vox--2020-10-14--Everyone in the White House cluster who has reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus

Everyone in the White House cluster who has reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus Share All sharing options for : Everyone in the White House cluster who has reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus More than 20 people in and around the White House have tested positive for the coronavirus in recent weeks — including President Donald Trump , first lady Melania Trump , and their son , Barron Trump .
The president announced on October 2 that he and Melania Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 , joining several other high-ranking US government officials who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an experimental antibody treatment and oxygen at the White House , before being moved to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda , Maryland for three days .
Melania Trump recuperated at home .
Barron Trump , his mother announced on October 14 , tested positive after his parents ; the first lady said he was asymptomatic and has since tested negative .
Some prominent officials in the Trump administration have recently tested positive as well , including presidential adviser Stephen Miller , as well as press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McEnany — like others in the White House cluster — failed to immediately quarantine after Trump ’ s diagnosis , and she appeared in front of reporters without a mask in the following days .
While the administration has refused to conduct contact tracing , many Covid-19 cases in the cluster are believed to have originated around the time of a White House event — which took place indoors and outdoors — on September 26 honoring the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court .
Dr. Anthony Fauci of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering a “ superspreader event , ” criticizing it for being a “ situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks.
” A number of attendees tested positive for the coronavirus in the days following the event , including GOP Sens .
Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina ; former senior White House counselor Kellyanne Conway ; and Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien .
Former New Jersey Gov .
Chris Christie , another attendee , also tested positive and was hospitalized for a week .
Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Covid-19 over the summer but has recovered .
It is unknown whether she now carries immunity .
But it ’ s not just the one event .
On October 3 , Sen. Ron Johnson ( R-WI ) announced he had tested positive .
Johnson was not at the Barrett event , but he did attend a lunch with other Republican senators last week .
There was some concern Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing could contribute to spread given many senators — including Lee , who said he is “ no longer contagious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And there have been more cases on Capitol Hill in recent days : Rep. Bill Huizenga ( R-MI ) said on Wednesday , October 14 , he was isolating after a positive test .
Beyond the relatively well-known senators , members of the press , and White House officials who have tested positive , less well-known government staff members and security officers have been infected with the coronavirus as well .
A number of such cases have been confirmed , including McEnany ’ s deputies , Trump aide Nicholas Luna , and military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice Commandant Charles Ray of the Coast Guard tested positive , leading other military leaders to enter quarantine .
The White House , in other words , became a Covid-19 hot spot .
Over the summer , Republican Sens .
Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy were diagnosed with Covid-19 but have successfully recovered .
The virus has also infected more than 15 House members since March .
But this is the first time the virus , which has killed more than 215,000 Americans , has spread in such a concentrated manner among White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the press corps .
While it ’ s not clear how the president was exposed , Trump was in regular contact last week with senior counselor Hope Hicks , whose positive coronavirus test was revealed on Thursday , October 1 .
Hicks had traveled with Trump multiple times ahead of his diagnosis , including to the September 29 presidential debate in Cleveland , Ohio .
Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen have both repeatedly tested negative , as have Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his wife Jill .
Some other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe , have tested negative as well .
Following his recovery , Trump has resumed campaigning , promising to hold a rally nearly every day between now and November 3 .
He kicked these off with events in Florida and Pennsylvania , and spent part of each event incorrectly stating that those who have had the coronavirus are immune to reinfection .
While the rallies are all expected to be held outdoors , they have , thus far , not featured social distancing or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they will create new coronavirus clusters , both in the locales in which they are held , and among Trump ’ s staff .
And the speculation is not unfounded ; local officials believe a rally the president held on September 18 in Bemidji , Minnesota , caused at least nine cases .
Here ’ s what we know about some key figures who have tested positive — and negative — for SARS-CoV-2 so far .
People in the White House cluster who have reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus This list includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ event and/or have had close recent contact with the White House .
• Barron Trump , the president and the first lady ’ s son • John Jenkins , president of the University of Notre Dame • Three journalists from the White House press corps , including Michael Shear of the New York Times and photojournalist Al Drago • A White House press staffer , according to the White House Correspondents ’ Association Crede Bailey , the head of the White House security office , was hospitalized with Covid-19 in September , according @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Amy Coney Barrett event .
Two housekeeping staff members at the White House tested positive in early September , according to the New York Times .
Vice Commandant Ray , Sen. Johnson , and Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel have also recently tested positive .
Johnson and McDaniel were not at the Barrett event , but McDaniel had contact with Trump in the days before it .
A brief list of key politicians and officials who have tested negative Vox has compiled a list of key administration figures who help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been in contact with the president , and key Democrats in the 2020 election cycle who have recently gotten negative test results for the virus .
While it could take several days for an individual who has contracted the virus to test positive , some recent negative tests have been made public .
Here ’ s a partial list so far : • Republican Reps. Pete Stauber and Tom Emmer of Minnesota , who traveled with Trump ahead of his positive test • Republican Sens .
Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Kelly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in contact with Trump ahead of his positive test , according to a CBS reporter in Atlanta Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Everyone in the White House cluster who has reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus
Share All sharing options for: Everyone in the White House cluster who has reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus
More than 20 people in and around the White House have tested positive for the coronavirus in recent weeks — including President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, and their son, Barron Trump.
The president announced on October 2 that he and Melania Trump had tested positive for the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, joining several other high-ranking US government officials who have contracted SARS-CoV-2. Trump was given an experimental antibody treatment and oxygen at the White House, before being moved to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland for three days.
Melania Trump recuperated at home. Barron Trump, his mother announced on October 14, tested positive after his parents; the first lady said he was asymptomatic and has since tested negative.
Some prominent officials in the Trump administration have recently tested positive as well, including presidential adviser Stephen Miller, as well as press secretary Kayleigh McEnany and at least four members of her staff. McEnany — like others in the White House cluster — failed to immediately quarantine after Trump’s diagnosis, and she appeared in front of reporters without a mask in the following days.
While the administration has refused to conduct contact tracing, many Covid-19 cases in the cluster are believed to have originated around the time of a White House event — which took place indoors and outdoors — on September 26 honoring the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Dr. Anthony Fauci of the federal coronavirus task force has called the gathering a “superspreader event,” criticizing it for being a “situation where people were crowded together and were not wearing masks.”
A number of attendees tested positive for the coronavirus in the days following the event, including GOP Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina; former senior White House counselor Kellyanne Conway; and Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien.
Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another attendee, also tested positive and was hospitalized for a week.
Barrett, for her part, was diagnosed with Covid-19 over the summer but has recovered. It is unknown whether she now carries immunity.
But it’s not just the one event. On October 3, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) announced he had tested positive. Johnson was not at the Barrett event, but he did attend a lunch with other Republican senators last week. Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) said on October 14 he was isolating after a positive test. There was some concern Barrett’s confirmation hearing could contribute to spread given many senators — including Lee, who said he is “no longer contagious” — are attending in person.
There have been more cases of political figures in recent days, which do not immediately appear linked to the cluster: Joe Biden’s campaign announced on October 15 that Kamala Harris’s communications director and a flight crew member tested positive for coronavirus. The campaign said that others, including Harris and Biden, have repeatedly tested negative in recent days, and that it is conducting contact tracing.
Beyond the relatively well-known senators, members of the press, and White House officials who have tested positive, less well-known government staff members and security officers have been infected with the coronavirus as well. A number of such cases have been confirmed, including McEnany’s deputies, Trump aide Nicholas Luna, and military officials assigned to the White House. Vice Commandant Charles Ray of the Coast Guard tested positive, leading other military leaders to enter quarantine.
The White House, in other words, became a Covid-19 hot spot.
Over the summer, Republican Sens. Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy were diagnosed with Covid-19 but have successfully recovered. The virus has also infected more than 15 House members since March. But this is the first time the virus, which has killed more than 215,000 Americans, has spread in such a concentrated manner among White House officials, staffers, and members of the press corps.
While it’s not clear how the president was exposed, Trump was in regular contact last week with senior counselor Hope Hicks, whose positive coronavirus test was revealed on Thursday, October 1. Hicks had traveled with Trump multiple times ahead of his diagnosis, including to the September 29 presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio.
Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen have both repeatedly tested negative, as have Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his wife Jill. Some other Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, have tested negative as well.
Following his recovery, Trump has resumed campaigning, promising to hold a rally nearly every day between now and November 3. He kicked these off with events in Florida and Pennsylvania, and spent part of each event incorrectly stating that those who have had the coronavirus are immune to reinfection.
While the rallies are all expected to be held outdoors, they have, thus far, not featured social distancing or universal mask wearing, fueling concerns that they will create new coronavirus clusters, both in the locales in which they are held, and among Trump’s staff. And the speculation is not unfounded; local officials believe a rally the president held on September 18 in Bemidji, Minnesota, caused at least nine cases.
Here’s what we know about some key figures who have tested positive — and negative — for SARS-CoV-2 so far.
People in the White House cluster who have reportedly tested positive for the coronavirus
This list includes people who attended the September 26 Barrett event and/or have had close recent contact with the White House.
Crede Bailey, the head of the White House security office, was hospitalized with Covid-19 in September, according to Bloomberg. He reportedly became sick before the Amy Coney Barrett event.
Two housekeeping staff members at the White House tested positive in early September, according to the New York Times.
Vice Commandant Ray, Sen. Johnson, and Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel have also recently tested positive. Johnson and McDaniel were not at the Barrett event, but McDaniel had contact with Trump in the days before it.
A brief list of key politicians and officials who have tested negative
Vox has compiled a list of key administration figures who help run the country, key lawmakers who have been in contact with the president, and key Democrats in the 2020 election cycle who have recently gotten negative test results for the virus.
While it could take several days for an individual who has contracted the virus to test positive, some recent negative tests have been made public. Here’s a partial list so far:


vox--2020-10-14--Russia and China will join the UN Human Rights Council. The US should too.

The United Nations ’ s premier body for protecting human rights has elected serial human rights abusers , including Russia and China , to the panel , once again calling into question whether it ’ s actually an important platform to address the plight of millions — or an anachronism .
The Geneva-based , 47-member UN Human Rights Council ( UNHRC ) does two main things : It passes nonbinding resolutions on human rights issues around the world , and it oversees the work of experts who investigate violations in specific countries .
Its supporters , those of whom in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s a place where nations can address issues that don ’ t usually garner the world ’ s attention .
Its critics , who mostly lean right , argue it ’ s a toothless organization that kowtows to authoritarians and harbors a deep anti-Israel bias .
Detractors gained an upper hand in the debate this week when China , Russia , Cuba , Pakistan , and Uzbekistan each won enough votes to sit on the UNHRC for a three-year term ( though China received fewer votes than it had in previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a spot , like Saudi Arabia , didn ’ t get the nod , however .
The result led the Trump administration ’ s former ambassador to the UN , Nikki Haley , to lambaste the panel on Twitter as “ a total farce not worthy of its name , ” clearly defending America ’ s exit from the body on her watch in 2018 .
Some experts say her views aren ’ t solely partisan .
“ The Nikki Haleys of the world have a point , ” Richard Gowan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Crisis Group ( ICG ) .
After all , China has forced roughly 2 million Uighur Muslims into indoctrination camps , and for years Russia has repressed political dissent with excessive force while pushing “ family values , ” code for anti-LGBTQ policies .
What ’ s more , the council has continually adopted resolution after resolution condemning Israel , a US ally , for violence against Palestinians while largely ignoring abuses perpetrated by groups like Hamas .
In fact , the UNHRC singled out Israel in its first year , failing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights violations .
Given all that , it ’ s fair to look at the council and think it ’ s a problematic forum the US should stay out of .
But experts say there are a few problems with that view , namely that the US loses any influence in that forum to push back against the Russias and Chinas of the world — and Israel is left without a strong backer on the council .
“ US presence and engagement can make the council ’ s work better , ” David @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expert at Indiana University Bloomington , told me .
“ Russia and China often collaborate on the council to advance a vision of human rights more deferential to national sovereignty.
” In other words , they basically advocate for a world with no accountability : If no nation criticizes what they do , they won ’ t criticize what others do .
That approach , simply put , would almost certainly doom millions of the world ’ s most vulnerable people to an even worse future .
The UN Human Rights Council wasn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s much better now .
In 2006 , the UNHRC replaced the discredited Commission on Human Rights , which at one point had Muammar Qaddafi ’ s Libya as its chair .
The change was billed as a much-needed overhaul , as the commission had gotten bogged down in geopolitical rivalries instead of focusing on actual human rights issues .
One of the few countries skeptical of the reformed council was the US , and the George W. Bush administration opted to not seek a seat it would ’ ve won .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ leverage in terms of the performance of the new council is greater by the US not running and sending the signal ‘ this is not business as usual ’ this year than if we were to run , ” John Bolton , then the US ambassador to the UN , told the New York Times .
The lack of American involvement made it harder for European countries and Canada , which are more pro-human-rights oriented than most others , to push back on nations that continued to abuse their own people .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to not only continue doing so but to also block resolutions that could help millions in other countries .
“ The council was pretty bad pre-Obama , ” said Marc Limon , who served as a UNHRC diplomat from 2006 to 2012 and is now the executive director of the Universal Rights Group in Genevas .
One of President Barack Obama ’ s first foreign policy moves was to run for a seat .
His administration argued the US could have more influence on human rights on the panel than off of it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call : With the US as a member , resolutions that previously had trouble passing — like some supporting LGBTQ rights worldwide — made it through .
The council was by no means perfect , but it actually functioned much more as intended .
“ The US really turned things around , ” said Limon .
“ It really changed the council for the better.
” The Trump administration wasn ’ t initially hostile to the UNHRC , but it sought two main reforms : First , it wanted Item 7 — which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s human rights situation during each of the three yearly meetings — struck down .
It is , after all , the only country-specific agenda item .
Second , it wanted countries that abuse human rights to be blocked from joining the council .
Trump ’ s team never got either wish , despite working behind the scenes to pass their reforms .
That failure , mixed with UNHRC-skeptic Bolton becoming national security adviser in April 2018 , led Haley to announce America ’ s withdrawal .
“ The council ceases to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haley said at the time .
“ Such a council in fact damages the cause of human rights.
” However , to experts ’ surprise , the UNHRC actually got better without the US , though that had less to do with America ’ s absence and more to do with the work of countries that remained , namely European nations .
“ A lot of Western states stepped up , ” Limon told me , particularly in highlighting human rights in war-torn countries like Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge impact and did some great work.
” This year , members even asked top UN human rights officials to look into police brutality in America after the killing of George Floyd .
Analysts now say the UNHRC gets friendlier to human rights every cycle .
That ’ s no different this time around , despite Russia and China winning seats .
The makeup of the 47-member organization “ will be the best UNHRC we ’ ve ever had , ” Limon added , because it has more countries than ever that truly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s clearly also been an attitude shift , as China and Russia both received lower-than-usual vote totals among those countries allowed in .
Saudi Arabia , a nation with immense clout in the Middle East and around the world , didn ’ t make it , which might indicate that countries — which vote by secret ballot — are warier of the fact that council members must actually have a good record on human rights lest it risk not getting a say on those issues .
The council , then , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the hellscape it once was .
In fact , it ’ s an institution ripe for America ’ s reentry .
The US would be better served on the UN Human Rights Council than off of it Experts detailed two main reasons the White House should consider rejoining the global body .
First , as previously mentioned , it allows the US to help set the human rights agenda instead of ceding that control to more repressive regimes .
“ The United States can work with other council members to garner support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts , and to oppose those it doesn ’ t like , ” said Bosco , the UN expert at Indiana University .
Plus , being on the UNHRC means the US would have more legitimacy as a country that cares about human rights than not .
That could give it more so-called “ soft power , ” not only in the UN but around the world .
According to the ICG ’ s Gowan , China is aiming to step into the void the US left .
“ Chinese diplomats are far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today than they were a few years ago , ” he told me .
Second , Israel doesn ’ t really have a big defender on the council anymore .
Israel isn ’ t a member , but the US usually acted as its proxy and backed Jerusalem when Item 7 came up .
Now UNHRC states can pick apart Israel ’ s human rights record without a member ready and willing to provide another account .
Put together , it makes more sense for the US to be in the flawed council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loses more than it gains .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The United Nations’s premier body for protecting human rights has elected serial human rights abusers, including Russia and China, to the panel, once again calling into question whether it’s actually an important platform to address the plight of millions — or an anachronism.
The Geneva-based, 47-member UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) does two main things: It passes nonbinding resolutions on human rights issues around the world, and it oversees the work of experts who investigate violations in specific countries. Its supporters, those of whom in the US typically lean left, say it’s a place where nations can address issues that don’t usually garner the world’s attention. Its critics, who mostly lean right, argue it’s a toothless organization that kowtows to authoritarians and harbors a deep anti-Israel bias.
Detractors gained an upper hand in the debate this week when China, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan each won enough votes to sit on the UNHRC for a three-year term (though China received fewer votes than it had in previous years). Other despotic regimes angling for a spot, like Saudi Arabia, didn’t get the nod, however.
The result led the Trump administration’s former ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, to lambaste the panel on Twitter as “a total farce not worthy of its name,” clearly defending America’s exit from the body on her watch in 2018.
Some experts say her views aren’t solely partisan. “The Nikki Haleys of the world have a point,” Richard Gowan, who oversees UN advocacy at the International Crisis Group (ICG).
After all, China has forced roughly 2 million Uighur Muslims into indoctrination camps, and for years Russia has repressed political dissent with excessive force while pushing “family values,” code for anti-LGBTQ policies. What’s more, the council has continually adopted resolution after resolution condemning Israel, a US ally, for violence against Palestinians while largely ignoring abuses perpetrated by groups like Hamas. In fact, the UNHRC singled out Israel in its first year, failing to officially chide any other country for human rights violations.
Given all that, it’s fair to look at the council and think it’s a problematic forum the US should stay out of. But experts say there are a few problems with that view, namely that the US loses any influence in that forum to push back against the Russias and Chinas of the world — and Israel is left without a strong backer on the council.
“US presence and engagement can make the council’s work better,” David Bosco, an associate professor and UN expert at Indiana University Bloomington, told me. “Russia and China often collaborate on the council to advance a vision of human rights more deferential to national sovereignty.” In other words, they basically advocate for a world with no accountability: If no nation criticizes what they do, they won’t criticize what others do.
That approach, simply put, would almost certainly doom millions of the world’s most vulnerable people to an even worse future.
The UN Human Rights Council wasn’t a great forum. It’s much better now.
In 2006, the UNHRC replaced the discredited Commission on Human Rights, which at one point had Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya as its chair. The change was billed as a much-needed overhaul, as the commission had gotten bogged down in geopolitical rivalries instead of focusing on actual human rights issues.
One of the few countries skeptical of the reformed council was the US, and the George W. Bush administration opted to not seek a seat it would’ve won. “I believe rather strongly that our leverage in terms of the performance of the new council is greater by the US not running and sending the signal ‘this is not business as usual’ this year than if we were to run,” John Bolton, then the US ambassador to the UN, told the New York Times.
The lack of American involvement made it harder for European countries and Canada, which are more pro-human-rights oriented than most others, to push back on nations that continued to abuse their own people. This allowed states that often violated human rights to not only continue doing so but to also block resolutions that could help millions in other countries.
“The council was pretty bad pre-Obama,” said Marc Limon, who served as a UNHRC diplomat from 2006 to 2012 and is now the executive director of the Universal Rights Group in Genevas.
One of President Barack Obama’s first foreign policy moves was to run for a seat. His administration argued the US could have more influence on human rights on the panel than off of it. Experts said this was the right call: With the US as a member, resolutions that previously had trouble passing — like some supporting LGBTQ rights worldwide — made it through.
The council was by no means perfect, but it actually functioned much more as intended. “The US really turned things around,” said Limon. “It really changed the council for the better.”
The Trump administration wasn’t initially hostile to the UNHRC, but it sought two main reforms: First, it wanted Item 7 — which requires the body to focus on Israel’s human rights situation during each of the three yearly meetings — struck down. It is, after all, the only country-specific agenda item. Second, it wanted countries that abuse human rights to be blocked from joining the council.
Trump’s team never got either wish, despite working behind the scenes to pass their reforms. That failure, mixed with UNHRC-skeptic Bolton becoming national security adviser in April 2018, led Haley to announce America’s withdrawal. “The council ceases to be worthy of its name,” Haley said at the time. “Such a council in fact damages the cause of human rights.”
However, to experts’ surprise, the UNHRC actually got better without the US, though that had less to do with America’s absence and more to do with the work of countries that remained, namely European nations.
“A lot of Western states stepped up,” Limon told me, particularly in highlighting human rights in war-torn countries like Syria and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. “Between them they had a huge impact and did some great work.” This year, members even asked top UN human rights officials to look into police brutality in America after the killing of George Floyd.
Analysts now say the UNHRC gets friendlier to human rights every cycle. That’s no different this time around, despite Russia and China winning seats. The makeup of the 47-member organization “will be the best UNHRC we’ve ever had,” Limon added, because it has more countries than ever that truly care about promoting human rights.
There’s clearly also been an attitude shift, as China and Russia both received lower-than-usual vote totals among those countries allowed in. Saudi Arabia, a nation with immense clout in the Middle East and around the world, didn’t make it, which might indicate that countries — which vote by secret ballot — are warier of the fact that council members must actually have a good record on human rights lest it risk not getting a say on those issues.
The council, then, is still problematic, but it’s not the hellscape it once was. In fact, it’s an institution ripe for America’s reentry.
The US would be better served on the UN Human Rights Council than off of it
Experts detailed two main reasons the White House should consider rejoining the global body.
First, as previously mentioned, it allows the US to help set the human rights agenda instead of ceding that control to more repressive regimes. “The United States can work with other council members to garner support for resolutions, for the appointment of experts, and to oppose those it doesn’t like,” said Bosco, the UN expert at Indiana University.
Plus, being on the UNHRC means the US would have more legitimacy as a country that cares about human rights than not. That could give it more so-called “soft power,” not only in the UN but around the world. According to the ICG’s Gowan, China is aiming to step into the void the US left. “Chinese diplomats are far more active in Geneva on human rights today than they were a few years ago,” he told me.
Second, Israel doesn’t really have a big defender on the council anymore. Israel isn’t a member, but the US usually acted as its proxy and backed Jerusalem when Item 7 came up. Now UNHRC states can pick apart Israel’s human rights record without a member ready and willing to provide another account.
Put together, it makes more sense for the US to be in the flawed council than out of it. Otherwise it loses more than it gains.
ntribute today from as little as $3.


vox--2020-10-14--5 key moments from day 3 of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court hearing

Senators on Wednesday had one more chance to press Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on a range of issues including voting rights , health care , and executive power — questions she , once again , broadly declined to answer .
The second and final day of questions during Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee went much like the first .
On subjects such as the president ’ s ability to pardon himself , mail-in voting , and climate change , Barrett — like other judicial nominees before her — said she couldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintain impartiality in case she was asked to consider a related challenge if confirmed .
While Barrett ’ s approach is one that other nominees have taken in the past , she ’ s been more reluctant to comment compared to Justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan on Griswold v. Connecticut , a landmark case concerning the right to contraception .
“ I think that Griswold is very , very , very , very , very , very unlikely to go anywhere , ” Barrett said in lieu of providing her stance on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the key moments from the third of four days of Barrett ’ s confirmation hearing .
Barrett says she hasn ’ t spoken out in support of the Affordable Care Act , though she ’ s criticized past decisions upholding it During an exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy ( D-VT ) , Barrett said she ’ s never publicly supported President Barack Obama ’ s landmark health care law , but she acknowledged that , in her capacity as a law professor , she ’ s been critical of previous Supreme Court decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFIB v. Sebelius decision , which preserved the ACA , she argued in a journal article that Justice John Roberts ’ s conclusion “ pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.
” Following the 2015 King v. Burwell case , which reaffirmed provisions of the ACA , she also noted that she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s dissent .
When Leahy asked if she ’ d ever commented in favor of the ACA , Barrett said she had not .
“ No , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in on the policy question , ” she said .
Barrett , during her hearing , has emphasized that she does not have an “ agenda ” against the ACA , which Democrats have highlighted as a law she could overturn if she is confirmed for the high court .
“ I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act , ” Barrett has said .
Leahy ’ s question sought to draw attention to the existing record she has on the subject .
Barrett wouldn ’ t say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which other nominees have commented on in the past Griswold v. Connecticut , a 1965 Supreme Court case that guaranteed couples the right to contraception in the privacy of their own homes , was among the decisions that Barrett would not take a position on , signaling a break from past nominees who have affirmed that it was rightly decided .
“ In my other capacity , I get to grade , but not in this particular capacity with respect to precedent , ” she said when asked by Sen. Chris Coons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was wrongly decided .
“ I think that Griswold is very , very , very , very , very , very unlikely to go anywhere.
” Although it ’ s common for nominees to withhold their opinions on various cases because they aren ’ t trying to signal how they ’ d rule on a potential challenge , Roberts and Kagan both commented on Griswold during their confirmations .
“ I agree with the Griswold court ’ s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception , ” Roberts said at his 2005 confirmation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again , declined to take a position on climate change , after saying she didn ’ t have “ firm views ” on the topic on Tuesday .
“ I don ’ t think I ’ m competent to opine on what causes global warming or not , ” Barrett said in response to a question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal , who asked if she thought humans contributed to global warming .
“ I don ’ t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do I think I have views that are informed enough.
” Barrett ’ s answer spoke to a seeming unwillingness to break with Republicans ’ approach to climate change , which some GOP lawmakers have repeatedly shied away from tying to human activity .
Later in the hearing , she went on to describe climate change as a “ very contentious matter of public debate.
” Barrett declined to comment on whether Trump could pardon himself President Donald Trump has previously claimed that he could pardon himself — an act that no president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was asked , for a second time , on Wednesday about whether he ’ d legally be able to do this , an issue she declined to comment on because it ’ s something that could potentially come before the Supreme Court .
“ That question may or may not arise , but that is one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is , ” she said .
“ Because it would be opining on an open question when I haven ’ t gone through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not one on which I can offer a view.
” According to NPR , there is currently no “ legal consensus ” about whether Trump has the ability to take such action .
( Previously , a Justice Department memo had concluded in 1974 that President Richard Nixon could not pardon himself , and he was later pardoned by President Gerald Ford after he had already stepped down . )
Barrett agreed Wednesday that “ no one is above the law.
” Lindsey Graham tried to appeal to Republican women Graham @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Committee , is currently locked in a contentious reelection fight in South Carolina , and he used the hearing this week to appeal to Republican women — a crucial contingent of voters he ’ ll need to win .
On both Tuesday and Wednesday , Graham emphasized repeatedly that Barrett ’ s nomination showed conservative women that there was a place for them on the country ’ s highest court — and called out the challenges he saw them facing .
“ There ’ s one group in America that , I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , and that ’ s conservatives of color and women conservatives , ” he said .
“ This hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women.
” Barrett — whom Graham described as “ unashamedly pro-life ” — would only be the fifth woman to ascend to the high court if she ’ s confirmed .
According to a September Quinnipiac poll , Graham is trailing Democratic opponent Jaime Harrison by 10 points among likely women voters overall .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Senators on Wednesday had one more chance to press Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on a range of issues including voting rights, health care, and executive power — questions she, once again, broadly declined to answer.
The second and final day of questions during Barrett’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee went much like the first. On subjects such as the president’s ability to pardon himself, mail-in voting, and climate change, Barrett — like other judicial nominees before her — said she couldn’t provide a viewpoint because she needed to maintain impartiality in case she was asked to consider a related challenge if confirmed.
While Barrett’s approach is one that other nominees have taken in the past, she’s been more reluctant to comment compared to Justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan on Griswold v. Connecticut, a landmark case concerning the right to contraception.
“I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere,” Barrett said in lieu of providing her stance on the decision.
Here are some of the key moments from the third of four days of Barrett’s confirmation hearing.
Barrett says she hasn’t spoken out in support of the Affordable Care Act, though she’s criticized past decisions upholding it
During an exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Barrett said she’s never publicly supported President Barack Obama’s landmark health care law, but she acknowledged that, in her capacity as a law professor, she’s been critical of previous Supreme Court decisions upholding the ACA.
After the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision, which preserved the ACA, she argued in a journal article that Justice John Roberts’s conclusion “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” Following the 2015 King v. Burwell case, which reaffirmed provisions of the ACA, she also noted that she agreed with Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent.
When Leahy asked if she’d ever commented in favor of the ACA, Barrett said she had not. “No, I’ve never had a chance to weigh in on the policy question,” she said.
Barrett, during her hearing, has emphasized that she does not have an “agenda” against the ACA, which Democrats have highlighted as a law she could overturn if she is confirmed for the high court. “I am not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” Barrett has said.
Leahy’s question sought to draw attention to the existing record she has on the subject.
Barrett wouldn’t say whether Griswold v. Connecticut was rightly decided, which other nominees have commented on in the past
Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 Supreme Court case that guaranteed couples the right to contraception in the privacy of their own homes, was among the decisions that Barrett would not take a position on, signaling a break from past nominees who have affirmed that it was rightly decided.
“In my other capacity, I get to grade, but not in this particular capacity with respect to precedent,” she said when asked by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) if she thought Griswold was wrongly decided. “I think that Griswold is very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely to go anywhere.”
Although it’s common for nominees to withhold their opinions on various cases because they aren’t trying to signal how they’d rule on a potential challenge, Roberts and Kagan both commented on Griswold during their confirmations.
“I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception,” Roberts said at his 2005 confirmation hearing.
Barrett wouldn’t take a position on climate change
Barrett on Wednesday, once again, declined to take a position on climate change, after saying she didn’t have “firm views” on the topic on Tuesday.
“I don’t think I’m competent to opine on what causes global warming or not,” Barrett said in response to a question from Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who asked if she thought humans contributed to global warming. “I don’t think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge, nor do I think I have views that are informed enough.”
Barrett’s answer spoke to a seeming unwillingness to break with Republicans’ approach to climate change, which some GOP lawmakers have repeatedly shied away from tying to human activity. Later in the hearing, she went on to describe climate change as a “very contentious matter of public debate.”
Barrett declined to comment on whether Trump could pardon himself
Barrett says she agrees that "no one is above the law," but does not say whether a president can pardon himself, as Trump has suggested: "So far as I know, that question has never been litigated.” https://t.co/eOGI4nbPU4 pic.twitter.com/3tOmXj5TwA — KPIX 5 (@KPIXtv) October 14, 2020
President Donald Trump has previously claimed that he could pardon himself — an act that no president before him has ever done. Barrett was asked, for a second time, on Wednesday about whether he’d legally be able to do this, an issue she declined to comment on because it’s something that could potentially come before the Supreme Court.
“That question may or may not arise, but that is one that calls for legal analysis of what the scope of the pardon power is,” she said. “Because it would be opining on an open question when I haven’t gone through the judicial process to decide it, it’s not one on which I can offer a view.”
According to NPR, there is currently no “legal consensus” about whether Trump has the ability to take such action. (Previously, a Justice Department memo had concluded in 1974 that President Richard Nixon could not pardon himself, and he was later pardoned by President Gerald Ford after he had already stepped down.)
Barrett agreed Wednesday that “no one is above the law.”
Lindsey Graham tried to appeal to Republican women
Graham, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is currently locked in a contentious reelection fight in South Carolina, and he used the hearing this week to appeal to Republican women — a crucial contingent of voters he’ll need to win.
On both Tuesday and Wednesday, Graham emphasized repeatedly that Barrett’s nomination showed conservative women that there was a place for them on the country’s highest court — and called out the challenges he saw them facing.
“There’s one group in America that, I think, has had a hard time of it, and that’s conservatives of color and women conservatives,” he said. “This hearing to me is an opportunity to not punch through a glass ceiling but a reinforced concrete barrier around conservative women.” Barrett — whom Graham described as “unashamedly pro-life” — would only be the fifth woman to ascend to the high court if she’s confirmed.
According to a September Quinnipiac poll, Graham is trailing Democratic opponent Jaime Harrison by 10 points among likely women voters overall.


vox--2020-10-14--What Trump got right — and wrong — with North Korea, explained by a former intel official

Few people have had a front-row seat to the drama and danger of US-North Korea relations over the last four years .
Markus Garlauskas is one of them .
As the national intelligence officer for North Korea on the US National Intelligence Council from July 2014 to June 2020 , he briefed President Donald Trump and other top government officials on what was going on inside the secretive country .
What did North Korean leader Kim Jong Un really want ?
Would he give up his nuclear weapons ?
And was Trump ’ s diplomatic effort yielding any results ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ since leaving government , Garlauskas paints a picture that ’ s a little different from the one widely accepted about Trump ’ s dealings with North Korea .
Yes , the risk of war increased in 2017 , when Trump was threatening to rain down “ fire and fury ” on North Korea in response to its weapons tests , but Washington and Pyongyang had actually come closer to military conflict in previous years .
Yes , Trump and Kim left Hanoi without a nuclear deal , but the fault there lies with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And yes , the US should avoid a full-scale war with North Korea , but it shouldn ’ t shy away from another 2017-style confrontation .
“ If Kim senses that the US is more afraid of war than he is , then he has the advantage , ” Garlauskas said .
Garlauskas laid out a game plan for whoever occupies the White House next year : Get North Korea to stop testing missiles and nuclear bombs , and then develop a policy to convince Pyongyang to part with its weapons .
Halting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ space to develop the right mix of pressure and persuasion .
“ Otherwise you ’ re just reacting to them — and then you ’ re in another really , really tough spot , ” Garlauskas said .
Our interview , edited for length and clarity , is below .
North Korea just held a parade in which it unveiled new advanced weapons , including an intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) that could potentially reach all of the US .
What does this tell us about Trump ’ s diplomatic efforts toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What it tells us is exactly what Kim said at the end of his speech , which is that time is on North Korea ’ s side , not on America ’ s side .
The parade also demonstrated the ability of North Korea to continue advancing its weapons programs despite international sanctions , despite pressure .
It really showed the progress they ’ re continuing to make in terms of their capabilities .
That portends a pretty rough upcoming four years , regardless of who is in the White House .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation , so I think the the first step is essentially do a triage and stop the bleeding .
We need to focus our efforts on preventing these new weapons systems displayed during the parade from actually being tested .
If the North Koreans are not convinced to maintain at least some restraint on weapons testing , regardless of which administration is in office next year , it will basically destroy any chance for diplomacy on favorable terms .
It will be very , very difficult to say that we ’ re containing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a negotiation that ’ s advantageous to us .
Once you get past that point , if you can get North Korea to halt its testing of the more advanced systems , then it becomes possible to talk about having a different type of negotiation with North Korea .
But you have to deal with it early and prevent the North Koreans from launching a new provocative test , otherwise you ’ re just reacting to them — and then you ’ re in another really , really tough spot .
Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ North Korea have been successful .
One of his main arguments is that he stopped a war from happening , and that if weren ’ t in charge the US would be in World War III .
Is there any truth to that ?
This is a wickedly hard problem — across administrations , across parties — that has no easy answers .
Sometimes the best you can do is avoid the situation from spinning out of control .
So I think there is some validity to the idea that it could have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
However , I will tell you that I think we got much closer to war in 1994 , in 2010 , and in 2015 than we did in 2017 .
There was a very large gap between the rhetoric and the activity in 2017 .
And if you say we almost went to war in 2017 , then you ’ re essentially saying the US almost started the war , because there was no sign Kim Jong Un was interested in going to war — he was testing weapons .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sinking ships .
That ’ s a pretty provocative statement you just made , because there was a widespread sentiment at the time in 2017 that the possibility of the US going to war with North Korea was maybe not likely , but at least much likelier than in recent years .
I ’ m not saying that the rhetoric was completely insignificant , but I am saying the “ fire and fury ” rhetoric was exaggerated in its significance in comparison to the actual , tangible actions being taken in 2017 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the US exercise a great deal of restraint in terms of our military posturing .
You didn ’ t see the evacuation of civilians from South Korea .
You didn ’ t see activities actually penetrating into North Korea .
You didn ’ t see military strikes .
You didn ’ t see a lot of things that could have been done or that would have increased the risk of a strong North Korean reaction .
I just had a conversation with retired Army Gen. Vincent Brooks , who until recently commanded US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was his argument , and one that rings true to me , that some degree of military posturing was necessary to show North Korea we were serious , and that we were not going to indefinitely tolerate this level of activity .
In the end , what we did was very limited , very prudent , and it showed the North Koreans that despite what the president was saying , the US wasn ’ t gearing up for an attack or major regime-change operation .
But both you and I recall the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” strike , and Bob Woodward ’ s new book features a section about the US military updating operational war plans for a fight with North Korea .
These and other accounts seem to back the notion that the potential for war in 2017 really was higher than it needed to be .
There is no question that there was a heightened level of activity and preparation .
But updating war plans is a very normal activity that you do on a regular basis , particularly when there are heightened tensions .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those off .
The activities described in the book , in terms of what actually took place , I think those were very limited and very normal sorts of things to do when you ’ re dealing with a country like North Korea that , among other things , was accelerating its violations of UN Security Council resolutions .
Why , then , do you think there was so much fear of a war in 2017 ?
I recall it feeling quite scary .
One major element is that it comes from indefinite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have North Korea continue on the path that it was on indefinitely , and not show any restraint — which it did in 2018 when it pivoted to diplomacy — Pyongyang was traveling along a path of escalation .
And we were traveling along essentially a collision course , trying to convince the North Koreans that if they stayed on that path it was going to end in war .
I don ’ t want anyone to take away the idea that the risk of war was not significant .
A war on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ high chance of going nuclear with catastrophic consequences .
There would be an unimaginable number of deaths and destruction of the international order .
That would be taking place on China ’ s doorstep , potentially pulling Beijing into the situation .
Even a small increase in the probability of that happening was definitely a significant risk that ’ s worth paying attention to .
But still , the chances of that happening were a very low probability .
I want to turn to the Hanoi summit , where Trump and Kim walked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diplomatic effort never recovered from that event , and I ’ m wondering , as someone who helped prepare the president for that meeting , why you think everything went off the rails in Hanoi ?
As you know , many people consider that summit a failure .
The failure rests , number one , on Kim Jong Un ’ s shoulders .
He came to the table with a deal for the dismantling of a major nuclear site in exchange for near-complete sanctions relief that , objectively speaking , was a bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The president was very well informed , in part through my and my colleagues ’ efforts , about what the situation was and what North Korea had and didn ’ t have .
The president made an informed decision to refuse that deal , and Kim could not adjust and did not adjust to propose anything to entice the US .
Kim came away very dissatisfied because he went in overconfident he could make the deal he wanted to make .
I think even Kim recognizes he missed an opportunity , even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Hanoi .
So you ’ re saying if Kim had been willing to consider anything other than his offer — perhaps offering more denuclearization or less sanctions relief — Trump and Kim might have made a deal in Hanoi ?
Let ’ s do the counterfactual : If Kim had asked for less , or if Kim had offered more , there ’ s a possibility that there would ’ ve been an interim deal in Hanoi .
But it would have required Kim to reaffirm that North Korea ’ s denuclearization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hasn ’ t yet done on paper .
What ’ s the main takeaway for Trump or Biden from the last four years , and how should they apply it to the next four years of US-North Korea relations if president ?
The number one thing is to try and replicate what we had in 2018 in terms of the halt on weapons testing .
If engaging in diplomacy is the price we have to pay for that , so be it .
The longer-term issue is having to develop a narrative and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put the US in a position where we have unrealistic , unreasonable expectations about how quickly progress can be made .
It also shouldn ’ t put the North Koreans in a situation where they prefer to wait until the next election cycle and see how it goes .
If we are intending to see North Korea give up its entire nuclear and missile programs lock , stock , and barrel before the four years are out , then we ’ re basically creating a situation where it puts the onus of time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Koreans .
They know if that ’ s if that ’ s the goal , they can keep us from getting there and hang on for a few more years .
But in the end , you don ’ t have much time to think about any of this , you ’ re just in reaction mode as long as North Korea is continuing to advance its programs with rapid testing .
So if you can get a halt to the testing , then you can buy time to have that policy dialogue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then North Korea is driving the train , not you .
Is there something Trump got right that could be applied in another presidential term ?
We have to be willing to go back to a 2017 level of confrontation .
If Kim senses that the US is more afraid of war than he is , then he has the advantage .
North Korea , no matter how many weapons advances it makes , is never going to get to the point where it has the capability to win a war against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as you proceed from the premise that Kim is not crazy or suicidal — which of course I don ’ t proceed from because he ’ s a rational , cunning , intelligent man who ’ s really learned a lot about how to deal with the United States and how to lead this country — as long as that ’ s the basis , then you have to be comfortable with the idea of confronting Kim and convincing him there are military options the United States has and could use .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel sanctions and war can ’ t work , then that basically puts Kim in the position where he can dictate terms , and I don ’ t think that ’ s going to get us where we need to be .
There has to be a willingness to confront Kim militarily — not to initiate war , not to do a bloody nose strike , but basically to make it clear to him that there are limits to what we will tolerate .
And we need to make clear that if he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcome will be the end of him and his regime .
That ’ s one of the things President Trump said differently than I would have said it , but it needed to be said , frankly , in 2017 .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Few people have had a front-row seat to the drama and danger of US-North Korea relations over the last four years. Markus Garlauskas is one of them.
As the national intelligence officer for North Korea on the US National Intelligence Council from July 2014 to June 2020, he briefed President Donald Trump and other top government officials on what was going on inside the secretive country. What did North Korean leader Kim Jong Un really want? Would he give up his nuclear weapons? And was Trump’s diplomatic effort yielding any results?
In his first extended, one-on-one interview since leaving government, Garlauskas paints a picture that’s a little different from the one widely accepted about Trump’s dealings with North Korea.
Yes, the risk of war increased in 2017, when Trump was threatening to rain down “fire and fury” on North Korea in response to its weapons tests, but Washington and Pyongyang had actually come closer to military conflict in previous years. Yes, Trump and Kim left Hanoi without a nuclear deal, but the fault there lies with the dictator, not the president. And yes, the US should avoid a full-scale war with North Korea, but it shouldn’t shy away from another 2017-style confrontation.
“If Kim senses that the US is more afraid of war than he is, then he has the advantage,” Garlauskas said.
Garlauskas laid out a game plan for whoever occupies the White House next year: Get North Korea to stop testing missiles and nuclear bombs, and then develop a policy to convince Pyongyang to part with its weapons. Halting those tests will give the US the space to develop the right mix of pressure and persuasion. “Otherwise you’re just reacting to them — and then you’re in another really, really tough spot,” Garlauskas said.
Our interview, edited for length and clarity, is below.
Alex Ward
North Korea just held a parade in which it unveiled new advanced weapons, including an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could potentially reach all of the US. What does this tell us about Trump’s diplomatic efforts toward North Korea over the last four years?
Markus Garlauskas
What it tells us is exactly what Kim said at the end of his speech, which is that time is on North Korea’s side, not on America’s side. The parade also demonstrated the ability of North Korea to continue advancing its weapons programs despite international sanctions, despite pressure. It really showed the progress they’re continuing to make in terms of their capabilities.
Alex Ward
That portends a pretty rough upcoming four years, regardless of who is in the White House.
Markus Garlauskas
We’re in a very tough situation, so I think the the first step is essentially do a triage and stop the bleeding. We need to focus our efforts on preventing these new weapons systems displayed during the parade from actually being tested.
If the North Koreans are not convinced to maintain at least some restraint on weapons testing, regardless of which administration is in office next year, it will basically destroy any chance for diplomacy on favorable terms. It will be very, very difficult to say that we’re containing the threat or having any sort of a negotiation that’s advantageous to us.
Once you get past that point, if you can get North Korea to halt its testing of the more advanced systems, then it becomes possible to talk about having a different type of negotiation with North Korea. But you have to deal with it early and prevent the North Koreans from launching a new provocative test, otherwise you’re just reacting to them — and then you’re in another really, really tough spot.
Alex Ward
Trump, of course, claims his efforts with North Korea have been successful. One of his main arguments is that he stopped a war from happening, and that if weren’t in charge the US would be in World War III.
Is there any truth to that?
Markus Garlauskas
This is a wickedly hard problem — across administrations, across parties — that has no easy answers. Sometimes the best you can do is avoid the situation from spinning out of control. So I think there is some validity to the idea that it could have been a lot worse during the Trump years.
However, I will tell you that I think we got much closer to war in 1994, in 2010, and in 2015 than we did in 2017. There was a very large gap between the rhetoric and the activity in 2017. And if you say we almost went to war in 2017, then you’re essentially saying the US almost started the war, because there was no sign Kim Jong Un was interested in going to war — he was testing weapons. He wasn’t striking South Korea or sinking ships.
Alex Ward
That’s a pretty provocative statement you just made, because there was a widespread sentiment at the time in 2017 that the possibility of the US going to war with North Korea was maybe not likely, but at least much likelier than in recent years.
Markus Garlauskas
I’m not saying that the rhetoric was completely insignificant, but I am saying the “fire and fury” rhetoric was exaggerated in its significance in comparison to the actual, tangible actions being taken in 2017. What was more important is you saw the US exercise a great deal of restraint in terms of our military posturing.
You didn’t see the evacuation of civilians from South Korea. You didn’t see activities actually penetrating into North Korea. You didn’t see military strikes. You didn’t see a lot of things that could have been done or that would have increased the risk of a strong North Korean reaction.
I just had a conversation with retired Army Gen. Vincent Brooks, who until recently commanded US and UN troops in South Korea. It was his argument, and one that rings true to me, that some degree of military posturing was necessary to show North Korea we were serious, and that we were not going to indefinitely tolerate this level of activity.
In the end, what we did was very limited, very prudent, and it showed the North Koreans that despite what the president was saying, the US wasn’t gearing up for an attack or major regime-change operation.
Alex Ward
But both you and I recall the reports of a considered “bloody nose” strike, and Bob Woodward’s new book features a section about the US military updating operational war plans for a fight with North Korea. These and other accounts seem to back the notion that the potential for war in 2017 really was higher than it needed to be.
Markus Garlauskas
There is no question that there was a heightened level of activity and preparation. But updating war plans is a very normal activity that you do on a regular basis, particularly when there are heightened tensions. It’s natural to focus on dusting those off.
The activities described in the book, in terms of what actually took place, I think those were very limited and very normal sorts of things to do when you’re dealing with a country like North Korea that, among other things, was accelerating its violations of UN Security Council resolutions.
Alex Ward
Why, then, do you think there was so much fear of a war in 2017? I recall it feeling quite scary.
Markus Garlauskas
One major element is that it comes from indefinite extrapolation. If you were to just have North Korea continue on the path that it was on indefinitely, and not show any restraint — which it did in 2018 when it pivoted to diplomacy — Pyongyang was traveling along a path of escalation. And we were traveling along essentially a collision course, trying to convince the North Koreans that if they stayed on that path it was going to end in war.
I don’t want anyone to take away the idea that the risk of war was not significant. A war on the Korean Peninsula would have a very high chance of going nuclear with catastrophic consequences. There would be an unimaginable number of deaths and destruction of the international order. That would be taking place on China’s doorstep, potentially pulling Beijing into the situation.
Even a small increase in the probability of that happening was definitely a significant risk that’s worth paying attention to. But still, the chances of that happening were a very low probability.
Alex Ward
I want to turn to the Hanoi summit, where Trump and Kim walked away without a nuclear deal. The diplomatic effort never recovered from that event, and I’m wondering, as someone who helped prepare the president for that meeting, why you think everything went off the rails in Hanoi? As you know, many people consider that summit a failure.
Markus Garlauskas
The failure rests, number one, on Kim Jong Un’s shoulders. He came to the table with a deal for the dismantling of a major nuclear site in exchange for near-complete sanctions relief that, objectively speaking, was a bad deal [for the US].
The president was very well informed, in part through my and my colleagues’ efforts, about what the situation was and what North Korea had and didn’t have. The president made an informed decision to refuse that deal, and Kim could not adjust and did not adjust to propose anything to entice the US. Kim came away very dissatisfied because he went in overconfident he could make the deal he wanted to make.
I think even Kim recognizes he missed an opportunity, even more than the US missed an opportunity, in Hanoi.
Alex Ward
So you’re saying if Kim had been willing to consider anything other than his offer — perhaps offering more denuclearization or less sanctions relief — Trump and Kim might have made a deal in Hanoi?
Markus Garlauskas
Let’s do the counterfactual: If Kim had asked for less, or if Kim had offered more, there’s a possibility that there would’ve been an interim deal in Hanoi. But it would have required Kim to reaffirm that North Korea’s denuclearization was the end goal, which he hasn’t yet done on paper.
Alex Ward
What’s the main takeaway for Trump or Biden from the last four years, and how should they apply it to the next four years of US-North Korea relations if president?
Markus Garlauskas
The number one thing is to try and replicate what we had in 2018 in terms of the halt on weapons testing. If engaging in diplomacy is the price we have to pay for that, so be it.
The longer-term issue is having to develop a narrative and approach to denuclearization that doesn’t put the US in a position where we have unrealistic, unreasonable expectations about how quickly progress can be made. It also shouldn’t put the North Koreans in a situation where they prefer to wait until the next election cycle and see how it goes.
If we are intending to see North Korea give up its entire nuclear and missile programs lock, stock, and barrel before the four years are out, then we’re basically creating a situation where it puts the onus of time on us and not on the North Koreans. They know if that’s if that’s the goal, they can keep us from getting there and hang on for a few more years.
But in the end, you don’t have much time to think about any of this, you’re just in reaction mode as long as North Korea is continuing to advance its programs with rapid testing. So if you can get a halt to the testing, then you can buy time to have that policy dialogue. If you don’t, then North Korea is driving the train, not you.
Alex Ward
Is there something Trump got right that could be applied in another presidential term?
Markus Garlauskas
We have to be willing to go back to a 2017 level of confrontation. If Kim senses that the US is more afraid of war than he is, then he has the advantage.
North Korea, no matter how many weapons advances it makes, is never going to get to the point where it has the capability to win a war against the United States of America.
As long as you proceed from the premise that Kim is not crazy or suicidal — which of course I don’t proceed from because he’s a rational, cunning, intelligent man who’s really learned a lot about how to deal with the United States and how to lead this country — as long as that’s the basis, then you have to be comfortable with the idea of confronting Kim and convincing him there are military options the United States has and could use.
If we get to a point where we feel sanctions and war can’t work, then that basically puts Kim in the position where he can dictate terms, and I don’t think that’s going to get us where we need to be.
There has to be a willingness to confront Kim militarily — not to initiate war, not to do a bloody nose strike, but basically to make it clear to him that there are limits to what we will tolerate. And we need to make clear that if he crosses into initiating a war, the outcome will be the end of him and his regime. That’s one of the things President Trump said differently than I would have said it, but it needed to be said, frankly, in 2017.


vox--2020-10-14--The case for Trump’s foreign policy

The case for Trump’s foreign policy

Rebeccah Heinrichs is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute where she specializes in nuclear deterrence and missile defense , a former adviser to congressional Republicans , and one of the sharpest defenders of Donald Trump ’ s foreign policy .
Heinrichs sees a clear foreign policy worldview animating the Trump administration — one with more successes to its name than critics are willing to admit .
I see a worldview that – even if you agree with it — is inconsistently applied , and one whose goals are often undermined by the president ’ s impulsive , anti-strategic behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked Heinrichs to come on my podcast and persuade me that I ’ m wrong .
In this conversation , Heinrichs and I discuss how Trump shattered the foreign policy consensus that preceded him , why he sees China as such a central threat to American interests , the trade-offs that come with engaging in multilateral agreements and institutions , whether the threats America faces require global cooperation to address , the importance ( or lack thereof ) of how other countries view America , the ways that Trump undermines his own purported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ally-bashing , the US-Saudi Arabia alliance , the Trump administration ’ s stance on human rights , what we can expect if Trump gains a second term , and much more .
My conversation with Heinrichs can be heard on The Ezra Klein Show .
Subscribe to The Ezra Klein Show wherever you listen to podcasts , including Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , and Stitcher .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little as $ 3 .

Rebeccah Heinrichs is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute where she specializes in nuclear deterrence and missile defense, a former adviser to congressional Republicans, and one of the sharpest defenders of Donald Trump’s foreign policy.
Heinrichs sees a clear foreign policy worldview animating the Trump administration — one with more successes to its name than critics are willing to admit. I see a worldview that – even if you agree with it — is inconsistently applied, and one whose goals are often undermined by the president’s impulsive, anti-strategic behavior on the world stage. So I asked Heinrichs to come on my podcast and persuade me that I’m wrong.
In this conversation, Heinrichs and I discuss how Trump shattered the foreign policy consensus that preceded him, why he sees China as such a central threat to American interests, the trade-offs that come with engaging in multilateral agreements and institutions, whether the threats America faces require global cooperation to address, the importance (or lack thereof) of how other countries view America, the ways that Trump undermines his own purported foreign policy aims, Trump’s ally-bashing, the US-Saudi Arabia alliance, the Trump administration’s stance on human rights, what we can expect if Trump gains a second term, and much more.
My conversation with Heinrichs can be heard on The Ezra Klein Show.
Subscribe to The Ezra Klein Show wherever you listen to podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and Stitcher.


vox--2020-10-14--Okay, Google, how do I listen to Vox?

Okay, Google, how do I listen to Vox?

Mixtapes forever changed how we listen to music .
What if news got the same treatment ?
Enter “ Your News Update , ” a new way to listen to Vox on Google smart speakers and Assistant-enabled devices .
You ’ ll hear quick daily updates from your favorite Vox podcasts , like Today , Explained , plus new original content from our Politics and Policy , Culture , The Goods , Recode , and tech teams .
Here ’ s how it works : The Your News Update algorithm curates a selection of audio stories tailored to you .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ determined by where you live , what you like , what you need to know that day , and the preferred sources you define in the Google Assistant app .
By selecting Vox as a preferred news source , the Assistant will regularly surface stories from Vox in your update .
Your News Update is available on all Assistant-enabled devices , including smart speakers , phones , and tablets .
Follow the steps below to select Vox as a preferred news source .
To get the playlist , ask your Assistant to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Play Google News.
” You can also find and hear all episodes in Vox Quick Hits .
Download either the Google Assistant ( free on Android or Apple ) or the Google Home app ( free on Android or Apple ) on your phone or tablet .
For Google Assistant , open the app and tap the icon in the top right corner .
Scroll down and select News .
Make sure your News playlist format is set to Your News Update .
Then search for Vox in the list of sources and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For Google Home , open the app and tap the icon in the top right corner .
Scroll down and select Assistant Settings > News .
Make sure your News playlist format is set to Your News Update .
Then search for Vox in the list of sources and tap the star so it turns blue .
Once you complete these steps , you ’ re ready to listen .
Start by telling your Google smart speaker , “ Okay , Google , play Google News.
” Move through your news feed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ play the next story ” ( but don ’ t forget to say “ Okay , Google ” first ) .
Tip : Shorter stories tend to play first ; longer stories come later .
Prefer to listen on a phone or tablet ?
Open the Google Assistant or the Google Home app , then tap the microphone icon to ask for Your News Update .
You can also tap the keyboard icon to type the request .
You can read more about Your News Update and learn more about how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Google Assistant .
And , of course , you can listen to Vox ’ s full slate of podcasts any time on your favorite device .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Mixtapes forever changed how we listen to music. What if news got the same treatment? Enter “Your News Update,” a new way to listen to Vox on Google smart speakers and Assistant-enabled devices.
You’ll hear quick daily updates from your favorite Vox podcasts, like Today, Explained, plus new original content from our Politics and Policy, Culture, The Goods, Recode, and tech teams.
Here’s how it works: The Your News Update algorithm curates a selection of audio stories tailored to you. What you hear each day is ultimately determined by where you live, what you like, what you need to know that day, and the preferred sources you define in the Google Assistant app. By selecting Vox as a preferred news source, the Assistant will regularly surface stories from Vox in your update.
Your News Update is available on all Assistant-enabled devices, including smart speakers, phones, and tablets. Follow the steps below to select Vox as a preferred news source. To get the playlist, ask your Assistant to “Play Your News Update” or “Play Google News.” You can also find and hear all episodes in Vox Quick Hits.
How to make Vox a preferred news source
Download either the Google Assistant (free on Android or Apple) or the Google Home app (free on Android or Apple) on your phone or tablet.
For Google Assistant, open the app and tap the icon in the top right corner. Scroll down and select News. Make sure your News playlist format is set to Your News Update. Then search for Vox in the list of sources and tap the star so it turns blue.
For Google Home, open the app and tap the icon in the top right corner. Scroll down and select Assistant Settings > News. Make sure your News playlist format is set to Your News Update. Then search for Vox in the list of sources and tap the star so it turns blue.
Once you complete these steps, you’re ready to listen.
Start by telling your Google smart speaker, “Okay, Google, play Google News.” Move through your news feed by asking to “skip” or “play the next story” (but don’t forget to say “Okay, Google” first).
Tip: Shorter stories tend to play first; longer stories come later.
Prefer to listen on a phone or tablet? Open the Google Assistant or the Google Home app, then tap the microphone icon to ask for Your News Update. You can also tap the keyboard icon to type the request.
You can read more about Your News Update and learn more about how to listen to podcasts and news through the Google Assistant. And, of course, you can listen to Vox’s full slate of podcasts any time on your favorite device.