npr--2020-06-12--Stacey Abrams Calls Georgia's Primary Election 'An Unmitigated Disaster'

Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams says the state 's Tuesday primary performance was `` an unmitigated disaster , '' pinning the blame on Georgia 's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger .
Polling locations all around Georgia experienced delays and long lines Tuesday due to a mix of logistical problems , technical issues with the state 's new voting machines and COVID-19-related restrictions resulting in fewer available voting sites .
`` The Constitution puts the obligation for the conduct of elections squarely in the hands of the secretary of state .
On top of that , [ Raffensperger ] very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he insisted would be ready for roll out in the primary , at the cost of $ 107 million , '' Abrams told NPR Friday .
`` He failed to adequately direct , train , and invest in the counties so they could do their work , '' she added .
Raffensperger , a Republican , is calling for an investigation into the polling delays in Fulton and DeKalb county , two areas in Georgia that have large minority and Democrat populations .
Abrams disagrees with Raffensperger , arguing that Georgia saw problems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , 20 counties led by Democrats and Republicans , in urban and rural and suburban areas , all experienced the same cataclysmic failures , '' she said .
Abrams became a vocal critic of voter suppression following her razor-thin loss to Brian Kemp in Georgia 's 2018 governor race ( losing by just over one percentage point . )
The election saw high turnout while also recording significant voting problems .
Abrams is the first African American woman to win a major party gubernatorial nomination nationwide .
Following the midterm elections , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that works to combat voter suppression .
She published a new book in early June titled Our Time Is Now : Power , Purpose and the Fight for a Fair America .
`` The point of the book is to really layout in granular detail , but also with historical context , how voter suppression has gone beyond Jim Crow to these labyrinthine administrative rules that trip up anyone who does n't have a law degree and a phalanx of lawyers at their side to help them get through the process if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , '' she said .
When asked if she believes voter restrictions are meant to limit the voices of people of color and Democrats , Abrams said `` yes '' — adding that the specific target varies on location but it can hurt people of color and naturalized immigrants as well as younger and poor Americans .
Looking ahead to the 2020 general election , Abrams stressed that her new book gives voters , `` a playbook , and I think a prescription , for how we can make things better . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed back on the narrative that she has been campaigning to be former Vice President Joe Biden 's running mate .
Over the past several months , Abrams has been open about her willingness to take the job if asked .
`` My responses over the last 14 months have been numbingly consistent , which is : 'Would you serve if asked ? '
Yes .
'Are you qualified to serve ? '
Yes .
That 's it .
There is no campaign .
There is no jockeying .
There are simply the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ black woman , I do not have either the luxury or the intention of pretending that I ca n't or I wo n't , '' Abrams said .
`` I do n't just speak for myself .
I speak for anyone who looks like me , wants to become more and will find themselves blocked because someone years before said it was n't possible .
So I will never be the person who says it 's not possible and I 'll never be the one to say I ca n't , '' she @ @

Stacey Abrams Calls Georgia's Primary Election 'An Unmitigated Disaster'
Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams says the state's Tuesday primary performance was "an unmitigated disaster," pinning the blame on Georgia's Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
Polling locations all around Georgia experienced delays and long lines Tuesday due to a mix of logistical problems, technical issues with the state's new voting machines and COVID-19-related restrictions resulting in fewer available voting sites.
"The Constitution puts the obligation for the conduct of elections squarely in the hands of the secretary of state. On top of that, [Raffensperger] very vigorously pushed to purchase new machines that he insisted would be ready for roll out in the primary, at the cost of $107 million," Abrams told NPR Friday.
"He failed to adequately direct, train, and invest in the counties so they could do their work," she added.
Raffensperger, a Republican, is calling for an investigation into the polling delays in Fulton and DeKalb county, two areas in Georgia that have large minority and Democrat populations. Abrams disagrees with Raffensperger, arguing that Georgia saw problems throughout the state.
"Across the state, 20 counties led by Democrats and Republicans, in urban and rural and suburban areas, all experienced the same cataclysmic failures," she said.
Abrams became a vocal critic of voter suppression following her razor-thin loss to Brian Kemp in Georgia's 2018 governor race (losing by just over one percentage point.) The election saw high turnout while also recording significant voting problems. Abrams is the first African American woman to win a major party gubernatorial nomination nationwide.
Following the midterm elections, Abrams founded the organization, Fair Fight, that works to combat voter suppression. She published a new book in early June titled Our Time Is Now: Power, Purpose and the Fight for a Fair America.
"The point of the book is to really layout in granular detail, but also with historical context, how voter suppression has gone beyond Jim Crow to these labyrinthine administrative rules that trip up anyone who doesn't have a law degree and a phalanx of lawyers at their side to help them get through the process if they are one of the intended targets," she said.
When asked if she believes voter restrictions are meant to limit the voices of people of color and Democrats, Abrams said "yes" — adding that the specific target varies on location but it can hurt people of color and naturalized immigrants as well as younger and poor Americans.
Looking ahead to the 2020 general election, Abrams stressed that her new book gives voters, "a playbook, and I think a prescription, for how we can make things better."
The former Georgia House minority leader also pushed back on the narrative that she has been campaigning to be former Vice President Joe Biden's running mate. Over the past several months, Abrams has been open about her willingness to take the job if asked.
"My responses over the last 14 months have been numbingly consistent, which is: 'Would you serve if asked?' Yes. 'Are you qualified to serve?' Yes. That's it. There is no campaign. There is no jockeying. There are simply the straightforward responses I give because as a black woman, I do not have either the luxury or the intention of pretending that I can't or I won't," Abrams said.
"I don't just speak for myself. I speak for anyone who looks like me, wants to become more and will find themselves blocked because someone years before said it wasn't possible. So I will never be the person who says it's not possible and I'll never be the one to say I can't," she added.


npr--2020-06-12--NASCAR Driver Bubba Wallace On Confederate Flag Ban: 'A Long Time Coming'

Bubba Wallace has yet to win a race in NASCAR 's premier Cup series , but he 's been thrust into the spotlight as the lone African American driver in a sport steeped in white Southern heritage .
Amid nationwide protests against systemic racism , Wallace on Monday called for NASCAR to ban the display of Confederate flags at its races .
Two days later , it did .
`` It 's been a long time coming for sure , '' he said in an interview Friday with NPR 's All Things Considered .
`` And I know a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the choices that NASCAR would make to change the image and move forward with the message that we 're trying to push across these days . ''
NASCAR has a long history with the Confederate flag .
It 's appeared everywhere from print ads to track flagpoles to the T-shirts and tattoos on spectators .
Five years ago , NASCAR requested fans stop bringing Confederate flags to races , but did n't mandate it .
Flags have still been present at many races .
Wallace , 26 , says he was inspired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posts and articles about potential new fans being turned off by what many regard as a hate symbol at the racetrack .
He 's been talking with NASCAR executives and other drivers about it as well .
He says the tipping point came after the death of Ahmaud Arbery , the 25-year-old black man who was pursued by three white men and then fatally shot while jogging in Glynn County , Ga. in February .
`` It shook me to the core to a point where it kind of flipped a light switch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
At Sunday 's race in Atlanta , Wallace wore a shirt with the words : `` I Ca n't Breathe : Black Lives Matter . ''
The message grew louder Wednesday at Martinsville Speedway .
Wallace 's car featured a full paint scheme devoted to Black Lives Matter .
Wallace got a lot of attention for the paint scheme , which is normally reserved for corporate sponsors .
LeBron James and New Orleans Saints player Alvin Kamara gave online shout outs and retired NFL safety Bernard Pollard Jr. pledged to watch Wallace @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Banning the Confederate flag was a `` small step , '' Wallace says , but it means people `` that felt uncomfortable can come back now and enjoy their time at a race . ''
There has already been some backlash , he says , but `` that 's the world we live in . ''
Wallace hopes the attention NASCAR is getting `` may open the doors for new people to want to be a part of our sport now .
... We will learn and figure out ways to build off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the racetrack and on the part of pit crews , even more there .
We have a lot of guys from different backgrounds in pit crews and even in the front offices of NASCAR and race teams . ''
Listen to the audio version of the interview here .

NASCAR Driver Bubba Wallace On Confederate Flag Ban: 'A Long Time Coming'
Enlarge this image toggle caption Steve Helber/AP Steve Helber/AP
Bubba Wallace has yet to win a race in NASCAR's premier Cup series, but he's been thrust into the spotlight as the lone African American driver in a sport steeped in white Southern heritage.
Amid nationwide protests against systemic racism, Wallace on Monday called for NASCAR to ban the display of Confederate flags at its races. Two days later, it did.
"It's been a long time coming for sure," he said in an interview Friday with NPR's All Things Considered. "And I know a lot of people are satisfied with the direction and the choices that NASCAR would make to change the image and move forward with the message that we're trying to push across these days."
NASCAR has a long history with the Confederate flag. It's appeared everywhere from print ads to track flagpoles to the T-shirts and tattoos on spectators. Five years ago, NASCAR requested fans stop bringing Confederate flags to races, but didn't mandate it. Flags have still been present at many races.
Wallace, 26, says he was inspired to speak up after seeing social media posts and articles about potential new fans being turned off by what many regard as a hate symbol at the racetrack. He's been talking with NASCAR executives and other drivers about it as well.
He says the tipping point came after the death of Ahmaud Arbery, the 25-year-old black man who was pursued by three white men and then fatally shot while jogging in Glynn County, Ga. in February.
"It shook me to the core to a point where it kind of flipped a light switch inside of me," Wallace says.
At Sunday's race in Atlanta, Wallace wore a shirt with the words: "I Can't Breathe: Black Lives Matter."
The message grew louder Wednesday at Martinsville Speedway. Wallace's car featured a full paint scheme devoted to Black Lives Matter.
Wallace got a lot of attention for the paint scheme, which is normally reserved for corporate sponsors. LeBron James and New Orleans Saints player Alvin Kamara gave online shout outs and retired NFL safety Bernard Pollard Jr. pledged to watch Wallace for the rest of the year.
Banning the Confederate flag was a "small step," Wallace says, but it means people "that felt uncomfortable can come back now and enjoy their time at a race."
There has already been some backlash, he says, but "that's the world we live in."
Wallace hopes the attention NASCAR is getting "may open the doors for new people to want to be a part of our sport now. ... We will learn and figure out ways to build off this to get a more diverse background on the racetrack and on the part of pit crews, even more there. We have a lot of guys from different backgrounds in pit crews and even in the front offices of NASCAR and race teams."
Listen to the audio version of the interview here.


npr--2020-06-12--Coronavirus 2nd Wave? Nope, The U.S. Is Still Stuck In The 1st One

Coronavirus 2nd Wave ?
Nope , The U.S. Is Still Stuck In The 1st One Just weeks after parts of the U.S. began reopening , coronavirus infections are on the upswing in several states , including Arizona , Utah , Texas and Florida .
Dramatic increases in daily case counts have given rise to some unsettling questions : Is the U.S. at the start of a second wave ?
Have states reopened too soon ?
And have the recent widespread demonstrations against racial injustice inadvertently added fuel to the fire ?
The short , unpleasant answer to the first question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gotten through the current first wave of infections .
Since peaking at around 31,000 average new daily cases on April 10 , new daily cases dropped to around 22,000 on average by mid-May and have stayed almost steady over the last four weeks .
Nationwide more than 800 people continue to die day after day .
Prominent forecasters are predicting a slow but steady accumulation of additional deaths between now and Oct. 1 — more than 56,000 by one estimate , around 90,000 by one another .
`` We really never quite finished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ashish Jha , a professor of global health at Harvard University .
`` And it does n't look like we are going to anytime soon . ''
That said , forecasters say , we could still be due for a true second wave later in the year , citing growing evidence that colder weather could lead to a surge in coronavirus cases .
So why is the U.S. stuck in a coronavirus plateau despite months of widespread social distancing ?
To explain , it helps to get a bit technical .
The key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the `` reproduction number '' of the coronavirus — or the R for short — essentially a proxy for how powerfully infection is spreading in your community .
It tells you , for each individual who is infected , how many other people this person will go on to infect .
When the reproduction number is above 1 , case counts will spiral upward exponentially .
When it gets to well below 1 and stays there , outbreaks subside .
For example , if the reproduction number is 2 , then one person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Those two people go on to infect four others .
Those four go on to infect eight , then 16 and so on .
If you assume , say , a six-day interval between each new round of infections — in just over a month , that one initial person will have launched a chain that has infected 127 people .
Most estimates are that early this year , when no measures were being taken to keep the coronavirus in check , the reproduction number in the U.S. was above 2 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that states undertook this spring served to push the reproduction number to slightly below 1 — to 0.91 , according to an estimate by Youyang Gu , an independent modeler whose work is highly regarded by prominent epidemiologists .
This halted the upward spiral of cases .
But because the reproduction number was still so close to 1 , the curve of new infections never really bent sharply downward .
Essentially most of the U.S. reached a kind of steady state — with each infected person passing the virus on to one new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infections and new deaths .
Now that states have opened up , the reproduction number has started to creep back up above 1 .
According to Gu 's analysis , that is now the case in more than two-thirds of the states .
So far , at least , the reproduction number has been hovering at just above 1 .
Assuming that remains the case , the U.S. wo n't see the kind of runaway run-up in cases that was so alarming in New York .
But it does mean cases and deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If things stay basically status quo and we continue doing what we 're doing , we 're going to continue seeing 25,000 to 30,000 additional deaths a month for the foreseeable future , '' Jha says .
Grim as it is , even this picture may be overly rosy , Jha adds .
`` I 'm worried that the idea that we 're going to stay flat all summer is a very optimistic view of what is going to happen over the next three months , '' he says .
To maintain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or better yet , push it back to just under 1 , even in the midst of further re-opening `` would take a lot of work , '' Jha says .
`` You 'd have to have really substantially ramped-up testing and isolation [ of new cases ] . ''
There 's also evidence emerging that widespread use of masks by people when they are out in public could help , Jha notes .
Unfortunately , he says , it is hard to envision the U.S. adopting any of these practices to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are today . ''
It gets worse .
On Thursday , Chris Murray , the head of the University of Washington 's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation forecasting team , pointed to growing evidence that the coronavirus will spread more easily as the weather turns cold .
Murray 's team analyzed the pattern of the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. to date .
They found that the drop in the reproduction number since early spring ca n't be entirely explained by obvious contributing factors — such as people 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing .
And when the team looked for additional variables that could explain the change , it found a strong correlation with warming weather .
This finding does n't shed light on why transmission may be reduced in the warmer months .
( For example , could it be that coronavirus droplets do n't hang in warmer air for as long ?
Is it simply that people spend less time mingling with each other indoors ? )
But Murray says that `` as time goes by , the evidence is accumulating that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
The effect is not strong enough to make the virus completely disappear over the summer .
But it does mean , Murray says , that come autumn transmission will likely pick up .
`` We start to see a powerful increase that will be driven by seasonality starting in early September and these numbers will intensify through till February , '' Murray says .
`` So seasonality will be a very big driver of the second wave . ''
He adds though , that this does not take into account actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clearly what individuals choose to do can moderate the forecast , '' he says , noting that widespread mask use and avoidance of social contact with people outside one 's household could help .
Even as many public health experts cheered the anti-racism protests — and the possibility that lives could ultimately be saved if demonstrations result in policy changes that reduce racial inequities — some wondered at the extent to which these would come at a cost of increased deaths from COVID-19 .
But calculating just how many additional deaths the demonstrations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is no accurate count available of the number of participants , let alone their ages — which appear to skew young , suggesting the vast majority of those infected would not experience bad outcomes .
Also with little prior research on this particular form of intermingling , it 's hard to say how much infection results from it .
Though many people have been standing and marching in close quarters , being outdoors mitigates the effect of crowding , as does mask use .
But the biggest determinant of how many deaths ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the demonstrations , says Marc Lipsitch , an epidemiologist at Harvard .
`` Some transmissions will almost certainly happen at the protests and the question is whether those lead to a lot of cases down the line or a relatively small number of cases down the line , '' he explains .
Do those who are infected at marches go back into an environment where there 's a high level of ongoing transmission or a low level ?
`` How much transmission happens later on , '' Lipsitch adds , `` is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a society and whether we can suppress transmission around the country than on how many people go to the protests . ''
In other words , perhaps the better question is not , will the demonstrators cause a spike in COVID-19 infections ?
But rather will all of us — the public and our leaders — behave in a way that keeps the reproduction number low and ensures that these marches and any improvements to racial equality they achieve do n't come at a price of many more COVID-19 deaths .

Coronavirus 2nd Wave? Nope, The U.S. Is Still Stuck In The 1st One
Enlarge this image toggle caption Michael Nagle/Xinhua News Agency/Getty Images Michael Nagle/Xinhua News Agency/Getty Images
Just weeks after parts of the U.S. began reopening, coronavirus infections are on the upswing in several states, including Arizona, Utah, Texas and Florida. Dramatic increases in daily case counts have given rise to some unsettling questions: Is the U.S. at the start of a second wave? Have states reopened too soon? And have the recent widespread demonstrations against racial injustice inadvertently added fuel to the fire?
The short, unpleasant answer to the first question is that the U.S. has not even gotten through the current first wave of infections. Since peaking at around 31,000 average new daily cases on April 10, new daily cases dropped to around 22,000 on average by mid-May and have stayed almost steady over the last four weeks. Nationwide more than 800 people continue to die day after day.
Loading...
Prominent forecasters are predicting a slow but steady accumulation of additional deaths between now and Oct. 1 — more than 56,000 by one estimate, around 90,000 by one another.
"We really never quite finished the first wave," says Dr. Ashish Jha, a professor of global health at Harvard University. "And it doesn't look like we are going to anytime soon."
That said, forecasters say, we could still be due for a true second wave later in the year, citing growing evidence that colder weather could lead to a surge in coronavirus cases.
Why we're stuck
So why is the U.S. stuck in a coronavirus plateau despite months of widespread social distancing? To explain, it helps to get a bit technical. The key indicator at issue is what's called the "reproduction number" of the coronavirus — or the R for short — essentially a proxy for how powerfully infection is spreading in your community. It tells you, for each individual who is infected, how many other people this person will go on to infect. When the reproduction number is above 1, case counts will spiral upward exponentially. When it gets to well below 1 and stays there, outbreaks subside.
For example, if the reproduction number is 2, then one person goes on to infect two others. Those two people go on to infect four others. Those four go on to infect eight, then 16 and so on. If you assume, say, a six-day interval between each new round of infections — in just over a month, that one initial person will have launched a chain that has infected 127 people.
Most estimates are that early this year, when no measures were being taken to keep the coronavirus in check, the reproduction number in the U.S. was above 2.
The stay-at-home measures and other social distancing efforts that states undertook this spring served to push the reproduction number to slightly below 1 — to 0.91, according to an estimate by Youyang Gu, an independent modeler whose work is highly regarded by prominent epidemiologists.
This halted the upward spiral of cases. But because the reproduction number was still so close to 1, the curve of new infections never really bent sharply downward. Essentially most of the U.S. reached a kind of steady state — with each infected person passing the virus on to one new person in a regular drip-drip of new infections and new deaths.
Now that states have opened up, the reproduction number has started to creep back up above 1. According to Gu's analysis, that is now the case in more than two-thirds of the states.
So far, at least, the reproduction number has been hovering at just above 1. Assuming that remains the case, the U.S. won't see the kind of runaway run-up in cases that was so alarming in New York. But it does mean cases and deaths will continue to accrue steadily.
"If things stay basically status quo and we continue doing what we're doing, we're going to continue seeing 25,000 to 30,000 additional deaths a month for the foreseeable future," Jha says.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Tony Gutierrez/AP Tony Gutierrez/AP
Grim as it is, even this picture may be overly rosy, Jha adds. "I'm worried that the idea that we're going to stay flat all summer is a very optimistic view of what is going to happen over the next three months," he says.
To maintain a reproduction number that's just over 1, or better yet, push it back to just under 1, even in the midst of further re-opening "would take a lot of work," Jha says. "You'd have to have really substantially ramped-up testing and isolation [of new cases]." There's also evidence emerging that widespread use of masks by people when they are out in public could help, Jha notes. Unfortunately, he says, it is hard to envision the U.S. adopting any of these practices to a sufficient degree "based on where we are today."
The seasonal effect
It gets worse. On Thursday, Chris Murray, the head of the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation forecasting team, pointed to growing evidence that the coronavirus will spread more easily as the weather turns cold.
Murray's team analyzed the pattern of the spread of the coronavirus in the U.S. to date. They found that the drop in the reproduction number since early spring can't be entirely explained by obvious contributing factors — such as people's reduced mobility or mask wearing or better testing. And when the team looked for additional variables that could explain the change, it found a strong correlation with warming weather.
This finding doesn't shed light on why transmission may be reduced in the warmer months. (For example, could it be that coronavirus droplets don't hang in warmer air for as long? Is it simply that people spend less time mingling with each other indoors?) But Murray says that "as time goes by, the evidence is accumulating that it is a very strong predictor of transmission."
The effect is not strong enough to make the virus completely disappear over the summer. But it does mean, Murray says, that come autumn transmission will likely pick up.
"We start to see a powerful increase that will be driven by seasonality starting in early September and these numbers will intensify through till February," Murray says. "So seasonality will be a very big driver of the second wave."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images Alex Edelman/AFP via Getty Images
He adds though, that this does not take into account actions that could mitigate the impact. "Clearly what individuals choose to do can moderate the forecast," he says, noting that widespread mask use and avoidance of social contact with people outside one's household could help.
Parsing the effects of protests
Even as many public health experts cheered the anti-racism protests — and the possibility that lives could ultimately be saved if demonstrations result in policy changes that reduce racial inequities — some wondered at the extent to which these would come at a cost of increased deaths from COVID-19.
But calculating just how many additional deaths the demonstrations might lead to is difficult. There is no accurate count available of the number of participants, let alone their ages — which appear to skew young, suggesting the vast majority of those infected would not experience bad outcomes.
Also with little prior research on this particular form of intermingling, it's hard to say how much infection results from it. Though many people have been standing and marching in close quarters, being outdoors mitigates the effect of crowding, as does mask use.
But the biggest determinant of how many deaths ultimately result is what happens in the aftermath of the demonstrations, says Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at Harvard.
"Some transmissions will almost certainly happen at the protests and the question is whether those lead to a lot of cases down the line or a relatively small number of cases down the line," he explains. Do those who are infected at marches go back into an environment where there's a high level of ongoing transmission or a low level?
"How much transmission happens later on," Lipsitch adds, "is far more dependent on our actions as a society and whether we can suppress transmission around the country than on how many people go to the protests."
In other words, perhaps the better question is not, will the demonstrators cause a spike in COVID-19 infections? But rather will all of us — the public and our leaders — behave in a way that keeps the reproduction number low and ensures that these marches and any improvements to racial equality they achieve don't come at a price of many more COVID-19 deaths.


npr--2020-06-12--New York Criminalizes Use Of Chokeholds By Police

New York Criminalizes Use Of Chokeholds By Police New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo has signed what he says are the most aggressive police accountability measures in the nation , including criminalizing the use of chokeholds , following weeks of protests over the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police .
The changes include requiring police forces across the state to `` develop a plan that reinvents and modernizes police strategies and programs '' by April 1 , 2021 , including bias awareness and use of force .
Local departments must engage the public in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials to be eligible for state funding .
`` This emergency regulation will help rebuild that confidence and restore trust between police and the communities they serve by requiring localities to develop a new plan for policing in the community based on fact-finding and meaningful community input , '' he said .
Cuomo signed the executive order at a ceremony flanked by African American state legislators , the Rev .
Al Sharpton , and the mothers of two black men who died at the hands of the New York Police Department in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cuomo lamented that Garner 's death in 2014 , and pleas of `` I ca n't breathe '' to police , was so closely echoed in George Floyd 's killing five years later .
`` The same case over and over and over .
And still no change .
And Mr. Floyd 's murder , God bless this country for standing up and saying enough is enough , '' said Cuomo .
The changes in the law have been vehemently opposed by police unions for years – including allowing the public to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and classifying police use of a chokehold as a felony punishable with up to 15 years in prison .
That new law was named the Eric Garner Anti-Chokehold Act .
Sharpton praised the governor but credited demonstrators nationwide for making the changes happen .
`` We were told , 'You start with demonstration to lead to legislation and then reconciliation . '
Without the legislation , the demonstration is just an exercise , '' said Sharpton .

New York Criminalizes Use Of Chokeholds By Police
Enlarge this image toggle caption Kevin P. Coughlin//AP Kevin P. Coughlin//AP
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has signed what he says are the most aggressive police accountability measures in the nation, including criminalizing the use of chokeholds, following weeks of protests over the death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police.
The changes include requiring police forces across the state to "develop a plan that reinvents and modernizes police strategies and programs" by April 1, 2021, including bias awareness and use of force. Local departments must engage the public in their plans and receive the approval of local officials to be eligible for state funding.
"This emergency regulation will help rebuild that confidence and restore trust between police and the communities they serve by requiring localities to develop a new plan for policing in the community based on fact-finding and meaningful community input," he said.
Cuomo signed the executive order at a ceremony flanked by African American state legislators, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and the mothers of two black men who died at the hands of the New York Police Department in recent years – Sean Bell and Eric Garner.
Cuomo lamented that Garner's death in 2014, and pleas of "I can't breathe" to police, was so closely echoed in George Floyd's killing five years later.
"The same case over and over and over. And still no change. And Mr. Floyd's murder, God bless this country for standing up and saying enough is enough," said Cuomo.
The changes in the law have been vehemently opposed by police unions for years – including allowing the public to access police officers' past disciplinary records, and classifying police use of a chokehold as a felony punishable with up to 15 years in prison. That new law was named the Eric Garner Anti-Chokehold Act.
Sharpton praised the governor but credited demonstrators nationwide for making the changes happen.
"We were told, 'You start with demonstration to lead to legislation and then reconciliation.' Without the legislation, the demonstration is just an exercise," said Sharpton.


npr--2020-06-12--'We're Not Racist': French Police Say They're Being Unfairly Criticized

'We 're Not Racist ' : French Police Say They 're Being Unfairly Criticized French police say they are being stigmatized during protests in France against police violence in the wake of George Floyd 's death .
On Thursday , police gathered in front of precincts across the country and threw down their handcuffs in a symbolic gesture against what they say is unfair criticism .
`` The police in France have nothing to do with the police in the U.S. , and we 're not racist , '' said Fabien Vanhemelryck , the head of the main police union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of police officers demonstrating Friday morning along the Champs-Élysées .
Just days after Floyd was killed while in police custody in Minneapolis , more than 20,000 Parisians defied a ban on gatherings during the pandemic to demand the truth about the death of a black Frenchman named Adama Traoré while in police custody in 2016 .
The protesters said the French police , like their American counterparts , are endemically racist , a charge denied by many top officials in a country that likes to consider itself colorblind .
Mathieu Zagrodzki is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the University of Versailles .
He says police violence in France can not really be compared to the levels of violence in the U.S. '' French police kill from 10 to 15 people a year , '' he says .
`` American police kill more than 1000 . ''
But Zagrodzki says both forces disproportionately target minorities .
A 2017 report by the French state civil liberties guardian , the Défenseur des Droits , says people perceived as black or Arab are 20 times more likely to be stopped by police than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the U.S. and France is that in France I do n't fear for my life , '' says Thierry Picaut , a black actor who participated in a rally this week .
Earlier this week , Interior Minister Christophe Castaner announced a ban on police use of chokeholds and said there would be zero tolerance for racism in law enforcement .
The police say they need the chokehold to restrain violent individuals and keep dangerous situations from escalating .
Officers say Castaner has betrayed them .
Zagrodzki says strong police unions makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say French law-enforcement is in a state of crisis .
`` The police paid a high toll in the terrorist attacks , '' he says , referring to a series of bloody incidents in 2015 .
That was followed by the long and frequently violent `` yellow vest '' protests that all but paralyzed France for much of last year .
The strain on officers has been intense `` They have worked more than 25 million hours of overtime in the past few years , '' Zagrodzki says , `` and the the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ''

'We're Not Racist': French Police Say They're Being Unfairly Criticized
Enlarge this image toggle caption Michel Euler/AP Michel Euler/AP
French police say they are being stigmatized during protests in France against police violence in the wake of George Floyd's death.
On Thursday, police gathered in front of precincts across the country and threw down their handcuffs in a symbolic gesture against what they say is unfair criticism.
"The police in France have nothing to do with the police in the U.S., and we're not racist," said Fabien Vanhemelryck, the head of the main police union in France, as he joined dozens of police officers demonstrating Friday morning along the Champs-Élysées.
Just days after Floyd was killed while in police custody in Minneapolis, more than 20,000 Parisians defied a ban on gatherings during the pandemic to demand the truth about the death of a black Frenchman named Adama Traoré while in police custody in 2016.
The protesters said the French police, like their American counterparts, are endemically racist, a charge denied by many top officials in a country that likes to consider itself colorblind.
Mathieu Zagrodzki is a specialist on law enforcement and a lecturer at the University of Versailles. He says police violence in France cannot really be compared to the levels of violence in the U.S.
"French police kill from 10 to 15 people a year," he says. "American police kill more than 1000."
But Zagrodzki says both forces disproportionately target minorities.
A 2017 report by the French state civil liberties guardian, the Défenseur des Droits, says people perceived as black or Arab are 20 times more likely to be stopped by police than the general population.
"The difference with the U.S. and France is that in France I don't fear for my life," says Thierry Picaut, a black actor who participated in a rally this week.
Earlier this week, Interior Minister Christophe Castaner announced a ban on police use of chokeholds and said there would be zero tolerance for racism in law enforcement.
The police say they need the chokehold to restrain violent individuals and keep dangerous situations from escalating. Officers say Castaner has betrayed them.
Zagrodzki says strong police unions makes reform difficult to achieve – and he say French law-enforcement is in a state of crisis.
"The police paid a high toll in the terrorist attacks," he says, referring to a series of bloody incidents in 2015. That was followed by the long and frequently violent "yellow vest" protests that all but paralyzed France for much of last year.
The strain on officers has been intense "They have worked more than 25 million hours of overtime in the past few years," Zagrodzki says, "and the the number of suicides is very high."


npr--2020-06-12--Transgender Health Protections Reversed By Trump Administration

The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule that would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people when it comes to health care and health insurance .
`` HHS respects the dignity of every human being , and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic , we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress , '' said Roger Severino , who directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services , in a written statement announcing that the HHS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is set to go into effect by mid-August .
It is one of many rules and regulations put forward by the Trump administration that defines `` sex discrimination '' as only applying when someone faces discrimination for being male or female , and does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity .
Supporters of the new rule said this is a necessary reversal of Obama-era executive overreach and will reduce confusion about the legal meaning of `` sex discrimination . ''
Critics argue the rule could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transgender people — in the midst of a pandemic and historic unrest spurred by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis .
`` I ca n't help but wonder if the timing [ of this rule ] is by design so that this is something that people wo n't pay attention to , '' said Tia Sherèe Gaynor , a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati .
What the final rule does The rule focuses on nondiscrimination protections laid out in Section 1557 of the Affordable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of `` race , color , national origin , sex , age or disability in certain health programs and activities . ''
In 2016 , an Obama-era rule explained that protections regarding `` sex '' encompass those based on gender identity , which it defined as `` male , female , neither , or a combination of male and female . ''
In June 2019 , under Trump , the HHS Office for Civil Rights proposed a rule ( the one finalized this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama administration .
Severino said at the time , `` We 're going back to the plain meaning of those terms , which is based on biological sex . ''
He also said the rule could save hospitals and insurers and others $ 2.9 billion over five years since they will be relieved of the requirement to print notices of nondiscrimination in several languages and include them with any `` significant '' mailings .
Under the new rule , a transgender person could , for example , be refused care for a checkup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lindsey Dawson , associate director of HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation .
Other possible scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer , or a hysterectomy not being covered by an insurer — or costing more when the procedure is related to someone 's gender transition .
The Trump rule makes changes to gender-based discrimination protections beyond Section 1557 of the ACA ; it affects regulations pertaining to access to health insurance , for example , including cost-sharing , health plan marketing and benefits .
The rule could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be denied care if performing the procedure violates the provider 's moral or religious beliefs .
Even with the rule now finalized , an LGBTQ person who is discriminated against or denied health care can still sue , and courts may rule that their civil rights were violated in such a case .
But that 's not an easy avenue , Dawson said .
`` Because of limited access to litigation , I think that it 's fair to state that the ramifications [ of this rule ] could be pretty significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also vary based on where someone lives , she added , so the rule `` creates a patchwork of civil rights , compared to standardized protections . ''
For Severino , this move has been a long time coming .
He joined the Trump administration from the Heritage Foundation , a conservative think tank , where he wrote a paper on gender protections in Section 1557 .
He 's also a devout Catholic and , as director of the Office for Civil Rights , has made protections of religious freedom a key focus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refuse to provide care that contradicts their religious or moral beliefs .
The rule the HHS proposed on gender and discrimination in health care garnered 155,966 public comments .
The final rule is nearly identical to the original version proposed last year .
Conservative groups , including the Christian Medical Association , the Susan B. Anthony List and the Heritage Foundation , applauded the new HHS guidance .
`` Health professionals know they must base medical decisions on biology and science , not ideology , '' Dr. Jeff Barrows , the Christian Medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and public policy , said after hearing the announcement .
`` We are hopeful that this rule will help steer consideration of gender issues in health care back toward science and away from politics and ideology , back to the protection of professional medical judgment and the freedom to adhere to long-observed ethical and moral standards . ''
Ryan Anderson , a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former colleague of Severino 's , submitted a comment in support of the rule .
Anderson said it simply reverses what he sees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Just for the lawmaking process , it 's important that the Trump administration clarify that that 's not what Congress had in mind when they used the word 'sex , ' `` he said .
Critics worry about access to health care , especially in a pandemic Mari Brighe , a freelance writer and transgender woman who lives outside Detroit , called the rule `` terrifying . ''
`` I can relate a decade of stories about getting terrible health care because I 'm trans , '' Brighe said .
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation not knowing whether doctors are going to treat us well , whether we 're going to get high quality care , whether any given , random health care person is going to be terrible to us . ''
Once , when seriously ill with the flu and having trouble breathing , Brighe recalled , she was sent home from a hospital in rural New York and ended up driving 90 minutes and crossing a lake by ferry to get treatment at a hospital in Vermont .
She said worries now that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are already reluctant to seek medical care — all the more likely to avoid coronavirus treatment and testing .
`` The way that [ the rule ] reads to me is that people could refuse to collect your COVID specimen because they do n't want to touch a trans person , '' she said .
`` That 's a recipe for spreading a really terrible pandemic among a really , really vulnerable population . ''
`` I ca n't help but think about how this impacts black trans people , '' said Gaynor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that African American transgender people are `` arguably the most marginalized group in our country . ''
African Americans who get COVID-19 are much more likely to die from that disease than are white Americans , statistics show .
A recent report from the Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that hundreds of thousands of transgender adults may be especially vulnerable to COVID-19 because they have an underlying condition , are over 65 , lack health insurance or live in poverty .
For black transgender people , Gaynor said , `` it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on top of racism on top of economic oppression . ''
All of that could affect their ability to get health care during the pandemic , she said , which in turn could have public health implications for all .
Katie Keith , a health law professor at Georgetown University , noted that the new rule could have another chilling effect .
`` Even if no one actually does discriminate more because of the rule , you 've created a fear , '' Keith said .
She pointed to research documenting how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalizes people who are seeking to become citizens if they use public safety net programs such as nutrition and housing assistance — affected people and programs outside the scope of the rule itself .
`` When they target these vulnerable populations , you see less enrollment in health insurance , '' she said .
`` You see folks scared to go to the doctor . ''
Although the Heritage Foundation 's Anderson supports the rule , he said the prospect that it could have a chilling effect is `` a very reasonable concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any reasonable person wants to see transgender people not enrolling in health care plans and not having access to health care , '' Anderson said .
What 's needed , he said , is a `` finer grain '' approach to this issue — such as a new law in Congress that protects LGTBQ people from health care discrimination generally but carves out protection for providers to refuse to provide care related to sex reassignment .
What 's next ?
a word from the high court and , perhaps , Congress Now that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this rule — which was issued by an agency of the executive branch — may now encounter hurdles via the two other branches of the federal government .
This month , for example , the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on two major cases on the meaning of the word `` sex '' in employment discrimination .
The two cases involve issues closely related to the legal questions at play in Severino 's HHS rule , and the high court 's decision might have major implications for the rule 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they 're finalizing this rule before we have the Supreme Court decision , '' Keith said .
Meanwhile , in Congress , House Democrats have already asserted that they strongly disagree with the HHS rule .
In early May , Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that read , in part : `` The Administration must immediately abandon this outrageous , un-American plan and give LGBTQ individuals the reassurance that they will never be denied the health care they or their families need . ''
Now that the final rule is out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invalidating it , using the Congressional Review Act .
That would only happen in this case if — within 60 days that Congress is in session — Trump were no longer president , and simple majorities in both chambers of Congress voted to block the rule .
Even if Democrats win big in November , it 's not clear if that 's a possibility given the tricky timeline — Congress is typically in recess in August , and the COVID-19 pandemic may complicate matters further The date at which the final rule would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a moving target , Keith said .
`` Folks are watching the calendar now [ wondering ] , 'When is that 60-day legislative deadline ? '
`` What 's much more certain , she said , is that there will be lawsuits to try to overturn the rule or block it from going into effect .
On Friday , less than an hour after HHS issued its press release , LGBTQ activist group Lambda Legal said it would challenge the new rule in court .
`` Today 's rule is a tragically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illegal , '' Omar Gonzalez-Pagan , Lambda Legal senior attorney and health care strategist , said in a written statement .
`` We will be challenging the rule because at a time when the entire world is battling a dangerous pandemic , which in the United States has infected more than 2,000,000 people and killed more than 116,000 , it is critical for everyone to have ready access to the potentially lifesaving health care they need . ''
Unless someone does file a lawsuit that results in a judge putting the rule on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into effect 60 days from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register .

Transgender Health Protections Reversed By Trump Administration
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jacquelyn Martin/AP Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Updated at 7:29 p.m. ET
The Trump administration on Friday finalized a rule that would remove nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people when it comes to health care and health insurance.
"HHS respects the dignity of every human being, and as we have shown in our response to the pandemic, we vigorously protect and enforce the civil rights of all to the fullest extent permitted by our laws as passed by Congress," said Roger Severino, who directs the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health and Human Services, in a written statement announcing that the HHS rule had become final. The rule is set to go into effect by mid-August.
It is one of many rules and regulations put forward by the Trump administration that defines "sex discrimination" as only applying when someone faces discrimination for being female or male, and does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Supporters of the new rule said this is a necessary reversal of Obama-era executive overreach and will reduce confusion about the legal meaning of "sex discrimination." Critics argue the rule could further harm an already vulnerable group — transgender people — in the midst of a pandemic and historic unrest spurred by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of police in Minneapolis.
"I can't help but wonder if the timing [of this rule] is by design so that this is something that people won't pay attention to," said Tia Sherèe Gaynor, a political science professor at the University of Cincinnati.
What the final rule does
The rule focuses on nondiscrimination protections laid out in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. That federal law established that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of "race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability in certain health programs and activities." In 2016, an Obama-era rule explained that protections regarding "sex" encompass those based on gender identity, which it defined as "male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female."
In June 2019, under Trump, the HHS Office for Civil Rights proposed a rule (the one finalized this week) that reverses the one from the Obama administration.
Severino said at the time, "We're going back to the plain meaning of those terms, which is based on biological sex." He also said the rule could save hospitals and insurers and others $2.9 billion over five years since they will be relieved of the requirement to print notices of nondiscrimination in several languages and include them with any "significant" mailings.
Under the new rule, a transgender person could, for example, be refused care for a checkup at a doctor's office, said Lindsey Dawson, associate director of HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. Other possible scenarios include a transgender man being denied treatment for ovarian cancer, or a hysterectomy not being covered by an insurer — or costing more when the procedure is related to someone's gender transition.
The Trump rule makes changes to gender-based discrimination protections beyond Section 1557 of the ACA; it affects regulations pertaining to access to health insurance, for example, including cost-sharing, health plan marketing and benefits. The rule could also mean that those seeking an abortion could be denied care if performing the procedure violates the provider's moral or religious beliefs.
Even with the rule now finalized, an LGBTQ person who is discriminated against or denied health care can still sue, and courts may rule that their civil rights were violated in such a case. But that's not an easy avenue, Dawson said.
"Because of limited access to litigation, I think that it's fair to state that the ramifications [of this rule] could be pretty significant," she said. Protections will also vary based on where someone lives, she added, so the rule "creates a patchwork of civil rights, compared to standardized protections."
For Severino, this move has been a long time coming. He joined the Trump administration from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, where he wrote a paper on gender protections in Section 1557. He's also a devout Catholic and, as director of the Office for Civil Rights, has made protections of religious freedom a key focus, including the right of doctors to refuse to provide care that contradicts their religious or moral beliefs.
The rule the HHS proposed on gender and discrimination in health care garnered 155,966 public comments. The final rule is nearly identical to the original version proposed last year.
Conservative groups, including the Christian Medical Association, the Susan B. Anthony List and the Heritage Foundation, applauded the new HHS guidance.
"Health professionals know they must base medical decisions on biology and science, not ideology," Dr. Jeff Barrows, the Christian Medical Association's executive vice president for bioethics and public policy, said after hearing the announcement.
"We are hopeful that this rule will help steer consideration of gender issues in health care back toward science and away from politics and ideology, back to the protection of professional medical judgment and the freedom to adhere to long-observed ethical and moral standards."
Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former colleague of Severino's, submitted a comment in support of the rule. Anderson said it simply reverses what he sees as the Obama administration's executive overreach.
"Just for the lawmaking process, it's important that the Trump administration clarify that that's not what Congress had in mind when they used the word 'sex,' " he said.
Critics worry about access to health care, especially in a pandemic
Mari Brighe, a freelance writer and transgender woman who lives outside Detroit, called the rule "terrifying."
"I can relate a decade of stories about getting terrible health care because I'm trans," Brighe said. "We walk into any given health care situation not knowing whether doctors are going to treat us well, whether we're going to get high quality care, whether any given, random health care person is going to be terrible to us."
Once, when seriously ill with the flu and having trouble breathing, Brighe recalled, she was sent home from a hospital in rural New York and ended up driving 90 minutes and crossing a lake by ferry to get treatment at a hospital in Vermont.
She said worries now that the rule could make transgender people — who are already reluctant to seek medical care — all the more likely to avoid coronavirus treatment and testing.
"The way that [the rule] reads to me is that people could refuse to collect your COVID specimen because they don't want to touch a trans person," she said. "That's a recipe for spreading a really terrible pandemic among a really, really vulnerable population."
"I can't help but think about how this impacts black trans people," said Gaynor, the political science professor, who noted that African American transgender people are "arguably the most marginalized group in our country."
African Americans who get COVID-19 are much more likely to die from that disease than are white Americans, statistics show. A recent report from the Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that hundreds of thousands of transgender adults may be especially vulnerable to COVID-19 because they have an underlying condition, are over 65, lack health insurance or live in poverty.
For black transgender people, Gaynor said, "it's layers of oppression — it's transphobia on top of racism on top of economic oppression." All of that could affect their ability to get health care during the pandemic, she said, which in turn could have public health implications for all.
Katie Keith, a health law professor at Georgetown University, noted that the new rule could have another chilling effect. "Even if no one actually does discriminate more because of the rule, you've created a fear," Keith said.
She pointed to research documenting how the "public charge" rule — which penalizes people who are seeking to become citizens if they use public safety net programs such as nutrition and housing assistance — affected people and programs outside the scope of the rule itself.
"When they target these vulnerable populations, you see less enrollment in health insurance," she said. "You see folks scared to go to the doctor."
Although the Heritage Foundation's Anderson supports the rule, he said the prospect that it could have a chilling effect is "a very reasonable concern."
"I don't think any reasonable person wants to see transgender people not enrolling in health care plans and not having access to health care," Anderson said. What's needed, he said, is a "finer grain" approach to this issue — such as a new law in Congress that protects LGTBQ people from health care discrimination generally but carves out protection for providers to refuse to provide care related to sex reassignment.
What's next? a word from the high court and, perhaps, Congress
Now that it's marked "final," this rule — which was issued by an agency of the executive branch — may now encounter hurdles via the two other branches of the federal government.
This month, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to weigh in on two major cases on the meaning of the word "sex" in employment discrimination. The two cases involve issues closely related to the legal questions at play in Severino's HHS rule, and the high court's decision might have major implications for the rule's legal footing.
"It's wild that they're finalizing this rule before we have the Supreme Court decision," Keith said.
Meanwhile, in Congress, House Democrats have already asserted that they strongly disagree with the HHS rule. In early May, Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that read, in part: "The Administration must immediately abandon this outrageous, un-American plan and give LGBTQ individuals the reassurance that they will never be denied the health care they or their families need."
Now that the final rule is out, Congress does have a way of invalidating it, using the Congressional Review Act. That would only happen in this case if — within 60 days that Congress is in session — Trump were no longer president, and simple majorities in both chambers of Congress voted to block the rule. Even if Democrats win big in November, it's not clear if that's a possibility given the tricky timeline — Congress is typically in recess in August, and the COVID-19 pandemic may complicate matters further
The date at which the final rule would be able to avoid this congressional threat is a moving target, Keith said. "Folks are watching the calendar now [wondering], 'When is that 60-day legislative deadline?' "
What's much more certain, she said, is that there will be lawsuits to try to overturn the rule or block it from going into effect.
On Friday, less than an hour after HHS issued its press release, LGBTQ activist group Lambda Legal said it would challenge the new rule in court.
"Today's rule is a tragically failed public health policy and just flat-out illegal," Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, Lambda Legal senior attorney and health care strategist, said in a written statement. "We will be challenging the rule because at a time when the entire world is battling a dangerous pandemic, which in the United States has infected more than 2,000,000 people and killed more than 116,000, it is critical for everyone to have ready access to the potentially lifesaving health care they need."
Unless someone does file a lawsuit that results in a judge putting the rule on hold, it is set to go into effect 60 days from the date the rule is published in the Federal Register.


npr--2020-06-12--Coronavirus FAQs: Convertibles, Dishwashing, Dog's Paws, Bowling, Travel With Kids

Each week , we answer `` frequently asked questions '' about life during the coronavirus crisis .
And we ask readers to send in their queries .
Some of the questions we get are a little ... unusual .
They may not be the most critical health questions .
Yet they are definitely interesting .
So this week , here is a sampling of both frequently and infrequently asked questions .
If you have a question you 'd like us to consider for a future post , email us at goatsandsoda @ npr.org with the subject line : `` Weekly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks , many thousands of people across the United States — and the world — have taken to the streets to demonstrate solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and demand an end to police brutality .
Last week 's FAQ broke down some preventive measures to lower COVID-19 exposure while attending a protest .
But some readers ask : How soon after protesting should you get tested to see if you might have been infected ?
Dr. Joyce Sanchez , an infectious disease specialist who teaches at the Medical College of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , says symptoms develop on average of 3 to 7 days after exposure .
So the first week after attending a demonstration is the peak time to monitor your health and look into obtaining a test through your primary care doctor or a local public health department or clinic .
There are , however , cases in which people take up to 14 days after exposure to the coronavirus to show symptoms , so both Dr. Sanchez and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) recommend keeping watch for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering just to be safe .
`` Many people do not even notice when they 're coming down with symptoms , '' says Sanchez .
`` The ones that are generally red flags are fever , cough , sore throat , shortness of breath .
But some people just feel a little fatigue , '' says Sanchez .
`` And when you 're like me — a mother of two and a full-time working mother — fatigue is a natural part of my life .
So if there 's any hint of something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it 's certainly very reasonable to get tested . ''
Dr. Mark Kortepeter , professor of epidemiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health , suggests waiting a few days after the protest to seek testing unless you 're already showing symptoms .
Even if you 're infected , there 's a chance you may not yet be shedding viral particles that a test could pick up .
In addition to getting tested , if you think you may have come in contact with someone showing symptoms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ otherwise — try to isolate yourself from others for a week or so to minimize the risk of spreading infection to those around you .
Can my dog bring COVID-19 particles from the outside world into my home on its paws , say by walking on grass or a sidewalk where someone with the virus could have spit ?
The experts we spoke to as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that the risk of transmission from a pet to a human is considered low .
The coronavirus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chance new information could develop in the future — but for now , pets are not considered a major risk factor in the spread of infection .
Dr. Kortepeter adds that the risk of viral particles surviving on outdoor surfaces is low to begin with , and friction from the dog walking around would most likely get rid of any potential particles coming into the home .
`` We do n't know of any cases where there 's been an animal playing a significant role in spreading the virus to humans .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a major concern , '' says Dr. Sanchez .
`` But in general , it 's going to be good to clean off paws just for the general cleanliness of the interior of the home . ''
The same goes for human shoes .
Casinos are reopening — how safe is it to go back ?
For both Dr. Sanchez and Dr. Kortepeter , the main concern with casinos is that like churches or bowling alleys , they are enclosed indoor spaces where large groups congregate .
That in itself presents a higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the air , especially if the venue does not enforce the wearing of face coverings .
And in spaces like casinos , where many people touch the same inanimate objects and surfaces — playing cards , chips , tables — there may be potentially added risks that we do n't completely understand yet , says Dr. Kortepeter .
Here are some general precautions to take , if you do decide to go to a casino : • Call ahead to ask that the casino is thoroughly disinfecting surfaces , encouraging social distancing between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Wear a mask and try to keep 6 feet from others .
• Bring wipes for any high-contact surfaces you touch ; carry hand sanitizer and wash your hands often .
`` Even if the casino is practicing all of the disinfecting and mask wearing , there are variables that are going to be outside of your control , '' says Dr. Sanchez .
`` And again , you 're sharing an enclosed space with many people who are outside of your general household circle — and that is considered high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when traveling with young children on an airplane ?
In past FAQs , we 've discussed how to take precautionary measures when traveling by plane and how to weigh the risk factors of driving versus flying .
But when it comes to traveling with young children , are there additional ways to prevent COVID-19 exposure ?
If possible , try to make all children older than 2 years old wear a face covering for the duration of travel , both in the airport and on the plane .
Children younger than 2 should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to CDC guidelines , because they may make breathing difficult .
Bring lots of sanitizer and wipes to clean off kids ' hands and try to keep them from touching surfaces as much as possible , says Dr. Kortepeter .
Bring enough food and water for your kids so you have sanitized options in case they 're hungry or thirsty , says Dr. Sanchez .
`` I think my biggest piece of advice for parents , regardless if they fly or if they drive , is to try to model safe practices .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by our example more than we know , '' says Dr. Sanchez .
`` So if you 're wearing the mask , if you 're disinfecting , if you 're maintaining that distance and you 're reinforcing that through what you say and what you do — children pick up on that and try to mirror their parents . ''
Is it safe to drive in a convertible with the top down ?
According to Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan , driving in an open convertible is probably one of the `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a pandemic when it comes to risk of infection .
The velocity of the car and the open air would likely mitigate the direct exchange of COVID particles .
`` If you 're riding , one would think that most of the respiratory droplets coming out of your mouth are going to be flying behind you , '' he explains .
`` The risk of transmission there would probably be low , because you 're both outdoors and having a lot of wind blowing [ particles ] back . ''
Still — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are many factors at play : If you 're at a stoplight having a face to face conversation with someone in a car next to you , you should probably wear a mask to protect the other driver and possibly give yourself some protection as well .
Seating arrangements matter , Karan noted .
`` Let 's say someone 's sitting behind you , and they 're inhaling all the particles coming out of your mouth . ''
That 's why the safest bet for all car drivers and passengers is to still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures , Karan said it 's important to keep in mind that frequently touched car parts , like door handles , could hold viral particles , which could spread the disease .
Use hand sanitizer after touching such objects , he advises .
One more car point : The risk of transmitting the virus in a closed car may be higher than in a convertible .
`` In a convertible , the top 's down , and you 're theoretically almost outdoors at that point , '' Karan says .
`` We know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ non-convertible ] is a big deal . ''
Is it safe to go back to bowling alleys ?
If you want to play it safe , you probably wo n't be hitting the bowling alleys until the later phases of reopening .
But even then , there are many concerns about transmission .
Even the most avid bowler recognizes that it 's not essential to go bowling .
As Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan put it : bowling is a `` higher risk , but lower necessity , activity . ''
`` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says .
`` We 're talking about people sitting next to each other , around the area where the bowling balls come back , and probably in close proximity , '' he says .
While bowling alleys are typically spread out and large , Karan noted that there are more groups clustered around small areas .
So it 's probably not a great idea in the immediate future .
If you do decide to go bowling , it 's essential to wear a mask , wash hands and sanitize yourself often .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Should I wash my dishes with bleach ?
My husband says soap and water is n't enough !
Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan did n't have much to say on this one : `` Just soap and water should be sufficient , '' he said , adding decisively : `` No bleach . ''
I fell and broke a tooth and think it 's infected .
But I 'm afraid to go to the dentist during a pandemic — what should I do ?
If you need essential tooth care , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will most likely be OK , said Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan .
`` Dentists are health-care workers , '' he said .
`` They 'll be wearing personal protective equipment like N-95 masks [ which ] should block the majority of particles [ traveling ] from the dentist 's face to yours .
There could be some small particles that escape , but I would think that would be very unlikely . ''
Despite these precautions , there are some inherent risks involved , especially because tooth work is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A dentist and the dental staff could fiddle with a mask , reducing its efectiveness , or wear it improperly .
But the threat is `` relatively low , '' Karan said .
What 's most important is that you get help if you need it .
`` In a situation where somebody has a potential tooth infection developing , they need to get it done , '' Karan said , adding : `` You should feel reassured that the dentist is going through some symptom checks before they come in .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ surpri ( sed ) '' if we saw a lot of transmission from dentists properly wearing PPE and exhibiting no symptoms .

Coronavirus FAQs: Convertibles, Dishwashing, Dog's Paws, Bowling, Travel With Kids
Enlarge this image toggle caption Malaka Gharib/ NPR Malaka Gharib/ NPR
Each week, we answer "frequently asked questions" about life during the coronavirus crisis. And we ask readers to send in their queries. Some of the questions we get are a little ... unusual. They may not be the most critical health questions. Yet they are definitely interesting. So this week, here is a sampling of both frequently and infrequently asked questions. If you have a question you'd like us to consider for a future post, email us at goatsandsoda@npr.org with the subject line: "Weekly Coronavirus Questions."
I protested. Now what?
Over the last two weeks, many thousands of people across the United States — and the world — have taken to the streets to demonstrate solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and demand an end to police brutality. Last week's FAQ broke down some preventive measures to lower COVID-19 exposure while attending a protest. But some readers ask: How soon after protesting should you get tested to see if you might have been infected?
Dr. Joyce Sanchez, an infectious disease specialist who teaches at the Medical College of Wisconsin and directs its Travel Health Clinic, says symptoms develop on average of 3 to 7 days after exposure. So the first week after attending a demonstration is the peak time to monitor your health and look into obtaining a test through your primary care doctor or a local public health department or clinic.
There are, however, cases in which people take up to 14 days after exposure to the coronavirus to show symptoms, so both Dr. Sanchez and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend keeping watch for a full two weeks following a crowded gathering just to be safe.
"Many people do not even notice when they're coming down with symptoms," says Sanchez. "The ones that are generally red flags are fever, cough, sore throat, shortness of breath. But some people just feel a little fatigue," says Sanchez. "And when you're like me — a mother of two and a full-time working mother — fatigue is a natural part of my life. So if there's any hint of something that just feels a little bit off, it's certainly very reasonable to get tested."
Dr. Mark Kortepeter, professor of epidemiology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Public Health, suggests waiting a few days after the protest to seek testing unless you're already showing symptoms. Even if you're infected, there's a chance you may not yet be shedding viral particles that a test could pick up.
In addition to getting tested, if you think you may have come in contact with someone showing symptoms of the coronavirus — at a demonstration or otherwise — try to isolate yourself from others for a week or so to minimize the risk of spreading infection to those around you.
Can my dog bring COVID-19 particles from the outside world into my home on its paws, say by walking on grass or a sidewalk where someone with the virus could have spit?
The experts we spoke to as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that the risk of transmission from a pet to a human is considered low. The coronavirus is still novel — so there's a chance new information could develop in the future — but for now, pets are not considered a major risk factor in the spread of infection.
Dr. Kortepeter adds that the risk of viral particles surviving on outdoor surfaces is low to begin with, and friction from the dog walking around would most likely get rid of any potential particles coming into the home.
"We don't know of any cases where there's been an animal playing a significant role in spreading the virus to humans. I think that is not going to be a major concern," says Dr. Sanchez. "But in general, it's going to be good to clean off paws just for the general cleanliness of the interior of the home." The same goes for human shoes.
Casinos are reopening — how safe is it to go back?
For both Dr. Sanchez and Dr. Kortepeter, the main concern with casinos is that like churches or bowling alleys, they are enclosed indoor spaces where large groups congregate. That in itself presents a higher risk of exposure to respiratory droplets in the air, especially if the venue does not enforce the wearing of face coverings.
And in spaces like casinos, where many people touch the same inanimate objects and surfaces — playing cards, chips, tables — there may be potentially added risks that we don't completely understand yet, says Dr. Kortepeter.
Here are some general precautions to take, if you do decide to go to a casino:
Call ahead to ask that the casino is thoroughly disinfecting surfaces, encouraging social distancing between clients and requiring face coverings for employees.
Wear a mask and try to keep 6 feet from others.
Bring wipes for any high-contact surfaces you touch; carry hand sanitizer and wash your hands often.
"Even if the casino is practicing all of the disinfecting and mask wearing, there are variables that are going to be outside of your control," says Dr. Sanchez. "And again, you're sharing an enclosed space with many people who are outside of your general household circle — and that is considered high risk."
What are the risks when traveling with young children on an airplane?
In past FAQs, we've discussed how to take precautionary measures when traveling by plane and how to weigh the risk factors of driving versus flying. But when it comes to traveling with young children, are there additional ways to prevent COVID-19 exposure?
If possible, try to make all children older than 2 years old wear a face covering for the duration of travel, both in the airport and on the plane. Children younger than 2 should not use face cloth coverings, according to CDC guidelines, because they may make breathing difficult.
Bring lots of sanitizer and wipes to clean off kids' hands and try to keep them from touching surfaces as much as possible, says Dr. Kortepeter.
Bring enough food and water for your kids so you have sanitized options in case they're hungry or thirsty, says Dr. Sanchez.
"I think my biggest piece of advice for parents, regardless if they fly or if they drive, is to try to model safe practices. Children, particularly small children, absorb by our example more than we know," says Dr. Sanchez. "So if you're wearing the mask, if you're disinfecting, if you're maintaining that distance and you're reinforcing that through what you say and what you do — children pick up on that and try to mirror their parents."
Is it safe to drive in a convertible with the top down?
According to Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan, driving in an open convertible is probably one of the "less dangerous things you could do" in a pandemic when it comes to risk of infection. The velocity of the car and the open air would likely mitigate the direct exchange of COVID particles.
"If you're riding, one would think that most of the respiratory droplets coming out of your mouth are going to be flying behind you," he explains. "The risk of transmission there would probably be low, because you're both outdoors and having a lot of wind blowing [particles] back."
Still — like any disease transmission scenario — there are many factors at play: If you're at a stoplight having a face to face conversation with someone in a car next to you, you should probably wear a mask to protect the other driver and possibly give yourself some protection as well.
Seating arrangements matter, Karan noted. "Let's say someone's sitting behind you, and they're inhaling all the particles coming out of your mouth." That's why the safest bet for all car drivers and passengers is to still wear a mask.
Beyond in-car preventive measures, Karan said it's important to keep in mind that frequently touched car parts, like door handles, could hold viral particles, which could spread the disease. Use hand sanitizer after touching such objects, he advises.
One more car point: The risk of transmitting the virus in a closed car may be higher than in a convertible.
"In a convertible, the top's down, and you're theoretically almost outdoors at that point," Karan says. "We know transmission in enclosed space [like a non-convertible] is a big deal."
Is it safe to go back to bowling alleys?
If you want to play it safe, you probably won't be hitting the bowling alleys until the later phases of reopening. But even then, there are many concerns about transmission.
Even the most avid bowler recognizes that it's not essential to go bowling. As Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan put it: bowling is a "higher risk, but lower necessity, activity."
Why higher risk?
"We're talking about indoors," he says."We're talking about people sitting next to each other, around the area where the bowling balls come back, and probably in close proximity," he says.
While bowling alleys are typically spread out and large, Karan noted that there are more groups clustered around small areas. So it's probably not a great idea in the immediate future.
If you do decide to go bowling, it's essential to wear a mask, wash hands and sanitize yourself often.
I don't have a dishwasher. Should I wash my dishes with bleach? My husband says soap and water isn't enough!
Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan didn't have much to say on this one: "Just soap and water should be sufficient," he said, adding decisively: "No bleach."
I fell and broke a tooth and think it's infected. But I'm afraid to go to the dentist during a pandemic — what should I do?
If you need essential tooth care, you should go to the dentist. And it will most likely be OK, said Harvard Medical School physician Abraar Karan.
"Dentists are health-care workers," he said. "They'll be wearing personal protective equipment like N-95 masks [which] should block the majority of particles [traveling] from the dentist's face to yours. There could be some small particles that escape, but I would think that would be very unlikely."
Despite these precautions, there are some inherent risks involved, especially because tooth work is an oral procedure involving really close face-to-face contact. A dentist and the dental staff could fiddle with a mask, reducing its efectiveness, or wear it improperly. But the threat is "relatively low," Karan said. What's most important is that you get help if you need it.
"In a situation where somebody has a potential tooth infection developing, they need to get it done," Karan said, adding: "You should feel reassured that the dentist is going through some symptom checks before they come in."
Karan said he'd be "surpri(sed)" if we saw a lot of transmission from dentists properly wearing PPE and exhibiting no symptoms.


npr--2020-06-12--Jefferson Davis Statue Voted Out Of Kentucky State Capitol

A Kentucky state commission voted on Friday to remove a statue of Jefferson Davis from the state Capitol 's main rotunda .
The statue of the former Confederate president , who was born in Kentucky , has stood in the rotunda for 84 years .
The 11-1 vote by the state 's Historic Properties Advisory Commission was requested last week by Gov .
Andy Beshear , who said the statue should be moved elsewhere .
Members of the commission said in the meeting that the statue will be moved to the Jefferson Davis State Historic Site near Fairview , Ky. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving crew was in the rotunda before the meeting began .
Calls to remove the statue have grown in recent weeks following protests against racial injustice sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis .
In Kentucky , and in Louisville especially , the police killing of Breonna Taylor has also sparked large protest movements .
`` Today has been a historic day in the Commonwealth , '' Beshear said in a statement .
`` What it will mean is that ... every child that walks into this Capitol feels welcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a symbol and a statue that stands for the enslavement of their ancestors .
Today is a move toward showing that everybody is welcome in this building .
We have systematic issues that we must address , but now is the time to truly move forward . ''
It is unclear what will replace the statue .
According to the Louisville Courier-Journal , a state senator has called for a monument to Carl Brashear , a Kentuckian who was the U.S. Navy 's first black master diver .
Several other prominent black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Muhammad Ali , according to the Lexington Herald-Leader .
State Rep. Derrick Graham of Frankfort was on site just after the decision to remove Davis ' statue .
`` He 's gone , y'all , '' he said in a tweet .
`` Glory , Hallelujah ! ''

Jefferson Davis Statue Voted Out Of Kentucky State Capitol
Enlarge this image toggle caption Adam Beam/AP Adam Beam/AP
A Kentucky state commission voted on Friday to remove a statue of Jefferson Davis from the state Capitol's main rotunda.
The statue of the former Confederate president, who was born in Kentucky, has stood in the rotunda for 84 years. The 11-1 vote by the state's Historic Properties Advisory Commission was requested last week by Gov. Andy Beshear, who said the statue should be moved elsewhere.
Members of the commission said in the meeting that the statue will be moved to the Jefferson Davis State Historic Site near Fairview, Ky., where Davis was born. A moving crew was in the rotunda before the meeting began.
Calls to remove the statue have grown in recent weeks following protests against racial injustice sparked by the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. In Kentucky, and in Louisville especially, the police killing of Breonna Taylor has also sparked large protest movements.
"Today has been a historic day in the Commonwealth," Beshear said in a statement. "What it will mean is that ... every child that walks into this Capitol feels welcome and none of them have to look at a symbol and a statue that stands for the enslavement of their ancestors. Today is a move toward showing that everybody is welcome in this building. We have systematic issues that we must address, but now is the time to truly move forward."
It is unclear what will replace the statue. According to the Louisville Courier-Journal, a state senator has called for a monument to Carl Brashear, a Kentuckian who was the U.S. Navy's first black master diver. Several other prominent black Kentuckians have been put forward as possibilities, including Muhammad Ali, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.
State Rep. Derrick Graham of Frankfort was on site just after the decision to remove Davis' statue. "He's gone, y'all," he said in a tweet. "Glory, Hallelujah!"


npr--2020-06-12--A Possible Plan To Pull U.S. Troops From Germany Causes A Stir In Both Countries

A Possible Plan To Pull U.S .
Troops From Germany Causes A Stir In Both Countries People on both sides of the Atlantic are waiting for official confirmation whether the U.S. will pull 9,500 troops out of Germany — over a third of its total 34,500 troop presence in the country .
The possible proposal was first reported June 5 by The Wall Street Journal .
A U.S. official confirmed to NPR the plan exists , but no orders have been issued .
Germany 's government has also said Chancellor Angela Merkel was informed the U.S. is considering a troop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plan has caused a stir among current and former officials in both countries , who view the U.S. military presence in Germany as one of the most strategic in the world .
`` I would say it 's essential , '' says Ben Hodges , a retired lieutenant general who commanded the U.S. Army in Europe from 2014 to 2017 .
`` They represent part of the U.S. contribution to NATO , which defends the interests of all 30 countries .
But it also gives us a forward presence and access throughout Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East , '' says Hodges .
Hodges , who now holds the Pershing chair for strategic studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis , calls Germany a `` transit hub '' for the U.S.-led alliance and a crucial deterrence against Russia .
Despite this , the news of a possible troop drawdown inside a close U.S. ally highlights the deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Germany as well as other European nations , whose soldiers fight alongside American forces in the U.S.-led alliance .
The former U.S. ambassador to Germany , Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning of this month — has long advocated for a drawdown of U.S. troops in Germany .
`` American taxpayers no longer feel like paying too much for the defense of other countries , '' he told German tabloid Bild this week .
`` With all respect to the former ambassador , it reflects a total lack of appreciation for what having forward base capability in Europe and specifically Germany does for American security and a lack of understanding of what those soldiers are doing , '' says Hodges .
`` I 've @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there 's still 25,000 [ troops ] .
That 's a lot . '
If this was the 19th century , 25,000 infantry with muskets walking across the field , that would be a lot . ''
But it 's barely enough in terms of modern warfare , he says .
NPR asked Grenell for comment by phone and email but he has not responded .
According to The Wall Street Journal , the Trump administration plans to cap the number of U.S. service members in Germany at 25,000 and wants to remove @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a German expert on NATO , says that is unrealistic .
`` We are talking about thousands of dependents .
We 're talking about civilian employees and all this .
So the timeframe seems rather unreal , '' he says .
Wiegold , a journalist whose website is devoted to military news in the region , says another thing that 's puzzling about this reported proposal is the billions of dollars of infrastructure the U.S. military has already invested in Germany .
`` Ramstein Air Base is the largest U.S. air base @ @ @ @ @ @ @ center is the largest U.S. hospital outside the United States .
Grafenwöhr training area is one of the very few high-tech training installations and the only one outside the United States , '' says Wiegold .
And if you cut U.S. forces by a third , he says , much of that goes to waste .
German politicians are equally baffled .
`` Maybe the U.S. president feels a little bit worried about the fact that Germany and the German chancellor is a little bit like a role model of corona crisis compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' wonders Jürgen Hardt , foreign affairs spokesman for Chancellor Merkel 's center-right Christian Democratic Union party .
Hardt acknowledges the Trump administration 's frustration over Germany 's defense contributions in NATO , but he says after years of criticism , Germany is now increasing its defense budget by more than 10 % a year .
One country that seems content hearing the news of a possible U.S. troop drawdown is Russia .
Its Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said the Russian government welcomed President Trump 's plan , adding that the U.S. should also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twenty-two Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee wrote a letter to President Trump saying they were `` very concerned '' about the possible plan to remove troops from Europe .
`` We believe that such steps would significantly damage U.S. national security as well as strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment , '' the letter said .
Retired Lt. Gen. Hodges agrees that Germany needs to spend more on its military , but he says it 's not justification to remove so many U.S. troops from the country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal first reported this tells him something about the Trump administration .
`` That tells me that they do n't have a plan and they they 've come up with a solution in search of a problem .
And now they 're trying to make it work , '' he says .
Hodges says the timing of this story — in a crucial election year for Trump — tells him this was likely a political decision .
And he hopes that for the sake of security in Europe and in the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ troop drawdown remains just a story .

A Possible Plan To Pull U.S. Troops From Germany Causes A Stir In Both Countries
Enlarge this image toggle caption David Hecker/Getty Images David Hecker/Getty Images
People on both sides of the Atlantic are waiting for official confirmation whether the U.S. will pull 9,500 troops out of Germany — over a third of its total 34,500 troop presence in the country.
The possible proposal was first reported June 5 by The Wall Street Journal. A U.S. official confirmed to NPR the plan exists, but no orders have been issued.
Germany's government has also said Chancellor Angela Merkel was informed the U.S. is considering a troop drawdown from the country.
The possible plan has caused a stir among current and former officials in both countries, who view the U.S. military presence in Germany as one of the most strategic in the world.
"I would say it's essential," says Ben Hodges, a retired lieutenant general who commanded the U.S. Army in Europe from 2014 to 2017.
"They represent part of the U.S. contribution to NATO, which defends the interests of all 30 countries. But it also gives us a forward presence and access throughout Europe, Africa [and the] Middle East," says Hodges.
Hodges, who now holds the Pershing chair for strategic studies at the Center for European Policy Analysis, calls Germany a "transit hub" for the U.S.-led alliance and a crucial deterrence against Russia.
Despite this, the news of a possible troop drawdown inside a close U.S. ally highlights the deteriorating relationship between the U.S. and Germany as well as other European nations, whose soldiers fight alongside American forces in the U.S.-led alliance.
The former U.S. ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell — who stepped down at the beginning of this month — has long advocated for a drawdown of U.S. troops in Germany. "American taxpayers no longer feel like paying too much for the defense of other countries," he told German tabloid Bild this week.
"With all respect to the former ambassador, it reflects a total lack of appreciation for what having forward base capability in Europe and specifically Germany does for American security and a lack of understanding of what those soldiers are doing," says Hodges. "I've read where he said, 'Hey, there's still 25,000 [troops]. That's a lot.' If this was the 19th century, 25,000 infantry with muskets walking across the field, that would be a lot." But it's barely enough in terms of modern warfare, he says.
NPR asked Grenell for comment by phone and email but he has not responded.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration plans to cap the number of U.S. service members in Germany at 25,000 and wants to remove 9,500 troops by September.
Thomas Wiegold, a German expert on NATO, says that is unrealistic. "We are talking about thousands of dependents. We're talking about civilian employees and all this. So the timeframe seems rather unreal," he says.
Wiegold, a journalist whose website is devoted to military news in the region, says another thing that's puzzling about this reported proposal is the billions of dollars of infrastructure the U.S. military has already invested in Germany. "Ramstein Air Base is the largest U.S. air base outside the United States. Landstuhl medical center is the largest U.S. hospital outside the United States. Grafenwöhr training area is one of the very few high-tech training installations and the only one outside the United States," says Wiegold. And if you cut U.S. forces by a third, he says, much of that goes to waste.
German politicians are equally baffled. "Maybe the U.S. president feels a little bit worried about the fact that Germany and the German chancellor is a little bit like a role model of corona crisis compared to what happened in the U.S.?" wonders Jürgen Hardt, foreign affairs spokesman for Chancellor Merkel's center-right Christian Democratic Union party.
Hardt acknowledges the Trump administration's frustration over Germany's defense contributions in NATO, but he says after years of criticism, Germany is now increasing its defense budget by more than 10% a year.
One country that seems content hearing the news of a possible U.S. troop drawdown is Russia. Its Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said the Russian government welcomed President Trump's plan, adding that the U.S. should also remove its nuclear weapons in Germany.
Twenty-two Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee wrote a letter to President Trump saying they were "very concerned" about the possible plan to remove troops from Europe.
"We believe that such steps would significantly damage U.S. national security as well as strengthen the position of Russia to our detriment," the letter said.
Retired Lt. Gen. Hodges agrees that Germany needs to spend more on its military, but he says it's not justification to remove so many U.S. troops from the country.
That a week has passed since the Journal first reported this tells him something about the Trump administration. "That tells me that they don't have a plan and they they've come up with a solution in search of a problem. And now they're trying to make it work," he says.
Hodges says the timing of this story — in a crucial election year for Trump — tells him this was likely a political decision. And he hopes that for the sake of security in Europe and in the United States, this story of such a big troop drawdown remains just a story.