary canons of journalism. In so doing, it has contributed to the spread of a grave pandemic. Urgently, therefore, in the name of both good journalism and public health, we call upon you to help protect the lives of all Americans—including your elderly viewers—by ensuring that the information you deliver is based on scientific facts.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--U.S. Unemployment Claims Hit Another Record High

WASHINGTON ( AP ) — More than 6.6 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week , far exceeding a record high set just last week , a sign that layoffs are accelerating in the midst of the coronavirus .
The job cuts are mounting against the backdrop of economies in the United States and abroad that have almost certainly sunk into a severe recession as businesses close across the world .
The figure for last week is much higher than the previous record of 3.3 million reported for the previous week .
The surging layoffs have led many economists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost jobs by the end of April .
The unemployment rate could spike to as high as 15 % this month , above the previous record of 10.8 % set during a deep recession in 1982 .
Many employers are slashing their payrolls to try to stay afloat because their revenue has collapsed , especially at restaurants , hotels , gyms , movie theaters and other venues that depend on face-to-face interaction .
Auto sales have sunk , and factories have closed .
Stay-at-home orders , imposed by most U.S. states , have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which face rent , loans and other bills that must be paid .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than 6.6 million Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week, far exceeding a record high set just last week, a sign that layoffs are accelerating in the midst of the coronavirus.
The job cuts are mounting against the backdrop of economies in the United States and abroad that have almost certainly sunk into a severe recession as businesses close across the world.
Advertisement
The figure for last week is much higher than the previous record of 3.3 million reported for the previous week. The surging layoffs have led many economists to envision as many as 20 million lost jobs by the end of April. The unemployment rate could spike to as high as 15% this month, above the previous record of 10.8% set during a deep recession in 1982.
Many employers are slashing their payrolls to try to stay afloat because their revenue has collapsed, especially at restaurants, hotels, gyms, movie theaters and other venues that depend on face-to-face interaction. Auto sales have sunk, and factories have closed.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Fauci Suggests Need For National Lockdown As More States Issue Stay-At-Home Orders

As more U.S. states issue stay-at-home orders and the federal government recommends a 30-day period of social distancing , Dr. Anthony Fauci on Thursday suggested the need for a national lockdown , while acknowledging he does not have the authority to order one .
Nearly 40 U.S. states now have some form of a stay-at-home executive order , mandating the closure of nonessential businesses and encouraging residents to remain indoors unless absolutely necessary .
But some states have been slower than others to implement the orders .
They can vary highly from state to state , like exempting certain businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for certain counties rather than statewide , and they have varying degrees of enforceability .
Some businesses have tried to skirt the orders by claiming their workers are “ essential.
” But he noted that states still have significant leeway “ to make their own decision ” in this situation and questioned some of the stay-at-home exemptions they ’ re allowing .
“ I can ’ t make any official proclamations here , but I can say : Really seriously consider , are those exemptions appropriate when you think about what ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ And I urge the people of the leadership at the state level to really take a close look at those kinds of decisions.
” Fauci also said he agreed with the U.S. surgeon general ’ s assessment that the federal government ’ s new recommendations that Americans stay home and restrict activity for 30 days “ amount to a national stay-at-home order.
” “ That ’ s essentially what it is , ” Fauci said .
“ This is inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint , but we just have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major weapon against this virus right now .
We don ’ t have a vaccine that ’ s deployable .
This is the only thing we have.
” On Wednesday , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D ) , who leads the state with the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. , acknowledged that a stringent lockdown like China ’ s would be impossible .
“ If you have the same compliance that you had in Wuhan — Wuhan basically just locked up society — I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enacted the Wuhan model that the American people would comply , ” he said during his daily press conference .
President Donald Trump , who has repeatedly praised his own disastrous response by trying to erase his earlier attempts to downplay the pandemic , has yet to issue a national stay-at-home order , despite calls from public health experts .
He initially suggested the state-level stay-at-home orders , business and travel restrictions and social distancing guidelines could be lifted as soon as April 12 , claiming the country would be “ raring to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large gatherings in churches to celebrate the holiday — even though these are the kinds of events public health officials have warned against , given the potential for spreading the virus .
“ We look at that literally every day , ” he said on “ CBS This Morning.
” “ It really depends on what city you ’ re talking about and from where you are coming .
So this is something that you ’ re absolutely correct is on the table , and is discussed.
” Dr. Fauci on President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look at that literally every day .
It really depends on what city you 're talking about and from where you are coming .
So this is something that you 're absolutely correct is on the table and is discussed . ''
pic.twitter.com/BZVao1U09V — CBS This Morning ( @ CBSThisMorning ) April 2 , 2020 Many states have reported new COVID-19 cases stemming from interstate travel , such as people fleeing a state with a growing number of cases and then traveling to another , therefore potentially spreading the virus and overwhelming hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
As more U.S. states issue stay-at-home orders and the federal government recommends a 30-day period of social distancing, Dr. Anthony Fauci on Thursday suggested the need for a national lockdown, while acknowledging he does not have the authority to order one.
Nearly 40 U.S. states now have some form of a stay-at-home executive order, mandating the closure of nonessential businesses and encouraging residents to remain indoors unless absolutely necessary. But some states have been slower than others to implement the orders. They can vary highly from state to state, like exempting certain businesses and gatherings or making the orders only for certain counties rather than statewide, and they have varying degrees of enforceability. Some businesses have tried to skirt the orders by claiming their workers are “essential.”
Advertisement
NBC “Today” show host Savannah Guthrie asked Fauci in a Thursday interview if a national lockdown would be more effective “than this hodgepodge, piecemeal method.” Fauci, the country’s top infectious diseases official and a major fixture in the U.S. coronavirus response, agreed.
But he noted that states still have significant leeway “to make their own decision” in this situation and questioned some of the stay-at-home exemptions they’re allowing.
“I can’t make any official proclamations here, but I can say: Really seriously consider, are those exemptions appropriate when you think about what’s going on?” Fauci said. “And I urge the people of the leadership at the state level to really take a close look at those kinds of decisions.”
“Shouldn’t there be a national order, a national lockdown (rather than what we have now)?” -@savannahguthrie
“In our country, there still is that issue of central government vs. the ability and the right of a state to make their own decision... Again, I agree with you.” -Fauci pic.twitter.com/976rqiVRL8 — TODAY (@TODAYshow) April 2, 2020
Advertisement
A comment left by a HuffPost reader. HuffPost US
Fauci also said he agreed with the U.S. surgeon general’s assessment that the federal government’s new recommendations that Americans stay home and restrict activity for 30 days “amount to a national stay-at-home order.”
“That’s essentially what it is,” Fauci said. “This is inconvenient from an economic and a personal standpoint, but we just have to do it. That is our major weapon against this virus right now. We don’t have a vaccine that’s deployable. This is the only thing we have.”
To slow the spread of the virus, several countries — including China, Italy, Spain, France and India — have implemented some form of a national lockdown.
On Wednesday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), who leads the state with the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S., acknowledged that a stringent lockdown like China’s would be impossible.
Advertisement
“If you have the same compliance that you had in Wuhan — Wuhan basically just locked up society — I don’t even know that if the federal government enacted the Wuhan model that the American people would comply,” he said during his daily press conference.
President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly praised his own disastrous response by trying to erase his earlier attempts to downplay the pandemic, has yet to issue a national stay-at-home order, despite calls from public health experts.
He initially suggested the state-level stay-at-home orders, business and travel restrictions and social distancing guidelines could be lifted as soon as April 12, claiming the country would be “raring to go by Easter.” He even suggested large gatherings in churches to celebrate the holiday — even though these are the kinds of events public health officials have warned against, given the potential for spreading the virus.
Earlier this week, Trump reversed course, saying that public health officials now recommend at least 30 days of restrictions.
On Thursday, Fauci said Trump is also considering a ban on domestic travel, but “no decision has been made.”
Advertisement
“We look at that literally every day,” he said on “CBS This Morning.” “It really depends on what city you’re talking about and from where you are coming. So this is something that you’re absolutely correct is on the table, and is discussed.”
Dr. Fauci on President Trump considering banning domestic travel: "We look at that literally every day. It really depends on what city you're talking about and from where you are coming. So this is something that you're absolutely correct is on the table and is discussed." pic.twitter.com/BZVao1U09V — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) April 2, 2020
This a comment left by a HuffPost reader. HuffPost US
Many states have reported new COVID-19 cases stemming from interstate travel, such as people fleeing a state with a growing number of cases and then traveling to another, therefore potentially spreading the virus and overwhelming hospital capacity in areas with fewer medical resources.
Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx, who both serve on Trump’s coronavirus task force, said Tuesday that new models project the virus could kill between 100,000 and 240,000 Americans.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Legal Sex Workers And Others In Adult Industry Denied Coronavirus Aid

When Congress passed the massive $ 2 trillion bailout bill last week , it made sure that self-employed people or other independent workers could apply for loans or grants from the Small Business Administration .
But there was one very specific ― and puritanical ― exception : legal sex workers and others in the adult entertainment industry .
The very first page of the online application says that in order to be an “ eligible entity ” that can receive monetary relief from the bill , an applicant can not “ present live performances of a prurient sexual nature or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimis gross revenue through the sale of products or services , or the presentation of any depictions or displays , of a prurient sexual nature.
” Prurient , which is defined by Oxford as “ having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters , ” is a vague categorization that broadly includes thousands of workers in the U.S. As stated , the clause excludes everyone who works in the legal ( and , worth noting , booming ) sex industry including strippers , porn performers , producers , directors , sex toy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s unclear whether this clause includes other professions that don ’ t explicitly deal in the sex industry , but do cover subjects that are of a “ prurient sexual nature ” such as sex therapists and authors of erotica novels .
Andrew Stettner , a senior fellow at progressive think tank The Century Foundation , said it “ makes zero sense ” for any legal workers to be denied aid .
“ The relief packages passed thus far have neglected ― and often explicitly excluded ― the most vulnerable workers .
Sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told HuffPost .
It seems if I sold any other product , for example chairs instead of blowjob machines , I would have been able to receive payroll relief funds .
Brian Sloan , owner of Very Intelligent Ecommerce Inc. Suki Dunham , founder of sex toy company OhMiBod , wasn ’ t surprised when she heard about the prurience clause .
Dunham and her husband , who together created OhMiBod , first learned of the clause over a decade ago when they founded the company and tried to apply for an SBA-backed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the prurience clause , and Dunham has had to find funding elsewhere ever since .
“ We serve our community by employing people , ” she said , adding that OhMiBod has had to lay off many employees due to the coronavirus .
“ We are sound employers offering our staff competitive salaries and benefits , such as health care .
We are no different than any other small business out there.
” HuffPost spoke with several people , in addition to Dunham and Frances , who work in the sex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is so flagrantly denying them relief during a global crisis .
Many of them intended to apply for relief and are now left in limbo , unable to work or collect aid .
Brian Sloan , who owns Very Intelligent Ecommerce Inc. , a company that produces oral sex simulators for men , said he and other entrepreneurs in his network were looking to apply for relief but decided not to when they read the prurience clause .
“ It seems if I sold any other product , for example chairs instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to receive payroll relief funds , ” he told HuffPost .
Jules Jordan is having the same issues as Sloan .
The porn actor , director and producer , who ’ s been in the business for 20 years , has paid millions in taxes on his production and distribution company , and yet he ’ s still excluded from receiving aid during the coronavirus outbreak .
He told HuffPost he ’ s trying to keep his employees on the payroll , but it hasn ’ t been easy since the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said she ’ s lost about 85 % of her income because of the COVID-19 crisis .
Over half of her earnings come from explicit sex work , and the remainder comes from nonexplicit work including writing about sex and being an intimacy and sex coach .
Even her nonexplicit work , however , still bars her from receiving aid through the small business stimulus package .
Although Shakti is worried about her livelihood , she said she ’ s more worried about those most vulnerable in the industry including street sex workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The majority of people who spoke with HuffPost said they will no longer apply for relief after reading the prurience clause .
Frances , the stripper , comedian and author , said she has no choice ― she has to apply , noting that sex workers have always had to “ rephrase the truth ” about what they do in order to survive .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
When Congress passed the massive $2 trillion bailout bill last week, it made sure that self-employed people or other independent workers could apply for loans or grants from the Small Business Administration. But there was one very specific ― and puritanical ― exception: legal sex workers and others in the adult entertainment industry.
The very first page of the online application says that in order to be an “eligible entity” that can receive monetary relief from the bill, an applicant cannot “present live performances of a prurient sexual nature or derive directly or indirectly more than de minimis gross revenue through the sale of products or services, or the presentation of any depictions or displays, of a prurient sexual nature.”
Advertisement
Prurient, which is defined by Oxford as “having or encouraging an excessive interest in sexual matters,” is a vague categorization that broadly includes thousands of workers in the U.S. As stated, the clause excludes everyone who works in the legal (and, worth noting, booming) sex industry including strippers, porn performers, producers, directors, sex toy manufactures and many others. It’s unclear whether this clause includes other professions that don’t explicitly deal in the sex industry, but do cover subjects that are of a “prurient sexual nature” such as sex therapists and authors of erotica novels.
“It’s so dehumanizing,” Jacqueline Frances, a stripper, comedian and author, told HuffPost. “They’re asking all of us, who work legally, to feel ashamed about what we do. They are actively making life harder for sex workers in this crisis.”
Andrew Stettner, a senior fellow at progressive think tank The Century Foundation, said it “makes zero sense” for any legal workers to be denied aid. “The relief packages passed thus far have neglected ― and often explicitly excluded ― the most vulnerable workers. Sex workers are no exception,” he told HuffPost.
Strippers and other self-employed performers can still file for unemployment through the larger coronavirus stimulus package and are still eligible to collect a $1,200 check.
Advertisement
“It seems if I sold any other product, for example chairs instead of blowjob machines, I would have been able to receive payroll relief funds.” - Brian Sloan, owner of Very Intelligent Ecommerce Inc.
Suki Dunham, founder of sex toy company OhMiBod, wasn’t surprised when she heard about the prurience clause. Dunham and her husband, who together created OhMiBod, first learned of the clause over a decade ago when they founded the company and tried to apply for an SBA-backed loan. The SBA rejected their application because of the prurience clause, and Dunham has had to find funding elsewhere ever since.
“We serve our community by employing people,” she said, adding that OhMiBod has had to lay off many employees due to the coronavirus. “We are sound employers offering our staff competitive salaries and benefits, such as health care. We are no different than any other small business out there.”
The restriction against prurient businesses receiving federal disaster funds dates back to 1995 when the Clinton administration helped define the SBA’s eligibility rules and regulations. The SBA determined that it would exclude small businesses that engage in “lawful activities of an obscene, pornographic or prurient sexual nature,” according to the initial proposal.
HuffPost spoke with several people, in addition to Dunham and Frances, who work in the sex industry who were baffled that their government is so flagrantly denying them relief during a global crisis. Many of them intended to apply for relief and are now left in limbo, unable to work or collect aid.
Advertisement
Brian Sloan, who owns Very Intelligent Ecommerce Inc., a company that produces oral sex simulators for men, said he and other entrepreneurs in his network were looking to apply for relief but decided not to when they read the prurience clause. “It seems if I sold any other product, for example chairs instead of blowjob machines, I would have been able to receive payroll relief funds,” he told HuffPost.
He has the same payroll expenses as any other small business in the country, Sloan said. “A disaster seems like a perverse opportunity to punish taxpayers who have done nothing to harm others,” he added.
“We need a compassionate acknowledgment of our work as legitimate labor.” - Andre Shakti, a sex worker based in Baltimore
Jules Jordan is having the same issues as Sloan. The porn actor, director and producer, who’s been in the business for 20 years, has paid millions in taxes on his production and distribution company, and yet he’s still excluded from receiving aid during the coronavirus outbreak. He told HuffPost he’s trying to keep his employees on the payroll, but it hasn’t been easy since the entire industry shut down filming indefinitely.
“We need a compassionate acknowledgment of our work as legitimate labor,” Andre Shakti, a sex worker based in Baltimore, told HuffPost.
Advertisement
Shakti said she’s lost about 85% of her income because of the COVID-19 crisis. Over half of her earnings come from explicit sex work, and the remainder comes from nonexplicit work including writing about sex and being an intimacy and sex coach. Even her nonexplicit work, however, still bars her from receiving aid through the small business stimulus package. Although Shakti is worried about her livelihood, she said she’s more worried about those most vulnerable in the industry including street sex workers and genderqueer sex workers of color.
The majority of people who spoke with HuffPost said they will no longer apply for relief after reading the prurience clause. Frances, the stripper, comedian and author, said she has no choice ― she has to apply, noting that sex workers have always had to “rephrase the truth” about what they do in order to survive.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--'Paycheck Protection Program' Launches Friday

U.S. workers won ’ t interact directly with the so-called Paycheck Protection Program that launches Friday , but if it works as intended , it could have a big impact on their lives .
The government will essentially pay eight weeks of an eligible employer ’ s labor costs through a loan that will be entirely forgiven if that employer retains its workers for eight weeks without slashing their pay .
The effort is meant to prevent layoffs , as businesses have already dismissed more than 10 million workers in just the past two weeks because of the coronavirus pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incredible strain on workers and their families .
Notably , if a company already laid people off , it can still qualify for the paycheck protection loan if it re-hires them by the end of June .
“ As long as you hire the people back , the loan is forgiven , ” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC appearance on Wednesday to promote the program .
( The Treasury ’ s website has more information on the initiative . )
The coronavirus bill Congress passed earlier this month provided $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than was earmarked for either expanded unemployment insurance benefits or rebate checks that will soon go out to most U.S. households .
And Mnuchin has said he would ask Congress for more funding if that $ 350 billion runs out .
William Winecoff , a political science professor at the University of Indiana , said the program hasn ’ t gotten enough attention .
He compared it favorably to European wage subsidies enacted in response to the coronavirus pandemic .
Denmark , for instance , is paying up to 90 % of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actually more generous than that , ” Winecoff said .
“ It ’ s full payroll support and that includes benefits , as well , for up to two months.
” Business owners have told HuffPost they eagerly anticipate enrolling in the program .
Russell Cox , owner of a small , Dallas-based art consulting firm that also makes picture frames , said he ’ s already in touch with his lender and is going to apply as soon as he can on Friday .
Dallas County ordered non-essential businesses to close last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus .
“ It ’ s all looking pretty good ― it ’ s just a matter of getting through the approval process and getting the money , ” Cox said , adding that he has four employees , all of whom have been with his firm for at least a decade .
But trouble could afflict the program .
It runs through banks , some of which are complaining that they ’ ve only gotten fuzzy guidelines .
Bank officials also have expressed worries about having to respond to an ” overwhelming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are capped at $ 10 million per firm .
A past partnership between the Treasury Department and banks , designed to reduce foreclosures in the wake of the Great Recession , was pretty much a failure , as the department did little to enforce program rules and homeowners were strung along .
But optimism surrounds the Paycheck Protection Program .
Michael Strain , director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute , wrote in an issue brief that the program “ may prove to be the most important part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus.
” Strain noted that lenders will receive “ generous fees ” from administering the loans and are shielded from penalties so long as they receive documentation from borrowers that they didn ’ t lay off workers or cut wages .
Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) , one of the architects of the program , tweeted Thursday that banks shouldn ’ t whine , noting the loans are fully guaranteed and that banks get “ 5 % for basically verifying payroll & no liability if they get it wrong .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
U.S. workers won’t interact directly with the so-called Paycheck Protection Program that launches Friday, but if it works as intended, it could have a big impact on their lives.
Whether it can work as intended emerged as a major question Thursday as some banks said they wouldn’t be ready to take applications on Friday.
Advertisement
The way it’s supposed to work is that the government will essentially pay eight weeks of an eligible employer’s labor costs through a loan that will be entirely forgiven if that employer retains its workers for eight weeks without slashing their pay.
The effort is meant to prevent layoffs, as businesses have already dismissed more than 10 million workers in just the past two weeks because of the coronavirus pandemic. This unprecedented surge in unemployment puts incredible strain on workers and their families.
Notably, if a company already laid people off, it can still qualify for the paycheck protection loan if it re-hires them by the end of June.
“As long as you hire the people back, the loan is forgiven,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said during a CNBC appearance on Wednesday to promote the program. (The Treasury’s website has more information on the initiative.)
Advertisement
The coronavirus bill Congress passed earlier this month provided $350 billion for the payroll scheme ― more than was earmarked for either expanded unemployment insurance benefits or rebate checks that will soon go out to most U.S. households. And Mnuchin has said he would ask Congress for more funding if that $350 billion runs out.
William Winecoff, a political science professor at the Indiana University Bloomington, said the program hasn’t gotten enough attention. He compared it favorably to European wage subsidies enacted in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Denmark, for instance, is paying up to 90% of workers’ salaries.
“This is actually more generous than that,” Winecoff said. “It’s full payroll support and that includes benefits, as well, for up to two months.”
Business owners have told HuffPost they eagerly anticipate enrolling in the program. Russell Cox, owner of a small, Dallas-based art consulting firm that also makes picture frames, said he’s already in touch with his lender and is going to apply as soon as he can on Friday. Dallas County ordered nonessential businesses to close last month to limit the spread of the coronavirus.
“It’s all looking pretty good ― it’s just a matter of getting through the approval process and getting the money,” Cox said, adding that he has four employees, all of whom have been with his firm for at least a decade.
Advertisement
But trouble could afflict the program. It runs through banks, some of which are complaining that they’ve only gotten fuzzy guidelines. Bank officials also have expressed worries about having to respond to an “overwhelming” demand for the loans, which are capped at $10 million per firm.
JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., said Thursday that it’s still waiting for more guidance from Treasury. “As a result, Chase will most likely not be able to start accepting applications on Friday, April 3rd, as we had hoped,” the bank said in a statement on its website.
Nevertheless, Mnuchin and President Donald Trump said the program would still launch Friday.
A past partnership between the Treasury Department and banks, designed to reduce foreclosures in the wake of the Great Recession, was pretty much a failure, as the department did little to enforce program rules and homeowners were strung along.
Thursday’s news that JPMorgan Chase might not be ready came as a cold shower after much optimism around the Paycheck Protection Program. Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, wrote in an issue brief that the program “may prove to be the most important part of the government’s economic-policy response to the coronavirus.”
Strain noted that lenders will receive “generous fees” from administering the loans and are shielded from penalties so long as they receive documentation from borrowers that they didn’t lay off workers or cut wages.
Advertisement
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the architects of the program, tweeted Thursday that banks shouldn’t whine, noting the loans are fully guaranteed and that banks get “5% for basically verifying payroll & no liability if they get it wrong.”
“Now America needs them to step up,” he wrote.
This article has been updated to include a statement from JPMorgan Chase.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Republicans Are Bragging About An Unemployment Boost They Voted Against

A core part of lawmakers ’ job is to make sure their constituents have access to government programs that are designed to help them .
To that end , many members of Congress are pointing to expanded unemployment benefits they authorized last week as part of a massive coronavirus pandemic response bill , which will boost weekly benefits by $ 600 .
“ This package that we passed will provide $ 600 a week on top of the Montana benefit if you ’ re unemployed , ” Sen. Steve Daines ( R-Mont . )
told a local TV station the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s very significant .
It more than doubles what the state of Montana pays .
That ’ s taking care of those Montanans who ’ ve lost their jobs.
” But Daines , like most of his other GOP colleagues , supported an amendment to the bill offered by Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-Neb . )
that would have capped unemployment benefits and denied some people the extra $ 600 .
The Senate rejected the amendment before ultimately passing the bill last week .
A spokesperson for Daines said the senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unemployment insurance in the coronavirus economic recovery bill .
The senator did not think that unemployment insurance should pay more than the job a person lost.
” “ This bill , as currently drafted , creates a perverse incentive for men and women who are sidelined to then not leave the sidelines to come back to work , ” Sasse claimed on the Senate floor .
His amendment , which all but two Senate Republicans voted for , would have directed state unemployment agencies not to give claimants the full $ 600 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wage when combined with their regular benefit allotment .
Democrats had initially wanted state agencies to precisely match wages of workers losing their jobs due to the economic downturn caused by the spread of the coronavirus .
They said that Trump labor secretary Eugene Scalia argued that it would have been too much of a burden on state agencies , which have been crushed by an unprecedented surge in unemployment claims .
Negotiators ― including the Trump administration and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) ― came up with $ 600 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the average unemployment payment of about $ 360 and the average weekly wage of about $ 980 .
The extra cash will remain available for only four months .
Nevertheless , Sasse , Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) , Sen. Tim Scott ( R-S.C. ) , Sen. Rick Scott ( R-Fla. ) and Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) decided to make a stink about the increased benefits on the Senate floor .
Sasse ’ s amendment , targeting the $ 260 billion unemployment portion of the $ 2 trillion bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the floor .
The debate was purely symbolic as the amendment stood no chance of clearing the 60 vote threshold needed for adoption .
“ It also expands unemployment insurance eligibility , and provides an extra $ 600 a week in federal unemployment benefits .
When it comes to covering bills and navigating this uncertainly , that money is a lifeline , ” Sen. John Cornyn ( R-Texas ) wrote in a Dallas Morning News op-ed .
“ Republicans voted against $ 600 for people who are out of work .
Fortunately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Sen. McConnell voted for that , ” she said .
State workforce agencies are only just beginning to implement the changes ― which also expand eligibility for the first time to include gig workers and the self-employed ― as more than 10 million Americans have filed for benefits in just the past two weeks .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A core part of lawmakers’ job is to make sure their constituents have access to government programs that are designed to help them.
To that end, many members of Congress are pointing to expanded unemployment benefits they authorized last week as part of a massive coronavirus pandemic response bill, which will boost weekly benefits by $600.
Advertisement
Among the lawmakers touting the additional $600: Senate Republicans who voted against it.
“This package that we passed will provide $600 a week on top of the Montana benefit if you’re unemployed,” Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) told a local TV station the day after the bill passed. “That’s very significant. It more than doubles what the state of Montana pays. That’s taking care of those Montanans who’ve lost their jobs.”
But Daines, like most of his other GOP colleagues, supported an amendment to the bill offered by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) that would have capped unemployment benefits and denied some people the extra $600. The Senate rejected the amendment before ultimately passing the bill last week.
A spokesperson for Daines said the senator “worked to include nearly full wage unemployment insurance in the coronavirus economic recovery bill. The senator did not think that unemployment insurance should pay more than the job a person lost.”
Sasse argued the added benefits would incentivize workers to stay unemployed.
“This bill, as currently drafted, creates a perverse incentive for men and women who are sidelined to then not leave the sidelines to come back to work,” Sasse claimed on the Senate floor.
Advertisement
His amendment, which all but two Senate Republicans voted for, would have directed state unemployment agencies not to give claimants the full $600 per week if it would exceed their prior wage when combined with their regular benefit allotment.
Democrats had initially wanted state agencies to precisely match wages of workers losing their jobs due to the economic downturn caused by the spread of the coronavirus. They said that Trump labor secretary Eugene Scalia argued that it would have been too much of a burden on state agencies, which have been crushed by an unprecedented surge in unemployment claims.
Negotiators ― including the Trump administration and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) ― came up with $600 because it’s roughly the difference between the average unemployment payment of about $360 and the average weekly wage of about $980. The extra cash will remain available for only four months.
Nevertheless, Sasse, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) decided to make a stink about the increased benefits on the Senate floor. Sasse’s amendment, targeting the $260 billion unemployment portion of the $2 trillion bill, was the only amendment debated on the floor. The debate was purely symbolic as the amendment stood no chance of clearing the 60 vote threshold needed for adoption.
The last-minute push to lower unemployment benefits didn’t stop some GOP senators from highlighting the ultimate provisions in the bill after its passage, however.
Advertisement
“It also expands unemployment insurance eligibility, and provides an extra $600 a week in federal unemployment benefits. When it comes to covering bills and navigating this uncertainly, that money is a lifeline,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) wrote in a Dallas Morning News op-ed.
In a press release titled “McSally Secures COVID-19 Relief for Arizona Families, Small Businesses,” Sen. Marthy McSally (R-Ariz.) noted that the average unemployment benefit in Arizona “will increase to $850 per week,” up from $240 per week.
Sen. Tim Scott, who spoke in favor of the Sasse amendment on the Senate floor, also touted the extra $600 in a press release.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took a whack at Republicans who opposed the added unemployment benefits in a conference call on Thursday.
“Republicans voted against $600 for people who are out of work. Fortunately, that wasn’t the majority. But Sen. McConnell voted for that,” she said.
Advertisement
State workforce agencies are only just beginning to implement the changes ― which also expand eligibility for the first time to include gig workers and the self-employed ― as more than 10 million Americans have filed for benefits in just the past two weeks.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--As Unemployment Claims Surge, Millions Are Still Waiting For Expanded Benefits

They ’ re among the record number of Americans who are out of work because of the pandemic .
The Labor Department announced Thursday that 6.6 million people applied for jobless benefits last week alone .
That number is expected to rise ―ultimately , the unemployment rate may hit 32 % because of the economic shutdown required to slow the spread of the virus .
The couple , who immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico about 15 years ago , is about to run out of the little money they had saved .
Rafael Rodriguez is lucky to have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 400 a week .
But it ’ s not even enough to cover their mortgage .
The family recently had to visit a food bank for supplies .
Each of the parents applied for unemployment benefits about a week ago .
Martha Rodriguez was turned down because she hadn ’ t worked enough hours at her part-time job to meet the threshold to qualify for benefits .
Her husband was approved , but only for around $ 100 a week since he still had a side gig .
It ’ s barely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
Under the new law , everyone who has lost a job because they ’ ve been furloughed or their employer was forced to shut down or they were laid off would get $ 600 a week on top of their usual benefit .
Even better , all kinds of workers would qualify , including part-timers and gig workers who aren ’ t usually eligible for benefits .
The problem is that implementing the new jobless benefits is a big bureaucratic procedure .
The Department of Labor is supposed to send guidance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
The states are still waiting .
The unemployment assistance in the stimulus benefit isn ’ t like typical jobless benefits , which are meant to provide a cushion to workers as they look for new jobs .
Typically , those payments only replace some of a worker ’ s salary .
These benefits are heftier , as they ’ re actually meant to let people stay home , so social distancing measures can happen without throwing millions of people into poverty .
But without sufficient help , many people don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Both the Rodriguezes said they are contemplating applying for jobs at Costco , one of the many essential grocery businesses looking to hire seasonal workers to deal with the crush of shoppers .
But that ’ s not really an option .
Martha Rodriguez probably can ’ t afford such a job ― she ’ s home-schooling her kids at the moment , and would somehow have to pay for child care .
And Rafael Rodriguez ’ s side job doesn ’ t have a consistent schedule , so it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some states have already put in place their own beefed-up jobless benefits .
At least 27 states have gotten rid of the requirement that you must keep looking for work in order to receive money , which just isn ’ t possible during this unprecedented time when the economy has essentially been put on hold so Americans can stay home .
Others have extended the number of weeks they ’ d hand out money or waived waiting periods to get benefits .
“ This is an economic and public health crisis of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our lifetimes , ” Sanders told HuffPost in a statement .
“ Millions of people right now do not know how they ’ re going to feed their families.
” Still , Martha Rodriguez is thinking about taking their children to Mexico , where her mother lives , so they can save money on food and her husband can rent out the kids ’ room to make ends meet .
But , she said , Mexico is also dealing with the pandemic .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Martha and Rafael Rodriguez, who are raising their two children in a condo in Renton, Washington, are exactly the kind of people Congress meant to help with the coronavirus stimulus package it passed last week.
They’re among the record number of Americans who are out of work because of the pandemic. The Labor Department announced Thursday that 6.6 million people applied for jobless benefits last week alone. That number is expected to rise ―ultimately, the unemployment rate may hit 32% because of the economic shutdown required to slow the spread of the virus.
Advertisement
Rafael Rodriguez’s job vanished when the state went on lockdown and the local restaurant where he worked shut down. He typically made about $600 per week. Martha Rodriguez’s part-time position as a bilingual instructor at a local preschool is on ice until the schools reopen.
The couple, who immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico about 15 years ago, is about to run out of the little money they had saved. Rafael Rodriguez is lucky to have a second job, where he earns about $400 a week. But it’s not even enough to cover their mortgage. The family recently had to visit a food bank for supplies.
“We try not to eat too much,” Martha Rodriguez told HuffPost. “I said to my kids, ‘Don’t eat too much.’ It’s hard.”
She said her 11-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son know about the pandemic, but that they don’t really understand what’s going on with their finances.
Advertisement
The Rodriguez family. Courtesy Martha Rodriguez
Each of the parents applied for unemployment benefits about a week ago. Martha Rodriguez was turned down because she hadn’t worked enough hours at her part-time job to meet the threshold to qualify for benefits. Her husband was approved, but only for around $100 a week since he still had a side gig. It’s barely enough to cover part of a grocery bill.
It’s not supposed to be like this. The pandemic benefit Congress passed last week is supposed to cover workers in precisely this kind of situation.
Under the new law, everyone who has lost a job because they’ve been furloughed or their employer was forced to shut down or they were laid off would get $600 a week on top of their usual benefit. Even better, all kinds of workers would qualify, including part-timers and gig workers who aren’t usually eligible for benefits.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called it “unemployment on steroids.” But steroids don’t work if you can’t get a hold of them.
Advertisement
The problem is that implementing the new jobless benefits is a big bureaucratic procedure. The Department of Labor is supposed to send guidance to the states on how to do it. The states are still waiting.
“It’s a scary, scary time,” said Michelle Evermore, a senior researcher and policy analyst and the National Employment Law Project.
And it’s critical that this increased unemployment benefit gets out as quickly and as smoothly as possible.
The unemployment assistance in the stimulus benefit isn’t like typical jobless benefits, which are meant to provide a cushion to workers as they look for new jobs. Typically, those payments only replace some of a worker’s salary. These benefits are heftier, as they’re actually meant to let people stay home, so social distancing measures can happen without throwing millions of people into poverty.
“This is like a stay-at-home check,” Evermore said.
“I said to my kids, ‘Don’t eat too much.’ It’s hard.” - Martha Rodriguez
Advertisement
But without sufficient help, many people don’t have the option to stay home. Both the Rodriguezes said they are contemplating applying for jobs at Costco, one of the many essential grocery businesses looking to hire seasonal workers to deal with the crush of shoppers.
But that’s not really an option. Martha Rodriguez probably can’t afford such a job ― she’s home-schooling her kids at the moment, and would somehow have to pay for child care. And Rafael Rodriguez’s side job doesn’t have a consistent schedule, so it would be hard to make another job work.
Once the guidance comes in from the Department of Labor, state unemployment agencies ― already facing an incredible volume of calls from desperate out-of-work people ― have to put a new system in place to hand out benefits.
Some states have already put in place their own beefed-up jobless benefits. At least 27 states have gotten rid of the requirement that you must keep looking for work in order to receive money, which just isn’t possible during this unprecedented time when the economy has essentially been put on hold so Americans can stay home. Others have extended the number of weeks they’d hand out money or waived waiting periods to get benefits.
But the big prize is coming from the stimulus bill, and everyone is just going to have to wait on that.
Advertisement
Courtesy Martha Rodriguez
Washington state isn’t going to be giving out the new pandemic benefits until at least April 18, said Nick Demerice, public affairs director of the state’s employment security department.
“It is a long time to wait for folks,” he said. “Particularly those who haven’t been able to access traditional benefits.”
He emphasized that once Washington did have its system in place, benefits would be paid retroactively.
“It’s super important we get the aid out as fast as we can,” he said. “People desperately need this money and it’s also a tremendous undertaking.”
Advertisement
A handful of Democratic senators recently called Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to go over implementing the rules. And on Wednesday, Schumer, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), sent a letter urging Scalia to act quickly.
“This is an economic and public health crisis of a magnitude that we have not seen in our lifetimes,” Sanders told HuffPost in a statement. “Millions of people right now do not know how they’re going to feed their families.”
The Rodriguezes didn’t even know about the jobless piece of the stimulus bill, and were somewhat hopeful that help was on the way.
Still, Martha Rodriguez is thinking about taking their children to Mexico, where her mother lives, so they can save money on food and her husband can rent out the kids’ room to make ends meet. But, she said, Mexico is also dealing with the pandemic.
Rafael Rodriguez said he’s having a hard time sleeping at night.
If it’s been this hard for their family, longtime citizens who are at least getting that $100 now, Martha Rodriguez is concerned about what it’s like for those in the community who are undocumented.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Anthony Fauci To Receive More Personal Security After Threats: Reports

Dr. Anthony Fauci , the nation ’ s top infectious disease expert and one of the main scientific touchstones amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic , will receive increased personal security protection after getting threats and unwelcome messages due to his leading role in the nation ’ s fight against the novel coronavirus .
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported late Wednesday that Fauci , 79 , had been granted enhanced security by the Department of Health and Human Services .
The shift comes as Fauci has issued increasingly dire warnings urging Americans to practice social distancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come even after weeks of instability both at home and abroad .
“ Yesterday , upon the recommendation of the U.S .
Marshals Service , the department approved the special deputization request from H.H.S .
for nine ... special agents to provide protective services for Dr. Fauci , ” the Justice Department said in a statement to the Times .
It ’ s unclear what type of threats Fauci has received , although he has already become a target for right-wing conspiracy theories .
But Alex Azar , the HHS secretary who has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about the rise in Fauci ’ s profile in recent weeks .
The doctor has managed to maintain the president ’ s support even though he has to regularly interject and temper Trump ’ s statements on topics including the timeline for any type of coronavirus vaccine .
On Tuesday , Fauci warned that between 100,000 and 240,000 people in the U.S. could die even if current guidelines are maintained , a figure that sent shockwaves through the president ’ s plans to “ open up ” the country by Easter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ days until the end of April .
More than 216,000 people have been infected with the virus in the U.S. and deaths have surged past 4,600 , with some officials comparing the pandemic ’ s effects in America to those seen several weeks ago in Italy .
“ We are continuing to see things go up , ” Fauci said Tuesday .
“ We can not be discouraged by that because the mitigation is actually working and will work.
” The fact-checking of the president and his dire predictions have already resulted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the “ deep state ” working to undermine the administration .
Fauci declined to speak about the increased protection during a press briefing on Wednesday , but Trump interjected to say the doctor didn ’ t “ need security.
” “ I ’ ve chosen this life .
I mean , I know what it is , ” Fauci said .
“ There are things about it that are sometimes disturbing .
But you just focus on the job you have to do , and just put all that stuff aside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay attention to it .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert and one of the main scientific touchstones amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, will receive increased personal security protection after getting threats and unwelcome messages due to his leading role in the nation’s fight against the novel coronavirus.
Both The Washington Post and The New York Times reported late Wednesday that Fauci, 79, had been granted enhanced security by the Department of Health and Human Services. The shift comes as Fauci has issued increasingly dire warnings urging Americans to practice social distancing and that the worst is yet to come even after weeks of instability both at home and abroad.
Advertisement
“Yesterday, upon the recommendation of the U.S. Marshals Service, the department approved the special deputization request from H.H.S. for nine ... special agents to provide protective services for Dr. Fauci,” the Justice Department said in a statement to the Times.
Fauci is a regular fixture at the White House's coronavirus briefings, a position that's earned him national recognition. ASSOCIATED PRESS
It’s unclear what type of threats Fauci has received, although he has already become a target for right-wing conspiracy theories. But Alex Azar, the HHS secretary who has his own detail, has reportedly grown concerned about the rise in Fauci’s profile in recent weeks.
The doctor has managed to maintain the president’s support even though he has to regularly interject and temper Trump’s statements on topics including the timeline for any type of coronavirus vaccine.
Advertisement
On Tuesday, Fauci warned that between 100,000 and 240,000 people in the U.S. could die even if current guidelines are maintained, a figure that sent shockwaves through the president’s plans to “open up” the country by Easter. Trump ultimately extended social distancing measures 30 days until the end of April.
More than 216,000 people have been infected with the virus in the U.S. and deaths have surged past 4,600, with some officials comparing the pandemic’s effects in America to those seen several weeks ago in Italy.
“We are continuing to see things go up,” Fauci said Tuesday. “We cannot be discouraged by that because the mitigation is actually working and will work.”
The fact-checking of the president and his dire predictions have already resulted in online trolls falsely claiming that Fauci is part of the “deep state” working to undermine the administration.
Fauci declined to speak about the increased protection during a press briefing on Wednesday, but Trump interjected to say the doctor didn’t “need security.”
Advertisement
“Everybody loves him,” Trump said.
During a Thursday morning appearance on NBC’s “Today Show,” Fauci told host Savannah Guthrie that he doesn’t intend to let the threats distract him.
“I’ve chosen this life. I mean, I know what it is,” Fauci said. “There are things about it that are sometimes disturbing. But you just focus on the job you have to do, and just put all that stuff aside and try as best as possible not to pay attention to it.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Trump-Tied Law Firm Has Lobbied For Saudi Arabia — The Country Crushing U.S. Frackers

The government of Saudi Arabia has paid lobbying giant Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck more than $ 4 million since 2016 to represent its interests in Washington , D.C. Last year , the Colorado-based firm received $ 1.5 million from the Saudi government for “ professional services , ” according to its January regulatory filing to the Department of Justice .
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was an attorney and shareholder at BHFS before joining the Trump administration in August 2017 , lobbying on behalf of oil , gas and mining interests that are now benefiting from the administration ’ s aggressive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s domestic clients include oil and gas interests that have been hit hard by the oil market crash .
BHFS hasn ’ t been shy about its access to Trump ’ s team .
In a memo to clients the day after Trump was elected , the firm wrote that it “ has significant relationships across both chambers and party leadership , as well as those who will steer the incoming Trump administration.
” It is unclear if BHFS continues to have a relationship with the Saudi government in 2020 since its next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not due until the middle of this year .
It ’ s also unclear if the firm ’ s work for the kingdom includes lobbying on oil and gas issues specifically , or if BHFS is reconsidering the business ties in light of the ongoing industry crisis .
Riyadh ’ s decision early last month to flood the market with cheap oil to secure more clients and expand its share of the market sent prices tumbling to a nearly 20-year low and frustrated the U.S. fracking industry , which faces a higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Adding to U.S. frackers ’ woes is a decline in global demand due to the coronavirus pandemic A group of 13 Republican senators sent a letter to the Saudi crown prince , known colloquially as MBS , on March 16 , urging him to stabilize the oil market .
And in an interview this week with CNBC , Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) accused the Saudis of “ engaging in economic warfare against the United States , trying to drive down the price of oil in order to exploit this coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ producers out of business.
” BHFS represents a number of oil and gas interests that have been affected by the Saudi-led oil market crash .
Its most recent lobbying disclosure data for domestic clients listed , among others , the American Petroleum Institute , the leading trade association of the U.S. oil and gas industry ; Texas oil exploration and production company Hunt Consolidated ; and Oklahoma-based natural gas company WPX Energy .
The Saudis ’ new policy to flood the oil marketplace led BHFS client API , which represents some 600 members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ask Trump for regulatory relief for drilling companies in a March 20 letter .
And a growing number of lawmakers , many of whom have received money from the fossil fuel industry over their political careers , are calling on the Trump administration to reduce or eliminate royalties for offshore drilling operations .
API , WPX Energy and other domestic clients of BHFS did not respond to HuffPost ’ s requests for comment .
The New Mexico Oil & Gas Association , listed in filings as another top client , said it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has shifted its federal lobbying strategy , but noted that the price war has created a “ challenging price and demand environment ” for its members .
As the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps the nation and ravages the U.S. economy , the Trump administration continues its push to lift the U.S. fossil fuel industry and boost production .
The president vowed last month to throw the oil industry a lifeline by purchasing tens of millions of barrels of crude from U.S. producers , enough to fill the nation ’ s emergency reserve , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after that funding was excluded from the $ 2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package .
“ We ’ re going to see what we can do because you don ’ t want to lose an industry , ” Trump said , adding that “ the two countries are discussing it and I am joining at the appropriate time if need be.
” “ I don ’ t see a lot of reason for Saudi Arabia to cooperate with the U.S. or individual U.S. firms , ” Young wrote .
“ We are competitors as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ development in US-Saudi ties since the shale revolution .
It upends much of how we have understood our benefits to each other in the past .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A law firm that previously employed President Donald Trump’s interior secretary has, for several years, represented Saudi Arabia, the petroleum-rich nation that recently launched an oil price war that could bankrupt U.S. fossil fuel producers.
The government of Saudi Arabia has paid lobbying giant Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck more than $4 million since 2016 to represent its interests in Washington, D.C. Last year, the Colorado-based firm received $1.5 million from the Saudi government for “professional services,” according to its January regulatory filing to the Department of Justice.
Advertisement
The revelation comes as Trump has personally waded into the oil dispute, tweeting Thursday that he has asked de facto Saudi ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to work with Russia, another top energy producer, to curb oil production so prices can rise again.
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was an attorney and shareholder at BHFS before joining the Trump administration in August 2017, lobbying on behalf of oil, gas and mining interests that are now benefiting from the administration’s aggressive environmental rollbacks. The lobbying giant’s domestic clients include oil and gas interests that have been hit hard by the oil market crash.
BHFS hasn’t been shy about its access to Trump’s team. In a memo to clients the day after Trump was elected, the firm wrote that it “has significant relationships across both chambers and party leadership, as well as those who will steer the incoming Trump administration.”
The firm also boasted that Politico named Marc Lampkin, managing partner of BHFS’s Washington, D.C. office, “a ‘need to know’ K Street Power Player inside the Trump transition” and that “other members of our team have also been active advisors to the Trump transition team.”
Advertisement
Lampkin is one of several BHFS employees who have lobbied on the Saudi government’s behalf, according to DOJ filings.
Interior Secretary David Bernhardt worked for eight years at the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, where he lobbied on behalf of oil, gas, mining and agricultural interests. Aaron Bernstein / Reuters
It is unclear if BHFS continues to have a relationship with the Saudi government in 2020 since its next filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act is not due until the middle of this year. It’s also unclear if the firm’s work for the kingdom includes lobbying on oil and gas issues specifically, or if BHFS is reconsidering the business ties in light of the ongoing industry crisis.
Neither BHFS nor the Saudi Embassy in Washington responded to HuffPost’s requests for comment this week.
Riyadh’s decision early last month to flood the market with cheap oil to secure more clients and expand its share of the market sent prices tumbling to a nearly 20-year low and frustrated the U.S. fracking industry, which faces a higher cost of production than its Saudi counterpart. Adding to U.S. frackers’ woes is a decline in global demand due to the coronavirus pandemic
Advertisement
“It’s a financial bloodbath,” Clark Williams-Derry, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, recently told HuffPost. “With oil prices at the current level, there’s a real risk many of them will simply go bankrupt.”
On Wednesday, Denver-based Whiting Petroleum Corp. became the first major U.S. shale driller to file for bankruptcy amid the price battle and deadly pandemic, The Wall Street Journal reported.
A group of 13 Republican senators sent a letter to the Saudi crown prince, known colloquially as MBS, on March 16, urging him to stabilize the oil market. And in an interview this week with CNBC, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused the Saudis of “engaging in economic warfare against the United States, trying to drive down the price of oil in order to exploit this coronavirus crisis to drive a bunch of American producers out of business.”
A methane gas flare and pump jack at an oil well in the Bakken Oil Fields, North Dakota. Richard Hamilton Smith via Getty Images
Double Dipping
BHFS represents a number of oil and gas interests that have been affected by the Saudi-led oil market crash. Its most recent lobbying disclosure data for domestic clients listed, among others, the American Petroleum Institute, the leading trade association of the U.S. oil and gas industry; Texas oil exploration and production company Hunt Consolidated; and Oklahoma-based natural gas company WPX Energy.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, the firm has had a relationship with the Saudi regime since 2016, when Riyadh ramped up its U.S. influence operation to combat a bill that allowed victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia over its alleged role.
BHFS continued the relationship despite growing international criticism of the Saudi regime, including after Saudi officials murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, prompting some lobbyists to pull back from Riyadh.
“We don’t believe it is in our client’s interest, in our interest or in the United States’ interest to abandon them during this crisis,” Al Mottur, a BHFS shareholder and lobbyist, told the Colorado Sun in the wake of Khashoggi’s killing.
The Saudi government paid BHFS nearly $500,000 in 2017 and $1.8 million in 2018, the year of Khashoggi’s murder, according to data from the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.
The Saudis’ new policy to flood the oil marketplace led BHFS client API, which represents some 600 members in the oil and gas sector, to ask Trump for regulatory relief for drilling companies in a March 20 letter. And a growing number of lawmakers, many of whom have received money from the fossil fuel industry over their political careers, are calling on the Trump administration to reduce or eliminate royalties for offshore drilling operations.
Advertisement
API, WPX Energy and other domestic clients of BHFS did not respond to HuffPost’s requests for comment. The New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, listed in filings as another top client, said it “no longer employs” BHFS and has shifted its federal lobbying strategy, but noted that the price war has created a “challenging price and demand environment” for its members.
As the COVID-19 pandemic sweeps the nation and ravages the U.S. economy, the Trump administration continues its push to lift the U.S. fossil fuel industry and boost production. The president vowed last month to throw the oil industry a lifeline by purchasing tens of millions of barrels of crude from U.S. producers, enough to fill the nation’s emergency reserve, but the administration backed away from its plan after that funding was excluded from the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus package.
Trump has since cheered for an industry comeback on Twitter, and during a coronavirus briefing at the White House on Tuesday said he had “great” conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and MBS about the oil price situation.
“We’re going to see what we can do because you don’t want to lose an industry,” Trump said, adding that “the two countries are discussing it and I am joining at the appropriate time if need be.”
President Donald Trump and de facto Saudi ruler Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman stand side by side in the group picture at the start of the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan, in June 2019. picture alliance via Getty Images
Advertisement
Trump Turns To His Friends
Trump is slated to host executives of major oil and gas giants, including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corporation, at the White House on Friday to discuss ways to protect their industry. Attendees likely hope the president can use his close ties with Saudi leadership to win concessions.
Karen Young, an analyst of Middle East economics at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, told HuffPost in an email that U.S.-Saudi relations in the current oil glut “are clearly tense,” but that Riyadh has little incentive to take American concerns into account in designing its approach to oil.
“I don’t see a lot of reason for Saudi Arabia to cooperate with the U.S. or individual U.S. firms,” Young wrote. “We are competitors as oil producers. That is a new development in US-Saudi ties since the shale revolution. It upends much of how we have understood our benefits to each other in the past.”
Until this week, the Saudi government showed little sign of slowing down. “As the world demands economic stability, we rise to supply energy,” reads text on a video that Aramco, the state-run fossil fuel company, posted to social media on Wednesday.
Some analysts believe Saudi Arabia will clearly benefit from inking contracts today that will more than make up for the drop in revenue it’s experiencing because of lower oil prices.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Rachel Maddow Hammers Dire Consequences Of Failure To Order Nationwide Shutdown

You look at the other countries in the world that have outbreaks as bad as us .
Well , actually @ @ @ @ @ look at other countries in the world who have had terrible outbreaks , at least @ @ @ @ @ national policy .
It ’ s insane .
It ’ s fatal .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ policy and leadership and ethics .
It ’ s also insane in terms of how @ @ @ @ @ piece of this already is .

You look at the other countries in the world that have outbreaks as bad as us. Well, actually we stand alone. You look at other countries in the world who have had terrible outbreaks, at least they’ve got a national policy. It’s insane. It’s fatal. It’s insane in terms of policy and leadership and ethics. It’s also insane in terms of how grossly mismanaged the federal government piece of this already is.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--As Coronavirus Cases Exceed 1 Million, Colorado Springs GOP Wonders If It's Even Real

While President Donald Trump furiously backpedals from his own monthslong campaign to downplay the coronavirus “ hoax , ” it seems Republicans at the county level missed the message .
This , after the Republican Party of El Paso County ― home to Colorado Springs , Colorado ― wondered aloud on Facebook Wednesday if coronavirus is actually a “ PSYOP , ” or “ psychological operations , ” campaign .
“ Hello El Paso County !
Do you believe that the Coronavirus is a PSYOP ( Psychological Operation ) ?
” The post read .
“ Post your answer ... @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below.
” The definition read : “ Psychological operations ( PSYOP ) are operations to convey select information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions , motives , and objective reasoning , and ultimately the behavior of governments , organizations , groups , and individuals.
” Posted then quickly deleted by @ gopelpaso .
Insane and reckless that it went up at all .
Be better .
( Updated to reflect the CO , not TX , county ) .
pic.twitter.com/1pmDAfVXjf — Guy Benson ( @ guypbenson ) April 1 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went live , under pressure from Republican officials at the state level .
But El Paso County party chair Vickie Tonkins told Colorado Politics she doesn ’ t see what the big deal is .
“ I put a post on our Facebook earlier today to see what people thought !
” Tonkins wrote , in part .
“ I am sorry a few of you were offended by a definition , that was NOT the intention .
I did not give an opinion I just asked what people ’ s thoughts as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues.
” El Paso County has one of the nation ’ s highest death rates from coronavirus .
A senior citizen who posthumously tested positive for the diease attended at least six bridge games at the Colorado Springs Bridge Center while infectious , potentially exposing up to 300 other people .
Separately on Wednesday , Jeff Hopkins , a 41-year-old El Paso County sheriff ’ s deputy , died of COVID-19 .
As of April 1 , there have been 3,342 confirmed cases of the virus and 80 deaths in the state .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world surpassed 1 million Thursday , with 236,000 confirmed cases in the U.S. — the most known infections of any country .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
This, after the Republican Party of El Paso County ― home to Colorado Springs, Colorado ― wondered aloud on Facebook Wednesday if coronavirus is actually a “PSYOP,” or “psychological operations,” campaign.
Advertisement
“Hello El Paso County! Do you believe that the Coronavirus is a PSYOP (Psychological Operation)?” The post read. “Post your answer ... the definition of (PSYOP) is below.”
The definition read: “Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey select information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.”
Posted then quickly deleted by @gopelpaso. Insane and reckless that it went up at all. Be better. (Updated to reflect the CO, not TX, county). pic.twitter.com/1pmDAfVXjf — Guy Benson (@guypbenson) April 1, 2020
The post was deleted soon after it went live, under pressure from Republican officials at the state level. But El Paso County party chair Vickie Tonkins told Colorado Politics she doesn’t see what the big deal is.
Advertisement
“I posted a question. I’m sorry people couldn’t answer it,” she told the newspaper. “Don’t get all offended.”
She elaborated in a followup post on Facebook:
“I put a post on our Facebook earlier today to see what people thought!” Tonkins wrote, in part. “I am sorry a few of you were offended by a definition, that was NOT the intention. I did not give an opinion I just asked what people’s thoughts as we have asked your thoughts on other issues.”
El Paso County has one of the nation’s highest death rates from coronavirus. A senior citizen who posthumously tested positive for the diease attended at least six bridge games at the Colorado Springs Bridge Center while infectious, potentially exposing up to 300 other people. Separately on Wednesday, Jeff Hopkins, a 41-year-old El Paso County sheriff’s deputy, died of COVID-19.
As of April 1, there have been 3,342 confirmed cases of the virus and 80 deaths in the state. The number of cases of COVID-19 around the world surpassed 1 million Thursday, with 236,000 confirmed cases in the U.S. — the most known infections of any country.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Alleged Stock-Dumping GOP Senator’s Coronavirus PSA Does Not Go Down Well

Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-Ga. ) — who allegedly sold stocks ahead of the coronavirus crisis after attending closed-door congressional briefings about its looming threat — encouraged people to stay strong in a video released online Wednesday .
Loeffler talked about the “ great moments that remind us we ’ re all humans in this together , working hard to keep each other safe , strong and healthy ” in the 36-second clip .
The PSA was not well received , however .
It ’ s easy to feel down right now .
But we can ’ t forget : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these times , it ’ s the small , positive moments that remind us why we must stay strong .
Whether you ’ re on the front lines or at home , each of us plays a role in getting through this .
pic.twitter.com/O5z7BDYRrU — Senator Kelly Loeffler ( @ SenatorLoeffler ) April 1 , 2020 Loeffler reportedly sold upwards of $ 1 million worth of stocks that she held with her husband before markets crashed in response to the pandemic , protecting her from the kinds of losses many Americans have suffered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Loeffler for failing to warn the public of the scale of the threats posed by the virus , and reminded her that she initially downplayed the danger .
The U.S. is now the epicenter of the pandemic .
Loeffler has defended the transactions , however , tweeting that the investment decisions for her portfolio “ are made by multiple third-party advisors without my or my husband ’ s knowledge or involvement.
” “ These were completely discretionary trades at the decision of our investment managers , ” Loeffler said during a CNBC interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involvement in them , and in fact , I don ’ t find out about these trades until these reports are compiled at the end of the reporting period.
” Cool video .
For the next one , maybe you could read this list aloud .
Get some of your constituents reactions !
pic.twitter.com/9dXn6TXPjH — Jonathan Myerson Katz ( @ KatzOnEarth ) April 2 , 2020 Her hands are out of frame because she is frantically selling stock as she stares glassy-eyed into her iphone https : //t.co/rWbvKfjSOm — Ken Tremendous ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of us will never experience what it ’ s like to be as wealthy or as privileged as you , neither will most of us ever experience what it ’ s like to be held in such utter contempt by the vast majority of our fellow human beings .
Enjoy !
— 𝕋𝕚𝕒 𝔹𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕒𝕔𝕚𝕟𝕚 ( @ TiaBarracini ) April 2 , 2020

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) — who allegedly sold stocks ahead of the coronavirus crisis after attending closed-door congressional briefings about its looming threat — encouraged people to stay strong in a video released online Wednesday.
Loeffler talked about the “great moments that remind us we’re all humans in this together, working hard to keep each other safe, strong and healthy” in the 36-second clip.
Advertisement
The PSA was not well received, however.
Check out the video here:
It’s easy to feel down right now. But we can’t forget: social distancing will save lives. During these times, it’s the small, positive moments that remind us why we must stay strong.
Whether you’re on the front lines or at home, each of us plays a role in getting through this. pic.twitter.com/O5z7BDYRrU — Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) April 1, 2020
Loeffler reportedly sold upwards of $1 million worth of stocks that she held with her husband before markets crashed in response to the pandemic, protecting her from the kinds of losses many Americans have suffered in their retirement savings.
Critics slammed Loeffler for failing to warn the public of the scale of the threats posed by the virus, and reminded her that she initially downplayed the danger. The U.S. is now the epicenter of the pandemic.
Loeffler has defended the transactions, however, tweeting that the investment decisions for her portfolio “are made by multiple third-party advisors without my or my husband’s knowledge or involvement.”
Advertisement
“These were completely discretionary trades at the decision of our investment managers,” Loeffler said during a CNBC interview on Friday. “We had no involvement in them, and in fact, I don’t find out about these trades until these reports are compiled at the end of the reporting period.”
Loeffler’s detractors weren’t buying it:
Did you get in early on the Trump body bags? I bet you’ll make a killing. — Cheri Jacobus (@CheriJacobus) April 2, 2020
It’s seems you’re not only devoid of all ethics and morals, but also basic self awareness. — andy lassner (@andylassner) April 2, 2020
you should go to mars — chrissy teigen (@chrissyteigen) April 2, 2020
Cool video. For the next one, maybe you could read this list aloud. Get some of your constituents reactions! pic.twitter.com/9dXn6TXPjH — Jonathan Myerson Katz (@KatzOnEarth) April 2, 2020
Advertisement
stop selling us short — Adam Weinstein (@AdamWeinstein) April 2, 2020
Give the first responders the money, Kelly https://t.co/HZBdpMjwRh — Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) April 2, 2020
I like how you social distance from human decency. — John Pavlovitz (@johnpavlovitz) April 2, 2020
Her hands are out of frame because she is frantically selling stock as she stares glassy-eyed into her iphone https://t.co/rWbvKfjSOm — Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) April 2, 2020
And your role is inside trading. — Greg Olear (@gregolear) April 2, 2020
Advertisement
Unelected Hack, $18.7 million in stock and bought into a company making coronavirus protective gear after a closed doors briefing. — Denise Wu (@denisewu) April 2, 2020
You got a lot of nerve. — bob clendenin (@bobclendenin) April 2, 2020
I am down...got any stock tips? https://t.co/qtu8Oxdvqj — Robert Garrett Williams (@Williams4TN) April 2, 2020
No one asked — Senator Megan Hunt (@NebraskaMegan) April 2, 2020
I think Felicity Huffman should play you in the Lifetime movie. — Covfefe Jones- King Of Shade👑 FBR 🌊🌊 (@King_Of_Shade) April 2, 2020
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--Democratic National Convention Postponed Until August

The Democratic National Committee is postponing its presidential nominating convention to August 17 , according to a Democratic official briefed @ @ @ @ @ was scheduled to kick off in Milwaukee on July 13 .
The new date is @ @ @ @ @ National Convention .
The move comes after former Vice President Joe Biden , who currently @ @ @ @ @ , called for the convention to be delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic .
On @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Brian Williams that it was “ hard to envision ” the convention being @ @ @ @ @ and said Democratic candidates and officials should “ listen to the scientists , ” who @ @ @ @ @ gatherings .
Biden hasn ’ t been alone in urging the Democratic Party to take @ @ @ @ @ people from gathering for political purposes .
On Wednesday , Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. @ @ @ @ @ opponent in the Democratic primary , called on Wisconsin Democrats to delay the upcoming primary @ @ @ @

SAUL LOEB via Getty Images
The Democratic National Committee is postponing its presidential nominating convention to August 17, according to a Democratic official briefed on the decision. It was scheduled to kick off in Milwaukee on July 13.
The new date is a week before the Republican National Convention.
The move comes after former Vice President Joe Biden, who currently leads in the delegate total, called for the convention to be delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Advertisement
On Tuesday, Biden told MSNBC’s Brian Williams that it was “hard to envision” the convention being held in July as scheduled and said Democratic candidates and officials should “listen to the scientists,” who continue to advise against large gatherings.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-04-02--FBI Reports Staggering 3.7 Million Firearm Background Checks In March

The number of checks last month ― the most since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System launched in 1998 ― marks a 41 % increase from the same time period last year .
Individuals seeking to purchase a gun are required to submit to a federal background check when buying from a federally licensed firearms dealer , which includes major chains like Walmart and Cabela ’ s , as well as mom and pop stores and some individual retailers .
The background check figures appear to confirm reports from gun retailers across the country who say they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weeks tied to coronavirus concerns .
Michael Weeks , owner of the Georgia Gun Store in Gainesville , Georgia , told HuffPost last month that he ’ s seen the biggest increase in sales since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting , when a gunman killed 20 children and six faculty members , as well as his mother and himself , in Newtown , Connecticut .
Gun sales surged across the country in the months after the massacre amid fears that the federal government would enact stricter gun control measures .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 34 % increase in background checks last month compared to December 2012 ― the month that saw the most checks within a year of the Sandy Hook shooting .
“ All of our distributors are several days if not a week behind on getting merchandise out of the warehouse , ” Weeks said .
“ It ’ s like Black Friday every day almost.
” Gun retailers and experts told HuffPost the recent surge in sales was likely caused by several factors , including fears that demand would drive prices up , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stores and the potential for lawlessness amid the crisis .
“ Fear , especially uncertainty , d rives gun purchasing for a lot of people , ” Lacey Wallace , an assistant professor of criminal justice at Penn State Altoona told HuffPost last month .
“ The number one reason people buy and own guns is for personal protection so when you ’ re seeing everything in the news about things getting shut down , the virus spreading ... that ’ s going to bring in a lot of the uncertainty.
” Ammo.com @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Wednesday that it had seen a 792 % increase in revenue when looking at the time period of Feb. 23 to March 31 compared to the previous 39-day time period of Jan. 16 to Feb. 22 .
Though gun safety groups have warned that an increase in gun sales could drive up deadly domestic violence incidents , suicides and accidental deaths , the federal government has deemed gun retailers “ essential ” as stay-at-home orders to curb the contagion spread across the country .
However , the federal guidance doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential .
“ Individual jurisdictions should add or subtract essential workforce categories based on their own requirements and discretion , ” according to an advisory issued March 28 by Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Christopher Krebs .
Governors in at least 37 states have issued stay-at-home orders .
Some states did not list firearms retailers as essential , causing some confusion about whether they could remain open .
The federal guidance issued last week prompted New Jersey Gov .
Phil Murphy ( D ) on Monday to reverse the state ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its stay-at-home order .
“ It wouldn ’ t be my definition , but that ’ s the definition at the federal level and I didn ’ t get a vote on that , ” Murphy said during a press briefing .
The gun shops may reopen “ by appointment only and under limited hours .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
The FBI reported a staggering 3.7 million firearm background checks last month, the strongest indicator yet of a massive spike in gun sales amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The number of checks last month ― the most since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System launched in 1998 ― marks a 41% increase from the same time period last year.
Advertisement
Individuals seeking to purchase a gun are required to submit to a federal background check when buying from a federally licensed firearms dealer, which includes major chains like Walmart and Cabela’s, as well as mom and pop stores and some individual retailers.
The background check figures appear to confirm reports from gun retailers across the country who say they’ve seen a surge in sales in recent weeks tied to coronavirus concerns.
Michael Weeks, owner of the Georgia Gun Store in Gainesville, Georgia, told HuffPost last month that he’s seen the biggest increase in sales since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, when a gunman killed 20 children and six faculty members, as well as his mother and himself, in Newtown, Connecticut.
Gun sales surged across the country in the months after the massacre amid fears that the federal government would enact stricter gun control measures. The FBI’s latest report shows a 34% increase in background checks last month compared to December 2012 ― the month that saw the most checks within a year of the Sandy Hook shooting.
Advertisement
“All of our distributors are several days if not a week behind on getting merchandise out of the warehouse,” Weeks said. “It’s like Black Friday every day almost.”
Gun retailers and experts told HuffPost the recent surge in sales was likely caused by several factors, including fears that demand would drive prices up, the possibility that the government would shut down stores and the potential for lawlessness amid the crisis.
“Fear, especially uncertainty, drives gun purchasing for a lot of people,” Lacey Wallace, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Penn State Altoona told HuffPost last month. “The number one reason people buy and own guns is for personal protection so when you’re seeing everything in the news about things getting shut down, the virus spreading ... that’s going to bring in a lot of the uncertainty.”
Many retailers reported an even higher increase in ammunition sales.
Ammo.com, an online retailer of ammunition, said Wednesday that it had seen a 792% increase in revenue when looking at the time period of Feb. 23 to March 31 compared to the previous 39-day time period of Jan. 16 to Feb. 22. Though gun safety groups have warned that an increase in gun sales could drive up deadly domestic violence incidents, suicides and accidental deaths, the federal government has deemed gun retailers “essential” as stay-at-home orders to curb the contagion spread across the country. However, the federal guidance doesn’t mandate states to list gun retailers as essential.
“Individual jurisdictions should add or subtract essential workforce categories based on their own requirements and discretion,” according to an advisory issued March 28 by Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Christopher Krebs.
Advertisement
Governors in at least 37 states have issued stay-at-home orders. Some states did not list firearms retailers as essential, causing some confusion about whether they could remain open.
The federal guidance issued last week prompted New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) on Monday to reverse the state’s decision to shutter gun stores as part of its stay-at-home order.