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

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 .
On today ’ s show , the far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a protest in Wisconsin , a woman holding up a sign saying , “ I want a haircut.
” 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 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 — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 can not be a functioning democracy if men with guns are interfering in the political process ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
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 .
MH : My guest today is someone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , ” — NH : — after the Charlottesville protests .
And Donald Trump is no stranger to the language of political violence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really a bastion — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 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 ” — 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 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it got so much blowback from Republicans — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
NH : There are , obviously , huge differences between your average voter who goes out and votes for the Republican Party — NH : — and a member of one of these militia groups .
And yet , there are blurred lines organizationally — NH : — there are blurred lines in terms of the movement , in terms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
MH : You tweeted recently , that it ’ s useful to think of the lockdown protests as repurposed activism .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — NH : — won ’ t get into all of the details , but who was mainstreaming a lot of people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 — NH : — these white power activists “ very fine people.
” And that , too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 !
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ depressing conversation .
Please do stay safe and well .
NH : You too .
Thanks so much , Mehdi .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 [ email protected ] Thanks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .


theintercept--2020-05-08--Federal Whistleblower Office Asks HHS to Stay Removal of Rick Bright, Who Warned of Mask Shortage

that investigates whistleblower complaints has determined that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Dr. Rick Bright was the subject of retaliation when he was removed from his job as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , or BARDA , in April , his lawyers said on Friday .
Bright had filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday , laying out the case that his superior at the Department of Health and Human Services , Robert Kadlec , had forced him out of a job because Bright had resisted Kadlec ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connected companies , including one headed by an associate of Jared Kushner .
Bright ’ s complaint also detailed his resistance to pressure from the Trump administration to adopt drugs the president had boosted — chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine .
And it provided a detailed account of Kadlec ’ s resistance to addressing the looming shortage of personal protective equipment , including masks , in January and February .
OSC , an independent investigative agency that protects federal employees from reprisal for whistleblowing , told Bright ’ s lawyers that it will ask the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BARDA , where he was overseeing the strategic national stockpile and purchasing treatments , vaccines , and medical supplies necessary to combat the coronavirus , for 45 days to allow for a full investigation of his allegations .
Bright is scheduled to testify before a House health subcommittee next week at a hearing on “ Protecting Scientific Integrity in the COVID-19 Response.
” In a statement , Bright ’ s lawyers , Debra Katz and Lisa Banks , urged HHS to stay Bright ’ s removal from his job , noting , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to agree to OSC ’ s request to stay personnel actions when evidence exists , as it does here , that retaliation occurred.
” Katz and Banks also pointed to data showing that , in the last year , the office had obtained 31 such stays .
“ Dr .
Bright should not be denied the right to have his complaint investigated fully and fairly before he is formally transferred to NIH ” — the National Institutes of Health — “ a move that will harm not only him , but the country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A spokesperson for the OSC , Zachary Kurz , declined a request to comment , citing an agency policy against discussing or confirming “ the status of open investigations.
” “ This is a personnel matter that is currently under review , ” Caitlin Oakley , a spokesperson for the health department , told The Intercept .
“ However , HHS strongly disagrees with the allegations and characterizations in the complaint from Dr.
Bright.
” On Wednesday , President Donald Trump dismissed Bright as “ a disgruntled guy ” and expressed confusion about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I always thought whistleblower was sort of a secret thing , ” Trump said .
“ Well , everyone knows who he is , so why is it a whistleblower ?
” Updated : Friday , May 8 , 3:47 p.m. PDT This article was updated to add a statement from a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services which was received after publication .

A federal office that investigates whistleblower complaints has determined that there is sufficient evidence to believe that Dr. Rick Bright was the subject of retaliation when he was removed from his job as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, in April, his lawyers said on Friday.
Bright had filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday, laying out the case that his superior at the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert Kadlec, had forced him out of a job because Bright had resisted Kadlec’s efforts to direct contracts to politically connected companies, including one headed by an associate of Jared Kushner. Bright’s complaint also detailed his resistance to pressure from the Trump administration to adopt drugs the president had boosted — chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. And it provided a detailed account of Kadlec’s resistance to addressing the looming shortage of personal protective equipment, including masks, in January and February.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
OSC, an independent investigative agency that protects federal employees from reprisal for whistleblowing, told Bright’s lawyers that it will ask the health department to delay his removal from BARDA, where he was overseeing the strategic national stockpile and purchasing treatments, vaccines, and medical supplies necessary to combat the coronavirus, for 45 days to allow for a full investigation of his allegations.
Bright is scheduled to testify before a House health subcommittee next week at a hearing on “Protecting Scientific Integrity in the COVID-19 Response.”
In a statement, Bright’s lawyers, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, urged HHS to stay Bright’s removal from his job, noting, “It is a common occurrence for agencies to agree to OSC’s request to stay personnel actions when evidence exists, as it does here, that retaliation occurred.” Katz and Banks also pointed to data showing that, in the last year, the office had obtained 31 such stays.
“Dr. Bright should not be denied the right to have his complaint investigated fully and fairly before he is formally transferred to NIH” — the National Institutes of Health — “a move that will harm not only him, but the country as well,” they added.
A spokesperson for the OSC, Zachary Kurz, declined a request to comment, citing an agency policy against discussing or confirming “the status of open investigations.”
“This is a personnel matter that is currently under review,” Caitlin Oakley, a spokesperson for the health department, told The Intercept. “However, HHS strongly disagrees with the allegations and characterizations in the complaint from Dr. Bright.”
On Wednesday, President Donald Trump dismissed Bright as “a disgruntled guy” and expressed confusion about the federal law protecting whistleblowers. “I always thought whistleblower was sort of a secret thing,” Trump said. “Well, everyone knows who he is, so why is it a whistleblower?”
Updated: Friday, May 8, 3:47 p.m. PDT
This article was updated to add a statement from a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services which was received after publication.


theintercept--2020-05-08--With Congressional “Abdication” Over Coronavirus, Ocasio-Cortez Says She Is Reduced to Lobbying for

With Congressional “Abdication” Over Coronavirus, Ocasio-Cortez Says She Is Reduced to Lobbying for Burial Costs

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by phone on Thursday afternoon , the news from around the country was even more bleak than usual .
The U.S. death toll for coronavirus had topped 76,000 , and a new jobs report had come out bringing the number of recent unemployment claims to 33.5 million .
The freshman New York lawmaker was frustrated that , instead of passing legislation to provide the economic relief the most vulnerable Americans need , Democratic leaders have conceded to a multibillion-dollar corporate bailout with almost no progressive opposition .
She spoke candidly about the need for progressives to act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on specific demands — and the “ sad state of affairs ” that congresspeople are pressured to vote for mediocre bills .
Ocasio-Cortez has been the only Democrat in Congress to come out against the coronavirus relief packages ; she said she “ couldn ’ t stomach ” voting for the previous bill knowing she would have to go back to her community “ having to fundraise for diapers and fundraise for food myself because the federal government has chosen not to.
” While other representatives were focused on pouring money into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first responders , she said .
Ocasio-Cortez ’ s district includes Corona and North Corona , the two New York City neighborhoods that have more coronavirus cases than any other ZIP code in the country .
Her constituents , most of whom are immigrants and people of color , and many of whom are essential workers , have also been disproportionately impacted .
For the last few weeks , the congresswoman has been redirecting her reelection campaign ’ s money to food pantries and other aid groups in New York City , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the district .
As negotiations for the next federal relief package , CARES 2 , continue , Ocasio-Cortez says she ’ s been “ reduced to ” trying to “ get our families burial funds because people are losing their spouse and their child ” due to the pandemic .
It ’ s not Medicare for All , she noted , but burial funding is “ so desperately needed in our community.
” The transcript below has been slightly edited for clarity .
It ’ s a pretty stressful time .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you guys all safe ?
Thankfully , so far my family is OK .
I have really vulnerable family in Puerto Rico .
My grandmother especially has a lot of acute respiratory issues but thank God no one in my family has been impacted .
We have a lot of people in the community who very sadly have passed away but my very immediate family is safe so far , so we ’ re really thankful .
That ’ s good to hear .
So … just to get into it .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional hearings because of the pandemic .
I know some committees and the Congressional Progressive Caucus ( CPC ) are holding their own Zoom hearings .
But ultimately the House has no rules for remote voting or plans for official hearings in place .
Do you feel restrained or alienated from your congressional duties ?
How is this impacting the ability to legislate and get some progressive accountability of the Trump administration ?
It ’ s really hard to understate how devastating this has been , in terms of our legislative and oversight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Congress to do their job .
Even our ability to just write and submit legislation has been completely decimated because a lot of our institutions … whether it ’ s the Office of Legislative Counsel , which is in charge of actually formalizing the text for our bills , whether it ’ s being able to have hearings in person … We ’ re not able to do our job legislatively .
At all .
Now , we are able to do a lot of work in terms of our districts .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do — I ’ m able to do a lot more in the community and do a lot more kind of casework .
But in terms of our ability to actually advance legislation , be a part of writing legislation and conducting oversight of the Trump administration ’ s very flagrant corruption — we are at a complete loss .
And I think that abdication of our ability — I think that ’ s not only abdication but that kind of challenge and those very hard limitations in our legislative responsibilities in D.C. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response .
In a lot of ways you ’ ve almost been acting like a first responder , going out into the community and physically handing out groceries and supplies .
You ’ ve been seeing the suffering with your own two eyes .
Is it disorienting to go out and give people food and supplies in your community , then going to work and seeing Congress bail out corporations ?
Just the gap between you representing a district that ’ s taking this particularly hard and then , honestly , most members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I kind of went off on an Instagram story last week because I feel like I ’ m the cleaning crew for Congress ’ s neglect and mess .
When we go to D.C. , we ’ re with all of these members that are from a lot of communities that are very distant ; they ’ re one , two degrees away from this crisis .
And almost everyone is impacted one way or another from the closing of our economy .
But that ’ s very different from having the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And for me to have to go out every Friday and feed people who are hungry and try to get people help and health care who are dying — it is directly because of Congress and the federal government ’ s failure and inability to really acknowledge this crisis not just in scale but in time .
So in terms of there being disorientation , for me , on one hand it gives you whiplash , but on the other hand it also gives you an immense amount of clarity .
I could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill , knowing that I had to go straight back to my community and go right back to having to fundraise for diapers and fundraise for food myself because the federal government has chosen not to .
We ’ re having trillions of dollars in federal response being hacked out by three to five people in a backroom .
And then they bring it back to over 500 members of Congress and the only option that you get is yes or no .
And I ’ m personally boggled as to why these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no dissent .
This is pretty unprecedented in the history of Congress .
And a lot of times that dissent and coalition building is healthy ; it shows diversity of thought .
And I want to be very clear that a lot of the time the pressures to support these bills are not about us talking about the merits of taking one approach or another , it ’ s just about these bills showing up and saying like , “ Are you going to vote no on $ 2 for a hospital ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to have to allow unprecedented corporate expansion of power in the United States , and the idea that it is almost unacceptable to reject that choice is … it ’ s a sad state of affairs that we ’ re in right now frankly .
You ’ ve been the only vote against these past couple relief packages .
Even many of your progressive colleagues , they ’ ll rail against it but ultimately be put in a position where they feel like they can ’ t “ use the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ’ s what some people believe .
Do you think with CARES 2 , since it ’ s going to be the only big relief package for a while , that the progressive wing of the caucus should whip votes against it , if it doesn ’ t include everything you guys want ?
When we talk about everything , what does that mean ?
I ’ m not going to say if this doesn ’ t have everything under the sun we should reject it .
But I do think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we will allow to be in and have very clear standards for what we will not accept .
I think even the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has had conversations about this in terms of providing relief to immigrants and mixed-status families .
There are caucuses — whether it ’ s the Blue Dogs or the New Dems — they say all the time , “ If this taxes the health insurance industry , we ’ re out.
” They draw those hard bargains all the time and they threaten to sink bills all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it ’ s controversial or wrong to do that , just in general .
The question is what are we willing to negotiate for and what are we willing to not take no for an answer on .
And I think you ’ ll probably get a lot of different answers from different progressives on it .
But I think having those standards going in and communicating them is always very important in making sure we have some actual wins in this bill .
Do you think members are going to start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase of coronavirus relief ?
It kind of sounds , at least from the outside , that the dynamic for CARES 2 so far has been that members individually try to talk to Pelosi and leadership about what they ’ d like to see in it .
It doesn ’ t really sound like there ’ s a lot of collective organizing on the inside .
I would say that ’ s probably an accurate assessment .
I think a lot of members are trying to squeeze in one-on-one conversations here or having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think about who ’ s operating as a bloc , I think the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has the potential to operate as a strong bloc because I believe they have coalesced around protections for mixed-status families and immigrants so I ’ m seeing some movement of organizing as a bloc on that end .
So there ’ s potential here , but also we don ’ t know what kinda bill this is going to be , right ?
Is this a messaging bill that just intends on putting a bunch of things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader ] Mitch McConnell ’ s desk and having him say no to it ?
Or is this a serious bill where we ’ re going to commit to making sure that we get some key priorities ?
It ’ s hard to tell and it ’ s hard to predict because we already have a mold and we already have a pattern for how these negotiations have gone forward in the last one , two , three , four , different relief bills .
The pattern has been : Well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so there ’ s nothing we can do , so at least accept this .
And it at least feels like it ’ s coming from a very powerless place .
And maybe that ’ s how folks feel , I don ’ t know .
But if that ’ s how we ’ ve been negotiating all of these bills — what prevents us from being in that exact same place for CARES 2 ?
As much as we want to talk about these progressive priorities , you know , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistently told and promised that their priority is going to be put into the next bill ?
And if it ’ s not going to be in this one , it ’ ll be in the next one , and the next one comes and it can ’ t be in this one , it ’ ll be in the next one .
At a certain point , I am most comfortable with honesty and being very clear about our limits and the field that we ’ re operating with .
But I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for us to be told , and basically tell people that we ’ ve been told , that all of these things are going to be in the bill and we don ’ t know which ones people are serious about and which ones they aren ’ t .
And if they aren ’ t serious about it , I would just rather us be told that .
It makes it all very hazy and my constituents — who are on the brink of eviction , who are choosing between exposing themselves to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out to work or exposing themselves to the health risks of starvation by not going to work — they ’ re asking me for clarity on what to expect , and it ’ s very difficult as a member of Congress to not be able to give them a straight answer because I ’ m not … we don ’ t get a straight answer until the bill text is finalized .
I understand that you guys don ’ t know what the bill ’ s going to look like quite yet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is pretty down with the idea of changing PPP eligibility to include lobbyists , basically amounting to a taxpayer bailout of corporate lobbyists .
So what do you make of that , and have you been hearing of any other ideas you ’ re concerned about making it into the bill ?
That one , that one , I think , is one of the most dangerous ones that I ’ ve heard .
That one probably takes the cake .
The fact that we are going to bail out lobbyists before we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in some of the most impacted ZIP codes in the country is appalling .
And I don ’ t understand why we would ever be supportive of that .
Truly do not .
And I know people may say , “ Oh there ’ s a good lobbyist firm here or there , ” [ laughs ] but let ’ s look at the industry overall , this is not possible .
Lobbyists have enough power in this entire process , thank you very much .
In terms of other red flags @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bailout of health insurance companies without actually materially expanding health care coverage , or pairing that with an expansion of Medicare or Medicaid , and that to me is extremely concerning .
It ’ s extremely concerning to me that we would entertain such a thing , I don ’ t know how seriously it ’ s being taken but it is certainly one of the proposals that we have seen and observed and heard about in this process .
And the idea that we would bail out the very industries who contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very broken structure that has led to this crisis , without doing anything to fix them is so wrong .
And I think it ’ s in the same smash-and-grab expansion of corporate power that we are seeing in a lot of other aspects of this bailout and of these relief packages.
” One last question .
You mentioned members here and there have been squeezing in one-on-one conversations with leadership .
Have you been able to talk to leadership and if so , what have been your asks for what you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2 ?
There are so many things that need to be advocated for .
What I have kinda been voicing has a lot to do , frankly , with the first response needs of our community .
And some of them I don ’ t think are controversial — I think what we ’ re trying to get done is not some big bold progressive statement , I ’ m trying to get our families burial funds because people are losing their spouse and their child due to coronavirus in my district .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have a family that ’ s making $ 40,000 a year that has , you know , $ 35,000 of funeral expenses .
And when all of that is concentrated in the blackest and brownest communities in this country , what we ’ re talking about is a generational exacerbation of the racial wealth gap .
Burial funds may not seem like a lot , it ’ s not Medicare for All per se , but it is something that is so desperately needed in our community .
And that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , right ?
I think it ’ s a huge part of the emotional toll for people who are representing heavily hit communities , that we are reduced to begging the federal government to allow families to bury their loved ones .
But on top of that , we ’ re also begging for city and state funding , direct funding , local funding , because we ’ re also talking about mass layoffs for municipal governments .
OK , the state of New York , in some ways , has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They will do , in the state of California and other states , what Trump will not .
And we are now at the point where we are talking about cities and municipalities that may be on the brink of laying off huge portions of their municipal workers and their frontline workers and first responders .
And I don ’ t think people understand how dire of a situation this is .
I have heard from the city that we ’ ve got certainty through the end of this month .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s no real funding for New York City , and it ’ s not just New York City it could be across the country , we ’ re going to have to start making very real , material decisions between which kind of life support systems to cut .
We ’ re going to be in a dangerous place socially , economically , and in terms of public health , and we can not allow that to happen .
And that is why one of my big concerns has been with this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get to it next time , we ’ ll get to it next time ” — it ’ s not just about when you get to it , it ’ s about if you can get to it in time .
If you show up to a person who needs CPR two minutes late , it ’ s too late .
That ’ s the situation that we ’ re in right now .
So we ’ re kind of fighting to see if we ’ re going to do enough and if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in time .
Right .
OK. Oof .
That ’ s depressing .
Well , thank you so much for your time .
I really appreciate it .
But wait , I lied .
I have one more question .
Just to end on a lighter note .
Have you played Animal Crossing ?
Oh !
I just got a [ Nintendo ] Switch .
Yes , and I set up my island like two days ago .
I ’ m really excited about it , but I also feel like a slacker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two days and I just upgraded my tent .
But that ’ s OK.
It ’ s been quite good actually , for my mental health .
It ’ s literally the only reason I ’ ve been staying sane because I can ’ t really pay attention to books or movies , but I completely lose myself in my island .
Yes , yes , I feel the same way .
I think it ’ s because it ’ s a little more interactive than just passively watching a movie .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about like , you work and you actually make money and can pay off your debt , instantly .
[ Laughs ] Animal Crossing is the only reality where millennials will own a house .

When I reached Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez by phone on Thursday afternoon, the news from around the country was even more bleak than usual. The U.S. death toll for coronavirus had topped 76,000, and a new jobs report had come out bringing the number of recent unemployment claims to 33.5 million.
The freshman New York lawmaker was frustrated that, instead of passing legislation to provide the economic relief the most vulnerable Americans need, Democratic leaders have conceded to a multibillion-dollar corporate bailout with almost no progressive opposition. She spoke candidly about the need for progressives to act like other caucuses and condition their votes on specific demands — and the “sad state of affairs” that congresspeople are pressured to vote for mediocre bills.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
Ocasio-Cortez has been the only Democrat in Congress to come out against the coronavirus relief packages; she said she “couldn’t stomach” voting for the previous bill knowing she would have to go back to her community “having to fundraise for diapers and fundraise for food myself because the federal government has chosen not to.”
While other representatives were focused on pouring money into the economy, her office felt more like first responders, she said. Ocasio-Cortez’s district includes Corona and North Corona, the two New York City neighborhoods that have more coronavirus cases than any other ZIP code in the country. Her constituents, most of whom are immigrants and people of color, and many of whom are essential workers, have also been disproportionately impacted.
For the last few weeks, the congresswoman has been redirecting her reelection campaign’s money to food pantries and other aid groups in New York City, and personally delivering food and groceries to residents in the district. As negotiations for the next federal relief package, CARES 2, continue, Ocasio-Cortez says she’s been “reduced to” trying to “get our families burial funds because people are losing their spouse and their child” due to the pandemic. It’s not Medicare for All, she noted, but burial funding is “so desperately needed in our community.”
The transcript below has been slightly edited for clarity.
It’s a pretty stressful time. How’s your family doing? Are you guys all safe?
Thankfully, so far my family is OK. I have really vulnerable family in Puerto Rico. My grandmother especially has a lot of acute respiratory issues but thank God no one in my family has been impacted. We have a lot of people in the community who very sadly have passed away but my very immediate family is safe so far, so we’re really thankful.
That’s good to hear. So … just to get into it. I wanna start with the lack of congressional hearings because of the pandemic. I know some committees and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) are holding their own Zoom hearings. But ultimately the House has no rules for remote voting or plans for official hearings in place. Do you feel restrained or alienated from your congressional duties? How is this impacting the ability to legislate and get some progressive accountability of the Trump administration?
It’s really hard to understate how devastating this has been, in terms of our legislative and oversight abilities, for an average member of Congress to do their job. Even our ability to just write and submit legislation has been completely decimated because a lot of our institutions … whether it’s the Office of Legislative Counsel, which is in charge of actually formalizing the text for our bills, whether it’s being able to have hearings in person … We’re not able to do our job legislatively. At all.
“In terms of our ability to actually advance legislation [remotely] … we are at a complete loss.”
Now, we are able to do a lot of work in terms of our districts. That is something this has allowed me to do — I’m able to do a lot more in the community and do a lot more kind of casework. But in terms of our ability to actually advance legislation, be a part of writing legislation and conducting oversight of the Trump administration’s very flagrant corruption — we are at a complete loss. And I think that abdication of our ability — I think that’s not only abdication but that kind of challenge and those very hard limitations in our legislative responsibilities in D.C. — have had enormous impact on the response.
In a lot of ways you’ve almost been acting like a first responder, going out into the community and physically handing out groceries and supplies. You’ve been seeing the suffering with your own two eyes. Is it disorienting to go out and give people food and supplies in your community, then going to work and seeing Congress bail out corporations? Just the gap between you representing a district that’s taking this particularly hard and then, honestly, most members of Congress?
It’s devastating. I kind of went off on an Instagram story last week because I feel like I’m the cleaning crew for Congress’s neglect and mess. When we go to D.C., we’re with all of these members that are from a lot of communities that are very distant; they’re one, two degrees away from this crisis. And almost everyone is impacted one way or another from the closing of our economy. But that’s very different from having the bodies pile up in our backyard. And for me to have to go out every Friday and feed people who are hungry and try to get people help and health care who are dying — it is directly because of Congress and the federal government’s failure and inability to really acknowledge this crisis not just in scale but in time. So in terms of there being disorientation, for me, on one hand it gives you whiplash, but on the other hand it also gives you an immense amount of clarity.
I could not stomach voting for that last relief bill, knowing that I had to go straight back to my community and go right back to having to fundraise for diapers and fundraise for food myself because the federal government has chosen not to.
“I feel like I’m the cleaning crew for Congress’s neglect and mess.”
We’re having trillions of dollars in federal response being hacked out by three to five people in a backroom. And then they bring it back to over 500 members of Congress and the only option that you get is yes or no. And I’m personally boggled as to why these bills are passing almost unanimously with almost no dissent. This is pretty unprecedented in the history of Congress. And a lot of times that dissent and coalition building is healthy; it shows diversity of thought. And I want to be very clear that a lot of the time the pressures to support these bills are not about us talking about the merits of taking one approach or another, it’s just about these bills showing up and saying like, “Are you going to vote no on $2 for a hospital?” And doing that means that you’re going to have to allow unprecedented corporate expansion of power in the United States, and the idea that it is almost unacceptable to reject that choice is … it’s a sad state of affairs that we’re in right now frankly.
You’ve been the only vote against these past couple relief packages. Even many of your progressive colleagues, they’ll rail against it but ultimately be put in a position where they feel like they can’t “use the suffering as leverage” — at least that’s what some people believe. Do you think with CARES 2, since it’s going to be the only big relief package for a while, that the progressive wing of the caucus should whip votes against it, if it doesn’t include everything you guys want?
“The question is what are we willing to negotiate for and what are we willing to not take no for an answer on.”
When we talk about everything, what does that mean? I’m not going to say if this doesn’t have everything under the sun we should reject it. But I do think we should set very clear standards about what we will allow to be in and have very clear standards for what we will not accept. I think even the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has had conversations about this in terms of providing relief to immigrants and mixed-status families. There are caucuses — whether it’s the Blue Dogs or the New Dems — they say all the time, “If this taxes the health insurance industry, we’re out.” They draw those hard bargains all the time and they threaten to sink bills all the time and certainly don’t think that it’s controversial or wrong to do that, just in general.
The question is what are we willing to negotiate for and what are we willing to not take no for an answer on. And I think you’ll probably get a lot of different answers from different progressives on it. But I think having those standards going in and communicating them is always very important in making sure we have some actual wins in this bill.
Do you think members are going to start acting like a bloc in the next phase of coronavirus relief? It kind of sounds, at least from the outside, that the dynamic for CARES 2 so far has been that members individually try to talk to Pelosi and leadership about what they’d like to see in it. It doesn’t really sound like there’s a lot of collective organizing on the inside.
I would say that’s probably an accurate assessment. I think a lot of members are trying to squeeze in one-on-one conversations here or having their priority known there. When I think about who’s operating as a bloc, I think the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has the potential to operate as a strong bloc because I believe they have coalesced around protections for mixed-status families and immigrants so I’m seeing some movement of organizing as a bloc on that end.
So there’s potential here, but also we don’t know what kinda bill this is going to be, right? Is this a messaging bill that just intends on putting a bunch of things through and leaving it on [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell’s desk and having him say no to it? Or is this a serious bill where we’re going to commit to making sure that we get some key priorities? It’s hard to tell and it’s hard to predict because we already have a mold and we already have a pattern for how these negotiations have gone forward in the last one, two, three, four, different relief bills. The pattern has been: Well, the Senate won’t accept it, so there’s nothing we can do, so at least accept this. And it at least feels like it’s coming from a very powerless place. And maybe that’s how folks feel, I don’t know.
But if that’s how we’ve been negotiating all of these bills — what prevents us from being in that exact same place for CARES 2? As much as we want to talk about these progressive priorities, you know, what prevents the same thing where members are consistently told and promised that their priority is going to be put into the next bill? And if it’s not going to be in this one, it’ll be in the next one, and the next one comes and it can’t be in this one, it’ll be in the next one.
At a certain point, I am most comfortable with honesty and being very clear about our limits and the field that we’re operating with. But I don’t think it is healthy for us to be told, and basically tell people that we’ve been told, that all of these things are going to be in the bill and we don’t know which ones people are serious about and which ones they aren’t. And if they aren’t serious about it, I would just rather us be told that. It makes it all very hazy and my constituents — who are on the brink of eviction, who are choosing between exposing themselves to the health risks of coronavirus by going out to work or exposing themselves to the health risks of starvation by not going to work — they’re asking me for clarity on what to expect, and it’s very difficult as a member of Congress to not be able to give them a straight answer because I’m not … we don’t get a straight answer until the bill text is finalized.
I understand that you guys don’t know what the bill’s going to look like quite yet, but there has been reporting that leadership is pretty down with the idea of changing PPP eligibility to include lobbyists, basically amounting to a taxpayer bailout of corporate lobbyists. So what do you make of that, and have you been hearing of any other ideas you’re concerned about making it into the bill?
That one, that one, I think, is one of the most dangerous ones that I’ve heard. That one probably takes the cake. The fact that we are going to bail out lobbyists before we bail out black businesses, small businesses, in some of the most impacted ZIP codes in the country is appalling. And I don’t understand why we would ever be supportive of that. Truly do not. And I know people may say, “Oh there’s a good lobbyist firm here or there,” [laughs] but let’s look at the industry overall, this is not possible. Lobbyists have enough power in this entire process, thank you very much.
In terms of other red flags, I had heard things about a bailout of health insurance companies without actually materially expanding health care coverage, or pairing that with an expansion of Medicare or Medicaid, and that to me is extremely concerning. It’s extremely concerning to me that we would entertain such a thing, I don’t know how seriously it’s being taken but it is certainly one of the proposals that we have seen and observed and heard about in this process. And the idea that we would bail out the very industries who contributed to, and the very structure, the very broken structure that has led to this crisis, without doing anything to fix them is so wrong. And I think it’s in the same smash-and-grab expansion of corporate power that we are seeing in a lot of other aspects of this bailout and of these relief packages.”
One last question. You mentioned members here and there have been squeezing in one-on-one conversations with leadership. Have you been able to talk to leadership and if so, what have been your asks for what you’d like to see in CARES 2?
“If you show up to a person who needs CPR two minutes late, it’s too late. That’s the situation that we’re in right now.”
There are so many things that need to be advocated for. What I have kinda been voicing has a lot to do, frankly, with the first response needs of our community. And some of them I don’t think are controversial — I think what we’re trying to get done is not some big bold progressive statement, I’m trying to get our families burial funds because people are losing their spouse and their child due to coronavirus in my district. Now, all of a sudden, you have a family that’s making $40,000 a year that has, you know, $35,000 of funeral expenses. And when all of that is concentrated in the blackest and brownest communities in this country, what we’re talking about is a generational exacerbation of the racial wealth gap. Burial funds may not seem like a lot, it’s not Medicare for All per se, but it is something that is so desperately needed in our community. And that’s essentially what we’ve been reduced to, right? I think it’s a huge part of the emotional toll for people who are representing heavily hit communities, that we are reduced to begging the federal government to allow families to bury their loved ones.
But on top of that, we’re also begging for city and state funding, direct funding, local funding, because we’re also talking about mass layoffs for municipal governments. OK, the state of New York, in some ways, has been certainly more progressive than the Trump administration. They will do, in the state of California and other states, what Trump will not. And we are now at the point where we are talking about cities and municipalities that may be on the brink of laying off huge portions of their municipal workers and their frontline workers and first responders. And I don’t think people understand how dire of a situation this is. I have heard from the city that we’ve got certainty through the end of this month. And if we get to June and there’s no real funding for New York City, and it’s not just New York City it could be across the country, we’re going to have to start making very real, material decisions between which kind of life support systems to cut. We’re going to be in a dangerous place socially, economically, and in terms of public health, and we cannot allow that to happen.
And that is why one of my big concerns has been with this approach of, “We’ll get to it next time, we’ll get to it next time” — it’s not just about when you get to it, it’s about if you can get to it in time. If you show up to a person who needs CPR two minutes late, it’s too late. That’s the situation that we’re in right now. So we’re kind of fighting to see if we’re going to do enough and if we’re going to do enough in time.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
Right. OK. Oof. That’s depressing. Well, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. But wait, I lied. I have one more question. Just to end on a lighter note. Have you played Animal Crossing?
Oh! I just got a [Nintendo] Switch.
Really?!
Yes, and I set up my island like two days ago. I’m really excited about it, but I also feel like a slacker because I have like 10 bells in two days and I just upgraded my tent. But that’s OK. It’s been quite good actually, for my mental health.
It’s literally the only reason I’ve been staying sane because I can’t really pay attention to books or movies, but I completely lose myself in my island.
Yes, yes, I feel the same way. I think it’s because it’s a little more interactive than just passively watching a movie.
And I think there’s something satisfying about like, you work and you actually make money and can pay off your debt, instantly.
[Laughs] Animal Crossing is the only reality where millennials will own a house.


theintercept--2020-05-08--Republicans Are Using the Coronavirus Crisis to Win Long-Desired Bank Deregulation, Raising Potentia

Republicans Are Using the Coronavirus Crisis to Win Long-Desired Bank Deregulation, Raising Potential for Bank Failures

and finance industry lobbyists are using the coronavirus pandemic to press regulators into rapidly waiving financial safeguards for community banks .
And so far , banking regulators have obliged , lifting rules imposed after the 2008 crisis that limit risk-taking and require banks to undergo more strenuous audits .
But experts are warning that the deregulatory blitz , sold as a fix to stimulate business by encouraging more lending , raises the potential for a flood of small bank failures , potentially lengthening economic woes and risking the need for future bank bailouts .
The flurry of advocacy began in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic seized headlines .
That month , several GOP lawmakers contacted regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to urge officials to adjust the threshold at which community banks may qualify for exemption from all risk-based capital requirements .
“ We strongly urge you to use the full measure of discretion afforded by Congress to maximize capital simplification and regulatory relief for the greatest number of community banks , ” wrote Rep. Denver Riggleman , R-Va. , in a letter signed by eight other House Republicans , obtained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by The Intercept .
In addition to Riggleman , the letter was signed by Reps. Scott Tipton , R-Colo. ; Bill Huizenga , R-Mich. ; Ann Wagner , R-Mo .
; Frank Lucas , R-Okla. ; David Kustoff , R-Tenn. ; Barry Loudermilk , R-Ga. ; John Rose , R-Tenn. ; and Blaine Luetkemeyer , R-Mo .
The letter asked that the Federal Reserve and FDIC lower the Community Bank Leverage Ratio from 9 percent to 8 percent , a move that would qualify about 400 banks for special exemption from scrutiny over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bank .
The lower leverage ratio , the lawmakers argued , would “ support credit in thousands more communities across the country.
” Ordinarily , a complete revision of federal regulation would require months of deliberation , an open comment period , and an agency justification backed by evidence .
But the Covid-19 emergency short circuited the process , and within weeks , the leverage ratio was lowered .
The demands in the congressional letter were slipped into the CARES Act , the $ 2.2 trillion bailout legislation .
The legislation waived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from accounting standards to loan limits , and temporarily lowered the Community Bank Leverage Ratio to 8 percent through the duration of the public health crisis .
Banks must maintain a certain risk-based capital requirement , meaning banks with riskier assets must have higher levels of capital to contain potential losses .
Bank stability is also measured by a leverage ratio , which is simply the percentage of capital held of total bank assets .
Lowering the Community Bank Leverage Ratio means hundreds of banks can hold onto less capital while avoiding standards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take on .
“ The industry and regulators love to use jargon and impenetrable language but the leverage ratio is nothing but a capital buffer that a bank has to have to absorb losses itself so it won ’ t have to be bailed out by taxpayers , ” said Dennis Kelleher , president of the financial reform group Better Markets .
“ It would really turn logic on its head to now say the banks should not have to comply with those other rules and they should get a lower leverage ratio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole idea of lowering capital requirements to respond to a pandemic is wrong , ” said Jeremy Kress , an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan School of Business .
Kress noted that while public attention was focused largely on “ too big to fail ” mega-banks , hundreds of community banks failed during the crisis that started with the 2008 financial collapse .
In a recent academic paper , Kress observed that out of the 489 banks that failed and were resolved by the federal government from 2008-2013 , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failures of community banks during this period cost taxpayers nearly $ 50 billion .
In contrast to the bailouts of large Wall Street banks , which were eventually paid back with interest to the federal government , the small bank bailouts only incurred significant costs .
The failure of small banks during the last crisis also created a cascading effect of economic damage , as small businesses and entrepreneurs around the country were cut off from credit , driving one of the slowest economic recoveries in U.S. history , Kress argues .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of defaults , more community bank failures could be on the horizon .
The deregulatory push to reduce capital requirements could hasten the level of bank failures , said Kress , exacerbating the current economic crisis .
“ When we see a bunch of small institutions failing simultaneously , ” said Kress , “ that leaves a lot of communities and small businesses and individuals without needed access to credit.
” “ The efforts that we are seeing today to weaken the Community Bank Leverage Ratio is only going to make the community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likelihood of another collapse of small banks , ” he added .
The leeway for regulators to exempt the community banks from risk-related assessments came from special authority granted by the Economic Growth , Regulatory Relief , and Consumer Protection Act , a law passed in 2018 , the largest bank deregulation measure ushered in by Trump .
The measure removed proprietary trading restrictions from banks with $ 10 billion or less in assets imposed by the so-called Volcker Rule following the 2008 crisis .
It also instituted the Community Bank Leverage Ratio @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulatory standards known as Basel III capital rules if they maintain a leverage ratio between 8 and 10 percent .
The FDIC set the rate at 9 percent following the law .
The Congressional Budget Office , the independent body that analyzes legislation , suggested at the time that the deregulatory push would threaten the stability of community banks , which would likely use the exemption to chase higher returns by taking on more volatile loans and securities .
The CBO noted that even a Community Bank Leverage Ratio of 9 percent could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of bank failures and FDIC bailouts .
After winning passage of the 2018 law , the industry went to work lowering the Community Bank Leverage Ratio well before the pandemic .
Over the last year , representatives from the Mortgage Bankers Associations and the Independent Community Bankers Association , have pressed for the 8 percent standard , a push that was renewed in recent months , lobbying disclosures show .
Rep. Jodey Arrington , R-Texas , a former FDIC official under President George W. Bush , was one of the lawmakers pushing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letter to bank regulators , Arrington asked for “ ample time ” for community banks to comply with the new 8 percent Community Bank Leverage Ratio and for the change to be made permanent .
“ Furthermore , ” the congressman wrote , “ in order to maintain long-term economic growth , the CBLR should be maintained at the minimum eight percent threshold , allowed by P.L .
115-174 , beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
” The Texas lawmaker dismissed concerns that reducing regulations could raise the risk of bank failures .
“ Relaxing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserve requirements by 1 % for community banks during the immediate crisis as well as our longer term economic recovery will provide greater access to much-needed capital for small businesses , which , in turn , will help keep people employed and strengthen our overall recovery efforts , ” said Arrington in a statement to The Intercept .
“ Lenders of all sizes will certainly have an increase in risk to their loan portfolios ; however , banks have an incentive to operate responsibly in order to stay solvent and community banks who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ targeted relief to continue serving rural communities like mine , ” the lawmaker added .
Bank industry advocates have long argued that capital requirements have curbed lending .
But banking industry watchdogs have pointed out that a growing body of empirical research shows the exact opposite and that well-capitalized banks make more loans and more high-quality loans .
Research from the Bank for International Settlements found that “ higher bank capital is associated with greater lending.
” Morris Goldstein , a former fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics , in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that “ better capitalized banks lend more , not less , than weakly capitalized ones.
” Still , community banks have won a series of deregulatory measures in part by leveraging their relative popularity in contrast to the big banks .
Despite the economic risks of lifting bank rules , small banks have been at the tip of the spear in weakening financial safeguards .
“ Everybody loves community banks , right ?
” said Kress .
“ They ’ re the most sympathetic industry in Congress because every member has a community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of residential and small business lending , they sponsor your kids ’ kickball team , they seem far removed from the financial engineering of Wall Street.
” “ Community banks , motherhood , and apple pie , ” chuckled Kelleher .
The lofty reputation held by community banks , however , has concealed the danger they pose to the economic system .
“ The bank industry pushes in a lot of different ways , ” Kelleher noted .
“ They do it directly against the regulators , they do it indirectly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s really pretty sad how many are using the pandemic as nothing but a pretext for their deregulation agenda that they ’ ve been asking for for years .
”

Republican lawmakers and finance industry lobbyists are using the coronavirus pandemic to press regulators into rapidly waiving financial safeguards for community banks.
And so far, banking regulators have obliged, lifting rules imposed after the 2008 crisis that limit risk-taking and require banks to undergo more strenuous audits.
But experts are warning that the deregulatory blitz, sold as a fix to stimulate business by encouraging more lending, raises the potential for a flood of small bank failures, potentially lengthening economic woes and risking the need for future bank bailouts.
Read Our Complete Coverage The Coronavirus Crisis
The flurry of advocacy began in March just as the imminent threat of the pandemic seized headlines. That month, several GOP lawmakers contacted regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to urge officials to adjust the threshold at which community banks may qualify for exemption from all risk-based capital requirements.
“We strongly urge you to use the full measure of discretion afforded by Congress to maximize capital simplification and regulatory relief for the greatest number of community banks,” wrote Rep. Denver Riggleman, R-Va., in a letter signed by eight other House Republicans, obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request by The Intercept. In addition to Riggleman, the letter was signed by Reps. Scott Tipton, R-Colo.; Bill Huizenga, R-Mich.; Ann Wagner, R-Mo.; Frank Lucas, R-Okla.; David Kustoff, R-Tenn.; Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga.; John Rose, R-Tenn.; and Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-Mo.
The letter asked that the Federal Reserve and FDIC lower the Community Bank Leverage Ratio from 9 percent to 8 percent, a move that would qualify about 400 banks for special exemption from scrutiny over the level of risk taken on by a bank. The lower leverage ratio, the lawmakers argued, would “support credit in thousands more communities across the country.”
Ordinarily, a complete revision of federal regulation would require months of deliberation, an open comment period, and an agency justification backed by evidence. But the Covid-19 emergency short circuited the process, and within weeks, the leverage ratio was lowered.
The demands in the congressional letter were slipped into the CARES Act, the $2.2 trillion bailout legislation. The legislation waived a number of regulations on banks, from accounting standards to loan limits, and temporarily lowered the Community Bank Leverage Ratio to 8 percent through the duration of the public health crisis.
Banks must maintain a certain risk-based capital requirement, meaning banks with riskier assets must have higher levels of capital to contain potential losses. Bank stability is also measured by a leverage ratio, which is simply the percentage of capital held of total bank assets.
Lowering the Community Bank Leverage Ratio means hundreds of banks can hold onto less capital while avoiding standards that restrict the types of risk they take on.
“The industry and regulators love to use jargon and impenetrable language but the leverage ratio is nothing but a capital buffer that a bank has to have to absorb losses itself so it won’t have to be bailed out by taxpayers,” said Dennis Kelleher, president of the financial reform group Better Markets.
“It would really turn logic on its head to now say the banks should not have to comply with those other rules and they should get a lower leverage ratio,” added Kelleher.
“The whole idea of lowering capital requirements to respond to a pandemic is wrong,” said Jeremy Kress, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan School of Business.
Kress noted that while public attention was focused largely on “too big to fail” mega-banks, hundreds of community banks failed during the crisis that started with the 2008 financial collapse.
In a recent academic paper, Kress observed that out of the 489 banks that failed and were resolved by the federal government from 2008-2013, all but nine were community banks. The failures of community banks during this period cost taxpayers nearly $50 billion. In contrast to the bailouts of large Wall Street banks, which were eventually paid back with interest to the federal government, the small bank bailouts only incurred significant costs.
The failure of small banks during the last crisis also created a cascading effect of economic damage, as small businesses and entrepreneurs around the country were cut off from credit, driving one of the slowest economic recoveries in U.S. history, Kress argues.
If the current pandemic leads to a wave of defaults, more community bank failures could be on the horizon. The deregulatory push to reduce capital requirements could hasten the level of bank failures, said Kress, exacerbating the current economic crisis.
“When we see a bunch of small institutions failing simultaneously,” said Kress, “that leaves a lot of communities and small businesses and individuals without needed access to credit.”
“The efforts that we are seeing today to weaken the Community Bank Leverage Ratio is only going to make the community banking sector more fragile and increase the likelihood of another collapse of small banks,” he added.
The leeway for regulators to exempt the community banks from risk-related assessments came from special authority granted by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, a law passed in 2018, the largest bank deregulation measure ushered in by Trump.
The measure removed proprietary trading restrictions from banks with $10 billion or less in assets imposed by the so-called Volcker Rule following the 2008 crisis. It also instituted the Community Bank Leverage Ratio rule, allowing small banks to skirt regulatory standards known as Basel III capital rules if they maintain a leverage ratio between 8 and 10 percent. The FDIC set the rate at 9 percent following the law.
The Congressional Budget Office, the independent body that analyzes legislation, suggested at the time that the deregulatory push would threaten the stability of community banks, which would likely use the exemption to chase higher returns by taking on more volatile loans and securities. The CBO noted that even a Community Bank Leverage Ratio of 9 percent could raise FDIC costs by increasing the probability of bank failures and FDIC bailouts.
After winning passage of the 2018 law, the industry went to work lowering the Community Bank Leverage Ratio well before the pandemic. Over the last year, representatives from the Mortgage Bankers Associations and the Independent Community Bankers Association, have pressed for the 8 percent standard, a push that was renewed in recent months, lobbying disclosures show.
Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, a former FDIC official under President George W. Bush, was one of the lawmakers pushing to loosen the standard.
In a separate letter to bank regulators, Arrington asked for “ample time” for community banks to comply with the new 8 percent Community Bank Leverage Ratio and for the change to be made permanent. “Furthermore,” the congressman wrote, “in order to maintain long-term economic growth, the CBLR should be maintained at the minimum eight percent threshold, allowed by P.L. 115-174, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The Texas lawmaker dismissed concerns that reducing regulations could raise the risk of bank failures.
“Relaxing regulations in a reasonable way including lowering reserve requirements by 1% for community banks during the immediate crisis as well as our longer term economic recovery will provide greater access to much-needed capital for small businesses, which, in turn, will help keep people employed and strengthen our overall recovery efforts,” said Arrington in a statement to The Intercept.
“Lenders of all sizes will certainly have an increase in risk to their loan portfolios; however, banks have an incentive to operate responsibly in order to stay solvent and community banks who operate on a thinner margin need some targeted relief to continue serving rural communities like mine,” the lawmaker added.
Share Your Coronavirus Story Click here to learn about contacting a reporter securely, or email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com
Bank industry advocates have long argued that capital requirements have curbed lending. But banking industry watchdogs have pointed out that a growing body of empirical research shows the exact opposite and that well-capitalized banks make more loans and more high-quality loans.
Research from the Bank for International Settlements found that “higher bank capital is associated with greater lending.” Morris Goldstein, a former fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a review of economic literature, similarly found that “better capitalized banks lend more, not less, than weakly capitalized ones.”
Still, community banks have won a series of deregulatory measures in part by leveraging their relative popularity in contrast to the big banks. Despite the economic risks of lifting bank rules, small banks have been at the tip of the spear in weakening financial safeguards.
“Everybody loves community banks, right?” said Kress. “They’re the most sympathetic industry in Congress because every member has a community bank in their district. They do a lot of residential and small business lending, they sponsor your kids’ kickball team, they seem far removed from the financial engineering of Wall Street.” “Community banks, motherhood, and apple pie,” chuckled Kelleher.
The lofty reputation held by community banks, however, has concealed the danger they pose to the economic system.
“The bank industry pushes in a lot of different ways,” Kelleher noted. “They do it directly against the regulators, they do it indirectly through their legislative allies. It’s really pretty sad how many are using the pandemic as nothing but a pretext for their deregulation agenda that they’ve been asking for for years.”