vox--2020-11-17--Hong Kong’s pro-democracy lawmakers quit en masse. One explains why.

The pro-democracy opposition in Hong Kong ’ s Legislative Council resigned en masse last week , a powerful show of solidarity against Beijing ’ s latest intervention in the territory .
The protest came after the Chinese government passed a new law that would disqualify legislators for “ unpatriotic ” behavior — things like supporting Hong Kong ’ s independence or colluding with foreign powers .
The Hong Kong government quickly expelled four members of the legislature under the new rule : Alvin Yeung , Dennis Kwok , Kwok Ka-ki , and Kenneth Leung .
It was the latest attempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-democracy opposition , this time directly within Hong Kong ’ s political structures .
Which is why the remaining pro-democracy camp all walked out : better to stand in solidarity than to be picked off and disqualified , one by one .
The battle in the Legislative Council , or LegCo , comes just months after China imposed a stifling national security law that gave Beijing sweeping powers to crack down on dissent in Hong Kong under the broad categories of “ secession , subversion , organization and perpetration of terrorist activities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with external elements to endanger national security.
” That was a direct response to a year of massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong , which China saw as a threat to its power .
Many inside and outside Hong Kong saw the national security law as a “ death sentence ” for “ one country , two systems ” — the principle that grants Hong Kong a degree of autonomy and democratic freedom until 2047 .
Ultimately , the national security law achieved what Beijing wanted : accelerating China ’ s control of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with pandemic restrictions , has chilled the protests .
And now China has taken yet another step , targeting lawmakers who oppose Beijing from their elected positions .
The pro-democracy camp had already been the minority in the LegCo ; it could filibuster and delay but ultimately couldn ’ t block any legislation .
Their absence now removes any doubt about what the Hong Kong government has become : another rubber stamp for Beijing ’ s agenda .
I spoke to Claudia Mo , one of the pro-democracy legislators who resigned in protest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this means for Hong Kong , and why she and others are still fighting against increasingly impossible odds .
Our conversation , edited for length and clarity , is below .
I guess a good place to start would be the news that four pro-democracy legislators were ousted from the Legislative Council last week .
This was under a new rule passed by Beijing targeting “ unpatriotic ” lawmakers , is that right ?
The order , essentially , is the final , the very ultimate crackdown on Hong Kong ’ s opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found “ unpatriotic ” — things that are disliked by the powers that be in Beijing — you ’ re out .
You ’ re not allowed to stay within the power structure in Hong Kong .
So that ’ s it .
That ’ s the very final nail in the coffin of “ one country , two systems.
” Beijing keeps reminding us that Hong Kong is part of China , and that it has sovereign power over Hong Kong .
True , of course , yes .
China has the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that .
But we thought we had “ one country , two systems , ” and we should have plenty of room , if not wiggle room , to mind our own business and retain Hong Kong ’ s identity .
You say that this is the “ final nail in the coffin of the ‘ one country , two systems.
’ ” We said that a lot during the summer as China imposed its new national security law on Hong Kong .
What makes this particular law even more dangerous to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The national security law is all-encompassing .
It applies to everyone , right ?
Just watch out .
Whatever you do or say , guard your words , and so on .
But this latest Beijing order doesn ’ t mention anything about the national security law .
I suppose Beijing didn ’ t want to use the national security law against the four legislators , because they didn ’ t want to make it too clear that the security law is some sort of political weapon .
This time , they only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disrespected the mother country ’ s authority and have worked against the power of the sovereign authorities , and thus should be chucked out .
This is specifically targeted at Hong Kong ’ s political elections .
I see .
Was there an expectation that China would make a move like this and , as you say , target politicians and the political structure ?
The democracy camp in Hong Kong as a whole has been expecting something to this effect , so it ’ s not that we were completely caught by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it ’ s still shocking because of the extent of this order .
It practically tells you that if you think for yourself , you just might not be allowed to run — to run — in any more political elections or hold any public office .
So what prompted you and the other pro-democracy lawmakers to resign en masse once four of your colleagues were ousted ?
What were those discussions like ?
Naturally , we needed to show solidarity with the ousted four .
But then , more importantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and clear , our protest against this final , ultimate political crackdown from Beijing .
And so we decided that we had no other options .
Another technical point is there were 19 of us [ pro-democracy lawmakers ] in this legislature originally .
By unseating the four of them , there are only 15 remaining .
We simply didn ’ t have the numbers to block , to veto anything .
We do not have the minimum number for the ultimate veto power for anything .
So forget it .
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you could be there like sitting ducks waiting to be shot at ?
When the four legislators were disqualified , did that also take away your ability to organize within the Legislative Council , like by filibustering or doing other sorts of legislative delay tactics ?
We could still try to stall some undesirable policies or bills .
But [ we didn ’ t have the numbers ] for vetoing any major bill , nor for any future attempt within the legislature to oust any of the remaining of us — 15 people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one by one .
And we have no defense whatsoever .
So that ’ s the main thing , really .
I see .
So why didn ’ t you and your colleagues feel it was worth it to try to protest from within ?
We were going to be picked out .
That ’ s obvious .
So solidarity is another consideration .
Either we do it or we don ’ t , together .
Was that nerve-racking to take that step — and [ was there ] doubt or question about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resignation ?
No .
I have to say , personally speaking , I don ’ t belong to any political party .
I ’ ve been functioning as an independent , so there ’ s nothing nerve-racking or even sad about it .
You see , what ’ s been happening in Hong Kong is our democracy call has been getting louder and louder , and Beijing ’ s been dreading it .
We were supposed to have our Legislative Council election back in September , but the government took advantage of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatnot to postpone it for one full year .
They said the legislative term would be extended by one full year , until September of next year .
When they extended legislature , we thought about whether all the [ pro-democracy lawmakers ] should go back , myself included .
Technically , you would be effectively accepting an appointment by Beijing , because your term is supposed to have finished already .
But then we had all these other considerations , including that we must retain ourselves as the voice of the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We need the resources , access to government information , and ability to grill officials in the chamber .
So we decided to stay on .
But by then , I knew — and I ’ m not alone — that things would just go downhill .
So I ’ d actually already started clearing out my office .
I ’ m like , It ’ s coming .
And so here we are .
That ’ s incredible .
So in terms of those postponed elections , will the Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the next election ?
Is that even a possibility anymore ?
The answer is yes and no .
Yes , because they just might allow some moderates to put on a benign face .
And no , if you ’ re considered quite outspoken , or you ’ ve been one of the baddies in their eyes , you ’ re out .
But the main thing is , [ the Hong Kong government ] is now trying to allow Hongkongers living in mainland China to vote from the mainland .
That number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half a million votes .
If that ’ s the case , they ’ re trying to ensure the chances of winning for the pro-Beijing camp in the upcoming election .
So is it going to be fair ?
Is it going to be transparent , the election ?
I have strong reservations , because the voting would be taking place up on mainland China .
Who ’ s going to do the vote-counting ?
And who ’ s going to ensure there ’ s no rigging ?
And so on , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is looking to push that law , which would allow Hongkongers to vote on the mainland , through the Legislative Council right now .
And I imagine that will happen , that the Legislative Council is now essentially a rubber stamp ?
Absolutely correct .
And that ’ s also one key reason why they ’ re anxious to see us out .
I see .
Is the Legislative Council now , in your mind , just an extension of Beijing ?
Or does it serve any function to the citizens and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Hong Kong legislature has this very twisted election method .
[ Pro-democracy candidates ] have always been hugely outnumbered .
So it ’ s always been kind of an extension of the pro-Chinese branch .
But we were hoping to at least fight for a majority number in the now-canceled election .
That ’ s why the election didn ’ t happen , really .
They were losing .
They were terrified that the [ pro-democracy candidates ] would actually claim a majority of seats .
So some might look at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s the end of your democracy fight.
” But not exactly .
I would not say that .
Things might look bleak in the near term because 1 ) there ’ s no fight at the street level because of the pandemic restrictions , and 2 ) there ’ s no more legislative fight .
And so where are you going to fight ?
Doesn ’ t seem to be many choices out there .
But don ’ t underestimate Hong Kong people ’ s determination to fight on , especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They are fighting for their future , and it ’ s their future we ’ re fighting for .
We need to be answerable to the next generations .
We may fail .
But the thing is , you fight .
You may not get what you want .
But if you don ’ t fight , you definitely won ’ t get what you want .
You need to try .
I personally would claim that I have tried , and I ’ m answerable to history .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of people in Hong Kong , including young people who participated in the protests .
I don ’ t know if fatalism is the right word , but there ’ s this sense that you ’ re fighting even though the outcome is predetermined .
That must be a hard thing to accept , especially given that only a year ago , there were such massive outpourings on the street .
It all seems very different now .
That ’ s quite true .
I ’ ve been at this legislature for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certainly have witnessed the fact that every time Hong Kong ’ s people step up our fight for democracy , Beijing would just tighten the noose around us .
There ’ s a certain amount of fatalism in there .
But there is also determination , hope , and fight that ’ s embedded in our heads .
If we all just give up now , we might as well all quit Hong Kong .
Is this really the thing we all want to do ?
In any case , what happens to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What are they going to do ?
We need to fight on .
Do you have any sense of what your next steps will be now , even though you ’ re no longer in the Legislative Council ?
I think I ’ ll carry on with the political campaign , at least as a part of it .
I would be perfectly happy to do that with my other [ pro-democracy ] colleagues .
And some of the social campaigns in which I ’ ve been active , like those fighting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism in Hong Kong — and animal rights .
And I am an English teacher , so I ’ ll keep doing that a bit , online .
I ’ m also curious if members of the pro-democracy opposition are hoping for stronger outside support .
Is there something you think the United States or other international partners need to do that they haven ’ t done so far ?
That ’ s a tricky question .
No , that ’ s a tricky question .
Under the national security law , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreign forces , especially to the extent of seeking assistance to badmouth to malign or to even sanction the authorities here and up north in Beijing .
So I think , for self-preservation ’ s sake , I will refrain from replying to that question .
But , of course , some moral support will always be welcome .
Oh , god , that ’ s right , I didn ’ t even think about that .
That ’ s a really stark reminder of how stressful life must be in Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to watch your words .
You need to be careful , because they can come and nick you at any time .
To that point , the national security law passed in July — has there been a noticeable change in Hong Kong , months after this law went into effect ?
I definitely feel that Hong Kong is experiencing Cultural Revolution scenarios , Hong Kong-style .
The local police actually encourage you to report — to snitch — on your friends , or your neighbors .
They have this hotline ready , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , “ I suspect my neighbor has done this and that.
” And so it ’ s very sad .
I was born and brought up here .
I never , ever expected Hong Kong to have reached such a state of things .
People have started to guard their words .
Usually , our cab drivers are very chatty .
But these days , they would prefer to keep quiet during the journey , just in case you ’ re a policeman or policewoman sitting in the back .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel they have this black cloud hanging over them .
They don ’ t know who is safe and who to talk to and what is really safe to do .
So that is Hong Kong in November 2020 .

The pro-democracy opposition in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council resigned en masse last week, a powerful show of solidarity against Beijing’s latest intervention in the territory.
The protest came after the Chinese government passed a new law that would disqualify legislators for “unpatriotic” behavior — things like supporting Hong Kong’s independence or colluding with foreign powers. The Hong Kong government quickly expelled four members of the legislature under the new rule: Alvin Yeung, Dennis Kwok, Kwok Ka-ki, and Kenneth Leung.
It was the latest attempt by the Chinese government to crush the pro-democracy opposition, this time directly within Hong Kong’s political structures. Which is why the remaining pro-democracy camp all walked out: better to stand in solidarity than to be picked off and disqualified, one by one.
The battle in the Legislative Council, or LegCo, comes just months after China imposed a stifling national security law that gave Beijing sweeping powers to crack down on dissent in Hong Kong under the broad categories of “secession, subversion, organization and perpetration of terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.”
That was a direct response to a year of massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, which China saw as a threat to its power. Many inside and outside Hong Kong saw the national security law as a “death sentence” for “one country, two systems” — the principle that grants Hong Kong a degree of autonomy and democratic freedom until 2047.
Ultimately, the national security law achieved what Beijing wanted: accelerating China’s control of Hong Kong. The law, along with pandemic restrictions, has chilled the protests. And now China has taken yet another step, targeting lawmakers who oppose Beijing from their elected positions.
The pro-democracy camp had already been the minority in the LegCo; it could filibuster and delay but ultimately couldn’t block any legislation. Their absence now removes any doubt about what the Hong Kong government has become: another rubber stamp for Beijing’s agenda.
I spoke to Claudia Mo, one of the pro-democracy legislators who resigned in protest. She explained the decision, what this means for Hong Kong, and why she and others are still fighting against increasingly impossible odds.
Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Jen Kirby
I guess a good place to start would be the news that four pro-democracy legislators were ousted from the Legislative Council last week. This was under a new rule passed by Beijing targeting “unpatriotic” lawmakers, is that right?
Claudia Mo
The order, essentially, is the final, the very ultimate crackdown on Hong Kong’s opposition. It basically says if you are found “unpatriotic” — things that are disliked by the powers that be in Beijing — you’re out. You’re not allowed to stay within the power structure in Hong Kong. So that’s it. That’s the very final nail in the coffin of “one country, two systems.”
Beijing keeps reminding us that Hong Kong is part of China, and that it has sovereign power over Hong Kong. True, of course, yes. China has the sovereign power here; we always acknowledge that. But we thought we had “one country, two systems,” and we should have plenty of room, if not wiggle room, to mind our own business and retain Hong Kong’s identity.
Jen Kirby
You say that this is the “final nail in the coffin of the ‘one country, two systems.’” We said that a lot during the summer as China imposed its new national security law on Hong Kong. What makes this particular law even more dangerous to “one country, two systems”?
Claudia Mo
The national security law is all-encompassing. It applies to everyone, right? Just watch out. Whatever you do or say, guard your words, and so on. But this latest Beijing order doesn’t mention anything about the national security law.
I suppose Beijing didn’t want to use the national security law against the four legislators, because they didn’t want to make it too clear that the security law is some sort of political weapon. This time, they only stressed the fact that these people have disrespected the mother country’s authority and have worked against the power of the sovereign authorities, and thus should be chucked out. This is specifically targeted at Hong Kong’s political elections.
Jen Kirby
I see. Was there an expectation that China would make a move like this and, as you say, target politicians and the political structure?
Claudia Mo
The democracy camp in Hong Kong as a whole has been expecting something to this effect, so it’s not that we were completely caught by surprise. It’s not surprising, but it’s still shocking because of the extent of this order. It practically tells you that if you think for yourself, you just might not be allowed to run — to run — in any more political elections or hold any public office.
Jen Kirby
So what prompted you and the other pro-democracy lawmakers to resign en masse once four of your colleagues were ousted? What were those discussions like?
Claudio Mo
Naturally, we needed to show solidarity with the ousted four. But then, more importantly, we needed to launch, loud and clear, our protest against this final, ultimate political crackdown from Beijing. And so we decided that we had no other options.
Another technical point is there were 19 of us [pro-democracy lawmakers] in this legislature originally. By unseating the four of them, there are only 15 remaining. We simply didn’t have the numbers to block, to veto anything. We do not have the minimum number for the ultimate veto power for anything. So forget it. What’s the point of staying on when you could be there like sitting ducks waiting to be shot at?
Jen Kirby
When the four legislators were disqualified, did that also take away your ability to organize within the Legislative Council, like by filibustering or doing other sorts of legislative delay tactics?
Claudia Mo
We could still try to stall some undesirable policies or bills. But [we didn’t have the numbers] for vetoing any major bill, nor for any future attempt within the legislature to oust any of the remaining of us — 15 people remaining, we’ll shoot you one by one. And we have no defense whatsoever. So that’s the main thing, really.
Jen Kirby
I see. So why didn’t you and your colleagues feel it was worth it to try to protest from within?
Claudio Mo
We were going to be picked out. That’s obvious. So solidarity is another consideration. Either we do it or we don’t, together.
Jen Kirby
Was that nerve-racking to take that step — and [was there] doubt or question about it in the lead-up to the mass resignation?
Claudio Mo
No. I have to say, personally speaking, I don’t belong to any political party. I’ve been functioning as an independent, so there’s nothing nerve-racking or even sad about it.
You see, what’s been happening in Hong Kong is our democracy call has been getting louder and louder, and Beijing’s been dreading it. We were supposed to have our Legislative Council election back in September, but the government took advantage of coronavirus restrictions and the fear and panic and whatnot to postpone it for one full year.
They said the legislative term would be extended by one full year, until September of next year. When they extended legislature, we thought about whether all the [pro-democracy lawmakers] should go back, myself included. Technically, you would be effectively accepting an appointment by Beijing, because your term is supposed to have finished already.
But then we had all these other considerations, including that we must retain ourselves as the voice of the people. Most of us were popularly elected. We need the resources, access to government information, and ability to grill officials in the chamber. So we decided to stay on.
But by then, I knew — and I’m not alone — that things would just go downhill. So I’d actually already started clearing out my office. I’m like, It’s coming. And so here we are.
Jen Kirby
That’s incredible. So in terms of those postponed elections, will the Hong Kong government allow pro-democracy lawmakers to stand in the next election? Is that even a possibility anymore?
Claudio Mo
The answer is yes and no. Yes, because they just might allow some moderates to put on a benign face. And no, if you’re considered quite outspoken, or you’ve been one of the baddies in their eyes, you’re out.
But the main thing is, [the Hong Kong government] is now trying to allow Hongkongers living in mainland China to vote from the mainland. That number of voters could amount to up to half a million votes. If that’s the case, they’re trying to ensure the chances of winning for the pro-Beijing camp in the upcoming election.
So is it going to be fair? Is it going to be transparent, the election? I have strong reservations, because the voting would be taking place up on mainland China. Who’s going to do the vote-counting? And who’s going to ensure there’s no rigging? And so on, and so forth.
Jen Kirby
The Hong Kong government is looking to push that law, which would allow Hongkongers to vote on the mainland, through the Legislative Council right now. And I imagine that will happen, that the Legislative Council is now essentially a rubber stamp?
Claudia Mo
Absolutely correct. And that’s also one key reason why they’re anxious to see us out.
Jen Kirby
I see. Is the Legislative Council now, in your mind, just an extension of Beijing? Or does it serve any function to the citizens and the people who remain in Hong Kong?
Claudio Mo
The Hong Kong legislature has this very twisted election method. [Pro-democracy candidates] have always been hugely outnumbered. So it’s always been kind of an extension of the pro-Chinese branch. But we were hoping to at least fight for a majority number in the now-canceled election.
That’s why the election didn’t happen, really. They were losing. They were terrified that the [pro-democracy candidates] would actually claim a majority of seats.
So some might look at all this and say, “Well, that’s the end of your democracy fight.” But not exactly. I would not say that. Things might look bleak in the near term because 1) there’s no fight at the street level because of the pandemic restrictions, and 2) there’s no more legislative fight.
And so where are you going to fight? Doesn’t seem to be many choices out there. But don’t underestimate Hong Kong people’s determination to fight on, especially in the hearts of our young people. They are fighting for their future, and it’s their future we’re fighting for.
We need to be answerable to the next generations. We may fail. But the thing is, you fight. You may not get what you want. But if you don’t fight, you definitely won’t get what you want. You need to try. I personally would claim that I have tried, and I’m answerable to history.
Jen Kirby
This is a sentiment I hear from talking to a lot of people in Hong Kong, including young people who participated in the protests. I don’t know if fatalism is the right word, but there’s this sense that you’re fighting even though the outcome is predetermined. That must be a hard thing to accept, especially given that only a year ago, there were such massive outpourings on the street. It all seems very different now.
Claudia Mo
That’s quite true. I’ve been at this legislature for eight years — two terms. I certainly have witnessed the fact that every time Hong Kong’s people step up our fight for democracy, Beijing would just tighten the noose around us. There’s a certain amount of fatalism in there.
But there is also determination, hope, and fight that’s embedded in our heads. If we all just give up now, we might as well all quit Hong Kong. Is this really the thing we all want to do? In any case, what happens to those people who can’t emigrate? What are they going to do? We need to fight on.
Jen Kirby
Do you have any sense of what your next steps will be now, even though you’re no longer in the Legislative Council?
Claudia Mo
I think I’ll carry on with the political campaign, at least as a part of it. I would be perfectly happy to do that with my other [pro-democracy] colleagues. And some of the social campaigns in which I’ve been active, like those fighting for ethnic minority rights — basically against racism in Hong Kong — and animal rights. And I am an English teacher, so I’ll keep doing that a bit, online.
Jen Kirby
I’m also curious if members of the pro-democracy opposition are hoping for stronger outside support. Is there something you think the United States or other international partners need to do that they haven’t done so far?
Claudio Mo
That’s a tricky question. No, that’s a tricky question. Under the national security law, it’s a crime to collude with foreign forces, especially to the extent of seeking assistance to badmouth to malign or to even sanction the authorities here and up north in Beijing. So I think, for self-preservation’s sake, I will refrain from replying to that question. But, of course, some moral support will always be welcome.
Jen Kirby
Oh, god, that’s right, I didn’t even think about that. That’s a really stark reminder of how stressful life must be in Hong Kong right now —
Claudia Mo
Oh, you need to watch your words. You need to be careful, because they can come and nick you at any time.
Jen Kirby
To that point, the national security law passed in July — has there been a noticeable change in Hong Kong, months after this law went into effect?
Claudia Mo
I definitely feel that Hong Kong is experiencing Cultural Revolution scenarios, Hong Kong-style. The local police actually encourage you to report — to snitch — on your friends, or your neighbors.
They have this hotline ready, so you can call up the police say, “I suspect my neighbor has done this and that.” And so it’s very sad. I was born and brought up here. I never, ever expected Hong Kong to have reached such a state of things.
People have started to guard their words. Usually, our cab drivers are very chatty. But these days, they would prefer to keep quiet during the journey, just in case you’re a policeman or policewoman sitting in the back. It’s very sad.
Hong Kong people feel they have this black cloud hanging over them. They don’t know who is safe and who to talk to and what is really safe to do. So that is Hong Kong in November 2020.


vox--2020-11-17--Biden could do a lot to fight factory farming even without Congress

Now that Joe Biden is the president-elect , at least in the eyes of everyone but the current president and his diehards , speculation is mounting about what his Cabinet is going to look like .
There ’ s a lot of rumor-mongering about the most prestigious positions like State and Treasury but one of the most consequential choices is less prominent : secretary of agriculture .
The US Department of Agriculture does not draw as many headlines as State or Treasury but it ’ s an incredibly important institution .
It administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ( SNAP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stamps , ” and as such is one of the most consequential antipoverty agencies in the US .
Rep. Marcia Fudge ( D-OH ) , one of the most active advocates for food stamps in Congress , is reportedly one of the candidates Biden is considering for secretary .
But just as important as its antipoverty function is USDA ’ s role in regulating industrial animal agriculture and animal welfare .
Along with the Environmental Protection Agency , and the Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission in their roles as antitrust regulators , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that will determine if factory farming continues unabated , or shrinks and reforms , under Biden .
There ’ s a lot of low-hanging fruit for the Biden administration to tackle , by simply reversing Trump-era changes that went in the wrong direction .
Humane Society Legislative Fund President Sara Amundson had a useful rundown of these the other day .
Biden ’ s administration could , for instance , reverse Trump administration moves to increase line speeds at slaughterhouses ( including eliminating speed limits at pig plants altogether ) .
That would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those plants , but also reduce the number of animals being slaughtered every year .
It could also bring back the Obama administration ’ s “ animal welfare rule , ” which imposed higher standards for organic farms .
The Trump administration has also finalized a number of rules expanding fishing ( including loosening restrictions meant to prevent bycatch of the endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna ) and expanding hunting ( such as of predators like Alaskan wolves , and of grizzly bears ) that animal advocates would like to see reversed .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like But Biden could go further than simply reversing Trump .
And he has some options for really impactful action when it comes to factory farming .
Jonathan Lovvorn , a colleague of Morris ’ s and faculty co-director of Yale ’ s Law , Ethics , & Animal Program , tells me he ’ d like to see Biden “ issue an [ executive order ] directing USDA , EPA , and other agencies to catalog all the regulatory and enforcement exemptions currently bestowed on factory farms , and to develop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , labor , animal welfare , and climate accountability to this industry.
” Specifically , Lovvorn also highlights the need to incorporate animal agriculture , which accounts for a huge chunk of greenhouse gas emissions , into Biden ’ s climate policies , including by listing emissions from CAFOs ( concentrated animal feeding operations , the technical acronym for factory farms ) as pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act .
He ’ d also like to see a Biden executive order halting explicit government support for the construction or expansion of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the animal protection group Mercy for Animals , echoed the need for the EPA to use the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act to regulate CAFOs .
On climate in particular , “ EPA previously studied CAFO emissions , but it was highly flawed and even excluded beef cattle and turkeys from the study , ” she says .
She and Mercy for Animals call on the Biden Administration to “ update Clean Water Act regulations to reduce the minimum size requirement for CAFOs to be regulated under the CWA .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of all current CAFOs are large enough to qualify as a regulated source point under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program.
” Reducing the minimum size requirement would effectively put more factory farms under the regulation of the EPA .
Garcés also wants the EPA to “ take action against states for failing to enforce the CWA against CAFOs .
For example , in 2012 , the EPA found that Iowa was not conducting inspections to determine whether CAFOs needed permits , assessing adequate penalties against CAFOs , or issuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific animal welfare move both Lovvorn and Garcés endorsed is directing the USDA to interpret the Humane Slaughter Act , a 1958 law that while poorly enforced nonetheless provides valuable protections to cattle and pigs , so it applies to poultry for the first time .
Lovvorn also has a set of Covid-19-specific policy recommendations .
“ The Biden administration should issue an emergency rule setting a mandatory OSHA [ Occupational Safety and Health Administration ] standard to ensure proper social distancing , PPE , and other protections for slaughterhouse workers — something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Lovvorn says .
Garcés also highlighted the need for the Biden administration to ban cruel “ depopulation ” measures that farms shutting down , including ones shutting down due to shocks to the meat-packing industry during Covid , use to kill their animals .
Yale ’ s Morris argues for breaking up the monopolistic meat industry using antitrust levers as a priority , and points to a proposal from antitrust groups to do just that .
“ Their list focuses on worker safety and farmer prosperity , but many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( i.e .
reducing slaughter line speeds ) or indirectly ( i.e .
lessening the agricultural lobby ’ s political stranglehold ) , ” Morris told me .
Picking an ag secretary without ties to factory farming is key There ’ s a lot more where that came from — but the first step is getting USDA and EPA leaders who can be trusted to fight , if not for animals , then at least for the humans harmed by the poor labor standards and environmental degradation endemic to factory farming .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp ( D-ND ) , reportedly one of Biden ’ s top contenders for agriculture secretary , who is seen as close to factory farm interests .
“ We do not need another pro-agribusiness USDA secretary , ” Morris says .
“ [ Rep. Chellie ] Pingree or Fudge , two of the other candidates being mentioned in the press , would be better choices for people and animals.
” Pingree ( D-ME ) , a veteran of the House Appropriations subcommittee for agriculture and the Ag Committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a 200-acre vegetable , pig , and chicken farm on North Haven Island off the coast of Maine .
Either she or Fudge would seem to be sound choices if the Biden administration actually wants to confront factory farming and animal agriculture head-on .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter .
Twice a week , you ’ ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges : improving public health , decreasing human and animal suffering , easing catastrophic risks , and — to put it simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Now that Joe Biden is the president-elect, at least in the eyes of everyone but the current president and his diehards, speculation is mounting about what his Cabinet is going to look like. There’s a lot of rumor-mongering about the most prestigious positions like State and Treasury but one of the most consequential choices is less prominent: secretary of agriculture.
The US Department of Agriculture does not draw as many headlines as State or Treasury but it’s an incredibly important institution. It administers the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as “food stamps,” and as such is one of the most consequential antipoverty agencies in the US. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-OH), one of the most active advocates for food stamps in Congress, is reportedly one of the candidates Biden is considering for secretary.
But just as important as its antipoverty function is USDA’s role in regulating industrial animal agriculture and animal welfare. Along with the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission in their roles as antitrust regulators, the USDA is one of the key agencies that will determine if factory farming continues unabated, or shrinks and reforms, under Biden.
There’s a lot of low-hanging fruit for the Biden administration to tackle, by simply reversing Trump-era changes that went in the wrong direction.
Humane Society Legislative Fund President Sara Amundson had a useful rundown of these the other day. Biden’s administration could, for instance, reverse Trump administration moves to increase line speeds at slaughterhouses (including eliminating speed limits at pig plants altogether). That would be a huge win for workers in those plants, but also reduce the number of animals being slaughtered every year. It could also bring back the Obama administration’s “animal welfare rule,” which imposed higher standards for organic farms.
The Trump administration has also finalized a number of rules expanding fishing (including loosening restrictions meant to prevent bycatch of the endangered Atlantic bluefin tuna) and expanding hunting (such as of predators like Alaskan wolves, and of grizzly bears) that animal advocates would like to see reversed.
What a tough stance on factory farming would look like
But Biden could go further than simply reversing Trump. And he has some options for really impactful action when it comes to factory farming.
Jonathan Lovvorn, a colleague of Morris’s and faculty co-director of Yale’s Law, Ethics, & Animal Program, tells me he’d like to see Biden “issue an [executive order] directing USDA, EPA, and other agencies to catalog all the regulatory and enforcement exemptions currently bestowed on factory farms, and to develop a regulatory action plan to restore environmental, labor, animal welfare, and climate accountability to this industry.”
Specifically, Lovvorn also highlights the need to incorporate animal agriculture, which accounts for a huge chunk of greenhouse gas emissions, into Biden’s climate policies, including by listing emissions from CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations, the technical acronym for factory farms) as pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. He’d also like to see a Biden executive order halting explicit government support for the construction or expansion of any new CAFOs.
Leah Garcés, president of the animal protection group Mercy for Animals, echoed the need for the EPA to use the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act to regulate CAFOs. On climate in particular, “EPA previously studied CAFO emissions, but it was highly flawed and even excluded beef cattle and turkeys from the study,” she says.
She and Mercy for Animals call on the Biden Administration to “update Clean Water Act regulations to reduce the minimum size requirement for CAFOs to be regulated under the CWA. Under the existing definition …only about 10% of all current CAFOs are large enough to qualify as a regulated source point under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program.” Reducing the minimum size requirement would effectively put more factory farms under the regulation of the EPA.
Garcés also wants the EPA to “take action against states for failing to enforce the CWA against CAFOs. For example, in 2012, the EPA found that Iowa was not conducting inspections to determine whether CAFOs needed permits, assessing adequate penalties against CAFOs, or issuing NPDES permits when appropriate.”
A more specific animal welfare move both Lovvorn and Garcés endorsed is directing the USDA to interpret the Humane Slaughter Act, a 1958 law that while poorly enforced nonetheless provides valuable protections to cattle and pigs, so it applies to poultry for the first time.
Lovvorn also has a set of Covid-19-specific policy recommendations. “The Biden administration should issue an emergency rule setting a mandatory OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] standard to ensure proper social distancing, PPE, and other protections for slaughterhouse workers — something the Trump administration flatly refused to do,” Lovvorn says. Garcés also highlighted the need for the Biden administration to ban cruel “depopulation” measures that farms shutting down, including ones shutting down due to shocks to the meat-packing industry during Covid, use to kill their animals.
Yale’s Morris argues for breaking up the monopolistic meat industry using antitrust levers as a priority, and points to a proposal from antitrust groups to do just that.
“Their list focuses on worker safety and farmer prosperity, but many of the actions would also benefit farm animals directly (i.e. reducing slaughter line speeds) or indirectly (i.e. lessening the agricultural lobby’s political stranglehold),” Morris told me.
Picking an ag secretary without ties to factory farming is key
There’s a lot more where that came from — but the first step is getting USDA and EPA leaders who can be trusted to fight, if not for animals, then at least for the humans harmed by the poor labor standards and environmental degradation endemic to factory farming. Most animal advocates I spoke to were wary of former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), reportedly one of Biden’s top contenders for agriculture secretary, who is seen as close to factory farm interests.
“We do not need another pro-agribusiness USDA secretary,” Morris says. “[Rep. Chellie] Pingree or Fudge, two of the other candidates being mentioned in the press, would be better choices for people and animals.”
Pingree (D-ME), a veteran of the House Appropriations subcommittee for agriculture and the Ag Committee, is actually an organic farmer herself, with a 200-acre vegetable, pig, and chicken farm on North Haven Island off the coast of Maine.
Either she or Fudge would seem to be sound choices if the Biden administration actually wants to confront factory farming and animal agriculture head-on.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.
Contribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-11-18--Lindsey Graham’s controversial call with Georgia’s secretary of state, explained

President Donald Trump is trying to overturn the results of the presidential election through lawsuits and bluster .
And amid all this , a question has arisen about whether Sen. Lindsey Graham ( R-SC ) , one of his close allies , tried to get Georgia ’ s secretary of state to throw out vast numbers of legally cast mail ballots — something that could theoretically flip a state Joe Biden won to Trump .
The Republican secretary of state , Brad Raffensperger , claims Graham came close to doing this in a call with him on Friday .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to throw out all mail ballots in counties where there were relatively high rates of rejection of mail ballots because their signatures did not match voters ’ signatures on file .
“ It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road , ” Raffensperger told the Washington Post ’ s Amy Gardner .
If Raffensperger ’ s interpretation of Graham ’ s meaning is accurate , it would be a boldfaced , undemocratic attempt from a Trump ally to overturn the election results .
And some Democrats , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are calling on the Justice Department to investigate Graham ’ s actions .
For his part , Graham — a onetime Trump critic who has become one of the president ’ s staunchest supporters — told Gardner he was just asking questions , worried about fraud , and trying to find out how Georgia verified mail ballots were legitimate .
( Graham later said he made a similar call to the governor of Arizona and unnamed other officials . )
But another Georgia official on the call , Gabe Sterling , confirmed Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussion of whether Raffensperger could discard all ballots from counties with high signature rejection rates .
Sterling also said , however , that he could see why Raffensperger and Graham may have interpreted the conversation differently .
The Georgia count is not close enough for Trump At the end of the initial count in Georgia , Biden led Trump by about 14,000 votes .
Georgia is also the only swing state Biden won in which all the relevant state officers are Republicans , making it a natural place for Trump to focus his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet the key GOP official there , Raffensperger , has rebutted Trump allies ’ conspiratorial assertions of widespread voter fraud since the election , making clear he ’ s found no evidence of any such thing .
Under pressure from the president and his allies , Raffensperger did order a statewide hand audit of the results .
That audit , which is expected to wrap up by Wednesday , has turned up some errors in the initial count that will shrink Biden ’ s lead somewhat .
But Raffensperger has repeatedly stated that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ near enough to change the outcome .
Indeed , for Trump to regain the lead in Georgia , he needs something ... bigger .
Something like the invalidation of legally cast mail-in ballots on a phony pretext .
In part because Trump repeatedly disparaged mail voting as unreliable before the election , Democrats were far more likely to vote by mail than Republicans this year .
That ’ s why mail-in ballots have been a main target in Trump ’ s post-election lawsuits — he wants to get Biden votes thrown out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ — because state law requires Georgia to certify its election result this Friday .
What went down on Graham ’ s call with Raffensperger Last Friday , Sen. Graham gave Raffensperger a call .
Raffensperger has now given his account of their conversation to multiple media outlets .
He said he initially thought Graham was calling to discuss the two Senate runoff elections in Georgia — but then , that he was surprised that Graham brought up the current counting .
Per Raffensperger , Graham asked if mail-in ballots that had been counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original envelope from which they were sent .
Raffensperger said they could not .
The signature review process occurs before the ballot is counted due to the need to preserve the secret ballot .
This means you can ’ t now go back and match an approved ballot to a voter ’ s identity and signature .
Then , Raffensperger continues , things took a turn .
“ Sen .
Graham implied for us to audit the envelopes , and then throw out the ballots for counties who had the highest frequency error @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday .
The idea here appears to be that since specific mail-in ballots could no longer be matched to signatures , Raffensperger should review all the signatures , and if the review turned up high rates of non-matching signatures in certain counties , he should then just throw out all the mail ballots in those counties .
Raffensperger told CBS he then ended the call , saying he would “ circle back and I ’ d talk to counsel and I ’ d get back to him.
” He continued , “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get back and reengage.
” So what was this about ?
In the two days after the election , before the race was called for Biden and while Trump was disputing the results , the president ’ s son Donald Trump Jr. observed that Graham hadn ’ t been saying much on the topic .
Soon afterward , Graham took up the banner .
In frequent Fox News appearances , he began echoing Trump ’ s message and trumpeting dubious claims of election fraud .
And , we ’ ve now learned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Georgia and Arizona to ask about their counting and verification procedures .
( Graham told reporters Tuesday that he had spoken to a Nevada official as well , but later said he misspoke , that he had just been briefed on the Nevada legal situation by someone else . )
Now , Graham claims that his comments to Raffensperger were only part of an effort to learn about how the process worked .
“ That wasn ’ t the purpose of the conversation , to throw out ballots , ” Graham told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , that wasn ’ t my intent.
” Graham also said he wasn ’ t acting on behalf of Trump ’ s campaign , telling the Washington Post he was only acting “ as a United States senator who is worried about the integrity of the election process.
” Raffensperger says it ’ s true that Graham didn ’ t flat-out tell him to discard counties ’ mail-in ballots .
Rather , he broached the prospect , asking about it in a hypothetical sense , and “ implied ” it was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NPR that Trump ’ s team has been asking for something similar in a Michigan lawsuit and that it was therefore “ pretty clear ” that Trump and Graham were “ on the same page.
” ( ProPublica ’ s Jessica Huseman and Mike Spies report that Trump ’ s team has been pressuring Raffensperger for months to endorse Trump and somehow help him win . )
Georgia voting official Gabe Sterling , who was on the call , said Tuesday that the discussion was about what could happen “ potentially ” if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ What I heard were discussions of absentee ballots — if there were a percentage of signatures that weren ’ t truly matching , is there some point where we could go to court and throw out all the ballots , ” Sterling said , according to the Washington Post .
“ I could see how Sen. Graham viewed it one way and Secretary Raffensperger viewed it one way , ” he added .
Additionally , Huseman and Spies of ProPublica report that two members of Raffensperger ’ s office who were on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the secretary of state ’ s account was accurate and that they were appalled by Graham ’ s request.
” Overall , when you look at all these comments , there ’ s no real dispute about what Graham said on the call .
He ’ s not denying that he questioned whether all ballots from certain counties could theoretically be thrown out .
The dispute is over whether he was exploring a hypothetical or making an implied suggestion .
Yet despite Graham ’ s protestations that nothing was unusual here , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lifelong Republican , was sufficiently disturbed by the conversation that he went public about it .
In the end , it may amount to nothing , as Raffensperger has proven resistant to pressures from Trump ’ s camp .
But when the president is trying to baselessly overturn the clear results of the election , it doesn ’ t exactly look great to have one of his close allies calling up a ( Republican ) state official and brainstorming scenarios about how tens of thousands of unfavorable votes for him might be stricken @ @ @ @

President Donald Trump is trying to overturn the results of the presidential election through lawsuits and bluster. And amid all this, a question has arisen about whether Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), one of his close allies, tried to get Georgia’s secretary of state to throw out vast numbers of legally cast mail ballots — something that could theoretically flip a state Joe Biden won to Trump.
The Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, claims Graham came close to doing this in a call with him on Friday. He says Graham asked whether he had the power to throw out all mail ballots in counties where there were relatively high rates of rejection of mail ballots because their signatures did not match voters’ signatures on file.
“It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road,” Raffensperger told the Washington Post’s Amy Gardner.
If Raffensperger’s interpretation of Graham’s meaning is accurate, it would be a boldfaced, undemocratic attempt from a Trump ally to overturn the election results. And some Democrats, like Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), are calling on the Justice Department to investigate Graham’s actions.
For his part, Graham — a onetime Trump critic who has become one of the president’s staunchest supporters — told Gardner he was just asking questions, worried about fraud, and trying to find out how Georgia verified mail ballots were legitimate. (Graham later said he made a similar call to the governor of Arizona and unnamed other officials.)
But another Georgia official on the call, Gabe Sterling, confirmed Tuesday that the conversation did indeed entail a discussion of whether Raffensperger could discard all ballots from counties with high signature rejection rates. Sterling also said, however, that he could see why Raffensperger and Graham may have interpreted the conversation differently.
The Georgia count is not close enough for Trump
At the end of the initial count in Georgia, Biden led Trump by about 14,000 votes.
Georgia is also the only swing state Biden won in which all the relevant state officers are Republicans, making it a natural place for Trump to focus his efforts to overturn the election results. Yet the key GOP official there, Raffensperger, has rebutted Trump allies’ conspiratorial assertions of widespread voter fraud since the election, making clear he’s found no evidence of any such thing.
Under pressure from the president and his allies, Raffensperger did order a statewide hand audit of the results. That audit, which is expected to wrap up by Wednesday, has turned up some errors in the initial count that will shrink Biden’s lead somewhat. But Raffensperger has repeatedly stated that those mistakes won’t be anywhere near enough to change the outcome.
Indeed, for Trump to regain the lead in Georgia, he needs something ... bigger. Something like the invalidation of legally cast mail-in ballots on a phony pretext.
In part because Trump repeatedly disparaged mail voting as unreliable before the election, Democrats were far more likely to vote by mail than Republicans this year. That’s why mail-in ballots have been a main target in Trump’s post-election lawsuits — he wants to get Biden votes thrown out.
And he needs that to happen quickly because state law requires Georgia to certify its election result this Friday.
What went down on Graham’s call with Raffensperger
Last Friday, Sen. Graham gave Raffensperger a call. Raffensperger has now given his account of their conversation to multiple media outlets. He said he initially thought Graham was calling to discuss the two Senate runoff elections in Georgia — but then, that he was surprised that Graham brought up the current counting.
Per Raffensperger, Graham asked if mail-in ballots that had been counted could still be matched back to the original envelope from which they were sent. Raffensperger said they could not. The signature review process occurs before the ballot is counted due to the need to preserve the secret ballot. This means you can’t now go back and match an approved ballot to a voter’s identity and signature.
Then, Raffensperger continues, things took a turn. “Sen. Graham implied for us to audit the envelopes, and then throw out the ballots for counties who had the highest frequency error of signatures,” Raffensperger told CBS Tuesday.
The idea here appears to be that since specific mail-in ballots could no longer be matched to signatures, Raffensperger should review all the signatures, and if the review turned up high rates of non-matching signatures in certain counties, he should then just throw out all the mail ballots in those counties.
Raffensperger told CBS he then ended the call, saying he would “circle back and I’d talk to counsel and I’d get back to him.” He continued, “We just decided the best action was not to get back and reengage.”
So what was this about?
In the two days after the election, before the race was called for Biden and while Trump was disputing the results, the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. observed that Graham hadn’t been saying much on the topic.
Soon afterward, Graham took up the banner. In frequent Fox News appearances, he began echoing Trump’s message and trumpeting dubious claims of election fraud. And, we’ve now learned, he started calling up Republican officials in Georgia and Arizona to ask about their counting and verification procedures. (Graham told reporters Tuesday that he had spoken to a Nevada official as well, but later said he misspoke, that he had just been briefed on the Nevada legal situation by someone else.)
Now, Graham claims that his comments to Raffensperger were only part of an effort to learn about how the process worked. “That wasn’t the purpose of the conversation, to throw out ballots,” Graham told CNN Tuesday. “I categorically reject that, that wasn’t my intent.” Graham also said he wasn’t acting on behalf of Trump’s campaign, telling the Washington Post he was only acting “as a United States senator who is worried about the integrity of the election process.”
Raffensperger says it’s true that Graham didn’t flat-out tell him to discard counties’ mail-in ballots. Rather, he broached the prospect, asking about it in a hypothetical sense, and “implied” it was a reasonable idea. Notably, Raffensperger told NPR that Trump’s team has been asking for something similar in a Michigan lawsuit and that it was therefore “pretty clear” that Trump and Graham were “on the same page.” (ProPublica’s Jessica Huseman and Mike Spies report that Trump’s team has been pressuring Raffensperger for months to endorse Trump and somehow help him win.)
Georgia voting official Gabe Sterling, who was on the call, said Tuesday that the discussion was about what could happen “potentially” if “somebody went to the courtroom.”
“What I heard were discussions of absentee ballots — if there were a percentage of signatures that weren’t truly matching, is there some point where we could go to court and throw out all the ballots,” Sterling said, according to the Washington Post. “I could see how Sen. Graham viewed it one way and Secretary Raffensperger viewed it one way,” he added.
Additionally, Huseman and Spies of ProPublica report that two members of Raffensperger’s office who were on the call confirmed to them that “the secretary of state’s account was accurate and that they were appalled by Graham’s request.”
Overall, when you look at all these comments, there’s no real dispute about what Graham said on the call. He’s not denying that he questioned whether all ballots from certain counties could theoretically be thrown out. The dispute is over whether he was exploring a hypothetical or making an implied suggestion.
Yet despite Graham’s protestations that nothing was unusual here, it’s notable that Raffensperger, a lifelong Republican, was sufficiently disturbed by the conversation that he went public about it.
In the end, it may amount to nothing, as Raffensperger has proven resistant to pressures from Trump’s camp. But when the president is trying to baselessly overturn the clear results of the election, it doesn’t exactly look great to have one of his close allies calling up a (Republican) state official and brainstorming scenarios about how tens of thousands of unfavorable votes for him might be stricken from the count.


vox--2020-11-18--How brunch became political

How brunch became political

On the night of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s death , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told her millions of Instagram followers that even if Democratic nominee Biden were to win the presidency , as he eventually did , some things were going to have to change .
“ I ’ m sorry , you ’ re not going back to brunch , ” she said .
“ We ’ re not going back to brunch.
” The Congress member ’ s Instagram Live was an effort to reflect on the future of the Democratic Party , and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no going back after November.
” Political vigilance may be exhausting , but this was the new normal voters must adapt to — regardless of who occupies the White House .
The joke among progressives and leftists online has long been that as soon as Biden clinched the presidency , many voters and politicians — derided as “ Brunch Democrats ” — would dust off their hands and indulge in overpriced mimosas , as if the political order were magically restored overnight .
“ Obama wants us to go back to brunch after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a disaster , ” read one headline from Jacobin , the socialist magazine .
“ Nobody on the left is going back to brunch .
Not for a long time , ” wrote New York magazine ’ s Sarah Jones .
It ’ s no longer enough , nor is it even in vogue , the joke implicitly argues , to solely resist President Trump ; one must resist the political mechanisms that made his presidency possible .
As a typically American , often expensive , and typically alcohol-soaked meal , brunch has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indifference , for the insular mindset of Trump-era liberal activism .
Now that Biden has been elected , the idea of “ going back to brunch ” highlights a widening political chasm within the Democratic Party , as centrists and leftists clash over ideology and messaging , or the lack thereof .
For those whose livelihoods are not tied to policy decisions , it ’ s possible that activism doesn ’ t feel as urgent in a post-Trump world , and that parts of the status quo work just fine .
Centrist “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unity and compromise , believing this rosy vision will appeal to moderate voters .
Meanwhile , progressives are arguing that voters and activists should push Biden and congressional Democrats toward the left , and not back away from policies like Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal to appease a subset of swing voters .
The Trump presidency has facilitated brunch ’ s metamorphosis into a political and cultural touchstone .
It ’ s not just a leisurely weekend activity but a shorthand for the political choices Democrats are forced to make under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the known comforts of brunch ( made available to a few ) , or will there be the potential for greater structural change ?
The merits of brunch as a meal have long been debated , existing probably since the portmanteau was coined in 1895 by writer Guy Beringer , who advocated for a leisurely weekend occasion to incentivize sleeping in on Sundays and skipping church .
In 2014 , one writer angrily proclaimed in the New York Times that “ brunch is for jerks , ” while another retorted in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrong ” and that “ it ’ s time to shut up ” about a universally contentious meal .
But what was traditionally missing from these arguments was the politics of brunch , not the validity of its existence .
During the Trump era , the politics of people who frequent brunch joints — typified through white gentrifiers and young professionals capable of splurging on a $ 20 cocktail and eggs Benedict — came under heavy scrutiny .
Progressives ’ distaste for the brunch crowd , specifically Brunch Democrats , can be summed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a Women ’ s March of yore : “ If Hillary was president , we ’ d all be at brunch.
” Charged as tone-deaf , the slogan is a succinct display of privilege ( it was usually espoused by a white woman ) , suggesting that political engagement and activism is reactive , and thus only necessary under certain conditions .
Who is this “ we ” the slogan refers to ?
Not all Americans can afford to be at brunch — certainly not those without disposable income and weekends off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and activist in Cambridge , Massachusetts , saw this trope play out in real life .
On November 7 , shortly after the Associated Press and NBC News called the race for Biden , Walsh received a text from her manager to come into work since the restaurant was receiving a record number of brunch reservations .
“ It was almost poetic that this was happening , that dozens and dozens of people were coming to brunch with their Biden pin on , ” Walsh told me .
Walsh , a high school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Markey campaign as a digital fellow , and despite not yet being of voting age has developed staunch progressive politics .
Brunch is a fun and fine occasion to spend time with others , she said , but the idea of “ going back to brunch ” is damaging for the country ’ s future .
“ If we don ’ t address the problems that got Trump elected in the first place , we might be facing someone a thousand times worse in 2024 , ” Walsh said .
“ especially if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to brunch and disengage.
” Walsh worried that most Americans would be content with what she characterized as Biden ’ s surface-level liberal values and respectability politics , and not thoroughly scrutinize the policies he could enforce that might hurt vulnerable people .
“ People will still be suffering under a Biden or a Trump administration , ” she concluded .
In the early days of the Trump administration , when voters were simultaneously disturbed and galvanized by his presidency , the # Resistance began to mobilize .
One of its slogans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Save America episode — was “ protest is the new brunch.
” The phrase , which was plastered on social media and protest signs , appeared to cater expressly to a white middle-class mindset , suggesting it was now hip to care , to make signs , and to go out and protest Trump .
Political engagement is crucial to our democracy , and there was great strength in the mass mobilization response to Trump ’ s policies .
Yet there ’ s troubling subtext in “ protest is the new brunch.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , rather than a persistent and necessary duty , is superficial , if not downright classist .
The conflation of brunch as a political symbol and meal is why Ken Albala , a professor of history at the University of the Pacific , believes brunch is in its dying days .
“ It ’ s gone out of fashion , as it was seen as aspirant upper- to middle-class and very white , ” he told me .
“ The reason people dislike brunch is the same reason why we find Karens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and very politically unengaged.
” A brunch diner usually wants to appear liberally minded , Albala added , but given their class status , they aren ’ t necessarily committed to social change .
“ They enjoy that privilege , the life and the suburbs , and that leisurely lifestyle , ” he said .
( This tension similarly exists in a patron ’ s decision to dine out during the pandemic , which some see as a selfish choice , not a necessity . )
Admittedly , brunch is not solely enjoyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Queer folks have brunch traditions to bond with friends and chosen family .
People of all ages and ethnicities ( I ’ m among them ) indulge in boozy brunch as a social , even professional activity .
It ’ s common for restaurants , predominantly on the West or East Coasts , to offer brunch specials and capitalize on how the meal has become an informal event .
“ Brunch is almost always out .
You can ’ t have it at home , ” Albala told me .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen , the eating of fancy foods you wouldn ’ t ordinarily indulge in , and I think people like how brunch allows you to transgress and drink in the morning.
” The performance of brunch no longer seems acceptable or appropriate in a hyper-political world , when protest is the moral alternative .
Why choose to be seen at brunch when you can be seen demonstrating solidarity at a rally ?
Of course , reality is much more nuanced : You can hold progressive values and enjoy brunch every so often .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an all-encompassing expression of one ’ s politics .
The performance of brunch no longer seems acceptable or appropriate in a hyper-political world , when protest is the moral alternative But social media makes it easy to demonize brunch by flattening photos and narratives into a choice .
You can choose brunch or protest , not both .
In late May , Cincinnati photojournalist Nick Swartsell captured a scene that highlighted the dichotomy of these two choices : A group of eight young white people are dining outdoors , while behind them , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk by , fists raised .
Comedian Ziwe Fumudoh tweeted out the photo , which went viral , writing : “ there are two americas : one fights for black lives and the other fights for brunch.
” Hundreds of thousands of people retweeted or favorited her tweet , agreeing that it was “ shameful ” and “ out of touch ” for people to be brunching during a mass protest movement .
“ The distinction could not be more clear , ” one user responded .
As recently as 2015 , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for walking inside predominantly white brunch joints to briefly call attention to police brutality .
“ The fact that people are negatively responding to the # BlackBrunch and not the illness of racism and the myth of American progress , disturbs me more than anything , ” one organizer told the Washington Post .
In a Twitter thread , Swartsell said the photo was not his best work , as it did not capture the nuance of the scene .
“ Lots of people are assuming what the folks dining are thinking .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ did moments before and after the photo was taken .
Stop .
Focus on real issues .
There are many , many at hand , ” he wrote .
Yes , brunch isn ’ t one of those “ real issues ” ; it ’ s only a few hours on a weekend .
The death of brunch would not , in and of itself , solve any systemic issues , and as with many debates about class aesthetics , the risk is seeing a change in performance with little political value .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to take beyond the meal .
But perhaps it ’ s still too late for brunch ’ s redemption , said Albala , the food historian .
Just like how America has changed from the Trump era , Albaba thinks the coronavirus and shifting social attitudes will affect the lure of brunch .
“ I ’ d be willing to bet brunch is never going to come back , at least not in the same way .
”

On the night of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told her millions of Instagram followers that even if Democratic nominee Biden were to win the presidency, as he eventually did, some things were going to have to change. “I’m sorry, you’re not going back to brunch,” she said. “We’re not going back to brunch.”
The Congress member’s Instagram Live was an effort to reflect on the future of the Democratic Party, and to remind her base that “there is no going back after November.” Political vigilance may be exhausting, but this was the new normal voters must adapt to — regardless of who occupies the White House.
The joke among progressives and leftists online has long been that as soon as Biden clinched the presidency, many voters and politicians — derided as “Brunch Democrats” — would dust off their hands and indulge in overpriced mimosas, as if the political order were magically restored overnight.
“Obama wants us to go back to brunch after Trump is out. That would be a disaster,” read one headline from Jacobin, the socialist magazine. “Nobody on the left is going back to brunch. Not for a long time,” wrote New York magazine’s Sarah Jones.
It’s no longer enough, nor is it even in vogue, the joke implicitly argues, to solely resist President Trump; one must resist the political mechanisms that made his presidency possible.
As a uniquely American, often expensive, and typically alcohol-soaked meal, brunch has become a stand-in for complacency and centrist indifference, for the insular mindset of Trump-era liberal activism.
Now that Biden has been elected, the idea of “going back to brunch” highlights a widening political chasm within the Democratic Party, as centrists and leftists clash over ideology and messaging, or the lack thereof. For those whose livelihoods are not tied to policy decisions, it’s possible that activism doesn’t feel as urgent in a post-Trump world, and that parts of the status quo work just fine.
Centrist “brunch” Democrats are invoking Obama-era politics of unity and compromise, believing this rosy vision will appeal to moderate voters. Meanwhile, progressives are arguing that voters and activists should push Biden and congressional Democrats toward the left, and not back away from policies like Medicare-for-all and the Green New Deal to appease a subset of swing voters.
The Trump presidency has facilitated brunch’s metamorphosis into a political and cultural touchstone. It’s not just a leisurely weekend activity but a shorthand for the political choices Democrats are forced to make under a Biden administration. Will they choose the known comforts of brunch (made available to a few), or will there be the potential for greater structural change?
The merits of brunch as a meal have long been debated, existing probably since the portmanteau was coined in 1895 by writer Guy Beringer, who advocated for a leisurely weekend occasion to incentivize sleeping in on Sundays and skipping church. In 2014, one writer angrily proclaimed in the New York Times that “brunch is for jerks,” while another retorted in New York magazine that “brunch has done nothing wrong” and that “it’s time to shut up” about a universally contentious meal. But what was traditionally missing from these arguments was the politics of brunch, not the validity of its existence.
During the Trump era, the politics of people who frequent brunch joints — typified through white gentrifiers and young professionals capable of splurging on a $20 cocktail and eggs Benedict — came under heavy scrutiny. Progressives’ distaste for the brunch crowd, specifically Brunch Democrats, can be summed up in one outdated slogan, originating from a Women’s March of yore: “If Hillary was president, we’d all be at brunch.”
Charged as tone-deaf, the slogan is a succinct display of privilege (it was usually espoused by a white woman), suggesting that political engagement and activism is reactive, and thus only necessary under certain conditions. Who is this “we” the slogan refers to? Not all Americans can afford to be at brunch — certainly not those without disposable income and weekends off.
Calla Walsh, a 16-year-old server and activist in Cambridge, Massachusetts, saw this trope play out in real life. On November 7, shortly after the Associated Press and NBC News called the race for Biden, Walsh received a text from her manager to come into work since the restaurant was receiving a record number of brunch reservations.
“It was almost poetic that this was happening, that dozens and dozens of people were coming to brunch with their Biden pin on,” Walsh told me.
Walsh, a high school junior, formerly worked on the Ed Markey campaign as a digital fellow, and despite not yet being of voting age has developed staunch progressive politics. Brunch is a fun and fine occasion to spend time with others, she said, but the idea of “going back to brunch” is damaging for the country’s future. “If we don’t address the problems that got Trump elected in the first place, we might be facing someone a thousand times worse in 2024,” Walsh said. “especially if part of the population just chooses to go to brunch and disengage.”
HAHAH MY BOSS JUST ASKED ME TO COME IN EARLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A RECORD NUMBER OF BRUNCH RESERVATIONS IM IN PAIN — Calla (@CallaWalsh) November 7, 2020
Walsh worried that most Americans would be content with what she characterized as Biden’s surface-level liberal values and respectability politics, and not thoroughly scrutinize the policies he could enforce that might hurt vulnerable people. “People will still be suffering under a Biden or a Trump administration,” she concluded.
In the early days of the Trump administration, when voters were simultaneously disturbed and galvanized by his presidency, the #Resistance began to mobilize. One of its slogans — also the title of a Pod Save America episode — was “protest is the new brunch.” The phrase, which was plastered on social media and protest signs, appeared to cater expressly to a white middle-class mindset, suggesting it was now hip to care, to make signs, and to go out and protest Trump.
Political engagement is crucial to our democracy, and there was great strength in the mass mobilization response to Trump’s policies. Yet there’s troubling subtext in “protest is the new brunch.” Painting activism as a hobby in dire times, rather than a persistent and necessary duty, is superficial, if not downright classist.
The conflation of brunch as a political symbol and meal is why Ken Albala, a professor of history at the University of the Pacific, believes brunch is in its dying days. “It’s gone out of fashion, as it was seen as aspirant upper- to middle-class and very white,” he told me. “The reason people dislike brunch is the same reason why we find Karens annoying. It represents something very superficial and very politically unengaged.”
A brunch diner usually wants to appear liberally minded, Albala added, but given their class status, they aren’t necessarily committed to social change. “They enjoy that privilege, the life and the suburbs, and that leisurely lifestyle,” he said. (This tension similarly exists in a patron’s decision to dine out during the pandemic, which some see as a selfish choice, not a necessity.)
Admittedly, brunch is not solely enjoyed by America’s white coastal gentry: Queer folks have brunch traditions to bond with friends and chosen family. People of all ages and ethnicities (I’m among them) indulge in boozy brunch as a social, even professional activity. It’s common for restaurants, predominantly on the West or East Coasts, to offer brunch specials and capitalize on how the meal has become an informal event.
“Brunch is almost always out. You can’t have it at home,” Albala told me. “It’s the going-out part and being seen, the eating of fancy foods you wouldn’t ordinarily indulge in, and I think people like how brunch allows you to transgress and drink in the morning.”
The performance of brunch no longer seems acceptable or appropriate in a hyper-political world, when protest is the moral alternative. Why choose to be seen at brunch when you can be seen demonstrating solidarity at a rally? Of course, reality is much more nuanced: You can hold progressive values and enjoy brunch every so often. It’s a meal, not an all-encompassing expression of one’s politics.
The performance of brunch no longer seems acceptable or appropriate in a hyper-political world, when protest is the moral alternative
But social media makes it easy to demonize brunch by flattening photos and narratives into a choice. You can choose brunch or protest, not both. In late May, Cincinnati photojournalist Nick Swartsell captured a scene that highlighted the dichotomy of these two choices: A group of eight young white people are dining outdoors, while behind them, a group of Black Lives Matter protesters walk by, fists raised. Comedian Ziwe Fumudoh tweeted out the photo, which went viral, writing: “there are two americas: one fights for black lives and the other fights for brunch.”
there are two americas: one fights for black lives and the other fights for brunch pic.twitter.com/TFNsKghfmR — ziwe (@ziwe) May 31, 2020
Hundreds of thousands of people retweeted or favorited her tweet, agreeing that it was “shameful” and “out of touch” for people to be brunching during a mass protest movement. “The distinction could not be more clear,” one user responded. As recently as 2015, though, Black Lives Matter protesters were criticized for walking inside predominantly white brunch joints to briefly call attention to police brutality. “The fact that people are negatively responding to the #BlackBrunch and not the illness of racism and the myth of American progress, disturbs me more than anything,” one organizer told the Washington Post.
In a Twitter thread, Swartsell said the photo was not his best work, as it did not capture the nuance of the scene. “Lots of people are assuming what the folks dining are thinking. What their politics are. What they did moments before and after the photo was taken. Stop. Focus on real issues. There are many, many at hand,” he wrote.
Yes, brunch isn’t one of those “real issues”; it’s only a few hours on a weekend. The death of brunch would not, in and of itself, solve any systemic issues, and as with many debates about class aesthetics, the risk is seeing a change in performance with little political value. What matters are the actions Americans choose to take beyond the meal. But perhaps it’s still too late for brunch’s redemption, said Albala, the food historian. Just like how America has changed from the Trump era, Albaba thinks the coronavirus and shifting social attitudes will affect the lure of brunch. “I’d be willing to bet brunch is never going to come back, at least not in the same way.”


vox--2020-11-18--The case for a Native American secretary of the interior

President-elect Joe Biden already made history by selecting Kamala Harris , the first Black and South Asian American woman to be elected vice president of the United States .
He is also building a transition team that ’ s shaping up to be majority women and people of color .
Now , tribal leaders and environmental activists are urging Biden to break barriers further by appointing the first Indigenous person to serve in a presidential Cabinet position .
A key role they have their eyes on is the secretary of the interior .
Last week , more than 120 elected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to Biden , asking the president-elect to select Rep. Deb Haaland , a Laguna Pueblo member in New Mexico , to serve in the Cabinet as interior secretary .
The Department of the Interior , organizers pointed out , would be best filled by an Indigenous member , considering it addresses most matters related to tribal land and Indigenous affairs , including education .
Haaland told Vox and other media outlets she would gladly accept the offer if Biden decides to appoint her .
“ There ’ s no doubt it would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It would be symbolic , and it would be profound , especially when we think about how the federal government essentially threw out their federal Indian policies throughout the centuries and tried to exterminate Native Americans across the country.
” The Department of the Interior oversees 500 million acres of surface land — one-fifth of the land in the United States — as well as 1.7 billion acres off the nation ’ s shores .
The agency also manages the Bureau of Indian Education , which has been left underfunded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affairs , which oversees roughly 55 million acres of tribal land held in trust by the federal government for Native Americans .
The department , in addition , manages the country ’ s natural resources , a critical role that the Trump administration has undermined .
In fact , the Trump administration is currently rushing to secure oil drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — which would impact Alaska ’ s native tribes who have spiritual ties to the animals that roam the refuge — before Biden can stop it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , currently headed by former oil lobbyist David Bernhardt , expects a lease sale by January , around the time of Biden ’ s inauguration .
Unlike previous secretaries who tend to adhere to the needs of Big Oil , Haaland would apply her lived experience as an Indigenous person to the role of protecting public and tribal lands , according to Nick Tilsen , a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation in South Dakota and CEO of NDN Collective , an organization dedicated to building Indigenous power .
“ Corporations have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generations , which is why they have so much power , ” he said .
“ So someone like Deb Haaland would be the right person to stand up to these corporations and make sure that the Department of the Interior stands up for the Indigenous people , the environment , and lands.
” A Native American interior secretary would have “ a fundamental respect for public lands ” Aside from overseeing all public lands , the Department of the Interior is responsible for honoring the federal government ’ s commitments to tribal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do so over the years .
Several tribal nations have recently sued the Trump administration for numerous violations of the law in the permitting process of building the Keystone XL pipeline that would cross Indigenous lands in South Dakota , Oklahoma , and a few other states .
Trump decided to push forward with the development , which is still being legally challenged .
This type of land exploitation and negligence isn ’ t new .
Indigenous groups have been attacked and forcibly removed by the federal government for centuries — from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890 — and until 1948 were even denied the right to vote .
The long history of abuse and erasure has sparked ongoing movements from Indigenous communities , some of which have garnered more attention in recent years , like the Standing Rock protests .
This election , Indigenous voters came out in droves — many , activists say , to take a stand against the Trump administration , which not only proposed to slash funding for tribal education but neglected Indigenous groups during the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ key in helping Biden and Harris win battleground states such as Arizona and Wisconsin .
“ We ’ re heading to a time in this country where reparations are real , ” Tilsen said .
“ What reparations look like for Indigenous people is having Indian lands back to Indian hands , and that ’ s starting with public lands .
When we say land back , it means fundamentally undoing the things that have been done to Indian people , so appointing an Indigenous person as interior secretary is a really huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country ’ s relationship right with Indigenous people.
” Having a Native American as secretary of the interior could also affect climate and environmental policies .
Elizabeth Kronk Warner , dean and professor at the University of Utah ’ s law school and a citizen of the Sault Ste .
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Michigan , said that having someone who ’ s familiar with Indian country working in Biden ’ s Cabinet would be a win-win since Indigenous people have access to “ a wealth of renewable energy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in .
Throughout his campaign , Biden called for a just transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy — which includes solar panels and wind turbines that would be less polluting than oil and gas — in concert with the growing demand for climate action .
Appointing a Cabinet member , Kronk Warner added , who has knowledge of where tribes are located , what their capacity is , and the challenges in terms of developing renewable resources is something that could be helpful with the Biden-Harris administration ’ s vision of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy .
“ The Department of the Interior plays an important role in outreach to Indian country , so having somebody who is Indigenous and has experience with Indian country and tribes would be very helpful in terms of that outreach and ensuring that the federal government trust duties to tribes and individual Indians are met , ” she said .
“ If an Indigenous person takes up that role , you ’ re going to have a fundamental respect for public lands.
” Indigenous leaders call for Rep. Deb Haaland to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been floated as a potential appointee for interior secretary .
But she said while she would be happy to take the job , she is in no rush to hear Biden announce his pick .
“ As soon as it was clear that Biden would be our president-elect , I was really happy — especially that he wasn ’ t even in for 24 hours before he got his pandemic task force together , ” Haaland told Vox .
“ The pandemic is his priority and it needs to be that way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he feels like it ’ s under control that we move on to the next change.
” In 2018 , Haaland made history as one of the first two Native American women elected to Congress , along with Rep. Sharice Davids , a citizen of the Ho-Chunk Nation in Kansas .
Haaland is also the vice chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the chair of the subcommittee on national parks , forests , and public lands , and sits on the subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on listening to testimonies from community members , many of whom she said have expressed concerns regarding the Trump administration ’ s moves to destroy sacred sites , the environment , and public lands .
“ It ’ s disheartening .
I ’ ve been on the front lines , really , ” Haaland said .
“ This administration has essentially destroyed and gutted the department and policies .
President-elect Biden ’ s commitment to fighting climate change and protecting our environment is the most progressive we ’ ve ever seen , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an Indigenous person as secretary of the interior also aligns with the Biden-Harris plan for tribal nations , a comprehensive outline released in October of their priorities in strengthening tribal nations and addressing key issues such as health care disparities faced by Indigenous communities during the pandemic .
And since no Native American has served in any Cabinet position ever in US history , tribal leaders say the move will be monumental .
“ As we think about repairing this country ’ s relationship with Indigenous people , [ Haaland ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interior has traditionally been about exploiting Indigenous people and our lands , ” Tilsen said .
“ But it ’ s important that she embraces those of us who are in this movement and use us to build power and shift policies.
” No matter what happens , Haaland said , she just wants whoever leads the Department of the Interior to ensure that the federal government is meeting the needs of Native Americans .
“ I trust President-elect Biden will bring tribal leaders to have a seat at the table , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really half the battle : We have to get back to a place where tribes do have a voice .
”

President-elect Joe Biden already made history by selecting Kamala Harris, the first Black and South Asian American woman to be elected vice president of the United States. He is also building a transition team that’s shaping up to be majority women and people of color. Now, tribal leaders, environmental activists, and more than 50 House Democrats are urging Biden to break barriers further by appointing the first Indigenous person to serve as Cabinet secretary.
A key role they have their eyes on is the secretary of the interior. Last week, more than 120 elected tribal leaders and organization officials sent a letter to Biden, asking the president-elect to select Rep. Deb Haaland, a Laguna Pueblo member in New Mexico, to serve in the Cabinet as interior secretary. House Democrats followed suit and also sent a letter to the president-elect. The Department of the Interior, organizers pointed out, would be best filled by an Indigenous member, considering it addresses most matters related to tribal land and Indigenous affairs, including education. Haaland — who is already being vetted by Biden’s team — told Vox and other media outlets she would gladly accept the offer if Biden decides to appoint her.
“There’s no doubt it would be historic,” Haaland told Vox. “It would be symbolic, and it would be profound, especially when we think about how the federal government essentially threw out their federal Indian policies throughout the centuries and tried to exterminate Native Americans across the country.”
The Department of the Interior oversees 500 million acres of surface land — one-fifth of the land in the United States — as well as 1.7 billion acres off the nation’s shores. The agency also manages the Bureau of Indian Education, which has been left underfunded, as well as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which oversees roughly 55 million acres of tribal land held in trust by the federal government for Native Americans.
The department, in addition, manages the country’s natural resources, a critical role that the Trump administration has undermined. In fact, the Trump administration is currently rushing to secure oil drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — which would impact Alaska’s native tribes who have spiritual ties to the animals that roam the refuge — before Biden can stop it. Trump’s Department of the Interior, currently headed by former oil lobbyist David Bernhardt, expects a lease sale by January, around the time of Biden’s inauguration.
Unlike previous secretaries who tend to adhere to the needs of Big Oil, Haaland would apply her lived experience as an Indigenous person to the role of protecting public and tribal lands, according to Nick Tilsen, a citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation in South Dakota and CEO of NDN Collective, an organization dedicated to building Indigenous power.
“Corporations have a stranglehold of influencing the Interior Department for generations, which is why they have so much power,” he said. “So someone like Deb Haaland would be the right person to stand up to these corporations and make sure that the Department of the Interior stands up for the Indigenous people, the environment, and lands.”
A Native American interior secretary would have “a fundamental respect for public lands”
Aside from overseeing all public lands, the Department of the Interior is responsible for honoring the federal government’s commitments to tribal nations — yet it has repeatedly failed to do so over the years. Several tribal nations have recently sued the Trump administration for numerous violations of the law in the permitting process of building the Keystone XL pipeline that would cross Indigenous lands in South Dakota, Oklahoma, and a few other states. Trump decided to push forward with the development, which is still being legally challenged.
This type of land exploitation and negligence isn’t new. Indigenous groups have been attacked and forcibly removed by the federal government for centuries — from the Indian Removal Act of 1830 to the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890 — and until 1948 were even denied the right to vote. The long history of abuse and erasure has sparked ongoing movements from Indigenous communities, some of which have garnered more attention in recent years, like the Standing Rock protests.
This election, Indigenous voters came out in droves — many, activists say, to take a stand against the Trump administration, which not only proposed to slash funding for tribal education but neglected Indigenous groups during the pandemic. In the end, Indigenous turnout was key in helping Biden and Harris win battleground states such as Arizona and Wisconsin.
“We’re heading to a time in this country where reparations are real,” Tilsen said. “What reparations look like for Indigenous people is having Indian lands back to Indian hands, and that’s starting with public lands. When we say land back, it means fundamentally undoing the things that have been done to Indian people, so appointing an Indigenous person as interior secretary is a really huge step in the right direction of getting the country’s relationship right with Indigenous people.”
Having a Native American as secretary of the interior could also affect climate and environmental policies. Elizabeth Kronk Warner, dean and professor at the University of Utah’s law school and a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians in Michigan, said that having someone who’s familiar with Indian country working in Biden’s Cabinet would be a win-win since Indigenous people have access to “a wealth of renewable energy,” which the president-elect has expressed interest in. Throughout his campaign, Biden called for a just transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy — which includes solar panels and wind turbines that would be less polluting than oil and gas — in concert with the growing demand for climate action.
Appointing a Cabinet member, Kronk Warner added, who has knowledge of where tribes are located, what their capacity is, and the challenges in terms of developing renewable resources is something that could be helpful with the Biden-Harris administration’s vision of equity and a just transition to renewable energy.
“The Department of the Interior plays an important role in outreach to Indian country, so having somebody who is Indigenous and has experience with Indian country and tribes would be very helpful in terms of that outreach and ensuring that the federal government trust duties to tribes and individual Indians are met,” she said. “If an Indigenous person takes up that role, you’re going to have a fundamental respect for public lands.”
Indigenous leaders call for Rep. Deb Haaland to be appointed
Rep. Haaland knows that her name has been floated as a potential appointee for interior secretary. But she said while she would be happy to take the job, she is in no rush to hear Biden announce his pick.
“As soon as it was clear that Biden would be our president-elect, I was really happy — especially that he wasn’t even in for 24 hours before he got his pandemic task force together,” Haaland told Vox. “The pandemic is his priority and it needs to be that way. It will just depend on when he feels like it’s under control that we move on to the next change.”
In 2018, Haaland made history as one of the first two Native American women elected to Congress, along with Rep. Sharice Davids, a citizen of the Ho-Chunk Nation in Kansas. Haaland is also the vice chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources and the chair of the subcommittee on national parks, forests, and public lands, and sits on the subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States. A bulk of her job is centered on listening to testimonies from community members, many of whom she said have expressed concerns regarding the Trump administration’s moves to destroy sacred sites, the environment, and public lands.
“It’s disheartening. I’ve been on the front lines, really,” Haaland said. “This administration has essentially destroyed and gutted the department and policies. President-elect Biden’s commitment to fighting climate change and protecting our environment is the most progressive we’ve ever seen, and it will fix that.”
The appointment of an Indigenous person as secretary of the interior also aligns with the Biden-Harris plan for tribal nations, a comprehensive outline released in October of their priorities in strengthening tribal nations and addressing key issues such as health care disparities faced by Indigenous communities during the pandemic. And since no Native American has served in any Cabinet secretary position ever in US history, tribal leaders say the move will be monumental.
“As we think about repairing this country’s relationship with Indigenous people, [Haaland’s nomination would] be historic because the interior has traditionally been about exploiting Indigenous people and our lands,” Tilsen said. “But it’s important that she embraces those of us who are in this movement and use us to build power and shift policies.”
No matter what happens, Haaland said, she just wants whoever leads the Department of the Interior to ensure that the federal government is meeting the needs of Native Americans.
“I trust President-elect Biden will bring tribal leaders to have a seat at the table,” she said. “That’s really half the battle: We have to get back to a place where tribes do have a voice.”