theintercept--2020-12-07--Democratic Backlash to "Defund the Police" Jeopardizes Popular Reforms

House Democrats call about the November election results , New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell said he had been forced to “ walk the plank ” on the issue of qualified immunity , according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation .
Pascrell had voted for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act , which was passed by the House in June and included a provision to limit the use of qualified immunity , a legal doctrine that effectively shields law enforcement from liability in civil cases where individuals allege violation of their constitutional rights .
Pascrell ’ s comment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , was part of a wider discussion in which several members complained that bending to calls for police reform had hurt them .
Some members specifically blamed activists ’ demand to “ defund the police ” for the disappointing election results ; Democrats were expected to expand their majority but instead Republicans have flipped more than a dozen House seats .
One result of conflating “ defund the police ” with modest police reforms that have broad bipartisan support , like ending or limiting qualified immunity , is that those modest reforms are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told The Intercept , requesting anonymity to speak freely .
“ Even without the defund debate , I know there are some moderate members who think that the George Floyd Act was a political liability and who may be loath to vote on it again next year if it ’ s DOA ” — dead on arrival — “ in the Senate , ” one Democratic aide told The Intercept .
“ In the infamous Dem Caucus call , Bill Pascrell said that he was forced to ‘ walk the plank ’ on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the police unions in his district .
So , there surely is some segment of the Dem Caucus that feels that way.
” Asked about the conversation , Pascrell told The Intercept that the need for the “ landmark changes ” in the Justice in Policing Act “ remains urgent , but we must adequately explain to the voters and nation the nature of these reforms .
It is what I did in my district .
And while not every organization was behind me , I was re-elected with more votes than ever @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The state ’ s largest police union , the New Jersey State Policemen ’ s Benevolent Association , withdrew its endorsement of Pascrell this summer over his vote for the bill .
As of June , Pascrell was the largest recipient of police union money in Congress , OpenSecrets reported .
“ This childish ‘ defund ’ whining has killed robust reform , ” another Democratic congressional aide told The Intercept .
“ All the people that marched in July and that were so moved by George Floyd , they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ And it ’ s like , this is why Black people don ’ t trust people in the movement in the first place.
” House Democrats , who will have a slimmer majority next session , plan to reintroduce the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act , which would bar local police and federal officers from using qualified immunity as a defense .
It was passed by the House in late June , with support from moderate Democrats like Reps. Abigail Spanberger , Conor Lamb , Max Rose , and Anthony Brindisi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calls to radically reform the police — making it politically difficult to vote again for reforms they supported earlier this session .
Last month , Fox News reported that a Democrat said members were made to “ walk the plank ” on qualified immunity .
“ Having everybody walk the plank on qualified immunity with the cops , ” said their Democratic source .
“ That just hurt a lot of members .
No one ’ s taking responsibility for it.
” There is broad support across the ideological spectrum for narrowing qualified @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups like the Cato Institute and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity , and even some law enforcement advocacy groups want to narrow the doctrine , which they say affords a level of immunity not given in any other profession .
“ Folks that are in my movement see qualified immunity as the lowest hanging fruit , being able to hold police accountable for violating people ’ s civil rights , ” said David Pringle , policy and campaign organizer at the Center for Popular Democracy .
The nonprofit progressive advocacy group supported the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not endorse it , saying it didn ’ t go far enough in pursuit of more transformational changes they want to see .
“ If folks are saying now that they ’ re being made to walk the plank on qualified immunity , and yet would vote for the Justice in Policing Act , that makes me call into question the impetus : What was getting folks to actually get behind that bill over the summer as opposed to now ?
” The bill was fueled by protests against police brutality this summer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government to ban law enforcement officers from using chokeholds , limiting transfer of military equipment to law enforcement , and requiring federal officers to use body cameras ; the bill would also establish a national registry to track records of police misconduct and ban no-knock warrants in drug cases .
The bill would not defund the police , which Congress does not have the power to do .
But moderate Democrats are still scapegoating the idea anyway and blaming the underlying goals of the Justice in Policing bill for putting them in difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ defund.
’ You keep whining and saying that that ’ s the reason you lost .
Maybe you lost because we haven ’ t passed anything since the CARES package , ” one of the Democratic aides said .
Beyond that , police budgets are administered at the local , not congressional level , they added .
Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley , a member of the progressive Squad , was a major proponent of the bill and intends to keep pushing policies to reform policing .
“ These policies , they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ In terms of my approach , I feel more emboldened .
There is a reckoning , and the movement of the most marginalized — many of them fueled by issue-based activism like police reform and accountability — made this Democratic victory possible , ” she said , referring to Joe Biden ’ s election victory .
“ We should not be taking the bait about this being something that is third-rail or polarizing .
These are really just contrived narratives that are pushed as some sort of intimidation and scare tactic.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , introduced a bipartisan bill in early June to completely eliminate qualified immunity , including for state and local officials .
They introduced the same measure as an amendment to the Justice in Policing Act .
It was rejected , but Pressley lobbied successfully to strengthen the bill ’ s final language on qualified immunity , which included federal officers .
She ’ s planning to reintroduce the qualified immunity bill next year , she told The Intercept , along with the broader umbrella of the People ’ s Justice Guarantee to demilitarize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal death penalty .
Pressley also plans to renew a resolution she introduced in May with Reps. Ilhan Omar and Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass to condemn police brutality , racial profiling , and excessive use of force .
There has been a broad effort to get the Supreme Court to do away with qualified immunity .
Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union , the Cato Institute , the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund , and conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom backed cases appealing the court to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reuters reported .
The court declined to take up a batch of eight cases involving the doctrine in June , with even conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting in a case petitioned by the ACLU .
Thomas said he continued “ to have strong doubts ” about the application of the doctrine , and that there “ may be no justification for a one-size-fits-all , subjective immunity based on good faith.
” Last month , the court ruled that qualified immunity could not be applied in a case brought by a man in prison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in two cells filled with feces .
Two groups of former and current law enforcement officers asked Congress this summer to end qualified immunity as it currently stands .
Testifying to the House Judiciary Committee in June , former DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services director and retired East Palo Alto police chief Ronald Davis , who now chairs the legislative committee for the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives , called on Congress to end qualified immunity .
The Law Enforcement Action Partnership , or LEAP , a nonprofit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal justice and drug policy , also issued recommendations that same month pushing Congress to pass a law “ to ensure that the qualified immunity doctrine does not stop officers who break the law from being held legally accountable.
” The case law that has defined qualified immunity over time sets standards for behavior of law enforcement that are far too low , said Brandon del Pozo , the former chief of police for Burlington , Vermont .
Del Pozo served in the New York City Police Department for 19 years ; he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and is a subject matter expert for LEAP .
He helped edit and signed onto the group ’ s recommendations this summer .
“ The thing about qualified immunity is that it ’ s judge-made law .
It was never legislated , ” del Pozo said .
“ I think there ’ s a sense when you look at the prevailing case law that if the bars are reasonableness and incompetence … the bar for reasonableness has been set way too low and the bar for incompetence has been set way too high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea that civil servants should have protection from frivolous lawsuits , what the case law of qualified immunity has in effect defined as ‘ frivolous ’ is way too low a bar.
” Despite the broad consensus against qualified immunity , the backlash to calls for reform has caused some Republicans to back away from early efforts to address it .
Republican Sen. Mike Braun introduced a bill to reform qualified immunity in June — only to pull it back the next month following an interview with Fox News ’ s Tucker Carlson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ released a statement on July 1 blaming Democrats for blocking attempts at police reform and saying he would not push the bill without further input from law enforcement .
His office did not respond to a request for comment .
Qualified immunity is one area where the federal government could impact policing — and banning or limiting it would have immediate , widespread impact — but most other reforms would have to happen on the state and local level .
That ’ s another piece of the puzzle that makes congressional hand-wringing over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus .
In June , Colorado passed a bill ending qualified immunity .
The idea that conversations on police reform are too toxic for either party to touch is confined to a small group of people , said Colorado State Rep. Leslie Herod , who wrote the bill .
“ This is , quite frankly , only polarizing inside of those circles — legislative circles and policing circles , ” said Herod , whose father is a retired federal corrections officer .
“ But when you go outside of that , you find @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although the conversation has become polarized , she added , 70 percent of Coloradans support her bill and additional reforms , including the measure ending qualified immunity .
“ And that is after all of the divisiveness rose to the top .
I think that people are making this more divisive than it needs to be , and more divisive than it really is .
It is a common value that the police are in our communities to serve and to protect .
And when they break that oath , and they don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do harm , they should be held to account .
”

During a now-infamous House Democrats call about the November election results, New Jersey Rep. Bill Pascrell said he had been forced to “walk the plank” on the issue of qualified immunity, according to two sources with knowledge of the conversation. Pascrell had voted for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which was passed by the House in June and included a provision to limit the use of qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that effectively shields law enforcement from liability in civil cases where individuals allege violation of their constitutional rights.
Pascrell’s comment, which has not previously been reported, was part of a wider discussion in which several members complained that bending to calls for police reform had hurt them. Some members specifically blamed activists’ demand to “defund the police” for the disappointing election results; Democrats were expected to expand their majority but instead Republicans have flipped more than a dozen House seats.
One result of conflating “defund the police” with modest police reforms that have broad bipartisan support, like ending or limiting qualified immunity, is that those modest reforms are now in jeopardy, several Democratic aides told The Intercept, requesting anonymity to speak freely.
“Even without the defund debate, I know there are some moderate members who think that the George Floyd Act was a political liability and who may be loath to vote on it again next year if it’s DOA” — dead on arrival — “in the Senate,” one Democratic aide told The Intercept. “In the infamous Dem Caucus call, Bill Pascrell said that he was forced to ‘walk the plank’ on qualified immunity and that it pissed off the police unions in his district. So, there surely is some segment of the Dem Caucus that feels that way.”
Asked about the conversation, Pascrell told The Intercept that the need for the “landmark changes” in the Justice in Policing Act “remains urgent, but we must adequately explain to the voters and nation the nature of these reforms. It is what I did in my district. And while not every organization was behind me, I was re-elected with more votes than ever before. Not everyone was as successful.”
The state’s largest police union, the New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, withdrew its endorsement of Pascrell this summer over his vote for the bill. As of June, Pascrell was the largest recipient of police union money in Congress, OpenSecrets reported.
“This childish ‘defund’ whining has killed robust reform,” another Democratic congressional aide told The Intercept. “All the people that marched in July and that were so moved by George Floyd, they’ve now shifted their ire toward ‘defund.’ And it’s like, this is why Black people don’t trust people in the movement in the first place.”
Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket/Getty Images
House Democrats, who will have a slimmer majority next session, plan to reintroduce the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, which would bar local police and federal officers from using qualified immunity as a defense. It was passed by the House in late June, with support from moderate Democrats like Reps. Abigail Spanberger, Conor Lamb, Max Rose, and Anthony Brindisi, who are now vocally arguing against calls to radically reform the police — making it politically difficult to vote again for reforms they supported earlier this session.
Last month, a Democrat told Fox News that members were made to “walk the plank” on qualified immunity. “Having everybody walk the plank on qualified immunity with the cops,” said their Democratic source. “That just hurt a lot of members. No one’s taking responsibility for it.”
There is broad support across the ideological spectrum for narrowing qualified immunity as it currently stands. Libertarian groups like the Cato Institute and the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, and even some law enforcement advocacy groups want to narrow the doctrine, which they say affords a level of immunity not given in any other profession.
“Folks that are in my movement see qualified immunity as the lowest hanging fruit, being able to hold police accountable for violating people’s civil rights,” said Dave Pringle, policy and campaign manager at the Center for Popular Democracy. The nonprofit progressive advocacy group supported the bill’s underlying aims but did not endorse it, saying it didn’t go far enough in pursuit of more transformational changes they want to see.
“If folks are saying now that they’re being made to walk the plank on qualified immunity, and yet would vote for the Justice in Policing Act, that makes me call into question the impetus: What was getting folks to actually get behind that bill over the summer as opposed to now?”
Rep. Ayanna Pressley listens during a news conference unveiling policing reform and equal justice legislation at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on June 8, 2020. Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images
The bill was fueled by protests against police brutality this summer. It included incentivizing state and local government to ban law enforcement officers from using chokeholds, limiting transfer of military equipment to law enforcement, and requiring federal officers to use body cameras; the bill would also establish a national registry to track records of police misconduct and ban no-knock warrants in drug cases.
The bill would not defund the police, which Congress does not have the power to do. But moderate Democrats are still scapegoating the idea anyway and blaming the underlying goals of the Justice in Policing bill for putting them in difficult positions.
“You keep bringing up ‘defund.’ You keep whining and saying that that’s the reason you lost. Maybe you lost because we haven’t passed anything since the CARES package,” one of the Democratic aides said. Beyond that, police budgets are administered at the local, not congressional level, they added.
“We should not be taking the bait about this being something that is third-rail or polarizing.”
Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley, a member of the progressive Squad, was a major proponent of the bill and intends to keep pushing policies to reform policing. “These policies, they’re populist,” Pressley said. “In terms of my approach, I feel more emboldened. There is a reckoning, and the movement of the most marginalized — many of them fueled by issue-based activism like police reform and accountability — made this Democratic victory possible,” she said, referring to Joe Biden’s election victory. “We should not be taking the bait about this being something that is third-rail or polarizing. These are really just contrived narratives that are pushed as some sort of intimidation and scare tactic.”
Pressley and Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich., introduced a bipartisan bill in early June to completely eliminate qualified immunity, including for state and local officials. They introduced the same measure as an amendment to the Justice in Policing Act. It was rejected, but Pressley lobbied successfully to strengthen the bill’s final language on qualified immunity, which included federal officers.
She’s planning to reintroduce the qualified immunity bill next year, she told The Intercept, along with the broader umbrella of the People’s Justice Guarantee to demilitarize police, redirect funding, and end the federal death penalty. Pressley also plans to renew a resolution she introduced in May with Reps. Ilhan Omar and Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass to condemn police brutality, racial profiling, and excessive use of force.
There has been a broad effort to get the Supreme Court to do away with qualified immunity. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Cato Institute, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom backed cases appealing the court to address qualified immunity in some way, Reuters reported.
The court declined to take up a batch of eight cases involving the doctrine in June, with even conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting in a case petitioned by the ACLU. Thomas said he continued “to have strong doubts” about the application of the doctrine, and that there “may be no justification for a one-size-fits-all, subjective immunity based on good faith.” Last month, the court ruled that qualified immunity could not be applied in a case brought by a man in prison against guards who allegedly confined him naked in two cells filled with feces.
“The bar for reasonableness has been set way too low and the bar for incompetence has been set way too high.”
Two groups of former and current law enforcement officers asked Congress this summer to end qualified immunity as it currently stands. Testifying to the House Judiciary Committee in June, former DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing Services director and retired East Palo Alto police chief Ronald Davis, who now chairs the legislative committee for the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, called on Congress to end qualified immunity. The Law Enforcement Action Partnership, or LEAP, a nonprofit of law enforcement officials pushing for reforms to criminal justice and drug policy, also issued recommendations that same month pushing Congress to pass a law “to ensure that the qualified immunity doctrine does not stop officers who break the law from being held legally accountable.”
The case law that has defined qualified immunity over time sets standards for behavior of law enforcement that are far too low, said Brandon del Pozo, the former chief of police for Burlington, Vermont. Del Pozo served in the New York City Police Department for 19 years; he now studies drug policy and public health and is a subject matter expert for LEAP. He helped edit and signed onto the group’s recommendations this summer. “The thing about qualified immunity is that it’s judge-made law. It was never legislated,” del Pozo said. “I think there’s a sense when you look at the prevailing case law that if the bars are reasonableness and incompetence … the bar for reasonableness has been set way too low and the bar for incompetence has been set way too high. Even if we believe in the idea that civil servants should have protection from frivolous lawsuits, what the case law of qualified immunity has in effect defined as ‘frivolous’ is way too low a bar.”
Photo: Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Despite the broad consensus against qualified immunity, the backlash to calls for reform has caused some Republicans to back away from early efforts to address it. Republican Sen. Mike Braun introduced a bill to reform qualified immunity in June — only to pull it back the next month following an interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson and pushback from police unions. Braun released a statement on July 1 blaming Democrats for blocking attempts at police reform and saying he would not push the bill without further input from law enforcement. His office did not respond to a request for comment.
Qualified immunity is one area where the federal government could impact policing — and banning or limiting it would have immediate, widespread impact — but most other reforms would have to happen on the state and local level. That’s another piece of the puzzle that makes congressional hand-wringing over defunding the police so frustrating for the caucus.
In June, Colorado passed a bill ending qualified immunity. The idea that conversations on police reform are too toxic for either party to touch is confined to a small group of people, said Colorado State Rep. Leslie Herod, who wrote the bill. “This is, quite frankly, only polarizing inside of those circles — legislative circles and policing circles,” said Herod, whose father is a retired federal corrections officer. “But when you go outside of that, you find that there is broad based support.”
Although the conversation has become polarized, she added, 70 percent of Coloradans support her bill and additional reforms, including the measure ending qualified immunity. “And that is after all of the divisiveness rose to the top. I think that people are making this more divisive than it needs to be, and more divisive than it really is. It is a common value that the police are in our communities to serve and to protect. And when they break that oath, and they don’t serve and protect but instead do harm, they should be held to account. ”


theintercept--2020-12-07--PFAS Chemical Associated With Severe Covid-19

a PFAS compound were associated with more severe forms of Covid-19 , according to a Danish study now undergoing peer review .
The research , which involved 323 patients infected with the coronavirus , found that those who had elevated levels of a chemical called PFBA were more than twice as likely to have a severe form of the disease .
PFBA is one of a class of industrial compounds , often called “ forever chemicals , ” that has come to contaminate soil , water , and food around the world .
It has been presented as relatively safe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much less time than some of the other compounds in the class and is a shorter molecule .
Both traits are thought to be indications of its innocuousness .
PFBA , which was created by 3M , is based on a four-carbon chain and is gone from human blood in a matter of days .
It is still in use , while PFOA , which is based on eight carbons and stays in the human blood for years , has been phased out since 2015 .
Though PFBA exits the bloodstream relatively rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which likely explains the finding of the Danish study .
“ It ’ s probably what ’ s in the lungs that counts because that ’ s where the big Covid battle is fought , ” said Philippe Grandjean , the principal author of the study .
Grandjean ’ s study involved 323 patients with Covid-19 , 215 of whom were hospitalized .
The researchers analyzed the blood of these patients for the presence of five PFAS compounds and found that only perfluorobutanoic acid , or PFBA , was associated with the severity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those seriously ill with Covid-19 had elevated PFBA levels in their plasma , while less than 20 percent of those with mild illness had elevated levels of the chemical .
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not include PFBA in its surveillance of the blood levels of various PFAS compounds .
But it is clear that the chemical is both widespread and particularly elevated in certain areas .
Research conducted by 3M in 2005 showed that 20 of 36 pooled blood samples from the general population contained PFBA .
More @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health shows that levels of the compound are elevated in the East Bay area near a 3M plant in the suburbs of Minneapolis–St .
Paul .
The chemical has also been found in other parts of the world , including Vietnam , Jordan , Thailand , and Japan .
PFBA was also found in the Tennessee River near a 3M plant in Decatur , Alabama , and near a 3M plant in Cordova , Illinois .
And it has been found in food , including radish , peas , tomatoes , and lettuce @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clothing , including water-resistent outerwear ; protective gear for medical staff and firefighters , such as surgical gowns ; firefighting foam ; carpets ; floor polish ; laboratory equipment ; leather treatment ; food packaging ; cosmetics , including body lotion and foundation , concealer , eye shadow , powder ; and bike lubricants , according to a recently published paper on the previously unknown uses of the chemicals .
According to the Minnesota Department of Health , which has set a safety limit for the chemical , PFBA causes changes in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decreased red blood cells , decreased cholesterol , and delayed eye opening in animal experiments .
A division of the Environmental Protection Agency called the Integrated Risk Information System , or IRIS , is in the process of assessing the dangers of PFBA and is scheduled to release its report in the first quarter of the coming year .
Asked for comment , 3M referred The Intercept to a statement on its website asserting that “ the available scientific evidence does not support a causal relationship between PFAS exposures and COVID-19 health outcomes.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ shown that higher PFAS levels in children correlated to weaker response to various vaccines — and he fears the same will be true for a Covid-19 vaccine .
“ I would think what we ’ ve seen before is very likely to happen again , ” he said about the vaccines now in development for Covid-19 .
Communities that have elevated levels due to industrial contamination should get special consideration when a vaccine is distributed , he said .
“ They may need more than the 1 or 2 shots recommended for everyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suppressed.
” This article has been updated with a response from 3M that was received after publication .

Elevated levels of a PFAS compound were associated with more severe forms of Covid-19, according to a Danish study now undergoing peer review. The research, which involved 323 patients infected with the coronavirus, found that those who had elevated levels of a chemical called PFBA were more than twice as likely to have a severe form of the disease.
PFBA is one of a class of industrial compounds, often called “forever chemicals,” that has come to contaminate soil, water, and food around the world. It has been presented as relatively safe because it stays in human blood for much less time than some of the other compounds in the class and is a shorter molecule. Both traits are thought to be indications of its innocuousness. PFBA, which was created by 3M, is based on a four-carbon chain and is gone from human blood in a matter of days. It is still in use, while PFOA, which is based on eight carbons and stays in the human blood for years, has been phased out since 2015.
Read our complete coverage Bad Chemistry
Though PFBA exits the bloodstream relatively rapidly, it accumulates in the lungs, which likely explains the finding of the Danish study. “It’s probably what’s in the lungs that counts because that’s where the big Covid battle is fought,” said Philippe Grandjean, the principal author of the study. Grandjean’s study involved 323 patients with Covid-19, 215 of whom were hospitalized. The researchers analyzed the blood of these patients for the presence of five PFAS compounds and found that only perfluorobutanoic acid, or PFBA, was associated with the severity of the disease. More than half of those seriously ill with Covid-19 had elevated PFBA levels in their plasma, while less than 20 percent of those with mild illness had elevated levels of the chemical.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not include PFBA in its surveillance of the blood levels of various PFAS compounds. But it is clear that the chemical is both widespread and particularly elevated in certain areas. Research conducted by 3M in 2005 showed that 20 of 36 pooled blood samples from the general population contained PFBA. More recent research from the Minnesota Department of Health shows that levels of the compound are elevated in the East Metro area near a 3M plant in the suburbs of Minneapolis–St. Paul. The chemical has also been found in other parts of the world, including Vietnam, Jordan, Thailand, and Japan. PFBA was also found in the Tennessee River near a 3M plant in Decatur, Alabama, and near a 3M plant in Cordova, Illinois. And it has been found in food, including radish, peas, tomatoes, and lettuce.
PFBA is used in electronics; clothing, including water-resistent outerwear; protective gear for medical staff and firefighters, such as surgical gowns; firefighting foam; carpets; floor polish; laboratory equipment; leather treatment; food packaging; cosmetics, including body lotion and foundation, concealer, eye shadow, powder; and bike lubricants, according to a recently published paper on the previously unknown uses of the chemicals.
According to the Minnesota Department of Health, which has set a safety limit for the chemical, PFBA causes changes in the liver and thyroid, as well as decreased red blood cells, decreased cholesterol, and delayed eye opening in animal experiments. A division of the Environmental Protection Agency called the Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, is in the process of assessing the dangers of PFBA and is scheduled to release its report in the first quarter of the coming year. Asked for comment, 3M referred The Intercept to a statement on its website asserting that “the available scientific evidence does not support a causal relationship between PFAS exposures and COVID-19 health outcomes.”
Grandjean’s previous research has shown that higher PFAS levels in children correlated to weaker response to various vaccines — and he fears the same will be true for a Covid-19 vaccine.
“I would think what we’ve seen before is very likely to happen again,” he said about the vaccines now in development for Covid-19. Communities that have elevated levels due to industrial contamination should get special consideration when a vaccine is distributed, he said. “They may need more than the 1 or 2 shots recommended for everyone else because their antibody production may be suppressed.”
Update: December 7, 2020
This article has been updated with a response from 3M that was received after publication.


theintercept--2020-12-08--The Coronavirus Pandemic Has Exposed the Absurdities of New York’s Parole System

been back in New York City for two years , after serving a 17-year sentence for robbery at an upstate prison , when the coronavirus pandemic struck .
His only daughter died of the virus in the spring , and at 64 and with a host of medical conditions , including HIV , Hilton feared for his health at the homeless shelter where his parole officer had ordered him to stay .
“ The shelter is the last place I need to be , ” he told me in an interview .
“ Guys are very irresponsible in those types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wear masks and none of that.
” So Hilton found a room elsewhere and informed his parole officer of his new address .
A warrant squad arrested him there in September for violating the conditions of his parole .
It was Hilton ’ s third violation : Each time , he was accused of refusing to stay at a shelter , even though each time he had alerted his parole officer to his change of address .
The officer told Hilton that he could only move to a residence the officer had approved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not sufficient .
“ I wasn ’ t violent , I wasn ’ t committing no crime , ” Hilton told me .
“ They came and got me where I was staying .
I wasn ’ t running from him.
” Hilton spent the next month at Rikers Island , one of 7,295 people to face arrest over a parole violation from January to October of this year , according to figures from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision , which runs both New York state ’ s prisons and its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what are known as “ technical ” violations , which involve no new allegations of criminality but rather a failure to abide by a sweeping series of restrictions that are imposed on those living under supervision .
People on parole can face a technical violation charge for failing to check in with a parole officer , failing to report a change of address , violating a parole-imposed curfew , or testing positive for alcohol , among other infractions .
“ I violated my parole condition , I ’ m not arguing that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to live in a shelter system where a disproportionate number of New Yorkers have died of Covid-19 .
“ But it ’ s a violation that didn ’ t require me going back to Rikers.
” Rivera , 55 , who was battling depression and addiction , was arrested at his family home in August 2019 , and spent the next eight months at Rikers waiting for his violation charge to be resolved .
His partner of 30 years , who asked not to be named to protect her privacy , still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on for so long .
“ I ’ d ask him , ‘ What ’ s going on ?
’ and he ’ d say , ‘ I have to go to court again , ’ ” she told me .
“ I said , ‘ What ’ s taking so long ?
It shouldn ’ t take so long.
’ But he could only tell me what he could tell me , because he had to wait for his court date .
He said he would have one in October , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and by that time it was March , and then April.
” “ They just kept prolonging it , I really don ’ t know why it took so long , ” Rivera ’ s son , Raymond A. Rivera , told me .
“ He ’ d just say , ‘ That ’ s how the system works , you ’ re running on their time . '
” In the early days of the pandemic , Rivera had complained to his partner that precautions were lax at Rikers .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mouth when they cough , ’ he was telling me things like that , ” she said .
“ Next thing you know , he wasn ’ t feeling well.
” Rivera went to see a nurse about his worsening cold and fever , “ but they thought he was OK , ” his partner said .
When his condition deteriorated , he was moved to the Bellevue Hospital Center , where people who become seriously ill at Rikers are hospitalized .
It was there that his partner , who didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anguish it caused her to see him incarcerated , saw him for the first time since his arrest .
As he got sicker , she took off work and spent days on the phone with lawyers and doctors , who first learned that Rivera had Stage 4 cancer and then told her that he had contracted the coronavirus .
Then on April 3 , parole officials signed off on Rivera ’ s release while he was still at the hospital .
“ All of a sudden , the paperwork came through , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t going to die in there a prisoner.
” Rivera ’ s son went into his room to tell him the news .
“ He just said , ‘ Yeah ?
’ ” his partner recalled .
“ But he was tired , he had to go to sleep.
” He died at 4 a.m. the following morning — “ a free man , ” she said .
Because he had technically been released a few hours earlier , Rikers does not count Rivera ’ s death as having happened in custody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York City Department of Correction , which runs the jail , did not respond to a request for comment .
Connors , the DOCCS spokesperson , said that Rivera ’ s case is still under investigation .
Justice reform advocates , as well as a growing number of parole and probation officials , have denounced the parole system as both costly and harmful , and a proposed bill aiming to reform parole in New York — known as the “ Less Is More Act ” — has sat before state legislators for two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reduce incarceration have prompted backlash from police , prosecutors , and some elected officials , including a bail reform law that was passed and then rolled back earlier this year , there seems to be growing consensus that New York ’ s current parole system just does not make sense .
Dozens of community groups , as well as prosecutors , former corrections officials , and elected leaders — including Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Council — have thrown their support behind the proposed parole reform legislation .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bail reform has caused “ criminal justice fatigue ” in Albany , they hope the growing consensus around parole reform will help move the bill to a vote in the upcoming legislative session .
New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo said in 2018 that “ New York jails and prisons should not be filled with people who may have violated the conditions of their parole , but present no danger to our communities.
” And last month , the top prosecutors in the Bronx , Brooklyn , and Manhattan signed a joint op-ed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the probation and parole systems in New York to be “ substantially downsized , less punitive , and more hopeful , equitable , and restorative.
” “ Community corrections has become an overly burdensome and punitive driver of mass incarceration , ” wrote the prosecutors — Darcel Clark , Eric Gonzalez , and Cy Vance — referring to the supervision of people convicted of crimes outside a correctional setting .
“ Rather than being a rehabilitative alternative to incarceration ( in the case of probation ) or a release mechanism from prison for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parole ) , community corrections too often serves as a tripwire back into incarceration.
” Connors , the DOCCS spokesperson , dismissed growing criticism that New York ’ s parole system is costly and counterproductive as “ opinion , and in no way based in fact.
” She noted that the number of people charged with parole violations has decreased by about 47 percent so far this year , as compared to last year .
This follows an overall downward trend , with parole violation warrants resulting in reincarceration declining by 14 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued 15,696 parole warrants in 2019 , including 4,466 for technical violations ; of this year ’ s 7,295 parole warrants , as of October , 1,108 were for technical violations .
Connors also said that in response to the pandemic , the department began to release low-level technical parole violators from local jails and cancel warrants for people meeting certain criteria , resulting in the early release of 3,449 people .
She said that technical parole violations are not issued after a first infraction but as “ the result of consistent and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parole.
” “ This is simply not true , ” said Laura Eraso , a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society ’ s Parole Revocation Defense Unit , which represents the vast majority of people detained on parole violations in New York City .
Two clients Eraso recently represented received a technical violation at the first infraction , she said , noting that officers ’ propensity to issue a violation can vary widely .
DOCCS does not count as technical violations warrants that were issued for “ absconding , ” which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to maintain contact with one ’ s parole officer .
Absconding is considered a more serious violation than failing to check in with a parole officer , but in practice , critics of the parole system say there is little that distinguishes the two charges , and parole officers have wide discretion when choosing between them .
In 2019 , absconding accounted for 38 percent of parole warrants issued , while technical violations accounted for 28 percent , according to DOCCS figures .
Eraso noted that a significant number of check-ins between parolees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by phone this year because of the pandemic , which means that fewer people have been missing them and are receiving violations for failure to report .
“ Regardless of what DOCCS ’ s numbers show in terms of a decrease in parole violations , ” she added , “ it ’ s still too many.
” Kendra Bradner , director of the Probation and Parole Reform Project at Columbia Justice Lab , said that the decrease in the number of parole violators incarcerated during the pandemic was driven by New York City @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it — an effort consistent with that of other states during the pandemic .
Still , she noted , the decrease did not happen consistently across the state .
“ That ’ s the bare minimum that we should be doing in a global pandemic , not putting people in congregate care settings for noncriminal violations , ” Bradner said .
“ And the fact that there ’ s such a big discrepancy between New York City and the rest of the state is not a good sign for continued engagement in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parole say that the constant threat of reincarceration is a burden that makes adjusting to life outside that much harder , and that rather than support them , the parole system appears to be designed to force their failure .
“ It ’ s causing a big strain on a lot of guys , ” said Shawn Dunn , who was sent back to jail this fall for a technical violation of his parole .
“ The same people that are supposed to be helping you are the ones that are pushing you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s all they do .
All they say is , ‘ If you don ’ t do this , you ’ re going back to jail.
’ ” Dunn said that he had just over a year left on his five-year parole , no police contact since his release , and a job .
But he had received multiple parole violation charges , once for being outside after curfew and two more times because his parole officer wanted him to stay at a shelter and he did not .
When Dunn moved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer objected because of a two-decade-old domestic violence charge .
The shelter , he told me on a call from Rikers , felt like prison .
“ The shelter system is designed just like a corrections system .
The same setup , there ’ s officers in the hallway , it ’ s like you ’ re in a correctional facility all over again , ” he said .
“ It ’ s like it never ends , it ’ s a never-ending cycle.
” Dunn has spent the last three months in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the adjudication process .
“ The correctional system right now is clogged up with guys that are on parole , ” he said .
“ Most of the violations that they are charging people with are nonsense : You failed to report because you didn ’ t get there on time , or they came by and you went to the store and weren ’ t inside the house at 8 o ’ clock .
I am a grown man , 58 years old , but I have to be in the house @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t come out before 8 a.m. What if I have to be at an interview at 8 a.m. ?
If I leave the house before 8 a.m.
I ’ m in violation .
That doesn ’ t make any sense.
” The bureaucratic intransigence of a system ostensibly intended to help people reintegrate into society was also in display in the case of Kareem , a man at Rikers who asked to be identified only by his first name .
Kareem , a father of five young children , was arrested in October @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officer .
At a preliminary hearing , an administrative judge agreed to resolve the charge by ordering Kareem to attend a program by the Fortune Society , an organization that works with formerly incarcerated people .
But on the day Kareem was scheduled to call into his release hearing from Rikers , jail staff failed to take him to a phone booth — something attorneys say happens frequently .
Because Kareem wasn ’ t on the call , the judge rescheduled the hearing to the end of December , six weeks later .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to his release , Kareem had told his children that he would be home by Thanksgiving .
“ They were expecting me to come home this week , ” he told me on a call from Rikers a few days before the holiday .
“ I didn ’ t tell them yet.
” Kareem was set to also spend Christmas at Rikers , but after what Eraso , who represented him , described as “ a ridiculous amount of email harassing ” on her part , the judge moved up Kareem ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ December 1 , two months after his arrest .
It was a rare , belated win , but also an indictment of the arbitrariness and cruelty of the parole system .
Connors said that it is jail staff ’ s responsibility to bring people held at Rikers to their hearings and that it is DOCCS policy to adjourn hearings when that doesn ’ t happen .
DOC did not respond to a request for comment .
“ It ’ s the absurdity of it : How do you tell a person that you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holding you , and yes , the judge said that they would release you , but I ’ m sorry , you couldn ’ t be brought to a phone , so now you have to sit in for six more weeks ?
” said Eraso .
Because of the long process of having a parole violation charge litigated — about 100 days — even the many people who are ultimately released end up spending significant time in jail , endangering their jobs , homes , and relationships and significantly damaging their efforts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences and it ’ s so avoidable , ” said Eraso .
“ You don ’ t need to destroy someone ’ s life to get them back on track .
This shows you in so many ways that DOCCS has no consideration for somebody ’ s successful reintegration — because if they did , they would not put people in this situation.
” “ The only way to describe it is like they have their foot on your neck , they want you to do things their way , ” said Hilton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , just days before his mother ’ s death .
“ I was back on track , but you are already set up to come back to prison , even before you get out.
” The parole system is supposedly intended to provide a transition phase for people who were released from prison after serving the minimum time required by their sentence or those who were sentenced to a period of post-release supervision in addition to their prison time .
But in practice , parole has morphed into a “ back-door ” incarceration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Legal Aid ‘ s Parole Revocation Defense Unit .
“ People ’ s understanding of parole is that this is going to be a service that can help people reacclimate out of incarceration and become stable members of the community and therefore , never fall back into the criminal justice system , ” she said in an interview .
“ Instead what we have is a system that hangs the jail ’ s keys over the person ’ s head.
” Nationwide , there are some 4.4 million people under some form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double the country ’ s incarcerated population , which is already the largest in the world .
The U.S. parole and probation system costs $ 2.8 billion annually , but rather than keeping people from returning to prisons and jails , the system has funneled them back into them at staggering rates .
In 2017 , 1 in every 4 people incarcerated in the country was sent back to prison over a technical violation .
On April 3 , a day before Rivera ’ s death , Legal Aid and the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawsuit against Cuomo and DOCCS , demanding the release of more than 1,000 people held at Rikers on parole violations .
The groups argued that automatically detaining people while they waited for their parole violation hearings was unconstitutional because DOCCS regularly failed to hold a hearing within the required 90 days .
Because of the pandemic , they added , those hearings had been suspended almost completely .
The DOCCS spokesperson declined to comment on the litigation , which is pending , but said that , in 2019 , the average time between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final hearing was 67 days .
Meanwhile , Rikers ’ overall population is once again growing , after a temporary effort to reduce it because of the pandemic , even as the city faces a second wave .
After his death , Rivera ’ s partner and son filed a complaint with Rikers and tried to understand why it had taken months , and his illness , for his charge to be resolved .
“ They did not give us any answers whatsoever , ” said his son .
“ He was doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
… He kept saying , ‘ I ’ m coming home soon . '
” “ For something technical , something like you just missed a date , I ’ m not saying that ’ s not irresponsible , but there should be something less , something not so harsh , ” Rivera ’ s partner said .
“ You can still violate them but just do it in a different way , where they are not just put away and left there without a key , and everyone turns their back.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New York parole system was run by the state ’ s Board of Parole , an administrative body separate from the Department of Corrections .
But under the current system , DOCCS adjudicates parole violations and also oversees incarceration .
That creates “ an institutional resistance from the same agency that locked you up to let you out , ” said McEvilley .
That setup is not unique to New York , yet the high levels of parolee reincarceration indicate that DOCCS is more inclined to resort to incarceration than departments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The department has clearly made the decision that incarceration is an appropriate response to noncriminal activity , ” she said .
“ And other departments have made different choices.
” Unlike in other circumstances in the criminal justice system , like misdemeanor cases , there is little room for flexibility around parole violation adjudication .
People accused of violating the terms of their parole can have warrants issued for their arrest and be detained without bail for an indefinite period of time , even when the violation is merely technical .
At a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one ’ s arrest , a DOCCS officer often rubber-stamps a parole officer ’ s claim of “ probable cause ” that the terms of the parole were violated .
The person then remains in custody until a final hearing can take place , within 90 days , before an administrative law judge , who can decide to revoke the person ’ s parole and sentence them to further incarceration or release them .
“ You are stuck in this rigid and unforgiving sentencing scheme , ” said Eraso .
“ It just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is More Act currently before state legislators would eliminate the use of incarceration for most technical parole violations and cap at 30 days incarceration for more serious violations .
It would allow those accused of violating parole to see a judge upon detention and ask to be released back into the community while awaiting further adjudication .
And those who do end up detained on a violation charge would be entitled to a speedier hearing .
The proposed legislation would also allow people to earn credits off their parole — reducing their time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 days spent without violations , similarly to how incarcerated people can earn time off their sentence for good conduct .
The reforms would transform New York ’ s parole system but merely bring the state in line with what other states are already doing , advocates noted .
“ That ’ s a thing that ’ s been done in deep , deep , deep red states , ” said Bradner , referring to the credits off one ’ s parole time .
She also argued that the reforms must be accompanied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that should be run at the community level , rather than through the parole agency itself .
“ There needs to be investment in actual services and support for folks who are coming home from prison , ” she said .
“ Having a parole officer ask you the same five questions every week is not the answer to make that a less difficult transition.
” The proposed legislation would have made it unlikely for Rivera to end up at Rikers because of his addiction or to remain there for as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family , he had a home , ” his partner said .
“ He was supposed to come home.
” For Kareem , it would have meant spending Thanksgiving with his children , rather than waiting in jail for two months for a release that a judge had already agreed to grant .
“ The way the system is going right now isn ’ t working , ” he told me from Rikers .
“ Everyone ’ s waiting for them to figure it out .
”

Michael Hilton had been back in New York City for two years, after serving a 17-year sentence for robbery at an upstate prison, when the coronavirus pandemic struck. His only daughter died of the virus in the spring, and at 64 and with a host of medical conditions, including HIV, Hilton feared for his health at the homeless shelter where his parole officer had ordered him to stay. “The shelter is the last place I need to be,” he told me in an interview. “Guys are very irresponsible in those types of situations, they don’t wear masks and none of that.”
So Hilton found a room elsewhere and informed his parole officer of his new address. A warrant squad arrested him there in September for violating the conditions of his parole. It was Hilton’s third violation: Each time, he was accused of refusing to stay at a shelter, even though each time he had alerted his parole officer to his change of address. The officer told Hilton that he could only move to a residence the officer had approved — simply announcing a new address was not sufficient. “I wasn’t violent, I wasn’t committing no crime,” Hilton told me. “They came and got me where I was staying. I wasn’t running from him.”
Hilton spent the next month at Rikers Island, one of 7,295 people to face arrest over a parole violation from January to October of this year, according to figures from the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, which runs both New York state’s prisons and its parole system. Many are charged with what are known as “technical” violations, which involve no new allegations of criminality but rather a failure to abide by a sweeping series of restrictions that are imposed on those living under supervision. People on parole can face a technical violation charge for failing to check in with a parole officer, failing to report a change of address, violating a parole-imposed curfew, or testing positive for alcohol, among other infractions. “I violated my parole condition, I’m not arguing that,” Hilton said, defending his choice not to live in a shelter system where a disproportionate number of New Yorkers have died of Covid-19. “But it’s a violation that didn’t require me going back to Rikers.”
Even as New York’s incarcerated population has decreased significantly over the years, along with the number of people reincarcerated because of parole violations, the state has continued to reincarcerate parolees at almost twice the national average, according to an analysis by Columbia University’s Justice Lab. In New York City, hundreds of people have landed at Rikers Island over noncriminal behavior even as the pandemic made the jail, at one point in the spring, one of the largest Covid-19 hot spots in the country. But the coronavirus only exacerbated a broken parole system that has long served as one of the greatest drivers of incarceration in New York state, sending thousands of people back to jails and prisons every year, and setting them back in their efforts to readjust to life after incarceration.
“I violated my parole condition, I’m not arguing that. But it’s a violation that didn’t require me going back to Rikers.”
Rachel Connors, a DOCCS spokesperson, confirmed that parole officers can and do charge with violations individuals who refuse to stay at housing that has been approved by DOCCS, but argued that parole officers try not to place people in shelters until all other options are exhausted.
“The parole revocation process is not one that the Department takes lightly, and to insinuate that parole violations are issued for any other reason than the best interest of both the parolee and the public is an afront [sic] to the hardworking men and women who work to support the successful reentry of individuals under community supervision across New York State,” she wrote in an email. “It is unfortunate that some have chosen to misconstrue and weaponize the parole revocation process to imply that individuals under community supervision are unfairly and unjustly sent back to prison for minor mistakes, forgetfulness, or misunderstandings.”
Photo: Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images
Before the pandemic temporarily reduced admissions to New York City jails, parole violators were the only segment of the population that was increasing, making up about 16 percent of the overall city jail population in 2018. Across the state, some 1,600 people were held in jails on any given day awaiting the resolution of a technical parole violation charge. And the first two people who died last spring after contracting Covid-19 while incarcerated at Rikers were there on technical parole violations. The men — Michael Tyson and Raymond Rivera — had been arrested, respectively, for failing to report to a parole officer and for leaving a residential drug treatment program and not checking in with a parole officer. They contracted the virus as their cases languished amid a sluggish bureaucracy that was further bogged down by the pandemic.
“That’s how the system works, you’re running on their time.”
Rivera, 55, who was battling depression and addiction, was arrested at his family home in August 2019, and spent the next eight months at Rikers waiting for his violation charge to be resolved. His partner of 30 years, who asked not to be named to protect her privacy, still does not understand why his case dragged on for so long. “I’d ask him, ‘What’s going on?’ and he’d say, ‘I have to go to court again,’” she told me. “I said, ‘What’s taking so long? It shouldn’t take so long.’ But he could only tell me what he could tell me, because he had to wait for his court date. He said he would have one in October, then it went from there to another date, and by that time it was March, and then April.”
“They just kept prolonging it, I really don’t know why it took so long,” Rivera’s son, Raymond A. Rivera, told me. “He’d just say, ‘That’s how the system works, you’re running on their time.'”
In the early days of the pandemic, Rivera had complained to his partner that precautions were lax at Rikers. “ ‘Guys don’t cover their mouth when they cough,’ he was telling me things like that,” she said. “Next thing you know, he wasn’t feeling well.” Rivera went to see a nurse about his worsening cold and fever, “but they thought he was OK,” his partner said. When his condition deteriorated, he was moved to the Bellevue Hospital Center, where people who become seriously ill at Rikers are hospitalized.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
It was there that his partner, who didn’t visit Rivera at Rikers because of the anguish it caused her to see him incarcerated, saw him for the first time since his arrest. As he got sicker, she took off work and spent days on the phone with lawyers and doctors, who first learned that Rivera had Stage 4 cancer and then told her that he had contracted the coronavirus.
Then on April 3, parole officials signed off on Rivera’s release while he was still at the hospital. “All of a sudden, the paperwork came through,” his partner said. “He wasn’t going to die in there a prisoner.”
Rivera’s son went into his room to tell him the news. “He just said, ‘Yeah?’” his partner recalled. “But he was tired, he had to go to sleep.” He died at 4 a.m. the following morning — “a free man,” she said.
Because he had technically been released a few hours earlier, Rikers does not count Rivera’s death as having happened in custody, his son said. The New York City Department of Correction, which runs the jail, did not respond to a request for comment. Connors, the DOCCS spokesperson, said that Rivera’s case is still under investigation.
Photo: Jeenah Moon/Getty Images
“A Tripwire Back Into Incarceration”
Justice reform advocates, as well as a growing number of parole and probation officials, have denounced the parole system as both costly and harmful, and a proposed bill aiming to reform parole in New York — known as the “Less Is More Act” — has sat before state legislators for two years. But while other efforts to reduce incarceration have prompted backlash from police, prosecutors, and some elected officials, including a bail reform law that was passed and then rolled back earlier this year, there seems to be growing consensus that New York’s current parole system just does not make sense.
Dozens of community groups, as well as prosecutors, former corrections officials, and elected leaders — including Mayor Bill de Blasio and the New York City Council — have thrown their support behind the proposed parole reform legislation. And while advocates fear that the backlash around bail reform has caused “criminal justice fatigue” in Albany, they hope the growing consensus around parole reform will help move the bill to a vote in the upcoming legislative session. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in 2018 that “New York jails and prisons should not be filled with people who may have violated the conditions of their parole, but present no danger to our communities.” And last month, the top prosecutors in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Manhattan signed a joint op-ed endorsing Less Is More and calling on the probation and parole systems in New York to be “substantially downsized, less punitive, and more hopeful, equitable, and restorative.”
“Community corrections has become an overly burdensome and punitive driver of mass incarceration,” wrote the prosecutors — Darcel Clark, Eric Gonzalez, and Cy Vance — referring to the supervision of people convicted of crimes outside a correctional setting. “Rather than being a rehabilitative alternative to incarceration (in the case of probation) or a release mechanism from prison for good behavior (in the case of parole), community corrections too often serves as a tripwire back into incarceration.”
Connors, the DOCCS spokesperson, dismissed growing criticism that New York’s parole system is costly and counterproductive as “opinion, and in no way based in fact.”
She noted that the number of people charged with parole violations has decreased by about 47 percent so far this year, as compared to last year. This follows an overall downward trend, with parole violation warrants resulting in reincarceration declining by 14 percent between 2015 and 2019. The department issued 15,696 parole warrants in 2019, including 4,466 for technical violations; of this year’s 7,295 parole warrants, as of October, 1,108 were for technical violations. Connors also said that in response to the pandemic, the department began to release low-level technical parole violators from local jails and cancel warrants for people meeting certain criteria, resulting in the early release of 3,449 people.
She said that technical parole violations are not issued after a first infraction but as “the result of consistent and escalating violations of an individual’s parole.” “This is simply not true,” said Laura Eraso, a staff attorney at the Legal Aid Society’s Parole Revocation Defense Unit, which represents the vast majority of people detained on parole violations in New York City. Two clients Eraso recently represented received a technical violation at the first infraction, she said, noting that officers’ propensity to issue a violation can vary widely.
“Regardless of what DOCCS’s numbers show in terms of a decrease in parole violations, it’s still too many.”
DOCCS does not count as technical violations warrants that were issued for “absconding,” which is defined as intentionally avoiding supervision by failing to maintain contact with one’s parole officer. Absconding is considered a more serious violation than failing to check in with a parole officer, but in practice, critics of the parole system say there is little that distinguishes the two charges, and parole officers have wide discretion when choosing between them. In 2019, absconding accounted for 38 percent of parole warrants issued, while technical violations accounted for 28 percent, according to DOCCS figures.
Eraso noted that a significant number of check-ins between parolees and their parole officers are taking place by phone this year because of the pandemic, which means that fewer people have been missing them and are receiving violations for failure to report. “Regardless of what DOCCS’s numbers show in terms of a decrease in parole violations,” she added, “it’s still too many.”
Kendra Bradner, director of the Probation and Parole Reform Project at Columbia Justice Lab, said that the decrease in the number of parole violators incarcerated during the pandemic was driven by New York City, where city officials strongly advocated for it — an effort consistent with that of other states during the pandemic. Still, she noted, the decrease did not happen consistently across the state.
“That’s the bare minimum that we should be doing in a global pandemic, not putting people in congregate care settings for noncriminal violations,” Bradner said. “And the fact that there’s such a big discrepancy between New York City and the rest of the state is not a good sign for continued engagement in this way after the pandemic.”
“A Foot on Your Neck”
People on parole say that the constant threat of reincarceration is a burden that makes adjusting to life outside that much harder, and that rather than support them, the parole system appears to be designed to force their failure.
“It’s causing a big strain on a lot of guys,” said Shawn Dunn, who was sent back to jail this fall for a technical violation of his parole. “The same people that are supposed to be helping you are the ones that are pushing you away and threatening you, that’s all they do. All they say is, ‘If you don’t do this, you’re going back to jail.’”
Dunn said that he had just over a year left on his five-year parole, no police contact since his release, and a job. But he had received multiple parole violation charges, once for being outside after curfew and two more times because his parole officer wanted him to stay at a shelter and he did not. When Dunn moved in with his girlfriend recently, his parole officer objected because of a two-decade-old domestic violence charge. The shelter, he told me on a call from Rikers, felt like prison. “The shelter system is designed just like a corrections system. The same setup, there’s officers in the hallway, it’s like you’re in a correctional facility all over again,” he said. “It’s like it never ends, it’s a never-ending cycle.”
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.
Dunn has spent the last three months in jail as his case moves slowly through the adjudication process. “The correctional system right now is clogged up with guys that are on parole,” he said. “Most of the violations that they are charging people with are nonsense: You failed to report because you didn’t get there on time, or they came by and you went to the store and weren’t inside the house at 8 o’clock. I am a grown man, 58 years old, but I have to be in the house by 8 p.m. and I can’t come out before 8 a.m. What if I have to be at an interview at 8 a.m.? If I leave the house before 8 a.m. I’m in violation. That doesn’t make any sense.”
The bureaucratic intransigence of a system ostensibly intended to help people reintegrate into society was also in display in the case of Kareem, a man at Rikers who asked to be identified only by his first name. Kareem, a father of five young children, was arrested in October for failing to report to his parole officer. At a preliminary hearing, an administrative judge agreed to resolve the charge by ordering Kareem to attend a program by the Fortune Society, an organization that works with formerly incarcerated people. But on the day Kareem was scheduled to call into his release hearing from Rikers, jail staff failed to take him to a phone booth — something attorneys say happens frequently. Because Kareem wasn’t on the call, the judge rescheduled the hearing to the end of December, six weeks later. Knowing that the judge had already agreed to his release, Kareem had told his children that he would be home by Thanksgiving. “They were expecting me to come home this week,” he told me on a call from Rikers a few days before the holiday. “I didn’t tell them yet.”
Even the many people who are ultimately released end up spending significant time in jail, endangering their jobs, homes, and relationships.
Kareem was set to also spend Christmas at Rikers, but after what Eraso, who represented him, described as “a ridiculous amount of email harassing” on her part, the judge moved up Kareem’s release hearing. He left Rikers on December 1, two months after his arrest. It was a rare, belated win, but also an indictment of the arbitrariness and cruelty of the parole system. Connors said that it is jail staff’s responsibility to bring people held at Rikers to their hearings and that it is DOCCS policy to adjourn hearings when that doesn’t happen. DOC did not respond to a request for comment.
“It’s the absurdity of it: How do you tell a person that you represent that this is what’s holding you, and yes, the judge said that they would release you, but I’m sorry, you couldn’t be brought to a phone, so now you have to sit in for six more weeks?” said Eraso. Because of the long process of having a parole violation charge litigated — about 100 days — even the many people who are ultimately released end up spending significant time in jail, endangering their jobs, homes, and relationships and significantly damaging their efforts at reintegration.
“It has catastrophic consequences and it’s so avoidable,” said Eraso. “You don’t need to destroy someone’s life to get them back on track. This shows you in so many ways that DOCCS has no consideration for somebody’s successful reintegration — because if they did, they would not put people in this situation.”
“The only way to describe it is like they have their foot on your neck, they want you to do things their way,” said Hilton, who was ultimately released from Rikers, just days before his mother’s death. “I was back on track, but you are already set up to come back to prison, even before you get out.”
Illustration: Evangeline Gallagher for The Intercept
A Grim Record
The parole system is supposedly intended to provide a transition phase for people who were released from prison after serving the minimum time required by their sentence or those who were sentenced to a period of post-release supervision in addition to their prison time. But in practice, parole has morphed into a “back-door” incarceration system, said Lorraine McEvilley, director of Legal Aid ‘s Parole Revocation Defense Unit. “People’s understanding of parole is that this is going to be a service that can help people reacclimate out of incarceration and become stable members of the community and therefore, never fall back into the criminal justice system,” she said in an interview. “Instead what we have is a system that hangs the jail’s keys over the person’s head.”
Nationwide, there are some 4.4 million people under some form of supervision like probation or parole — double the country’s incarcerated population, which is already the largest in the world. The U.S. parole and probation system costs $2.8 billion annually, but rather than keeping people from returning to prisons and jails, the system has funneled them back into them at staggering rates. In 2017, 1 in every 4 people incarcerated in the country was sent back to prison over a technical violation.
“What we have is a system that hangs the jail’s keys over the person’s head.”
New York state holds one of the country’s grimmest records when it comes to reincarcerating people for technical violations of parole, second only to Illinois. And New York’s system is at odds both with nationwide efforts to reform parole and with the state’s own push toward a reduction of its incarcerated population. There are about 35,554 people currently under supervision in the state — roughly equal to the overall number of people incarcerated in state prisons.
Reincarcerating parole violators cost New York taxpayers more than $600 million last year. And overall, technical parole violations make up nearly one-third of all prison admissions in the state. Racial disparities in the parole system are also stark: Black New Yorkers are between 50 and 100 percent more likely to be charged with parole violations. And Black and Latino New Yorkers remain under supervision longer than white New Yorkers, and they end up at Rikers over parole violations at 12 and four times the rate, respectively, of white New Yorkers.
On April 3, a day before Rivera’s death, Legal Aid and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a federal class-action lawsuit against Cuomo and DOCCS, demanding the release of more than 1,000 people held at Rikers on parole violations. The groups argued that automatically detaining people while they waited for their parole violation hearings was unconstitutional because DOCCS regularly failed to hold a hearing within the required 90 days. Because of the pandemic, they added, those hearings had been suspended almost completely. The DOCCS spokesperson declined to comment on the litigation, which is pending, but said that, in 2019, the average time between a parole warrant being issued and a final hearing was 67 days.
Meanwhile, Rikers’ overall population is once again growing, after a temporary effort to reduce it because of the pandemic, even as the city faces a second wave.
After his death, Rivera’s partner and son filed a complaint with Rikers and tried to understand why it had taken months, and his illness, for his charge to be resolved. “They did not give us any answers whatsoever,” said his son. “He was doing fine, he was a nonviolent offender. … He kept saying, ‘I’m coming home soon.'”
“For something technical, something like you just missed a date, I’m not saying that’s not irresponsible, but there should be something less, something not so harsh,” Rivera’s partner said. “You can still violate them but just do it in a different way, where they are not just put away and left there without a key, and everyone turns their back.”
Less Is More
Until 2011, the New York parole system was run by the state’s Board of Parole, an administrative body separate from the Department of Corrections. But under the current system, DOCCS adjudicates parole violations and also oversees incarceration. That creates “an institutional resistance from the same agency that locked you up to let you out,” said McEvilley.
That setup is not unique to New York, yet the high levels of parolee reincarceration indicate that DOCCS is more inclined to resort to incarceration than departments in other states, Brander noted. “The department has clearly made the decision that incarceration is an appropriate response to noncriminal activity,” she said. “And other departments have made different choices.”
Unlike in other circumstances in the criminal justice system, like misdemeanor cases, there is little room for flexibility around parole violation adjudication. People accused of violating the terms of their parole can have warrants issued for their arrest and be detained without bail for an indefinite period of time, even when the violation is merely technical. At a preliminary appearance, within 15 days of one’s arrest, a DOCCS officer often rubber-stamps a parole officer’s claim of “probable cause” that the terms of the parole were violated. The person then remains in custody until a final hearing can take place, within 90 days, before an administrative law judge, who can decide to revoke the person’s parole and sentence them to further incarceration or release them.
“You are stuck in this rigid and unforgiving sentencing scheme,” said Eraso. “It just really sets people back.”
The reforms would merely bring New York in line with what other states are already doing.
The Less Is More Act currently before state legislators would eliminate the use of incarceration for most technical parole violations and cap at 30 days incarceration for more serious violations. It would allow those accused of violating parole to see a judge upon detention and ask to be released back into the community while awaiting further adjudication. And those who do end up detained on a violation charge would be entitled to a speedier hearing. The proposed legislation would also allow people to earn credits off their parole — reducing their time under supervision by 30 days for every 30 days spent without violations, similarly to how incarcerated people can earn time off their sentence for good conduct.
The reforms would transform New York’s parole system but merely bring the state in line with what other states are already doing, advocates noted.
“That’s a thing that’s been done in deep, deep, deep red states,” said Bradner, referring to the credits off one’s parole time. She also argued that the reforms must be accompanied by a larger investment in post-release support that should be run at the community level, rather than through the parole agency itself. “There needs to be investment in actual services and support for folks who are coming home from prison,” she said. “Having a parole officer ask you the same five questions every week is not the answer to make that a less difficult transition.”
The proposed legislation would have made it unlikely for Rivera to end up at Rikers because of his addiction or to remain there for as long as he did. “He had a family, he had a home,” his partner said. “He was supposed to come home.”
For Kareem, it would have meant spending Thanksgiving with his children, rather than waiting in jail for two months for a release that a judge had already agreed to grant. “The way the system is going right now isn’t working,” he told me from Rikers. “Everyone’s waiting for them to figure it out.”


theintercept--2020-12-09--Biden Defense Secretary Nominee Lloyd Austin Comes Under Fire for Industry Connections

But on Tuesday , Biden announced that he will nominate retired four-star Gen. Lloyd Austin III , once the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East , and now a member of the board of directors at Raytheon .
The company has been in the spotlight during the Trump administration in part because it supplies air-to-ground munitions for Saudi Arabia ’ s war in Yemen , and Austin ’ s role with Raytheon could be central to his confirmation fight .
Last month , two progressive members of Congress sent President-elect Joe Biden a letter requesting that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with no previous ties to weapons manufacturers .
The letter , from Rep. Mark Pocan , D-Wisc.
, and Rep. Barbara Lee D-Calif. , cited President Donald Trump ’ s Defense Secretary Mark Esper — a former lobbyist for Raytheon , one the country ’ s largest defense contractors — and called on Biden to adopt a different standard and find a nominee with “ no prior employment history with a defense contractor.
” One of only a few African Americans to ever become four-star generals in the Army , Austin was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regional combatant command , overseeing U.S. forces in the Middle East .
And if confirmed , he will be the first Black secretary of defense .
The Congressional Black Caucus leaned heavily on Biden to select either him or Johnson , who is also Black .
Austin was reportedly selected from a pool of other leading contenders with ties to top weapons companies : Michèle Flournoy , the former undersecretary of defense for policy , joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton in 2018 and Jeh Johnson , the former Secretary of Homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the board of Lockheed Martin .
“ The potential for conflicts is huge , ” Hartung said .
“ Raytheon is deeply involved in controversial programs from unworkable missile defense projects to nuclear weapons — the new nuclear-armed cruise missile — to precision-guided bombs that have killed untold numbers of civilians in Saudi Arabia ’ s brutal war in Yemen .
If Gen. Austin were to recuse himself from decisions on programs and policies involving Raytheon he could not carry out large parts of his job as defense secretary.
” William Hartung @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Security Project at the Center for International Policy , told The Intercept that picking Austin was “ tantamount to making the position of Secretary of Defense the Secretary of Defense Contractors.
” “ Raytheon manufactures the bomb components that are used in Yemen .
He bears a direct responsibility , ” Phyllis Bennis , who directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies , told The Intercept .
“ He was making money as a board member of this company that is directly responsible for the death and destruction there.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle East until March of 2016 , a year after the Saudi-led intervention began .
He retired from the military the next month and later joined the board of United Technologies , a defense contractor that merged with Raytheon earlier this year .
In 2019 , Raytheon proceeded with an $ 8 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates , which included air-to-ground munitions .
After congressional Democrats blocked the sale on human rights grounds , the Trump administration helped force the sale through by declaring a state of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talking about orders that might violate international law or lead to the death of civilians , you want somebody who is willing to push back .
That doesn ’ t sound like him.
” Austin was formerly the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq , where he oversaw major troop withdrawals under Obama , before becoming the top U.S. commander in the Middle East .
In the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State , he reportedly pushed for more restrictive rules of engagment in an effort to reduce civilian casualties , but faced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military to intervene in Syria .
“ I ’ ve never met the man , but people who have worked with him say it will be easy for the White House with him in charge , ” said Bennis .
“ That is , he ’ s unlikely to challenge his commander-in-chief .
When you ’ re talking about orders that might violate international law or lead to the death of civilians , you want somebody who is willing to push back .
That doesn ’ t sound like him.
” In contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration , like Gens .
David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal , who maintained high profiles and sometimes clashed with the White House , Austin is known as a quieter presence .
He earned the trust of many in Obama ’ s inner circle , including Biden .
In an op-ed in The Atlantic on Tuesday , Biden said that Austin “ played a crucial role in bringing 150,000 American troops home from the [ Iraqi ] theater of war.
” “ Pulling that off took more than just the skill and strategy of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to practice diplomacy , building relationships with our Iraqi counterparts and with our partners in the region .
He served as a statesman , representing our country with honor and dignity and always , above all , looking out for his people , ” Biden wrote .
“ I am certain that General Austin will find other ways to serve his country in retirement , ” Obama said as the general exited the government in 2016 .
But since he left the military more than four years ago , Austin has formed extensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his confirmation hearing .
In addition to Raytheon , he joined the board of directors of the steel production company Nucor Corporation , Tenet Healthcare Corporation , and Guest Services , Inc. , a hospitality management company .
And both Austin and Antony Blinken — Biden ’ s nominee for secretary of state — have ties to Pine Island Capital Partners , a large investment firm that has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for acquisitions in defense companies this year , according to the New York Times .
Led by John Thain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the time of its collapse in 2008 , Pine Island boasts of an “ experienced investment team with a group of deeply-connected and accomplished former senior government and military officials , ” according to its website .
In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission , the firm notes that its team not only has “ extensive connections to industry leaders , ” but “ unusual access to information.
” Just last month , Pine Island raised $ 218 million to finance investments in “ businesses in the defense , government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an increasing number of generals and top military officials who exit to the private sector , holding lucrative positions at top companies .
One 2018 study by the Project on Government Oversight tracked 380 cases of former military officers and Department of Defense officials who , in the previous years , became board members , executives , lobbyists , or consultants with defense companies .
Private-sector work was the subject of intense scrutiny during the confirmation hearing of Esper , Trump ’ s last Defense Secretary .
Prior to joining the Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked as a senior lobbyist for Raytheon .
He faced sharp questioning from Sen. Elizabeth Warren , D-Mass.
, over whether he would fully recuse himself from matters involving Raytheon as defense secretary .
When Esper did not commit to fully recusing himself from any decision involving Raytheon , Warren said that it “ smacks of corruption , plain and simple.
” It is unclear whether senate Democrats will hold Austin to the similar standard , but his role with Raytheon could create ethics complications .
Austin is slated to face a rocky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his business ties , but also because his nomination already was criticized as a violation of civil-military relations .
By law , the secretary of defense position is a civilian position and not supposed to be held by recently retired officers .
The rule is meant to emphasize civilian control over the military and Austin has not yet undergone a legally required seven-year “ cooling off ” period .
Austin ’ s confirmation will require Congress to waive that requirement — just as they did with Trump ’ s first defense secretary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senate Democrats is a difficult position .
Seventeen voted against granting Mattis the waiver , and the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee , Sen. Jack Reed , D-R.I. , said at the time that he was unlikely to support a similar waiver in the future .
In a statement Tuesday , Reed said that he would review the nomination carefully .
“ One can not separate the waiver from the individual who has been nominated , ” the statement said .
Warren told CNN on Tuesday she would oppose Austin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t grant waivers to recently retired generals .
“ The principle of civilian control of the military is important .
It ’ s not a guarantee that a civilian will be any more conscious of the consequences of war , but the prohibition should not be waived lightly , ” said Bennis .

Last month, two progressive members of Congress sent President-elect Joe Biden a letter requesting that he commit to nominating a secretary of defense with no previous ties to weapons manufacturers. The letter, from Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., cited President Donald Trump’s Defense Secretary Mark Esper — a former lobbyist for Raytheon, one the country’s largest defense contractors — and called on Biden to adopt a different standard and find a nominee with “no prior employment history with a defense contractor.”
But on Tuesday, Biden announced that he will nominate retired four-star Gen. Lloyd Austin III, once the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and now a member of the board of directors at Raytheon. The company has been in the spotlight during the Trump administration in part because it supplies air-to-ground munitions for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, and Austin’s role with Raytheon could be central to his confirmation fight.
Austin oversaw U.S. operations in the Middle East until March 2016, a year after the Saudi-led intervention began. He retired from the military the next month and later joined the board of United Technologies, a defense contractor that merged with Raytheon earlier this year. In 2019, Raytheon proceeded with an $8 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which included air-to-ground munitions. After congressional Democrats blocked the sale on human rights grounds, the Trump administration helped force the sale through by declaring a state of emergency.
“Raytheon manufactures the bomb components that are used in Yemen. He bears a direct responsibility,” Phyllis Bennis, who directs the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told The Intercept. “He was making money as a board member of this company that is directly responsible for the death and destruction there.”
William Hartung, the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, told The Intercept that picking Austin was “tantamount to making the position of secretary of defense the ‘secretary of defense contractors.’”
“The potential for conflicts is huge,” Hartung said. “Raytheon is deeply involved in controversial programs from unworkable missile defense projects to nuclear weapons — the new nuclear-armed cruise missile — to precision-guided bombs that have killed untold numbers of civilians in Saudi Arabia’s brutal war in Yemen. If General Austin were to recuse himself from decisions on programs and policies involving Raytheon, he could not carry out large parts of his job as defense secretary.”
Austin was reportedly selected from a pool of other leading contenders with ties to top weapons companies: Michèle Flournoy, the former undersecretary of defense for policy, joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton in 2018, and Jeh Johnson, the former secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, sits on the board of Lockheed Martin.
One of only a few African Americans to ever become a four-star general in the Army, Austin was the first African American in charge of a regional combatant command, overseeing U.S. forces in the Middle East. And if confirmed, he will be the first Black secretary of defense. The Congressional Black Caucus leaned heavily on Biden to select either him or Johnson, who is also Black.
“When you’re talking about orders that might violate international law or lead to the death of civilians, you want somebody who is willing to push back. That doesn’t sound like him.”
Austin was formerly the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, where he oversaw major troop withdrawals under Obama, before becoming the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. In the U.S. campaign against the Islamic State, he reportedly pushed for more restrictive rules of engagement in an effort to reduce civilian casualties, but faced scrutiny from congressional Republicans who wanted the military to intervene in Syria.
“I’ve never met the man, but people who have worked with him say it will be easy for the White House with him in charge,” said Bennis. “That is, he’s unlikely to challenge his commander-in-chief. When you’re talking about orders that might violate international law or lead to the death of civilians, you want somebody who is willing to push back. That doesn’t sound like him.”
In contrast with other military leaders during the Obama administration, like Gens. David Petraeus or Stanley McChrystal, who maintained high profiles and sometimes clashed with the White House, Austin is known as a quieter presence. He earned the trust of many in Obama’s inner circle, including Biden.
In an op-ed in The Atlantic on Tuesday, Biden said that Austin “played a crucial role in bringing 150,000 American troops home from the [Iraqi] theater of war.”
“Pulling that off took more than just the skill and strategy of a seasoned soldier. It required Austin to practice diplomacy, building relationships with our Iraqi counterparts and with our partners in the region. He served as a statesman, representing our country with honor and dignity and always, above all, looking out for his people,” Biden wrote.
“I am certain that General Austin will find other ways to serve his country in retirement,” Obama said as the general exited the government in 2016. But since he left the military more than four years ago, Austin has formed extensive private-sector ties that could surface during his confirmation hearing. In addition to Raytheon, he joined the board of directors of the steel production company Nucor Corporation, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, and Guest Services Inc., a hospitality management company.
And both Austin and Antony Blinken — Biden’s nominee for secretary of state — have ties to Pine Island Capital Partners, a large investment firm that has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for acquisitions in defense companies this year, according to the New York Times.
Led by John Thain, the chief executive of Merrill Lynch at the time of its collapse in 2008, Pine Island boasts of an “experienced investment team with a group of deeply-connected and accomplished former senior government and military officials,” according to its website. In documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the firm notes that its team not only has “extensive connections to industry leaders,” but “unusual access to information.” Just last month, Pine Island raised $218 million to finance investments in “businesses in the defense, government service and aerospace industries.”
Austin joins an increasing number of generals and top military officials who exit to the private sector, holding lucrative positions at top companies. One 2018 study by the Project on Government Oversight tracked 380 cases of former military officers and Department of Defense officials who, in the previous years, became board members, executives, lobbyists, or consultants with defense companies.
Private-sector work was the subject of intense scrutiny during the confirmation hearing of Esper, Trump’s last defense secretary. Prior to joining the Trump administration in 2017 as army secretary, Esper worked as a senior lobbyist for Raytheon. He faced sharp questioning from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., over whether he would fully recuse himself from matters involving Raytheon as defense secretary.
When Esper did not commit to fully recusing himself from any decision involving Raytheon, Warren said that it “smacks of corruption, plain and simple.” It is unclear whether Senate Democrats will hold Austin to the similar standard, but his role with Raytheon could create ethics complications.
Austin is slated to face a rocky confirmation process, not only due to his business ties, but also because his nomination already was criticized as a violation of civil-military relations. By law, the secretary of defense position is a civilian position and not supposed to be held by recently retired officers. The rule is meant to emphasize civilian control over the military, and Austin has not yet undergone a legally required seven-year “cooling off” period. Austin’s confirmation will require Congress to waive that requirement — just as they did with Trump’s first defense secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis.
That puts Senate Democrats is a difficult position. Seventeen voted against granting Mattis the waiver, and the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said at the time that he was unlikely to support a similar waiver in the future. In a statement on Tuesday, Reed said that he would review the nomination carefully. “One cannot separate the waiver from the individual who has been nominated,” the statement said.
Warren told CNN on Tuesday that she would oppose Austin’s nomination on the grounds that Congress shouldn’t grant waivers to recently retired generals.
“The principle of civilian control of the military is important. It’s not a guarantee that a civilian will be any more conscious of the consequences of war, but the prohibition should not be waived lightly,” said Bennis.