npr--2020-07-21--Detroit Officer Charged Over Journalists Being Shot With Rubber Pellets

Detroit Officer Charged Over Journalists Being Shot With Rubber Pellets A Detroit police officer is facing charges over accusations that he fired rubber pellets at three photojournalists who were covering anti-racism protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd .
Cpl .
Daniel Debono , 32 , is charged with three counts of felonious assault for allegedly firing the nonlethal ordnance at MLive photographer Nicole Hester and independent photojournalists Seth Herald and Matthew Hatcher in the early morning hours of May 31 .
A statement on Monday by Wayne County prosecutors said the photojournalists , who covered the protests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Debono and two other officers after protests had largely died down for the night .
The three photographers were walking when they met Debono , who was dressed in riot gear and carrying his department-issued firearm and a weapon that fired the rubber pellets , prosecutors said .
The three identified themselves as members of the press and held their hands up when he approached and they asked to cross the street .
It was when they began to cross the street , prosecutors say , that Debono fired the rubber pellets in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three photographers sustained multiple injuries , with Hester sustaining the most .
`` The evidence shows that these three journalists were leaving the protest area and that there was almost no one else on the street where they were .
They were a threat to no one .
There are simply no explicable reasons why the alleged actions of this officer were taken , '' Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in the statement .
The felonious assault charge carries a maximum penalty of four years , prosecutors note .
Claims and reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during protests that began with the police killing of George Floyd in May in Minneapolis .
Alongside protester accounts , multiple journalists have also come forward saying they too had been targeted or arrested by police while covering protests .
Several journalists told NPR in June that they had been fired upon with rubber rounds , tear gas and pepper spray .
In May , freelance photojournalist Linda Tirado said she had been blinded in her left eye likely by a rubber bullet that struck her face .
And in perhaps one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live TV , CNN reporter Omar Jimenez and his crew were arrested on the air , while covering protests in Minneapolis .
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker , which monitors aggressive actions against journalists in the U.S. , has recorded some 241 attacks on journalists during protests , most of which were by law enforcement .
At least 72 journalists have been arrested , the organization reports .
During an unrelated press conference on Monday , Detroit Police Chief James Craig said he had been alerted to the alleged attack by a news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Craig said the department launched an investigation and suspended Debono over the incident .
Craig said the investigation had been given to prosecutors for their review .
Craig added that `` by and large , '' his department performed in a `` spectacular manner '' even as protests sometimes turned violent .
`` Our officers have responded very appropriately , so this should not reflect , as an agency , that this one incident defines how we manage our protests , '' Craig said on Monday .

Detroit Officer Charged Over Journalists Being Shot With Rubber Pellets
Enlarge this image toggle caption Seth Herald/AFP via Getty Images Seth Herald/AFP via Getty Images
A Detroit police officer is facing charges over accusations that he fired rubber pellets at three photojournalists who were covering anti-racism protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd.
Cpl. Daniel Debono, 32, is charged with three counts of felonious assault for allegedly firing the nonlethal ordnance at MLive photographer Nicole Hester and independent photojournalists Seth Herald and Matthew Hatcher in the early morning hours of May 31.
A statement on Monday by Wayne County prosecutors said the photojournalists, who covered the protests and wore their press credentials, encountered Debono and two other officers after protests had largely died down for the night.
The three photographers were walking when they met Debono, who was dressed in riot gear and carrying his department-issued firearm and a weapon that fired the rubber pellets, prosecutors said. The three identified themselves as members of the press and held their hands up when he approached and they asked to cross the street. It was when they began to cross the street, prosecutors say, that Debono fired the rubber pellets in an "unprovoked" shooting.
All three photographers sustained multiple injuries, with Hester sustaining the most.
"The evidence shows that these three journalists were leaving the protest area and that there was almost no one else on the street where they were. They were a threat to no one. There are simply no explicable reasons why the alleged actions of this officer were taken," Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy said in the statement.
The felonious assault charge carries a maximum penalty of four years, prosecutors note.
Claims and reports of excessive police violence have been frequent during protests that began with the police killing of George Floyd in May in Minneapolis. Alongside protester accounts, multiple journalists have also come forward saying they too had been targeted or arrested by police while covering protests.
Several journalists told NPR in June that they had been fired upon with rubber rounds, tear gas and pepper spray. In May, freelance photojournalist Linda Tirado said she had been blinded in her left eye likely by a rubber bullet that struck her face.
And in perhaps one of the more surreal moments captured recently on live TV, CNN reporter Omar Jimenez and his crew were arrested on the air, while covering protests in Minneapolis.
The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which monitors aggressive actions against journalists in the U.S., has recorded some 241 attacks on journalists during protests, most of which were by law enforcement. At least 72 journalists have been arrested, the organization reports.
During an unrelated press conference on Monday, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said he had been alerted to the alleged attack by a news outlet that employed one of the photojournalists. Craig said the department launched an investigation and suspended Debono over the incident.
Craig said the investigation had been given to prosecutors for their review.
Craig added that "by and large," his department performed in a "spectacular manner" even as protests sometimes turned violent.
"Our officers have responded very appropriately, so this should not reflect, as an agency, that this one incident defines how we manage our protests," Craig said on Monday.


npr--2020-07-21--Ex-Counterterrorism Chief: Cutbacks Raise Risk Of New Attacks

A recently ousted counterterrorism chief says the country is risking the gains made against terrorist threats by cutting back resources with little or no public debate .
In an interview with NPR , Russ Travers also expressed frustration at the poor state of relations between the intelligence community and the Trump administration .
`` If people believe that conditions have so changed and the threat is so diminished that we can go back to the way things were [ before the 9/11 attacks ] , so be it , '' said Russ Travers , who served as acting director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just personally do n't believe that 's the right answer .
And I do n't like the quality of the discussion that has gotten us to this point , '' Travers told NPR 's Mary Louise Kelly , co-host of All Things Considered , in his first broadcast interview since leaving his government post .
Travers , who joined the intelligence community in the late 1970s , said he 's never seen such bad relations between intelligence professionals and a presidential administration .
`` I 've been doing this for 42 years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed because they had opinions that were different than the administration , '' he said .
The National Counterterrorism Center , or NCTC , was set up in the wake of the 2001 al-Qaida attacks .
Because government agencies failed to adequately share information prior to those attacks , the center was designed to coordinate government efforts .
Many officials working there are on temporary assignment from other agencies , like the CIA or the National Security Agency .
Travers said it became increasingly difficult to properly staff the NCTC as agencies sought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expanding missions , such as growing cyber threats .
`` I felt that we did n't have adequate resources to do the missions that we 've been given , '' Travers said .
He sought to outline his concerns at a March 18 meeting he requested with Richard Grenell , who had recently been named acting director of national intelligence .
`` We exchanged pleasantries and he tells me that my deputy Peter Hall and I , we 're both out , '' Travers said .
`` I went in as the acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out not being such anymore . ''
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that Travers was offered other jobs , but chose to retire .
Travers says that was not the case .
During his brief time as director of national intelligence , Grenell announced plans to scale back the NCTC , reportedly cutting the workforce by about 15 percent .
Critics of President Trump say the episode reflects his ongoing friction with the intelligence community , whose findings the president has sometimes challenged or rejected .
The president 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turnover of top officials and , according to the critics , an inclination to favor political loyalists over intelligence professionals .
Here are some excerpts from the interview : You said that you did n't have adequate resources to carry out the job that you 'd been given .
What did you not have ?
The law said that NCTC ( National Counterterrorism Center ) would be the primary organization in the government to do analysis of international terrorism .
It would also have a strategic , operational , planning function , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So we were doing this as a common concern for the government and we simply were not resourced to do that as departments and agencies started drawing down their commitments to NCTC because the country was going through this kind of re-evaluation of threats .
To play devil 's advocate , al-Qaida is not the organization it once was .
ISIS is not the organization it was just a few years ago .
Why should n't fewer resources be devoted to fighting terrorism ?
I actually believe that 's true .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it once was .
There needs to be a rationalization of resources against terrorism .
I think we could do that .
But it does require a change in mindset in that not every department and agency needs to do everything .
Can you give me an example of something that you saw not getting done because you did n't have the resources ?
Every day we would get upwards of 15,000 names .
We had to sort through those , decide who is of concern .
That ultimately percolates down to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision about who gets on an airplane .
What happens if a police officer stops them ?
Do they get a visa ?
This is not cheap .
And so the question ultimately is one of risk .
I would be completely on board if if we had that conscious , informed discussion about how much risk are we or are we not willing to accept .
My fear is that we are kind of stumbling into , `` let 's just cut resources and things are n't going to get done .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the U.S. is prepared for a major terrorist attack .
We have n't had one since 9/11 .
But if there was one in the works , is the U.S. back to where we were before 9/11 ?
The American public needs to know that the counterterrorism enterprise , in my opinion , is the best example we had ever of thinking whole-of-government .
We took the fight overseas .
We pushed borders out .
We made the homeland more secure .
I 'm worried that people kind of want to move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think we 're going to see an attack tomorrow .
I 'm probably more concerned about a few years down the road .
A few days after you were ousted , nine former senior leaders of the intelligence community wrote an open letter in The Washington Post and talked about `` the deeply destructive path being pursued by the Trump administration . ''
As somebody who had a front-row seat , what do you think are the consequences of those tensions ?
There are always tensions .
I do think that it 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It 's not healthy .
The intelligence community , for the most part , is a behind-the-scenes player .
They will often carry a message that policymakers do n't want to hear .
But I 've never seen it like this .
They were telling senior intelligence officials that they need to `` go to school . ''
I just do n't think that 's helpful .
I certainly do n't think it 's appropriate .
In that letter , the former senior intelligence leaders also wrote that your removal sent a message @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that speaking truth to power in this administration is an immediate career killer . ''
Do you think that is the message being sent ?
I do .
I 've been doing this for 42 years .
I have never seen longtime civil servants removed because they had opinions that were different than the administration .
Just to be clear , you 're not saying , `` Hey , I ran the National Counterterrorism Center , the budget got cut .
I 'm mad about it .
We need more money thrown at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let 's be intentional about figuring out the national security threats .
That 's exactly right .
I want a conscious decision .
I want eyes wide open .
If people believe that conditions have so changed and the threat is so diminished that we can go back to the way things were [ before 9/11 ] , so be it .
I just personally do n't believe that 's the right answer .
And I do n't like the quality of the discussion that has gotten us to this point .

Ex-Counterterrorism Chief: Cutbacks Raise Risk Of New Attacks
Enlarge this image toggle caption Alex Brandon/AP Alex Brandon/AP
A recently ousted counterterrorism chief says the country is risking the gains made against terrorist threats by cutting back resources with little or no public debate. In an interview with NPR, Russ Travers also expressed frustration at the poor state of relations between the intelligence community and the Trump administration.
"If people believe that conditions have so changed and the threat is so diminished that we can go back to the way things were [before the 9/11 attacks], so be it," said Russ Travers, who served as acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
"I just personally don't believe that's the right answer. And I don't like the quality of the discussion that has gotten us to this point," Travers told NPR's Mary Louise Kelly, co-host of All Things Considered, in his first broadcast interview since leaving his government post.
Travers, who joined the intelligence community in the late 1970s, said he's never seen such bad relations between intelligence professionals and a presidential administration.
"I've been doing this for 42 years. I have never seen longtime civil servants removed because they had opinions that were different than the administration," he said.
The National Counterterrorism Center, or NCTC, was set up in the wake of the 2001 al-Qaida attacks. Because government agencies failed to adequately share information prior to those attacks, the center was designed to coordinate government efforts. Many officials working there are on temporary assignment from other agencies, like the CIA or the National Security Agency.
Travers said it became increasingly difficult to properly staff the NCTC as agencies sought to keep their staffers for their own expanding missions, such as growing cyber threats.
"I felt that we didn't have adequate resources to do the missions that we've been given," Travers said.
He sought to outline his concerns at a March 18 meeting he requested with Richard Grenell, who had recently been named acting director of national intelligence.
"We exchanged pleasantries and he tells me that my deputy Peter Hall and I, we're both out," Travers said. "I went in as the acting director of the center and I came out not being such anymore."
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence said that Travers was offered other jobs, but chose to retire. Travers says that was not the case. During his brief time as director of national intelligence, Grenell announced plans to scale back the NCTC, reportedly cutting the workforce by about 15 percent.
Critics of President Trump say the episode reflects his ongoing friction with the intelligence community, whose findings the president has sometimes challenged or rejected. The president's tenure has been marked by a rapid turnover of top officials and, according to the critics, an inclination to favor political loyalists over intelligence professionals.
Here are some excerpts from the interview:
You said that you didn't have adequate resources to carry out the job that you'd been given. What did you not have?
The law said that NCTC (National Counterterrorism Center) would be the primary organization in the government to do analysis of international terrorism. It would also have a strategic, operational, planning function, which essentially meant kind of integrated whole-of-government stuff. So we were doing this as a common concern for the government and we simply were not resourced to do that as departments and agencies started drawing down their commitments to NCTC because the country was going through this kind of re-evaluation of threats.
To play devil's advocate, al-Qaida is not the organization it once was. ISIS is not the organization it was just a few years ago. Why shouldn't fewer resources be devoted to fighting terrorism?
I actually believe that's true. As you say, the threat is not what it once was. There needs to be a rationalization of resources against terrorism. I think we could do that. But it does require a change in mindset in that not every department and agency needs to do everything.
Can you give me an example of something that you saw not getting done because you didn't have the resources?
Every day we would get upwards of 15,000 names. We had to sort through those, decide who is of concern. That ultimately percolates down to an organization that has to make a decision about who gets on an airplane. What happens if a police officer stops them? Do they get a visa? This is not cheap. And so the question ultimately is one of risk. I would be completely on board if if we had that conscious, informed discussion about how much risk are we or are we not willing to accept. My fear is that we are kind of stumbling into, "let's just cut resources and things aren't going to get done."
You're raising the question of whether the U.S. is prepared for a major terrorist attack. We haven't had one since 9/11. But if there was one in the works, is the U.S. back to where we were before 9/11?
The American public needs to know that the counterterrorism enterprise, in my opinion, is the best example we had ever of thinking whole-of-government. We took the fight overseas. We pushed borders out. We made the homeland more secure. I'm worried that people kind of want to move on from terrorism. I don't think we're going to see an attack tomorrow. I'm probably more concerned about a few years down the road.
A few days after you were ousted, nine former senior leaders of the intelligence community wrote an open letter in The Washington Post and talked about "the deeply destructive path being pursued by the Trump administration." As somebody who had a front-row seat, what do you think are the consequences of those tensions?
There are always tensions. I do think that it's far worse in the current administration. It's not healthy. The intelligence community, for the most part, is a behind-the-scenes player. They will often carry a message that policymakers don't want to hear. But I've never seen it like this. They were telling senior intelligence officials that they need to "go to school." I just don't think that's helpful. I certainly don't think it's appropriate.
In that letter, the former senior intelligence leaders also wrote that your removal sent a message that, "Every current officer sees that speaking truth to power in this administration is an immediate career killer." Do you think that is the message being sent?
I do. I've been doing this for 42 years. I have never seen longtime civil servants removed because they had opinions that were different than the administration.
Just to be clear, you're not saying, "Hey, I ran the National Counterterrorism Center, the budget got cut. I'm mad about it. We need more money thrown at this problem." You're saying let's be intentional about figuring out the national security threats.
That's exactly right. I want a conscious decision. I want eyes wide open. If people believe that conditions have so changed and the threat is so diminished that we can go back to the way things were [before 9/11], so be it. I just personally don't believe that's the right answer. And I don't like the quality of the discussion that has gotten us to this point.


npr--2020-07-21--N.Y., N.J., Connecticut Now Say Travelers From 31 Hot Spot States Must Quarantine

N.Y. , N.J. , Connecticut Now Say Travelers From 31 Hot Spot States Must Quarantine People traveling to New York , New Jersey and Connecticut from 31 other states are now required to self-quarantine for 14 days , after 10 states with significant community spread of the coronavirus — including Virginia , Maryland , Indiana and Alaska — were added to a travel advisory Tuesday .
`` As infection rates increase in 41 other states , our numbers continue to steadily decline , thanks to the hard work of New Yorkers '' and a cautious approach to reopening , New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` Yesterday , we had our lowest death toll since the pandemic began — and with no fatalities in New York City , '' Cuomo added , after his state reported just two deaths from COVID-19 .
New York , New Jersey and Connecticut first announced their travel advisory on June 24 , as they sought to limit potential sources of coronavirus infection .
At the time , New York was emerging from its status as the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S. As of last week , 22 states were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the advisory now covers well over half the country .
Delaware , which was removed last week , is now back on the list .
The state effectively swapped places with Minnesota , which has dropped off .
The mandatory quarantine applies to anyone arriving from states with a positivity test rate of 10 % or higher over a seven-day rolling average .
It also includes any state where the positive test rate is higher than 10 per 100,000 residents over a seven-day rolling average .
In New York state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine .
The initial travel advisory list included just nine hot spot states , such as Texas and Florida .
But it has swelled as many states endure a sharp spike in coronavirus cases driven by economic reopenings and relaxed attitudes toward face masks and other precautions .
Earlier this month , Florida surpassed New York 's worst-ever day for new cases , reporting more than 15,200 infections .
On Monday , New York saw less than 2 % of its COVID-19 tests come back positive .
By contrast , Florida 's positivity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past month .
`` I never thought it would be this bad , '' Cuomo told NBC 's TODAY Show about the course of COVID-19 in the U.S. Last week , New York stepped up its efforts to hold people accountable to the quarantine rules , deploying `` enforcement teams '' at airports across the state and urging people to fill out a traveler health form .
When Cuomo was asked on Tuesday whether his state 's quarantine policy is enforceable , the governor replied , `` It is imperfect . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ now covers these states :

N.Y., N.J., Connecticut Now Say Travelers From 31 Hot Spot States Must Quarantine
Enlarge this image toggle caption Screenshot by NPR/Connecticut State Government Screenshot by NPR/Connecticut State Government
People traveling to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut from 31 other states are now required to self-quarantine for 14 days, after 10 states with significant community spread of the coronavirus — including Virginia, Maryland, Indiana and Alaska — were added to a travel advisory Tuesday.
"As infection rates increase in 41 other states, our numbers continue to steadily decline, thanks to the hard work of New Yorkers" and a cautious approach to reopening, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said.
"Yesterday, we had our lowest death toll since the pandemic began — and with no fatalities in New York City," Cuomo added, after his state reported just two deaths from COVID-19.
New York, New Jersey and Connecticut first announced their travel advisory on June 24, as they sought to limit potential sources of coronavirus infection. At the time, New York was emerging from its status as the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S.
As of last week, 22 states were on the list of those requiring quarantines, but the advisory now covers well over half the country. Delaware, which was removed last week, is now back on the list. The state effectively swapped places with Minnesota, which has dropped off.
The mandatory quarantine applies to anyone arriving from states with a positivity test rate of 10% or higher over a seven-day rolling average. It also includes any state where the positive test rate is higher than 10 per 100,000 residents over a seven-day rolling average. In New York state, the rules carry a potential $2,000 fine.
The initial travel advisory list included just nine hot spot states, such as Texas and Florida. But it has swelled as many states endure a sharp spike in coronavirus cases driven by economic reopenings and relaxed attitudes toward face masks and other precautions.
Earlier this month, Florida surpassed New York's worst-ever day for new cases, reporting more than 15,200 infections. On Monday, New York saw less than 2% of its COVID-19 tests come back positive. By contrast, Florida's positivity rate has averaged above 10% for the past month.
"I never thought it would be this bad," Cuomo told NBC's TODAY Show about the course of COVID-19 in the U.S.
Last week, New York stepped up its efforts to hold people accountable to the quarantine rules, deploying "enforcement teams" at airports across the state and urging people to fill out a traveler health form.
When Cuomo was asked on Tuesday whether his state's quarantine policy is enforceable, the governor replied, "It is imperfect."
The tristate area's new travel advisory now covers these states:
Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.


npr--2020-07-21--White House And Congress At Odds Over Pandemic Relief Package

White House And Congress At Odds Over Pandemic Relief Package Washington is racing to complete a fifth round of legislation to address the ongoing , and still surging , coronavirus pandemic in the next three weeks .
The two parties and the White House are at odds over what the major pillars of the legislation should include and how much it should cost .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , wants to get a bill to President Trump by Aug. 7 when Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the rest of the summer — a time when lawmakers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election year .
The aggressive timeline puts pressure on Republicans in Congress and the White House to agree on their demands so that bipartisan negotiations can begin in earnest .
Republicans have not released a detailed list of their demands , but McConnell has ruled out a large spending package such as the roughly $ 2.5 trillion CARES Act that passed in March .
He is expected to unveil the Senate GOP proposal this week that is estimated to cost around $ 1 trillion .
`` The legislation that I have begun to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to float the entire economy , nor a typical stimulus bill for a nation that 's ready to get back to normal , '' McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor .
`` Our country is in a complex middle ground between those two things .
We ca n't go back to April , and we ca n't snap our fingers and finish the vaccine overnight .
We need to carve out a 'new normal . '
`` McConnell has listed some components , including $ 105 billion for schools , some additional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of direct payments , and legal liability limitations to prevent lawsuits related to COVID-19 .
Trump has publicly backed a different set of demands .
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that the president is pushing for a payroll tax cut to be part of the package .
Congressional Republicans have repeatedly rejected that idea , but McEnany said a tax cut would go to the `` hardest-working — middle-income and low-income workers , '' but she said it was one of a number of items they are discussing , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told reporters Tuesday that his bill would not likely include a payroll tax cut .
`` There are some differences of opinion on the payroll tax cut and whether that 's the best way to go , and so we 're still in discussion with the administration on that , '' he said .
Trump has said he would consider refusing to sign any legislation that does not include the payroll provision .
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows were on Capitol Hill on Tuesday working with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The administration and GOP senators are also at odds over how much money to include for ongoing testing demands , with some in the White House advocating for less money over the objections of senators .
Sen. Roy Blunt , R-Mo.
, has been an advocate for more spending to increase access to rapid result tests as well as more money to aid distribution doses of an eventual vaccine .
`` I think that 's an important point we were able to make talking to the administration today about testing , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those to be addressed in the bill . ''
The top House Republican , Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California , also voiced support for additional resources .
`` I would be one who would say we need more money for testing . ''
McConnell and other GOP lawmakers have acknowledged that bipartisan negotiations will need to happen quickly if a deal is to be reached .
At least one GOP senator , Rand Paul of Kentucky , has already announced he will oppose it because of the cost and lack of spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said he would oppose it if it includes money to bail out states .
`` I 'm going to do everything I can to stop it , '' Scott said .
`` Florida taxpayers are not paying for New York or Illinois or California . ''
McConnell acknowledged Tuesday that his bill will need Democratic support ultimately to pass the Senate , and he characterized his bill as the opening offer on those negotiations .
Two months ago , House Democrats passed a $ 3 trillion bill that includes funding priorities including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 1 trillion to help fill gaps in state and local budgets , and another $ 1 trillion in direct aid payments to individuals and additional unemployment benefits .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. , has declined to draw any red lines in the negotiations but has said Democrats are focused on supporting state and local governments , expanding testing , tracing and treatment , and delivering direct aid to people .
`` Everybody understands that the economy will only get worse if we do not , if we do not continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we have done , '' Pelosi said Monday on MSNBC 's Morning Joe .
`` Everything I mentioned , Republicans have voted for before .
Not as much , but , nonetheless , it is not asking to go against their principles . ''

White House And Congress At Odds Over Pandemic Relief Package
Enlarge this image toggle caption Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Washington is racing to complete a fifth round of legislation to address the ongoing, and still surging, coronavirus pandemic in the next three weeks. The two parties and the White House are at odds over what the major pillars of the legislation should include and how much it should cost.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., wants to get a bill to President Trump by Aug. 7 when Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the rest of the summer — a time when lawmakers traditionally hit the campaign trail in an election year.
The aggressive timeline puts pressure on Republicans in Congress and the White House to agree on their demands so that bipartisan negotiations can begin in earnest.
Republicans have not released a detailed list of their demands, but McConnell has ruled out a large spending package such as the roughly $2.5 trillion CARES Act that passed in March.
He is expected to unveil the Senate GOP proposal this week that is estimated to cost around $1 trillion.
"The legislation that I have begun to sketch out is neither another CARES Act to float the entire economy, nor a typical stimulus bill for a nation that's ready to get back to normal," McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. "Our country is in a complex middle ground between those two things. We can't go back to April, and we can't snap our fingers and finish the vaccine overnight. We need to carve out a 'new normal.' "
McConnell has listed some components, including $105 billion for schools, some additional federal unemployment support, a second round of direct payments, and legal liability limitations to prevent lawsuits related to COVID-19.
Trump has publicly backed a different set of demands. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters that the president is pushing for a payroll tax cut to be part of the package. Congressional Republicans have repeatedly rejected that idea, but McEnany said a tax cut would go to the "hardest-working — middle-income and low-income workers," but she said it was one of a number of items they are discussing, including another round of direct payments.
McConnell told reporters Tuesday that his bill would not likely include a payroll tax cut. "There are some differences of opinion on the payroll tax cut and whether that's the best way to go, and so we're still in discussion with the administration on that," he said.
Trump has said he would consider refusing to sign any legislation that does not include the payroll provision.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows were on Capitol Hill on Tuesday working with GOP senators to help broker some agreement.
The administration and GOP senators are also at odds over how much money to include for ongoing testing demands, with some in the White House advocating for less money over the objections of senators.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., has been an advocate for more spending to increase access to rapid result tests as well as more money to aid distribution doses of an eventual vaccine. "I think that's an important point we were able to make talking to the administration today about testing," Blunt said. "I expect all of those to be addressed in the bill."
The top House Republican, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, also voiced support for additional resources. "I would be one who would say we need more money for testing."
McConnell and other GOP lawmakers have acknowledged that bipartisan negotiations will need to happen quickly if a deal is to be reached. At least one GOP senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, has already announced he will oppose it because of the cost and lack of spending offsets. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he would oppose it if it includes money to bail out states. "I'm going to do everything I can to stop it," Scott said. "Florida taxpayers are not paying for New York or Illinois or California."
McConnell acknowledged Tuesday that his bill will need Democratic support ultimately to pass the Senate, and he characterized his bill as the opening offer on those negotiations.
Two months ago, House Democrats passed a $3 trillion bill that includes funding priorities including a nationwide testing and tracing regime, $1 trillion to help fill gaps in state and local budgets, and another $1 trillion in direct aid payments to individuals and additional unemployment benefits.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has declined to draw any red lines in the negotiations but has said Democrats are focused on supporting state and local governments, expanding testing, tracing and treatment, and delivering direct aid to people.
"Everybody understands that the economy will only get worse if we do not, if we do not continue to support working families in our country as we have done," Pelosi said Monday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "Everything I mentioned, Republicans have voted for before. Not as much, but, nonetheless, it is not asking to go against their principles."


npr--2020-07-21--'Swing County, USA' Prepares For Unprecedented Influx Of Ballots By Mail

'Swing County , USA ' Prepares For Unprecedented Influx Of Ballots By Mail The county government cafeteria in Northampton County , Pa. , is a large , airy room with big windows and , for now , lunch tables separated by plexiglass .
But a few months from now , on Election Day , this is where the county plans to have a couple of dozen people processing what it expects could be 100,000 mail-in ballots , nearly triple what they handled in the June 2 primary and 15 times what they handled in November 2016 .
The dramatic rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the counting operation to the cafeteria , one of many steps this swing county on the eastern edge of a battleground state is taking to prepare for this unprecedented presidential election .
`` We 're very supportive of it .
It 's just a little more work , '' says Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure Jr. `` Based on our experience from the primary , we just do n't think it 's physically possible to count the potential 100,000 mail-in ballots that day . ''
Pennsylvania is among the handful of states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it 's close .
It voted twice for Barack Obama before pivoting to Donald Trump in 2016 .
Like many other places across the U.S. , officials are anticipating a tremendous increase in the number of people voting by mail , because of changes in laws and coronavirus concerns .
While there 's little evidence that mail-in ballots are insecure , they do introduce logistical and other challenges .
`` Every component piece of the process requires more — more dollars , more space , more staffing , more equipment .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar .
Historically , only about 5 % of Pennsylvanians voted absentee .
That was already set to change this year , as Pennsylvania joined more than 30 other states in allowing voting by mail for any reason , also known as no-excuse absentee voting .
Gov .
Tom Wolf hailed the new law , passed last fall , as `` the biggest change to our elections in generations ... removing barriers to the voting booth and encouraging more people to vote . ''
Pennsylvania election officials say they expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 primary , the first election under the new rules .
`` And then COVID-19 hit , '' says Boockvar .
Statewide , Pennsylvania saw a nearly 18-fold increase in mail-in voting in the June 2 primary , compared with four years ago .
Boockvar anticipates that 50 % of the state 's voters could opt for mail-in voting this fall .
The sheer numbers , along with the complexities of counting mail-in ballots , have raised questions and lowered expectations about how soon there will be results — not just in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months , President Trump has promoted the false narrative that mail-in voting will lead to fraud and a rigged election .
To be clear , though there have been issues as the use of mail-in voting increases — such as ballots rejected for being late or unsigned — election experts say there is no evidence that voting by mail leads to rampant fraud .
But because of how time-consuming the process is , a big question remains : On election night , will voters know who is going to be the next president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the `` million-dollar question , '' says Boockvar .
`` I think that Nov. 3 , we may not . ''
Boockvar is hoping the Pennsylvania legislature will pass a measure that would allow ballots to be pre-canvassed , starting as early as three weeks before Nov. 3 .
That process includes opening both a ballot 's outer envelope and secondary privacy envelope and confirming the voter 's eligibility .
Under current law , this work ca n't start until 7 a.m. on Election Day .
The final step , feeding the ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would still happen on Election Day under the proposed legislation .
`` That last part is the fastest part of the process , '' Boockvar says .
`` It 's all the other things , including literally the physical extraction of the documents in the envelope , that take a remarkable number of hours and days depending on how many ballots you get back . ''
This spring , things actually ran pretty smoothly in Northampton County , where officials proudly point out that they were the first in Pennsylvania to report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at around 9 p.m .
Still , they say that without the ability to pre-canvass mail-in ballots ahead of Election Day in November , same-day results are unlikely .
`` We 'll have significant numbers on election night , but we wo n't be done unless the law changes , '' McClure , the county executive , says .
There is already a lot of interest in how Northampton County will vote come Nov. 3 .
The county , about 90 minutes from both Philadelphia and New York City , is looked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` If you go and look back historically all the way to the early part of the last century , you 'd see that the way Northampton County goes , so does Pennsylvania , '' says Chris Borick , director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion , who lives in the borough of Nazareth , in the center of the county .
`` It 's really unbelievable as a predictor for the state as a whole . ''
Northampton County was one of three Pennsylvania counties that voted twice for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump won Pennsylvania by a mere 44,000 votes , a margin of less than 1 % .
`` We like to call ourselves Swing County , USA , '' says Sam Chen , a Republican strategist and political science professor who grew up in the steel town of Bethlehem , Pa. Chen , who did not vote for Trump in 2016 , says he has n't decided yet whom he 'll support this year , though he 's leaning toward former Vice President Joe Biden .
One thing Chen has decided is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and he 's expecting a lot of other Republicans to do the same , despite Trump 's attacks on mail-in voting .
`` It 's going to come down to convenience , '' Chen says .
`` Is it easier for me to vote in person ? ''
Others are more skeptical .
Frank DeVito , an attorney and one of two Republicans on the Northampton County Election Commission , says Trump 's rhetoric railing against mail-in voting is resonating with Republican voters .
In recent weeks , for instance , Trump has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be printed by foreign countries .
`` Is it possible what he 's saying ?
I mean , yeah , in theory , '' says DeVito , speaking at his home in Bath , Pa. , with a `` Trump-Pence 2020 '' sign in his front yard .
`` Theoretically , when anybody who 's a registered voter can mail a ballot in and never show up at a polling place , never sign in , it 's more likely that you can commit fraud . ''
`` On how wide of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to happen ? ''
DeVito continues .
`` It 's likely that there will be a few paper ballots mailed to the wrong addresses and somebody will just use it .
But on a systemic , widespread level , I really do n't know .
I think it 's a real possibility . ''
There were already notable differences in how Republicans and Democrats chose to vote in Northampton County 's June primary .
Among Democrats , 26,440 voted by mail , versus 10,051 who voted at the polls .
Compare that with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with 15,582 voting at the polls .
Northampton County Executive McClure , a Democrat , wants to get the word out that either form of voting is fine .
`` It appears that Republicans prefer to vote in person , and we 've got a great system for them , and they know their votes are going to count , '' McClure says .
`` And it appears Democrats prefer to vote by mail at this juncture . ''
As the county election staff members await word on whether they will be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Election Day , they 're already in better shape than they were for the primary .
They have purchased a third high-speed envelope-opening machine , known as an enveloper , which can slice open 24,000 envelopes per hour .
McClure says he has great confidence in the technology , in the backup systems and in the people running them .
`` I 'd die before I let this election be rigged , '' he says .
`` There are some things that are greater in importance than a partisan victory : the sanctity @ @ @ @ @ @ @

'Swing County, USA' Prepares For Unprecedented Influx Of Ballots By Mail
Enlarge this image toggle caption Fatma Tanis/NPR Fatma Tanis/NPR
The county government cafeteria in Northampton County, Pa., is a large, airy room with big windows and, for now, lunch tables separated by plexiglass.
But a few months from now, on Election Day, this is where the county plans to have a couple of dozen people processing what it expects could be 100,000 mail-in ballots, nearly triple what they handled in the June 2 primary and 15 times what they handled in November 2016.
The dramatic rise in mail-in ballots prompted the move of the counting operation to the cafeteria, one of many steps this swing county on the eastern edge of a battleground state is taking to prepare for this unprecedented presidential election.
"We're very supportive of it. It's just a little more work," says Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure Jr. "Based on our experience from the primary, we just don't think it's physically possible to count the potential 100,000 mail-in ballots that day."
Pennsylvania is among the handful of states that could decide the outcome of the election if it's close. It voted twice for Barack Obama before pivoting to Donald Trump in 2016.
Like many other places across the U.S., officials are anticipating a tremendous increase in the number of people voting by mail, because of changes in laws and coronavirus concerns. While there's little evidence that mail-in ballots are insecure, they do introduce logistical and other challenges.
"Every component piece of the process requires more — more dollars, more space, more staffing, more equipment. And earlier timelines," says Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Matt Rourke/AP Matt Rourke/AP
Historically, only about 5% of Pennsylvanians voted absentee. That was already set to change this year, as Pennsylvania joined more than 30 other states in allowing voting by mail for any reason, also known as no-excuse absentee voting.
Gov. Tom Wolf hailed the new law, passed last fall, as "the biggest change to our elections in generations ... removing barriers to the voting booth and encouraging more people to vote."
Pennsylvania election officials say they expected a modest increase in mail-in voting in the 2020 primary, the first election under the new rules.
"And then COVID-19 hit," says Boockvar.
Statewide, Pennsylvania saw a nearly 18-fold increase in mail-in voting in the June 2 primary, compared with four years ago. Boockvar anticipates that 50% of the state's voters could opt for mail-in voting this fall.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Fatma Tanis/NPR Fatma Tanis/NPR
The sheer numbers, along with the complexities of counting mail-in ballots, have raised questions and lowered expectations about how soon there will be results — not just in Pennsylvania but across the country.
For months, President Trump has promoted the false narrative that mail-in voting will lead to fraud and a rigged election. To be clear, though there have been issues as the use of mail-in voting increases — such as ballots rejected for being late or unsigned — election experts say there is no evidence that voting by mail leads to rampant fraud.
But because of how time-consuming the process is, a big question remains: On election night, will voters know who is going to be the next president of the United States?
It's the "million-dollar question," says Boockvar. "I think that Nov. 3, we may not."
Boockvar is hoping the Pennsylvania legislature will pass a measure that would allow ballots to be pre-canvassed, starting as early as three weeks before Nov. 3. That process includes opening both a ballot's outer envelope and secondary privacy envelope and confirming the voter's eligibility. Under current law, this work can't start until 7 a.m. on Election Day.
The final step, feeding the ballot into a scanner that counts the vote, would still happen on Election Day under the proposed legislation.
"That last part is the fastest part of the process," Boockvar says. "It's all the other things, including literally the physical extraction of the documents in the envelope, that take a remarkable number of hours and days depending on how many ballots you get back."
Enlarge this image toggle caption Fatma Tanis/NPR Fatma Tanis/NPR
This spring, things actually ran pretty smoothly in Northampton County, where officials proudly point out that they were the first in Pennsylvania to report election results in the June 2 primary, at around 9 p.m.
Still, they say that without the ability to pre-canvass mail-in ballots ahead of Election Day in November, same-day results are unlikely.
"We'll have significant numbers on election night, but we won't be done unless the law changes," McClure, the county executive, says.
There is already a lot of interest in how Northampton County will vote come Nov. 3. The county, about 90 minutes from both Philadelphia and New York City, is looked to as a bellwether in presidential elections.
"If you go and look back historically all the way to the early part of the last century, you'd see that the way Northampton County goes, so does Pennsylvania," says Chris Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, who lives in the borough of Nazareth, in the center of the county. "It's really unbelievable as a predictor for the state as a whole."
Northampton County was one of three Pennsylvania counties that voted twice for Barack Obama before pivoting to Donald Trump. Trump won Pennsylvania by a mere 44,000 votes, a margin of less than 1%.
"We like to call ourselves Swing County, USA," says Sam Chen, a Republican strategist and political science professor who grew up in the steel town of Bethlehem, Pa.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Fatma Tanis/NPR Fatma Tanis/NPR
Chen, who did not vote for Trump in 2016, says he hasn't decided yet whom he'll support this year, though he's leaning toward former Vice President Joe Biden.
One thing Chen has decided is that he will vote by mail, and he's expecting a lot of other Republicans to do the same, despite Trump's attacks on mail-in voting.
"It's going to come down to convenience," Chen says. "Is it easier for me to vote in person?"
Others are more skeptical. Frank DeVito, an attorney and one of two Republicans on the Northampton County Election Commission, says Trump's rhetoric railing against mail-in voting is resonating with Republican voters. In recent weeks, for instance, Trump has claimed without evidence that millions of ballots could be printed by foreign countries.
"Is it possible what he's saying? I mean, yeah, in theory," says DeVito, speaking at his home in Bath, Pa., with a "Trump-Pence 2020" sign in his front yard. "Theoretically, when anybody who's a registered voter can mail a ballot in and never show up at a polling place, never sign in, it's more likely that you can commit fraud."
"On how wide of a scale is something like that going to happen?" DeVito continues. "It's likely that there will be a few paper ballots mailed to the wrong addresses and somebody will just use it. But on a systemic, widespread level, I really don't know. I think it's a real possibility."
There were already notable differences in how Republicans and Democrats chose to vote in Northampton County's June primary.
Among Democrats, 26,440 voted by mail, versus 10,051 who voted at the polls. Compare that with Republicans: 10,367 voted by mail, with 15,582 voting at the polls.
Northampton County Executive McClure, a Democrat, wants to get the word out that either form of voting is fine.
"It appears that Republicans prefer to vote in person, and we've got a great system for them, and they know their votes are going to count," McClure says. "And it appears Democrats prefer to vote by mail at this juncture."
As the county election staff members await word on whether they will be able to pre-canvass the mail-in ballots ahead of Election Day, they're already in better shape than they were for the primary. They have purchased a third high-speed envelope-opening machine, known as an enveloper, which can slice open 24,000 envelopes per hour.
McClure says he has great confidence in the technology, in the backup systems and in the people running them.
"I'd die before I let this election be rigged," he says. "There are some things that are greater in importance than a partisan victory: the sanctity and integrity of our elections."


npr--2020-07-21--Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines' New Anti-Terrorism Law

Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines ' New Anti-Terrorism Law Petitions have piled up at the Philippines ' Supreme Court to overturn a new anti-terrorism law championed by President Rodrigo Duterte , which could jail suspects without charge for weeks .
The government says it needs the legislation to combat insurgencies and that it safeguards freedoms .
The Philippine Foreign Affairs Department even sent a letter to U.S. Congress members to allay concerns over the law , saying , `` The Philippines remains committed to the protection of civil and political liberties as well as human rights . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard-line Duterte administration could use the legislation to prosecute political opponents .
The Philippine Catholic Church went so far as to compare the legislation to China 's new national security law imposed on Hong Kong .
The law took effect Saturday at a time when the authorities are battling the coronavirus and arresting those caught breaching the lockdown .
It follows widespread condemnation of the Duterte administration for harsh tactics against drug suspects and against government critics , as well as for undercutting civil liberties such as a free press , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key takeaways from the debate around the Philippines ' Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020 .
The law greatly expands the definition of terrorism It includes such broad offenses as `` engaging in acts intended to endanger a person 's life , '' intended to `` damage public property '' or `` interfere with critical infrastructure , '' where the purpose is to intimidate the government .
The National Union of People 's Lawyers has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the law on the grounds it is overly broad and essentially criminalizes intent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorism , is particularly problematic , the rights advocates say .
The text says inciting others through `` speeches , writings , proclamations , emblems , banners , and other representations tending to the same end '' could carry a punishment of 12 years in prison .
`` It chills freedom of expression .
It chills free speech .
It chills freedom of the press .
It chills freedom of association , '' says Neri Colmenares , a leading human rights lawyer who is petitioning the Supreme Court .
The law does state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to punish advocacy , protest , dissent , industrial action and strikes , so long as they do n't create `` a serious risk to public safety . ''
`` But who defines what is and what is n't a serious risk ? ''
asks Aaron Sobel with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace .
Defending the provision , National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon tells NPR that under the law , `` activism is not terrorism . ''
But lawyer Colmenares argues that , for the Duterte administration , `` terrorism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries have anti-terrorism laws .
The Philippines is no outlier More than 140 governments have passed anti-terrorism laws since Sept. 11 , 2001 , with many expanding that legal arsenal over time .
The Philippines ' legislation undeniably diminishes due process protections , but it does not widely diverge from what other countries in the region do .
Under the law , a terrorism suspect could be detained for 14 days without charge , a period that can be extended to 24 days .
Human rights attorneys say that violates a constitutional provision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three days of detention .
Esperon , the national security adviser , says it 's not possible to build a terrorism case in 72 hours .
`` We need time to address criminals the likes of terrorists , especially when they 're really good at covering their tracks , '' he says .
He says the government needs strong laws to prosecute militants aligned with the Islamic State and a decades-old communist insurgency .
He notes that the United States has held terrorism suspects far longer than 14 days .
`` And you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ?
For how long ? ''
he says .
The U.S. has held many detainees at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay , Cuba , for over a decade .
Forty detainees remained at the facility as of 2019 .
Around the world , advocates argue , terrorism suspects held for extended time without a charge could be subject to abuse or even torture .
Esperon says the Philippines ' detention period is `` one of the most limited '' in the region , putting it on par with Australia and well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrest for terrorism suspects .
The new law , however , includes a possible punishment of life imprisonment without parole , which rights advocates say leaves no chance for rehabilitation .
The law also allows wiretaps and lengthy surveillance , which raises privacy concerns , according to rights activists .
The Duterte government 's poor human rights record has amplified apprehensions over the new anti-terrorism law .
Duterte 's drug war has killed at least 8,600 Filipinos since 2016 , with `` near-impunity , '' according to a United Nations report in June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadcaster ABS-CBN and prosecuted veteran journalist Maria Ressa , CEO of the news website Rappler , for cyber libel , which ended with her conviction .
Both outlets have aggressively reported on Duterte 's leadership .
The government has also jailed thousands of suspected violators and protesters of a lockdown to contain the rapid spread of the coronavirus .
Attorney Colmenares says , anti-lockdown protesters and violators `` are afraid '' that putting more power in the hands of police and President Duterte would `` triple or quadruple '' the arrests .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , which security specialist Sidney Jones says was `` one of the worst anti-terror laws that was ever passed because it had so many safeguards that it was never used or almost never used . ''
In the old law , authorities were fined $ 10,000 for every day a suspect was illegally detained .
The new law eliminates that .
But analysts and rights advocates say they 're concerned about how Duterte will use the new one .
Countries such as Egypt and Turkey have illustrated how governments led by populists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws to infringe on civil liberties and consolidate power , according to the Carnegie Endowment 's Sobel .
`` To me the Philippines is extremely emblematic of that .
[ Duterte 's ] firebrand type of speech helped him get elected and for a very long time he 's been very popular , '' Sobel says , `` and he 's used that to erode civilian checks and balances . ''

Why Rights Groups Worry About The Philippines' New Anti-Terrorism Law
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ezra Acayan/Getty Images Ezra Acayan/Getty Images
Updated at 5:12 p.m. ET
Petitions have piled up at the Philippines' Supreme Court to overturn a new anti-terrorism law championed by President Rodrigo Duterte, which could jail suspects without charge for weeks.
The government says it needs the legislation to combat insurgencies and that it safeguards freedoms. The Philippine Foreign Affairs Department even sent a letter to U.S. Congress members to allay concerns over the law, saying, "The Philippines remains committed to the protection of civil and political liberties as well as human rights."
But human rights groups warn that the hard-line Duterte administration could use the legislation to prosecute political opponents. The Philippine Catholic Church went so far as to compare the legislation to China's new national security law imposed on Hong Kong.
The law took effect Saturday at a time when the authorities are battling the coronavirus and arresting those caught breaching the lockdown. It follows widespread condemnation of the Duterte administration for harsh tactics against drug suspects and against government critics, as well as for undercutting civil liberties such as a free press, according to human rights advocates.
Here are some key takeaways from the debate around the Philippines' Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.
The law greatly expands the definition of terrorism
It includes such broad offenses as "engaging in acts intended to endanger a person's life," intended to "damage public property" or "interfere with critical infrastructure," where the purpose is to intimidate the government.
The National Union of People's Lawyers has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the law on the grounds it is overly broad and essentially criminalizes intent.
One new offense, inciting to commit terrorism, is particularly problematic, the rights advocates say. The text says inciting others through "speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners, and other representations tending to the same end" could carry a punishment of 12 years in prison.
"It chills freedom of expression. It chills free speech. It chills freedom of the press. It chills freedom of association," says Neri Colmenares, a leading human rights lawyer who is petitioning the Supreme Court.
The law does state, however, that it is not intended to punish advocacy, protest, dissent, industrial action and strikes, so long as they don't create "a serious risk to public safety."
"But who defines what is and what isn't a serious risk?" asks Aaron Sobel with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Defending the provision, National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon tells NPR that under the law, "activism is not terrorism."
But lawyer Colmenares argues that, for the Duterte administration, "terrorism is any form of dissent."
Most countries have anti-terrorism laws. The Philippines is no outlier
More than 140 governments have passed anti-terrorism laws since Sept. 11, 2001, with many expanding that legal arsenal over time.
The Philippines' legislation undeniably diminishes due process protections, but it does not widely diverge from what other countries in the region do.
Under the law, a terrorism suspect could be detained for 14 days without charge, a period that can be extended to 24 days. Human rights attorneys say that violates a constitutional provision that a person must be charged within three days of detention.
Esperon, the national security adviser, says it's not possible to build a terrorism case in 72 hours. "We need time to address criminals the likes of terrorists, especially when they're really good at covering their tracks," he says.
He says the government needs strong laws to prosecute militants aligned with the Islamic State and a decades-old communist insurgency.
He notes that the United States has held terrorism suspects far longer than 14 days. "And you keep some of them in Guantánamo, right? For how long?" he says.
The U.S. has held many detainees at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for over a decade. Forty detainees remained at the facility as of 2019.
Around the world, advocates argue, terrorism suspects held for extended time without a charge could be subject to abuse or even torture.
Esperon says the Philippines' detention period is "one of the most limited" in the region, putting it on par with Australia and well below Singapore's two-year-long period of warrantless arrest for terrorism suspects.
The new law, however, includes a possible punishment of life imprisonment without parole, which rights advocates say leaves no chance for rehabilitation. The law also allows wiretaps and lengthy surveillance, which raises privacy concerns, according to rights activists.
Duterte's rights record hardens opposition to the law
Enlarge this image toggle caption Arman Baylon/Malacanang Presidential Photographers Division via AP Arman Baylon/Malacanang Presidential Photographers Division via AP
The Duterte government's poor human rights record has amplified apprehensions over the new anti-terrorism law.
Duterte's drug war has killed at least 8,600 Filipinos since 2016, with "near-impunity," according to a United Nations report in June.
Recently, the government shut down broadcaster ABS-CBN and prosecuted veteran journalist Maria Ressa, CEO of the news website Rappler, for cyber libel, which ended with her conviction. Both outlets have aggressively reported on Duterte's leadership.
Asia 'It's Unbelievable': Shutdown Of Philippines' Major Broadcaster Worries Many 'It's Unbelievable': Shutdown Of Philippines' Major Broadcaster Worries Many Listen · 3:36 3:36
The government has also jailed thousands of suspected violators and protesters of a lockdown to contain the rapid spread of the coronavirus.
Attorney Colmenares says, anti-lockdown protesters and violators "are afraid" that putting more power in the hands of police and President Duterte would "triple or quadruple" the arrests.
The new law replaces the 2007 Human Security Act, which security specialist Sidney Jones says was "one of the worst anti-terror laws that was ever passed because it had so many safeguards that it was never used or almost never used."
In the old law, authorities were fined $10,000 for every day a suspect was illegally detained. The new law eliminates that.
But analysts and rights advocates say they're concerned about how Duterte will use the new one.
Countries such as Egypt and Turkey have illustrated how governments led by populists, like Duterte, are using anti-terrorism laws to infringe on civil liberties and consolidate power, according to the Carnegie Endowment's Sobel.
"To me the Philippines is extremely emblematic of that. [Duterte's] firebrand type of speech helped him get elected and for a very long time he's been very popular," Sobel says, "and he's used that to erode civilian checks and balances."


npr--2020-07-21--U.K. 'Actively Avoided' Investigating Russian Interference, Lawmakers Find

British lawmakers have reached a damning conclusion about the possibility of Russian electoral interference in the U.K. : The Parliament 's Intelligence and Security Committee said it ca n't determine whether the Kremlin tried to influence the 2016 Brexit referendum , because the British government has n't even tried to find out .
The committee released that conclusion Tuesday in a long-awaited , oft-delayed and heavily redacted report .
`` The outrage is n't [ whether ] there was interference ; the outrage is that no one has wanted to know if there was interference , '' member Kevan Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference laying out the committee 's findings .
`` That , I think , comes through very loud and clear in our report . ''
Another member , Stewart Hosie , explained that the `` the U.K. government have actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered '' in the vote that determined the United Kingdom 's divorce from the European Union .
`` We were told that they have n't seen any evidence , but that is meaningless if they had n't looked for it , '' said Hosie , a member @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` The committee found it astonishing that no one in government had sought beforehand to protect the referendum from such attempts or investigate afterwards what attempts there may have been . ''
The committee 's report pointed out that this inaction represents a `` stark contrast '' with the U.S. , `` where an intelligence community assessment was produced within two months '' of its 2016 presidential election .
`` Even if the conclusion of any such assessment were that there was minimal interference , '' it added , `` this would nonetheless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the U.K. 's democratic processes had remained relatively safe . ''
Instead — as Hosie put it — in the U.K. government , `` nobody wanted to touch this issue with a 10-foot pole . ''
On Morning Edition , NPR 's Frank Langfitt offered one reason for that reluctance : The report also noted that London has become a money laundering hub for Russian elites — and that `` in brief , Russian influence in the UK is 'the new normal . '
`` The U.K. government released a lengthy statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Raab took issue with the committee 's findings , saying that in particular , the government `` categorically rejects '' Hosie 's assertion that officials were actively avoiding an investigation .
`` We 've got a long period recognizing the enduring , significant threat faced by Russia to the U.K. , including in relation to cyber , '' Raab said at a news conference with his U.S. counterpart , Mike Pompeo , who is visiting in London this week .
`` Russia is a top national security priority .
We call out Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report Tuesday represents the culmination of eight months of parliamentary investigation and 10 more months of publication delays .
Originally submitted to the prime minister last October , the report was subject to repeated postponement — first for a national security review of its contents and then for the appointment of new committee members .
The delays provoked widespread controversy and even claims of a cover-up from lawmakers , including some who were sitting on the Intelligence and Security Committee at the time .
Now that the report has finally seen the light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it say an investigation from the government would be better late than never .
`` No matter how politically awkward or potentially embarrassing , there should have been an assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum , and there must now be one , '' Hosie said Tuesday .
`` And the public must be told the results of that assessment . ''

U.K. 'Actively Avoided' Investigating Russian Interference, Lawmakers Find
Enlarge this image toggle caption Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images Justin Tallis/AFP via Getty Images
British lawmakers have reached a damning conclusion about the possibility of Russian electoral interference in the U.K.: The Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee said it can't determine whether the Kremlin tried to influence the 2016 Brexit referendum, because the British government hasn't even tried to find out.
The committee released that conclusion Tuesday in a long-awaited, oft-delayed and heavily redacted report.
"The outrage isn't [whether] there was interference; the outrage is that no one has wanted to know if there was interference," member Kevan Jones of the Labour Party told a news conference laying out the committee's findings. "That, I think, comes through very loud and clear in our report."
Another member, Stewart Hosie, explained that the "the U.K. government have actively avoided looking for evidence that Russia interfered" in the vote that determined the United Kingdom's divorce from the European Union.
"We were told that they haven't seen any evidence, but that is meaningless if they hadn't looked for it," said Hosie, a member of the opposition Scottish National Party. "The committee found it astonishing that no one in government had sought beforehand to protect the referendum from such attempts or investigate afterwards what attempts there may have been."
The committee's report pointed out that this inaction represents a "stark contrast" with the U.S., "where an intelligence community assessment was produced within two months" of its 2016 presidential election.
"Even if the conclusion of any such assessment were that there was minimal interference," it added, "this would nonetheless represent a helpful reassurance to the public that the U.K.'s democratic processes had remained relatively safe."
Instead — as Hosie put it — in the U.K. government, "nobody wanted to touch this issue with a 10-foot pole."
On Morning Edition, NPR's Frank Langfitt offered one reason for that reluctance:
"I think the answer is this: It would've undermined the Brexit referendum. Remember, it's the biggest decision of the British people in decades. It's already changed the course of British history, and the person who was front and center — that was a guy named Boris Johnson, who is now the prime minister. So if you say Russia interfered, then it could undermine this thing that has changed the course of British history."
Europe Report Says U.K. Actively Avoided Investigating Russian Influence In Brexit Report Says U.K. Actively Avoided Investigating Russian Influence In Brexit Listen · 3:33 3:33
The report also noted that London has become a money laundering hub for Russian elites — and that "in brief, Russian influence in the UK is 'the new normal.' "
The U.K. government released a lengthy statement in response. And Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab took issue with the committee's findings, saying that in particular, the government "categorically rejects" Hosie's assertion that officials were actively avoiding an investigation.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Hannah McKay/Pool/AFP via Getty Images Hannah McKay/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
"We've got a long period recognizing the enduring, significant threat faced by Russia to the U.K., including in relation to cyber," Raab said at a news conference with his U.S. counterpart, Mike Pompeo, who is visiting in London this week. "Russia is a top national security priority. We call out Russia when it's necessary."
The report Tuesday represents the culmination of eight months of parliamentary investigation and 10 more months of publication delays. Originally submitted to the prime minister last October, the report was subject to repeated postponement — first for a national security review of its contents and then for the appointment of new committee members.
The delays provoked widespread controversy and even claims of a cover-up from lawmakers, including some who were sitting on the Intelligence and Security Committee at the time.
Now that the report has finally seen the light of day, the committee members behind it say an investigation from the government would be better late than never.
"No matter how politically awkward or potentially embarrassing, there should have been an assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum, and there must now be one," Hosie said Tuesday. "And the public must be told the results of that assessment."


npr--2020-07-21--Record Low Mortgage Rates Put More Cash In Pockets, But May Not Boost Economy Much

Record Low Mortgage Rates Put More Cash In Pockets , But May Not Boost Economy Much Sheera Talpaz , an assistant professor of literature at Oberlin College , has been teaching remotely , stuck indoors .
So she figured having a place she could make her own would be good .
And now she 's found one and is buying her first house .
`` I 'm really happy because I like the home , '' she says .
`` And I think I will just simply enjoy my day-to-day life more living in it . ''
The timing was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ historic threshold .
The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate loan dropped below 3 % last week for the first time since records began in 1971 .
`` The interest rates , '' Talpaz says , `` once I started looking into things , they did motivate us . ''
She recently lived in California where she says she could n't afford to buy a home .
But now in Oberlin , Ohio , with these rates , she says her payment will be very affordable .
`` It 'll be lower than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there 's a definite Tale of Two Cities , or in this case countries , happening right now amid the coronavirus pandemic .
And it 's playing out with low rates too .
Beyond homebuying , millions of Americans who are already homeowners are refinancing this year to save considerable money .
Meanwhile , there are lots of people out of work who ca n't afford to buy a house or qualify to refinance .
Many are renting and worried about getting evicted .
And , at the end of this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will stop getting an extra $ 600 a week in federal emergency benefits .
Those have been a lifeline for many .
`` We 're about to fall off a cliff , '' says Ken Rogoff , a Harvard economist who studies financial crises .
He says that if Congress does n't extend or replace those benefits with something substantial , `` a lot of people are going to have trouble buying food '' — let alone pay their rents or mortgages .
`` There are a lot of problems ahead , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to do something dramatic . ''
In a normal recession , the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low for mortgages and other types of loans , like it is now , would be dramatic and Rogoff says that would be a key tool to help boost the economy broadly .
When people buy houses , for example , they spend money fixing them up .
They buy dishwashers and lawn mowers and renovate kitchens .
That helps the stores and manufacturers and contractors who they spend money with .
And some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a normal recession .
Take the millions of people who are refinancing .
People like Andrew McCabe , a product manager at a health care IT company who owns a condo in Arlington , Mass .
`` I 'll save about 250 bucks a month , '' he says .
That means he could go out to dinner more often , and the movies .
That would help local businesses .
But he does n't feel safe doing that .
Like so many other people , he 's mostly hunkered down working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refinancing , money was piling up in McCabe 's bank account .
`` I easily saved several thousand dollars since I 've been home , '' he says .
So the extra money from low interest rates is n't likely to get many people like McCabe to spend more , at least right now .
Meanwhile , he 's watching more local businesses go under .
`` In Arlington , restaurants are closing down , Cambridge restaurants are closing down , '' he says .
`` This morning , it was Flat Top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we hear about something else , local places that I would go that are now gone . ''
So for now , Harvard 's Rogoff says the government needs to keep pumping trillions of dollars into the economy with unemployment assistance and other stimulus .
But he says it ca n't do that forever .
So he 's siding with a growing chorus of prominent economists and business groups who essentially say a stimulus is needed and low interest rates are good , but maybe the single most important thing to help the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of masks across the whole country .
`` If you 're not containing the virus , you can do all the great monetary policy in the world , '' Rogoff says .
`` All the great fiscal policy , design everything well .
If you 're not winning the war , you 're losing . ''
In other words , low interest rates are great .
But if the country ca n't crush down the number of new coronavirus cases , the economy ca n't recover .

Record Low Mortgage Rates Put More Cash In Pockets, But May Not Boost Economy Much
Enlarge this image toggle caption Ted Shaffrey/AP Ted Shaffrey/AP
Sheera Talpaz, an assistant professor of literature at Oberlin College, has been teaching remotely, stuck indoors. So she figured having a place she could make her own would be good. And now she's found one and is buying her first house.
"I'm really happy because I like the home," she says. "And I think I will just simply enjoy my day-to-day life more living in it."
The timing was right. Interest rates just crossed a historic threshold. The average rate on a 30-year fixed-rate loan dropped below 3% last week for the first time since records began in 1971.
Loading...
"The interest rates," Talpaz says, "once I started looking into things, they did motivate us." She recently lived in California where she says she couldn't afford to buy a home. But now in Oberlin, Ohio, with these rates, she says her payment will be very affordable. "It'll be lower than I currently pay in rent."
But there's a definite Tale of Two Cities, or in this case countries, happening right now amid the coronavirus pandemic. And it's playing out with low rates too. Beyond homebuying, millions of Americans who are already homeowners are refinancing this year to save considerable money.
Enlarge this image toggle caption Richard Baker Richard Baker
Meanwhile, there are lots of people out of work who can't afford to buy a house or qualify to refinance. Many are renting and worried about getting evicted.
And, at the end of this week, upwards of 25 million unemployed people will stop getting an extra $600 a week in federal emergency benefits. Those have been a lifeline for many.
"We're about to fall off a cliff," says Ken Rogoff, a Harvard economist who studies financial crises.
He says that if Congress doesn't extend or replace those benefits with something substantial, "a lot of people are going to have trouble buying food" — let alone pay their rents or mortgages. "There are a lot of problems ahead," Rogoff says. "I think we need to do something dramatic."
In a normal recession, the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low for mortgages and other types of loans, like it is now, would be dramatic and Rogoff says that would be a key tool to help boost the economy broadly.
When people buy houses, for example, they spend money fixing them up. They buy dishwashers and lawn mowers and renovate kitchens. That helps the stores and manufacturers and contractors who they spend money with. And some of that's happening.
But this is not a normal recession.
Take the millions of people who are refinancing. People like Andrew McCabe, a product manager at a health care IT company who owns a condo in Arlington, Mass.
"I'll save about 250 bucks a month," he says.
That means he could go out to dinner more often, and the movies. That would help local businesses. But he doesn't feel safe doing that. Like so many other people, he's mostly hunkered down working remotely at home. So even before refinancing, money was piling up in McCabe's bank account.
"I easily saved several thousand dollars since I've been home," he says.
So the extra money from low interest rates isn't likely to get many people like McCabe to spend more, at least right now. Meanwhile, he's watching more local businesses go under.
"In Arlington, restaurants are closing down, Cambridge restaurants are closing down," he says. "This morning, it was Flat Top Johnny's, and every day, we hear about something else, local places that I would go that are now gone."
So for now, Harvard's Rogoff says the government needs to keep pumping trillions of dollars into the economy with unemployment assistance and other stimulus. But he says it can't do that forever.
So he's siding with a growing chorus of prominent economists and business groups who essentially say a stimulus is needed and low interest rates are good, but maybe the single most important thing to help the economy would be much more widespread use of masks across the whole country.
"If you're not containing the virus, you can do all the great monetary policy in the world," Rogoff says. "All the great fiscal policy, design everything well. If you're not winning the war, you're losing."
In other words, low interest rates are great. But if the country can't crush down the number of new coronavirus cases, the economy can't recover.


npr--2020-07-21--Seeking Suburban Votes, Trump Targets Rule To Combat Racial Bias In Housing

President Trump has been trying a new line of attack against his Democratic opponent Joe Biden over the past week , saying that the former vice president wants to `` abolish '' suburbs .
Biden has no such plan , and his campaign calls this argument a `` smear . ''
Rather , Trump has largely focused on an Obama-era rule intended to combat historic racial discrimination in housing .
The president has said he could be releasing his plan for replacing the rule any day now .
It 's another instance of Trump implicitly using race in his campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing explicitly on other issues .
In this instance , the president appears to be using a policy to fight housing segregation in an attempt to scare white voters about outsiders coming into their neighborhoods .
On Friday , he said that Democrats want to `` eliminate single-family zoning , bringing who knows into your suburbs , so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down . ''
Trump is doing this while most voters are primarily concerned about the pandemic and the recession , and as his standing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to that crisis .
Here is a rundown of what Trump is talking about with this housing policy and how it could affect the campaign .
What does Trump mean ?
In making this pitch about the suburbs , Trump has been attacking an Obama-era regulation called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule , which was meant to combat housing discrimination .
( More details on this later . )
On his website , Biden says he would implement the rule as president .
Trump has repeatedly attacked the rule for weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump tweeted that he intended potentially to repeal it .
But his administration has been critical of AFFH for a long time .
In his January 2017 confirmation hearings , Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson criticized the rule as an example of federal government overreach .
What does the AFFH rule do ?
It tells jurisdictions that receive federal housing funds that they have to assess what patterns of housing discrimination they have and then come up with a plan to diminish them .
It also provides a data-based tool for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The rule was implemented in 2015 under the 1968 Fair Housing Act , a federal law that says federal agencies have to administer any housing-related programs `` in a manner affirmatively to further '' fair housing .
Advocates said that the rule at long last gave specificity and teeth to that provision .
`` What was on the books was n't working , '' said Kathy O'Regan , professor of public policy and planning at New York University , who also worked at HUD under President Barack Obama and helped craft the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligation from the Fair Housing Act , '' she added .
`` But HUD had never designed or implemented a robust system to support jurisdictions in meeting those obligations or to enforce jurisdictions meeting [ them ] . ''
In practice , that may well look like rezoning in some communities , according to Diane Yentel , president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition .
`` When local communities are required to take a look at how segregation developed in their neighborhoods , most of them are going to find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that purposeful , policy-driven segregation , '' she said .
So when those cities have to put forward their plans to improve , she added , `` most of the time that 's going to require that they remove some of those restrictive zoning laws and allow for apartment buildings to be built and put in [ neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes ] , where currently they 're not allowed . ''
Boosting apartment supply would allow people who ca n't afford those suburban houses to move in .
That , Yentel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about when he incorrectly says Democrats want to `` end single-family zoning . ''
But again , Trump is n't getting into any real policy nuance .
He 's using this policy as a steppingstone to talk to white suburban voters about fear of how their communities might change as a result of a race-focused policy .
What is its status now ?
The rule went into effect in 2015 , but in January 2018 , the Trump administration gutted it , telling cities they no longer had to use the tool @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years to submit their assessments ) .
Trump now is saying he wants to end the rule altogether and put another policy into place .
What did the AFFH do in suburbs ?
The rule did n't explicitly target suburbs , said O'Regan , but she can see it having sizable effects on some suburbs .
`` You can imagine if you look at the distribution of where housing that 's affordable is and is n't , that you 'll see disparities between the suburbs and the cities , particularly the outer suburbs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can imagine the implication is , you might want to do things differently in the future to address that . ''
In other words , this sort of rule could put more affordable housing into the suburbs .
Opponents of the rule say it imposes unnecessary red tape and does n't efficiently address housing supply .
`` It 's very much required a lot of hiring of experts , planners and land-use people and attorneys to create these very complex plans , '' said Edward Pinto , director of the right-leaning American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The situations in each of those places could be very different .
And the first question you have to ask is , how well does that community meet the supply need for housing in that community ? ''
Either way , O'Regan added , it 's hard to know how well the rule limited housing bias because it was only in effect for less than three years under Obama before the Trump administration greatly weakened it .
And the process of assessing , planning , potentially rezoning or changing other rules and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump making this about suburbs ?
A likely reason is that suburban voters are key to a Trump victory .
Suburban voters — and suburban white women in particular — are valuable swing voters for Trump and seen as necessary to help him win reelection .
Suburban voters made up around half of the electorate in 2016 .
In his rhetoric about this policy , Trump is saying that `` a suburb is the kind of community where great Americans live because we 've limited it , '' said Lynn Vavreck , professor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` I think it 's just straight-up racializing this idea of housing , '' she said .
`` This is the kind of argument that Trump makes all the time : ' I 'm going to tell you that these people are good , or us versus them .
We , the good people , and they , the bad people .
And we have to keep them out to keep our greatness . '
``

Seeking Suburban Votes, Trump To Repeal Rule Combating Racial Bias In Housing
Enlarge this image toggle caption Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Updated 5:05 p.m. ET, July 23
The White House is repealing and replacing an Obama-era rule intended to combat historic racial discrimination in housing.
In a Wednesday announcement, the White House said it would be rolling back the rule as a part of a broader deregulation push.
The rule has gained attention because Trump has been referencing it heavily in his push for suburban voters, falsely saying that former Vice President Joe Biden wants to "abolish" suburbs.
Biden has no such plan, and his campaign calls this argument a "smear."
It's another instance of Trump implicitly using race in his campaign pitch, which he's also been doing explicitly on other issues. In this instance, the president appears to be using a policy to fight housing segregation in an attempt to scare white voters about outsiders coming into their neighborhoods.
In a tele-town hall last week, he said that Democrats want to "eliminate single-family zoning, bringing who knows into your suburbs, so your communities will be unsafe and your housing values will go down."
Trump is doing this while most voters are primarily concerned about the pandemic and the recession, and as his standing with voters has suffered due to his response to that crisis.
Here is a rundown of what Trump is talking about with this housing policy and how it could affect the campaign.
What does Trump mean?
In making this pitch about the suburbs, Trump has been attacking an Obama-era regulation called the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which was meant to combat housing discrimination. (More details on this later.) On his website, Biden says he would implement the rule as president.
Trump has repeatedly attacked the rule for weeks. At the start of July, Trump tweeted that he intended potentially to repeal it.
But his administration has been critical of AFFH for a long time. In his January 2017 confirmation hearings, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson criticized the rule as an example of federal government overreach.
What does the AFFH rule do?
It tells jurisdictions that receive federal housing funds that they have to assess what patterns of housing discrimination they have and then come up with a plan to diminish them. It also provides a data-based tool for communities to use in doing this assessment.
The rule was implemented in 2015 under the 1968 Fair Housing Act, a federal law that says federal agencies have to administer any housing-related programs "in a manner affirmatively to further" fair housing. Advocates said that the rule at long last gave specificity and teeth to that provision.
"What was on the books wasn't working," said Kathy O'Regan, professor of public policy and planning at New York University, who also worked at HUD under President Barack Obama and helped craft the AFFH rule.
"They had the obligation from the Fair Housing Act," she added. "But HUD had never designed or implemented a robust system to support jurisdictions in meeting those obligations or to enforce jurisdictions meeting [them]."
In practice, that may well look like rezoning in some communities, according to Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.
"When local communities are required to take a look at how segregation developed in their neighborhoods, most of them are going to find that it was local zoning that led to that purposeful, policy-driven segregation," she said.
So when those cities have to put forward their plans to improve, she added, "most of the time that's going to require that they remove some of those restrictive zoning laws and allow for apartment buildings to be built and put in [neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes], where currently they're not allowed."
Boosting apartment supply would allow people who can't afford those suburban houses to move in.
That, Yentel said, could be what Trump is talking about when he incorrectly says Democrats want to "end single-family zoning."
But on the campaign trail, Trump hasn't been getting into any real policy nuance. He has been using this policy as a steppingstone to talk to white suburban voters about fear of how their communities might change as a result of a race-focused policy.
Trump has some history of clashing with housing discrimination laws; in 1973, he was a defendant, along with his father, in a Justice Department suit saying that their company discriminated against black rental applicants.
What has the rule's status been up until now?
The rule went into effect in 2015, but in January 2018, the Trump administration gutted it, telling cities they no longer had to use the tool (and that they had two more years to submit their assessments).
Now, the Trump administration says it will be replacing the rule with one that will give greater power to local communities. In its announcement, the White House portrayed the Obama version of the rule as an example of federal overreach, and also one that will threaten Americans' ability to buy homes.
What did the AFFH do in suburbs?
The rule didn't explicitly target suburbs, said O'Regan, but she can see it having sizable effects on some suburbs.
"You can imagine if you look at the distribution of where housing that's affordable is and isn't, that you'll see disparities between the suburbs and the cities, particularly the outer suburbs," O'Regan said. "So you can imagine the implication is, you might want to do things differently in the future to address that."
In other words, this sort of rule could put more affordable housing into the suburbs.
Opponents of the rule echo the White House, saying it imposes unnecessary red tape and doesn't efficiently address housing supply.
"It's very much required a lot of hiring of experts, planners and land-use people and attorneys to create these very complex plans," said Edward Pinto, director of the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute's Housing Center. "The situations in each of those places could be very different. And the first question you have to ask is, how well does that community meet the supply need for housing in that community?"
Either way, O'Regan added, it's hard to know how well the rule limited housing bias because it was only in effect for less than three years under Obama before the Trump administration greatly weakened it. And the process of assessing, planning, potentially rezoning or changing other rules and then following through is years-long.
Why is Trump making this about suburbs?
A likely reason is that suburban voters are key to a Trump victory. Suburban voters — and suburban white women in particular — are valuable swing voters for Trump and seen as necessary to help him win reelection. Suburban voters made up around half of the electorate in 2016.
In his rhetoric about this policy, Trump is saying that "a suburb is the kind of community where great Americans live because we've limited it," said Lynn Vavreck, professor of politics and public policy at UCLA.
"I think it's just straight-up racializing this idea of housing," she said. "This is the kind of argument that Trump makes all the time: 'I'm going to tell you that these people are good, or us versus them. We, the good people, and they, the bad people. And we have to keep them out to keep our greatness.' "