vox--2020-07-28--A small federal agency focused on preventing industrial disasters is on life support. Trump wants it

A small federal agency focused on preventing industrial disasters is on life support .
Trump wants it gone .
Share All sharing options for : A small federal agency focused on preventing industrial disasters is on life support .
Trump wants it gone .
It was late in the second shift when workers at a silicone factory in Illinois noticed something had gone wrong .
A tank of silicon hydride , used to make water repellent , started foaming and hissing .
An operator mixing the chemicals in the tank yelled in frustration .
Two of his coworkers came running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air .
It was hot .
None of this was normal .
A supervisor quickly ordered one worker to turn on the exhaust fans and another to open the building ’ s garage doors , but neither got the chance .
Within seconds , the 30,000-square-foot building exploded , rattling homes and businesses within 20 miles of the Waukegan , Illinois , factory .
Rescue crews had to sift through the rubble for four days to find each of the bodies .
Four workers died the night of May 3 , 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chemical operator and his boss .
Yet the public may never find out what went wrong , and other chemical companies may never learn how to prevent a similar blast .
That ’ s because the small , independent federal agency that investigates chemical disasters is on life support , and the Trump administration wants it to disappear altogether .
That agency , the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board , investigates accidents and makes recommendations — but it doesn ’ t regulate the industry .
Since 1998 , it has looked into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industrial disasters , including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout , which killed 11 workers and dumped an estimated 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico ; and the 2005 explosion at the BP refinery in Texas City , Texas , that killed 15 workers and injured 180 .
The board ’ s work has led to changes in industry practices from Texas to Kansas and laws in states from Mississippi to Connecticut .
It ’ s likely , however , that when the investigation into the AB Specialty Silicones explosion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to meet the quorum needed to vet and approve investigators ’ findings and recommendations .
Since May 2 , it has been operating with only one voting member out of a possible five — one vote short of a quorum .
It ’ s been effectively disabled .
The White House hasn ’ t announced plans to fill the board ’ s four vacant seats .
In fact , President Donald Trump has been trying to do the opposite , pushing to eliminate the board in each of his annual budget @ @ @ @ @ @ @ persuaded Congress to defund it .
Without a quorum , the board will not be able to release the final reports from any of its 13 pending investigations .
The situation creates “ a very difficult challenge , ” Rick Engler , whose term on the board ended in February , told the Center for Public Integrity .
“ We continue to have chemical disasters , and the [ board ’ s ] recommendations save lives.
” The inspector general at the US Environmental Protection Agency , which oversees the board , recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elevated urgency.
” “ Having only one member impairs the function of the [ board ] , ” the inspector general ’ s July report stated .
The White House did not respond to a request for comment .
The board ’ s undoing reflects a broader dysfunction at federal agencies under Trump ’ s watch .
The president has repeatedly failed to appoint leaders at agencies he considers unnecessary , making it nearly impossible for some to operate .
That ’ s happened , for example , at the Federal Election Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ didn ’ t have enough commissioners to take key enforcement actions , such as reviewing possible campaign finance violations .
The US Merit Systems Protection Board , meanwhile , hasn ’ t had any board member since February 2019 , and is unable to review workplace complaints from federal employees .
Unlike the FEC and the Merit Systems Protection Board , however , the Chemical Safety Board ’ s work is a matter of life and death .
Millions of people in America — mostly workers , but also members of the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explosions , or chemical releases , and many of them probably don ’ t realize it .
Things can go very wrong , very quickly The United States is among the world ’ s top chemical producers .
More than 12,000 facilities handle toxic or flammable chemicals , used to make everything from pharmaceuticals to fertilizers , and are often located near businesses and residential areas .
The Congressional Research Service found that 90 of these facilities each put a million or more people at risk from accidents in worst-case scenarios .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attend school within a mile of a chemical plant , according to the Center for Effective Government .
The Chemical Safety Board sends investigators to places like Atchison , Kansas , where 800 middle and high school students in 2016 were evacuated from class after a greenish-yellow cloud of chlorine escaped from a factory that distills alcohol and corn oil .
Its final report pinpointed the cause of the accident ( a tanker truck driver delivering sulfuric acid mistakenly mixed it with sodium hypochlorite — bleach ) and made recommendations to the factory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarms to keep workers from opening the wrong valve , as happened in this case ) .
The owner ultimately followed all the recommendations and made changes to factory practices .
The board ’ s work has also led to broader reforms .
Its 2010 investigation into a deadly explosion at a Connecticut construction site , for example , prompted the state to ban companies from using pressurized natural gas to clean pipes , a process known as gas blowing .
Its recommendations also strengthened New York City ’ s fire code and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sites in one Mississippi county .
“ The CSB ’ s findings are very influential , ” Chris Jahn , president of the American Chemistry Council , a trade group that represents the chemical industry , said at a Senate hearing in January .
He urged the Trump administration and the Senate to quickly fill the board ’ s four vacant seats .
The council has criticized some of the board ’ s recommendations , particularly those that call for more industry regulation .
Jahn ’ s testimony on the importance of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping it alive .
Labor unions also want to see the board survive .
“ This is a critical agency for us , ” said Mike Wright , director of safety , health , and environment for United Steelworkers , which represents more than 570,000 workers in some of the nation ’ s most hazardous industries .
“ Their reports have helped us improve safety at many plants.
” But the unfolding crisis has slowed the board ’ s work to a crawl .
Until a new voting member is appointed and confirmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bringing into question whether companies will learn how to prevent fatal explosions , similar to the ones that destroyed a Wisconsin corn mill and a chemical factory in Crosby , Texas .
More than a year after the AB Specialty Silicones explosion , the board ’ s investigators are still sifting through evidence to pinpoint the cause .
A separate investigation by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration found several safety violations at the factory .
According to OSHA , the electrical equipment was improperly installed , and workers were moving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ propane , which could ignite the chemicals .
OSHA cited the company for 12 “ willful ” safety violations and proposed $ 1.6 million in fines .
The company is contesting the citations .
In a statement to Public Integrity , a company spokesperson said the scope of the OSHA report went “ beyond the elements that may have contributed to the tragic explosion ” and noted that a third-party investigator AB Specialty Silicones hired traced the explosion to a “ human error that resulted in the mistaken addition of an erroneous ingredient.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s more comprehensive work on the cause of the tragedy that has made such an impact on our AB family and our Waukegan community , ” the statement said .
But a spokesperson for the board said the investigation will take some time — unlikely to be completed until fiscal year 2021 .
The board is also still investigating a factory explosion in Houston that killed two people and damaged hundreds of homes .
The January 24 blast at Watson Grinding and Manufacturing lit up the night sky and flung debris into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One of them was Sean Rangel , who had worked at the factory for seven years .
The 38-year-old welder was parking his pickup truck outside the factory when the blast ignited .
As he backed into a parking spot , Rangel saw one of his supervisors , Frank Flores , walking toward the building ’ s front door , then saw a flash of light in his rearview mirror .
The explosion flipped over Rangel ’ s Dodge Ram and shattered its windows .
“ I thought I got hit by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ringing , ” Rangel said by phone .
He crawled out of the truck and surveyed the scene .
“ The building wasn ’ t there anymore ; all I could see was metal .
At that moment , I knew that Frankie didn ’ t make it.
” Flores was one of two workers killed that morning .
If Rangel had arrived at work 30 seconds earlier , he might have died , too .
The force of the explosion popped his left eardrum and cut his left eye ; he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has stayed with him .
“ I can ’ t sleep , ” Rangel said .
“ I ’ m scared to go places .
I don ’ t know the next time something might happen.
” Rangel and his coworkers lost their jobs when Watson filed for bankruptcy a few weeks after the explosion .
Now he ’ s suing the company for negligence .
Watson also faces a class-action lawsuit from more than 200 homeowners whose properties were damaged .
A lawyer representing the company did not respond to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , company representatives denied the allegations from Rangel and homeowners .
Rangel suspects a gas leak triggered the explosion , but no one knows for sure .
The Chemical Safety Board sent investigators to the scene on the day of the explosion , but they have yet to complete their investigation .
The board ’ s investigative process is not much different from that of the National Transportation Safety Board , which investigates high-profile transportation accidents , such as the helicopter crash that killed former NBA star Kobe Bryant , his daughter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January .
But the NTSB dwarfs its younger cousin .
It has a staff of about 400 and an annual budget of $ 110 million .
The Chemical Safety Board has a staff of 40 — including nine investigators — and a $ 12 million budget , forcing it to concentrate on the worst industrial disasters , such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion .
The need for more investigators is clear : The board ’ s database shows an annual average of 183 chemical accidents that killed , injured , or sickened someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each year , investigators are only able to look into about five major accidents .
Their findings and recommendations are then vetted by the board ’ s voting members , and , if approved , a final report is released publicly .
While the board ’ s findings have led to stricter regulations and practices , it ’ s also not unusual for industry groups and companies to reject the board ’ s findings and recommendations .
The oil and gas industry — which , according to the Center for Responsive Politics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s reelection campaign — has pushed back against a recommendation for new federal rules that would require oil rigs and refineries to meet stricter safety standards .
The industry ’ s main trade group , the American Petroleum Institute , opposed the rules , saying they would cost companies too much money without improving safety or lessening environmental risks .
The chemical and oil industries also fought an EPA rule , issued at the end of the Obama administration , that among other things would have required companies to conduct independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board recommended .
The Trump EPA eliminated this provision , along with others , last year .
No stakeholder has worked harder to weaken the board than Trump ’ s White House , which has tried to shut the board down four times .
The administration first announced its intention to defund the board in Trump ’ s budget proposal in 2017 , arguing that the board ’ s work overlapped with other agencies and has generated “ unhelpful friction ” between them .
The White House said the board ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” businesses and even some regulators , though it did not specify what the friction was about .
This did not sit well with the steelworkers union and other board supporters .
“ It was infuriating , ” Wright said .
“ A lot of the things that are getting people killed are not addressed ” by regulatory agencies such as OSHA .
The board had just emerged from a rough period when Trump announced his intention to eliminate it .
Complaints about board mismanagement triggered two House investigations in 2014 and criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The board ’ s chair at the time , Rafael Moure-Eraso , resigned under pressure in 2015 amid complaints of mismanagement .
In the years that followed , Vanessa Allen Sutherland , the new chair , revamped the board , turning around investigations more quickly and improving morale .
But she left in 2018 to take a job at a railroad company .
In the end , Trump ’ s plan to defund the board has proven unsuccessful : Congress has voted to fund it every year .
But the board now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three members left because their five-year terms had expired or were about to end .
In their place , the White House has nominated only one member : Katherine Lemos , who previously worked at the NTSB and the Federal Aviation Administration .
Members of the Senate ’ s Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously to confirm Lemos in September , but Senate leaders didn ’ t move forward with a full vote in the chamber for months .
“ This is completely unacceptable , ” committee chair Sen. John Barrasso ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It ’ s in everyone ’ s interest to keep the board functioning.
” Lemos ’ s confirmation was finally pushed through in March , right as Kristen Kulinowski — the only member left at the board at the time — was preparing to take another job as her term ended .
Lemos joined the board at the end of April .
For the first time in months , the board had two members — albeit for one week .
On April 29 , the board held its quarterly meeting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the White House .
Lemos , Kulinowski , and the board ’ s attorney sat behind a long table .
It was Kulinowski ’ s last meeting on the board and Lemos ’ s first .
Kulinowski updated Lemos , who would succeed her as the board ’ s chair on the 13 pending investigations she was leaving behind .
Kulinowski said investigators are still reviewing evidence from the blast at AB Specialty Silicones and the factory explosion in Houston .
She said two investigations were put on hold because the board doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one mentioned that once Kulinowski departs , Lemos wouldn ’ t be able to vote to close the investigations .
Kulinowski , who now leads the federally funded IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute , told Public Integrity the board wasn ’ t designed to function with so many empty seats .
Yet she rejected the notion that its death is imminent .
“ The CSB has such an important mission , and we survived so many threats to our existence while I was there and even before I arrived , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kevin Druley , an editor at the National Safety Council , an Illinois-based nonprofit that promotes public safety , asked how the board would operate with just one member .
“ That ’ s an excellent question , ” Lemos responded , adding that she didn ’ t have any information to provide .
“ But we are working through those details.
” Those details were still unresolved when Kulinowski left the board two days later .

A small federal agency focused on preventing industrial disasters is on life support. Trump wants it gone.
Share All sharing options for: A small federal agency focused on preventing industrial disasters is on life support. Trump wants it gone.
It was late in the second shift when workers at a silicone factory in Illinois noticed something had gone wrong. A tank of silicon hydride, used to make water repellent, started foaming and hissing. An operator mixing the chemicals in the tank yelled in frustration. Two of his coworkers came running. A pale yellow haze filled the air. It was hot. None of this was normal.
A supervisor quickly ordered one worker to turn on the exhaust fans and another to open the building’s garage doors, but neither got the chance. Within seconds, the 30,000-square-foot building exploded, rattling homes and businesses within 20 miles of the Waukegan, Illinois, factory. Rescue crews had to sift through the rubble for four days to find each of the bodies.
Four workers died the night of May 3, 2019, at AB Specialty Silicones, including the chemical operator and his boss. Yet the public may never find out what went wrong, and other chemical companies may never learn how to prevent a similar blast. That’s because the small, independent federal agency that investigates chemical disasters is on life support, and the Trump administration wants it to disappear altogether.
That agency, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, investigates accidents and makes recommendations — but it doesn’t regulate the industry. Since 1998, it has looked into some of the nation’s biggest industrial disasters, including the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout, which killed 11 workers and dumped an estimated 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico; and the 2005 explosion at the BP refinery in Texas City, Texas, that killed 15 workers and injured 180. The board’s work has led to changes in industry practices from Texas to Kansas and laws in states from Mississippi to Connecticut.
It’s likely, however, that when the investigation into the AB Specialty Silicones explosion wraps up, the board will not be able to meet the quorum needed to vet and approve investigators’ findings and recommendations. Since May 2, it has been operating with only one voting member out of a possible five — one vote short of a quorum. It’s been effectively disabled.
The White House hasn’t announced plans to fill the board’s four vacant seats. In fact, President Donald Trump has been trying to do the opposite, pushing to eliminate the board in each of his annual budget proposals — though he hasn’t persuaded Congress to defund it.
Without a quorum, the board will not be able to release the final reports from any of its 13 pending investigations.
The situation creates “a very difficult challenge,” Rick Engler, whose term on the board ended in February, told the Center for Public Integrity. “We continue to have chemical disasters, and the [board’s] recommendations save lives.”
This series was made possible through a collaboration with the Center for Public Integrity, a DC-based nonprofit newsroom. Get updates on their work. You can also support Vox with a financial contribution. Learn more.
The inspector general at the US Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the board, recently called the situation a matter of “elevated urgency.”
“Having only one member impairs the function of the [board],” the inspector general’s July report stated.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The board’s undoing reflects a broader dysfunction at federal agencies under Trump’s watch. The president has repeatedly failed to appoint leaders at agencies he considers unnecessary, making it nearly impossible for some to operate.
That’s happened, for example, at the Federal Election Commission. For nine months, the FEC didn’t have enough commissioners to take key enforcement actions, such as reviewing possible campaign finance violations. The US Merit Systems Protection Board, meanwhile, hasn’t had any board member since February 2019, and is unable to review workplace complaints from federal employees.
Unlike the FEC and the Merit Systems Protection Board, however, the Chemical Safety Board’s work is a matter of life and death. Millions of people in America — mostly workers, but also members of the public — are at risk from fires, explosions, or chemical releases, and many of them probably don’t realize it.
Things can go very wrong, very quickly
The United States is among the world’s top chemical producers. More than 12,000 facilities handle toxic or flammable chemicals, used to make everything from pharmaceuticals to fertilizers, and are often located near businesses and residential areas. The Congressional Research Service found that 90 of these facilities each put a million or more people at risk from accidents in worst-case scenarios. As of 2014, about 4.6 million children attend school within a mile of a chemical plant, according to the Center for Effective Government.
The Chemical Safety Board sends investigators to places like Atchison, Kansas, where 800 middle and high school students in 2016 were evacuated from class after a greenish-yellow cloud of chlorine escaped from a factory that distills alcohol and corn oil. Its final report pinpointed the cause of the accident (a tanker truck driver delivering sulfuric acid mistakenly mixed it with sodium hypochlorite — bleach) and made recommendations to the factory’s owner (such as installing alarms to keep workers from opening the wrong valve, as happened in this case). The owner ultimately followed all the recommendations and made changes to factory practices.
The board’s work has also led to broader reforms. Its 2010 investigation into a deadly explosion at a Connecticut construction site, for example, prompted the state to ban companies from using pressurized natural gas to clean pipes, a process known as gas blowing. Its recommendations also strengthened New York City’s fire code and raised safety standards at oil and gas sites in one Mississippi county.
“The CSB’s findings are very influential,” Chris Jahn, president of the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents the chemical industry, said at a Senate hearing in January. He urged the Trump administration and the Senate to quickly fill the board’s four vacant seats.
The council has criticized some of the board’s recommendations, particularly those that call for more industry regulation. Jahn’s testimony on the importance of the board reflects the depth of support for keeping it alive.
Labor unions also want to see the board survive. “This is a critical agency for us,” said Mike Wright, director of safety, health, and environment for United Steelworkers, which represents more than 570,000 workers in some of the nation’s most hazardous industries. “Their reports have helped us improve safety at many plants.”
But the unfolding crisis has slowed the board’s work to a crawl. Until a new voting member is appointed and confirmed, pending investigations are stuck in limbo, bringing into question whether companies will learn how to prevent fatal explosions, similar to the ones that destroyed a Wisconsin corn mill and a chemical factory in Crosby, Texas.
More than a year after the AB Specialty Silicones explosion, the board’s investigators are still sifting through evidence to pinpoint the cause.
A separate investigation by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration found several safety violations at the factory. According to OSHA, the electrical equipment was improperly installed, and workers were moving flammable liquids on forklifts that ran on propane, which could ignite the chemicals.
OSHA cited the company for 12 “willful” safety violations and proposed $1.6 million in fines. The company is contesting the citations.
In a statement to Public Integrity, a company spokesperson said the scope of the OSHA report went “beyond the elements that may have contributed to the tragic explosion” and noted that a third-party investigator AB Specialty Silicones hired traced the explosion to a “human error that resulted in the mistaken addition of an erroneous ingredient.”
“We look forward to CSB’s more comprehensive work on the cause of the tragedy that has made such an impact on our AB family and our Waukegan community,” the statement said.
But a spokesperson for the board said the investigation will take some time — unlikely to be completed until fiscal year 2021.
Lives and homes destroyed
The board is also still investigating a factory explosion in Houston that killed two people and damaged hundreds of homes. The January 24 blast at Watson Grinding and Manufacturing lit up the night sky and flung debris into nearby neighborhoods, injuring dozens of people. One of them was Sean Rangel, who had worked at the factory for seven years. The 38-year-old welder was parking his pickup truck outside the factory when the blast ignited.
As he backed into a parking spot, Rangel saw one of his supervisors, Frank Flores, walking toward the building’s front door, then saw a flash of light in his rearview mirror. The explosion flipped over Rangel’s Dodge Ram and shattered its windows.
“I thought I got hit by a truck, but my ears were ringing,” Rangel said by phone. He crawled out of the truck and surveyed the scene. “The building wasn’t there anymore; all I could see was metal. At that moment, I knew that Frankie didn’t make it.”
Flores was one of two workers killed that morning. If Rangel had arrived at work 30 seconds earlier, he might have died, too. The force of the explosion popped his left eardrum and cut his left eye; he was otherwise unhurt. The trauma, however, has stayed with him.
“I can’t sleep,” Rangel said. “I’m scared to go places. I don’t know the next time something might happen.”
Rangel and his coworkers lost their jobs when Watson filed for bankruptcy a few weeks after the explosion. Now he’s suing the company for negligence. Watson also faces a class-action lawsuit from more than 200 homeowners whose properties were damaged. A lawyer representing the company did not respond to a request for comment. In court filings, company representatives denied the allegations from Rangel and homeowners.
Rangel suspects a gas leak triggered the explosion, but no one knows for sure. The Chemical Safety Board sent investigators to the scene on the day of the explosion, but they have yet to complete their investigation.
The board’s investigative process is not much different from that of the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates high-profile transportation accidents, such as the helicopter crash that killed former NBA star Kobe Bryant, his daughter, and seven others near Los Angeles in January.
But the NTSB dwarfs its younger cousin. It has a staff of about 400 and an annual budget of $110 million. The Chemical Safety Board has a staff of 40 — including nine investigators — and a $12 million budget, forcing it to concentrate on the worst industrial disasters, such as the Deepwater Horizon explosion.
The need for more investigators is clear: The board’s database shows an annual average of 183 chemical accidents that killed, injured, or sickened someone over the past decade.
However, each year, investigators are only able to look into about five major accidents. Their findings and recommendations are then vetted by the board’s voting members, and, if approved, a final report is released publicly.
While the board’s findings have led to stricter regulations and practices, it’s also not unusual for industry groups and companies to reject the board’s findings and recommendations. The oil and gas industry — which, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, has contributed about $2 million to Trump’s reelection campaign — has pushed back against a recommendation for new federal rules that would require oil rigs and refineries to meet stricter safety standards. The industry’s main trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, opposed the rules, saying they would cost companies too much money without improving safety or lessening environmental risks.
The chemical and oil industries also fought an EPA rule, issued at the end of the Obama administration, that among other things would have required companies to conduct independent audits of major chemical accidents — something the board recommended. The Trump EPA eliminated this provision, along with others, last year.
A prominent opponent
No stakeholder has worked harder to weaken the board than Trump’s White House, which has tried to shut the board down four times.
The administration first announced its intention to defund the board in Trump’s budget proposal in 2017, arguing that the board’s work overlapped with other agencies and has generated “unhelpful friction” between them. The White House said the board’s push for regulatory changes had “frustrated” businesses and even some regulators, though it did not specify what the friction was about.
This did not sit well with the steelworkers union and other board supporters.
“It was infuriating,” Wright said. “A lot of the things that are getting people killed are not addressed” by regulatory agencies such as OSHA.
The board had just emerged from a rough period when Trump announced his intention to eliminate it. Complaints about board mismanagement triggered two House investigations in 2014 and criticism from the EPA’s inspector general. The board’s chair at the time, Rafael Moure-Eraso, resigned under pressure in 2015 amid complaints of mismanagement. In the years that followed, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, the new chair, revamped the board, turning around investigations more quickly and improving morale. But she left in 2018 to take a job at a railroad company.
In the end, Trump’s plan to defund the board has proven unsuccessful: Congress has voted to fund it every year.
But the board now faces an existential crisis. The last three members left because their five-year terms had expired or were about to end. In their place, the White House has nominated only one member: Katherine Lemos, who previously worked at the NTSB and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Members of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee voted unanimously to confirm Lemos in September, but Senate leaders didn’t move forward with a full vote in the chamber for months.
“This is completely unacceptable,” committee chair Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) said during a January hearing. “It’s in everyone’s interest to keep the board functioning.”
Lemos’s confirmation was finally pushed through in March, right as Kristen Kulinowski — the only member left at the board at the time — was preparing to take another job as her term ended.
Lemos joined the board at the end of April. For the first time in months, the board had two members — albeit for one week.
The last woman standing
On April 29, the board held its quarterly meeting in a small conference room two blocks from the White House. Lemos, Kulinowski, and the board’s attorney sat behind a long table.
It was Kulinowski’s last meeting on the board and Lemos’s first.
Kulinowski updated Lemos, who would succeed her as the board’s chair on the 13 pending investigations she was leaving behind. Kulinowski said investigators are still reviewing evidence from the blast at AB Specialty Silicones and the factory explosion in Houston. She said two investigations were put on hold because the board doesn’t have enough staff.
No one mentioned that once Kulinowski departs, Lemos wouldn’t be able to vote to close the investigations.
Kulinowski, who now leads the federally funded IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute, told Public Integrity the board wasn’t designed to function with so many empty seats. Yet she rejected the notion that its death is imminent.
“The CSB has such an important mission, and we survived so many threats to our existence while I was there and even before I arrived,” she said.
At the April meeting, Kevin Druley, an editor at the National Safety Council, an Illinois-based nonprofit that promotes public safety, asked how the board would operate with just one member.
“That’s an excellent question,” Lemos responded, adding that she didn’t have any information to provide. “But we are working through those details.”
Those details were still unresolved when Kulinowski left the board two days later.


vox--2020-07-28--The Trump administration is refusing to fully reinstate DACA

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it is considering trying again to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ( DACA ) program and will not be accepting new applications from immigrants who hope to gain its protections , throwing the future of hundreds of thousands young immigrants who came to the US as children into doubt .
The Supreme Court ruled on June 18 that President Donald Trump couldn ’ t end the program , which has allowed almost 700,000 unauthorized immigrants known as “ DREAMers ” to live and work in the US free from fear of deportation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the weeks since that decision , the administration had remained silent as to whether it would consequently start accepting new applications for the program , causing confusion among those who have been waiting for years for a chance to apply .
Chad Wolf , the acting secretary of Homeland Security , clarified Tuesday that the administration is reviewing the policy further and may well move forward with ending the program .
In the meantime , it will impose new restrictions on applicants — a move that immigrant advocates say is a blatant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision .
That review will examine the legality of the DACA program , which former President Barack Obama created via executive order in 2012 , and its impact on immigration trends , a senior administration official told reporters .
“ I have concluded that the DACA policy , at a minimum , presents serious policy concerns that may warrant its full rescission , ” Wolf wrote in a policy memorandum issued Tuesday .
“ At the same time , I have concluded that fully rescinding the policy would be a significant administration decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the meantime , the administration will reject all new DACA applications and related applications for work permits , as well as halve the period for which renewals will be valid from two years to just one year .
It will also reject most new and pending requests for advanced parole , which allows DACA recipients to travel outside the US for humanitarian , education , or employment purposes .
Approximately 66,000 people have become eligible for the program since 2017 , when Trump first tried to rescind the program and stopped accepting new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out because they hadn ’ t completed the educational requirements or joined the military .
The decision makes DACA a key immigration issue in this fall ’ s presidential election .
It ’ s not likely that the Trump administration could end DACA entirely before the election or even Inauguration Day in 2021 .
But if Trump wins a second term , time would be on his side .
And even if he leaves office , the only way that DREAMers , including those who have long waited for a chance to apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their right to remain in the US is if Congress intervenes .
The DACA program remains popular among both Republicans and Democrats : even 69 percent of Trump voters support protections for DREAMers , according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll .
But the move suggests Trump is again resorting to restrictive immigration policies as a means of rallying his base .
Former Vice President Joe Biden , the presumptive Democratic nominee , has vowed to restore DACA and resume accepting new applications .
He would also try to work with Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Make no mistake , the vast popularity of the program , combined with a looming election , prevented Trump from immediately ending the program , ” Andrea Flores , deputy director of immigration policy for the American Civil Liberties Union , said in a statement .
“ But this policy memo makes his intentions clear : His next move is a complete end to the DACA program to destroy the lives of Dreamers once again.
” Immigrant advocates say Trump is obligated to accept new DACA applications Most people who are granted DACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after which they can apply to renew in additional two-year increments indefinitely .
They typically apply while they are still in school or after graduating from high school so that they can obtain a work permit and get a job or attend university .
Immigrant advocates have argued that the Trump administration has been openly defying the Supreme Court ’ s decision and other court orders , issuing rejection notices to those who tried to newly apply for DACA status .
( It has been accepting renewals . )
Lawyers for DACA recipients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision to end the program back in 2017 recently told a New York federal judge that they were concerned that administration officials were ignoring the Supreme Court ’ s “ unambiguous decision and their legal obligations ” in refusing to process new applications .
And House Democrats Zoe Lofgren and Jerrold Nadler penned a letter to Trump claiming that his failure to resume processing new DACA applications constituted “ illegal usurpation of authority in violation of the separation of powers.
” A federal judge in Maryland ordered the Trump administration on July 17 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Supreme Court ’ s ruling restored the program to its status before Trump tried to terminate it in September 2017 .
US District Judge Ryan Grimm didn ’ t set a deadline for the administration to comply , but he is moving forward with a hearing addressing the question of whether he should hold the administration in contempt .
And in a recent telephonic briefing , he criticized the administration for failing to clarify its policies with regard to new DACA applications in a timely manner .
“ It creates a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is disregarding binding decisions by appellate and the Supreme Court , ” he said .
“ There is a cost for not having these things clarified , and the plaintiffs have borne the lion ’ s share of that cost thus far.
” But a senior administration official said Tuesday that Grimm didn ’ t have the final say given that there remains pending litigation over new DACA applications in other federal courts .
Trump could rescind DACA without Congress ’ s help Following the Supreme Court ’ s ruling , Trump claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program and would submit new paperwork backing up that decision .
He accused the justices on Twitter of punting the DACA issue , which has been the subject of contentious legislative debate for the better part of a decade .
It ’ s not clear exactly how he intends to end the program .
He could do so without Congress ’ s help , but he said during a press conference at the White House on Tuesday that he also intends to work with Congress on creating a “ merit-based system ” for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further on what that meant , but he has previously described such a system as one that prioritizes high-earners and skilled workers over those with family ties to the US .
The administration could terminate DACA using the same method it employed in 2017 : The Department of Homeland Security could issue another memo .
Trump could also issue an executive order terminating DACA .
But either method would likely be challenged and swiftly blocked in federal court , said Stephen Yale-Loehr , a professor at Cornell Law School .
Whether , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its policy on appeal remains an open question .
The justices wrote in their opinion that if they wanted their decision to survive in the courts , the administration would have to address why it decided not to partially roll back protections for DACA recipients — such as taking away their work authorization but still shielding them from deportation .
It ’ s not clear whether the Trump administration has any interest in more narrowly revoking their protections , but even so , it would be devastating for DREAMers to lose their ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration would also have to address why the interests of DACA recipients , who have relied on the program since 2012 , do not outweigh the administration ’ s interests in terminating the program .
DACA recipients have been settled in the US for years — some arriving before they were old enough to remember — and have earned degrees and established careers and families here .
The Trump administration , on the other hand , has expressed concern that DACA could face litigation because it alleges the program was created illegally via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could try terminating DACA via the regulatory process , which would put termination on stronger legal footing .
But the entire process could last months , if not years , requiring that officials draft and issue a proposed rule , solicit comments from the public , and address those comments before publishing a final rule .
“ Neither alternative is likely to terminate the DACA program before the presidential election in November , ” Yale-Loehr said .
“ This makes the election even more important than before .
If President Trump wins reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try to terminate the DACA program.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it is considering trying again to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and will not be accepting new applications from immigrants who hope to gain its protections, throwing the future of hundreds of thousands young immigrants who came to the US as children into doubt.
The Supreme Court ruled on June 18 that President Donald Trump couldn’t end the program, which has allowed almost 700,000 unauthorized immigrants known as “DREAMers” to live and work in the US free from fear of deportation, without a more robust rationale. In the weeks since that decision, the administration had remained silent as to whether it would consequently start accepting new applications for the program, causing confusion among those who have been waiting for years for a chance to apply.
Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of Homeland Security, clarified Tuesday that the administration is reviewing the policy further and may well move forward with ending the program. In the meantime, it will impose new restrictions on applicants — a move that immigrant advocates say is a blatant violation of the Supreme Court’s decision.
That review will examine the legality of the DACA program, which former President Barack Obama created via executive order in 2012, and its impact on immigration trends, a senior administration official told reporters.
“I have concluded that the DACA policy, at a minimum, presents serious policy concerns that may warrant its full rescission,” Wolf wrote in a policy memorandum issued Tuesday. “At the same time, I have concluded that fully rescinding the policy would be a significant administration decision that warrants additional careful consideration.”
In the meantime, the administration will reject all new DACA applications and related applications for work permits, as well as halve the period for which renewals will be valid from two years to just one year. It will also reject most new and pending requests for advanced parole, which allows DACA recipients to travel outside the US for humanitarian, education, or employment purposes.
Approximately 66,000 people have become eligible for the program since 2017, when Trump first tried to rescind the program and stopped accepting new applications. They may have previously missed out because they hadn’t completed the educational requirements or joined the military.
The decision makes DACA a key immigration issue in this fall’s presidential election. It’s not likely that the Trump administration could end DACA entirely before the election or even Inauguration Day in 2021. But if Trump wins a second term, time would be on his side. And even if he leaves office, the only way that DREAMers, including those who have long waited for a chance to apply for DACA, can get assurance of their right to remain in the US is if Congress intervenes.
The DACA program remains popular among both Republicans and Democrats: even 69 percent of Trump voters support protections for DREAMers, according to a recent Politico/Morning Consult poll. But the move suggests Trump is again resorting to restrictive immigration policies as a means of rallying his base.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has vowed to restore DACA and resume accepting new applications. He would also try to work with Congress to pass permanent protections for DREAMers.
“Make no mistake, the vast popularity of the program, combined with a looming election, prevented Trump from immediately ending the program,” Andrea Flores, deputy director of immigration policy for the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “But this policy memo makes his intentions clear: His next move is a complete end to the DACA program to destroy the lives of Dreamers once again.”
Immigrant advocates say Trump is obligated to accept new DACA applications
Most people who are granted DACA maintain their status for two years, after which they can apply to renew in additional two-year increments indefinitely. They typically apply while they are still in school or after graduating from high school so that they can obtain a work permit and get a job or attend university.
Immigrant advocates have argued that the Trump administration has been openly defying the Supreme Court’s decision and other court orders, issuing rejection notices to those who tried to newly apply for DACA status. (It has been accepting renewals.)
Lawyers for DACA recipients who had challenged Trump’s initial decision to end the program back in 2017 recently told a New York federal judge that they were concerned that administration officials were ignoring the Supreme Court’s “unambiguous decision and their legal obligations” in refusing to process new applications. And House Democrats Zoe Lofgren and Jerrold Nadler penned a letter to Trump claiming that his failure to resume processing new DACA applications constituted “illegal usurpation of authority in violation of the separation of powers.”
A federal judge in Maryland ordered the Trump administration on July 17 to begin processing new applications, finding that the Supreme Court’s ruling restored the program to its status before Trump tried to terminate it in September 2017.
US District Judge Ryan Grimm didn’t set a deadline for the administration to comply, but he is moving forward with a hearing addressing the question of whether he should hold the administration in contempt. And in a recent telephonic briefing, he criticized the administration for failing to clarify its policies with regard to new DACA applications in a timely manner.
“It creates a feeling and a belief that the agency is disregarding binding decisions by appellate and the Supreme Court,” he said. “There is a cost for not having these things clarified, and the plaintiffs have borne the lion’s share of that cost thus far.”
But a senior administration official said Tuesday that Grimm didn’t have the final say given that there remains pending litigation over new DACA applications in other federal courts.
Trump could rescind DACA without Congress’s help
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Trump claimed that he still wanted to end the program and would submit new paperwork backing up that decision. He accused the justices on Twitter of punting the DACA issue, which has been the subject of contentious legislative debate for the better part of a decade.
It’s not clear exactly how he intends to end the program. He could do so without Congress’s help, but he said during a press conference at the White House on Tuesday that he also intends to work with Congress on creating a “merit-based system” for immigration. He didn’t elaborate further on what that meant, but he has previously described such a system as one that prioritizes high-earners and skilled workers over those with family ties to the US.
The administration could terminate DACA using the same method it employed in 2017: The Department of Homeland Security could issue another memo. Trump could also issue an executive order terminating DACA. But either method would likely be challenged and swiftly blocked in federal court, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell Law School. Whether, and how quickly, the administration could defend its policy on appeal remains an open question.
The justices wrote in their opinion that if they wanted their decision to survive in the courts, the administration would have to address why it decided not to partially roll back protections for DACA recipients — such as taking away their work authorization but still shielding them from deportation. It’s not clear whether the Trump administration has any interest in more narrowly revoking their protections, but even so, it would be devastating for DREAMers to lose their ability to work in the US.
The administration would also have to address why the interests of DACA recipients, who have relied on the program since 2012, do not outweigh the administration’s interests in terminating the program. DACA recipients have been settled in the US for years — some arriving before they were old enough to remember — and have earned degrees and established careers and families here. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has expressed concern that DACA could face litigation because it alleges the program was created illegally via executive action.
Alternatively, the administration could try terminating DACA via the regulatory process, which would put termination on stronger legal footing. But the entire process could last months, if not years, requiring that officials draft and issue a proposed rule, solicit comments from the public, and address those comments before publishing a final rule.
“Neither alternative is likely to terminate the DACA program before the presidential election in November,” Yale-Loehr said. “This makes the election even more important than before. If President Trump wins reelection, he will have another four years to try to terminate the DACA program.”


vox--2020-07-28--How Trump and his son helped make a Covid-19 conspiracy theorist go viral in a matter of hours

Social media platforms are struggling to contain a new round of coronavirus conspiracy theories thanks , in part , to Donald Trump .
On Monday night , the president retweeted multiple accounts that posted a video falsely claiming that hydroxychloroquine cured Covid-19 , including one tweet from his son , Donald Trump Jr .
Many of those tweets were later removed , and Twitter suspended several of the users behind them , including Trump ’ s son , for 12 hours .
But the video itself has continued to spread across social media platforms , raising fresh questions about how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The video in question , which Trump Jr. called a “ must watch , ” features Houston doctor Stella Immanuel , who claimed that a combination of hydroxychloroquine , zinc , and the antibiotic Zithromax was a “ cure ” for the coronavirus and that “ you don ’ t need to wear a mask.
” The Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) has said that hydroxychloroquine is “ unlikely to produce an antiviral effect , ” and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC ) recommends wearing masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The video of Immanuel quickly went viral , drawing millions of views on Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube in a matter of hours .
The event itself also had some political support .
Immanuel was speaking at a gathering called the “ White Coat Summit , ” held on Monday by a group called America ’ s Frontline Doctors .
The press conference , which was held on the steps of the Supreme Court , was organized by the right-wing group Tea Party Patriots and also featured Rep. Ralph Norman ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Recode that he didn ’ t know ahead of time what Immanuel was going to say .
“ While the Congressman does not agree with her statement on the use of masks , and certainly has no expertise in medications , he strongly believes that she has a right to say what she came to say without being censored by big tech , ” Rep. Norman ’ s spokesperson said .
What got Don Jr. suspended from Twitter According to the Daily Beast , Immanuel has a history of strange medical claims @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caused by having sex with demons in dreams and that alien DNA is being used in medical treatments .
Records from the Texas Medical Board show that Immanuel , who was trained as a pediatrician , is a licensed physician with a practice in Houston that has the same address as her own church , Fire Power Ministries .
Immanuel ’ s sermons , several of which are hosted on her YouTube channel , include messages of support for President Trump .
Most of those videos have only a few thousand views .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral so quickly is likely a combination of the high profile of the right-wing personalities and publications that shared it and the controversial subject matter .
Although Twitter attracted attention by suspending Donald Trump Jr. ’ s account for posting the video of Immanuel ’ s speech , the source of the virality appears to be conservative publication Breitbart , which shared a livestream of Immanuel ’ s speech to its 4.7 million Facebook followers .
Facebook later removed the post , but not before it got millions of views on the platform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ video for violating our policies that prohibit false claims about cures for Covid-19 , since no such cure currently exists , ” a Facebook spokesperson told Recode in a statement .
“ Under this policy , we remove posts that make claims like this video did that hydroxychloroquine is an absolute cure for Covid-19 .
From April to June we removed more than 7 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram for violating this policy and have shown messages to people who have reacted to , commented on or shared this kind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken steps to remove the video .
“ We have removed the video for violating our COVID-19 misinformation policies , ” a spokesperson for Google , which owns YouTube , told Recode .
The Breitbart detail is especially problematic for Facebook .
The social network drew criticism after it named Breitbart as a partner in its Facebook News initiative , which involved collecting trusted news sources in a dedicated tab .
Once described by co-founder Steve Bannon as “ a platform for the alt-right , ” Breitbart is also known to spread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Recode that Breitbart is still eligible to appear in the News tab — meaning it could appear in peoples ’ individual News tabs — but its content has never appeared in the top stories feature , which is what ’ s curated by Facebook employees .
Meanwhile , hydroxychloroquine continues to be the source of many conspiracy theories , so one might expect social media companies to be prepared to halt the spread of dubious content related to the topic .
Some proponents of these theories simply deny the results of studies showing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , while others cite anecdotes they hear from doctors , quote evidence from less-than-ideal trials , and cherry-pick their facts .
According to John Gregory , a senior analyst for health at the media trust tool NewsGuard , there ’ s also “ a larger , vaguer narrative that hydroxychloroquine is being held back because Trump spoke about it , and because it ’ s politically beneficial for Democrats in the United States if hydroxychloroquine doesn ’ t work.
” But it ’ s not entirely clear where any of these social media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and allowable claims about hydroxychloroquine .
After all , this isn ’ t the first time that the major social media platforms have been forced to chase down viral videos involving doctors making unproven medical claims .
In early May , a conspiracy video called Plandemic gained millions of views after being shared in conspiracy theory Facebook groups , including those associated with the group QAnon .
The 26-minute video featured a discredited doctor making a slew of false claims , like the idea that the novel coronavirus was manipulated in a lab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be an effective treatment for Covid-19 .
The Plandemic video was removed from the major platforms , but not before it “ had been viewed more than eight million times on YouTube , Facebook , Twitter and Instagram , and had generated countless other posts , ” according to the New York Times .
The video featuring Immanuel and shared by the Trumps appears to have gone viral much more quickly and garnered millions more views .
According to preliminary research from Zignal Labs , a media intelligence platform , the original @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Facebook .
There were more than half a million mentions of the video on Twitter and other non-Facebook platforms as of Tuesday morning .
Other estimates put the number of views of the video at over 20 million .
How Facebook and Twitter keep struggling with Covid-19 misinformation Facebook has generally tried to take a mostly hands-off stance when it comes to the president ’ s posts .
The company did remove campaign ads that promoted a “ census ” that was not the official census and that featured imagery associated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a Trump post that said “ when the looting starts , the shooting starts ” in reference to nationwide anti-police brutality protests .
To date , Facebook has not deleted any of Trump ’ s posts related to hydroxychloroquine .
Twitter has been more aggressive in its dealings with the president .
The company first fact-checked Trump in May , applying a warning label to two tweets that included misinformation about voting by mail .
A Trump tweet that included the same “ shooting ... looting ” language that was in his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this week ’ s incident involving the Immanuel video , several tweets that were retweeted by President Trump have been deleted , although others claiming that hydroxychloroquine can treat the coronavirus remain up as of publication ( Twitter did not respond to a request for comment ) .
Still , what Trump tweets about hydroxychloroquine can influence online conversations .
According to research from Timothy Mackey , a public health professor at UC San Diego , the president ’ s posts seemed to contribute to an increase in discussion of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media in the past day .
“ Hydroxychloroquine social media conversations spike when there are statements from the Trump administration and officials , which create an echo chamber of related news coverage , ” Mackey explained in an email .
“ That then leads to aggregators [ and ] supporters of Trump who amplify that message [ and ] misinformation , and then that gets exposed to other users , who react with both positive and negative sentiment.
” Some might argue that any posts claiming that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only because most scientific studies tell us that the drug doesn ’ t make a difference .
Much like wearing masks , however , the use of hydroxychloroquine has become politicized .
Typically used to prevent malaria and treat certain autoimmune disorders , hydroxychloroquine was identified as a potential treatment for the coronavirus after a February report from a French doctor claimed that a combination of the drug and Zithromax cured 100 percent of his small sample size of coronavirus patients .
Despite later , more in-depth studies that have shown the drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus , conservative pundits and then the president seized on the idea that the drug might be some sort of cure .
That has not proven true after more research .
The National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trials of the drug on June 20 , and the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine on July 1 .
Yet claims that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19 persist , with Trump claiming he took a two-week course of the drug in May .
Again , Twitter has taken an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Covid-19 treatments .
Following the virality of the Immanuel video , the company made “ Hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment for Covid-19 , according to the FDA ” one of its trending topics .
Incidentally , this happened just hours after Trump castigated Twitter for never featuring “ good ” trends about him , calling the omission “ illegal.
” Twitter did not append a fact-check to that tweet , but there is no American law that says social media platforms have to feature good trending topics about the president .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ media companies moderating users who violate their policies , some are accusing Facebook and Twitter of censorship .
The very fact that tech companies take down certain content can motivate other users to post it again .
In fact , this process can be part of a strategy that involves posting controversial content on multiple platforms and domains so that the moderators end up in a game of whack-a-mole .
And in many cases , a post or video might be too far on its way to going viral before Facebook or Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It ’ s extremely difficult for them to detect these things before they ’ re uploaded , ” explained James Grimmelmann , a law professor at Cornell who studies content moderation .
“ You ’ re not going to be able to use AI to distinguish true claims about Covid from false claims about Covid from false claims being presented to criticize.
” To avoid the problem of misinformation being shared too widely , Grimmelmann suggests that Facebook , Twitter , and other social media companies should set a threshold for looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral and then have human reviewers look at it .
“ You should be able to have somebody look at it and make the decision before it has been [ seen by ] 17 million , ” Grimmelmann said .
At this point , it might be too late for this new Covid-19 misinformation .
On Monday evening , Immanuel complained that her Facebook profile page and videos had been removed , threatening that the entire platform would “ be down in Jesus name ” if they were not restored .
She then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By Tuesday afternoon , Immanuel was back , and tweeted her video again .
It gained 104,000 views and 11,200 retweets in 90 minutes and has yet to be removed .
Update 7:55 pm ET July 28 , 2020 : This post has been updated to include a statement from Facebook and additional commentary from experts .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .
Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consider making a contribution to Vox today .

Social media platforms are struggling to contain a new round of coronavirus conspiracy theories due, in part, to Donald Trump.
On Monday night, the president retweeted accounts that posted a video falsely claiming that hydroxychloroquine cures Covid-19, including one tweet from his son Donald Trump Jr. Many of those tweets were later removed, and Twitter suspended several of the users behind them, including Trump’s son, for 12 hours. But the video itself has continued to spread across social media platforms, raising fresh questions about how companies like Facebook and Twitter handle misinformation.
The video in question, which Trump Jr. called a “must watch,” features Houston doctor Stella Immanuel, who claimed that a combination of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and the antibiotic Zithromax was a “cure” for the coronavirus and that “you don’t need to wear a mask.” The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has said that hydroxychloroquine is “unlikely to produce an antiviral effect,” and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends wearing masks to stop the spread of the virus. The video of Immanuel quickly went viral, drawing millions of views on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube in a matter of hours.
The event itself also had some political support. Immanuel was speaking at a gathering called the “White Coat Summit,” held on Monday by a group called America’s Frontline Doctors. The press conference, which was held on the steps of the Supreme Court, was organized by the right-wing group Tea Party Patriots and also featured Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC). A spokesperson for Norman told Recode that he didn’t know ahead of time what Immanuel was going to say.
“While the Congressman does not agree with her statement on the use of masks, and certainly has no expertise in medications, he strongly believes that she has a right to say what she came to say without being censored by big tech,” Rep. Norman’s spokesperson said.
What got Don Jr. suspended from Twitter
According to the Daily Beast, Immanuel has a history of strange medical claims, including that fibroids and cysts are caused by having sex with demons in dreams and that alien DNA is being used in medical treatments. Records from the Texas Medical Board show that Immanuel, who was trained as a pediatrician, is a licensed physician with a practice in Houston that has the same address as her church, Fire Power Ministries. Immanuel’s sermons, several of which are hosted on her YouTube channel, include messages of support for President Trump. Most of those videos have only a few thousand views.
Why this specific video about hydroxychloroquine went viral so quickly is likely a combination of the high profile of the right-wing personalities and publications that shared it and the controversial subject matter. Although Twitter attracted attention by suspending Don Jr.’s account for posting the video of Immanuel’s speech, the source of the virality appears to be the conservative publication Breitbart, which shared a livestream of Immanuel’s speech to its 4.7 million Facebook followers. Facebook later removed the post, but not before it got millions of views on the platform.
“We’ve removed this video for violating our policies that prohibit false claims about cures for Covid-19, since no such cure currently exists,” a Facebook spokesperson told Recode in a statement. “Under this policy, we remove posts that make claims like this video did that hydroxychloroquine is an absolute cure for Covid-19. From April to June we removed more than 7 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram for violating this policy and have shown messages to people who have reacted to, commented on or shared this kind of content.”
YouTube also says it has taken steps to remove the video. “We have removed the video for violating our COVID-19 misinformation policies,” a spokesperson for Google, which owns YouTube, told Recode.
The Breitbart detail is especially problematic for Facebook. The social network drew criticism after it named Breitbart as a partner in its Facebook News initiative, which involved collecting trusted news sources in a dedicated tab. Once described by co-founder Steve Bannon as “a platform for the alt-right,” Breitbart is also known to spread misinformation. A Facebook spokesperson confirmed to Recode that Breitbart is still eligible to appear in the News tab — meaning it could appear in people’s individual News tabs — but its content has never appeared in the top stories feature, which is what’s curated by Facebook employees.
Meanwhile, hydroxychloroquine continues to be the source of many conspiracy theories, so one might expect social media companies to be prepared to halt the spread of dubious content related to the topic. Some proponents of these theories simply deny the results of studies showing that hydroxychloroquine is not an effective cure, while others cite anecdotes they hear from doctors, quote evidence from less-than-ideal trials, and cherry-pick their facts. According to John Gregory, a senior analyst for health at NewsGuard, an app that rates news site trustworthiness, there’s also “a larger, vaguer narrative that hydroxychloroquine is being held back because Trump spoke about it, and because it’s politically beneficial for Democrats in the United States if hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work.”
But it’s not entirely clear where any of these social media platforms draw the line between actionable misinformation and allowable claims about hydroxychloroquine. After all, this isn’t the first time that the major social media platforms have been forced to chase down viral videos involving doctors making unproven medical claims.
In early May, a conspiracy theory video called Plandemic gained millions of views after being shared in conspiracy theory Facebook groups, including those associated with the group QAnon. The 26-minute video featured a discredited doctor making a slew of false claims, like the idea that the novel coronavirus was manipulated in a lab, and pushed the idea that hydroxychloroquine could be an effective treatment for Covid-19. The Plandemic video was removed from the major platforms, but not before it “had been viewed more than eight million times on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, and had generated countless other posts,” according to the New York Times.
The video featuring Immanuel and shared by the Trumps appears to have gone viral much more quickly and garnered millions more views. According to preliminary research from Zignal Labs, a media intelligence platform, the original video livestream received about 18 million engagements on Facebook. There were more than half a million mentions of the video on Twitter and other non-Facebook platforms as of Tuesday morning. Other estimates put the number of views of the video at over 20 million.
How Facebook and Twitter keep struggling with Covid-19 misinformation
Facebook has generally tried to take a mostly hands-off stance when it comes to the president’s posts. The company did remove campaign ads that promoted a “census” that was not the official census and that featured imagery associated with Nazis, but it declined to act on a Trump post that said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” in reference to nationwide anti-police brutality protests. To date, Facebook has not deleted any of Trump’s posts related to hydroxychloroquine.
Twitter has been more aggressive in its dealings with the president. The company first fact-checked Trump in May, applying a warning label to two tweets that included misinformation about voting-by-mail. A Trump tweet that included the same “shooting ... looting” language that was in his Facebook post also received a warning label. In this week’s incident involving the Immanuel video, several tweets that were retweeted by President Trump have been deleted, although others claiming that hydroxychloroquine can treat the coronavirus remain up as of publication. (Twitter did not respond to a request for comment.)
Still, what Trump tweets about hydroxychloroquine can influence online conversations. According to research from Timothy Mackey, a public health professor at UC San Diego, the president’s posts seemed to contribute to an increase in discussion of both hydroxychloroquine and other Covid-19-related medications on social media in the past day.
“Hydroxychloroquine social media conversations spike when there are statements from the Trump administration and officials, which create an echo chamber of related news coverage,” Mackey explained in an email. “That then leads to aggregators [and] supporters of Trump who amplify that message [and] misinformation, and then that gets exposed to other users, who react with both positive and negative sentiment.”
Some might argue that any posts claiming that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for Covid-19 should get flagged for misinformation, if only because most scientific studies tell us that the drug doesn’t make a difference. Much like mask-wearing, however, the use of hydroxychloroquine has become politicized.
Typically used to prevent malaria and treat certain autoimmune disorders, hydroxychloroquine was identified as a potential treatment for the coronavirus after a February report from a French doctor claimed that a combination of the drug and Zithromax cured 100 percent of his small sample size of coronavirus patients. Despite later, more in-depth studies that have shown the drug combination has no apparent impact on the virus, conservative pundits and then the president seized on the idea that the drug might be some sort of cure. That has not proven true after more research. The National Institutes of Health halted its clinical trials of the drug on June 20, and the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization of hydroxychloroquine on July 1. Yet claims that hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid-19 persist, with Trump claiming he took a two-week course of the drug in May.
Again, Twitter has taken an assertive approach when it comes to misinformation about Covid-19 treatments. Following the virality of the Immanuel video, the company made “Hydroxychloroquine is not an effective treatment for Covid-19, according to the FDA” one of its trending topics. This happened just hours after Trump castigated Twitter for never featuring “good” trends about him, calling the omission “illegal.” Twitter did not append a fact-check to that tweet, but there is no US law that says social media platforms have to feature good trending topics about the president.
As is often the case with social media companies moderating users who violate their policies, some are accusing Facebook and Twitter of censorship. The very fact that tech companies take down certain content can motivate other users to post it again. In fact, this process can be part of a strategy that involves posting controversial content on multiple platforms and domains so that the moderators end up in a game of whack-a-mole. And in many cases, a post or video might be too far on its way to going viral before Facebook or Twitter realizes that misinformation is being spread.
“It’s extremely difficult for them to detect these things before they’re uploaded,” explained James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell who studies content moderation. “You’re not going to be able to use AI to distinguish true claims about Covid from false claims about Covid from false claims being presented to criticize.”
To avoid the problem of misinformation being shared too widely, Grimmelmann suggests that Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies should set a threshold for looking at content that appears to be going viral and then have human reviewers look at it. “You should be able to have somebody look at it and make the decision before it has been [seen by] 17 million,” Grimmelmann said.
At this point, it might be too late for this new Covid-19 misinformation. On Monday evening, Immanuel complained that her Facebook profile page and videos had been removed, threatening that the entire platform would “be down in Jesus name” if they were not restored. She then went silent for about 13 hours. By Tuesday afternoon, Immanuel was back, and tweeted her video again. It gained 104,000 views and 11,200 retweets in 90 minutes and has yet to be removed.
Update 7:55 pm July 28, 2020: This article has been updated to include a statement from Facebook and additional commentary from experts.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.