truthout--2020-05-20--Trump Is Willing to Let Boosted Unemployment Expire for 36 Million Out of Work

President Donald Trump told Republican senators during a private lunch Tuesday that he is willing to let expanded unemployment benefits expire at the end of July , a decision that would massively slash the incomes of tens of millions of people who have lost their jobs due to the Covid-19 crisis .
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the president “ privately expressed opposition to extending a weekly $ 600 boost in unemployment insurance for laid-off workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic , according to three officials familiar with his remarks.
” House Democrats passed legislation last week that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2021 as experts and government officials — including Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell — warn the U.S. unemployment rate could soon reach 25 % .
The unemployment insurance boost under the CARES Act is set to expire on July 31 , even as many people have yet to receive their first check .
“ With nearly 1 in 5 Americans out of work , Donald Trump ’ s plan is to cut off the boost to unemployment benefits and shower his wealthy buddies with more tax cuts , ” Sen. Ron Wyden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ architects of the unemployment insurance expansion , told HuffPost .
“ This is the worst economic crisis in 100 years and Donald Trump is doubling down on Herbert Hoover ’ s economic playbook and pushing workers to risk their health for his political benefit.
” Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-S.C. ) — who declared earlier this month that Congress will only extend the boosted unemployment insurance “ over our dead bodies ” — said after the private lunch that Trump believes the benefits are “ hurting the economic recovery.
” Graham was one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initial expansion of unemployment benefits as too generous .
An analysis released last week by the Hamilton Project , an initiative of the Brookings Institution , found that expanded unemployment benefits offset “ roughly half of lost wages and salaries in April.
” Unemployment insurance has “ been essential to families , and is vital for keeping the economy from cratering further , ” the authors of the analysis noted .
Ernie Tedeschi , a former Treasury Department economist , estimated that “ come July 31 , if the emergency UI top-up isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effectively get a pay cut of 50-75 % overnight.
” “ It ’ s increasingly looking like there won ’ t be enough labor demand to hire them all back at that point , ” Tedeschi tweeted .
The latest Labor Department statistics showed that more than 36 million people in the U.S. have filed jobless claims since mid-March as mass layoffs continue in the absence of government action to keep workers on company payrolls .
Despite the grim numbers , the Post ’ s Jeff Stein reported Tuesday that the White House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as it resists additional efforts to provide relief to frontline workers and the unemployed .
On top of rejecting an extension of enhanced unemployment insurance , Trump last month publicly voiced opposition to another round of direct stimulus payments , instead advocating a cut to the tax that funds Social Security and Medicare .
As the Trump administration pushes states to reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic , the Labor Department is encouraging states to help employers report workers who refuse to return to their jobs out of fear of contracting Covid-19 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ general concern ” about coronavirus infection is not sufficient grounds to refuse work and still receive unemployment benefits .
On Tuesday , Wyden and nearly two dozen other Senate Democrats sent a letter to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia demanding that the department “ make clear that individuals can not be forced to choose between keeping their income and putting their lives in danger .
”

President Trump told GOP senators on Tuesday that he is willing to let expanded unemployment expire at the end of July.
President Donald Trump told Republican senators during a private lunch Tuesday that he is willing to let expanded unemployment benefits expire at the end of July, a decision that would massively slash the incomes of tens of millions of people who have lost their jobs due to the Covid-19 crisis.
The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the president “privately expressed opposition to extending a weekly $600 boost in unemployment insurance for laid-off workers affected by the coronavirus pandemic, according to three officials familiar with his remarks.”
House Democrats passed legislation last week that would extend the beefed-up unemployment benefits through January of 2021 as experts and government officials — including Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell — warn the U.S. unemployment rate could soon reach 25%. The unemployment insurance boost under the CARES Act is set to expire on July 31, even as many people have yet to receive their first check.
“With nearly 1 in 5 Americans out of work, Donald Trump’s plan is to cut off the boost to unemployment benefits and shower his wealthy buddies with more tax cuts,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the architects of the unemployment insurance expansion, told HuffPost. “This is the worst economic crisis in 100 years and Donald Trump is doubling down on Herbert Hoover’s economic playbook and pushing workers to risk their health for his political benefit.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — who declared earlier this month that Congress will only extend the boosted unemployment insurance “over our dead bodies” — said after the private lunch that Trump believes the benefits are “hurting the economic recovery.” Graham was one of several Republican senators who opposed the initial expansion of unemployment benefits as too generous.
An analysis released last week by the Hamilton Project, an initiative of the Brookings Institution, found that expanded unemployment benefits offset “roughly half of lost wages and salaries in April.” Unemployment insurance has “been essential to families, and is vital for keeping the economy from cratering further,” the authors of the analysis noted.
Ernie Tedeschi, a former Treasury Department economist, estimated that “come July 31, if the emergency UI top-up isn’t extended, unemployed workers will effectively get a pay cut of 50-75% overnight.”
“It’s increasingly looking like there won’t be enough labor demand to hire them all back at that point,” Tedeschi tweeted.
The latest Labor Department statistics showed that more than 36 million people in the U.S. have filed jobless claims since mid-March as mass layoffs continue in the absence of government action to keep workers on company payrolls. Despite the grim numbers, the Post’s Jeff Stein reported Tuesday that the White House is “predicting a swift economic recovery” as it resists additional efforts to provide relief to frontline workers and the unemployed.
On top of rejecting an extension of enhanced unemployment insurance, Trump last month publicly voiced opposition to another round of direct stimulus payments, instead advocating a cut to the tax that funds Social Security and Medicare.
As the Trump administration pushes states to reopen amid the coronavirus pandemic, the Labor Department is encouraging states to help employers report workers who refuse to return to their jobs out of fear of contracting Covid-19. The Labor Department said on its website that “general concern” about coronavirus infection is not sufficient grounds to refuse work and still receive unemployment benefits.
On Tuesday, Wyden and nearly two dozen other Senate Democrats sent a letter to Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia demanding that the department “make clear that individuals cannot be forced to choose between keeping their income and putting their lives in danger.”
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--2020-05-20--It’s Possible to Run for Office as an Unapologetic Socialist and Win

Despite being an eternal disappointment to the majority of people , the capitalist-allied political establishment is able to remain in power in part by maintaining the illusion that politics is for experts , people with Rolodexes full of professional contacts , people who went to elite schools .
Since the myth of meritocracy maintains that people get ahead professionally because they ’ re smarter or better than others , the people who are in charge ( both as candidates and behind the scenes ) are presumed deserving of their pedestal — and the proof of their deservingness is precisely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a dizzying tautology .
The truth is that the people who engage in politics professionally are not inherently smarter than everybody else .
( In fact , through engaging with the process up close , we ’ ve learned that many of them are actually less smart . )
And when they turn their backs on principles of equality and justice , they demonstrate that they don ’ t deserve to be in the drivers ’ seat .
They do have some specialized knowledge , but ordinary people can develop that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we don ’ t muster the courage to challenge the establishment , they ’ ll run the show forever .
If we want politics to change , it ’ s time to roll up our sleeves .
The 2019 socialist victories in Chicago are the clearest indication that a big , bold electoral strategy can actually win .
Six members of the Democratic Socialists of America were elected to the Chicago city council in April 2019 : Carlos Ramirez- Rosa , Rossana Rodriguez , Byron Sigcho-Lopez , Jeanette Taylor , Andre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This means that 12 percent of the fifty-member council are DSA members .
When Chicago DSA ( CDSA ) began thinking about how it would approach the 2019 election cycle , many members counseled a conservative approach .
Only one DSA member , Carlos Ramirez-Rosa , was running for reelection .
All other socialists running for city council would have to topple incumbents , several of whom had held office for decades or were part of long-standing local political dynasties .
Many in the chapter argued to endorse one or two campaigns and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , CDSA opted for audacity rather than timidity .
That audacity paid off .
“ It turns out that as we endorsed more candidates , our capacity grew rather than shrank , ” Steve Weishampel , at the time the CDSA ’ s electoral working group co-chair , wrote after the elections .
The successful campaigns shared a few key characteristics .
The candidates had a core message in common : fight the wealthy and their political lackeys pushing gentrification and austerity in Chicago .
The six races spanned much of Chicago and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but all the candidates signed onto a broad , left platform : housing for all , sanctuary for all , education for all , and taxing the rich .
These demands reflected political issues and movement demands in Chicago , but are also burning issues throughout the country .
And they were united in a political approach that wasn ’ t afraid to name the class enemy in the city , especially the real estate developers that are rapidly gentrifying working-class neighborhoods and forcing working people out of Chicago .
Ramirez-Rosa , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on affordable housing and gentrification , a pressing issue in his ward , where rents are rapidly rising .
He painted real estate developers as the enemy of the ward ’ s working class .
The real estate developers responded by painting him as the enemy .
The ward ’ s largest landlord , Mark Fishman , spent at least $ 100,000 on Ramirez-Rosa ’ s opponent in an effort to unseat him ; other developers , big landlords , and property managers spent an additional $ 100,000 .
Voters were flooded with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them stacked high on porches and in apartment building vestibules — leveling wild accusations that Ramirez-Rosa was a deadbeat city council member and that he didn ’ t actually care about affordable housing in the ward .
They didn ’ t work .
“ In corporate politics the narrative is you can screw over the voters , you can screw the working class , and as long as you have the money to get on TV and slam your opponents in the mail boxes , you can win , ” Ramirez-Rosa said after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic upside down — not just in my ward , but in wards across Chicago , where we saw corporate Democrats spending big and losing .
At the end of the day , if you reach the voters door to door with a compelling message and a political vision that speaks to their needs , they ’ re going to go with you every time.
” Ramirez-Rosa ’ s campaign didn ’ t shy away from attacking the ward ’ s most powerful capitalist .
That class-struggle approach paid off : he won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ real estate–friendly opponent .
Ramirez-Rosa ’ s win and the other five victories didn ’ t come in a vacuum .
All six of the candidates are DSA members , but they are also aligned with unions , community groups , political organizations , and other groups .
Those groups both paved the way for these victories and played key roles during the campaign .
And DSA showed them that socialists are key allies in these fights .
All of the candidates were endorsed by United Working Families ( UWF ) , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union ( CTU ) and SEIU Healthcare Illinois- Indiana along with a number of community groups , which other unions and community organizations have joined in recent years .
It also devoted significant resources to many of the campaigns .
Most unions and progressive groups shy away from the “ socialist ” label .
UWF didn ’ t .
In addition to UWF ’ s support , Rodriguez had the backing of a neighborhood group , 33rd Ward Working Families , that had run teacher and socialist Tim Meegan for the office in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has organized around affordable housing and immigrants ’ rights in a working-class immigrant neighborhood , Albany Park — so effectively that the losing incumbent , Deb Mell , complained that 33rd Ward Working Families “ never stopped running over the last four years.
” Mell , a hapless hack whose father gave her the city council seat in the middle of his term in 2013 after holding it himself for nearly four decades , apparently thought candidates who organize in their communities are cheating .
After her victory the Chicago Sun-Times christened Rodriguez @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rest of Chicago wouldn ’ t be willing to elect leftist candidates if the city hadn ’ t been such a hotbed of working-class militancy in recent years .
The CTU ’ s 2012 strike brought a sea change to city politics , popularizing opposition to austerity and making the union the city ’ s most important force in that fight .
The CTU ’ s willingness to strike — in public schools , as it did again for a single day in an illegal strike in 2016 and in a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in charters , where it organized aggressively and struck repeatedly after 2012 — has reshaped the city ’ s politics ( and helped make all kinds of workers , from graduate teaching assistants to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra , more willing to withhold their labor from the boss ) .
That militancy is also seen in CTU-adjacent community groups like the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization ( KOCO ) , of which Jeanette Taylor has been an active member for many years .
KOCO is a mostly black organization based in black neighborhoods on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has long fought education austerity .
Their organizing helped inspire the group of reformers within the CTU that took over the union ’ s leadership in 2010 and pushed it in a more radical direction , committed to fighting for the city ’ s entire working class ( especially in black and Latino neighborhoods ) rather than just teachers themselves .
KOCO led a month-long hunger strike in 2015 demanding the reopening of a neighborhood high school .
Taylor was one of the hunger strikers .
“ The movement made and pushed me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected .
“ I don ’ t like doing all this , running for office and talking in public .
That ’ s something I was molded into doing.
” In other words , CDSA audaciously ran five socialists for city council , and for playing key roles — in several cases , the central role — in the victorious campaigns .
But DSA didn ’ t win these victories on its own .
The group was part of a broad working-class movement that tied electoral campaigns to grassroots labor and community organizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the city , it ’ s doubtful the six socialists would have won their seats .
The lesson from Chicago , then , is not just that you can run socialist candidates who take on the ruling class and actually win , and not just that you can run many socialist candidates and win .
It ’ s also that socialists must join ( or start ) fights at their workplaces and in their communities that can create the broader political conditions for electoral victories .
Those fights , built painstakingly over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , created the conditions in which six socialists could win city council seats — and shortly after the election , CDSA ’ s then co-chairs Leonard Pierce and Lucie Macias could declare in the Chicago Tribune , “ Chicago ’ s politicians and the ultra- wealthy , from the mayor ’ s office to corporate boardrooms , need to understand that business isn ’ t going to continue as usual in this city.
” It ’ s impossible to know what will come of these wins .
At the time of this writing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for less than a year .
The city ’ s capitalist class , like capitalists everywhere , is very powerful .
And because CDSA doesn ’ t have many institutional mechanisms to force its candidates to remain faithful to a socialist program , it ’ s possible that the rich could pick off a few of the socialist victors .
A key task going forward will be figuring out how to not just win city council campaigns like these , but keep victorious city council members from succumbing to capitalist or mainstream Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aftermath of the victory , things look promising .
The city council socialists have hit the streets : Rodriguez has used her megaphone to support tenants organizing against abusive landlords in the neighborhood and provided space for numerous working-class organizing efforts in her ward .
Several of the new council members have used their office to organize against Donald Trump ’ s threatened ICE raids in Chicago .
The newly elected leaders even joined in blocking traffic outside City Hall to protest massive giveaways to real estate developers shortly after the elections .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fifty-member city council is in its infancy , one that will hopefully be more politically principled and consistent than the “ Progressive Caucus , ” whose members can ’ t be relied on to speak as a bloc on much of anything .
And all of the six could be seen on the picket lines during the CTU ’ s 2019 strike .
They coauthored a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed siding with the teachers over the mayor and demanding that Chicago ’ s schools be adequately funded—no small development in a city where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mayor could previously be taken for granted .
Chicago ’ s elected officials are using their office to stoke more grassroots organizing , more bottom-up opposition to austerity , more class struggle .
The political conditions in Chicago are unique , of course .
So are every city ’ s .
But , given national currents , we ’ re likely to soon see other cities wage local electoral campaigns that name our enemy , the capitalist class , and that work and grow alongside militant working-class organizing .
Adapted from Bigger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism by Meagan Day and Micah Uetricht , now available from Verso Books .

Despite being an eternal disappointment to the majority of people, the capitalist-allied political establishment is able to remain in power in part by maintaining the illusion that politics is for experts, people with Rolodexes full of professional contacts, people who went to elite schools. Since the myth of meritocracy maintains that people get ahead professionally because they’re smarter or better than others, the people who are in charge (both as candidates and behind the scenes) are presumed deserving of their pedestal — and the proof of their deservingness is precisely that they’re in charge. It’s a dizzying tautology.
The truth is that the people who engage in politics professionally are not inherently smarter than everybody else. (In fact, through engaging with the process up close, we’ve learned that many of them are actually less smart.) And when they turn their backs on principles of equality and justice, they demonstrate that they don’t deserve to be in the drivers’ seat. They do have some specialized knowledge, but ordinary people can develop that knowledge themselves through collective trial and error. If we don’t muster the courage to challenge the establishment, they’ll run the show forever. If we want politics to change, it’s time to roll up our sleeves.
The 2019 socialist victories in Chicago are the clearest indication that a big, bold electoral strategy can actually win. Six members of the Democratic Socialists of America were elected to the Chicago city council in April 2019: Carlos Ramirez- Rosa, Rossana Rodriguez, Byron Sigcho-Lopez, Jeanette Taylor, Andre Vasquez, and Daniel La Spata. This means that 12 percent of the fifty-member council are DSA members.
When Chicago DSA (CDSA) began thinking about how it would approach the 2019 election cycle, many members counseled a conservative approach. Only one DSA member, Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, was running for reelection. All other socialists running for city council would have to topple incumbents, several of whom had held office for decades or were part of long-standing local political dynasties. Many in the chapter argued to endorse one or two campaigns and throw everything behind winning them.
Ultimately, CDSA opted for audacity rather than timidity. That audacity paid off. “It turns out that as we endorsed more candidates, our capacity grew rather than shrank,” Steve Weishampel, at the time the CDSA’s electoral working group co-chair, wrote after the elections.
The successful campaigns shared a few key characteristics. The candidates had a core message in common: fight the wealthy and their political lackeys pushing gentrification and austerity in Chicago. The six races spanned much of Chicago and a wide range of neighborhood-specific issues, but all the candidates signed onto a broad, left platform: housing for all, sanctuary for all, education for all, and taxing the rich. These demands reflected political issues and movement demands in Chicago, but are also burning issues throughout the country.
And they were united in a political approach that wasn’t afraid to name the class enemy in the city, especially the real estate developers that are rapidly gentrifying working-class neighborhoods and forcing working people out of Chicago.
Ramirez-Rosa, for example, made his race a referendum on affordable housing and gentrification, a pressing issue in his ward, where rents are rapidly rising. He painted real estate developers as the enemy of the ward’s working class. The real estate developers responded by painting him as the enemy. The ward’s largest landlord, Mark Fishman, spent at least $100,000 on Ramirez-Rosa’s opponent in an effort to unseat him; other developers, big landlords, and property managers spent an additional $100,000. Voters were flooded with attack mailers — DSA canvassers often saw them stacked high on porches and in apartment building vestibules — leveling wild accusations that Ramirez-Rosa was a deadbeat city council member and that he didn’t actually care about affordable housing in the ward. They didn’t work.
“In corporate politics the narrative is you can screw over the voters, you can screw the working class, and as long as you have the money to get on TV and slam your opponents in the mail boxes, you can win,” Ramirez-Rosa said after the election. “We turned that logic upside down — not just in my ward, but in wards across Chicago, where we saw corporate Democrats spending big and losing. At the end of the day, if you reach the voters door to door with a compelling message and a political vision that speaks to their needs, they’re going to go with you every time.”
Ramirez-Rosa’s campaign didn’t shy away from attacking the ward’s most powerful capitalist. That class-struggle approach paid off: he won reelection by nearly 20 percent over his real estate–friendly opponent.
Ramirez-Rosa’s win and the other five victories didn’t come in a vacuum. All six of the candidates are DSA members, but they are also aligned with unions, community groups, political organizations, and other groups. Those groups both paved the way for these victories and played key roles during the campaign. And DSA showed them that socialists are key allies in these fights.
All of the candidates were endorsed by United Working Families (UWF), the political organization formed by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and SEIU Healthcare Illinois- Indiana along with a number of community groups, which other unions and community organizations have joined in recent years. It also devoted significant resources to many of the campaigns. Most unions and progressive groups shy away from the “socialist” label. UWF didn’t.
In addition to UWF’s support, Rodriguez had the backing of a neighborhood group, 33rd Ward Working Families, that had run teacher and socialist Tim Meegan for the office in 2015. Since then, the group has organized around affordable housing and immigrants’ rights in a working-class immigrant neighborhood, Albany Park — so effectively that the losing incumbent, Deb Mell, complained that 33rd Ward Working Families “never stopped running over the last four years.” Mell, a hapless hack whose father gave her the city council seat in the middle of his term in 2013 after holding it himself for nearly four decades, apparently thought candidates who organize in their communities are cheating. After her victory the Chicago Sun-Times christened Rodriguez a “dynasty slayer.”
UWF and the rest of Chicago wouldn’t be willing to elect leftist candidates if the city hadn’t been such a hotbed of working-class militancy in recent years. The CTU’s 2012 strike brought a sea change to city politics, popularizing opposition to austerity and making the union the city’s most important force in that fight. The CTU’s willingness to strike — in public schools, as it did again for a single day in an illegal strike in 2016 and in a long, open-ended strike in 2019, and in charters, where it organized aggressively and struck repeatedly after 2012 — has reshaped the city’s politics (and helped make all kinds of workers, from graduate teaching assistants to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, more willing to withhold their labor from the boss).
That militancy is also seen in CTU-adjacent community groups like the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization (KOCO), of which Jeanette Taylor has been an active member for many years. KOCO is a mostly black organization based in black neighborhoods on the city’s South Side that has long fought education austerity. Their organizing helped inspire the group of reformers within the CTU that took over the union’s leadership in 2010 and pushed it in a more radical direction, committed to fighting for the city’s entire working class (especially in black and Latino neighborhoods) rather than just teachers themselves. KOCO led a month-long hunger strike in 2015 demanding the reopening of a neighborhood high school. Taylor was one of the hunger strikers. “The movement made and pushed me,” Taylor said before she was elected. “I don’t like doing all this, running for office and talking in public. That’s something I was molded into doing.”
In other words, CDSA audaciously ran five socialists for city council, and for playing key roles — in several cases, the central role — in the victorious campaigns. But DSA didn’t win these victories on its own. The group was part of a broad working-class movement that tied electoral campaigns to grassroots labor and community organizing and militancy. Without that wider ferment in the city, it’s doubtful the six socialists would have won their seats.
The lesson from Chicago, then, is not just that you can run socialist candidates who take on the ruling class and actually win, and not just that you can run many socialist candidates and win. It’s also that socialists must join (or start) fights at their workplaces and in their communities that can create the broader political conditions for electoral victories. Those fights, built painstakingly over years and even decades in the city, created the conditions in which six socialists could win city council seats — and shortly after the election, CDSA’s then co-chairs Leonard Pierce and Lucie Macias could declare in the Chicago Tribune, “Chicago’s politicians and the ultra- wealthy, from the mayor’s office to corporate boardrooms, need to understand that business isn’t going to continue as usual in this city.”
It’s impossible to know what will come of these wins. At the time of this writing, the six socialists have held office for less than a year. The city’s capitalist class, like capitalists everywhere, is very powerful. And because CDSA doesn’t have many institutional mechanisms to force its candidates to remain faithful to a socialist program, it’s possible that the rich could pick off a few of the socialist victors. A key task going forward will be figuring out how to not just win city council campaigns like these, but keep victorious city council members from succumbing to capitalist or mainstream Democratic Party pressure.
But in the immediate aftermath of the victory, things look promising. The city council socialists have hit the streets: Rodriguez has used her megaphone to support tenants organizing against abusive landlords in the neighborhood and provided space for numerous working-class organizing efforts in her ward. Several of the new council members have used their office to organize against Donald Trump’s threatened ICE raids in Chicago. The newly elected leaders even joined in blocking traffic outside City Hall to protest massive giveaways to real estate developers shortly after the elections. A “Socialist Caucus” on the fifty-member city council is in its infancy, one that will hopefully be more politically principled and consistent than the “Progressive Caucus,” whose members can’t be relied on to speak as a bloc on much of anything.
And all of the six could be seen on the picket lines during the CTU’s 2019 strike. They coauthored a Chicago Sun-Times op-ed siding with the teachers over the mayor and demanding that Chicago’s schools be adequately funded—no small development in a city where the city council’s complete fealty to the mayor could previously be taken for granted. Chicago’s elected officials are using their office to stoke more grassroots organizing, more bottom-up opposition to austerity, more class struggle.
The political conditions in Chicago are unique, of course. So are every city’s. But, given national currents, we’re likely to soon see other cities wage local electoral campaigns that name our enemy, the capitalist class, and that work and grow alongside militant working-class organizing.
Adapted from Bigger than Bernie: How We Go from the Sanders Campaign to Democratic Socialism by Meagan Day and Micah Uetricht, now available from Verso Books.
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--2020-05-21--Blaming Russia, Trump Plans to Exit Post-Cold War Arms Control Treaty

The Trump administration will withdraw from a post-Cold War treaty that enabled signatories to keep tabs on member nations ’ arms developments .
The Open Skies Treaty was negotiated in 1992 by the administration of President George H. W. Bush with Russia shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union .
The treaty , which involves many other nations in Europe and Canada , allows each member state the right to fly reconnaissance planes over each other to provide assurances that no country is increasing its arms production in preparation for war .
The Trump administration is reportedly planning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accusations that Russia wasn ’ t adhering to the accord .
“ You reach a point at which you need to say enough is enough .
The United States can not keep participating in this treaty if Russia is going to violate it with impunity , ” Marshall Billingslea , the president ’ s recently-named special envoy for Arms Control , said .
It ’ s possible that President Donald Trump may also have personal reasons for leaving the treaty .
In 2017 , Trump was reportedly upset over the fact that Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courses in Bedminster , New Jersey .
On Friday , “ the U.S. will submit notice of its decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies , ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced .
Other member nations allied to the U.S. were informed of the decision to leave the treaty during the past week .
Pompeo left open the possibility that the U.S. would remain in the treaty , but only if Russia returned “ to full compliance , ” he said .
This marks the third major international agreement that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president .
Two years ago , the president removed the U.S. from the Iran nuclear accord , which was negotiated and implemented during the Obama administration .
Last year , Trump also left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty .
It ’ s possible that Trump ’ s departure from the Open Skies Treaty could signal his intention to eventually leave the New START agreement , which limits deployed nuclear missiles to 1,550 each for Russia and the U.S .
Many on social media expressed disgust and doubts about the decision to leave the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who was head of the CIA primarily during the administration of President George W. Bush ( but also for one month under President Barack Obama ) , registered his misgivings in an ableist tweet shortly after the plans for departure were announced .
Others suggested the move would lead to a new era of spying and increased distrust between the two nations .
“ The likely effect ” from exiting the treaty will be “ U.S .
allies having less information on Russian military activity , [ and ] a resurgence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” DefenseOne tech editor Patrick Tucker said .
Steven Pifer , an arms control expert , expressed doubts on the legality over the decision to leave the treaty .
“ Looks like # Trump decision to withdraw from # OpenSkiesTreaty is also [ a ] violation of US law .
Sec .
1234 of FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act requires notification to Congress 120 days before notification of intention to withdraw , ” he wrote in a tweet .
Sen. Richard Blumenthal ( D-Connecticut ) , a member of the Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Trump ’ s decision to withdraw from the treaty .
“ Trump is abdicating American leadership in arms control & so many other areas of international relations — undermining our own national security & defense , ” Blumenthal wrote .

The treaty has been in force since 2002, and was negotiated almost 30 years ago.
The Trump administration will withdraw from a post-Cold War treaty that enabled signatories to keep tabs on member nations’ arms developments.
The Open Skies Treaty was negotiated in 1992 by the administration of President George H. W. Bush with Russia shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. The treaty, which involves many other nations in Europe and Canada, allows each member state the right to fly reconnaissance planes over each other to provide assurances that no country is increasing its arms production in preparation for war.
The Trump administration is reportedly planning to justify its exit from the agreement over accusations that Russia wasn’t adhering to the accord.
“You reach a point at which you need to say enough is enough. The United States cannot keep participating in this treaty if Russia is going to violate it with impunity,” Marshall Billingslea, the president’s recently-named special envoy for Arms Control, said.
It’s possible that President Donald Trump may also have personal reasons for leaving the treaty. In 2017, Trump was reportedly upset over the fact that Russian planes flew over one of his golf courses in Bedminster, New Jersey.
On Friday, “the U.S. will submit notice of its decision to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced. Other member nations allied to the U.S. were informed of the decision to leave the treaty during the past week.
Pompeo left open the possibility that the U.S. would remain in the treaty, but only if Russia returned “to full compliance,” he said.
This marks the third major international agreement that Trump has exited during his tenure as president. Two years ago, the president removed the U.S. from the Iran nuclear accord, which was negotiated and implemented during the Obama administration. Last year, Trump also left the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
It’s possible that Trump’s departure from the Open Skies Treaty could signal his intention to eventually leave the New START agreement, which limits deployed nuclear missiles to 1,550 each for Russia and the U.S.
Many on social media expressed disgust and doubts about the decision to leave the Open Skies Treaty. Gen. Michael Hayden, who was head of the CIA primarily during the administration of President George W. Bush (but also for one month under President Barack Obama), registered his misgivings in an ableist tweet shortly after the plans for departure were announced.
Others suggested the move would lead to a new era of spying and increased distrust between the two nations.
“The likely effect” from exiting the treaty will be “U.S. allies having less information on Russian military activity, [and] a resurgence of espionage activity between Russia and the US,” DefenseOne tech editor Patrick Tucker said.
Steven Pifer, an arms control expert, expressed doubts on the legality over the decision to leave the treaty.
“Looks like #Trump decision to withdraw from #OpenSkiesTreaty is also [a] violation of US law. Sec. 1234 of FY 2020 National Defense Authorization Act requires notification to Congress 120 days before notification of intention to withdraw,” he wrote in a tweet.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also expressed alarm at Trump’s decision to withdraw from the treaty.
“Trump is abdicating American leadership in arms control & so many other areas of international relations — undermining our own national security & defense,” Blumenthal wrote.


truthout--2020-05-21--Nearly Half of All Tweets on Coronavirus Likely Came From a Bot, Study Says

If you ’ ve read a recent social media posting that offers some questionable advice or dubious news about COVID-19 , you ’ re not alone .
In fact , users on Twitter have , on average , about a 50 percent chance of reading information regarding the disease that most likely came from a bot , according to findings from a recent study .
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University delved into 200 million tweets that have been authored since January about coronavirus .
Of those examined , 45 percent were issued out by accounts that behaved more like “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media site .
Bots are “ automated user accounts that interact with Twitter using an application programming interface ” to tweet , retweet and even message human users online , according to consumer software company Symantec .
They can sometimes be used for good reasons — such as providing information on weather or earthquakes to relevant users — but they can be used for iniquitous purposes , too , like interfering in the political process or waging disinformation campaigns on topics their developers want to promote .
Some research suggests that as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter are actually bots .
The team of Carnegie Mellon researchers said it was too soon to say who was behind the bots ’ disinformation campaign , but the content in the tweets themselves seem to suggest the motivation was to create division among American users on Twitter — similar to what happened during the 2016 presidential campaign .
The bots appear to have disseminated at least 100 different false storylines about coronavirus that are being spread online , the researchers concluded .
These include conspiracy theories , like that hospitals are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crisis appear more damaging than it is , or that 5G cell towers spread the disease , both claims that are patently false .
According to the researchers , the bot activity is two times higher than what they predicted it would be , based on previous analyses of bot behavior during past disasters , crises and elections .
In February , a separate analysis of activity from Bot Sentinel found that bots were spreading a variety of false claims about the disease , including that China intentionally created the virus or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spread , or that Democrats were overstating the concern about COVID-19 in order to make President Donald Trump look bad .
The Bot Sentinel analysis also concluded that most of the tweets from coronavirus-based bots were favorable to the president .

If you’ve read a recent social media posting that offers some questionable advice or dubious news about COVID-19, you’re not alone. In fact, users on Twitter have, on average, about a 50 percent chance of reading information regarding the disease that most likely came from a bot, according to findings from a recent study.
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University delved into 200 million tweets that have been authored since January about coronavirus. Of those examined, 45 percent were issued out by accounts that behaved more like “bots” than human users of the social media site.
Bots are “automated user accounts that interact with Twitter using an application programming interface” to tweet, retweet and even message human users online, according to consumer software company Symantec. They can sometimes be used for good reasons — such as providing information on weather or earthquakes to relevant users — but they can be used for iniquitous purposes, too, like interfering in the political process or waging disinformation campaigns on topics their developers want to promote. Some research suggests that as many as 15 percent of all users on Twitter are actually bots.
The team of Carnegie Mellon researchers said it was too soon to say who was behind the bots’ disinformation campaign, but the content in the tweets themselves seem to suggest the motivation was to create division among American users on Twitter — similar to what happened during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The bots appear to have disseminated at least 100 different false storylines about coronavirus that are being spread online, the researchers concluded. These include conspiracy theories, like that hospitals are putting mannequins in hospital beds to make the crisis appear more damaging than it is, or that 5G cell towers spread the disease, both claims that are patently false.
According to the researchers, the bot activity is two times higher than what they predicted it would be, based on previous analyses of bot behavior during past disasters, crises and elections.
In February, a separate analysis of activity from Bot Sentinel found that bots were spreading a variety of false claims about the disease, including that China intentionally created the virus or was trying to weaponize it before it spread, or that Democrats were overstating the concern about COVID-19 in order to make President Donald Trump look bad.
The Bot Sentinel analysis also concluded that most of the tweets from coronavirus-based bots were favorable to the president.
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--2020-05-21--60 Million People Could Be Driven Into Extreme Poverty Due to the Pandemic

A new report finds that as many as 60 million people could be reduced to living on less than $ 2 a day as a result of the coronavirus pandemic .
“ The pandemic and shutdown of advanced economies could push as many as 60 million people into extreme poverty — erasing much of the recent progress made in poverty alleviation , ” World Bank Group President David Malpass explained in a statement Tuesday .
To combat this anticipated poverty epidemic , the World Bank has sent emergency relief operations into 100 developing countries , which happen to be home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world population .
Thirty-nine of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa while more than one-third are “ in fragile and conflict-affected situations , such as Afghanistan , Chad , Haiti , and Niger.
” The aid will take the form of strengthening health care systems in overwhelmed and impoverished nations and helping both families and businesses struggle with the financial toll of the pandemic .
Overall , the Bank Group pledged to make $ 160 billion available in the form of both grants and financial support over a 15-month period .
Last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 49 million people would be pushed into extreme poverty , with the international financial institution defining “ extreme poverty ” as “ living on less than $ 1.90 per day.
” It identified two variables that are most likely to determine which areas are pushed into extreme poverty , including “ the impact of the virus on economic activity ” and “ the number of people living close to the international poverty line.
” The World Bank also speculated last month that sub-Saharan Africa would be the hardest hit economically by the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be one of the regions less hard hit by the virus itself .
“ At the country-level , the three countries with the largest change in the number of poor are estimated to be India ( 12 million ) , Nigeria ( 5 million ) and the Democratic Republic of Congo ( 2 million ) , ” the World Bank wrote .
“ Countries such as Indonesia , South Africa , and China are also forecasted to have more than one million people pushed into extreme poverty as a consequence of COVID-19.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shared by the think tank Brookings Institution , which wrote earlier this month that “ our post-COVID-19 estimate is that extreme poverty in the world will rise this year by about 50 million people compared to the original 2020 forecast , and by 40 million people compared to our 2019 estimate.
” Prior to the pandemic , millions of people had been able to gradually lift themselves out of extreme poverty .
In India , for example , the United Nations estimated last year that 271 million people had lifted themselves out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in danger of being wiped out due to the coronavirus pandemic .
“ There will be groups of people who climbed up the ladder and will now fall back , ” Abhijit Banerjee , a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a winner of the 2019 Nobel Prize for economics , told The New York Times last month .
“ There were so many fragile existences , families barely stitching together an existence .
They will fall into poverty , and they may not come out of it .
”

The World Bank predicts that the pandemic will cause the first global increase in poverty since 1998.
A new report finds that as many as 60 million people could be reduced to living on less than $2 a day as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
“The pandemic and shutdown of advanced economies could push as many as 60 million people into extreme poverty — erasing much of the recent progress made in poverty alleviation,” World Bank Group President David Malpass explained in a statement Tuesday.
To combat this anticipated poverty epidemic, the World Bank has sent emergency relief operations into 100 developing countries, which happen to be home to more than 70 percent of the world population. Thirty-nine of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa while more than one-third are “in fragile and conflict-affected situations, such as Afghanistan, Chad, Haiti, and Niger.”
The aid will take the form of strengthening health care systems in overwhelmed and impoverished nations and helping both families and businesses struggle with the financial toll of the pandemic. Overall, the Bank Group pledged to make $160 billion available in the form of both grants and financial support over a 15-month period.
Last month, the World Bank speculated that roughly 49 million people would be pushed into extreme poverty, with the international financial institution defining “extreme poverty” as “living on less than $1.90 per day.” It identified two variables that are most likely to determine which areas are pushed into extreme poverty, including “the impact of the virus on economic activity” and “the number of people living close to the international poverty line.”
The World Bank also speculated last month that sub-Saharan Africa would be the hardest hit economically by the pandemic, even though it was expected to be one of the regions less hard hit by the virus itself.
“At the country-level, the three countries with the largest change in the number of poor are estimated to be India (12 million), Nigeria (5 million) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (2 million),” the World Bank wrote. “Countries such as Indonesia, South Africa, and China are also forecasted to have more than one million people pushed into extreme poverty as a consequence of COVID-19.”
The World Bank’s projections were shared by the think tank Brookings Institution, which wrote earlier this month that “our post-COVID-19 estimate is that extreme poverty in the world will rise this year by about 50 million people compared to the original 2020 forecast, and by 40 million people compared to our 2019 estimate.”
Prior to the pandemic, millions of people had been able to gradually lift themselves out of extreme poverty. In India, for example, the United Nations estimated last year that 271 million people had lifted themselves out of poverty since 2019. Those gains are in danger of being wiped out due to the coronavirus pandemic.
“There will be groups of people who climbed up the ladder and will now fall back,” Abhijit Banerjee, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a winner of the 2019 Nobel Prize for economics, told The New York Times last month. “There were so many fragile existences, families barely stitching together an existence. They will fall into poverty, and they may not come out of it.”
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--2020-05-21--Trump’s COVID-19 Disinformation Campaign Is a Preview of the 2020 Elections

In 2016 , along with domestic pro-Trump propaganda campaigns , Russian operatives spread conspiracy theories and disinformation online in an attempt to sow political chaos and sway the presidential election .
Now , the misinformation and conspiracy theories swirling around the COVID-19 pandemic provide a grim reminder of how disinformation continues to shape public discourse , with the 2020 elections only months away .
Media watchdogs say homegrown disinformation is now a much bigger problem than foreign interference , thanks to President Trump , his reelection campaign and right-wing extremists fueling viral media content shared widely by the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the World Health Organization ( WHO ) in the midst of a global pandemic , Trump fired off a letter to the WHO this week accusing the U.N. agency of bungling its initial response to the outbreak due to a cozy relationship with China .
The letter makes a number of allegations , and the first contains an obvious falsehood .
The White House says the WHO “ consistently ignored ” credible reports of a virus spreading in Wuhan in December 2019 that conflicted with official accounts from the Chinese government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highly respected medical journal .
Richard Horton , The Lancet ’ s editor , quickly pointed out that the journal did not publish any such reports in December .
The first report detailing a viral outbreak in Wuhan was published a month later on January 24 by Chinese scientists .
By then , the WHO had dispatched teams to China and convened an emergency meeting to determine whether the outbreak should be declared an international emergency .
While there are legitimate concerns about the Chinese government ’ s actions in the early days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts have defended the WHO ’ s initial response , which Trump himself praised at the time .
Shortly after the release of Trump ’ s letter this week , fact-checkers poked holes in Trump ’ s China-related criticisms as well as additional “ concerns ” he listed , but the damage was already done .
Media outlets scrambled to cover Trump ’ s latest spat with the agency coordinating a global pandemic response , allowing Trump to inject some of his fans ’ favorite erroneous coronavirus narratives deeper into the public discourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and the rising death toll can be blamed on China and “ global elites , ” who initially attempted to conceal the outbreak and then engaged in a cover-up .
According to these narratives , the Democrats are somehow in cahoots with China and the “ globalists ” ( a term often used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle ) .
It ’ s no coincidence that Trump ’ s reelection campaign is now promoting a new nickname for the president ’ s likely Democratic opponent : “ Beijing Biden.
” Critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a desperate attempt to divert attention from his early statements dismissing the dangers of COVID-19 and his administration ’ s slow response to a public health crisis that has claimed more than 90,000 lives in the U.S .
However , it ’ s also a good example of how Trump uses the media to advance narratives that benefit him politically and fuel conspiracy theories beloved by his base .
Repeatedly pointing to China as the source of the virus reinforces Trump ’ s dubious claim that his decision to restrict travel from China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself as “ tough ” on China , and his campaign is spending $ 10 million on ads blaming China for the virus and painting former Vice President Joe Biden as “ China ’ s puppet.
” American First , a pro-Trump super-PAC , is also spending $ 10 million on ads in three swing states accusing Biden of being soft on China .
Trump is known for retweeting conspiracy theorists and spouting lies and falsehoods ; he ’ s interested in narratives that support his reelection , not hard facts .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who stretch these narratives along the contours of conspiracy theories amplified by right-wing talk show hosts and social media propaganda machines .
For example , Jack Hibbs , a Southern California megachurch pastor and Trump supporter , told his followers during a broadcast in late March that COVID-19 is a biological weapon launched by the Chinese government .
The video appeared on Christian streaming networks and attracted 100,000 views overnight , according to Right Wing Watch , a project of People For the American Way that monitors the activities of right-wing extremists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ has prayed over Trump during recent in-person services , repeated this claim around the same time .
Trump supporters had already circulated memes claiming COVID-19 is a hoax designed to swing the election for the Democrats , a conspiracy theory that Eric Trump , the president ’ s son , alluded to on Fox News over the weekend .
Eric Trump ’ s interview is a prime example of how disinformation circulating among fringe pastors and conspiracy hucksters can be injected into the corporate media by sources deemed “ official ” due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , the source of that disinformation is often the president himself , according to Melissa Ryan , author of a new report detailing right-wing disinformation at Right Wing Watch .
Anything Trump says is considered news , and Trump can fuel disinformation with a simple comment or retweet .
His legions of supporters work together on social media platforms to boost disinformation and conspiratorial memes .
Producers know that what ’ s popular online will attract viewers on TV , and Ryan said cable news outlets such as Fox News produce “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ often relaying disinformation without context .
“ President Trump is the master of manipulating social media and getting coverage , ” Ryan said in an interview .
“ Anything he says is amplified by people who agree and amplified by people who are mad at him , and it will be amplified by media outlets because he is the president.
” As president , Trump has immense power to manipulate the media and public discourse in his favor while raising money .
Studies show that disinformation and conspiracy theories create distrust in institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to shrug off legitimate criticism of his performance as “ fake news ” and dismiss medical research that questions his claims as a “ Trump enemy statement.
” Trump and his backers then use these counter-narratives to rile up his base , attracting clicks to their websites and donations for Trump ’ s campaign .
While Trump was attacking the WHO for allegedly acquiescing to corrupt Chinese officials , his campaign sent out fundraising emails for ads praising Trump ’ s COVID-19 response and accusing Biden of “ coddling ” China .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ corrupt Democratic Partners ” don ’ t want anyone to see the Biden attack ad , one email claims , because they don ’ t care that Biden is “ in bed with China.
” Another email invites supporters to participate in a “ secret plan to CRUSH Beijing Biden.
” The impact of Trump ’ s media manipulation and the right-wing disinformation is alarming .
A Harvard survey conducted in mid-March found that 29 percent of respondents believed the threat of COVID-19 was exaggerated to damage Trump , and an even greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus was purposefully created and spread .
The belief that the threat was exaggerated was strongly correlated with political support for Trump and his early statements downplaying the dangers of the virus .
The belief that the virus was a man-made bioweapon was “ related to conspiracy thinking ” and was slightly more concentrated among those who identify as Republicans and conservatives than those who identify as Democrats and liberals .
The debate has since shifted from the question of who is responsible for the outbreak ( and managing the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to address COVID-19 in the U.S .
Conflicts over when and how to reopen society after weeks of stay-at-home orders are now dividing the nation along sharply partisan lines .
Polls show that large majorities of Republicans support reopening schools , parks and businesses , while large majorities of Democrats say people must stay home to slow the spread of COVID-19 .
An outbreak of disease is by definition a public health crisis because it affects everyone , so everyone needs reliable information in order to make decisions about how to stay safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump era , what could have been a public health conversation rooted in medical science has become a divisive debate clouded in all the emotion and spin of partisan politics .
Cue the “ anti-lockdown ” protesters , who are now getting sick and spreading the virus even further .
Come November , voters need reliable information to make decisions at the polls , but if the COVID-19 pandemic is any indicator , disinformation and conspiracy theories could cast doubt on the legitimacy of the next election .
Luckily , researchers and journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2016 Russian election interference debacle , which consumed Congress and much of the media for months .
While conspiracies and disinformation appear on both the right and the left — liberal journalists have been roundly criticized for shoddy reporting and amplifying conspiracy theorists while investigating the Trump campaign ’ s ties to Russia in 2016 – research suggests that a majority of debunked news on social media skews toward the far right .
Ryan writes that , as the election approaches , journalists and consumers should be on the lookout for news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tensions , parrot known conspiracy theories , and make sensational claims about voter fraud .
Those promoting such claims will demand favorable media coverage and accuse reporters of bias when they are debunked or ignored .
These are all hallmarks of a pro-Trump media strategy , and Trump is already fanning the flames by claiming that voting by mail would lead to rampant voter fraud .
( There is little evidence of this . )
If the president loses , Ryan expects Trump and his MAGA supporters to cling to conspiracy theories that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that point , it would be all they have left .

In 2016, along with domestic pro-Trump propaganda campaigns, Russian operatives spread conspiracy theories and disinformation online in an attempt to sow political chaos and sway the presidential election. Now, the misinformation and conspiracy theories swirling around the COVID-19 pandemic provide a grim reminder of how disinformation continues to shape public discourse, with the 2020 elections only months away. Media watchdogs say homegrown disinformation is now a much bigger problem than foreign interference, thanks to President Trump, his reelection campaign and right-wing extremists fueling viral media content shared widely by the president’s supporters.
After suspending U.S. contributions to the World Health Organization (WHO) in the midst of a global pandemic, Trump fired off a letter to the WHO this week accusing the U.N. agency of bungling its initial response to the outbreak due to a cozy relationship with China. The letter makes a number of allegations, and the first contains an obvious falsehood. The White House says the WHO “consistently ignored” credible reports of a virus spreading in Wuhan in December 2019 that conflicted with official accounts from the Chinese government, including reports by The Lancet, a highly respected medical journal. Richard Horton, The Lancet’s editor, quickly pointed out that the journal did not publish any such reports in December. The first report detailing a viral outbreak in Wuhan was published a month later on January 24 by Chinese scientists. By then, the WHO had dispatched teams to China and convened an emergency meeting to determine whether the outbreak should be declared an international emergency.
While there are legitimate concerns about the Chinese government’s actions in the early days of the outbreak, Hanson and other experts have defended the WHO’s initial response, which Trump himself praised at the time.
Shortly after the release of Trump’s letter this week, fact-checkers poked holes in Trump’s China-related criticisms as well as additional “concerns” he listed, but the damage was already done. Media outlets scrambled to cover Trump’s latest spat with the agency coordinating a global pandemic response, allowing Trump to inject some of his fans’ favorite erroneous coronavirus narratives deeper into the public discourse: COVID-19 is a “Chinese virus,” and the rising death toll can be blamed on China and “global elites,” who initially attempted to conceal the outbreak and then engaged in a cover-up. According to these narratives, the Democrats are somehow in cahoots with China and the “globalists” (a term often used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle). It’s no coincidence that Trump’s reelection campaign is now promoting a new nickname for the president’s likely Democratic opponent: “Beijing Biden.”
Critics panned Trump’s WHO drama as a desperate attempt to divert attention from his early statements dismissing the dangers of COVID-19 and his administration’s slow response to a public health crisis that has claimed more than 90,000 lives in the U.S. However, it’s also a good example of how Trump uses the media to advance narratives that benefit him politically and fuel conspiracy theories beloved by his base. Repeatedly pointing to China as the source of the virus reinforces Trump’s dubious claim that his decision to restrict travel from China saved “countless lives.” Trump pitches himself as “tough” on China, and his campaign is spending $10 million on ads blaming China for the virus and painting former Vice President Joe Biden as “China’s puppet.” American First, a pro-Trump super-PAC, is also spending $10 million on ads in three swing states accusing Biden of being soft on China.
Trump is known for retweeting conspiracy theorists and spouting lies and falsehoods; he’s interested in narratives that support his reelection, not hard facts. The same goes for his extremist supporters, who stretch these narratives along the contours of conspiracy theories amplified by right-wing talk show hosts and social media propaganda machines. For example, Jack Hibbs, a Southern California megachurch pastor and Trump supporter, told his followers during a broadcast in late March that COVID-19 is a biological weapon launched by the Chinese government. The video appeared on Christian streaming networks and attracted 100,000 views overnight, according to Right Wing Watch, a project of People For the American Way that monitors the activities of right-wing extremists. Rodney Howard-Browne, another megachurch pastor who has prayed over Trump during recent in-person services, repeated this claim around the same time. Trump supporters had already circulated memes claiming COVID-19 is a hoax designed to swing the election for the Democrats, a conspiracy theory that Eric Trump, the president’s son, alluded to on Fox News over the weekend.
Media watchdogs say homegrown disinformation is now a much bigger problem than foreign interference, thanks to President Trump.
Eric Trump’s interview is a prime example of how disinformation circulating among fringe pastors and conspiracy hucksters can be injected into the corporate media by sources deemed “official” due to their proximity to the president. In fact, the source of that disinformation is often the president himself, according to Melissa Ryan, author of a new report detailing right-wing disinformation at Right Wing Watch. Anything Trump says is considered news, and Trump can fuel disinformation with a simple comment or retweet. His legions of supporters work together on social media platforms to boost disinformation and conspiratorial memes. Producers know that what’s popular online will attract viewers on TV, and Ryan said cable news outlets such as Fox News produce “unofficial segments” on viral memes, often relaying disinformation without context.
“President Trump is the master of manipulating social media and getting coverage,” Ryan said in an interview. “Anything he says is amplified by people who agree and amplified by people who are mad at him, and it will be amplified by media outlets because he is the president.”
As president, Trump has immense power to manipulate the media and public discourse in his favor while raising money. Studies show that disinformation and conspiracy theories create distrust in institutions and expert sources. Such distrust allows Trump to shrug off legitimate criticism of his performance as “fake news” and dismiss medical research that questions his claims as a “Trump enemy statement.” Trump and his backers then use these counter-narratives to rile up his base, attracting clicks to their websites and donations for Trump’s campaign. While Trump was attacking the WHO for allegedly acquiescing to corrupt Chinese officials, his campaign sent out fundraising emails for ads praising Trump’s COVID-19 response and accusing Biden of “coddling” China. The “Fake News media and their corrupt Democratic Partners” don’t want anyone to see the Biden attack ad, one email claims, because they don’t care that Biden is “in bed with China.” Another email invites supporters to participate in a “secret plan to CRUSH Beijing Biden.”
While Trump was attacking the WHO for allegedly acquiescing to corrupt Chinese officials, his campaign sent out fundraising emails for ads praising Trump’s COVID-19 response and accusing Biden of “coddling” China.
The impact of Trump’s media manipulation and the right-wing disinformation is alarming. A Harvard survey conducted in mid-March found that 29 percent of respondents believed the threat of COVID-19 was exaggerated to damage Trump, and an even greater share — 31 percent — said the virus was purposefully created and spread. The belief that the threat was exaggerated was strongly correlated with political support for Trump and his early statements downplaying the dangers of the virus. The belief that the virus was a man-made bioweapon was “related to conspiracy thinking” and was slightly more concentrated among those who identify as Republicans and conservatives than those who identify as Democrats and liberals.
The debate has since shifted from the question of who is responsible for the outbreak (and managing the government’s response) to what should be done to address COVID-19 in the U.S. Conflicts over when and how to reopen society after weeks of stay-at-home orders are now dividing the nation along sharply partisan lines. Polls show that large majorities of Republicans support reopening schools, parks and businesses, while large majorities of Democrats say people must stay home to slow the spread of COVID-19. An outbreak of disease is by definition a public health crisis because it affects everyone, so everyone needs reliable information in order to make decisions about how to stay safe and flatten the curve. In the Trump era, what could have been a public health conversation rooted in medical science has become a divisive debate clouded in all the emotion and spin of partisan politics. Cue the “anti-lockdown” protesters, who are now getting sick and spreading the virus even further.
Come November, voters need reliable information to make decisions at the polls, but if the COVID-19 pandemic is any indicator, disinformation and conspiracy theories could cast doubt on the legitimacy of the next election. Luckily, researchers and journalists have learned a lot of disinformation since the 2016 Russian election interference debacle, which consumed Congress and much of the media for months. While conspiracies and disinformation appear on both the right and the left — liberal journalists have been roundly criticized for shoddy reporting and amplifying conspiracy theorists while investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia in 2016 – research suggests that a majority of debunked news on social media skews toward the far right.
Ryan writes that, as the election approaches, journalists and consumers should be on the lookout for news and social media posts that stoke racial tensions, parrot known conspiracy theories, and make sensational claims about voter fraud. Those promoting such claims will demand favorable media coverage and accuse reporters of bias when they are debunked or ignored. These are all hallmarks of a pro-Trump media strategy, and Trump is already fanning the flames by claiming that voting by mail would lead to rampant voter fraud. (There is little evidence of this.)
If the president loses, Ryan expects Trump and his MAGA supporters to cling to conspiracy theories that claim to discredit the results. At that point, it would be all they have left.
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.