vox--2020-10-01--Netflix’s American Murder is mesmerizing even if you’re already familiar with the Watts murders

In many ways , the 2018 murders of suburban Colorado housewife Shanann Watts , her two small daughters Bella and Celeste , and her unborn son Nico seem too much like a standard true-crime trope to have become the national media sensation that they did — let alone the subject of Netflix ’ s gripping new documentary , American Murder : The Family Next Door .
After all , there ’ s very little mystery about who did the crime , why , or what happened .
The case was solved in just a few days .
And the murderer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would expect : Shanann ’ s husband , Chris Watts .
But the elements that make the Watts case unique are also the elements that make the film mesmerizing , even if you ’ re already familiar with the case .
And trust me : Between the mountain of video footage , the massive 2,000-page case file , and the huge amount of media coverage , it ’ s possible to be extremely familiar with the Watts case — especially if you ’ re a true-crime junkie like me .
But despite knowing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s film was going to hit ( and several more it sidestepped ) , I still found myself riveted by the retelling of a tale that ’ s by now sadly unsurprising .
That ’ s the hallmark of a good true-crime doc — and it ’ s all the more notable because Popplewell ’ s story hinges entirely around careful editing .
American Murder consists solely of archival footage ; there ’ s no narration , no new interviews , no solemn voiceovers .
Instead , a family tragedy unfolds through glimpses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hopes , all caught on camera or captured via texts and DMs .
And the full story behind this tragedy is a tale as old as time , updated with a chilling modern twist .
The Watts were the quintessential American family — until they weren ’ t What American Murder makes clear from the start is how , in countless ways , the Watts family was the prototypical white , suburban , 21st-century American family .
Chris , then 33 , had met 35-year-old Shanann ( pronounced “ Sha-NAN ” ) through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dating and married in 2012 , with Shanann quickly settling into what seemed to be her dream roles of wife and mother .
Though the Watts family had financial struggles , they also had a five-bedroom house in a small Colorado town near Denver , and two playful daughters , 4-year-old Bella and 3-year-old Celeste , a.k.a .
Cece .
Shanann threw herself into balancing being a doting wife , attentive mother , and hard worker — she was a high earner for a multi-level marketing company selling Thrive diet products .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social group with whom she frequently checked in .
Chris , who worked for a petroleum company , had recently gotten fit , just in time for baby No .
3 .
It all seemed nearly idyllic .
We know how much Shanann loved her life because she was constantly telling us so .
Facebook , the thing that brought her and Chris together , was also the backdrop of Shanann ’ s daily life .
She posted everything from daily videos of her kids to livestreams where she shared her thoughts on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for his love and support .
She had her camera always at the ready , and her Facebook and Instagram accounts essentially became her online diaries .
These “ diaries ” recorded events large and small , including some that now seem macabre .
The most notorious of these moments is probably Shanann ’ s surprise announcement to Chris that they were having another baby , which she caught on video and shared to her social media .
Later released by police , the video captures Chris with a stricken , near-panicked look @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of forced enthusiasm .
In retrospect , this moment may have been the beginning of the end .
Chris and Shanann ’ s relationship had spiraled .
Then she disappeared .
Chris began drastically distancing himself from Shanann not long after she told him about her pregnancy .
A baffled Shanann told friends repeatedly that he ’ d never behaved like this before .
Partly as a cooling-off period , Shanann took the girls to visit their grandparents in North Carolina over the summer of 2018 .
Throughout the five-week visit , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ check in , and wondered if his silence was due to her fighting with his parents .
( In fact , Chris had been having an affair . )
Right after Shanann returned home from North Carolina that August , she took a long weekend trip with friends to a work conference .
The morning after she came back , she had a doctor ’ s visit scheduled .
If you read through the court documents in this case , you ’ ll find witness after witness telling police what a great dad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was always making time for his wife and daughters .
“ My daddy is my hero , ” Bella sings on camera at one point .
( The documentary makes a point of noting that it ’ s not clear if Chris ever watched that particular video . )
By contrast , Shanann — who was the primary caretaker of the kids , despite also battling Lupus and constantly hustling for her MLM job — was repeatedly described as bossy and controlling , even by good friends .
It ’ s in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we see what a lie that narrative is .
While Shanann got framed as demanding and frigid even by her own friends for things like controlling her kids ’ diets , Chris received praise for doing the bare minimum it took to be perceived as a good father : taking his kids to the park , keeping their photos in his wallet , telling people that he loved them .
But the reality is that on August 13 , 2018 , the morning Shanann Watts disappeared , Chris Watts was such a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t even remembered his wife had a doctor ’ s appointment .
Thus , he wasn ’ t expecting her friend Nickole Atkinson to show up at his house , alarmed when Shanann hadn ’ t gone to her appointment , and call the cops when she couldn ’ t locate her friend .
Police bodycam footage , later broadcast all over tabloid media and around the internet , captured a fidgety , nervous Chris awkwardly walking police through his empty house , then fumbling and stuttering when his neighbor showed them security @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caught Chris mysteriously loading something into his truck earlier that morning , then heading off to a job site .
There , buried next to two deserted oil rigs , authorities would later find the strangled body of Shanann Watts .
And there , authorities would find the smothered remains of Bella and Cece Watts , their bodies crudely jammed into a small hatch at the top of the rig .
Following Shanann ’ s disappearance , Chris Watts alternately played clueless for the media , dodged police questions , and briefly claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ultimately , however , he confessed to all three deaths and was given five life sentences in what Weld County judge called “ perhaps the most inhumane and vicious crime that I have handled out of the thousands of cases.
” You probably know the basic contours of the Watts family ’ s story : A man fatigued by his nagging wife and his responsibilities as a parent steps outside of the marriage , has an affair , struggles to support his family financially , and decides he ’ d had enough of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a path we ’ ve seen numerous family annihilators like Chris Watts take , from Scott Peterson to Josh Powell .
What makes the Watts case so simultaneously mesmerizing and heartbreaking is that Shanann , even as she ’ s in the middle of that story , doesn ’ t know that ’ s the story she ’ s in .
How can she ?
Even as she ’ s panicking to her friends that Chris no longer loves her , she ’ s making plans on social media for their baby ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s recording videos about how much she loves her husband and her family .
Her marriage may be rocky , but in Shannan ’ s mind , her story is clearly still that of a loving family that is stronger together .
The life she portrays on her social media accounts is clearly the one she believed in .
What isn ’ t clear is how much of that story was ever real at all .
The irony of these competing narratives , combined with their ultimate horrifying conclusion , practically guaranteed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tabloid covers for months .
Unlike many cases where facts are in short supply , the Watts case produced a deluge of information — both before the murders , thanks to Shanann ’ s detailed video logs of their lives , and during the investigation , which produced hundreds of witness statements and countless media reports .
The Watts case was both a content gold mine and a chilling example of social media operating simultaneously as a journal , an evidence vault , and a memorial .
It ’ s perhaps reductive to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persona was a lie , or that her bubbly image masked the truth about her life — but in fact , despite her many videos , the clues to her fate weren ’ t nearly as obvious from her many social media posts as you might expect them to be .
Here is where American Murder has an advantage over what the average person might have learned from spending hours following an internet rabbit hole of media information and footage connected to the case .
American Murder ’ s editor , Simon Barker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content and two competing narratives of a marriage and constructs a wholly unique telling of the case .
The documentary stands alone as a portrait of gradually escalating family dysfunction , and a woman unable to understand that her husband had , with the barest of pretexts , fully given rein to his own narcissism .
American Murder unfolds at a methodical pace , weaving gradually back and forth across the timeline , interspersing Chris ’ s erratic behavior after Shanann ’ s disappearance with clips and texts from before the murder .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ footage and information to the filmmakers that the public hasn ’ t seen , like footage from their wedding .
It ’ s all set to a stirring score by composer Nainita Desai , and remarkably never drags , even through long sequences of footage that ’ s already been widely available — such as Chris ’ s excruciating police interviews .
Perhaps because American Murder plays out entirely through archival footage and transcribed texts , there are some juicy details of the case that the documentary doesn ’ t include — like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris ’ s mistress searched the internet to learn whether Scott Peterson ’ s mistress ever got a book deal .
There ’ s a much more salacious , tabloid-ready narrative around this case that largely did play out through tabloid media , where gawkers hotly debated whether Shanann was “ a bitch , ” as one clip in the documentary argues , while playing up Chris ’ s bodily transformation from dud to stud .
The documentary ’ s strongest moments lie in its steady countering of this type of petty victim-blaming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we so clearly get to see and hear the voice of the victim after the fact , but throughout American Murder , the power of Shanann ’ s own voice is overwhelming .
It ’ s loud , strong , and utterly blameless .
On camera , we never hear Shanann raise her voice to her kids or her husband .
Instead , we see and hear her say , over and over again , how much she loves and misses her husband , how sorry she is for angering him , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and how much she loves her children .
American Murder centers itself around Shanann as fully as any true-crime documentary has ever centered itself on a victim .
It ’ s impossible to come away from it feeling that Shanann was anything but a strong woman trying to navigate marriage with a husband who lied to her , cheated on her , guilt-tripped her , ignored her , and ultimately tried to blame her for her own murder .
Once Shanann and the children are dead , Chris is immediately out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clue how to cover his tracks .
If anything , you ’ re left with the impression that without Shanann ’ s “ controlling ” nature steering and guiding her family , Chris ’ s narcissistic personality traits probably would have surfaced even earlier .
Crucially , the documentary doesn ’ t concern itself with digging deeper into Chris Watts ’ s persona , with mythologizing him or probing for underlying motives in his behavior .
Nor does it waste its time , for example , on showing you any of the legion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some of which were also included in the publicly released case file .
Instead , American Murder does the opposite , breaking with a number of recent true-crime documentaries that have been fascinated with their killers .
Popplewell frames Chris as neither compelling nor intriguing in the slightest ; instead , he is entirely mundane .
The Watts case may have been one of the most well-publicized crimes of the last decade , but the documentary never loses sight of the fact that once you take away the social media elements , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s nothing special about Chris Watts .
This is a typical American family with all-too-typical emotional abuse , ending in all-too-typical domestic violence .
The documentary ’ s subtitle , The Family Next Door , plays into the true-crime cliché that it could happen anywhere — even here !
But American Murder reminds us that this story isn ’ t isolated , nor is it random : The factors that drove Chris Watts to kill his family are as common as the American dream itself — and “ here ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ streaming on Netflix .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In many ways, the 2018 murders of suburban Colorado housewife Shanann Watts, her two small daughters Bella and Celeste, and her unborn son Nico seem too much like a standard true-crime trope to have become the national media sensation that they did — let alone the subject of Netflix’s gripping new documentary, American Murder: The Family Next Door.
After all, there’s very little mystery about who did the crime, why, or what happened. The case was solved in just a few days. And the murderer is exactly who any seasoned true-crime fanatic would expect: Shanann’s husband, Chris Watts.
But the elements that make the Watts case unique are also the elements that make the film mesmerizing, even if you’re already familiar with the case. And trust me: Between the mountain of video footage, the massive 2,000-page case file, and the huge amount of media coverage, it’s possible to be extremely familiar with the Watts case — especially if you’re a true-crime junkie like me. But despite knowing every beat that director Jenny Popplewell’s film was going to hit (and several more it sidestepped), I still found myself riveted by the retelling of a tale that’s by now sadly unsurprising.
That’s the hallmark of a good true-crime doc — and it’s all the more notable because Popplewell’s story hinges entirely around careful editing. American Murder consists solely of archival footage; there’s no narration, no new interviews, no solemn voiceovers. Instead, a family tragedy unfolds through glimpses of people, secrets, and dashed hopes, all caught on camera or captured via texts and DMs. And the full story behind this tragedy is a tale as old as time, updated with a chilling modern twist.
The Watts were the quintessential American family — until they weren’t
What American Murder makes clear from the start is how, in countless ways, the Watts family was the prototypical white, suburban, 21st-century American family. Chris, then 33, had met 35-year-old Shanann (pronounced “Sha-NAN”) through Facebook in 2010. The pair began dating and married in 2012, with Shanann quickly settling into what seemed to be her dream roles of wife and mother. Though the Watts family had financial struggles, they also had a five-bedroom house in a small Colorado town near Denver, and two playful daughters, 4-year-old Bella and 3-year-old Celeste, a.k.a. Cece.
Shanann threw herself into balancing being a doting wife, attentive mother, and hard worker — she was a high earner for a multi-level marketing company selling Thrive diet products. And Shannan also had a large and active social group with whom she frequently checked in. Chris, who worked for a petroleum company, had recently gotten fit, just in time for baby No. 3. It all seemed nearly idyllic.
We know how much Shanann loved her life because she was constantly telling us so. Facebook, the thing that brought her and Chris together, was also the backdrop of Shanann’s daily life. She posted everything from daily videos of her kids to livestreams where she shared her thoughts on her husband and how grateful she was for his love and support. She had her camera always at the ready, and her Facebook and Instagram accounts essentially became her online diaries.
These “diaries” recorded events large and small, including some that now seem macabre. The most notorious of these moments is probably Shanann’s surprise announcement to Chris that they were having another baby, which she caught on video and shared to her social media. Later released by police, the video captures Chris with a stricken, near-panicked look followed by what seems to be a lot of forced enthusiasm.
In retrospect, this moment may have been the beginning of the end.
Chris and Shanann’s relationship had spiraled. Then she disappeared.
Chris began drastically distancing himself from Shanann not long after she told him about her pregnancy. A baffled Shanann told friends repeatedly that he’d never behaved like this before. Partly as a cooling-off period, Shanann took the girls to visit their grandparents in North Carolina over the summer of 2018. Throughout the five-week visit, she noted that Chris rarely called to check in, and wondered if his silence was due to her fighting with his parents. (In fact, Chris had been having an affair.)
Right after Shanann returned home from North Carolina that August, she took a long weekend trip with friends to a work conference. The morning after she came back, she had a doctor’s visit scheduled.
If you read through the court documents in this case, you’ll find witness after witness telling police what a great dad they thought Chris Watts was — how he was always making time for his wife and daughters. “My daddy is my hero,” Bella sings on camera at one point. (The documentary makes a point of noting that it’s not clear if Chris ever watched that particular video.) By contrast, Shanann — who was the primary caretaker of the kids, despite also battling Lupus and constantly hustling for her MLM job — was repeatedly described as bossy and controlling, even by good friends.
It’s in this moment, I think, that we see what a lie that narrative is. While Shanann got framed as demanding and frigid even by her own friends for things like controlling her kids’ diets, Chris received praise for doing the bare minimum it took to be perceived as a good father: taking his kids to the park, keeping their photos in his wallet, telling people that he loved them.
But the reality is that on August 13, 2018, the morning Shanann Watts disappeared, Chris Watts was such a “good” husband that he hadn’t even remembered his wife had a doctor’s appointment. Thus, he wasn’t expecting her friend Nickole Atkinson to show up at his house, alarmed when Shanann hadn’t gone to her appointment, and call the cops when she couldn’t locate her friend.
Police bodycam footage, later broadcast all over tabloid media and around the internet, captured a fidgety, nervous Chris awkwardly walking police through his empty house, then fumbling and stuttering when his neighbor showed them security footage. The neighbor’s camera caught Chris mysteriously loading something into his truck earlier that morning, then heading off to a job site. There, buried next to two deserted oil rigs, authorities would later find the strangled body of Shanann Watts. And there, authorities would find the smothered remains of Bella and Cece Watts, their bodies crudely jammed into a small hatch at the top of the rig.
Following Shanann’s disappearance, Chris Watts alternately played clueless for the media, dodged police questions, and briefly claimed Shanann had killed the kids herself. Ultimately, however, he confessed to all three deaths and was given five life sentences in what Weld County judge called “perhaps the most inhumane and vicious crime that I have handled out of the thousands of cases.”
American Murder is a scrupulously edited portrait of disintegration
You probably know the basic contours of the Watts family’s story: A man fatigued by his nagging wife and his responsibilities as a parent steps outside of the marriage, has an affair, struggles to support his family financially, and decides he’d had enough of his old life. It’s a path we’ve seen numerous family annihilators like Chris Watts take, from Scott Peterson to Josh Powell.
What makes the Watts case so simultaneously mesmerizing and heartbreaking is that Shanann, even as she’s in the middle of that story, doesn’t know that’s the story she’s in. How can she? Even as she’s panicking to her friends that Chris no longer loves her, she’s making plans on social media for their baby’s gender reveal party. She’s recording videos about how much she loves her husband and her family. Her marriage may be rocky, but in Shannan’s mind, her story is clearly still that of a loving family that is stronger together. The life she portrays on her social media accounts is clearly the one she believed in. What isn’t clear is how much of that story was ever real at all.
The irony of these competing narratives, combined with their ultimate horrifying conclusion, practically guaranteed that the Watts case made national headlines and tabloid covers for months. Unlike many cases where facts are in short supply, the Watts case produced a deluge of information — both before the murders, thanks to Shanann’s detailed video logs of their lives, and during the investigation, which produced hundreds of witness statements and countless media reports.
The Watts case was both a content gold mine and a chilling example of social media operating simultaneously as a journal, an evidence vault, and a memorial. It’s perhaps reductive to say that Shanann Watts’s online persona was a lie, or that her bubbly image masked the truth about her life — but in fact, despite her many videos, the clues to her fate weren’t nearly as obvious from her many social media posts as you might expect them to be.
Here is where American Murder has an advantage over what the average person might have learned from spending hours following an internet rabbit hole of media information and footage connected to the case. American Murder’s editor, Simon Barker, seamlessly takes all of that overwhelming content and two competing narratives of a marriage and constructs a wholly unique telling of the case. The documentary stands alone as a portrait of gradually escalating family dysfunction, and a woman unable to understand that her husband had, with the barest of pretexts, fully given rein to his own narcissism.
American Murder unfolds at a methodical pace, weaving gradually back and forth across the timeline, interspersing Chris’s erratic behavior after Shanann’s disappearance with clips and texts from before the murder. Shanann’s family also provided additional footage and information to the filmmakers that the public hasn’t seen, like footage from their wedding. It’s all set to a stirring score by composer Nainita Desai, and remarkably never drags, even through long sequences of footage that’s already been widely available — such as Chris’s excruciating police interviews.
Perhaps because American Murder plays out entirely through archival footage and transcribed texts, there are some juicy details of the case that the documentary doesn’t include — like, for example, the part where Chris’s mistress searched the internet to learn whether Scott Peterson’s mistress ever got a book deal. There’s a much more salacious, tabloid-ready narrative around this case that largely did play out through tabloid media, where gawkers hotly debated whether Shanann was “a bitch,” as one clip in the documentary argues, while playing up Chris’s bodily transformation from dud to stud.
The documentary’s strongest moments lie in its steady countering of this type of petty victim-blaming. It’s not often that we so clearly get to see and hear the voice of the victim after the fact, but throughout American Murder, the power of Shanann’s own voice is overwhelming. It’s loud, strong, and utterly blameless. On camera, we never hear Shanann raise her voice to her kids or her husband. Instead, we see and hear her say, over and over again, how much she loves and misses her husband, how sorry she is for angering him, how eager she is to win him back, and how much she loves her children.
American Murder centers itself around Shanann as fully as any true-crime documentary has ever centered itself on a victim. It’s impossible to come away from it feeling that Shanann was anything but a strong woman trying to navigate marriage with a husband who lied to her, cheated on her, guilt-tripped her, ignored her, and ultimately tried to blame her for her own murder. Once Shanann and the children are dead, Chris is immediately out of his depth and floundering, with no clue how to cover his tracks. If anything, you’re left with the impression that without Shanann’s “controlling” nature steering and guiding her family, Chris’s narcissistic personality traits probably would have surfaced even earlier.
Crucially, the documentary doesn’t concern itself with digging deeper into Chris Watts’s persona, with mythologizing him or probing for underlying motives in his behavior. Nor does it waste its time, for example, on showing you any of the legion of fan letters he received in prison, some of which were also included in the publicly released case file.
Instead, American Murder does the opposite, breaking with a number of recent true-crime documentaries that have been fascinated with their killers. Popplewell frames Chris as neither compelling nor intriguing in the slightest; instead, he is entirely mundane. The Watts case may have been one of the most well-publicized crimes of the last decade, but the documentary never loses sight of the fact that once you take away the social media elements, the hype, and the tabloid speculation, there’s nothing special about Chris Watts. This is a typical American family with all-too-typical emotional abuse, ending in all-too-typical domestic violence. The documentary’s subtitle, The Family Next Door, plays into the true-crime cliché that it could happen anywhere — even here!
But American Murder reminds us that this story isn’t isolated, nor is it random: The factors that drove Chris Watts to kill his family are as common as the American dream itself — and “here” is everywhere.
American Murder is now streaming on Netflix.


vox--2020-10-01--Did America’s top spy release Russian disinformation to help Trump?

It sure looks like the guy who ’ s in charge of the entire US intelligence community is selectively declassifying unverified intelligence to make Democrats look bad ahead of the 2020 presidential election .
Even worse : The intelligence , at least in the minds of some critics , may actually be Russian disinformation .
In a letter sent on Tuesday to Sen. Lindsey Graham , Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe — a former Republican congressman from Texas and a staunch ally of the president — declassified information relating to the FBI ’ s probe into possible collusion between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential campaign .
Here ’ s the core of the disclosure : Let ’ s be clear about what this says : America obtained information that Russian spies believed Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign fabricated ties between Trump and the Kremlin , but the US intelligence community couldn ’ t confirm whether that was true because Moscow may have just made it up .
In other words , Ratcliffe acknowledged he released material that would likely be harmful to Clinton and the Democrats — and helpful to Trump — without knowing its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recent news reports have revealed that Ratcliffe declassified the intelligence against the advice of nonpolitical , career US intelligence officials who feared his doing so “ would give credibility to Kremlin-backed material , ” according to the Wall Street Journal .
As DNI , Ratcliffe doesn ’ t have to listen to his subordinates , of course .
But the reporting further suggests that Ratcliffe , who fiercely defended Trump during the impeachment hearings as a then-member of Congress , prioritized Trump ’ s political interests over the interests of , well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public mere hours before Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden squared off in the first 2020 presidential debate .
And , intentionally or not , the disclosure had an immediate impact : During the debate , the president mentioned what Ratcliffe released .
“ You saw what happened today with Hillary Clinton , where it was a whole big con job , ” he said .
All of this is deeply troubling and threatens to politicize the intelligence community at a time when untainted , clear information is at a premium .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan reasons , and he has done so in an underhanded manner , ” said John Sipher , who ran the CIA ’ s Russia operations during a 28-year career in the agency ’ s National Clandestine Service .
In one fell swoop , then , Ratcliffe may have tainted the reputation America ’ s spy agencies try so hard to build .
“ The damage to US intelligence will be difficult to undo for years , ” said Alina Polyakova , president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence community as a whole are positive only when it ’ s seen as an apolitical entity offering unbiased , fact-based information to policymakers .
That information is typically presented only when America ’ s intelligence agencies have verified and placed it within a broader context to help government officials — from the president on down — make informed decisions .
Trump ’ s intelligence chief , who took the job after the impeachment hearings , broke that cardinal rule .
“ Ratcliffe ’ s actions are among the worst sins of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me .
“ They know that a single piece of information is meaningless without having the necessary context .
To release one piece of information without providing context is unprofessional and damages the reputation of our intelligence community.
” To understand why that ’ s the case , it ’ s apt to use the metaphor of a puzzle here .
It ’ s hard to see the full picture by looking at just one of thousands of puzzle pieces .
Once they ’ re mostly in place , the final image becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same , roughly speaking , goes for intelligence .
One piece is good , but more pieces are better .
And if spies can show a policymaker the entirety of the puzzle image , it ’ s easier for them to make informed decisions .
That ’ s why many experts were surprised by Ratcliffe ’ s decision .
It ’ s the job of intelligence officials to present as full a picture as possible to their intended customers , not just hand over a single piece and say , “ Here you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will.
” Let ’ s go a step further : What if that singular puzzle piece isn ’ t from the set at all ?
What if someone purposefully slipped in a piece that looks like it fits but doesn ’ t ?
Well , the earlier that piece can be discounted and discarded as not being part of the actual puzzle you ’ re trying to put together , the better .
That ’ s what Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee did .
The Clinton-related nugget Ratcliffe declassified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the panel ’ s five-part report on how Russia interfered in the 2016 election .
That ’ s not to say the committee was unaware of the tidbit or dismissed it entirely , but it clearly didn ’ t fit into the overall picture .
This is partly why the administration ’ s critics immediately seized on Ratcliffe ’ s decision .
“ It ’ s very disturbing to me that 35 days before an election , a director of national intelligence would release unverified ” information coming from Russia , Virginia Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Senate Intelligence Committee , told the New York Times .
After all , it ’ s entirely possible Russia wanted the US to “ find ” that puzzle piece to mislead American spies .
Russian hackers aimed to sow discord in the US during the 2016 election , and few things would ratchet up tensions more than having the government believe Clinton created an explosive conspiracy theory to beat Trump .
Ratcliffe defended his decision hours after releasing the letter , saying in a statement the intelligence he declassified “ is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as such by the intelligence community.
” He then provided a briefing on the sources behind the snippet just for Graham — and no Democrats — on Tuesday night , the Times reported .
Even if Ratcliffe is telling the truth about the intelligence , declassifying it obscured more than illuminated and clearly provided Trump and his allies a weapon ahead of the biggest event in the 2020 election season so far .
And he did so even as multiple US agencies say Russia is once again interfering to aid the president ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the work of an impartial intelligence chief .
That ’ s the work of a crony .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

It sure looks like the guy who’s in charge of the entire US intelligence community is selectively declassifying unverified intelligence to make Democrats look bad ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
Even worse: The intelligence, at least in the minds of some critics, may actually be Russian disinformation.
In a letter sent on Tuesday to Sen. Lindsey Graham, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe — a former Republican congressman from Texas and a staunch ally of the president — declassified information relating to the FBI’s probe into possible collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Here’s the core of the disclosure:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
Let’s be clear about what this says: America obtained information that Russian spies believed Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign fabricated ties between Trump and the Kremlin, but the US intelligence community couldn’t confirm whether that was true because Moscow may have just made it up.
In other words, Ratcliffe acknowledged he released material that would likely be harmful to Clinton and the Democrats — and helpful to Trump — without knowing its veracity.
But it gets worse: Recent news reports have revealed that Ratcliffe declassified the intelligence against the advice of nonpolitical, career US intelligence officials who feared his doing so “would give credibility to Kremlin-backed material,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
As DNI, Ratcliffe doesn’t have to listen to his subordinates, of course. But the reporting further suggests that Ratcliffe, who fiercely defended Trump during the impeachment hearings as a then-member of Congress, prioritized Trump’s political interests over the interests of, well, the entire country.
The letter went public mere hours before Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden squared off in the first 2020 presidential debate. And, intentionally or not, the disclosure had an immediate impact: During the debate, the president mentioned what Ratcliffe released. “You saw what happened today with Hillary Clinton, where it was a whole big con job,” he said.
All of this is deeply troubling and threatens to politicize the intelligence community at a time when untainted, clear information is at a premium. “He has declassified information for patently partisan reasons, and he has done so in an underhanded manner,” said John Sipher, who ran the CIA’s Russia operations during a 28-year career in the agency’s National Clandestine Service.
In one fell swoop, then, Ratcliffe may have tainted the reputation America’s spy agencies try so hard to build. “The damage to US intelligence will be difficult to undo for years,” said Alina Polyakova, president and CEO of the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington, DC.
“Among the worst sins of a professional intelligence officer”
Perceptions of the intelligence community as a whole are positive only when it’s seen as an apolitical entity offering unbiased, fact-based information to policymakers.
That information is typically presented only when America’s intelligence agencies have verified and placed it within a broader context to help government officials — from the president on down — make informed decisions.
Trump’s intelligence chief, who took the job after the impeachment hearings, broke that cardinal rule.
“Ratcliffe’s actions are among the worst sins of a professional intelligence officer,” Sipher told me. “They know that a single piece of information is meaningless without having the necessary context. To release one piece of information without providing context is unprofessional and damages the reputation of our intelligence community.”
To understand why that’s the case, it’s apt to use the metaphor of a puzzle here.
It’s hard to see the full picture by looking at just one of thousands of puzzle pieces. Once they’re mostly in place, the final image becomes clear and evident to all. The same, roughly speaking, goes for intelligence. One piece is good, but more pieces are better. And if spies can show a policymaker the entirety of the puzzle image, it’s easier for them to make informed decisions.
That’s why many experts were surprised by Ratcliffe’s decision. It’s the job of intelligence officials to present as full a picture as possible to their intended customers, not just hand over a single piece and say, “Here you go, make of it what you will.”
Let’s go a step further: What if that singular puzzle piece isn’t from the set at all? What if someone purposefully slipped in a piece that looks like it fits but doesn’t? Well, the earlier that piece can be discounted and discarded as not being part of the actual puzzle you’re trying to put together, the better.
That’s what Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee did. The Clinton-related nugget Ratcliffe declassified didn’t feature at all in the panel’s five-part report on how Russia interfered in the 2016 election. That’s not to say the committee was unaware of the tidbit or dismissed it entirely, but it clearly didn’t fit into the overall picture.
This is partly why the administration’s critics immediately seized on Ratcliffe’s decision.
“It’s very disturbing to me that 35 days before an election, a director of national intelligence would release unverified” information coming from Russia, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the New York Times.
After all, it’s entirely possible Russia wanted the US to “find” that puzzle piece to mislead American spies. Russian hackers aimed to sow discord in the US during the 2016 election, and few things would ratchet up tensions more than having the government believe Clinton created an explosive conspiracy theory to beat Trump.
Ratcliffe defended his decision hours after releasing the letter, saying in a statement the intelligence he declassified “is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the intelligence community.” He then provided a briefing on the sources behind the snippet just for Graham — and no Democrats — on Tuesday night, the Times reported.
Even if Ratcliffe is telling the truth about the intelligence, declassifying it obscured more than illuminated and clearly provided Trump and his allies a weapon ahead of the biggest event in the 2020 election season so far. And he did so even as multiple US agencies say Russia is once again interfering to aid the president’s reelection chances.
That’s not the work of an impartial intelligence chief. That’s the work of a crony.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-01--Democratic Party leaders are “banging their head against the wall” after private meetings with Faceb

Democratic Party leaders are “banging their head against the wall” after private meetings with Facebook on election misinformation

After months of working with Facebook to safeguard the 2020 election , several national Democratic Party leaders say the company has failed to meet promises to stem the tide of misinformation spreading on its platform .
If the election ’ s results are contested after November 3 — which is an acute concern since a surge in mail-in ballots is expected to delay the count and President Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power — they worry that Facebook is utterly unprepared to prevent people from using its platform to spread chaos .
Recode spoke with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monthly private conversations about election misinformation between several senior Democratic party committee leaders and senior members of Facebook ’ s policy team , including VP and director-level staff .
These sources spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions for discussing private talks .
Democratic sources told Recode that monthly calls with Facebook that started in May have been “ maddening ” and have left party members “ banging their head against the wall.
” They say Facebook employees in these meetings — while seemingly well-intentioned — have failed to stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates , been reluctant to share information about extremist groups encouraging voter suppression , and appeared “ flat-footed ” in their plan for dealing with conflicting information about the election results .
Facebook spokesperson Tom Reynolds said that Facebook has been proactive in working with party leaders on both sides of the aisle about stopping abuse of its platform ahead of the election and that this is a top priority for the company .
“ Elections have changed and so have we .
Since 2016 , we ’ re the only tech platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over 70 fact-checkers .
We have disrupted more than 100 coordinated inauthentic behavior networks and have hired 35,000 people to work on enforcing our policies and keeping the people on Facebook safe , ” said Reynolds .
In recent months , Facebook has taken several steps to try to limit election chaos on its platform .
It ’ s banned political ads in the week leading up to the election and promised to take down specific misrepresentations about voting or about when to vote .
It ’ s launched a hub , its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says has so far helped 2.5 million Americans register to vote .
And the company has tightened its rules around who can purchase political ads , though Facebook still doesn ’ t offer voters much insight into why they ’ re targeted with political ads on its platform .
Facebook is “ essentially slapping Band-Aids on wounds that require emergency room stitches ” But some Democrats believe these moves aren ’ t enough to stop the barrage of half-truths , lies , and violent rhetoric about the election process that continue to spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re essentially slapping Band-Aids on wounds that require emergency room stitches , ” said one Democratic source familiar with ongoing discussions with Facebook .
While Democrats want to see Facebook more aggressively remove misinformation relating to the election , Facebook faces opposing pressure from Trump and leading Republican lawmakers who claim ( without evidence ) that Big Tech companies are biased against conservatives when they moderate their platforms .
So far , it ’ s the Republicans that have been accusing Facebook and other tech companies of political bias ; now Democrats , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are starting to get louder in their criticism , too .
Four years after 2016 , Facebook is grappling with similar problems In 2016 , Russian state operatives exploited Facebook by using fake accounts to sow political division in the US , posting ads and other content that reached some 146 million Americans on Facebook and Instagram .
( Twitter also reported that tens of thousands of Russian-government-linked accounts reached around 670,000 Americans leading up to the race . )
After initially calling it “ crazy ” to think that Facebook influenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEO Mark Zuckerberg later acknowledged Facebook ’ s role in spreading disinformation , apologized , and promised to do better .
As part of its promise to improve , the company has worked more closely with both Democratic and Republican Party leaders , along with outside researchers and US intelligence agencies to police misinformation on the platform .
Even if Democrats are motivated at least in part by their party ’ s own interests , their complaints about Facebook raise concerns for voters on both sides of the political aisle .
What ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accurate information about how to vote .
“ Facebook constantly says they ’ re working on it .
We understand these are developing threats , but at the same time , elections have been on the calendar for a while.
” On two different occasions in September , Trump encouraged people in North Carolina to vote twice , by mail-in ballot and in person .
On the first occasion , Trump said “ send it in early , and then go and vote , and if it ’ s not tabulated , you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ na count.
” Facebook took down instances of the video for violating its policies against voter fraud .
On the second occasion , in a Facebook post , Trump encouraged double-voting with more nuance .
He once again cast doubt on the reliability of voting by mail and encouraged voters to go to polls and check if their mail-in ballot had been counted or not , and if not , to vote in person .
Facebook left this post up and added a label under it linking to its Voter Information Center and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Earlier this summer , Trump falsely asserted that every Californian will automatically receive an absentee ballot , which will lead to mass voter fraud ( in fact , only registered voters will receive ballots , and there is no evidence of mass voter fraud ) .
Facebook left this post up .
Looking ahead , Democratic Party leaders worry that Trump — or his supporters — could prematurely declare a false victory via social media on election night and that Facebook is ill-equipped to handle the situation .
“ Facebook constantly says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said another source .
“ We understand these are developing threats , but at the same time , elections have been on the calendar for a while , and it ’ s unsettling that we have less than 50 days to go.
” Facebook has made progress , but it ’ s not enough According to sources , Democrats hoped that monthly meetings between campaign committee leaders and Facebook ’ s policy team would be an opportunity to talk through substantive solutions to problems around misinformation on Facebook ’ s platform .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ largely used the meetings to run a PR charm offensive , trying to convince Democrats that Facebook is working hard to fix its problems and that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a “ principled person.
” Democratic leaders told Recode they ’ ve seen some progress overall from Facebook since 2016 : The company has a more direct line of communication with Democrats than four years ago , when these monthly meetings weren ’ t even happening .
They acknowledge Facebook has gotten better at identifying malicious foreign actors .
But a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since 2016 , and domestic actors , including some Republican Party leaders and extremist groups , have started using disinformation tactics also used in foreign interference .
But Facebook hasn ’ t adapted , Democratic leaders say .
The company has hesitated and at times outright refused to strike down politicians ’ false claims about voting , particularly when President Trump makes such claims , and it ’ s been slow and insufficient when dealing with extremist groups such as QAnon .
“ Across the board , progressives , Democratic operatives , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and more frustrated , more exasperated , and less hopeful that Facebook has any desire to do the right thing , ” said Jesse Lehrich , a foreign policy spokesperson in Hilary Clinton ’ s 2016 campaign who now leads the social media policy nonprofit Accountable Tech .
Lehrich was not present in Democratic Party leaders ’ recent meetings with Facebook .
“ People have spent a lot of time in good faith to improve some of these things , and there was just a tipping point where everyone thinks it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with these people [ Facebook ] because they just string you along , ” Lehrich told Recode .
Now , Democratic sources say time is running out — it ’ s 33 days until the election .
“ It feels like we ’ re just continuing to just throw things into the void and yell off of a rooftop , and it ’ s falling on deaf ears , ” said one Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the meetings between Facebook ’ s policy team and Democratic campaign leaders .
Several other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been present in the monthly meetings called out two Facebook leaders , besides Zuckerberg , as sources of frustration : Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and VP of Public Policy Joel Kaplan .
Neither Sandberg nor Kaplan are present in the monthly meetings .
Sandberg has long been the public face and behind-the-scenes reputation manager for Facebook when dealing with Democrats , civil rights leaders , and other liberal groups , which hasn ’ t always gone well .
Earlier this summer , Sandberg and Zuckerberg had a disastrous call with leaders of civil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund over concerns about hate speech on Facebook .
Kaplan has long been scrutinized both inside and outside the company because of his conservative ties , including his public support of Brett Kavanaugh during the Supreme Court Justice ’ s contentious confirmation hearings .
In August , BuzzFeed News reported that Kaplan had intervened to question a fact-check on a Facebook page belonging to right-wing figure Charlie Kirk .
Democrats feel “ in the dark ” when it comes to how Facebook is handling misinformation One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves it up to them to flag examples of political misinformation on its platform , according to several sources .
Party leaders expected to see the social media giant take more responsibility for cleaning up its own messes .
Facebook disputed this characterization and said the company regularly presents its strategy for attacking misinformation with both Democratic and Republican Party leaders .
“ They [ Facebook ] say ‘ let us know if you see anything , you should be monitoring for this , ’ ” said one Democratic source with direct knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that we are a resource-stretched political committee ; they are a multibillion-dollar company .
They should be able to get this right and put in the necessary resources.
” Facebook employees have also been tight-lipped about the extent of the company ’ s monitoring of extremist groups in monthly meetings , according to three sources familiar with the misinformation discussions .
In one recent meeting , Democratic campaign committee leaders asked Facebook to share which extremist groups on the platform the company was monitoring that could cause physical harm during the election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declined to name any , according to three sources with direct knowledge of the meeting .
“ I ’ m not asking for Facebook to share specific data , but they wouldn ’ t even name five or 10 of the extremist groups that they were most closely watching , ” said one source .
“ It didn ’ t seem like something they were very much on top of , ” said another source .
Facebook ’ s Reynolds said the company takes extremist threats seriously and prioritizes this work .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its policies against groups like QAnon , the boogaloo movement , and others — but it has also received criticism for not being quick or comprehensive enough .
Democrats , civil rights leaders , bipartisan policy leaders , and Facebook itself have warned about the dangerous so-called “ post-election , pre-results ” period when election polls have closed but the vote totals aren ’ t finalized yet .
In 2020 , that ’ s expected to be a bigger issue than usual because many more people are expected to vote by mail due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time when political candidates and bad actors could try to undermine Americans ’ faith in the electoral process , causing civil unrest .
Trump has been declaring for months that he expects the election to be “ rigged ” because of the expected increase in mail-in ballots — setting the stage for a contested result .
“ We ’ re not saying you should do this in order to help Democrats win .
That is not fair .
It ’ s to protect voters.
” Sources familiar with Facebook ’ s discussions with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepared enough for this scenario .
“ It was brought up on a recent call , about what happens post-election if there is not a result , what happens between Election Day and results day , ” said one Democratic source familiar with the discussions .
“ And they essentially had nothing.
” Another Democratic Party source familiar with the discussions said that Facebook assured Democrats that the company was working on “ tabletop exercises ” and “ strategizing behind the scenes ” to prepare for election night .
When pressed on specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contesting the election results , the company wouldn ’ t go into details .
“ With the hypotheticals we would bring up , they [ Facebook ] would never have any interest in discussing them , ” said another Democratic Party source familiar with the discussions .
“ They would say , ‘ We can ’ t really deal with hypotheticals , we don ’ t know necessarily how President Trump would respond.
’ ” Since Facebook first started its monthly talks with Democrats , it has announced it will work with respected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections , and it will mark up any premature posts about election results with a link to those trusted sources .
It also announced it will ban political ads that falsely declare a premature victory .
Sources said these are welcome announcements , but not enough .
In order to truly safeguard rhetoric around the elections , party leaders say , Facebook needs to go further and actually plan to mark up posts that dispute election results with a clear fact-check , similar to how Twitter has in the past for some of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the posts altogether .
Facebook declined to comment on further plans for how it will handle disputed election results .
“ I really don ’ t think that any of these asks have been partisan , ” said one Democratic Party source .
“ We ’ re not saying you should do this in order to help Democrats win .
That is not fair .
It ’ s to protect voters.
” All of this leaves Democratic leaders deeply concerned about what might unfold on Facebook in the days leading up to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period before votes are counted and the election is called .
Experts estimate it might take weeks until there is a final result , and in the presidential debate earlier this week , Trump suggested it could take months before he accepts the result of the election .
“ There is just a lack of urgency when it comes to the election part of this .
We ’ re talking about just a handful of weeks at that point out from Election Day , and they ’ re still unable to give us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge of the meetings .
“ There ’ s a lot of talk , but not really much transparency.
” Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

After months of working with Facebook to safeguard the 2020 election, several national Democratic Party leaders say the company has failed to meet promises to stem the tide of misinformation spreading on its platform. If the election’s results are contested after November 3 — which is an acute concern since a surge in mail-in ballots is expected to delay the count and President Trump has refused to commit to a peaceful transition of power — they worry that Facebook is utterly unprepared to prevent people from using its platform to spread chaos.
Recode spoke with four sources with direct knowledge of ongoing monthly private conversations about election misinformation between several senior Democratic party committee leaders and senior members of Facebook’s policy team, including VP and director-level staff. These sources spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of repercussions for discussing private talks.
Democratic sources told Recode that monthly calls with Facebook that started in May have been “maddening” and have left party members “banging their head against the wall.” They say Facebook employees in these meetings — while seemingly well-intentioned — have failed to stop the spread of misinformation attacks against Democratic candidates, been reluctant to share information about extremist groups encouraging voter suppression, and appeared “flat-footed” in their plan for dealing with conflicting information about the election results.
Facebook spokesperson Tom Reynolds said that Facebook has been proactive in working with party leaders on both sides of the aisle about stopping abuse of its platform ahead of the election and that this is a top priority for the company.
“Elections have changed and so have we. Since 2016, we’re the only tech platform to build a global fact-checking network of over 70 fact-checkers. We have disrupted more than 100 coordinated inauthentic behavior networks and have hired 35,000 people to work on enforcing our policies and keeping the people on Facebook safe,” said Reynolds.
In recent months, Facebook has taken several steps to try to limit election chaos on its platform. It’s banned political ads in the week leading up to the election and promised to take down specific misrepresentations about voting or about when to vote. It’s launched a hub, its Voter Information Center, which the company says has so far helped 2.5 million Americans register to vote. And the company has tightened its rules around who can purchase political ads, though Facebook still doesn’t offer voters much insight into why they’re targeted with political ads on its platform.
Facebook is “essentially slapping Band-Aids on wounds that require emergency room stitches”
But some Democrats believe these moves aren’t enough to stop the barrage of half-truths, lies, and violent rhetoric about the election process that continue to spread on the platform.
“They’re essentially slapping Band-Aids on wounds that require emergency room stitches,” said one Democratic source familiar with ongoing discussions with Facebook.
While Democrats want to see Facebook more aggressively remove misinformation relating to the election, Facebook faces opposing pressure from Trump and leading Republican lawmakers who claim (without evidence) that Big Tech companies are biased against conservatives when they moderate their platforms. So far, it’s the Republicans that have been accusing Facebook and other tech companies of political bias; now Democrats, including Joe Biden and top Democratic lawmakers, are starting to get louder in their criticism, too.
Four years after 2016, Facebook is grappling with similar problems
In 2016, Russian state operatives exploited Facebook by using fake accounts to sow political division in the US, posting ads and other content that reached some 146 million Americans on Facebook and Instagram. (Twitter also reported that tens of thousands of Russian-government-linked accounts reached around 670,000 Americans leading up to the race.) After initially calling it “crazy” to think that Facebook influenced the outcome of the election, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg later acknowledged Facebook’s role in spreading disinformation, apologized, and promised to do better.
Do you work at Google and want to talk? Please email Shirin Ghaffary at shirin.ghaffary@protonmail.com to reach her confidentially. Signal number available upon request.
As part of its promise to improve, the company has worked more closely with both Democratic and Republican Party leaders, along with outside researchers and US intelligence agencies to police misinformation on the platform.
Even if Democrats are motivated at least in part by their party’s own interests, their complaints about Facebook raise concerns for voters on both sides of the political aisle. What’s at stake is ensuring Americans have accurate information about how to vote.
“Facebook constantly says they’re working on it. We understand these are developing threats, but at the same time, elections have been on the calendar for a while.”
On two different occasions in September, Trump encouraged people in North Carolina to vote twice, by mail-in ballot and in person. On the first occasion, Trump said “send it in early, and then go and vote, and if it’s not tabulated, you vote, and the vote is gonna count.” Facebook took down instances of the video for violating its policies against voter fraud.
On the second occasion, in a Facebook post, Trump encouraged double-voting with more nuance. He once again cast doubt on the reliability of voting by mail and encouraged voters to go to polls and check if their mail-in ballot had been counted or not, and if not, to vote in person. Facebook left this post up and added a label under it linking to its Voter Information Center and asserting that voting by mail is trustworthy.
Earlier this summer, Trump falsely asserted that every Californian will automatically receive an absentee ballot, which will lead to mass voter fraud (in fact, only registered voters will receive ballots, and there is no evidence of mass voter fraud). Facebook left this post up.
Looking ahead, Democratic Party leaders worry that Trump — or his supporters — could prematurely declare a false victory via social media on election night and that Facebook is ill-equipped to handle the situation.
“Facebook constantly says they’re working on it,” said another source. “We understand these are developing threats, but at the same time, elections have been on the calendar for a while, and it’s unsettling that we have less than 50 days to go.”
Facebook has made progress, but it’s not enough
According to sources, Democrats hoped that monthly meetings between campaign committee leaders and Facebook’s policy team would be an opportunity to talk through substantive solutions to problems around misinformation on Facebook’s platform. Instead, several sources said that Facebook largely used the meetings to run a PR charm offensive, trying to convince Democrats that Facebook is working hard to fix its problems and that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a “principled person.”
Democratic leaders told Recode they’ve seen some progress overall from Facebook since 2016: The company has a more direct line of communication with Democrats than four years ago, when these monthly meetings weren’t even happening. They acknowledge Facebook has gotten better at identifying malicious foreign actors.
But a lot has changed in the US political landscape since 2016, and domestic actors, including some Republican Party leaders and extremist groups, have started using disinformation tactics also used in foreign interference. But Facebook hasn’t adapted, Democratic leaders say.
The company has hesitated and at times outright refused to strike down politicians’ false claims about voting, particularly when President Trump makes such claims, and it’s been slow and insufficient when dealing with extremist groups such as QAnon.
“Across the board, progressives, Democratic operatives, and civil rights leaders have been increasingly more and more frustrated, more exasperated, and less hopeful that Facebook has any desire to do the right thing,” said Jesse Lehrich, a foreign policy spokesperson in Hilary Clinton’s 2016 campaign who now leads the social media policy nonprofit Accountable Tech. Lehrich was not present in Democratic Party leaders’ recent meetings with Facebook.
“People have spent a lot of time in good faith to improve some of these things, and there was just a tipping point where everyone thinks it’s a waste of your time to work with these people [Facebook] because they just string you along,” Lehrich told Recode.
Now, Democratic sources say time is running out — it’s 33 days until the election.
“It feels like we’re just continuing to just throw things into the void and yell off of a rooftop, and it’s falling on deaf ears,” said one Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the meetings between Facebook’s policy team and Democratic campaign leaders.
Several other top Democratic operatives who haven’t been present in the monthly meetings called out two Facebook leaders, besides Zuckerberg, as sources of frustration: Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and VP of Public Policy Joel Kaplan. Neither Sandberg nor Kaplan are present in the monthly meetings. Sandberg has long been the public face and behind-the-scenes reputation manager for Facebook when dealing with Democrats, civil rights leaders, and other liberal groups, which hasn’t always gone well. Earlier this summer, Sandberg and Zuckerberg had a disastrous call with leaders of civil rights groups such as Color of Change and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund over concerns about hate speech on Facebook.
Kaplan has long been scrutinized both inside and outside the company because of his conservative ties, including his public support of Brett Kavanaugh during the Supreme Court Justice’s contentious confirmation hearings. In August, BuzzFeed News reported that Kaplan had intervened to question a fact-check on a Facebook page belonging to right-wing figure Charlie Kirk.
Democrats feel “in the dark” when it comes to how Facebook is handling misinformation
One key complaint Democrats have is that Facebook leaves it up to them to flag examples of political misinformation on its platform, according to several sources. Party leaders expected to see the social media giant take more responsibility for cleaning up its own messes. Facebook disputed this characterization and said the company regularly presents its strategy for attacking misinformation with both Democratic and Republican Party leaders.
“They [Facebook] say ‘let us know if you see anything, you should be monitoring for this,’” said one Democratic source with direct knowledge of the conversations. “Our approach is that we are a resource-stretched political committee; they are a multibillion-dollar company. They should be able to get this right and put in the necessary resources.”
Facebook employees have also been tight-lipped about the extent of the company’s monitoring of extremist groups in monthly meetings, according to three sources familiar with the misinformation discussions.
In one recent meeting, Democratic campaign committee leaders asked Facebook to share which extremist groups on the platform the company was monitoring that could cause physical harm during the election cycle, sources said. Facebook representatives declined to name any, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the meeting.
“I’m not asking for Facebook to share specific data, but they wouldn’t even name five or 10 of the extremist groups that they were most closely watching,” said one source.
“It didn’t seem like something they were very much on top of,” said another source.
Facebook’s Reynolds said the company takes extremist threats seriously and prioritizes this work. In recent months, the platform has tightened its policies against groups like QAnon, the boogaloo movement, and others — but it has also received criticism for not being quick or comprehensive enough.
The dreaded “post-election, pre-results” period
Democrats, civil rights leaders, bipartisan policy leaders, and Facebook itself have warned about the dangerous so-called “post-election, pre-results” period when election polls have closed but the vote totals aren’t finalized yet. In 2020, that’s expected to be a bigger issue than usual because many more people are expected to vote by mail due to Covid-19. It’s a time when political candidates and bad actors could try to undermine Americans’ faith in the electoral process, causing civil unrest.
Trump has been declaring for months that he expects the election to be “rigged” because of the expected increase in mail-in ballots — setting the stage for a contested result.
“We’re not saying you should do this in order to help Democrats win. That is not fair. It’s to protect voters.”
Sources familiar with Facebook’s discussions with Democrats say Facebook doesn’t seem prepared enough for this scenario.
“It was brought up on a recent call, about what happens post-election if there is not a result, what happens between Election Day and results day,” said one Democratic source familiar with the discussions. “And they essentially had nothing.”
Another Democratic Party source familiar with the discussions said that Facebook assured Democrats that the company was working on “tabletop exercises” and “strategizing behind the scenes” to prepare for election night. When pressed on specific scenarios, however, such as Trump contesting the election results, the company wouldn’t go into details.
“With the hypotheticals we would bring up, they [Facebook] would never have any interest in discussing them,” said another Democratic Party source familiar with the discussions. “They would say, ‘We can’t really deal with hypotheticals, we don’t know necessarily how President Trump would respond.’”
Since Facebook first started its monthly talks with Democrats, it has announced it will work with respected outside sources like Reuters to call the elections, and it will mark up any premature posts about election results with a link to those trusted sources. It also announced it will ban political ads that falsely declare a premature victory. Sources said these are welcome announcements, but not enough.
In order to truly safeguard rhetoric around the elections, party leaders say, Facebook needs to go further and actually plan to mark up posts that dispute election results with a clear fact-check, similar to how Twitter has in the past for some of Trump’s posts. Or delete the posts altogether.
Facebook declined to comment on further plans for how it will handle disputed election results.
“I really don’t think that any of these asks have been partisan,” said one Democratic Party source. “We’re not saying you should do this in order to help Democrats win. That is not fair. It’s to protect voters.”
All of this leaves Democratic leaders deeply concerned about what might unfold on Facebook in the days leading up to the election, and during the still-undetermined time period before votes are counted and the election is called.
Experts estimate it might take weeks until there is a final result, and in the presidential debate earlier this week, Trump suggested it could take months before he accepts the result of the election.
“There is just a lack of urgency when it comes to the election part of this. We’re talking about just a handful of weeks at that point out from Election Day, and they’re still unable to give us timelines,” said one source with knowledge of the meetings. “There’s a lot of talk, but not really much transparency.”


vox--2020-10-01--How beaches and pools became a battleground for US civil rights

When we think of the most iconic moments of the US civil rights movement , we might imagine bus boycotts , lunch counter sit-ins , or the March on Washington .
Most of us don ’ t think of protests at beaches and pools .
These were the “ wade-ins ” of the 1950s and ’ 60s , in which demonstrators demanded equal access by stepping into whites-only waters .
And although it ’ s overlooked by most history textbooks , one summer of protest in the small coastal city of St. Augustine , Florida , played a crucial role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1964 .
This fight was about more than just enjoying a public beach — it was about who gets to control where Black bodies can swim , relax , and simply exist .
And it followed a long history of recreational spaces becoming flashpoints of racial conflict .
Watch the video above to see how the St. Augustine wade-ins changed the US forever .
And for more of an in-depth narrative from the St. Augustine protesters , you can also hear me tell this story on a special episode of Today , Explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you want to learn more about wade-ins , check out the work of Clennon King and AugustineMonica Films ’ feature-length documentary and discussion program .
For information and great archival sources , take a look at the Accord Freedom Trail and the Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine .
And for two books on the movement to desegregate public waters , check out Andrew Kahrl ’ s The Land Was Ours and Free the Beaches .
This is the seventh installment in Missing Chapter , where we revisit underreported and often overlooked moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the present .
Our first season covers stories of racial injustice , identity , and erasure .
If you have an idea for a topic we should investigate in the series , send it via this form !
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
If you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

When we think of the most iconic moments of the US civil rights movement, we might imagine bus boycotts, lunch counter sit-ins, or the March on Washington. Most of us don’t think of protests at beaches and pools. These were the “wade-ins” of the 1950s and ’60s, in which demonstrators demanded equal access by stepping into whites-only waters. And although it’s overlooked by most history textbooks, one summer of protest in the small coastal city of St. Augustine, Florida, played a crucial role in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This fight was about more than just enjoying a public beach — it was about who gets to control where Black bodies can swim, relax, and simply exist. And it followed a long history of recreational spaces becoming flashpoints of racial conflict.
Watch the video above to see how the St. Augustine wade-ins changed the US forever. And for more of an in-depth narrative from the St. Augustine protesters, you can also hear me tell this story on a special episode of Today, Explained wherever you listen to podcasts.
If you want to learn more about wade-ins, check out the work of Clennon King and AugustineMonica Films’ feature-length documentary and discussion program. For information and great archival sources, take a look at the Accord Freedom Trail and the Civil Rights Library of St. Augustine. And for two books on the movement to desegregate public waters, check out Andrew Kahrl’s The Land Was Ours and Free the Beaches.
This is the seventh installment in Missing Chapter, where we revisit underreported and often overlooked moments of the past to give context to the present. Our first season covers stories of racial injustice, identity, and erasure. If you have an idea for a topic we should investigate in the series, send it via this form!
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. If you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


vox--2020-10-01--Get ready for Halloween as the Vox Book Club reads Mexican Gothic

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers .
As October kicks off , we are entering one of the weirdest Halloween seasons I can remember .
So to keep the spirit of Halloween going , the Vox Book Club is reading Silvia Moreno-Garcia ’ s Mexican Gothic , a good old-fashioned piece of gothic spookiness set in an old Mexican mining town .
Mexican Gothic kicks off in the 1950s , as the cosmopolitan , young , Mexico City socialite Noémi travels to a decaying English manor perched above a mining town that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s full of classic gothic set pieces — women wandering down crumbling hallways in their nightgowns holding up candelabras , repressed and heavily taboo sex , creepy evil mushrooms — and it ’ s all animated by the knowledge that the real source of evil in this book is colonialism .
It is a Halloween delight , and I can ’ t wait to talk about it with you .
We can even go back to high-school English class and break out “ The Yellow Wallpaper ” — always a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to be honest — because this book is heavily referential , with a lot about Charlotte Perkins Gilman in it .
Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don ’ t miss anything , and let ’ s get started .
Thursday , October 29 : Virtual live event with author Silvia Moreno-Garcia .
Sign up for the Vox Book Club newsletter and we ’ ll send you the RSVP link as soon as it ’ s up !
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers.
As October kicks off, we are entering one of the weirdest Halloween seasons I can remember. So to keep the spirit of Halloween going, the Vox Book Club is reading Silvia Moreno-Garcia’s Mexican Gothic, a good old-fashioned piece of gothic spookiness set in an old Mexican mining town.
Mexican Gothic kicks off in the 1950s, as the cosmopolitan, young, Mexico City socialite Noémi travels to a decaying English manor perched above a mining town that the English built and then ruined. It’s full of classic gothic set pieces — women wandering down crumbling hallways in their nightgowns holding up candelabras, repressed and heavily taboo sex, creepy evil mushrooms — and it’s all animated by the knowledge that the real source of evil in this book is colonialism.
It is a Halloween delight, and I can’t wait to talk about it with you. We can even go back to high-school English class and break out “The Yellow Wallpaper” — always a good idea as something to go back to, to be honest — because this book is heavily referential, with a lot about Charlotte Perkins Gilman in it.
Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss anything, and let’s get started.
Here’s the full Vox Book Club schedule for October 2020
Friday, October 16: Discussion post on Mexican Gothic
Thursday, October 29: Virtual live event with author Silvia Moreno-Garcia. Reserve your spot!
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-01--The Trump administration already made huge refugee cuts. It’s making more.

Just minutes before a midnight deadline , the Trump administration announced Wednesday that it would only accept up to 15,000 refugees over the next year — the lowest number since the refugee program was created in 1980 and down from last year ’ s cap of 18,000 .
It ’ s another blow to the US ’ s already decimated refugee program , even though the coronavirus pandemic has only made the plight of the world ’ s most vulnerable populations more urgent .
There are more refugees , asylum seekers , and internally displaced people today than at any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those numbers are only growing given ongoing crises in Hong Kong , Syria , Venezuela , and other countries .
Refugee advocates had consequently pushed the administration to adopt at least a 95,000 cap on refugee admissions , the average annual resettlement goal before Trump took office , but still lower than the cap of 110,000 under the Obama administration .
That didn ’ t come to pass .
“ Let this serve as a wake-up call to those who believe this administration supports avenues of legal immigration , ” Krish O ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services , said .
“ Refugees go through extreme vetting and have done everything our government has asked of them , yet they continue to be met with open hostility and egregious processing delays from this administration.
” The administration said in its announcement that it also plans to take in more than 290,000 asylum seekers , which it sought to equate with refugees .
But the two categories are distinct .
Migrants can apply for asylum only after they have arrived in the US or at the border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be valid , the US is under obligation to offer them protection .
There is no limit on how many asylees the US accepts in a given year .
Refugees , on the other hand , are typically processed by humanitarian agencies abroad and sent to the US for resettlement .
Last year , delays in the announcement of the refugee cap resulted in a one-month halt to admissions that left many refugees who were already in the resettlement pipeline stranded abroad .
Combined with a five-month pause on refugee resettlement amid the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration has only resettled 11,814 refugees over the last fiscal year , which ended on September 30 .
Joe Biden , the Democratic presidential nominee , has pledged to take in up to 125,000 refugees in the year after he takes office and increase admissions “ commensurate with our responsibility , our values and the unprecedented global need.
” Rep. Zoe Lofgren ( D-CA ) voiced her support for that agenda in a press call on last month , saying : “ I ’ m hopeful that come January , we will have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and importance of refugees , and the value and importance of the United States leadership in welcoming these individuals to our country — in the United States standing for freedom , once again being a beacon of hope and freedom around the world.
” Trump has long tried to stoke anti-refugee sentiment The refugee program has historically flourished under Republican presidents .
Even in previous Republican administrations seeking to curtail immigration , no one has ever set the cap on refugee admissions as low as Trump has .
President George W. Bush briefly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 9/11 attacks , but even then , the limit was set at 70,000 .
But the bipartisan consensus on maintaining a robust refugee resettlement program began to unravel after the Paris terror attacks in late 2015 , said Yael Schacher , senior US advocate for Refugees International , when suicide bombers — reportedly sanctioned by the Islamic State — killed 130 civilians in explosions and mass shootings throughout the city .
There was speculation that one of the attackers was a refugee , one of 5.6 million Syrians who have been displaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was later confirmed that all of the perpetrators were citizens of the European Union .
But the rumors were enough to spark a panic about Syrian refugees and start a movement at the state level to cut back US admissions of Syrian refugees and resettlement efforts more broadly .
Governors from 31 states , all Republican but for New Hampshire ’ s Maggie Hassan , said in 2015 that they no longer wanted their state to take in Syrian refugees .
In 2016 , Mike Pence , then the governor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resettlement agencies in his state from getting reimbursed for the cost of providing social services to Syrian refugees .
But states didn ’ t have the legal authority to simply refuse refugees ; that ’ s the prerogative of the federal government .
Pence ultimately had to back down after a federal court ruled against his decision to withhold the reimbursements .
Trump , then campaigning for president , stirred up more fear , suggesting that Syrian refugees were raising an army to launch an attack on the US and promising that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” if he won the election .
He said that he would tell Syrian children to their faces that they could not come to the US , speculating that they could be a “ Trojan horse.
” When Trump eventually took office , he delivered on his promise to slash refugee admissions from Syria , suspending refugee admissions altogether from January to October 2017 .
From October 2017 to October 2018 , the US admitted only 62 .
State leaders lined up behind him : The Tennessee legislature , for instance , filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal government was infringing on states ’ rights by forcing them to take in refugees ( a court challenge that also failed ) .
In September 2019 , Trump also issued an executive order that allowed local governments that do not have the resources to support refugees in becoming “ self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance ” to turn them away .
Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott later announced that the state would no longer resettle refugees under the executive order .
Courts have prevented that executive order from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s possible the case could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court .
If Trump ’ s executive order is permitted to go into effect , it ’ s not clear how it would play out in practice .
States won ’ t just be able to refuse refugees from certain nations , such as Syria , Stephen Yale-Loehr , a professor at Cornell Law , said .
Immigration law provides that state and local governments must provide aid “ without regard to race , religion , nationality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could prove complicated when states and municipalities disagree over whether to accept refugees .
It ’ s possible that states will be able to override local governments .
Take , for example , Dallas , which has historically taken in many refugees but is located in Texas , which has sought to reject them .
The executive order would also create inconsistent refugee policies across the country , making it next to impossible for the federal government to properly plan for refugee settlement , Schacher said .
Help keep Vox free for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Just minutes before a midnight deadline, the Trump administration announced Wednesday that it would only accept up to 15,000 refugees over the next year — the lowest number since the refugee program was created in 1980 and down from last year’s cap of 18,000.
It’s another blow to the US’s already decimated refugee program, even though the coronavirus pandemic has only made the plight of the world’s most vulnerable populations more urgent. There are more refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced people today than at any time since World War II, and those numbers are only growing given ongoing crises in Hong Kong, Syria, Venezuela, and other countries.
Refugee advocates had consequently pushed the administration to adopt at least a 95,000 cap on refugee admissions, the average annual resettlement goal before Trump took office, but still lower than the cap of 110,000 under the Obama administration. That didn’t come to pass.
“Let this serve as a wake-up call to those who believe this administration supports avenues of legal immigration,” Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, said. “Refugees go through extreme vetting and have done everything our government has asked of them, yet they continue to be met with open hostility and egregious processing delays from this administration.”
The administration said in its announcement that it also plans to take in more than 290,000 asylum seekers, which it sought to equate with refugees. But the two categories are distinct.
Migrants can apply for asylum only after they have arrived in the US or at the border and if their claim is found to be valid, the US is under obligation to offer them protection. There is no limit on how many asylees the US accepts in a given year. Refugees, on the other hand, are typically processed by humanitarian agencies abroad and sent to the US for resettlement.
Last year, delays in the announcement of the refugee cap resulted in a one-month halt to admissions that left many refugees who were already in the resettlement pipeline stranded abroad. Combined with a five-month pause on refugee resettlement amid the pandemic, that has meant that the administration has only resettled 11,814 refugees over the last fiscal year, which ended on September 30.
Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, has pledged to take in up to 125,000 refugees in the year after he takes office and increase admissions “commensurate with our responsibility, our values and the unprecedented global need.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) voiced her support for that agenda in a press call on last month, saying: “I’m hopeful that come January, we will have a new administration that recognizes the value and importance of refugees, and the value and importance of the United States leadership in welcoming these individuals to our country — in the United States standing for freedom, once again being a beacon of hope and freedom around the world.”
Trump has long tried to stoke anti-refugee sentiment
The refugee program has historically flourished under Republican presidents. Even in previous Republican administrations seeking to curtail immigration, no one has ever set the cap on refugee admissions as low as Trump has. President George W. Bush briefly cut the number of refugees admitted after the 9/11 attacks, but even then, the limit was set at 70,000.
But the bipartisan consensus on maintaining a robust refugee resettlement program began to unravel after the Paris terror attacks in late 2015, said Yael Schacher, senior US advocate for Refugees International, when suicide bombers — reportedly sanctioned by the Islamic State — killed 130 civilians in explosions and mass shootings throughout the city.
There was speculation that one of the attackers was a refugee, one of 5.6 million Syrians who have been displaced since 2011 by the ongoing civil war. It was later confirmed that all of the perpetrators were citizens of the European Union. But the rumors were enough to spark a panic about Syrian refugees and start a movement at the state level to cut back US admissions of Syrian refugees and resettlement efforts more broadly.
Governors from 31 states, all Republican but for New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan, said in 2015 that they no longer wanted their state to take in Syrian refugees. In 2016, Mike Pence, then the governor of Indiana, also tried to prevent refugee resettlement agencies in his state from getting reimbursed for the cost of providing social services to Syrian refugees.
But states didn’t have the legal authority to simply refuse refugees; that’s the prerogative of the federal government. Pence ultimately had to back down after a federal court ruled against his decision to withhold the reimbursements.
Trump, then campaigning for president, stirred up more fear, suggesting that Syrian refugees were raising an army to launch an attack on the US and promising that all of them would be “going back” if he won the election. He said that he would tell Syrian children to their faces that they could not come to the US, speculating that they could be a “Trojan horse.”
When Trump eventually took office, he delivered on his promise to slash refugee admissions from Syria, suspending refugee admissions altogether from January to October 2017. From October 2017 to October 2018, the US admitted only 62.
State leaders lined up behind him: The Tennessee legislature, for instance, filed a lawsuit in March 2017 claiming that the federal government was infringing on states’ rights by forcing them to take in refugees (a court challenge that also failed).
In September 2019, Trump also issued an executive order that allowed local governments that do not have the resources to support refugees in becoming “self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance” to turn them away. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott later announced that the state would no longer resettle refugees under the executive order. Courts have prevented that executive order from going into effect for now, but it’s possible the case could eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court.
If Trump’s executive order is permitted to go into effect, it’s not clear how it would play out in practice. States won’t just be able to refuse refugees from certain nations, such as Syria, Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law, said. Immigration law provides that state and local governments must provide aid “without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex or political opinion.”
But it could prove complicated when states and municipalities disagree over whether to accept refugees. It’s possible that states will be able to override local governments. Take, for example, Dallas, which has historically taken in many refugees but is located in Texas, which has sought to reject them.
The executive order would also create inconsistent refugee policies across the country, making it next to impossible for the federal government to properly plan for refugee settlement, Schacher said.