theintercept--2020-10-05--Trump Appointee to VOA Reporters: Criticizing Trump Is a Conflict of Interest

political interference at Voice of America , a Trump ally who heads the outlet ’ s parent agency has issued restrictive policy guidelines on conflicts of interest that would require journalists who are publicly critical of government agencies to recuse themselves from covering that agency .
As an example , it says journalists who “ like ” a social media comment that “ disparages the President ” should recuse themselves from covering Donald Trump .
On Sunday afternoon , VOA staff were sent a memo on the policy dated October 2 by Michael Pack , a former conservative filmmaker who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Agency for Global Media , or USAGM , the agency that oversees VOA .
Pack was previously a close associate of former White House adviser and far-right activist Steve Bannon .
The memo , which was first reported Sunday night by NPR , was accompanied by an updated “ social media policy ” that reflects Pack ’ s guidance .
The Intercept spoke with three VOA journalists about the memo , all of whom requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly .
The three journalists said the policy had sparked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ conflicts of interest ” could be used to target journalists whose coverage VOA management deemed too critical of the Trump administration .
Two of the journalists also expressed concerns that Pack ’ s guidance ran afoul of the agency ’ s “ firewall ” — a legal requirement that VOA remain free from government interference , including from USAGM .
A spokesperson for USAGM did not respond to multiple requests for comment .
All three journalists also described an increasingly aggressive internal review process , in which VOA managers review rank-and-file @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bias .
On Sunday , NPR reported that VOA ’ s longtime and scrupulously neutral White House reporter Steve Herman was the subject of such an internal investigation into whether his coverage of the White House was biased .
Two journalists at VOA told The Intercept that a number of other investigations have taken place of less high-profile reporters , often resulting in reporters being told to provide more airtime for right-wing viewpoints .
“ Conflicts of interest are not limited to those involving the recipient of money , ownership of stock , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the memo says .
“ Simply put , it is a conflict of interest for a journalist to participate personally and substantially in reporting on an issue : ( 1 ) in which they have a personal interest or ( 2 ) have publically personally expressed a political opinion.
” The conflict of interest policy outlined by Pack goes further than typical journalistic ethics policies , which usually stress neutrality or objectivity but do not characterize voicing a single opinion as a conflict .
The memo goes on to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grounds for recusal from reporting on that issue .
The memo offers as an example if a VOA journalist “ publicly criticizes the U.S. Department of Justice ’ s leadership for , among other things , implementing the policies and protecting the prerogatives of the Administration , ” they “ must recuse themselves from reporting on the Department and the part of the Administration implicated by the criticism.
” The memo also says that staff should not cover any issue in which they are affected by government policy , giving the example that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from any story involving J-1 visas.
” The memo cites the New York Times ’ s Ethical Journalism Handbook and the Washington Post ’ s “ Policies and Standards ” Page , which respectively contain language about “ neutrality ” and “ fairness.
” But the CEO ’ s memo turns minor violations of journalistic objectivity — a malleable concept to begin with — into a punishable offense .
And , against the backdrop of Pack ’ s tenure at USAGM , employees worry that the broad standard lays a groundwork that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down coverage of the Trump administration .
One VOA journalist told The Intercept that “ this new guidance is so vague and so broad that it could be used to silence journalists for covering almost anything within their own countries .
… If a journalist working in the U.S. on a J-1 visa can ’ t cover the J-1 visa issue , can a journalist in America who breathes air not cover policy about clean air ?
” The memo says that other behavior , like “ liking ” a comment on Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ For example , a journalist who on Facebook ‘ likes ’ a comment or political cartoon that aggressively attacks or disparages the President must recuse themselves from covering the President , ” the memo says .
Bill Grueskin , a professor of professional practice at Columbia Journalism School , told The Intercept by email that conflict of interest policies typically define a “ conflict ” more narrowly .
He gave examples like holding stock in a company you cover or having a spouse at the agency you cover .
“ We can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government action , whether it ’ s adjusting Social Security contributions or living near a national forest , ” Grueskin wrote .
“ By setting such vague standards , VOA is opening up the possibility that these policies will be enforced arbitrarily , to harass reporters who don ’ t fall in line with the agenda their bosses are pushing.
” Pack ’ s memo has also raised concerns about VOA ’ s “ firewall , ” a policy that exists to protect VOA from outside government influence .
VOA ’ s firewall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Passed into law by the 1994 Broadcasting Act , the firewall “ prohibits interference by any U.S. government official in the objective , independent reporting of news … free of political interference , ” VOA ’ s website says .
“ The firewall ensures that VOA can make the final decisions on what stories to cover , and how they are covered.
” Thomas Kent , a former president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty who also teaches at Columbia University , told The Intercept that the networks under USAGM , including VOA , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fairness and neutrality .
“ The law says that the government and the head of USAGM should not be making editorial decisions and must respect the editorial decisions of all the networks .
In that sense , I think that a memo of this sort should be coming from the heads of the networks , not the head of USAGM , ” Kent said .
According to NPR , Pack ’ s memo has already been the subject of a whistleblower complaint filed by the Government Accountability Project alleging that it violates the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to assign reporters to different stories and beats .
“ The firewall is very clear .
The USAGM CEO is not supposed to be sending out any kind of messaging about how news should be covered — how and by whom , ” said a journalist interviewed by The Intercept .
But another didn ’ t agree , saying that it was within Pack ’ s purview to send “ best practices , ” not specific instructions , for journalists to abide by .
One VOA journalist told The Intercept that the memo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fear ” under Pack and that employees have worried their past social media “ likes ” might come under scrutiny .
“ This feels like they are going after us , ” the journalist said .
“ The example that was given in the letter was quite specific .
It ’ s certainly making a lot of people nervous , including myself.
” Since Pack became the head of USAGM in June , he has been accused of trying to politicize coverage at VOA .
Shortly after his confirmation , he fired the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s purview , including the heads of Radio Free Europe , Radio Free Asia , and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks .
Pack later gave an interview with pro-Trump news outlet The Federalist , in which he speculated that the groups he oversaw would be “ a great place to put a foreign spy ” — a comment some in VOA thought could subject their overseas colleagues to reprisals .
And in the same interview , while stressing that he would not tell specific journalists what to report , he nonetheless said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the swamp , to root out corruption and to deal with these issues of bias.
” Pack ’ s comments caused controversy at VOA , and a group of 14 journalists at VOA signed a letter denouncing the actions and remarks about spies .
One source told The Intercept that Pack ’ s past comments are an important factor in how VOA employees are viewing the new guidance .
“ Given Pack ’ s past comments saying that there is an inherent left-wing bias in VOA and … that his job is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sudden emphasis on our social media policy very much makes me think that they ’ re looking at some of our social media profiles online to substantiate those claims .
”

Amid allegations of political interference at Voice of America, a Trump ally who heads the outlet’s parent agency has issued restrictive policy guidelines on conflicts of interest that would require journalists who are publicly critical of government agencies to recuse themselves from covering that agency. As an example, it says journalists who “like” a social media comment that “disparages the President” should recuse themselves from covering Donald Trump.
On Sunday afternoon, VOA staff were sent a memo on the policy dated October 2 by Michael Pack, a former conservative filmmaker who is currently the CEO of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, or USAGM, the agency that oversees VOA. Pack was previously a close associate of former White House adviser and far-right activist Steve Bannon. The memo, which was first reported Sunday night by NPR, was accompanied by an updated “social media policy” that reflects Pack’s guidance.
The Intercept spoke with three VOA journalists about the memo, all of whom requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. The three journalists said the policy had sparked immediate concern that such a broad definition of “conflicts of interest” could be used to target journalists whose coverage VOA management deemed too critical of the Trump administration. Two of the journalists also expressed concerns that Pack’s guidance ran afoul of the agency’s “firewall” — a legal requirement that VOA remain free from government interference, including from USAGM.
A spokesperson for USAGM did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
All three journalists also described an increasingly aggressive internal review process, in which VOA managers review rank-and-file journalists’ coverage for evidence of political bias. On Sunday, NPR reported that VOA’s longtime and scrupulously neutral White House reporter Steve Herman was the subject of such an internal investigation into whether his coverage of the White House was biased. Two journalists at VOA told The Intercept that a number of other investigations have taken place of less high-profile reporters, often resulting in reporters being told to provide more airtime for right-wing viewpoints.
“Conflicts of interest are not limited to those involving the recipient of money, ownership of stock, or gifts. The rule is broader,” the memo says. “Simply put, it is a conflict of interest for a journalist to participate personally and substantially in reporting on an issue: (1) in which they have a personal interest or (2) have publically personally expressed a political opinion.”
The conflict of interest policy outlined by Pack goes further than typical journalistic ethics policies, which usually stress neutrality or objectivity but do not characterize voicing a single opinion as a conflict.
The memo goes on to say that public criticism offered on any issue is grounds for recusal from reporting on that issue. The memo offers as an example if a VOA journalist “publicly criticizes the U.S. Department of Justice’s leadership for, among other things, implementing the policies and protecting the prerogatives of the Administration,” they “must recuse themselves from reporting on the Department and the part of the Administration implicated by the criticism.” The memo also says that staff should not cover any issue in which they are affected by government policy, giving the example that J-1 visa holders should “recuse themselves from any story involving J-1 visas.”
The memo cites the New York Times’s Ethical Journalism Handbook and the Washington Post’s “Policies and Standards” Page, which respectively contain language about “neutrality” and “fairness.” But the CEO’s memo turns minor violations of journalistic objectivity — a malleable concept to begin with — into a punishable offense. And, against the backdrop of Pack’s tenure at USAGM, employees worry that the broad standard lays a groundwork that could be used to punish journalists or water down coverage of the Trump administration.
One VOA journalist told The Intercept that “this new guidance is so vague and so broad that it could be used to silence journalists for covering almost anything within their own countries. … If a journalist working in the U.S. on a J-1 visa can’t cover the J-1 visa issue, can a journalist in America who breathes air not cover policy about clean air?”
The memo goes on to say that public criticism offered on any issue is grounds for recusal from reporting on that issue.
The memo says that other behavior, like “liking” a comment on Facebook, can be scrutinized as well. “For example, a journalist who on Facebook ‘likes’ a comment or political cartoon that aggressively attacks or disparages the President must recuse themselves from covering the President,” the memo says.
Bill Grueskin, a professor of professional practice at Columbia Journalism School, told The Intercept by email that conflict of interest policies typically define a “conflict” more narrowly. He gave examples like holding stock in a company you cover or having a spouse at the agency you cover.
“We can all be personally affected by almost any government action, whether it’s adjusting Social Security contributions or living near a national forest,” Grueskin wrote. “By setting such vague standards, VOA is opening up the possibility that these policies will be enforced arbitrarily, to harass reporters who don’t fall in line with the agenda their bosses are pushing.”
Pack’s memo has also raised concerns about VOA’s “firewall,” a policy that exists to protect VOA from outside government influence. VOA’s firewall is written into its congressional charter. Passed into law by the 1994 Broadcasting Act, the firewall “prohibits interference by any U.S. government official in the objective, independent reporting of news … free of political interference,” VOA’s website says. “The firewall ensures that VOA can make the final decisions on what stories to cover, and how they are covered.”
Thomas Kent, a former president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty who also teaches at Columbia University, told The Intercept that the networks under USAGM, including VOA, have an obligation to set policies for fairness and neutrality. “The law says that the government and the head of USAGM should not be making editorial decisions and must respect the editorial decisions of all the networks. In that sense, I think that a memo of this sort should be coming from the heads of the networks, not the head of USAGM,” Kent said.
According to NPR, Pack’s memo has already been the subject of a whistleblower complaint filed by the Government Accountability Project alleging that it violates the VOA firewall by telling VOA leadership how to assign reporters to different stories and beats.
“The firewall is very clear. The USAGM CEO is not supposed to be sending out any kind of messaging about how news should be covered — how and by whom,” said a journalist interviewed by The Intercept. But another didn’t agree, saying that it was within Pack’s purview to send “best practices,” not specific instructions, for journalists to abide by.
One VOA journalist told The Intercept that the memo will contribute to a “culture of fear” under Pack and that employees have worried their past social media “likes” might come under scrutiny. “This feels like they are going after us,” the journalist said. “The example that was given in the letter was quite specific. It’s certainly making a lot of people nervous, including myself.”
Since Pack became the head of USAGM in June, he has been accused of trying to politicize coverage at VOA. Shortly after his confirmation, he fired the heads of four media organizations under USAGM’s purview, including the heads of Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. Pack later gave an interview with pro-Trump news outlet The Federalist, in which he speculated that the groups he oversaw would be “a great place to put a foreign spy” — a comment some in VOA thought could subject their overseas colleagues to reprisals. And in the same interview, while stressing that he would not tell specific journalists what to report, he nonetheless said it was his job “to drain the swamp, to root out corruption and to deal with these issues of bias.”
Pack’s comments caused controversy at VOA, and a group of 14 journalists at VOA signed a letter denouncing the actions and remarks about spies. One source told The Intercept that Pack’s past comments are an important factor in how VOA employees are viewing the new guidance.
“Given Pack’s past comments saying that there is an inherent left-wing bias in VOA and … that his job is to correct that bias, this kind of sudden emphasis on our social media policy very much makes me think that they’re looking at some of our social media profiles online to substantiate those claims.”


theintercept--2020-10-05--Texas Voter Suppression Tactics Recall the Jim Crow Era

learned early last week that the election administrator in Fort Bend County , Texas , had decided to add four locations where voters can hand-deliver their absentee ballots , several of which were going to be outside to minimize voters ’ chances of being exposed to the coronavirus .
“ I was like , Oh thank you , Jesus .
Protesting does work !
” said Gaskin , who lives in the eastern part of the county and had spent the previous several days advocating for the additional drop-off sites .
But by Thursday afternoon , Texas Gov .
Greg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision , issuing a statewide proclamation that limits all 254 counties in the state to only a single site where absentee ballots could be dropped off .
By the end of the day , the League of Women Voters of Texas , the National League of United Latin American Citizens , and the League of United Latin American Citizens , had sued the governor over the change , charging that it puts an unreasonable burden on voters during the pandemic .
“ They will have to travel further distances , face longer waits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in order to use the single ballot return location in their county , ” according to the suit .
Gaskin agrees , and she worries about the elderly and people with disabilities who will be dropping off the ballots .
With confidence in the U.S .
Postal Service undermined by the Trump administration , many Texas residents fear mailing their ballots .
But because some counties measure more than 6,000 square miles , a single delivery location would leave some voters having to drive well more than an hour to deliver them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 855 square miles and has more than 811,000 residents , the only drop-off site is an old Walmart building that has been converted into offices .
Rather than having several outdoor drop-off locations allowing voters maximal social distancing and minimal driving , people trying to deliver their ballots in this one location must drive there , show a photo ID , have their temperature checked , and go inside the building .
“ This is also where people come in to go to the health department and — who knows ?
— @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Gaskin .
“ You ’ re putting an unfair burden on the disabled and the elderly.
” Abbott ’ s proclamation about the ballot drop-off locations is widely seen as voter suppression — “ yet another thinly disguised attempt to stymie the vote , ” as the state chapter of the ACLU put it .
It ’ s clear that the most populous counties , which tend to vote Democratic , will be hardest hit .
Travis County , where Hillary Clinton received 66 percent of the vote in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters could hand-deliver their ballots when Abbott announced his order .
Now those sites , which were designed to minimize voters ’ health risks , won ’ t be able to open .
And Harris County , which contains Houston and is the most populous in the state , has to reverse its plan to let voters return their ballots at 11 locations .
“ There ’ s no legitimate reason to close satellite drop-off locations , ” Wesley Story , communications associate at Progress Texas , said of the governor ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempt by Gov .
Abbott to suppress voters because the Texas GOP is afraid of the ballot box.
” The change in handling absentee ballots during the pandemic is one of a string of recent decisions that has left some Texans feeling both physically threatened and concerned that their votes will not be counted .
Biden has a shot at winning this traditionally red state , but the outcome of the presidential race clearly hinges on turnout .
Over the past several months , as Covid-19 rates have soared throughout Texas , Abbott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general , Ken Paxton , have fought against efforts to expand mail-in voting during the pandemic .
In June , the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas Democrats ’ argument that people concerned about contracting the coronavirus at polling places should be allowed to vote by mail .
Texas is one of five states where voters concerned about coronavirus exposure will not be allowed to vote by mail .
At the same time , Texas has been engaged in a legal fight over “ straight-ticket voting , ” a practice that Paxton opposes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2019 , the state also banned temporary and mobile voting sites , a change cheered by Republican lawmakers and expected to depress turnout near college campuses and residents of senior centers .
In a state where more than 788,000 people have already tested positive for the coronavirus and 16,000 have died of Covid-19 , the pandemic has immeasurably raised the stakes of the fight over voter access .
Although Abbott issued a state-wide mask mandate in July , his order specifically exempted polling places .
During the primary held later that month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ site in Collin County after Republican workers refused to wear masks .
Voting rights advocates fear the phenomenon will be repeated in November , when the state and country may be experiencing a second wave of coronavirus infections .
Trump , whose July 29 rally at an oil rig in Midland , Texas , was attended by many maskless supporters , has widely mocked the use of face coverings and social distancing to stop the spread of the virus .
He did not wear a mask publicly on his last visit to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the fact that Trump has contracted the coronavirus will diminish the disdain his supporters in Texas feel for wearing masks .
In the southernmost points of Texas where Danny Diaz works , people viscerally understand the life-and-death consequences of the changes to the rules around voting .
Diaz , an organizer with LUPE , lives in Hidalgo County , where the death rate from Covid-19 is more than 10 times the national average .
In nearby Starr County , where more than 99 percent of residents are Latino and 65 percent live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have already contracted the virus .
“ Everyone has been affected here , ” said Diaz , who was sick with Covid-19 for a month this summer and has had several people close to him die of the disease , including his uncle and the father of a close friend .
“ A lot of people are concerned about voting in these locations , Diaz said of the four counties where he works : Starr , Willacy , Hidalgo , and Cameron .
“ People don ’ t want to go out .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contract the virus.
” Well-grounded fears about contagion have also led to a shortage of poll workers , Diaz said , since many of the people who usually do the job are elderly .
He and his colleagues are now in the process of trying to recruit young people , who may be less concerned about contracting the virus , to replace them .
Locals are also worried about another provision of the proclamation Abbott issued last week , which allows poll watchers “ to observe any activity conducted at the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the in-person delivery of a marked mail ballot.
” The provision seems to be a direct response to a comment Trump made during his debate with Joe Biden last week urging his supporters “ to go into the polls and watch very carefully.
” One Republican state senator has already made it clear he thinks the restriction on the number of ballot drop-off locations will make it easier for poll watchers to “ observe ” the voting process .
Diaz fears that , emboldened by both Trump and Abbot , the poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will increase the bullying of Biden supporters that he ’ s witnessed at “ Trump train rallies ” over the past several weeks .
“ We don ’ t have a heavy Republican presence living here .
These are people from different parts of the state who come to McAllen and other places with vehicles , honking their horns , ” he said .
“ And if you have a Biden sticker , they ’ re bullying you .
I ’ m afraid that attitude , the way they behave , their rudeness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go into this poll watching.
” The fears and uncertainty have inspired Diaz and other voting rights advocates to throw themselves into ensuring that votes are cast and counted throughout Texas , where early voting begins on October 13 .
In Waco , Linda Jann Lewis , a former county elections administrator who now works with the NAACP , sent a letter with important voting information to residents of several primarily Black precincts in McLennan County , where she lives .
Even before the pandemic , McLennan was facing voter access challenges .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 51 percent between 2012 and 2018 , according to a report of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights .
Statewide , Texas saw 750 polling places close during this period , a change that disproportionately affected communities of color , according to the report .
Since then , McLennan has grown further — and lost more polling places .
“ Now we have just 32 for a registered voter population of 143,000 , ” said Lewis , who fears the turnout on Election Day may lead to long lines .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her concern .
Lewis has gotten a flurry of calls in response to her mailing .
“ The first I got was from a Black man who said , ‘ I ’ m 69 years old .
And I can vote by mail , but I don ’ t trust these SOBs , and I ’ m going to vote early in person if I have to crawl in there , ’ ” she said .
Lewis had to explain that there was only one location in McLennan County where he could drop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s in the basement of a building with a horribly constructed handicap access , ” she said .
“ It ’ s perilous .
But that ’ s where you should go.
” Even successful delivery of a ballot won ’ t ensure that his vote will be counted .
Each absentee ballot can be challenged on several grounds , including if the signature on it doesn ’ t perfectly match the signature on the application for the ballot .
Research shows that white people are much more likely to have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters accounting for only 10 percent of absentee ballots , but 18 percent of rejected ones , and Hispanic voters accounting for 12 percent of absentee votes and 36 percent of rejections .
The uphill battle to secure the fundamental democratic right to vote in Texas reminds Gaskin , in Fort Bend , of another era .
“ We are going back to the days when I went to a segregated high school and had 15 pages missing from my geometry book because they didn ’ t buy new books for the colored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is 73 .
To Gaskin , who was 9 years old when her parents deemed her old enough to leaflet on her own and in college when the Voting Rights Act passed , the current obstacles to voting in Texas are just another bump in this long road .
“ All it is is a return to trying to make things so difficult that you just throw your hands up and say , ‘ I give .
I ’ m not going to do this .
OK , Mr. White Man .
Have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
But Gaskin is not prepared to concede .
Instead , she has joined a group that will be distributing water , rain ponchos , portable chairs , sandwiches , and snacks to voters throughout Texas on Election Day .
“ If you have to get off the line to go to the bathroom , we ’ re going to stand in your place , ” said Gaskin , who is prepared to work as long and hard as necessary to make sure that everyone gets to vote .
“ We ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead .
”

Pam Johnson Gaskin learned early last week that the election administrator in Fort Bend County, Texas, had decided to add four locations where voters can hand-deliver their absentee ballots, several of which were going to be outside to minimize voters’ chances of being exposed to the coronavirus. “I was like, Oh thank you, Jesus. Protesting does work!” said Gaskin, who lives in the eastern part of the county and had spent the previous several days advocating for the additional drop-off sites.
But by Thursday afternoon, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had invalidated the county’s decision, issuing a statewide proclamation that limits all 254 counties in the state to only a single site where absentee ballots could be dropped off. By the end of the day, the League of Women Voters of Texas, the National League of United Latin American Citizens, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, had sued the governor over the change, charging that it puts an unreasonable burden on voters during the pandemic. “They will have to travel further distances, face longer waits, and risk exposure to COVID-19, in order to use the single ballot return location in their county,” according to the suit.
Gaskin agrees, and she worries about the elderly and people with disabilities who will be dropping off the ballots. With confidence in the U.S. Postal Service undermined by the Trump administration, many Texas residents fear mailing their ballots. But because some counties measure more than 6,000 square miles, a single delivery location would leave some voters having to drive well more than an hour to deliver them.
In Gaskin’s county, which is 855 square miles and has more than 811,000 residents, the only drop-off site is an old Walmart building that has been converted into offices. Rather than having several outdoor drop-off locations allowing voters maximal social distancing and minimal driving, people trying to deliver their ballots in this one location must drive there, show a photo ID, have their temperature checked, and go inside the building.
“This is also where people come in to go to the health department and — who knows? — some of them may be sick,” said Gaskin. “You’re putting an unfair burden on the disabled and the elderly.”
Abbott’s proclamation about the ballot drop-off locations is widely seen as voter suppression — “yet another thinly disguised attempt to stymie the vote,” as the state chapter of the ACLU put it. It’s clear that the most populous counties, which tend to vote Democratic, will be hardest hit. Travis County, where Hillary Clinton received 66 percent of the vote in 2016, had just opened four drive-thru locations where voters could hand-deliver their ballots when Abbott announced his order. Now those sites, which were designed to minimize voters’ health risks, won’t be able to open. And Harris County, which contains Houston and is the most populous in the state, has to reverse its plan to let voters return their ballots at 11 locations.
“There’s no legitimate reason to close satellite drop-off locations,” Wesley Story, communications associate at Progress Texas, said of the governor’s decision. “This is a blatant attempt by Gov. Abbott to suppress voters because the Texas GOP is afraid of the ballot box.”
The change in handling absentee ballots during the pandemic is one of a string of recent decisions that has left some Texans feeling both physically threatened and concerned that their votes will not be counted. Biden has a shot at winning this traditionally red state, but the outcome of the presidential race clearly hinges on turnout.
Over the past several months, as Covid-19 rates have soared throughout Texas, Abbott and the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, have fought against efforts to expand mail-in voting during the pandemic. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas Democrats’ argument that people concerned about contracting the coronavirus at polling places should be allowed to vote by mail. Texas is one of five states where voters concerned about coronavirus exposure will not be allowed to vote by mail.
At the same time, Texas has been engaged in a legal fight over “straight-ticket voting,” a practice that Paxton opposes and many Democrats in the state support. In 2019, the state also banned temporary and mobile voting sites, a change cheered by Republican lawmakers and expected to depress turnout near college campuses and residents of senior centers.
Left/top Pam Johnson Gaskin and right/bottom Linda Jann Lewis are pictured in their homes. Photo: Courtesy of Pam Johnson Gaskin and Linda Jann Lewis.
Mask-Free Voting
In a state where more than 788,000 people have already tested positive for the coronavirus and 16,000 have died of Covid-19, the pandemic has immeasurably raised the stakes of the fight over voter access. Although Abbott issued a state-wide mask mandate in July, his order specifically exempted polling places. During the primary held later that month, some poll workers left their polling site in Collin County after Republican workers refused to wear masks.
Voting rights advocates fear the phenomenon will be repeated in November, when the state and country may be experiencing a second wave of coronavirus infections. Trump, whose July 29 rally at an oil rig in Midland, Texas, was attended by many maskless supporters, has widely mocked the use of face coverings and social distancing to stop the spread of the virus. He did not wear a mask publicly on his last visit to the state. And it’s unclear whether the fact that Trump has contracted the coronavirus will diminish the disdain his supporters in Texas feel for wearing masks.
In the southernmost points of Texas where Danny Diaz works, people viscerally understand the life-and-death consequences of the changes to the rules around voting. Diaz, an organizer with La Unión del Pueblo Entero, lives in Hidalgo County, where the death rate from Covid-19 is more than 10 times the national average. In nearby Starr County, where more than 99 percent of residents are Latino and 65 percent live in poverty, one in 17 people have already contracted the virus.
“Everyone has been affected here,” said Diaz, who was sick with Covid-19 for a month this summer and has had several people close to him die of the disease, including his uncle and the father of a close friend.
“A lot of people are concerned about voting in these locations, Diaz said of the four counties where he works: Starr, Willacy, Hidalgo, and Cameron. “People don’t want to go out. We know it’s so easy to contract the virus.”
Well-grounded fears about contagion have also led to a shortage of poll workers, Diaz said, since many of the people who usually do the job are elderly. He and his colleagues are now in the process of trying to recruit young people, who may be less concerned about contracting the virus, to replace them.
Locals are also worried about another provision of the proclamation Abbott issued last week, which allows poll watchers “to observe any activity conducted at the early voting clerk’s office location related to the in-person delivery of a marked mail ballot.” The provision seems to be a direct response to a comment Trump made during his debate with Joe Biden last week urging his supporters “to go into the polls and watch very carefully.” One Republican state senator has already made it clear he thinks the restriction on the number of ballot drop-off locations will make it easier for poll watchers to “observe” the voting process.
Diaz fears that, emboldened by both Trump and Abbot, the poll watchers who respond to the recent call will increase the bullying of Biden supporters that he’s witnessed at “Trump train rallies” over the past several weeks. “We don’t have a heavy Republican presence living here. These are people from different parts of the state who come to McAllen and other places with vehicles, honking their horns,” he said. “And if you have a Biden sticker, they’re bullying you. I’m afraid that attitude, the way they behave, their rudeness — all that energy is going to go into this poll watching.”
The fears and uncertainty have inspired Diaz and other voting rights advocates to throw themselves into ensuring that votes are cast and counted throughout Texas, where early voting begins on October 13. In Waco, Linda Jann Lewis, a former county elections administrator who now works with the NAACP, sent a letter with important voting information to residents of several primarily Black precincts in McLennan County, where she lives.
Even before the pandemic, McLennan was facing voter access challenges. The district saw its polling places reduced by 51 percent between 2012 and 2018, according to a report of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Statewide, Texas saw 750 polling places close during this period, a change that disproportionately affected communities of color, according to the report.
Since then, McLennan has grown further — and lost more polling places. “Now we have just 32 for a registered voter population of 143,000,” said Lewis, who fears the turnout on Election Day may lead to long lines. Others in her district seem to share her concern. Lewis has gotten a flurry of calls in response to her mailing.
“The first I got was from a Black man who said, ‘I’m 69 years old. And I can vote by mail, but I don’t trust these SOBs, and I’m going to vote early in person if I have to crawl in there,’” she said.
Lewis had to explain that there was only one location in McLennan County where he could drop off his ballot in person. “It’s in the basement of a building with a horribly constructed handicap access,” she said. “It’s perilous. But that’s where you should go.”
Even successful delivery of a ballot won’t ensure that his vote will be counted. Each absentee ballot can be challenged on several grounds, including if the signature on it doesn’t perfectly match the signature on the application for the ballot. Research shows that white people are much more likely to have their absentee ballots counted, with Black voters accounting for only 10 percent of absentee ballots, but 18 percent of rejected ones, and Hispanic voters accounting for 12 percent of absentee votes and 36 percent of rejections.
The uphill battle to secure the fundamental democratic right to vote in Texas reminds Gaskin, in Fort Bend, of another era. “We are going back to the days when I went to a segregated high school and had 15 pages missing from my geometry book because they didn’t buy new books for the colored school,” said Gaskin, who is 73.
To Gaskin, who was 9 years old when her parents deemed her old enough to leaflet on her own and in college when the Voting Rights Act passed, the current obstacles to voting in Texas are just another bump in this long road. “All it is is a return to trying to make things so difficult that you just throw your hands up and say, ‘I give. I’m not going to do this. OK, Mr. White Man. Have it your way,’” she said.
But Gaskin is not prepared to concede. Instead, she has joined a group that will be distributing water, rain ponchos, portable chairs, sandwiches, and snacks to voters throughout Texas on Election Day. “If you have to get off the line to go to the bathroom, we’re going to stand in your place,” said Gaskin, who is prepared to work as long and hard as necessary to make sure that everyone gets to vote. “We’ll stand in line till we drop dead.”


theintercept--2020-10-06--Mitch McConnell Put the Senate in Recess. What Happens Now?

went into recess Monday afternoon following the news that at least three Republican senators were waylaid with Covid-19 .
It was the latest in an ongoing parliamentary battle whose outcome could shape both the judiciary and the Senate for years to come .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had a near-invincible upper hand in the fight , but now his control is far from certain amid the virus outbreak , which seems to have been spread rapidly by the very ceremony that kicked off the confrontation : a reckless White House party to celebrate the nomination of Judge Amy Coney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said whether he ’ s taken a Covid-19 test , has made clear his unyielding determination to brush aside any norm or obstacle to implant Barrett into the Supreme Court .
To make that happen before the election — or , in the event of a loss by Donald Trump , before the president leaves office — McConnell has two major hurdles to clear .
The first is a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee , chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham , a South Carolina Republican facing a surprisingly close race for reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judiciary vote would likely happen by October 16 .
The second is a floor vote , which McConnell has pledged to hold as quickly as possible after the nomination clears the committee .
A floor vote is eyed for sometime around October 26 .
Within moments of the news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s passing , progressives both in and out of Congress began pushing Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to be as aggressive as possible in blocking Barrett .
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teamed with Schumer for a press conference outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Ginsburg graduated .
Ocasio-Cortez pressed the point , urging Schumer to use “ every tool ” at his disposal .
The pressure has continued .
On Monday , a coalition of mostly New York-based progressive groups launched a video pushing Schumer to give everything he has to the fight against Barrett , narrated largely by constitutional law professor Zephyr Teachout .
followed a long weekend of wall-to-wall calls and video meetings between Schumer , his senior staff , and the various outside progressive groups engaged in the confirmation battle .
Former Senate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the party ’ s outside progressive organizations and its grassroots activists , and even as they didn ’ t always agree on strategy or tactics , there was a sense that both camps were part of the same effort .
Schumer has always had a more arms-length relationship with those same outside forces but now is making an effort to close that gap .
The attempted alliance is different in degree from the relationship between Schumer and outside groups during the push to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court .
Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Kavanaugh was unwinnable , and the protests in the Capitol would only hurt Democratic senators up for reelection in conservative states , such as Joe Donnelly in Indiana , Claire McCaskill in Missouri , Joe Manchin in West Virginia , and Jon Tester in Montana .
Indeed , McCaskill and Donnelly lost their elections , and McCaskill continues to blame the Kavanaugh confirmation for her 6-point loss to Josh Hawley .
( Donnelly also lost by six , while Tester and Manchin won . )
Republicans , meanwhile , both in office @ @ @ @ @ @ @ express outrage at the unfair way they claim Kavanaugh was treated .
This time around , the pandemic has dampened the appetite for protests in the Capitol , but Schumer has flexed some muscle on the Senate floor .
Late last month , he managed to momentarily seize the floor and call a bill to protect the Affordable Care Act to the floor , forcing a vote .
Democrats have made protecting health care reform the main weapon to wield against the nomination of Barrett , as the Supreme Court is scheduled to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Affordable Care Act the week after the election .
Over the weekend , Schumer had been pressed to block McConnell ’ s attempt to adjourn and instead force the Senate to remain in session , or even seize full control of the floor by massing more Democrats than Republicans have available .
Democrats sent Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia , who had the coronavirus in March , onto the floor to safely ( we assume ) jockey with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky. , over the adjournment .
Kaine , acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not go that far , and instead made a motion to modify McConnell ’ s adjournment resolution , suggesting instead that the Senate be kept in recess through the election .
McConnell objected and moved his initial motion for recess again , which was accepted this time without objection .
In a concession to Schumer , McConnell withdrew five federal judges from the calendar that he had submitted last week , meaning he ’ ll have to add them back , taking more time , when the Senate returns .
The upside of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personnel to decamp from what has become a toxic hotspot .
The upside of keeping the Senate in , and forcing McConnell to repeatedly attempt to adjourn , would have been to give Democrats the opportunity to highlight Republicans ’ s unwillingness to work on legislation to address the economic and public health crisis caused by Covid-19 .
Since Barrett has yet to move through committee , any floor action at this point is primarily tied to messaging , as the real fight to slow down or stop her nomination begins when she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in agreeing to the adjournment , signaled that he didn ’ t see the messaging value in keeping the Senate open the next two weeks .
Had Democrats fought to keep the Senate in session , they wouldn ’ t have been able to seize control , even if all their members were present , because there wouldn ’ t be enough senators to form a quorum .
The Constitution requires 51 of the 100 be present , and Democrats only control 47 seats .
The quorum call would fail , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , a process that would repeat itself until a quorum was found .
Leaders of legislative bodies in the past have sent police officers after lawmakers refused to attend sessions in order to deny a quorum , both in Congress and in state capitals .
Committee rules require that at least two members of each party be present for a committee to conduct business , meaning that if Democrats boycotted the Barrett hearing , the rule would bar a hearing .
But in practice , Graham can — and in the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change those rules to plow ahead .
Indeed , the hearing may move faster without Democrats if they boycott , undercutting the effort to slow the process down .
Currently , two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have tested positive for Covid-19 — Sens .
Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah — along with a third Republican not on the committee , Ron Johnson of Wisconsin .
Graham has said that those committee members , who are quarantining , can participate by video if they so choose , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Republicans hold a 12-10 majority on the committee , which is allowed to meet even as the Senate is in recess .
Under the new floor schedule , the Senate will return on Monday , October 19 , at 4:30 p.m. , with the first order of business the nomination of Michael Jay Newman for district judge in Ohio .
On that day , McConnell , if Barrett is through committee , will also attempt to begin the process of confirming Barrett on the Senate floor .
McConnell would need 51 senators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vice president does not count toward a quorum . )
When it comes to the floor vote , McConnell has a distinct parliamentary advantage , as the majority leader , by rule , is recognized first each day in the chamber .
The right of recognition , combined with a majority and a willingness to change the rules midstream , as he did to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch , gives real power to the majority leader .
Democrats have many tools at their disposal , but McConnell also has the ability to respond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his forces .
That majority is now tenuous , with three members confirmed to have Covid-19 , and others , such as Judiciary Committee member Chuck Grassley , refusing to get tested .
And both Sens .
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have said that it is inappropriate to go forward with a vote before the election .
If they joined with Democrats to deny a quorum , they would be able to put their assertion into action .
“ If ever there ’ s a moment to bring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought about before , ” argued David Segal of the group Demand Progress , which has also been urging Schumer to do everything he can to delay the Senate , “ things they ’ ve never done before , now is the time to do it .
”

The Senate went into recess Monday afternoon following the news that at least three Republican senators were waylaid with Covid-19. It was the latest in an ongoing parliamentary battle whose outcome could shape both the judiciary and the Senate for years to come. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had a near-invincible upper hand in the fight, but now his control is far from certain amid the virus outbreak, which seems to have been spread rapidly by the very ceremony that kicked off the confrontation: a reckless White House party to celebrate the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
McConnell, who has not said whether he’s taken a Covid-19 test, has made clear his unyielding determination to brush aside any norm or obstacle to implant Barrett into the Supreme Court. To make that happen before the election — or, in the event of a loss by Donald Trump, before the president leaves office — McConnell has two major hurdles to clear. The first is a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican facing a surprisingly close race for reelection. On Monday, McConnell said a Judiciary vote would likely happen by October 16. The second is a floor vote, which McConnell has pledged to hold as quickly as possible after the nomination clears the committee. A floor vote is eyed for sometime around October 26.
Within moments of the news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, progressives both in and out of Congress began pushing Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to be as aggressive as possible in blocking Barrett. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez teamed with Schumer for a press conference outside the Brooklyn high school where both he and Ginsburg graduated. Ocasio-Cortez pressed the point, urging Schumer to use “every tool” at his disposal.
The pressure has continued. On Monday, a coalition of mostly New York-based progressive groups launched a video pushing Schumer to give everything he has to the fight against Barrett, narrated largely by constitutional law professor Zephyr Teachout.
We're calling on @ChuckSchumer to do everything in his power to disrupt, delay and delegitimize this sham SCOTUS nomination process. We are demanding Senate D's stand up and fight for workers, immigrants, our families and our communities. Watch the video below ?? pic.twitter.com/3YgRmjHje6 — Center for Popular Democracy Action ? (@CPDAction) October 5, 2020
The video followed a long weekend of wall-to-wall calls and video meetings between Schumer, his senior staff, and the various outside progressive groups engaged in the confirmation battle. Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid cultivated strong relationships with the party’s outside progressive organizations and its grassroots activists, and even as they didn’t always agree on strategy or tactics, there was a sense that both camps were part of the same effort. Schumer has always had a more arms-length relationship with those same outside forces but now is making an effort to close that gap.
The attempted alliance is different in degree from the relationship between Schumer and outside groups during the push to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Schumer had initially argued privately that the fight against Kavanaugh was unwinnable, and the protests in the Capitol would only hurt Democratic senators up for reelection in conservative states, such as Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Joe Manchin in West Virginia, and Jon Tester in Montana. Indeed, McCaskill and Donnelly lost their elections, and McCaskill continues to blame the Kavanaugh confirmation for her 6-point loss to Josh Hawley. (Donnelly also lost by six, while Tester and Manchin won.) Republicans, meanwhile, both in office and around the country, continue to express outrage at the unfair way they claim Kavanaugh was treated.
This time around, the pandemic has dampened the appetite for protests in the Capitol, but Schumer has flexed some muscle on the Senate floor. Late last month, he managed to momentarily seize the floor and call a bill to protect the Affordable Care Act to the floor, forcing a vote. Democrats have made protecting health care reform the main weapon to wield against the nomination of Barrett, as the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case that could obliterate the Affordable Care Act the week after the election.
Over the weekend, Schumer had been pressed to block McConnell’s attempt to adjourn and instead force the Senate to remain in session, or even seize full control of the floor by massing more Democrats than Republicans have available.
Democrats sent Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, who had the coronavirus in March, onto the floor to safely (we assume) jockey with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., over the adjournment. Kaine, acting on Schumer’s behalf, did not go that far, and instead made a motion to modify McConnell’s adjournment resolution, suggesting instead that the Senate be kept in recess through the election. McConnell objected and moved his initial motion for recess again, which was accepted this time without objection. In a concession to Schumer, McConnell withdrew five federal judges from the calendar that he had submitted last week, meaning he’ll have to add them back, taking more time, when the Senate returns.
The upside of adjourning is that it allows for Senate personnel to decamp from what has become a toxic hotspot. The upside of keeping the Senate in, and forcing McConnell to repeatedly attempt to adjourn, would have been to give Democrats the opportunity to highlight Republicans’s unwillingness to work on legislation to address the economic and public health crisis caused by Covid-19. Since Barrett has yet to move through committee, any floor action at this point is primarily tied to messaging, as the real fight to slow down or stop her nomination begins when she arrives on the floor. Schumer, in agreeing to the adjournment, signaled that he didn’t see the messaging value in keeping the Senate open the next two weeks.
Had Democrats fought to keep the Senate in session, they wouldn’t have been able to seize control, even if all their members were present, because there wouldn’t be enough senators to form a quorum. The Constitution requires 51 of the 100 be present, and Democrats only control 47 seats. The quorum call would fail, and the Senate would be adjourned until the next day, a process that would repeat itself until a quorum was found. Leaders of legislative bodies in the past have sent police officers after lawmakers refused to attend sessions in order to deny a quorum, both in Congress and in state capitals.
Committee rules require that at least two members of each party be present for a committee to conduct business, meaning that if Democrats boycotted the Barrett hearing, the rule would bar a hearing. But in practice, Graham can — and in the past, has shown a willingness to — change those rules to plow ahead. Indeed, the hearing may move faster without Democrats if they boycott, undercutting the effort to slow the process down.
Currently, two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have tested positive for Covid-19 — Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah — along with a third Republican not on the committee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. Graham has said that those committee members, who are quarantining, can participate by video if they so choose, with a vote aimed at October 16. Republicans hold a 12-10 majority on the committee, which is allowed to meet even as the Senate is in recess.
Under the new floor schedule, the Senate will return on Monday, October 19, at 4:30 p.m., with the first order of business the nomination of Michael Jay Newman for district judge in Ohio. On that day, McConnell, if Barrett is through committee, will also attempt to begin the process of confirming Barrett on the Senate floor. McConnell would need 51 senators present for a quorum. (The vice president does not count toward a quorum.)
When it comes to the floor vote, McConnell has a distinct parliamentary advantage, as the majority leader, by rule, is recognized first each day in the chamber. The right of recognition, combined with a majority and a willingness to change the rules midstream, as he did to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch, gives real power to the majority leader. Democrats have many tools at their disposal, but McConnell also has the ability to respond, but only if he can marshal his forces.
That majority is now tenuous, with three members confirmed to have Covid-19, and others, such as Judiciary Committee member Chuck Grassley, refusing to get tested. And both Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have said that it is inappropriate to go forward with a vote before the election. If they joined with Democrats to deny a quorum, they would be able to put their assertion into action. “If ever there’s a moment to bring out things they’ve never even thought about before,” argued David Segal of the group Demand Progress, which has also been urging Schumer to do everything he can to delay the Senate, “things they’ve never done before, now is the time to do it.”


theintercept--2020-10-06--Homeland Security Wants to Erase Its History of Misconduct

Department of Homeland Security have been accused of performing forced hysterectomies on detained immigrants , deporting witnesses to systemic sexual abuse in immigration detention , and defying federal court orders to halt deportations .
They have separated children from their families at the border , used the Covid-19 pandemic as justification to turn them back altogether , killed people on both sides of the border , and abducted protesters against police violence from the streets of an American city .
As The Intercept has reported , U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have long resisted public scrutiny of their record by stonewalling calls for transparency and defying demands for accountability , including by Congress .
But a full accounting of DHS agencies ’ misconduct may be impossible not just in real time but well into the future .
The Border Patrol has petitioned the National Archives and Records Administration to designate thousands of its internal records documenting abuse as “ temporary , ” slating them for destruction in as early as four years .
A similar request by ICE was granted last year .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Border Patrol agents dragged protesters into unmarked vans in Portland , Oregon , this summer , U.S. citizens got a rare glimpse of the impunity with which the agency treats migrants and their advocates on the border .
With 44,000 agents and a budget of $ 17 billion , CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States .
It has also long been one of its most lawless — with a long history of corruption , neglect , racism , violence , and sexual abuse .
The Border Patrol ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which makes decisions about the retention of U.S. government documents , would designate as temporary all records regarding CBP ’ s dealings with DHS ’ s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties : a recipient of complaints of civil rights abuses from across the department .
These records include reports on concluded investigations , sworn witness statements , and transcripts of interviews — material that constitutes invaluable testimony of CBP ’ s conduct .
The proposal would also mark as temporary internal records concerning administrative and criminal investigations of CBP agents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in connection to the Prison Rape Elimination Act , or PREA .
Designating these records as temporary would then allow the agency to schedule their destruction — in as little as four years for the complaints of civil rights violations , and in 25 years for the remaining records .
“ It ’ s a pretty striking proposal : It would erase a lot of historical memory of CBP abuses that are very systemic in the agency , ” Jesse Franzblau , a senior policy analyst at the National Immigrant Justice Center , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s supposed to be in charge of preserving historical memory and historical record of agencies of the U.S. government shouldn ’ t be considering a proposal that would allow an agency — and particularly an agency with such dark history of abuse — to be able to destroy records that encompass really important , really critical , historical value.
” Archival records are all the more important in the case of agencies , like DHS , known to delay and deny public records request and to skirt legislators ’ questions during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this broader transparency issue of highly secretive agencies using different tricks and tactics to try to shield their agency from accountability , ” said Franzblau .
“ This is another avenue that the agency is taking to try to shield themselves from accountability and try to erase this important history.
” The CBP records designation proposal notes that documents can only be destroyed after a case is closed .
But the vast majority of misconduct allegations are closed without ever being investigated .
In 2017 , for instance , the American Immigration Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” against agents accused of misconduct in 95.9 percent of the incidents for which it received complaints .
The proposal would only impact CBP ’ s own records of civil rights complaints — not any copies held by DHS ’ s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties , which have their own retention schedule .
But as The Intercept has reported , the handling of misconduct allegations at DHS is riddled with inconsistencies , and many complaints filed with individual agencies accused of misconduct never make it out of the agency itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ General , which is tasked with independently reviewing the department ’ s various agencies , also has a poor record of investigating misconduct .
Dozens of immigrant rights and government accountability groups , as well as a number of academics , have condemned CBP ’ s proposal and called on the National Archives to reject it .
“ An agency rife with abuse should not be allowed to purge its own paper trail of wrongdoing , ” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a statement .
“ CBP misconduct often only becomes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or lawsuits , meaning the loss of internal records could forever bury unknown abuses.
” “ Given how terrible DHS is in general , it ’ s obviously very important that they not be allowed to get away from any kind of oversight and transparency , much less on these misconduct and similar types of records , ” Freddy Martinez , a policy analyst with the transparency group Open the Government , told The Intercept .
“ These records should be kept permanently.
” A spokesperson for the National Archives wrote in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s appraisal staff had recommended approval of CBP ’ s proposal to designate the records as temporary , but noted that scheduling destruction was a separate process currently under review .
The previously approved destruction of ICE records is currently on hold , pending litigation .
“ The records scheduling process involves an ongoing collaboration between NARA and the agency that drafts the schedule , ” the spokesperson said .
“ The [ CBP ] schedule has not yet been approved by NARA.
” DHS did not respond to a request for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s proposal , National Archives officials referred to the designation of ICE ’ s abuse complaints records as temporary to justify marking CBP ’ s complaints records the same way .
The officials argued that “ these records do not have value beyond their functional use for tracking complaints and ensuring fulfillment of obligations.
” Archives officials also determined that CBP ’ s internal investigations records , including cases of alleged corruption , mismanagement , off-duty misconduct , and misuse of government-issued weapons , “ are not of significant enough historical interest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But scholars who rely on these records to reconstruct the history of government agencies decades after it has taken place strongly disagree .
“ These records constitute the primary source of information regarding the issue of CBP misconduct , ” Yael Schacher , a senior U.S. advocate at Refugees International and author of a forthcoming book about the history of asylum in the U.S. , wrote in a public comment to the National Archives .
“ Without them , an entire chapter of CBP history would be erased from the public record.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of scholarly work investigating CBP ’ s precursor — the Immigration and Naturalization Service — as evidence of the public ’ s growing interest in the abuse of power and culture of impunity that has long dominated immigration enforcement in this country .
“ If these records are not designated permanent , it will be impossible to pursue scholarship on precisely those topics gaining increasing attention by historians of immigration , ” she wrote .
“ It ’ s no surprise that Trump officials want to destroy evidence of their own misconduct .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to see the National Archives ignoring its own policies and precedents in allowing them to get away with it , ” said Matthew Connelly , a history professor at Columbia University who studies government secrecy .
Connelly noted that the “ mad rush ” to destroy government records long preceded the Trump administration , and acknowledged that the National Archives ’ resources have shrunk over the years just as the number of records they are responsible for has ballooned .
But Connelly also denounced the destruction of significant government records that has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public debate .
“ [ The National Archives ] has been so underfunded and undermined for so long that it is losing its capacity to protect records of obvious and enduring historical importance , ” he said .
“ As scholars we are trying to speak out and stop them .
But it ’ s been years since Congress has held even one hearing , and we need our representatives in Washington to start exercising real oversight.
” Under previous administrations , the CIA issued a number of records destruction proposals , shielding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review .
But in recent years , there was a clear uptick in the number of records destruction requests file by DHS agencies dealing with immigration enforcement , noted Franzblau , of the National Immigrant Justice Center .
“ There ’ s just a litany of abuses that CBP officials have carried out , particularly in the last few years , ” he said , who noted the documents are not only of interest to historians but also crucial for human rights investigations and legal actions .
“ Records relating to those incidents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going forward for accountability measures , for lawsuits against these agencies , for justice for victims of these abuses.
” The CBP proposal is particularly troubling because of “ the invisibility of what CBP does , ” said Martinez , of Open the Government , noting that the Border Patrol ’ s authority stretches far from the border itself to cover an area of the country that includes two-thirds of the U.S. population .
“ Most people don ’ t see CBP misconduct because they physically abuse people in the desert , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confinement for speaking out about their conditions in their facilities , ” Martinez said .
“ It ’ s not like policing in a major city .
Most people don ’ t go to the border to see what CBP does on a day-to-day basis .
”

Agencies under the Department of Homeland Security have been accused of performing forced hysterectomies on detained immigrants, deporting witnesses to systemic sexual abuse in immigration detention, and defying federal court orders to halt deportations. They have separated children from their families at the border, used the Covid-19 pandemic as justification to turn them back altogether, killed people on both sides of the border, and abducted protesters against police violence from the streets of an American city.
As The Intercept has reported, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, two of DHS’s most abuse-ridden agencies, have long resisted public scrutiny of their record by stonewalling calls for transparency and defying demands for accountability, including by Congress. But a full accounting of DHS agencies’ misconduct may be impossible not just in real time but well into the future. The Border Patrol has petitioned the National Archives and Records Administration to designate thousands of its internal records documenting abuse as “temporary,” slating them for destruction in as early as four years. A similar request by ICE was granted last year.
When unidentified federal agents later determined to be Border Patrol agents dragged protesters into unmarked vans in Portland, Oregon, this summer, U.S. citizens got a rare glimpse of the impunity with which the agency treats migrants and their advocates on the border. With 44,000 agents and a budget of $17 billion, CBP is the largest law enforcement agency in the United States. It has also long been one of its most lawless — with a long history of corruption, neglect, racism, violence, and sexual abuse.
The Border Patrol’s proposal to the National Archives, which makes decisions about the retention of U.S. government documents, would designate as temporary all records regarding CBP’s dealings with DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: a recipient of complaints of civil rights abuses from across the department. These records include reports on concluded investigations, sworn witness statements, and transcripts of interviews — material that constitutes invaluable testimony of CBP’s conduct. The proposal would also mark as temporary internal records concerning administrative and criminal investigations of CBP agents, as well as records collected by CBP in connection to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA. Designating these records as temporary would then allow the agency to schedule their destruction — in as little as four years for the complaints of civil rights violations, and in 25 years for the remaining records.
“It’s a pretty striking proposal: It would erase a lot of historical memory of CBP abuses that are very systemic in the agency,” Jesse Franzblau, a senior policy analyst at the National Immigrant Justice Center, told The Intercept. “An institution that’s supposed to be in charge of preserving historical memory and historical record of agencies of the U.S. government shouldn’t be considering a proposal that would allow an agency — and particularly an agency with such dark history of abuse — to be able to destroy records that encompass really important, really critical, historical value.”
Archival records are all the more important in the case of agencies, like DHS, known to delay and deny public records request and to skirt legislators’ questions during officials hearings. “There’s this broader transparency issue of highly secretive agencies using different tricks and tactics to try to shield their agency from accountability,” said Franzblau. “This is another avenue that the agency is taking to try to shield themselves from accountability and try to erase this important history.”
The CBP records designation proposal notes that documents can only be destroyed after a case is closed. But the vast majority of misconduct allegations are closed without ever being investigated. In 2017, for instance, the American Immigration Council found that CBP took “no action” against agents accused of misconduct in 95.9 percent of the incidents for which it received complaints. The proposal would only impact CBP’s own records of civil rights complaints — not any copies held by DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which have their own retention schedule. But as The Intercept has reported, the handling of misconduct allegations at DHS is riddled with inconsistencies, and many complaints filed with individual agencies accused of misconduct never make it out of the agency itself. DHS’s Office of Inspector General, which is tasked with independently reviewing the department’s various agencies, also has a poor record of investigating misconduct.
Dozens of immigrant rights and government accountability groups, as well as a number of academics, have condemned CBP’s proposal and called on the National Archives to reject it. “An agency rife with abuse should not be allowed to purge its own paper trail of wrongdoing,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a statement. “CBP misconduct often only becomes public via leaks, investigative reporting, or lawsuits, meaning the loss of internal records could forever bury unknown abuses.”
“Given how terrible DHS is in general, it’s obviously very important that they not be allowed to get away from any kind of oversight and transparency, much less on these misconduct and similar types of records,” Freddy Martinez, a policy analyst with the transparency group Open the Government, told The Intercept. “These records should be kept permanently.”
A spokesperson for the National Archives wrote in an email to The Intercept that the agency’s appraisal staff had recommended approval of CBP’s proposal to designate the records as temporary, but noted that scheduling destruction was a separate process currently under review. The previously approved destruction of ICE records is currently on hold, pending litigation.
“The records scheduling process involves an ongoing collaboration between NARA and the agency that drafts the schedule,” the spokesperson said. “The [CBP] schedule has not yet been approved by NARA.”
DHS did not respond to a request for comment.
ICE and Border Patrol SWAT teams charge demonstrators in the fourth month of protests in Portland, Oregon, on September 18, 2020. Photo: John Rudoff/Sipa/AP
Erasing History
In their review of CBP’s proposal, National Archives officials referred to the designation of ICE’s abuse complaints records as temporary to justify marking CBP’s complaints records the same way. The officials argued that “these records do not have value beyond their functional use for tracking complaints and ensuring fulfillment of obligations.” Archives officials also determined that CBP’s internal investigations records, including cases of alleged corruption, mismanagement, off-duty misconduct, and misuse of government-issued weapons, “are not of significant enough historical interest to warrant preservation in the National Archives.”
But scholars who rely on these records to reconstruct the history of government agencies decades after it has taken place strongly disagree.
“These records constitute the primary source of information regarding the issue of CBP misconduct,” Yael Schacher, a senior U.S. advocate at Refugees International and author of a forthcoming book about the history of asylum in the U.S., wrote in a public comment to the National Archives. “Without them, an entire chapter of CBP history would be erased from the public record.”
Schacher pointed to the recent body of scholarly work investigating CBP’s precursor — the Immigration and Naturalization Service — as evidence of the public’s growing interest in the abuse of power and culture of impunity that has long dominated immigration enforcement in this country. “If these records are not designated permanent, it will be impossible to pursue scholarship on precisely those topics gaining increasing attention by historians of immigration,” she wrote.
“It’s no surprise that Trump officials want to destroy evidence of their own misconduct. But it’s really a shock to see the National Archives ignoring its own policies and precedents in allowing them to get away with it,” said Matthew Connelly, a history professor at Columbia University who studies government secrecy.
Connelly noted that the “mad rush” to destroy government records long preceded the Trump administration, and acknowledged that the National Archives’ resources have shrunk over the years just as the number of records they are responsible for has ballooned. But Connelly also denounced the destruction of significant government records that has taken place with no congressional scrutiny and little public debate.
“[The National Archives] has been so underfunded and undermined for so long that it is losing its capacity to protect records of obvious and enduring historical importance,” he said. “As scholars we are trying to speak out and stop them. But it’s been years since Congress has held even one hearing, and we need our representatives in Washington to start exercising real oversight.”
Under previous administrations, the CIA issued a number of records destruction proposals, shielding some of its own abuses from future review. But in recent years, there was a clear uptick in the number of records destruction requests file by DHS agencies dealing with immigration enforcement, noted Franzblau, of the National Immigrant Justice Center. “There’s just a litany of abuses that CBP officials have carried out, particularly in the last few years,” he said, who noted the documents are not only of interest to historians but also crucial for human rights investigations and legal actions. “Records relating to those incidents will be critically important in the years going forward for accountability measures, for lawsuits against these agencies, for justice for victims of these abuses.”
The CBP proposal is particularly troubling because of “the invisibility of what CBP does,” said Martinez, of Open the Government, noting that the Border Patrol’s authority stretches far from the border itself to cover an area of the country that includes two-thirds of the U.S. population.
“Most people don’t see CBP misconduct because they physically abuse people in the desert, in Arizona; they disappear people in solitary confinement for speaking out about their conditions in their facilities,” Martinez said. “It’s not like policing in a major city. Most people don’t go to the border to see what CBP does on a day-to-day basis.”