theintercept--2020-10-23--Trump Sets Up Pharma Billionaires for Coronavirus Payday

the antibody cocktail used to treat President Donald Trump for Covid-19 — which he heralded as a cure for the disease — was funded largely by the U.S. government , yet the Trump administration has apparently failed to set any guarantees that the treatment would be affordable .
The biopharmaceutical company Regeneron , led by the two highest paid executives in the industry , received hundreds of millions in public funds during the research and development of the antibody therapy , and now stands to make a killing from its potentially lifesaving treatment .
Leonard Schleifer and George Yancopoulos founded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ problems and rare disorders , but the company ’ s early years were rocky .
One of its first products , envisioned as a treatment for Lou Gehrig ’ s disease , proved a high profile failure in 1997 when data showed it was ineffective against the fatal neurological disorder .
The company ’ s fortunes turned in part because of its work on monoclonal antibodies , proteins that are produced in a lab but mimic antibodies made by the body ’ s immune system .
Regeneron has developed versions of the antibodies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a type of skin cancer , and , with a product approved by the FDA just last week , Ebola .
In January , as the new coronavirus began spreading in the U.S. , Regeneron struck an agreement with a division of Department of Health and Human Services known as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority , or BARDA , to receive up to $ 81 million for work on antibodies that would prevent Covid-19 from infecting cells by attaching to the spikes on its surface .
The two antibodies Regeneron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were derived from the kidney tissue of an aborted fetus .
The January contract , of which only a heavily redacted version has been been made public , expanded upon an existing $ 284 million agreement Regeneron had with BARDA to research and develop antibodies for a variety of pathogens .
According to the company ’ s filings with the Security and Exchange Commission , the January agreement committed the government to pay for 80 percent of the cost of developing antibodies to combat Covid-19 .
But as The Intercept previously reported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrangement appear to include intellectual property protections and safeguards to ensure the affordability of the treatments Regeneron produced with the funding .
Both agreements lack a standard clause that ensures interventions developed with government funding are available to the public “ on reasonable terms.
” Since then , Regeneron has entered into yet another shadowy agreement with the federal government that lacks the standard oversight to which federal contracts are usually subjected .
According to its July filings with the SEC , Regeneron has a contract worth up to $ 450.2 million “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government the Company ’ s novel investigational dual antibody ‘ cocktail ’ treatment.
” While the July agreement was made “ on behalf of ” the Department of Defense and an entity called the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium , according to the SEC filing , it was done through a third party called Advanced Technologies International , Inc. Because it is a nongovernmental entity , Advanced Technologies International is not subject to public records laws , which will make it difficult or impossible for the public to review the contract or its terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 6 billion in contracts to companies through the administration ’ s vaccine mobilization program Operation Warp Speed , including Novavax , Pfizer , and Johnson & Johnson , as NPR recently reported .
Both Public Citizen and Knowledge Ecology International are suing the Department of Health and Human Services seeking the unredacted contracts with pharmaceutical corporations for coronavirus-related products through Operation Warp Speed .
In an emailed statement , Regeneron said that its July agreement for the antibody cocktail went through Advanced Technologies International because “ this was the preferred contract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Technologies International and the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium did not respond to repeated requests for comment .
In an email , a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services wrote , “ We are diligently working with our interagency colleagues to gather , review , and appropriately release relevant contracts without revealing protected information , such as information that is proprietary or trade secret , or impacts any ongoing negotiations .
We remain committed to continued accommodation of both General Accountability Office review and congressional oversight of Operation Warp Speed.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spokesperson did not respond to a question about why it chose to route the agreements through a nongovernmental third party .
But Joshua Frey , a press officer for the Pentagon , did offer an explanation for the choice : “ The threat posed to national security by the COVID-19 pandemic makes it imperative that a vaccine be discovered and manufactured as quickly as possible .
The large pharmaceutical companies capable of the research and development activities necessary to create such vaccines and then transition to production of these products at the rates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the U.S. Government are not traditional defense contractors .
The use of the other transaction authority in general , and the MCDC OTA in particular , allows the Government to utilize streamlined competitive processes for evaluation and selection of companies for award of prototype projects.
” But some close watchers of federal contracting dismiss the idea that the government used Advanced Technologies International because of the need for expedience during the pandemic .
“ I think that ’ s bogus , ” said Kathryn Ardizzone , an attorney for Knowledge Ecology International .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Moderna for that company ’ s work on a coronavirus vaccine as evidence that the government can contract quickly while maintaining protections for the public .
Ardizzone suggested that the real reason for using a third-party contractor was likely to evade oversight and transparency .
“ When there ’ s not a good reason , you wonder if there ’ s a bad reason , ” she said .
Asked whether the Department of Defense is using Advanced Technologies International to avoid oversight , Frey responded “ absolutely not.
” But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the agreement or comment on whether it contains any language pertaining to the affordability of the antibody cocktail .
In September , Regeneron released results of a trial of 275 nonhospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with its combination of antibodies .
The findings were encouraging , showing that the treatment reduced both patients ’ viral load and their symptoms .
A press release the company issued at the time said the antibodies “ showed positive trends in reducing medical visits ” and described the results as “ having positive implications.
” But in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week later , after becoming one of just 10 people to get the experimental treatment through the company ’ s compassionate use program , Trump was far less measured .
“ They gave me Regeneron .
It ’ s called Regeneron , ” the president said of the treatment , which is actually called REGN-COV2 .
“ They gave me Regeneron .
And it was like unbelievable .
I felt good immediately.
” “ We have things happening that look like they ’ re miracles coming down from God , ” a heavily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost five minutes of rambling remarks he made on the White House lawn .
“ They call them therapeutic .
But to me , it wasn ’ t therapeutic , it made me better .
OK ?
” he said .
“ I call that a cure !
” It is not clear whether the antibodies actually contributed to Trump ’ s recovery .
The president was also reportedly given the widely available steroid dexamethasone and remdesivir , an antiviral drug that has been shown to reduce the time patients are hospitalized with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public .
Still the frenzied endorsement proved profitable for Regeneron .
Just the news that Trump had been given the antibody treatment had already caused the company ’ s stock price to soar even before he was released from the hospital ; his bizarre testimonial sent it climbing further .
And in the hours afterward , a Regeneron executive and a member of the company ’ s board of directors cashed in on the steep increase , selling stock for a profit of more than $ 1 million .
The sales @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board members had already sold nearly $ 700 million in stock in the months immediately following the announcement that the company received BARDA funding to work on a Covid-19 treatment .
Schleifer , Regeneron ’ s chief officer , sold $ 178 million worth of stock in a single day , according to the New York Times .
In the emailed statement , a spokesperson for Regeneron wrote that “ a significant portion of these transactions — including Dr. Schleifer ’ s — involved stock options that were about to reach their ten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forfeited if not exercised.
” The spokesperson also noted that “ Regeneron ’ s stock has performed well this year on the basis of many major business events , ” and that “ when the stock and company are performing well , it ’ s not unusual to see people exercising long-held options or selling long-held shares.
” According to Regeneron ’ s statement , “ It is important to note that the bulk of these transactions by our directors and executives were conducted pursuant to pre-established trading plans , known as 10b5-1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you reference ) .
These plans are pre-established at a time when the executive/director is not aware of any material , non-public information about Regeneron and automatically trigger when the stock hits a certain price , without the plan holder ’ s involvement .
In addition , it is Regeneron ’ s practice to require at least a 30 day ‘ waiting period ’ before a plan becomes effective.
” Schleifer , who has an estimated net worth of $ 2.4 billion , was the highest paid pharmaceutical executive in the U.S. during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of that compensation came in the form of stock .
Schleifer , whom Trump reportedly calls “ Lenny , ” has been known to golf with the president at his private Westchester club in New York .
Regeneron co-founder and chief scientific officer Yancopoulis was the second most highly paid pharmaceutical executive in those years .
And in 2017 , when Regeneron received its first federal funding for antibody treatments , Schleifer ranked second to Yancopoulis , who received $ 268 million in direct compensation — more than triple the pay any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most any pharmaceutical executive has made before or since .
Hours after the president tweeted the video , in which he said that emergency use authorization for the antibody cocktail was “ all set , ” Regeneron applied for the fast tracking , which would make the treatment available before it has been thoroughly vetted .
But the Food and Drug Administration has yet to grant the authorization .
While Regeneron initially estimated that it would have between 70,000 and 300,000 doses “ as early as end of summer and completed this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News ’ “ Face the Nation ” that , as of October 11 , it had only produced 50,000 doses , which is fewer than the number of coronavirus infections diagnosed on a single day in the U.S. last week .
And although Regeneron has committed to selling some of the antibodies to the government , which in turn is obligated to distribute them “ to the American people at no cost , ” according to the government ’ s July 6 agreement , that deal applies only to “ a fixed number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pricing is up to the company — a prospect that frightens some economists .
“ Executives have an interest in getting the stock price up and price gouging customers is one way they can do this , ” said William Lazonick , professor emeritus of economics at University of Massachusetts and co-founder of the Academic-Industry Research Network .
While many drug companies argue that they use their vast profits to fund ongoing pharmaceutical innovation , Lazonick said , “ we ’ ve shown that most of these companies don ’ t do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel soaring stock prices and executive pay , which is often based largely on that price .
The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of opposing efforts to rein in drug prices , including the “ affordable pricing ” clause .
Regeneron was fighting that measure , which obligates companies that develop drugs with public money to sell them at reasonable prices , as far back as 1994 .
Monoclonal antibodies are already among the most expensive pharmaceutical products available .
The treatments on the market for conditions other than Covid-19 cost an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When used to treat cancer , the antibodies went for a median price of $ 142,833 , according to a 2018 study in the American Journal of Managed Care .
While Trump promised that the government would provide the antibody cocktail to Americans for free , drug pricing efforts say that many people probably won ’ t have access to the treatment at all , let alone at an affordable price .
“ This is a looming nightmare , ” said Zain Rizvi , a drug pricing expert who works at Public Citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effective , the shortages will be rampant and will exacerbate the insidious inequality that ’ s already part of our healthcare system .
The privileged few may get at the head of the line and the people who need it most may not have the same opportunities.
” While Rizvi said that a lack of regulation plagues the entire U.S. pharmaceutical system , he said the maker of the antibody cocktail epitomizes the administration ’ s failure to hold companies accountable during the pandemic .
“ The story of Regeneron ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president Trump ’ s billionaire buddy who received massive taxpayer subsidies to work on a coronavirus treatment with no strings attached , ” said Rizvi , who pointed out that Regeneron will be able to both set high prices for the tax-payer funded treatment and market it exclusively .
“ You have massive public investment , but the knowledge that comes out of it is being privatized .
It doesn ’ t benefit public health.
” Already the pandemic has showcased a brutal disparity in health care .
Unlike Trump , who was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the general public a few days after being diagnosed , patients have often had to wait for medical care when hospitals were stretched to capacity — delays that sometimes proved deadly .
Although the administration has set up a fund to help cover the costs of some coronavirus treatments , many patients do not qualify .
Some survivors of the disease have been hit with staggering medical bills for their treatments .
And a lack of insurance is believed to have contributed to the astronomical toll of the pandemic , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For his part , Trump announced he was feeling “ like perfect ” after taking the Regeneron cocktail and hurried back to the White House .
Once there , he helped fast-track the confirmation process of Amy Coney Barrett , his Supreme Court nominee who is widely expected to vote to strip tens of millions of Americans of their health care coverage and to outlaw the kind of research that produced the very treatment that he claims cured him .
Meanwhile , as the virus continues to surge across the country , Regeneron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ produce its monoclonal antibodies and will do its best to make the treatment available to everyone .
“ We are committed to ensuring that REGN-COV2 will be affordable for patients in need , ” Regeneron said in its emailed statement .
“ We know our medicines only help if people can access them , and , as such , we are working hard to develop and scale-up a completely novel treatment for COVID-19 that is accessible to the people who need it.
” For Rizvi , the reassurance rings hollow .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the supply , ” he said .
“ What could go wrong ?
”

The development of the antibody cocktail used to treat President Donald Trump for Covid-19 — which he heralded as a cure for the disease — was funded largely by the U.S. government, yet the Trump administration has apparently failed to set any guarantees that the treatment would be affordable. The biopharmaceutical company Regeneron, led by the two highest paid executives in the industry, received hundreds of millions in public funds during the research and development of the antibody therapy, and now stands to make a killing from its potentially lifesaving treatment.
Leonard Schleifer and George Yancopoulos founded Regeneron in 1988 to focus on neurological problems and rare disorders, but the company’s early years were rocky. One of its first products, envisioned as a treatment for Lou Gehrig’s disease, proved a high profile failure in 1997 when data showed it was ineffective against the fatal neurological disorder.
The company’s fortunes turned in part because of its work on monoclonal antibodies, proteins that are produced in a lab but mimic antibodies made by the body’s immune system. Regeneron has developed versions of the antibodies to fight severe eczema, high cholesterol, a type of skin cancer, and, with a product approved by the FDA just last week, Ebola.
In January, as the new coronavirus began spreading in the U.S., Regeneron struck an agreement with a division of Department of Health and Human Services known as the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, to receive up to $81 million for work on antibodies that would prevent Covid-19 from infecting cells by attaching to the spikes on its surface. The two antibodies Regeneron chose were developed using cell lines that were derived from the kidney tissue of an aborted fetus.
Shadowy Agreements
The January contract, of which only a heavily redacted version has been been made public, expanded upon an existing $284 million agreement Regeneron had with BARDA to research and develop antibodies for a variety of pathogens. According to the company’s filings with the Security and Exchange Commission, the January agreement committed the government to pay for 80 percent of the cost of developing antibodies to combat Covid-19. But as The Intercept previously reported, neither the January extension nor the original arrangement appear to include intellectual property protections and safeguards to ensure the affordability of the treatments Regeneron produced with the funding. Both agreements lack a standard clause that ensures interventions developed with government funding are available to the public “on reasonable terms.”
With two bandages on his hand, President Donald Trump gestures while speaking from the Blue Room Balcony of the White House to a crowd of supporters, on Oct. 10, 2020, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Alex Brandon/AP
Since then, Regeneron has entered into yet another shadowy agreement with the federal government that lacks the standard oversight to which federal contracts are usually subjected. According to its July filings with the SEC, Regeneron has a contract worth up to $450.2 million “to manufacture and deliver to the U.S. Government the Company’s novel investigational dual antibody ‘cocktail’ treatment.”
While the July agreement was made “on behalf of” the Department of Defense and an entity called the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium, according to the SEC filing, it was done through a third party called Advanced Technologies International, Inc. Because it is a nongovernmental entity, Advanced Technologies International is not subject to public records laws, which will make it difficult or impossible for the public to review the contract or its terms. Advanced Technologies International has awarded more than $6 billion in contracts to companies through the administration’s vaccine mobilization program Operation Warp Speed, including Novavax, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson, as NPR recently reported.
Both Public Citizen and Knowledge Ecology International are suing the Department of Health and Human Services seeking the unredacted contracts with pharmaceutical corporations for coronavirus-related products through Operation Warp Speed.
In an emailed statement, Regeneron said that its July agreement for the antibody cocktail went through Advanced Technologies International because “this was the preferred contract structure of the U.S. Government.”
Advanced Technologies International and the Medical CBRN Defense Consortium did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
In an email, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services wrote, “We are diligently working with our interagency colleagues to gather, review, and appropriately release relevant contracts without revealing protected information, such as information that is proprietary or trade secret, or impacts any ongoing negotiations. We remain committed to continued accommodation of both General Accountability Office review and congressional oversight of Operation Warp Speed.”
The department of Health and Human Services spokesperson did not respond to a question about why it chose to route the agreements through a nongovernmental third party. But Joshua Frey, a press officer for the Pentagon, did offer an explanation for the choice:
“The threat posed to national security by the COVID-19 pandemic makes it imperative that a vaccine be discovered and manufactured as quickly as possible. The large pharmaceutical companies capable of the research and development activities necessary to create such vaccines and then transition to production of these products at the rates necessary to meet the stated intent of the U.S. Government are not traditional defense contractors. The use of the other transaction authority in general, and the MCDC OTA in particular, allows the Government to utilize streamlined competitive processes for evaluation and selection of companies for award of prototype projects.”
But some close watchers of federal contracting dismiss the idea that the government used Advanced Technologies International because of the need for expedience during the pandemic.
“I think that’s bogus,” said Kathryn Ardizzone, an attorney for Knowledge Ecology International. Ardizzone pointed to an agreement between BARDA and Moderna for that company’s work on a coronavirus vaccine as evidence that the government can contract quickly while maintaining protections for the public. Ardizzone suggested that the real reason for using a third-party contractor was likely to evade oversight and transparency. “When there’s not a good reason, you wonder if there’s a bad reason,” she said.
Asked whether the Department of Defense is using Advanced Technologies International to avoid oversight, Frey responded “absolutely not.” But the Pentagon official declined to provide a copy of the agreement or comment on whether it contains any language pertaining to the affordability of the antibody cocktail.
It’s Called Regeneron
In September, Regeneron released results of a trial of 275 nonhospitalized Covid-19 patients treated with its combination of antibodies. The findings were encouraging, showing that the treatment reduced both patients’ viral load and their symptoms. A press release the company issued at the time said the antibodies “showed positive trends in reducing medical visits” and described the results as “having positive implications.”
But in a video he tweeted just over a week later, after becoming one of just 10 people to get the experimental treatment through the company’s compassionate use program, Trump was far less measured. “They gave me Regeneron. It’s called Regeneron,” the president said of the treatment, which is actually called REGN-COV2. “They gave me Regeneron. And it was like unbelievable. I felt good immediately.”
“We have things happening that look like they’re miracles coming down from God,” a heavily made-up Trump went on to say during almost five minutes of rambling remarks he made on the White House lawn. “They call them therapeutic. But to me, it wasn’t therapeutic, it made me better. OK?” he said. “I call that a cure!”
It is not clear whether the antibodies actually contributed to Trump’s recovery. The president was also reportedly given the widely available steroid dexamethasone and remdesivir, an antiviral drug that has been shown to reduce the time patients are hospitalized with Covid-19 but is not yet widely available to the public. Still the frenzied endorsement proved profitable for Regeneron.
Just the news that Trump had been given the antibody treatment had already caused the company’s stock price to soar even before he was released from the hospital; his bizarre testimonial sent it climbing further. And in the hours afterward, a Regeneron executive and a member of the company’s board of directors cashed in on the steep increase, selling stock for a profit of more than $1 million. The sales came after Regeneron’s executives and board members had already sold nearly $700 million in stock in the months immediately following the announcement that the company received BARDA funding to work on a Covid-19 treatment. Schleifer, Regeneron’s chief officer, sold $178 million worth of stock in a single day, according to the New York Times.
In the emailed statement, a spokesperson for Regeneron wrote that “a significant portion of these transactions — including Dr. Schleifer’s — involved stock options that were about to reach their ten year expiration, so would have been forfeited if not exercised.” The spokesperson also noted that “Regeneron’s stock has performed well this year on the basis of many major business events,” and that “when the stock and company are performing well, it’s not unusual to see people exercising long-held options or selling long-held shares.”
According to Regeneron’s statement, “It is important to note that the bulk of these transactions by our directors and executives were conducted pursuant to pre-established trading plans, known as 10b5-1 plans (including specifically the October transactions you reference). These plans are pre-established at a time when the executive/director is not aware of any material, non-public information about Regeneron and automatically trigger when the stock hits a certain price, without the plan holder’s involvement. In addition, it is Regeneron’s practice to require at least a 30 day ‘waiting period’ before a plan becomes effective.”
Schleifer, who has an estimated net worth of $2.4 billion, was the highest paid pharmaceutical executive in the U.S. during 2018 and 2019, and the vast majority of that compensation came in the form of stock. Schleifer, whom Trump reportedly calls “Lenny,” has been known to golf with the president at his private Westchester club in New York.
Regeneron co-founder and chief scientific officer Yancopoulos was the second most highly paid pharmaceutical executive in those years. And in 2017, when Regeneron received its first federal funding for antibody treatments, Schleifer ranked second to Yancopoulos, who received $268 million in direct compensation — more than triple the pay any pharmaceutical company executive received that year and the most any pharmaceutical executive has made before or since.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. signage is displayed outside their headquarters in Tarrytown, N.Y., on June 12, 2020. Photo: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images
Shortages Expected
Hours after the president tweeted the video, in which he said that emergency use authorization for the antibody cocktail was “all set,” Regeneron applied for the fast tracking, which would make the treatment available before it has been thoroughly vetted. But the Food and Drug Administration has yet to grant the authorization.
While Regeneron initially estimated that it would have between 70,000 and 300,000 doses “as early as end of summer and completed this fall,” Schleifer admitted on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that, as of October 11, it had only produced 50,000 doses, which is fewer than the number of coronavirus infections diagnosed on a single day in the U.S. last week.
And although Regeneron has committed to selling some of the antibodies to the government, which in turn is obligated to distribute them “to the American people at no cost,” according to the government’s July 6 agreement, that deal applies only to “a fixed number of bulk lots.” After that, the pricing is up to the company — a prospect that frightens some economists.
“Executives have an interest in getting the stock price up and price gouging customers is one way they can do this,” said William Lazonick, professor emeritus of economics at University of Massachusetts and co-founder of the Academic-Industry Research Network. While many drug companies argue that they use their vast profits to fund ongoing pharmaceutical innovation, Lazonick said, “we’ve shown that most of these companies don’t do that.” Instead, the soaring prices fuel soaring stock prices and executive pay, which is often based largely on that price.
The pharmaceutical industry has a long history of opposing efforts to rein in drug prices, including the “affordable pricing” clause. Regeneron was fighting that measure, which obligates companies that develop drugs with public money to sell them at reasonable prices, as far back as 1994.
Monoclonal antibodies are already among the most expensive pharmaceutical products available. The treatments on the market for conditions other than Covid-19 cost an average of $96,731 per year. When used to treat cancer, the antibodies went for a median price of $142,833, according to a 2018 study in the American Journal of Managed Care.
A Looming Nightmare
While Trump promised that the government would provide the antibody cocktail to Americans for free, drug pricing efforts say that many people probably won’t have access to the treatment at all, let alone at an affordable price.
“This is a looming nightmare,” said Zain Rizvi, a drug pricing expert who works at Public Citizen. “If the drug is safe and effective, the shortages will be rampant and will exacerbate the insidious inequality that’s already part of our healthcare system. The privileged few may get at the head of the line and the people who need it most may not have the same opportunities.”
While Rizvi said that a lack of regulation plagues the entire U.S. pharmaceutical system, he said the maker of the antibody cocktail epitomizes the administration’s failure to hold companies accountable during the pandemic. “The story of Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody treatment is the story of president Trump’s billionaire buddy who received massive taxpayer subsidies to work on a coronavirus treatment with no strings attached,” said Rizvi, who pointed out that Regeneron will be able to both set high prices for the tax-payer funded treatment and market it exclusively. “You have massive public investment, but the knowledge that comes out of it is being privatized. It doesn’t benefit public health.”
Do you have a coronavirus story you want to share? Email us at coronavirus@theintercept.com or use one of these secure methods to contact a reporter.
Already the pandemic has showcased a brutal disparity in health care. Unlike Trump, who was given two cutting-edge treatments that are inaccessible to the general public a few days after being diagnosed, patients have often had to wait for medical care when hospitals were stretched to capacity — delays that sometimes proved deadly. Although the administration has set up a fund to help cover the costs of some coronavirus treatments, many patients do not qualify. Some survivors of the disease have been hit with staggering medical bills for their treatments. And a lack of insurance is believed to have contributed to the astronomical toll of the pandemic, which has already claimed more than 223,000 lives.
For his part, Trump announced he was feeling “like perfect” after taking the Regeneron cocktail and hurried back to the White House. Once there, he helped fast-track the confirmation process of Amy Coney Barrett, his Supreme Court nominee who is widely expected to vote to strip tens of millions of Americans of their health care coverage and to outlaw the kind of research that produced the very treatment that he claims cured him.
Meanwhile, as the virus continues to surge across the country, Regeneron has said that it is continuing to produce its monoclonal antibodies and will do its best to make the treatment available to everyone.
“We are committed to ensuring that REGN-COV2 will be affordable for patients in need,” Regeneron said in its emailed statement. “We know our medicines only help if people can access them, and, as such, we are working hard to develop and scale-up a completely novel treatment for COVID-19 that is accessible to the people who need it.”
For Rizvi, the reassurance rings hollow. “The corporate executives will control the price and the supply,” he said. “What could go wrong?”


theintercept--2020-10-23--Army Sergeants at Fort Hood Fear for the Safety of Their Soldiers

responsible for the training and welfare of soldiers at Fort Hood , the sprawling U.S. Army base in Killeen , Texas , said the environment there has become so dangerous that they fear for the safety of their soldiers .
The five sergeants and two staff sergeants described a toxic leadership culture at Fort Hood that tolerates rampant drug use , sexual harassment , and misconduct on base , and in some instances , has allowed service members accused of sexual assault to remain within their ranks .
Three of the NCOs said they ’ ve witnessed young soldiers in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officers and later attempted suicide .
Since January , there have been 28 deaths at Fort Hood , including five homicides and eight suicides .
Four of the deaths are still being investigated , including the most recent on September 2 of Pvt .
Corlton Chee , 25 , who collapsed during a training exercise and later died .
Over the last five years , more soldiers stationed at Fort Hood have been murdered on and off the base than killed in battle .
“ I would be scared to send my kid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sergeant who has served in the Army for nearly a decade .
“ I don ’ t think the leadership here at Fort Hood is doing a good job , or any sort of job , to protect their soldiers.
” The NCOs , who were interviewed individually over a span of several weeks , agreed to speak with The Intercept on the condition that they remain anonymous , fearing retribution .
They said they were compelled to come forward out of concern that no meaningful change will come from the military and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public outcry over the murder of 20-year-old Vanessa Guillén , a specialist in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment who was killed by another soldier at Fort Hood in April .
Guillén ’ s family has charged that leaders at Fort Hood mishandled the investigation into her disappearance , as well as reports that she had been sexually harassed prior to her murder .
“ The public needs to know what ’ s going on here , ” said one of the sergeants .
“ Because I have no more faith in the federal system @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy apologized for failing Guillén and her family in a press briefing at Fort Hood , which he characterized as having “ the most cases for sexual assault and harassment and murders for our entire formation of the U.S. Army.
” McCarthy also said that an independent review would be conducted by five civilian consultants — four veterans and a former FBI agent — into Fort Hood ’ s leadership culture .
Three weeks after McCarthy ’ s briefing , Maj. Gen. Scott Efflandt , base commander at Fort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reassigned as deputy commanding general for support at the base .
At the same time , Army Futures Command Gen. John Murray announced an in-depth investigation into the conduct of the chain of command after Guillén ’ s disappearance , to accompany the review by the independent panel , which is scheduled to issue its final report on October 30 .
But the problems being publicized now involve more than just one leader on post and have been years in the making , said the NCOs , who described an entrenched culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ openly hostile toward enlisted soldiers and either punishes or ignores those who report harassment or other grievances to their superiors .
“ I can ’ t tell you how many times I ’ ve heard ‘ Fuck the Joe ’ here , ” said the longtime sergeant , using military slang for a private .
“ It ’ s a common phrase in the platoon office with all the sergeants .
The privates are scared to come out and be like , ‘ Hey , this is what ’ s wrong , ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nothing ’ s going to be addressed , nothing ’ s going to change because nobody in leadership cares.
” The NCOs , enlisted soldiers who have been promoted through the ranks to train soldiers for combat , said that Fort Hood has a reputation in the Army as a place where problematic leaders from other installations are sent and “ careers go to die.
” Many of them still thought , however , that they could make a difference individually with their soldiers and help change the leadership culture .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I came here with the mentality of ‘ I ’ m going to be the change .
I ’ m going to be the fix , ’ ” said the longtime sergeant , who was transferred to Fort Hood after serving overseas .
“ But within the first week , I was warned by another sergeant , ‘ You can try as hard as you want , but you ’ re not going to change what is going on here.
’ And then he just walked away , and I was really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said that what he ’ s witnessed in his time at the base “ is just crazy .
There ’ s a lot of drugs in the barracks : marijuana , ecstasy , cocaine .
There was even a meth lab for a while , until they were finally caught , ” he said .
“ In the climate here , it ’ s treated as no big deal.
” Higher-ranking officers who are caught using drugs or accused of sexual harassment or assault are often reassigned to other positions rather than punished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ message of impunity that stokes a climate of fear and distrust on the base .
Fort Hood , which has 36,500 active service members spread across the more than 214,000-acre installation in Central Texas , has reported 163 deaths since 2016 — 73 of them ruled as suicides , according to Fort Hood ’ s public affairs office .
The base has the highest number of suicides of any Army base with a comparable or larger population , including Fort Bragg in North Carolina , which has more than 52,000 active-duty soldiers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The NCOs said they suspect the high number of suicides is due to bullying and harassment , as well as neglect from commanding officers when a soldier is in crisis .
“ We get these kids who don ’ t know anything about anything , and then they have all these crazy adult issues .
If I know how to help them , and I can take all that stress off of them , then I should , ” said one of the sergeants .
“ But most who are being promoted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them.
” The Army provides mental health treatment at its Embedded Behavioral Health clinics , but the NCOs said soldiers are often encouraged not to use these services by leaders concerned it will reflect badly on their own records .
“ They worry that their own bosses will ask why they have so many soldiers that need to go to EBH , ” another sergeant said .
“ So they try to handle it themselves in house.
” Soldiers who file grievances or seek help are quickly labeled as “ crazy or weak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told that it will affect their career .
Three of the sergeants described incidents in which soldiers didn ’ t get the help they needed and then tried to kill themselves .
One said he had to physically restrain a soldier from harming himself with a knife .
The sergeant said he went to check on a soldier who was not under his command , but who he knew was having marital problems .
“ There were signs that something was going to eventually come to a head with this soldier , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldier ’ s house and spending time with him and his wife , “ He just flipped , ” said the sergeant .
“ I had to wrestle a knife out of his hand , and I was just very lucky that I didn ’ t get cut.
” Another sergeant said he received a call from a 17-year-old soldier one night who said he was in crisis and needed help .
“ I asked him why he hadn ’ t talked to his current team leader , and he told me , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give a fuck.
’ I brought it up to his platoon sergeant and told him , ‘ Hey , this dude ’ s not doing too good.
’ And he was like , ‘ I deal with my own problems .
He can deal with his.
’ This is a grown man talking about a 17-year-old , ” the sergeant said , still angered by the exchange .
“ He ended up trying to swallow three bottles of pills and nearly killing himself.
” One of the worst incidents , said the third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who was ignored by his chain of command after becoming suicidal and overdosed on pills .
The soldier survived the suicide attempt , but afterward , in a group chat , his superiors joked about how he should have tried harder to kill himself .
A screenshot of the exchange was later sent to the young soldier , who shared it with the other privates in his barracks .
“ Now none of those soldiers have any trust in anybody that ’ s over them , ” said the sergeant .
A complaint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Office of the Inspector General about the incident , the sergeant said , but “ we never saw an investigation.
” When Somebody Goes Missing The NCOs responsible for the well-being of soldiers under their command said it ’ s also difficult to work in an environment where soldiers disappear from base , and no one knows whether they ’ re alive or dead .
Army protocol is that if someone leaves base and doesn ’ t return , they are listed as AWOL , then after 30 days as a “ deserter.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy , doesn ’ t extensively search for soldiers once they ’ ve left the base .
Since January , according to Fort Hood ’ s public affairs office , 95 soldiers have gone AWOL from the base , 25 of whom never returned and were listed as deserters .
“ There ’ s only so much I can do if somebody goes missing , ” said one of the sergeants .
“ We had a kid go AWOL a month ago .
We still don ’ t know where he is .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ his family , but they don ’ t seem worried.
” Vanessa Guillén , who went missing in April , was labeled as AWOL by the Army even though her disappearance was suspicious , said the sergeant , who said he never knew Guillén but her disappearance and murder have been the talk of Fort Hood for months .
“ Her phone is left behind , her car keys , ” he said .
“ This just screams foul play , right ?
” Yet it took the command at Fort Hood several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously .
And it was only because her family was so insistent and was able to get the attention of Congress , the sergeant said .
“ What ’ s even crazier , ” said another sergeant , “ is that in the search for Vanessa Guillén , they found another soldier in a shallow grave.
” The body that local police and Army investigators discovered was that of Pvt .
Gregory Morales , a 24-year-old soldier who had gone missing from Fort Hood almost a year earlier .
Morales was just days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disappeared in August 2019 , and the Army listed him as a deserter .
His death is now being investigated as a possible homicide .
“ The military failed him by not looking , ” Kimberly Wedel , Morales ’ s mother , told the Washington Post after her son ’ s body was identified in June .
“ They just assumed the worst and let it go.
” Because of the number of soldiers who go AWOL , it would be difficult to launch an extensive search for every soldier , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of the time , it ’ s just that they don ’ t want to be in the Army anymore and they leave , ” he said .
“ It ’ s kind of a touchy subject .
But what I think should happen is you file them AWOL , and you file a missing person ’ s report at the same time , in case something bad did happen.
” Army officials in Washington , D.C. , and at Fort Hood would not comment on the NCOs ’ allegations other than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing soldiers who are classified as AWOL .
An Army spokesperson told The Intercept that the Army is changing its policy regarding AWOL soldiers , and he said that an extensive search was launched for Guillén after her disappearance on April 22 .
“ More than 500 soldiers searched for Guillén throughout Fort Hood , while CID agents participated in numerous ground , water , and air searches throughout Central Texas , ” the spokesperson wrote in an email , referring to the Army ’ s Criminal Investigation Command .
Despite these searches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found for more than two months , and her family has accused the Army of indifference and lack of transparency in its criminal investigation into her disappearance .
In mid-October , Gen. James McConville , the Army chief of staff , announced in a press conference that the Army would implement a new policy categorizing soldiers as missing until it could determine whether they left their post intentionally , or whether foul play was involved .
Guillén ’ s case “ affected us all , ” McConville told reporters , according to Stars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we didn ’ t take care of her.
” You Just Get Blamed The Army ’ s motto for Fort Hood is “ The Great Place ” because of the purported quality of life it provides to enlisted soldiers and their family members .
But the NCOs said that sexual harassment and assault are tolerated on base , and that victims are often retaliated against if they report it to their chain of command .
A female sergeant stationed at Fort Hood described the environment for women as one of almost constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ People get raped all the time here .
They don ’ t do anything about it , ” she said .
“ They just make you feel like shit , like you are the problem , like females shouldn ’ t be here.
” In June , an Army review team sent to Fort Hood found that more than one-third of the female soldiers surveyed had experienced sexual harassment at the base .
It ’ s no surprise that complaints are brushed aside by higher-ranking officers , the female sergeant said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offenders .
Not long ago , she said , a sergeant major drugged and raped her off base .
She didn ’ t report it because she didn ’ t think it would be taken seriously and worried she would be retaliated against .
“ It ’ s scary reporting those kinds of things , because it ’ s usually the woman who gets demoted and gets in trouble , ” she said .
“ You just get blamed.
” If a female soldier makes a sexual assault or harassment complaint against a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military investigators will frequently side with the man .
“ They just say that you ’ re crying wolf about it , because either you didn ’ t get your way about something or you didn ’ t want to go do some kind of training.
” One of the staff sergeants said he was disturbed by how allegations of sexual assault are handled , citing the case of a soldier in his platoon who was charged with seven counts of rape or sexual assault while at Fort Hood .
One alleged victim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilians , according to another sergeant familiar with the case .
The soldier was held in a civilian jail for several months but was acquitted of the charges in a military trial .
He is now back on base .
“ The CID couldn ’ t even put a nail in wood , ” said a second staff sergeant .
“ That ’ s how useless they are.
” The first staff sergeant also described an incident in which another staff sergeant in his platoon groped a subordinate female soldier as she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the soldier filed a complaint , the staff sergeant was demoted , but only for a few months .
“ He ’ s now again at the same rank , and in the same squadron as the female soldier , ” the first staff sergeant said .
“ That just breeds an environment where soldiers don ’ t feel safe.
” The staff sergeant said one reason leadership is willing to look the other way is that Fort Hood is desperate to retain its soldiers .
“ I would rather go to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t trust , ” he said .
No One Trusts Anyone Soldiers who attain a rank above staff sergeant are basically untouchable in the Army and protect one another to the detriment of those beneath them , the NCOs said .
“ Once you hit a certain rank , everything just gets kicked under the rug , ” one of the staff sergeants said .
“ And unfortunately , these toxic leaders , they just get passed around on this installation , and they just taint another unit.
” “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all day and saying , ‘ Fuck the Joe , ’ those are the people who are getting promoted , not the people who actually care about the privates , ” the longtime sergeant said .
“ As a sergeant , I ’ m not actually shooting when we ’ re attacking the enemy .
I ’ m telling them to shoot .
I ’ m telling them where to go .
So my thinking is they ’ re the most important asset I have .
While a lot of the other sergeants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even go out and have interactions with their guys .
They just text them and tell them what to do , and then yell at them when they do something wrong.
” This toxic leadership is learned on base , and it creates an unsafe environment for everybody , the sources said .
Even worse , it makes them vulnerable on the battlefield .
“ No one trusts anyone here .
There ’ s no brotherhood .
No camaraderie .
It starts with the NCOs and goes all the way up the chain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sergeant .
“ We are training a whole generation of bad sergeants , and that ’ s going to affect lethality and deployment.
” The NCOs said they are doing everything within their power to be transferred from Fort Hood .
Two of them are planning to quit the Army altogether .
“ My grandfather was at Fort Hood before WWII , and it was the highlight of his life , ” said the longtime sergeant .
“ He loved the Army , and so did I before I was sent here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ career of it .
But when I told him about my experiences at Fort Hood , he was the one who rationalized it for me and told me I should get out .
‘ That ’ s not the Army I grew up in , and it ’ s clearly not the Army you grew up in , ’ he told me .
‘ Do you want to be responsible for someone else ’ s death , because someone else didn ’ t care ?
’ ”

Seven noncommissioned officers responsible for the training and welfare of soldiers at Fort Hood, the sprawling U.S. Army base in Killeen, Texas, said the environment there has become so dangerous that they fear for the safety of their soldiers.
The five sergeants and two staff sergeants described a toxic leadership culture at Fort Hood that tolerates rampant drug use, sexual harassment, and misconduct on base, and in some instances, has allowed service members accused of sexual assault to remain within their ranks. Three of the NCOs said they’ve witnessed young soldiers in crisis who were ignored by their commanding officers and later attempted suicide.
Since January, there have been 28 deaths at Fort Hood, including five homicides and eight suicides. Four of the deaths are still being investigated, including the most recent on September 2 of Pvt. Corlton Chee, 25, who collapsed during a training exercise and later died. Over the last five years, more soldiers stationed at Fort Hood have been murdered on and off the base than killed in battle.
“I would be scared to send my kid to Fort Hood,” said a sergeant who has served in the Army for nearly a decade. “I don’t think the leadership here at Fort Hood is doing a good job, or any sort of job, to protect their soldiers.”
“I would be scared to send my kid to Fort Hood.”
The NCOs, who were interviewed individually over a span of several weeks, agreed to speak with The Intercept on the condition that they remain anonymous, fearing retribution. They said they were compelled to come forward out of concern that no meaningful change will come from the military and congressional investigations launched in the wake of public outcry over the murder of 20-year-old Vanessa Guillén, a specialist in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment who was killed by another soldier at Fort Hood in April. Guillén’s family has charged that leaders at Fort Hood mishandled the investigation into her disappearance, as well as reports that she had been sexually harassed prior to her murder.
“The public needs to know what’s going on here,” said one of the sergeants. “Because I have no more faith in the federal system or the Army.”
In early August, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy apologized for failing Guillén and her family in a press briefing at Fort Hood, which he characterized as having “the most cases for sexual assault and harassment and murders for our entire formation of the U.S. Army.” McCarthy also said that an independent review would be conducted by five civilian consultants — four veterans and a former FBI agent — into Fort Hood’s leadership culture.
Maj. Gen. Scott Efflandt at a news conference at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas, in July 2020. Photo: TNS via ZUMA
Three weeks after McCarthy’s briefing, Maj. Gen. Scott Efflandt, base commander at Fort Hood, was removed from his post and reassigned as deputy commanding general for support at the base. At the same time, Army Futures Command Gen. John Murray announced an in-depth investigation into the conduct of the chain of command after Guillén’s disappearance, to accompany the review by the independent panel, which is scheduled to issue its final report on October 30.
But the problems being publicized now involve more than just one leader on post and have been years in the making, said the NCOs, who described an entrenched culture among the chain of command that is openly hostile toward enlisted soldiers and either punishes or ignores those who report harassment or other grievances to their superiors. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard ‘Fuck the Joe’ here,” said the longtime sergeant, using military slang for a private. “It’s a common phrase in the platoon office with all the sergeants. The privates are scared to come out and be like, ‘Hey, this is what’s wrong,’ because they know that if they do, nothing’s going to be addressed, nothing’s going to change because nobody in leadership cares.”
The NCOs, enlisted soldiers who have been promoted through the ranks to train soldiers for combat, said that Fort Hood has a reputation in the Army as a place where problematic leaders from other installations are sent and “careers go to die.” Many of them still thought, however, that they could make a difference individually with their soldiers and help change the leadership culture. They now believe their thinking was naive.
“I came here with the mentality of ‘I’m going to be the change. I’m going to be the fix,’” said the longtime sergeant, who was transferred to Fort Hood after serving overseas. “But within the first week, I was warned by another sergeant, ‘You can try as hard as you want, but you’re not going to change what is going on here.’ And then he just walked away, and I was really taken aback by that.”
Another sergeant said that what he’s witnessed in his time at the base “is just crazy. There’s a lot of drugs in the barracks: marijuana, ecstasy, cocaine. There was even a meth lab for a while, until they were finally caught,” he said. “In the climate here, it’s treated as no big deal.”
Higher-ranking officers who are caught using drugs or accused of sexual harassment or assault are often reassigned to other positions rather than punished, the NCOs said, sending a message of impunity that stokes a climate of fear and distrust on the base.
Candles and flowers decorate a makeshift memorial for U.S. Army Spc. Vanessa Guillén at Power House Gym on Aug. 14, 2020, in Houston. Photo: Mark Felix/AFP /AFP via Getty Images
Nowhere to Turn
Fort Hood, which has 36,500 active service members spread across the more than 214,000-acre installation in Central Texas, has reported 163 deaths since 2016 — 73 of them ruled as suicides, according to Fort Hood’s public affairs office. The base has the highest number of suicides of any Army base with a comparable or larger population, including Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which has more than 52,000 active-duty soldiers and reported 63 suicides during the same period.
The NCOs said they suspect the high number of suicides is due to bullying and harassment, as well as neglect from commanding officers when a soldier is in crisis. “We get these kids who don’t know anything about anything, and then they have all these crazy adult issues. If I know how to help them, and I can take all that stress off of them, then I should,” said one of the sergeants. “But most who are being promoted don’t care enough to help them.”
The Army provides mental health treatment at its Embedded Behavioral Health clinics, but the NCOs said soldiers are often encouraged not to use these services by leaders concerned it will reflect badly on their own records. “They worry that their own bosses will ask why they have so many soldiers that need to go to EBH,” another sergeant said. “So they try to handle it themselves in house.”
Soldiers who file grievances or seek help are quickly labeled as “crazy or weak,” the sergeant added, and told that it will affect their career.
Fort Hood has reported 163 deaths since 2016 — 73 of them ruled as suicides.
Three of the sergeants described incidents in which soldiers didn’t get the help they needed and then tried to kill themselves. One said he had to physically restrain a soldier from harming himself with a knife.
The sergeant said he went to check on a soldier who was not under his command, but who he knew was having marital problems. “There were signs that something was going to eventually come to a head with this soldier,” he said. After arriving at the soldier’s house and spending time with him and his wife, “He just flipped,” said the sergeant. “I had to wrestle a knife out of his hand, and I was just very lucky that I didn’t get cut.”
Another sergeant said he received a call from a 17-year-old soldier one night who said he was in crisis and needed help. “I asked him why he hadn’t talked to his current team leader, and he told me, ‘Because basically they don’t give a fuck.’ I brought it up to his platoon sergeant and told him, ‘Hey, this dude’s not doing too good.’ And he was like, ‘I deal with my own problems. He can deal with his.’ This is a grown man talking about a 17-year-old,” the sergeant said, still angered by the exchange. “He ended up trying to swallow three bottles of pills and nearly killing himself.”
One of the worst incidents, said the third sergeant, was a troubled young soldier who was ignored by his chain of command after becoming suicidal and overdosed on pills. The soldier survived the suicide attempt, but afterward, in a group chat, his superiors joked about how he should have tried harder to kill himself. A screenshot of the exchange was later sent to the young soldier, who shared it with the other privates in his barracks. “Now none of those soldiers have any trust in anybody that’s over them,” said the sergeant.
A complaint was filed with the Army’s Office of the Inspector General about the incident, the sergeant said, but “we never saw an investigation.”
When Somebody Goes Missing
The NCOs responsible for the well-being of soldiers under their command said it’s also difficult to work in an environment where soldiers disappear from base, and no one knows whether they’re alive or dead. Army protocol is that if someone leaves base and doesn’t return, they are listed as AWOL, then after 30 days as a “deserter.” But the Army, per military policy, doesn’t extensively search for soldiers once they’ve left the base.
Since January, according to Fort Hood’s public affairs office, 95 soldiers have gone AWOL from the base, 25 of whom never returned and were listed as deserters.
“There’s only so much I can do if somebody goes missing,” said one of the sergeants. “We had a kid go AWOL a month ago. We still don’t know where he is. The company commander was in contact with his family, but they don’t seem worried.”
Vanessa Guillén, who went missing in April, was labeled as AWOL by the Army even though her disappearance was suspicious, said the sergeant, who said he never knew Guillén but her disappearance and murder have been the talk of Fort Hood for months. “Her phone is left behind, her car keys,” he said. “This just screams foul play, right?”
Yet it took the command at Fort Hood several weeks to take Guillén’s disappearance seriously. And it was only because her family was so insistent and was able to get the attention of Congress, the sergeant said.
“What’s even crazier,” said another sergeant, “is that in the search for Vanessa Guillén, they found another soldier in a shallow grave.”
Patriot Guard Riders salute as military members carry the casket of Army Pvt. Gregory Wedel-Morales at Green Hill Cemetery in Sapulpa, Okla., on July 23, 2020. Photo: Ian Maule/Tulsa World via AP
The body that local police and Army investigators discovered was that of Pvt. Gregory Morales, a 24-year-old soldier who had gone missing from Fort Hood almost a year earlier. Morales was just days away from being honorably discharged when he disappeared in August 2019, and the Army listed him as a deserter. His death is now being investigated as a possible homicide.
“The military failed him by not looking,” Kimberly Wedel, Morales’s mother, told the Washington Post after her son’s body was identified in June. “They just assumed the worst and let it go.”
Because of the number of soldiers who go AWOL, it would be difficult to launch an extensive search for every soldier, said one of the sergeants. “A lot of the time, it’s just that they don’t want to be in the Army anymore and they leave,” he said. “It’s kind of a touchy subject. But what I think should happen is you file them AWOL, and you file a missing person’s report at the same time, in case something bad did happen.”
Army officials in Washington, D.C., and at Fort Hood would not comment on the NCOs’ allegations other than those regarding Guillén and Army policy regarding missing soldiers who are classified as AWOL. An Army spokesperson told The Intercept that the Army is changing its policy regarding AWOL soldiers, and he said that an extensive search was launched for Guillén after her disappearance on April 22. “More than 500 soldiers searched for Guillén throughout Fort Hood, while CID agents participated in numerous ground, water, and air searches throughout Central Texas,” the spokesperson wrote in an email, referring to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command.
Despite these searches, Guillén’s body was not found for more than two months, and her family has accused the Army of indifference and lack of transparency in its criminal investigation into her disappearance. In mid-October, Gen. James McConville, the Army chief of staff, announced in a press conference that the Army would implement a new policy categorizing soldiers as missing until it could determine whether they left their post intentionally, or whether foul play was involved. Guillén’s case “affected us all,” McConville told reporters, according to Stars and Stripes. “And quite frankly, we didn’t take care of her.”
You Just Get Blamed
The Army’s motto for Fort Hood is “The Great Place” because of the purported quality of life it provides to enlisted soldiers and their family members. But the NCOs said that sexual harassment and assault are tolerated on base, and that victims are often retaliated against if they report it to their chain of command.
A female sergeant stationed at Fort Hood described the environment for women as one of almost constant sexual harassment and fear of sexual assault. “People get raped all the time here. They don’t do anything about it,” she said. “They just make you feel like shit, like you are the problem, like females shouldn’t be here.” In June, an Army review team sent to Fort Hood found that more than one-third of the female soldiers surveyed had experienced sexual harassment at the base.
It’s no surprise that complaints are brushed aside by higher-ranking officers, the female sergeant said, because they are among the worst offenders.
“No one trusts anyone here. … We are training a whole generation of bad sergeants.”
Not long ago, she said, a sergeant major drugged and raped her off base. She didn’t report it because she didn’t think it would be taken seriously and worried she would be retaliated against. “It’s scary reporting those kinds of things, because it’s usually the woman who gets demoted and gets in trouble,” she said. “You just get blamed.”
If a female soldier makes a sexual assault or harassment complaint against a higher-ranking male soldier, she said, military investigators will frequently side with the man. “They just say that you’re crying wolf about it, because either you didn’t get your way about something or you didn’t want to go do some kind of training.”
One of the staff sergeants said he was disturbed by how allegations of sexual assault are handled, citing the case of a soldier in his platoon who was charged with seven counts of rape or sexual assault while at Fort Hood. One alleged victim was a service member and two were civilians, according to another sergeant familiar with the case. The soldier was held in a civilian jail for several months but was acquitted of the charges in a military trial. He is now back on base.
“The CID couldn’t even put a nail in wood,” said a second staff sergeant. “That’s how useless they are.”
The first staff sergeant also described an incident in which another staff sergeant in his platoon groped a subordinate female soldier as she was preparing to go to sleep. After the soldier filed a complaint, the staff sergeant was demoted, but only for a few months. “He’s now again at the same rank, and in the same squadron as the female soldier,” the first staff sergeant said. “That just breeds an environment where soldiers don’t feel safe.”
The staff sergeant said one reason leadership is willing to look the other way is that Fort Hood is desperate to retain its soldiers. “I would rather go to a deployment undermanned than have somebody that I can’t trust,” he said.
The Bernie Beck gate at Fort Hood on June 3, 2016, in Fort Hood, Texas. Photo: Drew Anthony Smith/Getty Images
No One Trusts Anyone
Soldiers who attain a rank above staff sergeant are basically untouchable in the Army and protect one another to the detriment of those beneath them, the NCOs said.
“Once you hit a certain rank, everything just gets kicked under the rug,” one of the staff sergeants said. “And unfortunately, these toxic leaders, they just get passed around on this installation, and they just taint another unit.”
“The ones who are sitting in the office all day and saying, ‘Fuck the Joe,’ those are the people who are getting promoted, not the people who actually care about the privates,” the longtime sergeant said. “As a sergeant, I’m not actually shooting when we’re attacking the enemy. I’m telling them to shoot. I’m telling them where to go. So my thinking is they’re the most important asset I have. While a lot of the other sergeants getting promoted, they don’t even go out and have interactions with their guys. They just text them and tell them what to do, and then yell at them when they do something wrong.”
This toxic leadership is learned on base, and it creates an unsafe environment for everybody, the sources said. Even worse, it makes them vulnerable on the battlefield. “No one trusts anyone here. There’s no brotherhood. No camaraderie. It starts with the NCOs and goes all the way up the chain of command,” said the longtime sergeant. “We are training a whole generation of bad sergeants, and that’s going to affect lethality and deployment.”
The NCOs said they are doing everything within their power to be transferred from Fort Hood. Two of them are planning to quit the Army altogether. “My grandfather was at Fort Hood before WWII, and it was the highlight of his life,” said the longtime sergeant. “He loved the Army, and so did I before I was sent here. I really thought I would make a career of it. But when I told him about my experiences at Fort Hood, he was the one who rationalized it for me and told me I should get out. ‘That’s not the Army I grew up in, and it’s clearly not the Army you grew up in,’ he told me. ‘Do you want to be responsible for someone else’s death, because someone else didn’t care?’”


theintercept--2020-10-24--When We Talk About Fox News, We Need to Talk About the Murdoch Family Too

question about the controversy over Hunter Biden ’ s laptop : Who ’ s most to blame for giving this pseudo-scandal more attention than it deserves ?
The New York Post for publishing the first sketchy article , or Fox News for elevating it in broadcast after broadcast ?
The answer is neither .
The guiltiest party is the Murdoch family , which owns both outlets .
Fox and the Post are key parts of a media empire assembled over the decades by 89-year-old Rupert Murdoch , who now shares ownership with his six children , one of whom is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ main company , Fox Corporation .
While the Post doesn ’ t register much with readers outside New York , Fox is of course a national brand with a gusher of profits that has helped turn each of the Murdochs into multibillionaires .
Given that Fox is a “ central node ” of the far-right conspiracy machine , it ’ s fair to regard the Murdochs as America ’ s first family of disinformation .
The Murdochs , however , attract far less attention than their hired hands , the journalists and shouting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the delusional content that helped catapult Donald Trump to the White House .
The New York Times , in the approximately dozen stories it has published that touch on the Biden laptop controversy , referenced the Murdochs in just two of them , in passing .
At the Washington Post , only three articles about the laptop mention the Murdochs — again , in passing .
There ’ s no shortage of reporting about the wretched content created by the Murdoch machine , but remarkably little reporting about the fact that the Murdochs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chris Hayes noted on Twitter after the first laptop story came out , “ If you ’ re just choosing from people in OECD countries , ostensible liberal democracies , Rupert Murdoch has to be up there as the most-single-handedly destructive person of the last three decades , right ?
” But Hayes can be part of the problem .
While he often criticizes Fox , and on rare occasions discusses the Murdochs , most of the time he fails to mention the family that could literally flip a switch and shut off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hayes broadcast an eight-minute segment about Fox encouraging protests against stay-at-home orders , and a week later he devoted seven minutes to detailing the ways in which Fox downplayed Covid-19 — but while he named hosts and guests who spread the worst disinformation , “ Murdoch ” never passed his lips .
On the occasions when it bothers to focus on the Murdochs , the media often does the opposite of what it should .
It coddles them .
The latest exhibit comes this month in the form of a friendly profile in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s youngest son James , who loyally served for years as a senior executive and board member of the family ’ s global businesses ( their holdings include major media outlets in Britain , Australia , and Asia , and in the U.S. include the Wall Street Journal ) .
James , who lost out to his elder brother Lachlan in a succession battle , quietly left his remaining board seat this year and voiced some gentle regrets about the Frankenstein created by his family .
“ My resignation is due to disagreements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Company ’ s news outlets and certain other strategic decisions , ” he wrote in his brief letter of resignation .
The newspaper of record thus treated him as a hero — its story , written by Maureen Dowd , was headlined , “ James Murdoch , Rebellious Scion.
” And in 2018 , Lachlan Murdoch was a featured guest at a Times business conference where he was served uniformly friendly questions by columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin , whose softballs included , “ Do you watch ‘ Succession ’ ?
” This isn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oversight or malpractice .
It ’ s a missed opportunity .
If the family ’ s last name became as toxic as the Fox name is , would they bring themselves to make changes , such as enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for racist and hateful content at their news outlets ?
The answer is probably no ; Rupert Murdoch , an obdurate conservative , is famously unmoved by criticism and seems to enjoy being despised in Australia and Britain , where the media outlets that he doesn ’ t control are unsparing toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know for sure until we hear “ Murdoch ” as often as we hear “ Fox.
” There would , at the very least , be a greater awareness among Americans that the controlling authority at Fox News is not a newsroom of journalists , but a family of billionaires .
Murdoch ’ s six children might not share his delight in being reviled and held accountable for what the family has wrought in America .
Murdoch ’ s children from three marriages include Prudence , the oldest , who has never played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Elisabeth , who briefly worked for her father but fell away when it reportedly became clear he had no interest in appointing a female successor ; Lachlan , the oldest son who shares his father ’ s reactionary politics and is the chosen one ; James , a centrist who was moved to gently comment on the problems at Fox only after he lost the succession race ; and two teenage daughters , Chloe and Grace .
According to the available descriptions of a secretive Murdoch trust registered in Nevada that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eldest children control half the board seats of an LLC that oversees the family ’ s assets , with Rupert controlling the other half .
( His teenage girls do not control any seats although they have ownership shares that are equal in value to their siblings ’ . )
There is no indication that Murdoch ’ s children , apart from Lachlan , actually hold his right-wing views .
Many of them provide financial support to cultural or philanthropic organizations that are liberal in nature .
James and his wife have even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaign .
Yet there is not a puff of evidence that any of these offspring have taken serious steps to change the racist and hateful content that is produced by their media properties .
The Murdoch children have received their billions in dividends and payouts without protest or consequence .
Sadly , the media ’ s habit of coddling the Murdochs ( not always , but most of the time ) tends to get noticed and called out only by a small circle of journalism watchers .
New York University journalism professor Jay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently blistered the Times for its fluffy profile of James Murdoch .
“ The only thing I want to read about the Murdoch family concerns their anguish , repentance , or indictment , ” Rosen wrote on Twitter .
“ [ James Murdoch ] was on the board of the company that owns Fox News .
Complicity doesn ’ t get more formally realized than that.
” When Margaret Sullivan , usually an all-seeing critic at the Washington Post , managed in March to write an article about the peril of Fox News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin gently noted on Twitter , “ ’ Rupert Murdoch could save lives by forcing Fox News to tell the truth about coronavirus ’ is the headline for this timely @ sulliview column.
” The actual headline of the Murdoch-free column was “ It ’ s time — high time — to take Fox News ’ s destructive role in America seriously.
” The final question is simple : Why does this hole in coverage of the Murdochs exist ?
Journalists , like everyone else , are attracted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so easy and satisfying to heap scorn on the crude TV shouters and not look beyond them .
Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson , who are so obviously absurd and dangerous , are inviting and willing targets .
It is certainly right to expose their lies — we should not have less of that from any news organization .
But movements of racism and hate are not propelled by visual histrionics alone .
They require platforms and they require capital , which means they require wealthy people who are able and willing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Murdochs are not dumb .
The younger ones are generally wise enough to stay in the background and give all appearances of being reasonable citizens .
When they face complaints about their insane employees , they will downplay the harm or suggest they are a bit fed up too , but it would be inappropriate or fraught to meddle .
They will donate money to worthy and liberal causes .
They will present themselves as responsible men and women with whom we ’ re just having a civil disagreement , rather than @ @ @ @ @

Here’s a trick question about the controversy over Hunter Biden’s laptop: Who’s most to blame for giving this pseudo-scandal more attention than it deserves? The New York Post for publishing the first sketchy article, or Fox News for elevating it in broadcast after broadcast?
The answer is neither. The guiltiest party is the Murdoch family, which owns both outlets. Fox and the Post are key parts of a media empire assembled over the decades by 89-year-old Rupert Murdoch, who now shares ownership with his six children, one of whom is chief executive of the family’s main company, Fox Corporation. While the Post doesn’t register much with readers outside New York, Fox is of course a national brand with a gusher of profits that has helped turn each of the Murdochs into multibillionaires. Given that Fox is a “central node” of the far-right conspiracy machine, it’s fair to regard the Murdochs as America’s first family of disinformation.
Rupert Murdoch, co-chair of Fox Corporation, speaks to members of the media outside One Aldwych Hotel in London, on July 15, 2011. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg/Getty Images
The Murdochs, however, attract far less attention than their hired hands, the journalists and shouting heads who have downplayed Covid-19 and created the delusional content that helped catapult Donald Trump to the White House. The New York Times, in the approximately dozen stories it has published that touch on the Biden laptop controversy, referenced the Murdochs in just two of them, in passing. At the Washington Post, only three articles about the laptop mention the Murdochs — again, in passing.
There’s no shortage of reporting about the wretched content created by the Murdoch machine, but remarkably little reporting about the fact that the Murdochs are behind it. As MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes noted on Twitter after the first laptop story came out, “If you’re just choosing from people in OECD countries, ostensible liberal democracies, Rupert Murdoch has to be up there as the most-single-handedly destructive person of the last three decades, right?” But Hayes can be part of the problem. While he often criticizes Fox, and on rare occasions discusses the Murdochs, most of the time he fails to mention the family that could literally flip a switch and shut off the poison. On April 20, Hayes broadcast an eight-minute segment about Fox encouraging protests against stay-at-home orders, and a week later he devoted seven minutes to detailing the ways in which Fox downplayed Covid-19 — but while he named hosts and guests who spread the worst disinformation, “Murdoch” never passed his lips.
On the occasions when it bothers to focus on the Murdochs, the media often does the opposite of what it should. It coddles them. The latest exhibit comes this month in the form of a friendly profile in the New York Times of Rupert’s youngest son James, who loyally served for years as a senior executive and board member of the family’s global businesses (their holdings include major media outlets in Britain, Australia, and Asia, and in the U.S. include the Wall Street Journal). James, who lost out to his elder brother Lachlan in a succession battle, quietly left his remaining board seat this year and voiced some gentle regrets about the Frankenstein created by his family. “My resignation is due to disagreements over certain editorial content published by the Company’s news outlets and certain other strategic decisions,” he wrote in his brief letter of resignation. The newspaper of record thus treated him as a hero — its story, written by Maureen Dowd, was headlined, “James Murdoch, Rebellious Scion.” And in 2018, Lachlan Murdoch was a featured guest at a Times business conference where he was served uniformly friendly questions by columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, whose softballs included, “Do you watch ‘Succession’?”
A protester is seen at the offices of News Corp Australia in Surry Hills in Sydney on Jan. 31, 2020. Photo: Jenny Evans/Getty Images
This isn’t just a matter of journalistic oversight or malpractice. It’s a missed opportunity.
If the family’s last name became as toxic as the Fox name is, would they bring themselves to make changes, such as enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for racist and hateful content at their news outlets? The answer is probably no; Rupert Murdoch, an obdurate conservative, is famously unmoved by criticism and seems to enjoy being despised in Australia and Britain, where the media outlets that he doesn’t control are unsparing toward him.
But we won’t know for sure until we hear “Murdoch” as often as we hear “Fox.” There would, at the very least, be a greater awareness among Americans that the controlling authority at Fox News is not a newsroom of journalists, but a family of billionaires. Murdoch’s six children might not share his delight in being reviled and held accountable for what the family has wrought in America.
Murdoch’s children from three marriages include Prudence, the oldest, who has never played a role in the family businesses; Elisabeth, who briefly worked for her father but fell away when it reportedly became clear he had no interest in appointing a female successor; Lachlan, the oldest son who shares his father’s reactionary politics and is the chosen one; James, a centrist who was moved to gently comment on the problems at Fox only after he lost the succession race; and two teenage daughters, Chloe and Grace. According to the available descriptions of a secretive Murdoch trust registered in Nevada that’s unavailable for public inspection, the four eldest children control half the board seats of an LLC that oversees the family’s assets, with Rupert controlling the other half. (His teenage girls do not control any seats although they have ownership shares that are equal in value to their siblings’.)
Movements of racism and hate are not propelled by visual histrionics alone. They require platforms and they require capital.
There is no indication that Murdoch’s children, apart from Lachlan, actually hold his right-wing views. Many of them provide financial support to cultural or philanthropic organizations that are liberal in nature. James and his wife have even donated to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. Yet there is not a puff of evidence that any of these offspring have taken serious steps to change the racist and hateful content that is produced by their media properties. The Murdoch children have received their billions in dividends and payouts without protest or consequence.
Sadly, the media’s habit of coddling the Murdochs (not always, but most of the time) tends to get noticed and called out only by a small circle of journalism watchers. New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen, a prominent media analyst, recently blistered the Times for its fluffy profile of James Murdoch. “The only thing I want to read about the Murdoch family concerns their anguish, repentance, or indictment,” Rosen wrote on Twitter. “[James Murdoch] was on the board of the company that owns Fox News. Complicity doesn’t get more formally realized than that.”
When Margaret Sullivan, usually an all-seeing critic at the Washington Post, managed in March to write an article about the peril of Fox News without once mentioning the Murdochs, the Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin gently noted on Twitter, “’Rupert Murdoch could save lives by forcing Fox News to tell the truth about coronavirus’ is the headline for this timely @sulliview column.” The actual headline of the Murdoch-free column was “It’s time — high time — to take Fox News’s destructive role in America seriously.”
The final question is simple: Why does this hole in coverage of the Murdochs exist?
Journalists, like everyone else, are attracted to shiny objects. It’s so easy and satisfying to heap scorn on the crude TV shouters and not look beyond them. Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson, who are so obviously absurd and dangerous, are inviting and willing targets. It is certainly right to expose their lies — we should not have less of that from any news organization. But movements of racism and hate are not propelled by visual histrionics alone. They require platforms and they require capital, which means they require wealthy people who are able and willing to underwrite the machinery of information warfare.
The Murdochs are not dumb. The younger ones are generally wise enough to stay in the background and give all appearances of being reasonable citizens. When they face complaints about their insane employees, they will downplay the harm or suggest they are a bit fed up too, but it would be inappropriate or fraught to meddle. They will donate money to worthy and liberal causes. They will present themselves as responsible men and women with whom we’re just having a civil disagreement, rather than prime enablers of fascism.