motherjones--2020-04-20--Trump Administration Officials Warned Against Halting Funding to WHO, Leaked Memo Shows

This story was published originally by ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for ProPublica ’ s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published .
An internal memorandum written by U.S. officials and addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warns that cutting funding to the World Health Organization , as President Donald Trump said he would do Tuesday , would erode America ’ s global standing , threaten U.S. lives and hobble global efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic .
The memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Rose Garden announcement , was written by officials within the State Department ’ s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and includes a detailed list of how U.S. funding to the WHO helps countries in the Middle East control the pandemic .
A draft version of the memo , which was labeled “ Sensitive But Unclassified ” and was titled “ Information Memo for the Secretary , ” was seen by ProPublica .
It ’ s unclear if the memo has been sent to Pompeo , and the draft version reviewed by ProPublica @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the U.S. Agency for International Development and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment .
The Trump administration has worked closely with the WHO on pandemic response , especially in places where the United States has a limited presence .
One U.S. official with knowledge of the State Department memo said it was likely written so that Pompeo could justify waiving parts of Trump ’ s order , allowing U.S. funding to the WHO to continue .
The emphasis on how the halt in funding could bolster China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hawks in the administration , this person said , speaking on the condition of anonymity .
Trump announced on Tuesday that he would halt WHO funding while his administration reviews what he described as mismanaging and “ covering up ” the coronavirus spread .
He said the WHO had not done enough to call out China ’ s lack of transparency .
The virus originated in China before spreading worldwide .
But Trump himself has praised China for its coronavirus response .
On Jan. 24 , he tweeted that China “ has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and that the U.S. appreciates the country ’ s “ transparency.
” A White House fact sheet issued on Wednesday said the administration will “ redirect global health aid to others directly engaged in the fight.
” But in some countries with weak health sectors , the WHO is by far the strongest conduit for U.S. and other international funds meant to protect public health , a U.S. official with knowledge of the situation said .
That could mean the administration will find it difficult to reprogram funding originally meant for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest donor to the WHO , contributing more than $ 400 million per year .
And the administration had chosen to funnel extra funds provided by Congress through the WHO as well , a tacit endorsement of its capabilities .
“ Current discussions regarding pausing U.S. assistance to the WHO to combat the pandemic risks not only further undermining our ability to help host governments address urgent needs , but also undermines the U.S. narrative of a long-standing partner at precisely the time posts are most reliant on that narrative , ” the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organization , the memo said , “ will impact over $ 50 million in U.S. assistance planned to help host governments address urgent needs and risks undermining the U.S. narrative of a long-standing health leader , ceding ground to the ( People ’ s Republic of China ) .
” Congress provided that funding in supplemental packages in March , the memo said .
Congressional Democrats quickly denounced Trump ’ s decision to halt funding to the WHO , and they argue that at least some of the U.S. funding to the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ President Trump does not have the authority to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated for the United States ’ assessed contribution to the World Health Organization , ” said Evan Hollander , a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee .
But the emergency funds given to the State Department and USAID and referenced in the memo are separate from the “ assessed contributions.
” The additional funding that Congress provided for the coronavirus response gave the administration much more flexibility to determine recipients , meaning that Trump is legally able to halt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of key WHO activities related to the pandemic fight .
In Lebanon , the WHO sent test kits in February and planned to send masks , gloves and other supplies afterward , the memo said .
In Yemen , which is already experiencing a humanitarian crisis because of years of war , the WHO was working to open ports for humanitarian supplies and providing American and Chinese tests .
In Libya , which is also in ongoing conflict , the memo said the WHO is “ the most technically viable implementing partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternatives exist.
” Around two dozen Americans in Libya have said they want to return to the U.S. , but the State Department can not help them do this for now , the memo said , and the agency has urged them to shelter in place .
“ Any one of them who encounters a health crisis will likely depend on WHO-provided assistance to make it through , ” the memo said .
In Algeria , where the coronavirus pandemic has proven especially deadly , USAID had approved half a million dollars in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the country and was considering sending a further $ 1.5 million , the memo said .
“ The PRC , meanwhile , has sent a medical team of 13 doctors and eight medical assistants , while private organizations have donated over $ 450,000 worth of medical equipment , ” the memo said , referring to China .

This story was published originally by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica’s Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
An internal memorandum written by U.S. officials and addressed to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warns that cutting funding to the World Health Organization, as President Donald Trump said he would do Tuesday, would erode America’s global standing, threaten U.S. lives and hobble global efforts to combat the coronavirus pandemic.
The memo, which was prepared before Trump’s Rose Garden announcement, was written by officials within the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and includes a detailed list of how U.S. funding to the WHO helps countries in the Middle East control the pandemic.
A draft version of the memo, which was labeled “Sensitive But Unclassified” and was titled “Information Memo for the Secretary,” was seen by ProPublica.
It’s unclear if the memo has been sent to Pompeo, and the draft version reviewed by ProPublica was still unfinished. The State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Trump administration has worked closely with the WHO on pandemic response, especially in places where the United States has a limited presence. One U.S. official with knowledge of the State Department memo said it was likely written so that Pompeo could justify waiving parts of Trump’s order, allowing U.S. funding to the WHO to continue. The emphasis on how the halt in funding could bolster China was likely meant to appeal to anti-China hawks in the administration, this person said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Trump announced on Tuesday that he would halt WHO funding while his administration reviews what he described as mismanaging and “covering up” the coronavirus spread. He said the WHO had not done enough to call out China’s lack of transparency. The virus originated in China before spreading worldwide.
But Trump himself has praised China for its coronavirus response. On Jan. 24, he tweeted that China “has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus,” and that the U.S. appreciates the country’s “transparency.”
A White House fact sheet issued on Wednesday said the administration will “redirect global health aid to others directly engaged in the fight.” But in some countries with weak health sectors, the WHO is by far the strongest conduit for U.S. and other international funds meant to protect public health, a U.S. official with knowledge of the situation said. That could mean the administration will find it difficult to reprogram funding originally meant for the agency.
The U.S. is the largest donor to the WHO, contributing more than $400 million per year. And the administration had chosen to funnel extra funds provided by Congress through the WHO as well, a tacit endorsement of its capabilities.
“Current discussions regarding pausing U.S. assistance to the WHO to combat the pandemic risks not only further undermining our ability to help host governments address urgent needs, but also undermines the U.S. narrative of a long-standing partner at precisely the time posts are most reliant on that narrative,” the memo said.
Pausing funding to the organization, the memo said, “will impact over $50 million in U.S. assistance planned to help host governments address urgent needs and risks undermining the U.S. narrative of a long-standing health leader, ceding ground to the (People’s Republic of China).”
Congress provided that funding in supplemental packages in March, the memo said.
Congressional Democrats quickly denounced Trump’s decision to halt funding to the WHO, and they argue that at least some of the U.S. funding to the organization is beyond his power to stop.
“President Trump does not have the authority to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated for the United States’ assessed contribution to the World Health Organization,” said Evan Hollander, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee.
But the emergency funds given to the State Department and USAID and referenced in the memo are separate from the “assessed contributions.” The additional funding that Congress provided for the coronavirus response gave the administration much more flexibility to determine recipients, meaning that Trump is legally able to halt those funds.
The memo detailed a number of key WHO activities related to the pandemic fight. In Lebanon, the WHO sent test kits in February and planned to send masks, gloves and other supplies afterward, the memo said. In Yemen, which is already experiencing a humanitarian crisis because of years of war, the WHO was working to open ports for humanitarian supplies and providing American and Chinese tests.
In Libya, which is also in ongoing conflict, the memo said the WHO is “the most technically viable implementing partner on public health issues; very limited alternatives exist.” Around two dozen Americans in Libya have said they want to return to the U.S., but the State Department cannot help them do this for now, the memo said, and the agency has urged them to shelter in place. “Any one of them who encounters a health crisis will likely depend on WHO-provided assistance to make it through,” the memo said.
In Algeria, where the coronavirus pandemic has proven especially deadly, USAID had approved half a million dollars in funding for the WHO’s response in the country and was considering sending a further $1.5 million, the memo said.
“The PRC, meanwhile, has sent a medical team of 13 doctors and eight medical assistants, while private organizations have donated over $450,000 worth of medical equipment,” the memo said, referring to China.


motherjones--2020-04-21--How Health Care Investors Are Helping Run Jared Kushner’s Shadow Coronavirus Task Force

Last year , private equity firms spent tens of millions to to defeat bipartisan legislation reining in surprise medical bills that can send unsuspecting patients into debt .
In December , Congress buckled to the industry ’ s pressure and failed to limit predatory billing practices of many institutional health care investors—especially private equity firms , which have aggressively moved into the health care space over the last decade .
Welsh , Carson , Anderson & Stowe—one such private equity firm that has generated big investor returns by following the industry playbook of buying up health care practices , loading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more—controls companies that spent hundreds of thousands lobbying against the bill and helped fund a coalition of private equity-backed medical groups that spent $ 4 million to block the legislation .
And last month , one of the firm ’ s top executives joined a shadow task force convened by Jared Kushner to help run the Trump administration ’ s response to the coronavirus pandemic .
He ’ s in good company .
When Kushner , the president ’ s son-in-law , assembled the group , he did not turn to experts in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he enlisted people with experience in the business of health care—not necessarily medical experts , but particularly those who worked on finance side and were adept at making money off the health care industry .
Some who were invited to join from inside the government ’ s ranks were former investors and entrepreneurs in the health space , including a former roommate of Kushner ’ s .
But members of the shadow working group who come from outside government work at or run companies that have a clear financial stake in how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out contracts , spending , and bailout funding .
Because of the way the group has been assembled and run , the outsiders , unlike government employees , have not had to disclose any such potential conflicts , submit to ethics determinations about recusals , nor to divest from any financial arrangements that could influence their decisions .
Moreover , because Kushner ’ s group is operating on private phones and email accounts without regard for federal transparency requirements governing advisory committees , there ’ s less insight into whether or not they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for themselves or their companies .
“ There are serious questions about how the Trump and Kushner families use the presidency to benefit themselves , ” says Jordan Libowitz , a spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington , a watchdog group whose experts say Kushner ’ s shadow group is violating federal record-keeping and transparency laws .
“ We don ’ t know how involved family business ties are to any of this .
We don ’ t know all the members of the task force or who they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t know how people are pushing their own financial interests.
” “ That isn ’ t to say that Jared ’ s doing something nefarious here , ” Libowitz adds .
“ It is to say that if he were , this is how he would do it.
” The secrecy and clear conflicts of interest are in line with the group ’ s overall operations .
The first report of its existence , published by the Washington Post in mid March , revealed that members were working out of offices at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including representatives from UPS and FedEx .
Kushner ’ s team has significant influence inside the official coronavirus task force run by Vice President Mike Pence , including a subgroup working on supply chain issues .
According to NBC News , FedEx has been chartered , possibly at twice the cost that taxpayers would incur using military planes , to move supplies needed in the response .
Reports show that Kushner ’ s team has sowed confusion at HHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA ) by pushing aside bureaucrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preexisting personal and business contacts .
“ Jared and his friends decided they were going to do their thing , ” a senior government official involved in the pandemic response told NBC .
“ It cost weeks.
” One outside member of Kushner ’ s team that has received little scrutiny is Nat Turner , the co-founder and CEO of Flatiron Health , a health technology company that was purchased by pharmaceutical giant Roche in 2018 for $ 1.9 billion .
In mid-March , Turner and a few Flatiron colleagues began working out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ad hoc task force .
Around that time , the FDA granted Roche emergency authorization to deploy a test for the coronavirus it had developed .
“ This is the first commercially distributed diagnostic test to receive an [ Emergency Use Authorization ] during the COVID-19 outbreak , ” the FDA boasted after approving the company ’ s test application within 24 hours of receiving it .
Neither the FDA nor Turner , through Flatiron , responded to questions about Roche ’ s rapid approval .
A spokesman for Roche said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pre-application materials on February 10 and that other companies ’ tests were given the same green light in the days after Roche ’ s test got approval .
Turner has invested in a range of health care startups , including Oscar , a technology-focused insurer founded by Joshua Kushner , Jared ’ s brother .
Turner was an angel investor in Oscar , which was controlled by both Joshua and Jared .
Last month , as Jared Kushner convened his task force , Trump bragged during a Rose Garden appearance about a website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to coronavirus testing sites that would be created by Google .
While that site never materialized , according to the Atlantic , Oscar , which has received investments from Google ’ s parent company , began building a site designed for the same purpose ; it too was ultimately abandoned , but ethics experts say the arrangement may have run afoul of federal corruption laws .
Turner ’ s financial relationship with the Kushners predates Oscar .
In 2012 , Turner and his longtime business partner invested in 42Floors , an office space @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jared joined its board of directors and invested in the company through Thrive Capital , a venture capital fund that holds Oscar , and that the brothers jointly owned until January 2017 , when Jared Kushner sold or transferred control of a passel of assets upon joining the Trump administration .
When Mother Jones recently reported on Jared ’ s involvement with Oscar and Thrive , the White House declined to comment on their relationship .
At the time Kushner entered government , his methods of divesting many of his assets—selling to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mother that benefits members of his family—were questioned by ethics experts .
One told the New York Times it sounded like a “ shell game.
” Since 2013 , Thrive Capital and entities linked to Turner both invested in at least three other health tech startups , giving him and the Kushners a shared interest in the companies ’ success .
In 2015 , Great Oaks , a venture capital fund that boasts a partnership with Turner going back to 2012 and that had previously invested in Flatiron and other companies he owns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ software startup .
By 2017 , Thrive Capital had also decided to invest in Welkin , leading a key round of funding .
In 2018 , Thrive and Turner both invested in two other health tech companies : Cityblock , a start-up targeting urban communities ’ medical needs , and Cedar , a billing company .
Turner ’ s holdings raise concerns that advice and expertise he ’ s providing the administration or information he ’ s gathering as part of the task force could benefit some of the many companies he is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whose success would benefit the Kushner family .
“ I think it definitely raises red flags , ” Kyle Herrig , president of Accountable.us , a progressive watchdog group , says of Turner and Thrive ’ s overlapping investments .
“ It looks like Kushner brought his friends in here to help advise them on something .
It doesn ’ t surprise me that his friends invest similarly to him and/or his brother.
” But , he added , “ because the way they ’ re operating is outside of any government transparency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just so much information we can ’ t have.
” “ When you ’ re seeking advice from people outside of government , their advice may contradict what ’ s in the best interest of the public , ” says Scott Amey , general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight .
“ That ’ s why these laws are on the books , to provide transparency in who is providing advice to government officials.
” The White House did not respond to questions about how Kushner selected people for his task force @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list of its members .
Turner isn ’ t the only person on Kushner ’ s task force with financial interests in the health care industry .
According to Politico , David Caluori and a few associates at his private equity firm , Welsh Carson , are taking part in the task force , even as that outfit ’ s investments have been upended by the coronavirus crisis .
The firm is heavily invested in medical practice areas that have been hit hard by the drastic reduction in medical procedures that aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including anesthesiology and radiology .
Additionally , one of the larger companies owned by Welsh Carson , US Acute Care Solutions , has cut hours in some places while increasing staffing in others , according to ProPublica .
Mother Jones reached out to Caluori through a general partner at Welsh Carson but received no response .
Welsh Carson ’ s issues are a microcosm of forces affecting the broader private equity world .
While private equity-controlled health care companies have proven lucrative for their owners in normal times , during the pandemic , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Washington for help .
While the American College of Emergency Physicians represents both private-equity owned firms and smaller practices , it spent money to oppose the surprise billing legislation , and its president is an executive at PE-owned Envision Health .
The group has asked the federal government for $ 3.6 billion in bailout money for its members ’ practices .
Private equity firms often deploy a business model that has made them unpopular with the public : buy companies , saddle them with debt to finance the purchase , then try @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant returns for the firms ’ investors .
If all goes well , they sell the companies for a profit .
Over the last decade , PE has moved aggressively into the health care space , often jacking up customers ’ bills to turn a profit .
In 2018 alone , such firms invested more than $ 100 billion in health care through 855 buyout and investment deals , according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research , a progressive economic think tank .
With patients who can staying home during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed on hold , many are seeing profits tank .
“ When you put that much debt onto a company , every single thing in that plan must go like clockwork , ” says Eileen Appelbaum , an economist and co-director at CEPR and a co-author of recent studies on private equity and health care .
“ But now , here comes the coronavirus .
And they have no buffers , they have this huge debt.
” According to Appelbaum , Envision may soon default without relief from its creditors .
Even in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other private-equity owned or financed health companies have cut the hours and benefits of doctors and clinicians due to plummeting revenues .
While the coronavirus ’ s collateral economic fallout is being felt across all kinds of heath companies , private equity-run and -owned practices ’ heavy debt burdens put them at special risk .
Private equity firms typically structure their operations in a way that they are not responsible for debts incurred by the companies they control .
So even if the parent firms have assets that could cover the companies ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in private equity is going to bail them out.
” If stressed medical companies fail , patients could see less access to care during this crucial time .
In Pennsylvania , a private equity-owned hospital threatened to shutdown in the middle of the pandemic unless it received government bailout money , which the governor felt he had little choice but to furnish .
The situation calls to mind the 2008 financial crisis , when Wall Street firms ’ irresponsible tactics threatened not only their own solvency , but the health of the broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out investors and institutions whose risky bets went awry .
Having people who represent private equity ’ s interests taking part in Kushner ’ s shadow working group raises the possibility that the needs of health companies owned by such firms will be given undue weight or favorable terms in the distribution of government ’ s bailout funds for medical providers .
“ I don ’ t know what the VC guy is doing over there , ” says Herrig at Accountable.us .
“ I don ’ t know what the private equity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t know what any of them are doing because , again , we ’ re just being kept in the dark .
”

Last year, private equity firms spent tens of millions to to defeat bipartisan legislation reining in surprise medical bills that can send unsuspecting patients into debt. In December, Congress buckled to the industry’s pressure and failed to limit predatory billing practices of many institutional health care investors—especially private equity firms, which have aggressively moved into the health care space over the last decade.
Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe—one such private equity firm that has generated big investor returns by following the industry playbook of buying up health care practices, loading them with debt, and charging patients more—controls companies that spent hundreds of thousands lobbying against the bill and helped fund a coalition of private equity-backed medical groups that spent $4 million to block the legislation. And last month, one of the firm’s top executives joined a shadow task force convened by Jared Kushner to help run the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The outsiders have not had to disclose potential conflicts, submit to ethics recusals, nor divest.
He’s in good company. When Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, assembled the group, he did not turn to experts in crisis management or public health. Instead, he enlisted people with experience in the business of health care—not necessarily medical experts, but particularly those who worked on finance side and were adept at making money off the health care industry. Some who were invited to join from inside the government’s ranks were former investors and entrepreneurs in the health space, including a former roommate of Kushner’s. But members of the shadow working group who come from outside government work at or run companies that have a clear financial stake in how the government handles the crisis and doles out contracts, spending, and bailout funding.
Because of the way the group has been assembled and run, the outsiders, unlike government employees, have not had to disclose any such potential conflicts, submit to ethics determinations about recusals, nor to divest from any financial arrangements that could influence their decisions. Moreover, because Kushner’s group is operating on private phones and email accounts without regard for federal transparency requirements governing advisory committees, there’s less insight into whether or not they are using their positions to make money for themselves or their companies.
“There are serious questions about how the Trump and Kushner families use the presidency to benefit themselves,” says Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group whose experts say Kushner’s shadow group is violating federal record-keeping and transparency laws. “We don’t know how involved family business ties are to any of this. We don’t know all the members of the task force or who they’re talking to. We don’t know how people are pushing their own financial interests.”
“That isn’t to say that Jared’s doing something nefarious here,” Libowitz adds. “It is to say that if he were, this is how he would do it.”
The secrecy and clear conflicts of interest are in line with the group’s overall operations. The first report of its existence, published by the Washington Post in mid March, revealed that members were working out of offices at the Department of Health and Human Services headquarters, including representatives from UPS and FedEx. Kushner’s team has significant influence inside the official coronavirus task force run by Vice President Mike Pence, including a subgroup working on supply chain issues. According to NBC News, FedEx has been chartered, possibly at twice the cost that taxpayers would incur using military planes, to move supplies needed in the response. Reports show that Kushner’s team has sowed confusion at HHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by pushing aside bureaucrats and existing procedures in favor of their preexisting personal and business contacts. “Jared and his friends decided they were going to do their thing,” a senior government official involved in the pandemic response told NBC. “It cost weeks.”
One outside member of Kushner’s team that has received little scrutiny is Nat Turner, the co-founder and CEO of Flatiron Health, a health technology company that was purchased by pharmaceutical giant Roche in 2018 for $1.9 billion. In mid-March, Turner and a few Flatiron colleagues began working out of HHS as part of Kushner’s ad hoc task force. Around that time, the FDA granted Roche emergency authorization to deploy a test for the coronavirus it had developed. “This is the first commercially distributed diagnostic test to receive an [Emergency Use Authorization] during the COVID-19 outbreak,” the FDA boasted after approving the company’s test application within 24 hours of receiving it. Neither the FDA nor Turner, through Flatiron, responded to questions about Roche’s rapid approval. A spokesman for Roche said that the company had provided the FDA with pre-application materials on February 10 and that other companies’ tests were given the same green light in the days after Roche’s test got approval.
“Jared and his friends decided they were going to do their thing.”
Turner has invested in a range of health care startups, including Oscar, a technology-focused insurer founded by Joshua Kushner, Jared’s brother. Turner was an angel investor in Oscar, which was controlled by both Joshua and Jared. Last month, as Jared Kushner convened his task force, Trump bragged during a Rose Garden appearance about a website for the government to help direct people to coronavirus testing sites that would be created by Google. While that site never materialized, according to the Atlantic, Oscar, which has received investments from Google’s parent company, began building a site designed for the same purpose; it too was ultimately abandoned, but ethics experts say the arrangement may have run afoul of federal corruption laws.
Turner’s financial relationship with the Kushners predates Oscar. In 2012, Turner and his longtime business partner invested in 42Floors, an office space search tool. At the same time Jared joined its board of directors and invested in the company through Thrive Capital, a venture capital fund that holds Oscar, and that the brothers jointly owned until January 2017, when Jared Kushner sold or transferred control of a passel of assets upon joining the Trump administration. When Mother Jones recently reported on Jared’s involvement with Oscar and Thrive, the White House declined to comment on their relationship. At the time Kushner entered government, his methods of divesting many of his assets—selling to his brother or a trust run by his mother that benefits members of his family—were questioned by ethics experts. One told the New York Times it sounded like a “shell game.”
Since 2013, Thrive Capital and entities linked to Turner both invested in at least three other health tech startups, giving him and the Kushners a shared interest in the companies’ success. In 2015, Great Oaks, a venture capital fund that boasts a partnership with Turner going back to 2012 and that had previously invested in Flatiron and other companies he owns, invested in Welkin Health, a software startup. By 2017, Thrive Capital had also decided to invest in Welkin, leading a key round of funding. In 2018, Thrive and Turner both invested in two other health tech companies: Cityblock, a start-up targeting urban communities’ medical needs, and Cedar, a billing company.
Turner’s holdings raise concerns that advice and expertise he’s providing the administration or information he’s gathering as part of the task force could benefit some of the many companies he is involved or invested with, including ones whose success would benefit the Kushner family. “I think it definitely raises red flags,” Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.us, a progressive watchdog group, says of Turner and Thrive’s overlapping investments. “It looks like Kushner brought his friends in here to help advise them on something. It doesn’t surprise me that his friends invest similarly to him and/or his brother.” But, he added, “because the way they’re operating is outside of any government transparency laws and regulations, there’s just so much information we can’t have.”
“When you’re seeking advice from people outside of government, their advice may contradict what’s in the best interest of the public,” says Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight. “That’s why these laws are on the books, to provide transparency in who is providing advice to government officials.”
The White House did not respond to questions about how Kushner selected people for his task force, nor did it provide a full list of its members.
Turner isn’t the only person on Kushner’s task force with financial interests in the health care industry. According to Politico, David Caluori and a few associates at his private equity firm, Welsh Carson, are taking part in the task force, even as that outfit’s investments have been upended by the coronavirus crisis.
The firm is heavily invested in medical practice areas that have been hit hard by the drastic reduction in medical procedures that aren’t related to tackling the virus, including anesthesiology and radiology. Additionally, one of the larger companies owned by Welsh Carson, US Acute Care Solutions, has cut hours in some places while increasing staffing in others, according to ProPublica. Mother Jones reached out to Caluori through a general partner at Welsh Carson but received no response.
Welsh Carson’s issues are a microcosm of forces affecting the broader private equity world. While private equity-controlled health care companies have proven lucrative for their owners in normal times, during the pandemic, their struggles have prompted them to look to Washington for help. While the American College of Emergency Physicians represents both private-equity owned firms and smaller practices, it spent money to oppose the surprise billing legislation, and its president is an executive at PE-owned Envision Health. The group has asked the federal government for $3.6 billion in bailout money for its members’ practices.
“I don’t know what the VC guy is doing over there…I don’t know what the private equity guy is doing over there.”
Private equity firms often deploy a business model that has made them unpopular with the public: buy companies, saddle them with debt to finance the purchase, then try to juice profits in hopes of generating significant returns for the firms’ investors. If all goes well, they sell the companies for a profit. Over the last decade, PE has moved aggressively into the health care space, often jacking up customers’ bills to turn a profit. In 2018 alone, such firms invested more than $100 billion in health care through 855 buyout and investment deals, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a progressive economic think tank. With patients who can staying home during the pandemic, and with non-essential medical services placed on hold, many are seeing profits tank.
“When you put that much debt onto a company, every single thing in that plan must go like clockwork,” says Eileen Appelbaum, an economist and co-director at CEPR and a co-author of recent studies on private equity and health care. “But now, here comes the coronavirus. And they have no buffers, they have this huge debt.” According to Appelbaum, Envision may soon default without relief from its creditors. Even in the midst of the pandemic, several other private-equity owned or financed health companies have cut the hours and benefits of doctors and clinicians due to plummeting revenues. While the coronavirus’s collateral economic fallout is being felt across all kinds of heath companies, private equity-run and -owned practices’ heavy debt burdens put them at special risk.
Private equity firms typically structure their operations in a way that they are not responsible for debts incurred by the companies they control. So even if the parent firms have assets that could cover the companies’ shortfalls, says Appelbaum, “nobody in private equity is going to bail them out.” If stressed medical companies fail, patients could see less access to care during this crucial time. In Pennsylvania, a private equity-owned hospital threatened to shutdown in the middle of the pandemic unless it received government bailout money, which the governor felt he had little choice but to furnish.
The situation calls to mind the 2008 financial crisis, when Wall Street firms’ irresponsible tactics threatened not only their own solvency, but the health of the broader economy. Taxpayers stepped up to bail out investors and institutions whose risky bets went awry. Having people who represent private equity’s interests taking part in Kushner’s shadow working group raises the possibility that the needs of health companies owned by such firms will be given undue weight or favorable terms in the distribution of government’s bailout funds for medical providers.
“I don’t know what the VC guy is doing over there,” says Herrig at Accountable.us. “I don’t know what the private equity guy is doing over there. I don’t know what any of them are doing because, again, we’re just being kept in the dark.”


motherjones--2020-04-21--Like You, Donald Trump Wants a Break on His Rent

Like many hotels in America , Donald Trump ’ s luxury downtown DC hotel has taken a massive hit from the COVID-19 pandemic and is asking its landlord for a break on its monthly rent .
But this particular property is unique in that the landlord takes its orders from the president himself .
The Trump International Hotel in Washington , DC , operates out of a federally owned property , an old post office building just blocks from the White House .
In 2013 , the Trump Organization signed a lease to operate a hotel in the building and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million a year in rent .
When Trump took office , he refused to sell or give up control of his businesses ; he simply declared that his two adult sons and some company executives would take charge of the daily operations .
The hotel has been a bright spot in Trump ’ s portfolio during his presidency , if not always as a business then at least as a symbol .
Many of his properties have seen declines in revenue , but the DC hotel , which opened in 2016 , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of millions of dollars of new revenue into the Trump Organization and has become a popular hangout for lobbyists and foreign officials seeking to get Trump ’ s attention .
The president himself dines at the steakhouse in the hotel ’ s lobby on a regular basis .
But for all the attention the hotel has gotten , in the months before the pandemic began spreading , it reportedly had an occupancy rate of around 57 percent , less than what hotel business experts say is needed to turn a profit , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 60-year lease on the property .
All that suggests that the hotel was not as profitable as it might appear .
The hotel has remained open through the pandemic , unlike most other luxury hotels in DC , but with an occupancy of about 2 percent , according to an official with the hotel worker ’ s union .
That , apparently , is not cutting it .
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the Trump Organization has approached the General Services Administration ( GSA ) , the federal agency that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other government-owned properties , about some kind of break on the rent .
The Trump Organization confirmed to the Times that they had done so : The Trump Organization is current on its rent , according to Eric Trump , the president ’ s son , but he confirmed that the company had opened a conversation about possible delays in future monthly payments .
The younger Mr. Trump said the company was asking the G.S.A .
for any relief that it might be granting other federal tenants .
The president still owns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run the day-to-day operations .
“ Just treat us the same , ” Eric Trump in a statement on Tuesday .
“ Whatever that may be is fine.
” But will it be fine ?
The Times also reported that the Trump Organization has asked Palm Beach County in Florida for a break on its rent for property it leases from the county for a golf course—and that county officials are fretting that if they refuse to give the Trumps a break , they may be shorted on federal pandemic aid .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but agency officials all ultimately work for Trump .
The kind of conflict of interest could have been avoided .
In the lease that Trump signed in 2013 , a clause prohibited federal office holders from participating in the arrangement .
But after he had already taken office , the GSA determined that it did not apply to Trump , because he wasn ’ t a federal office holder when he signed the deal .
Steven Schooner , a law professor at George Washington University who specializes in government contracting and who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GSA ’ s decision not to apply the conflict-of-interest rule to Trump , says this is the scenario the rule was designed to prevent .
“ Under no circumstances should GSA reduce the rent , ” Schooner said .
“ Any reasonable person would worry about the undue pressures and the inherent risk of favoritism that the government might show to such a well-connected contractor .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Like many hotels in America, Donald Trump’s luxury downtown DC hotel has taken a massive hit from the COVID-19 pandemic and is asking its landlord for a break on its monthly rent. But this particular property is unique in that the landlord takes its orders from the president himself.
The Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, operates out of a federally owned property, an old post office building just blocks from the White House. In 2013, the Trump Organization signed a lease to operate a hotel in the building and promised to pay at least $3 million a year in rent. When Trump took office, he refused to sell or give up control of his businesses; he simply declared that his two adult sons and some company executives would take charge of the daily operations. The hotel has been a bright spot in Trump’s portfolio during his presidency, if not always as a business then at least as a symbol. Many of his properties have seen declines in revenue, but the DC hotel, which opened in 2016, just days before the election, injected tens of millions of dollars of new revenue into the Trump Organization and has become a popular hangout for lobbyists and foreign officials seeking to get Trump’s attention. The president himself dines at the steakhouse in the hotel’s lobby on a regular basis.
But for all the attention the hotel has gotten, in the months before the pandemic began spreading, it reportedly had an occupancy rate of around 57 percent, less than what hotel business experts say is needed to turn a profit, and the Trumps had begun shopping around their 60-year lease on the property. All that suggests that the hotel was not as profitable as it might appear. The hotel has remained open through the pandemic, unlike most other luxury hotels in DC, but with an occupancy of about 2 percent, according to an official with the hotel worker’s union.
That, apparently, is not cutting it. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that the Trump Organization has approached the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal agency that operates as landlord for the Trump hotel and other government-owned properties, about some kind of break on the rent. The Trump Organization confirmed to the Times that they had done so:
The Trump Organization is current on its rent, according to Eric Trump, the president’s son, but he confirmed that the company had opened a conversation about possible delays in future monthly payments. The younger Mr. Trump said the company was asking the G.S.A. for any relief that it might be granting other federal tenants. The president still owns the company, but his eldest sons run the day-to-day operations. “Just treat us the same,” Eric Trump in a statement on Tuesday. “Whatever that may be is fine.”
But will it be fine? The Times also reported that the Trump Organization has asked Palm Beach County in Florida for a break on its rent for property it leases from the county for a golf course—and that county officials are fretting that if they refuse to give the Trumps a break, they may be shorted on federal pandemic aid.
The decision will be up to the GSA, but agency officials all ultimately work for Trump. The kind of conflict of interest could have been avoided. In the lease that Trump signed in 2013, a clause prohibited federal office holders from participating in the arrangement. But after he had already taken office, the GSA determined that it did not apply to Trump, because he wasn’t a federal office holder when he signed the deal. Steven Schooner, a law professor at George Washington University who specializes in government contracting and who has long been a critic of the GSA’s decision not to apply the conflict-of-interest rule to Trump, says this is the scenario the rule was designed to prevent.
“Under no circumstances should GSA reduce the rent,” Schooner said. “Any reasonable person would worry about the undue pressures and the inherent risk of favoritism that the government might show to such a well-connected contractor.”


motherjones--2020-04-21--Republican-Led Senate Panel Confirms That Russia Backed Trump in 2016

In January 2017 , after Donald Trump eked out his electoral college victory but before he took office , the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report outlining what the CIA , NSA , and FBI knew—and could say publicly—about Russian attacks on the 2016 election .
The report concluded that the Russian government orchestrated the assault at the direction of Vladimir Putin and that one Moscow aim was to bolster Trump ’ s campaign .
Trump has consistently denied or discounted the findings in the years since as a “ deep state ” plot to undermine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee gave the report an overall blue ribbon seal of approval .
The committee , after years of investigations , interviews with relevant officials , and an exhaustive review of the intelligence that underpinned the report ’ s conclusions found that it was professionally produced free of political pressure and that its assessments were an accurate representation of what the government knew .
“ The Committee found the [ report ] presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigators .
“ The Committee concludes that all [ redacted ] analytic lines are supported with all-source intelligence , although with varying substantiation .
The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation.
” The committee ’ s findings refute Trump , specifically affirming the conclusion that Putin “ approved and directed aspects ” of the Russian attacks on the election , that the Russian operation was designed to harm Hillary Clinton ’ s chances in the election , and “ that Putin and the Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The report is the fourth volume generated by the Senate committee ’ s investigation of the Russian attacks on the 2016 elections .
Previous reports have documented Russian attacks on US election infrastructure , Russian use of social media , and the US government ’ s response to Russian activities .
The White House did not respond to a request for comment .
Sen. Richard Burr ( R-N.C. ) , the committee ’ s chair , said in a statement that the January 2017 report “ reflects strong tradecraft , sound analytical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the one analytical line where it occurred ” and that the panel “ found no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community ’ s conclusions.
” Sen. Mark Warner ( D-Va. ) , the committee ’ s vice chair , said in a statement that the January 2017 report “ represented the kind of unbiased and professional work we expect and require from the Intelligence Community.
” One key point made in the committee ’ s analysis is that the now infamous memos provided to the FBI by Christopher Steele , a former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used in the body of the [ report ] or to support any of its analytic judgments.
” Instead , following a debate among the intelligence agencies over whether and how Steele ’ s materials might be included , a summary of his investigation was attached in a classified annex , the committee wrote , “ as a compromise to FBI ’ s insistence that the information was responsive ” to the request from President Barack Obama that prompted the 2017 report , which included a call to include all information related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Steele dossier , which was partially funded by Democrats , has been at the center of Trump ’ s false claims that the FBI improperly spied on him and his campaign and that the FBI ’ s investigation of links between the Russian effort and the Trump campaign was launched under false pretenses .
Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) , a member of the committee with a track record of tough oversight of the intelligence agencies , noted in comments included with the report that he ’ s always “ refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” like the one released in January 2017 , and has instead “ endeavored to always ask the hard questions.
” “ That ’ s what this report does , ” Wyden wrote .
“ The findings are not a ‘ hoax.
’ They are not in doubt because , as Donald Trump stated , Vladimir Putin ‘ very strongly ’ denies them .
Russian interference in the 2016 election is a fact and Donald Trump ’ s deference to Putin only serves to further Russian disinformation and undermine efforts to defend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added that Tuesday ’ s report also “ provides additional evidence against Donald Trump ’ s false assertions regarding Ukraine , ” including comments he made on a July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that prompted his impeachment suggesting that country , rather than Russia , had played a role in hacking the DNC in 2016 .
As Wyden notes , the GOP-controlled intelligence committee conducted an “ extensive examination of the intelligence demonstrating Russia ’ s intrusions ” in to DNC computer networks , confirming the January 2017 findings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the conclusion “ is fundamentally incompatible with Trump ’ s conspiracy theories about Ukrainian involvement , for which there is no supporting evidence of any kind .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In January 2017, after Donald Trump eked out his electoral college victory but before he took office, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a report outlining what the CIA, NSA, and FBI knew—and could say publicly—about Russian attacks on the 2016 election. The report concluded that the Russian government orchestrated the assault at the direction of Vladimir Putin and that one Moscow aim was to bolster Trump’s campaign.
“Russian interference in the 2016 election is a fact.”
Trump has consistently denied or discounted the findings in the years since as a “deep state” plot to undermine him. But a new report released Tuesday from the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee gave the report an overall blue ribbon seal of approval. The committee, after years of investigations, interviews with relevant officials, and an exhaustive review of the intelligence that underpinned the report’s conclusions found that it was professionally produced free of political pressure and that its assessments were an accurate representation of what the government knew.
“The Committee found the [report] presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis of unprecedented Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election,” according to the Senate investigators. “The Committee concludes that all [redacted] analytic lines are supported with all-source intelligence, although with varying substantiation. The Committee did not discover any significant analytic tradecraft issues in the preparation or final presentation.”
The committee’s findings refute Trump, specifically affirming the conclusion that Putin “approved and directed aspects” of the Russian attacks on the election, that the Russian operation was designed to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances in the election, and “that Putin and the Russian Government demonstrated a preference for candidate Trump.”
The report is the fourth volume generated by the Senate committee’s investigation of the Russian attacks on the 2016 elections. Previous reports have documented Russian attacks on US election infrastructure, Russian use of social media, and the US government’s response to Russian activities. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee’s chair, said in a statement that the January 2017 report “reflects strong tradecraft, sound analytical reasoning, and proper justification of disagreement in the one analytical line where it occurred” and that the panel “found no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community’s conclusions.”
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the committee’s vice chair, said in a statement that the January 2017 report “represented the kind of unbiased and professional work we expect and require from the Intelligence Community.”
One key point made in the committee’s analysis is that the now infamous memos provided to the FBI by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, were “not used in the body of the [report] or to support any of its analytic judgments.” Instead, following a debate among the intelligence agencies over whether and how Steele’s materials might be included, a summary of his investigation was attached in a classified annex, the committee wrote, “as a compromise to FBI’s insistence that the information was responsive” to the request from President Barack Obama that prompted the 2017 report, which included a call to include all information related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The Steele dossier, which was partially funded by Democrats, has been at the center of Trump’s false claims that the FBI improperly spied on him and his campaign and that the FBI’s investigation of links between the Russian effort and the Trump campaign was launched under false pretenses.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the committee with a track record of tough oversight of the intelligence agencies, noted in comments included with the report that he’s always “refused to assume the accuracy of intelligence assessments” like the one released in January 2017, and has instead “endeavored to always ask the hard questions.”
“That’s what this report does,” Wyden wrote. “The findings are not a ‘hoax.’ They are not in doubt because, as Donald Trump stated, Vladimir Putin ‘very strongly’ denies them. Russian interference in the 2016 election is a fact and Donald Trump’s deference to Putin only serves to further Russian disinformation and undermine efforts to defend the United States against ongoing attacks.”
Wyden added that Tuesday’s report also “provides additional evidence against Donald Trump’s false assertions regarding Ukraine,” including comments he made on a July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that prompted his impeachment suggesting that country, rather than Russia, had played a role in hacking the DNC in 2016. As Wyden notes, the GOP-controlled intelligence committee conducted an “extensive examination of the intelligence demonstrating Russia’s intrusions” in to DNC computer networks, confirming the January 2017 findings of Russian culpability. As Wyden writes, the conclusion “is fundamentally incompatible with Trump’s conspiracy theories about Ukrainian involvement, for which there is no supporting evidence of any kind.”


motherjones--2020-04-21--How Fox News Is Supercharging the Coronavirus Protests

In recent days , thousands of people have protested against coronavirus lockdowns in states across the country .
The demonstrators—often wearing MAGA gear and directing their ire at Democratic governors—still represent a small minority ; polls show that most Americans are actually worried the shutdowns will be ended too soon .
But according to Matt Gertz , that could change quickly .
Gertz , a senior fellow at the liberal group Media Matters for America , points out that Fox News has thrown its full weight behind the protests and that Donald Trump has followed the right-wing network ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News and President Trump championing these protests for a while , ” Gertz predicts , “ you ’ ll see polarization kick in , I think , and Republicans begin to support them in larger numbers.
” Between April 13 and April 19 , Fox devoted a whopping 4 hours and 23 minutes—across 69 separate segments—to covering the protests , a Media Matters report found .
All this is eerily reminiscent of 2009 , when Fox helped turn the nascent tea party movement into a powerful anti-Obama political force by relentlessly promoting its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Gertz at Media Matters back then . )
On Monday , I spoke with Gertz about Fox ’ s coverage of the anti-social distancing demonstrations , its impact on Trump , and the striking similarities to what happened a decade ago .
Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity .
Describe how Fox has been promoting these protests against governors and against social distancing .
Beginning a little bit last Tuesday and then picking up rather heavily on Wednesday through the end of last week and Monday , we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country on Fox , frequent packaged reports , as well as lots of pundit chatter about the protests .
Of course , because it ’ s Fox News , it ’ s all heavily inflected with comments in support of the protests , in praise of what they ’ re doing and what they represent , in hopes that they spread further across the country .
On Wednesday , we tabulated a dozen segments that Fox ran discussing the protests .
That was the day of the Lansing , Michigan , protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more attention nationally .
A lot of the highest-profile protests have been targeted at Democratic governors .
Has Fox been saying much about the Republican governors who have taken pretty aggressive action to fight coronavirus ?
Certainly not to the same degree that they have talked about the Democratic ones .
Michigan , in particular , has been the big fixation of the network throughout this period .
They ’ ve been furiously attacking Michigan Gov .
Gretchen Whitmer ( D ) , weighing in on the side of the protesters there .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s embrace of these protests and the network ’ s promotion of the tea party rallies in 2009 .
Can you talk a little bit more about the similarities ?
What happened with the tea party protests is you had a situation where the Republican Party ’ s brand had been horribly damaged in the wake of the financial crisis , in the wake of the Iraq War .
Conservatives were trying to find a way to rebuild their credibility with the American people , and they settled on this idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ themselves in the mantle of the Revolutionary era and began a protest movement that focused on opposition to President Obama and opposition to government spending .
You had a core of tea party activists who started springing up as early as February 2009 .
They started getting attention from Fox News .
They started getting support from an array of national conservative groups with deep-pocketed funders—organizations like American for Prosperity and FreedomWorks—who provided a lot of organizational and institutional knowhow to those groups .
They crescendoed into the Tax Day tea party rallies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promotion of those started weeks in advance .
Basically , they were ginning up support for them .
They were doing segments telling their audience , These are the different tea parties that you can go to .
If you ’ re interested in joining a tea party , we have a list on our website that can direct you to them .
They were providing times and dates and locations for their viewers to attend , and they were participating .
They had what they termed “ FNC Tax Day Tea Parties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , on Tax Day , filmed from particular tea party rallies across the country .
There were about a dozen different Fox News personalities who participated in tea party rallies to one extent or another .
They really helped turn the tea party ’ s spark into what became a bonfire that fueled the Republican Party going into the 2010 elections .
Does it seem to you that this is happening now on a similar scale , and that it ’ s moving in a similar direction ?
It ’ s still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , again , were about six weeks after initial tea party rallies started .
I think it ’ s likely that we will see some sort of focal point of these [ coronavirus ] protests , a particular date that they ’ re going to try to build to and get some momentum around .
I haven ’ t seen anything about that yet , but it seems likely to me .
They ’ re using the same playbook , for all intents and purposes .
There was a report out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ conservative activist and Trump adviser ] Stephen Moore is forming this joint coalition group with FreedomWorks and a couple of other conservative organizations to push back against the state orders and try to force the reopening of the economy .
One of the tactics that he specifically mentioned was protests .
I think we ’ ll see that meld into these initial groups , and you ’ ll see a bit of a build .
Right now , these protests are not polling terribly well .
The idea of reopening the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re still in the early stages there , as well .
Once you have Fox News and President Trump championing these protests for a while , you ’ ll see polarization kick in , I think , and Republicans begin to support them in larger numbers .
In 2009 , Fox News played an incredibly powerful role in getting people out to the Tea party rallies .
At the time , we found about two dozen news stories that featured on-the-scene reporting from local reporters talking to people , asking them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , “ I saw it on Fox.
” They ’ re an incredible force multiplier .
They ’ re speaking to an audience of millions of people who are inclined to support President Trump and to oppose Democratic governors .
They ’ re giving them an outlet .
They ’ re giving them something that they can do to show their support for President Trump .
That ’ s the power that Fox News has .
By virtue of their audience , by virtue of their credibility with that audience , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like the one against social distancing .
We could see something quite similar here , where the protests start fairly small , but , after getting a lot of attention on Fox News , gain in power and influence until they become a real political force .
How has Fox ’ s coverage influenced Trump when it comes to these protests ?
His tweets in support of the protests in several states that we saw last week came in response to a Fox segment he had been watching .
They came about two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the exact same states that were mentioned in the segment , so he ’ s clearly—as he typically is—absorbing the coverage that he ’ s seeing on this topic from Fox News and reflecting it back .
I think what Fox is telling him about these protests is that the participants are his supporters .
That makes him much more inclined , in turn , to support them .
That ’ s interesting because , at least to an extent , the policies they ’ re protesting are also the policies that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How is Fox dealing with the cognitive dissonance of pro-Trump protesters demonstrating against something that Trump himself has supported ?
Trump himself has largely been excised from the story in a lot of Fox News ’ coverage .
You have this weird alternate reality where the public health experts are forcing all of these policy changes that , according to Fox , harm the people , and Trump is just not there .
It ’ s not that he ’ s getting fooled .
It ’ s not that he is acting deliberately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s just not mentioned in that particular discussion .
They found a way to excise President Trump from the Trump administration for the purposes of criticizing a response to the coronavirus that , to some extent , is driven by the Trump Administration .
There have been reports about extremist groups at these protests .
Does Fox talk about that at all ?
The extremist participants are actually not being mentioned much on Fox .
In fact , for much of today [ Monday ] , they ’ ve been showing B-roll that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are InfoWars conspiracy theorists , from a rally in Texas over the weekend .
They have managed to do that without at any point mentioning that they are affiliated with InfoWars .
Even as Jones himself is shown in the B-roll in a vehicle emblazoned with InfoWars logos , they ’ re just not mentioning it at all .

In recent days, thousands of people have protested against coronavirus lockdowns in states across the country. The demonstrators—often wearing MAGA gear and directing their ire at Democratic governors—still represent a small minority; polls show that most Americans are actually worried the shutdowns will be ended too soon. But according to Matt Gertz, that could change quickly. Gertz, a senior fellow at the liberal group Media Matters for America, points out that Fox News has thrown its full weight behind the protests and that Donald Trump has followed the right-wing network’s lead. “Once you have Fox News and President Trump championing these protests for a while,” Gertz predicts, “you’ll see polarization kick in, I think, and Republicans begin to support them in larger numbers.”
Between April 13 and April 19, Fox devoted a whopping 4 hours and 23 minutes—across 69 separate segments—to covering the protests, a Media Matters report found. All this is eerily reminiscent of 2009, when Fox helped turn the nascent tea party movement into a powerful anti-Obama political force by relentlessly promoting its rallies. (Disclosure: I worked with Gertz at Media Matters back then.) On Monday, I spoke with Gertz about Fox’s coverage of the anti-social distancing demonstrations, its impact on Trump, and the striking similarities to what happened a decade ago. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Describe how Fox has been promoting these protests against governors and against social distancing.
Beginning a little bit last Tuesday and then picking up rather heavily on Wednesday through the end of last week and Monday, we’ve seen steady promotion of protests across the country on Fox, frequent packaged reports, as well as lots of pundit chatter about the protests. Of course, because it’s Fox News, it’s all heavily inflected with comments in support of the protests, in praise of what they’re doing and what they represent, in hopes that they spread further across the country. On Wednesday, we tabulated a dozen segments that Fox ran discussing the protests. That was the day of the Lansing, Michigan, protest, which gave the story a bit more attention nationally.
A lot of the highest-profile protests have been targeted at Democratic governors. Has Fox been saying much about the Republican governors who have taken pretty aggressive action to fight coronavirus?
Certainly not to the same degree that they have talked about the Democratic ones. Michigan, in particular, has been the big fixation of the network throughout this period. They’ve been furiously attacking Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), weighing in on the side of the protesters there.
You’ve drawn parallels between Fox’s embrace of these protests and the network’s promotion of the tea party rallies in 2009. Can you talk a little bit more about the similarities?
What happened with the tea party protests is you had a situation where the Republican Party’s brand had been horribly damaged in the wake of the financial crisis, in the wake of the Iraq War. Conservatives were trying to find a way to rebuild their credibility with the American people, and they settled on this idea of the tea party. They started wrapping themselves in the mantle of the Revolutionary era and began a protest movement that focused on opposition to President Obama and opposition to government spending. You had a core of tea party activists who started springing up as early as February 2009. They started getting attention from Fox News. They started getting support from an array of national conservative groups with deep-pocketed funders—organizations like American for Prosperity and FreedomWorks—who provided a lot of organizational and institutional knowhow to those groups. They crescendoed into the Tax Day tea party rallies in April 2009.
Fox’s promotion of those started weeks in advance. Basically, they were ginning up support for them. They were doing segments telling their audience, These are the different tea parties that you can go to. If you’re interested in joining a tea party, we have a list on our website that can direct you to them. They were providing times and dates and locations for their viewers to attend, and they were participating. They had what they termed “FNC Tax Day Tea Parties,” which were four Fox shows that, on Tax Day, filmed from particular tea party rallies across the country. There were about a dozen different Fox News personalities who participated in tea party rallies to one extent or another. They really helped turn the tea party’s spark into what became a bonfire that fueled the Republican Party going into the 2010 elections.
Does it seem to you that this is happening now on a similar scale, and that it’s moving in a similar direction?
It’s still early. The Tax Day tea parties, again, were about six weeks after initial tea party rallies started. I think it’s likely that we will see some sort of focal point of these [coronavirus] protests, a particular date that they’re going to try to build to and get some momentum around. I haven’t seen anything about that yet, but it seems likely to me. They’re using the same playbook, for all intents and purposes. There was a report out of the Washington Post last week pointing out that [conservative activist and Trump adviser] Stephen Moore is forming this joint coalition group with FreedomWorks and a couple of other conservative organizations to push back against the state orders and try to force the reopening of the economy. One of the tactics that he specifically mentioned was protests. I think we’ll see that meld into these initial groups, and you’ll see a bit of a build.
“Right now, these protests are not polling terribly well. The idea of reopening the economy is not very popular. However, we’re still in the early stages.”
Right now, these protests are not polling terribly well. The idea of reopening the economy is not very popular. However, we’re still in the early stages there, as well. Once you have Fox News and President Trump championing these protests for a while, you’ll see polarization kick in, I think, and Republicans begin to support them in larger numbers.
In 2009, Fox News played an incredibly powerful role in getting people out to the Tea party rallies. At the time, we found about two dozen news stories that featured on-the-scene reporting from local reporters talking to people, asking them why they came there. The people said, “I saw it on Fox.” They’re an incredible force multiplier. They’re speaking to an audience of millions of people who are inclined to support President Trump and to oppose Democratic governors. They’re giving them an outlet. They’re giving them something that they can do to show their support for President Trump.
That’s the power that Fox News has. By virtue of their audience, by virtue of their credibility with that audience, they can serve as validators for a movement like the one against social distancing. We could see something quite similar here, where the protests start fairly small, but, after getting a lot of attention on Fox News, gain in power and influence until they become a real political force.
How has Fox’s coverage influenced Trump when it comes to these protests?
His tweets in support of the protests in several states that we saw last week came in response to a Fox segment he had been watching. They came about two minutes after that segment started and covered the exact same states that were mentioned in the segment, so he’s clearly—as he typically is—absorbing the coverage that he’s seeing on this topic from Fox News and reflecting it back. I think what Fox is telling him about these protests is that the participants are his supporters. That makes him much more inclined, in turn, to support them.
LIBERATE MINNESOTA! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
LIBERATE MICHIGAN! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 17, 2020
That’s interesting because, at least to an extent, the policies they’re protesting are also the policies that Trump and his administration—albeit maybe inconsistently—has supported. How is Fox dealing with the cognitive dissonance of pro-Trump protesters demonstrating against something that Trump himself has supported?
Trump himself has largely been excised from the story in a lot of Fox News’ coverage. You have this weird alternate reality where the public health experts are forcing all of these policy changes that, according to Fox, harm the people, and Trump is just not there. It’s not that he’s getting fooled. It’s not that he is acting deliberately and making a mistake. He’s just not mentioned in that particular discussion. They found a way to excise President Trump from the Trump administration for the purposes of criticizing a response to the coronavirus that, to some extent, is driven by the Trump Administration.
.@OANN A key CoronaVirus Model is now predicting far fewer deaths than the number shown in earlier models. That’s because the American people are doing a great job. Social Distancing etc. Keep going! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 9, 2020
There have been reports about extremist groups at these protests. Does Fox talk about that at all?
The extremist participants are actually not being mentioned much on Fox. In fact, for much of today [Monday], they’ve been showing B-roll that features Alex Jones and Owen Shroyer, who are InfoWars conspiracy theorists, from a rally in Texas over the weekend. They have managed to do that without at any point mentioning that they are affiliated with InfoWars. Even as Jones himself is shown in the B-roll in a vehicle emblazoned with InfoWars logos, they’re just not mentioning it at all.


motherjones--2020-04-21--Here We Go: Trump Has Started Accusing the Dems of Stealing the 2020 Election

In the middle of a horrific crisis claiming the lives of thousands of Americans a day , President Donald Trump decided it was a fine time to undermine democracy .
Last week , as the coronavirus continued to burn through the United States , Trump ’ s campaign sent out an email from him soliciting contributions for his reelection effort and made a dangerous accusation : the 2020 election can not be trusted .
The first line of the email—which likely was sent to hundreds of thousands , if not more , people on Republican and conservative email lists—reads , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats are trying to steal the Election out from under me.
” The letter asserts that Democrats have “ been plotting against me from the very beginning ” and are deploying “ fraud ” to “ rig the game ” because “ they know they can ’ t beat me at the ballot box.
” Less than seven months from Election Day , Trump was trying to undermine the process and cast doubt on its legitimacy .
Without spelling out the matter at hand , he was responding to recent calls for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold elections safely during a pandemic .
His letter referred to possible “ chaos ” from “ ballot harvesting ” —a term for volunteers or political operatives collecting absentee or mail-in ballots .
But there has been no proof that such activity leads to significant fraud .
Seventeen states already have some form of mail-in elections , and many others allow for absentee voting through the mail .
( Remember , Trump falsely insisted after the 2016 election that there had been “ millions ” of fraudulent votes cast against him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to hold elections during a pandemic—look at the mess that occurred recently in Wisconsin when Republicans successfully fought to hold an election that the governor wanted to postpone—Trump is telling his supporters that he ( and they ) are victims of a dark plot to rig the election .
This echoes his demagogic rhetoric from the 2016 campaign trail .
He repeatedly insisted then that he could only lose due to shenanigans , contending that rampant fraud was being mounted to swipe that election from him .
He devised a nonsensical paradigm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was honest ; if he lost , the election was crooked .
His rhetoric during that campaign was treacherous in and of itself ; Trump was inviting his supporters to disbelieve the election results , should he lose .
But it harmed American democracy in another critical way .
His talk of a tainted election influenced how President Barack Obama and his top aides responded to the ongoing Russian attack on the election .
With Trump griping about the contest being rigged , Obama and his crew feared confronting the Russian assault ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in public ; they worried that Trump would point to such action as evidence of the non-existent “ rigging ” he was decrying .
That is , because Trump was raising unfounded questions about the election , the Obama White House did not want to introduce into the mix other concerns about its legitimacy—which Trump could use as ammo .
( “ See ?
Obama says the Russians are helping me ?
They ’ re just doing that to cheat and rig the election against me.
” ) Trump ’ s trash-talking of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Obama , rightly or not , opted to not highlight Moscow ’ s intervention in the campaign to the degree he could have .
( Obama and his advisers tended to believe that Hillary Clinton would win , despite Moscow ’ s effort , and that the Russian interference could be addressed after the election . )
This year , as Trump administration officials have warned that Russia again is interfering in the American election , Trump once more is pushing a baseless allegation of voting fraud as a diversion .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting up narratives .
He told his supporters in 2016 that a Trump loss would be evidence of a dishonest election .
Consequently , if he had failed , he had his folks ready to believe Trump had been swindled and primed for a holy-hell reaction .
Trump recently has created a self-serving plot line for the coronavirus crisis : if the situation improves , he can claim credit ; if it does not , the governors are to blame .
And now he ’ s jeopardizing the 2020 election by establishing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempting to rip off the voters and stop Trump with illegal means .
And Trump is trying to raise money with this pitch .
His letter asks its conservative and Republican recipients to send his campaign money it can use for an “ Election Defense Fund.
” A reader who clicks on the donation button is directed to a page requesting between $ 5 and $ 2800 dollars .
The fine print at the bottom of the page notes that the money will go to the Trump campaign and the Republican Party in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will end up at an election defense fund .
Maybe it will not .
Trump has been trampling on norms since he tramped into the White House .
And much of the public and media has become inured to his creeping authoritarianism .
In any normal circumstance involving any normal presidential candidate , a charge that the other party is stealing the election would prompt headlines , scrutiny , and a demand for proof .
It would provoke cable television outrage .
What ’ s the evidence ?
What harm does such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for elections and discourage voting ?
How could a president be so irresponsible and reckless with his rhetoric and so cavalier about undercutting American democracy ?
This email drew no such attention .
Trump ’ s excesses and extremes have been normalized .
They no longer shock .
Some barely even seem to warrant comment .
After all , what ’ s one fundraising letter when Trump is profoundly mismanaging the US government ’ s response to a pandemic , lying , bullying , and proclaiming his own greatness at the daily Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inaction that have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans ?
Yet this give-me-money missive is a double-warning .
First , Trump can be expected to continue to push this line in the coming months to sabotage the election .
Second , he may well be preparing to deny results that do not keep him in the White House .
While the nation is fixated on public health and economic crises of the moment , Trump and his lieutenants are looking ahead to the fall and readying an attack on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is signaling how ugly this election will be and how much damage he is willing to cause to protect his own political health .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In the middle of a horrific crisis claiming the lives of thousands of Americans a day, President Donald Trump decided it was a fine time to undermine democracy.
Last week, as the coronavirus continued to burn through the United States, Trump’s campaign sent out an email from him soliciting contributions for his reelection effort and made a dangerous accusation: the 2020 election cannot be trusted. The first line of the email—which likely was sent to hundreds of thousands, if not more, people on Republican and conservative email lists—reads, “It’s no secret that the Democrats are trying to steal the Election out from under me.” The letter asserts that Democrats have “been plotting against me from the very beginning” and are deploying “fraud” to “rig the game” because “they know they can’t beat me at the ballot box.”
Less than seven months from Election Day, Trump was trying to undermine the process and cast doubt on its legitimacy. Without spelling out the matter at hand, he was responding to recent calls for an expansion in voting-by-mail as a way to hold elections safely during a pandemic. His letter referred to possible “chaos” from “ballot harvesting”—a term for volunteers or political operatives collecting absentee or mail-in ballots. But there has been no proof that such activity leads to significant fraud. Seventeen states already have some form of mail-in elections, and many others allow for absentee voting through the mail. (Remember, Trump falsely insisted after the 2016 election that there had been “millions” of fraudulent votes cast against him.)
So as the country struggles with how to hold elections during a pandemic—look at the mess that occurred recently in Wisconsin when Republicans successfully fought to hold an election that the governor wanted to postpone—Trump is telling his supporters that he (and they) are victims of a dark plot to rig the election. This echoes his demagogic rhetoric from the 2016 campaign trail. He repeatedly insisted then that he could only lose due to shenanigans, contending that rampant fraud was being mounted to swipe that election from him. He devised a nonsensical paradigm: if he won, the election was honest; if he lost, the election was crooked.
His rhetoric during that campaign was treacherous in and of itself; Trump was inviting his supporters to disbelieve the election results, should he lose. But it harmed American democracy in another critical way. His talk of a tainted election influenced how President Barack Obama and his top aides responded to the ongoing Russian attack on the election. With Trump griping about the contest being rigged, Obama and his crew feared confronting the Russian assault (which was helping Trump) too forcefully in public; they worried that Trump would point to such action as evidence of the non-existent “rigging” he was decrying. That is, because Trump was raising unfounded questions about the election, the Obama White House did not want to introduce into the mix other concerns about its legitimacy—which Trump could use as ammo. (“See? Obama says the Russians are helping me? They’re just doing that to cheat and rig the election against me.”) Trump’s trash-talking of the election boxed in the Obama administration, and Obama, rightly or not, opted to not highlight Moscow’s intervention in the campaign to the degree he could have. (Obama and his advisers tended to believe that Hillary Clinton would win, despite Moscow’s effort, and that the Russian interference could be addressed after the election.) This year, as Trump administration officials have warned that Russia again is interfering in the American election, Trump once more is pushing a baseless allegation of voting fraud as a diversion.
One thing Trump is good at is setting up narratives. He told his supporters in 2016 that a Trump loss would be evidence of a dishonest election. Consequently, if he had failed, he had his folks ready to believe Trump had been swindled and primed for a holy-hell reaction. Trump recently has created a self-serving plot line for the coronavirus crisis: if the situation improves, he can claim credit; if it does not, the governors are to blame. And now he’s jeopardizing the 2020 election by establishing a risky cover story: the Democrats are attempting to rip off the voters and stop Trump with illegal means.
And Trump is trying to raise money with this pitch. His letter asks its conservative and Republican recipients to send his campaign money it can use for an “Election Defense Fund.” A reader who clicks on the donation button is directed to a page requesting between $5 and $2800 dollars. The fine print at the bottom of the page notes that the money will go to the Trump campaign and the Republican Party in a 75/25 split. Maybe a donation will end up at an election defense fund. Maybe it will not.
Trump has been trampling on norms since he tramped into the White House. And much of the public and media has become inured to his creeping authoritarianism. In any normal circumstance involving any normal presidential candidate, a charge that the other party is stealing the election would prompt headlines, scrutiny, and a demand for proof. It would provoke cable television outrage. What’s the evidence? What harm does such a talk do? Does this encourage disrespect for elections and discourage voting? How could a president be so irresponsible and reckless with his rhetoric and so cavalier about undercutting American democracy? This email drew no such attention.
Trump’s excesses and extremes have been normalized. They no longer shock. Some barely even seem to warrant comment. After all, what’s one fundraising letter when Trump is profoundly mismanaging the US government’s response to a pandemic, lying, bullying, and proclaiming his own greatness at the daily Trump follies to distract from his actions and inaction that have contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans? Yet this give-me-money missive is a double-warning. First, Trump can be expected to continue to push this line in the coming months to sabotage the election. Second, he may well be preparing to deny results that do not keep him in the White House. While the nation is fixated on public health and economic crises of the moment, Trump and his lieutenants are looking ahead to the fall and readying an attack on the foundation of American self-governance. He is signaling how ugly this election will be and how much damage he is willing to cause to protect his own political health.


motherjones--2020-04-21--Trudeau Vows Swift Action on Gun Control After Canada’s Deadliest Shooting in Decades

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau repeated his campaign promise to enact stricter gun control measures , including a ban on military-style assault weapons , in the wake of the gun deaths of at least 19 people in Nova Scotia on Saturday .
It was the country ’ s deadliest shooting in three decades .
Speaking at a press conference on Monday , Trudeau said his government had been “ on the verge of introducing ” such a ban before the coronavirus pandemic forced the suspension of parliament .
“ We have every intention of moving forward on that measure and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ I am very much open to moving forward with our gun control legislation , ” Trudeau added .
“ I think there is always going to be questions of when is the right moment.
” In a 12-hour rampage late Saturday , the alleged gunman , identified by authorities as 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman , disguised himself as a police officer before shooting people at different locations across Nova Scotia .
The manhunt ended at a gas station in Enfield where the gunman was killed .
Public Safety Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ commitment to pushing gun control measures—a central part of Trudeau ’ s reelection campaign last fall—once a clearer timeline for parliament to reopen emerged .
“ There have been far too many incidents of gun violence in our country and we are working hard to make sure that we put the measures in place that significantly reduce those incidents and keep people safe , ” Blair said on Monday .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau repeated his campaign promise to enact stricter gun control measures, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the gun deaths of at least 19 people in Nova Scotia on Saturday. It was the country’s deadliest shooting in three decades.
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Trudeau said his government had been “on the verge of introducing” such a ban before the coronavirus pandemic forced the suspension of parliament. “We have every intention of moving forward on that measure and potentially other measures when parliament returns,” he said.
“I am very much open to moving forward with our gun control legislation,” Trudeau added. “I think there is always going to be questions of when is the right moment.”
In a 12-hour rampage late Saturday, the alleged gunman, identified by authorities as 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman, disguised himself as a police officer before shooting people at different locations across Nova Scotia. The manhunt ended at a gas station in Enfield where the gunman was killed.
Public Safety Minister Bill Blair reiterated the government’s commitment to pushing gun control measures—a central part of Trudeau’s reelection campaign last fall—once a clearer timeline for parliament to reopen emerged.
“There have been far too many incidents of gun violence in our country and we are working hard to make sure that we put the measures in place that significantly reduce those incidents and keep people safe,” Blair said on Monday.