theintercept--2020-05-07--With Patents on Coronavirus Medicines, International Drug Companies Will Decide Whether Brazilians L

With Patents on Coronavirus Medicines, International Drug Companies Will Decide Whether Brazilians Live or Die

the coronavirus pandemic , it is hard to imagine how things could get any worse .
At least 5,500 people have died as new infections continue to climb .
Meanwhile , Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro refuses to take the crisis seriously and is battling his own administration .
He has opposed plans to shut down the economy , fired his health minister , and endangered citizens by encouraging public meetings .
The explosive resignation of his justice minister , Sergio Moro , led to calls for his impeachment .
Now , the Supreme Court has approved an investigation into Bolsonaro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice .
In all this chaos , it is reasonable to hope that the crisis will ease when coronavirus treatments emerge .
Unfortunately , the crisis may only get worse for Brazil when we finally have medicine and vaccines for the coronavirus — unless the National Congress acts immediately .
A majority of the potential treatments for Covid-19 and all the vaccines under development will be brought to market by big pharmaceutical corporations who hold monopoly power over them through patents , which are temporary monopolies granted by national law .
This power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the middle of a global health crisis , a handful of companies in the U.S. and Europe will decide whether we should live or die .
This problem is not Brazil ’ s alone .
In the last three decades , millions of people from poor countries have died because they could not afford the medicines they needed to live .
But , as a “ middle-income ” country in a long recession , Brazil faces a unique and immediate threat : the inability of the public health system — Sistema Único @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do its job and keep people alive .
In 2016 , Brazil ’ s Constitutional Amendment 95 froze federal budgets for 20 years , including for public health .
In this environment of austerity , with no wiggle room and SUS straining to accommodate growing health demands , the absurd cost of monopoly medicine has the potential to break the system .
is supercharged in the current coronavirus pandemic , monopoly medicines have been threatening the viability of SUS over the last three decades .
Two cases stand out .
In 1996 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for HIV/AIDS , becoming the first developing country in the world to do so .
Less known is that this victory was almost undermined by monopoly medicine prices .
Of the cocktail of medicine required to treat HIV/AIDS , some were being manufactured in Brazil , including by Farmanguinhos , the government-owned medicine producer located at Fiocruz in Rio de Janeiro .
But other medicines were available only under monopoly from big pharmaceutical corporations — and their price made the HIV/AIDS treatment program unviable .
Brazil threatened to issue compulsory licenses , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheaper , local production .
The corporations responded by caving and lowered their prices .
In 2007 , the HIV/AIDS treatment program was again threatened by Merck ’ s monopoly price on efavirenz , a key medicine in the program .
When Merck refused to lower prices , then-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva issued a compulsory license on the advice of his health minister , José Gomes Temporão .
As a result , over the next five years , SUS saved nearly $ 500 million reals in expenses by buying generic versions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In contrast , Brazil ’ s experience with sofosbuvir , the first effective treatment for hepatitis C , is tragic .
When the medicine first came to market in 2013 , it promised to be a lifeline for the more than a million Brazilians suffering from a debilitating and fatal disease with no cure .
There was just one problem : The full course of sofosbuvir cost $ 84,000 in the U.S. and the pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences owned the monopoly on the medicine .
Gilead offered a discount to SUS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the price was still 60 times more than the cheapest generic version of the medicine .
After a long tussle over the validity of Gilead ’ s patents — they were challenged multiple times — the corporation eventually won and immediately increased the price of the medicine by 1,421 percent — no , that ’ s not a mistake .
As a result , in the last six years , SUS could only afford to treat a minuscule number of people who have the disease , even as several thousands of others died @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Consider the antiviral medicine remdesivir , also brought to market by Gilead and originally targeted at Ebola .
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration just certified remdesivir for use against Covid-19 ; it is the first treatment to have been approved .
Gilead has multiple patents over remdesivir in 70 countries around the world , including Brazil .
These patent monopolies last until the year 2038 .
Apart from one vague statement , Gilead has not committed to making this medicine affordable or available in sufficient quantity .
Instead , early in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” incentives in the U.S. for the use of remdesivir against Covid-19 , which would have given them additional monopolies and tax benefits of $ 40 million .
The word “ orphan ” in the designation refers to rare diseases that affect less than 200,000 people .
Over 3 million people have been infected with the coronavirus .
When this was pointed out , Gilead backtracked .
To recap : As things stand , for the next 18 years , our only access to the one existing treatment for Covid-19 will be entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multinational pharmaceutical corporation that has shown no sign it has any .
We have two ways out of the monopoly trap .
The first is a multilateral solution , which depends on a proposal by the World Health Organization coming to fruition .
Prompted by Costa Rica , WHO is exploring the creation of a Covid-19 technology “ patent pool ” : a mechanism by which monopoly producers of protective equipment , tests , medicines , and vaccines could voluntarily suspend their monopolies for global public use .
The proposal is gaining steam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ status — a senseless category that confuses the needs of a poor majority with the wealth of a rich minority — has meant that it is excluded from a similar arrangement offered by the Medicines Patent Pool , whose benefits only extend to poor countries , regardless of where the disease they are trying to solve is prevalent .
A new global patent-pooling solution will only work if it explicitly includes middle-income countries like Brazil .
The second way is a national solution .
In this moment , an assertion of sovereignty is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
Countries as diverse as Canada , Germany , Israel , Chile , Peru , and Ecuador have taken swift action in the last few weeks , either suspending key patents or enacting legislation to suspend all monopolies on technologies related to the coronavirus pandemic .
Brazil must join them .
Last month , a multiparty group of 11 members of Brazil ’ s Congress introduced a bill to amend the Industrial Property Law .
The proposal builds on existing provisions in Brazilian patent law to respond to the crisis .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and legal process by which the government can deal with the coronavirus pandemic ( as well as any other health emergency ) by suspending monopolies that affect the lives of its citizens , whether on equipment and tests or medicines and vaccines .
The National Health Council — Conselho Nacional de Saúde , or CNS — immediately came out in favor of the bill .
Strong international support followed .
However , despite a request made in Congress to debate the bill with urgency , hearings have not yet begun .
Pedro Villardi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Propriedade Intelectual , one of the civil society organizations that advocated for the bill , explained its purpose : “ The point is to increase the government purchase options , with the agility for distribution that a health emergency requires.
” Noting the delay , he added , “ The approval of this bill is urgent .
We need to ensure maximum responsiveness to save lives .
Any delay or high prices during times like these is inconceivable.
” This is a time for solidarity , a time for cooperation and care .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brazil must take decisive steps to protect SUS .
We can secure our future by learning from the past .
When we have confronted medicine monopolies , we have saved lives , saved money , and improved the human and financial health of the country .
And when we have succumbed to pharmaceutical corporations , we have lost lives and damaged the fabric of society .
In the long term , there is much more we can do to save our SUS .
In the short term , we have a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it .
We must take it .

Photo: Edmar Barros/AP
As Brazil confronts the coronavirus pandemic, it is hard to imagine how things could get any worse. At least 8,500 people have died as new infections continue to climb. Meanwhile, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro refuses to take the crisis seriously and is battling his own administration. He has opposed plans to shut down the economy, fired his health minister, and endangered citizens by encouraging public meetings. The explosive resignation of his justice minister, Sergio Moro, led to calls for his impeachment. Now, the Supreme Court has approved an investigation into Bolsonaro on multiple violations, including obstruction of justice.
In the middle of a global health crisis, a handful of companies in the U.S. and Europe will decide whether we should live or die.
In all this chaos, it is reasonable to hope that the crisis will ease when coronavirus treatments emerge. Unfortunately, the crisis may only get worse for Brazil when we finally have medicine and vaccines for the coronavirus — unless the National Congress acts immediately.
A majority of the potential treatments for Covid-19 and all the vaccines under development will be brought to market by big pharmaceutical corporations who hold monopoly power over them through patents, which are temporary monopolies granted by national law. This power will result in an outrageous situation: In the middle of a global health crisis, a handful of companies in the U.S. and Europe will decide whether we should live or die.
This problem is not Brazil’s alone. In the last three decades, millions of people from poor countries have died because they could not afford the medicines they needed to live. But, as a “middle-income” country in a long recession, Brazil faces a unique and immediate threat: the inability of the public health system — Sistema Único de Saúde, or SUS — to do its job and keep people alive.
In 2016, Brazil’s Constitutional Amendment 95 froze federal budgets for 20 years, including for public health. In this environment of austerity, with no wiggle room and SUS straining to accommodate growing health demands, the absurd cost of monopoly medicine has the potential to break the system.
While the threat is supercharged in the current coronavirus pandemic, monopoly medicines have been threatening the viability of SUS over the last three decades. Two cases stand out.
In 1996, Brazil made history by providing universal treatment for HIV/AIDS, becoming the first developing country in the world to do so. Less known is that this victory was almost undermined by monopoly medicine prices. Of the cocktail of medicine required to treat HIV/AIDS, some were being manufactured in Brazil, including by Farmanguinhos, the government-owned medicine producer located at Fiocruz in Rio de Janeiro. But other medicines were available only under monopoly from big pharmaceutical corporations — and their price made the HIV/AIDS treatment program unviable. Brazil threatened to issue compulsory licenses, which would have suspended the patents and allowed cheaper, local production. The corporations responded by caving and lowered their prices. In 2007, the HIV/AIDS treatment program was again threatened by Merck’s monopoly price on efavirenz, a key medicine in the program. When Merck refused to lower prices, then-President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva issued a compulsory license on the advice of his health minister, José Gomes Temporão. As a result, over the next five years, SUS saved nearly $500 million reals in expenses by buying generic versions of efavirenz for use in the country.
In contrast, Brazil’s experience with sofosbuvir, the first effective treatment for hepatitis C, is tragic. When the medicine first came to market in 2013, it promised to be a lifeline for the more than a million Brazilians suffering from a debilitating and fatal disease with no cure. There was just one problem: The full course of sofosbuvir cost $84,000 in the U.S. and the pharmaceutical giant Gilead Sciences owned the monopoly on the medicine. Gilead offered a discount to SUS, but at $6,000 per course, the price was still 60 times more than the cheapest generic version of the medicine. After a long tussle over the validity of Gilead’s patents — they were challenged multiple times — the corporation eventually won and immediately increased the price of the medicine by 1,421 percent — no, that’s not a mistake. As a result, in the last six years, SUS could only afford to treat a minuscule number of people who have the disease, even as several thousands of others died from it.
Our only access to the one existing treatment for Covid-19 will be entirely dependent on the compassion of a giant multinational pharmaceutical corporation that has shown no sign it has any.
How is this relevant? Consider the antiviral medicine remdesivir, also brought to market by Gilead and originally targeted at Ebola. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration just certified remdesivir for use against Covid-19; it is the first treatment to have been approved. Gilead has multiple patents over remdesivir in 70 countries around the world, including Brazil. These patent monopolies last until the year 2038. Apart from one vague statement, Gilead has not committed to making this medicine affordable or available in sufficient quantity. Instead, early in March, Gilead sought “orphan drug” incentives in the U.S. for the use of remdesivir against Covid-19, which would have given them additional monopolies and tax benefits of $40 million. The word “orphan” in the designation refers to rare diseases that affect less than 200,000 people. Over 3 million people have been infected with the coronavirus. When this was pointed out, Gilead backtracked.
To recap: As things stand, for the next 18 years, our only access to the one existing treatment for Covid-19 will be entirely dependent on the compassion of a giant multinational pharmaceutical corporation that has shown no sign it has any.
We have two ways out of the monopoly trap. The first is a multilateral solution, which depends on a proposal by the World Health Organization coming to fruition. Prompted by Costa Rica, WHO is exploring the creation of a Covid-19 technology “patent pool”: a mechanism by which monopoly producers of protective equipment, tests, medicines, and vaccines could voluntarily suspend their monopolies for global public use. The proposal is gaining steam. However, Brazil’s middle-income status — a senseless category that confuses the needs of a poor majority with the wealth of a rich minority — has meant that it is excluded from a similar arrangement offered by the Medicines Patent Pool, whose benefits only extend to poor countries, regardless of where the disease they are trying to solve is prevalent. A new global patent-pooling solution will only work if it explicitly includes middle-income countries like Brazil.
The second way is a national solution. In this moment, an assertion of sovereignty is the only solution that is guaranteed to work. Countries as diverse as Canada, Germany, Israel, Chile, Peru, and Ecuador have taken swift action in the last few weeks, either suspending key patents or enacting legislation to suspend all monopolies on technologies related to the coronavirus pandemic. Brazil must join them.
Last month, a multiparty group of 11 members of Brazil’s Congress introduced a bill to amend the Industrial Property Law. The proposal builds on existing provisions in Brazilian patent law to respond to the crisis. It would create a fast, simple, and legal process by which the government can deal with the coronavirus pandemic (as well as any other health emergency) by suspending monopolies that affect the lives of its citizens, whether on equipment and tests or medicines and vaccines. The National Health Council — Conselho Nacional de Saúde, or CNS — immediately came out in favor of the bill. Strong international support followed. However, despite a request made in Congress to debate the bill with urgency, hearings have not yet begun.
Pedro Villardi, speaking for Grupo de Trabalho sobre Propriedade Intelectual, one of the civil society organizations that advocated for the bill, explained its purpose: “The point is to increase the government purchase options, with the agility for distribution that a health emergency requires.” Noting the delay, he added, “The approval of this bill is urgent. We need to ensure maximum responsiveness to save lives. Any delay or high prices during times like these is inconceivable.”
This is a time for solidarity, a time for cooperation and care. In order to survive the coronavirus pandemic, Brazil must take decisive steps to protect SUS. We can secure our future by learning from the past. When we have confronted medicine monopolies, we have saved lives, saved money, and improved the human and financial health of the country. And when we have succumbed to pharmaceutical corporations, we have lost lives and damaged the fabric of society. In the long term, there is much more we can do to save our SUS. In the short term, we have a pandemic and a path that leads us out of it. We must take it.


theintercept--2020-05-07--Are Trump and the Anti-Lockdown Militias Itching For Violence?

Wait !
Before you go on about your day , ask yourself : How likely is it that the story @ @ @ @ @ been produced by a different news outlet if The Intercept hadn ’ t done it @ @ @ @ @ of media would look like without The Intercept .
Who would hold party elites accountable @ @ @ @ @ to have ?
How many covert wars , miscarriages of justice , and dystopian technologies @ @ @ @ @ reporters weren ’ t on the beat ?
The kind of reporting we do is @ @ @ @ @ it is not easy , cheap , or profitable .
The Intercept is an independent @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t have ads , so we depend on our members — 35,000 and @ @ @ @ @ hold the powerful to account .
Joining is simple and doesn ’ t need to @ @ @ @ @ can become a sustaining member for as little as $ 3 or $ 5 a @ @ @ @ @ all it takes to support the journalism you rely on .

Subscribe to the Deconstructed podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, Radio Public, and other platforms. New to podcasting? Click here.
Protests have broken out in and around several state capitols, with demonstrators, among them armed right-wing militia members, attempting to pressure their state governments to end the Covid-19 lockdowns. Could this end in violence, and what does it portend for the presidential election? Scholar of right-wing extremism Nicole Hemmer joins Mehdi Hasan to discuss the protests.
Nicole Hemmer: Donald Trump is no stranger to the language of political violence. It’s something that he has encouraged throughout his presidential campaign and throughout his presidency.
[Musical interlude.]
Mehdi Hasan: Welcome to Deconstructed. I’m Mehdi Hasan.
On today’s show, the far right extremists, militiamen, and conspiracy theorists protesting the lockdown outside state houses across the country — who are they, and how dangerous are they?
My guest is an expert on the far right: the historian and scholar Nicole Hemmer.
NH: You know, it’s something we’ve seen again and again, these images of people who are armed, storming statehouses, which are pretty striking and pretty worrisome images.
MH: So, can we expect to see these same people on the streets in November, disputing the results of the election if Donald Trump loses? And why isn’t it a bigger deal that the president of the United States is, once again, inciting domestic terror and violence — even in the midst of a public health crisis?
Right now I’m recording this podcast from my home in the DC Metro Area, where I’ve been locked down with my family for the past —what — 8 weeks now. Picture this: I’m literally speaking to you while sitting on the floor inside of a closet in my house, as the closet has the best acoustics and least echo in my house.
Do you think I want to be stuck here indoors, forever? I don’t. Do you think I want to be thousands of miles away from my elderly parents, unable to see them, be near to them, hug them? No, of course not. But like, I hope, all of you listening at home, like millions of people across the country, across the world, we all accept that these strict social distancing measures have to be taken to fight a virus, a pandemic, the like of which we have never seen before in our lifetimes, in terms of its infectiousness and its deadliness.
Well, maybe not all of us accept that. Over the past few weeks, we have seen protests across the United States — in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Idaho, California, and a bunch of other states — consisting of far-right extremists, heavily-armed members of anti-government militias, QAnon conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, MAGA-ists, and many more.
News Anchor: Anger in the state of Michigan, protesters, some carrying guns, gather at the state capitol.
News Anchor: Dozens of demonstrators chanting, “Let us in!” manage to push inside the state capitol.
News Anchor: And at the state capitol in Sacramento, hundreds of people protested, and you can see from the pictures, most were not wearing masks or practicing social distancing.
MH: Perhaps the most memorable and bonkers placard, and I kid you not, was seen at a protest in Wisconsin, a woman holding up a sign saying, “I want a haircut.”
Yeah, because that’s the priority.
Now we can laugh and giggle at the ridiculousness of some of these protesters. But there’s a dark side to all of this. According to experts at the ADL who track this stuff, a lot of these protests and rallies in state capitols have provided a new and influential platform for extremist groups — domestic extremist groups — like members of the Three Percenters, a radical anti-government militia; or the Proud Boys, a violent neofascist group; or armed “boogaloo” activists — these are the people who think another civil war is just around the corner. They’ve all made their presence very clear at many of these protests.
Just this past Monday, the anti-government militia group the Oath Keepers openly threatened any police officers who enforce stay-at-home orders, or try and prevent anti-lockdown rallies.
Meanwhile, swastikas and Confederate flags have been spotted at some of these rallies. Surprise! Protesters have even accused the governor of Illinois, J.B. Pritzker, who is Jewish, of being a Nazi. A woman in Chicago was seen holding up a sign of a German phrase which means “Work Sets You Free,” the same German phrase that the Nazis put on the gates of Auschwitz and other concentration camps. Yeah.
This is truly dark and disturbing stuff. To call these protesters far-right may be an understatement.
And, look, you might say: “Why give these people attention? They don’t have popular support.” And that’s true. They don’t. Please, please, don’t let anyone tell you these people are anything other than a tiny minority. Polls suggest 8 out of 10 Americans support the current restrictions, support the current lockdown measures, and more Republicans actually oppose these anti-lockdown protests than support them. So they don’t have popular support.
But here’s the two things they do have, which worry me and which is why I’m doing this show today:
They have guns — lots of them, big guns — and they have the support and encouragement of the President of the United States, lots of encouragement.
So, first up: the guns. The images from Lansing, the state capital of Michigan, went viral around the world: heavily armed men, clad in combat gear, carrying so-called long guns, assault rifles, and trying to force their way onto the floor of the state legislative chamber, shouting, screaming, held back only by a line of state police and capitol staff. Similar scenes in Sacramento, California, and other state capitols — police and law enforcement having to stand their ground against crazy-looking armed militiamen. Bizarre scenes! Scary scenes!
And by the way, on a side note, as many, many people have pointed out on Twitter and elsewhere: Can you imagine if a group of Muslims turned up at a government building in combat gear, armed to the teeth? Or a group of gun-toting black men or Latinos? You think they wouldn’t have been at best knocked to the ground and arrested on the spot, or at worst, shot on sight? The double standards here, when it comes to violent protests in America, are ridiculous.
Now these white anti-government protesters hid behind their Second Amendment rights. But there’s no scenario in which armed masked men standing inside a state legislature, with guns — there’s no way that doesn’t constitute political intimidation, and there’s no way that political intimidation isn’t a form of terrorism. Domestic terrorism.
Look, the Second Amendment can’t be used to trample on the First Amendment, you can’t bully people into saying they agree with you by brandishing firearms in their faces, especially in the faces of elected officials! I mean, even Sean Hannity of Fox News has issues with some of these people. Even far-right Hannity, who has done so much to stir up these protests in the first place.
Sean Hannity: This, with the militia look here, and these long guns, uh — no. Show of force is dangerous. That puts our police at risk. And, by the way, your message will never be heard, whoever you people are. No one should be attempting to intimidate officials with a show of force.
MH: Hannity, of course, as I said, is partly to blame for all of this stuff. So he doesn’t get any credit for saying that.
Look, the reality is: you cannot be a functioning democracy if men with guns are interfering in the political process; even people in the poorest developing countries on earth understand this point. Surely it’s time for most Americans to understand this, too. It’s a danger to democracy, it’s a danger — literally — to people’s lives.
Second, Trump supports these people. They’re his base. Many of the QAnon conspiracy theorists and anti-Vaxxers who turn up to these protests are wearing Trump t-shirts and MAGA hats. They’re not hiding it.
And, of course, the President of the United States himself has a long history of encouraging violence by his base, by his supporters — of inciting mobs.
President Donald J. Trump: If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of ‘em, would you? Seriously. [Crowd cheers.]
DJT: I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.
DJT: Maybe he should’ve been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting, what he was doing.
DJT: Try not to hurt ’em. If you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it.
MH: So when you see people behaving like thugs in public, don’t forget the President’s words. Don’t forget his incitement.
And remember, also: The President of the United States is on tape praising neo-Nazis.
DJT: You also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.
MH: Now, many of his supporters in the media went through all sorts of verbal and intellectual contortions and backflips to try and explain away his remarks after Charlottesville in 2017, his coddling of violent fascists. But as is so often the case, Trump with his big mouth always ends up throwing his own apologists and defenders under the bus. Because having spent the past three years pretending Trump didn’t call neo-Nazis, “very fine people,” they now have to deal with the fact that he called protesters carrying swastikas and nooses, carrying signs with Nazi-death-camp propaganda on them, he called them, “very good people.” That’s what he tweeted on the first of May: “The Governor of Michigan should give a little, and put out the fire. These are very good people, but they are angry. They want their lives back again, safely! See them, talk to them, make a deal.”
And this praising and promoting of them wasn’t a one-off. Here he is at a White House press briefing on 17 of April:
DJT: These are people expressing their views. I see where they are, and I see the way they’re working. They seem to be very responsible people to me. But it’s — you know, they’ve been treated a little bit rough.
MH: “Responsible people.” “Very good people.” I mean, for God’s sake!
Trump even added his own little dash of incitement to violence in a series of tweets last month, where he recklessly proclaimed, in all caps: “LIBERATE MICHIGAN!”; “LIBERATE MINNESOTA!”; “LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It is under siege!” he said.
Those are Trump’s words, his tweets, which are incitement to violence, plain and simple. They are. Let’s not normalize this stuff.
And two thoughts come to mind when I see such statements from the president. Number one, the blood of anyone killed, God forbid, by these protesters, will be on Trump’s hands. Let’s be clear about that. Just last week federal agents arrested a man in Colorado who had been pushing for armed protests against the lockdown — and he allegedly had pipe bombs in his house. A really responsible guy, right?
And number two: is this a preview of what’s going to happen in November? Are these right-wing militias — these domestic terrorists — with their guns, and their masks, and their combat gear, and with the encouragement not just of Alex Jones-types on Infowars or Judge Jeanines on Fox News, but also with the encouragement of the man in the White House, will they take to the streets to dispute the presidential election results? Will they riot on behalf of a defeated Trump?
A year ago, in a column for The Intercept I posed that question and I was dismissed by a lot of liberals who thought I was engaging in hyperbole or fear-mongering, that there was no chance of that happening in democratic America.
I wonder if they feel the same way today, after watching the militiamen in Michigan, after watching people with Nazi slogans win the approval of the Commander-in-Chief.
[Musical interlude.]
MH: My guest today is someone who knows the far-right and the far-right media echo chamber better than most.
Nicole Hemmer is a political historian at Columbia University, a frequent contributor to CNN and the New York Times, and author of “Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics.”
Nicole joins me now from her home in New York City. Nicole, thanks for joining me on Deconstructed.
NH: Thank you so much for having me.
MH: When you saw the images of those men with guns in Lansing, Michigan, trying to force their way onto the floor of the state legislature — almost getting into a fight with the police — what went through your mind?
NH: You know, it was a striking image and a strikingly familiar one in a lot of ways. If you’ll remember back to, I believe, January of this year, we saw armed people storming the statehouse in Virginia in a pro-gun rally. And, you know, it’s something we’ve seen again and again, like these images of people who are armed, who look like members of militias storming state houses, which are pretty, pretty striking, and pretty worrisome images.
MH: And you mentioned, you know, going back to January, if you go back beyond January, how new, how dangerous a phenomenon is this in your view? Because, obviously, and especially for our global audience, not just for our American listeners, you know, we all know there have always been angry white men with guns in America. I mean, the Second Amendment literally refers to militias. So what’s different now?
NH: So what is different now is that since the 1990s, in the U.S., there has been an organized militia movement. It sprang in many ways out of the white power movement in the 1970s and 1980s, and was refashioned around things like anti-taxation and gun rights, and anti-government philosophy.
And that militia movement led to the deaths of many people, most notably in 1995 in the Oklahoma City bombing, and was somewhat muted during the George W. Bush administration, but during the Obama administration came roaring back. And we are seeing that now-ten-year organizational effort really bearing fruit in these lockdown protests.
MH: And it’s bearing fruit, partly thanks to the lockdown protests, and partly thanks to the fact that you have a president who’s not Barack Obama, or even George W. Bush, who basically kind of nudges and winks and sends all sorts of signals saying, I’m with you.
I mean — I mean, goes beyond nudging and winking, he referred to the lockdown protesters recently as, “very good people.” That’s a huge propaganda tool, a recruiting sergeant, even, for a lot of these groups, isn’t it?
NH: Absolutely. They hear in things like “very good people,” the same thing that white-power groups heard in 2017 when Donald Trump praised “very fine people,” —
MH: Yes.
NH: — after the Charlottesville protests. And Donald Trump is no stranger to the language of political violence. It’s something that he has encouraged throughout his presidential campaign and throughout his presidency, this idea that, you know, white people, and especially white men, have a right to use violence. He’s talked about it himself with his own campaign, that he would have the ability to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and no one would complain.
MH: Yeah.
NH: And that wasn’t just an over-the-top statement from him. It was a political philosophy, that violence is sort of the warp and woof of his style of politics, and something that his, his followers respond to.
MH: Yeah. And it’s so frustrating that, despite all the evidence that we cited at the start of the show, you just mentioned in your answer, he still gets this weird pass even from segments of the liberal media, who are always normalizing his stuff.
He was on ABC News, just this week with David Muir, did a rare non-Fox News interview. No questions about, you know, his support for these militia groups, his tweets about “LIBERATE VIRGINIA,” his general incitement to violence, which, as you say, goes back to Charlottesville in 2017, goes back to his campaign in 2015 and his rallies.
NH: Yeah, I think that that normalization is really important to talk about because it’s the context for all of this. Donald Trump, like many people in, on the alt-right, and in far-right movements, says very incendiary things, things that he often means.
And then, if you take them seriously, he’s like, ‘I was just joking.’ Or ‘I was just being over the top. How silly are you? And how dumb are you to take this seriously?’ When in fact, the people who are taking it the most seriously are not the people in the media, who do try to sort of shrug it off as his over-the-top rhetoric, but it is in fact, these militia movements and other violent, extremist movements who hear him say these things and get encouragement from them.
MH: Yes. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, the historian of fascism, makes the point that Mussolini used to do similar things in the 1930s, where he would trial balloon and float kind of authoritarian and extremist things and then fall back on, you know, ‘oh, just joking.’ And we will know where that ended up.
To talk about incendiary rhetoric: the boogaloo people and I’ve, I’ve been learning about all sorts of groups in recent weeks, seeing some of these kind of extremist militias and others turning up at state houses. The boogaloo people are these people who talk about civil war all the time, they think there’s a kind of race-based Civil War around the corner. A lot of people hear that they think it’s silly; they think it’s hyperbole. But the President’s mentioned civil war, too, hasn’t he, during the impeachment process? How significant, how worrying are these civil war references?
NH: So these two should be taken very seriously, and you say boogaloo, and this is the name of the movement, it comes from this idea of Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo. And it’s meant to sound silly and joking and all of these things, but the idea of a race-based civil war has been a core tenet of white power, and to a certain extent, militia organizing, since the 1970s and 1980s. And in 1983, the white power movement in the U.S. declared war against the federal government, and this idea that there would eventually be a civil war that would be a race war in the United States has been a really important recruitment tool and organizational effort in these militia movements and in the white power movement.
And back in October of 2019, Donald Trump retweeted one of his famous followers, Robert Jeffress, who is a pastor and a common sight on Fox News, talking about, again, that impeachment would lead to civil war. And in embodying that idea of civil war as President, he was giving real power to an idea that has been, again, a recruitment tool for these extremist movements.
MH: Indeed, and sadly, it’s not just Donald Trump. You have Steve King, Republican congressman from Iowa, perhaps the most right-wing member of Congress, the most neo-Nazi member of Congress, who, just over a year ago, posted on Facebook a meme, which said, “Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side has about 8 trillion bullets, while the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use.” There’s kind of members of Congress posting memes bragging about the fact that this culture war we often talk about could turn into a violent civil war.
NH: And I think we need to stay on that point that this is a member of Congress; this is a member of the government, who is not just speaking in the language of a civil war, but inciting it, and encouraging it. And when you add him to the President and other members of Congress, who also embrace pretty strong white supremacist ideas, and Steve King is really a bastion —
MH: Yes.
NH: — of a lot of racist comments and racist ideas, and combining that with civil war, it does empower movements like the boogaloo movement to see themselves as having legitimacy and having supporters in the highest offices in the land.
MH: And just staying on the civil war point, before we move on. This idea, as you mentioned, it goes back a long way. This is not a new idea. This is not something that appeared when Trump appeared on the scene. You pointed out in a CNN op-ed last year, it goes all the way back to “The Turner Diaries,” this kind of fascistic, racist novel, back in 1978.
NH: Yes, so “The Turner Diaries” have become, in some ways, the Bible of the far-right, white supremacist movement. It’s about this kind of civil war, race war. And it’s still incredibly popular on alt-right sites. You can read it on the internet, it’s widely available. And it is sort of this kind of fantasy novel of this race war and the way that white people will rise up and defeat the colored people of the world. It’s a lot like, in some ways, the book “The Camp of the Saints” —
MH: Yes.
NH: — which is another sort of more international version of this. And these are —
MH: Steve Bannon’s, one of Steve Bannon’s favorite books, I believe.
NH: Exactly. And so when we talk about militias, and when we talk about white power movements, this kind of fantasy novel of this uprising against people of color is really, really important to understand and it ties it back to a legacy far beyond Donald Trump, right? We’re talking about things from 40 years ago, but that still have a real power in bringing people into the movement.
MH: Um, Americans know the names of all the “Islamist terror groups,” off by heart, almost. Everyone knows ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, etc, etc. They’re not so familiar with the domestic extremists: the Oath Keepers or the Sovereign Citizens or the Three Percenters or the Proud Boys. I’d never heard of the boogaloo people until this week, I’ll be honest. Is that a failure of the U.S. news media?
NH: It’s a failure of the U.S. news media, and, to a certain extent, a failure of historians that’s only recently been corrected, in which, you know, all of this racist violence that had become so central in the 1980s and 1990s in American life was largely pinned on sort of lone-wolf actors. And that lone-wolf narrative becomes, really, not only the way that media cover domestic terrorism, but how law enforcement cover domestic terrorism, right up until around the time of Charlottesville.
In the wake of Charlottesville, we have seen federal law enforcement begin to use a more expansive understanding of these, what are essentially terrorist groups operating within the United States. They use a model of leaderless resistance, which is this kind of cell-based terrorism that we see in other places. And yet, they’re not necessarily reported on in that same way.
There’s more good reporting being done in this area than there had previously been. But say, during the Obama era, when you get this warning, right at the start, in 2009, that right-wing extremism was on the rise in the U.S. and represented the single largest domestic terrorist threat, that — that report was killed by the administration itself because it got so much blowback from Republicans —
MH: Yes.
NH: — and the Right. And so there has been this real resistance to acknowledging and reporting accurately on some of the most dangerous people in the United States, while at the same time reporting in great detail on threats that existed outside of the U.S.
MH: And you made such an important point there about 2009, and Darrell Johnson, from the DHS, who wrote that memo, he was on our show, actually, a couple of years back.
And, you know, one of the points he made at the time, when he came on the show, was the Obama administration shut him down, they shut him down because it was a new administration — they were worried about upsetting the right. And Republicans in Congress was suggesting that any talk of far-right extremism in the U.S. was an attack on conservatives.
And in a way, they’ve actually got a point, which is that a lot of these far right groups are extensions of the Republican Party. There’s a reason why the Republican Party doesn’t want to attack these people or call out these people, because they are turning up to protest in Trump hats. They do tend to be Republican voters. And that’s a difficult conversation to have, to talk about one of the two main parties in this country, having as part of its base, people who are, you know, members of, as you point out, really terrorist groups, by any kind of sensible definition.
NH: Right. I mean, we don’t have a really good way of talking about this because the conversation is seen as too incendiary and then gets shut down right away.
MH: Yeah.
NH: There are, obviously, huge differences between your average voter who goes out and votes for the Republican Party —
MH: Yes.
NH: — and a member of one of these militia groups. And yet, there are blurred lines organizationally —
MH: Exactly.
NH: — there are blurred lines in terms of the movement, in terms of rallies and things like that, between these groups. And there are common policy objectives, common ideologies — obviously, on the furthest fringes, they’re not that interested in electoral politics, they’re much more interested in political violence. But the lines have just gotten more blurred over the past four or five years.
MH: Oh, yeah. Trump is the master of blurring those lines.
NH: Indeed.
MH: You tweeted recently, that it’s useful to think of the lockdown protests as repurposed activism. You pointed to pre-existing political groups, anti-vaxxers, militias, pro-gun groups rebranding themselves in the context of this pandemic. That is both fascinating and scary.
NH: Yeah, it should be scary. Um, one of the things that I was thinking about when I tweeted that was: one, about the Tea Party, but also about the ways that white power groups in the late 1970s and 1980s started to rebrand themselves as this militia movement. And, in doing so, what happens is, you have, you know, white power activists, who then present themselves as racism-neutral militia members, but you also have people who join these militias, not necessarily out of white supremacist motives, but out of anti-government motives. And that allows those groups to become legitimated, and to grow, and then to latch onto much more popular and much more mainstream political issues —
MH: So true.
NH: — like anti-taxation or pro-gun rights. And you see that happen again later.
MH: And it makes it harder for those of us who want to call out the far-right groups, to call them out, because if they’re saying, “Well, hold on, we’re just your good old anti-tax group, why are you calling us extremists?” Yeah, it legitimizes the rest of their project, because some of the things they’re doing, as we just discussed, are mainstream Republican things.
NH: Yeah, super effective.
MH: And what role — we talked about the liberal media’s failure to cover some of these groups, or get into, you know, do some deep dives into them until Charlottesville happened, until now, the lockdown. What role does the right-wing media, in particular the Fox Newses and Breitbarts of this world, what role do they play in not just inciting these protesters in these groups, but legitimizing them, mainstreaming them as well?
NH: Yeah, so in a lot of ways, the coverage coming out of Fox News and conservative talk radio, for instance, places like Breitbart, some of them do try to make a distinction between far-right militias and the conservative movement. But more likely, they — and more often — they represent the groups as patriots. And that language of patriotism and support for these militias, and for these, you know, presenting them as pro-gun groups, and Trump supporters, and as patriots, is a really powerful way of saying ‘the liberal media are going to tell you that these guys are scary, and crazy, and white supremacists, but look at them: They’re just people, often draped in American flags, who are standing up for your rights.’ And that’s a really powerful process of legitimation.
MH: I feel like people on the Left, even today, don’t take Fox News seriously enough — they make fun of it, or they dismiss it, but many of them, including elected officials in the Democratic Party, still don’t quite get the power and influence it has over the conservative movement and the huge role it’s played in shifting the Right further and further to the far-right, into the fever swamps of conspiracy theory, and yes, white nationalism.
NH: Yeah, I mean, it’s fundamentally changed American politics in the last 20 years. And it is often frustrating when things like in the 20-teens, teens, when Glenn Beck was often treated as this sort of sobby joke, but was actually somebody who was doing real organizational work, and was mainstreaming a lot of people —
MH: Yes.
NH: — won’t get into all of the details, but who was mainstreaming a lot of people who were far more extremist than what had been normal, say, during the George W. Bush years. And so that kind of political power, and pulling the party to the right, making it not only safe to make extreme statements, but to actually make that the only way to remain politically viable, that has been hugely important in transforming the Republican Party and transforming the liberal media to treat those more extreme statements as simply a function of partisan disagreement.
MH: What happens with these groups, Nicole, in November, if Trump loses, especially if Trump loses narrowly. Am I wrong to be worried that these protests that we’ve seen in recent days, they’re just a trailer, they’re a dry run, for what we’re going to see on a much more, bigger, much more violent scale come November?
NH: Oh, I think you have every reason to be worried. I mean, in many ways, having a President that agrees with and supports them, and obviously encourages recruitment and things like that, but it also tamps down that stronger, “we completely oppose the federal government” sentiment because there’s somebody in power who they actually agree with.
Put into power somebody who is a Democrat, and just like we saw during the Obama years, you are going to see not only a huge spike in gun sales and in militia recruitment, but these groups have remained active during the Trump years. So you’re not starting from that much lower point that the Obama administration started off with, you’re starting it already at a very high point of militia activity and recruitment, and, you know, Trump himself will most likely continue to encourage that sort of uprising against what he will call an illegitimate election.
MH: Yes, that has been my worry for over a year or more now. And I just feel like four years into this presidency, just listening to you say they’re, you know, oh, they have a President in power who agrees with them — it’s just. it’s just, you know, it’s so bizarre just to say this stuff out loud. And yet there are so many people in the quote “liberal media,” even on the left, who still won’t recognize or don’t recognize that Trump isn’t like any Republican president who has come before us in our lifetimes, in terms of this very specific, very deliberate encouragement of anti-government protesters, neo-Nazis, this use of violent language, the incitement to violence. I mean, it’s fascistic in many ways.
NH: Well, fascistic in another way, too, that that just reminded me of, is that there’s also this thing that happened on the right over the course of the last three years, where Donald Trump’s support for the violence in Charlottesville has largely been memory-holed. Right? There’s this — they call it the Charlottesville hoax that he ever called —
MH: Yes.
NH: — these white power activists “very fine people.” And that, too, is extremely dangerous because it allows the administration to continue to support these groups, while others just completely deny that it happened and it muddies the waters in ways that the mainstream media is not actually all that good at resisting.
MH: And just before we finish, one thing we didn’t talk about is the Democrats role in all this, and how seriously they take it. Joe Biden, interestingly enough, when he launched his presidential campaign, launched with an ad about Charlottesville, and talking about Trump’s extremism. It was a good ad. It was a good thing to do to kick off your campaign. I haven’t heard that much about this subject since then, partly because of crazy news events!
NH: Right.
MH: But what would you like to see the Democrats do? One last question to you, what would you like to see the Democrats do in terms of kind of having some sort of response or drawing attention to what we’ve been talking about over the last 20, 30 minutes?
NH: Right, well, I do think that they just, one of the most powerful things they can do is continue to talk about this more as a consequence of the Trump presidency, that these kinds of violent rallies, and the political violence that we’ve seen over the past several years have been a function of the person in power. And I don’t think that there is a huge appetite out there among most Americans for this kind of political violence. And connecting the dots for people, I think, is really important.
MH: Yes.
NH: There are probably things they can do policy-wise. A domestic terrorism statute is really tricky ground because of who it might be used against.
MH: Yep.
NH: Typically probably wouldn’t be used against the people that we’re talking about. But, at least rhetorically, they can begin to make the case that this is a product of the Trump administration,
MH: Well, Nicole, thanks for coming on Deconstructed and joining some dots for us. It’s been a fascinating, if, I’ll admit, depressing conversation. Please do stay safe and well.
NH: You too. Thanks so much, Mehdi.
MH: Thank you.
[Musical interlude.]
MH: That was Nicole Hemmer, historian and scholar at Columbia University, an expert on the Right and right-wing media. She made a very important point in that interview about not normalizing this President, not normalizing his incitement of violence, his support for these militia groups, his coddling of neo-Nazis at Charlottesville, not forgetting or memory-holing any of it.
I worry — I really do — I worry that there are still far too many people in this country, even on in liberal circles, even on the Left, who treat Trump like a normal Republic president and not as the fascistic threat that he is to democracy, the rule of law, and racial equality in this country. I worry that Democrats still don’t have a plan for what they plan to do in November if he refuses to accept the election result and these militias that we’ve seen in Michigan — and elsewhere, in recent days — take to the streets again, armed to the teeth. Hell, forget a plan, Democrats aren’t even talking about this stuff. Well, we are, and we plan to continue doing so in the coming weeks and months.
[Musical interlude.]
MH: That’s our show! Deconstructed is a production of First Look Media and The Intercept. Our producer is Zach Young. The show was mixed by Bryan Pugh. Our theme music was composed by Bart Warshaw. Betsy Reed is The Intercept’s editor in chief.
And I’m Mehdi Hasan. You can follow me on Twitter @mehdirhasan. If you haven’t already, please do subscribe to the show so you can hear it every week. Go to theintercept.com/deconstructed to subscribe from your podcast platform of choice: iPhone, Android, whatever. And if you’re subscribed already, please do leave us a rating or review — it helps people find the show. And if you want to give us feedback, email us at Podcasts@theintercept.com. Thanks so much!
See you next week.


theintercept--2020-05-07--Whistleblower Details How Trump’s Bureaucrats Refused to Secure N95 Masks as Pandemic Loomed

filed earlier this week partially solves the mystery of how the country with the most expensive health care system on earth wound up unable to provide enough face masks to protect its workers .
The report from Richard Bright , who was ousted from his job as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , a division of Health and Human Services , in April , also provides a new villain in the tragic saga of the Trump administration ’ s mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis : Robert Kadlec .
Though officially tasked with quickly mobilizing a national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the assistant secretary for preparedness and response and formerly Bright ’ s boss , is described in the report as a petty tyrant who ignored , mocked , and thwarted Bright ’ s repeated efforts to address the imminent shortage of masks and other personal protective equipment in January and February , as the virus began spreading across the country .
In a lengthy , detailed account that reads like a script from a horror movie and will likely earn Kadlec the lasting enmity of everyone who has lost a front-line worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of unsuccessful and increasingly desperate attempts to push Kadlec and HHS Secretary Alex Azar to recognize and address the looming shortage of personal protective equipment .
The attempts to call attention to the crisis began in mid-January , when Bright , a virologist who has spent decades in government preparing for public health emergencies , called for a senior-level meeting to coordinate the response to the coming pandemic .
But Bright ’ s bosses were unconvinced of the need for the meeting of the “ disaster leadership group.
” In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bright ’ s suggestion that he was “ not sure if that is a time sensitive urgency.
” Among the concerns Bright repeatedly raised to Kadlec was the need for N95 face masks , which are used to protect health care workers from infectious diseases .
Bright , who had served as head of BARDA since 2016 , realized that the masks and other equipment would be in short supply .
On January 21 , Mike Bowen , co-owner of Prestige Ameritech , the largest surgical mask producing company in the U.S. , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortage of the masks .
In an email sent the following day , Bowen offered a solution .
“ He explained that Prestige Ameritech had four N95 manufacturing lines that were currently not operational , but could be reactivated ‘ in a dire situation and with government help , ’ ” according to the whistleblower report .
But Bright couldn ’ t get sign-off from his boss , Kadlec , to get the emergency production started .
The problem partly stemmed from long-simmering tensions between Bright and Kadlec .
According to the complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump in 2017 , Kadlec had repeatedly pushed Bright to award government contracts to politically connected companies , including one tied to Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner .
Prior to that , Kadlec had served on the staff of Sen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , who is now best known for dumping his stocks while assuring the public about the coronavirus .
In any case , Kadlec did not take kindly to Bright ’ s urgent pleas about the pandemic .
On January 23 , the disaster leadership group finally met @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BARDA didn ’ t have funds available to address the emerging epidemic , as well as his concern that he would be forced to redirect funds from existing projects until new funding was made available .
But at that meeting and another held that day , both Kadlec and Azar seemed surprised by Bright ’ s level of alarm , according to the report .
While Bright described the dire need for action and supplies , Kadlec and Azar “ asserted that the United States would be able to contain the virus and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Secretary Azar further indicated that the [ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ] would look at the issue of travel bans to keep the virus contained.
” Rather than getting a response from his superiors , Bright ’ s urgency got him excluded from the next meeting about the coronavirus .
According to the complaint , Bryan Shuy , Kadlec ’ s chief of staff , told Bright after the meeting that his request for urgent funding set off “ quite a shit storm ” and had offended HHS leadership .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mask company , continued to email Bright about the mask shortage , explaining that his company was getting requests from China and that nearly half of the masks in the U.S. are imported from Chinese manufacturers .
“ If the supply stops , US hospital will run out of masks .
No way to prevent it , ” Bowen warned in a January 25 email .
That night , Bright emailed Kadlec about the problem .
“ Hearing face mask supply is also getting very low as China and HK trying to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boss .
“ I ’ ve alerted [ Critical Infrastructure Protection , a division of HHS over which Kadlec has authority ] on this throughout week .
May need to consider options here also before things are gone.
” On January 27 , after several emails to Bright , Bowen , who had yet to receive authorization to proceed with mask production , sent another email , saying , “ Rick , I think we ’ re in deep shit .
The world.
” That same day , although the agency hadn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an HHS spokesperson told Axios that the Strategic National Stockpile , a collection of lifesaving supplies for public health emergencies , which is overseen by BARDA , “ holds millions of face masks as well as N95 respirators that could be used if needed in responding to a public health emergency when local supplies are exhausted and aren ’ t available from commercial suppliers.
” Two days later , still without a contract , Bowen sent yet another desperate email .
“ This week , we sent 1,000,000 masks to China and Hong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ I think China will cut off masks to the USA .
If so , US hospitals are going to have a very rough time , as up to half of the supply is made in China .
A horrible situation will become unbearable.
” On February 7 , Bright made the case for ramping up federal production of N95 masks at a meeting of the disaster leadership group but was shot down .
While Bright again warned of imminent shortages , two members of Kadlec ’ s staff , Laura Wolf @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there was no need for immediate action .
“ Dr .
Wolf and Dr. Falcon responded that the plan was to monitor for any supply chain issues and , if needed , ask the CDC to update its guidelines to tell people who ‘ don ’ t need ’ masks to not buy them , ” as Bright ’ s complaint explains .
After weeks of being foiled by his superiors , Bright met on Saturday and Sunday , February 8 and 9 , with Trump adviser Peter Navarro , who seemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks .
The two drafted a memo sent to the White House coronavirus task force that called for the U.S. to immediately halt the export of N95 masks and ramp up production .
But Kadlec did not seem to appreciate being subject to a directive that had clearly come from Bright , who was both a longtime adversary and beneath him in the pecking order .
Rather than acknowledge that thousands of lives were at stake and immediately swing into action , the assistant secretary of disaster preparedness complained to his colleagues about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in emails to Bright ’ s “ weekend at Peter ’ s ” and calling Navarro “ Rick ’ s friend ” in the White House .
On February 25 , more than a month after Bowen ’ s first email , Azar testified to the Senate Appropriations Committee that the Strategic National Stockpile had only 30 million masks .
That number is less than one one-hundredth of the 3.5 billion that a specialized group within HHS that focuses on the risk from viral outbreaks has estimated are necessary .
On March 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers were becoming sick and dying from the coronavirus , HHS finally put in a request for 500 million N95 face masks .
Meanwhile , Kushner was assembling a team of handpicked corporate volunteers to procure protective equipment .
The group , which included recent college graduates who had no experience with disaster response or supply procurement , had little success , according to the Washington Post , which first reported on the team .
That same month , as Bright predicted , BARDA was forced to stop its work addressing other potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough money to fund its coronavirus efforts .
As The Intercept reported at the time , BARDA suspended projects aimed at preventing anthrax , Sudan Ebola virus , Marburg virus , smallpox , viral hemorrhagic fevers , and antimicrobial resistant threats so that it could redirect its funds to buy supplies to fight the current emergency .
Later that month , BARDA received its first direct funding : $ 3.5 billion specifically for addressing Covid-19 .
In the past , its budget had fallen within that of the assistant secretary for disaster preparedness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to use the new money without having to go through Kadlec .
But the freedom was shortlived .
On April 17 , Kadlec informed Bright that he was being transferred to a position within the National Institutes of Health .
Asked on his whistleblower complaint form why he thinks he was retaliated against , Bright wrote that “ I pushed for a more aggressive agency response to COVID-19 .
My supervisor became furious when Congress appropriated billions of dollars directly to my office.
” The Department of Health and Human Services did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment .

A whistleblower complaint filed earlier this week partially solves the mystery of how the country with the most expensive health care system on earth wound up unable to provide enough face masks to protect its workers. The report from Rick Bright, who was ousted from his job as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, a division of Health and Human Services, in April, also provides a new villain in the tragic saga of the Trump administration’s mismanagement of the coronavirus crisis: Robert Kadlec.
Though officially tasked with quickly mobilizing a national response to public health crises, Kadlec, the assistant secretary for preparedness and response and formerly Bright’s boss, is described in the report as a petty tyrant who ignored, mocked, and thwarted Bright’s repeated efforts to address the imminent shortage of masks and other personal protective equipment in January and February, as the virus began spreading across the country.
In a lengthy, detailed account that reads like a script from a horror movie and will likely earn Kadlec the lasting enmity of everyone who has lost a front-line worker to the virus, Bright lays out a series of unsuccessful and increasingly desperate attempts to push Kadlec and HHS Secretary Alex Azar to recognize and address the looming shortage of personal protective equipment. The attempts to call attention to the crisis began in mid-January, when Bright, a virologist who has spent decades in government preparing for public health emergencies, called for a senior-level meeting to coordinate the response to the coming pandemic.
But Bright’s bosses were unconvinced of the need for the meeting of the “disaster leadership group.” In a January 18 email, Kadlec responded to Bright’s suggestion that he was “not sure if that is a time sensitive urgency.”
Among the concerns Bright repeatedly raised to Kadlec was the need for N95 face masks, which are used to protect health care workers from infectious diseases. Bright, who had served as head of BARDA since 2016, realized that the masks and other equipment would be in short supply. On January 21, Mike Bowen, co-owner of Prestige Ameritech, the largest surgical mask producing company in the U.S., contacted Bright to express concern about the shortage of the masks.
In an email sent the following day, Bowen offered a solution. “He explained that Prestige Ameritech had four N95 manufacturing lines that were currently not operational, but could be reactivated ‘in a dire situation and with government help,’” according to the whistleblower report. But Bright couldn’t get sign-off from his boss, Kadlec, to get the emergency production started.
The problem partly stemmed from long-simmering tensions between Bright and Kadlec. According to the complaint, since he was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017, Kadlec had repeatedly pushed Bright to award government contracts to politically connected companies, including one tied to Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Prior to that, Kadlec had served on the staff of Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., who is now best known for dumping his stocks while assuring the public about the coronavirus.
In any case, Kadlec did not take kindly to Bright’s urgent pleas about the pandemic. On January 23, the disaster leadership group finally met. Bright spoke about the fact that BARDA didn’t have funds available to address the emerging epidemic, as well as his concern that he would be forced to redirect funds from existing projects until new funding was made available.
But at that meeting and another held that day, both Kadlec and Azar seemed surprised by Bright’s level of alarm, according to the report. While Bright described the dire need for action and supplies, Kadlec and Azar “asserted that the United States would be able to contain the virus and keep it out of the United States. Secretary Azar further indicated that the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] would look at the issue of travel bans to keep the virus contained.”
Rather than getting a response from his superiors, Bright’s urgency got him excluded from the next meeting about the coronavirus. According to the complaint, Bryan Shuy, Kadlec’s chief of staff, told Bright after the meeting that his request for urgent funding set off “quite a shit storm” and had offended HHS leadership.
“Rick, I think we’re in deep shit. The world.”
Meanwhile, Bowen, the co-owner of the mask company, continued to email Bright about the mask shortage, explaining that his company was getting requests from China and that nearly half of the masks in the U.S. are imported from Chinese manufacturers. “If the supply stops, US hospital will run out of masks. No way to prevent it,” Bowen warned in a January 25 email.
That night, Bright emailed Kadlec about the problem. “Hearing face mask supply is also getting very low as China and HK trying to procure,” he wrote to his boss. “I’ve alerted [Critical Infrastructure Protection, a division of HHS over which Kadlec has authority] on this throughout week. May need to consider options here also before things are gone.”
On January 27, after several emails to Bright, Bowen, who had yet to receive authorization to proceed with mask production, sent another email, saying, “Rick, I think we’re in deep shit. The world.” That same day, although the agency hadn’t addressed the severe mask shortage, an HHS spokesperson told Axios that the Strategic National Stockpile, a collection of lifesaving supplies for public health emergencies, which is overseen by BARDA, “holds millions of face masks as well as N95 respirators that could be used if needed in responding to a public health emergency when local supplies are exhausted and aren’t available from commercial suppliers.”
Two days later, still without a contract, Bowen sent yet another desperate email. “This week, we sent 1,000,000 masks to China and Hong Kong,” he wrote to Bright. “I think China will cut off masks to the USA. If so, US hospitals are going to have a very rough time, as up to half of the supply is made in China. A horrible situation will become unbearable.”
On February 7, Bright made the case for ramping up federal production of N95 masks at a meeting of the disaster leadership group but was shot down. While Bright again warned of imminent shortages, two members of Kadlec’s staff, Laura Wolf and Jessica Falcon, told him that there was no need for immediate action.
“Dr. Wolf and Dr. Falcon responded that the plan was to monitor for any supply chain issues and, if needed, ask the CDC to update its guidelines to tell people who ‘don’t need’ masks to not buy them,” as Bright’s complaint explains.
After weeks of being foiled by his superiors, Bright met on Saturday and Sunday, February 8 and 9, with Trump adviser Peter Navarro, who seemed to share his urgency about the need for masks. The two drafted a memo sent to the White House coronavirus task force that called for the U.S. to immediately halt the export of N95 masks and ramp up production.
But Kadlec did not seem to appreciate being subject to a directive that had clearly come from Bright, who was both a longtime adversary and beneath him in the pecking order. Rather than acknowledge that thousands of lives were at stake and immediately swing into action, the assistant secretary of disaster preparedness complained to his colleagues about Bright going above his head, referring in emails to Bright’s “weekend at Peter’s” and calling Navarro “Rick’s friend” in the White House.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
On February 25, more than a month after Bowen’s first email, Azar testified to the Senate Appropriations Committee that the Strategic National Stockpile had only 30 million masks. That number is less than one one-hundredth of the 3.5 billion that a specialized group within HHS that focuses on the risk from viral outbreaks has estimated are necessary.
On March 4, as increasing numbers of health care workers were becoming sick and dying from the coronavirus, HHS finally put in a request for 500 million N95 face masks. Meanwhile, Kushner was assembling a team of handpicked corporate volunteers to procure protective equipment. The group, which included recent college graduates who had no experience with disaster response or supply procurement, had little success, according to the Washington Post, which first reported on the team.
That same month, as Bright predicted, BARDA was forced to stop its work addressing other potential public health emergencies in order to have enough money to fund its coronavirus efforts. As The Intercept reported at the time, BARDA suspended projects aimed at preventing anthrax, Sudan Ebola virus, Marburg virus, smallpox, viral hemorrhagic fevers, and antimicrobial resistant threats so that it could redirect its funds to buy supplies to fight the current emergency.
Later that month, BARDA received its first direct funding: $3.5 billion specifically for addressing Covid-19. In the past, its budget had fallen within that of the assistant secretary for disaster preparedness. This time, Bright would be able to use the new money without having to go through Kadlec.
But the freedom was shortlived. On April 17, Kadlec informed Bright that he was being transferred to a position within the National Institutes of Health. Asked on his whistleblower complaint form why he thinks he was retaliated against, Bright wrote that “I pushed for a more aggressive agency response to COVID-19. My supervisor became furious when Congress appropriated billions of dollars directly to my office.”
The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


theintercept--2020-05-07--Watch: Is China Merely a Competitor of the U.S., or an Adversary or Even an Enemy?

over the past two decades , the planet ’ s second-most powerful nation after the United States .
Booming economic growth has lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty and catapulted it to the world ’ s second-largest economy , while increased military spending has made it the second-largest military power ( though its military spending , and nuclear stockpile , are still a small fraction of the U.S. ’ s ) .
That growth — in both economic and military power — has led U.S. officials to conclude that they must do more to counteract what they regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Obama , early in his administration , memorably vowed an “ Asia pivot , ” whereby the U.S. would devote fewer resources and less attention to the Middle East and more toward China ’ s growing power in its own region .
That led to some moderate escalation in adversarial relations between the two countries — including the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement ( TPP ) and other regional skirmishes — but nothing approaching direct military confrontation .
President Trump , since taking office , has largely heaped praise on the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , siding with Xi over democracy protests in Hong Kong and even Beijing ’ s handling of the coronavirus outbreak .
But this pandemic has seriously escalated tensions between the two countries given the increasingly hostile rhetoric emanating from various sectors of the west , making it more urgent than ever to grapple with the complex relations between the two countries and how China ought to be perceived .
The question is far more complex than the usual efforts to create a new U.S. Enemy because numerous power centres in the U.S. and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Wall Street , and international capital — are not remotely hostile to Beijing but , quite the contrary , are both fond of it and dependent upon it .
That ’ s why — unlike with other U.S. enemies such as Saddam Hussein , Fidel Castro , the Iranian government or Nicolas Maduro — one finds very powerful actors , from Bill Gates to Michael Bloomberg to the consulting giant McKinsey to Trump himself , defending Chinese officials and urging better relations with them .
That , in turn , reflects a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard foreign policy frameworks : while hawkish , pro-war political elements in both parties speak of China as an adversary that must be confronted or even punished , the interests of powerful western financial actors — the Davos crowd — are inextricably linked with China , using Chinese markets and abusive Chinese labor practices to maximize their profit margins and , in the process , stripping away labor protections , liveable wages and jobs from industrial towns in the U.S. and throughout the west .
That is why standard left-wing anti-imperialism or right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response to thinking about China : policy choices regarding Beijing have immense impact on workers and the economic well-being of citizens throughout the west .
Today ’ s new episode of SYSTEM UPDATE is devoted to sorting through the complexities of this relationship and how to think about China .
I ’ m joined by two guests with radically different views on these questions : the long-time Singeporean diplomat who served as President of the U.N. Security Council , Kishore Mahbubani , whose just-released compelling book “ Has China Won ?
” argues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a friendly competitor and not as a threat to its interests ; and Matt Stoller , who has worked on issues of economic authoritarianism and the U.S. working class in multiple positions in Congress and in various think tanks , culminating in his 2019 book “ Goliath , ” and who argues that China is a threat to the economic well-being of the U.S. working class and to civil liberties in the west .
The show , which I believe provides excellent insight into how to think about these questions , debuts this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Intercept ’ s YouTube channel or can be viewed on the player below at 2:30 p.m. As always , a transcript of the program will be added shortly thereafter .

China has become, over the past two decades, the planet’s second-most powerful nation after the United States. Booming economic growth has lifted millions of its citizens out of poverty and catapulted it to the world’s second-largest economy, while increased military spending has made it the second-largest military power (though its military spending, and nuclear stockpile, are still a small fraction of the U.S.’s).
That growth — in both economic and military power — has led U.S. officials to conclude that they must do more to counteract what they regard as China’s growing influence. President Obama, early in his administration, memorably vowed an “Asia pivot,” whereby the U.S. would devote fewer resources and less attention to the Middle East and more toward China’s growing power in its own region.
That led to some moderate escalation in adversarial relations between the two countries — including the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement (TPP) and other regional skirmishes — but nothing approaching direct military confrontation. President Trump, since taking office, has largely heaped praise on the Chinese government and its leader President Xi Jinping, siding with Xi over democracy protests in Hong Kong and even Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus outbreak.
But this pandemic has seriously escalated tensions between the two countries given the increasingly hostile rhetoric emanating from various sectors of the west, making it more urgent than ever to grapple with the complex relations between the two countries and how China ought to be perceived.
The question is far more complex than the usual efforts to create a new U.S. Enemy because numerous power centres in the U.S. and the west generally — particularly its oligarchs, Wall Street, and international capital — are not remotely hostile to Beijing but, quite the contrary, are both fond of it and dependent upon it. That’s why — unlike with other U.S. enemies such as Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, the Iranian government or Nicolas Maduro — one finds very powerful actors, from Bill Gates to Michael Bloomberg to the consulting giant McKinsey to Trump himself, defending Chinese officials and urging better relations with them.
That, in turn, reflects a critical reality about U.S./China relations that defies standard foreign policy frameworks: while hawkish, pro-war political elements in both parties speak of China as an adversary that must be confronted or even punished, the interests of powerful western financial actors — the Davos crowd — are inextricably linked with China, using Chinese markets and abusive Chinese labor practices to maximize their profit margins and, in the process, stripping away labor protections, liveable wages and jobs from industrial towns in the U.S. and throughout the west.
That is why standard left-wing anti-imperialism or right-wing isolationism is an insufficient and overly simplified response to thinking about China: policy choices regarding Beijing have immense impact on workers and the economic well-being of citizens throughout the west.
Today’s new episode of SYSTEM UPDATE is devoted to sorting through the complexities of this relationship and how to think about China. I’m joined by two guests with radically different views on these questions: the long-time Singeporean diplomat who served as President of the U.N. Security Council, Kishore Mahbubani, whose just-released compelling book “Has China Won?” argues that the U.S. should view China as a friendly competitor and not as a threat to its interests; and Matt Stoller, who has worked on issues of economic authoritarianism and the U.S. working class in multiple positions in Congress and in various think tanks, culminating in his 2019 book “Goliath,” and who argues that China is a threat to the economic well-being of the U.S. working class and to civil liberties in the west.
The show, which I believe provides excellent insight into how to think about these questions, debuts this afternoon at 2:oo pm ET on the Intercept’s YouTube channel or can be viewed on the player below at 2:30 p.m. As always, a transcript of the program will be added shortly thereafter.
Update: May 7, 1:54 p.m. EDT
The debut time for this episode has been moved by 30 minutes; it will not debut on the Intercept’s YouTube channel at 2:30 pm ET.