vox--2020-11-20--Who should get the Covid-19 vaccine first? Ethicists are fiercely debating how to vaccinate billions

Who should get the Covid-19 vaccine first ?
Ethicists are fiercely debating how to vaccinate billions of people .
Share All sharing options for : Who should get the Covid-19 vaccine first ?
Ethicists are fiercely debating how to vaccinate billions of people .
We can see the light at the end of the pandemic tunnel : Pfizer and Moderna have discovered highly effective Covid-19 vaccines , and the former is already requesting an emergency use authorization so it can start vaccinating high-risk Americans next month .
It ’ s great news , but there ’ s a problem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be enough of any vaccine for all the people around the globe who want to get it .
So who should get access to the first doses ?
One way to answer that question is to say : The nations that discover a vaccine — or that can pay those who discover it — get first dibs .
All the other nations just have to wait until more doses can be manufactured .
This is “ vaccine nationalism , ” where every nation just looks out for itself , prioritizing its citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens of lower-income countries that can ’ t afford to buy up doses .
It ’ s a path that most ethicists think is wrong .
It ’ s also the path the United States is on .
September 18 was the deadline for governments around the world to join the Covax Facility , a unique financing mechanism that asked countries to pool their resources together so that humanity would have a better shot at discovering a successful vaccine quickly .
In return , all participating countries were promised that when that day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to the vaccine .
Some 156 countries signed agreements with Covax , representing 64 percent of the global population .
The US did not .
“ Bad !
Bad !
” is how Ezekiel Emanuel , a medical ethics expert at the University of Pennsylvania , characterized America ’ s decision .
“ This is an opportunity for low- and middle-income countries to get a vaccine and not just have it as a rich boys ’ club , ” he told me .
Ruth Faden , founder of the Johns Hopkins Berman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision .
“ It ’ s just incredibly shoot-yourself-in-the-foot , ” on two levels , she said .
Economically , Faden argues , it ’ s in America ’ s self-interest to help ensure every other country ’ s population is vaccinated because until the fear of Covid-19 dissipates , trade and travel won ’ t go back to normal .
And health-wise , nobody is safe until everybody is safe .
That ’ s because no Covid-19 vaccine is going to be 100 percent effective .
It can ’ t fully protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected traveler entering the US can still cause an outbreak .
For these moral and pragmatic reasons , ethicists generally reject vaccine nationalism ( though some think it ’ s fine for a government to prioritize its citizens within certain limits ) .
Instead , they say we should think about distributive justice , figuring out how to get lifesaving resources to every human being in a fair way .
But that unobjectionable-sounding notion actually obscures a key question , one that ethicists are now fiercely debating : When we say we want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we care more about equality or about equity ?
Equality would mean each country gets the same proportion of vaccine doses relative to its population size , and at the same rate .
Equity would mean we drive more vaccine doses to the countries most in need .
The distinction between these two approaches — and which one wins out — will shape who gets a vaccine quickly and who ’ ll have to wait around , hoping they don ’ t get sick in the meantime .
Let ’ s get clear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups like the World Health Organization are pushing for equality right now , while some ethicists say that ’ s a mistake .
Why the WHO is focusing on equality The WHO is one of three groups leading the Covax Facility .
The other two are Gavi , a public-private partnership that spearheads immunization efforts in developing countries , and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations , an international collaboration ( formed as a Gates Foundation initiative after the West African Ebola epidemic ) to make vaccines available quickly when outbreaks happen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fund , but for vaccines .
It ’ s creating a diversified portfolio of vaccine candidates , the idea being that it ’ s better to back many candidates , knowing that some won ’ t pan out .
“ Very few countries can do what the US is doing : We ’ re backing seven horses at this point , so we can create our own diversified portfolio , ” Faden said .
“ But many countries don ’ t have the resources to do that for themselves .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthier countries to fund the development and manufacturing of the vaccine candidates .
Lower-income countries don ’ t have to pay ; they ’ ll be supported through voluntary donations to a dedicated Covax mechanism called the Advance Market Commitment .
Covax aims to buy and make available 2 billion doses by the end of 2021 .
If that happens , it ’ ll be a huge deal .
Covax ’ s effort to get countries to work with each other instead of against each other could save many lives worldwide .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the biggest multilateral effort since the Paris climate agreement ; certainly , it ’ s a big step in the right direction .
Here ’ s how the WHO says Covax allocation should work : There should be an initial phase where all participating countries get doses of a safe and effective vaccine in proportion to their population , at the same rate .
Essentially , 3 percent of every country ’ s population would get access to the vaccine before any country moves on to 4 or 5 percent .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ country has enough doses to vaccinate 20 percent of its population .
The WHO suggests the initial tranche of doses , aiming to cover 3 percent , would likely go to health care workers .
The tranche covering 20 percent would likely go to high-risk adults , like older people and those with underlying conditions .
( The WHO says 20 percent would be enough to cover these groups in most countries , though some countries have older populations and might need more .
They can request enough doses for up to 50 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won ’ t receive doses for more than 20 percent until all other countries have been offered that amount . )
Soumya Swaminathan , the WHO ’ s chief scientist , explained the rationale to a panel of reporters on September 15 .
“ What we ’ ve done in the Fair Allocation Framework , at least in the first phase , is to go with the principle of equality , ” she said .
“ Because in this case , the disease has spread across the world .
It has not spared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereas diseases like TB and malaria disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries.
” However , she said that after countries have received enough doses to vaccinate 20 percent of their populations , she expects to shift toward “ more allocation to those countries which appear to be needing it much more than other countries ” — that is , equity .
Pressed as to why Covax doesn ’ t adopt an equity model right from the get-go , Swaminathan candidly explained that the reason is pragmatic : If wealthier countries are told they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for vaccine doses behind poorer countries , they may reject Covax .
“ There ’ s a big , big risk that if you propose a very idealistic model , you may be left with nothing , ” she said .
She recalled the 2009 swine flu pandemic , when wealthy countries like the US scooped up most doses of the H1N1 vaccine .
Low-income countries couldn ’ t get access until later , by which point the acute phase of the pandemic was already over .
“ That ’ s the historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new reality , ” Swaminathan said .
“ But you can not leave behind the high-income countries .
To say to them , ‘ You don ’ t have a big problem right now and therefore you don ’ t need the vaccine , ’ may not be acceptable to them because the virus is there and waiting to spring back the moment people go back to normal .
… Without their agreement , it ’ s not going to be successful.
” In other words , the WHO is conscious of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ co-drafted the WHO ’ s Values Framework for vaccine allocation , which does list equity among its guiding principles , even though it wouldn ’ t kick in till later .
“ Look , there is a real-world problem , ” she told me .
“ We currently live in a global order that is profoundly unjust .
We need a strategy that appeals to and works for high-income countries .
The Covax Facility ’ s principle of simple equality for the first 20 percent is this strategic attempt to incentivize countries to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay.
” Why some ethicists say we should focus on equity Other ethicists are pushing for a more idealistic framework , one that prioritizes equity from the start .
Chief among them is Emanuel , the University of Pennsylvania expert .
Even as he participates in several WHO working groups on Covid-19 , he ’ s trying to get the international body and other players to rethink their model .
There ’ s a very obvious problem , he says , with the WHO ’ s approach : Two countries can have similar-size @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Should they really both get enough doses to vaccinate 3 percent of their populations right off the bat ?
Or should we drive more help toward the country with the greatest disease burden so we save as many lives as possible ?
Emanuel explained the problem with the former approach via analogy .
“ Imagine you ’ re an ER doctor , ” he told me .
“ You ’ re very busy , so you walk into the ER and say each person gets five minutes of time irrespective of how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense.
” In a paper published September 11 in Science , he and a diverse group of experts propose an alternative framework called the Fair Priority Model .
( Though there are a couple of other proposals out there putting forward frameworks for vaccine distribution , this is the only one that offers as substantive a model as the WHO ’ s . )
The experts lay out a plan for distributing the vaccine in three phases .
Positing that our main goal should be to avert premature deaths , they suggest using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SEYLL ) averted per dose as the criterion in phase one .
They say we should give priority to countries that would reduce more SEYLL per dose .
In phase two , which aims to reduce pandemic-induced economic deprivation , they give priority to countries that would reduce more SEYLL and reduce more poverty .
In phase three , which aims to end community spread , they give priority to countries with higher transmission rates .
This model offers a concrete way to reduce serious harms and prioritize disadvantaged people on an international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more ethical than the WHO ’ s current approach .
“ I wasn ’ t born yesterday .
I understand that sometimes you can ’ t do exactly what ’ s ethical because you need to get people to the table , ” he told me .
“ But political expediency is one thing and ethics is another thing .
What I object to is claiming this [ WHO approach ] is an ethical position .
And they do claim that — they use the ethics language of ‘ we ’ re being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s not transparent ; that ’ s actually false advertising.
” Some might object that Emanuel ’ s own proposal is not equitable to countries with more elderly citizens : Saving them will save fewer years of life ( thus netting less SEYLL per dose ) , but older citizens are still morally valuable .
Emanuel told me that he ’ s heard this ageism critique “ a million times ” but that it ’ s ill-founded .
( He has , it may be worth noting , idiosyncratic personal views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many surveys conducted around the world suggest that , all things being equal , the public prioritizes youth over older adults in the distribution of health resources .
As a global society , we seem to value investing in youth , both because investing in them when they ’ re young yields greater dividends later on and because we don ’ t want to cheat them of the chance at significant life experiences — a deprivation that arguably constitutes a moral harm .
Emanuel contends that his group has arrived at the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ benefiting people and limiting harm , prioritizing the disadvantaged , and equal moral concern .
“ We met every week , arguing , and we had a very diverse group , ” he said .
“ You had utilitarians , you had people who are more Rawlsian , you had cosmopolitans who believe national borders are basically ethically irrelevant , and you had people who believe borders are very relevant .
I think our position represents the best of ethics and a consensus about principles that transcends lots of different specific moral commitments.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than the WHO ’ s ?
How you answer that depends somewhat on your specific moral commitments .
From a utilitarian ’ s standpoint , for example , whichever proposal will do the best job at maximizing benefit and limiting harm to all people is the best approach .
If the WHO ’ s realpolitik enables it to get more paying countries into the Covax Facility , thus eventually enabling more vaccines for people who couldn ’ t otherwise afford them , it might actually be the most ethical model .
Either way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its multilateral , cooperative approach comes as a welcome counterpoint to the vaccine nationalism we ’ ve seen in other quarters .

Who should get the Covid-19 vaccine first? Ethicists are fiercely debating how to vaccinate billions of people.
Share All sharing options for: Who should get the Covid-19 vaccine first? Ethicists are fiercely debating how to vaccinate billions of people.
We can see the light at the end of the pandemic tunnel: Pfizer and Moderna have discovered highly effective Covid-19 vaccines, and the former is already requesting an emergency use authorization so it can start vaccinating high-risk Americans next month.
It’s great news, but there’s a problem. For a while, there won’t be enough of any vaccine for all the people around the globe who want to get it. So who should get access to the first doses?
One way to answer that question is to say: The nations that discover a vaccine — or that can pay those who discover it — get first dibs. All the other nations just have to wait until more doses can be manufactured.
This is “vaccine nationalism,” where every nation just looks out for itself, prioritizing its citizens without regard to what happens to the citizens of lower-income countries that can’t afford to buy up doses. It’s a path that most ethicists think is wrong. It’s also the path the United States is on.
September 18 was the deadline for governments around the world to join the Covax Facility, a unique financing mechanism that asked countries to pool their resources together so that humanity would have a better shot at discovering a successful vaccine quickly. In return, all participating countries were promised that when that day came, they’d get equal access to the vaccine.
Some 156 countries signed agreements with Covax, representing 64 percent of the global population. The US did not.
“Bad! Bad!” is how Ezekiel Emanuel, a medical ethics expert at the University of Pennsylvania, characterized America’s decision. “This is an opportunity for low- and middle-income countries to get a vaccine and not just have it as a rich boys’ club,” he told me.
Ruth Faden, founder of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics, also bemoaned the decision. “It’s just incredibly shoot-yourself-in-the-foot,” on two levels, she said.
Economically, Faden argues, it’s in America’s self-interest to help ensure every other country’s population is vaccinated because until the fear of Covid-19 dissipates, trade and travel won’t go back to normal. And health-wise, nobody is safe until everybody is safe. That’s because no Covid-19 vaccine is going to be 100 percent effective. It can’t fully protect everyone from getting infected, so one infected traveler entering the US can still cause an outbreak.
For these moral and pragmatic reasons, ethicists generally reject vaccine nationalism (though some think it’s fine for a government to prioritize its citizens within certain limits). Instead, they say we should think about distributive justice, figuring out how to get lifesaving resources to every human being in a fair way.
But that unobjectionable-sounding notion actually obscures a key question, one that ethicists are now fiercely debating: When we say we want to distribute a vaccine fairly, do we care more about equality or about equity?
Equality would mean each country gets the same proportion of vaccine doses relative to its population size, and at the same rate. Equity would mean we drive more vaccine doses to the countries most in need.
The distinction between these two approaches — and which one wins out — will shape who gets a vaccine quickly and who’ll have to wait around, hoping they don’t get sick in the meantime. Let’s get clear on each approach, and understand why groups like the World Health Organization are pushing for equality right now, while some ethicists say that’s a mistake.
Why the WHO is focusing on equality
The WHO is one of three groups leading the Covax Facility. The other two are Gavi, a public-private partnership that spearheads immunization efforts in developing countries, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, an international collaboration (formed as a Gates Foundation initiative after the West African Ebola epidemic) to make vaccines available quickly when outbreaks happen.
Covax is kind of like a mutual fund, but for vaccines. It’s creating a diversified portfolio of vaccine candidates, the idea being that it’s better to back many candidates, knowing that some won’t pan out.
“Very few countries can do what the US is doing: We’re backing seven horses at this point, so we can create our own diversified portfolio,” Faden said. “But many countries don’t have the resources to do that for themselves. This is the answer to that problem.”
Covax asks wealthier countries to fund the development and manufacturing of the vaccine candidates. Lower-income countries don’t have to pay; they’ll be supported through voluntary donations to a dedicated Covax mechanism called the Advance Market Commitment. Covax aims to buy and make available 2 billion doses by the end of 2021.
If that happens, it’ll be a huge deal. Covax’s effort to get countries to work with each other instead of against each other could save many lives worldwide. According to Gavi CEO Seth Berkley, it’s the biggest multilateral effort since the Paris climate agreement; certainly, it’s a big step in the right direction.
Here’s how the WHO says Covax allocation should work: There should be an initial phase where all participating countries get doses of a safe and effective vaccine in proportion to their population, at the same rate. Essentially, 3 percent of every country’s population would get access to the vaccine before any country moves on to 4 or 5 percent. This proportional allocation would continue until every country has enough doses to vaccinate 20 percent of its population.
The WHO suggests the initial tranche of doses, aiming to cover 3 percent, would likely go to health care workers. The tranche covering 20 percent would likely go to high-risk adults, like older people and those with underlying conditions. (The WHO says 20 percent would be enough to cover these groups in most countries, though some countries have older populations and might need more. They can request enough doses for up to 50 percent of their population, but they won’t receive doses for more than 20 percent until all other countries have been offered that amount.)
Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist, explained the rationale to a panel of reporters on September 15.
“What we’ve done in the Fair Allocation Framework, at least in the first phase, is to go with the principle of equality,” she said. “Because in this case, the disease has spread across the world. It has not spared any country, high-income or low-income, whereas diseases like TB and malaria disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries.”
However, she said that after countries have received enough doses to vaccinate 20 percent of their populations, she expects to shift toward “more allocation to those countries which appear to be needing it much more than other countries” — that is, equity.
Pressed as to why Covax doesn’t adopt an equity model right from the get-go, Swaminathan candidly explained that the reason is pragmatic: If wealthier countries are told they’ll have to wait in line for vaccine doses behind poorer countries, they may reject Covax.
“There’s a big, big risk that if you propose a very idealistic model, you may be left with nothing,” she said. She recalled the 2009 swine flu pandemic, when wealthy countries like the US scooped up most doses of the H1N1 vaccine. Low-income countries couldn’t get access until later, by which point the acute phase of the pandemic was already over.
“That’s the historical reality. We are trying to create a new reality,” Swaminathan said. “But you cannot leave behind the high-income countries. To say to them, ‘You don’t have a big problem right now and therefore you don’t need the vaccine,’ may not be acceptable to them because the virus is there and waiting to spring back the moment people go back to normal. … Without their agreement, it’s not going to be successful.”
In other words, the WHO is conscious of the politics at play here.
Faden co-drafted the WHO’s Values Framework for vaccine allocation, which does list equity among its guiding principles, even though it wouldn’t kick in till later. “Look, there is a real-world problem,” she told me. “We currently live in a global order that is profoundly unjust. We need a strategy that appeals to and works for high-income countries. The Covax Facility’s principle of simple equality for the first 20 percent is this strategic attempt to incentivize countries to get in — the kind that can pay.”
Why some ethicists say we should focus on equity
Other ethicists are pushing for a more idealistic framework, one that prioritizes equity from the start. Chief among them is Emanuel, the University of Pennsylvania expert. Even as he participates in several WHO working groups on Covid-19, he’s trying to get the international body and other players to rethink their model.
There’s a very obvious problem, he says, with the WHO’s approach: Two countries can have similar-size populations but very different Covid-19 case counts. Should they really both get enough doses to vaccinate 3 percent of their populations right off the bat? Or should we drive more help toward the country with the greatest disease burden so we save as many lives as possible?
Emanuel explained the problem with the former approach via analogy. “Imagine you’re an ER doctor,” he told me. “You’re very busy, so you walk into the ER and say each person gets five minutes of time irrespective of how sick they are. That makes no sense.”
In a paper published September 11 in Science, he and a diverse group of experts propose an alternative framework called the Fair Priority Model. (Though there are a couple of other proposals out there putting forward frameworks for vaccine distribution, this is the only one that offers as substantive a model as the WHO’s.)
The experts lay out a plan for distributing the vaccine in three phases. Positing that our main goal should be to avert premature deaths, they suggest using standard expected years of life lost (SEYLL) averted per dose as the criterion in phase one. They say we should give priority to countries that would reduce more SEYLL per dose.
In phase two, which aims to reduce pandemic-induced economic deprivation, they give priority to countries that would reduce more SEYLL and reduce more poverty. In phase three, which aims to end community spread, they give priority to countries with higher transmission rates.
This model offers a concrete way to reduce serious harms and prioritize disadvantaged people on an international scale. Emanuel said it’s more ethical than the WHO’s current approach.
“I wasn’t born yesterday. I understand that sometimes you can’t do exactly what’s ethical because you need to get people to the table,” he told me. “But political expediency is one thing and ethics is another thing. What I object to is claiming this [WHO approach] is an ethical position. And they do claim that — they use the ethics language of ‘we’re being equitable’ and all this. But that’s not transparent; that’s actually false advertising.”
Some might object that Emanuel’s own proposal is not equitable to countries with more elderly citizens: Saving them will save fewer years of life (thus netting less SEYLL per dose), but older citizens are still morally valuable.
Emanuel told me that he’s heard this ageism critique “a million times” but that it’s ill-founded. (He has, it may be worth noting, idiosyncratic personal views about aging.) He noted that many surveys conducted around the world suggest that, all things being equal, the public prioritizes youth over older adults in the distribution of health resources. As a global society, we seem to value investing in youth, both because investing in them when they’re young yields greater dividends later on and because we don’t want to cheat them of the chance at significant life experiences — a deprivation that arguably constitutes a moral harm.
Emanuel contends that his group has arrived at the best way to enshrine three fundamental values: benefiting people and limiting harm, prioritizing the disadvantaged, and equal moral concern.
“We met every week, arguing, and we had a very diverse group,” he said. “You had utilitarians, you had people who are more Rawlsian, you had cosmopolitans who believe national borders are basically ethically irrelevant, and you had people who believe borders are very relevant. I think our position represents the best of ethics and a consensus about principles that transcends lots of different specific moral commitments.”
Ultimately, is this proposal better than the WHO’s? How you answer that depends somewhat on your specific moral commitments. From a utilitarian’s standpoint, for example, whichever proposal will do the best job at maximizing benefit and limiting harm to all people is the best approach. If the WHO’s realpolitik enables it to get more paying countries into the Covax Facility, thus eventually enabling more vaccines for people who couldn’t otherwise afford them, it might actually be the most ethical model.
Either way, Covax is now in business, and its multilateral, cooperative approach comes as a welcome counterpoint to the vaccine nationalism we’ve seen in other quarters.
Jen Kirby contributed reporting to this article.


vox--2020-11-20--The acting Pentagon chief was exposed to the coronavirus. He’s not quarantining.

Senior Pentagon leaders were potentially exposed to Covid-19 last week during a meeting with a foreign defense minister , and now one top official — recently placed in his position after an abrupt shakeup at the Defense Department — has tested positive for the novel coronavirus .
In a late Thursday night statement , chief Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman said Lithuania ’ s embassy informed the agency that Lithuanian Defense Minister Raimundas Karoblis had tested positive for Covid-19 .
Karoblis met on November 13 with Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller , the secretaries of the Army and Air Force , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy official at the Department of Defense .
Karoblis then met with the Navy secretary three days later .
In other words , the Lithuanian leader met with many of the people who help the Pentagon — and , by default , the US military — function every day .
For the moment , most of the American officials seem fine .
But , per the statement , Tata tested positive for Covid-19 after the visit , though it ’ s unclear if he contracted the virus from the meeting with Karoblis .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ at home for the next 14 days , the recommended quarantine time by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
A US defense official told me that everything continues apace at the Defense Department despite the development .
“ No change to Pentagon posture , ” the official said , speaking on the condition of anonymity because they aren ’ t authorized to speak openly , “ though individual services are increasing telework.
” Hoffman said the Pentagon is still contract tracing people who engaged with Karoblis and Tata and testing anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Defense Department and its leadership suffered a setback , but it ’ s clearly taking appropriate precautions , right ?
Not exactly .
The acting secretary of defense isn ’ t taking necessary protective measures In October , top military leaders — including Army Gen. Mark Milley , the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , along with the military heads of the Army , Navy , Air Force , Coast Guard , Space Force , and Cyber Command — went into quarantine after a top Coast Guard official tested positive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then , that Miller and the service secretaries would follow a similar protocol after meeting with Karoblis .
But that ’ s not the case .
“ As CDC COVID mitigation guidelines were followed during the Acting Secretary ’ s bilateral meeting with the minister , as well as meetings with Mr. Tata , Acting Secretary of Defense Miller is not quarantining , ” Hoffman said in the Thursday statement .
“ Similarly , each of the Service Secretaries are not quarantining based on testing and mitigation measures that were in place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and CDC guidelines.
” Frankly , that ’ s irresponsible , but it ’ s part for the course for Miller .
When he traveled to Fort Bragg and USS Gerald Ford this week , he encouraged people to take off their masks , according to Wall Street Journal reporter Nancy Youssef .
What ’ s more , he hugged people at both sites .
Miller didn ’ t know about his exposure to Covid-19 at the time , to be fair .
Still , he ’ s shown no willingness to abide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures since he assumed the role last week .
It ’ d be one thing if he were just some midlevel official .
But he ’ s not : He ’ s the secretary of defense .
It ’ s his duty to set the right example for the people under his care .
At the moment , he ’ s grossly failing .

Senior Pentagon leaders were potentially exposed to Covid-19 last week during a meeting with a foreign defense minister, and now one top official — recently placed in his position after an abrupt shakeup at the Defense Department — has tested positive for the novel coronavirus.
In a late Thursday night statement, chief Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman said Lithuania’s embassy informed the agency that Lithuanian Defense Minister Raimundas Karoblis had tested positive for Covid-19. Karoblis met on November 13 with Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, the secretaries of the Army and Air Force, and Anthony Tata, currently the top policy official at the Department of Defense. Karoblis then met with the Navy secretary three days later.
In other words, the Lithuanian leader met with many of the people who help the Pentagon — and, by default, the US military — function every day.
For the moment, most of the American officials seem fine. But, per the statement, Tata tested positive for Covid-19 after the visit, though it’s unclear if he contracted the virus from the meeting with Karoblis. As a result, Tata will remain at home for the next 14 days, the recommended quarantine time by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Photos of Karoblis, the Lithuanian defense minister who later tested positive, meeting with the acting defense secretary, secretaries of the Army and Air Force, and members of the Pennsylvania National Guard during his visit to the U.S. pic.twitter.com/Wej2W2VYft — Dave Brown (@dave_brown24) November 20, 2020
A US defense official told me that everything continues apace at the Defense Department despite the development. “No change to Pentagon posture,” the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to speak openly, “though individual services are increasing telework.”
Hoffman said the Pentagon is still contract tracing people who engaged with Karoblis and Tata and testing anyone who may have been exposed.
So the Defense Department and its leadership suffered a setback, but it’s clearly taking appropriate precautions, right? Not exactly.
The acting secretary of defense isn’t taking necessary protective measures
In October, top military leaders — including Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the military heads of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Space Force, and Cyber Command — went into quarantine after a top Coast Guard official tested positive for the coronavirus.
One would assume, then, that Miller and the service secretaries would follow a similar protocol after meeting with Karoblis. But that’s not the case.
“As CDC COVID mitigation guidelines were followed during the Acting Secretary’s bilateral meeting with the minister, as well as meetings with Mr. Tata, Acting Secretary of Defense Miller is not quarantining,” Hoffman said in the Thursday statement. “Similarly, each of the Service Secretaries are not quarantining based on testing and mitigation measures that were in place during the Lithuanian delegation’s visit and CDC guidelines.”
Acting Defense Secretary Miller not so much. pic.twitter.com/3PVAyKMyHk — Lara Seligman (@laraseligman) November 20, 2020
Frankly, that’s irresponsible, but it’s part for the course for Miller. When he traveled to Fort Bragg and USS Gerald Ford this week, he encouraged people to take off their masks, according to Wall Street Journal reporter Nancy Youssef. What’s more, he hugged people at both sites.
Miller didn’t know about his exposure to Covid-19 at the time, to be fair. Still, he’s shown no willingness to abide by social distancing or encourage personal protective measures since he assumed the role last week.
It’d be one thing if he were just some midlevel official. But he’s not: He’s the secretary of defense. It’s his duty to set the right example for the people under his care. At the moment, he’s grossly failing.


vox--2020-11-21--I handled holiday orders at a grocery store. Trust me: The holidays are miserable.

If you ’ ve ever worked in retail , you already know what I ’ m about to tell you : Around the end of October , a sense of horror begins to build that has nothing to do with Halloween .
As the days grow shorter and the wind grows colder , coworkers begin to whisper to each other , “ Are you ready ?
” The piped-in music changes , the decor shifts , everyone — regardless of their place in the corporate hierarchy — takes on the grim affect of people bracing themselves for the worst : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not sure what it is about the holidays that makes so many people behave so horribly .
Maybe it ’ s the pressure to make the day perfect , or the stress of dealing with one ’ s family .
At this point , I ’ d be unsurprised to learn that Christmas music activates some kind of dormant aggression impulse .
This year ’ s holiday season promises to be even more intense for service workers , particularly those in the grocery industry .
As the Covid-19 pandemic rages on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are experiencing fewer moments of kindness and joy to temper their worst impulses .
It ’ s one reason why this year , as someone who has worked through every holiday season for essentially a decade , I urge everyone to stay at home .
You might think of the holidays as a wonderful time , a time when people come together and celebrate love , happiness , and joy .
But I know the truth .
The holidays get ugly .
Two years ago , I was plucked from my position in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retailer to be part of the small team that managed our store ’ s holiday orders .
A year later , having proven myself capable of keeping my head no matter how absurd the customer behavior became , I was put in charge of the program .
Both years , I worked impossibly hard from the first week of November until Christmas Day , answering questions , taking orders , solving problems , and encountering countless people who , in a sort of holiday-driven derangement , had utterly forgotten how to behave in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screamed at over pumpkin pies and Yule logs ; I have watched grown men weep over the size of their rib roasts ; I have been cussed out by a woman who believed her fresh raw turkey , still in its clearly labeled package , was a large chicken with which I was trying to trick her .
I have seen people come to blows over the last box of turkey-shaped butter , and witnessed a breakup started by the simple question , “ Green beans or green bean casserole ?
” I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ four separate people that the reason their turkey didn ’ t taste good is because they put it in the oven without taking the plastic wrapping off .
My favorite holiday story , the one I used to tell at parties in the days when parties were still safe to attend , is this one : Three days before Thanksgiving , a woman came in and demanded to place an order for Thanksgiving Day .
I explained to her that we were past the cut-off point for ordering , but she insisted that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly pull off a proper meal in three days ’ time .
I took pity on her , moved some things around , and forced through an order for a pre-cooked dinner for six .
“ Can I pick the food up hot on Thanksgiving ?
” she asked , and I explained , as patiently as I could , that we were filling more than 1,000 orders and just didn ’ t have the facilities to allow for any food to be picked up hot .
It clearly wasn ’ t her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her husband would come pick up her order , cold , two days before the holiday .
On Thanksgiving Day , two days after her husband picked up her order , she called me .
In a voice so loud I had to hold the phone an inch away from my ear , she screamed , “ My food is cold !
” I ’ m not sure how she imagined the food would be hot when she removed it from her own refrigerator , but she yelled at me for 10 more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Perhaps I should have suggested she share the holidays with another customer who hated the thought of properly reheating his already cooked food : the man who wanted instructions for how to reheat a precooked prime rib in his microwave .
When I , carefully , informed him that microwaving his prime rib ( a cut of meat for which he paid more than $ 100 ) would never yield any positive results , he demanded , “ So what am I supposed to do , turn on my oven ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed enormous orders and simply abandoned them , fully paid , at our store .
An order of four sushi trays was left to languish on Thanksgiving Day ; at Christmas , a customer sent me straight to voicemail when I called to inquire as to why he had not come to get the five pounds of shrimp cocktail he ’ d purchased weeks before .
( I ’ m grateful to that one — the shrimp were delicious . )
Then there were the emotionally fragile customers who were clearly going through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was set up where we usually kept the cheapest wine we sold and , that season , no fewer than five people came by and burst into tears when they saw that I was there instead .
One poor guy came in on Thanksgiving and told me that his wife had a baby last week and that she and her sister had a fight that had been brewing for 10 years and now he and she were uninvited from dinner .
“ She ’ s crying .
A lot .
Please ...
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find him one . )
But the holidays are going to be different for many of us this year .
As Covid-19 cases climb across the nation , the pandemic has recast our traditions of gathering with family as deadly , dangerous events that are best avoided .
I know how much that hurts , especially in such a difficult time .
We all want a little normalcy .
We all want a little joy .
But there is one group of people for whom the holidays are always , always terrible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we see the worst of humanity .
Every year , we are treated as though we are worthless , as though we are less than people .
We work on Thanksgiving , on Christmas , on New Year ’ s Eve and Day , getting screamed at and belittled while you make fond memories of family togetherness and love .
Despite our unfairly low pay , our terrible or nonexistent health insurance , and our desire to be with our own families , we paste on a smile , take your abuse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is our job , and we don ’ t have any other choice .
I am no longer working at the grocery store where I put in so much of my time and effort ( I am high-risk for Covid-19 and decided against it this year ) .
But my friends who are on the front lines of the holiday rush say things have been impossibly difficult this year .
People are still ordering holiday dinners , although this year , the hot item is the smallest possible turkey rather than the large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years gone by .
The cognitive dissonance those workers are experiencing — being taken to task over the size of a turkey while worrying if their exposure to the public means they won ’ t live to see another holiday season — sounds unbearable .
Stay home for the holidays this year .
It ’ s not only the right thing to do for your own safety , the safety of your family , and the safety of every American ; it ’ s also the only way to protect the service workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and will inevitably suffer many more .
And if you find yourself out and about , then please : Be kind to every service worker you meet , wherever you meet them .
As hard as this year ’ s holiday season has been for you , it has almost certainly been even worse for them .
They ’ ve likely been working day in and day out at constant risk of exposure , unable to afford to take time off , absorbing the frustration and aggression of customers who are struggling , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team in years past wasn ’ t all bad .
I still think fondly of Elizabeth , a regular customer of mine , who , a few days before Christmas , slipped me a $ 25 gift card and thanked me for all my hard work .
I also helped a new grandfather last year , a warm and wonderful man who was trying to make an early Thanksgiving work as his daughter , son-in-law , and newly born grandson would be out of state on the actual holiday .
I was able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him well before the bulk of our Thanksgiving food was set to arrive , and a few days later , he came back into the store just to thank me and show me photos of the wonderful holiday they ’ d been able to pull together with my help .
Moments like that almost made the horror stories feel worth it — that is , until the screaming inevitably started back up .
So give service workers the gift of kindness — or really , just decency — this holiday season .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome surprise .
Dylan Morrison is a writer based in Cleveland , Ohio .
His work focuses primarily on trans rights , food , and being kind to service workers .
He is also the author of the novel Juniper Lane ( 2016 ) .
You can find him on Twitter at @ dylan_thyme .

If you’ve ever worked in retail, you already know what I’m about to tell you: Around the end of October, a sense of horror begins to build that has nothing to do with Halloween. As the days grow shorter and the wind grows colder, coworkers begin to whisper to each other, “Are you ready?” The piped-in music changes, the decor shifts, everyone — regardless of their place in the corporate hierarchy — takes on the grim affect of people bracing themselves for the worst: The holidays are coming.
I’m not sure what it is about the holidays that makes so many people behave so horribly. Maybe it’s the pressure to make the day perfect, or the stress of dealing with one’s family. At this point, I’d be unsurprised to learn that Christmas music activates some kind of dormant aggression impulse.
This year’s holiday season promises to be even more intense for service workers, particularly those in the grocery industry. As the Covid-19 pandemic rages on, people are more stressed than ever and are experiencing fewer moments of kindness and joy to temper their worst impulses. It’s one reason why this year, as someone who has worked through every holiday season for essentially a decade, I urge everyone to stay at home. You might think of the holidays as a wonderful time, a time when people come together and celebrate love, happiness, and joy. But I know the truth. The holidays get ugly.
Two years ago, I was plucked from my position in the deli department of a high-end grocery retailer to be part of the small team that managed our store’s holiday orders. A year later, having proven myself capable of keeping my head no matter how absurd the customer behavior became, I was put in charge of the program. Both years, I worked impossibly hard from the first week of November until Christmas Day, answering questions, taking orders, solving problems, and encountering countless people who, in a sort of holiday-driven derangement, had utterly forgotten how to behave in front of others.
I have been screamed at over pumpkin pies and Yule logs; I have watched grown men weep over the size of their rib roasts; I have been cussed out by a woman who believed her fresh raw turkey, still in its clearly labeled package, was a large chicken with which I was trying to trick her. I have seen people come to blows over the last box of turkey-shaped butter, and witnessed a breakup started by the simple question, “Green beans or green bean casserole?” I have had to explain to at least four separate people that the reason their turkey didn’t taste good is because they put it in the oven without taking the plastic wrapping off.
My favorite holiday story, the one I used to tell at parties in the days when parties were still safe to attend, is this one: Three days before Thanksgiving, a woman came in and demanded to place an order for Thanksgiving Day. I explained to her that we were past the cut-off point for ordering, but she insisted that she needed accommodation and couldn’t possibly pull off a proper meal in three days’ time. I took pity on her, moved some things around, and forced through an order for a pre-cooked dinner for six. “Can I pick the food up hot on Thanksgiving?” she asked, and I explained, as patiently as I could, that we were filling more than 1,000 orders and just didn’t have the facilities to allow for any food to be picked up hot. It clearly wasn’t her dream scenario, but we agreed that her husband would come pick up her order, cold, two days before the holiday.
On Thanksgiving Day, two days after her husband picked up her order, she called me. In a voice so loud I had to hold the phone an inch away from my ear, she screamed, “My food is cold!” I’m not sure how she imagined the food would be hot when she removed it from her own refrigerator, but she yelled at me for 10 more minutes before eventually hanging up on me.
Perhaps I should have suggested she share the holidays with another customer who hated the thought of properly reheating his already cooked food: the man who wanted instructions for how to reheat a precooked prime rib in his microwave. When I, carefully, informed him that microwaving his prime rib (a cut of meat for which he paid more than $100) would never yield any positive results, he demanded, “So what am I supposed to do, turn on my oven?”
Still more frustrating were the people who placed enormous orders and simply abandoned them, fully paid, at our store. An order of four sushi trays was left to languish on Thanksgiving Day; at Christmas, a customer sent me straight to voicemail when I called to inquire as to why he had not come to get the five pounds of shrimp cocktail he’d purchased weeks before. (I’m grateful to that one — the shrimp were delicious.)
Then there were the emotionally fragile customers who were clearly going through it back at home. My booth was set up where we usually kept the cheapest wine we sold and, that season, no fewer than five people came by and burst into tears when they saw that I was there instead. One poor guy came in on Thanksgiving and told me that his wife had a baby last week and that she and her sister had a fight that had been brewing for 10 years and now he and she were uninvited from dinner. “She’s crying. A lot. Please ... I need a turkey.” (I managed to find him one.)
But the holidays are going to be different for many of us this year. As Covid-19 cases climb across the nation, the pandemic has recast our traditions of gathering with family as deadly, dangerous events that are best avoided. I know how much that hurts, especially in such a difficult time. We all want a little normalcy. We all want a little joy.
But there is one group of people for whom the holidays are always, always terrible: service workers. Every year, we see the worst of humanity. Every year, we are treated as though we are worthless, as though we are less than people. We work on Thanksgiving, on Christmas, on New Year’s Eve and Day, getting screamed at and belittled while you make fond memories of family togetherness and love. Despite our unfairly low pay, our terrible or nonexistent health insurance, and our desire to be with our own families, we paste on a smile, take your abuse, and help you anyway, because that is our job, and we don’t have any other choice.
I am no longer working at the grocery store where I put in so much of my time and effort (I am high-risk for Covid-19 and decided against it this year). But my friends who are on the front lines of the holiday rush say things have been impossibly difficult this year. People are still ordering holiday dinners, although this year, the hot item is the smallest possible turkey rather than the large ones folks used to fight over in years gone by. The cognitive dissonance those workers are experiencing — being taken to task over the size of a turkey while worrying if their exposure to the public means they won’t live to see another holiday season — sounds unbearable.
Stay home for the holidays this year. It’s not only the right thing to do for your own safety, the safety of your family, and the safety of every American; it’s also the only way to protect the service workers who have suffered many terrible holiday seasons and will inevitably suffer many more. And if you find yourself out and about, then please: Be kind to every service worker you meet, wherever you meet them. As hard as this year’s holiday season has been for you, it has almost certainly been even worse for them. They’ve likely been working day in and day out at constant risk of exposure, unable to afford to take time off, absorbing the frustration and aggression of customers who are struggling, too.
Working on the holiday order team in years past wasn’t all bad. I still think fondly of Elizabeth, a regular customer of mine, who, a few days before Christmas, slipped me a $25 gift card and thanked me for all my hard work. I also helped a new grandfather last year, a warm and wonderful man who was trying to make an early Thanksgiving work as his daughter, son-in-law, and newly born grandson would be out of state on the actual holiday. I was able to pull together a full dinner for him well before the bulk of our Thanksgiving food was set to arrive, and a few days later, he came back into the store just to thank me and show me photos of the wonderful holiday they’d been able to pull together with my help. Moments like that almost made the horror stories feel worth it — that is, until the screaming inevitably started back up.
So give service workers the gift of kindness — or really, just decency — this holiday season. I promise you it will come as a welcome surprise.
Dylan Morrison is a writer based in Cleveland, Ohio. His work focuses primarily on trans rights, food, and being kind to service workers. He is also the author of the novel Juniper Lane (2016). You can find him on Twitter at @dylan_thyme.


vox--2020-11-21--How TV paved America’s road to Trump

How TV paved America’s road to Trump

Donald Trump is the show we can ’ t turn off , the car crash we can ’ t look away from , the news cycle we can ’ t escape .
There are just too many reasons why we got here to distill into a single explanation .
But certainly one reason for Trump ’ s ascendance is television .
It ’ s not quite right to say that TV made Trump president , but it is fair to say that TV created the conditions that made Trump ’ s presidency possible .
This , at least , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new book Audience of One : Donald Trump , Television , and the Fracturing of America .
Poniewozik is a TV critic for the New York Times , and his book is an attempt to explain how Trump turned himself into the protagonist of his own TV show and then pulled all of us into it .
It ’ s also about what TV has done to our political culture and why Trump is the logical fulfillment of all the media trends of the last two decades or so .
According to Poniewozik @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV .
His whole public persona was shaped by TV and he cleverly used the medium , with shows like The Apprentice , to propel his political career .
He also knew exactly what TV media craves — spectacle , drama , and outrage — and capitalized on it throughout his presidential campaign .
“ Donald Trump is not a person , ” Poniewozik writes , “ he ’ s a character that wrote itself , a brand mascot that jumped off the cereal box and entered the world.
” And , of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House .
I spoke to Poniewozik last year about how the road to Trump was paved by TV and how the way we cover and think about politics has been fundamentally transformed by the medium .
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows .
Many people think of television as an instrument for covering politics rather than a medium that transforms it .
But you suggest that that ’ s wrong and that TV has imposed its own ideology on politics .
I decided to write this book because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States .
I really felt that a lot of the public discussion didn ’ t take that seriously enough — it was a kind of joke .
But it ’ s insane that that happened and we need to understand how it was possible in the first place .
As a TV critic , I wanted to know , why this guy ?
Why wasn ’ t it Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz or some other conservative firebrand who rode this wave to the White House ?
Why is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essentially made himself out of television ?
Why was Trump uniquely capable of being able to translate that skill set into this sort of success ?
Well , let ’ s try to answer that .
The premise of your book isn ’ t that television made Trump president , but you do argue that Trump ’ s presidency is only possible because of TV .
Why is that ?
Well , there are a couple elements to that .
One is that Donald Trump ’ s career has been primarily a media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just talking about The Apprentice but going all the way back to his tabloid exploits and talk show appearances in the ’ 80s .
If Trump were just a businessman , he ’ d be a nonentity .
He ’ s only “ Donald Trump ” because of television .
The other part , and I want to be emphatically clear about this because people like to oversimplify things by saying TV makes people dumb or brainwashes gullible people .
I think it ’ s more complicated than that .
Television is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s our principal means of gaining information and disseminating it and communicating to one another .
And it ’ s the arena , for decades and decades now , through which politics has taken place .
I write about the media theorist Neil Postman in the book because one of his great insights is that television as a visual media promotes a different kind of discourse than text does .
It ’ s a visual medium , thus it appeals more to emotion .
So that lends itself to a kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has thrived his entire life .
His whole media persona is built on conflict .
He ’ s the guy who “ wins ” and that meshes perfectly with television , especially reality television culture .
How exactly did TV prepare us for candidate Trump , for the idea of Trump as president ?
The evolution of the 24-hour cable news format is a big part of the story .
The business model of , say , Fox News is to excite and agitate the audience all the time , to give people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there isn ’ t news going on .
But over time that model promulgates the idea that the way politics are argued on TV , the buttons that it presses , the way people dunk on each other — that ’ s not just a means toward political ends , but it becomes the action of politics itself .
And a huge part of Trump ’ s appeal is that he absolutely embodies this form of politics , or this approach to politics .
He creates emotions and conflicts in media format and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh yeah , this is what politics looks like.
” What ’ s so interesting about Trump is that , as you put it , he ’ s achieved a perfect symbiosis with television .
He isn ’ t on television — he is television .
How does that help us understand Trump the political actor ?
Trump thinks like television .
His stock-in-trade is the non-sequitur argument and the provocation .
Going back to Postman , he talked about the rhetorical mode of TV news as being “ now this.
” “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anchor ’ s segue from one topic to an entirely unrelated topic .
And Neil Postman , again , was writing in the ’ 80s .
He didn ’ t even write about cable television .
CNN had barely been founded .
But the cable new era is “ now this ” on steroids .
It ’ s just this , this , this , this , this .
And that ’ s Trump ’ s mindset and style of speaking .
The lashing out , the careening from one subject to another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media — that ’ s all television gold .
He ’ s just incredibly attuned to the dynamics of our reality TV culture , and he ’ s fully meshed it with politics .
I want to ask you about professional wrestling , something you write about in the book .
The thing wrestling does so well is walk that line between fake and real — it plays with that blurriness .
Non-wrestling fans miss this when they talk about the “ realness ” of wrestling .
The realness of the performance is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the audience .
And this , to me , is a perfect way to understand the dynamic between Trump and his supporters .
I ’ d love to hear your thoughts on this .
Yeah , I write a lot about this in the book .
There ’ s a concept in wrestling called “ kayfabe , ” which is basically the pretense that the conflicts in the ring are actually real .
The wrestlers who fight each other actually hate each other .
The backstories are really going on .
And in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , people bought that .
Over time , say by the 1980s when Donald Trump was hosting Wrestlemanias at his casinos , that relationship between fans and the story became more sophisticated .
People might believe it ’ s scripted , but it ’ s still kind of real .
Maybe these things are staged , but maybe the emotions the wrestlers have are real .
You could buy into it at whatever level you wanted to .
I think this is basically how a lot of people view Trumpian politics .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taken in or thinking he ’ s totally honest , it ’ s about this guy who ’ s fighting for your side .
And even if there ’ s this level of bullshit and artifice , it ’ s only because he ’ s a clever trickster .
And besides , what ’ s most important is how he makes his voters feel .
Politics has become mostly affective anyway .
It ’ s about the delivery of emotions .
It ’ s about liberal tears .
All those feelings are what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some actual deliverable like a bill passed or whatever .
For somebody who follows politics through talk radio and Fox News , that ’ s the end of politics .
“ If Trump were just a businessman , he ’ d be a non-entity .
He ’ s only ‘ Donald Trump ’ because of television.
” Do you see Trump ’ s election as some kind of cultural rubicon-crossing moment ?
We ’ ve had actor-presidents before , and plenty of politicians are essentially performance artists , but Trump really is something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from here ?
People often say , “ Well , isn ’ t this like Ronald Reagan ?
He was an actor , too.
” But it ’ s crucial to make a distinction here , beyond pointing out that Reagan was governor of California before being elected president .
Reagan was a movie actor , and a movie actor ’ s job is to cultivate empathy , to imagine yourself in the place of other people , to imagine the inner lives of other people .
Trump is a reality TV performer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be an exaggerated version of himself , to play up the most polarizing , attention-getting aspects of himself .
That ’ s what wins in the world of reality TV .
It ’ s an anti-empathy kind of performance .
And this really is a significant distinction between someone like Trump and Reagan .
We ’ re much more in a reality TV world now , and our politics reflects that .
Is there any going back , or are we stuck with reality TV presidents ?
I don ’ t think so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that it proved you could become president even if your only qualification was mastery of the media .
But it ’ s still just one way of becoming president , not the only way of becoming president .
There might be a reaction against this , and maybe we get a string of more boring or conventional candidates .
But there ’ s no doubt that Trump won ’ t be the last reality TV president .
There will be others like him — that ’ s just our reality now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News host or something like that , someone with a built-in connection to a party ’ s political base who knows how to deliver what they want .
But we have to remember that Trump isn ’ t some alien monster who landed from another planet and transformed the environment .
He was uniquely situated to take advantage of politics in this heavily mediated environment .
The fragmentation of media , the polarization of political discussion , the rise of Fox News , the emergence of social media — all of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produced Trump will survive Trump , and we ’ re just stuck with that .
This interview was originally published on November 7 , 2019 .

Donald Trump is the show we can’t turn off, the car crash we can’t look away from, the news cycle we can’t escape.
There are just too many reasons why we got here to distill into a single explanation. But certainly one reason for Trump’s ascendance is television. It’s not quite right to say that TV made Trump president, but it is fair to say that TV created the conditions that made Trump’s presidency possible.
This, at least, is the thesis of James Poniewozik’s new book Audience of One: Donald Trump, Television, and the Fracturing of America. Poniewozik is a TV critic for the New York Times, and his book is an attempt to explain how Trump turned himself into the protagonist of his own TV show and then pulled all of us into it. It’s also about what TV has done to our political culture and why Trump is the logical fulfillment of all the media trends of the last two decades or so.
According to Poniewozik, Trump is fundamentally a creature of TV. His whole public persona was shaped by TV and he cleverly used the medium, with shows like The Apprentice, to propel his political career. He also knew exactly what TV media craves — spectacle, drama, and outrage — and capitalized on it throughout his presidential campaign.
“Donald Trump is not a person,” Poniewozik writes, “he’s a character that wrote itself, a brand mascot that jumped off the cereal box and entered the world.” And, of course, he’s now entered the White House.
I spoke to Poniewozik last year about how the road to Trump was paved by TV and how the way we cover and think about politics has been fundamentally transformed by the medium.
A lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Sean Illing
Many people think of television as an instrument for covering politics rather than a medium that transforms it. But you suggest that that’s wrong and that TV has imposed its own ideology on politics.
James Poniewozik
I decided to write this book because the guy from The Apprentice got elected president of the United States. I really felt that a lot of the public discussion didn’t take that seriously enough — it was a kind of joke. But it’s insane that that happened and we need to understand how it was possible in the first place.
As a TV critic, I wanted to know, why this guy? Why wasn’t it Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz or some other conservative firebrand who rode this wave to the White House? Why is it somebody who was made by television and essentially made himself out of television? Why was Trump uniquely capable of being able to translate that skill set into this sort of success?
Sean Illing
Well, let’s try to answer that. The premise of your book isn’t that television made Trump president, but you do argue that Trump’s presidency is only possible because of TV. Why is that?
James Poniewozik
Well, there are a couple elements to that. One is that Donald Trump’s career has been primarily a media career. And I’m not just talking about The Apprentice but going all the way back to his tabloid exploits and talk show appearances in the ’80s. If Trump were just a businessman, he’d be a nonentity. He’s only “Donald Trump” because of television.
The other part, and I want to be emphatically clear about this because people like to oversimplify things by saying TV makes people dumb or brainwashes gullible people. I think it’s more complicated than that. Television is the nervous system of our culture. It’s our principal means of gaining information and disseminating it and communicating to one another. And it’s the arena, for decades and decades now, through which politics has taken place.
I write about the media theorist Neil Postman in the book because one of his great insights is that television as a visual media promotes a different kind of discourse than text does. It’s a visual medium, thus it appeals more to emotion. So that lends itself to a kind of argument and rhetorical combat in which Trump has thrived his entire life. His whole media persona is built on conflict. He’s the guy who “wins” and that meshes perfectly with television, especially reality television culture.
Sean Illing
How exactly did TV prepare us for candidate Trump, for the idea of Trump as president?
James Poniewozik
The evolution of the 24-hour cable news format is a big part of the story. The business model of, say, Fox News is to excite and agitate the audience all the time, to give people a reason to tune in even when there isn’t news going on.
But over time that model promulgates the idea that the way politics are argued on TV, the buttons that it presses, the way people dunk on each other — that’s not just a means toward political ends, but it becomes the action of politics itself. And a huge part of Trump’s appeal is that he absolutely embodies this form of politics, or this approach to politics. He creates emotions and conflicts in media format and people saw it and thought, “Oh yeah, this is what politics looks like.”
Sean Illing
What’s so interesting about Trump is that, as you put it, he’s achieved a perfect symbiosis with television. He isn’t on television — he is television. How does that help us understand Trump the political actor?
James Poniewozik
Trump thinks like television. His stock-in-trade is the non-sequitur argument and the provocation. Going back to Postman, he talked about the rhetorical mode of TV news as being “now this.” “Now this” is like the TV anchor’s segue from one topic to an entirely unrelated topic. And Neil Postman, again, was writing in the ’80s. He didn’t even write about cable television. CNN had barely been founded.
But the cable new era is “now this” on steroids. It’s just this, this, this, this, this. And that’s Trump’s mindset and style of speaking. The lashing out, the careening from one subject to another, the seemingly random fights on social media — that’s all television gold.
He’s just incredibly attuned to the dynamics of our reality TV culture, and he’s fully meshed it with politics.
Sean Illing
I want to ask you about professional wrestling, something you write about in the book. The thing wrestling does so well is walk that line between fake and real — it plays with that blurriness. Non-wrestling fans miss this when they talk about the “realness” of wrestling. The realness of the performance is secondary to the feelings it elicits in the audience. And this, to me, is a perfect way to understand the dynamic between Trump and his supporters.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
James Poniewozik
Yeah, I write a lot about this in the book. There’s a concept in wrestling called “kayfabe,” which is basically the pretense that the conflicts in the ring are actually real. The wrestlers who fight each other actually hate each other. The backstories are really going on. And in the very early days of pro wrestling, people bought that.
Over time, say by the 1980s when Donald Trump was hosting Wrestlemanias at his casinos, that relationship between fans and the story became more sophisticated. People might believe it’s scripted, but it’s still kind of real. Maybe these things are staged, but maybe the emotions the wrestlers have are real. You could buy into it at whatever level you wanted to.
I think this is basically how a lot of people view Trumpian politics. It’s not so much about being taken in or thinking he’s totally honest, it’s about this guy who’s fighting for your side. And even if there’s this level of bullshit and artifice, it’s only because he’s a clever trickster. And besides, what’s most important is how he makes his voters feel.
Politics has become mostly affective anyway. It’s about the delivery of emotions. It’s about liberal tears. All those feelings are what it’s about, not getting some actual deliverable like a bill passed or whatever. For somebody who follows politics through talk radio and Fox News, that’s the end of politics.
“If Trump were just a businessman, he’d be a non-entity. He’s only ‘Donald Trump’ because of television.”
Sean Illing
Do you see Trump’s election as some kind of cultural rubicon-crossing moment? We’ve had actor-presidents before, and plenty of politicians are essentially performance artists, but Trump really is something ... different.
Where do we go from here?
James Poniewozik
People often say, “Well, isn’t this like Ronald Reagan? He was an actor, too.” But it’s crucial to make a distinction here, beyond pointing out that Reagan was governor of California before being elected president.
Reagan was a movie actor, and a movie actor’s job is to cultivate empathy, to imagine yourself in the place of other people, to imagine the inner lives of other people. Trump is a reality TV performer and that means his job is to be an exaggerated version of himself, to play up the most polarizing, attention-getting aspects of himself. That’s what wins in the world of reality TV. It’s an anti-empathy kind of performance.
And this really is a significant distinction between someone like Trump and Reagan. We’re much more in a reality TV world now, and our politics reflects that.
Sean Illing
Is there any going back, or are we stuck with reality TV presidents?
James Poniewozik
I don’t think so. Trump’s election was significant in that it proved you could become president even if your only qualification was mastery of the media. But it’s still just one way of becoming president, not the only way of becoming president.
There might be a reaction against this, and maybe we get a string of more boring or conventional candidates. But there’s no doubt that Trump won’t be the last reality TV president. There will be others like him — that’s just our reality now. Maybe the next one will be a Fox News host or something like that, someone with a built-in connection to a party’s political base who knows how to deliver what they want.
But we have to remember that Trump isn’t some alien monster who landed from another planet and transformed the environment. He was uniquely situated to take advantage of politics in this heavily mediated environment. The fragmentation of media, the polarization of political discussion, the rise of Fox News, the emergence of social media — all of this paved the way.
The atmosphere that produced Trump will survive Trump, and we’re just stuck with that.
This interview was originally published on November 7, 2019.


vox--2020-11-21--As coronavirus cases surge, hospitals are beginning to be overwhelmed

As confirmed coronavirus cases rise to their highest levels since the pandemic began , hospitals across the country are reporting critical staff shortages .
And those shortages may only grow worse in the weeks to come , as thousands of the 1 million Americans diagnosed with Covid-19 in the past week begin to require hospitalization .
According to an NPR analysis of data released by the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) this week , more than 1,000 hospitals across the country have been identified as “ critically ” short on staff as they face a dramatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amounts to about 18 percent of all hospitals that report to HHS .
In all , 21 percent of hospitals , representing 40 states and Puerto Rico , expect their staffing needs to increase in coming days .
Seven states report shortages in 30 percent or more of their hospitals .
North Dakota — which has one of the most severe coronavirus outbreaks in the US — is the worst-hit , with 51 percent of hospitals reporting shortages .
Nebraska , Virginia , and Missouri report expecting the largest upticks they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week .
According to NPR , the HHS data is incomplete because many hospitals do not share staffing numbers with HHS .
The agency has been collecting this data since July , but this is the first time it has released it to the public .
These staff shortages translate to exhausted and overworked doctors , nurses and other hospital employees , and also pose a risk that , as employees become sick themselves , there will be no one to cover for them .
Fear of overwhelming hospital systems was a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” messaging that accompanied the start of the outbreak in the United States in March .
By keeping caseloads to reasonable numbers and admitting only the sickest patients to hospitals , medical experts explained , there was less risk of running out of bed space , ventilators , and other equipment central to the care of Covid-19 patients .
It also meant that resources would be available for non-Covid-19 patients as well .
With hospitalization and case rates at record highs , hospitals could soon be out of staff and space Ultimately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases worse than they have ever been , hospitals are again in danger of running out of space , and of health care professionals .
As of November 20 , 82,178 people were hospitalized with Covid-19 , according to the Covid Tracking Project — far more than the previous records of nearly 60,000 reached in the spring and summer .
And on November 20 , the US hit a record high of 192,805 confirmed coronavirus cases , breaking the record of the previous day : 182,832 confirmed cases .
As Vox ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is known as a lagging indicator — this means the number of people hospitalized rises after , rather than alongside , an increase in infections : It can take days , or longer , for an infected person to need hospitalization after receiving a positive test result .
This means already burdened hospitals will likely begin to see an increase in patients infected last week in the weeks to come , and providers struggling with those new patients could be overwhelmed in mid- to late December should cases increase sharply following Thanksgiving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearing capacity .
HHS estimates that as of November 20 , 73.66 percent of all US inpatient beds are full ( counting both Covid-19 patients and those seeking treatment for other illnesses ) , and that 60.62 percent of all ICU beds are occupied .
When the virus was more contained to several hot spots earlier in the year — in New York and New Jersey , for example — medical professionals from elsewhere , as well as from the US military , were also able to travel and provide short-term staffing support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ widespread , there are fewer health care providers able to leave one community and support another .
This has led to dramatic reports from local media across the country , as communities that previously saw few coronavirus cases begin to experience strain on their medical systems .
In North Dakota , where hospitals are at capacity , hospital workers have been told they may continue reporting to work even after testing positive for the coronavirus , so long as they are not exhibiting symptoms .
( Covid-19 is contagious even in asymptomatic hosts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Salt Lake City opened an overflow ICU two weeks ago , and officials there said it would be staffed by doctors and nurses working overtime .
In Muskegon , Michigan , a recently-closed hospital has been reopened , and licensed nurses are being asked to come out of retirement to meet staffing and infrastructural demands .
And as the pandemic has begun surging in previously untouched parts of the country , rural hospitals , many of which lacked resources to begin with , have been especially hard-hit .
Rural hospitals reaching their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearby urban hospitals also become overwhelmed .
As the Kansas City Star ’ s Jonathan Shorman , Sarah Ritter , and Matthew Kelly reported , Kansas City hospitals have “ reached a tipping point where additional COVID admissions could trigger a crisis , ” and may have to stop accepting patients from rural hospitals , leaving those patients with nowhere to go , and without any access to care .
Overwhelmed hospitals will almost certainly lead to more deaths .
As Vox ’ s Julia Belluz has explained , medical professionals have become @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they once were , and the mortality rate has fallen : But to receive those improved treatments , patients must have access to doctors .
And increasingly , it appears that access may be severely — and perhaps dangerously — limited in the weeks to come .
HHS has plans to coordinate between hospitals to make up for staff shortages , according to NPR .
However , if hospitals are overwhelmed throughout the country , finding the staff needed to save lives may not be possible , for hospital systems , or for @ @ @ @

As confirmed coronavirus cases rise to their highest levels since the pandemic began, hospitals across the country are reporting critical staff shortages. And those shortages may only grow worse in the weeks to come, as thousands of the 1 million Americans diagnosed with Covid-19 in the past week begin to require hospitalization.
According to an NPR analysis of data released by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) this week, more than 1,000 hospitals across the country have been identified as “critically” short on staff as they face a dramatic third wave of Covid-19 infections.
That amounts to about 18 percent of all hospitals that report to HHS. In all, 21 percent of hospitals, representing 40 states and Puerto Rico, expect their staffing needs to increase in coming days. Seven states report shortages in 30 percent or more of their hospitals. North Dakota — which has one of the most severe coronavirus outbreaks in the US — is the worst hit, with 51 percent of hospitals reporting shortages.
Nebraska, Virginia, and Missouri report expecting the largest upticks they’ve faced during the pandemic in the next week.
According to NPR, the HHS data is incomplete because many hospitals do not share staffing numbers with HHS. The agency has been collecting this data since July, but this is the first time it has released it to the public.
These staff shortages translate to exhausted and overworked doctors, nurses, and other hospital employees, and also pose a risk that, as employees become sick themselves, there will be no one to cover for them.
Fear of overwhelming hospital systems was a large part of the “flatten the curve” messaging that accompanied the start of the outbreak in the United States in March. By keeping caseloads to reasonable numbers and admitting only the sickest patients to hospitals, medical experts explained, there was less risk of running out of bed space, ventilators, and other equipment central to the care of Covid-19 patients. It also meant that resources would be available for non-Covid patients as well.
With hospitalization and case rates at record highs, hospitals could soon be out of staff and space
Ultimately, the curve was flattened — but with cases worse than they have ever been, hospitals are again in danger of running out of space, and of health care professionals.
As of November 20, 82,178 people were hospitalized with Covid-19, according to the Covid Tracking Project — far more than the previous records of nearly 60,000 reached in the spring and summer. And on November 20, the US hit a record high of 192,805 confirmed coronavirus cases, breaking the record of the previous day: 182,832 confirmed cases.
As Vox’s Dylan Scott has explained, hospitalization is what is known as a lagging indicator. This means the number of people hospitalized rises after, rather than alongside, an increase in infections: It can take days, or longer, for an infected person to need hospitalization after receiving a positive test result.
This means already burdened hospitals will likely begin to see an increase in patients infected last week in the weeks to come, and providers struggling with those new patients could be overwhelmed in mid- to late December should cases increase sharply following Thanksgiving.
At the moment, hospitals are nearing capacity. HHS estimates that as of November 20, 73.66 percent of all US inpatient beds are full (counting both Covid-19 patients and those seeking treatment for other illnesses), and that 60.62 percent of all ICU beds are occupied.
When the virus was more contained to several hot spots earlier in the year — in New York and New Jersey, for example — medical professionals from elsewhere, as well as from the US military, were also able to travel and provide short-term staffing support.
Now, with the virus so widespread, there are fewer health care providers able to leave one community and support another.
This has led to dramatic reports from local media across the country, as communities that previously saw few coronavirus cases begin to experience strain on their medical systems.
In North Dakota, where hospitals are at capacity, hospital workers have been told they may continue reporting to work even after testing positive for the coronavirus, so long as they are not exhibiting symptoms. (Covid-19 is contagious even in asymptomatic hosts.)
The University of Utah Hospital in Salt Lake City opened an overflow ICU two weeks ago, and officials there said it would be staffed by doctors and nurses working overtime. In Muskegon, Michigan, a recently-closed hospital has been reopened, and licensed nurses are being asked to come out of retirement to meet staffing and infrastructural demands.
And as the pandemic has begun surging in previously untouched parts of the country, rural hospitals, many of which lacked resources to begin with, have been especially hard-hit.
Rural hospitals reaching their capacity can have a ripple effect if nearby urban hospitals also become overwhelmed. As the Kansas City Star’s Jonathan Shorman, Sarah Ritter, and Matthew Kelly reported, Kansas City hospitals have “reached a tipping point where additional COVID admissions could trigger a crisis,” and may have to stop accepting patients from rural hospitals, leaving those patients with nowhere to go and without access to care.
Overwhelmed hospitals will almost certainly lead to more deaths. As Vox’s Julia Belluz has explained, medical professionals have become far better at treating Covid-19 patients than they once were, and the mortality rate has fallen:
Now, there’s strong evidence that common steroids like dexamethasone can reduce the risk of mortality in severely sick inpatients. Putting patients to rest on their stomachs instead of their backs (a practice known as proning) also seems to help. Though there’s still a lot of progress to be made, the treatment approach has become more standardized over time, said Jen Manne-Goehler, an infectious disease doctor at Brigham and Women’s and Massachusetts General hospitals. When she started treating Covid-19 patients in the spring, it felt like practice was changing every few days. Now it’s more streamlined — and that’s undoubtedly helping with survival, too.
But to receive those improved treatments, patients must have access to doctors. And increasingly, it appears that access may be severely — and perhaps dangerously — limited in the weeks to come. HHS has plans to coordinate between hospitals to make up for staff shortages, according to NPR. However, if hospitals are overwhelmed throughout the country, finding the staff needed to save lives may not be possible, for hospital systems or for the federal government.


vox--2020-11-21--Why Biden is crowdfunding his White House transition

President-elect Joe Biden has begun crowdsourcing funds for his White House transition — sending out a call Friday for donations .
Ordinarily , a presidential transition would be largely taxpayer-funded , but that money can not be released until the head of the General Services Administration ( GSA ) , Emily Murphy , officially “ ascertains ” that Biden won the election .
Despite the election having been called for Biden by all major media outlets — and despite the fact that key states have begun to certify his wins — Murphy has refused to do so .
Biden has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and onboarding staff , as well as setting up meetings with key groups , such as pharmaceutical companies that are working on coronavirus vaccines .
To help fund this effort , Biden sent out a fundraising email and tweeted that members of the public could donate to his transition funds on Friday , saying that he was forced to do so because President Donald Trump ’ s ongoing legal challenges to the outcome of the election “ is delaying the transition.
” White House officials have rebutted Biden ’ s allegation , claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ postpone ascertainment .
But House Democrats have rejected this claim , and have demanded that Murphy give them a full explanation for the delay by Monday .
An anonymous administration official told the Washington Post that the reason for the delay is very simple : “ No agency head is going to get out in front of the president on transition issues right now.
” Biden has raised $ 10 million for his transition — but hopes for several million more The transition process and general structure is governed by the Presidential Transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public funds to be used , and puts the GSA in charge of its execution .
Beyond creating a budget for hiring staff , ascertainment from the GSA would give Biden funds to conduct agency reviews , office space for transition officials , and critically , would allow members of the transition team to meet with their Trump administration counterparts .
Biden ’ s team has worked to find ways around this lack of access — and the crowdfunding campaign is its solution to the funding problem .
As reported by Politico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national finance chair , Chris Korge , wrote to donors on Monday , saying “ over $ 8 million dollars in cash and in-kind contributions ” were on hold without the GSA ascertainment .
“ We need to raise the rest of the money we need before Thanksgiving so we can just totally focus on the transition and not fundraising for it , ” Korge wrote .
This new grassroots push may be part of that effort to fill the gap by the end of the month , although the Biden camp has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Hillary Clinton raised for their own prospective transition teams in 2016 .
Privately , the Biden camp has been fundraising for a potential transition beginning in June , and has reportedly raised $ 10 million already .
According to Politico , Trump raised $ 6.5 million in 2016 and Hillary Clinton raised about $ 2.1 million ; and Mitt Romney raised $ 8.9 million in 2012 .
Barack Obama raised about $ 6.8 million in 2008 .
It has become common for incoming presidents to supplement GSA funding with their own fundraising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on about $ 6.8 million in private funds , and received about $ 5.2 million from taxpayers for his transition .
At that time , experts called on Congress to increase the funds available to presidents-elect ; Meredith McGehee , then the policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Center , called the fact Obama needed to fundraise “ a problem , ” telling Politico , “ If the public money is not sufficient , it should be increased.
” Biden is slated to receive more than Obama did , but at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that any government funding will be made available before he takes office .
Although Biden is projected to receive 306 Electoral College votes , Trump has refused to concede the election .
His campaign and other allies have mounted dozens of legal challenges in battleground counties and states across the country , at least 30 of which have so far been dropped or dismissed .
Meanwhile , some voters , including a majority of Republican voters , have said that allegations of voter fraud have made them question Joe Biden ’ s victory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low faith in the integrity of the election could motivate ongoing challenges to its outcome .
With federal funds in limbo , top Democratic donors have reportedly been approached to donate to the transition team on top of the general crowdfunding effort .
According to the Federal Election Commission , the cap for large transition donations is $ 5,000 , and that money can be used for any “ transition-related expenses.
” While the transition is legally allowed to accept money from groups like PACS and corporations , Biden has pledged to not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also attempting to work around his lack of access to intelligence and officials Representatives from the transition team did not respond to Vox ’ s request for comment on the GSA ’ s delay .
But a transition official said previously that the team had not ruled out legal challenges , and that it is examining various contingencies .
“ The Biden-Harris transition has been planning for months for all possible scenarios , ” the official said , according to CNN .
“ The nation faces too many challenges to not have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the President-elect and Vice President-elect to govern on Day One.
” Officials have spoken out about what a truncated transition period could mean .
For example , Vox ’ s Jen Kirby has reported that some former national security officials have noted that “ the 9/11 Commission Report found that [ former President George W. ] Bush ’ s truncated transition period in 2000 ‘ hampered ’ the administration in placing key personnel in national security positions and obtaining Senate confirmation.
” And Kirby also notes that the robust transition between Bush and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credible ” terror attack planned around Obama ’ s inauguration .
And the issues go beyond national security : For instance , health officials have also urged the GSA to begin the transition , warning that a delay could undermine necessary preparations to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic and eventually distribute a vaccine .
Biden has attempted to work around his lack of access to key information and administration figures — for instance , he set up a meeting with former intelligence officials to make up for not having received any official presidential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meetings with state leaders on how to better coordinate the federal and state Covid-19 response .
While creative , these measures are not seen as being as good as official access , however .
And if Biden does not receive ascertainment , he will begin his presidency less prepared than he might have been .

President-elect Joe Biden has begun crowdsourcing funds for his White House transition — sending out a call Friday for donations.
Ordinarily, a presidential transition would be largely taxpayer-funded, but that money cannot be released until the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), Emily Murphy, officially “ascertains” that Biden won the election. Despite the election having been called for Biden by all major media outlets — and despite the fact that key states have begun to certify his wins — Murphy has refused to do so.
Biden has nevertheless begun the transition process, hiring and onboarding staff, as well as setting up meetings with key groups, such as pharmaceutical companies that are working on coronavirus vaccines.
To help fund this effort, Biden sent out a fundraising email and tweeted that members of the public could donate to his transition funds on Friday, saying that he was forced to do so because President Donald Trump’s ongoing legal challenges to the outcome of the election “is delaying the transition.”
Here's the deal: Because President Trump refuses to concede and is delaying the transition, we have to fund it ourselves and need your help.
If you're able, chip in to help fund the Biden-Harris transition. https://t.co/apJMrdpoSS — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) November 20, 2020
White House officials have rebutted Biden’s allegation, claiming the president has not instructed Murphy to postpone ascertainment. But House Democrats have rejected this claim, and have demanded that Murphy give them a full explanation for the delay by Monday. An anonymous administration official told the Washington Post that the reason for the delay is very simple: “No agency head is going to get out in front of the president on transition issues right now.”
Biden has raised $10 million for his transition — but hopes for several million more
The transition process and general structure is governed by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. That law calls for public funds to be used, and puts the GSA in charge of its execution.
Beyond creating a budget for hiring staff, ascertainment from the GSA would give Biden funds to conduct agency reviews, office space for transition officials, and critically, would allow members of the transition team to meet with their Trump administration counterparts. Biden’s team has worked to find ways around this lack of access — and the crowdfunding campaign is its solution to the funding problem.
As reported by Politico, the Democratic National Committee’s national finance chair, Chris Korge, wrote to donors on Monday, saying “over $8 million dollars in cash and in-kind contributions” were on hold without the GSA ascertainment.
“We need to raise the rest of the money we need before Thanksgiving so we can just totally focus on the transition and not fundraising for it,” Korge wrote.
This new grassroots push may be part of that effort to fill the gap by the end of the month, although the Biden camp has already quietly raised more than both Trump and Hillary Clinton raised for their own prospective transition teams in 2016.
Privately, the Biden camp has been fundraising for a potential transition beginning in June, and has reportedly raised $10 million already. According to Politico, Trump raised $6.5 million in 2016 and Hillary Clinton raised about $2.1 million; and Mitt Romney raised $8.9 million in 2012. Barack Obama raised about $6.8 million in 2008.
It has become common for incoming presidents to supplement GSA funding with their own fundraising; Obama, for instance, relied on about $6.8 million in private funds, and received about $5.2 million from taxpayers for his transition.
At that time, experts called on Congress to increase the funds available to presidents-elect; Meredith McGehee, then the policy director at the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Center, called the fact Obama needed to fundraise “a problem,” telling Politico, “If the public money is not sufficient, it should be increased.”
Biden is slated to receive more than Obama did, but at the moment, his team is reportedly pessimistic that any government funding will be made available before he takes office. Although Biden is projected to receive 306 Electoral College votes, Trump has refused to concede the election. His campaign and other allies have mounted dozens of legal challenges in battleground counties and states across the country, at least 30 of which have so far been dropped or dismissed.
Meanwhile, some voters, including a majority of Republican voters, have said that allegations of voter fraud have made them question Joe Biden’s victory. Those allegations are unsubstantiated, but low faith in the integrity of the election could motivate ongoing challenges to its outcome.
With federal funds in limbo, top Democratic donors have reportedly been approached to donate to the transition team on top of the general crowdfunding effort. According to the Federal Election Commission, the cap for large transition donations is $5,000, and that money can be used for any “transition-related expenses.” While the transition is legally allowed to accept money from groups like PACS and corporations, Biden has pledged to not accept funds from either.
Biden is also attempting to work around his lack of access to intelligence and officials
Representatives from the transition team did not respond to Vox’s request for comment on the GSA’s delay. But a transition official said previously that the team had not ruled out legal challenges, and that it is examining various contingencies.
“The Biden-Harris transition has been planning for months for all possible scenarios,” the official said, according to CNN. “The nation faces too many challenges to not have a fully funded and smooth transition to prepare the President-elect and Vice President-elect to govern on Day One.”
Officials have spoken out about what a truncated transition period could mean. For example, Vox’s Jen Kirby has reported that some former national security officials have noted that “the 9/11 Commission Report found that [former President George W.] Bush’s truncated transition period in 2000 ‘hampered’ the administration in placing key personnel in national security positions and obtaining Senate confirmation.”
And Kirby also notes that the robust transition between Bush and Obama may have helped avert a “credible” terror attack planned around Obama’s inauguration.
And the issues go beyond national security: For instance, health officials have also urged the GSA to begin the transition, warning that a delay could undermine necessary preparations to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic and eventually distribute a vaccine.
Biden has attempted to work around his lack of access to key information and administration figures — for instance, he set up a meeting with former intelligence officials to make up for not having received any official presidential intelligence briefings. And he recently held meetings with state leaders on how to better coordinate the federal and state Covid-19 response.
While creative, these measures are not seen as being as good as official access, however. And if Biden does not receive ascertainment, he will begin his presidency less prepared than he might have been.