theintercept--2020-06-28--Chechnya Is Trying to Exterminate Gay People. Our Silence Only Emboldens Vladimir Putin and Ramzan K

Chechnya Is Trying to Exterminate Gay People. Our Silence Only Emboldens Vladimir Putin and Ramzan Kadyrov.

“ Welcome to Chechnya ” follows Isteev , emergency program coordinator for the Russian LGBT Network , and his fellow activists as they risk their lives trying to protect gay Chechens from being targeted both by the authorities and their own families .
“ Imagine in the 21st century , in a supposedly secular country , ” says David Isteev , at the start of this acclaimed documentary , “ you have cases where people are killed simply because they are homosexual — where they are maimed , where the families of these people are urged to kill their children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Torture .
Rape .
Murder .
I can not get the gruesome images of these brutal crimes out of my head .
“ Welcome to Chechnya : Inside the Russian Republic ’ s Deadly War on Gays , ” which premiered at the Sundance Festival in January and airs on HBO next week , is one of the most harrowing films I have ever seen .
Chechnya is a small Muslim-majority republic in southwestern Russia .
It is also a place where gay people live in terror .
Since 2017 , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ purges across Chechnya , in which hundreds of gay men have been arrested and detained in secret prisons .
The purges were first revealed by the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta in April 2017 and later corroborated by Human Rights Watch , among others .
“ We documented a large-scale , vicious , anti-gay purge ” marked by “ torture , enforced disappearances , and extrajudicial killings , ” Tanya Lokshina , the Russia program director at Human Rights Watch , told me in a phone interview from Moscow .
In 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ They electrocuted us , beat us with pipes , kicked us , and punched us , they made other inmates beat us , they called us names , spat in our faces.
” In December 2018 , there were reports of a second wave of arrests and attacks against gay Chechens .
Yet there has been little coverage of their plight over the past 18 months .
For David France , the award-winning director of “ Welcome to Chechnya , ” it makes no sense to talk of a “ first ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it is all part of a single ongoing campaign of persecution against gay Chechens .
“ They are still being hunted , ” France told me in a phone interview from New York .
The hunter-in-chief is Ramzan Kadyrov , a thuggish , tiger-loving autocrat who was installed as president of Chechnya by Russian President Vladmir Putin in 2007 .
Kadyrov , Lokshina said , “ has been enabled by the Kremlin to run Chechnya as his own fiefdom , effectively as a state within a state , where international human rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not taken into account.
” Like every good tyrant , Kadyrov has a list of “ undesirables ” who are demonized and scapegoated for all of the country ’ s problems — and top of his list are gay people .
It is the Chechen leader who ordered the rounding up and detention of gay men , who he calls “ subhuman ” and “ devils.
” In recent years , he has also been “ justifying and encouraging ” so-called honor killings of gay Chechens by their families while his administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prosecute such crimes .
In an interview in July 2017 , HBO sports reporter David Scott asked Kadyrov about the anti-gay pogroms in his country .
“ We don ’ t have those kinds of people here , ” Kadyrov responded .
“ We don ’ t have any gays .
If there are any , take them to Canada.
” “ Praise be to god , ” the Chechen president added .
“ Take them far from us , so we don ’ t have them at home .
To purify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , take them.
” Kadyrov has been welcomed with open arms across the Middle East .
The Chechen strongman likes to portray himself as a devout Muslim and has clamped down on alcohol while enforcing Islamic dress codes and endorsing polygamy .
He sees his war on gay people as part of his “ Islamization ” project .
France described him to me as a “ madman and a despot ” who “ bends Islam to his own use.
” To be clear : There is nothing in Islam that justifies or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group of human beings .
Yet the fact of the matter is that homophobia , as I have written previously , is rife in many Muslim communities across the world .
Chechnya , though , is in a gay-hating league of its own .
As Human Rights Watch has noted , the Russian republic “ is a highly conservative , traditional Muslim society ; homophobia is intense and rampant , and homosexuality is generally viewed as a stain on family honor.
” Last March , more than 30 countries signed a joint statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ a swift , thorough and impartial investigation into the alleged persecution ” of gay people in Chechnya .
With the exception of Albania , not a single Muslim-majority country signed onto the statement .
Meanwhile , Muslim communities across the West fundraise and lobby for persecuted Palestinians , Kashmiris , Rohingya , Uighurs … but not Chechens being “ hunted ” by Kadyrov and his goons .
Those Chechens , it seems , are the wrong kind of Muslims — they are gay Muslims .
against gay men in Chechnya , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the door of Islam or Muslims .
Russia itself is plagued by homophobia — encouraged both by the Russian Orthodox Church and the country ’ s president .
“ It ’ s obvious where Putin stands , ” a frustrated Russian LGTBQ activist says in “ Welcome to Chechnya.
” “ If they told him that gays were being killed , he wouldn ’ t give a damn.
” In 2013 , Putin signed the now-notorious “ gay propaganda ” law , which criminalized the distribution of “ propaganda of non-traditional sexual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russians believe gays are conspiring to “ destroy ” the country ’ s values , while 1 in 5 of them want to “ eliminate ” gay and lesbian people from Russian society .
Then there is the global context : As the director , France , reminded me , homosexuality remains illegal in more than 70 countries across the world and is punishable by death in eight of them .

Photo: John MacDougall/AFP/Getty Images
Torture. Rape. Murder. I cannot get the gruesome images of these brutal crimes out of my head. “Welcome to Chechnya: Inside the Russian Republic’s Deadly War on Gays,” which premiered at the Sundance Festival in January and airs on HBO next week, is one of the most harrowing films I have ever seen.
“Imagine in the 21st century, in a supposedly secular country,” says David Isteev, at the start of this acclaimed documentary, “you have cases where people are killed simply because they are homosexual — where they are maimed, where the families of these people are urged to kill their children and siblings. It’s unreal.”
“Welcome to Chechnya” follows Isteev, emergency program coordinator for the Russian LGBT Network, and his fellow activists as they risk their lives trying to protect gay Chechens from being targeted both by the authorities and their own families.
Chechnya is a small Muslim-majority republic in southwestern Russia. It is also a place where gay people live in terror. Since 2017, there have been a series of state-sponsored anti-gay purges across Chechnya, in which hundreds of gay men have been arrested and detained in secret prisons. The purges were first revealed by the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta in April 2017 and later corroborated by Human Rights Watch, among others.
“We documented a large-scale, vicious, anti-gay purge” marked by “torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings,” Tanya Lokshina, the Russia program director at Human Rights Watch, told me in a phone interview from Moscow. In 2017, a detainee told Human Rights Watch, “They electrocuted us, beat us with pipes, kicked us, and punched us, they made other inmates beat us, they called us names, spat in our faces.”
In December 2018, there were reports of a second wave of arrests and attacks against gay Chechens. Yet there has been little coverage of their plight over the past 18 months. For David France, the award-winning director of “Welcome to Chechnya,” it makes no sense to talk of a “first” or a “second” purge, as it is all part of a single ongoing campaign of persecution against gay Chechens. “They are still being hunted,” France told me in a phone interview from New York.
The hunter-in-chief is Ramzan Kadyrov, a thuggish, tiger-loving autocrat who was installed as president of Chechnya by Russian President Vladmir Putin in 2007. Kadyrov, Lokshina said, “has been enabled by the Kremlin to run Chechnya as his own fiefdom, effectively as a state within a state, where international human rights law, and even Russian legislation, is not taken into account.”
Like every good tyrant, Kadyrov has a list of “undesirables” who are demonized and scapegoated for all of the country’s problems — and top of his list are gay people. It is the Chechen leader who ordered the rounding up and detention of gay men, who he calls “subhuman” and “devils.” In recent years, he has also been “justifying and encouraging” so-called honor killings of gay Chechens by their families while his administration, France explained to me, refuses to prosecute such crimes.
In an interview in July 2017, HBO sports reporter David Scott asked Kadyrov about the anti-gay pogroms in his country. “We don’t have those kinds of people here,” Kadyrov responded. “We don’t have any gays. If there are any, take them to Canada.”
“Praise be to god,” the Chechen president added. “Take them far from us, so we don’t have them at home. To purify our blood, if there are any here, take them.”
Kadyrov has been welcomed with open arms across the Middle East. The Chechen strongman likes to portray himself as a devout Muslim and has clamped down on alcohol while enforcing Islamic dress codes and endorsing polygamy. He sees his war on gay people as part of his “Islamization” project. France described him to me as a “madman and a despot” who “bends Islam to his own use.”
To be clear: There is nothing in Islam that justifies or excuses the torture or persecution of any group of human beings. Yet the fact of the matter is that homophobia, as I have written previously, is rife in many Muslim communities across the world. Chechnya, though, is in a gay-hating league of its own. As Human Rights Watch has noted, the Russian republic “is a highly conservative, traditional Muslim society; homophobia is intense and rampant, and homosexuality is generally viewed as a stain on family honor.”
Last March, more than 30 countries signed a joint statement at the U.N. Human Rights Council calling for “a swift, thorough and impartial investigation into the alleged persecution” of gay people in Chechnya. With the exception of Albania, not a single Muslim-majority country signed onto the statement. Meanwhile, Muslim communities across the West fundraise and lobby for persecuted Palestinians, Kashmiris, Rohingya, Uighurs … but not Chechens being “hunted” by Kadyrov and his goons. Those Chechens, it seems, are the wrong kind of Muslims — they are gay Muslims.
The vicious pogroms against gay men in Chechnya, however, cannot only be laid at the door of Islam or Muslims. Russia itself is plagued by homophobia — encouraged both by the Russian Orthodox Church and the country’s president. “It’s obvious where Putin stands,” a frustrated Russian LGTBQ activist says in “Welcome to Chechnya.” “If they told him that gays were being killed, he wouldn’t give a damn.” In 2013, Putin signed the now-notorious “gay propaganda” law, which criminalized the distribution of “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relationships.” Polls suggest a majority of Russians believe gays are conspiring to “destroy” the country’s values, while 1 in 5 of them want to “eliminate” gay and lesbian people from Russian society.
Then there is the global context: As the director, France, reminded me, homosexuality remains illegal in more than 70 countries across the world and is punishable by death in eight of them.
Is it any wonder, then, that activists talk of a “gay genocide”? In May 2017, in fact, three French gay rights groups filed a complaint at the International Criminal Court accusing Chechnya of a policy of genocide against gay people. The legal problem, though, as France points out, is that the Genocide Convention applies only to “national, ethnical, racial, or religious” groups, thereby excluding persecuted LGBTQ communities.
Nevertheless, France draws a direct comparison with the Holocaust. “This is the first time since Hitler’s regime that there has been an open, government-directed policy to round up and liquidate LGBTQ people,” he told me. Between 1933 and 1945, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, “an estimated 100,000 men were arrested for violating Nazi Germany’s law against homosexuality, and of these, approximately 50,000 were sentenced to prison. An estimated 5,000 to 15,000 men were sent to concentration camps on similar charges, where an unknown number of them perished.”
“Never again” has (rightly) become the global mantra, in reference to the Holocaust. But, with regard to gay people, it is happening again. Right now. In Chechnya.
So where, today, is the outrage from our politicians or the press? Where are the protests? Why the lack of global support for this repressed minority? As Lokshina pointed out to me, most Western countries have failed to provide a “safe haven” for gay Chechens fleeing persecution. The United States under Donald Trump may have imposed financial sanctions on Chechen leaders, for example, but it hasn’t admitted a single LGBTQ refugee from Chechnya.
Remember, our inaction, our indifference and, above all else, our silence makes us complicit in these crimes against LGBTQ communities. But it’s much worse than that. Our silence also emboldens brutal demagogues like Putin and Kadyrov — and lays the groundwork for further human rights abuses across the board. “If there’s no punishment,” says an exhausted-looking Isteev toward the end of the film, “if LGBT people are regarded as subhuman, if you can do anything to them, it means that tomorrow, anyone can find themselves in the shoes of gay Chechens.”
“Welcome to Chechnya“ airs on HBO on June 30.


theintercept--2020-06-29--I Am a Book Critic. Here's What Is Wrong With "Black Lists" -- and What Is Good.

There are nuances and range as to what motivates any given white person to launch a reading regimen on race .
The last week of May , when the protests began , I talked to a white friend nursing his wounds from the rubber bullets he was struck by , courtesy of the Seattle Police Department .
I fielded another message from an unemployed white friend urgently asking me to help him populate a Google Doc with every activist contact I know , so that he could help arrange legal and financial help for them as they hit the streets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several privileged white acquaintances leaving me voice messages just to say how sad , ashamed , or lame they felt .
This conflagration of grit , of action , of bewilderment , of sentimental guilt — it provokes a wide , multifaceted desire for books that can help a person digest the current moment and the uncharted future .
White people are going through a lot of experiences and emotions , and many of them want good books .
With nationwide protests under the banner of Black Lives Matter , books are helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bulleted and tear-gassed while demonstrating their racial solidarity , or why they suddenly appreciate the do-or-die racial stakes of this election .
Appetites to read more , and inquiries to form new reading diets , are proliferating madly .
People who are badly shaken , and caught off guard by social change , want to make sense of themselves , others , and so many human divides .
As someone who reads ravenously for pleasure , and critiques books and culture for a living , I have an inbox full of requests for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected president , and when white nationalists stormed Charlottesville , the bewilderment of white people provoked a staggering demand for reading guidance .
As if on cue , an onslaught of recommendation lists on blackness and anti-racism have arrived to fill this thirst for context .
Legacy media , hip digital outlets , bookstores , nonprofits , podcasters , and , of course , celebrities , are issuing what I call “ Black Lists.
” Little wonder that books about race , blackness , and racism are dominating bestsellers lists .
These “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worthwhile but limited line-up of popular and ubiquitous usual suspects : Ta-Nehisi Coates ’ “ Between the World and Me , ” Robin DiAngelo ’ s “ White Fragility , ” and Ibram X. Kendi ’ s “ How to Be an Anti-Racist , ” for example .
There is often an implied hunger in the requests for book and film recommendations , one that yearns for a pornographic orgy of Black suffering or for valiant , magical Black heroes , or for neat resolutions that leave white people feeling better about themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the thing .
The yearnings for “ Black Lists ” remind me of the time last week when an earnest white person called to offer the most patronizing and redundant rant on how paralyzing racism must be for me .
Once I hung up the phone , I continued helping friends cook the most wondrous duck l ’ orange medallions followed by an enchanted patio dinner full of my dear and unruly friends of different races debating and cracking bawdy jokes .
Yes , there is joy to be cultivated in resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No Black person wants to be reduced to a hologram of suffering , nor rendered into a kind of charity case .
It ’ s as though the entirety of your humanity could be summed up by the unrelenting news images of bloodied Black bodies .
In short , you come to exist as a marginal refraction of your enemy and the centrality of his ignorance .
And that ’ s the quicksand that books by Black authors can disappear into : the indignity that they hold value relative only to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to a fickle or patronizing white audience .
What Black author wants to have invested her life force into a book , only to discover it has been conscripted into a kind of therapeutic how-to manual every time protests or white guilt break out ?
Another irritation : The proliferation of “ Black Lists ” renders a rich repository of intellectual labor into the equivalent of a trash heap of algorithms .
Amazon uses its A9 algorithm system to decide how products are ranked in user search results .
That system is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for its search results , because both consider keywords in deciding which pages to display first .
However , there is a key difference : Amazon ’ s A9 algorithm also puts a strong emphasis on sales conversions .
Amazon , which makes money only when it entices you to buy something , has a vested interest in promoting listings which are more likely to result in sales .
It ’ s difficult to know , in the typical chicken-and-egg conundrum , the extent to which Amazon is driving the public discussion on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driving Amazon sales .
Are the “ Black Lists ” pushing traffic on Amazon to particular books , and then those books pick up steam through the Amazon algorithm and get even more prominence ?
Or are loafing critics and readers cribbing from Amazon ?
At any rate , the online behemoth continues to hawk products by prioritizing them according to strong sales history and high conversion rates .
The tyranny of the algorithm worsens our collective mental sloth where race is concerned .
This mixture of culture , publishing , and code @ @ @ @ @ @ @ algorithmic recommendations with urgency .
If you doubt for a second the horror of this computational taste-making , just consider the fact that “ The Help ” became the most popular streamed film on Netflix the very week that anti-racist protests erupted .
That ’ s the film precisely least helpful to this moment .
“ The Help ” chronicles a white woman ’ s quest to document the plight of Black maids in 1960s Jackson , Mississippi .
To lose oneself in that perverse fantasy is to deflect rather neatly that so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the plight of Black maids and essential workers right now .
One of the silliest movies on race ever made , “ The Help ” flounders in white savior mythology , all the while implying that segregation and racism have been safely contained into the past .
Another way these lists can fail us : Americans often want to talk about feelings and not about how economics work .
Capitalism and its failings are a third-rail topic in so many American history books , particularly concerning race .
It ’ s as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a matter of sour interpersonal relationships , and not also as a government-sanctioned , corporate-facilitated economic exploitation of one race by another , dating from slavery to current home health care assistance .
Capitalism ’ s racial character disappears from the mix .
Idiotic movies like “ The Green Book ” and “ The Help ” calcify this mindset , and mirror the economic and structural analysis absent from so many nonfiction books .
In vexed times like now , a ripe teachable moment gets wasted on such a bad curriculum .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on an unfitting recipient .
As when offering any recommendation , the question begs , Am I frittering my time ?
Some people are lazy readers , and even lazier citizens , so what ’ s the point of nudging them in any direction ?
You have a sixth sense that asking them to read “ Giovanni ’ s Room ” or to help register voters is setting a cost far higher than they ’ re willing to bear .
Or , as critic Lauren Michele Jackson dryly noted : Good literature is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who seeks it out only in a time of crisis .
Creativity radiates always — beyond corporate media ’ s spotlight and in unexpected nooks .
Recite the cadences of a Claudia Rankine poem , or study the fiery , bright brushstrokes of Black Lives Matter graffiti art plastering a Confederate statue in Richmond , Virginia : Those stirring expressions can leave you regretting how long so many white institutions have suppressed the Black excellence and creativity that white people couldn ’ t dance to or watch on TV .
So much Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shadows , by school boards , by production studios , by media conglomerates like Condé Nast , by fine art galleries , by literary festivals , and yet white people can ’ t seem to get enough of us singing and dancing .
Political and creative false choices dog this country : that books by Black people or about race are for didactic purposes only , separate from the demands of form , poetics , genius , and even delight .
And so , as an antidote to all the political falsehoods , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plague so many “ Black Lists , ” I bind a list that is restorative , not draining , one that centers Black excellence and joy .
“ The Light of the World ” by Elizabeth Alexander A memoir of widowhood and the consolation of caring for two teenage sons , this gem illuminates “ the jagged path ” — of history , living , thinking , and writing .
Alexander ’ s meditation is an inspiring object lesson in the kind of perseverance that is necessary when craft , storytelling , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a life , which happen to be Black .
Trauma , loss , rewrites , grit : As James Baldwin once said , finding ourselves in deep waters is not the same as drowning .
Shrewdly observed and over-the-top , this novel presents a rollicking story narrated by a Black Angeleno , simply referred to as “ Me ” and “ Bon bon.
” Quick-paced and bitingly funny , “ The Sellout ” takes on sacred precepts of American life in quiet , plausible ways : the Constitution , civil rights , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ period piece depicting South Central Los Angeles of the 1990s .
Filmed in a jerky cinéma vérité style , the film delivers an uncompromising close-up of Black teenagers navigating their intimate lives in a descent of violence .
It ’ s a wholly original coming-of-age narrative laced with an homage to Martin Scorsese ’ s “ Scarface.
” A short story collection populated by timeless characters in comic and dark predicaments .
Its charm is so pleasurable and effortless , you wind up learning despite enjoying yourself — about the collisions between Black @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would be named decades later : passive aggression , white fragility , and the like .
The sharply observed vignettes emerge lyrically from this poet , one of the most important visionaries of the Harlem Renaissance .
Sometimes a wise person — a mystic — tries to teach you something , but you ’ re too thick to get it until years and years later .
Worth reading multiple times , “ Beloved ” weaves an unparalleled story of parental love and duty , of loss , of canny resilience .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the novel that whispers most beautifully on the legacy of slavery on Black families and white society , on the redemption of creativity and excellence , and even on how this nation remains so violent and fragmented .
“ How Can We Win ?
” from David Jones and Kimberly Jones During the protests , photographer David Jones captured author Kimberly Jones ’ s riff on American history .
Her blunt , crisp take — and the protest themselves — shows America why we can ’ t “ Talent Tenth ” our @ @ @ @ @ @

Illustration: Soohee Cho/The Intercept
I am a book whisperer.
As someone who reads ravenously for pleasure, and critiques books and culture for a living, I have an inbox full of requests for learning recommendations. When Donald Trump was elected president, and when white nationalists stormed Charlottesville, the bewilderment of white people provoked a staggering demand for reading guidance.
With nationwide protests under the banner of Black Lives Matter, books are helping white people understand how they found themselves bulleted and tear-gassed while demonstrating their racial solidarity, or why they suddenly appreciate the do-or-die racial stakes of this election. Appetites to read more, and inquiries to form new reading diets, are proliferating madly. People who are badly shaken, and caught off guard by social change, want to make sense of themselves, others, and so many human divides.
There are nuances and range as to what motivates any given white person to launch a reading regimen on race. The last week of May, when the protests began, I talked to a white friend nursing his wounds from the rubber bullets he was struck by, courtesy of the Seattle Police Department. I fielded another message from an unemployed white friend urgently asking me to help him populate a Google Doc with every activist contact I know, so that he could help arrange legal and financial help for them as they hit the streets of Minneapolis. And then there were several privileged white acquaintances leaving me voice messages just to say how sad, ashamed, or lame they felt. This conflagration of grit, of action, of bewilderment, of sentimental guilt — it provokes a wide, multifaceted desire for books that can help a person digest the current moment and the uncharted future. White people are going through a lot of experiences and emotions, and many of them want good books.
As if on cue, an onslaught of recommendation lists on blackness and anti-racism have arrived to fill this thirst for context. Legacy media, hip digital outlets, bookstores, nonprofits, podcasters, and, of course, celebrities, are issuing what I call “Black Lists.” Little wonder that books about race, blackness, and racism are dominating bestsellers lists. These “Black Lists” are crowded with a worthwhile but limited line-up of popular and ubiquitous usual suspects: Ta-Nehisi Coates’ “Between the World and Me,” Robin DiAngelo’s “White Fragility,” and Ibram X. Kendi’s “How to Be an Anti-Racist,” for example.
There is often an implied hunger in the requests for book and film recommendations, one that yearns for a pornographic orgy of Black suffering or for valiant, magical Black heroes, or for neat resolutions that leave white people feeling better about themselves. These clichés then subsume the quality of the thing. The yearnings for “Black Lists” remind me of the time last week when an earnest white person called to offer the most patronizing and redundant rant on how paralyzing racism must be for me. Once I hung up the phone, I continued helping friends cook the most wondrous duck l’orange medallions followed by an enchanted patio dinner full of my dear and unruly friends of different races debating and cracking bawdy jokes.
Yes, there is joy to be cultivated in resistance and in even the most difficult times. No Black person wants to be reduced to a hologram of suffering, nor rendered into a kind of charity case. It’s as though the entirety of your humanity could be summed up by the unrelenting news images of bloodied Black bodies. In short, you come to exist as a marginal refraction of your enemy and the centrality of his ignorance. And that’s the quicksand that books by Black authors can disappear into: the indignity that they hold value relative only to a troubled time, to a token task, to a fickle or patronizing white audience. What Black author wants to have invested her life force into a book, only to discover it has been conscripted into a kind of therapeutic how-to manual every time protests or white guilt break out?
Another irritation: The proliferation of “Black Lists” renders a rich repository of intellectual labor into the equivalent of a trash heap of algorithms. Amazon uses its A9 algorithm system to decide how products are ranked in user search results. That system is similar to the algorithm which Google uses for its search results, because both consider keywords in deciding which pages to display first. However, there is a key difference: Amazon’s A9 algorithm also puts a strong emphasis on sales conversions. Amazon, which makes money only when it entices you to buy something, has a vested interest in promoting listings which are more likely to result in sales.
It’s difficult to know, in the typical chicken-and-egg conundrum, the extent to which Amazon is driving the public discussion on race, or our public debate is driving Amazon sales. Are the “Black Lists” pushing traffic on Amazon to particular books, and then those books pick up steam through the Amazon algorithm and get even more prominence? Or are loafing critics and readers cribbing from Amazon? At any rate, the online behemoth continues to hawk products by prioritizing them according to strong sales history and high conversion rates. The tyranny of the algorithm worsens our collective mental sloth where race is concerned. This mixture of culture, publishing, and code conflates traffic analytics with quality, and algorithmic recommendations with urgency.
If you doubt for a second the horror of this computational taste-making, just consider the fact that “The Help” became the most popular streamed film on Netflix the very week that anti-racist protests erupted. That’s the film precisely least helpful to this moment. “The Help” chronicles a white woman’s quest to document the plight of Black maids in 1960s Jackson, Mississippi. To lose oneself in that perverse fantasy is to deflect rather neatly that so many corporations and white individuals are indifferent to the plight of Black maids and essential workers right now. One of the silliest movies on race ever made, “The Help” flounders in white savior mythology, all the while implying that segregation and racism have been safely contained into the past.
Another way these lists can fail us: Americans often want to talk about feelings and not about how economics work. Capitalism and its failings are a third-rail topic in so many American history books, particularly concerning race. It’s as though racism could be boiled down to just a matter of sour interpersonal relationships, and not also as a government-sanctioned, corporate-facilitated economic exploitation of one race by another, dating from slavery to current home health care assistance. Capitalism’s racial character disappears from the mix. Idiotic movies like “The Green Book” and “The Help” calcify this mindset, and mirror the economic and structural analysis absent from so many nonfiction books.
In vexed times like now, a ripe teachable moment gets wasted on such a bad curriculum. And perfectly fine culture can go squandered on an unfitting recipient. As when offering any recommendation, the question begs, Am I frittering my time? Some people are lazy readers, and even lazier citizens, so what’s the point of nudging them in any direction? You have a sixth sense that asking them to read “Giovanni’s Room” or to help register voters is setting a cost far higher than they’re willing to bear. Or, as critic Lauren Michele Jackson dryly noted: Good literature is wasted on the type of white person who seeks it out only in a time of crisis.
Creativity radiates always — beyond corporate media’s spotlight and in unexpected nooks. Recite the cadences of a Claudia Rankine poem, or study the fiery, bright brushstrokes of Black Lives Matter graffiti art plastering a Confederate statue in Richmond, Virginia: Those stirring expressions can leave you regretting how long so many white institutions have suppressed the Black excellence and creativity that white people couldn’t dance to or watch on TV. So much Black creative output has been relegated to the shadows, by school boards, by production studios, by media conglomerates like Condé Nast, by fine art galleries, by literary festivals, and yet white people can’t seem to get enough of us singing and dancing.
Political and creative false choices dog this country: that books by Black people or about race are for didactic purposes only, separate from the demands of form, poetics, genius, and even delight. And so, as an antidote to all the political falsehoods, consumer pitfalls, and creative lapses that plague so many “Black Lists,” I bind a list that is restorative, not draining, one that centers Black excellence and joy.
“The Light of the World” by Elizabeth Alexander
A memoir of widowhood and the consolation of caring for two teenage sons, this gem illuminates “the jagged path” — of history, living, thinking, and writing. Alexander’s meditation is an inspiring object lesson in the kind of perseverance that is necessary when craft, storytelling, and insight take flight in a book and in a life, which happen to be Black. Trauma, loss, rewrites, grit: As James Baldwin once said, finding ourselves in deep waters is not the same as drowning.
“The Sellout” by Paul Beatty
Shrewdly observed and over-the-top, this novel presents a rollicking story narrated by a Black Angeleno, simply referred to as “Me” and “Bon bon.” Quick-paced and bitingly funny, “The Sellout” takes on sacred precepts of American life in quiet, plausible ways: the Constitution, civil rights, segregation, father-son relationships.
“Menace II Society” directed by Allen and Albert Hughes
A chilling period piece depicting South Central Los Angeles of the 1990s. Filmed in a jerky cinéma vérité style, the film delivers an uncompromising close-up of Black teenagers navigating their intimate lives in a descent of violence. It’s a wholly original coming-of-age narrative laced with an homage to Brian De Palma’s “Scarface.”
“The Ways of White Folks” by Langston Hughes
A short story collection populated by timeless characters in comic and dark predicaments. Its charm is so pleasurable and effortless, you wind up learning despite enjoying yourself — about the collisions between Black and white people, and about concepts that would be named decades later: passive aggression, white fragility, and the like. The sharply observed vignettes emerge lyrically from this poet, one of the most important visionaries of the Harlem Renaissance.
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison
Sometimes a wise person — a mystic — tries to teach you something, but you’re too thick to get it until years and years later. Worth reading multiple times, “Beloved” weaves an unparalleled story of parental love and duty, of loss, of canny resilience. In form and story, “Beloved” is the novel that whispers most beautifully on the legacy of slavery on Black families and white society, on the redemption of creativity and excellence, and even on how this nation remains so violent and fragmented.
“How Can We Win?” from David Jones and Kimberly Jones
During the protests, photographer David Jones captured author Kimberly Jones’s riff on American history. Her blunt, crisp take — and the protest themselves — shows America why we can’t “Talent Tenth” our way out of this mess.
This article was supported by the journalism nonprofit the Economic Hardship Reporting Project.
Correction: July 6, 2020, 10:00 a.m. ET
An earlier version of this story previously misidentified the director of “Scarface.”


theintercept--2020-06-29--The Airline Industry Blocked Disclosure of Trade Data, Helping Conceal the Airlift of N95 Masks From

The Airline Industry Blocked Disclosure of Trade Data, Helping Conceal the Airlift of N95 Masks From the U.S. to China

In the first months of the Covid-19 outbreak — when U.S. hospitals faced a critical shortage of protective gear and exposed front-line medical workers to needless risk — hundreds of tons of medical face masks were loaded onto planes at U.S. airports and flown to China and other destinations for foreign buyers .
While the masks were shipped abroad , the U.S. government failed to address the growing crisis , leaving states to scramble to obtain medical gear as third-party distributors hiked prices and began selling what turned out to be defective masks .
While the Trump administration moved slowly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Commerce Department even encouraged the export of masks as the disease spread .
The full scale and scope of what happened — including the types of masks shipped , prices , and the destinations for the shipments — are still shrouded in mystery .
That ’ s because detailed disclosures of the airlifts are hidden from public view by the federal government .
U.S. Customs and Border Protection only allows public disclosure of detailed cargo data for shipments sent and received by sea , not by air .
And almost every crate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went by air freight , concealing the full picture of the flow of masks from public view .
The reason for the opaque trade rules ?
Little-known political maneuvering by the airline industry and its lobbyists on Capitol Hill , which slipped a provision designed to override disclosure requirements into a 1996 law on tariffs .
“ Thanks to lobbying from the airline industry , U.S. air freight data isn ’ t public .
In times of crisis , key supplies are almost universally shipped via air freight , ” said William George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ import-export business intelligence firm .
Many controversial shipments , such as tear gas or overseas weapons sales , are made by air freight .
The global arms trade escapes transparency , in part , because of gaps in disclosure .
ImportGenius and Panjiva , another firm that analyzes trade data , are now in federal court to try to force disclosure of the air cargo manifests , claiming that a plain reading of the law shows that the government is still required to disclose the forms .
CBP did not respond to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the trade group that represents the domestic air freight industry , declined to comment .
transparency has gained new attention in recent months as acute shortages have raised questions about U.S. trade policy with respect to critical medical supplies , including N95 masks and other forms of personal protective equipment .
Rick Bright , a federal whistleblower , testified in May that federal agencies failed to take action to obtain masks as alarm bells went off about the Covid-19 pandemic .
“ We should have been doing everything possible , placing orders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said Bright , who formerly served as a director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , an agency devoted to responding to pandemics .
Many countries , including Russia and China , allow public inspection of air freight cargo manifests , which include product details , the size of shipments , unit prices , and the destination for cargo .
The U.S. , on the other hand , does not .
Chinese customs disclosures obtained by The Intercept show that Chinese trading firms , municipal governments , and state-owned corporations such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key medical supplies involved in the response to the coronavirus from U.S. suppliers over the first few months of this year .
Over 600 tons of face masks of left U.S. airports for China in February alone .
U.S. firms , such as Intel , W.W. Grainger , and Pfizer , also shipped masks from the U.S. to China in February , according to Chinese customs disclosures .
The shipments , company representatives said , were made to help secure employees based in China .
Nearly identical data is collected by the CBP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freight cargo imports and export disclosures are limited to anonymized aggregate disclosures of broad customs categories .
Critics of the CBP say that the agency is withholding too much and is needlessly showing deference to air freight companies in refusing to release detailed manifests .
The aggregate data alone shows the scale and scope of the exports of protective equipment .
In the first three months of this year , exports of masks and personal protective equipment from the U.S. to China grew more than 1,000 percent compared to the same period from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , little is disclosed , making a full accounting of the global PPE trade difficult to grasp .
Trade experts say that acute shortages of medical supplies could be limited in the future with a timely review of emergency medical equipment during the export process .
“ Instead of having U.S. commerce officials boosting U.S. exports of masks , the proper approach should have been a needs-based assessment that took into account that the virus would be impacting the United States , ” said Lori Wallach , director of Public Citizens ’ Global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ necessary supplies , and we need to be thinking about neighbors , like the many small Caribbean islands who have no production capacity domestically that would be totally reliant on retail supplies.
” air freight manifests are treated differently than sea cargo goes back several decades to the boom in air shipping that began in the 1980s .
Since the Tariff Act of 1930 , the federal government has collected vessel manifest data , largely for tariff purposes .
During a revamp of the trade regulations in 1984 , the airline industry defeated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information .
But pressure from a range of industries concerned with widespread counterfeiting led to reforms with the passage of the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996 .
During congressional debate over the legislation , then-Sen. Orrin Hatch , R-Utah , backed a provision of the bill equalizing the public inspection of sea vessel and air freight cargo disclosures .
“ This disclosure of air manifest data and trademark information will be of invaluable assistance in identifying counterfeit merchandise and the location of counterfeiters , ” wrote David Biehn , then vice president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ backing the shift .
The ACPA was signed into law on July 2 , 1996 and included a provision clearly mandating the public disclosure of aircraft manifests .
But as soon as the bill became law , airline industry lobbyists raised objections .
The Air Transport Association of America — a lobby group now known as Airlines for America that represents the airline industry , including United Airlines , American Airlines , and FedEx — pushed back .
“ [ I ] n the interest of cargo security and confidentiality of business data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to then-Sen. William Roth , R-Del.
, “ that air cargo manifests remain immune to publication of any form.
” Subsequent arguments were more blunt .
One air freight industry lobbyist later told reporters that the industry supplies manifest data to CBP because they require the information .
“ No other party needs to know — despite the fact they would like to know.
” In a technical correction bill passed in October 1996 with little debate , a provision was added to attempt to delete the previous air freight disclosure requirement in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amended the wrong bill , leading to awkward phrasing left in the federal statute .
The current Tariff Act , which has gone through nearly a century of revisions , currently contains a typo , with the phrase “ vessel vessel ” because of the incorrect legislative text of the October revision .
The federal government has since refused disclosure of air freight manifests , citing the legislative intent of the technical correction bill .
Sharon Yamen , an associate professor at Western Connecticut State University who has studied the issue and currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , told The Intercept that a plain reading of the law still shows that air freight manifests must be disclosed .
“ They amended off the original language and not the amended language from July , ” said Yamen .
“ If you look at the actual statute itself , there is a footnote noting that it was amending incorrectly.
” The original argument by the airline industry , that disclosure of air freight manifests requires a higher level of scrutiny , she added , “ falls flat.
” Companies also maintain the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a variety of national security and trade secret purposes .
“ Ultimately the reason they gave for the October amendment was because someone stated it was in the interest of security which was a false argument because our waterborne shipping ports are less secure than our airports , ” Yamen said .
“ Anything can come in on a shipping container.
” Yamen argued that there is little reason not to treat air cargo any differently than sea vessels .
“ This information should be available .
”

In the first months of the Covid-19 outbreak — when U.S. hospitals faced a critical shortage of protective gear and exposed front-line medical workers to needless risk — hundreds of tons of medical face masks were loaded onto planes at U.S. airports and flown to China and other destinations for foreign buyers.
While the masks were shipped abroad, the U.S. government failed to address the growing crisis, leaving states to scramble to obtain medical gear as third-party distributors hiked prices and began selling what turned out to be defective masks. While the Trump administration moved slowly to secure needed supplies, some in the Commerce Department even encouraged the export of masks as the disease spread.
The full scale and scope of what happened — including the types of masks shipped, prices, and the destinations for the shipments — are still shrouded in mystery. That’s because detailed disclosures of the airlifts are hidden from public view by the federal government. U.S. Customs and Border Protection only allows public disclosure of detailed cargo data for shipments sent and received by sea, not by air. And almost every crate of face masks destined for foreign markets went by air freight, concealing the full picture of the flow of masks from public view.
The reason for the opaque trade rules? Little-known political maneuvering by the airline industry and its lobbyists on Capitol Hill, which slipped a provision designed to override disclosure requirements into a 1996 law on tariffs.
“Thanks to lobbying from the airline industry, U.S. air freight data isn’t public. In times of crisis, key supplies are almost universally shipped via air freight,” said William George, an analyst with ImportGenius, an import-export business intelligence firm.
Many controversial shipments, such as tear gas or overseas weapons sales, are made by air freight. The global arms trade escapes transparency, in part, because of gaps in disclosure.
ImportGenius and Panjiva, another firm that analyzes trade data, are now in federal court to try to force disclosure of the air cargo manifests, claiming that a plain reading of the law shows that the government is still required to disclose the forms.
CBP did not respond to a request for comment. Airlines for America, the trade group that represents the domestic air freight industry, declined to comment.
The disparity in transparency has gained new attention in recent months as acute shortages have raised questions about U.S. trade policy with respect to critical medical supplies, including N95 masks and other forms of personal protective equipment.
Rick Bright, a federal whistleblower, testified in May that federal agencies failed to take action to obtain masks as alarm bells went off about the Covid-19 pandemic. “We should have been doing everything possible, placing orders early, ramping up supply,” said Bright, who formerly served as a director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, an agency devoted to responding to pandemics.
Many countries, including Russia and China, allow public inspection of air freight cargo manifests, which include product details, the size of shipments, unit prices, and the destination for cargo. The U.S., on the other hand, does not.
Chinese customs disclosures obtained by The Intercept show that Chinese trading firms, municipal governments, and state-owned corporations such as oil giants Sinopec and CNOOC purchased key medical supplies involved in the response to the coronavirus from U.S. suppliers over the first few months of this year. Over 600 tons of face masks left U.S. airports for China in February alone.
U.S. firms, such as Intel, W.W. Grainger, and Pfizer, also shipped masks from the U.S. to China in February, according to Chinese customs disclosures. The shipments, company representatives said, were made to help secure employees based in China.
Chinese trading firms, municipal governments, and state-owned corporations purchased key medical supplies involved in the response to the coronavirus from U.S. suppliers over the first few months of this year.
Nearly identical data is collected by the CBP but concealed from the public. Air freight cargo imports and export disclosures are limited to anonymized aggregate disclosures of broad customs categories. Critics of the CBP say that the agency is withholding too much and is needlessly showing deference to air freight companies in refusing to release detailed manifests.
The aggregate data alone shows the scale and scope of the exports of protective equipment. In the first three months of this year, exports of masks and personal protective equipment from the U.S. to China grew more than 1,000 percent compared to the same period from last year. But beyond aggregate totals, little is disclosed, making a full accounting of the global PPE trade difficult to grasp.
Trade experts say that acute shortages of medical supplies could be limited in the future with a timely review of emergency medical equipment during the export process.
“Instead of having U.S. commerce officials boosting U.S. exports of masks, the proper approach should have been a needs-based assessment that took into account that the virus would be impacting the United States,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizens’ Global Trade Watch.
“We needed the necessary supplies, and we need to be thinking about neighbors, like the many small Caribbean islands who have no production capacity domestically that would be totally reliant on retail supplies.”
The reason air freight manifests are treated differently than sea cargo goes back several decades to the boom in air shipping that began in the 1980s. Since the Tariff Act of 1930, the federal government has collected vessel manifest data, largely for tariff purposes.
During a revamp of the trade regulations in 1984, the airline industry defeated attempts to require public disclosure of manifest information. But pressure from a range of industries concerned with widespread counterfeiting led to reforms with the passage of the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act of 1996.
During congressional debate over the legislation, then-Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, backed a provision of the bill equalizing the public inspection of sea vessel and air freight cargo disclosures.
“This disclosure of air manifest data and trademark information will be of invaluable assistance in identifying counterfeit merchandise and the location of counterfeiters,” wrote David Biehn, then vice president of Eastman Kodak, in a letter backing the shift.
The ACPA was signed into law on July 2, 1996 and included a provision clearly mandating the public disclosure of aircraft manifests. But as soon as the bill became law, airline industry lobbyists raised objections.
The Air Transport Association of America — a lobby group now known as Airlines for America that represents the airline industry, including United Airlines, American Airlines, and FedEx — pushed back.
“No other party needs to know — despite the fact they would like to know.”
“[I]n the interest of cargo security and confidentiality of business data,” ATA claimed in a letter to then-Sen. William Roth, R-Del., “that air cargo manifests remain immune to publication of any form.”
Subsequent arguments were more blunt. One air freight industry lobbyist later told reporters that the industry supplies manifest data to CBP because they require the information. “No other party needs to know — despite the fact they would like to know.”
In a technical correction bill passed in October 1996 with little debate, a provision was added to attempt to delete the previous air freight disclosure requirement in the ACPA.
But the legislative text amended the wrong bill, leading to awkward phrasing left in the federal statute. The current Tariff Act, which has gone through nearly a century of revisions, currently contains a typo, with the phrase “vessel vessel” because of the incorrect legislative text of the October revision.
The federal government has since refused disclosure of air freight manifests, citing the legislative intent of the technical correction bill.
Sharon Yamen, an associate professor at Western Connecticut State University who has studied the issue and currently serves as counsel to the Panjiva-ImportGenius lawsuit, told The Intercept that a plain reading of the law still shows that air freight manifests must be disclosed.
“They amended off the original language and not the amended language from July,” said Yamen. “If you look at the actual statute itself, there is a footnote noting that it was amending incorrectly.”
The original argument by the airline industry, that disclosure of air freight manifests requires a higher level of scrutiny, she added, “falls flat.” Companies also maintain the right to seek exemptions to disclosure for a variety of national security and trade secret purposes.
“Ultimately the reason they gave for the October amendment was because someone stated it was in the interest of security which was a false argument because our waterborne shipping ports are less secure than our airports,” Yamen said. “Anything can come in on a shipping container.”
Yamen argued that there is little reason not to treat air cargo any differently than sea vessels. “This information should be available.”


theintercept--2020-07-01--The Trump Administration Is Waiving the Public’s Right to Affordable Coronavirus Treatments

has failed to include intellectual property and pricing protections in at least four contracts for drugs to combat Covid-19 .
Legal safeguards meant to ensure that products developed with federal funds are affordable and widely available were missing from the contracts , which are worth more than $ 1 billion and were released along with other documents last week in response to freedom of information requests .
The omissions make it more likely that potentially lifesaving treatments and vaccines may be priced out of reach , even as the spiraling financial and health crises increase the need for affordable drugs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed with government funding are available to the public “ on reasonable terms.
” But the four agreements for Covid-19-related products — three of which were made by a division of the Department of Health and Human Services known as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , or BARDA , and one of which was made with the Department of Defense — notably omitted the phrase “ on reasonable terms.
” The government contracts with pharmaceutical companies Janssen , Regeneron , Genentech , and Ology Bioservices also limit the government ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Covid-19 , even though they are using taxpayer dollars to do so .
The details of the contracts , which were released to the nonprofit advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International , come as another pharmaceutical company , Gilead Sciences , announced pricing for its Covid-19 therapy , remdesivir .
That drug , which was developed with at least $ 79 million in federal funding , will cost private insurers $ 520 for a single vial , hundreds of times its production cost , which researchers at the University of Liverpool have estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an open letter on pricing released Monday , Gilead chair and CEO Daniel O ’ Day said that “ we approached this with the aim of helping as many patients as possible , as quickly as possible and in the most responsible way ” and noted that in “ normal circumstances , ” the company would set the price according to the value a drug provides .
Based on a study that shows that the hospital stays of patients who take remdesivir are four days shorter on average than those who didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that value to be $ 12,000 .
But , given its low production cost , Gilead could profit from remdesivir even if it was priced at just $ 1 a day , according to an analysis by Public Citizen .
Instead the drug , which was rolled out with the help of the Trump administration , will cost insurers between $ 3,120 for a five-day course of treatment and $ 5,720 for a 10-day course .
Public Citizen immediately declared the pricing “ offensive.
” “ It ’ s outrageous , ” said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ works for the consumer advocacy group .
“ Even during a pandemic , the pharmaceutical industry can ’ t help but price gouge.
” Rizvi said that the price may affect who gets the therapy — and hit the uninsured hardest .
“ Some patients may choose to skip their care , ” he said .
“ Others may be on the hook for thousands of dollars.
” Hospitals may also be hesitant to use the drug because of its price .
Watchdog groups pointed to Gilead ’ s announcement as an illustration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies ’ control over the pricing of their products .
“ This is exactly why policymakers shouldn ’ t leave it up to the drug companies to unilaterally set prices on drugs that wouldn ’ t exist without taxpayer support , ” said Eli Zupnick , a spokesperson for the advocacy group Patients Over Pharma .
Yet the newly released contracts show that that during the pandemic , some government agencies are allowing pharmaceutical companies even greater than usual leeway on the pricing of drugs .
Of five contracts for Covid-19-related products that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include the pricing and patent protections .
And there are likely other agreements that give away the public ’ s legal rights to limit drug costs .
BARDA was given $ 3.5 billion to spend on medical countermeasures to Covid-19 under the CARES Act and has entered into at least 20 agreements with companies to work on products to fight the virus .
( The Intercept submitted a FOIA request for many of BARDA ’ s other contracts in April but has not received any documents . )
BARDA did not respond to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices were causing bankruptcies and deaths in the United States well before the pandemic hit .
Now , even as the number of coronavirus infections has topped 2.5 million and tens of millions of people have lost their jobs , the pharmaceutical industry seems even less likely to release its stranglehold on pricing .
Bipartisan legislation that would address the crisis has stalled in the Senate because Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , who has received more than $ 1.6 million in contributions from pharmaceutical and health products companies , has refused to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who declared in 2018 that reducing the cost of prescription drugs was one of his “ biggest priorities , ” has done nothing to advance the bill .
Instead , his administration is now in the midst of its latest attempt to repeal Obamacare , which could cause millions of Americans to lose their access to drugs along with the other benefits of health insurance .
According to a 1980 law known as the Bayh-Dole Act , contracts for inventions that stem from federally funded research give the government the right to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ license for a product it helped invent if the company doesn ’ t make it available at a reasonable price or if taking over the license “ is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs.
” The law also gives the government a nonexclusive , irrevocable right to practice an invention it helps create without paying royalties .
But agencies can skirt these requirements by using an alternate contracting model known as Other Transactions Authority agreements , or OTAs .
Originally used only in a narrow range of circumstances , OTAs , first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly common in some federal agencies , including HHS and the Department of Defense , even before the pandemic .
After the virus hit , both agencies were given expanded ability to use the agreements .
BARDA issued its first OTA in 2013 and has been expanding old OTAs and issuing new ones for Covid-19-related products .
Proponents of the agreements argue that they ’ re necessary to entice companies that might not want to comply with the significant requirements of traditional federal contracts to work with government .
But they also strip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 drugs accessible to all .
An agreement that Genentech , a subsidiary of Roche Pharmaceuticals , struck with BARDA for the development of a potential Covid-19 treatment called tocilizumab doesn ’ t give the government the right to march in and take over the patent , and also specifies that the government does not have the royalty-free right to use the invention , which leaves it with little recourse if the company doesn ’ t set a fair price for the drug .
“ There ’ s no limit on what Roche @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said James Love , director of Knowledge Ecology International .
“ But even if the government wasn ’ t happy with the Roche price and wanted to use the royalty free license to get a company to make a generic version of it , they couldn ’ t do it.
” BARDA ’ s agreement with Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen for a coronavirus vaccine also leaves the government unable to use the product it funded without paying royalties , which could cut into the its ability to ensure an adequate supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Johnson & Johnson can ’ t make enough of its vaccine to go around ?
” asked Love .
“ Then the government won ’ t be able to use its right to allow someone else to make it so we have a greater supply and make it faster.
” The tipping of power away from the federal government and toward the pharmaceutical and biotech companies contracting with it is happening even as the dollar amounts of the contracts reach record highs .
Genentech ’ s OTA with BARDA has an upper limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s agreements for both its vaccine and treatments for Covid-19 are worth more than $ 900 million .
And Regeneron will receive up to $ 305 million from the work on antibody treatments for Covid-19 .
“ These are staggering sums of money , ” said Love .
“ You ’ d think as the amount of dollars go up , the terms for the government would get better , not worse .
”

The federal government has failed to include intellectual property and pricing protections in at least four contracts for drugs to combat Covid-19. Legal safeguards meant to ensure that products developed with federal funds are affordable and widely available were missing from the contracts, which are worth more than $1 billion and were released along with other documents last week in response to freedom of information requests. The omissions make it more likely that potentially lifesaving treatments and vaccines may be priced out of reach, even as the spiraling financial and health crises increase the need for affordable drugs.
Standard federal contracts ensure that inventions developed with government funding are available to the public “on reasonable terms.” But the four agreements for Covid-19-related products — three of which were made by a division of the Department of Health and Human Services known as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, and one of which was made with the Department of Defense — notably omitted the phrase “on reasonable terms.” The government contracts with pharmaceutical companies Janssen, Regeneron, Genentech, and Ology Bioservices also limit the government’s patent rights to the products being developed for Covid-19, even though they are using taxpayer dollars to do so.
The details of the contracts, which were released to the nonprofit advocacy group Knowledge Ecology International, come as another pharmaceutical company, Gilead Sciences, announced pricing for its Covid-19 therapy, remdesivir. That drug, which was developed with at least $79 million in federal funding, will cost private insurers $520 for a single vial, hundreds of times its production cost, which researchers at the University of Liverpool have estimated at 93 cents per dose.
In an open letter on pricing released Monday, Gilead chair and CEO Daniel O’Day said that “we approached this with the aim of helping as many patients as possible, as quickly as possible and in the most responsible way” and noted that in “normal circumstances,” the company would set the price according to the value a drug provides. Based on a study that shows that the hospital stays of patients who take remdesivir are four days shorter on average than those who didn’t take the drug, Gilead estimated that value to be $12,000.
But, given its low production cost, Gilead could profit from remdesivir even if it was priced at just $1 a day, according to an analysis by Public Citizen. Instead the drug, which was rolled out with the help of the Trump administration, will cost insurers between $3,120 for a five-day course of treatment and $5,720 for a 10-day course.
Public Citizen immediately declared the pricing “offensive.” “It’s outrageous,” said Zain Rizvi, a drug-pricing expert who works for the consumer advocacy group. “Even during a pandemic, the pharmaceutical industry can’t help but price gouge.” Rizvi said that the price may affect who gets the therapy — and hit the uninsured hardest. “Some patients may choose to skip their care,” he said. “Others may be on the hook for thousands of dollars.” Hospitals may also be hesitant to use the drug because of its price.
“Even during a pandemic, the pharmaceutical industry can’t help but price gouge.”
Watchdog groups pointed to Gilead’s announcement as an illustration of the need to reign in pharmaceutical companies’ control over the pricing of their products. “This is exactly why policymakers shouldn’t leave it up to the drug companies to unilaterally set prices on drugs that wouldn’t exist without taxpayer support,” said Eli Zupnick, a spokesperson for the advocacy group Patients Over Pharma.
Yet the newly released contracts show that that during the pandemic, some government agencies are allowing pharmaceutical companies even greater than usual leeway on the pricing of drugs. Of five contracts for Covid-19-related products that BARDA released, four didn’t include the pricing and patent protections. And there are likely other agreements that give away the public’s legal rights to limit drug costs. BARDA was given $3.5 billion to spend on medical countermeasures to Covid-19 under the CARES Act and has entered into at least 20 agreements with companies to work on products to fight the virus. (The Intercept submitted a FOIA request for many of BARDA’s other contracts in April but has not received any documents.)
BARDA did not respond to a request for comment.
Exorbitant drug prices were causing bankruptcies and deaths in the United States well before the pandemic hit. Now, even as the number of coronavirus infections has topped 2.5 million and tens of millions of people have lost their jobs, the pharmaceutical industry seems even less likely to release its stranglehold on pricing. Bipartisan legislation that would address the crisis has stalled in the Senate because Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has received more than $1.6 million in contributions from pharmaceutical and health products companies, has refused to bring the bill to vote. Trump, who declared in 2018 that reducing the cost of prescription drugs was one of his “biggest priorities,” has done nothing to advance the bill. Instead, his administration is now in the midst of its latest attempt to repeal Obamacare, which could cause millions of Americans to lose their access to drugs along with the other benefits of health insurance.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
According to a 1980 law known as the Bayh-Dole Act, contracts for inventions that stem from federally funded research give the government the right to “march in” and take over the license for a product it helped invent if the company doesn’t make it available at a reasonable price or if taking over the license “is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs.” The law also gives the government a nonexclusive, irrevocable right to practice an invention it helps create without paying royalties.
But agencies can skirt these requirements by using an alternate contracting model known as Other Transactions Authority agreements, or OTAs. Originally used only in a narrow range of circumstances, OTAs, first introduced in the 1950s, were becoming increasingly common in some federal agencies, including HHS and the Department of Defense, even before the pandemic. After the virus hit, both agencies were given expanded ability to use the agreements. BARDA issued its first OTA in 2013 and has been expanding old OTAs and issuing new ones for Covid-19-related products.
Proponents of the agreements argue that they’re necessary to entice companies that might not want to comply with the significant requirements of traditional federal contracts to work with government. But they also strip the government of tools that could make Covid-19 drugs accessible to all.
An agreement that Genentech, a subsidiary of Roche Pharmaceuticals, struck with BARDA for the development of a potential Covid-19 treatment called tocilizumab doesn’t give the government the right to march in and take over the patent, and also specifies that the government does not have the royalty-free right to use the invention, which leaves it with little recourse if the company doesn’t set a fair price for the drug.
Do you have a coronavirus story you want to share? Email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com or use one of these secure methods to contact a reporter.
“There’s no limit on what Roche can charge Americans under this contract,” said James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International. “But even if the government wasn’t happy with the Roche price and wanted to use the royalty free license to get a company to make a generic version of it, they couldn’t do it.”
BARDA’s agreement with Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Janssen for a coronavirus vaccine also leaves the government unable to use the product it funded without paying royalties, which could cut into the its ability to ensure an adequate supply of the vaccine. “What if Johnson & Johnson can’t make enough of its vaccine to go around?” asked Love. “Then the government won’t be able to use its right to allow someone else to make it so we have a greater supply and make it faster.”
The tipping of power away from the federal government and toward the pharmaceutical and biotech companies contracting with it is happening even as the dollar amounts of the contracts reach record highs. Genentech’s OTA with BARDA has an upper limit of $598 million. Janssen’s agreements for both its vaccine and treatments for Covid-19 are worth more than $900 million. And Regeneron will receive up to $305 million from the work on antibody treatments for Covid-19.
“These are staggering sums of money,” said Love. “You’d think as the amount of dollars go up, the terms for the government would get better, not worse.”