vox--2020-05-14--Sen. Richard Burr and the coronavirus insider trading scandal, explained

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr will step down from his role as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee effective Friday , according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell .
His resignation came after the FBI served a search warrant at Burr ’ s Washington , DC , home Wednesday night in a probe of whether several stock trades he made after being briefed on the early outbreak of the coronavirus broke the law .
Federal agents seized a cellphone belonging to Burr after serving the warrant , a law enforcement official told the LA Times .
It ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Senate Intelligence Committee chair , who has had a fraught relationship with the president and was one of several senators whose pre-pandemic stock trades came under scrutiny .
For Burr , the saga began February 13 , less than a week after Fox News published an op-ed he co-wrote reassuring the public that the US was well prepared for the pandemic .
He and his wife then sold 33 stocks worth between $ 628,033 and $ 1.72 million .
Those sell-offs included stocks in several industries that would later be hit hard by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and shipping industries .
The stock market tanked in late February and early March as states began issuing shelter-at-home orders and shuttering nonessential business operations in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus .
As the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee , Burr reportedly received frequent briefings on the coronavirus outbreak in the days leading up to the stock sales .
But after the news broke of his stock-selling , Burr tweeted on March 20 that he “ relied solely on public news reports to guide my decision ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Burr declined to comment to Vox .
The FBI also declined to comment .
McConnell said Thursday that Burr would step down from the Senate Intelligence Committee “ during the pendency of the investigation ” on Friday .
“ We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee , ” McConnell told the National Journal .
There has yet been no word on which of his Republican colleagues may replace Burr as chair .
While other senators have been questioned about their stock trades , Burr is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be served a search warrant .
It could be that the circumstances are most damning for the North Carolina Republican .
But given his fraught relationship with the president ( and an increasingly politicized Justice Department ) , the news raised questions of whether the DOJ investigation was politically motivated .
What we know about Burr ’ s stock trades and those of several other senators Government officials and lawmakers are often privy to key information — which could potentially be used to profit in the stock market — that isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the passage of the Stock Act in 2012 , they ’ re barred from using it to trade personal stocks .
( Burr was one of just three senators to vote against the law . )
They are permitted , however , to own and trade stocks as long as they don ’ t use that private information .
They ’ re also required to report those trades in regular disclosures .
Congressional financial disclosures don ’ t list specific transaction amounts , instead breaking reporting into dollar value bands like $ 1,001 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 50,000 , etc.
, up to transactions over $ 50 million .
On February 13 , Burr , who Roll Call estimates is the 154th wealthiest federal lawmaker , sold up to $ 1.7 million in stock transactions .
Among them , Burr sold up to $ 150,000 worth of shares of Wyndham Hotels and Resorts , a hotel chain .
Wyndham ’ s stock dropped from $ 59.10 per share at the close on the day Burr sold it to a low of $ 21.59 on March 19 , before rebounding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100,000 in stock in Extended Stay America , an economy hospitality company .
Burr had been getting briefings on the virus for several weeks before making the trades , and according to an NPR report , he told a luncheon for a group called the Capitol Hill Club in late February that the virus was “ more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history , ” likening it to the 1918 flu pandemic .
Sen. Kelly Loeffler has also drawn criticism for suspected insider trading related to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in January , Loeffler instantly became the wealthiest senator currently in office .
She is married to Jeffrey Sprecher , chair of the New York Stock Exchange and chair and CEO of its holding company , Intercontinental Exchange .
The Daily Beast first reported on March 19 that Loeffler had sold millions in stock within days of attending a February 24 Trump administration briefing on the novel coronavirus .
Loeffler reported a sale of stock owned jointly with Sprecher on the same day the Senate Health Committee , which she serves on , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Trump administration officials , including the CDC director and Dr. Anthony Fauci , the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases .
In total , Loeffler and her husband conducted 29 stock transactions in late February .
Perhaps the one that most drew attention was buying between $ 100,000 and $ 250,000 in the technology company Citrix , which offers remote-working software .
The software has become popular as white-collar workers have transitioned to working from home during the pandemic .
Loeffler pushed back against the allegations in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she nor her husband makes decisions about her portfolio .
Eyebrows were raised again in early February when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Loeffler had sold off $ 18.7 million in stock in Intercontinental Exchange ( ICE ) , where she was formerly a longtime executive .
Those transactions — though large in value — don ’ t necessarily have an evident connection to the pandemic .
But they drew scrutiny because , as the New York Times reported , they hinted at an unusual compensation scheme from her former employer .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in receiving scrutiny over suspect stock transactions .
Sen. Jim Inhofe ( R-OK ) , who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee , sold up to $ 750,000 worth of stock , saying it was related to a “ continuing divestiture plan.
” Sen. Dianne Feinstein ( D-CA ) reported selling millions in stock just before the coronavirus-related market crash .
The senator claimed she was not a party to the decision to sell and that the trades were made by her husband .
“ Under Senate rules I report my husband ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a statement .
“ I have no input into his decisions .
My husband in January and February sold shares of a cancer therapy company .
This company is unrelated to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation.
” Burr is seemingly the focus of a larger probe into several lawmakers ’ alleged pandemic-related trades — and that has some ethics experts concerned The Department of Justice , in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission , began an investigation in late March into lawmakers who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information about the coronavirus .
Feinstein told NBC News Thursday that she had spoken to the FBI about her trading activity , while Loeffler didn ’ t respond when asked by Politico whether federal agents had contacted her .
When asked by Vox if Loeffler had been contacted by the FBI about her trades , a spokesperson for the senator responded that the allegations “ are completely false ” and “ based on a political attack.
” “ No search warrant has been served on Sen Loeffler , ” the spokesperson told Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been any other contact .
After publication of this article , a Loeffler spokesperson said in a statement that the senator had forwarded documents and information to the DOJ , the SEC , and the Senate Ethics Committee “ establishing that she and her husband acted entirely appropriately and observed both the letter and the spirit of the law.
” All four lawmakers have denied doing anything illegal .
Burr himself asked for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into his trading activity .
The warrant against Burr , however , is the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the investigation and is raising questions about whether his trades are most suspicious or whether something else is going on .
On one hand , agents and prosecutors would have needed to convince a judge that they had probable cause that a crime was committed in order to obtain said warrant .
And as Preet Bharara , former US attorney for the Southern District of New York , tweeted Wednesday night , seeking a search warrant against a high-level elected official like Burr “ is not something the FBI or DOJ does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review , the blessing of a judge , and consideration of severe reputational harm to a sitting US Senator , ” Bharara tweeted .
But some legal experts expressed concern on Twitter Wednesday night about a potential disparity in treatment between Burr , who has occasionally clashed with Trump , and treatment of a senator more loyal to Trump , like Loeffler .
Last May , Burr ’ s committee issued a subpoena for Donald Trump Jr. during an investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives .
The subpoena became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to dismiss investigations into Trump campaign links to Russia as politically motivated .
Trump has frequently lashed out at Burr in response , even retweeting criticism of the senator over the Russia investigation as recently as Monday .
Loeffler , meanwhile , was appointed to a White House task force on “ reopening America , ” which she touted in a campaign ad on Facebook in late April , according to a Daily Beast report .
“ President Trump tapped me to help re-open the American economy .
While the fight against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to those in need and get Georgians back to work safely !
” Loeffler ’ s campaign wrote in the ad .
One thing that possibly differentiates Burr ’ s case : His brother-in-law , Gerald Fauth , a Trump appointee to the National Mediation Board , which mediates labor-management relations in the railroad and airline industries , also sold significant shares on the same day , according to a ProPublica report last week .
Fauth ’ s trades could be innocuous or coincidental ; however , tips to friends and family are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s 2013 policy on insider trading , and convictions of insider trading by friends and family were upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2016 US Supreme Court ruling .
Thus far , Burr ’ s and Loeffler ’ s stock transactions have received the most public scrutiny .
And now , Burr seems primed for possibly the most serious consequences .
Who would replace Burr if he resigned from the Senate ?
In the short term , if Burr leaves the Senate before his term expires , very little will change : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and one of his Republican colleagues in the Senate will take over the Intelligence Committee .
In the longer term , however , the timing of any possible resignation matters a great deal .
It could change the balance of the Senate .
North Carolina law requires the state governor , currently Democrat Roy Cooper , to appoint someone to fill a US Senate vacancy .
But the state vacancy law also provides that if the departing senator “ was elected as the nominee of a political party , the Governor shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recommended by the State executive committee of the political party with which the vacating member was affiliated when elected if that party executive committee makes recommendations within 30 days of the occurrence of the vacancy.
” As a practical matter , that means that the state GOP will almost certainly send Cooper a list of three names , and Cooper will choose the new senator from among these three Republicans .
But the length of this appointed senator ’ s tenure in office depends on when Burr leaves the Senate .
The same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the seat , which will “ be held at the time of the first election for members of the General Assembly that is held more than 60 days after the vacancy occurs.
” So if Burr resigns more than 60 days from this year ’ s general election , which will be held on November 3 , voters will pick a new senator on that date .
But if Burr resigns later , the election will not be held until 2022 , which would be the final year of Burr ’ s original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an additional two years in office .
If the election to replace Burr is held this year , it is likely to become one of the most hotly contested races in the nation , and Democrats have a decent shot of picking up Burr ’ s seat .
Although North Carolina has historically favored Republicans , Democrats frequently win statewide elections .
Both the incumbent governor and the sitting attorney general , Josh Stein , are Democrats .
Democrat Kay Hagan served as a US senator from North Carolina as recently as 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 4 percentage points in 2016 , North Carolina appears to be trending blue .
In 2017 and 2018 , 63 percent of the state ’ s population growth occurred in the Charlotte , Raleigh , and Durham metropolitan areas , regions that favored Democrat Hillary Clinton over Republican Donald Trump by large margins in 2016 .
In this sense , North Carolina resembles its neighbor Virginia , a former Republican stronghold that morphed into a blue state as its population grew more urban and more cosmopolitan — although , if North Carolina @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , its transition from red to blue is several years behind Virginia ’ s .
Burr ’ s fellow Republican senator , Thom Tillis , is already slated to run for reelection this November .
And while polling of this election is fairly sparse , the data that does exist suggests that Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham is favored to win this race .
So the accusations of insider trading against Burr could have significant implications for the nation as a whole .
If Burr is forced out of his Senate seat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats have a very real chance of picking up that seat in November .
That could potentially impact who controls the Senate as a whole , and it could give Democrats more leeway to govern if they also capture the White House .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr will step down from his role as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee effective Friday, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
His resignation came after the FBI served a search warrant at Burr’s Washington, DC, home Wednesday night in a probe of whether several stock trades he made after being briefed on the early outbreak of the coronavirus broke the law. Federal agents seized a cellphone belonging to Burr after serving the warrant, a law enforcement official told the LA Times.
It’s a significant escalation in the investigation of the Senate Intelligence Committee chair, who has had a fraught relationship with the president and was one of several senators whose pre-pandemic stock trades came under scrutiny.
For Burr, the saga began February 13, less than a week after Fox News published an op-ed he co-wrote reassuring the public that the US was well prepared for the pandemic. He and his wife then sold 33 stocks worth between $628,033 and $1.72 million. Those sell-offs included stocks in several industries that would later be hit hard by the pandemic, including hotel, restaurant, and shipping industries. The stock market tanked in late February and early March as states began issuing shelter-at-home orders and shuttering nonessential business operations in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus.
As the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Burr reportedly received frequent briefings on the coronavirus outbreak in the days leading up to the stock sales. But after the news broke of his stock-selling, Burr tweeted on March 20 that he “relied solely on public news reports to guide my decision” to sell his stocks.
My statement in response to reports about recent financial disclosures: pic.twitter.com/J4kye5a4ok — Richard Burr (@SenatorBurr) March 20, 2020
A spokesperson for Burr declined to comment to Vox. The FBI also declined to comment.
McConnell said Thursday that Burr would step down from the Senate Intelligence Committee “during the pendency of the investigation” on Friday. “We agreed that this decision would be in the best interests of the committee,” McConnell told the National Journal.
There has yet been no word on which of his Republican colleagues may replace Burr as chair.
While other senators have been questioned about their stock trades, Burr is reportedly so far the only lawmaker to be served a search warrant. It could be that the circumstances are most damning for the North Carolina Republican. But given his fraught relationship with the president (and an increasingly politicized Justice Department), the news raised questions of whether the DOJ investigation was politically motivated.
What we know about Burr’s stock trades and those of several other senators
Government officials and lawmakers are often privy to key information — which could potentially be used to profit in the stock market — that isn’t available to the public. But since the passage of the Stock Act in 2012, they’re barred from using it to trade personal stocks. (Burr was one of just three senators to vote against the law.)
They are permitted, however, to own and trade stocks as long as they don’t use that private information. They’re also required to report those trades in regular disclosures. Congressional financial disclosures don’t list specific transaction amounts, instead breaking reporting into dollar value bands like $1,001 to $15,000, $15,001 to $50,000, etc., up to transactions over $50 million.
On February 13, Burr, who Roll Call estimates is the 154th wealthiest federal lawmaker, sold up to $1.7 million in stock transactions. Among them, Burr sold up to $150,000 worth of shares of Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, a hotel chain. Wyndham’s stock dropped from $59.10 per share at the close on the day Burr sold it to a low of $21.59 on March 19, before rebounding. He also sold up to $100,000 in stock in Extended Stay America, an economy hospitality company.
Burr had been getting briefings on the virus for several weeks before making the trades, and according to an NPR report, he told a luncheon for a group called the Capitol Hill Club in late February that the virus was “more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history,” likening it to the 1918 flu pandemic.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler has also drawn criticism for suspected insider trading related to the pandemic. When she was appointed in January, Loeffler instantly became the wealthiest senator currently in office. She is married to Jeffrey Sprecher, chair of the New York Stock Exchange and chair and CEO of its holding company, Intercontinental Exchange.
The Daily Beast first reported on March 19 that Loeffler had sold millions in stock within days of attending a February 24 Trump administration briefing on the novel coronavirus.
Loeffler reported a sale of stock owned jointly with Sprecher on the same day the Senate Health Committee, which she serves on, hosted a private, all-senators coronavirus briefing from Trump administration officials, including the CDC director and Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
In total, Loeffler and her husband conducted 29 stock transactions in late February. Perhaps the one that most drew attention was buying between $100,000 and $250,000 in the technology company Citrix, which offers remote-working software. The software has become popular as white-collar workers have transitioned to working from home during the pandemic.
Loeffler pushed back against the allegations in a March 20 tweet, saying that neither she nor her husband makes decisions about her portfolio.
This is a ridiculous and baseless attack. I do not make investment decisions for my portfolio. Investment decisions are made by multiple third-party advisors without my or my husband's knowledge or involvement. — Senator Kelly Loeffler (@SenatorLoeffler) March 20, 2020
Eyebrows were raised again in early February when the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that Loeffler had sold off $18.7 million in stock in Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), where she was formerly a longtime executive. Those transactions — though large in value — don’t necessarily have an evident connection to the pandemic. But they drew scrutiny because, as the New York Times reported, they hinted at an unusual compensation scheme from her former employer.
But Burr and Loeffler aren’t alone in receiving scrutiny over suspect stock transactions. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, sold up to $750,000 worth of stock, saying it was related to a “continuing divestiture plan.” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) reported selling millions in stock just before the coronavirus-related market crash. The senator claimed she was not a party to the decision to sell and that the trades were made by her husband.
“Under Senate rules I report my husband’s financial transactions,” Feinstein said in a statement. “I have no input into his decisions. My husband in January and February sold shares of a cancer therapy company. This company is unrelated to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation.”
Burr is seemingly the focus of a larger probe into several lawmakers’ alleged pandemic-related trades — and that has some ethics experts concerned
The Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Securities and Exchange Commission, began an investigation in late March into lawmakers who may have tried to profit from inside information about the coronavirus.
Feinstein told NBC News Thursday that she had spoken to the FBI about her trading activity, while Loeffler didn’t respond when asked by Politico whether federal agents had contacted her.
Big scoop here
Burr got his cell phone taken.
Feinstein has answered questions.@burgessev asked Loeffler if she had contact w the FBI, and she didnt answer. https://t.co/JNU0HFgpLM — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) May 14, 2020
When asked by Vox if Loeffler had been contacted by the FBI about her trades, a spokesperson for the senator responded that the allegations “are completely false” and “based on a political attack.”
“No search warrant has been served on Sen Loeffler,” the spokesperson told Vox but did not address whether there had been any other contact.
After publication of this article, a Loeffler spokesperson said in a statement that the senator had forwarded documents and information to the DOJ, the SEC, and the Senate Ethics Committee “establishing that she and her husband acted entirely appropriately and observed both the letter and the spirit of the law.”
All four lawmakers have denied doing anything illegal. Burr himself asked for a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into his trading activity. The warrant against Burr, however, is the first publicly reported action taken over the course of the investigation and is raising questions about whether his trades are most suspicious or whether something else is going on.
On one hand, agents and prosecutors would have needed to convince a judge that they had probable cause that a crime was committed in order to obtain said warrant. And as Preet Bharara, former US attorney for the Southern District of New York, tweeted Wednesday night, seeking a search warrant against a high-level elected official like Burr “is not something the FBI or DOJ does lightly.”
“It requires layers of review, the blessing of a judge, and consideration of severe reputational harm to a sitting US Senator,” Bharara tweeted.
But some legal experts expressed concern on Twitter Wednesday night about a potential disparity in treatment between Burr, who has occasionally clashed with Trump, and treatment of a senator more loyal to Trump, like Loeffler.
A lot more is needed to develop the record, but I do think this is a moment to be seriously on guard for DOJ being used to carry out political retribution. Serving a warrant on a senator is a very significant and rapid escalation and Trump has long had an axe to grind with Burr. https://t.co/mGravZJyoq — Susan Hennessey (@Susan_Hennessey) May 14, 2020
Last May, Burr’s committee issued a subpoena for Donald Trump Jr. during an investigation into links between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives. The subpoena became an issue for Trump-loyal Republicans who were trying to dismiss investigations into Trump campaign links to Russia as politically motivated. Trump has frequently lashed out at Burr in response, even retweeting criticism of the senator over the Russia investigation as recently as Monday.
Loeffler, meanwhile, was appointed to a White House task force on “reopening America,” which she touted in a campaign ad on Facebook in late April, according to a Daily Beast report. “President Trump tapped me to help re-open the American economy. While the fight against COVID-19 continues, we must provide relief to those in need and get Georgians back to work safely!” Loeffler’s campaign wrote in the ad.
This may be entirely legit. But it tells a lot about our extraordinary times that Burr and not Kelly Loeffler - the former having issued Senate Intelligence Committee reports fingering Russia, the latter slavish,y loyal to Trump-raises questions of FBI motive and role of Barr. https://t.co/OgBiuLWWqy — Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) May 14, 2020
One thing that possibly differentiates Burr’s case: His brother-in-law, Gerald Fauth, a Trump appointee to the National Mediation Board, which mediates labor-management relations in the railroad and airline industries, also sold significant shares on the same day, according to a ProPublica report last week.
Fauth’s trades could be innocuous or coincidental; however, tips to friends and family are considered insider trading under the SEC’s 2013 policy on insider trading, and convictions of insider trading by friends and family were upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2016 US Supreme Court ruling.
Thus far, Burr’s and Loeffler’s stock transactions have received the most public scrutiny. And now, Burr seems primed for possibly the most serious consequences.
Who would replace Burr if he resigned from the Senate?
In the short term, if Burr leaves the Senate before his term expires, very little will change: He will be replaced by another Republican, and one of his Republican colleagues in the Senate will take over the Intelligence Committee. In the longer term, however, the timing of any possible resignation matters a great deal. It could change the balance of the Senate.
North Carolina law requires the state governor, currently Democrat Roy Cooper, to appoint someone to fill a US Senate vacancy. But the state vacancy law also provides that if the departing senator “was elected as the nominee of a political party, the Governor shall appoint from a list of three persons recommended by the State executive committee of the political party with which the vacating member was affiliated when elected if that party executive committee makes recommendations within 30 days of the occurrence of the vacancy.”
As a practical matter, that means that the state GOP will almost certainly send Cooper a list of three names, and Cooper will choose the new senator from among these three Republicans.
But the length of this appointed senator’s tenure in office depends on when Burr leaves the Senate. The same law provides for an election to fill the seat, which will “be held at the time of the first election for members of the General Assembly that is held more than 60 days after the vacancy occurs.” So if Burr resigns more than 60 days from this year’s general election, which will be held on November 3, voters will pick a new senator on that date.
But if Burr resigns later, the election will not be held until 2022, which would be the final year of Burr’s original term, giving the appointed Republican senator an additional two years in office.
If the election to replace Burr is held this year, it is likely to become one of the most hotly contested races in the nation, and Democrats have a decent shot of picking up Burr’s seat. Although North Carolina has historically favored Republicans, Democrats frequently win statewide elections. Both the incumbent governor and the sitting attorney general, Josh Stein, are Democrats. Democrat Kay Hagan served as a US senator from North Carolina as recently as 2015.
Though Trump won the state by nearly 4 percentage points in 2016, North Carolina appears to be trending blue. In 2017 and 2018, 63 percent of the state’s population growth occurred in the Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham metropolitan areas, regions that favored Democrat Hillary Clinton over Republican Donald Trump by large margins in 2016.
In this sense, North Carolina resembles its neighbor Virginia, a former Republican stronghold that morphed into a blue state as its population grew more urban and more cosmopolitan — although, if North Carolina is destined to become a reliably Democratic state, its transition from red to blue is several years behind Virginia’s.
Burr’s fellow Republican senator, Thom Tillis, is already slated to run for reelection this November. And while polling of this election is fairly sparse, the data that does exist suggests that Democratic challenger Cal Cunningham is favored to win this race.
So the accusations of insider trading against Burr could have significant implications for the nation as a whole. If Burr is forced out of his Senate seat, and if the timing is right, Democrats have a very real chance of picking up that seat in November. That could potentially impact who controls the Senate as a whole, and it could give Democrats more leeway to govern if they also capture the White House.


vox--2020-05-14--What a viral headline about Jeff Bezos becoming a trillionaire gets completely wrong and completely

What a viral headline about Jeff Bezos becoming a trillionaire gets completely wrong and completely right

No , Jeff Bezos is not about to become a trillionaire .
A new swell of outrage headed toward the world ’ s richest man on Thursday when a few news outlets re-aggregated a months-old , flimsy projection from a “ small business advice platform.
” By midday , leading progressives like Elizabeth Warren were tweeting that Bezos “ is on track to become the world ’ s first trillionaire in the middle of a pandemic.
” The dust-up — as untethered from reality as it may be — was a reminder of just how angry many on the left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s wealth , and how much Bezos has become a caricature for the country ’ s billionaire class .
He has become an easy punching bag , and will remain one even if he doesn ’ t indeed become a trillionaire .
Even during the market calamity the coronavirus pandemic has caused , Bezos has been consistently one of the few exceptions in the billionaire class who has always been in the green .
Amazon is more essential than ever , and its stock is up 25 % this year , as is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success while the economy craters made him a target for Bernie Sanders , too on Thursday .
Bezos has become a household name over the last few years , and especially so since he became the world ’ s single wealthiest person .
That distinction has thrust him into the spotlight , often uncomfortably , and made for unfriendly contrasts when juxtaposed against , say , working-class Amazon warehouse workers who say their employer hasn ’ t been compensating them enough or doing enough to protect them from exposure to the coronavirus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ went viral at this very moment .
Internal tensions at Amazon now involve its corporate workforce and are growing , as is Bezos ’ s net worth , which now measures at $ 144 billion .
Bezos ’ s wealth is closely tied to Amazon , which he founded in 1994 and of which he owns about 11 percent .
And Amazon ’ s stock has been on absolute tear over the last five years , growing by about 560 % .
Bezos ’ s net worth has closely followed .
He was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ May 2015 .
The climb in Bezos ’ s net worth is even more extraordinary given that he signed the world ’ s largest divorce settlement ever last year for $ 35 billion when he split with his then-wife , MacKenzie .
But that loss was quickly recouped by Amazon ’ s bull run .
Bezos isn ’ t alone .
Billionaire founders of companies that are on hot streaks have found that their net worths have skyrocketed as the stock market boomed over the last decade , even for those who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their money in their lifetimes .
The rich also often get richer , in general , because they have better access to unique investment opportunities that the average American does not , further insulating them from downturns .
That brings us back to the viral projection about Bezos ’ s wealth , prepared by a company called Comparisun .
The methodology for its startling claim ?
It calculated each billionaire ’ s average growth in their net worths over the last five years and projected how much those would increase if it continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically : If Amazon has another five years like its last five years , then Jeff Bezos , Comparisun claims , would be the world ’ s first trillionaire in 2026 .
That projection makes a lot of assumptions .
The American economy has been on a decade-long bull run that won ’ t replicate easily .
Past performance , as the saying goes , isn ’ t indicative of future performance , especially given that mature companies don ’ t typically grow by the same rate as younger companies do .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this meteoric growth , but saying that Bezos is “ on track ” to do it is quite a stretch .
After all , the methodology essentially suggests that if you find a $ 100 bill on a sidewalk — and if it took you a single second to find it — then , hey , you might become a trillionaire before Jeff Bezos .
2026 is a long time away .
Jeff Bezos will probably still be doing fine just — and he ’ ll probably remain a symbol for the grotesquely @ @ @ @ @ @

No, Jeff Bezos is not about to become a trillionaire.
On Thursday a few news outlets re-aggregated a months-old, flimsy projection from a “small business advice platform.” By midday, leading progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) were tweeting that Bezos “is on track to become the world’s first trillionaire in the middle of a pandemic.”
The dust-up — as untethered from reality as it may be — was a reminder of just how angry many on the left are about the tech elite’s wealth and how much the founder of Amazon has become a caricature for the country’s billionaire class. Bezos has become an easy punching bag and will remain one even if he doesn’t become a trillionaire.
Even during the market calamity the coronavirus pandemic has caused, Bezos has consistently been one of the few exceptions in the billionaire class who has been in the green. Amazon is more essential than ever, and its stock is up 25 percent this year, as is Bezos’s net worth. That success, while the economy craters, made him a target for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) as well Thursday.
Bezos has become a household name over the last few years, and especially so since he became the world’s wealthiest person. That distinction has thrust him into the spotlight, often uncomfortably, and made for unfriendly contrasts when juxtaposed against, say, working-class Amazon warehouse workers who say their employer hasn’t been compensating them enough or doing enough to protect them from exposure to the coronavirus.
That might also explain why an overblown prediction went viral at this moment. Internal tensions at Amazon now involve its corporate workforce and are growing, as is Bezos’s net worth, which now stands at around $144 billion.
Bezos’s wealth is closely tied to Amazon, which he founded in 1994 and of which he owns about 11 percent. Amazon’s stock has been on a bull run over the last five years, growing by about 560 percent. And Bezos’s net worth has closely followed. Back in May 2015, he was worth $38.3 billion.
The climb in Bezos’s net worth is even more extraordinary given that he signed the world’s largest divorce settlement ever last year for $35 billion when he split with his then-wife, MacKenzie. But that loss was quickly recouped by Amazon’s bull run.
Bezos isn’t alone. Billionaire founders of companies that are on hot streaks have seen their net worths skyrocket as the stock market boomed over the last decade, even for those who pledged to begin giving away all their money in their lifetimes. The rich also often get richer, in general, because they have better access to unique investment opportunities that the average American does not, further insulating them from economic downturns.
That brings us back to the viral projection about Bezos’s wealth, prepared by a company called Comparisun. The methodology for its startling claim? It calculated each billionaire’s average growth in their net worth over the last five years and projected how much they would increase if they continued to grow at that rate.
So basically: If Amazon has another five years like its last five years, then Jeff Bezos, Comparisun claims, would be the world’s first trillionaire in 2026.
That projection makes a lot of assumptions. The American economy has been on a decade-long trajectory of strong growth that won’t replicate easily. Past performance, as the saying goes, isn’t indicative of future performance, especially given that mature companies don’t typically grow at the same rate younger companies do. Amazon is likely to continue its meteoric growth, but saying that Bezos is “on track” to reach nrillionaire status is quite a stretch.
After all, the methodology essentially suggests that if you find a $100 bill on a sidewalk — and if it took you a single second to find it — then, hey, you might become a trillionaire before Jeff Bezos.
2026 is a long time away. Bezos will probably still be doing just fine — and he’ll probably remain a symbol for the grotesquely rich, trillionaire or not.


vox--2020-05-14--The Senate voted to let the government keep surveilling your online life without a warrant

During the coronavirus pandemic , many of us have vastly increased the time we spend online and moved many of the activities from outside of our homes to the confines of the internet .
In the middle of this — and with this shift in mind — the Senate voted on Wednesday not to protect Americans ’ internet browsing and search history data from secret and warrantless surveillance by law enforcement .
The measure needed 60 votes to pass .
It got 59 .
The outcome is especially frustrating since four senators didn ’ t vote on the amendment at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have voted yes .
Lamar Alexander couldn ’ t vote because he ’ s quarantined .
Two others — Ben Sasse and Bernie Sanders — didn ’ t respond to request for comment on where they were during the vote .
An aide told Politico that Patty Murray would have voted yes had she been there , but the senator was not in Washington , DC , when the vote occurred .
In the end , the result didn ’ t come down to party — there were plenty of Republican and Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The vote was for an amendment to the controversial Patriot Act , which would have expressly forbidden internet browsing and history from what the government is allowed to collect through the approval of a secret court .
Currently , there is no such provision , which means there ’ s nothing stopping the government from doing so .
The government has an established history of using this method to collect certain types of data about millions of Americans without their knowledge .
“ There is little information that is more personal than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ron Wyden , a Democrat who sponsored the amendment , told Recode .
“ If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional , or a substance abuse support group , or a particular political organization , or a particular dating site , you know a tremendous amount of private and personal information about that individual.
” “ Getting access to somebody ’ s web browsing history is almost like spying on their thoughts , ” Wyden added .
“ This level of surveillance absolutely ought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is useful here .
The Patriot Act has been in place since 2001 , when it was drafted as a response to the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks .
What was once seen by many ( but not all ) as a necessary privacy compromise to prevent terrorism became a vehicle to secretly collect data on millions of people who weren ’ t even suspected of a crime .
The Patriot Act gained newfound infamy in 2013 , when former National Security Agency ( NSA ) contractor Edward Snowden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the law was being used to secretly surveil Americans .
Among other things , the Patriot Act permitted the federal government to collect millions of phone records through a provision best known as Section 215 .
This part of the law allowed the government to simply get an order from a secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) .
This court had little oversight and approved nearly every request that came before it , provided that the government said the information was relevant to an investigation into foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act came up for renewal in 2015 , Congress enacted a number of reforms in response to the public outcry over the Snowden revelations .
This led to a law called the USA Freedom Act .
Among the reforms therein were provisions for increased oversight and transparency .
Requests for data such as phone records had to be limited in scope , and bulk collections such as those revealed by Snowden were forbidden .
But some privacy advocates didn ’ t think the USA Freedom Act went far enough , and a recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s inspector general found the FISA court system was still being abused .
The fact that the investigation into the Trump campaign was conducted partially through FISA applications — some of which , the IG found , had inaccuracies and omissions — made reforms to the USA Freedom Act and the secretive court system particularly desirable to some Republicans .
Fortunately for them , the USA Freedom Act came up for renewal this year .
The House passed a reauthorization bill in March , but the Senate wasn ’ t able to take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t help matters ) .
During the intervening period , the USA Freedom Act expired , which makes its renewal a pressing issue .
The House ’ s bill included some reforms , like forbidding the warrantless collection of Americans ’ phone records and cell tower or GPS location data .
But privacy-minded members of Congress criticized it for not going far enough , and 136 of them , including 75 Democrats , voted against its passage .
The bill that passed the House in March went to the Senate this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bill , which was cosponsored by Republican Sen. Steve Daines , would have expressly forbidden collecting “ internet website browsing ” and “ internet search history ” through a FISA application .
( The reauthorization bill passed on Thursday . )
Both Wyden and Daines made speeches on the floor in support for their amendment , each presenting it in a way that would be particularly appealing to their party ’ s interests .
While Daines said it would help prevent a politically motivated FBI from abusing FISA courts to secretly investigate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wyden said it would prevent abuse of FISA courts to secretly investigate Trump ’ s perceived enemies by Attorney General Bill Barr ’ s politically motivated Department of Justice .
Both said the amendment would further protect Americans ’ privacy .
In his impassioned speech , Wyden brought up the pandemic , and Americans ’ increased use of the internet because of it .
“ Is it right , when millions of law-abiding Americans are at home , for their government to be able to spy on their internet searches and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the senator asked , noting that the internet has become many people ’ s only connection to the outside world .
“ We are more vulnerable to abusive surveillance than ever before.
” It seems that enough senators thought it was , in fact , right .
One of the “ no ” votes came from Sen. Mitch McConnell , whose love of the Patriot Act and all of its privacy-invading provisions is enduring and well-known .
McConnell was even close to proposing his own amendment to counter the one from Wyden and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have deliberately included internet search history and web browsing data in a list of records that the government can request through FISA courts .
This was already allowed , so McConnell ’ s amendment wouldn ’ t have changed anything except codifying it into law .
But that amendment never came to the floor , likely because McConnell knew the Wyden-Daines amendment wouldn ’ t get enough votes .
“ At the end of the day , this is about protecting privacy , ” Daines said on the Senate floor , ahead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end of the day , the Senate didn ’ t want to do that .
Update , May 14 : The Patriot Act reauthorization bill passed the Senate on Thursday , without the Wyden-Daines amendment ( but with an amendment from Sens .
Leahy and Lee that added some independent oversight to the FISA court ) .
The vote was 80-16 .
Murray , now back in DC , was among the no votes .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

During the coronavirus pandemic, many of us have vastly increased the time we spend online and moved many of the activities from outside of our homes to the confines of the internet. In the middle of this — and with this shift in mind — the Senate voted on Wednesday not to protect Americans’ internet browsing and search history data from secret and warrantless surveillance by law enforcement. The measure needed 60 votes to pass. It got 59.
The outcome is especially frustrating since four senators didn’t vote on the amendment at all, and at least one would have voted yes. Lamar Alexander couldn’t vote because he’s quarantined. Two others — Ben Sasse and Bernie Sanders — didn’t respond to request for comment on where they were during the vote. An aide told Politico that Patty Murray would have voted yes had she been there, but the senator was not in Washington, DC, when the vote occurred. In the end, the result didn’t come down to party — there were plenty of Republican and Democratic votes on both sides — but attendance.
The vote was for an amendment to the controversial Patriot Act, which would have expressly forbidden internet browsing and history from what the government is allowed to collect through the approval of a secret court. Currently, there is no such provision, which means there’s nothing stopping the government from doing so. The government has an established history of using this method to collect certain types of data about millions of Americans without their knowledge.
“There is little information that is more personal than your web browsing history,” Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who sponsored the amendment, told Recode. “If you know that a person is visiting the website of a mental health professional, or a substance abuse support group, or a particular political organization, or a particular dating site, you know a tremendous amount of private and personal information about that individual.”
“Getting access to somebody’s web browsing history is almost like spying on their thoughts,” Wyden added. “This level of surveillance absolutely ought to require a warrant.”
A little history is useful here. The Patriot Act has been in place since 2001, when it was drafted as a response to the intelligence failures leading up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What was once seen by many (but not all) as a necessary privacy compromise to prevent terrorism became a vehicle to secretly collect data on millions of people who weren’t even suspected of a crime. The Patriot Act gained newfound infamy in 2013, when former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden leaked highly classified documents that revealed how the law was being used to secretly surveil Americans.
Among other things, the Patriot Act permitted the federal government to collect millions of phone records through a provision best known as Section 215. This part of the law allowed the government to simply get an order from a secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This court had little oversight and approved nearly every request that came before it, provided that the government said the information was relevant to an investigation into foreign terrorism or intelligence.
When the Patriot Act came up for renewal in 2015, Congress enacted a number of reforms in response to the public outcry over the Snowden revelations. This led to a law called the USA Freedom Act. Among the reforms therein were provisions for increased oversight and transparency. Requests for data such as phone records had to be limited in scope, and bulk collections such as those revealed by Snowden were forbidden.
But some privacy advocates didn’t think the USA Freedom Act went far enough, and a recent audit by the Department of Justice’s inspector general found the FISA court system was still being abused. The fact that the investigation into the Trump campaign was conducted partially through FISA applications — some of which, the IG found, had inaccuracies and omissions — made reforms to the USA Freedom Act and the secretive court system particularly desirable to some Republicans.
Fortunately for them, the USA Freedom Act came up for renewal this year. The House passed a reauthorization bill in March, but the Senate wasn’t able to take it up until now (the pandemic didn’t help matters). During the intervening period, the USA Freedom Act expired, which makes its renewal a pressing issue. The House’s bill included some reforms, like forbidding the warrantless collection of Americans’ phone records and cell tower or GPS location data. But privacy-minded members of Congress criticized it for not going far enough, and 136 of them, including 75 Democrats, voted against its passage.
The bill that passed the House in March went to the Senate this week. Wyden’s amendment to the bill, which was cosponsored by Republican Sen. Steve Daines, would have expressly forbidden collecting “internet website browsing” and “internet search history” through a FISA application. (The reauthorization bill passed on Thursday.)
Both Wyden and Daines made speeches on the floor in support for their amendment, each presenting it in a way that would be particularly appealing to their party’s interests. While Daines said it would help prevent a politically motivated FBI from abusing FISA courts to secretly investigate President Trump’s campaign and advisors, Wyden said it would prevent abuse of FISA courts to secretly investigate Trump’s perceived enemies by Attorney General Bill Barr’s politically motivated Department of Justice. Both said the amendment would further protect Americans’ privacy.
In his impassioned speech, Wyden brought up the pandemic, and Americans’ increased use of the internet because of it.
“Is it right, when millions of law-abiding Americans are at home, for their government to be able to spy on their internet searches and their web browsing without a warrant?” the senator asked, noting that the internet has become many people’s only connection to the outside world. “We are more vulnerable to abusive surveillance than ever before.”
It seems that enough senators thought it was, in fact, right. One of the “no” votes came from Sen. Mitch McConnell, whose love of the Patriot Act and all of its privacy-invading provisions is enduring and well-known. McConnell was even close to proposing his own amendment to counter the one from Wyden and Daines. McConnell’s amendment would have deliberately included internet search history and web browsing data in a list of records that the government can request through FISA courts. This was already allowed, so McConnell’s amendment wouldn’t have changed anything except codifying it into law. But that amendment never came to the floor, likely because McConnell knew the Wyden-Daines amendment wouldn’t get enough votes.
“At the end of the day, this is about protecting privacy,” Daines said on the Senate floor, ahead of the amendment vote. But at the end of the day, the Senate didn’t want to do that.
Update, May 14: The Patriot Act reauthorization bill passed the Senate on Thursday, without the Wyden-Daines amendment (but with an amendment from Sens. Leahy and Lee that added some independent oversight to the FISA court). The vote was 80-16. Murray, now back in DC, was among the no votes.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-05-14--“Obamagate” is the new birtherism

“Obamagate” is the new birtherism

The past week has seen President Trump , desperate to distract from the coronavirus , turn his attention to the promotion of a new conspiracy theory : “ Obamagate.
” This theory posits the prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was part of a broader scheme against the Trump presidency , masterminded by former President Barack Obama .
It ’ s not at all clear how this is supposed to come together ; Trump could not explain it when asked a press conference , saying that “ some terrible things happened ” and that “ the crime is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obamagate may not make very much sense on the merits , it makes complete sense as an ideological totem .
It is eerily reminiscent of the conspiracy theory Trump rode to political prominence a decade ago : birtherism .
The notion that Obama was not born in the United States was never even remotely plausible .
But it served a particular ideological function : It otherized America ’ s first black president , claiming that he was not American-born at all , and that therefore he and his election were illegitimate .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was ideologically foreign to the country ( remember his “ Kenyan , anti-colonial ” worldview ? )
and turned it literal .
That Trump played a major role in popularizing birtherism , and then rode a wave of white resentment to the White House , is not an accident .
Birtherism was proof of concept that a more vulgar politics of white backlash could find a real audience in the GOP , evidence that the party was waiting to be captured by Trump ’ s longstanding brand of racial demagoguery .
Trump eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign that Obama was born in America .
But the spirit of birtherism has infused his administration .
Throughout his presidency , Trump has positioned his predecessor as a nefarious plotter working to undermine the quest to Make America Great Again .
From Trump ’ s absurd 2017 claim that the 44th president “ wiretapped ” him to his new demand that the Senate make Obama testify about “ Obamagate , ” he has painted Obama ’ s presidency as illegitimate and fundamentally criminal .
Delegitimizing Obama is one of the core political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question today is how much he ’ s willing to corrupt the justice system in pursuit of it .
Obamagate and birtherism reveal the real heart of Trumpism Birtherism tapped into a very particular kind of racialized critique of Obama : a free-floating sense that something about him was not truly American .
You saw in the right-wing media habit of always using his middle name — Barack Hussein Obama .
You saw it in the accusation that when he and his wife fist-bumped during the 2008 campaign , it was a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the allegation , which some still believe , that he is secretly Muslim .
These arguments , while not explicitly framed in terms of Obama ’ s skin color , reflect the way America ’ s racial caste system operates in polite society .
Everyone knows using the n-word is unacceptable , but describing black people through stereotypes in media and everyday life remains commonplace .
Though formal discrimination in hiring is outlawed , careful studies have established that black applicants are significantly less likely to be hired than white ones .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always a way of saying that his race made him ineligible for high office , just in this coded language .
Trump ’ s advocacy for birtherism , a theory he promoted relentlessly in media appearances and on Twitter in Obama ’ s first term , took this abstract idea and turned it into a concrete rallying cry .
Obama doesn ’ t just think in a foreign way , the idea posits ; he ’ s a literal foreigner who is ineligible for his office , an un-American interloper who occupies the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generically coded racist attack and turns it into an actual attack on presidential legitimacy .
A leader ’ s legitimacy is an essential component of effective governance in a liberal democracy .
It is the idea that political authorities have been properly authorized by the people and the law to exercise authority , and thus are entitled to wield power .
Democratic legitimacy allows citizens to accept the rule of people they disagree with ; you may not like how they wield power , but at very least you accept that election results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Birtherism was the idea that Obama was not entitled to this legitimacy in a very literal sense .
Because foreign-born individuals are not legally eligible for the presidency , it claimed , Obama ’ s victory was unlawful : The people were duped by a fake American .
It gives reason for people afflicted by generalized racial panic to justify their belief that Obama did not deserve to be in the Oval Office — and thus , did not deserve the respect or authority they ’ ve conferred on his white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same fashion .
It argues that Obama was not a legitimate leader because he broke the law ( somehow ) .
He masterminded a conspiracy to undermine Trump , who is the people ’ s “ authentic ” representative , and illegally coordinated the “ deep state ” in its counterattack on the duly elected president .
The racial politics are , similarly , just barely below the surface .
In labeling Obama “ foreign , ” Trump positioned a black president as alien to the rightful and correct order of things in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ criminal , ” he ’ s drawing on centuries of stereotyping of black people as criminals who need to be reined in by white authority figures .
Obamagate , like birtherism , directly embodies the grievances many whites have with recent challenges to white dominance .
It signals to them that Trump could not stand the fact of this man ’ s presence in the office : the political equivalent of describing Obama as a “ thug.
” Conspiracy theories are by their nature impossible to disprove .
After Obama released his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump repeatedly insisted that it was forged .
The absence of evidence for the claim that Obama persecuted Flynn — a man who , to be clear , pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI — is no obstacle to Trump pursuing it .
This allows the crusade to go on as long as it ’ s useful .
Whenever Trump needs to rally the political faithful , to gin up his most hardcore supporters , he can dial up the racism dial to 11 by seizing on some anti-Obama conspiracy theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump force serious coverage of them by credulous reporters — allegedly balanced reporting that just aims to teach the controversy , as it were .
Birtherism was the first iteration of this Trumpian move .
Obamagate , while the most recent , might not be the last .
In a recent essay on birtherism , the Atlantic ’ s Adam Serwer describes it as not a sideshow to the Trump phenomenon but the center of it : The more Trump pursues Obamagate , the harder this point will be to deny .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The past week has seen President Trump, desperate to distract from the coronavirus, turn his attention to the promotion of a new conspiracy theory: “Obamagate.”
This theory posits the prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was part of a broader scheme against the Trump presidency, masterminded by former President Barack Obama. It’s not at all clear how this is supposed to come together; Trump could not explain it when asked a press conference, saying that “some terrible things happened” and that “the crime is very obvious to everybody.”
But while Obamagate may not make very much sense on the merits, it makes complete sense as an ideological totem. It is eerily reminiscent of the conspiracy theory Trump rode to political prominence a decade ago: birtherism.
The notion that Obama was not born in the United States was never even remotely plausible. But it served a particular ideological function: It otherized America’s first black president, claiming that he was not American-born at all, and that therefore he and his election were illegitimate. It took the popular conservative idea that Obama was ideologically foreign to the country (remember his “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview?) and turned it literal.
That Trump played a major role in popularizing birtherism, and then rode a wave of white resentment to the White House, is not an accident. Birtherism was proof of concept that a more vulgar politics of white backlash could find a real audience in the GOP, evidence that the party was waiting to be captured by Trump’s longstanding brand of racial demagoguery.
Trump eventually admitted, grudgingly, during his 2016 campaign that Obama was born in America. But the spirit of birtherism has infused his administration. Throughout his presidency, Trump has positioned his predecessor as a nefarious plotter working to undermine the quest to Make America Great Again. From Trump’s absurd 2017 claim that the 44th president “wiretapped” him to his new demand that the Senate make Obama testify about “Obamagate,” he has painted Obama’s presidency as illegitimate and fundamentally criminal.
Delegitimizing Obama is one of the core political objectives of the Trump administration. The question today is how much he’s willing to corrupt the justice system in pursuit of it.
Obamagate and birtherism reveal the real heart of Trumpism
Birtherism tapped into a very particular kind of racialized critique of Obama: a free-floating sense that something about him was not truly American. You saw in the right-wing media habit of always using his middle name — Barack Hussein Obama. You saw it in the accusation that when he and his wife fist-bumped during the 2008 campaign, it was a “terrorist fist jab.” You saw in the allegation, which some still believe, that he is secretly Muslim.
These arguments, while not explicitly framed in terms of Obama’s skin color, reflect the way America’s racial caste system operates in polite society. Everyone knows using the n-word is unacceptable, but describing black people through stereotypes in media and everyday life remains commonplace. Though formal discrimination in hiring is outlawed, careful studies have established that black applicants are significantly less likely to be hired than white ones.
The idea of Obama’s foreignness was always a way of saying that his race made him ineligible for high office, just in this coded language. Trump’s advocacy for birtherism, a theory he promoted relentlessly in media appearances and on Twitter in Obama’s first term, took this abstract idea and turned it into a concrete rallying cry. Obama doesn’t just think in a foreign way, the idea posits; he’s a literal foreigner who is ineligible for his office, an un-American interloper who occupies the presidency unlawfully.
The move takes a generically coded racist attack and turns it into an actual attack on presidential legitimacy.
A leader’s legitimacy is an essential component of effective governance in a liberal democracy. It is the idea that political authorities have been properly authorized by the people and the law to exercise authority, and thus are entitled to wield power. Democratic legitimacy allows citizens to accept the rule of people they disagree with; you may not like how they wield power, but at very least you accept that election results mean they have the right to do it.
Birtherism was the idea that Obama was not entitled to this legitimacy in a very literal sense. Because foreign-born individuals are not legally eligible for the presidency, it claimed, Obama’s victory was unlawful: The people were duped by a fake American. It gives reason for people afflicted by generalized racial panic to justify their belief that Obama did not deserve to be in the Oval Office — and thus, did not deserve the respect or authority they’ve conferred on his white predecessors.
Obamagate operates in essentially the same fashion. It argues that Obama was not a legitimate leader because he broke the law (somehow). He masterminded a conspiracy to undermine Trump, who is the people’s “authentic” representative, and illegally coordinated the “deep state” in its counterattack on the duly elected president.
The racial politics are, similarly, just barely below the surface. In labeling Obama “foreign,” Trump positioned a black president as alien to the rightful and correct order of things in the United States. In labeling Obama “criminal,” he’s drawing on centuries of stereotyping of black people as criminals who need to be reined in by white authority figures.
Obamagate, like birtherism, directly embodies the grievances many whites have with recent challenges to white dominance. It signals to them that Trump could not stand the fact of this man’s presence in the office: the political equivalent of describing Obama as a “thug.”
Conspiracy theories are by their nature impossible to disprove. After Obama released his “longform” birth certificate from Hawaii, Trump repeatedly insisted that it was forged. The absence of evidence for the claim that Obama persecuted Flynn — a man who, to be clear, pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI — is no obstacle to Trump pursuing it.
This allows the crusade to go on as long as it’s useful. Whenever Trump needs to rally the political faithful, to gin up his most hardcore supporters, he can dial up the racism dial to 11 by seizing on some anti-Obama conspiracy theory. Just by making these wild allegations, Trump force serious coverage of them by credulous reporters — allegedly balanced reporting that just aims to teach the controversy, as it were.
Birtherism was the first iteration of this Trumpian move. Obamagate, while the most recent, might not be the last.
In a recent essay on birtherism, the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer describes it as not a sideshow to the Trump phenomenon but the center of it:
Birtherism was a statement of values, a way to express allegiance to a particular notion of American identity, one that became the central theme of the Trump campaign itself: To Make America Great Again, to turn back the clock to an era where white political and cultural hegemony was unthreatened by black people, by immigrants, by people of a different faith. By people like Barack Obama. The calls to disavow birtherism missed the point: Trump’s entire campaign was birtherism... You could call birtherism a conspiracy theory, sure. But in 2020, looking at the Trump administration’s efforts to diminish the power of minority voters, imprison child migrants, ban Muslim travelers from entering the country, and criminalize his political opposition, it could be more accurately described as the governing ideology of the United States.
The more Trump pursues Obamagate, the harder this point will be to deny.


vox--2020-05-14--A record number of women are running for the House this year

Women candidates are setting a new record this year : A historic number have filed to run for the House , surpassing even the number who did in 2018 .
According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University , 490 women have filed for House seats so far , an uptick from the 476 women who ran in 2018 .
It ’ s likely this number will ultimately be higher , as 14 states ’ filing deadlines aren ’ t until later in the year .
“ In 2018 , amidst the excitement of a record-breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked whether we were in the middle of a one-time spike in candidacies driven by unique circumstances or if we were seeing the emergence of a new normal , ” CAWP director Debbie Walsh said in a statement .
“ This is a sign that the momentum isn ’ t letting up.
” The increase in House candidates this year is driven by more candidate filings on both sides of the aisle , according to Walsh .
In 2018 , much of the surge was observed among Democrats , who saw a big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by pushback against President Donald Trump .
This cycle , there ’ s also a notable uptick in Republican women vying for the House .
At this point , 195 Republican women have filed to run for a House seat , breaking the previous record of 133 Republican women who ran in 2010 .
It ’ s a notable trend : The Republican Party has previously struggled to recruit more women candidates , and saw the number of GOP women representatives decline in 2018 .
“ We are particularly encouraged to see Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll never get to parity without women on both sides of the aisle running and winning , ” Walsh said .
Members of both parties have signaled that recruiting more women to run for office was a goal for this cycle , though some of these candidates won ’ t be elected to Congress .
In some districts , women are competing against each other , for example .
In others , they ’ re running against fairly safe incumbents .
The increase in women running for Congress remains significant , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parity in the House and Senate .
Such gains suggest that this cycle could well build on the notable progress that was made in 2018 , when a record-breaking number of women not only ran , but were elected .
Congress remains very far from gender parity , but recent elections mark progress Currently , 127 women serve in Congress , with 101 in the House and 26 in the Senate .
Women this term have comprised roughly 23 percent of the House and 26 percent of the Senate .
As these figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chambers is still notable .
For every woman in Congress , there are roughly three men .
And the split along party lines is even starker .
About 38 percent of Democratic lawmakers are currently women , while just 8 percent of Republicans are .
This cycle could boost the number of women in Congress , and continue the inroads that were made in 2018 — though the likelihood of that outcome will become clearer as more states complete their primaries this summer .
Maintaining and expanding upon previous gains is crucial to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a change that can affect which policies are prioritized .
A study from Georgetown University professor Michele Swers , for example , found that liberal women in Congress sponsored far more bills related to women ’ s health than their male counterparts .
Female lawmakers , backed , on average , 10.6 bills related to the subject , roughly double the number supported by their male colleagues .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a @ @ @ @ @

Women candidates are setting a new record this year: A historic number have filed to run for the House, surpassing even the number who did in 2018.
According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, 490 women have filed for House seats so far, an uptick from the 476 women who ran in 2018. It’s likely this number will ultimately be higher, as 14 states’ filing deadlines aren’t until later in the year.
“In 2018, amidst the excitement of a record-breaking year for women candidates, we often asked whether we were in the middle of a one-time spike in candidacies driven by unique circumstances or if we were seeing the emergence of a new normal,” CAWP director Debbie Walsh said in a statement. “This is a sign that the momentum isn’t letting up.”
The increase in House candidates this year is driven by more candidate filings on both sides of the aisle, according to Walsh. In 2018, much of the surge was observed among Democrats, who saw a big influx of women candidates, spurred heavily by pushback against President Donald Trump. This cycle, there’s also a notable uptick in Republican women vying for the House.
At this point, 195 Republican women have filed to run for a House seat, breaking the previous record of 133 Republican women who ran in 2010. It’s a notable trend: The Republican Party has previously struggled to recruit more women candidates, and saw the number of GOP women representatives decline in 2018.
“We are particularly encouraged to see Republican women stepping up and seeking office — we’ll never get to parity without women on both sides of the aisle running and winning,” Walsh said.
Members of both parties have signaled that recruiting more women to run for office was a goal for this cycle, though some of these candidates won’t be elected to Congress. In some districts, women are competing against each other, for example. In others, they’re running against fairly safe incumbents.
The increase in women running for Congress remains significant, however, given the lack of gender parity in the House and Senate. Such gains suggest that this cycle could well build on the notable progress that was made in 2018, when a record-breaking number of women not only ran, but were elected.
Congress remains very far from gender parity, but recent elections mark progress
Currently, 127 women serve in Congress, with 101 in the House and 26 in the Senate. Women this term have comprised roughly 23 percent of the House and 26 percent of the Senate.
As these figures indicate, the gender disparities in both chambers is still notable. For every woman in Congress, there are roughly three men. And the split along party lines is even starker. About 38 percent of Democratic lawmakers are currently women, while just 8 percent of Republicans are.
This cycle could boost the number of women in Congress, and continue the inroads that were made in 2018 — though the likelihood of that outcome will become clearer as more states complete their primaries this summer.
Maintaining and expanding upon previous gains is crucial to increasing women’s representation in government, a change that can affect which policies are prioritized.
A study from Georgetown University professor Michele Swers, for example, found that liberal women in Congress sponsored far more bills related to women’s health than their male counterparts. Female lawmakers, backed, on average, 10.6 bills related to the subject, roughly double the number supported by their male colleagues.


vox--2020-05-14--What we know about the new Covid-19-linked illness in children

Doctors in 17 US states are reporting that at least 164 children have fallen sick with a rare inflammatory illness similar to a condition known as Kawasaki disease .
Symptoms include fever and inflammation and can affect organs , including the heart .
Some of the children have tested positive for Covid-19 or antibodies to the virus , and three have died .
New York state has reported 102 cases of the pediatric inflammatory syndrome so far , with 29 percent of the cases involving children between the ages of 5 and 9 and 28 percent between the ages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness have also popped up in other Covid-19 hot spots , including California , New Jersey , and Illinois .
The potentially deadly syndrome is also affecting a small number of children in other countries , including the UK , Spain , and now Italy .
A new peer-reviewed study out of Italy , published Wednesday in The Lancet , details the cases of 10 children who presented with this condition during the Covid-19 outbreak there .
Eight of the 10 children tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first clear evidence of a link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and this inflammatory condition , and we hope it will help doctors around the world as we try to get to grips with this unknown virus , ” said Lorenzo D ’ Antiga , lead author of the study from the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo , Italy , in a statement .
Lauren Henderson , an attending physician at Boston Children ’ s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School , called it , “ a very important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ongoing research — aims to decipher what about the new coronavirus might trigger this serious condition , how to treat it , and how it might help us understand the virus itself better .
Originally observed in Japan in the 1960s , Kawasaki disease is triggered by high levels of inflammation and can lead to trouble in the blood vessels and heart , among other places in the body , and occasionally prompt toxic shock syndrome and death .
Traditional symptoms can include a persistent high fever , skin rash , pinkeye , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lips .
There is no test for the condition , so doctors rely on these signs and other laboratory measurements to determine if a child likely has it .
( It is primarily a pediatric condition , although adults can get it too . )
When Kawasaki disease is identified and addressed promptly , it is usually treatable .
Doctors typically administer antibody treatment and sometimes steroids and other medications , such as aspirin .
And , fortunately , Kawasaki disease is usually very rare , normally striking only about 21 children under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US each year .
But now doctors are seeing a spike in cases of a similar illness — especially in areas with recent or ongoing Covid-19 outbreaks .
And early reports suggest these patients have more severe illnesses than the average case .
How the new cases seem to be different The authors of the new study in The Lancet are calling the illness the “ Kawasaki-like disease , ” acknowledging that they are very early in understanding it — and how it is related to Covid-19 .
Experts in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflammatory syndrome potentially associated with Covid-19.
” CNN reports that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will provide “ a working case definition ” when it sends out an alert warning doctors to be on the lookout for the illness .
In the 10 patients in Italy , doctors found antibodies to the virus in eight of the children — three of whom also had a current infection .
The authors also noted they suspect that at least one of the other two might have had false negative antibody results due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analysis , the authors compared the recent pandemic cases with the records of the 19 patients with the condition that they treated over the past five years .
Although the study was small , they found some key and worrisome patterns that distinguished the pandemic patients from others with Kawasaki disease in years past .
One key difference is “ the patients with [ this illness ] and Covid-19 were sicker and had different lab test abnormalities ” than those seen before the new coronavirus reached the area , Henderson told Vox .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Kawasaki disease features and Covid-19 might not be exactly like other more classical Kawasaki disease patients.
” For example , the researchers found that typically about 10 percent of their previous Kawasaki patients had heart issues ( as detected by abnormal echocardiograms ) , whereas 60 percent of the pandemic cases did .
The newer patients were also more likely to have a severe inflammatory response known as mitochondrial activation syndrome , which , as the authors of the paper note , “ is a form of cytokine storm.
” ( Cytokine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ body , which have been fingered as culprits as much of the damage seen in critical adult Covid-19 patients . )
The doctors also found they needed to treat the recent patients with more medications to help them recover .
The children diagnosed during the outbreak also tended to be older ( a mean age of 7.5 years ) than kids they usually treated for the illness ( who had a mean age of 3 years ) .
In fact , Kawasaki disease is usually tracked for children younger than 5 .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ranged in age from 5.5 to 16 years old .
How is this inflammatory disease linked to Covid-19 ?
Despite having studied Kawasaki disease for decades , researchers still don ’ t know exactly what triggers it .
Even before Covid-19 , a working hypothesis has been that a runaway immune response — possibly combined with a genetic predisposition — brought it on .
Previous research had even looked for evidence of other coronaviruses in Kawasaki patients , but overall the evidence was generally only weakly correlated .
The new patterns emerging in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , are significant .
And even though the Italian study was small , the researchers noted that the rate of Kawasaki-like cases at their hospital in the outbreak center of Bergamo had jumped 30 times to their usual rate in the month they studied .
The timing is also interesting to researchers .
“ If you look at the curves , Covid-19 has plateaued , but there ’ s an exponential rise in this secondary type of shock syndrome , ” Jane Newburger , a cardiologist at Boston Children ’ s Hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is even possible that the antibodies that children are making to SARS-CoV-2 are creating an immune reaction in the body .
Nobody knows.
” According to Henderson , “ It will be very important for other studies to replicate these results at other centers .
It is even more important for doctors to enroll children in prospective studies to get the best information possible about this disease.
” Researchers are also interested in how this could clarify some outstanding questions about the virus itself — and how we might fight it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ if this is an antibody-mediated phenomenon , there might be implications for vaccine studies , and this might also explain why some children become very ill with Covid-19 , while the majority are unaffected or asymptomatic , ” write Russell Viner , president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health , and Elizabeth Whittaker , secretary of the British Pediatric Allergy Immunity and Infection Group , in a related commentary in The Lancet .
So far , at least three children have been reported to have died from this inflammatory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 10 children in the Italian study have since recovered enough to be released from the hospital , although they were still taking medicine at the time of publication .
And the researchers say they are scheduled to all have ECGs to check their heart function in the next couple of months .
Still , the researchers argue that the findings reveal a key potential consequence of Covid-19 infections in children .
“ The association between SARS-CoV-2 and Kawasaki-like disease should be taken into account when it comes to considering social reintegration policies for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors write .
In a Senate committee hearing Tuesday , Dr. Anthony Fauci , director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases , also remarked that there are many unknowns with Covid-19 , “ particularly when it comes to children ... We really have to be very careful because the more and more we learn , we ’ re seeing what this virus can do.
” As Henderson told Vox , “ As in any infection , it is important for parents to seek care with their pediatrician if their child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significant abdominal pain , persistent vomiting , persistent diarrhea , or any other concerning symptom.
” But she and other doctors underscore that despite the increased incidence of the pediatric syndrome , it is still quite rare , “ probably affecting no more than one in 1,000 children exposed to SARS-CoV-2 , ” the Lancet authors write .
Henderson added , “ most children with Covid-19 do very well and have mild symptoms.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox today .

Doctors in at least 20 US states have seen kids who have fallen sick with a rare inflammatory illness similar to a condition known as Kawasaki disease. Symptoms include fever and inflammation and can affect organs, including the heart. The majority of the children have tested positive for Covid-19 or antibodies to the virus, and three have died.
More from CDC briefing on Kawasaki-like condition MIS-C: 1) Now in 20 states 2) Symptoms include stomach pain, vomiting, rash, fever 3) Respiratory symptoms rare 4) MIS-C requires immediate attention and likely hospitalization 5) No underlying conditions predispose kids to MIS-C. — Matt McCarthy (@DrMattMcCarthy) May 20, 2020
New York City alone has reported 147 cases of the pediatric inflammatory syndrome so far, with about a third of cases occurring in children younger than 5, and about half between the ages of 5 and 14.
Clusters of the illness have also popped up in other Covid-19 hot spots, including California, New Jersey, and Illinois. The potentially deadly syndrome is also affecting a small number of children in other countries, including the UK, Spain, and now Italy.
A peer-reviewed study out of Italy, published May 13 in The Lancet, details the cases of 10 children who presented with this condition during the Covid-19 outbreak there. Eight of the 10 children tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19 in an antibody test.
“Our study provides the first clear evidence of a link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and this inflammatory condition, and we hope it will help doctors around the world as we try to get to grips with this unknown virus,” said Lorenzo D’Antiga, lead author of the study from the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII in Bergamo, Italy, in a statement.
Lauren Henderson, an attending physician at Boston Children’s Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, called it, “a very important study.”
This work — and other ongoing research — aims to decipher what about the new coronavirus might trigger this serious condition, how to treat it, and how it might help us understand the virus itself better.
What is Kawasaki disease?
Originally observed in Japan in the 1960s, Kawasaki disease is triggered by high levels of inflammation and can lead to trouble in the blood vessels and heart, among other places in the body, and occasionally prompt toxic shock syndrome and death.
Traditional symptoms can include a persistent high fever, skin rash, pinkeye, swollen hands and feet, and cracked lips. There is no test for the condition, so doctors rely on these signs and other laboratory measurements to determine if a child likely has it. (It is primarily a pediatric condition, although adults can get it too.)
When Kawasaki disease is identified and addressed promptly, it is usually treatable. Doctors typically administer antibody treatment and sometimes steroids and other medications, such as aspirin.
And, fortunately, Kawasaki disease is usually very rare, normally striking only about 21 children under the age of 5 per 100,000 in the US each year.
But now doctors are seeing a spike in cases of a similar illness — especially in areas with recent or ongoing Covid-19 outbreaks. And early reports suggest these patients have more severe illnesses than the average case.
How the new cases seem to be different
The authors of the new study in The Lancet are calling the illness the “Kawasaki-like disease,” acknowledging that they are very early in understanding it — and how it is related to Covid-19. Experts in the US are calling the condition “multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children”; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a working definition of the condition and recommendations to clinicians May 14.
In the 10 patients in Italy, doctors found antibodies to the virus in eight of the children — three of whom also had a current infection. The authors also noted they suspect that at least one of the other two might have had false negative antibody results due to testing issues.
As part of the analysis, the authors compared the recent pandemic cases with the records of the 19 patients with the condition that they treated over the past five years. Although the study was small, they found some key and worrisome patterns that distinguished the pandemic patients from others with Kawasaki disease in years past.
One key difference is “the patients with [this illness] and Covid-19 were sicker and had different lab test abnormalities” than those seen before the new coronavirus reached the area, Henderson told Vox. “This tells us that the children with Kawasaki disease features and Covid-19 might not be exactly like other more classical Kawasaki disease patients.”
For example, the researchers found that typically about 10 percent of their previous Kawasaki patients had heart issues (as detected by abnormal echocardiograms), whereas 60 percent of the pandemic cases did.
The newer patients were also more likely to have a severe inflammatory response known as mitochondrial activation syndrome, which, as the authors of the paper note, “is a form of cytokine storm.” (Cytokine storms are extreme immune reactions in the body, which have been fingered as culprits as much of the damage seen in critical adult Covid-19 patients.)
The doctors also found they needed to treat the recent patients with more medications to help them recover.
The children diagnosed during the outbreak also tended to be older (a mean age of 7.5 years) than kids they usually treated for the illness (who had a mean age of 3 years). In fact, Kawasaki disease is usually tracked for children younger than 5. But in this new group, the patients ranged in age from 5.5 to 16 years old.
Treatment, however, seems to work similarly for both conditions. A new report, published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation, shows that patients with the new illness seem to be responding well to the traditional treatments for Kawasaki disease: antibody therapy, sometimes combined with steroids.
The researchers looked at the treatment history for 35 pediatric patients (ages 2-16) admitted to the ICU with symptoms of the inflammatory conditions in France and Switzerland during the Covid-19 pandemic. After being given the standard treatment, all of the children described in the report survived — and “the majority of patients recovered within a few days,” the researchers noted in the paper.
How is this inflammatory disease linked to Covid-19?
Despite having studied Kawasaki disease for decades, researchers still don’t know exactly what triggers it. Even before Covid-19, a working hypothesis has been that a runaway immune response — possibly combined with a genetic predisposition — brought it on. Previous research had even looked for evidence of other coronaviruses in Kawasaki patients, but overall the evidence was generally only weakly correlated.
The new patterns emerging in places with severe outbreaks of Covid-19, however, are significant. And even though the Italian study was small, the researchers noted that the rate of Kawasaki-like cases at their hospital in the outbreak center of Bergamo had jumped 30 times to their usual rate in the month they studied.
The timing is also interesting to researchers. “If you look at the curves, Covid-19 has plateaued, but there’s an exponential rise in this secondary type of shock syndrome,” Jane Newburger, a cardiologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, said in a release. “It is even possible that the antibodies that children are making to SARS-CoV-2 are creating an immune reaction in the body. Nobody knows.”
According to Henderson, “It will be very important for other studies to replicate these results at other centers. It is even more important for doctors to enroll children in prospective studies to get the best information possible about this disease.”
Researchers are also interested in how this could clarify some outstanding questions about the virus itself — and how we might fight it in the broader population.
For example, “if this is an antibody-mediated phenomenon, there might be implications for vaccine studies, and this might also explain why some children become very ill with Covid-19, while the majority are unaffected or asymptomatic,” write Russell Viner, president of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Elizabeth Whittaker, secretary of the British Pediatric Allergy Immunity and Infection Group, in a related commentary in The Lancet.
So far, at least three children have been reported to have died from this inflammatory illness in New York state. All 10 children in the Italian study have since recovered enough to be released from the hospital, although they were still taking medicine at the time of publication. And the researchers say they are scheduled to all have ECGs to check their heart function in the next couple of months.
Still, the researchers argue that the findings reveal a key potential consequence of Covid-19 infections in children.
“The association between SARS-CoV-2 and Kawasaki-like disease should be taken into account when it comes to considering social reintegration policies for the pediatric population,” the Lancet authors write.
In a Senate committee hearing Tuesday, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, also remarked that there are many unknowns with Covid-19, “particularly when it comes to children ... We really have to be very careful because the more and more we learn, we’re seeing what this virus can do.”
As Henderson told Vox, “As in any infection, it is important for parents to seek care with their pediatrician if their child has high fevers, new rash, significant abdominal pain, persistent vomiting, persistent diarrhea, or any other concerning symptom.”
But she and other doctors underscore that despite the increased incidence of the pediatric syndrome, it is still quite rare, “probably affecting no more than one in 1,000 children exposed to SARS-CoV-2,” the Lancet authors write. Henderson added, “most children with Covid-19 do very well and have mild symptoms.”