truthout--2020-09-21--Meatpacking Industry Drafted an Executive Order to Keep Plants Open Amid COVID

In late April , as COVID-19 raced through meatpacking plants sickening and killing workers , President Donald Trump issued a controversial executive order aimed at keeping the plants open to supply food to American consumers .
It was a relief for the nation ’ s meatpackers who were being urged , or ordered , to suspend production by local health officials worried about the spread of the coronavirus .
But emails obtained by ProPublica show that the meat industry may have had a hand in its own White House rescue : Just a week before the order was issued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drafted an executive order that bears striking similarities to the one the president signed .
The draft that Julie Anna Potts , the president of the North American Meat Institute , sent to top officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was written using the framework of an official executive order and stressed the importance of the food supply chain and how outbreaks had reduced production — themes later addressed in the president ’ s order .
It invoked the president ’ s powers under a Korean War-era law known as the Defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make a simple and straightforward proclamation : “ I hereby order that critical infrastructure food companies continue their operations to the fullest extent possible.
” What happened next within the USDA and White House isn ’ t clear from the records .
The USDA declined to answer questions , and the White House did not respond to requests for comment .
But while the final wording wasn ’ t verbatim , Trump ’ s order emphasized the points the industry had proposed and furthered the same goal , directing the agriculture secretary to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and poultry processors continue operations.
” The order provided a lifeline for meatpacking companies stressed by dozens of plant closures , severe staffing shortages and supply chain disruptions that would cause fast food restaurants to run out of hamburgers and grocery stores to ration meat purchases .
But it has also generated significant criticism from labor unions and Democratic senators who said it prioritized the bottom line of the nation ’ s meatpackers over the health of their workers .
The executive order effectively provided a justification , sanctioned by the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even as tens of thousands of the industry ’ s workers contracted the disease .
“ It certainly gives rise to at least the appearance of favoritism that the executive order was done not because the White House thought it was the right thing to do but because they were getting pressure from outside groups that wanted it done , ” said Stephen Vladeck , a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin .
In a statement , Potts said that the meat institute had been working as a liaison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues related to COVID-19 .
“ Trade associations of all types routinely suggest legislative language , comment on proposed rules , and other provisions that are shared with the government , ” she said .
The documents obtained by ProPublica offer a rare look at the process of drafting an executive order and a glimpse into the meat industry ’ s influence and access to the highest levels of government .
Such political support has been crucial for the industry , which had dismissed years of warnings from the federal government to plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural communities as they battled local health departments over outbreaks in their plants .
The draft executive order was one of hundreds of emails between the companies , industry groups and top officials at the USDA since March .
Together , they show that throughout the coronavirus crisis , the meatpacking industry has repeatedly turned to the agency for help beating back local public health orders and loosening regulations to keep processing lines running .
While special interest groups often submit draft legislation and regulations to policymakers , legal experts said executive orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject to the same public scrutiny .
In interviews , former White House lawyers from Democratic and Republican administrations said that there is great latitude in how executive orders are generated and it wasn ’ t unusual for private interest groups of all types to promote their causes by pushing for an executive order .
It is also reasonable for the White House to seek input from outside entities during the process .
But there would typically be an effort to consult a range of parties who might be affected by it before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
The quick seven-day turnaround , even amid an emergency like COVID-19 , is notable , some said .
“ All policy is shaped by people who have a stake in it , ” said Rakesh Kilaru , associate counsel and special assistant to President Barack Obama from 2015 to 2017 .
“ But I can ’ t think of something that was so direct between the stakeholder asking for action and getting it.
” Jonathan Adler , a constitutional and administrative law professor at Case Western Reserve University , said there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the industry helping to draft the order .
“ The concern is that , in a case like this , if the executive order is slanted to a particular interest rather than the public at large , ” he said .
The United Food and Commercial Workers union , which represents workers responsible for the majority of U.S. beef and pork production , said no one from the White House or the USDA sought its input before the executive order was issued .
Mark Lauritsen , the UFCW ’ s director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he believes the Meat Institute “ along with some of the other bigger players in the industry pulled every lever they could.
” The order has been effective as a political tool because it is widely perceived to have far more legal force than it actually does .
From a legal standpoint , the executive order gave Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue additional power to issue his own orders related to the food supply — something he hasn ’ t done .
But many state and local health officials view the order as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off in the face of political pressure from the Trump administration .
Within a week of the executive order , the USDA was working with companies and local health authorities to reopen shuttered plants .
With workers back on the line , operations ramped up again .
Pork production , for example , had fallen by more than half by the end of April , causing steep financial losses .
But by early June , meatpacking plants were nearly back to capacity .
Since the order , however , COVID-19 infections among meatpacking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there have been more than 43,000 cases and at least 195 deaths among meatpacking employees , according to data compiled by ProPublica from public health agencies and news reports .
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that almost from the start of the crisis , the meatpacking industry and the USDA were largely focused on how to keep workers on the line .
In March , governors across the country tried to stem the spread of COVID-19 with shelter-in-place orders , coming up with their own varied lists of essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unclear and conflicting directives .
This was especially true in meatpacking , a highly consolidated industry where a handful of companies run multiple operations across the country with hundreds of employees working side by side .
To seek clarity , 60 food and agricultural trade groups sent a letter on March 18 to federal , state and local officials asking for exemptions from curfews and public gathering bans so they could keep their businesses running .
Copies of the letter were sent to the White House and members of Congress , and Tyson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The next day , the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance and noted Trump ’ s previous comments that “ if you work in a critical infrastructure industry , as defined by the Department of Homeland Security , such as healthcare services and pharmaceutical and food supply , you have a special responsibility to maintain your normal work schedule.
” But the meatpacking companies soon found themselves facing another hurdle .
By April , waves of workers who debone chickens or carve up pork elbow-to-elbow with their co-workers were falling ill from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while others walked out of plants to protest the lack of infection control measures .
With plant slowdowns came a backlog of pigs , cows and chickens waiting for slaughter .
Millions of animals had to be euthanized .
As some plants partially suspended operations or contemplated closing because of staffing shortages , Potts of the Meat Institute arranged an April 3 call between Perdue and top executives of major meatpacking firms Tyson , Smithfield Foods , Hormel , JBS , Seaboard and Cargill .
Before the call , Potts emailed the USDA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mindy Brashears , with a list of discussion topics , including clear messaging that employees who failed to show up for work because they were scared would not qualify for unemployment benefits .
“ I want to re-emphasize that the slowdowns and shutdowns you heard described today are significant and getting worse each day , ” Potts wrote in a follow-up email .
“ Hearing a strong and consistent message from the President or Vice President like that delivered by the Governor of Nebraska yesterday is vital : being afraid of COVID-19 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and you are not eligible for unemployment compensation if you do.
” Two days later , the Labor Department , which had been hearing similar complaints from across the business community , issued guidance clarifying that workers who quit to avoid contracting the disease wouldn ’ t receive jobless benefits .
As outbreaks overwhelmed hospitals in April , pressure from local public officials grew , leading to the rapid-fire closures of some of the nation ’ s largest slaughterhouses .
The threat of closure led the meatpacking industry to ramp up its efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ USDA but from other government officials as well .
Emails obtained by ProPublica show that as state and local health officials sought to order JBS to shut down its Greeley , Colorado , plant , the company appealed to Gov .
Jared Polis and then to Vice President Mike Pence .
State health director Jill Hunsaker Ryan told the head of the county Health Department that she had received a call from Robert Redfield , the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
“ JBS was in touch with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” she wrote in an email , first reported by The Denver Post .
“ They want us to use CDC ’ s critical infrastructure guidance , ( sending asymptomatic people back to work even if we suspect exposure but they have no symptoms ) even with the outbreak at present level.
” JBS said that it reached out to Pence because it was “ receiving guidance from local authorities that conflicted with federal CDC guidance , ” but that it ultimately agreed to shut down the plant to “ stop any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Beef made similar appeals to the Kansas Department of Agriculture when the state Health Department wanted workers to stay off the line for two weeks if they had come in contact with a positive COVID-19 case , public records first reported by The Kansas City Star and The Wichita Eagle show .
The state ’ s secretary of agriculture coordinated with meat companies and the director of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment , who then agreed to follow the less-strict CDC guidance .
Despite these varied efforts to keep plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to cripple production lines .
Government experts had long predicted a pandemic would cause food shortages .
And those worst-case scenarios were now playing out .
The major meat and agriculture trade groups , including the American Farm Bureau Federation , the National Cattlemen ’ s Beef Association and the Meat Institute , wanted the White House to get directly involved in preventing plant closures .
In an April 17 letter to Trump , they detailed the disruptions caused by plant closures and the inconsistency of health and safety actions from state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the executive order .
“ To ensure livestock producers , poultry growers , and all food processors and their workers can continue to feed the nation , ” they wrote , “ we respectfully request you emphasize the importance of allowing critical infrastructure food companies to responsibly and safely continue their operations to the fullest extent possible without undue disruption.
” For emphasis , Potts of the Meat Institute followed up with an email to Stephen Censky , the USDA ’ s deputy secretary , who led the American Soybean Association before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the letter to Trump and added , “ The situation is continuing to get worse and worse at the local level ( it ’ s hard to overstate how dire it is ) and I want to explore with you what might be possible as a tool to help.
” Early the next morning , Potts had a call with top officials from the USDA , and shortly after 9 a.m. , she sent them an email , writing : “ Attached is a draft EO for consideration.
” The records don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House and internal deliberative agency conversations are exempt from public records laws , making it difficult to verify how much or little influence the meat industry ’ s draft had on the final executive order .
But over the next week , the drumbeat for action on behalf of the food and agriculture sector continued .
Governors from the poultry producing states of Delaware , Maryland and Virginia wrote to Trump asking for the designation of one federal agency to lead on COVID-19 and poultry workers , access to protective equipment and financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representatives convened a call with the USDA , the Food and Drug Administration and DHS about the impending disaster facing farmers , who would need to mass euthanize their animals if plants remained shuttered .
In that conversation , utilizing the Defense Production Act was discussed , according to an industry representative on the call .
Tyson took out a full-page ad in major newspapers to warn that the food supply chain was breaking .
Even on the day the executive order was issued , there was still a flurry of activity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat industry .
That afternoon , records show , the director of the Washington office for North Carolina Gov .
Roy Cooper forwarded a letter from pork producers to his counterparts in Michigan , Illinois , Minnesota , Colorado and Pennsylvania to ask their opinion on it and whether their governors were going to sign on .
The draft letter , addressed to Pence , asks for his help in invoking the Defense Production Act to assist in “ the humane euthanasia of animals , ” to indemnify farmers and pork producers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep plants open.
” A representative from Michigan said her state would pass , noting the lack of worker protection language in the letter , while an aide to Pennsylvania ’ s governor cited the need for “ advocacy on behalf of all sectors.
” On April 28 , a week after Potts sent the suggested language for an executive order , Trump issued the “ Executive Order on Delegating Authority Under the DPA with Respect to Food Supply Chain Resources During the National Emergency Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19.
” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meat industry had been requesting for weeks as the pandemic had unfolded : “ It is important that processors of beef , pork , and poultry ( ‘ meat and poultry ’ ) in the food supply chain continue operating and fulfilling orders to ensure a continued supply of protein for Americans.
” It also notes that “ recent actions in some States have led to the complete closure of some large processing facilities ” and that such closures “ threaten the continued functioning of the national meat and poultry supply chain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The order invokes the Defense Production Act and orders the agriculture secretary to “ take all appropriate action under that section to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations consistent with the guidance for their operations jointly issued by the CDC ” and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration .
It had immediate effect .
In June , the Bear River Health Department in northern Utah , where nearly 400 JBS workers have tested positive for COVID-19 , told the press it couldn ’ t shut the plant down because of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state health officials had initially recommended that poultry companies close their plants for two weeks , “ allowing deep cleaning and allowing symptomatic and asymptomatic infected workers to run their course of disease and recover , ” records obtained under a separate public records request show .
But the state backed off “ to maintain the critical food production infrastructure.
” Meanwhile , meat companies and their trade groups continued to seek help from the USDA when public health officials tried to take action .
The day after the executive order was announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the USDA with complaints that the county Health Department in Chattanooga , Tennessee , was requiring testing of all employees at poultry plants in the area .
This would have the effect of closing down the plants , the trade group warned , because they were already short-staffed and testing could cause fear among the remaining workers .
Weeks later , the Chicken Council wrote that local officials were threatening plant closures and issuing public notices because they believed the plants were “ operating with an imminent health hazard.
” “ We want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and would like your assistance , ” the trade group wrote .
Smithfield also went to the USDA for help dealing with a local public Health Department in Kane County , Illinois , which had closed the plant days before Trump ’ s executive order was issued .
“ The Kane County Illinois health department continues to be a challenge regarding our St. Charles processing facility , ” Michael Skahill , Smithfield ’ s vice president of government affairs , wrote to Brashears , the USDA ’ s undersecretary for food safety .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to get you involved but it has now come to the point where we need you to referee.
” Asked why it had gone to the USDA to intervene , Keira Lombardo , Smithfield ’ s executive vice president for corporate affairs , said : “ We are a leading American agriculture company .
Considering that fact , why wouldn ’ t we engage with the United States Department of Agriculture amid an unprecedented pandemic ?
” Two days after Skahill ’ s plea for help , Smithfield continued to press the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s associate general counsel , wrote to Brashears again , this time citing a central tenet of the executive order .
“ To reiterate our conversation , our St. Charles plant in Kane County , Illinois is in an urgent situation , ” McClure wrote .
“ We need to reopen to prevent further disruption in the nation ’ s food supply.
” Six hours later , Brashears and her chief of staff received a grateful email from Skahill .
“ Thank you for your support today with the Smithfield St. Charles Kane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think we have a resolution that will allow us to process next week and put protein on America ’ s table .
”

In late April, as COVID-19 raced through meatpacking plants sickening and killing workers, President Donald Trump issued a controversial executive order aimed at keeping the plants open to supply food to American consumers.
It was a relief for the nation’s meatpackers who were being urged, or ordered, to suspend production by local health officials worried about the spread of the coronavirus.
But emails obtained by ProPublica show that the meat industry may have had a hand in its own White House rescue: Just a week before the order was issued, the meat industry’s trade group drafted an executive order that bears striking similarities to the one the president signed.
The draft that Julie Anna Potts, the president of the North American Meat Institute, sent to top officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture was written using the framework of an official executive order and stressed the importance of the food supply chain and how outbreaks had reduced production — themes later addressed in the president’s order.
It invoked the president’s powers under a Korean War-era law known as the Defense Production Act and proposed that the president make a simple and straightforward proclamation: “I hereby order that critical infrastructure food companies continue their operations to the fullest extent possible.”
Highlights added by ProPublica
What happened next within the USDA and White House isn’t clear from the records. The USDA declined to answer questions, and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. But while the final wording wasn’t verbatim, Trump’s order emphasized the points the industry had proposed and furthered the same goal, directing the agriculture secretary to take action “to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations.”
The order provided a lifeline for meatpacking companies stressed by dozens of plant closures, severe staffing shortages and supply chain disruptions that would cause fast food restaurants to run out of hamburgers and grocery stores to ration meat purchases.
But it has also generated significant criticism from labor unions and Democratic senators who said it prioritized the bottom line of the nation’s meatpackers over the health of their workers.
The executive order effectively provided a justification, sanctioned by the White House, for meat companies to continue operations even as tens of thousands of the industry’s workers contracted the disease.
“It certainly gives rise to at least the appearance of favoritism that the executive order was done not because the White House thought it was the right thing to do but because they were getting pressure from outside groups that wanted it done,” said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
Highlights added by ProPublica
In a statement, Potts said that the meat institute had been working as a liaison between the government and industry on many issues related to COVID-19. “Trade associations of all types routinely suggest legislative language, comment on proposed rules, and other provisions that are shared with the government,” she said.
The documents obtained by ProPublica offer a rare look at the process of drafting an executive order and a glimpse into the meat industry’s influence and access to the highest levels of government. Such political support has been crucial for the industry, which had dismissed years of warnings from the federal government to plan for a pandemic, sowing chaos in rural communities as they battled local health departments over outbreaks in their plants.
The draft executive order was one of hundreds of emails between the companies, industry groups and top officials at the USDA since March. Together, they show that throughout the coronavirus crisis, the meatpacking industry has repeatedly turned to the agency for help beating back local public health orders and loosening regulations to keep processing lines running.
While special interest groups often submit draft legislation and regulations to policymakers, legal experts said executive orders are less common and aren’t subject to the same public scrutiny.
In interviews, former White House lawyers from Democratic and Republican administrations said that there is great latitude in how executive orders are generated and it wasn’t unusual for private interest groups of all types to promote their causes by pushing for an executive order. It is also reasonable for the White House to seek input from outside entities during the process. But there would typically be an effort to consult a range of parties who might be affected by it before the order received legal scrutiny, they said. The quick seven-day turnaround, even amid an emergency like COVID-19, is notable, some said.
“All policy is shaped by people who have a stake in it,” said Rakesh Kilaru, associate counsel and special assistant to President Barack Obama from 2015 to 2017. “But I can’t think of something that was so direct between the stakeholder asking for action and getting it.”
Highlights added by ProPublica
Jonathan Adler, a constitutional and administrative law professor at Case Western Reserve University, said there’s nothing “inherently inappropriate” about the industry helping to draft the order. “The concern is that, in a case like this, if the executive order is slanted to a particular interest rather than the public at large,” he said.
The United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents workers responsible for the majority of U.S. beef and pork production, said no one from the White House or the USDA sought its input before the executive order was issued.
Mark Lauritsen, the UFCW’s director of food processing, packing and manufacturing, said he believes the Meat Institute “along with some of the other bigger players in the industry pulled every lever they could.”
The order has been effective as a political tool because it is widely perceived to have far more legal force than it actually does. From a legal standpoint, the executive order gave Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue additional power to issue his own orders related to the food supply — something he hasn’t done.
But many state and local health officials view the order as superseding their authority or decided to back off in the face of political pressure from the Trump administration. Within a week of the executive order, the USDA was working with companies and local health authorities to reopen shuttered plants. With workers back on the line, operations ramped up again. Pork production, for example, had fallen by more than half by the end of April, causing steep financial losses. But by early June, meatpacking plants were nearly back to capacity.
Since the order, however, COVID-19 infections among meatpacking workers have multiplied. To date, there have been more than 43,000 cases and at least 195 deaths among meatpacking employees, according to data compiled by ProPublica from public health agencies and news reports.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that almost from the start of the crisis, the meatpacking industry and the USDA were largely focused on how to keep workers on the line.
Highlights added by ProPublica
In March, governors across the country tried to stem the spread of COVID-19 with shelter-in-place orders, coming up with their own varied lists of essential industries. Companies were sometimes faced with unclear and conflicting directives. This was especially true in meatpacking, a highly consolidated industry where a handful of companies run multiple operations across the country with hundreds of employees working side by side.
To seek clarity, 60 food and agricultural trade groups sent a letter on March 18 to federal, state and local officials asking for exemptions from curfews and public gathering bans so they could keep their businesses running. Copies of the letter were sent to the White House and members of Congress, and Tyson Foods circulated it among several governors.
The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance and noted Trump’s previous comments that “if you work in a critical infrastructure industry, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security, such as healthcare services and pharmaceutical and food supply, you have a special responsibility to maintain your normal work schedule.”
But the meatpacking companies soon found themselves facing another hurdle. By April, waves of workers who debone chickens or carve up pork elbow-to-elbow with their co-workers were falling ill from the virus. Some feared coming to work while others walked out of plants to protest the lack of infection control measures.
With plant slowdowns came a backlog of pigs, cows and chickens waiting for slaughter. Millions of animals had to be euthanized.
As some plants partially suspended operations or contemplated closing because of staffing shortages, Potts of the Meat Institute arranged an April 3 call between Perdue and top executives of major meatpacking firms Tyson, Smithfield Foods, Hormel, JBS, Seaboard and Cargill. Before the call, Potts emailed the USDA’s undersecretary for food safety, Mindy Brashears, with a list of discussion topics, including clear messaging that employees who failed to show up for work because they were scared would not qualify for unemployment benefits.
“I want to re-emphasize that the slowdowns and shutdowns you heard described today are significant and getting worse each day,” Potts wrote in a follow-up email. “Hearing a strong and consistent message from the President or Vice President like that delivered by the Governor of Nebraska yesterday is vital: being afraid of COVID-19 is not a reason to quit your job and you are not eligible for unemployment compensation if you do.”
Highlights added by ProPublica
Two days later, the Labor Department, which had been hearing similar complaints from across the business community, issued guidance clarifying that workers who quit to avoid contracting the disease wouldn’t receive jobless benefits.
As outbreaks overwhelmed hospitals in April, pressure from local public officials grew, leading to the rapid-fire closures of some of the nation’s largest slaughterhouses.
The threat of closure led the meatpacking industry to ramp up its efforts to seek intervention not only from the USDA but from other government officials as well. Emails obtained by ProPublica show that as state and local health officials sought to order JBS to shut down its Greeley, Colorado, plant, the company appealed to Gov. Jared Polis and then to Vice President Mike Pence.
State health director Jill Hunsaker Ryan told the head of the county Health Department that she had received a call from Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“JBS was in touch with the VP who had Director Redfield call me,” she wrote in an email, first reported by The Denver Post. “They want us to use CDC’s critical infrastructure guidance, (sending asymptomatic people back to work even if we suspect exposure but they have no symptoms) even with the outbreak at present level.”
JBS said that it reached out to Pence because it was “receiving guidance from local authorities that conflicted with federal CDC guidance,” but that it ultimately agreed to shut down the plant to “stop any potential chain of infection.”
Tyson and National Beef made similar appeals to the Kansas Department of Agriculture when the state Health Department wanted workers to stay off the line for two weeks if they had come in contact with a positive COVID-19 case, public records first reported by The Kansas City Star and The Wichita Eagle show. The state’s secretary of agriculture coordinated with meat companies and the director of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, who then agreed to follow the less-strict CDC guidance.
Despite these varied efforts to keep plants open, absenteeism and public health orders continued to cripple production lines. Government experts had long predicted a pandemic would cause food shortages. And those worst-case scenarios were now playing out.
The major meat and agriculture trade groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Meat Institute, wanted the White House to get directly involved in preventing plant closures.
In an April 17 letter to Trump, they detailed the disruptions caused by plant closures and the inconsistency of health and safety actions from state to state — a point later echoed in the executive order.
“To ensure livestock producers, poultry growers, and all food processors and their workers can continue to feed the nation,” they wrote, “we respectfully request you emphasize the importance of allowing critical infrastructure food companies to responsibly and safely continue their operations to the fullest extent possible without undue disruption.”
For emphasis, Potts of the Meat Institute followed up with an email to Stephen Censky, the USDA’s deputy secretary, who led the American Soybean Association before joining the Trump administration. She attached the letter to Trump and added, “The situation is continuing to get worse and worse at the local level (it’s hard to overstate how dire it is) and I want to explore with you what might be possible as a tool to help.”
Early the next morning, Potts had a call with top officials from the USDA, and shortly after 9 a.m., she sent them an email, writing: “Attached is a draft EO for consideration.”
Highlights added by ProPublica. Highlights added by ProPublica
The records don’t include a reply, and White House and internal deliberative agency conversations are exempt from public records laws, making it difficult to verify how much or little influence the meat industry’s draft had on the final executive order.
But over the next week, the drumbeat for action on behalf of the food and agriculture sector continued. Governors from the poultry producing states of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia wrote to Trump asking for the designation of one federal agency to lead on COVID-19 and poultry workers, access to protective equipment and financial relief for farmers and companies. Industry representatives convened a call with the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration and DHS about the impending disaster facing farmers, who would need to mass euthanize their animals if plants remained shuttered. In that conversation, utilizing the Defense Production Act was discussed, according to an industry representative on the call. Tyson took out a full-page ad in major newspapers to warn that the food supply chain was breaking.
Even on the day the executive order was issued, there was still a flurry of activity to get the White House to help the meat industry. That afternoon, records show, the director of the Washington office for North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper forwarded a letter from pork producers to his counterparts in Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Colorado and Pennsylvania to ask their opinion on it and whether their governors were going to sign on.
The draft letter, addressed to Pence, asks for his help in invoking the Defense Production Act to assist in “the humane euthanasia of animals,” to indemnify farmers and pork producers and to “utilize every authority available to keep plants open.”
A representative from Michigan said her state would pass, noting the lack of worker protection language in the letter, while an aide to Pennsylvania’s governor cited the need for “advocacy on behalf of all sectors.”
On April 28, a week after Potts sent the suggested language for an executive order, Trump issued the “Executive Order on Delegating Authority Under the DPA with Respect to Food Supply Chain Resources During the National Emergency Caused by the Outbreak of COVID-19.”
Trump’s final order reflects what the meat industry had been requesting for weeks as the pandemic had unfolded: “It is important that processors of beef, pork, and poultry (‘meat and poultry’) in the food supply chain continue operating and fulfilling orders to ensure a continued supply of protein for Americans.”
It also notes that “recent actions in some States have led to the complete closure of some large processing facilities” and that such closures “threaten the continued functioning of the national meat and poultry supply chain, undermining critical infrastructure during the national emergency.”
The order invokes the Defense Production Act and orders the agriculture secretary to “take all appropriate action under that section to ensure that meat and poultry processors continue operations consistent with the guidance for their operations jointly issued by the CDC” and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
It had immediate effect.
In June, the Bear River Health Department in northern Utah, where nearly 400 JBS workers have tested positive for COVID-19, told the press it couldn’t shut the plant down because of the executive order.
In Virginia, state health officials had initially recommended that poultry companies close their plants for two weeks, “allowing deep cleaning and allowing symptomatic and asymptomatic infected workers to run their course of disease and recover,” records obtained under a separate public records request show. But the state backed off “to maintain the critical food production infrastructure.”
Meanwhile, meat companies and their trade groups continued to seek help from the USDA when public health officials tried to take action.
The day after the executive order was announced, the National Chicken Council wrote to the USDA with complaints that the county Health Department in Chattanooga, Tennessee, was requiring testing of all employees at poultry plants in the area. This would have the effect of closing down the plants, the trade group warned, because they were already short-staffed and testing could cause fear among the remaining workers.
Weeks later, the Chicken Council wrote that local officials were threatening plant closures and issuing public notices because they believed the plants were “operating with an imminent health hazard.”
“We want to push back on 100% testing and would like your assistance,” the trade group wrote.
The Chicken Council didn’t return calls or emails seeking comment.
Smithfield also went to the USDA for help dealing with a local public Health Department in Kane County, Illinois, which had closed the plant days before Trump’s executive order was issued. “The Kane County Illinois health department continues to be a challenge regarding our St. Charles processing facility,” Michael Skahill, Smithfield’s vice president of government affairs, wrote to Brashears, the USDA’s undersecretary for food safety. “I really did not want to have to get you involved but it has now come to the point where we need you to referee.”
Asked why it had gone to the USDA to intervene, Keira Lombardo, Smithfield’s executive vice president for corporate affairs, said: “We are a leading American agriculture company. Considering that fact, why wouldn’t we engage with the United States Department of Agriculture amid an unprecedented pandemic?”
Two days after Skahill’s plea for help, Smithfield continued to press the issue. Amy McClure, Smithfield’s associate general counsel, wrote to Brashears again, this time citing a central tenet of the executive order. “To reiterate our conversation, our St. Charles plant in Kane County, Illinois is in an urgent situation,” McClure wrote. “We need to reopen to prevent further disruption in the nation’s food supply.”
Six hours later, Brashears and her chief of staff received a grateful email from Skahill. “Thank you for your support today with the Smithfield St. Charles Kane County issue,” he wrote. “I think we have a resolution that will allow us to process next week and put protein on America’s table.”
Mollie Simon and Claire Perlman contributed reporting. Graphics by Moiz Syed.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.


truthout--2020-09-21--Europe Drives Destruction of US Forests in the Name of Fighting Climate Change

Europe is often considered to be a global leader on climate action .
For over a decade , the European Union ( EU ) has been actively promoting the need for action on climate change , pushing policies that scale back carbon emissions and support the growth of renewable energy .
On the bright side , this has led to the retirement of a large number of coal-burning power plants and increased adoption of solar and wind power .
However , a number of countries have embraced biomass electricity , a short-term fix that is at best a false solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon emissions , pollution and forest destruction .
In fact , though many may believe that solar and wind power are the main sources of the EU ’ s renewable energy , it is actually biomass , which represents nearly 60 percent of the total .
Biomass electricity is generated by burning organic matter .
Forests have rapidly become a primary source of biomass fuel in the EU .
Flawed carbon accounting assumes burning trees is carbon-neutral if a tree is planted to replace the one that has been chopped down , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ EU is never properly accounted for .
This faulty logic has led to massive renewable energy subsidies for biomass under the EU Renewable Energy Directive program .
It has further encouraged countries like the U.K. , Netherlands and Denmark to subsidize the destruction of forests for fuel at a time when we need to let forests grow to absorb carbon from the atmosphere , protect biodiversity and shore up natural protections against extreme flooding and droughts .
For example , thanks to an average £2.1 million in subsidies every day , Drax , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is now also the world ’ s largest burner of wood for power .
To add insult to injury , in the absence of sufficient supplies of wood from its own forests , the EU is heavily reliant on importing wood pellets from forests far away .
In fact , biodiverse and carbon-rich forests across the United States ’ Southern Coastal Plain — a region that encompasses coastal North and South Carolina , southern Georgia and Alabama , and northern Florida — have become the primary global target for supplying biomass fuel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is now the world ’ s largest producer and exporter of wood pellets .
Under the guise of “ renewable energy , ” the voracious European demand for wood pellets has put forests and communities in this region at increased risk .
Nearly 800 scientists warned members of the European Parliament that burning trees releases more carbon than coal or gas per unit of energy generated ( making climate change worse ) , and they also pointed out that logging degrades critical ecological services that standing forests provide , such as natural flood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , slowing the rate of water flow into streams and rivers , helping to prevent flooding .
When a forest is cleared , the volume of water and soil erosion entering streams and rivers is accelerated during periods of heavy rain , causing rivers and streams to overflow .
Tropical storms and hurricanes are common in the U.S. Southeast and are becoming more intense in the era of climate change .
In recent years , the communities of the Southern Coastal Plain have experienced some of the most devastating and costly flooding events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to low-income , rural communities of color .
Protecting wetland forests , which provide natural flood protections , has become a regional priority among conservation groups and communities across the region .
Despite the industry ’ s best attempts to greenwash wood pellets as a “ sustainable , renewable ” fuel , numerous investigations by the media and environmental organizations have provided hard evidence of the industry ’ s toxic air pollution and destruction of biodiverse forests .
Once clear-cut , these forests can take up to a century to fully regenerate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the logging and burning of biomass .
The science is clear that we don ’ t have the luxury of waiting a century to draw down carbon — we must do it now .
Additionally , the process of turning trees into wood pellets releases toxic pollution into the air , further compromising the health of nearby communities , which are already overburdened by other sources of industrial pollution .
For example , in one small community in eastern North Carolina , there are other polluting industries besides the Enviva wood pellet plant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chicken processing facility and a natural gas-fired power plant , all dumping pollution on a community that is predominantly low-income and Black .
Thankfully , despite the biomass and wood pellet industries spending millions of dollars to lobby and promote this false solution to climate change , more elected officials , environmental organizations and frontline communities are starting to see the light , and the days of burning our forests for electricity may be numbered .
For years now , the EU ’ s burning of forests for electricity has flown under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praised for its move away from coal .
Thankfully , more and more organizations working to end the use of fossil fuels have started to see how important our forests are for protecting us from the worst impacts of climate change and how destroying them to make electricity is not the right path forward .
For example , leaders in the anti-coal movement , including Mary Anne Hitt , the director of the Sierra Club ’ s Beyond Coal campaign , and 350.org founder Bill McKibben , have recently publicly denounced biomass as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reinforcing the need to protect forests while staying focused on renewable energy like solar and wind .
In addition to the growing biomass opposition from high-profile organizations leading the charge to phase out fossil fuels , the frontline communities that are facing new wood pellet production facilities in the United States — and communities facing the conversion of dirty coal plants to dirty biomass plants or brand new biomass power plants in Europe — are fighting back .
Those who suffer the most from this pollution and destruction are rising up .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enviva , the world ’ s largest wood pellet manufacturer , applied to expand production at three of its facilities .
In each of those communities , local leaders and affected residents showed up at public hearings , demanding the state take action to stop Enviva ’ s expansion .
Even in rural Mississippi and Alabama , where local citizens had little warning of proposed new facilities , Enviva was met with opposition .
“ We believe that everyone should have a clean , safe place to live , work , and play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northeastern organizer for Clean Water for North Carolina .
“ Enviva has come in and detracted the living conditions of the community .
This is what the community has to live with and it ’ s an injustice to them.
” And in Europe , despite the fact that many of the big environmental groups have ignored biomass for fear it would impact their fight against coal , local communities in Ireland , the Netherlands and France have come out strong in their opposition to burning wood for electricity in their backyards — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being constructed .
Collectively , residents in the U.S. and EU are tired of empty rhetoric on climate change and are calling out biomass as a false solution while taking a stand for forests .
As the scientific evidence and public opposition mounts , elected officials on both sides of the pond are starting to express concern and take action .
In March , the Virginia legislature passed the Clean Economy Act , which explicitly excludes biomass from the renewable energy list .
In North Carolina , Gov .
Roy Cooper expressed concern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington , D.C .
The state ’ s newly developed Clean Energy Plan stated that biomass would not be a part of the state ’ s clean energy future , noting that the EU policy treating biomass as carbon neutral “ should be challenged at the national and international level.
” In Georgia , there is currently a bipartisan forest resolution before the state House and Senate that criticizes biomass as a climate solution and calls for greater protection for forests .
Additionally , more European leaders at the EU and national levels @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President of the EU Frans Timmermans , who is in charge of the European Green Deal , has noted that the “ issue of biofuels needs to be looked at very carefully ” to ascertain whether it “ does not do more harm than that it does good.
” Most importantly , in May , the EU announced that it will assess its biomass strategy as part of its biodiversity action plan .
This could lead to a revision of current biomass policy 10 years ahead of schedule , with the aim of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mix .
Ideally , this would also incorporate more accurate accounting for carbon emissions from burning wood to generate electricity .
Currently , carbon emissions from wood are about three times higher than “ emissions from a similar-sized natural gas electric power plant , ” according to one 2010 study .
Belgium and Ireland have both denied recent applications for new biomass facilities .
In the U.K. , the Netherlands and Denmark — three of the largest biomass electricity-producing countries — there is growing opposition from all levels of government , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these countries are all that keeps this industry going .
A recent national opinion poll in the Netherlands found that 98 percent of the country ’ s citizens “ agree that biomass subsidies should be stopped.
” As can be expected from any dirty industry that is one policy change away from toppling like a house of cards , biomass advocates are in attack mode on the organizations , elected officials and even the media that are exposing the truth about this deceptive and destructive energy source .
Starting astroturfed not-for-profit groups , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the credibility of its critics are just a few of the dirty tricks that the industry has employed in recent months .
They have even attacked the credibility of investigative reporters who have written balanced stories on their industry .
It seems the growing movement to stop the destruction and burning of forests for electricity may be winning , but it ’ s not out of the woods yet .
The light at the end of the dark biomass tunnel is a 21st-century energy economy powered by clean , renewable energy and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destructive .
There needs to be political will to double down on new climate policies that focus on the right priorities like protecting and restoring our forests , not just planting trees .
We need climate policies that stay focused on investing in renewable energy like solar and wind rather than false solutions like biomass and natural gas .
And as we transition to a regenerative economy , it must be powered by the people , building opportunity for those who have suffered the most at the hands of the industries that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis we find ourselves in today .
Collectively defeating the insidious side of EU renewable energy is essential to avoid utter climate chaos .
The sooner governments around the world can unite to move away from all dirty fuels — including coal , fracked gas and biomass — and lean toward actually protecting nature , the better .
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life , a project of the Independent Media Institute .

Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
This story is part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.
Europe is often considered to be a global leader on climate action. For over a decade, the European Union (EU) has been actively promoting the need for action on climate change, pushing policies that scale back carbon emissions and support the growth of renewable energy.
On the bright side, this has led to the retirement of a large number of coal-burning power plants and increased adoption of solar and wind power. However, a number of countries have embraced biomass electricity, a short-term fix that is at best a false solution, and at worst is speeding up carbon emissions, pollution and forest destruction. In fact, though many may believe that solar and wind power are the main sources of the EU’s renewable energy, it is actually biomass, which represents nearly 60 percent of the total.
Biomass electricity is generated by burning organic matter. Forests have rapidly become a primary source of biomass fuel in the EU. Flawed carbon accounting assumes burning trees is carbon-neutral if a tree is planted to replace the one that has been chopped down, but biomass imported from the U.S. to the EU is never properly accounted for. This faulty logic has led to massive renewable energy subsidies for biomass under the EU Renewable Energy Directive program. It has further encouraged countries like the U.K., Netherlands and Denmark to subsidize the destruction of forests for fuel at a time when we need to let forests grow to absorb carbon from the atmosphere, protect biodiversity and shore up natural protections against extreme flooding and droughts. For example, thanks to an average £2.1 million in subsidies every day, Drax, the largest carbon emitter in the U.K., is now also the world’s largest burner of wood for power.
To add insult to injury, in the absence of sufficient supplies of wood from its own forests, the EU is heavily reliant on importing wood pellets from forests far away. In fact, biodiverse and carbon-rich forests across the United States’ Southern Coastal Plain — a region that encompasses coastal North and South Carolina, southern Georgia and Alabama, and northern Florida — have become the primary global target for supplying biomass fuel to the EU. The Southern U.S. is now the world’s largest producer and exporter of wood pellets. Under the guise of “renewable energy,” the voracious European demand for wood pellets has put forests and communities in this region at increased risk.
Nearly 800 scientists warned members of the European Parliament that burning trees releases more carbon than coal or gas per unit of energy generated (making climate change worse), and they also pointed out that logging degrades critical ecological services that standing forests provide, such as natural flood control. Standing forests act like sponges, slowing the rate of water flow into streams and rivers, helping to prevent flooding. When a forest is cleared, the volume of water and soil erosion entering streams and rivers is accelerated during periods of heavy rain, causing rivers and streams to overflow. Tropical storms and hurricanes are common in the U.S. Southeast and are becoming more intense in the era of climate change.
In recent years, the communities of the Southern Coastal Plain have experienced some of the most devastating and costly flooding events in the world, with disproportionate impacts to low-income, rural communities of color. Protecting wetland forests, which provide natural flood protections, has become a regional priority among conservation groups and communities across the region.
The Southern U.S. is now the world’s largest producer and exporter of wood pellets. Under the guise of “renewable energy,” the voracious European demand for wood pellets has put forests and communities in this region at increased risk.
Despite the industry’s best attempts to greenwash wood pellets as a “sustainable, renewable” fuel, numerous investigations by the media and environmental organizations have provided hard evidence of the industry’s toxic air pollution and destruction of biodiverse forests. Once clear-cut, these forests can take up to a century to fully regenerate and recapture the carbon that was emitted from the logging and burning of biomass. The science is clear that we don’t have the luxury of waiting a century to draw down carbon — we must do it now. Additionally, the process of turning trees into wood pellets releases toxic pollution into the air, further compromising the health of nearby communities, which are already overburdened by other sources of industrial pollution. For example, in one small community in eastern North Carolina, there are other polluting industries besides the Enviva wood pellet plant: a natural gas pipeline, a chicken processing facility and a natural gas-fired power plant, all dumping pollution on a community that is predominantly low-income and Black.
Thankfully, despite the biomass and wood pellet industries spending millions of dollars to lobby and promote this false solution to climate change, more elected officials, environmental organizations and frontline communities are starting to see the light, and the days of burning our forests for electricity may be numbered.
Impacted Communities Fight Back
For years now, the EU’s burning of forests for electricity has flown under the radar, and the EU is often praised for its move away from coal.
Thankfully, more and more organizations working to end the use of fossil fuels have started to see how important our forests are for protecting us from the worst impacts of climate change and how destroying them to make electricity is not the right path forward. For example, leaders in the anti-coal movement, including Mary Anne Hitt, the director of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign, and 350.org founder Bill McKibben, have recently publicly denounced biomass as a false solution that must be stopped, reinforcing the need to protect forests while staying focused on renewable energy like solar and wind.
In addition to the growing biomass opposition from high-profile organizations leading the charge to phase out fossil fuels, the frontline communities that are facing new wood pellet production facilities in the United States — and communities facing the conversion of dirty coal plants to dirty biomass plants or brand new biomass power plants in Europe — are fighting back. Those who suffer the most from this pollution and destruction are rising up.
Those who suffer the most from this pollution and destruction are rising up.
In North Carolina, for example, Enviva, the world’s largest wood pellet manufacturer, applied to expand production at three of its facilities. In each of those communities, local leaders and affected residents showed up at public hearings, demanding the state take action to stop Enviva’s expansion. Even in rural Mississippi and Alabama, where local citizens had little warning of proposed new facilities, Enviva was met with opposition.
“We believe that everyone should have a clean, safe place to live, work, and play,” said Belinda Joyner, a Northeastern organizer for Clean Water for North Carolina. “Enviva has come in and detracted the living conditions of the community. This is what the community has to live with and it’s an injustice to them.”
And in Europe, despite the fact that many of the big environmental groups have ignored biomass for fear it would impact their fight against coal, local communities in Ireland, the Netherlands and France have come out strong in their opposition to burning wood for electricity in their backyards — and have even stopped new facilities from being constructed. Collectively, residents in the U.S. and EU are tired of empty rhetoric on climate change and are calling out biomass as a false solution while taking a stand for forests.
As the scientific evidence and public opposition mounts, elected officials on both sides of the pond are starting to express concern and take action. In March, the Virginia legislature passed the Clean Economy Act, which explicitly excludes biomass from the renewable energy list. In North Carolina, Gov. Roy Cooper expressed concern about biomass at a congressional hearing in Washington, D.C. The state’s newly developed Clean Energy Plan stated that biomass would not be a part of the state’s clean energy future, noting that the EU policy treating biomass as carbon neutral “should be challenged at the national and international level.” In Georgia, there is currently a bipartisan forest resolution before the state House and Senate that criticizes biomass as a climate solution and calls for greater protection for forests.
Additionally, more European leaders at the EU and national levels are expressing concern about biomass. Vice President of the EU Frans Timmermans, who is in charge of the European Green Deal, has noted that the “issue of biofuels needs to be looked at very carefully” to ascertain whether it “does not do more harm than that it does good.”
Once clear-cut, these forests can take up to a century to fully regenerate and recapture the carbon that was emitted from the logging and burning of biomass.
Most importantly, in May, the EU announced that it will assess its biomass strategy as part of its biodiversity action plan. This could lead to a revision of current biomass policy 10 years ahead of schedule, with the aim of eliminating controversial sources like wood from the mix. Ideally, this would also incorporate more accurate accounting for carbon emissions from burning wood to generate electricity. Currently, carbon emissions from wood are about three times higher than “emissions from a similar-sized natural gas electric power plant,” according to one 2010 study.
Belgium and Ireland have both denied recent applications for new biomass facilities. In the U.K., the Netherlands and Denmark — three of the largest biomass electricity-producing countries — there is growing opposition from all levels of government, which is vital because economically, the subsidies from these countries are all that keeps this industry going. A recent national opinion poll in the Netherlands found that 98 percent of the country’s citizens “agree that biomass subsidies should be stopped.”
As can be expected from any dirty industry that is one policy change away from toppling like a house of cards, biomass advocates are in attack mode on the organizations, elected officials and even the media that are exposing the truth about this deceptive and destructive energy source. Starting astroturfed not-for-profit groups, running expensive greenwashing ad campaigns and attacking the credibility of its critics are just a few of the dirty tricks that the industry has employed in recent months. They have even attacked the credibility of investigative reporters who have written balanced stories on their industry.
It seems the growing movement to stop the destruction and burning of forests for electricity may be winning, but it’s not out of the woods yet. The light at the end of the dark biomass tunnel is a 21st-century energy economy powered by clean, renewable energy and a forest economy that is restorative rather than destructive. There needs to be political will to double down on new climate policies that focus on the right priorities like protecting and restoring our forests, not just planting trees. We need climate policies that stay focused on investing in renewable energy like solar and wind rather than false solutions like biomass and natural gas. And as we transition to a regenerative economy, it must be powered by the people, building opportunity for those who have suffered the most at the hands of the industries that have reaped tremendous profits while creating the climate crisis we find ourselves in today.
Collectively defeating the insidious side of EU renewable energy is essential to avoid utter climate chaos. The sooner governments around the world can unite to move away from all dirty fuels — including coal, fracked gas and biomass — and lean toward actually protecting nature, the better.
This article was produced by Earth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-21--Over 170 Environmentalists Sign Letter Urging Against Green Party “Protest Vote”

As the Green Party fights in court to stay on the ballot in key swing states less than 50 days before the election , many veteran environmental activists and climate scientists are taking an unprecedented step — pleading to a constituency that has long been key to the party ’ s electoral efforts to eschew casting a “ protest vote ” for the Greens this year and instead cast their ballots for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden .
More than 170 top environmental leaders , including the founder of Earth Day and other longtime activists , signed a letter arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high to risk a third-party vote that could tip the presidential election in President Trump ’ s favor .
They argue that it happened in 2000 and 2016 , and say “ pious gestures ” at the polls this year could have “ catastrophic results.
” “ Twenty years ago , the Green Party snatched the White House from a climate-change leader and handed it to George W. Bush , ” the letter states .
“ In Florida , no less than 97,488 progressive voters snubbed Al Gore for Ralph Nader , letting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presidency , by 537 votes , or so the Supreme Court ruled.
” In response , Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins tells Truthout that the signatories are making a false assumption that Green Party presidential candidates Nader and Jill Stein were responsible for electing Bush and Trump , rather than voter suppression efforts and the Electoral College .
“ The Greens didn ’ t do that , ” says Hawkins , a retired Teamster who has run unsuccessfully for office 24 times .
“ We ’ ve been fighting that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 2000 election that we need to get rid of the Electoral College and have a presidential vote by a ranked-choice national popular vote.
” Further , the role of the environmental movement should be to make demands on every campaign equally , “ not compromise , particularly for a candidate with such a feeble environmental record , ” he says , referring to Biden .
Hawkins was the first politician to run on a Green New Deal platform as a candidate for governor of New York in 2010 .
At that time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconstruction program in response to the Great Recession , he says .
This year his campaign is calling for the U.S. to reach zero greenhouse emissions and 100 percent clean energy by 2030 , and is emphasizing nationalizing key sectors to more effectively plan and implement the party ’ s more far-reaching Green New Deal , similar to how many industries were nationalized during World War II .
Still , despite a decade of Green Party campaign efforts , momentum for a Green New Deal didn ’ t gain serious traction until 2018 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activists with the Sunrise Movement in occupying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ’ s office to demand a Green New Deal that would ensure a just transition to 100 percent renewable energy in the U.S .
The next year , Sen. Bernie Sanders joined Representative Ocasio-Cortez in proposing legislation that would declare climate change a national and international emergency .
He began campaigning on a Green New Deal , mainstreaming the policy as a serious platform position within the Democratic Party .
Since Sanders dropped out of the race , Sunrise Movement activists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , Biden ’ s $ 2 trillion climate plan , which calls for 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and sweeping infrastructure upgrades that would create millions of new jobs , incorporates several recommendations from a Biden-Sanders unity task force .
The plan has won over many Sanders-wing environmentalists , including the Sunrise Movement , despite not embracing a Green New Deal or a national fracking ban .
While Biden ’ s plan would be the most sweeping set of environmental reforms in history if enacted , it still falls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed decline of fossil fuel extraction to meet the timeline that the International Panel on Climate Change recommends : Global oil and gas production must fall 37 percent and 25 percent respectively this decade to avert planetary warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius .
Drake Hunt is an 18-year-old Sunrise trainer and organizer in New York City who is working toward a Green New Deal for the city ’ s public housing and to elect Green New Deal proponents to City Council .
He campaigned for progressives Jamaal Bowman and Mondaire Jones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ June .
Hunt is deeply disillusioned with “ neoliberal , establishment , corrupt sellout ” Biden and the Democratic Party — so disillusioned , in fact , that he says he was planning to sit out his first election ever .
That was until Trump ’ s responses to this year ’ s compounding crises — from the pandemic , to uprisings over police-perpetrated violence , and raging hurricanes and wildfires — made him realize that he faces a choice between climate catastrophe and authoritarianism ; or a chance at a habitable planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ puts it .
“ You have to realize that [ Trump ] is standing in the way as we have a deadline to cut emissions as a planet , ” Hunt says .
“ We have to move forward on ambitious climate policy , and what ’ s the best avenue to get there ?
Is it in a protest vote ?
” Hunt supported the Green Party ’ s Stein in 2016 after Sanders failed to secure the Democratic Party ’ s nomination , and describes his ideology as in line with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even made a video in support of Stein at the time .
“ I love the Green Party .
I love everything that they stand for .
If this were Europe and we had this parliamentary system where it wasn ’ t just this two-party infrastructure… .
I ’ d vote Green Party , and I ’ m sure most people at Sunrise would as well , ” Hunt says .
But it was seeing the power of youth activism as part of the Sunrise Movement that made him realize that an “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and knocking on doors can swing elections and get progressives elected in the Democratic Party .
“ We have to be realistic about where we ’ re going to put our efforts , ” Hunt says .
Biden ’ s revised climate plan is proof , he says , that the climate movement can extract concessions from his campaign , and in all likelihood , his potential administration .
For Hunt , voting is just one part of a much larger effort to pressure Democrats into serious climate action .
“ It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to actually hold [ Biden ’ s ] feet to the fire , ” he says — and has no illusions about how difficult that might be .
If left unchecked , Hunt says , Biden may in all likelihood simply continue the same “ neoliberal , milquetoast ” policies of the Obama-Biden administration , which embraced an “ all-of-the-above ” energy strategy and oversaw a revolving door of energy advisers in the fossil fuel industry .
Even prior to last week ’ s letter , leading environmental activists have been increasingly vocal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Party should play in this year ’ s election cycle .
350.org Co-Founder Bill McKibben , who also describes himself as a small- “ g ” green and likewise suggested he would vote Green if the U.S. had a parliamentary system , argued in The New Yorker back in April that the Greens , especially in crucial swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania , should skip presidential campaigning and , instead , push state legislatures to put ranked-choice voting on their agendas .
While Hawkins acknowledged that he has no chance of winning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ argument , saying that the party is , in fact , working to push ranked-choice voting in more state legislatures .
“ If they ’ re worried about the center-left vote splitting and electing these right-wing [ popular vote ] losers , then go to ranked-choice voting .
I mean , that ’ s a solution ; to suppress the Green Party is not a solution , ” he said .
Additionally , one of the reasons the Green Party runs presidential campaigns , Hawkins says , is to stay on ballot lines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential election often determines whether the party gets or keeps a ballot line in the first place .
The ballot access issue has heated up in recent weeks as Democrats work to remove Hawkins and his running mate , Angela Walker , from the ballot in key battleground states .
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last week that Hawkins and Walker are ineligible to appear on the state ballot .
The decision comes after the Wisconsin Elections Commission declined in late August to put the Green presidential ticket on the November ballot because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different addresses for Walker .
State election officials argued that the campaign failed to meet state requirements due to the discrepancy .
The state Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case but instead concluded that the candidates ’ delay in filing an appeal to the Elections Commission decision made it impossible to grant their motion without “ confusion and undue damage ” to the election system .
The court decision allowed state and local election officials to finalize the ballot and mail it out to the more than 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead of the state and federal deadlines .
A similar issue is now playing out in Pennsylvania , where a Democratic legal challenge over whether the Green Party will appear on the ballot has delayed 67 counties from sending out mail-in ballots by their deadline .
Democrats are citing the same procedural mistake over Walker ’ s change of address as a reason to remove Green ticket from the ballot .
It ’ s clear that Democrats would benefit from the Green Party ’ s disbarment .
As the polling gap between Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again prove crucial in tipping the presidential scales in both swing states .
In 2016 , Trump won Michigan , Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by margins that were smaller than the total votes for Stein .
In April of this year , an Emerson poll found that 51 percent of Sanders primary voters were considering opting for a third party .
Experts caution however , that it remains unclear whether a third-party candidacy can swing the states ’ elections this year .
Further , they point out that not all of Stein ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she not been in the race .
Hawkins says a minor procedural issue like the one that emerged in Wisconsin should not keep a political party off the ballot , and that the state ’ s ruling is a clear instance of voter suppression in an effort to expedite the mailing of ballots .
The issue could have been resolved much earlier , Hawkins says — if the Wisconsin Election Commission had let the candidates ’ present their evidence .
“ They were determined to keep us off no matter what the evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing to do with justice or anything .
I think they were getting embarrassed since this was becoming national news , ” Hawkins said .
“ This is the Democrats and Republicans fighting over this .
We ’ re like pawns on their chess board , and it ’ s infuriating.
” Still , the Green Party itself has come under fire for working with Trump supporters to file its legal claim before the state Supreme Court .
Attorneys from the Milwaukee-based von Briesen & Roper law firm , which often represents Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s petition .
A Republican member of the Wisconsin Elections Commission told The Washington Post that he suggested the firm to the Greens .
Hawkins denied that , telling Truthout that his campaign manager Googled the firm because others had turned them down .
Moreover , the Green Party has been accused of the same kind of suppression efforts that it charges the Democrats with engaging in .
Some candidates that ran in the Green Party ’ s primary allege that the primary was rigged and that the party apparatus forced them out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s primary recognition process requires candidates to meet certain signature and donation thresholds , as well as approval from the party ’ s Presidential Campaign Support Committee , which some candidates say they can ’ t possibly meet without the resources and connections of the party ’ s old guard .
Five candidates released a joint letter in October calling on party officials to reform the primary process .
They also called for Hawkins ’ s recognition to be rescinded because he was nominated by the Socialist Party USA , possibly violating Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m the Green Party establishment ; I ’ ve been the left wing of the Green Party and an eco-socialist since we began , and the old guard has wanted me out for a long time , ” Hawkins told Truthout in response to the primary-rigging allegations .
“ The base of the party has moved to the left , and that ’ s why I was drafted and why I got the votes in the Green primaries… .
I don ’ t know of any that were rigged in my favor.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmental activists like Hunt , electoral math is just as unforgiving as the math on climate change .
For him , the equation comes down to what is actually going to create the greatest amount of change for most people .
“ You have to be completely honest about who is going to achieve power , and how you ’ re actually going to move any serious climate action forward , ” he says .

Activists who mainstreamed the Green Party’s Green New Deal say electoral math is just as unforgiving as climate math.
Part of the Series Covering Climate Now
As the Green Party fights in court to stay on the ballot in key swing states less than 50 days before the election, many veteran environmental activists and climate scientists are taking an unprecedented step — pleading to a constituency that has long been key to the party’s electoral efforts to eschew casting a “protest vote” for the Greens this year and instead cast their ballots for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.
More than 170 top environmental leaders, including the founder of Earth Day and other longtime activists, signed a letter arguing that the planetary stakes are simply too high to risk a third-party vote that could tip the presidential election in President Trump’s favor. They argue that it happened in 2000 and 2016, and say “pious gestures” at the polls this year could have “catastrophic results.”
“Twenty years ago, the Green Party snatched the White House from a climate-change leader and handed it to George W. Bush,” the letter states. “In Florida, no less than 97,488 progressive voters snubbed Al Gore for Ralph Nader, letting Bush win the state, and therefore the presidency, by 537 votes, or so the Supreme Court ruled.”
In response, Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins tells Truthout that the signatories are making a false assumption that Green Party presidential candidates Nader and Jill Stein were responsible for electing Bush and Trump, rather than voter suppression efforts and the Electoral College.
“The Greens didn’t do that,” says Hawkins, a retired Teamster who has run unsuccessfully for office 24 times. “We’ve been fighting that. We’ve been saying since before that 2000 election that we need to get rid of the Electoral College and have a presidential vote by a ranked-choice national popular vote.”
Further, the role of the environmental movement should be to make demands on every campaign equally, “not compromise, particularly for a candidate with such a feeble environmental record,” he says, referring to Biden.
Hawkins was the first politician to run on a Green New Deal platform as a candidate for governor of New York in 2010. At that time, the Green New Deal was a reconstruction program in response to the Great Recession, he says.
“We’ve been saying since before that 2000 election that we need to get rid of the Electoral College and have a presidential vote by a ranked-choice national popular vote.”
This year his campaign is calling for the U.S. to reach zero greenhouse emissions and 100 percent clean energy by 2030, and is emphasizing nationalizing key sectors to more effectively plan and implement the party’s more far-reaching Green New Deal, similar to how many industries were nationalized during World War II.
Still, despite a decade of Green Party campaign efforts, momentum for a Green New Deal didn’t gain serious traction until 2018, when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez joined youth activists with the Sunrise Movement in occupying House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office to demand a Green New Deal that would ensure a just transition to 100 percent renewable energy in the U.S.
The next year, Sen. Bernie Sanders joined Representative Ocasio-Cortez in proposing legislation that would declare climate change a national and international emergency. He began campaigning on a Green New Deal, mainstreaming the policy as a serious platform position within the Democratic Party.
Since Sanders dropped out of the race, Sunrise Movement activists have worked to move Biden left on climate. In fact, Biden’s $2 trillion climate plan, which calls for 100 percent clean electricity by 2035 and sweeping infrastructure upgrades that would create millions of new jobs, incorporates several recommendations from a Biden-Sanders unity task force. The plan has won over many Sanders-wing environmentalists, including the Sunrise Movement, despite not embracing a Green New Deal or a national fracking ban.
While Biden’s plan would be the most sweeping set of environmental reforms in history if enacted, it still falls short of scientific guidelines that necessitate a managed decline of fossil fuel extraction to meet the timeline that the International Panel on Climate Change recommends: Global oil and gas production must fall 37 percent and 25 percent respectively this decade to avert planetary warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Drake Hunt is an 18-year-old Sunrise trainer and organizer in New York City who is working toward a Green New Deal for the city’s public housing and to elect Green New Deal proponents to City Council. He campaigned for progressives Jamaal Bowman and Mondaire Jones during their successful congressional primary bids in June.
“We have to move forward on ambitious climate policy, and what’s the best avenue to get there? Is it in a protest vote?”
Hunt is deeply disillusioned with “neoliberal, establishment, corrupt sellout” Biden and the Democratic Party — so disillusioned, in fact, that he says he was planning to sit out his first election ever. That was until Trump’s responses to this year’s compounding crises — from the pandemic, to uprisings over police-perpetrated violence, and raging hurricanes and wildfires — made him realize that he faces a choice between climate catastrophe and authoritarianism; or a chance at a habitable planet and a stable democracy, as he puts it.
“You have to realize that [Trump] is standing in the way as we have a deadline to cut emissions as a planet,” Hunt says. “We have to move forward on ambitious climate policy, and what’s the best avenue to get there? Is it in a protest vote?”
Hunt supported the Green Party’s Stein in 2016 after Sanders failed to secure the Democratic Party’s nomination, and describes his ideology as in line with the Green Party’s. He even made a video in support of Stein at the time.
“I love the Green Party. I love everything that they stand for. If this were Europe and we had this parliamentary system where it wasn’t just this two-party infrastructure…. I’d vote Green Party, and I’m sure most people at Sunrise would as well,” Hunt says.
But it was seeing the power of youth activism as part of the Sunrise Movement that made him realize that an “army of young people” making calls and knocking on doors can swing elections and get progressives elected in the Democratic Party. “We have to be realistic about where we’re going to put our efforts,” Hunt says.
“You have to realize that Trump is standing in the way as we have a deadline to cut emissions as a planet.”
Biden’s revised climate plan is proof, he says, that the climate movement can extract concessions from his campaign, and in all likelihood, his potential administration. For Hunt, voting is just one part of a much larger effort to pressure Democrats into serious climate action. “It’s going to be up to us to actually hold [Biden’s] feet to the fire,” he says — and has no illusions about how difficult that might be.
If left unchecked, Hunt says, Biden may in all likelihood simply continue the same “neoliberal, milquetoast” policies of the Obama-Biden administration, which embraced an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy and oversaw a revolving door of energy advisers in the fossil fuel industry.
Even prior to last week’s letter, leading environmental activists have been increasingly vocal about the role they think the Green Party should play in this year’s election cycle. 350.org Co-Founder Bill McKibben, who also describes himself as a small-“g” green and likewise suggested he would vote Green if the U.S. had a parliamentary system, argued in The New Yorker back in April that the Greens, especially in crucial swing states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, should skip presidential campaigning and, instead, push state legislatures to put ranked-choice voting on their agendas.
“It’s going to be up to us to actually hold Biden’s feet to the fire.”
While Hawkins acknowledged that he has no chance of winning, he rejected the “spoiler” argument, saying that the party is, in fact, working to push ranked-choice voting in more state legislatures. “If they’re worried about the center-left vote splitting and electing these right-wing [popular vote] losers, then go to ranked-choice voting. I mean, that’s a solution; to suppress the Green Party is not a solution,” he said.
Additionally, one of the reasons the Green Party runs presidential campaigns, Hawkins says, is to stay on ballot lines, since in most states, the presidential election often determines whether the party gets or keeps a ballot line in the first place. The ballot access issue has heated up in recent weeks as Democrats work to remove Hawkins and his running mate, Angela Walker, from the ballot in key battleground states.
Both Parties Accused of Suppression
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last week that Hawkins and Walker are ineligible to appear on the state ballot. The decision comes after the Wisconsin Elections Commission declined in late August to put the Green presidential ticket on the November ballot because the candidates’ signature petitions listed two different addresses for Walker. State election officials argued that the campaign failed to meet state requirements due to the discrepancy.
The state Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case but instead concluded that the candidates’ delay in filing an appeal to the Elections Commission decision made it impossible to grant their motion without “confusion and undue damage” to the election system.
The court decision allowed state and local election officials to finalize the ballot and mail it out to the more than 1 million Wisconsin voters who have requested them ahead of the state and federal deadlines.
“This is the Democrats and Republicans fighting over this. We’re like pawns on their chess board, and it’s infuriating.”
A similar issue is now playing out in Pennsylvania, where a Democratic legal challenge over whether the Green Party will appear on the ballot has delayed 67 counties from sending out mail-in ballots by their deadline. Democrats are citing the same procedural mistake over Walker’s change of address as a reason to remove Green ticket from the ballot.
It’s clear that Democrats would benefit from the Green Party’s disbarment. As the polling gap between Trump and Biden narrows, third-party votes could again prove crucial in tipping the presidential scales in both swing states. In 2016, Trump won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by margins that were smaller than the total votes for Stein.
In April of this year, an Emerson poll found that 51 percent of Sanders primary voters were considering opting for a third party. Experts caution however, that it remains unclear whether a third-party candidacy can swing the states’ elections this year. Further, they point out that not all of Stein’s supporters would have voted in 2016 had she not been in the race.
Hawkins says a minor procedural issue like the one that emerged in Wisconsin should not keep a political party off the ballot, and that the state’s ruling is a clear instance of voter suppression in an effort to expedite the mailing of ballots. The issue could have been resolved much earlier, Hawkins says — if the Wisconsin Election Commission had let the candidates’ present their evidence.
“They were determined to keep us off no matter what the evidence was. [The decision] had nothing to do with justice or anything. I think they were getting embarrassed since this was becoming national news,” Hawkins said. “This is the Democrats and Republicans fighting over this. We’re like pawns on their chess board, and it’s infuriating.”
Still, the Green Party itself has come under fire for working with Trump supporters to file its legal claim before the state Supreme Court. Attorneys from the Milwaukee-based von Briesen & Roper law firm, which often represents Wisconsin Republicans, filed the Green Party’s petition.
“You have to be completely honest about who is going to achieve power, and how you’re actually going to move any serious climate action forward.”
A Republican member of the Wisconsin Elections Commission told The Washington Post that he suggested the firm to the Greens. Hawkins denied that, telling Truthout that his campaign manager Googled the firm because others had turned them down.
Moreover, the Green Party has been accused of the same kind of suppression efforts that it charges the Democrats with engaging in. Some candidates that ran in the Green Party’s primary allege that the primary was rigged and that the party apparatus forced them out of the race.
The party’s primary recognition process requires candidates to meet certain signature and donation thresholds, as well as approval from the party’s Presidential Campaign Support Committee, which some candidates say they can’t possibly meet without the resources and connections of the party’s old guard.
Five candidates released a joint letter in October calling on party officials to reform the primary process. They also called for Hawkins’s recognition to be rescinded because he was nominated by the Socialist Party USA, possibly violating Green Party rules.
“They say I’m the Green Party establishment; I’ve been the left wing of the Green Party and an eco-socialist since we began, and the old guard has wanted me out for a long time,” Hawkins told Truthout in response to the primary-rigging allegations. “The base of the party has moved to the left, and that’s why I was drafted and why I got the votes in the Green primaries…. I don’t know of any that were rigged in my favor.”
Ultimately, though, for disillusioned environmental activists like Hunt, electoral math is just as unforgiving as the math on climate change. For him, the equation comes down to what is actually going to create the greatest amount of change for most people.
“You have to be completely honest about who is going to achieve power, and how you’re actually going to move any serious climate action forward,” he says.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.


truthout--2020-09-22--Topics for the First Debate Announced — Here’s How Trump, Biden Poll on Them

The first debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden will take place on Tuesday , September 29 — exactly five weeks from Election Day on November 3 — at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland , Ohio .
Topics , which were determined by the debate ’ s moderator , Fox News ’ s Chris Wallace , were announced on Tuesday .
Each topic will have a 15-minute time segment dedicated to it with a total of 90 minutes assigned for the entire debate .
The topics Wallace has picked for the candidates to discuss include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our cities ” • None The integrity of the election itself .
The topics are not set in stone , however , as the Commission will allow for changes to happen if events between today and next week warrant their discussion in the first debate .
Both Trump and Biden will likely tell you they ’ re the best candidate in terms of each of the topics listed — but in terms of polling , on most of the issues it appears that , as of this moment in the campaign season @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of ground to make up .
Trump does better than Biden on the issue of the economy , according to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll .
On that topic , only 43 percent of voters think Biden could do a better job than Trump , whereas 50 percent of voters give Trump higher marks .
But the president fares much worse , compared to his Democratic challenger , on a number of the other issues that are set to be discussed at next week ’ s debate .
On race relations , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden would be a better leader , while only 35 percent say that Trump would be .
On how the two candidates would handle the coronavirus pandemic , Trump again fares worse than Biden .
Only 39 percent say the current president would do a better job on the issue , but 52 percent say Biden would do better at responding to the crisis that has seen more than 200,000 Americans die so far under Trump ’ s watch .
Overall , according to the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll , when asked who they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden by a margin of 10 percent , with 52 percent saying they ’ d vote for Biden versus 42 percent who say they ’ d back Trump .
Of course , national polling data does not give us a clear indication of who will win the election , as the Electoral College is the true determiner of who will serve as president for the next four years starting at noon on January 20 next year .
On that measure , however , according to some forecasters , it ’ s still not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days left until Election Day .
In spite of those predictions , Americans overall are not confident about who is going to win the presidential race .
According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll , just 39 percent believe Biden will win in November , with 40 percent saying Trump will go on to a second term in office .
In short , both candidates are likely looking at the debates , beginning with the first one next week , as being important in helping them to win in the end — even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debates don ’ t actually do much to shape the outcome of an election .

While polls show a clear preference for one candidate, Americans aren’t confident on who they think will end up winning.
The first debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden will take place on Tuesday, September 29 — exactly five weeks from Election Day on November 3 — at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.
Topics, which were determined by the debate’s moderator, Fox News’s Chris Wallace, were announced on Tuesday. Each topic will have a 15-minute time segment dedicated to it with a total of 90 minutes assigned for the entire debate.
The topics Wallace has picked for the candidates to discuss include:
Trump’s and Biden’s records;
The Supreme Court;
The coronavirus pandemic;
The economy
“Race and violence in our cities”
The integrity of the election itself.
The topics are not set in stone, however, as the Commission will allow for changes to happen if events between today and next week warrant their discussion in the first debate.
Both Trump and Biden will likely tell you they’re the best candidate in terms of each of the topics listed — but in terms of polling, on most of the issues it appears that, as of this moment in the campaign season, the incumbent president has a lot of ground to make up.
Trump does better than Biden on the issue of the economy, according to a recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll. On that topic, only 43 percent of voters think Biden could do a better job than Trump, whereas 50 percent of voters give Trump higher marks.
But the president fares much worse, compared to his Democratic challenger, on a number of the other issues that are set to be discussed at next week’s debate. On race relations, for example, 56 percent of Americans think Biden would be a better leader, while only 35 percent say that Trump would be.
On how the two candidates would handle the coronavirus pandemic, Trump again fares worse than Biden. Only 39 percent say the current president would do a better job on the issue, but 52 percent say Biden would do better at responding to the crisis that has seen more than 200,000 Americans die so far under Trump’s watch.
Overall, according to the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, when asked who they would vote for today, respondents favored Biden by a margin of 10 percent, with 52 percent saying they’d vote for Biden versus 42 percent who say they’d back Trump.
Of course, national polling data does not give us a clear indication of who will win the election, as the Electoral College is the true determiner of who will serve as president for the next four years starting at noon on January 20 next year. On that measure, however, according to some forecasters, it’s still not looking great for Trump, with 42 days left until Election Day.
In spite of those predictions, Americans overall are not confident about who is going to win the presidential race. According to a recent Economist/YouGov poll, just 39 percent believe Biden will win in November, with 40 percent saying Trump will go on to a second term in office.
In short, both candidates are likely looking at the debates, beginning with the first one next week, as being important in helping them to win in the end — even if, as some observers have noted, debates don’t actually do much to shape the outcome of an election.
Tired of reading the same old news from the same old sources? So are we! That’s why we’re on a mission to shake things up and bring you the stories and perspectives that often go untold in mainstream media. But being a radically, unapologetically independent news site isn’t easy (or cheap), and we rely on reader support to keep the lights on.
If you like what you’re reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. We’re not asking for a handout, we’re asking for an investment: Invest in a nonprofit news site that’s not afraid to ruffle a few feathers, not afraid to stand up for what’s right, and not afraid to tell it like it is.
Copyright © Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.