motherjones--2020-12-20--“Hitting Net-Zero Is Not Enough”— Inside the Push to ‘Restore’ the Climate

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration .
Disagreements about how to tackle the climate crisis abound , but in 2020 , it seemed much of the world finally reached consensus about at least one thing : getting to net-zero by 2050 , or sooner .
Net-zero is a state where greenhouse gases are no longer accumulating in the atmosphere—any emissions must be counterbalanced by sucking some carbon out of the air—and this year , a tidal wave of governments , businesses , and financial institutions pledged to reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of young activists , the net-zero rhetoric is worrisome .
“ Hitting net-zero is not enough , ” they wrote in a letter published in the Guardian last month .
Instead , the group behind the letter , a youth-led organization called Worldward , urges the world to rally around a different goal , one they call “ climate restoration.
” The letter was co-signed by prominent climate scientists James Hansen and Michael Mann , in addition to writers , artists , and other activists .
“ The climate today is not safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17-year-old founder and president of Worldward , who lives in a suburb north of London .
“ Millions of people are suffering and millions more will.
” By the time net-zero is achieved , he said , the climate will be considerably more dangerous .
He ’ s right .
A new comprehensive report on climate change and health published last week in the medical journal the Lancet found that there has already been a 50 percent increase in heat-related deaths in the past 20 years .
It warned that up to half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by sea-level rise , and that wildfire risks and threats to food security will grow .
“ Restoration is about removing the CO2 , which is causing these problems , and starting to reverse those issues , ” said Futerman .
Climate restoration , as Futerman defines it , has three components : reducing greenhouse gas emissions , actively removing carbon from the atmosphere to offset any remaining emissions , and then continuing to draw it down , so that the concentration in the atmosphere begins to decline , “ restoring ” an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , Worldward—a portmanteau of “ world ” and “ forward ” or “ onward ” —wants to get to net-zero , and then keep going .
The group does not advocate for a specific temperature goal or atmospheric concentration of carbon—Futerman said that ’ s a societal decision—but roughly , they want society to aim for somewhere close to pre-industrial levels .
After a soft launch this spring , Worldward now has nearly 100 volunteers from all over the world , including Mexico , India , and Zimbabwe , according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are planning a more public launch of their campaign to pressure governments , companies , and other organizations to take “ meaningful action toward restoration.
” Worldward did not invent the term “ climate restoration , ” which is also sometimes referred to as “ climate repair ” or “ drawdown.
” Hansen , the climate scientist , has long called for reducing levels of atmospheric carbon down to 350 parts per million .
The climate advocacy group 350.org took its name from Hansen ’ s work .
But what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s one of few climate activist organizations that even talk about , let alone focus on , “ negative emissions technologies , ” or methods to remove carbon from the atmosphere .
The umbrella of carbon removal includes nature-based solutions like forestry , wetland restoration , and farming practices that sequester more carbon in the soil .
There are also technological solutions like machines that capture carbon directly from the air .
Then there are techniques that are somewhere in between , like “ enhanced weathering , ” which involves grinding down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground where they bind with carbon from the atmosphere .
Scientists who model climate solutions say we don ’ t have a choice—we will need to employ carbon removal , and likely at a momentous scale , to maintain a livable planet .
A 2018 report by the United Nations ’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the world might need to remove up to 1 trillion tons of carbon by the end of the century if it hopes to avoid more than 1.5 degrees C ( 2.7 degrees F ) of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon removal is likely due to its close relationship with carbon capture technologies that suck up carbon emissions directly from the source , like the smokestack of a power plant or industrial facility .
Many climate groups oppose carbon capture because it could extend our reliance on fossil fuels , and because thus far , the carbon dioxide captured from smokestacks has mostly been used to help pump more oil out of the ground .
Last year , more than 600 U.S. environmental organizations , including more than 30 chapters of 350.org , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they “ vigorously oppose ” any legislation that promotes carbon capture and storage .
Negative emissions technologies come with a similar risk—they could allow companies to continue with business as usual and keep on emitting , assuming they can remove that carbon from the atmosphere in other ways .
Fossil fuel giants like Occidental and Chevron are already investing in direct-air capture .
But scaling up carbon removal to the level the IPCC suggests implies scary trade-offs , which will get even scarier if they are used to make up for continued emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , threatening food security .
Direct air capture requires a lot of energy—by one estimate it could consume as much as half of today ’ s global energy demand by 2100 .
And enhanced rock weathering would involve major new mining projects .
Which solutions we deploy , and to what extent we rely on them , will have consequences for future generations .
Futerman said one of Worldward ’ s goals is to get young people , who will have to live with these consequences , involved in conversations about them now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promote discussion in society , ” he said .
“ We try to foster all different perspectives on restoration and not approach it from the right or left.
” Education is a major focus for the group .
Worldward is planning training programs , webinars , and a YouTube series , and developing resources to give to teachers to use in schools .
Right now , the phrase “ carbon removal ” is barely on the public ’ s radar—a recent poll by Morning Consult found that 73 percent of U.S. adults have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ nothing at all ” about carbon removal practices or technologies .
Holly Jean Buck , an assistant professor at the University of Buffalo and the author of the book After Geoengineering : Climate Tragedy , Repair , and Restoration , told Grist there ’ s a need for more people in the climate movement to be engaging with the difficult questions around carbon removal and getting involved in shaping how it should be deployed .
( Carbon removal is often considered to be a type of geoengineering . )
Since the banner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for what can be accomplished , Buck said it ’ s especially important that the conversation be grounded in science and acknowledge the challenges involved .
What kind of restoration is possible ?
There are immense hurdles to just achieving net-zero and limiting global warming , let alone reversing it .
Even ignoring political challenges , many negative emissions technologies are untested or in early stages , and today , most are far too expensive to be deployed at anywhere near the scale required .
But , suppose we did invest heavily in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even going “ beyond net-zero , ” as Worldward hopes .
What kind of restoration could we expect ?
Kim Cobb , a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology , told Grist that some of the impacts we associate with climate change , like extreme heat and extreme precipitation—phenomena that are closely linked to temperatures at the surface of the earth—could improve .
But there will likely be thresholds we ’ ve already crossed by that point that are irreversible .
Global warming changes fundamental aspects of ecology , topology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is held by the land .
Processes like desertification and coral reef die-offs may not be reversible on a human timescale .
“ Even if you dial the knob back , you may not recover that ecosystem , that kind of water storage behavior , those kinds of rainfall patterns , ” said Cobb .
While she couldn ’ t offer firm predictions about which negative aspects of climate climate change are reversible , there is one she ’ s certain is not : sea-level rise .
Even if we bring atmospheric carbon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already so much heat stored in the world ’ s ice sheets that models suggest they will continue to melt for centuries to come .
“ That is the piece that keeps me up at night , ” said Cobb , “ when we start thinking about the long-term commitment of the warming to date , let alone the warming to come .
And that ’ s the piece that I wish more people understood.
” That being said , Cobb still thinks climate restoration is an important framing .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially unlivable climate , ” she said .
“ I sincerely hope that we ’ re aiming for something better than climate stability.
” She also wants people to begin to talk about and understand what ’ s on the other end of that—which aspects of life on earth could realistically be restored , and on what timescale .
Buck agreed that as long as it ’ s made clear that “ restoration ” is more of a compromise and not a total return to past conditions , climate restoration could be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Framing things in terms of carbon emissions , as net-zero does , “ is really reductive and doesn ’ t get to all the dimensions of the problem , ” she said , “ and is also not very inspiring.
” Futerman acknowledged that it ’ s unclear how much restoration will be possible , and described the objective as more of a moral imperative .
“ Worldward promotes the idea of restoring the climate , ” he said , “ and wants to educate on possible ways , and the pros and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broader conversation in how to best carry out restoration.
” Correction : An earlier version of this article misidentified the university where Kim Cobbs is a professor .

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Disagreements about how to tackle the climate crisis abound, but in 2020, it seemed much of the world finally reached consensus about at least one thing: getting to net-zero by 2050, or sooner. Net-zero is a state where greenhouse gases are no longer accumulating in the atmosphere—any emissions must be counterbalanced by sucking some carbon out of the air—and this year, a tidal wave of governments, businesses, and financial institutions pledged to reach it.
But for a new movement of young activists, the net-zero rhetoric is worrisome. “Hitting net-zero is not enough,” they wrote in a letter published in the Guardian last month. Instead, the group behind the letter, a youth-led organization called Worldward, urges the world to rally around a different goal, one they call “climate restoration.” The letter was co-signed by prominent climate scientists James Hansen and Michael Mann, in addition to writers, artists, and other activists.
“The climate today is not safe,” said Gideon Futerman, the 17-year-old founder and president of Worldward, who lives in a suburb north of London. “Millions of people are suffering and millions more will.” By the time net-zero is achieved, he said, the climate will be considerably more dangerous.
He’s right. A new comprehensive report on climate change and health published last week in the medical journal the Lancet found that there has already been a 50 percent increase in heat-related deaths in the past 20 years. It warned that up to half a billion people could yet be displaced by sea-level rise, and that wildfire risks and threats to food security will grow. “Restoration is about removing the CO2, which is causing these problems, and starting to reverse those issues,” said Futerman.
Climate restoration, as Futerman defines it, has three components: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, actively removing carbon from the atmosphere to offset any remaining emissions, and then continuing to draw it down, so that the concentration in the atmosphere begins to decline, “restoring” an earlier version of the climate. In other words, Worldward—a portmanteau of “world” and “forward” or “onward”—wants to get to net-zero, and then keep going.
The group does not advocate for a specific temperature goal or atmospheric concentration of carbon—Futerman said that’s a societal decision—but roughly, they want society to aim for somewhere close to pre-industrial levels.
After a soft launch this spring, Worldward now has nearly 100 volunteers from all over the world, including Mexico, India, and Zimbabwe, according to Futerman. On Monday, December 14, they are planning a more public launch of their campaign to pressure governments, companies, and other organizations to take “meaningful action toward restoration.”
Pushing carbon removal
Worldward did not invent the term “climate restoration,” which is also sometimes referred to as “climate repair” or “drawdown.” Hansen, the climate scientist, has long called for reducing levels of atmospheric carbon down to 350 parts per million. The climate advocacy group 350.org took its name from Hansen’s work.
But what’s unique about Worldward is that it’s one of few climate activist organizations that even talk about, let alone focus on, “negative emissions technologies,” or methods to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The umbrella of carbon removal includes nature-based solutions like forestry, wetland restoration, and farming practices that sequester more carbon in the soil. There are also technological solutions like machines that capture carbon directly from the air. Then there are techniques that are somewhere in between, like “enhanced weathering,” which involves grinding down minerals and spreading them out on the ground where they bind with carbon from the atmosphere.
Scientists who model climate solutions say we don’t have a choice—we will need to employ carbon removal, and likely at a momentous scale, to maintain a livable planet. A 2018 report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the world might need to remove up to 1 trillion tons of carbon by the end of the century if it hopes to avoid more than 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of global warming.
The world might need to remove up to 1 trillion tons of carbon by the end of the century if it hopes to avoid more than 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) of global warming.
Activists’ reticence around carbon removal is likely due to its close relationship with carbon capture technologies that suck up carbon emissions directly from the source, like the smokestack of a power plant or industrial facility. Many climate groups oppose carbon capture because it could extend our reliance on fossil fuels, and because thus far, the carbon dioxide captured from smokestacks has mostly been used to help pump more oil out of the ground. Last year, more than 600 U.S. environmental organizations, including more than 30 chapters of 350.org, penned a letter to Congress stating that they “vigorously oppose” any legislation that promotes carbon capture and storage.
Negative emissions technologies come with a similar risk—they could allow companies to continue with business as usual and keep on emitting, assuming they can remove that carbon from the atmosphere in other ways. Fossil fuel giants like Occidental and Chevron are already investing in direct-air capture. But scaling up carbon removal to the level the IPCC suggests implies scary trade-offs, which will get even scarier if they are used to make up for continued emissions.
Reforestation can encroach on arable land, threatening food security. Direct air capture requires a lot of energy—by one estimate it could consume as much as half of today’s global energy demand by 2100. And enhanced rock weathering would involve major new mining projects. Which solutions we deploy, and to what extent we rely on them, will have consequences for future generations.
Futerman said one of Worldward’s goals is to get young people, who will have to live with these consequences, involved in conversations about them now. “Our aim is just to promote discussion in society,” he said. “We try to foster all different perspectives on restoration and not approach it from the right or left.”
Education is a major focus for the group. Worldward is planning training programs, webinars, and a YouTube series, and developing resources to give to teachers to use in schools. Right now, the phrase “carbon removal” is barely on the public’s radar—a recent poll by Morning Consult found that 73 percent of U.S. adults have either heard “not much” or “nothing at all” about carbon removal practices or technologies.
Holly Jean Buck, an assistant professor at the University of Buffalo and the author of the book After Geoengineering: Climate Tragedy, Repair, and Restoration, told Grist there’s a need for more people in the climate movement to be engaging with the difficult questions around carbon removal and getting involved in shaping how it should be deployed. (Carbon removal is often considered to be a type of geoengineering.) Since the banner of “climate restoration” raises expectations for what can be accomplished, Buck said it’s especially important that the conversation be grounded in science and acknowledge the challenges involved.
What kind of restoration is possible?
There are immense hurdles to just achieving net-zero and limiting global warming, let alone reversing it. Even ignoring political challenges, many negative emissions technologies are untested or in early stages, and today, most are far too expensive to be deployed at anywhere near the scale required.
But, suppose we did invest heavily in these solutions and could deploy them rapidly, even going “beyond net-zero,” as Worldward hopes. What kind of restoration could we expect?
Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told Grist that some of the impacts we associate with climate change, like extreme heat and extreme precipitation—phenomena that are closely linked to temperatures at the surface of the earth—could improve. But there will likely be thresholds we’ve already crossed by that point that are irreversible. Global warming changes fundamental aspects of ecology, topology, and the way water moves and is held by the land. Processes like desertification and coral reef die-offs may not be reversible on a human timescale. “Even if you dial the knob back, you may not recover that ecosystem, that kind of water storage behavior, those kinds of rainfall patterns,” said Cobb.
While she couldn’t offer firm predictions about which negative aspects of climate climate change are reversible, there is one she’s certain is not: sea-level rise. Even if we bring atmospheric carbon back to pre-industrial levels, there is already so much heat stored in the world’s ice sheets that models suggest they will continue to melt for centuries to come.
“That is the piece that keeps me up at night,” said Cobb, “when we start thinking about the long-term commitment of the warming to date, let alone the warming to come. And that’s the piece that I wish more people understood.”
That being said, Cobb still thinks climate restoration is an important framing. “We’re already seeing that this is a potentially unlivable climate,” she said. “I sincerely hope that we’re aiming for something better than climate stability.” She also wants people to begin to talk about and understand what’s on the other end of that—which aspects of life on earth could realistically be restored, and on what timescale.
Buck agreed that as long as it’s made clear that “restoration” is more of a compromise and not a total return to past conditions, climate restoration could be a more compelling message than “net-zero.” Framing things in terms of carbon emissions, as net-zero does, “is really reductive and doesn’t get to all the dimensions of the problem,” she said, “and is also not very inspiring.”
Futerman acknowledged that it’s unclear how much restoration will be possible, and described the objective as more of a moral imperative. “Worldward promotes the idea of restoring the climate,” he said, “and wants to educate on possible ways, and the pros and cons of each, allowing for a broader conversation in how to best carry out restoration.”
Correction: An earlier version of this article misidentified the university where Kim Cobbs is a professor.


motherjones--2020-12-20--“He’s Just Done With COVID”—the Washington Post Unpacks Trump’s Catastrophic Pandemic Response

Though it ’ s been clear for quite some time that President Donald Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus pandemic has been both haphazard and lethal , it ’ s not been easy to know what was going on inside the White House among the president and his advisers that set the stage for the skyrocketing infection rate and the deaths of 313,000 people .
A piece from the Washington Post , published Saturday , compiles the reflections of 48 senior administration officials , government health professionals , outside advisers , and others to present one of the most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Post puts it , the US walked headlong into the “ pandemic ’ s dark winter.
” “ I think he ’ s just done with COVID , ” one of the president ’ s closest advisers told the Post .
The president ’ s initial reluctance to take the pandemic seriously , at least publicly , is well documented .
As is his early acknowledgement to Bob Woodward that the situation was much more dire that he wanted to let on publicly .
( He told Woodward in a February phone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ more deadly than your strenuous flus ” and was “ deadly stuff.
” ) But now , with the benefit of nearly a year of experience , conversations with those who ’ ve had a front row seat to the administration ’ s mishandling of the pandemic led the Post to conclude that the suffering has been “ compounded over time by a host of damaging presidential traits—his skepticism of science , impatience with health restrictions , prioritization of personal politics over public safety , undisciplined communications , chaotic management style , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking , allowance of turf wars and flagrant disregard for the well-being of those around him.
” A few of those interviewed defended the administration .
They point to the ramp-up of ventilators—even as he boasted of delaying aid to Democrat-run states—and the delivery of two vaccines in under a year , which involves an incredibly complex process of research , testing , and approval that typically takes much longer .
But , one source told the paper , complex accomplishments are overshadowed by the lack of leadership in supporting simpler practices that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration has managed to do is they accomplished—remarkably—a very high-tech solution , which is developing a vaccine , but they completely failed at the low-tech solution , which is masking and social distancing , and they put people at risk , ” said Paul Offit , director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children ’ s Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania .
The Post reports that an effort to manufacture and distribute 650 million three-ply cotton masks quickly came together in mid-March .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s coronavirus task force questioned how much the masks would cost and how they would be delivered .
Peter T. Gaynor , a FEMA administrator , mocked the masks , comparing them to jockstraps , the paper reported .
Additionally , distribution of the masks through the US Postal Service was a “ nonstarter.
” Trump has long nurtured personal animus toward the agency because of its deals with Amazon owner Jeff Bezos , who also owns the Post .
Several of the president ’ s top advisers also convinced him to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wedge issue ” and use mask mandates as a way to animate his political base .
The Post includes other examples of the bungled response .
Consider the appointment and prominence of Dr. Scott Atlas , a neuroradiologist with no infectious-disease or public health background who happened to catch the attention of Jared Kushner , Hope Hicks and another adviser during his television appearances .
Atlas pushed a “ herd immunity ” strategy , the paper reported ( which Atlas denies ) , and his thinking was influential with the president .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose their lives because he stood at the White House podium and told people masks may not work , and he told people we should get over it and build up herd immunity , ” Kyle McGowan , the CDC chief of staff until August , told the Post .
“ He ’ s telling the world lies from a bully pulpit , from a position of power , and I believe people died because of that.
” Ashley Parker , one of the Post reporters who penned the piece , notes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes to the problematic approach : The Post reports that the mixed messaging and downplaying of the severity of the pandemic has continued into the holiday season and the lame duck session of his presidency , with Trump and his wife , Melania , as well as Vice President Mike Pence and his wife , hosting indoor holiday parties , regardless of the danger to which they ’ re exposing their guests and , more alarmingly , staff required to work .
“ At least one worker who got infected never heard from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness , ” the Post reports .
“ They were replaced for the next party.
” For additional detail and context as the pandemic has unfolded , see Mother Jones ’ timeline of key moments along the way .

Though it’s been clear for quite some time that President Donald Trump’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic has been both haphazard and lethal, it’s not been easy to know what was going on inside the White House among the president and his advisers that set the stage for the skyrocketing infection rate and the deaths of 313,000 people.
A piece from the Washington Post, published Saturday, compiles the reflections of 48 senior administration officials, government health professionals, outside advisers, and others to present one of the most comprehensive analyses yet of how, as the Post puts it, the US walked headlong into the “pandemic’s dark winter.”
“I think he’s just done with COVID,” one of the president’s closest advisers told the Post. The president’s initial reluctance to take the pandemic seriously, at least publicly, is well documented. As is his early acknowledgement to Bob Woodward that the situation was much more dire that he wanted to let on publicly. (He told Woodward in a February phone call, that the virus was actually “more deadly than your strenuous flus” and was “deadly stuff.”)
But now, with the benefit of nearly a year of experience, conversations with those who’ve had a front row seat to the administration’s mishandling of the pandemic led the Post to conclude that the suffering has been “compounded over time by a host of damaging presidential traits—his skepticism of science, impatience with health restrictions, prioritization of personal politics over public safety, undisciplined communications, chaotic management style, indulgence of conspiracies, proclivity toward magical thinking, allowance of turf wars and flagrant disregard for the well-being of those around him.”
A few of those interviewed defended the administration. They point to the ramp-up of ventilators—even as he boasted of delaying aid to Democrat-run states—and the delivery of two vaccines in under a year, which involves an incredibly complex process of research, testing, and approval that typically takes much longer. But, one source told the paper, complex accomplishments are overshadowed by the lack of leadership in supporting simpler practices that could have saved lives.
“What the Trump administration has managed to do is they accomplished—remarkably—a very high-tech solution, which is developing a vaccine, but they completely failed at the low-tech solution, which is masking and social distancing, and they put people at risk,” said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and a professor of vaccinology at the University of Pennsylvania.
Peter T. Gaynor, a FEMA administrator, mocked the masks, comparing them to jockstraps, the paper reported.
The Post reports that an effort to manufacture and distribute 650 million three-ply cotton masks quickly came together in mid-March. But senior members of the president’s coronavirus task force questioned how much the masks would cost and how they would be delivered. Peter T. Gaynor, a FEMA administrator, mocked the masks, comparing them to jockstraps, the paper reported. Additionally, distribution of the masks through the US Postal Service was a “nonstarter.” Trump has long nurtured personal animus toward the agency because of its deals with Amazon owner Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Post. Several of the president’s top advisers also convinced him to “think of the masks as a cultural wedge issue” and use mask mandates as a way to animate his political base.
The Post includes other examples of the bungled response. Consider the appointment and prominence of Dr. Scott Atlas, a neuroradiologist with no infectious-disease or public health background who happened to catch the attention of Jared Kushner, Hope Hicks and another adviser during his television appearances. Atlas pushed a “herd immunity” strategy, the paper reported (which Atlas denies), and his thinking was influential with the president. “Dr. Scott Atlas has caused people to lose their lives because he stood at the White House podium and told people masks may not work, and he told people we should get over it and build up herd immunity,” Kyle McGowan, the CDC chief of staff until August, told the Post. “He’s telling the world lies from a bully pulpit, from a position of power, and I believe people died because of that.”
Ashley Parker, one of the Post reporters who penned the piece, notes that Trump is hardly alone when it comes to the problematic approach:
Mark Meadows tried to conceal coronavirus cases in the White House, and threatened to fire the military doctors who helped release information about new cases. https://t.co/qjYSSEY3IG pic.twitter.com/S0zC5ekAnv — Ashley Parker (@AshleyRParker) December 19, 2020
The Post reports that the mixed messaging and downplaying of the severity of the pandemic has continued into the holiday season and the lame duck session of his presidency, with Trump and his wife, Melania, as well as Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, hosting indoor holiday parties, regardless of the danger to which they’re exposing their guests and, more alarmingly, staff required to work. “At least one worker who got infected never heard from anyone in the White House about the illness,” the Post reports. “They were replaced for the next party.”
For additional detail and context as the pandemic has unfolded, see Mother Jones’ timeline of key moments along the way.


motherjones--2020-12-20--These WhatsApp Messages Show the Opioid Crisis Was Just a Big PR Headache for the Sackler Family

The Sackler family is known for their company , Purdue Pharma , and its well-documented role in the devastating opioid crisis .
They profited with billions in corporate and family gains from their highly addictive and overprescribed painkiller OxyContin .
As their role in the opioid epidemic became public , lawsuits mounted , and the Sacklers grappled with its loss of public stature , family members sought to ensure that the considerable donations they made to museums and other arts institutions around the world would buy them public support and credibility amongst the upper crust of society .
In recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ erode , family members strategized about how to coordinate public responses and PR strategies .
Some conversations about that approach took place on the messaging platform WhatsApp , and journalist Anand Giridharadas found a tranche of those messages in court papers .
On Saturday , he published some of them , spanning October 2017 through early June 2019 , on his site , The.Ink .
The messages were released as part of a bankruptcy proceeding , he writes , and show : … how , in the plutocratic echelons , it is assumed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can buy you public support from prestigious institutions on a rainy day .
They show how a family that could no longer deny the scale of pain and death in the country tended to view the problem primarily through the prism of public relations , their anger concentrated on the difficulty of crafting statements , not curbing the hurt .
And the messages show how a profound sense of victimhood descended on some members of the family , perhaps blinding them to the need to address the problem in the way one relative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom line .
“ We are the most vulnerable of the opponents ( as we are a private family owned business ) and in their view the easiest prey to get lots of money from !
, ” Mortimer Sackler , son of a deceased family patriarch by the same name , texted the group in 2018 , fretting about legal cases .
Even though the messages include only first names , Giridharadas tried to contextualize them with family members ’ full names .
In one message , Samantha Sackler Hunt passed along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which itself was forwarding along an email sent by a British reporter to various “ cultural institutions ” in the UK asking for comment about why the institutions were willing to take money from “ a family who have been involved in such serious wrongdoing.
” There ’ s no direct response to Hunt in the messages .
Last week , two members of the family , David Sackler , a Purdue Pharma board member until recently , and Dr. Ruthe Sackler , his cousin and also a longtime board member , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offered sympathy for victims and families who have suffered because of the opioid crisis .
But they “ largely sidestepped would-be booby traps and deflected blame to ‘ management ’ and independent , non-family board members , ” according to the New York Times .
The hearing also offered public scrutiny on the roughly $ 10 billion the family pulled out of the company amidst its legal woes .
In 2019 , Mother Jones Senior Reporter Julia Lurie reported that despite repeated denials from the company and family members about having any knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Richard Sackler , Purdue Pharma ’ s former president , had , as far back as 2000 , worked with others to create what he called a “ pain movement.
” In cahoots with other drug makers , such as Johnson & Johnson , Purdue Pharma worked to maximize the sale of opioids and minimize efforts to curb to addiction or over-prescription .
In 2007 , the company agreed to roughly $ 635 million in fines , and three top executives were charged criminally for “ misbranding ” the drug .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bankruptcy protection in a deal that wasn ’ t as good for victims as it might have appeared , Lurie wrote at the time .
The WhatsApp messages capture a period of time in this saga when the museums and institutions that had taken substantial financial gifts from the family seemed to be putting distance between themselves and the family name—and its money .
Then , Giridharadas notes : … alarm grew as even that most mercenary of sectors — banking — seemed to turn its back on Purdue .
“ Does anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banking ?
” Jeffrey Lefcourt texted the family on May 24 , 2019 , just days after a wave of museum disavowals , apparently referring to the banking giant J.P. Morgan Chase .
“ What ’ s their reason ?
Any concern they will stop doing banking for family ?
Have any of you spoken to them ?
” Mortimer responded : “ They told Purdue it was for ‘ reputation ’ reasons but that they were ( so far ) limiting it only to Purdue and not to the family.
” Interspersed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members ’ thoughts about coordinating and funding an “ independent ” panel that would “ identify and fund existing best practices ” and identify communities to “ tackle the issue.
” Michael Sackler had floated the idea , Giridharadas notes , of enabling the company to “ become the solution to a problem the company was still causing.
” Only once in the collection of messages he obtained , Giridharadas notes , did any Sackler suggest sacrificing some of the family ’ s OxyContin profits .
In October 2017 , Ilene Sackler Lefcourt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specifically named in some of the lawsuits , brought it up : Less than two minutes later , a family member replied : “ This is not the forum to discuss that .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Sackler family is known for their company, Purdue Pharma, and its well-documented role in the devastating opioid crisis. They profited with billions in corporate and family gains from their highly addictive and overprescribed painkiller OxyContin. As their role in the opioid epidemic became public, lawsuits mounted, and the Sacklers grappled with its loss of public stature, family members sought to ensure that the considerable donations they made to museums and other arts institutions around the world would buy them public support and credibility amongst the upper crust of society. In recent years, as that support began to erode, family members strategized about how to coordinate public responses and PR strategies.
Some conversations about that approach took place on the messaging platform WhatsApp, and journalist Anand Giridharadas found a tranche of those messages in court papers. On Saturday, he published some of them, spanning October 2017 through early June 2019, on his site, The.Ink. The messages were released as part of a bankruptcy proceeding, he writes, and show:
… how, in the plutocratic echelons, it is assumed that philanthropic gifts made in sunny times can buy you public support from prestigious institutions on a rainy day. They show how a family that could no longer deny the scale of pain and death in the country tended to view the problem primarily through the prism of public relations, their anger concentrated on the difficulty of crafting statements, not curbing the hurt. And the messages show how a profound sense of victimhood descended on some members of the family, perhaps blinding them to the need to address the problem in the way one relative suggested: at a cost to their bottom line. “We are the most vulnerable of the opponents (as we are a private family owned business) and in their view the easiest prey to get lots of money from!,” Mortimer Sackler, son of a deceased family patriarch by the same name, texted the group in 2018, fretting about legal cases.
Even though the messages include only first names, Giridharadas tried to contextualize them with family members’ full names. In one message, Samantha Sackler Hunt passed along an email from the PR firm Edelman, which itself was forwarding along an email sent by a British reporter to various “cultural institutions” in the UK asking for comment about why the institutions were willing to take money from “a family who have been involved in such serious wrongdoing.” There’s no direct response to Hunt in the messages.
“We are the most vulnerable of the opponents (as we are a private family owned business) and in their view the easiest prey to get lots of money from!”
Last week, two members of the family, David Sackler, a Purdue Pharma board member until recently, and Dr. Ruthe Sackler, his cousin and also a longtime board member, testified before the House Oversight Committee and offered sympathy for victims and families who have suffered because of the opioid crisis. But they “largely sidestepped would-be booby traps and deflected blame to ‘management’ and independent, non-family board members,” according to the New York Times. The hearing also offered public scrutiny on the roughly $10 billion the family pulled out of the company amidst its legal woes.
In 2019, Mother Jones Senior Reporter Julia Lurie reported that despite repeated denials from the company and family members about having any knowledge about the devastatingly addictive nature of OxyContin, Richard Sackler, Purdue Pharma’s former president, had, as far back as 2000, worked with others to create what he called a “pain movement.” In cahoots with other drug makers, such as Johnson & Johnson, Purdue Pharma worked to maximize the sale of opioids and minimize efforts to curb to addiction or over-prescription. In 2007, the company agreed to roughly $635 million in fines, and three top executives were charged criminally for “misbranding” the drug. In 2019 the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in a deal that wasn’t as good for victims as it might have appeared, Lurie wrote at the time.
The WhatsApp messages capture a period of time in this saga when the museums and institutions that had taken substantial financial gifts from the family seemed to be putting distance between themselves and the family name—and its money. Then, Giridharadas notes:
… alarm grew as even that most mercenary of sectors — banking — seemed to turn its back on Purdue. “Does anyone know why JPM is not doing Purdue banking?” Jeffrey Lefcourt texted the family on May 24, 2019, just days after a wave of museum disavowals, apparently referring to the banking giant J.P. Morgan Chase. “What’s their reason? Any concern they will stop doing banking for family? Have any of you spoken to them?” Mortimer responded: “They told Purdue it was for ‘reputation’ reasons but that they were (so far) limiting it only to Purdue and not to the family.”
Interspersed with the communications strategy comments are family members’ thoughts about coordinating and funding an “independent” panel that would “identify and fund existing best practices” and identify communities to “tackle the issue.” Michael Sackler had floated the idea, Giridharadas notes, of enabling the company to “become the solution to a problem the company was still causing.”
Only once in the collection of messages he obtained, Giridharadas notes, did any Sackler suggest sacrificing some of the family’s OxyContin profits. In October 2017, Ilene Sackler Lefcourt, one of the eight family members specifically named in some of the lawsuits, brought it up:
“I just spoke to Josie. She told me under active consideration, proposed by Craig, is stopping all sales rep. activity of oxy. The financial result is being calculated. I am in favor of moving this ahead asap. And think the bigger the estimated cost to the company, the better.”
Less than two minutes later, a family member replied: “This is not the forum to discuss that.”


motherjones--2020-12-21--Five Tips for How to Actually Change an Anti-Masker’s Mind, According to Experts

Chances are you have someone in your life—an aunt or a cousin or childhood friend or even just someone you once knew and still sometimes see at the grocery store—who doesn ’ t wear a mask .
Maybe they ’ ve posted some false information online , or spoken out against masks , or stopped you to say hello in the frozen food section , bare-faced , and you ’ re left wondering , what do I do ?
What do I say ?
What can I say ?
Figuring out how to handle this interaction became something of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determining how to win an argument with an anti-masker : If rational people are presented with clear , compelling research , I naïvely assumed , their minds could be changed !
While vaccines are officially on their way , research shows masking continues to be one of the most essential and effective public health tools we have—particularly as people inevitably travel and mingle over holidays .
The vast majority of Americans report wearing masks at least most of the time ( and that number has increased since the start of the pandemic ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still holding out , polls show .
But changing the mind of an anti-masker , it turns out , is not as simple as presenting research and a few statistics .
In fact , after conversations with multiple experts—physicians , science communicators , behavioral scientists , and others—I realized I was thinking about it pretty much all wrong .
These conversations are a delicate art ; there ’ s a right—and a wrong—way to have them , as supported by science .
If you want people to change their behavior , experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , curiosity , and time .
Facts and statistics come later—much later .
As Ashish Jha , a physician and dean of the Brown University School of Public Health , says , “ I ’ m not so interested in winning arguments .
I ’ m interested in helping people do things that are going to be better for them and their families.
” So instead of focusing on how to win an argument , I pivoted .
I listened to what the experts had to say .
The final result may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind , but after all , isn ’ t this what science is all about ?
Adapting to new information ?
Embracing being wrong ?
If I can squash my instinct to push up my glasses and declare , Well , actually , there is a robust body of evidence suggesting masks do work to prevent the spread of COVID-19 !
, we all can .
Here are the takeaways from my conversations : Before speaking , actually listen to the other person .
The first step in any conversation about masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medicine physician at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital and Harvard Medical School , and a columnist at the British Medical Journal who has been outspoken on the issue of mask-wearing , is to “ check yourself ” and ask , “ Can I actually empathize with how the other person is feeling ?
” For instance , he says , can you empathize with the confusion caused by the fact that the CDC changed its initial guidance on masks ?
Can you empathize with the feeling that masks are uncomfortable ?
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of American culture ?
If you can ’ t see their point of view , he emphasizes , “ you ’ re gon na lose .
You ’ re gon na waste your time , you ’ re gon na waste time of other people , and your efforts would be better used on something else.
” Shaming someone or getting angry may actually make the pandemic worse , Karan says , because it causes people to dig their heels in deeper and could make them even less likely to wear masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think if everybody in this country became more kind , more empathetic , cared more about their neighbor , the epidemic would stop sooner , ” he adds .
“ And we ’ d all be better for it.
” Research shows that if people feel “ self-affirmed , ” they ’ re more likely to accept new information , says Matthew Facciani , a social scientist and postdoctoral researcher at Vanderbilt University , who focuses on identity , politics , and polarization .
It may boost “ how they see themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and in doing so , people may be “ more open to identity-threatening information.
” That ’ s why genuinely listening to the other person is so important .
“ You definitely want to avoid making them feel defensive .
You want to listen to their concerns with a non-judgmental stance , and try to validate their feelings and build trust , ” he adds .
“ And you can do all this while still ultimately sticking to the facts .
But when you ’ re first building this relationship , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jha , he learned this lesson over many years of talking with anti-vaxxers .
“ When I was younger , with less gray hair , I often treated people who didn ’ t take vaccines with contempt : These people are anti-science and they ’ re being dumb .
And I came to realize a ) that ’ s not helpful framing , b ) they ’ re not dumb .
They ’ re actually perfectly smart .
They ’ re often very good people.
” “ The times that I have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people ’ s views , ” he adds , “ is when I have engaged them with respect and not argue about those facts , but help them understand how I think about the problem.
” Have the facts in your back pocket , but keep them there—at least for a little bit .
“ You want to try to resist the urge to start dumping facts on people , ” says Facciani .
Again , he urges , “ You want to validate their feelings .
I know it is kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true.
” Relying on straight logic can actually backfire .
Our brains , generally speaking , operate qualitatively , not quantitatively , explains Dominique Brossard , a professor and chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin , Madison , who focuses on risk communication .
In short , that means we tend to think in terms of emotion , not numbers .
For example , Brossard says if someone hears “ eight out of 10 people ” will contract a disease , it feels like a greater @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or 800 out of 1,000 , or 80,000 out of 100,0000 , and so on .
Even if the number is the same , we react differently to it depending on how it is presented .
Similarly , our emotions can get in the way even if the risk is low , Brossard says .
Take , for instance , the case of vaccines : If you tell a mother that one out of a million children experienced a negative side-effect of a vaccine , “ You know what that mother is going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one [ out of a million ] may be my kid.
” In this example , Brossard says , the driving force behind the mother ’ s decision not to vaccinate isn ’ t a number , but her emotional response to it .
In most cases , “ the facts don ’ t convince anyone because they don ’ t relate to anybody , ” Brossard says .
“ They don ’ t mean anything.
” That being said , in conversations with folks who are mask hesitant , Jha says you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data .
“ It ’ s not about persuasion through logic and facts .
[ But ] logic and facts are important , right ?
” he says .
“ I do use data in my conversations , but I don ’ t lead with them .
I lead with values , and I lead with what matters to people.
” Instead of the facts , frame the conversation around the person ’ s values .
According to the Moral Foundations Theory , a framework developed by behavioral scientists to understand “ why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” there are five main moral values influencing our behavior : caring , fairness , loyalty , authority , and purity .
In general , says Eugene Chan , an associate professor in the Division of Consumer Science at Purdue University whose research focuses on financial , political , and health decision-making , Democrats tend to adhere to the first two values : caring and fairness .
Republicans , meanwhile , tend to find loyalty , authority , and purity most relevant .
Political ideology , of course , isn ’ t the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In April , Chan conducted a 1,033-person survey about wearing masks , social distancing , and staying home during the pandemic .
He found a surprising driver of people ’ s values : age .
“ What I found was that for people who are 30 years of age or younger , they actually care about the purity foundation : To them , it goes against human nature to wear a mask when you ’ re talking with someone , ” he explains .
“ And to them , human beings are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed to be locked up inside their apartments or homes.
” Older people largely cared about loyalty to others .
“ To stay at home means you ’ re not just protecting yourself , you ’ re protecting the whole community , the whole country.
” The same was true about wearing masks and social distancing , he says : “ You ’ re doing these for the welfare of the entire nation.
” Overall , the survey was evidence that people ’ s values can drastically differ due to a variety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation with an anti-masker , it is helpful to know where they ’ re coming from .
“ My findings would suggest , ” Chan says , “ that if you ’ re trying to talk to someone about these issues , you really need to understand their moral foundations .
Why is it that you don ’ t wear a mask ?
” Try to connect over a common identity .
As part of his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of South Carolina , completed earlier this year , Facciani conducted a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundred Democrats and Republicans with a series of short , fictitious stories about bullying .
Some of the stories reported that a Democrat carried out the bullying , and in others it reported that a Republican was the culprit .
Facciani then asked participants how likely they were to believe the report was true .
With no other context , Democrats tended to say it was more plausible that a Republican was the bully , and Republicans were more likely to say Democrats were the bully .
Overall people tended to think their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducting the negative behavior .
“ The groups we identify with provide us with a sense of belonging and self-worth , ” Facciani writes in a piece about his research in the Conversation , a nonprofit newsroom that publishes articles from academics .
“ Thus , if we identify with a political group , our psychological motivation is to process information in a way that supports the group we belong to.
” Put another way , information that affirms our identity as part of a group is typically easier for us to believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notes , Democrats are more likely to support mask-wearing than Republicans : At the start of the coronavirus pandemic , Democratic leaders largely embraced mask-wearing while Republican leaders , namely , the president , resisted it .
By the same token , information that threatens our identity as part of a group may be easier to dismiss .
“ Whenever we challenge [ someone ’ s ] worldview , ” Facciani says , “ they can feel personally threatened .
And so there ’ s this motivation to instead ignore that information that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beliefs that help them make sense of their social environments.
” So in a hyper-politicized mask debate , it can help to approach the conversation by establishing a common identity with the other person .
Are you both parents ?
Christians ?
Forty-Niners fans ?
If you can frame a conversation about masks around a common identity , you can use the brain against itself , in a way .
“ With having this common identity , then you ’ re saying , ‘ Oh , well , this person is more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my group , ' ” Facciani says .
Jha tells me about talking with a friend ’ s wife “ who refuses to take vaccines and doesn ’ t get the flu shot , and really has lots of concerns about giving vaccines to her children.
” He explains the way they eventually “ made progress ” was pretty simple if slow-moving : “ I talked to her about how I thought about these issues for my family and understood why she was making the decisions for her family—both getting myself to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see my perspective .
And over time , she moved in terms of her own decision making.
” Know you probably aren ’ t going to change someone ’ s mind with one conversation .
So say you ’ ve gone through all these steps .
You listened .
You ’ ve empathized .
You ’ ve framed the conversation around their values and a shared identity .
Now what ?
The next step : repeat .
“ That ’ s the hard part of this , how do you persuade people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do you change minds ?
Ultimately , it comes down to a lot of emotional work .
And there ’ s no real shortcut.
” Brossard echoes Facciani , saying if you want to change people ’ s minds you have to do so incrementally .
And remember : Some people are beyond convincing .
“ I pick my battles , ” says Brossard .
“ If I know somebody is really set in their beliefs , at the end of the day , you ’ re not going to change the way @ @ @ @

Chances are you have someone in your life—an aunt or a cousin or childhood friend or even just someone you once knew and still sometimes see at the grocery store—who doesn’t wear a mask. Maybe they’ve posted some false information online, or spoken out against masks, or stopped you to say hello in the frozen food section, bare-faced, and you’re left wondering, What do I do? What do I say? What can I say?
Figuring out how to handle this interaction became something of a mission for me recently—or more specifically, determining how to win an argument with an anti-masker: If rational people are presented with clear, compelling research, I naively assumed, their minds could be changed!
If I can squash my instinct to push up my glasses and declare, “Well, actually, there is a robust body of evidence suggesting masks do work to prevent the spread of COVID-19,” we all can.
While vaccines are officially on their way, research shows masking continues to be one of the most essential and effective public health tools we have—particularly as people inevitably travel and mingle over holidays. The vast majority of Americans report wearing masks at least most of the time (and that number has increased since the start of the pandemic), yet about one in 10 Americans is still holding out, polls show.
But changing the mind of an anti-masker, it turns out, is not as simple as presenting research and a few statistics. In fact, after conversations with multiple experts—physicians, science communicators, behavioral scientists, and others—I realized I was thinking about it pretty much all wrong. These conversations are a delicate art; there’s a right—and a wrong—way to have them, as supported by science. If you want people to change their behavior, experts say, you’ll need empathy, curiosity, and time. Facts and statistics come later—much later. As Ashish Jha, a physician and dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, says, “I’m not so interested in winning arguments. I’m interested in helping people do things that are going to be better for them and their families.”
So instead of focusing on how to win an argument, I pivoted. I listened to what the experts had to say. The final result may be less sexy than what I originally had in mind, but after all, isn’t this what science is all about? Adapting to new information? Embracing being wrong? If I can squash my instinct to push up my glasses and declare, Well, actually, there is a robust body of evidence suggesting masks do work to prevent the spread of COVID-19!, we all can.
Here are the takeaways from my conversations:
Before speaking, actually listen to the other person.
The first step in any conversation about masks, says Abraar Karan, an internal medicine physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and a columnist at the British Medical Journal who has been outspoken on the issue of mask-wearing, is to “check yourself” and ask, “Can I actually empathize with how the other person is feeling?”
For instance, he says, can you empathize with the confusion caused by the fact that the CDC changed its initial guidance on masks? Can you empathize with the feeling that masks are uncomfortable? That wearing masks hasn’t traditionally been part of American culture? If you can’t see their point of view, he emphasizes, “you’re gonna lose. You’re gonna waste your time, you’re gonna waste time of other people, and your efforts would be better used on something else.”
Shaming someone or getting angry may actually make the pandemic worse, Karan says, because it causes people to dig their heels in deeper and could make them even less likely to wear masks or avoid other risky behaviors. “I think if everybody in this country became more kind, more empathetic, cared more about their neighbor, the epidemic would stop sooner,” he adds. “And we’d all be better for it.”
“When I was younger, I often treated people who didn’t take vaccines with contempt. And I came to realize a) that’s not helpful framing, b) they’re not dumb. They’re actually perfectly smart. They’re often very good people.”
Research shows that if people feel “self-affirmed,” they’re more likely to accept new information, says Matthew Facciani, a social scientist and postdoctoral researcher at Vanderbilt University, who focuses on identity, politics, and polarization. It may boost “how they see themselves,” remove their “defensive barrier,” and in doing so, people may be “more open to identity-threatening information.” That’s why genuinely listening to the other person is so important.
“You definitely want to avoid making them feel defensive. You want to listen to their concerns with a non-judgmental stance, and try to validate their feelings and build trust,” he adds. “And you can do all this while still ultimately sticking to the facts. But when you’re first building this relationship, all those things are key.”
For Jha, he learned this lesson over many years of talking with anti-vaxxers. “When I was younger, with less gray hair, I often treated people who didn’t take vaccines with contempt: These people are anti-science and they’re being dumb. And I came to realize a) that’s not helpful framing, b) they’re not dumb. They’re actually perfectly smart. They’re often very good people.”
“The times that I have been really able to be able to shift people’s views,” he adds, “is when I have engaged them with respect—and not argue about those facts, but help them understand how I think about the problem.”
Have the facts in your back pocket, but keep them there—at least for a little bit.
“You want to try to resist the urge to start dumping facts on people,” says Facciani. Again, he urges, “You want to validate their feelings. I know it is kind of simple, but it’s so true.” Relying on straight logic can actually backfire. Our brains, generally speaking, operate qualitatively, not quantitatively, explains Dominique Brossard, a professor and chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on risk communication. In short, that means we tend to think in terms of emotion, not numbers.
For example, Brossard says if someone hears “eight out of 10 people” will contract a disease, it feels like a greater risk than 80 out of 100, or 800 out of 1,000, or 80,000 out of 100,0000, and so on. Even if the number is the same, we react differently to it depending on how it is presented. Similarly, our emotions can get in the way even if the risk is low, Brossard says. Take, for instance, the case of vaccines: If you tell a mother that one out of a million children experienced a negative side effect of a vaccine, “You know what that mother is going to say? Oh, but that one [out of a million] may be my kid.” In this example, Brossard says, the driving force behind the mother’s decision not to vaccinate isn’t a number, but her emotional response to it.
“The facts don’t convince anyone because they don’t relate to anybody. They don’t mean anything.”
In most cases, “the facts don’t convince anyone because they don’t relate to anybody,” Brossard says. “They don’t mean anything.”
That being said, in conversations with folks who are mask hesitant, Jha says you don’t have to ignore the data. “It’s not about persuasion through logic and facts. [But] logic and facts are important, right?” he says. “I do use data in my conversations, but I don’t lead with them. I lead with values, and I lead with what matters to people.”
Instead of the facts, frame the conversation around the person’s values.
According to the Moral Foundations Theory, a framework developed by behavioral scientists to understand “why morality varies so much across cultures,” there are five main moral values influencing our behavior: caring, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity. In general, says Eugene Chan, an associate professor in the Division of Consumer Science at Purdue University whose research focuses on financial, political, and health decision-making, Democrats tend to adhere to the first two values: caring and fairness. Republicans, meanwhile, tend to find loyalty, authority, and purity most relevant.
Political ideology, of course, isn’t the only factor that may influence moral values. In April, Chan conducted a 1,033-person survey about wearing masks, social distancing, and staying home during the pandemic. He found a surprising driver of people’s values: age.
“What I found was that for people who are 30 years of age or younger, they actually care about the purity foundation: To them, it goes against human nature to wear a mask when you’re talking with someone,” he explains. “And to them, human beings are social people, they’re not supposed to be locked up inside their apartments or homes.” Older people largely cared about loyalty to others. “To stay at home means you’re not just protecting yourself, you’re protecting the whole community, the whole country.” The same was true about wearing masks and social distancing, he says: “You’re doing these for the welfare of the entire nation.”
Overall, the survey was evidence that people’s values can drastically differ due to a variety of factors—and if you’re approaching a conversation with an anti-masker, it is helpful to know where they’re coming from. “My findings would suggest,” Chan says, “that if you’re trying to talk to someone about these issues, you really need to understand their moral foundations. Why is it that you don’t wear a mask?”
Try to connect over a common identity.
“If we identify with a political group, our psychological motivation is to process information in a way that supports the group we belong to.”
As part of his PhD dissertation at the University of South Carolina, completed earlier this year, Facciani conducted a study in which he presented a few hundred Democrats and Republicans with a series of short, fictitious stories about bullying. Some of the stories reported that a Democrat carried out the bullying, and in others it reported that a Republican was the culprit. Facciani then asked participants how likely they were to believe the report was true. With no other context, Democrats tended to say it was more plausible that a Republican was the bully, and Republicans were more likely to say Democrats were the bully. Overall people tended to think their “group” was not the one conducting the negative behavior.
“The groups we identify with provide us with a sense of belonging and self-worth,” Facciani writes in a piece about his research in the Conversation, a nonprofit newsroom that publishes articles from academics. “Thus, if we identify with a political group, our psychological motivation is to process information in a way that supports the group we belong to.”
Put another way, information that affirms our identity as part of a group is typically easier for us to believe. This may be why, Facciani notes, Democrats are more likely to support mask-wearing than Republicans: At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, Democratic leaders largely embraced mask-wearing while Republican leaders, namely, the president, resisted it. By the same token, information that threatens our identity as part of a group may be easier to dismiss. “Whenever we challenge [someone’s] worldview,” Facciani says, “they can feel personally threatened. And so there’s this motivation to instead ignore that information that challenges their worldview and hold on to the beliefs that help them make sense of their social environments.”
So in a hyper-politicized mask debate, it can help to approach the conversation by establishing a common identity with the other person. Are you both parents? Christians? Forty-Niners fans? If you can frame a conversation about masks around a common identity, you can use the brain against itself, in a way. “With having this common identity, then you’re saying, ‘Oh, well, this person is more like me, I want to support my group,'” Facciani says.
“How do you change minds? Ultimately, it comes down to a lot of emotional work. And there’s no real shortcut.”
Jha tells me about talking with a friend’s wife “who refuses to take vaccines and doesn’t get the flu shot, and really has lots of concerns about giving vaccines to her children.” He explains the way they eventually “made progress” was pretty simple if slow-moving: “I talked to her about how I thought about these issues for my family and understood why she was making the decisions for her family—both getting myself to see her perspective, trying to get her to see my perspective. And over time, she moved in terms of her own decision making.”
Know you probably aren’t going to change someone’s mind with one conversation.
So say you’ve gone through all these steps. You listened. You’ve empathized. You’ve framed the conversation around their values and a shared identity. Now what? The next step: repeat. “That’s the hard part of this, how do you persuade people?” Facciani says. “How do you change minds? Ultimately, it comes down to a lot of emotional work. And there’s no real shortcut.”
Brossard echoes Facciani, saying if you want to change people’s minds you have to do so incrementally. And remember: Some people are beyond convincing. “I pick my battles,” says Brossard. “If I know somebody is really set in their beliefs, at the end of the day, you’re not going to change the way people think.”


motherjones--2020-12-21--Instead of a Crisis, Can Biden Treat an Immigration Wave as an Opportunity?

In recent weeks , devastating hurricanes in Central America , a northbound caravan of migrants from Honduras , and a spike in the apprehension of unaccompanied minors at the United States-Mexico border have generated headlines about an imminent immigration “ crisis ” —one , some have claimed , that might be exacerbated by more lenient policies in a Biden administration .
“ If you assume that you don ’ t want any of these people coming in , no matter how many or how few , it obviously seems like a crisis , ” says Yael Schacher , an immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the author of a report released Friday titled “ Building Better , Not Backward : Learning From the Past to Design Sound Border Asylum Policy.
” But there ’ s another way to look at it , she says—as an opportunity to finally fix 30 years of failed , costly , and often cruel deterrence policies .
To end a “ cycle of crises , ” it becomes necessary to change the paradigm .
“ For the first time in decades , ” she says , “ we need to think how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and welcome them in a way that ’ s fair rather than presume from the get-go that our goal is to keep them out.
” Schacher , who is writing a comprehensive history of asylum in the United States , notes in the report that immigration policies for the southern border were by and large conceived to push asylum seekers and migrants away .
She lays out recommendations for the Biden administration on how to adopt screening and admission practices that are both more humane and more effective .
Schacher is not alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushing for a similar shift in mentality .
“ The policies we are suggesting are ones that would implement a vision of a welcoming approach and that this is about humanitarian protection and not national security , ” says Kennji Kizuka , who researches refugee policy at Human Rights First .
“ These are not just pie-in-the-sky kind of requests , but they are based on US law and treaty obligations and the expectation that the US lives up to what used to be its best traditions.
” It ’ s no small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the damage from the last four years of draconian measures aimed at toughening the immigration system at large and gutting asylum .
Hundreds of parents and children separated at the border as a result of the zero-tolerance policy have yet to be reunited .
More than 67,000 asylum seekers have been forced to wait in Mexico under life-threatening conditions , and the majority of asylum cases that have gotten a hearing have been denied .
Since March , as many as 13,000 arriving unaccompanied minors have been expelled under an emergency decree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the policies of the Trump administration did not occur in a vacuum .
Since the late 1980s , both Democratic and Republican administrations have sought to prevent migration through deterrence , from detention and separation of families to the construction of border fencing .
But there have also been periods of what Schacher calls “ humanitarian and constructive policies.
” She points to 1975 , at the end of the Vietnam War , when US helicopters lifted and then resettled thousands of Southeast Asian refugees , and to the 1990s , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to create paths to permanent residency for Central Americans fleeing wars .
Following the 1992 election , Democrats broke their promise of a more humanitarian immigration approach .
After criticizing George H.W .
Bush ’ s policy of turning away Haitians fleeing widespread violence in the aftermath of a military coup , Bill Clinton continued to intercept arriving boats and sent thousands of refugees to Guantanamo to be repatriated later .
In 1996 , he signed a law that Schacher describes as having “ kept us in the wrong track , ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the current immigration system .
The Biden administration has an opportunity to do better , Schacher argues .
So far , the president-elect has promised to end the so-called Remain in Mexico policy but hasn ’ t taken a definitive stance on the Centers for Disease Control order shutting down the southern border during the pandemic .
Although immigration advocates agree that these would be critical first steps , they argue that more action is needed .
Instead of insisting on decades-old policies to block people already on the move , organizations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from enforcement operations to programs that serve as alternatives to detention , as well as to border shelters and to local and public health authorities receiving and providing services to asylum seekers .
Eventually , Schacher suggests , the government could set up “ humane reception centers ” along the border with appropriately trained immigration officials and social workers providing legal orientation .
There will be other pressing needs , such as fixing the immigration courts and addressing a growing backlog of cases .
But advocates and public health experts have said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the border , and then treating them right , shouldn ’ t be negotiable or politicized .
“ This anxiety about the surge is about disorder and chaos , but there ’ s a fair and orderly way to deal with the border , ” Schacher says .
“ The issue of creating a manageable system is not a matter of can we do it , but do we actually want to ?
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In recent weeks, devastating hurricanes in Central America, a northbound caravan of migrants from Honduras, and a spike in the apprehension of unaccompanied minors at the United States–Mexico border have generated headlines about an imminent immigration “crisis”—one, some have claimed, that might be exacerbated by more lenient policies in a Biden administration.
“If you assume that you don’t want any of these people coming in, no matter how many or how few, it obviously seems like a crisis,” says Yael Schacher, an immigration historian at the global organization Refugees International and the author of a report released Friday titled “Building Better, Not Backward: Learning From the Past to Design Sound Border Asylum Policy.”
But there’s another way to look at it, she says—as an opportunity to finally fix 30 years of failed, costly, and often cruel deterrence policies. To end a “cycle of crises,” it becomes necessary to change the paradigm. “For the first time in decades,” she says, “we need to think how we can actually allow, receive, and welcome them in a way that’s fair rather than presume from the get-go that our goal is to keep them out.”
Schacher, who is writing a comprehensive history of asylum in the United States, notes in the report that immigration policies for the southern border were by and large conceived to push asylum seekers and migrants away. She lays out recommendations for the Biden administration on how to adopt screening and admission practices that are both more humane and more effective.
Schacher is not alone: Other immigration scholars and advocates are pushing for a similar shift in mentality. “The policies we are suggesting are ones that would implement a vision of a welcoming approach and that this is about humanitarian protection and not national security,” says Kennji Kizuka, who researches refugee policy at Human Rights First. “These are not just pie-in-the-sky kind of requests, but they are based on US law and treaty obligations and the expectation that the US lives up to what used to be its best traditions.”
It’s no small task to mitigate, if not reverse, the damage from the last four years of draconian measures aimed at toughening the immigration system at large and gutting asylum. Hundreds of parents and children separated at the border as a result of the zero-tolerance policy have yet to be reunited. More than 67,000 asylum seekers have been forced to wait in Mexico under life-threatening conditions, and the majority of asylum cases that have gotten a hearing have been denied. Since March, as many as 13,000 arriving unaccompanied minors have been expelled under an emergency decree purported to be a public health measure.
But the policies of the Trump administration did not occur in a vacuum. Since the late 1980s, both Democratic and Republican administrations have sought to prevent migration through deterrence, from detention and separation of families to the construction of border fencing. But there have also been periods of what Schacher calls “humanitarian and constructive policies.” She points to 1975, at the end of the Vietnam War, when US helicopters lifted and then resettled thousands of Southeast Asian refugees, and to the 1990s, when public pressure and litigation led Congress to create paths to permanent residency for Central Americans fleeing wars.
Following the 1992 election, Democrats broke their promise of a more humanitarian immigration approach. After criticizing George H.W. Bush’s policy of turning away Haitians fleeing widespread violence in the aftermath of a military coup, Bill Clinton continued to intercept arriving boats and sent thousands of refugees to Guantanamo to be repatriated later. In 1996, he signed a law that Schacher describes as having “kept us in the wrong track,” and helps explain much of what is broken about the current immigration system.
The Biden administration has an opportunity to do better, Schacher argues. So far, the president-elect has promised to end the so-called Remain in Mexico policy but hasn’t taken a definitive stance on the Centers for Disease Control order shutting down the southern border during the pandemic. Although immigration advocates agree that these would be critical first steps, they argue that more action is needed.
Instead of insisting on decades-old policies to block people already on the move, organizations say a new government could shift resources from enforcement operations to programs that serve as alternatives to detention, as well as to border shelters and to local and public health authorities receiving and providing services to asylum seekers. Eventually, Schacher suggests, the government could set up “humane reception centers” along the border with appropriately trained immigration officials and social workers providing legal orientation.
There will be other pressing needs, such as fixing the immigration courts and addressing a growing backlog of cases. But advocates and public health experts have said that allowing people seeking protection to have access to the border, and then treating them right, shouldn’t be negotiable or politicized.
“This anxiety about the surge is about disorder and chaos, but there’s a fair and orderly way to deal with the border,” Schacher says. “The issue of creating a manageable system is not a matter of can we do it, but do we actually want to?”


motherjones--2020-12-22--Congress Is Set to Pass a New COVID Relief Bill. It’s Not Nearly Enough.

Congress is poised to pass a long-awaited $ 900 billion COVID-relief package that will bring temporary economic assistance to struggling families , as the country approaches a new year and the 11th month of a pandemic that has killed almost 320,000 , upended livelihoods , shuttered businesses , and plunged millions into poverty—even as the nation ’ s wealthiest citizens have fared quite well .
The bill ’ s additional unemployment benefits alone will keep nearly 5 million people from falling into poverty next month .
But given that vaccines are unlikely to be widely available until the mid-summer , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at best , a temporary and incomplete solution for families and for the broader economy .
The limited aid means workers won ’ t have a substantial cushion “ until a point closer to when the vaccine can roll out and people can go back to their shuttered occupations , ” Andrew Stettner , senior fellow at the Century Foundation , says in a statement .
“ Congress has given itself little choice but to immediately get to work on the next economic stimulus package as soon as President-elect Biden takes office.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cash into the hands of families who need it , thereby stimulating spending and the economy .
The first one provides one-time stimulus payments of $ 600 to all who qualify .
The other consists of extensions on different forms of unemployment assistance , and will expire in mid-March or early April .
These include : • an enhancement that adds $ 300 per week to unemployment checks for 11 weeks , beginning at the end of December .
• extensions of both regular unemployment benefits and the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program—which provided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t normally qualify for unemployment—for an additional 11 weeks .
“ This is a lot better than nothing , ” says Heidi Shierholz , a senior economist and the director of policy at the Economic Policy Institute .
“ But it is not enough .
Millions of people will exhaust those benefits in the middle of March.
” None of the unemployment extensions are retroactive , and some are less generous than the proposals put forth by Democrats earlier in the pandemic .
The $ 300/week top-up , for instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The CARES Act enacted in March , which included a $ 600/week enhancement that expired July 31 , has been credited with preventing jobless Americans from falling off an income cliff early in the pandemic—and even allowing many to save .
But in the five months since those extra benefits have expired , recipients have blasted through their savings , and then some .
The lack of retroactivity for these new benefits , “ is a terrible missed opportunity to alleviate suffering and help the economy , ” says EPI ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stettner of the Century Foundation , the 11-week extension is unprecedented in its brevity .
Unemployment extensions are often passed during tough economic times , he explains , including in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis .
The norm is at least 13 weeks .
A relief proposal unveiled earlier this month by Sens .
Mitt Romney and Joe Manchin would have extended benefits for 16 weeks .
But that was curtailed at the last minute , probably to make room for the $ 600 stimulus checks , according to the Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is really bad economics , ” Shierholz points out .
“ Stimulus checks should never make unemployment benefits less generous as a result.
” That ’ s because , while both are helpful , unemployment benefits are targeted to people who will immediately spend , not save , the cash , providing a stronger stimulus effect .
“ This is a good bridge to the other side of the Trump administration , ” Mark Zandi , the chief economist at Moody ’ s Analysts , told CNBC .
“ But a lot more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an eviction crisis.
” There are additional benefits in the new relief package set to expire quickly .
The legislation extends the eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this fall , but only for one month , until the end of January .
The bill contains $ 25 billion in rental assistance to help tenants cover back rent , since the eviction moratorium does not cancel their debts to landlords .
But this rental assistance pales in comparison to the estimated $ 70 billion in back rent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will owe as of January 1 .
Lawmakers also failed to include aid to state and local governments , which are strapped for cash after months of lockdowns and feeble economic activity .
Shierholz calls this an “ egregious omission ” on the part of Congress that could slow economic recovery , including that of individual households , for years to come .
“ State and local aid is crucial to the pace of the recovery , ” she says .
That ’ s because states and local governments typically have balanced-budget requirements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced to make huge cuts , creating an economic slowdown .
This is precisely what happened in the 2008 crisis , Shierholz notes , when Congress provided insufficient assistance to state and local governments , resigning those regions to extended periods of austerity , delaying recovery “ from the Great Recession by over four years , ” she says .
“ So Congress leaving state and local aid out from this bill will deeply and negatively affect the strength of our recovery.
” The legislation is expected to get a vote on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely a Senate vote late on Monday or in the wee hours on Tuesday .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Update: Congress passed the COVID relief package late Monday night.
Congress is poised to pass a long-awaited $900 billion COVID-relief package that will bring temporary economic assistance to struggling families, as the country approaches a new year and the 11th month of a pandemic that has killed almost 320,000, upended livelihoods, shuttered businesses, and plunged millions into poverty—even as the nation’s wealthiest citizens have fared quite well.
The bill’s additional unemployment benefits alone will keep nearly 5 million people from falling into poverty next month. But given that vaccines are unlikely to be widely available until the mid-summer, experts say this stimulus will provide, at best, a temporary and incomplete solution for families and for the broader economy.
“Congress has given itself little choice but to immediately get to work on the next economic stimulus package.”
The limited aid means workers won’t have a substantial cushion “until a point closer to when the vaccine can roll out and people can go back to their shuttered occupations,” Andrew Stettner, senior fellow at the Century Foundation, says in a statement. “Congress has given itself little choice but to immediately get to work on the next economic stimulus package as soon as President-elect Biden takes office.”
The bill contains two programs for putting cash into the hands of families who need it, thereby stimulating spending and the economy. The first one provides one-time stimulus payments of $600 to all who qualify. The other consists of extensions on different forms of unemployment assistance, and will expire in mid-March or early April. These include:
an enhancement that adds $300 per week to unemployment checks for 11 weeks, beginning at the end of December.
extensions of both regular unemployment benefits and the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program—which provided benefits to independent contractors and others who don’t normally qualify for unemployment—for an additional 11 weeks.
“This is a lot better than nothing,” says Heidi Shierholz, a senior economist and the director of policy at the Economic Policy Institute. “But it is not enough. Millions of people will exhaust those benefits in the middle of March.”
None of the unemployment extensions are retroactive, and some are less generous than the proposals put forth by Democrats earlier in the pandemic. The $300/week top-up, for instance, is half of what the Democrats wanted. The CARES Act enacted in March, which included a $600/week enhancement that expired July 31, has been credited with preventing jobless Americans from falling off an income cliff early in the pandemic—and even allowing many to save. But in the five months since those extra benefits have expired, recipients have blasted through their savings, and then some.
The lack of retroactivity for these new benefits, “is a terrible missed opportunity to alleviate suffering and help the economy,” says EPI’s Shierholz. In addition, according to Stettner of the Century Foundation, the 11-week extension is unprecedented in its brevity. Unemployment extensions are often passed during tough economic times, he explains, including in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The norm is at least 13 weeks. A relief proposal unveiled earlier this month by Sens. Mitt Romney and Joe Manchin would have extended benefits for 16 weeks. But that was curtailed at the last minute, probably to make room for the $600 stimulus checks, according to the Washington Post.
“Trading those things off is really bad economics,” Shierholz points out. “Stimulus checks should never make unemployment benefits less generous as a result.” That’s because, while both are helpful, unemployment benefits are targeted to people who will immediately spend, not save, the cash, providing a stronger stimulus effect.
“This is a good bridge to the other side of the Trump administration,” Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analysts, told CNBC. “But a lot more building needs to be done to avoid an eviction crisis.”There are additional benefits in the new relief package set to expire quickly. The legislation extends the eviction moratorium imposed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this fall, but only for one month, until the end of January. The bill contains $25 billion in rental assistance to help tenants cover back rent, since the eviction moratorium does not cancel their debts to landlords. But this rental assistance pales in comparison to the estimated $70 billion in back rent, late fees, and unpaid utilities tenants will owe as of January 1.
Lawmakers also failed to include aid to state and local governments, which are strapped for cash after months of lockdowns and feeble economic activity. Shierholz calls this an “egregious omission” on the part of Congress that could slow economic recovery, including that of individual households, for years to come.
“Leaving state and local aid out from this bill will deeply and negatively affect the strength of our recovery.”
“State and local aid is crucial to the pace of the recovery,” she says. That’s because states and local governments typically have balanced-budget requirements. Lacking aid, they will be forced to make huge cuts, creating an economic slowdown. This is precisely what happened in the 2008 crisis, Shierholz notes, when Congress provided insufficient assistance to state and local governments, resigning those regions to extended periods of austerity, delaying recovery “from the Great Recession by over four years,” she says. “So Congress leaving state and local aid out from this bill will deeply and negatively affect the strength of our recovery.”
The legislation is expected to get a vote on the House floor on Monday night, and likely a Senate vote late on Monday or in the wee hours on Tuesday.


motherjones--2020-12-21--Barr Refuses Trump’s Bogus Demands on His Way Out the Door

Outgoing Attorney General Bill Barr on Monday said he saw no reason to appoint special counsels to investigate two of President Trump ’ s current obsessions : Hunter Biden and false claims of election fraud in the 2020 election .
Barr also said he saw “ no basis ” for the federal government to seize states ’ voting machines in an effort to identify fraud—a move reportedly being pushed by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani .
“ If I thought a special counsel at this stage was the right tool , I would name one , but I haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , ” Barr said during his final press conference before leaving the Justice Department .
In another break , Barr said that he agreed with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s assessment that Russia is behind the massive cyberattacks on US federal agencies , an indirect rejection of Trump ’ s efforts to downplay the attack .
The remarks are almost certain to infuriate the president .
But while they add to the apparent falling out between the two men , it ’ s more than a bit difficult to reconcile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central role in some of the Trump administration ’ s worst scandals , as well as some of the very same falsehoods he suddenly appears eager to distance himself from .
That record includes pushing harmful voter suppression tactics , undermining the Trump-Russia probe , and politicizing federal investigations .
If Barr really wants to launder his image as one of Trump ’ s most loyal allies , he ’ ll have to do a lot more than the gentle pushback we saw today .
Either way , until January 20 , things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Outgoing Attorney General Bill Barr on Monday said he saw no reason to appoint special counsels to investigate two of President Trump’s current obsessions: Hunter Biden and false claims of election fraud in the 2020 election. Barr also said he saw “no basis” for the federal government to seize states’ voting machines in an effort to identify fraud—a move reportedly being pushed by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.
“If I thought a special counsel at this stage was the right tool, I would name one, but I haven’t, and I’m not going to,” Barr said during his final press conference before leaving the Justice Department. In another break, Barr said that he agreed with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s assessment that Russia is behind the massive cyberattacks on US federal agencies, an indirect rejection of Trump’s efforts to downplay the attack.
The remarks are almost certain to infuriate the president. But while they add to the apparent falling out between the two men, it’s more than a bit difficult to reconcile Barr’s comments today with his central role in some of the Trump administration’s worst scandals, as well as some of the very same falsehoods he suddenly appears eager to distance himself from. That record includes pushing harmful voter suppression tactics, undermining the Trump-Russia probe, and politicizing federal investigations. If Barr really wants to launder his image as one of Trump’s most loyal allies, he’ll have to do a lot more than the gentle pushback we saw today.
Either way, until January 20, things are most certainly going to get worse.