theintercept--2020-05-19--Swing-District Democrats Link With Progressives to Back Paycheck Bill Pelosi Rejected

Nancy Pelosi excluded a plan to keep unemployment down by subsidizing firms to keep workers on payrolls from her relief package last week , dozens of progressives have banded together with 10 “ front-line ” Democrats from swing districts to introduce it as a standalone piece of legislation .
The Paycheck Recovery Act , authored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal , D-Wash. , aims to make sure that paychecks are flowing from employers to workers during the coronavirus pandemic .
A previous version , the Paycheck Guarantee Act , had been a priority of the Congressional Progressive Caucus , of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsidizes struggling companies ’ payrolls in order to discourage layoffs and keep unemployment down .
While Pelosi had said she was open to considering the idea , she ultimately kept it out of the HEROES Act , the coronavirus relief bill passed by the House on Friday , which includes an extension of unemployment subsidies .
Jayapal confronted her on a private caucus conference call over the decision , and Pelosi aides later pushed back , criticizing the measure for not having official legislative text or Republican co-sponsors .
Jayapal ultimately voted against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressives , citing the exclusion of her program .
They were joined by five front-liners , some of whom objected to the paycheck measure ’ s omission , others of whom opposed it from the right , complaining of a lack of bipartisan buy-in .
The stampede of front-liners toward Jayapal ’ s new bill , according to people involved in the negotiations , is driven by an intersection of policy and electoral concerns .
The front-liners are concerned that Pelosi ’ s rejection of the paycheck bill , and her focus on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they have complained that they are getting hammered at home by Republicans , who are dubbing Democrats the party of unemployment .
The alliance of swing-district Democrats and the progressive wing of the party represents a new threat to House Democratic leadership ’ s domination of the caucus .
Because of the stark partisan divide in the House , Pelosi can ’ t rely on the few remaining moderate Republicans to push legislation over the top .
Instead , leadership typically shapes legislation to appeal to the swing-district bloc of Democrats — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considers in need of electoral protection — then bludgeons progressives into supporting it , arguing that whatever is being offered is better than nothing and promotes the necessary goal of maintaining the majority , without which progressives have no power at all .
Efforts by progressives to organize enough no votes to extract leverage in negotiations over coronavirus relief have so far not come to fruition , but teaming with front-liners opens up a new potential strategy as the pandemic scrambles political calculations .
For years , Pelosi has insisted that if it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would go further left than it does , but that the imperatives of reelection require moderating legislation for the members she calls “ majority makers.
” But if those majority makers get out ahead of Pelosi , that rationale would evaporate , and the dictates of making and keeping a majority would militate in their direction .
The first glimmer of the potential coalition came when Rep. Haley Stevens , a freshman from Michigan , voted against the rule linked to the HEROES Act on Friday afternoon .
Flipping just four more votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which would have blocked the underlying bill from coming to the floor .
Members of Congress often express opposition to legislation by opposing the rule , even if they later vote in support of the bill itself later , which Stevens did .
Stevens , in a statement explaining her support for the HEROES Act and her vote against the rule , said that the bill ’ s failure to keep workers tied to their jobs , prioritizing unemployment instead , was a knock against it .
“ Any relief package must prioritize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the relationship between workers and employers for an extended and flexible duration of time , ” she argued .
It was a clear reference to the paycheck measure ’ s omission from the final package .
“ Mass unemployment is not and will never be our answer to this crisis , ” Stevens said .
Rep. Katie Porter of California , among the most progressive front-liners , also voted against the rule , as did Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia , who cited a number of concerns , among them that that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catastrophic unemployment rates.
” Rep. Tom Suozzi , a Democrat from Long Island and a moderate member of the Problem Solvers Caucus , is co-sponsoring Jayapal ’ s legislation .
“ I think the most persuasive argument is that state unemployment systems are ill-equipped to handle the volume of claims and that will not be rectified in the near future , ” he told The Intercept .
“ Helping people by having more folks on unemployment is not the answer .
Additionally , PPP ” — the Paycheck Protection Program , which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ payroll going — “ has too many ‘ big ’ small businesses that don ’ t need the help .
This bill seems more effective and more targeted.
” The other front-liners so far on the bill , which has 93 co-sponsors , are Democratic Reps. Mikie Sherrill and Tom Malinowski of New Jersey ; Sean Casten of Illinois ; Katie Porter and Mike Levin of California ; Jahana Hayes of Connecticut ; Steven Horsford and Susie Lee of Nevada , and Kim Schrier of Washington .
currently debating its version of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McConnell pretending that liability protection for businesses during the pandemic is the sole provision Republicans want — and , therefore , that everything else is a Democratic demand .
Such conditions don ’ t leave much room for policy innovation , but Jayapal ’ s paycheck guarantee is one program that has bipartisan support in the Senate and has worked elsewhere in the world .
In moments of economic decline , resulting from either natural disasters , pandemics , or financial crises , governments around the world have two primary means of mitigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the slump : extending unemployment payments to those laid off through no fault of their own , or extending subsidies to companies to keep workers tied to their jobs , even if their hours are heavily reduced .
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis , Germany relied on a program of wage subsidies to keep people in their jobs , which kept unemployment in the low single digits .
The U.S. , meanwhile , focused instead on providing relief in the form of unemployment payments and brief subsidies for health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. unemployment rate , as expected , rose dramatically , while Germany ’ s didn ’ t , and the U.S. recovery took much longer .
U.S. policymakers , or at least those in charge of writing the laws , learned little from the last crisis .
The CARES Act , the multitrillion-dollar relief package that was passed in late March , took the route of subsidizing unemployment by providing workers who had been recently laid off with an extra $ 600 in unemployment benefits for four months .
The HEROES Act includes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2021 .
“ Mass unemployment is a policy choice , and we must choose differently , ” Jayapal said Tuesday , introducing the Paycheck Recovery Act .
Sen. Josh Hawley , R-Mo.
, joined by a handful of Democrats , has sponsored a similar piece of legislation in the Senate .
The politics of fighting on behalf of jobs is an obvious winner , and Hawley is hoping to exploit Democrats ’ failure to do so in an election year .
Some Republicans , Politico reported , “ see an opportunity to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy after the Democratic House proposal omitted ” Jayapal ’ s paycheck guarantee legislation .
Republican Sen. Cory Gardner , facing a tough reelection fight in Colorado , publicly backed the paycheck measure at the end of last week .
Sens .
Bernie Sanders , I-Vt. ; Mark Warner , D-Va. ; Doug Jones , D-Ala. ; and Richard Blumenthal , D-Conn. , have also supported versions of the legislation .
“ We should put forward a proposal that is focused on jobs in contrast to what House Democrats are doing .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They had an opportunity to put forward a jobs proposal and they didn ’ t , ” Hawley said .
“ It is unbelievable that you would propose $ 3 trillion in federal spending and you wouldn ’ t have a focus on workers .
”

After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi excluded a plan to keep unemployment down by subsidizing firms to keep workers on payrolls from her relief package last week, dozens of progressives have banded together with 10 “front-line” Democrats from swing districts to introduce it as a standalone piece of legislation.
The Paycheck Recovery Act, authored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., aims to make sure that paychecks are flowing from employers to workers during the coronavirus pandemic. A previous version, the Paycheck Guarantee Act, had been a priority of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Jayapal is a co-chair. The bill subsidizes struggling companies’ payrolls in order to discourage layoffs and keep unemployment down. While Pelosi had said she was open to considering the idea, she ultimately kept it out of the HEROES Act, the coronavirus relief bill passed by the House on Friday, which includes an extension of unemployment subsidies. Jayapal confronted her on a private caucus conference call over the decision, and Pelosi aides later pushed back, criticizing the measure for not having official legislative text or Republican co-sponsors.
Jayapal ultimately voted against the legislation, along with eight other progressives, citing the exclusion of her program. They were joined by five front-liners, some of whom objected to the paycheck measure’s omission, others of whom opposed it from the right, complaining of a lack of bipartisan buy-in.
The stampede of front-liners toward Jayapal’s new bill, according to people involved in the negotiations, is driven by an intersection of policy and electoral concerns. The front-liners are concerned that Pelosi’s rejection of the paycheck bill, and her focus on unemployment, makes for poor politics, and they have complained that they are getting hammered at home by Republicans, who are dubbing Democrats the party of unemployment.
The alliance of swing-district Democrats and the progressive wing of the party represents a new threat to House Democratic leadership’s domination of the caucus. Because of the stark partisan divide in the House, Pelosi can’t rely on the few remaining moderate Republicans to push legislation over the top. Instead, leadership typically shapes legislation to appeal to the swing-district bloc of Democrats — there are 42 front-liners who the party considers in need of electoral protection — then bludgeons progressives into supporting it, arguing that whatever is being offered is better than nothing and promotes the necessary goal of maintaining the majority, without which progressives have no power at all. Efforts by progressives to organize enough no votes to extract leverage in negotiations over coronavirus relief have so far not come to fruition, but teaming with front-liners opens up a new potential strategy as the pandemic scrambles political calculations.
For years, Pelosi has insisted that if it were up to her, the party would go further left than it does, but that the imperatives of reelection require moderating legislation for the members she calls “majority makers.” But if those majority makers get out ahead of Pelosi, that rationale would evaporate, and the dictates of making and keeping a majority would militate in their direction.
The first glimmer of the potential coalition came when Rep. Haley Stevens, a freshman from Michigan, voted against the rule linked to the HEROES Act on Friday afternoon. Flipping just four more votes would have shot down the rule, which would have blocked the underlying bill from coming to the floor. Members of Congress often express opposition to legislation by opposing the rule, even if they later vote in support of the bill itself later, which Stevens did.
Stevens, in a statement explaining her support for the HEROES Act and her vote against the rule, said that the bill’s failure to keep workers tied to their jobs, prioritizing unemployment instead, was a knock against it. “Any relief package must prioritize strong employment measures to protect jobs and the relationship between workers and employers for an extended and flexible duration of time,” she argued.
It was a clear reference to the paycheck measure’s omission from the final package. “Mass unemployment is not and will never be our answer to this crisis,” Stevens said.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Rep. Katie Porter of California, among the most progressive front-liners, also voted against the rule, as did Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, who cited a number of concerns, among them that that the bill didn’t prioritize “addressing catastrophic unemployment rates.”
Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat from Long Island and a moderate member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, is co-sponsoring Jayapal’s legislation. “I think the most persuasive argument is that state unemployment systems are ill-equipped to handle the volume of claims and that will not be rectified in the near future,” he told The Intercept. “Helping people by having more folks on unemployment is not the answer. Additionally, PPP” — the Paycheck Protection Program, which is meant to help small businesses keep their payroll going — “has too many ‘big’ small businesses that don’t need the help. This bill seems more effective and more targeted.”
The other front-liners so far on the bill, which has 93 co-sponsors, are Democratic Reps. Mikie Sherrill and Tom Malinowski of New Jersey; Sean Casten of Illinois; Katie Porter and Mike Levin of California; Jahana Hayes of Connecticut; Steven Horsford and Susie Lee of Nevada, and Kim Schrier of Washington.
The Senate is currently debating its version of the relief package, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pretending that liability protection for businesses during the pandemic is the sole provision Republicans want — and, therefore, that everything else is a Democratic demand. Such conditions don’t leave much room for policy innovation, but Jayapal’s paycheck guarantee is one program that has bipartisan support in the Senate and has worked elsewhere in the world.
In moments of economic decline, resulting from either natural disasters, pandemics, or financial crises, governments around the world have two primary means of mitigating harm and reducing the depth and duration of the slump: extending unemployment payments to those laid off through no fault of their own, or extending subsidies to companies to keep workers tied to their jobs, even if their hours are heavily reduced.
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Germany relied on a program of wage subsidies to keep people in their jobs, which kept unemployment in the low single digits. The U.S., meanwhile, focused instead on providing relief in the form of unemployment payments and brief subsidies for health care coverage for the jobless. The U.S. unemployment rate, as expected, rose dramatically, while Germany’s didn’t, and the U.S. recovery took much longer. U.S. policymakers, or at least those in charge of writing the laws, learned little from the last crisis.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
The CARES Act, the multitrillion-dollar relief package that was passed in late March, took the route of subsidizing unemployment by providing workers who had been recently laid off with an extra $600 in unemployment benefits for four months. The HEROES Act includes an extension of those benefits until January 2021. “Mass unemployment is a policy choice, and we must choose differently,” Jayapal said Tuesday, introducing the Paycheck Recovery Act.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., joined by a handful of Democrats, has sponsored a similar piece of legislation in the Senate. The politics of fighting on behalf of jobs is an obvious winner, and Hawley is hoping to exploit Democrats’ failure to do so in an election year. Some Republicans, Politico reported, “see an opportunity to get the upper hand on jobs and the economy after the Democratic House proposal omitted” Jayapal’s paycheck guarantee legislation. Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, facing a tough reelection fight in Colorado, publicly backed the paycheck measure at the end of last week. Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Doug Jones, D-Ala.; and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., have also supported versions of the legislation.
“We should put forward a proposal that is focused on jobs in contrast to what House Democrats are doing. They could have done something like this. They had an opportunity to put forward a jobs proposal and they didn’t,” Hawley said. “It is unbelievable that you would propose $3 trillion in federal spending and you wouldn’t have a focus on workers.”


theintercept--2020-05-19--In Its Zeal to Blame China for Coronavirus, the Trump Administration Is Thwarting Investigations Int

In Its Zeal to Blame China for Coronavirus, the Trump Administration Is Thwarting Investigations Into the Pandemic's Origins

Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been claiming without evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic is linked to a lab in Wuhan that researches bat coronaviruses .
Their efforts are clearly calculated to distract from Trump ’ s bungled response to the virus , and , for rational observers , they have tainted the notion that the outbreak began with a lab accident or safety breach .
But while many scientists think a lab origin is unlikely , biosafety experts still see it as a possibility .
The administration ’ s posturing may ultimately make it much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the earliest days of the outbreak — even if , ironically , the clues do end up leading back to a lab .
Based on the available evidence , SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — likely emerged in bats in the wild and then jumped to humans , possibly via an intermediary animal .
What is unclear is where that pivotal transmission , called a “ spillover ” event , occurred .
Chinese authorities have pushed the theory that it happened at Wuhan ’ s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were clustered .
Some scientists believe it could have happened in nature , for example in the villages surrounding the caves in southwestern China where bats harboring coronaviruses live .
As countries urbanize and humans encroach onto animals ’ habitats , natural spillovers have become increasingly common .
But other experts say that the possibility of a lab accident , infection during fieldwork , or other safety breach can not yet be ruled out — and that determining whether such a breach occurred is imperative .
“ An open investigation is absolutely warranted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ebright , a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University .
A longtime biosafety proponent , Ebright believes that a lab error is “ at least as probable ” as an entirely natural spillover event .
“ Unsupported claims by Trump and Pompeo have politicized and polarized the issue and likely have had the effect of making an open investigation less likely.
” Last month , Australia led the way in calling for such an investigation , suggesting that it would raise the issue at the World Health Assembly , the decision-making body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its meeting this week .
“ We just want to know what happened so it doesn ’ t happen again , ” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said at a press conference on May 8 .
Canada , Germany , and Sweden backed the idea .
But U.S. meddling sabotaged the effort , and the result is a watered down resolution , backed by the European Union and over 100 countries , calling for an inquiry into the international response to the pandemic .
The resolution avoids singling out China , and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakened language .
It was adopted on Tuesday , but the world will need to wait for a full investigation .
Such an effort is needed for many reasons .
China has been conducting its own investigation but has not shared any information with the World Health Organization .
And the Chinese government ’ s early cover-up of the outbreak and silencing of critics does not instill confidence that it will be forthcoming as to the origins of the virus .
Virologists say that learning more about how the coronavirus infected humans could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discovery of an animal species carrying a closely related virus , for example , could help the world prevent a resurgence in cases by showing where to focus control efforts .
A wet market origin could fuel an international movement to close wildlife markets .
And for scientists , knowing whether a lab accident played any role is critical to ensuring safe research conditions going forward .
But by relentlessly pushing the lab leak theory without giving evidence to back it up , Trump and Pompeo have narrowed the chances that the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s origins .
Both men have clouded the discussion by touting the conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was deliberately made in a Chinese lab as a bioweapon — an idea that has been roundly rejected by both scientists and intelligence officials .
Trump has also called on China to compensate the United States for the outbreak .
Pompeo , meanwhile , has so angered Beijing that on Monday , Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian called him a “ lying blabbermouth.
” By most accounts , the international push for an investigation came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position , but in spite of it .
Institute of Virology , a biosafety level 4 facility built with French assistance , started early on .
In January , a study published by Chinese scientists in The Lancet found that the first patient diagnosed with the coronavirus , on December 1 , had no connection to the wet market .
That set off guesses and conspiracy theories alike .
“ We need to look wider than just the wet market origin , ” said Filippa Lentzos , a biosafety expert at King ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moment it ’ s still an open question.
” The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat coronavirus that was sampled by the Wuhan Institute of Virology , but the two viruses are not close enough to suggest a direct link .
A number of recent outbreaks , including HIV , Zika , and the first SARS virus , were caused by purely natural spillovers .
And yet , there have also been outbreaks caused by lab accidents .
A 1977 outbreak of H1N1 in the Soviet Union and China is believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experimenting with a live virus in a lab , perhaps to make a vaccine .
In a 2007 breach at Pirbright , a biosafety level 4 animal research facility in Surrey , in the United Kingdom , wastewater containing live virus leaked out of drainage pipes and into the soil , sickening animals in the region with foot-and-mouth disease .
The first SARS virus escaped from labs in Asia on three occasions .
Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratories — which are considered state-of-the-art — have experienced serious safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worked with U.S. collaborators on controversial experiments called gain-of-function studies , which involve making viruses more dangerous to test their transmissibility .
Years before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic , gain-of-function experiments were at the center of a global scientific controversy .
Proponents said that the studies could help advance knowledge of infectious diseases and prevent the next pandemic .
Detractors warned that they were too risky and that they might also cause the next pandemic .
The National Institutes of Health , which funded work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moratorium on such research in 2014 and lifted it in 2017 after developing a new review framework for the studies .
Today , most gain-of-function research is funded by the United States .
In order to determine what happened , these experts say , the world needs a neutral inquiry untainted by the Trump administration ’ s efforts to divert attention away from the botched U.S. response .
“ The investigation shouldn ’ t be about apportioning blame , ” said Lentzos .
“ The investigation needs to be about finding a credible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then using that to develop an early warning for the future.
” When Australia called for an inquiry in April , its government aimed to counter the Trump administration ’ s posturing with a more sensible proposal .
The goal was “ to minimize the reach of conspiracy theories about the virus that have been surfaced by U.S. and Chinese officials alike , ” said Natasha Kassam , a research fellow at the Lowy Institute , a think tank in Sydney .
For years , Australia had been a loyal ally of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goals even as the rest of the world balked .
During the Iraq War , as the Bush administration pushed faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction , Australian Prime Minister John Howard was so pliant that commentators dubbed him Washington ’ s “ deputy sheriff.
” The Trump presidency has seriously tested Australia ’ s devotion , though .
Pompeo tested it further when he suggested , following Australia ’ s announcement , that the country was merely supporting U.S. efforts to pinpoint an origin .
A “ dossier ” leaked to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The document , which was detailed by the Australian paper the Daily Telegraph in a breathless article published on May 4 , dealt with China ’ s handling of the outbreak and cast suspicion on the Wuhan Institute of Virology .
Many of the details were familiar , including the fact that China had silenced doctors , thwarted early attempts at international cooperation , and subjected academic papers on the virus to special review .
It later emerged that the dossier was in fact a summary of existing news reports that is believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embassy in Canberra .
These developments annoyed Chinese officials , who last week threatened to place steep tariffs on Australian beef and barley .
“ They see it , through their dialectical lens , as a coordinated and direct attack by Australia on behalf of the United States , ” said Andrew Chubb , an expert on Chinese politics and international relations at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom .
Australia ended up backing down , and the Morrison government threw its support behind the milder World Health Assembly resolution .
China imposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from four Australian meat processing plants anyway .
If a full investigation is eventually conducted , biosafety experts hope that it will include a review of samples and safety protocols from the Wuhan labs as well as the wet market .
Simon Wain-Hobson , a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris , said it would be useful to see lab records from Wuhan going back to August , as well as any records from work with other mammalian viruses .
“ If it was a breach , we need to know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacities to contain some of these viruses , ” he said .
“ We need to know this as scientists because if it can infect one scientist then it can infect a third , fourth , fifth.
” The Trump administration ’ s determination to find a scapegoat is short-sighted , he said , and the notion of asking China to pay for the outbreak is unprecedented .
“ No country can pay retribution for a thing like this , ” Wain-Hobson told The Intercept .
“ What about a bit of compassion @ @

For weeks, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been claiming without evidence that the Covid-19 pandemic is linked to a lab in Wuhan that researches bat coronaviruses. Their efforts are clearly calculated to distract from Trump’s bungled response to the virus, and, for rational observers, they have tainted the notion that the outbreak began with a lab accident or safety breach.
But while many scientists think a lab origin is unlikely, biosafety experts still see it as a possibility. The administration’s posturing may ultimately make it much more difficult to figure out what actually happened in the earliest days of the outbreak — even if, ironically, the clues do end up leading back to a lab.
Based on the available evidence, SARS-CoV-2 — the virus that causes Covid-19 — likely emerged in bats in the wild and then jumped to humans, possibly via an intermediary animal. What is unclear is where that pivotal transmission, called a “spillover” event, occurred. Chinese authorities have pushed the theory that it happened at Wuhan’s Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where 27 of the 41 earliest cases were clustered. Some scientists believe it could have happened in nature, for example in the villages surrounding the caves in southwestern China where bats harboring coronaviruses live. As countries urbanize and humans encroach onto animals’ habitats, natural spillovers have become increasingly common. But other experts say that the possibility of a lab accident, infection during fieldwork, or other safety breach cannot yet be ruled out — and that determining whether such a breach occurred is imperative.
“An open investigation is absolutely warranted and absolutely essential,” said Richard Ebright, a professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University. A longtime biosafety proponent, Ebright believes that a lab error is “at least as probable” as an entirely natural spillover event. “Unsupported claims by Trump and Pompeo have politicized and polarized the issue and likely have had the effect of making an open investigation less likely.”
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Last month, Australia led the way in calling for such an investigation, suggesting that it would raise the issue at the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, at its meeting this week. “We just want to know what happened so it doesn’t happen again,” Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said at a press conference on May 8. Canada, Germany, and Sweden backed the idea. But U.S. meddling sabotaged the effort, and the result is a watered down resolution, backed by the European Union and over 100 countries, calling for an inquiry into the international response to the pandemic. The resolution avoids singling out China, and on Monday Beijing threw its support behind the weakened language. It was adopted on Tuesday, but the world will need to wait for a full investigation.
Such an effort is needed for many reasons. China has been conducting its own investigation but has not shared any information with the World Health Organization. And the Chinese government’s early cover-up of the outbreak and silencing of critics does not instill confidence that it will be forthcoming as to the origins of the virus.
Virologists say that learning more about how the coronavirus infected humans could help ward off future outbreaks. The discovery of an animal species carrying a closely related virus, for example, could help the world prevent a resurgence in cases by showing where to focus control efforts. A wet market origin could fuel an international movement to close wildlife markets. And for scientists, knowing whether a lab accident played any role is critical to ensuring safe research conditions going forward.
But by relentlessly pushing the lab leak theory without giving evidence to back it up, Trump and Pompeo have narrowed the chances that the world will get clarity on the pandemic’s origins. Both men have clouded the discussion by touting the conspiracy theory that the coronavirus was deliberately made in a Chinese lab as a bioweapon — an idea that has been roundly rejected by both scientists and intelligence officials. Trump has also called on China to compensate the United States for the outbreak. Pompeo, meanwhile, has so angered Beijing that on Monday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian called him a “lying blabbermouth.” By most accounts, the international push for an investigation came about not because of the extreme U.S. position, but in spite of it.
Speculation about the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a biosafety level 4 facility built with French assistance, started early on. In January, a study published by Chinese scientists in The Lancet found that the first patient diagnosed with the coronavirus, on December 1, had no connection to the wet market.
That set off guesses and conspiracy theories alike. “We need to look wider than just the wet market origin,” said Filippa Lentzos, a biosafety expert at King’s College London. “At the moment it’s still an open question.” The closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2 is a bat coronavirus that was sampled by the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but the two viruses are not close enough to suggest a direct link.
A number of recent outbreaks, including HIV, Zika, and the first SARS virus, were caused by purely natural spillovers. And yet, there have also been outbreaks caused by lab accidents. A 1977 outbreak of H1N1 in the Soviet Union and China is believed to have been caused by Soviet scientists experimenting with a live virus in a lab, perhaps to make a vaccine. In a 2007 breach at Pirbright, a biosafety level 4 animal research facility in Surrey, in the United Kingdom, wastewater containing live virus leaked out of drainage pipes and into the soil, sickening animals in the region with foot-and-mouth disease. The first SARS virus escaped from labs in Asia on three occasions. Even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratories — which are considered state-of-the-art — have experienced serious safety breaches.
The Wuhan Institute of Virology worked with U.S. collaborators on controversial experiments called gain-of-function studies, which involve making viruses more dangerous to test their transmissibility. Years before the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, gain-of-function experiments were at the center of a global scientific controversy. Proponents said that the studies could help advance knowledge of infectious diseases and prevent the next pandemic. Detractors warned that they were too risky and that they might also cause the next pandemic. The National Institutes of Health placed a moratorium on such research in 2014 and lifted it in 2017 after developing a new review framework for the studies. Today, most gain-of-function research is funded by the United States.
In order to determine what happened, these experts say, the world needs a neutral inquiry untainted by the Trump administration’s efforts to divert attention away from the botched U.S. response. “The investigation shouldn’t be about apportioning blame,” said Lentzos. “The investigation needs to be about finding a credible answer for how the pandemic started and then using that to develop an early warning for the future.”
When Australia called for an inquiry in April, its government aimed to counter the Trump administration’s posturing with a more sensible proposal. The goal was “to minimize the reach of conspiracy theories about the virus that have been surfaced by U.S. and Chinese officials alike,” said Natasha Kassam, a research fellow at the Lowy Institute, a think tank in Sydney.
For years, Australia had been a loyal ally of the United States, backing American foreign policy goals even as the rest of the world balked. During the Iraq War, as the Bush administration pushed faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, Australian Prime Minister John Howard was so pliant that commentators dubbed him Washington’s “deputy sheriff.” The Trump presidency has seriously tested Australia’s devotion, though. Pompeo tested it further when he suggested, following Australia’s announcement, that the country was merely supporting U.S. efforts to pinpoint an origin.
A “dossier” leaked to the Australian press caused further problems. The document, which was detailed by the Australian paper the Daily Telegraph in a breathless article published on May 4, dealt with China’s handling of the outbreak and cast suspicion on the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Many of the details were familiar, including the fact that China had silenced doctors, thwarted early attempts at international cooperation, and subjected academic papers on the virus to special review. It later emerged that the dossier was in fact a summary of existing news reports that is believed to have been circulated by the U.S. embassy in Canberra.
These developments annoyed Chinese officials, who last week threatened to place steep tariffs on Australian beef and barley. “They see it, through their dialectical lens, as a coordinated and direct attack by Australia on behalf of the United States,” said Andrew Chubb, an expert on Chinese politics and international relations at Lancaster University in the United Kingdom. Australia ended up backing down, and the Morrison government threw its support behind the milder World Health Assembly resolution. China imposed the tariff on barley and banned exports from four Australian meat processing plants anyway.
Read Our Complete Coverage Origins of Covid
If a full investigation is eventually conducted, biosafety experts hope that it will include a review of samples and safety protocols from the Wuhan labs as well as the wet market. Simon Wain-Hobson, a virologist at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it would be useful to see lab records from Wuhan going back to August, as well as any records from work with other mammalian viruses.
“If it was a breach, we need to know, because then clearly we are overestimating our capacities to contain some of these viruses,” he said. “We need to know this as scientists because if it can infect one scientist then it can infect a third, fourth, fifth.”
The Trump administration’s determination to find a scapegoat is short-sighted, he said, and the notion of asking China to pay for the outbreak is unprecedented. “No country can pay retribution for a thing like this,” Wain-Hobson told The Intercept. “What about a bit of compassion?”
Correction: May 20, 2020
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the NIH funded work at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through its PREDICT program. PREDICT is a program of the U.S. Agency for International Development.


theintercept--2020-05-19--Redirecting Asylum-Seekers From U.S. to Guatemala Was a Cruel Farce, Report Finds

the United States began sending Salvadoran and Honduran asylum-seekers to Guatemala , telling them , in effect , to try their luck there .
The transfers were conducted under an agreement with Guatemala , one of a series of deals with Central American countries , and one which promoted the idea that Guatemala is a “ safe third country ” for people fleeing violence — even though its asylum program barely functions and many Guatemalans are themselves heading north to escape violence , corruption , and persecution .
The asylum agreement faced protests and legal challenges , but the U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidency of Alejandro Giammattei , eventually acquiesced .
Nearly 1,000 Honduran and Salvadoran asylum-seekers were sent to Guatemala before the program was suspended in mid-March because of the coronavirus outbreak .
A new report from Refugees International and Human Rights Watch finds that those asylum-seekers were poorly treated by U.S. border officials , misinformed about the program and their prospects of getting into the U.S. , and left without resources when they reached Guatemala .
According to the Guatemalan government , only 20 of the 939 people sent to Guatemala under the so-called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have actually applied for asylum there .
The report also argues that U.S. is violating domestic and international law by sending people to dangerous conditions in Guatemala without first hearing their asylum claims .
Hustled to Guatemala With Little Explanation Interviews conducted by the report ’ s authors with 30 asylum-seekers who were sent to Guatemala revealed confusion and anguish .
Interviewees related familiar stories of harsh conditions in U.S. detention : held for days without showers , served inedible frozen food , denied access to medical care , and verbally abused by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many said they did not understand the process by which they were sent to Guatemala .
One Salvadoran man said that a Homeland Security official told him , “ There is no asylum , ” and “ There are no Central Americans allowed into the United States.
” A Honduran woman was also told the U.S. “ wasn ’ t giving asylum anymore.
” Unlike the normal process for asylum-seekers , many people subjected to the ACA weren ’ t asked if they were afraid to return home or go to Guatemala .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ report said that they had no chance to meet with an attorney .
They were given various forms explaining the ACA , many only in English , but none properly understood that they had to ask for asylum in Guatemala — rather , they believed they ’ d have the chance to continue their U.S. asylum case from Guatemala .
Some people didn ’ t even understand that they were being sent to Guatemala until they arrived there .
A spokesperson for CBP , Matthew Dyman , said that under the agreement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that individuals are “ referred for an interview with a [ U.S .
Citizenship and Immigration Services ] Asylum Officer , which will determine whether the individual has a reasonable fear of being transferred to Guatemala.
” He added that following their transfer , “ Guatemalan migration officials interview each individual and refer them to partner non-governmental organizations for services.
” Yet interviewees told Refugees International and Human Rights Watch that registration at the airport “ took a cursory two-to-three minutes , during which transferees were not provided any information regarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Asylum-seekers had “ 72 hours to make the decision about whether they would remain in Guatemala , return to the countries they fled , or try to find refuge elsewhere.
” A psychologist who works in the only shelter receiving the asylum-seekers in Guatemala City said the rapid transfer of asylum-seekers compounded the trauma of their initial flight .
“ Those who arrive under the ACA are often suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic stress , as well as physical illnesses — respiratory infections , headaches , palpitations , ” she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Many of the asylum-seekers interviewed for the report were between 18 and 20 years old .
“ We are destroying a generation , ” the psychologist said .
For most of the people transferred , staying in Guatemala was untenable .
Guatemala ’ s capacity to take in asylum-seekers is limited for legal and practical reasons .
First off , the gangs that operate in El Salvador and Honduras also have a presence in Guatemala , and many people fleeing the region say they do not feel they will be safe anywhere within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates of violence against women , with perpetrators enjoying relative impunity for those crimes , and today ’ s report notes that 75 percent of the asylum-seekers sent to Guatemala under the ACA were women and children .
Asylum law in Guatemala is “ clunky and very politicized , ” said Refugees International ’ s Yael Schacher , and there is little bureaucratic infrastructure .
The report notes that Guatemala “ received fewer than 50 new asylum claims per year from 2002-2014 , ” and that a June 2019 State Department cable claimed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim in over a year .
And Guatemala is a very poor country , dealing with high levels of poverty and food insecurity that force thousands of its own citizens to emigrate each year .
There are few shelters available to migrants in Guatemala .
The ACA came without funding from the U.S. to care for asylum-seekers , and Guatemalan law was clear that money could not be spent implementing the agreement .
Just One Part of a Blockade That lack of capacity is probably why more people weren ’ t sent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. had for this was to be much bigger , they wanted to send hundreds of people each week , ” she said .
“ But I think as more families began to be sent , the situation became untenable in Guatemala .
There was no place for those people to go .
It ’ s also clear that UNHCR ” — the U.N. refugee agency — “ was not going to sanction this , not going to facilitate .
So lack of UNHCR support for it , criticism from the Guatemala @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put some brakes on it.
” Dyman , the CBP spokesperson , said that “ a core part of the bilateral agreement is that the United States will transfer only the number of individuals that Guatemala has the capacity to accept and process.
” But the need to transfer large numbers of people to Guatemala was also reduced by the success of the administration ’ s other efforts to severely restrict the options for asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border .
Tens of thousands of people have been thrown into the Remain in Mexico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — often in camps or on the street — in Mexican border cities while their case proceeded in the U.S. A transit bar blocked asylum for anyone who did not first ask for protection in the countries they passed through en route to the U.S. , and other programs sped up the review and rejection of asylum claims at the border .
Now , the coronavirus pandemic has brought asylum almost to a halt .
Last week , the Washington Post reported that just two people have been granted humanitarian protection at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health , the U.S. has expelled over 20,000 unauthorized border crossers , most of them directly to Mexico , where , as The Intercept has reported , they face a chaotic situation and few resources .
Even children ’ s asylum requests are being blocked .
The pandemic has created the perfect pretext for White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller and other anti-immigrant hard-liners to enact the election-year border blockade of their dreams .
Still , advocates such as Schacher worry that the U.S. will press on with implementing asylum cooperative agreements with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less equipped to offer protection than Guatemala .
Honduras , for one , has been a willing partner for the Trump administration , and Guatemala has pushed back against deportation flights from the U.S. during the pandemic , which have helped spread Covid-19 from U.S. immigration detention centers to Latin America .
Schacher said if that continues and “ if that gets annoying enough for the U.S. , I can see the U.S. beginning to send Guatemalans to Honduras.
” She added that lawsuits against the ACAs , including one brought by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ They may want to start quickly sending people to Honduras before they get stopped by the courts , ” she said .
“ The goal of the Trump administration is to deport as many people as possible.
” Dyman said that “ there are no imminent plans to begin ACA transfers to Honduras ; when international travel conditions improve we will resume discussions about implementing these agreements.
” The program has been promoted by the administration as “ burden sharing ” to “ control the flow of aliens into the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cross-border ubiquity of violence in Central America , not to mention the disparate resources of a rich country like the United States and its historical role in generating instability in the region .
“ From the U.S. perspective , this is just a burden shifting exercise , not a burden sharing exercise , ” Schacher said .
“ This is a border enforcement policy rather than anything else .
”

Last November, the United States began sending Salvadoran and Honduran asylum-seekers to Guatemala, telling them, in effect, to try their luck there. The transfers were conducted under an agreement with Guatemala, one of a series of deals with Central American countries, and one which promoted the idea that Guatemala is a “safe third country” for people fleeing violence — even though its asylum program barely functions and many Guatemalans are themselves heading north to escape violence, corruption, and persecution.
The asylum agreement faced protests and legal challenges, but the U.S. persisted and Guatemala, under the new presidency of Alejandro Giammattei, eventually acquiesced. Nearly 1,000 Honduran and Salvadoran asylum-seekers were sent to Guatemala before the program was suspended in mid-March because of the coronavirus outbreak.
A new report from Refugees International and Human Rights Watch finds that those asylum-seekers were poorly treated by U.S. border officials, misinformed about the program and their prospects of getting into the U.S., and left without resources when they reached Guatemala. According to the Guatemalan government, only 20 of the 939 people sent to Guatemala under the so-called Asylum Cooperative Agreement, or ACA, have actually applied for asylum there.
The report also argues that U.S. is violating domestic and international law by sending people to dangerous conditions in Guatemala without first hearing their asylum claims.
Hustled to Guatemala With Little Explanation
Interviews conducted by the report’s authors with 30 asylum-seekers who were sent to Guatemala revealed confusion and anguish. Interviewees related familiar stories of harsh conditions in U.S. detention: held for days without showers, served inedible frozen food, denied access to medical care, and verbally abused by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers. Many said they did not understand the process by which they were sent to Guatemala.
Homeland Security told him, “There are no Central Americans allowed into the United States.”
One Salvadoran man said that a Homeland Security official told him, “There is no asylum,” and “There are no Central Americans allowed into the United States.” A Honduran woman was also told the U.S. “wasn’t giving asylum anymore.” Unlike the normal process for asylum-seekers, many people subjected to the ACA weren’t asked if they were afraid to return home or go to Guatemala. All of the people interviewed for the report said that they had no chance to meet with an attorney. They were given various forms explaining the ACA, many only in English, but none properly understood that they had to ask for asylum in Guatemala — rather, they believed they’d have the chance to continue their U.S. asylum case from Guatemala. Some people didn’t even understand that they were being sent to Guatemala until they arrived there.
A spokesperson for CBP, Matthew Dyman, said that under the agreement, information is provided in English and Spanish, and that individuals are “referred for an interview with a [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] Asylum Officer, which will determine whether the individual has a reasonable fear of being transferred to Guatemala.” He added that following their transfer, “Guatemalan migration officials interview each individual and refer them to partner non-governmental organizations for services.”
Yet interviewees told Refugees International and Human Rights Watch that registration at the airport “took a cursory two-to-three minutes, during which transferees were not provided any information regarding what would happen to them in Guatemala.” Asylum-seekers had “72 hours to make the decision about whether they would remain in Guatemala, return to the countries they fled, or try to find refuge elsewhere.”
A psychologist who works in the only shelter receiving the asylum-seekers in Guatemala City said the rapid transfer of asylum-seekers compounded the trauma of their initial flight. “Those who arrive under the ACA are often suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic stress, as well as physical illnesses — respiratory infections, headaches, palpitations,” she told the report’s authors. Many of the asylum-seekers interviewed for the report were between 18 and 20 years old. “We are destroying a generation,” the psychologist said.
Read Our Complete Coverage The War on Immigrants
For most of the people transferred, staying in Guatemala was untenable. Guatemala’s capacity to take in asylum-seekers is limited for legal and practical reasons. First off, the gangs that operate in El Salvador and Honduras also have a presence in Guatemala, and many people fleeing the region say they do not feel they will be safe anywhere within it. Also, Guatemala has high rates of violence against women, with perpetrators enjoying relative impunity for those crimes, and today’s report notes that 75 percent of the asylum-seekers sent to Guatemala under the ACA were women and children.
Asylum law in Guatemala is “clunky and very politicized,” said Refugees International’s Yael Schacher, and there is little bureaucratic infrastructure. The report notes that Guatemala “received fewer than 50 new asylum claims per year from 2002-2014,” and that a June 2019 State Department cable claimed that Guatemala had not processed one asylum claim in over a year. And Guatemala is a very poor country, dealing with high levels of poverty and food insecurity that force thousands of its own citizens to emigrate each year. There are few shelters available to migrants in Guatemala. The ACA came without funding from the U.S. to care for asylum-seekers, and Guatemalan law was clear that money could not be spent implementing the agreement.
Just One Part of a Blockade
That lack of capacity is probably why more people weren’t sent, Schacher says. “The plan that the U.S. had for this was to be much bigger, they wanted to send hundreds of people each week,” she said. “But I think as more families began to be sent, the situation became untenable in Guatemala. There was no place for those people to go. It’s also clear that UNHCR” — the U.N. refugee agency — “was not going to sanction this, not going to facilitate. So lack of UNHCR support for it, criticism from the Guatemala side and from the press may have put some brakes on it.”
Dyman, the CBP spokesperson, said that “a core part of the bilateral agreement is that the United States will transfer only the number of individuals that Guatemala has the capacity to accept and process.”
But the need to transfer large numbers of people to Guatemala was also reduced by the success of the administration’s other efforts to severely restrict the options for asylum-seekers at the U.S.-Mexico border. Tens of thousands of people have been thrown into the Remain in Mexico program, which forced them to wait — often in camps or on the street — in Mexican border cities while their case proceeded in the U.S. A transit bar blocked asylum for anyone who did not first ask for protection in the countries they passed through en route to the U.S., and other programs sped up the review and rejection of asylum claims at the border.
“The situation became untenable in Guatemala. There was no place for those people to go.”
Now, the coronavirus pandemic has brought asylum almost to a halt. Last week, the Washington Post reported that just two people have been granted humanitarian protection at the border since late March. Citing public health, the U.S. has expelled over 20,000 unauthorized border crossers, most of them directly to Mexico, where, as The Intercept has reported, they face a chaotic situation and few resources. Even children’s asylum requests are being blocked. The pandemic has created the perfect pretext for White House immigration adviser Stephen Miller and other anti-immigrant hard-liners to enact the election-year border blockade of their dreams.
Still, advocates such as Schacher worry that the U.S. will press on with implementing asylum cooperative agreements with El Salvador and Honduras — countries even less equipped to offer protection than Guatemala. Honduras, for one, has been a willing partner for the Trump administration, and Guatemala has pushed back against deportation flights from the U.S. during the pandemic, which have helped spread Covid-19 from U.S. immigration detention centers to Latin America. Schacher said if that continues and “if that gets annoying enough for the U.S., I can see the U.S. beginning to send Guatemalans to Honduras.”
She added that lawsuits against the ACAs, including one brought by the asylum officers’ union, are proceeding. “They may want to start quickly sending people to Honduras before they get stopped by the courts,” she said. “The goal of the Trump administration is to deport as many people as possible.”
Dyman said that “there are no imminent plans to begin ACA transfers to Honduras; when international travel conditions improve we will resume discussions about implementing these agreements.”
“They may want to start quickly sending people to Honduras before they get stopped by the courts.”
The program has been promoted by the administration as “burden sharing” to “control the flow of aliens into the United States” — a framing that ignores the cross-border ubiquity of violence in Central America, not to mention the disparate resources of a rich country like the United States and its historical role in generating instability in the region.
“From the U.S. perspective, this is just a burden shifting exercise, not a burden sharing exercise,” Schacher said. “This is a border enforcement policy rather than anything else.”