talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--The National Stockpile: Born From The Pages Of A Thriller

On Thursday , White House Senior Aide Jared Kushner left quite the impression at his rare press briefing appearance as he insisted that the National Strategic Stockpile was for “ our ” use , not the states ’ .
“ The state still has a stockpile and the notion of the federal stockpile was it ’ s supposed to be our stockpile , ” Kushner said at a briefing about the coronavirus pandemic .
“ It ’ s not supposed to be states ’ stockpiles that they then use.
” “ So I would just encourage you , when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t given them what they need , I would just urge you to ask them , ‘ well have you looked within your state to make sure that you haven ’ t been able to find the resources ?
’ ” he continued .
Eagle-eyed journalists quickly spotted language being amended on a Health and Human Services webpage to come into line with Kushner ’ s comments .
Still , government websites and old documents pointed to the true intent of the stockpile : to be there in an emergency for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supplies .
“ ‘ Our , our , ' ” Trump mimicked .
“ It means the United States of America .
And then we take that ‘ our ’ and we distribute it to the states.
” “ The federal government needs it too , not just the states , ” he added , yelling at the reporter .
Still , Trump and Kushner ’ s bizarre twist on the stockpile ’ s intentions is but a blip in the stockpile ’ s 22-year history .
It started when former President Bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cobra Event by Richard Preston .
In it , a bioterrorist targets the United States with a virus that fused the common cold with smallpox .
As the disease tears through New York City , victims succumb to grisly “ autocannibalistic ” tendencies .
Per the New York Times , Clinton was spooked enough to ask the FBI if such a thing could actually happen .
“ In April 1998 , as a result of having read the Richard Preston novel , The Cobra Event , the president held a meeting with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discuss the threat of bioterrorism , ” wrote terrorism studies expert Martha Crenshaw in her essay in “ Terrorism : Critical Concepts in Political Science.
” “ The briefing impressed Clinton so much that he asked the experts to brief senior officials in DOD and HHS.
” That led to the stockpile ’ s birth : a line in the October 1998 omnibus emergency appropriations package granting $ 51 million “ for pharmaceutical and vaccine stockpiling activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
” It was known then as the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to use as the country held its breath for Y2K , an issue with how computers dates were programmed that was expected to wreak havoc as the new millennium rolled over .
“ They were afraid that there was going to be an interruption of supplies to hospitals and to the clinics , ” said Tom Jackson , then working in the strategic logistics branch for the stockpile , in an HHS video .
“ So they decided , the U.S. Government decided to put together a cache of material that could be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was an eruption and supply because of the the Y2K changeover.
” Sue Gorman , science branch chief , added that all they had was “ a handful of people to start with and we had a 50 million dollar budget to create a stockpile.
” Since then , the stockpile has come into Americans ’ lives in accordance with the country ’ s greatest disasters , from Hurricane Katrina to 9/11 .
Its stores were seriously depleted during the Obama administration .
According to a Health Security study , 75 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were used to protect health-care workers during the 2009 swine flu outbreak .
Per USA Today , it was never fully restocked .
And that ’ s where the stockpile stands today , as its stores are called into use once more to help protect Americans against the newest , and very nonfictional , global threat : the coronavirus pandemic .

On Thursday, White House Senior Aide Jared Kushner left quite the impression at his rare press briefing appearance as he insisted that the National Strategic Stockpile was for “our” use, not the states’.
“The state still has a stockpile and the notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile,” Kushner said at a briefing about the coronavirus pandemic. “It’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use.”
“So I would just encourage you, when you have governors saying that the federal government hasn’t given them what they need, I would just urge you to ask them, ‘well have you looked within your state to make sure that you haven’t been able to find the resources?’” he continued.
Eagle-eyed journalists quickly spotted language being amended on a Health and Human Services webpage to come into line with Kushner’s comments. Still, government websites and old documents pointed to the true intent of the stockpile: to be there in an emergency for state and local officials who lack sufficient supplies.
President Donald Trump addressed Kushner’s comments in a Friday press conference.
“‘Our, our,'” Trump mimicked. “It means the United States of America. And then we take that ‘our’ and we distribute it to the states.”
“The federal government needs it too, not just the states,” he added, yelling at the reporter.
Still, Trump and Kushner’s bizarre twist on the stockpile’s intentions is but a blip in the stockpile’s 22-year history.
It started when former President Bill Clinton picked up a thriller called The Cobra Event by Richard Preston. In it, a bioterrorist targets the United States with a virus that fused the common cold with smallpox. As the disease tears through New York City, victims succumb to grisly “autocannibalistic” tendencies.
Per the New York Times, Clinton was spooked enough to ask the FBI if such a thing could actually happen.
“In April 1998, as a result of having read the Richard Preston novel, The Cobra Event, the president held a meeting with a group of scientists and Cabinet members to discuss the threat of bioterrorism,” wrote terrorism studies expert Martha Crenshaw in her essay in “Terrorism: Critical Concepts in Political Science.”
“The briefing impressed Clinton so much that he asked the experts to brief senior officials in DOD and HHS.”
That led to the stockpile’s birth: a line in the October 1998 omnibus emergency appropriations package granting $51 million “for pharmaceutical and vaccine stockpiling activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” It was known then as the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile.
The stockpile first came to use as the country held its breath for Y2K, an issue with how computers dates were programmed that was expected to wreak havoc as the new millennium rolled over.
“They were afraid that there was going to be an interruption of supplies to hospitals and to the clinics,” said Tom Jackson, then working in the strategic logistics branch for the stockpile, in an HHS video. “So they decided, the U.S. Government decided to put together a cache of material that could be used to supplement those organizations if there was an eruption and supply because of the the Y2K changeover.”
Sue Gorman, science branch chief, added that all they had was “a handful of people to start with and we had a 50 million dollar budget to create a stockpile.”
Since then, the stockpile has come into Americans’ lives in accordance with the country’s greatest disasters, from Hurricane Katrina to 9/11.
Its stores were seriously depleted during the Obama administration. According to a Health Security study, 75 percent of respirators and face masks in its stockpile were used to protect health-care workers during the 2009 swine flu outbreak.
Per USA Today, it was never fully restocked.
And that’s where the stockpile stands today, as its stores are called into use once more to help protect Americans against the newest, and very nonfictional, global threat: the coronavirus pandemic.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--WATCH LIVE: Trump And WH Coronavirus Task Force Hold Briefing

US President Donald Trump speaks during the daily briefing on the novel coronavirus , COVID-19 , in the Brady Briefing @ @ @ @ @ on March 31 , 2020 , in Washington , DC .
( Photo by MANDEL @ @ @ @ @ Photo b ...
US President Donald Trump speaks during the daily briefing on the novel @ @ @ @ @ the Brady Briefing Room at the White House on March 31 , 2020 , in @ @ @ @ @ Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP ) ( Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images @

President Donald Trump speaks during the daily briefing on COVID-19 in the Brady Briefing Room at the White House on March 31, 2020. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--How Tea Party Budget Battles Left the National Emergency Medical Stockpile Unprepared for Coronaviru

How Tea Party Budget Battles Left the National Emergency Medical Stockpile Unprepared for Coronavirus

This story first appeared at ProPublica .
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Dire shortages of vital medical equipment in the Strategic National Stockpile that are now hampering the coronavirus response trace back to the budget wars of the Obama years , when congressional Republicans elected on the Tea Party wave forced the White House to accept sweeping cuts to federal spending .
Among the victims of those partisan fights was the effort to keep adequate supplies of masks , ventilators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand to respond to a public health crisis .
Lawmakers in both parties raised the specter of shortchanging future disaster response even as they voted to approve the cuts .
“ There are always more needs for financial support from our hardworking taxpayers than we have the ability to pay , ” said Denny Rehberg , a retired Republican congressman from Montana who chaired the appropriations subcommittee responsible for overseeing the stockpile in 2011 .
Rehberg said it would have been impossible to predict a public health crisis requiring a more robust stockpile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to predict the Sept. 11 , 2001 , terrorist attacks .
“ It ’ s really easy to second-guess and suggest we didn ’ t do as much , ” he said .
“ Why didn ’ t we have a protocol to protect the Twin Towers ?
Whoever thought that was going to happen ?
Whoever thought Hurricane Katrina was going to occur ?
You tell me what ’ s going to happen in 2030 , and I will communicate that to congressmen and senators.
” There were , in fact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded report by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials urged the federal government to treat public health preparedness “ on par with federal and state funding for other national security response capabilities , ” and said that its store of N95 masks should be “ replenished for future events.
” But efforts to bulk up the stockpile fell apart in tense standoffs between the Obama White House and congressional Republicans , according to administration and congressional officials involved in the negotiations .
Had Congress kept funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Obama administration , the stockpile would have benefited from $ 321 million more than it ended up getting , according to budget documents reviewed by ProPublica .
During the Trump administration , Congress started giving the stockpile more than the White House requested .
By late February , the stockpile held just 12 million N95 respirator masks , a small fraction of what government officials say is needed for a severe pandemic .
Now the emergency stash is running out of critical supplies and governors are struggling to understand the unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the equipment .
The stockpile received a $ 17 billion influx in the first and third coronavirus stimulus bills that Congress passed in March .
But there had not been a big boost in stockpile funding since 2009 , in response to the H1N1 pandemic , commonly called swine flu .
After using up the swine flu emergency funds , the Obama administration tried to replenish the stockpile in 2011 by asking Congress to provide $ 655 million , up from the previous year ’ s budget of less than $ 600 million @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the CDC estimated killed more than 12,000 people in the United States over the course of a year , had required the largest deployment in the stockpile ’ s history , including nearly 20 million pieces of personal protective equipment and more than 85 million N95 masks , according to a 2016 report published by the National Academies of Sciences , Engineering and Medicine .
“ We recognized the need for replenishment of the stockpile and budgeted about a 10 % increase , ” said Dr. Nicole Lurie , who served as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration .
“ That was rejected by the Republican House.
” Republicans took over the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterms on the Tea Party wave of opposition to the landmark 2010 health care reform law , the Affordable Care Act , also known as Obamacare .
The new House majority was intent on curbing government spending , especially at HHS , which administered Obamacare .
Congressional Republicans , led by Mitch McConnell in the Senate and House Speaker John Boehner , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the government ’ s borrowing ability that had to be raised — to insist that the Obama administration accept federal spending curbs .
The compromise , codified in the 2011 Budget Control Act , required a bipartisan “ super committee ” to find additional ways to reduce the deficit , or else it would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts known as “ sequestration.
” Even in the aftermath of the swine flu pandemic , the stockpile wasn ’ t a priority then .
Without a full committee markup , Rehberg introduced a bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stockpile , about 12 % less than the previous year and $ 132 million less than the administration wanted .
“ Nobody got everything they wanted , ” Rehberg said .
The Senate version of the funding bill offered $ 561 million for stockpile funding .
Senators said they regretted the cuts even as they voted for the bill .
“ In this bill we ’ re now getting into the bone marrow , ” Tom Harkin , a Democrat from Iowa who then chaired the Senate appropriations committee , said at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be painful and unpopular.
” In the bill ’ s final version , Congress allocated a compromise $ 534 million for the 2012 fiscal year , a 10 % budget cut from the prior year and $ 121 million less than the Obama administration had requested .
The next year , the “ super committee ” failed to secure additional savings demanded by the Budget Control Act , triggering the automatic , across-the-board cuts .
This “ sequestration ” was an outcome that the leaders of both parties disliked — and blamed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party ever indicate sequestration was welcome , positive or desirable ?
” Dave Schnittger , Boehner ’ s deputy chief of staff at the time , told ProPublica .
“ Sequestration was conceived — not by Republicans , but by a Democratic White House — as a crude mechanism to compel the super committee to do its job .
Republicans consistently advocated for reductions in mandatory spending programs that would have prevented sequestration from ever happening.
” ( Mandatory spending refers to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare . )
McConnell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests for comment .
Katie Hill , a spokeswoman for Obama , pointed to numerousstatements he made in 2013 urging Republicans to compromise , warning that the sequester would weaken economic recovery , military readiness and basic public services .
Gene Sperling , then a top Obama economic adviser , said Republicans focused attacks on the HHS budget , along with the Departments of Labor and Education , which are grouped under the same appropriations subcommittee .
“ The Labor/HHS budget is where a significant number of progressive priorities are , from Head @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health ) to the Education Department , ” Sperling said .
“ There ’ s just so much in there , so it is often the hot spot for where conservative budget hawks who don ’ t believe in public investment go hardest.
” Under sequestration , the CDC , which managed the stockpile at the time , faced a 5 % budget cut .
In its 2013 budget submission , HHS decreased its stockpile funding request from the previous year , asking for $ 486 million , a cut of nearly $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key resource in maintaining public health preparedness and response , ” the administration said .
“ However , the current fiscal climate necessitates scaling back.
” The decrease caught Rehberg ’ s attention at a budget hearing to review the request .
“ Disaster preparedness is something that has been very important to me , ” he said at the hearing .
“ I just would like to have you explain how such a large reduction can possibly not impact the national preparedness posture.
” Then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius answered that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as smallpox vaccines and anthrax treatments .
The next year , the administration again proposed cutting the stockpile ’ s funding from the 2012 funding level , but it warned that reduced funding could result in “ fewer people receiving treatment during an influenza pandemic.
” Congress did grant extra funding in response to emergencies , but even then , the stockpile was a small-ticket item .
In 2014 , the Obama administration asked for and received billions of dollars to respond to the Ebola outbreak , but only $ 165 million went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency preparedness programs , including the stockpile .
And in 2016 , Congress granted emergency funding to respond to the Zika virus , but it gave the CDC less than half of what the Obama administration requested .
“ It ’ s clear that the administration prioritized the SNS in this ( Zika ) request and in the Ebola supplemental , ” said Ned Price , who was a spokesman for the National Security Council in the Obama White House .
“ In the case of Zika , congressional Republicans sat on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year.
” The stockpile ’ s mission has steadily expanded as it confronts new public health emergencies .
With limited resources , officials in charge of the stockpile tend to focus on buying lifesaving drugs from small biotechnology firms that would , in the absence of a government buyer , have no other market for their products , experts said .
Masks and other protective equipment are in normal times widely available and thus may not have been prioritized for purchase , they said .
“ It just was never funded at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ products , to replace expiring products and to invest in what we now know are the really necessary ancillary products , ” said Dara Lieberman , director of government relations at the Trust for America ’ s Health , a nonpartisan public health advocacy and research group .
The sequestration and strict budget caps ended with budget deals in 2018 and 2019 — a bipartisan rebuke to the earlier restraints .
“ It ’ s a burden off our shoulders , ” Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby , R-Ala. , told reporters at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world , I think that was the wrong message.
” “ One of the things that happened to public health preparedness was just the result of the general budget stringency we had , ” said David Reich , a consultant working on federal appropriations issues for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities .
“ We ’ re still seeing the results of that.
” During the Trump administration , the White House has consistently proposed cutting the CDC and the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Congress approved more stockpile funding than Trump ’ s budget requested in every year of his administration , for a combined $ 1.93 billion instead of $ 1.77 billion , according to budget documents .
The White House budget request for 2021 , delivered in February as officials were already warning about the dangerous new coronavirus , proposed holding the stockpile ’ s funding flat at $ 705 million and cutting resources for the office that oversees it .

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Dire shortages of vital medical equipment in the Strategic National Stockpile that are now hampering the coronavirus response trace back to the budget wars of the Obama years, when congressional Republicans elected on the Tea Party wave forced the White House to accept sweeping cuts to federal spending.
Among the victims of those partisan fights was the effort to keep adequate supplies of masks, ventilators, pharmaceuticals and other medical equipment on hand to respond to a public health crisis. Lawmakers in both parties raised the specter of shortchanging future disaster response even as they voted to approve the cuts.
“There are always more needs for financial support from our hardworking taxpayers than we have the ability to pay,” said Denny Rehberg, a retired Republican congressman from Montana who chaired the appropriations subcommittee responsible for overseeing the stockpile in 2011. Rehberg said it would have been impossible to predict a public health crisis requiring a more robust stockpile, just as it would have been to predict the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
“It’s really easy to second-guess and suggest we didn’t do as much,” he said. “Why didn’t we have a protocol to protect the Twin Towers? Whoever thought that was going to happen? Whoever thought Hurricane Katrina was going to occur? You tell me what’s going to happen in 2030, and I will communicate that to congressmen and senators.”
There were, in fact, warnings at the time: A 2010 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded report by the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials urged the federal government to treat public health preparedness “on par with federal and state funding for other national security response capabilities,” and said that its store of N95 masks should be “replenished for future events.”
But efforts to bulk up the stockpile fell apart in tense standoffs between the Obama White House and congressional Republicans, according to administration and congressional officials involved in the negotiations. Had Congress kept funding at the 2010 level through the end of the Obama administration, the stockpile would have benefited from $321 million more than it ended up getting, according to budget documents reviewed by ProPublica. During the Trump administration, Congress started giving the stockpile more than the White House requested.
By late February, the stockpile held just 12 million N95 respirator masks, a small fraction of what government officials say is needed for a severe pandemic. Now the emergency stash is running out of critical supplies and governors are struggling to understand the unclear procedures for how the administration is distributing the equipment.
The stockpile received a $17 billion influx in the first and third coronavirus stimulus bills that Congress passed in March. But there had not been a big boost in stockpile funding since 2009, in response to the H1N1 pandemic, commonly called swine flu.
After using up the swine flu emergency funds, the Obama administration tried to replenish the stockpile in 2011 by asking Congress to provide $655 million, up from the previous year’s budget of less than $600 million. Responding to swine flu, which the CDC estimated killed more than 12,000 people in the United States over the course of a year, had required the largest deployment in the stockpile’s history, including nearly 20 million pieces of personal protective equipment and more than 85 million N95 masks, according to a 2016 report published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
“We recognized the need for replenishment of the stockpile and budgeted about a 10% increase,” said Dr. Nicole Lurie, who served as the assistant secretary for preparedness and response at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Obama administration. “That was rejected by the Republican House.”
Republicans took over the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterms on the Tea Party wave of opposition to the landmark 2010 health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The new House majority was intent on curbing government spending, especially at HHS, which administered Obamacare.
Congressional Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell in the Senate and House Speaker John Boehner, leveraged the debt ceiling — a limit on the government’s borrowing ability that had to be raised — to insist that the Obama administration accept federal spending curbs. The compromise, codified in the 2011 Budget Control Act, required a bipartisan “super committee” to find additional ways to reduce the deficit, or else it would trigger automatic across-the-board cuts known as “sequestration.”
Even in the aftermath of the swine flu pandemic, the stockpile wasn’t a priority then. Without a full committee markup, Rehberg introduced a bill that provided $522.5 million to the stockpile, about 12% less than the previous year and $132 million less than the administration wanted. “Nobody got everything they wanted,” Rehberg said.
The Senate version of the funding bill offered $561 million for stockpile funding. Senators said they regretted the cuts even as they voted for the bill.
“In this bill we’re now getting into the bone marrow,” Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa who then chaired the Senate appropriations committee, said at the markup. “Some of these cuts will be painful and unpopular.”
In the bill’s final version, Congress allocated a compromise $534 million for the 2012 fiscal year, a 10% budget cut from the prior year and $121 million less than the Obama administration had requested.
The next year, the “super committee” failed to secure additional savings demanded by the Budget Control Act, triggering the automatic, across-the-board cuts. This “sequestration” was an outcome that the leaders of both parties disliked — and blamed one another for.
“Did either party ever indicate sequestration was welcome, positive or desirable?” Dave Schnittger, Boehner’s deputy chief of staff at the time, told ProPublica. “Sequestration was conceived — not by Republicans, but by a Democratic White House — as a crude mechanism to compel the super committee to do its job. Republicans consistently advocated for reductions in mandatory spending programs that would have prevented sequestration from ever happening.” (Mandatory spending refers to entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.)
McConnell’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
Katie Hill, a spokeswoman for Obama, pointed to numerousstatements he made in 2013 urging Republicans to compromise, warning that the sequester would weaken economic recovery, military readiness and basic public services.
Gene Sperling, then a top Obama economic adviser, said Republicans focused attacks on the HHS budget, along with the Departments of Labor and Education, which are grouped under the same appropriations subcommittee.
“The Labor/HHS budget is where a significant number of progressive priorities are, from Head Start to (the National Institutes of Health) to the Education Department,” Sperling said. “There’s just so much in there, so it is often the hot spot for where conservative budget hawks who don’t believe in public investment go hardest.”
Under sequestration, the CDC, which managed the stockpile at the time, faced a 5% budget cut. In its 2013 budget submission, HHS decreased its stockpile funding request from the previous year, asking for $486 million, a cut of nearly $48 million. “The SNS is a key resource in maintaining public health preparedness and response,” the administration said. “However, the current fiscal climate necessitates scaling back.”
The decrease caught Rehberg’s attention at a budget hearing to review the request.
“Disaster preparedness is something that has been very important to me,” he said at the hearing. “I just would like to have you explain how such a large reduction can possibly not impact the national preparedness posture.”
Then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius answered that the CDC would prioritize replacing expiring drugs such as smallpox vaccines and anthrax treatments.
The next year, the administration again proposed cutting the stockpile’s funding from the 2012 funding level, but it warned that reduced funding could result in “fewer people receiving treatment during an influenza pandemic.”
Congress did grant extra funding in response to emergencies, but even then, the stockpile was a small-ticket item. In 2014, the Obama administration asked for and received billions of dollars to respond to the Ebola outbreak, but only $165 million went to the CDC’s public health emergency preparedness programs, including the stockpile. And in 2016, Congress granted emergency funding to respond to the Zika virus, but it gave the CDC less than half of what the Obama administration requested.
“It’s clear that the administration prioritized the SNS in this (Zika) request and in the Ebola supplemental,” said Ned Price, who was a spokesman for the National Security Council in the Obama White House. “In the case of Zika, congressional Republicans sat on the request for the better part of a year.”
The stockpile’s mission has steadily expanded as it confronts new public health emergencies. With limited resources, officials in charge of the stockpile tend to focus on buying lifesaving drugs from small biotechnology firms that would, in the absence of a government buyer, have no other market for their products, experts said. Masks and other protective equipment are in normal times widely available and thus may not have been prioritized for purchase, they said.
“It just was never funded at the level that was needed to purchase new products, to replace expiring products and to invest in what we now know are the really necessary ancillary products,” said Dara Lieberman, director of government relations at the Trust for America’s Health, a nonpartisan public health advocacy and research group.
The sequestration and strict budget caps ended with budget deals in 2018 and 2019 — a bipartisan rebuke to the earlier restraints. “It’s a burden off our shoulders,” Senate Appropriations Chairman Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told reporters at the time. “In a troubled world, I think that was the wrong message.”
Yet non-defense spending still hasn’t fully recovered.
“One of the things that happened to public health preparedness was just the result of the general budget stringency we had,” said David Reich, a consultant working on federal appropriations issues for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “We’re still seeing the results of that.”
During the Trump administration, the White House has consistently proposed cutting the CDC and the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, which took over stockpile management from the CDC. Congress approved more stockpile funding than Trump’s budget requested in every year of his administration, for a combined $1.93 billion instead of $1.77 billion, according to budget documents.
The White House budget request for 2021, delivered in February as officials were already warning about the dangerous new coronavirus, proposed holding the stockpile’s funding flat at $705 million and cutting resources for the office that oversees it.
Lydia DePillis contributed reporting.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--WI Guv Launches Last Minute Bid To Delay Tuesday’s Primary Amid COVID-19 Legal Chaos

While a legal fight continues over making absentee voting easier in the state , Wisconsin Gov .
Tony Evers ( D ) announced Friday he was launching a bid to delay Tuesday ’ s election , which includes the presidential primary and a high-stakes judicial race .
Evers signed an executive order calling for a special meeting of the GOP-controlled legislature Saturday as he pleaded for lawmakers to delay the election in light of the pandemic .
The move was a reversal of sorts for Evers , who previously had opposed aggressive action to postpone the election , while national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delaying it .
But on Friday , Evers said he could not ignore the concerns raised by local officials .
He said that holding the election Tuesday will create “ a dangerous situation where voters , staff and volunteers will not be able to avoid large crowds or practice social distancing when they go out to vote.
” “ This is a significant concern and a very unnecessary health risk , ” Evers said .
Republicans have shown no interest in delaying the election and are even fighting in court a judge ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier given the public health issues with in-person voting .
The GOP ’ s resistance to the changes may be related to a desire to keep turnout low , and thus favorable to Republicans , because a crucial state supreme court race is being decided Tuesday .
Voting rights groups along with Democrats had gone to court late last week seeking various remedies to ease the burden on election officials who were scrambling due to the outbreak .
Several jurisdictions , particularly in Democratic-leaning urban areas , have previewed significant reductions in polling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortage of poll workers willing to staff election sites .
It is feared that anyone who shows up at a polling place , either to work it or just staff it , is putting their health at risk .
U.S. District Judge William Conley issued an order on Thursday that stopped short of delaying the election , as he said he did not have the authority to postpone it .
But he extended the deadline for absentee voting and loosened some of the rules around the process .
He issued a follow up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election officials could report Tuesday ’ s results , amid complaints that the absentee deadline extension would allow voters to send in ballots after Tuesday ’ s results were already in .
Wisconsin Republicans have intervened in the case , and are appealing Conley ’ s decision to make absentee voting easier .
The appeals court has requested that the groups who would be opposed to halting Conley ’ s orders submit their briefings by 4 p.m .

While a legal fight continues over making absentee voting easier in the state, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) announced Friday he was launching a bid to delay Tuesday’s election, which includes the presidential primary and a high-stakes judicial race.
Evers signed an executive order calling for a special meeting of the GOP-controlled legislature Saturday as he pleaded for lawmakers to delay the election in light of the pandemic. The move was a reversal of sorts for Evers, who previously had opposed aggressive action to postpone the election, while national and state Democrats supported the idea of delaying it.
But on Friday, Evers said he could not ignore the concerns raised by local officials. He said that holding the election Tuesday will create “a dangerous situation where voters, staff and volunteers will not be able to avoid large crowds or practice social distancing when they go out to vote.”
“This is a significant concern and a very unnecessary health risk,” Evers said.
Republicans have shown no interest in delaying the election and are even fighting in court a judge’s order that absentee voting be made easier given the public health issues with in-person voting.
The GOP’s resistance to the changes may be related to a desire to keep turnout low, and thus favorable to Republicans, because a crucial state supreme court race is being decided Tuesday.
Voting rights groups along with Democrats had gone to court late last week seeking various remedies to ease the burden on election officials who were scrambling due to the outbreak. Several jurisdictions, particularly in Democratic-leaning urban areas, have previewed significant reductions in polling places, as there is a major shortage of poll workers willing to staff election sites. It is feared that anyone who shows up at a polling place, either to work it or just staff it, is putting their health at risk.
U.S. District Judge William Conley issued an order on Thursday that stopped short of delaying the election, as he said he did not have the authority to postpone it. But he extended the deadline for absentee voting and loosened some of the rules around the process. He issued a follow up order Friday delaying by a week when election officials could report Tuesday’s results, amid complaints that the absentee deadline extension would allow voters to send in ballots after Tuesday’s results were already in.
Wisconsin Republicans have intervened in the case, and are appealing Conley’s decision to make absentee voting easier. The appeals court has requested that the groups who would be opposed to halting Conley’s orders submit their briefings by 4 p.m.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--In 2019, Azar Said The Possibility Of A Global Pandemic Scared Him The Most

“ This was something that nobody has ever thought could happen to this country.
” President Donald Trump said when speaking on the COVID-19 pandemic last week .
As it turns out , that was his own Health and Human Services secretary ’ s biggest fear .
“ Of course , the thing that people ask : ‘ What keeps you most up at night in the biodefense world ? '
” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during a biodefense summit on April 17 , 2019 .
“ Pandemic flu , of course.
” “ I think everyone in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he added .
Azar then spoke on the importance of being prepared in the event of a pandemic , saying that “ we still need to improve our speed of production of pan flu vaccine and our capacities.
” “ You know , this isn ’ t a topic that crosses the minds of most Americans every day , thankfully , ” he told summit attendees .
“ In order to keep it that way , we need to continuously improve our preparedness work , which is why the biodefense strategy is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a senior director for biodefense at the National Security Council who was also at the summit , said he had the exact same concern .
The adviser pointed to how quickly the deadly influenza of 1918 fanned out across the world due to steamship travel .
“ And you think about the threat factors we have available today with roughly 500,000 people flying around the heavens at any given moment…that ’ s what keeps me up at night , ” he said .
Azar and Morrison ’ s comments were first flagged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the coronavirus outbreak , Trump has defended his administration ’ s feeble response to COVID-19 by repeatedly claiming that the pandemic was entirely unforeseeable .
“ We ’ re having to fix a problem that , four weeks ago , nobody ever thought would be a problem , ” he said during a White House press conference in mid-March .

“This was something that nobody has ever thought could happen to this country.” President Donald Trump said when speaking on the COVID-19 pandemic last week.
As it turns out, that was his own Health and Human Services secretary’s biggest fear.
“Of course, the thing that people ask: ‘What keeps you most up at night in the biodefense world?'” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said during a biodefense summit on April 17, 2019. “Pandemic flu, of course.”
“I think everyone in this room probably shares that concern,” he added.
Azar then spoke on the importance of being prepared in the event of a pandemic, saying that “we still need to improve our speed of production of pan flu vaccine and our capacities.”
“You know, this isn’t a topic that crosses the minds of most Americans every day, thankfully,” he told summit attendees. “In order to keep it that way, we need to continuously improve our preparedness work, which is why the biodefense strategy is a blueprint for action.”
Tim Morrison, a senior director for biodefense at the National Security Council who was also at the summit, said he had the exact same concern.
The adviser pointed to how quickly the deadly influenza of 1918 fanned out across the world due to steamship travel.
“And you think about the threat factors we have available today with roughly 500,000 people flying around the heavens at any given moment…that’s what keeps me up at night,” he said.
Azar and Morrison’s comments were first flagged by CNN.
Yet as the U.S. grapples with the coronavirus outbreak, Trump has defended his administration’s feeble response to COVID-19 by repeatedly claiming that the pandemic was entirely unforeseeable.
“We’re having to fix a problem that, four weeks ago, nobody ever thought would be a problem,” he said during a White House press conference in mid-March.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--Admin Scrubs Websites Of Stockpile Language That Contradicted Kushner

Shortly after White House senior adviser Jared Kushner said at a Thursday press briefing that the Strategic National Stockpile is not meant for states ’ use , language was scrubbed from and altered on government websites to reflect Kushner ’ s claim .
“ The state still has a stockpile and the notion of the federal stockpile was it ’ s supposed to be our stockpile , ” Kushner said at a briefing about the coronavirus pandemic .
“ It ’ s not supposed to be states ’ stockpiles that they then use.
” “ So I would just encourage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the federal government hasn ’ t given them what they need , I would just urge you to ask them , ‘ well have you looked within your state to make sure that you haven ’ t been able to find the resources ? '
” he continued .
As captured by journalist Laura Bassett and noted by the Washington Post , the original description of the stockpile on the Public Health Emergency subsection of the Health and Human Services site characterized it as “ the nation ’ s largest supply of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a public health emergency severe enough to cause local supplies to run out.
” It added : “ When state , local , tribal , and territorial responders request federal assistance to support their response efforts , the stockpile ensures that the right medicines and supplies get to those who need them most during an emergency.
” The new language , published as of Friday morning , describes it as a “ short-term stopgap ” and emphasized state ’ s stores of supplies .
“ Many states have products stockpiled , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The supplies , medicines , and devices for life-saving care contained in the stockpile can be used as a short-term stopgap buffer when the immediate supply of adequate amounts of these materials may not be immediately available.
” These attempts to bolster Kushner ’ s claim are stranger given that the President ’ s son-in-law appears to be trying to make a case that the stockpile is not specifically there to fulfill states ’ needs — the very purpose for which it was created .
In a 2001 “ Description of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the stockpile was previously known , the Centers for Disease Control acknowledge that “ Few U.S. state or local governments have the resources to create sufficient pharmaceutical stockpiles on their own , ” adding that the stockpile was created to address the need .
President Donald Trump also critiqued states ’ requests for help in combating the pandemic Thursday , calling them “ insatiable .
”

Shortly after White House senior adviser Jared Kushner said at a Thursday press briefing that the Strategic National Stockpile is not meant for states’ use, language was scrubbed from and altered on government websites to reflect Kushner’s claim.
“The state still has a stockpile and the notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile,” Kushner said at a briefing about the coronavirus pandemic. “It’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use.”
“So I would just encourage you, when you have governors saying that the federal government hasn’t given them what they need, I would just urge you to ask them, ‘well have you looked within your state to make sure that you haven’t been able to find the resources?'” he continued.
As captured by journalist Laura Bassett and noted by the Washington Post, the original description of the stockpile on the Public Health Emergency subsection of the Health and Human Services site characterized it as “the nation’s largest supply of life-saving pharmaceuticals and medical supplies for use in a public health emergency severe enough to cause local supplies to run out.”
It added: “When state, local, tribal, and territorial responders request federal assistance to support their response efforts, the stockpile ensures that the right medicines and supplies get to those who need them most during an emergency.”
The new language, published as of Friday morning, describes it as a “short-term stopgap” and emphasized state’s stores of supplies.
“Many states have products stockpiled, as well,” it now reads. “The supplies, medicines, and devices for life-saving care contained in the stockpile can be used as a short-term stopgap buffer when the immediate supply of adequate amounts of these materials may not be immediately available.”
These attempts to bolster Kushner’s claim are stranger given that the President’s son-in-law appears to be trying to make a case that the stockpile is not specifically there to fulfill states’ needs — the very purpose for which it was created.
In a 2001 “Description of the US National Pharmaceutical Stockpile Program,” as the stockpile was previously known, the Centers for Disease Control acknowledge that “Few U.S. state or local governments have the resources to create sufficient pharmaceutical stockpiles on their own,” adding that the stockpile was created to address the need.
President Donald Trump also critiqued states’ requests for help in combating the pandemic Thursday, calling them “insatiable.”


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--Defense Dept. Loosens Strict Requirements For Treatment On Navy Hospital Ship

The Department of Defense announced on Friday that it would ease the process of allowing patients to receive care on the USNS Comfort emergency hospital ship in New York City , which has only accepted 20 patients thus far .
Ambulances will no longer be obligated to take potential patients to a hospital for a screen test before delivering them to the ship , which treats patients who do not have COVID-19 .
Instead , the patients will be taken directly to the ship to be screened at the pier .
The patients will have their temperature taken and fill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of having to undergo a lengthy assessment to determine whether they test negative for the coronavirus , as previously required .
“ We will immediately implement this action and work with local officials in each area on the details of patient arrival , ” the Pentagon said .
After New York hospitals sounded the alarm on overcrowding due to the skyrocketing COVID-19 cases filling up the wards , the Trump administration deployed the USNS Comfort to the city in an effort to ease the burden .
However , hospital workers soon grew frustrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for admittance , which allowed only a fraction of non-coronavirus cases to be treated on a ship with a 1,000 bed capacity .
“ If I ’ m blunt about it , it ’ s a joke , ” Michael Dowling , the head of Northwell Health , told the New York Times .
During a press conference on Friday , New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D ) said he was unaware of revised guidelines .

The Department of Defense announced on Friday that it would ease the process of allowing patients to receive care on the USNS Comfort emergency hospital ship in New York City, which has only accepted 20 patients thus far.
Ambulances will no longer be obligated to take potential patients to a hospital for a screen test before delivering them to the ship, which treats patients who do not have COVID-19. Instead, the patients will be taken directly to the ship to be screened at the pier.
The patients will have their temperature taken and fill out a “short questionnaire” instead of having to undergo a lengthy assessment to determine whether they test negative for the coronavirus, as previously required.
“We will immediately implement this action and work with local officials in each area on the details of patient arrival,” the Pentagon said.
After New York hospitals sounded the alarm on overcrowding due to the skyrocketing COVID-19 cases filling up the wards, the Trump administration deployed the USNS Comfort to the city in an effort to ease the burden.
However, hospital workers soon grew frustrated by the ship’s tight requirements for admittance, which allowed only a fraction of non-coronavirus cases to be treated on a ship with a 1,000 bed capacity.
“If I’m blunt about it, it’s a joke,” Michael Dowling, the head of Northwell Health, told the New York Times.
During a press conference on Friday, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said he was unaware of revised guidelines.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--Leaked Border Patrol Memo Tells Agents to Send Migrants Back Immediately — Ignoring Asylum Law

This story first appeared at ProPublica .
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
For the first time since the enactment of the Refugee Act in 1980 , people who come to the U.S. saying they fear persecution in their home countries are being turned away by Border Patrol agents with no chance to make a legal case for asylum .
The shift , confirmed in internal Border Patrol guidance obtained by ProPublica , is the upshot of the Trump administration ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down the U.S.-Mexico border over coronavirus fears .
It ’ s the biggest step the administration has taken to limit humanitarian protection for people entering the U.S. without papers .
The Trump administration has created numerous obstacles over recent years for migrants to claim asylum and stay in the United States .
But it had not — until now — allowed Border Patrol agents to simply expel migrants with no process whatsoever for hearing their claims .
The administration gave the Border Patrol unchallengeable authority over migrants seeking asylum by invoking a little-known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Control and Prevention , the U.S. public health agency , to ban the entry of people or things that might spread “ infectious disease ” in the U.S .
The CDC on March 20 barred entry of people without proper documentation , on the logic that they could be unexamined carriers of the disease and out of concern about the effects if the novel coronavirus swept through Customs and Border Protection holding facilities .
U.S. immigration law requires the government to allow people expressing a “ well-founded ” fear of persecution or torture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States .
The law also requires the government to grant status to anyone who shows they likely face persecution if returned to their homeland .
“ The Trump administration ’ s new rule and CDC order do not trump U.S. laws passed by Congress and U.S. legal obligations under refugee and human rights treaties , ” Eleanor Acer , of the legal advocacy group Human Rights First , told ProPublica .
“ But the Trump administration is wielding them as the ultimate tool to shut the border to people seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump administration hastily put in place a policy , which the internal guidance calls Operation Capio , to push the overwhelming majority of unauthorized migrants into Mexico within hours of their apprehension in the U.S .
The Trump administration has been publicly vague on what happens under the new policy to migrants expressing a fear of persecution or torture , the grounds for asylum .
But the guidance provided to Border Patrol agents makes clear that asylum-seekers are being turned away unless they can persuade both a Border Patrol agent — as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they will be tortured if sent home .
There is no exception for those who seek protection on the basis of their identities , such as race or religion .
Over 7,000 people have been expelled to Mexico under the order , according to sources briefed by Customs and Border Protection officials .
The guidance , shared with ProPublica by a source within the Border Patrol , instructs agents that any migrant caught entering without documentation must be processed for “ expulsion , ” citing the CDC order .
When possible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearest official border crossing and “ expelled ” into Mexico or Canada .
( The Mexican government has agreed to allow the U.S. to push back not only Mexican migrants , but also those from Guatemala , Honduras and El Salvador ; the four countries account for about 85 % of all unauthorized border crossings . )
Under the Refugee Convention , which the U.S. signed onto in 1968 , countries are barred from sending someone back to a country in which they could be persecuted based on their identity ( specifically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political opinion or membership in a “ particular social group ” ) .
The Trump administration has taken several steps to restrict the ability of migrants to seek asylum , a form of legal status that allows someone to eventually become a permanent U.S. resident .
Until now , however , it has acknowledged that U.S. and international law prevents the U.S. from sending people back to a place where they will be harmed .
And it has still allowed people who claim a fear of persecution to seek a less permanent form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the last two weeks of February , 2,915 people were screened for humanitarian protection , according to the most recent statistics provided by U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services . )
The Border Patrol guidance provided to ProPublica shows that the U.S. is acting as if that obligation no longer applies .
Customs and Border Protection , the agency that oversees the Border Patrol , said it would not comment on the document provided to ProPublica .
Asked whether any guidance had been provided regarding people who expressed a fear of persecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement , “ The order does not apply where a CBP officer determines , based on consideration of significant law enforcement , officer and public safety , humanitarian , or public health interests , that the order should not be applied to a particular person.
” That language does not appear in the guidance ProPublica received .
Instead , it specifies that any exception must be approved by the chief patrol agent of a given Border Patrol sector .
One former senior CBP official , who reviewed the guidance at ProPublica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are so many levels of hierarchy between a chief patrol agent and a line agent , agents would be unlikely to ask for an exemption to be made .
The guidance offers some details of exceptions that Border Patrol should make on public-safety grounds — people with felony convictions , for example , are to be held in detention rather than being sent back — but none on health grounds .
In fact , the guidance provides no instructions on medical screening or care for migrants , making it impossible to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( One source briefed by CBP on the policy said the agency said migrants would not be expelled if they showed symptoms of illness or claimed a medical issue , but there is no mention of this in the guidance ProPublica received . )
The guidance makes a single humanitarian exception : If a migrant , before expulsion , tells the Border Patrol agent that they fear torture in their home country , they can be kept in the U.S. and referred to U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services , which evaluates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture .
But agents are not instructed to ask ; the migrant has to volunteer the information “ spontaneously.
” Then , the Border Patrol agent is instructed to analyze whether the claim is “ reasonably believable ” — something they haven ’ t been trained to do .
As recently as last fall , the Trump administration acknowledged in court filings that it ’ s bound both to protect victims of torture under the Convention Against Torture and to protect victims of persecution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has erected bars to asylum — most notably , preventing anyone who crosses through Mexico from receiving asylum in the U.S. — it has continued to allow anyone entering the U.S. to seek a lesser form of legal status called “ withholding of removal , ” which allows an immigrant to stay in the U.S. but does not allow them to become a permanent resident .
( Since the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act , federal law requires the executive branch to grant this status to anyone who can show it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be persecuted . )
The Operation Capio guidance does not mention the possibility that someone could be eligible for lesser protections instead of expulsion .
Two sources briefed on the new policy confirmed that neither asylum nor withholding of removal is available to anyone subject to the CDC order .
In that briefing , CBP officials claimed that a migrant expressing any sort of fear is referred for screening to the U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services , but that migrants will only pass that screening if they claim torture .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ instruct Border Patrol agents to refer other types of claims to USCIS ( and instructs them only to refer torture claims when they are “ reasonably believable ” ) .
In lawsuits challenging the administration ’ s asylum policies , Department of Justice lawyers have described withholding of removal as a “ mandatory ” form of protection — something it ’ s required to provide — while asylum is “ discretionary.
” In a brief filed last fall with the 9th U.S .
Circuit Court of Appeals , the government wrote that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obligations ” — the obligation not to send people back to danger — “ by providing withholding of removal and CAT ( Convention Against Torture ) protection.
” Now , the U.S. is only providing one of the two — and only at the discretion of Border Patrol .
“ If you read between the lines , ” one congressional staff member briefed on the operation told ProPublica , “ they ’ re saying that Title 42 ( the chapter of the U.S. Code that includes the CDC ’ s quarantine power ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law ) .
” Title 42 doesn ’ t clearly state that the administration may suspend its obligations under immigration law , and the Trump administration hasn ’ t published any legal opinions or memos that make its case .
No legal challenges have yet been filed against the new policy .
Lawyers told ProPublica that the secrecy of the policy has made it harder to compile a case against it .
The administration has argued that the risk of coronavirus spreading through Customs and Border Protection holding facilities — which aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — justifies the mass-expulsion policy .
Since putting the policy in place , the number of people crossing into the U.S. has dropped drastically , according to official CBP statistics circulated internally and provided to ProPublica , and there are only 330 people in CBP custody at last count , down from over 1,300 as of March 25 .
The new guidance instructs agents to wear personal protective equipment at all times and not to use any Border Patrol vehicle to transport migrants that isn ’ t specifically designated for Operation Capio .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t include medical screening , it will be impossible to know whether any migrants who are being expelled just in case they have the novel coronavirus are actually infected .

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
For the first time since the enactment of the Refugee Act in 1980, people who come to the U.S. saying they fear persecution in their home countries are being turned away by Border Patrol agents with no chance to make a legal case for asylum.
The shift, confirmed in internal Border Patrol guidance obtained by ProPublica, is the upshot of the Trump administration’s hasty emergency action to largely shut down the U.S.-Mexico border over coronavirus fears. It’s the biggest step the administration has taken to limit humanitarian protection for people entering the U.S. without papers.
The Trump administration has created numerous obstacles over recent years for migrants to claim asylum and stay in the United States. But it had not — until now — allowed Border Patrol agents to simply expel migrants with no process whatsoever for hearing their claims.
The administration gave the Border Patrol unchallengeable authority over migrants seeking asylum by invoking a little-known power given to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. public health agency, to ban the entry of people or things that might spread “infectious disease” in the U.S. The CDC on March 20 barred entry of people without proper documentation, on the logic that they could be unexamined carriers of the disease and out of concern about the effects if the novel coronavirus swept through Customs and Border Protection holding facilities.
U.S. immigration law requires the government to allow people expressing a “well-founded” fear of persecution or torture to be allowed to pursue legal status in the United States. The law also requires the government to grant status to anyone who shows they likely face persecution if returned to their homeland.
“The Trump administration’s new rule and CDC order do not trump U.S. laws passed by Congress and U.S. legal obligations under refugee and human rights treaties,” Eleanor Acer, of the legal advocacy group Human Rights First, told ProPublica. “But the Trump administration is wielding them as the ultimate tool to shut the border to people seeking refuge.”
Two weeks ago, the Trump administration hastily put in place a policy, which the internal guidance calls Operation Capio, to push the overwhelming majority of unauthorized migrants into Mexico within hours of their apprehension in the U.S.
The Trump administration has been publicly vague on what happens under the new policy to migrants expressing a fear of persecution or torture, the grounds for asylum. But the guidance provided to Border Patrol agents makes clear that asylum-seekers are being turned away unless they can persuade both a Border Patrol agent — as well as a higher-ranking Border Patrol official — that they will be tortured if sent home. There is no exception for those who seek protection on the basis of their identities, such as race or religion.
Over 7,000 people have been expelled to Mexico under the order, according to sources briefed by Customs and Border Protection officials.
The guidance, shared with ProPublica by a source within the Border Patrol, instructs agents that any migrant caught entering without documentation must be processed for “expulsion,” citing the CDC order. When possible, migrants are to be driven to the nearest official border crossing and “expelled” into Mexico or Canada. (The Mexican government has agreed to allow the U.S. to push back not only Mexican migrants, but also those from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador; the four countries account for about 85% of all unauthorized border crossings.)
Under the Refugee Convention, which the U.S. signed onto in 1968, countries are barred from sending someone back to a country in which they could be persecuted based on their identity (specifically, their race, nationality, religion, political opinion or membership in a “particular social group”).
The Trump administration has taken several steps to restrict the ability of migrants to seek asylum, a form of legal status that allows someone to eventually become a permanent U.S. resident. Until now, however, it has acknowledged that U.S. and international law prevents the U.S. from sending people back to a place where they will be harmed. And it has still allowed people who claim a fear of persecution to seek a less permanent form of legal status in the U.S. (In the last two weeks of February, 2,915 people were screened for humanitarian protection, according to the most recent statistics provided by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.)
The Border Patrol guidance provided to ProPublica shows that the U.S. is acting as if that obligation no longer applies.
Customs and Border Protection, the agency that oversees the Border Patrol, said it would not comment on the document provided to ProPublica. Asked whether any guidance had been provided regarding people who expressed a fear of persecution of torture, an agency spokesperson said in a statement, “The order does not apply where a CBP officer determines, based on consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, humanitarian, or public health interests, that the order should not be applied to a particular person.”
That language does not appear in the guidance ProPublica received. Instead, it specifies that any exception must be approved by the chief patrol agent of a given Border Patrol sector. One former senior CBP official, who reviewed the guidance at ProPublica’s request, said that because there are so many levels of hierarchy between a chief patrol agent and a line agent, agents would be unlikely to ask for an exemption to be made.
The guidance offers some details of exceptions that Border Patrol should make on public-safety grounds — people with felony convictions, for example, are to be held in detention rather than being sent back — but none on health grounds.
In fact, the guidance provides no instructions on medical screening or care for migrants, making it impossible to know how such an exception would be made. (One source briefed by CBP on the policy said the agency said migrants would not be expelled if they showed symptoms of illness or claimed a medical issue, but there is no mention of this in the guidance ProPublica received.)
The guidance makes a single humanitarian exception: If a migrant, before expulsion, tells the Border Patrol agent that they fear torture in their home country, they can be kept in the U.S. and referred to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which evaluates claims for humanitarian protection, to see if they qualify for protection under the Convention Against Torture. But agents are not instructed to ask; the migrant has to volunteer the information “spontaneously.” Then, the Border Patrol agent is instructed to analyze whether the claim is “reasonably believable” — something they haven’t been trained to do.
As recently as last fall, the Trump administration acknowledged in court filings that it’s bound both to protect victims of torture under the Convention Against Torture and to protect victims of persecution under the Refugee Convention.
Even as it has erected bars to asylum — most notably, preventing anyone who crosses through Mexico from receiving asylum in the U.S. — it has continued to allow anyone entering the U.S. to seek a lesser form of legal status called “withholding of removal,” which allows an immigrant to stay in the U.S. but does not allow them to become a permanent resident. (Since the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act, federal law requires the executive branch to grant this status to anyone who can show it’s more likely than not they’ll be persecuted.)
The Operation Capio guidance does not mention the possibility that someone could be eligible for lesser protections instead of expulsion. Two sources briefed on the new policy confirmed that neither asylum nor withholding of removal is available to anyone subject to the CDC order.
In that briefing, CBP officials claimed that a migrant expressing any sort of fear is referred for screening to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, but that migrants will only pass that screening if they claim torture. However, the guidance doesn’t instruct Border Patrol agents to refer other types of claims to USCIS (and instructs them only to refer torture claims when they are “reasonably believable”).
In lawsuits challenging the administration’s asylum policies, Department of Justice lawyers have described withholding of removal as a “mandatory” form of protection — something it’s required to provide — while asylum is “discretionary.” In a brief filed last fall with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the government wrote that “The United States has implemented its non-refoulement obligations” — the obligation not to send people back to danger — “by providing withholding of removal and CAT (Convention Against Torture) protection.”
Now, the U.S. is only providing one of the two — and only at the discretion of Border Patrol.
“If you read between the lines,” one congressional staff member briefed on the operation told ProPublica, “they’re saying that Title 42 (the chapter of the U.S. Code that includes the CDC’s quarantine power) supersedes Title 8 (which covers immigration law).” Title 42 doesn’t clearly state that the administration may suspend its obligations under immigration law, and the Trump administration hasn’t published any legal opinions or memos that make its case.
No legal challenges have yet been filed against the new policy. Lawyers told ProPublica that the secrecy of the policy has made it harder to compile a case against it.
The administration has argued that the risk of coronavirus spreading through Customs and Border Protection holding facilities — which aren’t equipped to deal with medical needs — justifies the mass-expulsion policy. Since putting the policy in place, the number of people crossing into the U.S. has dropped drastically, according to official CBP statistics circulated internally and provided to ProPublica, and there are only 330 people in CBP custody at last count, down from over 1,300 as of March 25.
The new guidance instructs agents to wear personal protective equipment at all times and not to use any Border Patrol vehicle to transport migrants that isn’t specifically designated for Operation Capio.
However, because the Operation Capio process doesn’t include medical screening, it will be impossible to know whether any migrants who are being expelled just in case they have the novel coronavirus are actually infected.


talkingpointsmemo--2020-04-03--Rural Counties Consider an Alternative Type of Social Distancing — Kicking Chicago Out of Illinois

This story first appeared at ProPublica .
ProPublica Illinois is an independent , nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force .
Sign up for The ProPublica Illinois newsletter for weekly updates .
As she sat Wednesday on the covered deck at the 4-Way Saloon in Sidell , overlooking the town grain elevator , Leslie Powell made her way down the list of tasks she had scribbled on her yellow notepad .
Asking the utility company for a payment plan was first .
Powell ’ s husband , Mark , became owner of this busy little bar and grill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gov .
J.B. Pritzker ordered residents across the state to shelter in place in an attempt to halt the spread of the novel coronavirus outbreak .
Now , with the 4-Way closed to dine-in orders , and the couple ’ s savings spent on buying and fixing it up , the Powells face losing their business if they don ’ t receive state or federal aid .
And that has reinforced a thought Powell has had before : Chicago should be separated from the rest of the state .
The idea of secession @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural and Republican counties , periodically flaring up around issues such as raising the minimum wage , the establishment of sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants and gun ownership .
And though Illinois ’ secession movement — or , movements — isn ’ t exactly united , many who believe in the principle share a general sense of feeling underrepresented in a state dominated by Chicago ’ s Democratic stronghold .
The coronavirus outbreak , which has yet to touch some areas of the state , has become the most recent flashpoint , inspiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot and Facebook memes that call for building a wall around Chicago .
Political experts say there is virtually no chance that the state will ever split , especially since it will require an act of Congress and lead to the likely election of two Republican senators to represent that new state .
Still , the secession conversation is a dramatic expression of the much more widespread — and potentially dangerous — frustration with a sweeping governmental response to the pandemic that many question in areas where some homes sit acres apart @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not public transportation .
“ There ’ s nobody around here that ’ s got it , ” Powell said .
“ We ’ re a farming community .
We know how to wash our hands .
We ’ re with pigs and cows and chickens .
In this community , it ’ s really hard to comprehend.
” As of Thursday , 41 of Illinois ’ 102 counties had yet to see a single case of COVID-19 , according to the Illinois Department of Public Health .
Experts caution that likely will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Powell lives , reported its first two cases this week , officials there said .
On Tuesday , Pritzker announced he was extending the stay-at-home order through April .
Many people said they are following it , even if their businesses and livelihoods are suffering .
At the same time , the response to the pandemic has exacerbated the feelings of some residents that the rest of the state is being forced to deal with Chicago ’ s problem .
State Rep. Blaine Wilhour , a Republican from Effingham , said that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered to the shutdown measures , including the possibility of opening up some restaurants at half-capacity and allowing mom-and-pop stores to set up appointments .
“ There ’ s obviously a big difference in how these broad policies affect Chicago , which is a very densely populated area , and how they affect my district , ” Wilhour said .
Wilhour , along with six other Republican lawmakers , sent a letter to Pritzker last week asking for measures to help small businesses during the pandemic , including freezing the minimum wage for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holiday for the duration of the stay-at-home order .
While Wilhour said he understands the severity of COVID-19 , he said the stay-at-home order has taken an enormous economic toll on his district .
Residents are taking the safeguards seriously for now , he said , but they also see that the disease is not nearly as prevalent in their area as it is in Chicago .
“ They see the trajectory of Illinois as not good , especially not good for people in our part of the state , ” he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of pent-up anxiety about adversarial policies that are pushed down to benefit Chicago and they disproportionately don ’ t benefit us.
” One risk of that frustration is that people may feel less inclined to follow what they see as Chicago ’ s rules .
Steve McNeil , who manages Rent One furniture and appliance store in West Frankfort , about 300 miles south of Chicago , said he ’ s concerned that some people are neither following Pritzker ’ s stay-at-home order nor social distancing guidelines .
Though his store , part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he said he makes sure his staff sanitizes the store “ on the hour , every hour.
” He can ’ t say all of his customers are taking similar steps , though .
“ It ’ s very lackadaisical , ” McNeil said .
“ A lot of people I don ’ t see taking the precautions seriously.
” McNeil said his store has seen unprecedented sales of washers , dryers , deep freezers and refrigerators — which he considers “ essential items ” and the reason he believes he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has felt heartened by the new role he sees his business providing during the crisis .
On Wednesday , McNeil ’ s Rent One store posted a photo on its Facebook page advertising its stock of lawn mowers : “ Yard season has started and Rent One is here to help you get started .
This bad boy is parked out front of the store so feel free to take a look at it TODAY !
” Rick Henson , who owns a barber shop in West Frankfort , closed Tuesday after business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now hopes to reopen next week , after he began getting calls from customers , many of whom are older people , city officials and local police officers , saying he ’ s a “ needed commodity.
” Jared Gravatt , co-owner of Crown Brew Coffee Company in Marion , said he understands the need for the stay-at-home order but thinks the differences between Chicago and the rest of the state are “ night and day.
” Gravatt said the county ’ s businesses are reeling from the shutdown .
He and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event on Friday to raise money and awareness for struggling businesses while encouraging people to abide by the stay-at-home order .
Even Gravatt , who said he recognizes the importance of protecting against the coronavirus outbreak , acknowledges the appeal of secession .
COVID-19 has “ killed more businesses than it has people in this region , ” he said .
Last year , State Rep. Brad Halbrook , a Republican from Shelbyville , filed legislation that urged Congress to declare Chicago the nation ’ s 51st state .
The legislation stalled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little support , but organizing around the issue continues .
Once Pritzker ’ s stay-at-home order is lifted and people are able to gather again , “ the interest will be as high as it ’ s ever been , ” Halbrook said .
“ There ’ s no question about it.
” “ They want to manage the entire state to suit Chicago , ” Halbrook said .
“ They ’ re different lifestyles and different cultures .
To do this one-size-fits-all management doesn ’ t work.
” John S. Jackson , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale , points to similar secession movements in New York and California , where rural areas have animosity toward those states ’ urban centers .
He called the perception of unequal resource distribution between Chicago and the rest of the state “ a myth ” that has existed for decades , and he said the stakes of that ideological divide are high during the coronavirus crisis .
“ It ’ s a corrosive part of our culture , ” Jackson said .
“ It has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Unlike other supporters , Collin Cliburn , a contractor and carpenter who lives outside Springfield , has led much of the state ’ s grassroots secession efforts .
Cliburn describes his political views as “ borderline old-school libertarian ” and differentiates his effort from the “ New Illinois ” secession movement led by Halbrook as more populist and rogue than that of elected political leaders .
Cliburn hopes to collect enough local signatures to force the secession question onto statewide ballots as a referendum , county by county .
So far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Fayette and Effingham counties , which during the state ’ s March primaries voted more than 70 % in a nonbinding referendum in favor of secession .
While he believes , based on one-on-one conversations as well as the popularity of events he ’ s organized , that many in southern Illinois favor secession in practice , Cliburn said most are hesitant to vote for it .
To try to build support , Cliburn has turned to social media .
He makes memes , shares local news stories and writes posts across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he runs to amplify differences he sees between Chicago and the rest of the state .
“ What I ’ m doing is creating a spider web , ” Cliburn said .
That spider web , which he ’ s crafted to function as a sort of social media ecosystem of secession sentiment , includes “ Illinois Separation , ” a page Cliburn runs that has garnered nearly 27,000 Facebook likes ; “ Illinoyed , ” a page for more general venting about the state , which has about 11,700 likes ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organizers .
Lately , Cliburn said , he ’ s been using coronavirus news to bring attention to the effort to kick Chicago out of the state .
“ Everything is about Chicago , ” reads a March 24 post on the “ Illinois Separation ” page , above a news story about Chicago preparing for a “ surge in bodies ” because of COVID-19 deaths .
“ When the Governor speaks only Chicago people stand beside him , including their Mayor Lightfoot … ” he wrote .
“ I ’ m sick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Another post , shared on the “ Illinois Separation ” page on March 25 , shows an image of the state of Illinois with the Chicago-area blocked off with a line .
“ Make Illinois Great Again … build a wall !
!
” the graphic reads .
Comments included individuals blaming Chicago for positive COVID-19 cases in their own counties and criticizing the shelter-in-place order in areas with few if any positive cases .
The post has nearly 800 likes and 400 shares .
Pritzker spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh called it “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ division instead of unity during a national crisis .
The governor ’ s duty is to every single resident in Illinois , she said .
“ When COVID-19 was first reported in Illinois , it was in one county and quickly spread to more than 50 in the days since , ” Abudayyeh said .
“ Almost every day there is a new county reporting positive cases.
” The frustration that some rural residents feel about the shutdown , or at least their expectation that COVID-19 won ’ t reach them , may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases may simply reflect a lack of testing .
In some counties , less than two dozen people have been tested .
Because coronavirus spreads first in large urban areas then expands , it ’ s probably only a matter of time before the rest of the state sees cases , said Dr. Jerry Kruse , Dean and Provost of Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield “ It ’ s almost like throwing a pebble into a pool and watching the waves radiate out , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a “ virtual inevitability ” the coronavirus will reach rural Illinois .
Metro East St. Louis and Sangamon County have already started to see the number of cases rise .
“ You should assume that the coronavirus has come to your county , ” said Monica Dunn , assistant administrator at Edgar County Public Health Department .
Christian County , about 30 minutes southeast of Springfield , is an example of how quickly the situation can turn .
The county of 32,000 did not see its first case of COVID-19 for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit Chicago .
On March 19 , the county learned of its first case .
For the next week , nothing changed .
On March 25 , there was one more .
“ When we didn ’ t have any cases , there was a real complacency going on , ” said Denise Larson , Christian County public health administrator .
Larson said she fears the low number of confirmed cases so far in nearby counties gives a false sense of security .
The outbreak happened at a subsidized apartment complex for seniors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with someone who had contracted the disease .
All 22 residents of Rolling Meadows Senior Living Apartments were tested , officials said .
Two additional cases have been confirmed , bringing the total number of confirmed cases at the complex to 13 as of Tuesday .
On Wednesday , the county announced two COVID-19 deaths , a man and woman , both in their 80s .
Eighty-five-year-old Peggy Wadkins , who has lived in Christian County for more than 60 years and at the apartment complex for 10 , said she spends much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with her family , including her more than 30 great-grandchildren .
While residents remain in quarantine , city and county officials are checking to see if they need groceries or medicine .
This week , Wadkins put her walker in the doorway so a worker could place tissues , tylenol , lunch meat and bananas on the seat without coming into contact with her .
When Wadkins looks out her bedroom window , which overlooks the now vacant parking lot , she imagines a day when all of this has passed .
Until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one is really safe .
”

This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica Illinois is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force. Sign up for The ProPublica Illinois newsletter for weekly updates.
As she sat Wednesday on the covered deck at the 4-Way Saloon in Sidell, overlooking the town grain elevator, Leslie Powell made her way down the list of tasks she had scribbled on her yellow notepad. Asking the utility company for a payment plan was first.
Powell’s husband, Mark, became owner of this busy little bar and grill in east-central Illinois just nine days before Gov. J.B. Pritzker ordered residents across the state to shelter in place in an attempt to halt the spread of the novel coronavirus outbreak.
Now, with the 4-Way closed to dine-in orders, and the couple’s savings spent on buying and fixing it up, the Powells face losing their business if they don’t receive state or federal aid. And that has reinforced a thought Powell has had before: Chicago should be separated from the rest of the state.
The idea of secession has long simmered in Illinois’ more rural and Republican counties, periodically flaring up around issues such as raising the minimum wage, the establishment of sanctuary cities for undocumented immigrants and gun ownership. And though Illinois’ secession movement — or, movements — isn’t exactly united, many who believe in the principle share a general sense of feeling underrepresented in a state dominated by Chicago’s Democratic stronghold.
The coronavirus outbreak, which has yet to touch some areas of the state, has become the most recent flashpoint, inspiring both serious promises to reintroduce secession on the ballot and Facebook memes that call for building a wall around Chicago.
Political experts say there is virtually no chance that the state will ever split, especially since it will require an act of Congress and lead to the likely election of two Republican senators to represent that new state. Still, the secession conversation is a dramatic expression of the much more widespread — and potentially dangerous — frustration with a sweeping governmental response to the pandemic that many question in areas where some homes sit acres apart and people predominantly travel by car, not public transportation.
“There’s nobody around here that’s got it,” Powell said. “We’re a farming community. We know how to wash our hands. We’re with pigs and cows and chickens. In this community, it’s really hard to comprehend.”
As of Thursday, 41 of Illinois’ 102 counties had yet to see a single case of COVID-19, according to the Illinois Department of Public Health. Experts caution that likely will change soon. Vermilion County, where Powell lives, reported its first two cases this week, officials there said.
On Tuesday, Pritzker announced he was extending the stay-at-home order through April. Many people said they are following it, even if their businesses and livelihoods are suffering.
At the same time, the response to the pandemic has exacerbated the feelings of some residents that the rest of the state is being forced to deal with Chicago’s problem. State Rep. Blaine Wilhour, a Republican from Effingham, said that he would like to see some regional accommodations considered to the shutdown measures, including the possibility of opening up some restaurants at half-capacity and allowing mom-and-pop stores to set up appointments.
“There’s obviously a big difference in how these broad policies affect Chicago, which is a very densely populated area, and how they affect my district,” Wilhour said.
Wilhour, along with six other Republican lawmakers, sent a letter to Pritzker last week asking for measures to help small businesses during the pandemic, including freezing the minimum wage for 18 months and implementing a sales tax holiday for the duration of the stay-at-home order.
While Wilhour said he understands the severity of COVID-19, he said the stay-at-home order has taken an enormous economic toll on his district. Residents are taking the safeguards seriously for now, he said, but they also see that the disease is not nearly as prevalent in their area as it is in Chicago.
“They see the trajectory of Illinois as not good, especially not good for people in our part of the state,” he said. “There’s a lot of pent-up anxiety about adversarial policies that are pushed down to benefit Chicago and they disproportionately don’t benefit us.”
One risk of that frustration is that people may feel less inclined to follow what they see as Chicago’s rules. Steve McNeil, who manages Rent One furniture and appliance store in West Frankfort, about 300 miles south of Chicago, said he’s concerned that some people are neither following Pritzker’s stay-at-home order nor social distancing guidelines. Though his store, part of a regional chain, remains open, he said he makes sure his staff sanitizes the store “on the hour, every hour.”
He can’t say all of his customers are taking similar steps, though.
“It’s very lackadaisical,” McNeil said. “A lot of people I don’t see taking the precautions seriously.”
McNeil said his store has seen unprecedented sales of washers, dryers, deep freezers and refrigerators — which he considers “essential items” and the reason he believes he’s allowed to stay open — and has felt heartened by the new role he sees his business providing during the crisis.
On Wednesday, McNeil’s Rent One store posted a photo on its Facebook page advertising its stock of lawn mowers: “Yard season has started and Rent One is here to help you get started. This bad boy is parked out front of the store so feel free to take a look at it TODAY!”
Rick Henson, who owns a barber shop in West Frankfort, closed Tuesday after business slowed because of the coronavirus. He now hopes to reopen next week, after he began getting calls from customers, many of whom are older people, city officials and local police officers, saying he’s a “needed commodity.”
Jared Gravatt, co-owner of Crown Brew Coffee Company in Marion, said he understands the need for the stay-at-home order but thinks the differences between Chicago and the rest of the state are “night and day.”
Gravatt said the county’s businesses are reeling from the shutdown. He and his business partner are organizing a virtual fundraising event on Friday to raise money and awareness for struggling businesses while encouraging people to abide by the stay-at-home order.
Even Gravatt, who said he recognizes the importance of protecting against the coronavirus outbreak, acknowledges the appeal of secession.
COVID-19 has “killed more businesses than it has people in this region,” he said.
Last year, State Rep. Brad Halbrook, a Republican from Shelbyville, filed legislation that urged Congress to declare Chicago the nation’s 51st state. The legislation stalled in the rules committee, where it found little support, but organizing around the issue continues. Once Pritzker’s stay-at-home order is lifted and people are able to gather again, “the interest will be as high as it’s ever been,” Halbrook said. “There’s no question about it.”
“They want to manage the entire state to suit Chicago,” Halbrook said. “They’re different lifestyles and different cultures. To do this one-size-fits-all management doesn’t work.”
John S. Jackson, a visiting professor at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, points to similar secession movements in New York and California, where rural areas have animosity toward those states’ urban centers.
He called the perception of unequal resource distribution between Chicago and the rest of the state “a myth” that has existed for decades, and he said the stakes of that ideological divide are high during the coronavirus crisis.
“It’s a corrosive part of our culture,” Jackson said. “It has no chance at all of becoming law.”
Unlike other supporters, Collin Cliburn, a contractor and carpenter who lives outside Springfield, has led much of the state’s grassroots secession efforts. Cliburn describes his political views as “borderline old-school libertarian” and differentiates his effort from the “New Illinois” secession movement led by Halbrook as more populist and rogue than that of elected political leaders.
Cliburn hopes to collect enough local signatures to force the secession question onto statewide ballots as a referendum, county by county. So far, the strategy has paid off in Jefferson, Fayette and Effingham counties, which during the state’s March primaries voted more than 70% in a nonbinding referendum in favor of secession. While he believes, based on one-on-one conversations as well as the popularity of events he’s organized, that many in southern Illinois favor secession in practice, Cliburn said most are hesitant to vote for it.
To try to build support, Cliburn has turned to social media. He makes memes, shares local news stories and writes posts across a network of Facebook groups and pages he runs to amplify differences he sees between Chicago and the rest of the state.
“What I’m doing is creating a spider web,” Cliburn said.
That spider web, which he’s crafted to function as a sort of social media ecosystem of secession sentiment, includes “Illinois Separation,” a page Cliburn runs that has garnered nearly 27,000 Facebook likes; “Illinoyed,” a page for more general venting about the state, which has about 11,700 likes; and also dozens of county-level pages for local organizers. Lately, Cliburn said, he’s been using coronavirus news to bring attention to the effort to kick Chicago out of the state.
“Everything is about Chicago,” reads a March 24 post on the “Illinois Separation” page, above a news story about Chicago preparing for a “surge in bodies” because of COVID-19 deaths. “When the Governor speaks only Chicago people stand beside him, including their Mayor Lightfoot …” he wrote. “I’m sick and tired of everything being about Chicago.”
Another post, shared on the “Illinois Separation” page on March 25, shows an image of the state of Illinois with the Chicago-area blocked off with a line. “Make Illinois Great Again … build a wall !!” the graphic reads. Comments included individuals blaming Chicago for positive COVID-19 cases in their own counties and criticizing the shelter-in-place order in areas with few if any positive cases.
The post has nearly 800 likes and 400 shares.
Pritzker spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh called it “appalling” that people would focus on division instead of unity during a national crisis. The governor’s duty is to every single resident in Illinois, she said.
“When COVID-19 was first reported in Illinois, it was in one county and quickly spread to more than 50 in the days since,” Abudayyeh said. “Almost every day there is a new county reporting positive cases.”
The frustration that some rural residents feel about the shutdown, or at least their expectation that COVID-19 won’t reach them, may be short-lived.
Experts warn that the low numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases may simply reflect a lack of testing. In some counties, less than two dozen people have been tested. Because coronavirus spreads first in large urban areas then expands, it’s probably only a matter of time before the rest of the state sees cases, said Dr. Jerry Kruse, Dean and Provost of Southern Illinois University School of Medicine in Springfield
“It’s almost like throwing a pebble into a pool and watching the waves radiate out,” said Kruse, who added that it’s a “virtual inevitability” the coronavirus will reach rural Illinois.
Metro East St. Louis and Sangamon County have already started to see the number of cases rise.
“You should assume that the coronavirus has come to your county,” said Monica Dunn, assistant administrator at Edgar County Public Health Department.
Christian County, about 30 minutes southeast of Springfield, is an example of how quickly the situation can turn.
The county of 32,000 did not see its first case of COVID-19 for more than six weeks after the outbreak hit Chicago. On March 19, the county learned of its first case. For the next week, nothing changed. On March 25, there was one more.
Then overnight, 11 new confirmed cases.
“When we didn’t have any cases, there was a real complacency going on,” said Denise Larson, Christian County public health administrator. Larson said she fears the low number of confirmed cases so far in nearby counties gives a false sense of security.
The outbreak happened at a subsidized apartment complex for seniors in Taylorville after a resident attended church with someone who had contracted the disease. All 22 residents of Rolling Meadows Senior Living Apartments were tested, officials said. Two additional cases have been confirmed, bringing the total number of confirmed cases at the complex to 13 as of Tuesday.
On Wednesday, the county announced two COVID-19 deaths, a man and woman, both in their 80s.
Eighty-five-year-old Peggy Wadkins, who has lived in Christian County for more than 60 years and at the apartment complex for 10, said she spends much of her time now on the phone with her family, including her more than 30 great-grandchildren.
While residents remain in quarantine, city and county officials are checking to see if they need groceries or medicine. This week, Wadkins put her walker in the doorway so a worker could place tissues, tylenol, lunch meat and bananas on the seat without coming into contact with her.
When Wadkins looks out her bedroom window, which overlooks the now vacant parking lot, she imagines a day when all of this has passed.
Until then, she said, “No one is really safe.”