motherjones--2020-06-03--This Treasury Official Is Running the Bailout. It’s Been Great for His Family.

This story was published in partnership with ProPublica , a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have become the public faces of the $ 3 trillion federal coronavirus bailout .
Behind the scenes , however , the Treasury ’ s responsibilities have fallen largely to the 42-year-old deputy secretary , Justin Muzinich .
A major beneficiary of that bailout so far : Muzinich & Co. , the asset manager founded by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before joining the administration .
He reported owning a stake worth at least $ 60 million when he entered government in 2017 .
Today , Muzinich retains financial ties to the firm through an opaque transaction in which he transferred his shares in the privately held company to his father .
Ethics experts say the arrangement is troubling because his father received the shares for no money up front , and it appears possible that Muzinich can simply get his stake back after leaving government .
When lockdowns crippled the economy in March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unprecedented effort to buy up corporate debt to avert a freeze in lending at the exact moment businesses needed to borrow to keep running .
That effort has succeeded , at least temporarily , with credit continuing to flow to companies over the last several weeks .
This policy also allowed those who were heavily invested in corporate loans to recoup huge losses .
Muzinich & Co. has long specialized in precisely this market , managing approximately $ 38 billion of clients ’ money , including in riskier instruments known as junk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fed and the Treasury ’ s actions in late March , the bond market has roared back .
Muzinich & Co. has reversed billions in losses , according to a review of its holdings , with 28 of the 29 funds tracked by the investor research service Morningstar Direct rising in that period .
The firm doesn ’ t publicly detail all of its holdings , so a precise figure can ’ t be calculated .
The Treasury is understaffed , and Muzinich was overseeing two-thirds of the department before the crisis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the Trump administration ’ s point man on its only major legislative achievement , the landmark $ 1.9 trillion tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy and corporations .
As the markets panicked about the economic impact of the coronavirus , Muzinich ’ s responsibilities expanded .
The Treasury worked with the Fed on the emergency lending programs , and the agency has ultimate power to sign off .
Muzinich was personally involved in crafting the programs , including the effort to bail out the junk bond market , the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Fed officials daily by phone , email or text , the paper said .
That effort has many skeptics .
The Fed has never bought corporate debt in its more than 100 years of existence , much less that of the indebted and fragile companies that raise money through the sale of junk bonds .
Private equity firms , hedge funds and specialty investment firms like Muzinich & Co. dominate the market for junk-rated debt .
In effect , the Fed has swooped in to protect the most sophisticated investors from losses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justin Muzinich ’ s ongoing ties to the family firm present a thicket of potential conflicts of interest , ethics lawyers said .
Instead of immediately divesting his stake in the firm when he joined the Trump administration in early 2017 , Muzinich retained it until the end of that year .
But even then , he did not sell his stake and use the proceeds to buy broad-based securities such as index funds , as is common practice .
Instead , he transferred his piece of the company to his father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exchange , he received what amounts to an IOU—a written agreement in which his father agreed to pay him for the shares , with interest , but with no principal due for nine years .
“ This is something akin to a fake divestiture , ” said Kathleen Clark , a law professor and ethics specialist at Washington University in St. Louis .
“ It sure looks like he is simply parking this asset with a relative , and he will likely get it back after he leaves the government.
” A Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pledged not to take back the stake in the family firm once his public service ends .
Muzinich “ takes his ethics obligations very seriously ” and “ any suggestion to the contrary is completely baseless , ” she said .
She added the arrangement with his family firm was approved by the Office of Government Ethics and agency ethics lawyers , who recently reexamined the setup given Muzinich ’ s role in the economic crisis response .
They concluded that there is no currently envisaged scenario in which Muzinich would make decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his father ’ s ability to repay the money he owes under the IOU .
“ Treasury ’ s career Designated Agency Ethics Official has determined that there is no such conflict of interest , as there are no current or reasonably anticipated matters in which Deputy Secretary Muzinich would participate that would affect the note obligor ’ s ability or willingness to satisfy its financial obligations under the note , ” she said in a statement .
( The note obligor is Muzinich ’ s father . )
Muzinich & Co. did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Muzinich ’ s relationship with the family firm also creates potential conflicts related to Muzinich & Co. ’ s clients .
The firm makes money by charging investment management fees to several dozen wealthy individuals , insurance companies , pension funds , as well as what filings describe as a “ quasi foreign government corporation.
” The client list is not public and it ’ s unclear whether Muzinich would know about clients that came on board since he left .
But any large investor has much to gain , or lose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treasury about the bailout policies .
“ The clients of this firm , I imagine , must be thrilled that Muzinich has this vitally important , powerful position with a huge amount of discretion and authority , ” Clark said .
The Treasury spokeswoman declined to answer a question about the firm ’ s clients .
Even as Justin Muzinich has presided over bailout policies criticized by some observers , Muzinich & Co. executives have praised the government ’ s actions in recent briefings for investors .
One described the interventions “ as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high yield market.
” Another Muzinich executive , David Bowen , who manages one of the firm ’ s high-yield bond portfolios , said during a May 20 webinar , “ The Fed has been about as supportive , helpful , accommodative—whatever word you want to use—as anyone could imagine.
” When Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin hired Justin Muzinich as counselor in early 2017 , in many ways he was selecting a younger version of himself .
Like Mnuchin , Muzinich grew up in New York City , the son of a wealthy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Muzinich spent years collecting a series of elite credentials : He attended Groton and holds degrees from Harvard College , the London School of Economics , Yale Law School and Harvard Business School .
He worked at Morgan Stanley and spent a few months at a hedge fund associated with billionaire Steven A. Cohen , followed by a few years at EMS Capital , which invests the money of the wealthy Safra family .
Colleagues praise Muzinich as hardworking and serious , and Democrats have expressed relief that he isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Powell , the Fed chair , called Muzinich “ creative and extremely capable ” in a statement to the Wall Street Journal in April .
In 2010 , he joined the family firm and became its president .
His father , George , founded the company in 1988 , specializing in handling portfolios of American high-yield bonds for European pension funds .
The company expanded to offer funds to other institutional investors and wealthy individuals , but it stuck to its focus on corporate credit—particularly the riskier type that pays higher interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London , the firm has eight offices across Europe and one in Singapore .
“ Talking about credit all the time might sound boring , I ’ m sure it does , ” Justin Muzinich said in a 2014 interview , “ but that is what makes you good.
” As he rose in the family business , Muzinich also launched himself into GOP policy circles , advising the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2012 and Jeb Bush in 2016 .
He owns a $ 20 million ultramodern beachfront house in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Avenue apartment and commutes from New York City to work in Washington .
When Muzinich entered the Trump administration , he reported owning stock and stock options in the family firm collectively worth at least $ 60 million .
The true value could be much higher , but disclosure rules don ’ t require officials to give a specific figure for any asset worth more than $ 50 million .
The Treasury ’ s ethics officers are frequently called on to rule on complex questions , given that the department tends to attract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have large , complicated financial holdings—from ex-Goldman Sachs Chairman Hank Paulson to banker and Hollywood financier Mnuchin .
Stakes in individual companies can create conflicts of interest .
So incoming Treasury officials typically sell those stocks and invest in broad-based options like mutual funds .
Ownership in private investment funds can be particularly thorny because ethics rules treat each of the fund ’ s investments in specific companies as sources of potential conflicts .
Sarah Bloom Raskin , who preceded Muzinich as deputy secretary in the Obama administration , reported holding only a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either track the whole stock market or a large basket of companies .
But government ethics officials did not require Muzinich to sell his stake in the family firm through his first year in office as counselor to Mnuchin .
According to ethics filings , Muzinich said that he did not divest it until December 2017 , the month the tax law was signed .
( Several months later , in April 2018 , Trump nominated him to be deputy secretary . )
Muzinich did not receive cash for most of his stake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his more recent financial disclosures show that the stake , held in a family trust , was replaced with an opaque asset described as a “ receivable from family , ” valued at over $ 50 million .
Muzinich ’ s disclosure filings don ’ t reveal much about this asset at all .
They don ’ t say who the family member is or explain the arrangement .
They don ’ t say how the terms were negotiated , or even if the valuation of the deal was vetted by an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muzinich transferred his stake to his father .
But his father didn ’ t have to pay him right away .
According to a Senate Finance Committee memo obtained by ProPublica , Justin received two promissory notes from his father in return for the shares .
The notes pay Justin between $ 1 million and $ 5 million in interest over a year , at a rate of 2.11 % .
Moreover , his father does not have to pay any principal on the loan for nine years .
Neither the financial disclosure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long the agreement is supposed to last .
Neither addresses the possibility of his getting the shares back after he leaves the government .
The Treasury says the transaction is “ not reversible ” but did not elaborate .
In other words , Justin still has an ongoing long-term stake in the financial well-being of Muzinich & Co. , since his father now owes him more than $ 50 million .
If the company were to plummet in value or even go under , it could cost Justin .
Actions the Treasury and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chances he gets his money back or lower them .
The Treasury defended the IOU transaction as an appropriate remedy for any conflicts of interest .
The agency provided a statement from Elizabeth Horton , an ethics attorney who left the agency in 2019 and who worked with Muzinich on the divestiture from his family business .
Horton said that when Muzinich first joined the agency , “ the Treasury ethics office correctly advised him that he did not need to divest his holdings in his family business because of the generalized nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She said that when his duties changed , “ I advised Mr. Muzinich that an exchange for a fixed value note was an appropriate way to divest.
” Horton said that advice was “ consistent with practice in previous administrations ” —though the Treasury declined to cite similar cases .
“ Muzinich worked very closely with the ethics office and was extremely attentive to his ethics obligations , ” Horton said .
ProPublica reached out to four ethics officials , including two former Treasury ethics lawyers .
None could recall a similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreed that it resolved Muzinich ’ s conflicts , while one said that turning it into an asset with a value that doesn ’ t fluctuate with future developments should shield him from any allegations of impropriety .
The deal does not look like an arms-length transaction , said Virginia Canter , who served as a career ethics attorney at Treasury during the George W. Bush administration and is now at the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington .
“ The terms of the loan suggest something less than a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Once he leaves office , nothing in the arrangement appears to preclude Muzinich from forgiving the debt owed to him by his father so they can amicably agree on returning to Muzinich the interest in the Muzinich family business.
” As ranking member of the Finance Committee , Sen. Ron Wyden opposed Muzinich ’ s nomination as deputy secretary because of his role in crafting the tax bill .
Although he would have preferred a cash sale of the Muzinich & Co. stock , Wyden said in a statement that in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strengthen his recusal commitments to include matters where his family ’ s company is a party.
” That satisfied Wyden at the time , but it is a very narrow restriction .
A vast range of issues before the Treasury could affect Muzinich & Co. regardless of whether the firm was directly a party to any of them .
How Justin Muzinich treated the transaction for tax purposes could reveal whether it was a true and final sale or not .
Ordinarily , a sale of an asset such as equity in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
In Muzinich ’ s case , that could run into the tens of millions of dollars , even though his father paid him no cash upfront .
But there is an exception if the asset in question is merely transferred with a commitment to have it returned , said Steve Rosenthal , a tax law expert at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center .
“ If you are merely parking or pledging securities , and you are going to get them back , that ’ s not viewed as a taxable transaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not clear how he reported the transaction to the IRS , and whether he was left with a huge tax bill .
The Treasury declined to comment on the tax issues .
Through his first year in the administration , even as Muzinich continued to own his stake in the family firm , he met with a wide range of business executives to hash out major tax provisions that would affect them , according to his 2017 calendars that ProPublica obtained after suing the Treasury last year under the Freedom of Information Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group American Oversight .
The Treasury redacted large sections of the calendars , saying that they required consultation with the White House before they could be released .
One of the most important principles in the federal government ethics rules covers whether an official is dealing with a “ particular matter ” that would affect a discrete group of people with specific interests or a “ general matter ” that affects a larger and more diverse group .
The Treasury spokeswoman said the tax reform bill was to affect a very large and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not prevent Muzinich from working on it .
He was allowed to keep his equity in the company while working on the tax bill because his “ duties did not include particular matters that required divestiture of certain assets.
” But many industries had specific interests in the tax bill that they lobbied on — industries that may include clients of Muzinich & Co. Insurance companies , for example , featured prominently .
Muzinich met with trade groups representing insurers as well as Liberty Mutual , The Hartford , Zurich and Blue Cross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill , property and casualty insurers fared particularly well by dodging new limitations on deductions that applied to other companies .
Insurance companies invest their premiums in order to increase their profits .
In its regulatory filings , Muzinich & Co. reports that 17 of its 89 clients are insurance companies , which have given the firm more than $ 1.4 billion to invest .
Muzinich & Co. did not provide a list of its clients .
Some of the companies Muzinich & Co. has stakes in also have been lobbying the Treasury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Muzinich & Co. helps its clients invest in business development companies , a type of investment fund that enjoys lower taxes in exchange for providing capital to medium-sized companies .
The firm itself owns stock in BDCs , many of them run by private equity companies such as Ares Capital Corporation , which has paid millions of dollars to lobby for looser rules governing the BDC industry .
Even beyond any overlap with the family firm ’ s interests , Muzinich ’ s calendars , which cover the period from February to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s priorities in negotiating the tax deal .
Muzinich spent long days in meetings with private equity titans , energy company CEOs and heavy-hitting interest groups like the Business Roundtable and the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity .
His calendar shows no meetings with labor unions or progressive groups .
Muzinich did meet often with the Treasury ’ s in-house tax experts but frequently didn ’ t follow their recommendations .
Richard Prisinzano , who served in the agency ’ s tax analysis office until August 2017 , recalled trying to tell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax rates would likely prompt businesses to transform into C corporations , which often pay lower rates under the new law .
He argued that such a change would further reduce tax revenues .
Muzinich disagreed , Prisinzano said , protesting that businesses wouldn ’ t change their corporate form just to lower their taxes .
“ He really pushed back , ” Prisinzano recalled .
“ He said to me , ‘ The secretary is a numbers person , and the numbers don ’ t make sense to him.
’ ” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and they make perfect sense to me , ’ ” Prisinzano said he responded .
“ That was not an answer that they liked.
” In the following two years , many large businesses did indeed convert into C corporations , including private equity giants Ares , Blackstone and KKR .
The government hasn ’ t produced an estimate of how big a hit taxpayers took from these conversions .
During his confirmation hearing as deputy secretary in July 2018 , Democratic senators pressed Muzinich on whether he agreed with the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay for itself , ” despite the dire projections of independent forecasters such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office .
“ Yes , ” Muzinich responded .
It has not come close , as corporate tax collections plunged and left the national debt at historic levels on the eve of the pandemic .
As the economic response to the novel coronavirus consumed Washington in March , Mnuchin turned again to Muzinich to negotiate with Congress over the shape of a bailout intended to sustain companies as they weathered the worst part of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lawmakers settled on a package worth more than $ 2 trillion , divided into aid regimens for different sectors of the economy .
While setting general parameters , the Coronavirus Aid , Relief and Economic Security Act gives the Treasury wide latitude over how the money is to be distributed .
It calls for $ 50 billion in grants and loans for the airline industry , for example , with few rules on who should get what .
( In another potential intersection with Muzinich ’ s Treasury work , Muzinich & @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loan money to airlines to buy planes in February . )
Perhaps the greatest power the Treasury now has is the authority to sign off on Fed loan programs funded with CARES Act money .
The Fed has said it will leverage that money to lend up to several trillion dollars .
Among their biggest decisions : Which firms to include in the $ 600 billion Main Street Lending Program , which will lend directly to mid-sized businesses , and how to structure two programs that will purchase up to $ 750 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program , which has yet to launch , changed substantially after it was first announced to sweep in bigger companies and those with heavier debt loads .
Offering a glimpse into how the Treasury directly shaped the Fed programs , Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg the change was made in part to make sure beleaguered oil companies had access to the program ’ s favorable terms .
Muzinich & Co. ’ s U.S.-based funds include dozens of energy companies .
Mnuchin also deputized Muzinich to fix problems that arose during the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Program , which offers forgivable loans to small businesses .
The government hasn ’ t said who got money through the program , but Muzinich & Co. ’ s portfolio includes many companies that are small enough to be eligible .
The Fed ’ s bond purchasing programs will go even further to help companies with poorly rated credit .
On March 23 , the Fed and the Treasury announced a sweeping stimulus program that would involve buying hundreds of billions of dollars of investment-grade bonds .
Selling bonds is a way for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raise money for new investments , to fund day-to-day operations or to pay back older loans .
Companies that are strong and profitable are expected to be able to pay back the borrowed money .
Their bonds are deemed “ investment grade ” and come with lower interest rates .
The news of the Fed program on its own heralded a dramatic recovery in the bond market , which in three weeks recovered nearly all of the 13.6 % it had lost since the plunge began on March 6 , according to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Fed announced , with the Treasury ’ s approval , that it would expand its efforts to buy some junk bonds .
These carry higher interest rates because the borrowing companies are viewed as riskier and may already be heavily in debt .
One index tracking that market segment surged nearly 8 % on the news , the most in a decade .
This risker category of bonds has expanded dramatically in recent years as companies took on higher debt burdens to do things like acquire competitors and buy back stock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muzinich & Co. has long specialized .
At the end of 2019 , Muzinich & Co. reported it had $ 2.8 billion of assets under management in its U.S. high-yield bond strategy .
A Muzinich fund that focuses specifically on those bonds took significant losses in March , as companies like oilfield services provider Targa Resources and Caesars Entertainment saw the price of their bonds fall 30 % and 35 % respectively .
The government ’ s announcement buoyed Muzinich & Co. ’ s high-yield holdings along with everyone else ’ s .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s U.S. high-yield offering also praised CARES Act ’ s tax provisions that would “ help high yield companies.
” In a separate development in May , the Fed expanded another Treasury-backed lending program in a way that could help Muzinich & Co. ’ s portfolio .
The central bank said May 12 it would support “ syndicated loans , ” another form of corporate debt often in which riskier firms borrow money from multiple lenders .
Muzinich & Co. had more than $ 3 billion in assets under management in U.S. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last year .
The good news for Muzinich & Co. keeps coming .
As the firm ’ s head of investment strategy , Erick Muller , told investors in a May 13 webcast about the junk bond market : “ The recovery is pretty spectacular.
” Do you have access to information about the economic crisis response by the Treasury or Fed that should be public ?
Reach Justin Elliott at justin @ propublica.org or via Signal at 774-826-6240 and Lydia DePillis at lydia.depillis @ propublica.org or via Signal at 202-913-3717 .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents to ProPublica securely .

This story was published in partnership with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have become the public faces of the $3 trillion federal coronavirus bailout. Behind the scenes, however, the Treasury’s responsibilities have fallen largely to the 42-year-old deputy secretary, Justin Muzinich.
A major beneficiary of that bailout so far: Muzinich & Co., the asset manager founded by his father where Justin served as president before joining the administration. He reported owning a stake worth at least $60 million when he entered government in 2017.
Today, Muzinich retains financial ties to the firm through an opaque transaction in which he transferred his shares in the privately held company to his father. Ethics experts say the arrangement is troubling because his father received the shares for no money up front, and it appears possible that Muzinich can simply get his stake back after leaving government.
When lockdowns crippled the economy in March, the Treasury and the Fed launched an unprecedented effort to buy up corporate debt to avert a freeze in lending at the exact moment businesses needed to borrow to keep running. That effort has succeeded, at least temporarily, with credit continuing to flow to companies over the last several weeks. This policy also allowed those who were heavily invested in corporate loans to recoup huge losses.
Muzinich & Co. has long specialized in precisely this market, managing approximately $38 billion of clients’ money, including in riskier instruments known as junk, or high-yield, bonds. Since the Fed and the Treasury’s actions in late March, the bond market has roared back. Muzinich & Co. has reversed billions in losses, according to a review of its holdings, with 28 of the 29 funds tracked by the investor research service Morningstar Direct rising in that period. The firm doesn’t publicly detail all of its holdings, so a precise figure can’t be calculated.
The Treasury is understaffed, and Muzinich was overseeing two-thirds of the department before the crisis hit. He spent his first year as the Trump administration’s point man on its only major legislative achievement, the landmark $1.9 trillion tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy and corporations.
As the markets panicked about the economic impact of the coronavirus, Muzinich’s responsibilities expanded. The Treasury worked with the Fed on the emergency lending programs, and the agency has ultimate power to sign off. Muzinich was personally involved in crafting the programs, including the effort to bail out the junk bond market, the Wall Street Journal reported in April. He communicates with Fed officials daily by phone, email or text, the paper said.
That effort has many skeptics. The Fed has never bought corporate debt in its more than 100 years of existence, much less that of the indebted and fragile companies that raise money through the sale of junk bonds. Private equity firms, hedge funds and specialty investment firms like Muzinich & Co. dominate the market for junk-rated debt. In effect, the Fed has swooped in to protect the most sophisticated investors from losses on some of their riskiest bets.
Justin Muzinich’s ongoing ties to the family firm present a thicket of potential conflicts of interest, ethics lawyers said. Instead of immediately divesting his stake in the firm when he joined the Trump administration in early 2017, Muzinich retained it until the end of that year. But even then, he did not sell his stake and use the proceeds to buy broad-based securities such as index funds, as is common practice. Instead, he transferred his piece of the company to his father, who owns Muzinich & Co. In exchange, he received what amounts to an IOU—a written agreement in which his father agreed to pay him for the shares, with interest, but with no principal due for nine years.
“This is something akin to a fake divestiture,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor and ethics specialist at Washington University in St. Louis. “It sure looks like he is simply parking this asset with a relative, and he will likely get it back after he leaves the government.”
A Treasury spokeswoman declined to say whether Muzinich has pledged not to take back the stake in the family firm once his public service ends. Muzinich “takes his ethics obligations very seriously” and “any suggestion to the contrary is completely baseless,” she said.
She added the arrangement with his family firm was approved by the Office of Government Ethics and agency ethics lawyers, who recently reexamined the setup given Muzinich’s role in the economic crisis response. They concluded that there is no currently envisaged scenario in which Muzinich would make decisions as a government official that would affect his father’s ability to repay the money he owes under the IOU.
“Treasury’s career Designated Agency Ethics Official has determined that there is no such conflict of interest, as there are no current or reasonably anticipated matters in which Deputy Secretary Muzinich would participate that would affect the note obligor’s ability or willingness to satisfy its financial obligations under the note,” she said in a statement. (The note obligor is Muzinich’s father.)
Muzinich & Co. did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Muzinich’s relationship with the family firm also creates potential conflicts related to Muzinich & Co.’s clients. The firm makes money by charging investment management fees to several dozen wealthy individuals, insurance companies, pension funds, as well as what filings describe as a “quasi foreign government corporation.” The client list is not public and it’s unclear whether Muzinich would know about clients that came on board since he left. But any large investor has much to gain, or lose, from decisions being made by the Treasury about the bailout policies.
“The clients of this firm, I imagine, must be thrilled that Muzinich has this vitally important, powerful position with a huge amount of discretion and authority,” Clark said.
The Treasury spokeswoman declined to answer a question about the firm’s clients.
Even as Justin Muzinich has presided over bailout policies criticized by some observers, Muzinich & Co. executives have praised the government’s actions in recent briefings for investors. One described the interventions “as providing somewhat of a floor underneath the high yield market.”
Another Muzinich executive, David Bowen, who manages one of the firm’s high-yield bond portfolios, said during a May 20 webinar, “The Fed has been about as supportive, helpful, accommodative—whatever word you want to use—as anyone could imagine.”
Untangling the Financial Relationship
When Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin hired Justin Muzinich as counselor in early 2017, in many ways he was selecting a younger version of himself.
Like Mnuchin, Muzinich grew up in New York City, the son of a wealthy finance executive. Also like his boss, Muzinich spent years collecting a series of elite credentials: He attended Groton and holds degrees from Harvard College, the London School of Economics, Yale Law School and Harvard Business School. He worked at Morgan Stanley and spent a few months at a hedge fund associated with billionaire Steven A. Cohen, followed by a few years at EMS Capital, which invests the money of the wealthy Safra family.
Colleagues praise Muzinich as hardworking and serious, and Democrats have expressed relief that he isn’t as inflammatory as many other Trump appointees. Powell, the Fed chair, called Muzinich “creative and extremely capable” in a statement to the Wall Street Journal in April.
In 2010, he joined the family firm and became its president. His father, George, founded the company in 1988, specializing in handling portfolios of American high-yield bonds for European pension funds. The company expanded to offer funds to other institutional investors and wealthy individuals, but it stuck to its focus on corporate credit—particularly the riskier type that pays higher interest rates. Headquartered in New York and London, the firm has eight offices across Europe and one in Singapore.
“Talking about credit all the time might sound boring, I’m sure it does,” Justin Muzinich said in a 2014 interview, “but that is what makes you good.”
As he rose in the family business, Muzinich also launched himself into GOP policy circles, advising the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2012 and Jeb Bush in 2016. He owns a $20 million ultramodern beachfront house in the Hamptons and a $4.5 million Park Avenue apartment and commutes from New York City to work in Washington.
When Muzinich entered the Trump administration, he reported owning stock and stock options in the family firm collectively worth at least $60 million. The true value could be much higher, but disclosure rules don’t require officials to give a specific figure for any asset worth more than $50 million.
The Treasury’s ethics officers are frequently called on to rule on complex questions, given that the department tends to attract people from careers on Wall Street who have large, complicated financial holdings—from ex-Goldman Sachs Chairman Hank Paulson to banker and Hollywood financier Mnuchin.
Stakes in individual companies can create conflicts of interest. So incoming Treasury officials typically sell those stocks and invest in broad-based options like mutual funds. Ownership in private investment funds can be particularly thorny because ethics rules treat each of the fund’s investments in specific companies as sources of potential conflicts. Sarah Bloom Raskin, who preceded Muzinich as deputy secretary in the Obama administration, reported holding only a collection of index and mutual funds that either track the whole stock market or a large basket of companies.
But government ethics officials did not require Muzinich to sell his stake in the family firm through his first year in office as counselor to Mnuchin.
According to ethics filings, Muzinich said that he did not divest it until December 2017, the month the tax law was signed. (Several months later, in April 2018, Trump nominated him to be deputy secretary.)
Muzinich did not receive cash for most of his stake in the family firm. Instead, his more recent financial disclosures show that the stake, held in a family trust, was replaced with an opaque asset described as a “receivable from family,” valued at over $50 million.
Muzinich’s disclosure filings don’t reveal much about this asset at all. They don’t say who the family member is or explain the arrangement. They don’t say how the terms were negotiated, or even if the valuation of the deal was vetted by an independent third party.
It turns out that Muzinich transferred his stake to his father. But his father didn’t have to pay him right away. According to a Senate Finance Committee memo obtained by ProPublica, Justin received two promissory notes from his father in return for the shares. The notes pay Justin between $1 million and $5 million in interest over a year, at a rate of 2.11%. Moreover, his father does not have to pay any principal on the loan for nine years.
Neither the financial disclosure forms nor the Senate memo say how long the agreement is supposed to last. Neither addresses the possibility of his getting the shares back after he leaves the government. The Treasury says the transaction is “not reversible” but did not elaborate.
In other words, Justin still has an ongoing long-term stake in the financial well-being of Muzinich & Co., since his father now owes him more than $50 million. If the company were to plummet in value or even go under, it could cost Justin. Actions the Treasury and the Fed take can either enhance the chances he gets his money back or lower them.
The Treasury defended the IOU transaction as an appropriate remedy for any conflicts of interest. The agency provided a statement from Elizabeth Horton, an ethics attorney who left the agency in 2019 and who worked with Muzinich on the divestiture from his family business. Horton said that when Muzinich first joined the agency, “the Treasury ethics office correctly advised him that he did not need to divest his holdings in his family business because of the generalized nature of his work on tax reform legislation.” She said that when his duties changed, “I advised Mr. Muzinich that an exchange for a fixed value note was an appropriate way to divest.”
Horton said that advice was “consistent with practice in previous administrations”—though the Treasury declined to cite similar cases. “Muzinich worked very closely with the ethics office and was extremely attentive to his ethics obligations,” Horton said.
ProPublica reached out to four ethics officials, including two former Treasury ethics lawyers. None could recall a similar divestment transaction. Three of the four disagreed that it resolved Muzinich’s conflicts, while one said that turning it into an asset with a value that doesn’t fluctuate with future developments should shield him from any allegations of impropriety.
The deal does not look like an arms-length transaction, said Virginia Canter, who served as a career ethics attorney at Treasury during the George W. Bush administration and is now at the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
“The terms of the loan suggest something less than a bona fide transaction,” she said. “Once he leaves office, nothing in the arrangement appears to preclude Muzinich from forgiving the debt owed to him by his father so they can amicably agree on returning to Muzinich the interest in the Muzinich family business.”
As ranking member of the Finance Committee, Sen. Ron Wyden opposed Muzinich’s nomination as deputy secretary because of his role in crafting the tax bill. Although he would have preferred a cash sale of the Muzinich & Co. stock, Wyden said in a statement that in July 2018 Muzinich had agreed to “strengthen his recusal commitments to include matters where his family’s company is a party.”
That satisfied Wyden at the time, but it is a very narrow restriction. A vast range of issues before the Treasury could affect Muzinich & Co. regardless of whether the firm was directly a party to any of them.
How Justin Muzinich treated the transaction for tax purposes could reveal whether it was a true and final sale or not.
Ordinarily, a sale of an asset such as equity in a company would trigger a capital gains tax bill. In Muzinich’s case, that could run into the tens of millions of dollars, even though his father paid him no cash upfront. But there is an exception if the asset in question is merely transferred with a commitment to have it returned, said Steve Rosenthal, a tax law expert at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
“If you are merely parking or pledging securities, and you are going to get them back, that’s not viewed as a taxable transaction,” he said.
It is not clear how he reported the transaction to the IRS, and whether he was left with a huge tax bill. The Treasury declined to comment on the tax issues.
Tax Reform—for Friends and Family
Through his first year in the administration, even as Muzinich continued to own his stake in the family firm, he met with a wide range of business executives to hash out major tax provisions that would affect them, according to his 2017 calendars that ProPublica obtained after suing the Treasury last year under the Freedom of Information Act. Others were obtained by the watchdog group American Oversight. The Treasury redacted large sections of the calendars, saying that they required consultation with the White House before they could be released.
One of the most important principles in the federal government ethics rules covers whether an official is dealing with a “particular matter” that would affect a discrete group of people with specific interests or a “general matter” that affects a larger and more diverse group.
The Treasury spokeswoman said the tax reform bill was to affect a very large and diverse group, so ethics rules did not prevent Muzinich from working on it. He was allowed to keep his equity in the company while working on the tax bill because his “duties did not include particular matters that required divestiture of certain assets.”
But many industries had specific interests in the tax bill that they lobbied on — industries that may include clients of Muzinich & Co. Insurance companies, for example, featured prominently. Muzinich met with trade groups representing insurers as well as Liberty Mutual, The Hartford, Zurich and Blue Cross Blue Shield. In the final tax bill, property and casualty insurers fared particularly well by dodging new limitations on deductions that applied to other companies.
Insurance companies invest their premiums in order to increase their profits. In its regulatory filings, Muzinich & Co. reports that 17 of its 89 clients are insurance companies, which have given the firm more than $1.4 billion to invest. Muzinich & Co. did not provide a list of its clients.
Some of the companies Muzinich & Co. has stakes in also have been lobbying the Treasury on their own behalf. For example, Muzinich & Co. helps its clients invest in business development companies, a type of investment fund that enjoys lower taxes in exchange for providing capital to medium-sized companies. The firm itself owns stock in BDCs, many of them run by private equity companies such as Ares Capital Corporation, which has paid millions of dollars to lobby for looser rules governing the BDC industry.
Even beyond any overlap with the family firm’s interests, Muzinich’s calendars, which cover the period from February to September of 2017, reflect the administration’s priorities in negotiating the tax deal. Muzinich spent long days in meetings with private equity titans, energy company CEOs and heavy-hitting interest groups like the Business Roundtable and the anti-tax group Americans for Prosperity. His calendar shows no meetings with labor unions or progressive groups.
Muzinich did meet often with the Treasury’s in-house tax experts but frequently didn’t follow their recommendations. Richard Prisinzano, who served in the agency’s tax analysis office until August 2017, recalled trying to tell Mnuchin and Muzinich that drastically lowering corporate tax rates would likely prompt businesses to transform into C corporations, which often pay lower rates under the new law.
He argued that such a change would further reduce tax revenues. Muzinich disagreed, Prisinzano said, protesting that businesses wouldn’t change their corporate form just to lower their taxes. “He really pushed back,” Prisinzano recalled. “He said to me, ‘The secretary is a numbers person, and the numbers don’t make sense to him.’”
“‘I’m a numbers person, and they make perfect sense to me,’” Prisinzano said he responded. “That was not an answer that they liked.”
In the following two years, many large businesses did indeed convert into C corporations, including private equity giants Ares, Blackstone and KKR. The government hasn’t produced an estimate of how big a hit taxpayers took from these conversions.
During his confirmation hearing as deputy secretary in July 2018, Democratic senators pressed Muzinich on whether he agreed with the White House that the tax bill would “pay for itself,” despite the dire projections of independent forecasters such as the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. “Yes,” Muzinich responded.
It has not come close, as corporate tax collections plunged and left the national debt at historic levels on the eve of the pandemic.
Muzinich Takes on the COVID-19 Crisis
As the economic response to the novel coronavirus consumed Washington in March, Mnuchin turned again to Muzinich to negotiate with Congress over the shape of a bailout intended to sustain companies as they weathered the worst part of the crisis.
Ultimately, Trump administration officials and lawmakers settled on a package worth more than $2 trillion, divided into aid regimens for different sectors of the economy. While setting general parameters, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act gives the Treasury wide latitude over how the money is to be distributed. It calls for $50 billion in grants and loans for the airline industry, for example, with few rules on who should get what. (In another potential intersection with Muzinich’s Treasury work, Muzinich & Co. started a new business line to loan money to airlines to buy planes in February.)
Perhaps the greatest power the Treasury now has is the authority to sign off on Fed loan programs funded with CARES Act money. The Fed has said it will leverage that money to lend up to several trillion dollars.
Among their biggest decisions: Which firms to include in the $600 billion Main Street Lending Program, which will lend directly to mid-sized businesses, and how to structure two programs that will purchase up to $750 billion in corporate bonds.
The Main Street program, which has yet to launch, changed substantially after it was first announced to sweep in bigger companies and those with heavier debt loads. Offering a glimpse into how the Treasury directly shaped the Fed programs, Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette told Bloomberg the change was made in part to make sure beleaguered oil companies had access to the program’s favorable terms. Muzinich & Co.’s U.S.-based funds include dozens of energy companies.
Mnuchin also deputized Muzinich to fix problems that arose during the first round of funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, which offers forgivable loans to small businesses. The government hasn’t said who got money through the program, but Muzinich & Co.’s portfolio includes many companies that are small enough to be eligible.
The Fed’s bond purchasing programs will go even further to help companies with poorly rated credit.
On March 23, the Fed and the Treasury announced a sweeping stimulus program that would involve buying hundreds of billions of dollars of investment-grade bonds. Selling bonds is a way for large companies like Boeing or PepsiCo to raise money for new investments, to fund day-to-day operations or to pay back older loans. Companies that are strong and profitable are expected to be able to pay back the borrowed money. Their bonds are deemed “investment grade” and come with lower interest rates. The news of the Fed program on its own heralded a dramatic recovery in the bond market, which in three weeks recovered nearly all of the 13.6% it had lost since the plunge began on March 6, according to one index.
Then, on April 9, the Fed announced, with the Treasury’s approval, that it would expand its efforts to buy some junk bonds. These carry higher interest rates because the borrowing companies are viewed as riskier and may already be heavily in debt. One index tracking that market segment surged nearly 8% on the news, the most in a decade. This risker category of bonds has expanded dramatically in recent years as companies took on higher debt burdens to do things like acquire competitors and buy back stock. These are the bonds in which Muzinich & Co. has long specialized.
At the end of 2019, Muzinich & Co. reported it had $2.8 billion of assets under management in its U.S. high-yield bond strategy. A Muzinich fund that focuses specifically on those bonds took significant losses in March, as companies like oilfield services provider Targa Resources and Caesars Entertainment saw the price of their bonds fall 30% and 35% respectively.
The government’s announcement buoyed Muzinich & Co.’s high-yield holdings along with everyone else’s. The portfolio manager for the firm’s U.S. high-yield offering also praised CARES Act’s tax provisions that would “help high yield companies.”
In a separate development in May, the Fed expanded another Treasury-backed lending program in a way that could help Muzinich & Co.’s portfolio. The central bank said May 12 it would support “syndicated loans,” another form of corporate debt often in which riskier firms borrow money from multiple lenders. Muzinich & Co. had more than $3 billion in assets under management in U.S. and European syndicated loans at the end of last year.
The good news for Muzinich & Co. keeps coming. As the firm’s head of investment strategy, Erick Muller, told investors in a May 13 webcast about the junk bond market: “The recovery is pretty spectacular.”
Doris Burke and Hannah Fresques contributed reporting.
Do you have access to information about the economic crisis response by the Treasury or Fed that should be public? Reach Justin Elliott at justin@propublica.org or via Signal at 774-826-6240 and Lydia DePillis at lydia.depillis@propublica.org or via Signal at 202-913-3717. Here’s how to send tips and documents to ProPublica securely.


motherjones--2020-06-03--Let’s Be Clear: Park Police Hit DC Protesters With Tear Gas

The Trump administration has issued threatening emails to journalists across the country demanding retractions and corrections on Washington ’ s biggest headline last night : that police working for the National Park Service tear-gassed hundreds of peaceful civilians , not for disturbing anything or anyone , but to clear some room for a ( very un- ) presidential photo op .
Here ’ s what happened , from my colleague Becca Andrews : You ’ ll be happy to hear the Trump campaign has contacted us in a snit .
They say the Park Police did not use tear gas—they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ balls.
” Here are the facts : Park Police used tear gas to clear out peaceful protesters so that Donald Trump could fumble a Bible in a lame photo op that disgusted everyone , including the actual clergy of St. John ’ s—and Pat Robertson .
The lying press reported what they saw : that the tear-causing gas was , in fact , tear gas .
“ Tear gas , ” an umbrella term for about a half-dozen so-called “ riot-control agents ” or “ less lethal ” chemical weapons , most often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irritant devised by two Middlebury College researchers in the 1920s .
But it can also refer to OC , or oleoresin capsicum , an ultra-concentrated form of the compound in hot peppers mixed with carriers that make it stick to your skin and lungs more easily .
Both cause tears , and both , in quantity , do a permanent number on lungs and nerves .
The distinction only matters if you ’ re treating medical damage or covering your ass ; the Centers for Disease Control calls every such chemical “ tear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and others .
But for police , “ pepper balls ” —dense projectiles containing OC , which the Park Police insist they used—are very convenient .
They can be fired again and again from a gun .
They hurt .
( In fact , they hurt worse than CS gas . )
In prisons , where tear gas is used to suppress unrest , correctional officers mix-and-match CS and OC freely when they have both on hand—and sometimes hit prisoners with a combo .
Read the account of a West Virginia prisoner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 for The Nation : That kind of treatment often causes permanent damage , or worse , as in the case of 37 Egyptian prisoners killed by police who fired US-bought CS gas into a locked police truck .
As in the cases of the women in Bahrain and elsewhere who have miscarried after getting splashed with CS for the crime of protest .
The Geneva Convention identifies all forms of tear gas as chemical weapons , and bars their use in times of war .
And victims often can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the women pepper-sprayed by ICE while in immigration detention for asking questions about coronavirus .
From my colleague Noah Lanard : [ My client ] then informed me that the officers grew impatient and angry with the women and released tear gas into the room where they were giving the presentation .
The officers promptly left the room and locked the doors .
[ She ] told me that her and the rest of the women were left locked inside the room with tear gas for approximately one hour .
She stated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the room , but no one came to their aid .
It turned out to be pepper spray .
The women were never able to tell .
It was ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox who took pains to draw that distinction .
All these names are calculated and political , which is what makes the debate so silly .
“ Rubber bullets ” are rubber-coated steel .
They kill .
“ Riot-control agents ” are being used to control peaceful gatherings for human rights , but the name “ citizen-control agents ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weapons ” are plenty lethal .
“ Pepper balls ” sound like something you eat .
Why is this important to the Trump campaign ?
It is not .
It ’ s important to them to spin up pretexts .
It sets a precedent where journalists are liars , meaning that they ’ re also lying when they post video after video of themselves and their colleagues being violently attacked across the country , without provocation , by cops who know they are journalists .
It sets a precedent under which journalists need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tear gas and later with whatever they please .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
The Trump administration has issued threatening emails to journalists across the country demanding retractions and corrections on Washington’s biggest headline last night: that police working for the National Park Service tear-gassed hundreds of peaceful civilians, not for disturbing anything or anyone, but to clear some room for a (very un-) presidential photo op.
Here’s what happened, from my colleague Becca Andrews:
Police fired tear gas to clear peaceful protesters from Lafayette Park, across the street from the White House, on Monday evening, just before President Trump delivered an address in which he threatened to deploy “thousands and thousands of heavily armed military personnel and law enforcement officers” to curb protests and enforce curfews. Trump then proceeded to walk across the park to nearby St. John’s Episcopal Church, the site of a fire Sunday night, for a photo op in which he posed with a Bible.
You’ll be happy to hear the Trump campaign has contacted us in a snit. They say the Park Police did not use tear gas—they simply used “smoke canisters and pepper balls.”
Here are the facts: Park Police used tear gas to clear out peaceful protesters so that Donald Trump could fumble a Bible in a lame photo op that disgusted everyone, including the actual clergy of St. John’s—and Pat Robertson. The lying press reported what they saw: that the tear-causing gas was, in fact, tear gas.
“Tear gas,” an umbrella term for about a half-dozen so-called “riot-control agents” or “less lethal” chemical weapons, most often refers to CS gas, a powerful irritant devised by two Middlebury College researchers in the 1920s.
But it can also refer to OC, or oleoresin capsicum, an ultra-concentrated form of the compound in hot peppers mixed with carriers that make it stick to your skin and lungs more easily. Both cause tears, and both, in quantity, do a permanent number on lungs and nerves.
The distinction only matters if you’re treating medical damage or covering your ass; the Centers for Disease Control calls every such chemical “tear gas,” including CS, OC, and others. But for police, “pepper balls”—dense projectiles containing OC, which the Park Police insist they used—are very convenient. They can be fired again and again from a gun. They hurt. (In fact, they hurt worse than CS gas.)
In prisons, where tear gas is used to suppress unrest, correctional officers mix-and-match CS and OC freely when they have both on hand—and sometimes hit prisoners with a combo. Read the account of a West Virginia prisoner subjected to both, which I reported in 2016 for The Nation:
“They started out by using MK9, which is a form of pepper spray. They put a fogger attachment on it, to pipe it into the cell. Then they used a mixture of OC and CS. Then they fired beanbag rounds into the locked cell with a shotgun. Then they upped it to Sting-Ball grenades. They threw two grenades into the cell—a cell that’s approximately 80 square feet. They did all of this back to back to back, without stopping.”
That kind of treatment often causes permanent damage, or worse, as in the case of 37 Egyptian prisoners killed by police who fired US-bought CS gas into a locked police truck. As in the cases of the women in Bahrain and elsewhere who have miscarried after getting splashed with CS for the crime of protest. The Geneva Convention identifies all forms of tear gas as chemical weapons, and bars their use in times of war.
And victims often can’t tell one from the other, like the women pepper-sprayed by ICE while in immigration detention for asking questions about coronavirus. From my colleague Noah Lanard:
[My client] then informed me that the officers grew impatient and angry with the women and released tear gas into the room where they were giving the presentation. The officers promptly left the room and locked the doors. [She] told me that her and the rest of the women were left locked inside the room with tear gas for approximately one hour. She stated that the women were screaming to be let out of the room, but no one came to their aid.
It turned out to be pepper spray. The women were never able to tell. It was ICE spokesperson Bryan Cox who took pains to draw that distinction.
All these names are calculated and political, which is what makes the debate so silly. “Rubber bullets” are rubber-coated steel. They kill. “Riot-control agents” are being used to control peaceful gatherings for human rights, but the name “citizen-control agents” doesn’t sell. “Less-lethal weapons” are plenty lethal. “Pepper balls” sound like something you eat.
Why is this important to the Trump campaign? It is not. It’s important to them to spin up pretexts.
It sets a precedent where journalists are liars, meaning that they’re also lying when they post video after video of themselves and their colleagues being violently attacked across the country, without provocation, by cops who know they are journalists. It sets a precedent under which journalists need to be curbed, at first with tear gas and later with whatever they please.
No manufactured scandals, no fascism.


motherjones--2020-06-03--Ding Ding! The Most Racist Congressman in America Just Got Beat.

Next January , for the first time in years , the most racist man in Congress will be someone other than Steve King .
The nine-term Iowa Republican congressman , an anti-immigrant conservative who was stripped of his committee assignments by his own party after defending white nationalism in the New York Times , was defeated by state Sen. Randy Feenstra in Tuesday ’ s primary .
King ’ s overt racism made him a notorious figure on Capitol Hill , and was the justification for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ’ s decision to remove him from the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
But his views were never a secret , and as I wrote earlier today , Republicans in Washington never seemed to have much of a problem with him until it looked like he might finally cost them a seat , and Republicans in Iowa stayed on board until he was no longer capable of doing the job : There is something fitting about the career of a racist Congress member perhaps crashing to a halt amid a national protest against racism .
( King ’ s contribution to the protest discourse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ memes . )
But if King loses his job , it won ’ t be because of what he believes .
If Republicans in Iowa and elsewhere had a problem with King ’ s racism before , they mostly kept it to themselves—Feenstra himself once told King ’ s son ( who is also King ’ s campaign manager ) that he would never think of running against the Congress member .
As someone who represented more Republican voters than anyone else in the first-in-the-nation caucus state , King was someone ambitious politicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ praise on the stump or go duck hunting with .
Ted Cruz made King his presidential campaign ’ s national co-chair .
They put up with his little replicas of the fence , his comments about immigrant kids with “ calves the size of cantaloupes , ” his complaints about multiculturalism and replacement theory , his fraternizing with European bigots .
First he came for the Mexicans , and then Chuck Grassley endorsed him .
Feenstra , like King , is pro-Trump , pro-wall , and doggedly anti-abortion—and unless Kevin McCarthy threatens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the fall as the favorite against populist Democrat J.D .
Scholten .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Next January, for the first time in years, the most racist man in Congress will be someone other than Steve King. The nine-term Iowa Republican congressman, an anti-immigrant conservative who was stripped of his committee assignments by his own party after defending white nationalism in the New York Times, was defeated by state Sen. Randy Feenstra in Tuesday’s primary.
King’s overt racism made him a notorious figure on Capitol Hill, and was the justification for House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s decision to remove him from the House agriculture and judiciary committees in January of 2019. But his views were never a secret, and as I wrote earlier today, Republicans in Washington never seemed to have much of a problem with him until it looked like he might finally cost them a seat, and Republicans in Iowa stayed on board until he was no longer capable of doing the job:
There is something fitting about the career of a racist Congress member perhaps crashing to a halt amid a national protest against racism. (King’s contribution to the protest discourse is, predictably, a lot of memes.) But if King loses his job, it won’t be because of what he believes. If Republicans in Iowa and elsewhere had a problem with King’s racism before, they mostly kept it to themselves—Feenstra himself once told King’s son (who is also King’s campaign manager) that he would never think of running against the Congress member. As someone who represented more Republican voters than anyone else in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, King was someone ambitious politicians had to suck up to, to praise on the stump or go duck hunting with. Ted Cruz made King his presidential campaign’s national co-chair. They put up with his little replicas of the fence, his comments about immigrant kids with “calves the size of cantaloupes,” his complaints about multiculturalism and replacement theory, his fraternizing with European bigots. First he came for the Mexicans, and then Chuck Grassley endorsed him.
Feenstra, like King, is pro-Trump, pro-wall, and doggedly anti-abortion—and unless Kevin McCarthy threatens to blacklist him, he’ll head into the fall as the favorite against populist Democrat J.D. Scholten.


motherjones--2020-06-02--Republicans Won’t Even Criticize Trump for Gassing Protesters for a Photo Op

On Tuesday , federal law enforcement officials gassed peaceful protesters so President Donald Trump could have a photo op .
The crackdown in Washington ’ s Lafeyette Park earned widespread condemnation , including from former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and from the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington , but the bizarre photo op which followed , during which the president wielded someone else ’ s Bible as a prop ( “ Is that your Bible ?
” “ It ’ s a Bible.
” ) made some Christians happy as clams .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part , they either loved the whole show , or have never heard of Donald Trump but would like everyone to know that The Left Is Bad .
“ I didn ’ t watch it closely enough to know , ” said Sen. Mitt Romney ( R-Utah ) .
Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) thinks the only abuse of power came from the protesters ( who were exercising their First Amendment rights to free assembly ) .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused , as usual , to critique the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up , “ Violence is scary.
” Sen. Lisa Murkowski ( R-Alaska ) issued a lukewarm condemnation , saying last night ’ s events were “ not the America that I know.
” Sen. Chuck Grassley ( R-Iowa ) defended the president ’ s actions , telling CNN that it would be “ okay ” to use force against the protesters if police expected even five percent of them to be violent .
In a tweet , Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-Fla. ) called protesters “ professional agitators ” who intentionally stayed out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” So far , Sen. Ben Sasse ( R-Neb . )
has called it as he saw it : “ To Trump , the Bible and the church are not symbols of faith , The Atlantic ’ s McKay Coppins wrote of the incident .
“ They are weapons of culture war.
” Tear gas is also one of those weapons .
And Senate Republicans apparently wouldn ’ t have it any other way .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Tuesday, federal law enforcement officials gassed peaceful protesters so President Donald Trump could have a photo op. The crackdown in Washington’s Lafeyette Park earned widespread condemnation, including from former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen and from the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, but the bizarre photo op which followed, during which the president wielded someone else’s Bible as a prop (“Is that your Bible?” “It’s a Bible.”) made some Christians happy as clams.
I don’t know about you but I’ll take a president with a Bible in his hand in front of a church over far left violent radicals setting a church on fire any day of the week. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @WhiteHouse #StJohnsChurch pic.twitter.com/84uZf6GAme — David Brody (@DavidBrodyCBN) June 2, 2020
And Republicans? Well, for the most part, they either loved the whole show, or have never heard of Donald Trump but would like everyone to know that The Left Is Bad.
“I didn’t watch it closely enough to know,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah).
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) thinks the only abuse of power came from the protesters (who were exercising their First Amendment rights to free assembly). Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused, as usual, to critique the president. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) mustered up, “Violence is scary.”
I asked Sen. McConnell if President Trump’s leadership was right for this moment. “I’m not going to critique other people’s performances,” he said. — Kasie Hunt (@kasie) June 2, 2020
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) issued a lukewarm condemnation, saying last night’s events were “not the America that I know.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) defended the president’s actions, telling CNN that it would be “okay” to use force against the protesters if police expected even five percent of them to be violent. In a tweet, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) called protesters “professional agitators” who intentionally stayed out past curfew to “trigger police action.”
So far, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) has called it as he saw it:
GOP Sen. @BenSasse: “I’m against clearing out a peaceful protest for a photo op that treats the Word of God as a political prop” — Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) June 2, 2020
“To Trump, the Bible and the church are not symbols of faith, The Atlantic’s McKay Coppins wrote of the incident. “They are weapons of culture war.”
Tear gas is also one of those weapons. And Senate Republicans apparently wouldn’t have it any other way.


motherjones--2020-06-03--Oops—Trump Brought the Wrong Bible to His Church Stunt

On Monday evening , President Donald Trump decided to get a photo-op in front of the historic St. John ’ s Episcopal Church , just a few minutes walk from the White House .
Trump had just delivered a short speech in the Rose Garden in which he threatened to send in the United States military if mayors and governors refuse to take action against “ rioting and looting.
” Trump ’ s route to the church lay through Lafayette Square , which had been filled with peaceful protesters .
So , while the president was speaking , a brigade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ area in full riot gear to disperse the crowd .
They sprayed smoke , threw flash grenades , and body-checked protesters with their shields so that the president could get his photos undisturbed .
With the human obstacles beaten and smoked out of his path , Trump made it to the church .
He stiffly held up a Bible , announcing , “ It ’ s a Bible , ” and got his photos .
It was one of the most disturbing scenes to come out of the protests so far : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many have described as the defilement of a sacred space .
The Rev .
Mariann Budde , told the Washington Post , “ I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call , that they would be clearing [ the area ] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop.
” This publicity stunt has not been well received .
From the left and the right , Trump has been criticized for the brutal treatment of peaceful protesters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a church as props to advance his political ambitions .
But there was one small detail that adds a delicious layer of irony to this latest Trumpian stunt .
If the whole performance was in order to send a message of solidarity with his evangelical voters , their adored leader used the wrong Bible .
Stephen Hendrickson is the founder with his brother of Christianbook , LLC , a Christian catalog and internet retailer .
He ’ s also a member of the Mother Jones ’ board .
As Hendrickson notes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head was a Revised Standard Version ( RSV ) .
Every English-language Bible is obviously a translation from the original Hebrew , Greek , and Aramaic , but there are vast differences among the versions .
Not only is the RSV outdated ( the New Revised Standard Version , NRSV , was published in 1989 to replace it ) , but it ’ s not a Bible that evangelical Christians consider authoritative .
“ It would be pretty much rejected by the vast majority of evangelicals .
It would be seen as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distinctly liberal one , ” said Rev .
Rob Schenck , an evangelical clergyman , the president of The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute , and the author of Costly Grace : An Evangelical Minister ’ s Rediscovery of Faith , Hope , and Love .
“ And for many , especially in the very conservative or fundamentalist wing , they might see it as not a version of the Bible at all.
” The translation in the RSV that is the most controversial for evangelicals can be found in Isaiah 7:14 , where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ young woman.
” According to Schenck , this translation can be read as a downplaying of the miracle of Jesus ’ conception , which is a cardinal tenet of the faith .
The RSV is also under the copyright of the more liberal National Council of Churches ( NCC ) , an organization which Schenck describes as “ the nemesis of evangelicals.
” That ’ s because denominations like the Southern Baptists and Pentacostal denominations , who make up some of Trump ’ s most loyal supporters , are not members .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump ’ s choice of church was also strange .
It ’ s a distinctly liberal church that supports many tenets that the evangelical right opposes , including same-sex marriage and abortion rights .
In an interview on CNN , Rev .
Budde said that the president is not a man of prayer and does not worship regularly at St. John ’ s—or anywhere else—calling his photo op “ a charade.
” The Catholics also joined Bishop Budde in criticizing the president .
On Tuesday , Trump and his wife Melania went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shrine in Washington , DC for another awkward photo-op .
This time , Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory weighed in , issuing a statement saying that Saint John Paul II “ certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence , scatter or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.
” Naturally Trump defended his actions on Fox News Radio , appearing on the Brian Kilmeade Show on June 3 .
“ Most religious leaders loved it .
I heard Franklin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I heard many other people think it was great .
And it ’ s only the other side that didn ’ t like it .
You know , the opposing—the opposition party as the expression goes , ” Trump said , implying , as some on Twitter noted , that the quality and legitimacy of some Christians was reflected in their politics .
“ It certainly betrays his ignorance of the religious landscape , even of the evangelical landscape he relies on so much , ” said Schenck .
“ He really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Monday evening, President Donald Trump decided to get a photo-op in front of the historic St. John’s Episcopal Church, just a few minutes walk from the White House. Trump had just delivered a short speech in the Rose Garden in which he threatened to send in the United States military if mayors and governors refuse to take action against “rioting and looting.” Trump’s route to the church lay through Lafayette Square, which had been filled with peaceful protesters.
So, while the president was speaking, a brigade of DC police officers stormed through the area in full riot gear to disperse the crowd. They sprayed smoke, threw flash grenades, and body-checked protesters with their shields so that the president could get his photos undisturbed. With the human obstacles beaten and smoked out of his path, Trump made it to the church. He stiffly held up a Bible, announcing, “It’s a Bible,” and got his photos. It was one of the most disturbing scenes to come out of the protests so far: the violence, the chaos, and what many have described as the defilement of a sacred space. The Rev. Mariann Budde told the Washington Post, “I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call, that they would be clearing [the area] with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop.”
This publicity stunt has not been well received. From the left and the right, Trump has been criticized for the brutal treatment of peaceful protesters and for his use of a Bible and a church as props to advance his political ambitions. But there was one small detail that adds a delicious layer of irony to this latest Trumpian stunt. If the whole performance was in order to send a message of solidarity with his evangelical voters, their adored leader used the wrong Bible.
Stephen Hendrickson is the founder with his brother of Christianbook, LLC, a Christian catalog and internet retailer. He’s also a member of the Mother Jones’ board.
As Hendrickson notes, the Bible that Trump held over his head was a Revised Standard Version (RSV). Every English-language Bible is obviously a translation from the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, but there are vast differences among the versions. Not only is the RSV outdated (the New Revised Standard Version, NRSV, was published in 1989 to replace it), but it’s not a Bible that evangelical Christians consider authoritative.
“It would be pretty much rejected by the vast majority of evangelicals. It would be seen as a deficient translation of the Bible. A distinctly liberal one,” said Rev. Rob Schenck, an evangelical clergyman, the president of The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute, and the author of Costly Grace: An Evangelical Minister’s Rediscovery of Faith, Hope, and Love. “And for many, especially in the very conservative or fundamentalist wing, they might see it as not a version of the Bible at all.”
The translation in the RSV that is the most controversial for evangelicals can be found in Isaiah 7:14, where the word “virgin” is translated as “young woman.” According to Schenck, this translation can be read as a downplaying of the miracle of Jesus’ conception, which is a cardinal tenet of the faith. The RSV is also under the copyright of the more liberal National Council of Churches (NCC), an organization which Schenck describes as “the nemesis of evangelicals.” Denominations like the Southern Baptists and Pentecostal denominations, who make up some of Trump’s most loyal supporters, are not members.
Schenck pointed out in a blog post that Trump’s choice of church was also strange. It’s a distinctly liberal church that supports many tenets that the evangelical right opposes, including same-sex marriage and abortion rights. In an interview on CNN, Rev. Budde said that the president is not a man of prayer and does not worship regularly at St. John’s—or anywhere else—calling his photo op “a charade.”
Catholic leaders also joined Bishop Budde in criticizing the president. On Tuesday, Trump and his wife Melania went to the Saint John Paul II National Shrine in Washington, DC for another awkward photo-op. This time, Washington Archbishop Wilton Gregory weighed in, issuing a statement saying that Saint John Paul II “certainly would not condone the use of tear gas and other deterrents to silence, scatter, or intimidate them for a photo opportunity in front of a place of worship and peace.”
Let me be clear. This is revolting. The Bible is not a prop. A church is not a photo op. Religion is not a political tool. God is not your plaything. pic.twitter.com/RZwPeqrwoZ — James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) June 2, 2020
Trump defended his actions on Fox News Radio, appearing on the Brian Kilmeade Show on June 3. “Most religious leaders loved it. I heard Franklin Graham this morning thought it was great. I heard many other people think it was great. And it’s only the other side that didn’t like it. You know, the opposing—the opposition party as the expression goes,” Trump said, implying, as some on Twitter noted, that the quality and legitimacy of some Christians was a function of their politics.
“It certainly betrays his ignorance of the religious landscape, even of the evangelical landscape he relies on so much,” said Schenck. “He really doesn’t know us at all.”


motherjones--2020-06-03--“Three Years Without Mature Leadership”: James Mattis Denounces Trump

In a sweeping rebuke of President Trump ’ s behavior in office , former Defense Secretary James Mattis on Wednesday condemned Trump ’ s deployment of the military in Washington , DC ’ s Lafayette Square to disperse peaceful protesters with tear gas for a photo op , the Atlantic reports .
Mattis , who resigned in 2018 over President Trump ’ s decision to withdraw troops from Syria , called the turmoil of the past week “ the consequences of three years without mature leadership.
” “ When I joined the military , some 50 years ago , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constitution , ” he wrote .
“ Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief , with military leadership standing alongside.
” I have watched this week ’ s unfolding events , angry and appalled .
The words “ Equal Justice Under Law ” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court .
This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind .
We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers .
The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation .
When I joined the military , some 50 years ago , I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution .
Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief , with military leadership standing alongside .
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “ battlespace ” that our uniformed military is called upon to “ dominate.
” At home , we should use our military only when requested to do so , on very rare occasions , by state governors .
Militarizing our response , as we witnessed in Washington , D.C. , sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect , and of which they themselves are a part .
Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them .
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “ America united with a handful of troops , or without a single soldier , exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited , with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.
” We do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protests .
We need to unite around a common purpose .
And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law .
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “ The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘ Divide and Conquer.
’ Our American answer is ‘ In Union there is Strength.
’ ” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics .
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people—does not even pretend to try .
Instead he tries to divide us .
We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort .
We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership .
We can unite without him , drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society .
This will not be easy , as the past few days have shown , but we owe it to our fellow citizens ; to past generations that bled to defend our promise ; and to our children .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stronger , and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another .
The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community .
Americans in hospitals , grocery stores , post offices , and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country .
We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square .
We must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who would make a mockery of our Constitution .
At the same time , we must remember Lincoln ’ s “ better angels , ” and listen to them , as we work to unite .
Only by adopting a new path—which means , in truth , returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad .

In a sweeping rebuke of President Trump’s behavior in office, former Defense Secretary James Mattis on Wednesday condemned Trump’s deployment of the military in Washington, DC’s Lafayette Square to disperse peaceful protesters with tear gas for a photo op, the Atlantic reports.
Mattis, who resigned in 2018 over President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria, called the turmoil of the past week “the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”
“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution,” he wrote. “Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”
Read Mattis’ indictment of the Trump presidency:
I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.
When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.
We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.
Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.
Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.
We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.
Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.


motherjones--2020-06-03--Trump Has Flooded DC With Law Enforcement Officers Who Won’t Identify Themselves

On Tuesday , while walking alongside hundreds of protesters giving the finger to the Trump International Hotel as they marched toward Congress , I noticed armed men in quasi-military gear standing on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the FBI ’ s headquarters .
I approached , noticing they had no obvious insignias , unlike the DC Metro Police and some of the other law enforcement out tracking protestors and guarding DC buildings this week .
I asked two men who they were with .
“ We ’ re with the Department of Justice , ” one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific agency ?
” I asked .
“ Are you regular DOJ employees or just detailed there ?
” He responded : “ We ’ re with the Department of Justice ” to all my questions .
He asked me who I was with , which I was happy to tell him , and why I wanted to know , which I ’ d hoped was obvious .
This is America .
We are supposed to know who ’ s policing us .
But things are changing .
The Trump administration , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power to use unidentified federal law enforcement personnel to police protests .
On top the dizzying array of federal law enforcement already out in force this week , these are some of the “ federal assets ” that Donald Trump said he was deploying in DC in the wake of large protests and substantial looting and property damage on Sunday night .
These officers , if that ’ s what they are , have not only declined to identify themselves , but appear to be actively taking steps to hide their affiliation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I saw dozens more men dressed similarly—green fatigues , black undershirts , helmets , shoes not boots , and no masks .
A group of them were spread out around the Navy Memorial between 8th and 9th St. on Pennsylvania .
One told me he was with the “ federal government.
” He said , a little apologetically , that this was all he was allowed to say .
Another said that he and his colleagues were “ Justice Department assets.
” When I asked if they always wore those uniforms , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what they tell us to.
” Later , Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec , in response to my inquiry , said in an email that these personnel were from “ BOP , ” or the Bureau of Prisons .
NPR , citing a “ senior Justice Department official , ” reported Monday that Attorney General Bill Barr “ directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to dispatch riot teams ” to Miami and DC to help local authorities respond to protests .
Kupec didn ’ t answer additional questions , including whether these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hide their affiliation .
But it seems that amid curfews and a stay-at-home order , DC residents are being confronted by people normally used to police federal prisoners , under a Congress we have no say in electing .
On Wednesday afternoon , Garrett Haake , an MSNBC reporter , tweeted pictures of unidentified law enforcement officers with name plates and insignias removed .
Haake said the officers refused to identify themselves .
The badge on the left shoulder of one officer appears to be from a “ Disturbance Control Team ” at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russ Choma found .
Again , federal riot police .
My Tuesday tweets about the officials who would only say they worked for DOJ drew extensive speculation that the men were private contractors , possibly affiliated with Erik Prince , the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and founder of the former private military contractor Blackwater .
There was so much speculation that Blackwater , which no longer exists , trended on Twitter for hours .
There is no evidence these guys are private contractors or connected to Prince .
But that so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obvious risk of what Barr and Trump are doing .
People are trying to puzzle out the identity of armed forces facing us because the government won ’ t say .
American citizens are left confronting unidentified apparent paramilitary police with no way of knowing what legal authority , if any , these forces vested with the power to kill us possess .
That is not occurring in Ukraine , where Russia ’ s “ little green men ” occupy parts of Donbass , or in dystopian fiction .
It ’ s happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House .
Update : In a tweet that included my photo of unidentified federal officers by the Navy Memorial , Sen. Chris Murphy ( D-Conn. ) said Wednesday night that he plans to introduce legislation to require that uniformed federal officers doing domestic security work identify what agency or military branch they work for .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
On Tuesday, while walking alongside hundreds of protesters giving the finger to the Trump International Hotel as they marched toward Congress, I spotted armed men in quasi-military gear standing on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the FBI’s headquarters.
I approached, noticing they had no obvious insignias, unlike the DC Police and some of the other law enforcement out tracking protesters and guarding DC buildings this week.
I asked two men who they were with. “We’re with the Department of Justice,” one answered. “Are you with a specific agency?” I asked. “Are you regular DOJ employees or just detailed there?” He responded: “We’re with the Department of Justice” to all my questions. He asked me who I was with, which I was happy to share, and why I wanted to know, which I’d hoped was obvious. This is America. We are supposed to know who’s policing us.
These guys said they’re with “the federal government.” pic.twitter.com/qOWdj23zJw — Dan Friedman (@dfriedman33) June 2, 2020
But things are changing. The Trump administration, in the name of order, is claiming the power to use unidentified federal law enforcement personnel to police protests. On top of the dizzying array of federal law enforcement already out in force this week, these are some of the “federal assets” that Donald Trump said he was deploying in DC in the wake of large protests and substantial looting and property damage on Sunday night. These officers, if that’s what they are, have not only declined to identify themselves, but appear to be actively taking steps to hide their affiliation.
As the march Tuesday continued east, I saw dozens more men dressed similarly—green fatigues, black undershirts, helmets, shoes not boots, and no masks. A group of them were spread out around the Navy Memorial between 8th and 9th St. on Pennsylvania. One told me he was with the “federal government.” He said, a little apologetically, that this was all he was allowed to say.
Another said that he and his colleagues were “Justice Department assets.” When I asked if they always wore those uniforms, he said no: “We put on what they tell us to.”
Later, Justice Department spokesperson Kerri Kupec, in response to my inquiry, said in an email that these personnel were from “BOP,” or the Bureau of Prisons. NPR, citing a “senior Justice Department official,” reported Monday that Attorney General Bill Barr “directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons to dispatch riot teams” to Miami and DC to help local authorities respond to protests. Kupec didn’t answer additional questions, including whether these security forces have been specifically instructed to hide their affiliation.
But it seems that amid curfews and a stay-at-home order, DC residents are being confronted by people normally used to guard federal prisoners, under a Congress we have no say in electing.
On Wednesday afternoon, Garrett Haake, an MSNBC reporter, tweeted pictures of unidentified law enforcement officers with name plates and insignias removed. Haake said the officers refused to identify themselves.
Back outside the White House. Today the perimeter has been pushed back another half block. Federal law enforcement of some kind, but they won’t identify themselves, and all insignias and name plates have been removed. pic.twitter.com/q5dmdMgkLV — Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) June 3, 2020
The badge on the left shoulder of one officer appears to be from a “Disturbance Control Team” at the Bureau of Prisons, my colleague Russ Choma found. Again, federal riot police.
Who can identify this logo on "federal government" riot control who are refusing to identify themselves in DC? pic.twitter.com/0YiaoGH0wd — Tie Crimes (@TieCrimes) June 3, 2020
My Tuesday tweets about the officials who would only say they worked for DOJ drew extensive speculation that the men were private contractors, possibly affiliated with Erik Prince, the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and founder of the former private military contractor Blackwater. There was so much speculation that Blackwater, which no longer exists, trended on Twitter for hours. There is no evidence these guys are private contractors or connected to Prince. But that so many people suspected this link highlights an obvious risk of what Barr and Trump are doing. People are trying to puzzle out the identity of armed forces facing us because the government won’t say.
American citizens are left confronting unidentified apparent paramilitary police with no way of knowing what legal authority, if any, these forces vested with the power to kill us possess. That is not occurring in Ukraine, where Russia’s “little green men” occupy parts of Donbass, or in dystopian fiction. It’s happening today, a few feet from the White House.
Update: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a tweet Wednesday night that he plans to introduce legislation to require that uniformed federal officers doing domestic security work identify what agency or military branch they work for. Democrats Don Beyer of Virginia and Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC’s delegate, said they are working on similar House legislation.