vox--2020-07-22--What to make of Trump’s “new tone” at the Covid-19 briefings

President Trump was back in front of the cameras on Tuesday to brief the nation on the state of the US coronavirus response for the first time in weeks .
“ The China virus is vicious and dangerous .
We have learned a great deal about it and who it targets , ” he said .
“ We ’ re in the process of developing a strategy that is going to be very , very powerful.
” It was a chance for the president to present his own narrative after the wave of negative news headlines about rising Covid-19 cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ showcase for the new , more somber tone that the White House wants to present to the public , a reflection of sustained anxiety over the pandemic and public dissatisfaction with the federal response .
As Tuesday ’ s press conference showed , however , Trump struggles to fully abandon inflammatory rhetoric even when reading from a script and showing more deference than usual to expert opinion .
For starters , he still insists on calling SARS-Cov-2 “ the China virus.
” This has become routine in the Trump era : The White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media narrative while simultaneously trying to elicit positive news coverage with a grounded and somber perspective .
But Trump , hyperbolic and confrontational by nature , makes it difficult to sustain any change .
The media has made real mistakes in its Covid-19 coverage .
But most of the public health experts and scholars on presidential leadership I ’ ve spoken to consider Trump ’ s handling of the coronavirus to be deeply flawed .
Among his shortcomings are an established pattern of hype , spin , and misinformation .
“ We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coherent federal leadership that puts public health first , ” said Angela Rasmussen , a virologist at Columbia University .
Raj Pillai , who has written on presidential leadership and rhetoric during crises , told me on Monday : “ I am almost afraid that the briefings are about to restart.
” If Trump can stick the facts and provide accurate information on the pandemic to the American people , better late than never .
But he has given the public plenty of reasons to doubt he can maintain any change in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to start the coronavirus briefings again The facts on the ground are dire .
New Covid-19 cases have been climbing steadily for more than a month .
The daily new case count had dipped below 20,000 in early June , but , over the last few days , it has reached nearly 80,000 .
Hospitalizations have matched their spring peak , with about 60,000 Americans currently in a hospital with the coronavirus .
And now deaths are rising again , too , surpassing 1,000 in one day this week for the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days , there will be more than 4 million confirmed Covid-19 cases in the United States .
More than 142,000 Americans have died in the pandemic .
Every curve is trending in the wrong direction .
The White House had been trying to brush away concerns of a coronavirus resurgence as unwarranted media hype .
About a month ago , Vice President Mike Pence declared in a Wall Street Journal op-ed : “ There Isn ’ t a Coronavirus ‘ Second Wave.
’ ” His argument ignored the early data indicators that Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is enduring the worst stretch of the pandemic since the outbreak exploded in New York City in April .
That was inconvenient for the Trump administration .
As the New York Times reported over the weekend , the White House has been striving since the spring to shift responsibility for the pandemic response from the federal government to the states .
They wanted to depict themselves as having done enough to support the states and turn their focus instead to an economic recovery ahead of the November election .
But the virus is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting infected , ending up in the hospital or dying .
Meanwhile , shortcomings in the federal response have become more evident .
While the country ’ s testing capacity has increased a lot since March , there are still sticking points in the supply chain .
In some places , it can take more than a week to get test results .
That renders them useless for the purposes of contact tracing , the process of identifying people who have been potentially exposed to Covid and asking them to isolate themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ staved off new outbreaks , but the US has so far failed to build an adequate test-trace-isolate program .
A week ago , Trump ’ s former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the backlogs in America ’ s coronavirus testing were “ inexcusable.
” Maryland Gov .
Larry Hogan , a Republican , wrote a Washington Post op-ed excoriating the Trump administration ’ s response : Surveys indicate the American public is equally dissatisfied with Trump ’ s performance in containing the outbreak .
And he ’ s fallen far behind Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling .
With frequent headlines about Covid-19 ’ s resurgence and , in recent days , about the White House ’ s spin campaign against top government scientists , Trump ’ s plan to ignore Covid-19 was no longer palatable .
“ The press briefings are simply the White House offering the American people a counter-narrative to that offered by the mainstream media now that we see an increase in cases , ” says Jim Kuypers , a Virginia Tech communications professor who has written books on presidential rhetoric and the news media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts that are omitted or overlooked by the mainstream media in its coverage of the pandemic , facts that might help the White House.
” Is Trump changing anything about his approach ?
Before Trump took the podium to brief the nation again on Tuesday , risk communications consultant Peter Sandman told me the first thing Trump should do is acknowledge that everybody in the country is struggling right now .
And that was , more or less , the message from the president as he opened his remarks on Tuesday .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse before it gets better , ” Trump said .
“ Something I don ’ t like saying about things but that ’ s the way it is.
” For Trump , who has described himself as a cheerleader for the country to justify his relentless optimism about Covid-19 even as the bad news piled up , that was a significant allowance .
And it came the day after he had made his most forceful endorsement of mask-wearing , tweeting a picture of himself with a mask on , after previously sounding skeptical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Washington political reporters , this sounds like a pivot from the president .
And from a crisis communications standpoint , there is an argument to be made that it ’ s better for the president to start taking the coronavirus more seriously at this late date than never at all .
It may not win him many converts among the media or skeptical voters , and there will surely be some people in his base miffed by any perceived concessions to his critics .
But it may also reassure people who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been frustrated by his administration ’ s lax coronavirus response .
“ I absolutely think better late than never , ” Sandman said .
“ I suspect a lot of his base would be relieved .
They ’ re almost as worried about Covid-19 as their anti-Trump neighbors , and they ’ d welcome the chance to stop feeling that supporting the president means they have to shrug off the pandemic.
” Trump is also going to use these briefings to portray the country as on the verge of overcoming the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ deaths and rising cases can ’ t be ignored , there is some good news to tell and Trump highlighted as many positive points as he could during Tuesday ’ s briefing .
Doctors have identified therapies ( remdesivir , dexamethasone ) and treatment protocols ( putting patients in a “ prone ” position , chest down , when they are on a ventilator ) that can lead to better outcomes .
So far , people who end up hospitalized in this latest Covid surge are not dying as frequently as hospitalized patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ahead , several vaccine candidates have shown promising results in their early trials , though the most important tests on efficacy are still to come .
But the US response is still inadequate .
The testing backlogs are a serious hinderance to America ’ s ability to track the virus ’ s spread and contain new outbreaks .
Most states and cities have still not been able to hire enough people to do contact tracing , and the White House is reportedly skeptical of allocating more federal funding for those programs .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight with all of his facts at Tuesday ’ s briefing .
He boasted that the US is doing more Covid testing than the European Union , but the scale of America ’ s outbreak is much worse than most of Europe at this point .
Going by the positive test rate — a good proxy for whether a country is performing enough testing relative to its outbreak ; lower is better — the US is still struggling , with a positive test rate over 8 percent .
Most European countries are below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that reflects adequate testing according to experts .
The White House briefings could better inform the public , or they could become a venue for Trump ’ s spin This is the concern : that Trump will use these briefings not as a mea culpa and an opportunity to set the record straight with the American public on Covid-19 , but to spin a fanciful narrative that obscures the country ’ s problems and serves primarily as campaign fodder ahead of voters ’ decision on Trump ’ s reelection .
The fact that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , without any scientists flanking him , reinforced those fears .
“ Although it is critical for a leader to communicate regularly during crisis ( e.g.
, FDR ’ s fireside chats ) , the purpose has to be to inform , calm , and unite ; to paint a realistic but achievable future and show the way , ” Rajnandini Pillai , a management professor who specializes in leadership at California State University San Marcos , told me .
“ I am afraid that his briefings may do more harm than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ marketing breathtaking falsehoods to serve his reelection aims.
” The media has made its share of mistakes in its Covid-19 coverage .
Recode ’ s Peter Kafka covered them well .
Early news reporting failed to convey the uncertainties of an emerging pathogen , and evolutions in the scientific understanding of the disease — such as on the efficacy of masks — may have added to public misconceptions about the pandemic and mistrust of scientists .
The decision by many public health experts to endorse the protests over police violence , after warnings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gatherings , may also have sowed public skepticism .
( Evidence suggests the protests — outdoors and with many in masks — may not have led to big spikes in cases . )
But news organizations have also stepped in where the federal government has abdicated its responsibility : in reporting on Covid-19 data , in conveying public health guidance , and in preparing the public for the likely long duration of this crisis .
Trump , on the other hand , has used his platform to stoke racial animus , discredit experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are undeniably a chance for him to strike a new tone .
Maybe this time it will stick .
At the briefing , a reporter asked Trump if he favored more federal money for testing , after the Post had reported the White House was opposed to allocating more funding in the next Covid-19 relief bill .
“ If the doctors and the professionals feel that , even though we ’ re at a level that nobody ever dreamt possible , that they would like to do more , I ’ m okay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of the promise and peril of the briefings was revealed in that sentence .
There was a deference to expert advice .
But then there was also the hyperbole .
That is , and always will be , the Trump experience .
But it was actually another recurring rhetorical flourish in Trump ’ s remarks that left me skeptical the president has really found a new tone .
Scientists have been trying for years to move away from the old habit of identifying a disease by its place of origin .
Too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vilify and ostracize non-white people .
While administration officials and allies have frequently referred to the coronavirus as the Chinese virus or the Wuhan virus or even the more overtly racist “ kung flu , ” Asian Americans have been the targets of discrimination during the pandemic , And the president is clearly leaning into dog whistles targeting white Americans as his best hope for reelection .
So maybe it shouldn ’ t be any surprise that three times in the first few minutes of the briefing , reading from his prepared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the China virus.
” That has always been the strategy .
So , in at least one regard , the tone was not really much different at all .
This is who Trump is .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

President Trump was back in front of the cameras on Tuesday to brief the nation on the state of the US coronavirus response for the first time in weeks.
“The China virus is vicious and dangerous. We have learned a great deal about it and who it targets,” he said. “We’re in the process of developing a strategy that is going to be very, very powerful.”
It was a chance for the president to present his own narrative after the wave of negative news headlines about rising Covid-19 cases and deaths. And it became a showcase for the new, more somber tone that the White House wants to present to the public, a reflection of sustained anxiety over the pandemic and public dissatisfaction with the federal response.
As Tuesday’s press conference showed, however, Trump struggles to fully abandon inflammatory rhetoric even when reading from a script and showing more deference than usual to expert opinion. For starters, he still insists on calling SARS-Cov-2 “the China virus.”
This has become routine in the Trump era: The White House wants to refute the prevailing media narrative and elicit positive news coverage of the president’s grounded and somber perspective. But Trump, hyperbolic and confrontational by nature, makes it difficult to sustain any change.
The media has made real mistakes in its Covid-19 coverage. But most of the public health experts and scholars on presidential leadership I’ve spoken to consider Trump’s handling of the coronavirus to be deeply flawed. Among his shortcomings are an established pattern of hype, spin, and misinformation.
“We are witnessing what happens in the absence of a coherent federal leadership that puts public health first,” said Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University.
Raj Pillai, who has written on presidential leadership and rhetoric during crises, told me on Monday: “I am almost afraid that the briefings are about to restart.”
If Trump can stick the facts and provide accurate information on the pandemic to the American people, better late than never. But he has given the public plenty of reasons to doubt he can maintain any change in tone.
A worsening pandemic forced Trump to start the coronavirus briefings again
The facts on the ground are dire. New Covid-19 cases have been climbing steadily for more than a month. The daily new case count had dipped below 20,000 in early June, but, over the last few days, it has reached nearly 80,000. Hospitalizations have matched their spring peak, with about 60,000 Americans currently in a hospital with the coronavirus. And now deaths are rising again, too, surpassing 1,000 in one day this week for the first time since May.
In a matter of days, there will be more than 4 million confirmed Covid-19 cases in the United States. More than 142,000 Americans have died in the pandemic. Every curve is trending in the wrong direction.
The White House had been trying to brush away concerns of a coronavirus resurgence as unwarranted media hype. About a month ago, Vice President Mike Pence declared in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “There Isn’t a Coronavirus ‘Second Wave.’” His argument ignored the early data indicators that Covid-19 was surging again and now the US is enduring the worst stretch of the pandemic since the outbreak exploded in New York City in April.
That was inconvenient for the Trump administration. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, the White House has been striving since the spring to shift responsibility for the pandemic response from the federal government to the states. They wanted to depict themselves as having done enough to support the states and turn their focus instead to an economic recovery ahead of the November election.
But the virus is still spreading, and more people are getting infected, ending up in the hospital or dying. Meanwhile, shortcomings in the federal response have become more evident. While the country’s testing capacity has increased a lot since March, there are still sticking points in the supply chain. In some places, it can take more than a week to get test results. That renders them useless for the purposes of contact tracing, the process of identifying people who have been potentially exposed to Covid and asking them to isolate themselves. That strategy is how other countries have staved off new outbreaks, but the US has so far failed to build an adequate test-trace-isolate program.
A week ago, Trump’s former chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said the backlogs in America’s coronavirus testing were “inexcusable.” Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, wrote a Washington Post op-ed excoriating the Trump administration’s response:
I’d watched as the president downplayed the outbreak’s severity and as the White House failed to issue public warnings, draw up a 50-state strategy, or dispatch medical gear or lifesaving ventilators from the national stockpile to American hospitals. Eventually, it was clear that waiting around for the president to run the nation’s response was hopeless; if we delayed any longer, we’d be condemning more of our citizens to suffering and death. So every governor went their own way, which is how the United States ended up with such a patchwork response.
Surveys indicate the American public is equally dissatisfied with Trump’s performance in containing the outbreak. And he’s fallen far behind Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in 2020 election polling.
With frequent headlines about Covid-19’s resurgence and, in recent days, about the White House’s spin campaign against top government scientists, Trump’s plan to ignore Covid-19 was no longer palatable.
“The press briefings are simply the White House offering the American people a counter-narrative to that offered by the mainstream media now that we see an increase in cases,” says Jim Kuypers, a Virginia Tech communications professor who has written books on presidential rhetoric and the news media, “and also to bring up facts that are omitted or overlooked by the mainstream media in its coverage of the pandemic, facts that might help the White House.”
Is Trump changing anything about his approach?
Before Trump took the podium to brief the nation again on Tuesday, risk communications consultant Peter Sandman told me the first thing Trump should do is acknowledge that everybody in the country is struggling right now. And that was, more or less, the message from the president as he opened his remarks on Tuesday.
“It will probably, unfortunately, get worse before it gets better,” Trump said. “Something I don’t like saying about things but that’s the way it is.”
For Trump, who has described himself as a cheerleader for the country to justify his relentless optimism about Covid-19 even as the bad news piled up, that was a significant allowance. And it came the day after he had made his most forceful endorsement of mask-wearing, tweeting a picture of himself with a mask on, after previously sounding skeptical of their usefulness. In the parlance of Washington political reporters, this sounds like a pivot from the president.
We are United in our effort to defeat the Invisible China Virus, and many people say that it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance. There is nobody more Patriotic than me, your favorite President! pic.twitter.com/iQOd1whktN — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 20, 2020
And from a crisis communications standpoint, there is an argument to be made that it’s better for the president to start taking the coronavirus more seriously at this late date than never at all. It may not win him many converts among the media or skeptical voters, and there will surely be some people in his base miffed by any perceived concessions to his critics. But it may also reassure people who are usually inclined to support him but have been frustrated by his administration’s lax coronavirus response.
“I absolutely think better late than never,” Sandman said. “I suspect a lot of his base would be relieved. They’re almost as worried about Covid-19 as their anti-Trump neighbors, and they’d welcome the chance to stop feeling that supporting the president means they have to shrug off the pandemic.”
Trump is also going to use these briefings to portray the country as on the verge of overcoming the coronavirus. And while the grim reality of rising deaths and rising cases can’t be ignored, there is some good news to tell and Trump highlighted as many positive points as he could during Tuesday’s briefing.
Doctors have identified therapies (remdesivir, dexamethasone) and treatment protocols (putting patients in a “prone” position, chest down, when they are on a ventilator) that can lead to better outcomes. So far, people who end up hospitalized in this latest Covid surge are not dying as frequently as hospitalized patients were earlier in the pandemic. Looking ahead, several vaccine candidates have shown promising results in their early trials, though the most important tests on efficacy are still to come.
But the US response is still inadequate. The testing backlogs are a serious hinderance to America’s ability to track the virus’s spread and contain new outbreaks. Most states and cities have still not been able to hire enough people to do contact tracing, and the White House is reportedly skeptical of allocating more federal funding for those programs.
And Trump still wasn’t playing it straight with all of his facts at Tuesday’s briefing. He boasted that the US is doing more Covid testing than the European Union, but the scale of America’s outbreak is much worse than most of Europe at this point. Going by the positive test rate — a good proxy for whether a country is performing enough testing relative to its outbreak; lower is better — the US is still struggling, with a positive test rate over 8 percent. Most European countries are below 4 percent, which is the range that reflects adequate testing according to experts.
The White House briefings could better inform the public, or they could become a venue for Trump’s spin
This is the concern: that Trump will use these briefings not as a mea culpa and an opportunity to set the record straight with the American public on Covid-19, but to spin a fanciful narrative that obscures the country’s problems and serves primarily as campaign fodder ahead of voters’ decision on Trump’s reelection.
The fact that Trump appeared at the Tuesday briefing by himself, without any scientists flanking him, reinforced those fears.
“Although it is critical for a leader to communicate regularly during crisis (e.g., FDR’s fireside chats), the purpose has to be to inform, calm, and unite; to paint a realistic but achievable future and show the way,” Rajnandini Pillai, a management professor who specializes in leadership at California State University San Marcos, told me. “I am afraid that his briefings may do more harm than good because this president is intent on marketing breathtaking falsehoods to serve his reelection aims.”
The media has made its share of mistakes in its Covid-19 coverage. Recode’s Peter Kafka covered them well. Early news reporting failed to convey the uncertainties of an emerging pathogen, and evolutions in the scientific understanding of the disease — such as on the efficacy of masks — may have added to public misconceptions about the pandemic and mistrust of scientists. The decision by many public health experts to endorse the protests over police violence, after warnings for months about the dangers of large gatherings, may also have sowed public skepticism. (Evidence suggests the protests — outdoors and with many in masks — may not have led to big spikes in cases.)
But news organizations have also stepped in where the federal government has abdicated its responsibility: in reporting on Covid-19 data, in conveying public health guidance, and in preparing the public for the likely long duration of this crisis. Trump, on the other hand, has used his platform to stoke racial animus, discredit experts and push unwarranted hype.
These briefings are undeniably a chance for him to strike a new tone. Maybe this time it will stick. At the briefing, a reporter asked Trump if he favored more federal money for testing, after the Post had reported the White House was opposed to allocating more funding in the next Covid-19 relief bill.
“If the doctors and the professionals feel that, even though we’re at a level that nobody ever dreamt possible, that they would like to do more, I’m okay with it,” Trump said.
All of the promise and peril of the briefings was revealed in that sentence. There was a deference to expert advice. But then there was also the hyperbole. That is, and always will be, the Trump experience.
But it was actually another recurring rhetorical flourish in Trump’s remarks that left me skeptical the president has really found a new tone. Scientists have been trying for years to move away from the old habit of identifying a disease by its place of origin.
Too often, such rhetoric has been used to vilify and ostracize non-white people. While administration officials and allies have frequently referred to the coronavirus as the Chinese virus or the Wuhan virus or even the more overtly racist “kung flu,” Asian Americans have been the targets of discrimination during the pandemic, And the president is clearly leaning into dog whistles targeting white Americans as his best hope for reelection.
So maybe it shouldn’t be any surprise that three times in the first few minutes of the briefing, reading from his prepared text, Trump referred to Covid-19 as “the China virus.”
That has always been the strategy. So, in at least one regard, the tone was not really much different at all. This is who Trump is.


vox--2020-07-22--The US-China “cold war” reaches Houston

The US-China “cold war” reaches Houston

The United States has ordered China ’ s consulate in Houston closed by Friday , an escalatory step that deepens the relationship crisis between the world ’ s top powers and opens up a new front in their burgeoning cold war .
In an early Wednesday morning statement , the State Department accused China of spying and launching influence operations around America , including targeting US government officials .
Therefore , State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said , the US ordered China ’ s Houston diplomatic office closed “ in order to protect American intellectual property and American ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t specify how , exactly , the move would hinder China ’ s intelligence gathering in the US .
Unsurprisingly , China ’ s Foreign Ministry didn ’ t take kindly to the abrupt demand .
It accused the US of opening sensitive diplomatic pouches in October and June , a serious allegation the Trump administration has yet to address .
Spokesperson Wang Wenbin called the consulate closure an “ unprecedented escalation ” and asserted that “ China will certainly make legitimate and necessary reactions.
” The leading theory is that Beijing will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps in Hong Kong or the one already devoid of staff in Wuhan , the origination point of the coronavirus .
Just hours after the Trump administration notified the Chinese government of its decision , Houston locals spotted fires burning and smoke billowing from the consulate ’ s courtyard , seemingly from pieces of paper incinerated in trash cans .
It ’ s common practice , when an embassy or consulate is being abruptly abandoned , for diplomatic staff to quickly destroy any classified or sensitive information that could be left behind — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host country or others who enter the facility once the diplomats leave .
Police and firefighters in Houston arrived on the scene but didn ’ t enter the building , since it ’ s legally Chinese sovereign territory .
A senior White House official , who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters , told me the file-burning further confirmed for the Trump administration that “ most of ” the Chinese diplomats in Houston are “ spies.
” Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) , the acting chair of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Twitter that “ # China ’ s Houston consulate is a massive spy center ” and that “ forcing it to close is long overdue.
” The administration and its allies have a point : Experts say the consulate was used to spy on the oil industry .
“ Several incidents involving international energy companies , engineering consultants and sub-contractors working for Vietnam can be traced to its operatives , ” Bill Hayton , a China expert at the Chatham House think tank in the UK , tweeted on Wednesday .
Houston , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the oil sector .
That alone may have provided the US all it needed to kick Chinese diplomats out of Texas .
The 1961 Vienna Convention , a set of international rules governing diplomatic relations , is clear that foreign officials must “ respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State ” and have “ a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.
” Ortagus specifically cited those sections of the Vienna Convention in her Wednesday statement .
Of course , every country — including the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the host country .
That ’ s nothing new .
But , if China was using the Houston consulate solely as a major spy hub — instead of its actual function to approve visas and help expats in Texas and nearby states — one could make a strong case Beijing gave up the right to keep that mission .
But the spying angle may not be the only aspect at play here .
President Donald Trump has a reelection to consider , and showing he ’ s tough on China — by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been open since 1979 — is one way to boost his national security bona fides .
“ The Houston consulate is the only Chinese consulate in a red state , so that probably made it easier , ” said Bonnie Glaser , a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies .
The others are in New York , Chicago , Los Angeles , San Francisco , and the embassy in Washington , DC .
Further , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo plans to give a speech on Thursday discussing what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortcomings of US foreign policy toward China in the past .
Announcing the Houston move gives him something to boast about in the address .
“ We put together a series of remarks aimed at making sure the American people understood the ongoing , serious threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party to our fundamental way of life here in the United States of America , ” Pompeo told the Washington Times in a Tuesday interview to preview the speech .
Finally , on Tuesday , Washington accused Beijing of working with two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vaccines and treatments .
It ’ s possible the Houston announcement was meant as a retaliation to that case .
Even considering all that , most experts aren ’ t completely sure why this decision was made now as opposed to any other time if Chinese spying was of major concern to the administration .
“ At this point , the reasoning behind the US government ’ s action is unclear , ” Aaron Friedberg , a China expert at Princeton University , told me , which is troubling since “ closing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The answer may not lie in just one incident , but rather in a compendium of transgressions .
For months now , Washington and Beijing have exchanged insults and taken countering actions which have further plunged ties to their worst point since the 1970s .
The US closing China ’ s consulate — and the expected retaliation — likely forms yet another data point in a larger , ongoing struggle between two competing world powers .
“ It ’ s hard to argue anymore that this is not a new cold war , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war is heating up Listen to US-China analysts and the first thing they ’ ll tell you is that the situation just keeps getting worse .
“ The downward spiral is picking up speed , ” said Jacob Stokes of the US Institute of Peace .
“ Bilateral relations are plumbing new depths every day.
” Ryan Hass , the China director on the National Security Council from 2013 to 2017 , explained to me just why that is : “ A pattern seems to have taken hold , with the Chinese taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responding punitively , and then China retaliating in a reciprocal tit-for-tat fashion .
I expect the same pattern to play itself out in the case of the closing of this consulate.
” Just look at a few of the events that have happened throughout the course of the Trump administration .
The president launched a trade war against China , imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars ’ worth of goods .
Beijing responded in kind , placing similar penalties on American-made products .
Despite reaching a “ phase one ” deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship between the two countries hasn ’ t changed — except that products are becoming more expensive to buy in the US .
In March , the Trump administration said only up to 100 Chinese citizens could work for five Beijing-owned outlets in the US .
Weeks later , China expelled American journalists from the New York Times , Washington Post , and the Wall Street Journal from the country .
It also forced other outlets , namely Voice of America and Time magazine , to tell the government how they operate in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sanctioned multiple Chinese officials for the regime ’ s forced internment of over a million Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang , a region in Western China .
One of the officials targeted was Chen Quanguo , the Communist Party secretary for Xinjiang .
Almost immediately afterward , China retaliated by targeting US officials , including Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz ( R-TX ) .
And on Tuesday , as mentioned , Washington indicted the two hackers .
The Justice Department also alleged they went after clergy and human rights activists in the US , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s unclear what China will do in response to the 11-count indictment , but it will surely deny having anything to do with the hackers .
During tense times like these , it ’ s normally best to use any and all channels of communication to stop matters from getting worse .
But forcibly closing the Houston consulate potentially makes that harder .
“ This further reduces the few remaining diplomatic channels between the two sides and is a step that will prove difficult to reverse , ” said Daniel Russel , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ East Asian and Pacific affairs from 2013 to 2017 .
Other experts agree .
Not arresting the accused and shutting the entire consulate down instead will cause “ a further downturn of the bilateral business and people-to-people relations between the two countries , which have traditionally provided some ballast in the relationship when government-to-government relations were strained , ” said USIP ’ s Stokes .
“ Overall , this is another step toward ‘ decoupling ’ the United States and China.
” And if the US and China keep drifting further and further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may not remain so “ cold ” much longer .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The United States has ordered China’s consulate in Houston closed by Friday, an escalatory step that deepens the relationship crisis between the world’s top powers and opens up a new front in their burgeoning cold war.
In an early Wednesday morning statement, the State Department accused China of spying and launching influence operations around America, including targeting US government officials. Therefore, State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said, the US ordered China’s Houston diplomatic office closed “in order to protect American intellectual property and American’s private information.” But Ortagus didn’t specify how, exactly, the move would hinder China’s intelligence gathering in the US.
Unsurprisingly, China’s Foreign Ministry didn’t take kindly to the abrupt demand. It accused the US of opening sensitive diplomatic pouches in October and June, a serious allegation the Trump administration has yet to address. Spokesperson Wang Wenbin called the consulate closure an “unprecedented escalation” and asserted that “China will certainly make legitimate and necessary reactions.”
On Friday, that reaction happened: China told the US it had 72 hours to close its consulate in Chengdu, a prominent outpost in the country’s southwest that was vital to America’s efforts to keep tabs on Tibet and Xinjiang. With the US consulate in Wuhan closed due to the coronavirus — Wuhan is the disease’s origination point — the Trump administration now has fewer diplomats on the ground to monitor China and stop spiraling relations from getting worse.
Shortly after the announcement, a heavy police presence guarded the soon-to-be-shuttered consulate.
The police presence outside the U.S. consulate in Chengdu is somethinghttps://t.co/B98a9HVedQ https://t.co/aBZU2By2Pz pic.twitter.com/V2lTPGbDkE — Anna Fifield (@annafifield) July 24, 2020
That somewhat mirrored how the Chinese reacted to the Houston news. Just hours after the Trump administration notified the Chinese government of its decision, Houston locals spotted fires burning and smoke billowing from the consulate’s courtyard, seemingly from pieces of paper incinerated in trash cans.
It’s common practice, when an embassy or consulate is being abruptly abandoned, for diplomatic staff to quickly destroy any classified or sensitive information that could be left behind — and perhaps seen or collected by the host country or others who enter the facility once the diplomats leave.
Police and firefighters in Houston arrived on the scene but didn’t enter the building, since it’s legally Chinese sovereign territory.
This video shared with us by a viewer who lives next to the Consulate General of China in #Houston shows fire and activity in the courtyard of the building.
DETAILS SO FAR: https://t.co/2cOeKoap96 pic.twitter.com/0myxe6HIlC — KPRC2Tulsi (@KPRC2Tulsi) July 22, 2020
A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, told me the file-burning further confirmed for the Trump administration that “most of” the Chinese diplomats in Houston are “spies.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), the acting chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also wrote on Twitter that “#China’s Houston consulate is a massive spy center” and that “forcing it to close is long overdue.”
#China’s Houston consulate is a massive spy center, forcing it to close is long overdue. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) July 22, 2020
#China’s consulate in #Houston is not a diplomatic facility. It is the central node of the Communist Party’s vast network of spies & influence operations in the United States. Now that building must close & the spies have 72 hours to leave or face arrest.
This needed to happen. — Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) July 22, 2020
The administration and its allies have a point: Experts say the consulate was used to spy on the oil industry. “Several incidents involving international energy companies, engineering consultants and sub-contractors working for Vietnam can be traced to its operatives,” Bill Hayton, a China expert at the Chatham House think tank in the UK, tweeted on Wednesday. Houston, after all, is the American epicenter of the oil sector.
That alone may have provided the US all it needed to kick Chinese diplomats out of Texas. The 1961 Vienna Convention, a set of international rules governing diplomatic relations, is clear that foreign officials must “respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State” and have “a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.” Ortagus specifically cited those sections of the Vienna Convention in her Wednesday statement.
Of course, every country — including the US — uses its diplomatic facilities to spy on the host country. That’s nothing new. But, if China was using the Houston consulate solely as a major spy hub — instead of its actual function to approve visas and help expats in Texas and nearby states — one could make a strong case Beijing gave up the right to keep that mission.
But the spying angle may not be the only aspect at play here.
President Donald Trump has a reelection to consider, and showing he’s tough on China — by shuttering a diplomatic post that’s been open since 1979 — is one way to boost his national security bona fides.
“The Houston consulate is the only Chinese consulate in a red state, so that probably made it easier,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The others are in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the embassy in Washington, DC.
Further, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo plans to give a speech on Thursday discussing what the administration perceives to have been the shortcomings of US foreign policy toward China in the past. Announcing the Houston move gives him something to boast about in the address.
“We put together a series of remarks aimed at making sure the American people understood the ongoing, serious threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party to our fundamental way of life here in the United States of America,” Pompeo told the Washington Times in a Tuesday interview to preview the speech.
Finally, on Tuesday, Washington accused Beijing of working with two hackers who targeted firms working on coronavirus vaccines and treatments. It’s possible the Houston announcement was meant as a retaliation to that case.
Even considering all that, most experts aren’t completely sure why this decision was made now as opposed to any other time if Chinese spying was of major concern to the administration. “At this point, the reasoning behind the US government’s action is unclear,” Aaron Friedberg, a China expert at Princeton University, told me, which is troubling since “closing a foreign consulate is a serious step.”
The answer may not lie in just one incident, but rather in a compendium of transgressions.
For months now, Washington and Beijing have exchanged insults and taken countering actions which have further plunged ties to their worst point since the 1970s. The US closing China’s consulate — and the expected retaliation — likely forms yet another data point in a larger, ongoing struggle between two competing world powers.
“It’s hard to argue anymore that this is not a new cold war,” said Glaser.
The US-China cold war is heating up
Listen to US-China analysts and the first thing they’ll tell you is that the situation just keeps getting worse.
“The downward spiral is picking up speed,” said Jacob Stokes of the US Institute of Peace. “Bilateral relations are plumbing new depths every day.”
Ryan Hass, the China director on the National Security Council from 2013 to 2017, explained to me just why that is: “A pattern seems to have taken hold, with the Chinese taking actions the US finds objectionable, America responding punitively, and then China retaliating in a reciprocal tit-for-tat fashion. I expect the same pattern to play itself out in the case of the closing of this consulate.”
Just look at a few of the events that have happened throughout the course of the Trump administration.
The president launched a trade war against China, imposing tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of goods. Beijing responded in kind, placing similar penalties on American-made products. Despite reaching a “phase one” deal earlier this year, the general trade relationship between the two countries hasn’t changed — except that products are becoming more expensive to buy in the US.
In March, the Trump administration said only up to 100 Chinese citizens could work for five Beijing-owned outlets in the US. Weeks later, China expelled American journalists from the New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal from the country. It also forced other outlets, namely Voice of America and Time magazine, to tell the government how they operate in China.
Last week, the US sanctioned multiple Chinese officials for the regime’s forced internment of over a million Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang, a region in Western China. One of the officials targeted was Chen Quanguo, the Communist Party secretary for Xinjiang. Almost immediately afterward, China retaliated by targeting US officials, including Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
And on Tuesday, as mentioned, Washington indicted the two hackers. The Justice Department also alleged they went after clergy and human rights activists in the US, China, and Hong Kong. It’s unclear what China will do in response to the 11-count indictment, but it will surely deny having anything to do with the hackers.
During tense times like these, it’s normally best to use any and all channels of communication to stop matters from getting worse. But forcibly closing the Houston consulate potentially makes that harder.
“This further reduces the few remaining diplomatic channels between the two sides and is a step that will prove difficult to reverse,” said Daniel Russel, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs from 2013 to 2017.
Other experts agree. Not arresting the accused and shutting the entire consulate down instead will cause “a further downturn of the bilateral business and people-to-people relations between the two countries, which have traditionally provided some ballast in the relationship when government-to-government relations were strained,” said USIP’s Stokes. “Overall, this is another step toward ‘decoupling’ the United States and China.”
And if the US and China keep drifting further and further apart, the current “war” may not remain so “cold” much longer.


vox--2020-07-22--An FBI investigation shows Ohio’s abysmal energy law was fueled by corruption

On Tuesday , the news broke that the FBI had arrested Ohio Speaker of the House of Representatives Larry Householder , the architect of HB 6 , a law that passed in July 2019 .
That bill , widely recognized as the worst energy policy in the country , gutted Ohio ’ s renewables and energy efficiency laws while bailing out several coal and nuclear plants .
As I wrote in my book , Short Circuiting Policy , the law was a multibillion-dollar gift to FirstEnergy , a private electric utility that has resisted climate policy for decades .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for with $ 61 million in bribes .
Spending a few million to get more than a billion dollars ?
Not a bad return on investment .
Unfortunately , this kind of corruption is not an aberration for the electric utility industry .
Across the country , most private utilities are resisting the clean energy transition , and many are buying off politicians with campaign contributions to do it .
What ’ s more , the industry celebrates it — the Edison Electric Institute , the national private utility association , gave FirstEnergy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HB 6 .
Corruption like this within the electric utility industry is a barrier to solving the climate crisis .
But the way forward is clear : Citizens must demand that politicians stop taking money from these fossil fuel companies and start holding them accountable .
Something is rotten in the state of Ohio In March 2018 , FirstEnergy spun off its debt into FirstEnergy Solutions , a subsidiary that went through bankruptcy .
To deal with its financial problems , the company sought billions in subsidies from the Ohio legislature for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it had a champion in Speaker Householder , who was there every step of the way , working diligently within the legislature to get FirstEnergy its money .
By July 2019 , the legislative session was over and FirstEnergy had not secured its bailout .
Householder kept working , calling his colleagues back to the chamber with little notice .
With narrow margins , he delivered the votes , and that same day Gov .
Mike DeWine signed the FirstEnergy bailout into law .
At the time , many wondered : Why the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really have to call all the legislators back from their vacations to pass this coal bailout ?
It appears the FBI was wondering the same thing .
It now seems clear that Householder was working directly with FirstEnergy and its affiliated companies .
The utility funneled $ 61 million through an organization called Generation Now , which Householder , his political affiliates , and FirstEnergy lobbyists controlled .
Based on its tax status , it was supposed to be a “ social welfare ” organization , acting in the public interest .
Instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affidavit that Generation Now engaged in a conspiracy to financially benefit the utility and its affiliated companies through this dirty energy bailout — and to line Householder ’ s and his associates ’ pockets while they were at it .
The dark money campaign funded political ads , mailers , and lobbying in support of HB 6 .
It also put lobbyists across the state on retainer , creating conflicts of interest to tie them up , so they could not work for the clean energy advocates who wanted to stop the bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affidavit The 82-page , 250 paragraph FBI affidavit — a collage of colorful text messages and political ads — is stunning in its simplicity : This is bribery .
The alleged participants in the scheme even used the term “ pay to play ” when describing what Householder and his associates were up to , saying that the funding from FirstEnergy for their political aims was “ unlimited.
” Before the FBI arrests , many journalists and watchdog groups suspected that Householder was corrupt .
He was a controversial choice for speaker — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the early 2000s , he found himself under federal investigation for money laundering .
Householder was only elected speaker last year after a contentious fight .
Somehow candidates supporting his leadership found themselves with well-funded campaigns .
We now know , according to the affidavit , that FirstEnergy funneled millions of dollars to 21 candidates who pledged to support Householder ’ s rise to power .
All of these politicians supported Householder ’ s speakership , and only one voted against the bailout .
Per the FBI , Householder also benefited financially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the affidavit , at least $ 300,000 was used to settle a lawsuit against him , more than $ 100,000 went toward his Florida vacation home , and another $ 97,000 went directly to his campaign expenses .
Householder also received personal favors from FirstEnergy , like a flight to President Trump ’ s inauguration on a corporate jet .
The corruption allegedly did not end when HB 6 became law .
When groups wanted to let the public decide whether to overturn this draconian policy through a petition for a ballot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in funds to Generation Now .
This money funded ads that falsely claimed the Chinese government would use your personal information if you signed the petition .
It also paid for bribery , harassment , and even physical assault of people collecting signatures .
It was an anti-democratic dark money campaign , and it worked .
Facing this well-funded opposition , the advocates failed to get enough signatures .
Ohio voters were never given a chance to overturn the bailout .
HB 6 remains law .
Given the investigation is ongoing , FirstEnergy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ named as defendants — they are referred to only as “ Company A ” in the affidavit .
It ’ s likely more charges will be coming .
In the six-month period leading up the bill ’ s passage , Householder had 30 phone calls with FirstEnergy ’ s CEO , Chuck Jones .
The coming months will not be good ones for Mr. Jones .
We are only at the beginning of the end of this story .
As US Attorney for Ohio ’ s Southern District David M. DeVillers put it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ there are going to be a lot of busy FBI agents here in the Southern District of Ohio.
” The same day , FirstEnergy acknowledged that it had received subpoenas .
If I were a senior executive for FirstEnergy or its affiliated companies , I would be wondering when my subpoena would be arriving .
It ’ s not just a nuclear bailout — it ’ s a utility scheme to stop the clean energy transition While the FBI has largely framed the policy as a nuclear bailout , that is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energy law .
This bill also saved three large coal plants from closing .
It ’ s clear that FirstEnergy Solutions ( now called Energy Harbor ) used part of its nuclear bailout funds to save the Sammis coal plant that was scheduled to close .
The law was written explicitly so that the utility would never have to open up its books to legislators .
And the amounts the utility said it required to keep its nuclear plants open fluctuated continuously .
A few days after Gov .
DeWine signed the law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would no longer have to close the Sammis coal plant .
This wasn ’ t surprising since the FirstEnergy Solutions CEO , John Judge , had previously said securing HB 6 ’ s passage would allow them to invest $ 40 million to $ 50 million to keep this coal plant open .
It seems that through some creative accounting , part of the nuclear bailout ended up funding a coal plant .
No matter how you slice it , this law cost Ohioans billions of dollars The law also contained funding for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has an ownership stake in — the so-called OVEC plants .
Based on bankruptcy filings , I estimate that the OVEC coal bailout was worth $ 1.7 billion just for Ohio ’ s two big utilities , including FirstEnergy Solutions .
If HB 6 remains law , a lot more money will be spent bailing out these dirty coal plants than the state ’ s ailing nuclear fleet .
The law also gutted the state ’ s clean energy laws , which had been in place for more than a decade .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over $ 5 billion , yet the legislature rolled it back .
The popular renewable energy goals , which Gov .
John Kasich had already undermined , were eliminated in HB 6 .
No matter how you slice it , this law cost Ohioans billions of dollars .
And since these are monopoly utilities we ’ re talking about , if folks want to stop funding FirstEnergy ’ s corrupt activities by simply paying the monthly electricity bills , they can ’ t .
There is no choice .
The Ohio case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Corrupt electric utilities using ratepayer funds to roll back climate policy is not limited to Ohio .
As I described in Short Circuiting Policy , it is an unfortunately common pattern .
Last week , the Illinois utility ComEd — whose parent company is Exelon — admitted to engaging in bribery and agreed to pay a $ 200 million fine .
It ’ s very likely that another speaker , Daniel Madigan , is involved in that case — the Illinois governor has already called on him to resign .
In Arizona @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the FBI similarly launched an investigation into an elected official over its ties to a private electric utility , Arizona Public Service .
As we now know , Arizona Corporation Commission Chair Gary Pierce met privately with then-Arizona Public Service CEO Don Brandt numerous times .
The utility also funneled over $ 700,000 through a dark money group to Pierce ’ s son ’ s failed bid for secretary of state .
Arizona Public Service also secretly spent tens of millions into campaigns to elect its own regulators in order to secure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and generous rate hikes .
In 2018 alone , it spent upward of $ 40 million to successfully block a clean energy ballot initiative .
The new CEO , Jeff Guldner , played a key role in directing the utility ’ s dark political spending .
And this isn ’ t a new strategy .
Throughout the 1990s , electric utilities including FirstEnergy and Arizona Public Service were key funders of climate denial .
Virginia provides one hopeful counterexample , which shows us one solution to the problem of corrupt electric utilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign to push politicians to pledge not to accept money from electric utilities , most prominently Dominion .
This electric utility has an atrocious track record of ripping off customers , polluting the climate , and perpetuating environmental racism .
By the 2019 election , Virginia state candidates refusing Dominion money won nearly 50 seats .
Shortly thereafter , the legislature passed a landmark law requiring 100 percent clean electricity .
Once the Virginia politicians stopped taking money from the electric utility , they could finally pass climate legislation .
The dogged folks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a utility watchdog that has turned up real-time facts in most of these cases — paint a clear picture for those paying attention : Most electric utilities are resisting the clean energy transition and using corruption to do it .
We must change this pattern .
Politicians must pledge to stop taking money from electric utilities and the fossil fuel industry .
Instead , they should change the law , disallowing ratepayer funds to be used for political work .
Now that it ’ s clear that Ohio ’ s draconian energy policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , legislators should act immediately to repeal the law .
While Gov .
Mike DeWine has called for Householder ’ s resignation , he has not called for the repeal of the corrupt coal bailout .
That ’ s perhaps not surprising , since DeWine has himself taken money from FirstEnergy .
DeWine ’ s staff even made plans to fly legislators on a taxpayer-funded plane to make Householder ’ s last-minute vote for the bailout .
The day after DeWine signed the law , he attended a Trump fundraiser hosted by coal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cozy with the fossil fuel industry .
If DeWine is not in bed with FirstEnergy , then he should be calling for HB 6 to be reversed immediately .
This law was passed by corrupt politicians .
The effort to overturn it by popular will was thwarted by a corrupt utility .
If DeWine can ’ t see this invalidates Ohio ’ s energy law , then perhaps he has a bigger problem .
We can not allow utility corruption to continue to stall clean energy progress .
This FBI affidavit is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking electric utilities ’ money .
Leah C. Stokes is an assistant professor at the University of California Santa Barbara .
Her book , Short Circuiting Policy , examines the case of Ohio ’ s coal bailout and other examples of utility corruption .
Find her on Twitter @ leahstokes .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Update, July 23: On Thursday, the day after this article was first published, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine called for the repeal of HB 6, the energy bill passed in 2019 now tied to a bribery scandal in the Ohio legislature.
On Tuesday, the news broke that the FBI had arrested Ohio Speaker of the House of Representatives Larry Householder, the architect of HB 6, a law that passed in July 2019. That bill, widely recognized as the worst energy policy in the country, gutted Ohio’s renewables and energy efficiency laws while bailing out several coal and nuclear plants.
As I wrote in my book, Short Circuiting Policy, the law was a multibillion-dollar gift to FirstEnergy, a private electric utility that has resisted climate policy for decades. It turns out it was a gift paid for with $61 million in bribes.
Spending a few million to get more than a billion dollars? Not a bad return on investment.
Unfortunately, this kind of corruption is not an aberration for the electric utility industry. Across the country, most private utilities are resisting the clean energy transition, and many are buying off politicians with campaign contributions to do it. What’s more, the industry celebrates it — the Edison Electric Institute, the national private utility association, gave FirstEnergy an award for its work to pass HB 6.
Corruption like this within the electric utility industry is a barrier to solving the climate crisis. But the way forward is clear: Citizens must demand that politicians stop taking money from these fossil fuel companies and start holding them accountable.
Something is rotten in the state of Ohio
In March 2018, FirstEnergy spun off its debt into FirstEnergy Solutions, a subsidiary that went through bankruptcy. To deal with its financial problems, the company sought billions in subsidies from the Ohio legislature for its ailing coal and nuclear plants. And it had a champion in Speaker Householder, who was there every step of the way, working diligently within the legislature to get FirstEnergy its money.
By July 2019, the legislative session was over and FirstEnergy had not secured its bailout. Householder kept working, calling his colleagues back to the chamber with little notice. With narrow margins, he delivered the votes, and that same day Gov. Mike DeWine signed the FirstEnergy bailout into law.
At the time, many wondered: Why the urgency, Mr. Speaker? Did you really have to call all the legislators back from their vacations to pass this coal bailout? It appears the FBI was wondering the same thing.
It now seems clear that Householder was working directly with FirstEnergy and its affiliated companies. The utility funneled $61 million through an organization called Generation Now, which Householder, his political affiliates, and FirstEnergy lobbyists controlled. Based on its tax status, it was supposed to be a “social welfare” organization, acting in the public interest.
Instead, it is alleged in the FBI affidavit that Generation Now engaged in a conspiracy to financially benefit the utility and its affiliated companies through this dirty energy bailout — and to line Householder’s and his associates’ pockets while they were at it.
The dark money campaign funded political ads, mailers, and lobbying in support of HB 6.
It also put lobbyists across the state on retainer, creating conflicts of interest to tie them up, so they could not work for the clean energy advocates who wanted to stop the bill.
The dirty details in the FBI affidavit
The 82-page, 250 paragraph FBI affidavit — a collage of colorful text messages and political ads — is stunning in its simplicity: This is bribery.
The alleged participants in the scheme even used the term “pay to play” when describing what Householder and his associates were up to, saying that the funding from FirstEnergy for their political aims was “unlimited.”
Before the FBI arrests, many journalists and watchdog groups suspected that Householder was corrupt. He was a controversial choice for speaker — his last time in the role, during the early 2000s, he found himself under federal investigation for money laundering. Householder was only elected speaker last year after a contentious fight. Somehow candidates supporting his leadership found themselves with well-funded campaigns.
We now know, according to the affidavit, that FirstEnergy funneled millions of dollars to 21 candidates who pledged to support Householder’s rise to power. All of these politicians supported Householder’s speakership, and only one voted against the bailout.
Per the FBI, Householder also benefited financially from the arrangement with FirstEnergy. According to the affidavit, at least $300,000 was used to settle a lawsuit against him, more than $100,000 went toward his Florida vacation home, and another $97,000 went directly to his campaign expenses. Householder also received personal favors from FirstEnergy, like a flight to President Trump’s inauguration on a corporate jet.
The corruption allegedly did not end when HB 6 became law. When groups wanted to let the public decide whether to overturn this draconian policy through a petition for a ballot initiative, FirstEnergy wired $38 million in funds to Generation Now. This money funded ads that falsely claimed the Chinese government would use your personal information if you signed the petition. It also paid for bribery, harassment, and even physical assault of people collecting signatures.
It was an anti-democratic dark money campaign, and it worked. Facing this well-funded opposition, the advocates failed to get enough signatures. Ohio voters were never given a chance to overturn the bailout. HB 6 remains law.
Given the investigation is ongoing, FirstEnergy and its affiliated companies are not yet named as defendants — they are referred to only as “Company A” in the affidavit. It’s likely more charges will be coming. In the six-month period leading up the bill’s passage, Householder had 30 phone calls with FirstEnergy’s CEO, Chuck Jones. The coming months will not be good ones for Mr. Jones.
We are only at the beginning of the end of this story. As US Attorney for Ohio’s Southern District David M. DeVillers put it in Tuesday’s press conference, “there are going to be a lot of busy FBI agents here in the Southern District of Ohio.” The same day, FirstEnergy acknowledged that it had received subpoenas. If I were a senior executive for FirstEnergy or its affiliated companies, I would be wondering when my subpoena would be arriving.
It’s not just a nuclear bailout — it’s a utility scheme to stop the clean energy transition
While the FBI has largely framed the policy as a nuclear bailout, that is a narrow view of Ohio’s terrible energy law. This bill also saved three large coal plants from closing.
It’s clear that FirstEnergy Solutions (now called Energy Harbor) used part of its nuclear bailout funds to save the Sammis coal plant that was scheduled to close. The law was written explicitly so that the utility would never have to open up its books to legislators. And the amounts the utility said it required to keep its nuclear plants open fluctuated continuously.
A few days after Gov. DeWine signed the law, a FirstEnergy Solutions spokesperson said they would no longer have to close the Sammis coal plant. This wasn’t surprising since the FirstEnergy Solutions CEO, John Judge, had previously said securing HB 6’s passage would allow them to invest $40 million to $50 million to keep this coal plant open. It seems that through some creative accounting, part of the nuclear bailout ended up funding a coal plant.
No matter how you slice it, this law cost Ohioans billions of dollars
The law also contained funding for several other coal plants that FirstEnergy Solutions has an ownership stake in — the so-called OVEC plants. Based on bankruptcy filings, I estimate that the OVEC coal bailout was worth $1.7 billion just for Ohio’s two big utilities, including FirstEnergy Solutions.
If HB 6 remains law, a lot more money will be spent bailing out these dirty coal plants than the state’s ailing nuclear fleet.
The law also gutted the state’s clean energy laws, which had been in place for more than a decade. The energy efficiency policy alone had saved ratepayers over $5 billion, yet the legislature rolled it back. The popular renewable energy goals, which Gov. John Kasich had already undermined, were eliminated in HB 6.
No matter how you slice it, this law cost Ohioans billions of dollars. And since these are monopoly utilities we’re talking about, if folks want to stop funding FirstEnergy’s corrupt activities by simply paying the monthly electricity bills, they can’t. There is no choice.
A pattern of utility corruption
The Ohio case, while extreme, is not an aberration. Corrupt electric utilities using ratepayer funds to roll back climate policy is not limited to Ohio. As I described in Short Circuiting Policy, it is an unfortunately common pattern.
Last week, the Illinois utility ComEd — whose parent company is Exelon — admitted to engaging in bribery and agreed to pay a $200 million fine. It’s very likely that another speaker, Michael Madigan, is involved in that case — the Illinois governor has already called on him to resign.
In Arizona, which I examine in my book, the FBI similarly launched an investigation into an elected official over its ties to a private electric utility, Arizona Public Service. As we now know, Arizona Corporation Commission Chair Gary Pierce met privately with then-Arizona Public Service CEO Don Brandt numerous times. The utility also funneled over $700,000 through a dark money group to Pierce’s son’s failed bid for secretary of state.
Arizona Public Service also secretly spent tens of millions on campaigns to elect its own regulators in order to secure favorable decisions, including clean energy rollbacks and generous rate hikes. In 2018 alone, it spent upward of $40 million to successfully block a clean energy ballot initiative. The new CEO, Jeff Guldner, played a key role in directing the utility’s dark political spending.
And this isn’t a new strategy. Throughout the 1990s, electric utilities including FirstEnergy and Arizona Public Service were key funders of climate denial.
Virginia provides one hopeful counterexample, which shows us one solution to the problem of corrupt electric utilities. In 2017, grassroots activists started a campaign to push politicians to pledge not to accept money from electric utilities, most prominently Dominion. This electric utility has an atrocious track record of ripping off customers, polluting the climate, and perpetuating environmental racism.
By the 2019 election, Virginia state candidates refusing Dominion money won nearly 50 seats. Shortly thereafter, the legislature passed a landmark law requiring 100 percent clean electricity. Once the Virginia politicians stopped taking money from the electric utility, they could finally pass climate legislation.
The dogged folks at the Energy and Policy Institute — a utility watchdog that has turned up real-time facts in most of these cases — paint a clear picture for those paying attention: Most electric utilities are resisting the clean energy transition and using corruption to do it.
We must change this pattern. Politicians must pledge to stop taking money from electric utilities and the fossil fuel industry. Instead, they should change the law, disallowing ratepayer funds to be used for political work.
It’s time to repeal Ohio’s corrupt law
Now that it’s clear that Ohio’s draconian energy policy was passed based on bribery and corruption, legislators should act immediately to repeal the law.
While Gov. Mike DeWine has called for Householder’s resignation, he has not called for the repeal of the corrupt coal bailout. That’s perhaps not surprising, since DeWine has himself taken money from FirstEnergy. DeWine’s staff even made plans to fly legislators on a taxpayer-funded plane to make Householder’s last-minute vote for the bailout. The day after DeWine signed the law, he attended a Trump fundraiser hosted by coal baron Bob Murray. He seems quite cozy with the fossil fuel industry.
If DeWine is not in bed with FirstEnergy, then he should be calling for HB 6 to be reversed immediately. This law was passed by corrupt politicians. The effort to overturn it by popular will was thwarted by a corrupt utility. If DeWine can’t see this invalidates Ohio’s energy law, then perhaps he has a bigger problem.
We cannot allow utility corruption to continue to stall clean energy progress. This FBI affidavit is a wake-up call to all politicians: Stop taking electric utilities’ money.
Leah C. Stokes is an assistant professor at the University of California Santa Barbara. Her book, Short Circuiting Policy, examines the case of Ohio’s coal bailout and other examples of utility corruption. Find her on Twitter @leahstokes.
Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the first name of Michael Madigan.


vox--2020-07-22--How Netflix’s new mafia documentary failed

Rudy Giuliani , wearing a navy suit with a flag pinned to its lapel , sits in a glassy conference room talking to a camera .
“ I was a tough kid .
I was a boxer .
I was taught not to be afraid of anything , ” he says .
“ Could I have been a wise guy ?
Sure I could have .
But in the ’ 70s , I became an assistant US attorney.
” Surprisingly , he ’ s not in a campaign ad .
Giuliani is a major and exalted figure in Sam Hobkinson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vs. the Mafia , a new three-episode documentary series on Netflix .
Of course he is .
Giuliani , after all , had a large role in the legal strategy that helped law enforcement break the stranglehold that five major mafia families had on the economy and culture of New York City in the 1980s .
It would be weird to make a documentary about the era without including him in it .
But Rudy Giuliani circa 2020 is not the same cultural figure he was back then .
Nor is , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connections to the mob in that era and apparent adoption of mob-like tactics are no secret .
Fear City — a true crime tale for the “ law and order ” crowd , laced with nostalgia for the good ol ’ days — pulls off some wild feats of lazy filmmaking in its storytelling .
And the wildest of them all might be an almost complete absence of any acknowledgment that the past is barely in the past , when it comes to this topic .
Imagine making a documentary in 2020 about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the 1970s and ’ 80s with only the thinnest possible reference to the current president of the United States — who , whatever you think of him , is a thoroughly relevant character .
( The thin reference in this series comes at the beginning of the third episode , when someone says that if you were a real estate developer in New York in the 1980s , you had to deal with the mob .
Fear City shows a few images of Trump while mentioning Trump Tower as a major development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit of a tape where a mobster mentions him .
Okay , but : How did Trump deal with the mob ?
To what extent ?
Were his actions criminal ?
Don ’ t hold out for an answer .
Fear City has already moved on . )
Or contemplate the decision-making that goes into including Giuliani — Trump ’ s future lawyer — as a pervasive presence and primary subject , alongside the New York attorneys and FBI agents he worked with , nearly all of whom are interviewed in similarly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts as the film ’ s most reliable narrators .
The more colorful former mobsters ’ voices ( mostly guys who did time or became states ’ witnesses ) become less significant once Giuliani and co. enter the picture — a working title for Fear City could well have been How Rudy Saved New York City from the Bad Guys : And That ’ s Why Law Enforcement Is Good .
I had to scan the credits to confirm the series wasn ’ t funded by the Department of Justice .
Others can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veracity of Fear City .
Was RICO ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ) , the congressional act that gave law enforcement the ammunition they needed to finally indict mob bosses , as unambiguously good as the film makes it seem ?
How well does the way that former mobsters and FBI agents characterize those years of cat-and-mousing each other hold up against history ?
I have no idea , but its lack of voices outside of those directly involved in the cases leaves me skeptical .
I ’ m not here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ level of facts , though , or even politics ; what struck me was how bad it is as a documentary .
It ’ s a boring choice to tell a story like this from the point of view of the FBI agents .
Their perspective is well trodden in TV and movies .
And New York ’ s relationship to the mob is not exactly hidden history .
It ’ s also crushingly dull to adopt the official narrative about what New York was like back then as the film ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unfortunately punctuated ) on-screen text at the start of the first episode : That ’ s not entirely wrong , of course .
New York was in rough shape in the 1970s , and nearly bankrupt .
But if there was anything else going on in New York at the time , you wouldn ’ t know it from Fear City , which provides little , if any , context .
Nor would you know how ordinary New Yorkers were really affected by the state of things , except through the words of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the film .
There ’ s plenty of talk of the mafia ’ s control over unions , but no former union workers appear to talk about it .
We hear stories about grocery store owners being exploited , but never hear from the actual grocery store owners .
And women don ’ t seem to exist in this world at all .
( Very few women speak throughout the entire series ; the most interesting female voice is former FBI agent Charlotte Lang , who was the sole woman agent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears halfway through the third episode .
Fear City would have been far more compelling if it had reoriented itself around her . )
What we get with Fear City isn ’ t “ New York vs the mafia , ” as the subtitle promises ; it ’ s “ the FBI and the District Attorney ’ s Office vs the mafia , ” which boils down to a lot of talking about the specific ways bosses got bugged and doesn ’ t offer much of a sense of how New York was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst sin Fear City may commit is being ... tedious ?
Something as pulpy and cinematic as cops chasing criminals should be loaded with juicy stories .
Fear City somehow manages to both be far too simplistic and utterly lost in its own weeds .
Watching it made me feel like an interloper in a conversation a bunch of guys were having as they relived their glory days to one another , only to realize 10 minutes in that none of them were particularly good storytellers .
The film spends a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is interesting enough at first , but then it goes on ... and on ... and on ... and just when you think it ’ s finally moving on to a new topic , it goes back .
Documentarians can only work with the facts they have available , of course .
But they make choices , just like other filmmakers , about what goes into their film and what doesn ’ t .
They pick the voices they believe are important and leave out the ones that don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ choose which facts to use to tell their story .
The story told in Fear City is ultimately about heroic law enforcement and attorneys pursuing the mafia .
It ’ s also about how glamorous and fun it was to be in the mafia .
( Drinking Champagne comes up frequently . )
It is emphatically not about what factors led to organized criminals becoming so powerful in New York .
It ’ s not about what kind of men were attracted to the mob , and why .
Nor is it interested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspected of criminal activity , or curious about why women were so consistently sidelined ( a question mob-movie godfather Martin Scorsese explored just last year in his film The Irishman ) .
It is only glancingly concerned with why someone — like , say , Rudy Giuliani — would decide not to be a “ wise guy ” and instead become an attorney .
( In part , it seems he , and others , hated what the mafia had done to Italian American communities , which would have been another great thread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also not about why this particular moment in history matters , other than its potential for entertainment value ( if you are very interested in the mechanics of placing a bug or the construction of legal strategies ) .
But you don ’ t tell a story like this for no reason .
At the end of Fear City , the film halfheartedly notes where some of its interviewees landed : jail and state ’ s witness status for the mob guys , mayor of New York for Giuliani , no note @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then it turns ominous .
The last scene is archival footage of a newscaster wrapping up the story by saying , “ Who will the next generation of bosses be , and what kind of shadowy crime games will they play ?
” The footage cuts to a shot of lower Manhattan , with the Twin Towers prominent .
We go to credits .
You can take away any number of messages from that directorial choice , but Occam ’ s razor suggests it ’ s a link between what we all know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Giuliani brought down the mafia .
Giuliani has long made political use of his governance during 9/11 and its aftermath , particularly since becoming President Donald Trump ’ s attorney in 2018 — something Fear City does not mention at all ( again , seems relevant ! )
.
No matter : The link is established .
Fear City plays best as an extended attempt to remind us that the good guys were the good guys and Giuliani was the smartest guy in the room , no matter what he ’ s up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interested in how the mafia ’ s presence in New York shaped the city ’ s future , or what the events of the past reveal about the twisted present ; it ’ s not interested in New York .
It ’ s a reinforcement of accepted ideas , not a probing of history .
Sure , there ’ s a place in the world for uncomplicated nostalgia for the old days .
But it should never be as vapid , or dull , as Fear City .
Every day at Vox , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Rudy Giuliani, wearing a navy suit with a flag pinned to its lapel, sits in a glassy conference room talking to a camera. “I was a tough kid. I was a boxer. I was taught not to be afraid of anything,” he says. “Could I have been a wise guy? Sure I could have. But in the ’70s, I became an assistant US attorney.”
Surprisingly, he’s not in a campaign ad. Giuliani is a major and exalted figure in Sam Hobkinson’s Fear City: New York vs. the Mafia, a new three-episode documentary series on Netflix. Of course he is. Giuliani, after all, had a large role in the legal strategy that helped law enforcement break the stranglehold that five major mafia families had on the economy and culture of New York City in the 1980s. It would be weird to make a documentary about the era without including him in it.
But Rudy Giuliani circa 2020 is not the same cultural figure he was back then. Nor is, for that matter, Donald Trump, whose connections to the mob in that era and apparent adoption of mob-like tactics are no secret. Fear City — a true crime tale for the “law and order” crowd, laced with nostalgia for the good ol’ days — pulls off some wild feats of lazy filmmaking in its storytelling. And the wildest of them all might be an almost complete absence of any acknowledgment that the past is barely in the past, when it comes to this topic.
Imagine making a documentary in 2020 about New York City, the mafia, and the 1970s and ’80s with only the thinnest possible reference to the current president of the United States — who, whatever you think of him, is a thoroughly relevant character. (The thin reference in this series comes at the beginning of the third episode, when someone says that if you were a real estate developer in New York in the 1980s, you had to deal with the mob. Fear City shows a few images of Trump while mentioning Trump Tower as a major development from a major developer, and plays a bit of a tape where a mobster mentions him. Okay, but: How did Trump deal with the mob? To what extent? Were his actions criminal? Don’t hold out for an answer. Fear City has already moved on.)
Or contemplate the decision-making that goes into including Giuliani — Trump’s future lawyer — as a pervasive presence and primary subject, alongside the New York attorneys and FBI agents he worked with, nearly all of whom are interviewed in similarly glossy settings, with everyone giving uninterrogated accounts as the film’s most reliable narrators. The more colorful former mobsters’ voices (mostly guys who did time or became states’ witnesses) become less significant once Giuliani and co. enter the picture — a working title for Fear City could well have been How Rudy Saved New York City from the Bad Guys: And That’s Why Law Enforcement Is Good. I had to scan the credits to confirm the series wasn’t funded by the Department of Justice.
Others can better speak than I to the historical veracity of Fear City. Was RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), the congressional act that gave law enforcement the ammunition they needed to finally indict mob bosses, as unambiguously good as the film makes it seem? How well does the way that former mobsters and FBI agents characterize those years of cat-and-mousing each other hold up against history? I have no idea, but its lack of voices outside of those directly involved in the cases leaves me skeptical.
I’m not here to quibble with Fear City on the level of facts, though, or even politics; what struck me was how bad it is as a documentary.
Fear City is shallow, toothless, and dull
It’s a boring choice to tell a story like this from the point of view of the FBI agents. Their perspective is well trodden in TV and movies. And New York’s relationship to the mob is not exactly hidden history.
It’s also crushingly dull to adopt the official narrative about what New York was like back then as the film’s de facto worldview, proposed in (unfortunately punctuated) on-screen text at the start of the first episode:
1970’s NEW YORK A LAWLESS CITY PLAGUED BY DRUGS, VIOLENCE AND MURDER
That’s not entirely wrong, of course. New York was in rough shape in the 1970s, and nearly bankrupt.
But if there was anything else going on in New York at the time, you wouldn’t know it from Fear City, which provides little, if any, context. Nor would you know how ordinary New Yorkers were really affected by the state of things, except through the words of the mobsters and the FBI agents interviewed in the film.
There’s plenty of talk of the mafia’s control over unions, but no former union workers appear to talk about it. We hear stories about grocery store owners being exploited, but never hear from the actual grocery store owners. And women don’t seem to exist in this world at all. (Very few women speak throughout the entire series; the most interesting female voice is former FBI agent Charlotte Lang, who was the sole woman agent on the mob-busting team, and she only appears halfway through the third episode. Fear City would have been far more compelling if it had reoriented itself around her.)
What we get with Fear City isn’t “New York vs the mafia,” as the subtitle promises; it’s “the FBI and the District Attorney’s Office vs the mafia,” which boils down to a lot of talking about the specific ways bosses got bugged and doesn’t offer much of a sense of how New York was caught up in it all.
But the worst sin Fear City may commit is being ... tedious? Something as pulpy and cinematic as cops chasing criminals should be loaded with juicy stories. Fear City somehow manages to both be far too simplistic and utterly lost in its own weeds. Watching it made me feel like an interloper in a conversation a bunch of guys were having as they relived their glory days to one another, only to realize 10 minutes in that none of them were particularly good storytellers. The film spends a lot of time talking about bugging the mafia, which is interesting enough at first, but then it goes on ... and on ... and on ... and just when you think it’s finally moving on to a new topic, it goes back.
Documentarians can only work with the facts they have available, of course. But they make choices, just like other filmmakers, about what goes into their film and what doesn’t. They pick the voices they believe are important and leave out the ones that don’t matter, and they adopt narratives and choose which facts to use to tell their story.
The story told in Fear City is ultimately about heroic law enforcement and attorneys pursuing the mafia. It’s also about how glamorous and fun it was to be in the mafia. (Drinking Champagne comes up frequently.) It is emphatically not about what factors led to organized criminals becoming so powerful in New York.
It’s not about what kind of men were attracted to the mob, and why. Nor is it interested in the ethics of spying on civilians suspected of criminal activity, or curious about why women were so consistently sidelined (a question mob-movie godfather Martin Scorsese explored just last year in his film The Irishman). It is only glancingly concerned with why someone — like, say, Rudy Giuliani — would decide not to be a “wise guy” and instead become an attorney. (In part, it seems he, and others, hated what the mafia had done to Italian American communities, which would have been another great thread to tug on.)
Fear City is also not about why this particular moment in history matters, other than its potential for entertainment value (if you are very interested in the mechanics of placing a bug or the construction of legal strategies). But you don’t tell a story like this for no reason. At the end of Fear City, the film halfheartedly notes where some of its interviewees landed: jail and state’s witness status for the mob guys, mayor of New York for Giuliani, no note of the other agents and lawyers.
Then it turns ominous. The last scene is archival footage of a newscaster wrapping up the story by saying, “Who will the next generation of bosses be, and what kind of shadowy crime games will they play?” The footage cuts to a shot of lower Manhattan, with the Twin Towers prominent. We go to credits.
You can take away any number of messages from that directorial choice, but Occam’s razor suggests it’s a link between what we all know happened to the Twin Towers and how Giuliani brought down the mafia. Giuliani has long made political use of his governance during 9/11 and its aftermath, particularly since becoming President Donald Trump’s attorney in 2018 — something Fear City does not mention at all (again, seems relevant!).
No matter: The link is established. Fear City plays best as an extended attempt to remind us that the good guys were the good guys and Giuliani was the smartest guy in the room, no matter what he’s up to these days. It is not interested in how the mafia’s presence in New York shaped the city’s future, or what the events of the past reveal about the twisted present; it’s not interested in New York. It’s a reinforcement of accepted ideas, not a probing of history.
Sure, there’s a place in the world for uncomplicated nostalgia for the old days. But it should never be as vapid, or dull, as Fear City.
Fear City is streaming on Netflix.