motherjones--2020-05-21--A New Giuliani-Like Effort to Smear Biden Over Ukraine Falls Flat

A Ukrainian lawmaker on Tuesday released edited fragments of recordings of phone conversations between former Vice President Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko .
The recordings don ’ t contain any evidence of wrongdoing by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee , as the lawmaker and right-wing websites claimed , but they do reveal a new effort by a shady cast of Ukrainians and Americans to smear Biden with bogus allegations .
In a press conference on Wednesday , Andriy Derkach , a member of Ukraine ’ s parliament , played recordings from 2016 that he said confirm the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor general , Viktor Shokin , to help shield a Ukrainian gas company that employed Biden ’ s son from investigation .
But the tapes are a dud .
The gas company , Burisma , doesn ’ t come up at all .
The recordings in fact support Biden ’ s public explanation that he pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin—by threatening to withhold international loan guarantees from Ukraine—because Shokin had failed to bring cases to address rampant corruption in Ukraine and to reform the notoriously corrupt prosecutor ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard advising Poroshenko to accelerate the nationalization of a Ukrainian bank , Privatbank , which was controlled by a powerful oligarch , Igor Kolomoisky , who had been accused of embezzling billions from it .
( A grand jury in Ohio is now reportedly investigating whether Kolomoisky laundered funds stolen from the bank through Cleveland-area real estate transactions . )
Biden told Poroshenko to move fast to prevent the matter from complicating Ukraine ’ s relationship with the incoming Trump administration .
“ I don ’ t want Trump get into the position @ @ @ @ @ @ @ buy onto a policy and where the financial system is going to collapse and he is going to be looked to to pour more money into Ukraine , ” Biden said on the recording .
“ That ’ s how he ’ ll think about it before he gets sophisticated enough to think about the details.
” Biden seems to have been offering constructive advice to Poroshenko and perhaps even helping Trump , then the incoming president , by resolving a thorny issue before he would take office .
Where ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long history of ties to Russian intelligence .
His father is a former KGB officer who became head of Ukraine ’ s intelligence service .
Derkach studied at Moscow ’ s FSB Academy , which trains Russian intelligence officers , in the 1990s , and he was later a member of Ukraine ’ s pro-Russian Party of Regions .
He met in Kiev last December with Rudy Giuliani , Trump ’ s personal lawyer , and is part of a cohort of Ukrainians who have appeared eager to disseminate allegations boosting Giuliani ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Derkach hired his former colleague in Ukraine ’ s parliament , Andrii Artemenko , as a US lobbyist .
( Artemenko now appears to reside in the United States , with property in Florida and Virginia . )
Artemenko ’ s contract with Derkach says Artemenko ’ s firm , Global Management Association Corp. , will help Derkach contact Trump administration officials and Congress regarding “ international corruption in the area of providing Ukraine with international technical assistance and loans , interfering with the activities of central and law enforcement agencies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s domestic economic and political processes as well as attracting investments in machine industry and fuel and energy industry.
” That wide-ranging description suggests this could be an effort to help Derkach push allegations about Biden in the United States .
Another lobbyist at Global Management Association Corp. , Nabil Bader , denied that the work for Derkach relates to Biden .
But Bader said he could not discuss the work further due a nondisclosure agreement with Derkach .
Artemenko did not respond to inquires from Mother Jones .
The publicly available information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It lists a Washington address in what appears to be shared office space , but it is incorporated in Wyoming .
It is 75 percent owned by Artemenko ’ s wife , Oksana Kuchma , according to a foreign lobbying registration filed in April with the Justice Department .
Bader told Mother Jones that Artemenko runs it but launched it under his wife ’ s ownership because he travels frequently .
The firm ’ s executive chairman is listed in documents as “ Andy Kuchman.
” Artemenko told Politico last month that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Andy Victor Kuchma ” to make it easier for Americans to understand .
Artemenko also participated , under his given name , in Giuliani ’ s efforts to smear Biden .
He appeared with Giuliani in a video report aired earlier this year by the ardently pro-Trump One America News Network .
In the hour-long video , Artemenko made a variety of allegations about Biden without any substantiation .
Artemenko has been mixing it up in American politics for several years .
In late 2016 and early 2017 , he secretly pushed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ peace plan ” to end Ukraine ’ s ongoing war with Russia on terms favorable to Moscow .
After the New York Times reported on his effort , he was investigated for treason in Ukraine and stripped of citizenship in 2017 .
He was also interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller .
Artemenko has told reporters that Russian officials supported his peace plan .
Under his new name , Artemenko runs several companies in Florida .
Those include AirTrans LLC , a shipping company whose website says it is part of Frontier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Erik Prince , the controversial founder of Blackwater and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos .
Artemenko told Politico that he and Prince “ are working together.
” Prince has not commented on that claim .
Prince himself has been involved in dubious foreign dealings .
In 2016 , he funded efforts by Trump allies to find Hillary Clinton emails that they believed had been obtained by overseas hackers .
Last year , the House Intelligence Committee asked Congress to consider charging Prince for making false statements to lawmakers in a 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he had in the Seychelles with the head of a Russian sovereign wealth fund .
At issue was whether this meeting—arranged by the leaders of the United Arab Emirates—was an attempt to set up a secret back channel between Vladimir Putin ’ s government and Trump ’ s circle .
The Justice Department said in February that it was looking into charging Prince .
Derkach ’ s release of the recordings of these seemingly routine conversations between Biden and Poroshenko appears to be a continuation of the campaign led by Giuliani—and cheered on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News—to taint Biden with baseless Ukraine-related allegations .
Giuliani declined to tell the Washington Post whether he knew of Derkach ’ s release of the Biden recordings in advance .
He did say they were the “ just the tip of the iceberg.
” There ’ s much that remains unclear about the connections between Giuliani , Derkach , Artemenko , and Prince .
But despite Trump ’ s impeachment over his machinations in Ukraine , this stunt makes clear that Trump ’ s allies at home and abroad have not given up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it does not exist .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A Ukrainian lawmaker on Tuesday released edited fragments of recordings of phone conversations between former Vice President Joe Biden and former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. The recordings don’t contain any evidence of wrongdoing by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, as the lawmaker and right-wing websites claimed, but they do reveal a new effort by a shady cast of Ukrainians and Americans to smear Biden with bogus allegations.
In a press conference on Wednesday, Andriy Derkach, a member of Ukraine’s parliament, played recordings from 2016 that he said confirm the familiar but discredited accusation that Biden forced the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, to help shield a Ukrainian gas company that employed Biden’s son from investigation. But the tapes are a dud. The gas company, Burisma, doesn’t come up at all. The recordings in fact support Biden’s public explanation that he pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin—by threatening to withhold international loan guarantees from Ukraine—because Shokin had failed to bring cases to address rampant corruption in Ukraine and to reform the notoriously corrupt prosecutor’s office.
Biden can also be heard advising Poroshenko to accelerate the nationalization of a Ukrainian bank, Privatbank, which was controlled by a powerful oligarch, Igor Kolomoisky, who had been accused of embezzling billions from it. (A grand jury in Ohio is now reportedly investigating whether Kolomoisky laundered funds stolen from the bank through Cleveland-area real estate transactions.)
Biden told Poroshenko to move fast to prevent the matter from complicating Ukraine’s relationship with the incoming Trump administration. “I don’t want Trump get into the position where he thinks he is about to buy onto a policy and where the financial system is going to collapse and he is going to be looked to to pour more money into Ukraine,” Biden said on the recording. “That’s how he’ll think about it before he gets sophisticated enough to think about the details.”
Biden seems to have been offering constructive advice to Poroshenko and perhaps even helping Trump, then the incoming president, by resolving a thorny issue before he would take office. Where’s the scandal in that?
This stunt makes clear that Trump’s allies have not given up on using the Ukraine scandal against Biden—even if it does not exist.
Derkach has a long history of ties to Russian intelligence. His father is a former KGB officer who became head of Ukraine’s intelligence service. Derkach studied at Moscow’s FSB Academy, which trains Russian intelligence officers, in the 1990s, and he was later a member of Ukraine’s pro-Russian Party of Regions. He met in Kiev last December with Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, and is part of a cohort of Ukrainians who have appeared eager to disseminate allegations boosting Giuliani’s attacks on Biden.
Last month, Derkach hired his former colleague in Ukraine’s parliament, Andrii Artemenko, as a US lobbyist. (Artemenko now appears to reside in the United States, with property in Florida and Virginia.) Artemenko’s contract with Derkach says Artemenko’s firm, Global Management Association Corp., will help Derkach contact Trump administration officials and Congress regarding “international corruption in the area of providing Ukraine with international technical assistance and loans, interfering with the activities of central and law enforcement agencies, and unlawful impact on the country’s domestic economic and political processes as well as attracting investments in machine industry and fuel and energy industry.” That wide-ranging description suggests this could be an effort to help Derkach push allegations about Biden in the United States.
Another lobbyist at Global Management Association Corp., Nabil Bader, denied that the work for Derkach relates to Biden. But Bader said he could not discuss the work further due a nondisclosure agreement with Derkach. Artemenko did not respond to inquires from Mother Jones.
The publicly available information about Global Management Association Corp. is murky. It lists a Washington address in what appears to be shared office space, but it is incorporated in Wyoming. It is 75 percent owned by Artemenko’s wife, Oksana Kuchma, according to a foreign lobbying registration filed in April with the Justice Department. Bader told Mother Jones that Artemenko runs it but launched it under his wife’s ownership because he travels frequently.
The firm’s executive chairman is listed in documents as “Andy Kuchman.” Artemenko told Politico last month that he changed his name in 2017 to “Andy Victor Kuchma” to make it easier for Americans to understand.
Artemenko also participated, under his given name, in Giuliani’s efforts to smear Biden. He appeared with Giuliani in a video report aired earlier this year by the ardently pro-Trump One America News Network. In the hour-long video, Artemenko made a variety of allegations about Biden without any substantiation.
Artemenko has been mixing it up in American politics for several years. In late 2016 and early 2017, he secretly pushed for the Trump administration to embrace a “peace plan” to end Ukraine’s ongoing war with Russia on terms favorable to Moscow. After the New York Times reported on his effort, he was investigated for treason in Ukraine and stripped of citizenship in 2017. He was also interviewed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Artemenko has told reporters that Russian officials supported his peace plan.
Under his new name, Artemenko runs several companies in Florida. Those include AirTrans LLC, a shipping company whose website says it is part of Frontier Resource Group, which is led by Erik Prince, the controversial founder of Blackwater and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Artemenko told Politico that he and Prince “are working together.” Prince has not commented on that claim.
Prince himself has been involved in dubious foreign dealings. In 2016, he funded efforts by Trump allies to find Hillary Clinton emails that they believed had been obtained by overseas hackers. Last year, the House Intelligence Committee asked Congress to consider charging Prince for making false statements to lawmakers in a 2017 interview about a secretive January 2017 meeting he had in the Seychelles with the head of a Russian sovereign wealth fund. At issue was whether this meeting—arranged by the leaders of the United Arab Emirates—was an attempt to set up a secret back channel between Vladimir Putin’s government and Trump’s circle. The Justice Department said in February that it was looking into charging Prince.
Derkach’s release of the recordings of these seemingly routine conversations between Biden and Poroshenko appears to be a continuation of the campaign led by Giuliani—and cheered on by conservative media outlets, especially Fox News—to taint Biden with baseless Ukraine-related allegations. Giuliani declined to tell the Washington Post whether he knew of Derkach’s release of the Biden recordings in advance. He did say they were the “just the tip of the iceberg.”
There’s much that remains unclear about the connections between Giuliani, Derkach, Artemenko, and Prince. But despite Trump’s impeachment over his machinations in Ukraine, this stunt makes clear that Trump’s allies at home and abroad have not given up on using the Ukraine scandal against Biden—even if it does not exist.


motherjones--2020-05-21--Every Corner of the Navajo Nation Has Been Hit By COVID-19

This piece was originally published in High Country News and appears here as part of our Climate Desk Partnership .
Lucinda Charleston ’ s children reminded her that she wasn ’ t young anymore .
But despite their worry , she assembled an emergency public health team to tackle the Navajo Nation ’ s first coronavirus outbreak .
The pandemic hit Chilchinbeto , a small town in the northeastern corner of Arizona , in mid-March .
As deputy commander for the Navajo Nation Incident Command Center , Charleston was tasked with delivering aid , isolating the community and tracking the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Charleston ( Diné ) had one recurring thought : “ I ’ m not the only person that has family .
Everybody on my team , we all have families that we need to go home to.
” The novel coronavirus has ravaged much of the world , yet its impact has been particularly acute on the Navajo Nation , where it is pushing the tribe ’ s public health system to its limits .
Decades of negligence and billions of dollars in unmet need from the federal government have left tribal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sewage systems , along with sparse internet access and an underfunded Indian Health Service .
All this compounds the life-threatening danger the virus poses to the elderly and immunocompromised .
Front-line workers endure shortages of protective equipment like masks and gloves to help communities with already-dire health disparities , including high rates of chronic illness and lower life expectancy .
In response , relief efforts have sprouted to gather and deliver food , water , cleaning supplies and other goods—all jobs the federal government is treaty-obligated to do .
Chilchinbeto ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its over 400 housing units are nestled beside a modest mesa .
Charleston and her team drove through town , making an initial field assessment for their difficult mission—delivering aid and isolating the community .
For the next three weeks , the team would live in the hospital in Kayenta , just over 20 miles north of the unfolding outbreak .
Charleston found refuge in Room 118 , away from her family , emerging each day to face the virus .
“ Yes , we were afraid , ” Charleston told me over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are some people who run away from fire and some who run towards fire.
” As is true elsewhere , health officials suspect the outbreak was amplified by a “ superspreader ” event : a rally hosted by the evangelical Church of Nazarene in Chilchinbeto and attended by people from all over the Navajo Nation .
From Singapore to the United States , churches have been linked to outbreaks of COVID-19 .
In France , a five-day church event exploded into around 2,500 cases .
In April , the Pew Research Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had religious exemptions .
Six of them were Western states , including Arizona .
Charleston faced a daunting task .
She wasn ’ t familiar with Chilchinbeto , and yet she had to reach as many people as possible as soon as possible , keep them in isolation and deliver aid—all without knocking on doors .
She and her team decided the safest method was to call each household and have a member pick up food and supplies at the chapter house , one at a time , maintaining a zero-contact policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ health representatives , or CHRs , would prove invaluable .
The more than 140 CHRs monitor the health of community members and visit and assess the elderly , many of whom speak only Navajo , delivering medication and making hospital referrals .
Many of their clients have chronic illnesses .
“ There are some anxieties within them ( CHRs ) , because we don ’ t have all of the necessary personal protection equipment .
But they know that they have to get out into the community , ” Mae-Gilene Begay ( Diné @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program director , said .
“ I have some CHRs that had to go into the self-quarantine for a week , but they got called back , so they returned to work.
” Because of the coronavirus , home visits have become impossible , and long hours are inevitable .
Shortly after the church rally but before the outbreak was apparent , Begay went to a Navajo chapter meeting in Chilchinbeto .
She was lucky , she said .
She kept her distance , didn ’ t shake hands .
Less than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become 26 , and it wasn ’ t long before people were dying .
Today , the disease has impacted every corner of the Navajo Nation .
According to CNN , as of May 18 , the tribe ’ s infection rate has surpassed that of New York and New Jersey , previously known as the US “ epicenter ” of the pandemic .
On May 17 , the Navajo Nation Department of Health documented 4,002 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 140 deaths .
Owing to the shortage of hospitals , respirators and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find out where loved ones are receiving treatment .
One of Begay ’ s relatives , who went to the Nazarene church rally and returned home to Hardrock , died from COVID-19 .
“ Right now , I have an aunt and uncle that are in the hospital , ” Begay said in mid-April .
“ They flew out my aunt two days ago , and we don ’ t know which hospital she ’ s at , and we don ’ t know how she ’ s doing .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uncle is.
” Larissa Martin ( Diné ) , who has worked as a CHR for six years , worries that people are falling through the cracks and not getting the care and support they need .
“ We know who our elders are , especially those who don ’ t have family support or limited support , those who have fixed income , ” Martin said .
Many of the families and elderly that she oversees on the east side of the reservation , in Chichiltah and Bááhááli , lack internet access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as coal for heat or even enough food and water .
“ I wish we would be able to provide transportation , ” Begay told me .
“ We do realize there is a lot of urgent transportation need , but we don ’ t have the proper PPE .
We are very short on cleaning supplies and we don ’ t have enough masks and gloves to clean the vehicles.
” While tribes waited nearly six weeks for a limited , 60 percent distribution of the CARES Act $ 8 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sprang up around Indian Country to address immediate needs .
The Navajo and Hopi Families COVID-19 Relief Fund , created by former Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch in mid-March , has raised over $ 3.8 million dollars to purchase bulk food and supplies—about $ 10,000 per community .
The CHRs deliver the goods .
“ It seems like a lot of money , but it ’ s really not , ” Cassandra Begay ( Diné ) , a spokesperson for the Fund , said in mid-April .
“ We already had a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are going to be hungry again in a week or two.
” US Sen. Tom Udall , D-N.M. , called the federal relief package “ too little , too late ” and demanded full release of funds to tribes in early May .
For decades , tribes , advocates and a handful of lawmakers have been calling attention to the drastic underfunding of the Indian Health Service and Indian Country ’ s lack of infrastructure .
In 2003 and in 2018 , the US Civil Rights Commission found that tribal infrastructure was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Since virus prevention requires access to information , electricity , running water , cleaning supplies , food and medical care , many Navajos are already at a disadvantage .
Charleston and her team employed public health and health care providers to learn who was sick or being treated for COVID-19 at the Kayenta Health Center , keeping everyone safely isolated .
She had to establish communications between Indian Health Service medical staff and the Navajo Nation ’ s Incident Command Team , sharing COVID-19 information while maintaining patient confidentiality in order to track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ingenious solutions : repurposing raincoats for PPE , for example .
They scoured the reservation in search of janitorial supplies for the constant sanitation required .
But the lack of infrastructure just made everything even more overwhelming .
Charleston returned home in April , three weeks after deploying , with her whole team safe .
The Navajo Nation is currently facing scores of new coronavirus cases a day , but Charleston has not lost hope .
“ We can outlive this virus , ” she said .
“ But we have to look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

This piece was originally published in High Country News and appears here as part of our Climate Desk Partnership.
Lucinda Charleston’s children reminded her that she wasn’t young anymore. But despite their worry, she assembled an emergency public health team to tackle the Navajo Nation’s first coronavirus outbreak. The pandemic hit Chilchinbeto, a small town in the northeastern corner of Arizona, in mid-March. As deputy commander for the Navajo Nation Incident Command Center, Charleston was tasked with delivering aid, isolating the community and tracking the sick and vulnerable. During those weeks, Charleston (Diné) had one recurring thought: “I’m not the only person that has family. Everybody on my team, we all have families that we need to go home to.”
The novel coronavirus has ravaged much of the world, yet its impact has been particularly acute on the Navajo Nation, where it is pushing the tribe’s public health system to its limits. Decades of negligence and billions of dollars in unmet need from the federal government have left tribal nations without basic infrastructure like running water and sewage systems, along with sparse internet access and an underfunded Indian Health Service. All this compounds the life-threatening danger the virus poses to the elderly and immunocompromised. Front-line workers endure shortages of protective equipment like masks and gloves to help communities with already-dire health disparities, including high rates of chronic illness and lower life expectancy. In response, relief efforts have sprouted to gather and deliver food, water, cleaning supplies and other goods—all jobs the federal government is treaty-obligated to do.
“Yes, we were afraid. But there are some people who run away from fire and some who run towards fire.”
Chilchinbeto’s chapter house, church, school and its over 400 housing units are nestled beside a modest mesa. Charleston and her team drove through town, making an initial field assessment for their difficult mission—delivering aid and isolating the community. For the next three weeks, the team would live in the hospital in Kayenta, just over 20 miles north of the unfolding outbreak. Charleston found refuge in Room 118, away from her family, emerging each day to face the virus.
“Yes, we were afraid,” Charleston told me over the phone in mid-April. “But there are some people who run away from fire and some who run towards fire.”
As is true elsewhere, health officials suspect the outbreak was amplified by a “superspreader” event: a rally hosted by the evangelical Church of Nazarene in Chilchinbeto and attended by people from all over the Navajo Nation. From Singapore to the United States, churches have been linked to outbreaks of COVID-19. In France, a five-day church event exploded into around 2,500 cases. In April, the Pew Research Center found that stay-at-home directives in 15 states had religious exemptions. Six of them were Western states, including Arizona.
Charleston faced a daunting task. She wasn’t familiar with Chilchinbeto, and yet she had to reach as many people as possible as soon as possible, keep them in isolation and deliver aid—all without knocking on doors. She and her team decided the safest method was to call each household and have a member pick up food and supplies at the chapter house, one at a time, maintaining a zero-contact policy. The town’s officials and community health representatives, or CHRs, would prove invaluable.
The more than 140 CHRs monitor the health of community members and visit and assess the elderly, many of whom speak only Navajo, delivering medication and making hospital referrals. Many of their clients have chronic illnesses. “There are some anxieties within them (CHRs), because we don’t have all of the necessary personal protection equipment. But they know that they have to get out into the community,” Mae-Gilene Begay (Diné), the tribe’s CHR program director, said. “I have some CHRs that had to go into the self-quarantine for a week, but they got called back, so they returned to work.” Because of the coronavirus, home visits have become impossible, and long hours are inevitable.
Shortly after the church rally but before the outbreak was apparent, Begay went to a Navajo chapter meeting in Chilchinbeto. She was lucky, she said. She kept her distance, didn’t shake hands. Less than a week later, one COVID-19 case had become 26, and it wasn’t long before people were dying. Today, the disease has impacted every corner of the Navajo Nation. According to CNN, as of May 18, the tribe’s infection rate has surpassed that of New York and New Jersey, previously known as the US “epicenter” of the pandemic. On May 17, the Navajo Nation Department of Health documented 4,002 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 140 deaths.
Owing to the shortage of hospitals, respirators and trauma care, it can be difficult to find out where loved ones are receiving treatment. One of Begay’s relatives, who went to the Nazarene church rally and returned home to Hardrock, died from COVID-19. “Right now, I have an aunt and uncle that are in the hospital,” Begay said in mid-April. “They flew out my aunt two days ago, and we don’t know which hospital she’s at, and we don’t know how she’s doing. But we were able to find out where my uncle is.”
Larissa Martin (Diné), who has worked as a CHR for six years, worries that people are falling through the cracks and not getting the care and support they need. “We know who our elders are, especially those who don’t have family support or limited support, those who have fixed income,” Martin said. Many of the families and elderly that she oversees on the east side of the reservation, in Chichiltah and Bááhááli, lack internet access, telephones and adequate cleaning supplies, as well as coal for heat or even enough food and water.
“I wish we would be able to provide transportation,” Begay told me. “We do realize there is a lot of urgent transportation need, but we don’t have the proper PPE. We are very short on cleaning supplies and we don’t have enough masks and gloves to clean the vehicles.”
“We already had a first round of food deliveries, but they are going to be hungry again in a week or two.”
While tribes waited nearly six weeks for a limited, 60 percent distribution of the CARES Act $8 billion relief package, online fundraising campaigns sprang up around Indian Country to address immediate needs. The Navajo and Hopi Families COVID-19 Relief Fund, created by former Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch in mid-March, has raised over $3.8 million dollars to purchase bulk food and supplies—about $10,000 per community. The CHRs deliver the goods. “It seems like a lot of money, but it’s really not,” Cassandra Begay (Diné), a spokesperson for the Fund, said in mid-April. “We already had a first round of food deliveries, but they are going to be hungry again in a week or two.” US Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., called the federal relief package “too little, too late” and demanded full release of funds to tribes in early May.
For decades, tribes, advocates and a handful of lawmakers have been calling attention to the drastic underfunding of the Indian Health Service and Indian Country’s lack of infrastructure. In 2003 and in 2018, the US Civil Rights Commission found that tribal infrastructure was chronically underfunded by billions of dollars. Since virus prevention requires access to information, electricity, running water, cleaning supplies, food and medical care, many Navajos are already at a disadvantage.
Charleston and her team employed public health and health care providers to learn who was sick or being treated for COVID-19 at the Kayenta Health Center, keeping everyone safely isolated. She had to establish communications between Indian Health Service medical staff and the Navajo Nation’s Incident Command Team, sharing COVID-19 information while maintaining patient confidentiality in order to track medical conditions. They came up with ingenious solutions: repurposing raincoats for PPE, for example. They scoured the reservation in search of janitorial supplies for the constant sanitation required. But the lack of infrastructure just made everything even more overwhelming.
Charleston returned home in April, three weeks after deploying, with her whole team safe. The Navajo Nation is currently facing scores of new coronavirus cases a day, but Charleston has not lost hope. “We can outlive this virus,” she said. “But we have to look at each step to be more creative.”


motherjones--2020-05-21--Here’s How Former Sanders Staffers are Gearing Up to Help Biden Win

The ex-Bernie Sanders staffers behind a new pro-Joe Biden super PAC have a pitch for would-be funders : They can deliver the voters that the former vice president can ’ t , and they ’ ll follow the digital-first “ Bernie strategy ” to do it .
That ’ s the takeaway from a presentation that America ’ s Promise , a group founded last month , prepared for potential donors .
The slide show , reviewed by Mother Jones , makes the case that a lack of enthusiasm for Biden among key parts of the Sanders coalition—young people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election unless Democratic funders support a major outreach effort .
And despite Sanders ’ famous distaste for the unlimited election spending that Citizens United made possible , the new organization is looking to spend big .
The presentation includes sample price tags for its efforts in the crucial swing states of Arizona , Wisconsin , and Michigan : $ 7.8 million , $ 4.7 million , and $ 7.5 million , respectively .
The New York Times first reported the formation of the super PAC last month .
Its stated purpose is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden and Democratic Senate candidates while building on the Sanders campaign ’ s efforts to pursue progressive policies .
The group ’ s staff includes some of the biggest names from the Sanders ’ 2020 run , including longtime Sanders aide Jeff Weaver ; Chuck Rocha , who coordinated the campaign ’ s Latino outreach ; and Tim Tagaris , who oversaw digital fundraising .
These strategists have traded the Sanders-style idealism for the bland reality of a pitch deck , one that lays out how the “ Bernie strategy , ” as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to boosting Biden .
To reach younger voters , for example , America ’ s Promise proposes making Biden “ stylistically accessible ” to them , emphasizing Sanders ’ endorsement of the former vice president , and highlighting Biden ’ s “ support for Sanders ’ agenda ” —such as Biden ’ s adoption of portions of Sanders ’ plan to cancel student debt .
To reach Latino voters , the key is “ starting early , ” the pitch says , noting private polling from the Sanders campaign that showed the Vermont @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Nevada caucuses—a contest Sanders ultimately won , thanks in large part to the massive support he received from Latinos .
America ’ s Promise proposes to emphasize Biden ’ s “ progressive kitchen-table agenda ” —including support for a $ 15-per-hour minimum wage , universal health care , and free college tuition—in its outreach to Latinos .
When it comes to “ very liberal Democrats , ” the super PAC would play up Biden ’ s ability to name progressive Supreme Court justices and cabinet members who could undo the harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major source of motivation for liberals .
To drive home these messages , the group intends to devote the heftiest slice of its cash to digital advertising , with smaller but substantial allocations for print and television ads , as well .
Undergirding this effort is a warning that Sanders supporters—many of whom make up key parts of the Democratic base—aren ’ t happy with Biden ’ s presumptive nomination .
In a memo announcing its launch last week , America ’ s Promise pointed to recent polling showing that one-fifth of Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and only 11 percent of them are “ very excited ” about his candidacy .
Meanwhile , Latino Democratic operatives and lawmakers have raised concerns as to whether Biden ’ s campaign is doing enough to reach Latino voters .
A spokesperson for America ’ s Promise declined to comment on the contents of the presentation .
So can these ex-Berners really accomplish what they ’ re promising with the tactics they ’ ve laid out ?
Primaries aren ’ t directly comparable to the general election , but what happened in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a mixed track record .
Sanders ’ victories in Nevada and California came in large part thanks to support from Latino voters—young Latinos , in particular , contributed a major share of those votes .
But as for young voters overall , the Sanders campaign failed to meet its ambitious turnout goals ( though those who did vote in the primaries overwhelmingly chose Sanders over Biden ) .
Regardless , America ’ s Promise already seems to be source of discontent for Sanders , who has spent his presidential runs and much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence of money in politics .
The announcement of its creation rattled some longtime Sanders supporters , who viewed it as antithetical to the movement the Vermont senator built .
While Sanders himself has not publicly commented on the super PAC , one ex-Sanders staffer talked to Vice News about his former boss ’ feelings : “ Bernie ’ s pissed off , ” he said .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The ex-Bernie Sanders staffers behind a new pro-Joe Biden super PAC have a pitch for would-be funders: They can deliver the voters that the former vice president can’t, and they’ll follow the digital-first “Bernie strategy” to do it.
That’s the takeaway from a presentation that America’s Promise, a group founded last month, prepared for potential donors. The slide show, reviewed by Mother Jones, makes the case that a lack of enthusiasm for Biden among key parts of the Sanders coalition—young people, Latinos, the left—could hand Trump the election unless Democratic funders support a major outreach effort. And despite Sanders’ famous distaste for the unlimited election spending that Citizens United made possible, the new organization is looking to spend big. The presentation includes sample price tags for its efforts in the crucial swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan: $7.8 million, $4.7 million, and $7.5 million, respectively.
The New York Times first reported the formation of the super PAC last month. Its stated purpose is to persuade Sanders’ grassroots supporters to back Biden and Democratic Senate candidates while building on the Sanders campaign’s efforts to pursue progressive policies. The group’s staff includes some of the biggest names from the Sanders’ 2020 run, including longtime Sanders aide Jeff Weaver; Chuck Rocha, who coordinated the campaign’s Latino outreach; and Tim Tagaris, who oversaw digital fundraising.
These strategists have traded the Sanders-style idealism for the bland reality of a pitch deck, one that lays out how the “Bernie strategy,” as the deck calls it, can translate to boosting Biden. To reach younger voters, for example, America’s Promise proposes making Biden “stylistically accessible” to them, emphasizing Sanders’ endorsement of the former vice president, and highlighting Biden’s “support for Sanders’ agenda”—such as Biden’s adoption of portions of Sanders’ plan to cancel student debt.
To reach Latino voters, the key is “starting early,” the pitch says, noting private polling from the Sanders campaign that showed the Vermont senator 5 points behind Biden six months before the Nevada caucuses—a contest Sanders ultimately won, thanks in large part to the massive support he received from Latinos. America’s Promise proposes to emphasize Biden’s “progressive kitchen-table agenda”—including support for a $15-per-hour minimum wage, universal health care, and free college tuition—in its outreach to Latinos.
When it comes to “very liberal Democrats,” the super PAC would play up Biden’s ability to name progressive Supreme Court justices and cabinet members who could undo the harm that Trump’s appointees have caused—a major source of motivation for liberals.
To drive home these messages, the group intends to devote the heftiest slice of its cash to digital advertising, with smaller but substantial allocations for print and television ads, as well.
Undergirding this effort is a warning that Sanders supporters—many of whom make up key parts of the Democratic base—aren’t happy with Biden’s presumptive nomination. In a memo announcing its launch last week, America’s Promise pointed to recent polling showing that one-fifth of Sanders backers don’t currently support Biden and only 11 percent of them are “very excited” about his candidacy. Meanwhile, Latino Democratic operatives and lawmakers have raised concerns as to whether Biden’s campaign is doing enough to reach Latino voters.
A spokesperson for America’s Promise declined to comment on the contents of the presentation.
So can these ex-Berners really accomplish what they’re promising with the tactics they’ve laid out? Primaries aren’t directly comparable to the general election, but what happened in this year’s Democratic contests suggests something of a mixed track record. Sanders’ victories in Nevada and California came in large part thanks to support from Latino voters—young Latinos, in particular, contributed a major share of those votes. But as for young voters overall, the Sanders campaign failed to meet its ambitious turnout goals (though those who did vote in the primaries overwhelmingly chose Sanders over Biden).
Regardless, America’s Promise already seems to be source of discontent for Sanders, who has spent his presidential runs and much of his political career railing against the influence of money in politics. The announcement of its creation rattled some longtime Sanders supporters, who viewed it as antithetical to the movement the Vermont senator built.
While Sanders himself has not publicly commented on the super PAC, one ex-Sanders staffer talked to Vice News about his former boss’ feelings: “Bernie’s pissed off,” he said.


motherjones--2020-05-21--ICE Asked Parents to Choose Between Family Separation and Prolonged Detention—During a Pandemic

Last week , Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at family detention centers presented parents with a horrifying question , according to four attorneys with clients at the facilities : Would you rather stay detained together or be separated from your children ?
In the second scenario , kids would be released from ICE custody while their parents remained locked up in unsafe conditions during a pandemic .
Lawyers with the legal-aid groups RAICES , ALDEA , and Proyecto Dilley say ICE effectively ambushed their clients and blocked parents from consulting attorneys before answering that question .
In some cases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put their children up for adoption or send them to foster homes , said Andrea Meza , RAICES ’ s director of family detention services .
“ Our clients were appalled that this would even be a question posed to them , ” Meza added .
“ One client stated that he and his family expected more coming to the United States and seeking protection.
” ICE officers went to the three family detention facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania a day before the agency had to submit reports in two lawsuits seeking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On April 24 , a federal judge ordered ICE to “ make every effort to promptly and safely ” release children from its detention facilities .
ICE is not supposed to detain children for more than 20 days because of a longstanding agreement known as the Flores settlement .
But that agreement only requires that children be released , not that they be released with their parents .
Immigrant advocates have long feared that ICE would take advantage of that by enacting a so-called “ binary choice ” policy , under which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indefinite detention together or family separation .
ICE is denying that what happened last week was binary choice .
The agency explained in a statement Thursday that it does not need to release children whose parents waive their “ court-ordered option ” to be released to a sponsor .
“ This court-ordered option has been incorrectly reported as a change in policy , ” the statement read .
“ This is simply false.
” But ICE ’ s statement misleadingly suggests that the court order boxes it into giving parents a choice between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is nothing in the court order that prevents ICE from releasing families together .
The agency also said that last Thursday ’ s actions were “ not new , ” but Bridget Cambria , ALDEA ’ s executive director , told Mother Jones she knows of only one case before last week where ICE asked a parent whether they wanted to remain detained together or be separated .
( Another reason to be skeptical of ICE ’ s denial is that the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed it did not have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had a policy of prosecuting parents for crossing the border without authorization .
Prosecuting those parents led to the agency separating thousands of parents from their children . )
A report submitted by ICE last Friday provides a more accurate picture of the agency ’ s actions .
In the filing , ICE Juvenile Coordinator Deane Dougherty included a spreadsheet that listed reasons why ICE declined to release individual children on parole last week .
In many cases , the stated reason was “ Parent Does Not wish to Separate.
” None of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be separated from their children , according to the attorneys representing the families at all three detention facilities .
Cambria said ICE ’ s earlier denials were nothing but semantics .
Shalyn Fluharty , Proyecto Dilley ’ s director , said , “ What is certain and consistent is that these choices were presented to our clients , and that our clients walked away truly feeling like they were being asked to say goodbye to their children.
” Fluharty said some parents at family detention center in Dilley , Texas , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicate whether they wanted to be separated or remain together .
In 2018 , the Trump administration tried to get around the Flores agreement by using its “ zero tolerance ” policy to prosecute parents who came to the United States with their children for crossing the border without authorization .
That allowed ICE to separate thousands of parents from their children without a plan for reuniting them .
A public backlash forced the Trump administration to abandon its family separation policy days before a federal judge officially blocked it .
The lingering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ replacing it with a binary choice policy .
Children separated from their parents are usually sent to shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services before potentially being released to live with relatives or other sponsors .
If sponsors aren ’ t available , those children can be sent to foster homes .
Parents deported alone could remain permanently separated from their kids .
The report ICE filed in court Friday shows that 185 children were detained at the three family detention centers as of the end of last week .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since February .
Cambria said families were distraught when describing the chaotic situation at the Berks detention center in Pennsylvania .
While some agents spoke Spanish , official interpretation was not provided , including to at least one parent who spoke an indigenous language .
Fluharty reported that one of the parents said about the ICE agents , “ We felt like they were really enjoying watching us suffer.
” Parents have been afraid for months that the new coronavirus will get into family detention centers .
They ’ ve watched the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently , when TVs at some of the facilities were turned off .
In late March , a 5-year-old girl at Berks was rushed to a nearby hospital with pneumonia-like symptoms—only to be returned to the facility that same day and put in isolation with her mother after being tested for COVID-19 .
Her test came back negative , but many of ICE ’ s adult detention centers are now facing the outbreaks that experts warned would be inevitable if the agency kept refusing to release people .
As of Thursday , 1,181 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 .
On May 6 , ICE confirmed the first death of a detainee because of COVID-19 .
Last Sunday , a second man died soon after being released from a detention center that had been hit by the virus .
( He had not been tested before leaving ICE detention . )
Two guards at a Louisiana detention center also died after testing positive for COVID-19 .
Alison Herre , the managing attorney at Proyecto Dilley , described last week ’ s actions by ICE as “ coercion that surpasses reason.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposed the detention of children for any length of time .
“ A choice to be separated from your child is no choice at all , ” Meza , of RAICES , said .
“ We know that separating a child from their parent results in lasting trauma.
” ICE has the power to release families at any time .
“ Tomorrow , every single family could leave family detention , ” Cambria said .
“ They ’ re all asylum-seeking families .
They ’ re all parents and children who are here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most unimaginable types of violence .
”

Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents at family detention centers presented parents with a horrifying question, according to four attorneys with clients at the facilities: Would you rather stay detained together or be separated from your children? In the second scenario, kids would be released from ICE custody while their parents remained locked up in unsafe conditions during a pandemic.
Lawyers with the legal-aid groups RAICES, ALDEA, and Proyecto Dilley say ICE effectively ambushed their clients and blocked parents from consulting attorneys before answering that question. In some cases, parents were asked if they would want to put their children up for adoption or send them to foster homes, said Andrea Meza, RAICES’s director of family detention services. “Our clients were appalled that this would even be a question posed to them,” Meza added. “One client stated that he and his family expected more coming to the United States and seeking protection.”
ICE officers went to the three family detention facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania a day before the agency had to submit reports in two lawsuits seeking to force the release of detained families. On April 24, a federal judge ordered ICE to “make every effort to promptly and safely” release children from its detention facilities. ICE is not supposed to detain children for more than 20 days because of a longstanding agreement known as the Flores settlement. But that agreement only requires that children be released, not that they be released with their parents. Immigrant advocates have long feared that ICE would take advantage of that by enacting a so-called “binary choice” policy, under which parents would be forced to choose between indefinite detention together or family separation.
ICE is denying that what happened last week was binary choice. The agency explained in a statement Thursday that it does not need to release children whose parents waive their “court-ordered option” to be released to a sponsor. “This court-ordered option has been incorrectly reported as a change in policy,” the statement read. “This is simply false.”
But ICE’s statement misleadingly suggests that the court order boxes it into giving parents a choice between indefinite detention together and family separation. There is nothing in the court order that prevents ICE from releasing families together. The agency also said that last Thursday’s actions were “not new,” but Bridget Cambria, ALDEA’s executive director, told Mother Jones she knows of only one case before last week where ICE asked a parent whether they wanted to remain detained together or be separated. (Another reason to be skeptical of ICE’s denial is that the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed it did not have a family separation policy, maintaining that it had a policy of prosecuting parents for crossing the border without authorization. Prosecuting those parents led to the agency separating thousands of parents from their children.)
A report submitted by ICE last Friday provides a more accurate picture of the agency’s actions. In the filing, ICE Juvenile Coordinator Deane Dougherty included a spreadsheet that listed reasons why ICE declined to release individual children on parole last week. In many cases, the stated reason was “Parent Does Not wish to Separate.” None of parents approached by ICE last week chose to be separated from their children, according to the attorneys representing the families at all three detention facilities.
Cambria said ICE’s earlier denials were nothing but semantics. Shalyn Fluharty, Proyecto Dilley’s director, said, “What is certain and consistent is that these choices were presented to our clients, and that our clients walked away truly feeling like they were being asked to say goodbye to their children.” Fluharty said some parents at family detention center in Dilley, Texas, were simply asked to raise their hands to indicate whether they wanted to be separated or remain together.
In 2018, the Trump administration tried to get around the Flores agreement by using its “zero tolerance” policy to prosecute parents who came to the United States with their children for crossing the border without authorization. That allowed ICE to separate thousands of parents from their children without a plan for reuniting them. A public backlash forced the Trump administration to abandon its family separation policy days before a federal judge officially blocked it. The lingering nationwide outrage appeared to prevent ICE from replacing it with a binary choice policy.
Children separated from their parents are usually sent to shelters run by the Department of Health and Human Services before potentially being released to live with relatives or other sponsors. If sponsors aren’t available, those children can be sent to foster homes. Parents deported alone could remain permanently separated from their kids.
“We felt like they were really enjoying watching us suffer.”
The report ICE filed in court Friday shows that 185 children were detained at the three family detention centers as of the end of last week. Many of those children had been detained since February. Cambria said families were distraught when describing the chaotic situation at the Berks detention center in Pennsylvania. While some agents spoke Spanish, official interpretation was not provided, including to at least one parent who spoke an indigenous language. Fluharty reported that one of the parents said about the ICE agents, “We felt like they were really enjoying watching us suffer.”
Parents have been afraid for months that the new coronavirus will get into family detention centers. They’ve watched the pandemic unfold on TV, at least until recently, when TVs at some of the facilities were turned off. In late March, a 5-year-old girl at Berks was rushed to a nearby hospital with pneumonia-like symptoms—only to be returned to the facility that same day and put in isolation with her mother after being tested for COVID-19. Her test came back negative, but many of ICE’s adult detention centers are now facing the outbreaks that experts warned would be inevitable if the agency kept refusing to release people.
As of Thursday, 1,181 of the 2,368 adults ICE tested had COVID-19. On May 6, ICE confirmed the first death of a detainee because of COVID-19. Last Sunday, a second man died soon after being released from a detention center that had been hit by the virus. (He had not been tested before leaving ICE detention.) Two guards at a Louisiana detention center also died after testing positive for COVID-19.
Alison Herre, the managing attorney at Proyecto Dilley, described last week’s actions by ICE as “coercion that surpasses reason.” The American Academy of Pediatrics has strongly opposed the detention of children for any length of time. “A choice to be separated from your child is no choice at all,” Meza, of RAICES, said. “We know that separating a child from their parent results in lasting trauma.”
ICE has the power to release families at any time. “Tomorrow, every single family could leave family detention,” Cambria said. “They’re all asylum-seeking families. They’re all parents and children who are here seeking protection and who have suffered the most unimaginable types of violence.”


motherjones--2020-05-21--In the Middle of the Pandemic, Trump Just Took Another Step That Puts the World at Risk

While you were worrying about a global pandemic , a collapsing economy , an election threatened by disinformation and Russian intervention , and , of course , murder hornets , Donald Trump took a step to make the world even more dangerous .
He declared on Thursday the United States would pull out of an important arms control agreement , the Open Skies Treaty .
Negotiated three decades ago , this agreement permits nations to fly into each others ’ air space to monitor any military preparations that might indicate war is coming .
Worse , as the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision may be viewed as more evidence that he is preparing to exit the one major arms treaty remaining with Russia : New START , which limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed nuclear missiles each.
” That important arms accord expires in February 2021 .
Trump ’ s latest action follows a pattern of him ripping up treaties that aim to control the proliferation of nuclear arms and prevent nuclear war .
In 2018 , he blew up the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama ( and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , he shredded the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty .
All of this is worrisome .
But what makes it more alarming is that , as I have previously written , Trump has a history of uttering remarks about nuclear weapons that display his profound ignorance about this all-important subject and that suggest he believes a nuclear conflict is inevitable and perhaps destined for the near future .
Moreover , he seems to hold a simplistic and dangerous more-is-better approach when it comes to nuclear weapons .
It ’ s pretty clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science related to a pandemic is not going to do better related to nuclear weapons policy .
Still , Mr. Bleach is in charge of a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world several times over .
Though his demolition of the Open Skies treaty is eclipsed by the submicroscopic coronavirus threat at hand , it is a profound act of destabilization that could lead to destruction and death far worse than what the global community is now experiencing .
I could explain all the details and consequences of this misguided Trump action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I could do better than the experts at the Arms Control Association .
They put out a statement that sums up the recklessness of Trump ’ s decision , and I ’ m just going to publish it here .
Keep this in mind : Just as Trump has claimed he ’ s an expert on public health , he has also declared he ’ s an expert on nuclear weapons .
Heaven help us .
Open Skies Treaty Pullout An Irresponsible National Security Misstep , Warn Experts and Former Officials The Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pull the United States out of the 1992 Open Skies Treaty , a valuable arms control and security agreement intended to reduce risks to the United States and its European allies .
“ The Open Skies Treaty has helped preserve the post-Cold War peace .
It allows the 34 participating nations , including the United States and Russia , to fly unarmed observation aircraft over one another ’ s territory .
This helps preserve a measure of transparency and trust , thereby enhancing stability and reducing the risk of conflict , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security , and now chair of the board of the Arms Control Association .
“ A unilateral U.S. exit from Open Skies would undermine our security and that of our European allies , all of whom strongly support the treaty , ” Countryman added .
“ It has the effect—and perhaps this is the intention—of signaling a diminished U.S. commitment to its NATO allies.
” “ U.S .
and allied treaty flights over Russia provide valuable information about Russian military activities , thereby enhancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Europe , ” says Kingston Reif , Arms Control Association director for disarmament and threat reduction policy .
“ The treaty has been an especially important tool in responding to Russia ’ s aggression against Ukraine.
” “ There is strong bipartisan support in Congress for maintaining U.S. participation in Open Skies , ” Reif notes .
“ The administration ’ s announcement of withdrawal is a slap in the face to Congress as it violates notification requirements written into law last year.
” The administration told reporters the formal notification of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withdrawal itself will take effect in six months .
However , such action violates Sec .
1234 of the fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act , which requires the administration to notify Congress 120 days ahead of a U.S. notification of an intent to withdraw .
The Trump administration cites Russian noncompliance as a motivating factor for its decision .
Disputes have arisen because Russia has imposed a sublimit of 500 kilometers over the Kaliningrad Oblast for treaty flights , refused access to observation flights along its border with the Georgian regions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied planned U.S.-Canadian flights over a Russian military exercise in September 2019 .
However , Russia recently approved and allowed a joint U.S.-Estonian-Latvian treaty flight over Kaliningrad this year that was not subjected to the earlier Russian restrictions .
In addition , Jim Gilmore , U.S. representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe , said March 2 that Russia will no longer raise an “ objection ” for the United States and its allies to “ fly over one of their major exercises.
” As President Reagan ’ s former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ former Senator Sam Nunn , and former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry wrote in October 2019 in the Wall Street Journal : “ As with any treaty , implementation disputes arise .
Current disagreements are related to underlying territorial and political issues between Russia and some of its neighbors .
But these problems can be solved through professional , pragmatic diplomacy , not by abandoning treaty commitments.
” “ Today ’ s announcement is part of a troubling pattern .
The Open Skies Treaty is not the first , and may not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduction agreement this administration has withdrawn from without a viable strategy for replacement , ” observes Daryl G. Kimball , executive director of the Arms Control Association .
“ Failure to take up Russia ’ s offer to extend by five years the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty , which the administration has threatened to do , would compound the damage and further heighten the risk of unconstrained military and nuclear competition between the United States and Russia at a time when the world can ill afford it , ” he warns @

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
While you were worrying about a global pandemic, a collapsing economy, an election threatened by disinformation and Russian intervention, and, of course, murder hornets, Donald Trump took a step to make the world even more dangerous. He declared on Thursday the United States would pull out of an important arms control agreement, the Open Skies Treaty. Negotiated three decades ago, this agreement permits nations to fly into each others’ air space to monitor any military preparations that might indicate war is coming. Worse, as the New York Times points out, “Trump’s decision may be viewed as more evidence that he is preparing to exit the one major arms treaty remaining with Russia: New START, which limits the United States and Russia to 1,550 deployed nuclear missiles each.” That important arms accord expires in February 2021.
Trump’s latest action follows a pattern of him ripping up treaties that aim to control the proliferation of nuclear arms and prevent nuclear war. In 2018, he blew up the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama (and a handful of other countries). Last year, he shredded the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. All of this is worrisome. But what makes it more alarming is that, as I have previously written, Trump has a history of uttering remarks about nuclear weapons that display his profound ignorance about this all-important subject and that suggest he believes a nuclear conflict is inevitable and perhaps destined for the near future. Moreover, he seems to hold a simplistic and dangerous more-is-better approach when it comes to nuclear weapons. It’s pretty clear that a guy who cannot understand the science related to a pandemic is not going to do better related to nuclear weapons policy. Still, Mr. Bleach is in charge of a nuclear arsenal that can destroy the world several times over.
Though his demolition of the Open Skies treaty is eclipsed by the submicroscopic coronavirus threat at hand, it is a profound act of destabilization that could lead to destruction and death far worse than what the global community is now experiencing. I could explain all the details and consequences of this misguided Trump action. But I don’t think I could do better than the experts at the Arms Control Association. They put out a statement that sums up the recklessness of Trump’s decision, and I’m just going to publish it here. Keep this in mind: Just as Trump has claimed he’s an expert on public health, he has also declared he’s an expert on nuclear weapons. Heaven help us.


motherjones--2020-05-21--Trump Claimed Arms Sales Would Provide a Massive Jobs Boost. A New Report Shows How Wrong He Was.

President Donald Trump has become a relentless booster for weapon sales to Saudi Arabia , despite the kingdom ’ s increasing authoritarianism under the rule of its de-facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman .
The president has bragged at times that arms deals with the country would create anywhere from 500,000 to “ over a million ” jobs .
Even after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi put pressure on the United States to reconsider its alliance with the country , Trump released a lengthy statement defending the kingdom , noting specifically that its commitment to buy US weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jobs , tremendous economic development , and much additional wealth for the United States.
” Well , according to a new report , those claims haven ’ t come close to panning out , despite the Trump administration fast-tracking $ 8 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last year .
( In an interesting confluence of news , we now know this move was being investigated by the State Department inspector general who Trump fired last week . )
A report from the left-leaning think tank Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s major weapons sales last year and concludes that “ the President ’ s claims of up to 500,000 jobs from arms sales to Saudi Arabia are more than ten times the actual total of 20,000 to 40,000 jobs.
” The report also finds that on the whole the impact of arms sales across the US economy remains relatively minor .
Using data from the Defense Department ’ s Foreign Military Sales program , the researchers found that arms sales in one year generate only 189,000 jobs in the United States , equivalent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the total US job market.
” Part of the reason for the substantially lower figures is the way arms deals “ play out over time , ” report co-author William Hartung said on a conference call with reporters Thursday morning .
“ You may have a large offer , but the actual money flowing in a given year is actually quite small.
” As in , if Trump made the deal last year , the production of the promised weapons would still take years to complete .
Trump also seems to not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers associated with these deals are stationed overseas due to “ offsets , ” or co-production agreements between the United States and other countries .
Saudi Arabia , which is the world ’ s largest arms importer , aims to localize 50 percent of its defense spending by 2030—and American defense companies have adjusted their workflows to suit the kingdom ’ s strategy .
Among the examples cited in the report : a $ 450 million deal with Boeing to localize maintenance and repair for US-produced aircraft in Saudi Arabia and a commitment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the kingdom .
The report finds that 10 percent of US arms agreements made in 2019 “ involved licenses for the production of US weapons overseas , further undercutting job creation in the United States.
” The discrepancy between Trump ’ s promises and the reality is particularly worrisome as the president has boosted weapon sales to America ’ s Gulf allies at all costs , even bypassing Congress to do so—begging the question of just who will actually profit .
Last year , the United States made agreements worth more than $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a $ 6.3 billion increase from 2018 , making 2019 a record year for arms dealers .
The $ 8 billion deal with Saudi Arabia—the one now the center of the State Department IG investigation—was pushed through by a former Raytheon lobbyist who developed the plan for Trump to declare an “ emergency ” over Iran that would permit the deal to proceed without congressional approval .
Raytheon , in fact , made $ 14.2 billion off arms sale agreements in 2019 and has been among the most ardent advocates for more weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giant has , according to a recent New York Times report , “ assiduously courted ” support from officials close to Trump like White House trade adviser Peter Navarro .
The company has also hired David Urban , a West Point classmate of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , as one of its lobbyists .
Of course , there ’ s also the grim question of who is harmed by all these weapon sales .
A series of recent investigative reports have linked US weapons to war crimes and other massive civilian casualty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States continues to support Saudi Arabia ’ s military intervention .
After attempting to block a weapons transfer in July , Congress was stymied by Trump ’ s veto .
An override attempt in the Republican-controlled Senate failed .
That same day , the Saudi military coalition bombed a market in northern Yemen , according to the Associated Press , “ killing at least 10 civilians , including children .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
President Donald Trump has become a relentless booster for weapon sales to Saudi Arabia, despite the kingdom’s increasing authoritarianism under the rule of its de-facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The president has bragged at times that arms deals with the country would create anywhere from 500,000 to “over a million” jobs. Even after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi put pressure on the United States to reconsider its alliance with the country, Trump released a lengthy statement defending the kingdom, noting specifically that its commitment to buy US weapons “will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, tremendous economic development, and much additional wealth for the United States.”
Well, according to a new report, those claims haven’t come close to panning out, despite the Trump administration fast-tracking $8 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates last year. (In an interesting confluence of news, we now know this move was being investigated by the State Department inspector general who Trump fired last week.)
A report from the left-leaning think tank Center for International Policy looks at Trump’s major weapons sales last year and concludes that “the President’s claims of up to 500,000 jobs from arms sales to Saudi Arabia are more than ten times the actual total of 20,000 to 40,000 jobs.” The report also finds that on the whole the impact of arms sales across the US economy remains relatively minor. Using data from the Defense Department’s Foreign Military Sales program, the researchers found that arms sales in one year generate only 189,000 jobs in the United States, equivalent to “roughly one-tenth of one percent of the total US job market.”
Part of the reason for the substantially lower figures is the way arms deals “play out over time,” report co-author William Hartung said on a conference call with reporters Thursday morning. “You may have a large offer, but the actual money flowing in a given year is actually quite small.” As in, if Trump made the deal last year, the production of the promised weapons would still take years to complete.
Trump also seems to not realize that a good number of the workers associated with these deals are stationed overseas due to “offsets,” or co-production agreements between the United States and other countries. Saudi Arabia, which is the world’s largest arms importer, aims to localize 50 percent of its defense spending by 2030—and American defense companies have adjusted their workflows to suit the kingdom’s strategy. Among the examples cited in the report: a $450 million deal with Boeing to localize maintenance and repair for US-produced aircraft in Saudi Arabia and a commitment from Lockheed Martin to assemble helicopters in the kingdom. The report finds that 10 percent of US arms agreements made in 2019 “involved licenses for the production of US weapons overseas, further undercutting job creation in the United States.”
The discrepancy between Trump’s promises and the reality is particularly worrisome as the president has boosted weapon sales to America’s Gulf allies at all costs, even bypassing Congress to do so—begging the question of just who will actually profit. Last year, the United States made agreements worth more than $85 billion in foreign arms sales, a $6.3 billion increase from 2018, making 2019 a record year for arms dealers. The $8 billion deal with Saudi Arabia—the one now the center of the State Department IG investigation—was pushed through by a former Raytheon lobbyist who developed the plan for Trump to declare an “emergency” over Iran that would permit the deal to proceed without congressional approval. Raytheon, in fact, made $14.2 billion off arms sale agreements in 2019 and has been among the most ardent advocates for more weapons deals with Saudi Arabia. The defense giant has, according to a recent New York Times report, “assiduously courted” support from officials close to Trump like White House trade adviser Peter Navarro. The company has also hired David Urban, a West Point classmate of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as one of its lobbyists.
Of course, there’s also the grim question of who is harmed by all these weapon sales. A series of recent investigative reports have linked US weapons to war crimes and other massive civilian casualty events, particularly in Yemen, where the United States continues to support Saudi Arabia’s military intervention. After attempting to block a weapons transfer in July, Congress was stymied by Trump’s veto. An override attempt in the Republican-controlled Senate failed. That same day, the Saudi military coalition bombed a market in northern Yemen, according to the Associated Press, “killing at least 10 civilians, including children.”


motherjones--2020-05-22--A Former Labor Secretary’s Message to Essential Workers: When This Ends, “Threaten to Strike”

Essential workers have been heralded as “ heroes ” during the pandemic , cheered on by applause and music every night in some cities .
While the symbolic appreciation is nice , the realities on the ground have been less so .
The people who make our healthcare and food supply systems run , deliver packages and meals , and sanitize public spaces have been hit especially hard by the virus .
And so far , these workers haven ’ t gotten much by way of increased pay and benefits .
Congress expanded paid sick and family leave to workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March , but loopholes in the law left as many as 75 percent of workers without coverage .
With no national hazard pay , essential workers are left to the mercy of their employers .
Some retailers offered temporary $ 2 pay bumps at the beginning of the pandemic , but many companies are starting to roll these “ hero ” raises back .
At the same time , workplace safety has often fallen by the wayside .
This week , the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit asking a court to order the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ temporary emergency standards for workers ; the union says OSHA has so far issued zero coronavirus-related citations in the pandemic , despite egregious outbreaks in dozens of meatpacking plants and food packing facilities .
“ At a time in our nation ’ s history when we need a very strong labor department and a very strong OSHA inside the labor department , it ’ s basically dead , ” says Robert Reich .
He would know about the capacity of these federal agencies : He served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Family and Medical Leave Act and a minimum wage increase during his tenure .
Things look a little different these days .
Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia has been making Fox News appearances urging corporate tax cuts and liability shields for employers who bring employees back to work .
Trump ’ s labor department “ wants to be as friendly as possible to business and not impose any burdens on business whatsoever , ” says Reich .
Reich now writes books and is a professor of public policy at the University of California–Berkeley .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be doing to help workers in a pandemic .
First , in what ways is the Trump administration failing workers the most , in your view ?
The Trump administration is failing workers in almost every respect .
Trump ’ s labor department is almost nonexistent .
I mean , you would expect that the department at a time like this would be helping Trump formulate policies to get people back to work safely , to make sure that anybody who was sheltering in place have income and income support and unemployment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system is working .
And that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration , which is part of the labor department , would be setting standards across the country for a kind of minimum safety standards , for occupational safety in factories and warehouses and in meat packing , in delivery , and in hospitals and wherever essential workers are putting their lives on the line .
But OSHA is not establishing those standards .
I know you ’ ve said that OSHA has the legal authority to require private employers to provide essential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say more about what OSHA should be doing right now ?
Why are they issuing recommendations rather than directives ?
Well , OSHA is issuing recommendations instead of directives because OSHA doesn ’ t want to be directive .
OSHA , under Trump , wants to be as friendly as possible to business and not impose any burdens on business whatsoever , even though we are in a pandemic .
So at a time in our nation ’ s history when we need a very strong labor department and a very strong Occupational @ @ @ @ @ @ @ department , it ’ s basically dead .
The impact is very clear .
I mean , we are in a pandemic .
And people are getting sick and dying .
We ’ ve got ninety thousand or more Americans who already have died because of this pandemic .
Many of them have been workers .
They ’ ve been nurses .
They ’ ve been hospital orderlies .
They have been warehouse workers .
They ’ ve been workers who are in various plants .
Meatpacking seems to be particularly hazardous for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in nursing homes .
I mean , all of these workers need to have uniform and strict national protection and those protections have got to be enforced .
Employers who do not fulfill their obligations with regard to workplace safety need to be penalized and face such high penalties that they are forced to do it .
The chaos we now have is just a mirror of the chaos we have with regard to the Trump administration ’ s pandemic response overall .
It ’ s not just decentralized .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge of what .
And nobody is doing anything .
After two months of lockdown , many companies are starting to roll back the temporary pay raises they ’ ve given some essential workers .
There have been more than 40 grocery chains that gave their employees a temporary $ 2 pay raise and now have decided that it ’ s time to roll that back .
Do you think that some of those changes could be made permanent for essential workers ?
How could they be enshrined in federal law ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ permanent , certainly with regard to hazard pay .
I mean , federal law should and could easily say employers who are employing workers in hazardous occupations such as X , Y and Z , or dubbed by OSHA to be hazardous , those employers have got to pay X in terms of hazard pay , or X over the minimum wage .
When you consider that a company like Amazon has revoked its $ 2/hour hazard pay for its warehouse workers and that Whole Foods is no longer providing hazard pay for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of the most profitable companies in America right now .
Its stock price has soared in this pandemic .
Amazon is rolling in money .
There ’ s no question that Amazon can afford to protect its workers and to provide hazard pay and paid sick leave .
But Amazon has chosen not to be a leader , even though it is making huge amounts of money off the backs of a lot of very , very hard working people who are risking their lives in warehouses and in Whole Foods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was already a dangerous industry before the coronavirus .
Human Rights Watch has put out two reports in 15 years condemning the working conditions in meatpacking plants as unsafe .
It ’ s been playing out for decades under Democratic and Republican administrations alike .
What are your thoughts on how that happened and how the labor department should fix it ?
It ’ s got to be unremitting in its focus on the most vulnerable workers in America and those employers in those industries that have taken most advantage of those vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no coincidence that a lot of those vulnerable workers are Latinos or African-Americans .
Many states that are dominated by Republican legislatures and governors , who couldn ’ t care less about people of color , just turn their backs on many of these issues .
Again , these problems predated the pandemic .
The pandemic has made them all the worse .
If Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate , what do you think the biggest labor priority should be in Congress ?
The most important thing would be to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1950s and early 1960s , over a third of all private sector workers in the United States were unionized , which gave them enormous power and voice and clout .
But now 6.4 percent of private sector workers are unionized .
Only 6.4 percent .
They have very little voice , very little power , very little clout , not only in terms of decisions that companies make , but also in Congress , in the corridors of power in Washington .
And the decline of labor is directly related to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety and benefits and all the other things that American workers have experienced over the last 40 years .
What do you think the coronavirus will mean for unions ?
Surveys show that most American workers want to join a union if they ’ re not in a union already .
They need a union and they know they need a union if they are going to get wage increases and benefit improvements and if they are going to see the conditions under which they work be safer and healthier .
So workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we come out of this pandemic , there may be a renewed attention to worker voice and worker action .
What are the signs of that you ’ re seeing ?
We saw some hints of this last year and the year before , some of the wildcat strikes of teachers in states that are very unfriendly to unions .
The governors caved in .
Those strikes were very popular .
Teachers were very popular .
We ’ ve seen the same thing with nurses .
Nurses are now national heroes .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now certainly are .
And nurses are paid very little .
Hospitals are cutting nursing salaries even as we speak .
I think nurses really are going to be better organized and more vocal , just like teachers .
A lot of the workers who have not had adequate representation , after risking their lives in the way they have been risking their lives and after putting up with the lack of paid sick leave , a lack of paid family leave , lack of hazard pay , I think workers have had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re going to see a wave of labor activism such as we haven ’ t seen in this country in decades .
What ’ s your message for people who are working essential jobs right now ?
My message for them is : number one , thank you .
Thank you for risking your lives for the rest of us .
My second message is once this is over , threaten to go on strike .
Go on wildcat strike .
Do whatever you need to do to improve your wages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You have the public support .
The big corporations—many of them for profit and are doing very , very well ; they really need to respond better to your needs and they can afford to do so .
The stock market is trending upward .
Some of these big corporations like Amazon and Walmart have never done as well .
Nobody should have to choose between their health and safety on the one hand and a livelihood , making enough money to live on and for their family to live on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inhumane choice to impose on anybody , but in the wealthiest nation in the world , which is what we still are , even in the midst of another Great Depression and a pandemic , that should not be a choice that anybody has to face .
Shame on any employer that puts workers in that position .
The Trump administration and some Republican governors and even Elon Musk says that this is all about freedom .
Freedom ?
If you are putting your life on the line and you are risking your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom .
That ’ s about greedy people talking about making money off of the backs of workers that have no choice .

Essential workers have been heralded as “heroes” during the pandemic, cheered on by applause and music every night in some cities. While the symbolic appreciation is nice, the realities on the ground have been less so. The people who make our health care and food supply systems run, deliver packages and meals, and sanitize public spaces have been hit especially hard by the virus. And so far, these workers haven’t gotten much by way of increased pay and benefits. Congress expanded paid sick and family leave to workers through the Families First Coronavirus Response Act in March, but loopholes in the law left as many as 75 percent of workers without coverage.
Trump’s labor department “wants to be as friendly as possible to business.”
With no national hazard pay, essential workers are left to the mercy of their employers. Some retailers offered temporary $2 pay bumps at the beginning of the pandemic, but many companies are starting to roll these “hero” raises back. At the same time, workplace safety has often fallen by the wayside. This week, the AFL-CIO filed a lawsuit asking a court to order the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop temporary emergency standards for workers; the union says OSHA has so far issued zero coronavirus-related citations in the pandemic, despite egregious outbreaks in dozens of meatpacking plants and food packing facilities.
“At a time in our nation’s history when we need a very strong labor department and a very strong OSHA inside the labor department, it’s basically dead,” says Robert Reich. He would know about the capacity of these federal agencies: He served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997 and helped implement the Family and Medical Leave Act and a minimum wage increase during his tenure.
Things look a little different these days. Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia has been making Fox News appearances urging corporate tax cuts and liability shields for employers who bring employees back to work. Trump’s Labor Department “wants to be as friendly as possible to business and not impose any burdens on business whatsoever,” says Reich.
Reich now writes books and is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley. I asked him what the labor department should be doing to help workers in a pandemic.
Listen to the latest episode of the Mother Jones Podcast: Subscribe using Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.
First, in what ways is the Trump administration failing workers the most, in your view?
The Trump administration is failing workers in almost every respect. Trump’s labor department is almost nonexistent. I mean, you would expect that the department at a time like this would be helping Trump formulate policies to get people back to work safely, to make sure that anybody who was sheltering in place have income and income support and unemployment insurance, and that the unemployment insurance system is working. And that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is part of the labor department, would be setting standards across the country for a kind of minimum safety standards, for occupational safety in factories and warehouses and in meat packing, in delivery, and in hospitals and wherever essential workers are putting their lives on the line. But OSHA is not establishing those standards.
I know you’ve said that OSHA has the legal authority to require private employers to provide essential workers with protective gear. Can you say more about what OSHA should be doing right now? Why are they issuing recommendations rather than directives?
Well, OSHA is issuing recommendations instead of directives because OSHA doesn’t want to be directive. OSHA, under Trump, wants to be as friendly as possible to business and not impose any burdens on business whatsoever, even though we are in a pandemic. So at a time in our nation’s history when we need a very strong labor department and a very strong Occupational Safety and Health Administration inside the labor department, it’s basically dead.
The impact is very clear. I mean, we are in a pandemic. And people are getting sick and dying. We’ve got ninety thousand or more Americans who already have died because of this pandemic. Many of them have been workers. They’ve been nurses. They’ve been hospital orderlies. They have been warehouse workers. They’ve been workers who are in various plants. Meatpacking seems to be particularly hazardous for a variety of reasons. Workers who are in nursing homes. I mean, all of these workers need to have uniform and strict national protection and those protections have got to be enforced.
Employers who do not fulfill their obligations with regard to workplace safety need to be penalized and face such high penalties that they are forced to do it. The chaos we now have is just a mirror of the chaos we have with regard to the Trump administration’s pandemic response overall. It’s not just decentralized. It is chaotic. Nobody knows who is in charge of what. And nobody is doing anything.
After two months of lockdown, many companies are starting to roll back the temporary pay raises they’ve given some essential workers. There have been more than 40 grocery chains that gave their employees a temporary $2 pay raise and now have decided that it’s time to roll that back. Do you think that some of those changes could be made permanent for essential workers? How could they be enshrined in federal law?
I think many of the changes should be permanent, certainly with regard to hazard pay. I mean, federal law should and could easily say employers who are employing workers in hazardous occupations such as X, Y and Z, or dubbed by OSHA to be hazardous, those employers have got to pay X in terms of hazard pay, or X over the minimum wage.
When you consider that a company like Amazon has revoked its $2/hour hazard pay for its warehouse workers and that Whole Foods is no longer providing hazard pay for its workers—Amazon owns Whole Foods. Amazon is one of the most profitable companies in America right now. Its stock price has soared in this pandemic. Amazon is rolling in money. There’s no question that Amazon can afford to protect its workers and to provide hazard pay and paid sick leave. But Amazon has chosen not to be a leader, even though it is making huge amounts of money off the backs of a lot of very, very hard working people who are risking their lives in warehouses and in Whole Foods stores.
As you know, meatpacking was already a dangerous industry before the coronavirus. Human Rights Watch has put out two reports in 15 years condemning the working conditions in meatpacking plants as unsafe. It’s been playing out for decades under Democratic and Republican administrations alike. What are your thoughts on how that happened and how the labor department should fix it?
It’s got to be unremitting in its focus on the most vulnerable workers in America and those employers in those industries that have taken most advantage of those vulnerable workers. Now, it’s no coincidence that a lot of those vulnerable workers are Latinos or African-Americans. Many states that are dominated by Republican legislatures and governors, who couldn’t care less about people of color, just turn their backs on many of these issues. Again, these problems predated the pandemic. The pandemic has made them all the worse.
If Biden wins and Democrats take the Senate, what do you think the biggest labor priority should be in Congress?
The most important thing would be to make it easier to form unions. In the 1950s and early 1960s, over a third of all private sector workers in the United States were unionized, which gave them enormous power and voice and clout. But now 6.4 percent of private sector workers are unionized. Only 6.4 percent. They have very little voice, very little power, very little clout, not only in terms of decisions that companies make, but also in Congress, in the corridors of power in Washington.
And the decline of labor is directly related to the decline of wages and working conditions and safety and benefits and all the other things that American workers have experienced over the last 40 years.
What do you think the coronavirus will mean for unions?
Surveys show that most American workers want to join a union if they’re not in a union already. They need a union and they know they need a union if they are going to get wage increases and benefit improvements and if they are going to see the conditions under which they work be safer and healthier. So workers want unions. I think that when we come out of this pandemic, there may be a renewed attention to worker voice and worker action.
What are the signs of that you’re seeing?
We saw some hints of this last year and the year before, some of the wildcat strikes of teachers in states that are very unfriendly to unions. The governors caved in. Those strikes were very popular. Teachers were very popular. We’ve seen the same thing with nurses. Nurses are now national heroes. If they weren’t before, they now certainly are. And nurses are paid very little. Hospitals are cutting nursing salaries even as we speak. I think nurses really are going to be better organized and more vocal, just like teachers.
“We’re going to see a wave of labor activism such as we haven’t seen in this country in decades.”
A lot of the workers who have not had adequate representation, after risking their lives in the way they have been risking their lives and after putting up with the lack of paid sick leave, a lack of paid family leave, lack of hazard pay, I think workers have had enough. Frankly, I think that we’re going to see a wave of labor activism such as we haven’t seen in this country in decades.
What’s your message for people who are working essential jobs right now?
My message for them is: number one, thank you. Thank you for risking your lives for the rest of us. My second message is once this is over, threaten to go on strike. Go on wildcat strike. Do whatever you need to do to improve your wages and working conditions. You deserve it. You have the public support. The big corporations—many of them for profit and are doing very, very well; they really need to respond better to your needs and they can afford to do so. The stock market is trending upward. Some of these big corporations like Amazon and Walmart have never done as well.
“Freedom? If you are putting your life on the line and you are risking your health, that’s not about freedom.”
Nobody should have to choose between their health and safety on the one hand and a livelihood, making enough money to live on and for their family to live on, on the other. That is an inhumane choice to impose on anybody, but in the wealthiest nation in the world, which is what we still are, even in the midst of another Great Depression and a pandemic, that should not be a choice that anybody has to face. Shame on any employer that puts workers in that position.
The Trump administration and some Republican governors and even Elon Musk says that this is all about freedom. Freedom? If you are putting your life on the line and you are risking your health, that’s not about freedom. That’s about greedy people talking about making money off of the backs of workers that have no choice.