foreignpolicy--2020-11-24--Indian and Californian Politics Are Both Playing With Fire

Indian and Californian Politics Are Both Playing With Fire In November 2019 , thousands of campaign fliers appeared overnight in New Delhi , announcing the success of the city ’ s government in bringing about a 25 percent reduction in air pollution .
Anticipating residents ’ incredulity—concentrations of fine particles known as PM 2.5 had the day before risen to more than 100 times World Health Organization guidelines—the posters offered an explanation for the apparent mismatch : Though pollution had fallen , smoke from burning crops in neighboring states had only just arrived .
A world away in San Francisco @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fire season , rather than its start .
Just like their counterparts in Delhi , San Franciscans spend large chunks of the year in a haze of smoke that pours in from nearby fires .
The two cities couldn ’ t be more different , but the political determinants of their escalating air pollution problems are similar .
National leaders in both India and the United States see opportunity in the ashes of annual fires , a chance to use crisis to paint their political rivals as incompetent .
For them , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes a perverse kind of sense .
Crop smoke is familiar for the New Delhi area ’ s 26 million inhabitants .
Every year , farmers in the neighboring states of Punjab , Haryana , and Uttar Pradesh set fire to millions of tons of crop stubble , the inedible portion of the plant that remains when wheat or rice is harvested .
Farmers resort to burning as they race to comply with mandated planting deadlines from the government , imposed a decade ago to slow the region ’ s rapidly diminishing groundwater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the only way cash-strapped farmers can clear and replant their fields in time to avoid harsh financial penalties .
Though fires occur outside New Delhi , cold , dry Himalayan air transports the smoke from its origin in the countryside to the city itself , where it settles in mostly undisturbed from November to February .
This outside source of pollution coincides with an uptick in sources within city limits .
Residents light dirty fuels for warmth as temperatures drop .
Celebrators light smoke-producing firecrackers for the festival of Diwali .
Public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cocktail to smoking 50 cigarettes a day .
As citizens choke , politicians trade blame .
Delhi ’ s chief minister , Arvind Kejriwal , has pointed the finger at the city ’ s neighbors .
In October 2019 , the chief minister faulted stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana for turning Delhi into a “ gas chamber.
” The same day , he requested Delhi ’ s schoolchildren to write letters to the two states ’ chief ministers , imploring them to consider the smoke ’ s grievous effects on children ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Punjab ’ s chief minister , Amarinder Singh , attributed Delhi ’ s pollution problem to the Kejriwal government ’ s incompetence .
Calling the Delhi premier “ dumb , ” a “ liar , ” and a master of “ political gimmickry , ” he attributed the crisis to “ rampant construction activity , widespread industrialization , and total mismanagement of the city traffic.
” The truth is somewhere in between .
The complexities of the climate system make it difficult to attribute precise shares of pollution to different activities .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrial activity , and waste incineration within city limits produce a huge amount of pollution .
But anyone who has been in Punjab , Haryana , or Uttar Pradesh during winter has witnessed the shroud of burnt fog that covers the region .
Satellite images show visible clouds of smoke rising from the states traveling downwind to the capital .
On the stubble-burning component of the pollution crisis , reaching a solution requires the central government to coordinate action between uncooperative regional actors .
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so .
The central government ’ s principal action on the issue , a 2018 subsidy for machines that till crop waste back into the soil , seems to have been implemented as a handout to the agricultural machinery lobby rather than as a good faith effort to curb pollution .
In two years , more than 48,000 machines had been distributed to Punjabi farmers , and yet in 2020 the number of stubble fires in the state was higher than ever .
Even with large subsidies , the cost of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entire year—is prohibitively high for Punjab ’ s many poor farmers .
Unable to afford the machines , they light fires just as they always have .
For years , state government officials have pleaded with the federal government for funds to buy stubble back from farmers , hoping to turn a waste product into useful biofuel .
In October 2019 , however , a senior Ministry of Agriculture official admitted that the central government had not even considered funding such a program .
The 30 billion rupees ( around $ 400 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program is dwarfed by the cost of existing price support programs and fuel and fertilizer subsidies .
It took Supreme Court intervention to make up for the lack of action by parliament or the bureaucracy .
In November 2019—after 90 percent of crops had been harvested and the lion ’ s share of damage to air quality had already been done—it ordered the relevant states to use their own funds to compensate farmers for crop waste .
It ’ s unclear if the order will be reissued to prevent the blaze this fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governed under a power-sharing arrangement between the national government and a locally elected Legislative Assembly .
When the same party controls both , this arrangement works relatively well .
But , ever since Kejriwal led his upstart anti-corruption Aam Aadmi Party ( AAP ) to power in the 2013 Assembly elections , the two have been at odds .
Since the AAP took office in 2013 , the BJP has done everything it can to hamstring the party ’ s attempts to implement its agenda for the aam aadmi , or “ common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the city ’ s BJP-appointed lieutenant governor grew so fierce that the Supreme Court intervened , paring back much of the authority claimed by the nationally governing party .
Modi would like to have control over his capital for the obvious reasons—as the seat of the national government , Delhi plays an important role in the BJP ’ s plan to cast India as an ascendant superpower .
But the AAP bulwark to Modi ’ s control of the city represents a more fundamental challenge than the denial of a stage for nationalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the BJP , the AAP represents a nascent threat to the ruling party ’ s power .
The formerly hegemonic Indian National Congress party is now moribund .
The vacuum it has left behind waits to be filled .
AAP ’ s lack of communal , caste , or subnational affiliation , paired with a clean governance ethos , makes it a viable successor to a now feeble opposition .
Modi ’ s stunning parliamentary successes belie a more tenuous grip on power in the states .
Voters in states like Rajasthan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state assemblies even as they send BJP members to parliament en masse .
Kejriwal ’ s brand of vernacular , anti-corruption populism sits in a lineage of credible threats to seemingly unassailable national leaders .
If India begins to tire of Modi ’ s development agenda—a GDP-focused alliance between government and business that has largely passed over the least well-off—the Aam Aadmi alternative may prove compelling .
It should come as no surprise , then , that the national government has been of such little help as Delhi attempts to control its pollution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smog can be pegged on Delhi ’ s AAP rulers , then the BJP can undermine that party ’ s claims to a superior governing strategy .
Delhiites increasingly say that air pollution is the most significant challenge the city faces .
If that sentiment can be channeled into votes against the ruling party , the BJP can destroy a future national rival before it expands from its power base in the capital .
On America ’ s West Coast , similar fiery political games play out .
For more than a month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been ablaze , wreaking the same havoc on air quality in San Francisco as stubble fires in Delhi .
In September , cities on the West Coast had the poorest urban air quality on earth .
The Pacific states were cast in apocalyptic hues as sunlight struggled to penetrate dense clouds of smoke .
In the United States , it ’ s not desperate farmers but scorching temperatures and poor land management that bring about the yearly conflagration .
Brush that has accumulated for decades catches flame when a spark or a bolt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hot , dry winds fan the flames and increase their devastation .
The first causes differ from India , but the outcomes are the same : exacerbated fires and smothered cities .
America ’ s lack of a strong response to the climate crisis underlies the rise in temperatures that makes much of the West Coast a tinderbox .
Federal funding of the Forest Service has not kept pace with the demands that climate-induced wildfires place on the agency .
As the number and intensity of fires increase and budgets remain flat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fighting fires that already exist .
The resulting positive feedback loop consumes more territory and pumps more smoke into the skies every year .
As in India , the willingness of the Trump administration to sit back as fires run rampant arises from a set of perverse incentives laid bare in today ’ s acrimonious partisan environment .
Republican officials in Washington stand to gain very little by pouring money into policies that prevent wildfires in deep-blue California , Oregon , and Washington .
At the same time , American politics have become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be a kind of rational political calculation .
As with the coronavirus pandemic or protests against systemic racism in large cities , issues brought about or exacerbated by federal failures can be cast as the exclusive product of poor Democratic governance .
Unlike Delhi , where the aim behind such a strategy is to wrest control of the city ’ s government from an electoral rival , national Republicans ’ intended audience is mostly outside of the affected areas themselves .
When the number of undecided voters is exceedingly small , stoking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving already committed partisans to the polls .
As crisis follows crisis , simply ignoring problems can be the most effective way to translate them into favorable electoral outcomes .
In both cases leaders are willing to see parts of their countries go up in smoke to achieve their electoral goals .
That willingness is the result of incentives produced by federal systems operating in fractured societies .
When the norms holding such unstable polities together begin to disintegrate—when an investment in long-term national viability gives way to the pursuit of short-term gains—such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that encourage a president to weigh the interests of states the same , regardless of which way they vote , do not automatically come with a federal system .
Until those norms are built or restored—or until politicians embrace altruism over cold-blooded political calculus—citizens of both India and the United States can not hope to breathe easy .

In November 2019, thousands of campaign fliers appeared overnight in New Delhi, announcing the success of the city’s government in bringing about a 25 percent reduction in air pollution. Anticipating residents’ incredulity—concentrations of fine particles known as PM 2.5 had the day before risen to more than 100 times World Health Organization guidelines—the posters offered an explanation for the apparent mismatch: Though pollution had fallen, smoke from burning crops in neighboring states had only just arrived.
In November 2019, thousands of campaign fliers appeared overnight in New Delhi, announcing the success of the city’s government in bringing about a 25 percent reduction in air pollution. Anticipating residents’ incredulity—concentrations of fine particles known as PM 2.5 had the day before risen to more than 100 times World Health Organization guidelines—the posters offered an explanation for the apparent mismatch: Though pollution had fallen, smoke from burning crops in neighboring states had only just arrived.
A world away in San Francisco, November usually marks the end of fire season, rather than its start. Just like their counterparts in Delhi, San Franciscans spend large chunks of the year in a haze of smoke that pours in from nearby fires.
The two cities couldn’t be more different, but the political determinants of their escalating air pollution problems are similar. National leaders in both India and the United States see opportunity in the ashes of annual fires, a chance to use crisis to paint their political rivals as incompetent. For them, a practiced indifference to fires and air pollution makes a perverse kind of sense.
Crop smoke is familiar for the New Delhi area’s 26 million inhabitants. Every year, farmers in the neighboring states of Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh set fire to millions of tons of crop stubble, the inedible portion of the plant that remains when wheat or rice is harvested. Farmers resort to burning as they race to comply with mandated planting deadlines from the government, imposed a decade ago to slow the region’s rapidly diminishing groundwater supplies. Absent outside assistance, burning is the only way cash-strapped farmers can clear and replant their fields in time to avoid harsh financial penalties.
Though fires occur outside New Delhi, cold, dry Himalayan air transports the smoke from its origin in the countryside to the city itself, where it settles in mostly undisturbed from November to February. This outside source of pollution coincides with an uptick in sources within city limits. Residents light dirty fuels for warmth as temperatures drop. Celebrators light smoke-producing firecrackers for the festival of Diwali. Public health officials have likened the resulting pollution cocktail to smoking 50 cigarettes a day.
As citizens choke, politicians trade blame. Delhi’s chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, has pointed the finger at the city’s neighbors. In October 2019, the chief minister faulted stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana for turning Delhi into a “gas chamber.” The same day, he requested Delhi’s schoolchildren to write letters to the two states’ chief ministers, imploring them to consider the smoke’s grievous effects on children’s health.
Returning the volley, Punjab’s chief minister, Amarinder Singh, attributed Delhi’s pollution problem to the Kejriwal government’s incompetence. Calling the Delhi premier “dumb,” a “liar,” and a master of “political gimmickry,” he attributed the crisis to “rampant construction activity, widespread industrialization, and total mismanagement of the city traffic.”
The truth is somewhere in between. The complexities of the climate system make it difficult to attribute precise shares of pollution to different activities. It is clear that cars, construction, industrial activity, and waste incineration within city limits produce a huge amount of pollution. But anyone who has been in Punjab, Haryana, or Uttar Pradesh during winter has witnessed the shroud of burnt fog that covers the region. Satellite images show visible clouds of smoke rising from the states traveling downwind to the capital.
On the stubble-burning component of the pollution crisis, reaching a solution requires the central government to coordinate action between uncooperative regional actors. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have thus far declined to do so.
The central government’s principal action on the issue, a 2018 subsidy for machines that till crop waste back into the soil, seems to have been implemented as a handout to the agricultural machinery lobby rather than as a good faith effort to curb pollution. In two years, more than 48,000 machines had been distributed to Punjabi farmers, and yet in 2020 the number of stubble fires in the state was higher than ever. Even with large subsidies, the cost of machinery—equipment that lies idle for nearly the entire year—is prohibitively high for Punjab’s many poor farmers. Unable to afford the machines, they light fires just as they always have.
For years, state government officials have pleaded with the federal government for funds to buy stubble back from farmers, hoping to turn a waste product into useful biofuel. In October 2019, however, a senior Ministry of Agriculture official admitted that the central government had not even considered funding such a program. The 30 billion rupees (around $400 million) required to pay for such a program is dwarfed by the cost of existing price support programs and fuel and fertilizer subsidies.
It took Supreme Court intervention to make up for the lack of action by parliament or the bureaucracy. In November 2019—after 90 percent of crops had been harvested and the lion’s share of damage to air quality had already been done—it ordered the relevant states to use their own funds to compensate farmers for crop waste. It’s unclear if the order will be reissued to prevent the blaze this fall.
India’s capital city is governed under a power-sharing arrangement between the national government and a locally elected Legislative Assembly. When the same party controls both, this arrangement works relatively well. But, ever since Kejriwal led his upstart anti-corruption Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to power in the 2013 Assembly elections, the two have been at odds. Since the AAP took office in 2013, the BJP has done everything it can to hamstring the party’s attempts to implement its agenda for the aam aadmi, or “common man.” In 2019, sabotage by the city’s BJP-appointed lieutenant governor grew so fierce that the Supreme Court intervened, paring back much of the authority claimed by the nationally governing party.
Modi would like to have control over his capital for the obvious reasons—as the seat of the national government, Delhi plays an important role in the BJP’s plan to cast India as an ascendant superpower. But the AAP bulwark to Modi’s control of the city represents a more fundamental challenge than the denial of a stage for nationalist pageantry. In an India currently dominated by the BJP, the AAP represents a nascent threat to the ruling party’s power. The formerly hegemonic Indian National Congress party is now moribund. The vacuum it has left behind waits to be filled. AAP’s lack of communal, caste, or subnational affiliation, paired with a clean governance ethos, makes it a viable successor to a now feeble opposition.
Modi’s stunning parliamentary successes belie a more tenuous grip on power in the states. Voters in states like Rajasthan have denied the BJP control of their state assemblies even as they send BJP members to parliament en masse. Kejriwal’s brand of vernacular, anti-corruption populism sits in a lineage of credible threats to seemingly unassailable national leaders. If India begins to tire of Modi’s development agenda—a GDP-focused alliance between government and business that has largely passed over the least well-off—the Aam Aadmi alternative may prove compelling.
It should come as no surprise, then, that the national government has been of such little help as Delhi attempts to control its pollution problem. If blame for the toxic smog can be pegged on Delhi’s AAP rulers, then the BJP can undermine that party’s claims to a superior governing strategy. Delhiites increasingly say that air pollution is the most significant challenge the city faces. If that sentiment can be channeled into votes against the ruling party, the BJP can destroy a future national rival before it expands from its power base in the capital.
On America’s West Coast, similar fiery political games play out. For more than a month, huge swaths of the region have been ablaze, wreaking the same havoc on air quality in San Francisco as stubble fires in Delhi. In September, cities on the West Coast had the poorest urban air quality on earth. The Pacific states were cast in apocalyptic hues as sunlight struggled to penetrate dense clouds of smoke.
In the United States, it’s not desperate farmers but scorching temperatures and poor land management that bring about the yearly conflagration. Brush that has accumulated for decades catches flame when a spark or a bolt of lightning strikes the wrong place. Hot, dry winds fan the flames and increase their devastation. The first causes differ from India, but the outcomes are the same: exacerbated fires and smothered cities.
America’s lack of a strong response to the climate crisis underlies the rise in temperatures that makes much of the West Coast a tinderbox. Federal funding of the Forest Service has not kept pace with the demands that climate-induced wildfires place on the agency. As the number and intensity of fires increase and budgets remain flat, funds are redirected from prevention efforts to fighting fires that already exist. The resulting positive feedback loop consumes more territory and pumps more smoke into the skies every year.
As in India, the willingness of the Trump administration to sit back as fires run rampant arises from a set of perverse incentives laid bare in today’s acrimonious partisan environment.
Republican officials in Washington stand to gain very little by pouring money into policies that prevent wildfires in deep-blue California, Oregon, and Washington. At the same time, American politics have become so polarized that letting crises go unchecked can be a kind of rational political calculation. As with the coronavirus pandemic or protests against systemic racism in large cities, issues brought about or exacerbated by federal failures can be cast as the exclusive product of poor Democratic governance.
Unlike Delhi, where the aim behind such a strategy is to wrest control of the city’s government from an electoral rival, national Republicans’ intended audience is mostly outside of the affected areas themselves. When the number of undecided voters is exceedingly small, stoking fears of bad governance is aimed at driving already committed partisans to the polls. As crisis follows crisis, simply ignoring problems can be the most effective way to translate them into favorable electoral outcomes.
In both cases leaders are willing to see parts of their countries go up in smoke to achieve their electoral goals. That willingness is the result of incentives produced by federal systems operating in fractured societies. When the norms holding such unstable polities together begin to disintegrate—when an investment in long-term national viability gives way to the pursuit of short-term gains—such cruelties are likely to result. Norms that encourage a president to weigh the interests of states the same, regardless of which way they vote, do not automatically come with a federal system. Until those norms are built or restored—or until politicians embrace altruism over cold-blooded political calculus—citizens of both India and the United States cannot hope to breathe easy.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-24--The Transition Has Started. Release the Op-Eds!

The Transition Has Started .
Release the Op-Eds !
The ideas industry has been busy in the last few weeks .
Since the U.S. presidential election was called for Joe Biden on Nov. 7 , Washington has been awash in advice for him and his incoming administration .
A rough count reveals at least 100 commentaries , op-eds , blog posts , special reports , and policy memos outlining what Team Biden should be doing on various issues of import , though my count was restricted to foreign-policy issues with a heavy bias toward the Middle East .
Add in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , COVID-19 , repairing relations with NATO , and other topics , and one can only marvel at the pace—if not always quality—of production .
This outpouring happens every presidential election cycle .
It seems that in the evolutionary development of the species called “ wonks , ” offering unsolicited advice has become part of their DNA , which is why they never stop to ask , “ Why do we do this ?
” I don ’ t mean to be critical or offend , but it is worth it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some perspective on what it is think tank land—of which I have been a proud citizen for almost two decades—is doing and how it goes about it .
To be sure , some of the articles that have been published making recommendations for the Biden administration are thoughtful and well crafted ( even if I might disagree with parts or all of them ) , but I am afraid there is a far higher proportion of this work that reflects the ethos of getting it written , posted , and tweeted that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , there is an added urgency for some authors given that not a few are part of the cavalcade of Biden administration job seekers .
These pieces tend to be ideological and tendentious , all the while repeating what has by now become not only conventional wisdom , but also the president-elect ’ s policy : rejoin the World Health Organization , get back into the Paris climate accord , and negotiate anew with the Iranians .
The biggest problem , though , is the way in which a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Like everything in Washington these days , foreign policy comes in two varieties : red and blue .
And given the professional pressure to sign up with either the Republicans or the Democrats—especially during an election year—the spate of articles in the aftermath of a presidential election tends to reflect this distressing state of partisan affairs .
This makes it hard to address certain issues .
Take , for example , the Iran nuclear deal and the Trump administration ’ s so-called maximum pressure campaign .
These are the holy of holies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Raise questions about either the 2015 agreement or the Trump administration ’ s approach to Iran and an analyst might be suspect in the minds of people who keep score on these issues—and they are the ones who tend to have influence .
There are all kinds of incentives for analysts to sign up for either the red or blue team and write articles advancing their causes .
This work warms the cockles of partisans ’ hearts and generates lots of likes and retweets , but it serves little practical use to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senior government officials .
Even some of the best , more objective transition literature has drawbacks , too .
It is a special conceit among those of us outside of government to believe that we have discovered solutions to problems that the smart folks in government have not .
Nevertheless , when it comes to preparing the next president—even one with as many decades of experience as Biden , to say nothing of his seasoned foreign-policy team—it has become a convention in Beltway writing to declare that “ policymakers must do X ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” It is as if think tankers have collectively forgotten the way foreign policy is made—which is an often messy combination of goals , resources , politics ( both at home and abroad ) , and the art of the possible .
The end result is often at variance with what an administration is told it must and should do .
This does not make Washington think tanks obsolete or irrelevant .
These organizations don ’ t just exist to influence a given administration .
They also have a role to play in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had success in influencing policy—though a 1,500-word piece addressed to the incoming administration offering what to do about the Syrian civil war , Turkey ’ s purchase of Russia ’ s S-400 missile system , or the human rights catastrophe in Egypt is unlikely to do it .
For all the time wonks in Washington spend with and among policymakers , we haven ’ t yet learned what they need from us , which is best summed up in a single word : context .
Imagine a National Security Council senior director and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a grueling pace .
When they actually have a moment to read , some think tank senior fellow ’ s declaration about what the White House must or should do—likely ideas these staffers have already considered—is probably not helpful .
Rather , placing an uprising , border skirmish , or some seemingly surprising political development in broader historical and analytic context seems to be the key that unlocks an official ’ s weekend reading folder , which may influence the way they approach a problem .
This is not the kind of work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s not the kind of analysis that someone pulls off in an afternoon , which is why it is so rare .
Transitions in Washington are a combination of politics , pomp , heartwarming symbolism , hard work , and a good deal of silliness .
Us wonks are contributing to it with our often well-intentioned but often misplaced advice .
It isn ’ t a good look .
Think tankers are supposed to be a resource for policymakers .
We are not supposed to reinforce their political convictions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in either a blue or red bow , or revel in the warm glow of retweets and an increased number of followers .
If experts want to contribute to a sound foreign policy , they should dispense with the now familiar conventions of “ providing advice to the next administration ” and focus on writing well-researched , well-argued articles and books .
It is amazing how influential that can be .

The ideas industry has been busy in the last few weeks. Since the U.S. presidential election was called for Joe Biden on Nov. 7, Washington has been awash in advice for him and his incoming administration. A rough count reveals at least 100 commentaries, op-eds, blog posts, special reports, and policy memos outlining what Team Biden should be doing on various issues of import, though my count was restricted to foreign-policy issues with a heavy bias toward the Middle East. Add in China, Russia, cybersecurity, climate change, COVID-19, repairing relations with NATO, and other topics, and one can only marvel at the pace—if not always quality—of production.
The ideas industry has been busy in the last few weeks. Since the U.S. presidential election was called for Joe Biden on Nov. 7, Washington has been awash in advice for him and his incoming administration. A rough count reveals at least 100 commentaries, op-eds, blog posts, special reports, and policy memos outlining what Team Biden should be doing on various issues of import, though my count was restricted to foreign-policy issues with a heavy bias toward the Middle East. Add in China, Russia, cybersecurity, climate change, COVID-19, repairing relations with NATO, and other topics, and one can only marvel at the pace—if not always quality—of production.
This outpouring happens every presidential election cycle. It seems that in the evolutionary development of the species called “wonks,” offering unsolicited advice has become part of their DNA, which is why they never stop to ask, “Why do we do this?”
I don’t mean to be critical or offend, but it is worth it to take a step back sometimes and get some perspective on what it is think tank land—of which I have been a proud citizen for almost two decades—is doing and how it goes about it. To be sure, some of the articles that have been published making recommendations for the Biden administration are thoughtful and well crafted (even if I might disagree with parts or all of them), but I am afraid there is a far higher proportion of this work that reflects the ethos of getting it written, posted, and tweeted that has sadly become the norm in Washington. Of course, there is an added urgency for some authors given that not a few are part of the cavalcade of Biden administration job seekers. These pieces tend to be ideological and tendentious, all the while repeating what has by now become not only conventional wisdom, but also the president-elect’s policy: rejoin the World Health Organization, get back into the Paris climate accord, and negotiate anew with the Iranians. The biggest problem, though, is the way in which a lot of this work is shot through with politics.
Like everything in Washington these days, foreign policy comes in two varieties: red and blue. And given the professional pressure to sign up with either the Republicans or the Democrats—especially during an election year—the spate of articles in the aftermath of a presidential election tends to reflect this distressing state of partisan affairs. This makes it hard to address certain issues. Take, for example, the Iran nuclear deal and the Trump administration’s so-called maximum pressure campaign. These are the holy of holies of Democratic and Republican foreign policies respectively. Raise questions about either the 2015 agreement or the Trump administration’s approach to Iran and an analyst might be suspect in the minds of people who keep score on these issues—and they are the ones who tend to have influence. There are all kinds of incentives for analysts to sign up for either the red or blue team and write articles advancing their causes. This work warms the cockles of partisans’ hearts and generates lots of likes and retweets, but it serves little practical use to people tasked with addressing difficult issues as senior government officials.
Even some of the best, more objective transition literature has drawbacks, too. It is a special conceit among those of us outside of government to believe that we have discovered solutions to problems that the smart folks in government have not. Nevertheless, when it comes to preparing the next president—even one with as many decades of experience as Biden, to say nothing of his seasoned foreign-policy team—it has become a convention in Beltway writing to declare that “policymakers must do X” and “the president should do Y.” It is as if think tankers have collectively forgotten the way foreign policy is made—which is an often messy combination of goals, resources, politics (both at home and abroad), and the art of the possible. The end result is often at variance with what an administration is told it must and should do.
This does not make Washington think tanks obsolete or irrelevant. These organizations don’t just exist to influence a given administration. They also have a role to play in educating the public. And some have had success in influencing policy—though a 1,500-word piece addressed to the incoming administration offering what to do about the Syrian civil war, Turkey’s purchase of Russia’s S-400 missile system, or the human rights catastrophe in Egypt is unlikely to do it. For all the time wonks in Washington spend with and among policymakers, we haven’t yet learned what they need from us, which is best summed up in a single word: context.
Imagine a National Security Council senior director and their directors who handle myriad issues at a grueling pace. When they actually have a moment to read, some think tank senior fellow’s declaration about what the White House must or should do—likely ideas these staffers have already considered—is probably not helpful. Rather, placing an uprising, border skirmish, or some seemingly surprising political development in broader historical and analytic context seems to be the key that unlocks an official’s weekend reading folder, which may influence the way they approach a problem. This is not the kind of work that gets posted and shared quickly, and it’s not the kind of analysis that someone pulls off in an afternoon, which is why it is so rare.
Transitions in Washington are a combination of politics, pomp, heartwarming symbolism, hard work, and a good deal of silliness. Us wonks are contributing to it with our often well-intentioned but often misplaced advice. It isn’t a good look. Think tankers are supposed to be a resource for policymakers. We are not supposed to reinforce their political convictions, offer them the conventional wisdom wrapped up in either a blue or red bow, or revel in the warm glow of retweets and an increased number of followers. If experts want to contribute to a sound foreign policy, they should dispense with the now familiar conventions of “providing advice to the next administration” and focus on writing well-researched, well-argued articles and books. It is amazing how influential that can be.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-24--‘Put South Africa First’ Breeds Hate Toward Other Africans

In the wake of the coronavirus , anti-foreigner sentiments are growing in South Africa .
In September , thousands of South Africans marched along the streets with banners and placards demanding that Nigerians , Zimbabweans , and other foreigners leave their country .
The protesters claimed that foreigners are taking away their jobs and committing crimes such as drugs and trafficking—the same narratives that have been used to attack foreigners and their properties in the past .
As a Nigerian living in South Africa , I ’ ve become all too aware of how many people feel about me and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bitter form of discrimination in a country that ’ s proud of being a so-called rainbow nation itself—one that takes some of the old bigotries of apartheid and repurposes them against other Africans .
The divisions weaponized against Black South Africans are now used against foreigners .
South Africa ’ s last census of 2011 showed that there were 2.2 million foreigners living in the country—and the numbers have grown since .
We ’ re all in the firing line .
The general feelings on the streets of South Africa toward foreigners is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since I moved to the country in February , I have seen and heard both direct and indirect resentment and hatred toward foreigners .
They are currently driving a new narrative “ Put South Africa First.
” Hashtags using similar slogans have been trending for some time now , calling for foreigners like me to be driven out .
Protesters have marched outside the Nigerian and Zimbabwean embassies in Pretoria , blaming them for the influx of outsiders .
It can get very personal .
I recently met a South African woman who—two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ face over coffee that she doesn ’ t like Nigerians and that her mother would be mad if she knew she was hanging out with a Nigerian .
I was not comfortable with her anti-foreigner comments , which were vile and toxic , and cut off the relationship To be sure , xenophobia exists everywhere , as do claims that foreigners are taking jobs .
But in South Africa , petty bigotries take a particularly violent tone—and fellow Black Africans are always seen as far more threatening than whites or Asians .
Anti-foreigner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country—most of them have been violent .
In September last year , xenophobic attacks targeting foreigners and their businesses started in Johannesburg .
Seven people were killed and many injured during days of carnage and violence .
That violence came into the spotlight in 2008 , when foreigners were attacked and their businesses looted by club-wielding mobs .
About 60 people were killed and thousands displaced .
The attackers claimed foreigners are taking over their businesses , jobs , and bringing crime to their country .
Some 12 years later , the attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many of them have made anti-immigrant comments , especially during election campaigns as a tactic to woo voters .
During the build-up to the 2019 elections , anti-immigrant rhetoric was common .
President Cyril Ramaphosa promised a crackdown on undocumented migrants at a rally .
The main opposition party , Democratic Alliance , also made similar comments .
Other leaders have been equally culpable .
Last year , Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini was accused of supporting attacks and accusing foreigners of stealing their jobs and causing trouble in the country .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence showing him voicing support for the attacks .
A commission set up to look into the attacks cleared him of any wrongdoing but mandated him to sign a peace accord with ambassadors of countries affected as part of its recommendations .
The South African Institute of Race Relations says attacks on migrants and their livelihoods highlight the consequences of governance and economic failure in the country .
South Africa still remains a dramatically unequal country , with high unemployment rates especially among poor Black communities and informal settlements .
Unemployment remains a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2019 while youth unemployment is around 55.2 percent , according to a World Bank report .
Agreed , some foreigners commit crimes .
On Sept. 27 , the South African Police arrested five foreign nationals—all Nigerians—for alleged human trafficking after 11 women were found to be working for them as in a brothel as prostitutes .
The police say the suspects have been charged to court and are working with the Department of Home Affairs to check their status in the country .
This move is commendable .
If those arrested are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they should face the consequences of their actions like anyone else .
But profiling every foreign citizen , especially from Africa , as a criminal is wrong , and sending out hateful narratives would only deepen the tensions toward immigrants in the country .
The government has tried to respond with the National Action Plan , passed in March 2019 to combat racism , racial discrimination , xenophobia , and related intolerance .
The government says the action is “ based on the collective conviction of South Africans that , given the ills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; we have the means to completely eradicate these ills from our country.
” But there ’ s little sign of this materializing into action .
Some activists and politicians including the opposition party , the Economic Freedom Fighters ( EFF ) have frequently condemned attacks on foreigners in the country .
The EFF ’ s leader , Julius Malema , is one strong voice during anti-foreigner tensions .
“ We don ’ t want votes from people who are xenophobic , ” Malema said after one such attacks .
“ We must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love to someone from Mozambique , Guinea , Egypt , and Nigeria is self-love.
” For Nigerians , the bigotry of South Africans is particularly biting .
Nigeria , Africa ’ s most populous nation , played a big-brother role during South Africa ’ s apartheid struggles by providing financial and advisory support to activists and prisoners like former President Nelson Mandela .
Previous xenophobic attacks in the country have seen Nigerians retaliating by attacking South Africa ’ s thriving business interests like MTN , Shoprite , and Multichoice .
There have also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ambassador in Pretoria , and announcing that it would boycott the World Economic Forum taking place in Cape Town last year .
But the paradox is that South Africa still remains attractive for Nigerians and others—simply because the corruption at home is so overwhelming , and with the economy recently sliding into recession more Nigerians are likely to take any opportunity to check out of the country .
As bitter as bigotry in South Africa might be , it ’ s more endurable in the quest for a better life than the failure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Until that changes , the pattern of other Africans seeking hope in South Africa , and many citizens of the rainbow nation rejecting them , will remain .

In the wake of the coronavirus, anti-foreigner sentiments are growing in South Africa. In September, thousands of South Africans marched along the streets with banners and placards demanding that Nigerians, Zimbabweans, and other foreigners leave their country. The protesters claimed that foreigners are taking away their jobs and committing crimes such as drugs and trafficking—the same narratives that have been used to attack foreigners and their properties in the past.
In the wake of the coronavirus, anti-foreigner sentiments are growing in South Africa. In September, thousands of South Africans marched along the streets with banners and placards demanding that Nigerians, Zimbabweans, and other foreigners leave their country. The protesters claimed that foreigners are taking away their jobs and committing crimes such as drugs and trafficking—the same narratives that have been used to attack foreigners and their properties in the past.
As a Nigerian living in South Africa, I’ve become all too aware of how many people feel about me and my compatriots. It’s a bitter form of discrimination in a country that’s proud of being a so-called rainbow nation itself—one that takes some of the old bigotries of apartheid and repurposes them against other Africans. The divisions weaponized against Black South Africans are now used against foreigners. South Africa’s last census of 2011 showed that there were 2.2 million foreigners living in the country—and the numbers have grown since. We’re all in the firing line.
The general feelings on the streets of South Africa toward foreigners is a mixture of antagonism and stereotypes. Since I moved to the country in February, I have seen and heard both direct and indirect resentment and hatred toward foreigners. They are currently driving a new narrative “Put South Africa First.” Hashtags using similar slogans have been trending for some time now, calling for foreigners like me to be driven out. Protesters have marched outside the Nigerian and Zimbabwean embassies in Pretoria, blaming them for the influx of outsiders.
It can get very personal. I recently met a South African woman who—two weeks into our friendship—told me to my face over coffee that she doesn’t like Nigerians and that her mother would be mad if she knew she was hanging out with a Nigerian. I was not comfortable with her anti-foreigner comments, which were vile and toxic, and cut off the relationship
To be sure, xenophobia exists everywhere, as do claims that foreigners are taking jobs. But in South Africa, petty bigotries take a particularly violent tone—and fellow Black Africans are always seen as far more threatening than whites or Asians. Anti-foreigner protests and demonstrations are common across the country—most of them have been violent. In September last year, xenophobic attacks targeting foreigners and their businesses started in Johannesburg. Seven people were killed and many injured during days of carnage and violence.
That violence came into the spotlight in 2008, when foreigners were attacked and their businesses looted by club-wielding mobs. About 60 people were killed and thousands displaced. The attackers claimed foreigners are taking over their businesses, jobs, and bringing crime to their country. Some 12 years later, the attacks continue.
Politicians are also to blame. Many of them have made anti-immigrant comments, especially during election campaigns as a tactic to woo voters. During the build-up to the 2019 elections, anti-immigrant rhetoric was common. President Cyril Ramaphosa promised a crackdown on undocumented migrants at a rally. The main opposition party, Democratic Alliance, also made similar comments.
Other leaders have been equally culpable. Last year, Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini was accused of supporting attacks and accusing foreigners of stealing their jobs and causing trouble in the country. He was neither arrested nor prosecuted despite glaring evidence showing him voicing support for the attacks. A commission set up to look into the attacks cleared him of any wrongdoing but mandated him to sign a peace accord with ambassadors of countries affected as part of its recommendations.
The South African Institute of Race Relations says attacks on migrants and their livelihoods highlight the consequences of governance and economic failure in the country. South Africa still remains a dramatically unequal country, with high unemployment rates especially among poor Black communities and informal settlements. Unemployment remains a major challenge and stood at 27.6 percent in 2019 while youth unemployment is around 55.2 percent, according to a World Bank report.
Agreed, some foreigners commit crimes. On Sept. 27, the South African Police arrested five foreign nationals—all Nigerians—for alleged human trafficking after 11 women were found to be working for them as in a brothel as prostitutes. The police say the suspects have been charged to court and are working with the Department of Home Affairs to check their status in the country.
This move is commendable. If those arrested are found guilty after a proper trial, they should face the consequences of their actions like anyone else. But profiling every foreign citizen, especially from Africa, as a criminal is wrong, and sending out hateful narratives would only deepen the tensions toward immigrants in the country.
The government has tried to respond with the National Action Plan, passed in March 2019 to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance. The government says the action is “based on the collective conviction of South Africans that, given the ills of unfair discrimination and inequality are human-made; we have the means to completely eradicate these ills from our country.” But there’s little sign of this materializing into action.
Some activists and politicians including the opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have frequently condemned attacks on foreigners in the country. The EFF’s leader, Julius Malema, is one strong voice during anti-foreigner tensions.
“We don’t want votes from people who are xenophobic,” Malema said after one such attacks. “We must love one another as Africans because showing love to someone from Mozambique, Guinea, Egypt, and Nigeria is self-love.”
For Nigerians, the bigotry of South Africans is particularly biting. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, played a big-brother role during South Africa’s apartheid struggles by providing financial and advisory support to activists and prisoners like former President Nelson Mandela.
Previous xenophobic attacks in the country have seen Nigerians retaliating by attacking South Africa’s thriving business interests like MTN, Shoprite, and Multichoice. There have also been diplomatic rows with Nigeria recalling its ambassador in Pretoria, and announcing that it would boycott the World Economic Forum taking place in Cape Town last year.
But the paradox is that South Africa still remains attractive for Nigerians and others—simply because the corruption at home is so overwhelming, and with the economy recently sliding into recession more Nigerians are likely to take any opportunity to check out of the country. As bitter as bigotry in South Africa might be, it’s more endurable in the quest for a better life than the failure of Nigeria’s own governments. Until that changes, the pattern of other Africans seeking hope in South Africa, and many citizens of the rainbow nation rejecting them, will remain.


foreignpolicy--2020-11-24--Trump’s Pentagon Now Vetting Nonpolitical Experts

This article is part of The Biden Transition , Foreign Policy ’ s ongoing coverage of how U.S. President-elect Joe Biden builds a new White House administration—and what the new team ’ s policies might be .
The Trump administration has opted to extend background vetting of U.S. Department of Defense appointees to nonpolitical roles , current and former U.S. officials told Foreign Policy , a move that is said to be hampering top think tank experts and outside advisors from consulting with the Pentagon on policy matters .
The recent decision made by freshly minted Pentagon White House liaison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump and former New Hampshire state representative , could keep outside experts out of the Defense Department if they are found to hold anti-Trump views in a background check , which includes checking social media accounts .
The positions are usually used to keep a continuity of knowledge inside the Pentagon amid personnel churn inside the building .
While the Trump administration has long policed social media accounts of possible hires , those decisions have typically been limited to political appointees at the Schedule C rank and above .
“ The vetting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former official said on condition of anonymity .
“ No one is getting an SGE through , ” the official said , referring to special government employees , one of the categories impacted by the decision .
Though the decision has apparently stalled nonpolitical experts from getting advisory jobs in the Pentagon , most of which allow outside advisors to work 150 days per year on Defense Department projects , it was not immediately clear how many appointees had been halted .
Officials said the decision would extend to those labeled highly qualified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also applies to appointees who come in through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act , a law that allows think tank experts to serve in nonpolitical civilian jobs in the Pentagon while remaining employees of their home organizations .
Other officials described the move—which appears to target people who have made remarks critical of Trump on social media—as not just about finding new talent loyal to Trump but an effort to build out the Republican national security bench in the two months before the end of his term .
That rationale has also been used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies through the Pentagon ’ s ranks after the firings of Defense Secretary Mark Esper and acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Anderson in a postelection purge earlier this month , including former National Security Council staffers Kash Patel , Ezra Cohen-Watnick , Joe Francescon , and Tom Williams , who now hold high-profile roles near the top of the Defense Department ’ s organizational chart .
Responding to Foreign Policy ‘ s reporting , the Pentagon said in a statement that the policy conformed to long-standing efforts to look into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Department of Defense has a well-established process to review the background and vetting of employees and those assigned to work in the department .
This process is apolitical and applied across the department in an equitable manner to ensure the integrity of our national security mission , ” Defense Department spokesperson Lt. Col. Uriah Orland told Foreign Policy in a statement .
“ Additionally , it is common and perfectly appropriate to review an individual ’ s public persona to ensure a level of professionalism and aptness before entering into a position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specialized experts , including positions related to nuclear weapons infrastructure and innovation , is drawing criticism from former officials who fear the move could scare away hard-to-find experts .
“ These roles aren ’ t political , ” said Loren DeJonge Schulman , the vice president of research and evaluation at the Partnership for Public Service , who served as a senior advisor on the National Security Council during the Obama administration .
“ DODs own policies demand these positions be free of political influence .
The [ White House liaison ] office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and including them in a system designed to bring in apolitical , tough-to-source expertise is extremely risky , ” she said .
Whitehouse has also had interviews with outside experts in recent weeks , sources told Foreign Policy , though many of the questions appeared to stay in their policy lanes .
But he has also angered some in the Pentagon for not respecting senior leaders in the building and failing to abide by mask mandates , current officials said .
The vetting of nonpolitical experts appears to be an expansion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump detractors from the ranks of political appointees .
Earlier in the administration , the Presidential Personnel Office would find and flag social media posts of appointees at the Schedule C rank and above that were deemed to be a slight to Trump .
But the Trump administration has shown interest in remaking the career civil service , too .
In October , Trump issued an executive order creating a new class of at-will employees in the career service known as “ Schedule F , ” and giving politically appointed agency heads wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a move that prompted concerns that the administration would seek to further politicize key agencies .
The directive asks cabinet officers to decide whether career and political officials in their agencies should be classified as at-will employees before Inauguration Day—a move that could also potentially give Trump appointees more latitude to stay put .
According to an internal Office of Management and Budget memo reported on by Federal News Network , the agency ’ s director Russ Vought has classified 88 percent of his workforce , 425 people , as Schedule F. There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense Department to target some civil service members .
Foreign Policy previously reported that Whitehouse , the liaison officer , had pushed the Pentagon ’ s powerful policy office to oust Steven Schleien , its chief operating officer , despite civil service protections that likely made his dismissal illegal .
The Presidential Personnel Office , led by influential former Trump body man John McEntee , spent several weeks this summer interviewing political appointees across the U.S. government for perceived loyalty to Trump , including inside the Pentagon .
Hires through the Intergovernmental Personnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first brought into the Defense Department from national labs to help with the U.S. nuclear program .
The program has been expanded in recent years as the Defense Department ’ s policy shop has lost civilian employees , and it has also been used to bring on experts who can ’ t be hired permanently .
“ The notion of doing political background checks on HQEs and IPAs is fucking insane , ” said one former defense official .
“ That ’ s rank politicization of an apolitical body.
” Update , Nov. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ updated to provide comment from a Defense Department spokesman .

The Trump administration has opted to extend background vetting of U.S. Department of Defense appointees to nonpolitical roles, current and former U.S. officials told Foreign Policy, a move that is said to be hampering top think tank experts and outside advisors from consulting with the Pentagon on policy matters.
The Trump administration has opted to extend background vetting of U.S. Department of Defense appointees to nonpolitical roles, current and former U.S. officials told Foreign Policy, a move that is said to be hampering top think tank experts and outside advisors from consulting with the Pentagon on policy matters.
The recent decision made by freshly minted Pentagon White House liaison Joshua Whitehouse, a loyalist to President Donald Trump and former New Hampshire state representative, could keep outside experts out of the Defense Department if they are found to hold anti-Trump views in a background check, which includes checking social media accounts. The positions are usually used to keep a continuity of knowledge inside the Pentagon amid personnel churn inside the building.
While the Trump administration has long policed social media accounts of possible hires, those decisions have typically been limited to political appointees at the Schedule C rank and above.
“The vetting is a black box,” one former official said on condition of anonymity. “No one is getting an SGE through,” the official said, referring to special government employees, one of the categories impacted by the decision.
Though the decision has apparently stalled nonpolitical experts from getting advisory jobs in the Pentagon, most of which allow outside advisors to work 150 days per year on Defense Department projects, it was not immediately clear how many appointees had been halted.
Officials said the decision would extend to those labeled highly qualified experts and special government employees, and also applies to appointees who come in through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, a law that allows think tank experts to serve in nonpolitical civilian jobs in the Pentagon while remaining employees of their home organizations.
Other officials described the move—which appears to target people who have made remarks critical of Trump on social media—as not just about finding new talent loyal to Trump but an effort to build out the Republican national security bench in the two months before the end of his term. That rationale has also been used to explain the promotion of several Trump allies through the Pentagon’s ranks after the firings of Defense Secretary Mark Esper and acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Anderson in a postelection purge earlier this month, including former National Security Council staffers Kash Patel, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, Joe Francescon, and Tom Williams, who now hold high-profile roles near the top of the Defense Department’s organizational chart.
Responding to Foreign Policy‘s reporting, the Pentagon said in a statement that the policy conformed to long-standing efforts to look into the public profiles of nonpolitical appointees.
“The Department of Defense has a well-established process to review the background and vetting of employees and those assigned to work in the department. This process is apolitical and applied across the department in an equitable manner to ensure the integrity of our national security mission,” Defense Department spokesperson Lt. Col. Uriah Orland told Foreign Policy in a statement. “Additionally, it is common and perfectly appropriate to review an individual’s public persona to ensure a level of professionalism and aptness before entering into a position of public trust.”
Extending vetting to specialized experts, including positions related to nuclear weapons infrastructure and innovation, is drawing criticism from former officials who fear the move could scare away hard-to-find experts.
“These roles aren’t political,” said Loren DeJonge Schulman, the vice president of research and evaluation at the Partnership for Public Service, who served as a senior advisor on the National Security Council during the Obama administration.
“DODs own policies demand these positions be free of political influence. The [White House liaison] office should [have] no voice here, and including them in a system designed to bring in apolitical, tough-to-source expertise is extremely risky,” she said.
Whitehouse has also had interviews with outside experts in recent weeks, sources told Foreign Policy, though many of the questions appeared to stay in their policy lanes. But he has also angered some in the Pentagon for not respecting senior leaders in the building and failing to abide by mask mandates, current officials said.
The vetting of nonpolitical experts appears to be an expansion of an ongoing effort to weed out perceived Trump detractors from the ranks of political appointees. Earlier in the administration, the Presidential Personnel Office would find and flag social media posts of appointees at the Schedule C rank and above that were deemed to be a slight to Trump. But the Trump administration has shown interest in remaking the career civil service, too.
In October, Trump issued an executive order creating a new class of at-will employees in the career service known as “Schedule F,” and giving politically appointed agency heads wide latitude to hire and fire them, a move that prompted concerns that the administration would seek to further politicize key agencies. The directive asks cabinet officers to decide whether career and political officials in their agencies should be classified as at-will employees before Inauguration Day—a move that could also potentially give Trump appointees more latitude to stay put. According to an internal Office of Management and Budget memo reported on by Federal News Network, the agency’s director Russ Vought has classified 88 percent of his workforce, 425 people, as Schedule F.
There has also been a push at the Defense Department to target some civil service members. Foreign Policy previously reported that Whitehouse, the liaison officer, had pushed the Pentagon’s powerful policy office to oust Steven Schleien, its chief operating officer, despite civil service protections that likely made his dismissal illegal. The Presidential Personnel Office, led by influential former Trump body man John McEntee, spent several weeks this summer interviewing political appointees across the U.S. government for perceived loyalty to Trump, including inside the Pentagon.
Hires through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, known as IPAs, were first brought into the Defense Department from national labs to help with the U.S. nuclear program. The program has been expanded in recent years as the Defense Department’s policy shop has lost civilian employees, and it has also been used to bring on experts who can’t be hired permanently.
“The notion of doing political background checks on HQEs and IPAs is fucking insane,” said one former defense official. “That’s rank politicization of an apolitical body.”


foreignpolicy--2020-11-24--Yellen’s Mandate: Massive Stimulus, Assuaging Fears of Inflation

This article is part of The Biden Transition , Foreign Policy ’ s ongoing coverage of how U.S. President-elect Joe Biden builds a new White House administration—and what the new team ’ s policies might be .
“ Out of the box ” is one of Janet Yellen ’ s favorite phrases , her fellow economists say—as in , think outside of it .
And now the Yale-educated economist who made history in 2014 by becoming the first female Federal Reserve chairman is expected to do so again—think outside the box as President-elect Joe Biden ’ s nominee for Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that post ) .
Because by the time she is sworn in early next year—her confirmation is considered highly likely—the U.S. and world economies might be facing a new wave of pandemic-induced unemployment .
“ She ’ s a great choice .
She understands that the main challenge facing America is generating growth that includes everyone , and she has an evidence-based approach to making policy , ” said economist Karen Dynan , a former Federal Reserve and Treasury official now at Harvard .
“ Pushing through more fiscal stimulus is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agenda .
The economic harm from the enormous job losses we ’ ve suffered since the pandemic began has been mitigated by the fiscal measures put in place last spring but the cushioning provided by those policies is rapidly playing out.
” Indeed the endless dickering between current Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has led to no subsequent program , suggesting that by Biden ’ s inaugural day Jan. 20 the need will be desperate if the $ 2 trillion CARES Act remains the lone response .
Yellen , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economist academically from the old progressive tradition of believers in Keynesian , counter-cyclical stimulus .
And many economists say she ’ s the right fit for the job ahead because she understands as well as anyone—especially due to her recent stint at the Fed—that the economy needs massive deficit spending right now , and that the fiscal side must rescue the monetary side , which is running out of tools .
She also understands that the national balance sheet can sustain such stimulus spending : Federal budget deficits no longer are as dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manageable and private sector lending isn ’ t being crowded out .
Inflation is not an immediate danger .
Yellen herself has warned in the past decade that fiscal stimulus plans were being dragged down by super-antiquated fears of debt and inflation .
Because of her long Fed experience and reputation as a data-based moderate , the markets will likely have faith in Yellen ’ s credibility to hold that line but pull out all the stops to avert another recession .
“ She cared about labor markets and economic pain when she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wendy Edelberg , former chief economist at the Congressional Budget Office .
“ Those priorities are just what we need right now.
” As Fed chairman , Yellen was widely praised for growing the labor market while keeping inflation historically low .
She was in particular lauded for striking a delicate rhetorical balance between progressives , constantly warning the labor market has “ yet to fully recover ” ( thus pleasing progressive economists who played down inflation fears ) , but also warning that inflation might be a problem in the future ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came up with new ways of assessing the labor market more qualitatively , devising a metric of 19 different indicators under a “ Labor Market Conditions Index , ” though this was later dropped as a measure .
Even so , studying the unemployment problem has long been her concern .
According to colleagues I spoke to for a profile of Yellen that appeared in National Journal and the Atlantic in 2013 , she takes the nation ’ s worst problems , especially chronic unemployment and underemployment , as a deeply personal challenge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unemployed comes in part from your viscera rather than your intellect .
And with Janet Yellen , it ’ s very strong , ” Alan Blinder , a Princeton professor and Yellen ’ s former Fed colleague , told me then .
“ She spent a good part of her career studying why unemployment stays high .
I can remember a conversation between the two of us at the Fed in the Nineties—I was vice chairman and she was a governor .
One day , we tried holding back [ the Federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s chief decision-making body ] from going overboard on raising interest rates .
She said , ‘ Maybe we saved 500,000 people their jobs.
’ “ Indeed , Yellen ’ s main work as an academic focused largely on studying the nature of unemployment .
One of her most important papers , written with her husband , Nobel Prize winner George Akerlof , showed that workers who feel underpaid will be less productive .
Before that she ran the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Bill Clinton , who managed to produce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years in office .
But now that her main task will be to manage the fiscal side , her more than 10-year-long Fed experience will also go a long way toward assuring Wall Street about her fiscal program .
Yellen is also known to take a tough stance on banking regulation , which could prove crucial in the months ahead since she will be the chair of the financial stability oversight council ( “ FSOC ” ) , which consists of the 12 major bank and market regulators .
Trump has spent four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but “ in the face of a feared oncoming massive COVID-led recession or depression , systemic risk and market collapses are much more likely now , ” said former federal financial regulator Michael Greenberger .
“ So FSOC will have its hands full restoring the many Dodd Frank regulations that really did protect against chain reaction systemic breakdowns.
” “ So this is a big task for Yellen , ” added Greenberger .
“ And no one is better equipped to deal with all of these tasks .
”

"Out of the box" is one of Janet Yellen’s favorite phrases, her fellow economists say—as in, think outside of it. And now the Yale-educated economist who made history in 2014 by becoming the first female Federal Reserve chairman is expected to do so again—think outside the box as President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Treasury secretary (also as the first woman in that post).
“Out of the box” is one of Janet Yellen’s favorite phrases, her fellow economists say—as in, think outside of it. And now the Yale-educated economist who made history in 2014 by becoming the first female Federal Reserve chairman is expected to do so again—think outside the box as President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for Treasury secretary (also as the first woman in that post).
Because by the time she is sworn in early next year—her confirmation is considered highly likely—the U.S. and world economies might be facing a new wave of pandemic-induced unemployment.
“She’s a great choice. She understands that the main challenge facing America is generating growth that includes everyone, and she has an evidence-based approach to making policy,” said economist Karen Dynan, a former Federal Reserve and Treasury official now at Harvard.
“Pushing through more fiscal stimulus is going to be a high priority on her agenda. The economic harm from the enormous job losses we’ve suffered since the pandemic began has been mitigated by the fiscal measures put in place last spring but the cushioning provided by those policies is rapidly playing out.”
Indeed the endless dickering between current Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has led to no subsequent program, suggesting that by Biden’s inaugural day Jan. 20 the need will be desperate if the $2 trillion CARES Act remains the lone response.
Yellen, 74, has primarily been a labor economist academically from the old progressive tradition of believers in Keynesian, counter-cyclical stimulus. And many economists say she’s the right fit for the job ahead because she understands as well as anyone—especially due to her recent stint at the Fed—that the economy needs massive deficit spending right now, and that the fiscal side must rescue the monetary side, which is running out of tools. She also understands that the national balance sheet can sustain such stimulus spending: Federal budget deficits no longer are as dangerous because low interest rates make them more manageable and private sector lending isn’t being crowded out. Inflation is not an immediate danger. Yellen herself has warned in the past decade that fiscal stimulus plans were being dragged down by super-antiquated fears of debt and inflation.
Because of her long Fed experience and reputation as a data-based moderate, the markets will likely have faith in Yellen’s credibility to hold that line but pull out all the stops to avert another recession. “She cared about labor markets and economic pain when she was at the Fed,” said Wendy Edelberg, former chief economist at the Congressional Budget Office. “Those priorities are just what we need right now.”
As Fed chairman, Yellen was widely praised for growing the labor market while keeping inflation historically low. She was in particular lauded for striking a delicate rhetorical balance between progressives, constantly warning the labor market has “yet to fully recover” (thus pleasing progressive economists who played down inflation fears), but also warning that inflation might be a problem in the future (thus placating fiscal hawks). She came up with new ways of assessing the labor market more qualitatively, devising a metric of 19 different indicators under a “Labor Market Conditions Index,” though this was later dropped as a measure.
Even so, studying the unemployment problem has long been her concern. According to colleagues I spoke to for a profile of Yellen that appeared in National Journal and the Atlantic in 2013, she takes the nation’s worst problems, especially chronic unemployment and underemployment, as a deeply personal challenge.
“How deeply you care about the unemployed comes in part from your viscera rather than your intellect. And with Janet Yellen, it’s very strong,” Alan Blinder, a Princeton professor and Yellen’s former Fed colleague, told me then. “She spent a good part of her career studying why unemployment stays high. I can remember a conversation between the two of us at the Fed in the Nineties—I was vice chairman and she was a governor. One day, we tried holding back [the Federal Open Market Committee, the Fed’s chief decision-making body] from going overboard on raising interest rates. She said, ‘Maybe we saved 500,000 people their jobs.’ “
Indeed, Yellen’s main work as an academic focused largely on studying the nature of unemployment. One of her most important papers, written with her husband, Nobel Prize winner George Akerlof, showed that workers who feel underpaid will be less productive. Before that she ran the Council of Economic Advisers under former President Bill Clinton, who managed to produce more equalized wage growth in his final years in office. But now that her main task will be to manage the fiscal side, her more than 10-year-long Fed experience will also go a long way toward assuring Wall Street about her fiscal program.
Yellen is also known to take a tough stance on banking regulation, which could prove crucial in the months ahead since she will be the chair of the financial stability oversight council (“FSOC”), which consists of the 12 major bank and market regulators.
Trump has spent four years trying to roll back those regulations, but “in the face of a feared oncoming massive COVID-led recession or depression, systemic risk and market collapses are much more likely now,” said former federal financial regulator Michael Greenberger.
“So FSOC will have its hands full restoring the many Dodd Frank regulations that really did protect against chain reaction systemic breakdowns.”
“So this is a big task for Yellen,” added Greenberger. “And no one is better equipped to deal with all of these tasks.”