Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

“Stand back and stand by”: New report links Trump and NRA to rise of militias behind violent threats

Mass killers and violent militias have echoed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric for years, but his stoking of dangerous conspiracy theories and tacit approval of extremists have resulted in “countless threats of violence and looming civil war” ahead of the election, according to a new report from the gun control advocacy group Everytown shared exclusively with Salon.

The report links the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) “potentially radicalizing messaging” to the “gun rights fanaticsm” driving the modern militia movement, which was further emboldened by Trump’s “conspiratorial rhetoric.” The trend was on full display at the first presidential debate when Trump, who said there were “fine people” on both sides of the deadly white supremacist march in Charlottesville, Va., urged the violent extremist group the Proud Boys to “stand back, and stand by” when he was asked to condemn white supremacy. Trump denounced white supremacy days later, but not before his message was celebrated by the far-right and emblazoned onto the Proud Boys’ logo.

“The fact of the matter is the commander-in-chief of the United States, who is supposed to be doing everything in his power to protect the American people, just made them less safe from the debate stage,” Nick Suplina, the managing director for law and policy at Everytown, said in an exclusive interview with Salon.

“The rise of extreme right violence is thanks in no small part to the fear mongering and enabling by the NRA, and more recently to Trump in encouraging these groups . . . including his statement to ‘stand back, and stand by,'” Suplina continued. 

“Gun extremism really is the central organizing principle for much of the extreme right in America — and that’s from the NRA, to private militia groups, to even some of the rhetoric we hear from the White House,” Justin Wagner, Everytown’s senior investigations counsel, added. “And there really are clear historical parallels to the current moment and the period in the 1990s leading up to the Oklahoma City bombing . . . The only difference is we didn’t have a president in the ’90s who was willing to validate threats from the White House.”

Wagner faulted the media for framing Trump’s emboldening of white supremacists as a “potential” problem despite numerous instances of deadly violence. One-third of the 20 deadliest shootings in the past decade were motivated by some form of white supremacy, according to Everytown’s analysis.

“It’s not academic,” he said. “It’s already happened.”

In 2018, Trump and his allies stoked fear about a “caravan” of Central American migrants heading to the U.S. Trump, Republican lawmakers and NRA TV pushed a conspiracy theory that Jewish billionaire George Soros, a Democratic megadonor, was behind the caravan in an apparent attempt to influence the elections.

Eight days later, a white supremacist killed 11 people and wounded six others at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh after accusing a Jewish nonprofit that aids refugees of “bring[ing] invaders in that kill our people.”

“They’re committing genocide to my people,” the alleged gunman reportedly told an officer during a shootout with police. “I just want to kill Jews.”

The shooter had for years “harbored conspiratorial views” about the government, the Everytown report notes, reportedly worrying that United Nations “blue hats” were coming for his guns. It was a conspiracy theory boosted for years by NRA chief Wayne LaPierre, who warned in one of his books that “an armed U.N. platoon of blue helmets can knock on your door to take your guns.”

Trump has also repeatedly warned of an “invasion” by “illegal immigrants,” a call which was echoed by the NRA and a white nationalist who killed 20 people and wounded dozens of others at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, last year. The alleged shooter told police that he had targeted Latinos in the rampage and wrote in his “manifesto” that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

“Rhetoric and language has consequences, and when leaders say things and validate extremist belief and conspiracies, it can have real-life consequences,” Wagner told Salon. “I think El Paso is an excellent example of that where you had both the gun lobby and the president peddling conspiracies and peddling fear-mongering, and I think the shooter’s manifesto speaks for itself.”

Top Trump administration officials have repeatedly acknowledged the growing threat posed by white supremacist extremism in spite of pushback from the White House.

The Department of Homeland Security, for the first time since its inception after the 9/11 attacks, called white supremacist extremism “one of the most potent forces driving domestic terrorism.” Two months later, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to a Senate committee that the majority of the bureau’s investigations into domestic terror attacks were “fueled by some kind of white supremacy.” Last month, Wray reiterated to a House committee that the majority of “racially motivated violent extremism” was driven by white supremacists.

But the threat of violent extremists is not limited to white supremacists. A report from the Anti-Defamation League found that anti-government extremists were responsible for roughly the same number of terror attacks and plots as white supremacists between 1993 and 2017.

Domestic extremists have killed more people than any other group, including those inspired by radical jihadist ideology, according to a report from the think tank New America. The threat has grown substantially over the past six years, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, with far-right attacks accounting for two-thirds of domestic terror attacks and plots last year.

How the NRA fueled the rise of the militia movement

Guns have “overwhelmingly” been the weapon of choice for far-right extremists, and the Department of Homeland Security and FBI concluded in 2017 that “firearms likely will continue to pose the greatest threat of lethal violence by [white supremacist extremists] due to their availability and ease of use.” The rise of homemade untraceable “ghost guns” have made it even easier for extremists to obtain deadly weapons.

“It’s important that we recognize the synergy here between the extreme right and the NRA is manifest in the very gun laws that allow the extreme right to arm itself so extensively and so easily,” Suplina said. “This isn’t just about common language and rhetoric and flaming the fire of hate, but it is also enabling it practically.”

Even as access to guns has grown, the NRA and other gun groups have peddled conspiracy theories built on an “unrelenting ‘Us vs. Them’ narrative, telling its members that they are under constant threat from dangers ranging from roving bands of criminals to would-be authoritarians on the political left,” the Everytown report says.

The extreme right has also thrived on conspiracies and distrust, the report notes. For white supremacists, the opponent is people of color or Jewish people “whom they believe are carrying out a genocidal plan against white people.” For anti-government extremists, the opponents are government institutions and the political left. “The lack of explicit racial animus within anti-government activism does not mean that racism is not a feature of the movement, which includes broad acceptance of Islamophobic and anti-immigrant sentiments,” the report says.

In the early ’90s, gun lobby leader Larry Pratt reportedly urged white supremacists in Colorado to form “small paramilitary units to violently resolve social problems, such as drug use, interracial marriage and the abortion of white babies,” according to the report.

LaPierre in the mid-’90s defended white supremacists after the infamous Ruby Ridge standoff and called for people to “take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government.” He railed about alleged “abuses” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) after the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs.

In 1995, LaPierre called federal agents “jack-booted government thugs” and warned followers in a letter that it was no longer “unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.”

Six days after LaPierre’s letter, Timothy McVeigh bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, because it housed an ATF office. McVeigh, who had been an NRA member until the year before the attack, stamped a letter to a member of Congress with an “I’m the NRA” sticker. McVeigh was “fanatical” about the right to bear arms, a friend said at the time, and “echoed the NRA’s rhetoric and paranoia,” the Everytown report says.

After the attack, LaPierre claimed the NRA had “no relationship” with the militia movement, but “a month after the bombing, the NRA held its 1995 annual meeting, at which it adopted a resolution saying that while it did not support violent revolution, it would not ‘contemplate discouraging’ people from forming or participating in militias,” the report says. The NRA also presented an award to the leader of a California militia at the meeting.

“I’m a lawyer, but I had a hell of a hard time parsing that language to discover the NRA’s true position on militias,” former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman later wrote. “Is it possible that’s what they intended?”

The report goes on to link NRA board members, like Ted Nugent and Neal Knox, to militia groups.

“That really fostered the anger and the fear of those that are already radicalized — and that’s when you have the risk of violence,” Wagner said. “An important aspect for this report is calling out the NRA for winking and nodding at many of these groups and ideas and giving their audience power and potentially inflating extremism.”

Rise of armed extreme right threatens election violence

After the 2008 election, “racial animus” against President Barack Obama and a baseless fear that his administration would confiscate guns led to a resurgence of both militia groups and the gun lobby, the Everytown report says.

Obama’s election “coupled with high levels of non-white immigration and a decline in the percentage of whites overall in America, [had] helped to racialize” anti-government extremists, according to a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

New groups like the Oath Keepers echoed “most of the same conspiratorial views as its predecessors in the 1990s,” per Everytown.

The NRA waged a years-long fearmongering campaign alleging that there was a “massive Obama conspiracy to . . . destroy the Second Amendment.” Following the 2013 Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA claimed that the administration wanted to “abolish every last sacred right you have under the Second Amendment . . . until they reduce your freedom to ashes.”

“It’s this conspiracy of gun confiscation that we think is really important for people to focus on. Throughout the NRA’s history, whether in the ’90s or after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook to today, the NRA has pedaled this notion that people are coming to take your gun. And it’s just not true, but we see it taken up by extreme right groups and individuals throughout time,” Wagner said. “That type of language inflames extremists and potentially gives them motivation to act out, and we think it’s incredibly irresponsible. But it’s consistent with what the NRA has done for the past several decades.”

The rhetoric about Obama was frequently racially tinged. Nugent referred to Obama as a “subhuman mongrel,” and LaPierre declared that “eight years of one demographically-symbolic president is enough.”

Armed militias were further emboldened after the Bundy Ranch standoff in 2014, which later led to the armed occupation of federal lands in Oregon. But perhaps no event has been more influential than the election of Trump, which was bankrolled by the NRA to the tune of a record $30 million in 2016.

The election resulted in an “explosion of hate speech, along with the demonization of minority groups,” the Everytown report says, adding that the FBI found hate crimes hit a 16-year high in 2018.

The NRA’s now-defunct NRA TV arm aired hours of “fear-mongering, conspiracy theories and thinly veiled racism” in defense of Trump, which even “some NRA leaders found distasteful and racist.” 

Trump later equivocated between the neo-Nazis who marched in the city and the anti-racist counter protesters who were attacked by one of the extremists, killing activist Heather Heyer. “There’s blame on both sides,” the president said. Those remarks were repeatedly boosted by NRA TV.

Armed militia groups have since descended on the U.S.-Mexico border to detain migrants, numerous state capitols to protest coronavirus restrictions, statehouses to protest gun legislation and Black Lives Matter protests. An Illinois teen who was seen alongside armed militia members in Kenosha, Wis., was recently charged with killing two protesters.

Rather than condemn the armed groups, Trump and the Republican Party have argued that the protests show the need for Americans to arm themselves. A St. Louis couple caught on video threatening Black Lives Matter protesters with guns were featured speakers at this year’s Republican National Convention.

“When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” Trump declared earlier this year.

NRA leaders, too, have compared Black Lives Matter activists to Nazis.

“We found in our internet monitoring . . . that the Black Lives Matter protests have been a triggering event for the extreme right. We’ve seen many extreme right groups and individuals show up armed at Black Lives Matter protests, and that’s incredibly troubling,” Wagner said. “The fact that armed protests are not even newsworthy anymore in the United States — it becomes so commonplace — shows how dangerous the moment is.”

New groups have formed, as well. The Boogaloo movement grew from an online trend involving memes predicting a “second Civil War” to a violent terrorist movement, which has been linked to multiple alleged killings and terror plots.

The QAnon movement, a sprawling conspiracy theory based on the idea that Trump is secretly fighting a child sex trafficking ring run by his political enemies, has also been linked to violence even as its adherents are winning Congressional primaries around the country.

The rise of these groups comes as Trump, who is significantly trailing in the polls, stokes fears over the coming election, baselessly predicting that they will be “rigged” and “corrupt” while echoing the NRA’s decades-long fearmongering that Democrats could destroy the Second Amendment.

“We currently find ourselves in a scenario where many extreme-right groups and individuals — who place easy access to guns as central to their identity — have been convinced that an election defeat will result in mass civil disarmament,” the Everytown report says. “At the same time, these extremists have been conditioned to believe that American democracy . . . is a farce, leaving them to contemplate armed violence as the natural remaining option.”

An Everytown review of social media accounts linked to the extreme right “reveals a multitude of individuals threatening violence if Trump were to not be re-elected.”

“Those activists are already emboldened following years of validation of their conspiracy theories by both the gun lobby and the White House,” the report concludes. “They may very well use the current landscape of white supremacy and anti-government conspiracy theories to justify violent action once more. Chillingly, lax gun laws may give right-wing extremists access to some of the deadliest and most effective tools to carry out that violence, which is why strengthening our country’s gun laws is more urgent than ever.”

Trump “stand back, and standby” remark last week “lit up” certain corners of the internet, with the far-right “celebrating the comments as some type of implicit acknowledgement of the validity of their causes in their organizations,” Suplina said.

“These groups have been waiting for the signal from Trump for some time,” Wagner added. “Many of them explicitly reference the president in waiting for orders.”

Defying medical consensus, Trump is discharged from hospital

Update: On Monday evening President Donald Trump walked from the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center wearing a full facial mask, gave a thumbs up to reporters and left in his motorcade.

Despite mixed signs about whether he is actually healthy, President Donald Trump announced Monday that he would be leaving Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he had been treated since last week for COVID-19.

“I will be leaving the great Walter Reed Medical Center today at 6:30 P.M. Feeling really good!” Trump announced on Twitter. “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life. We have developed, under the Trump Administration, some really great drugs & knowledge. I feel better than I did 20 years ago!”

His tweet came shortly after he criticized the media in a separate post, tweeting minutes earlier that “the Media is upset because I got into a secure vehicle to say thank you to the many fans and supporters who were standing outside of the hospital for many hours, and even days, to pay their respect to their President. If I didn’t do it, Media would say RUDE!!!”

Trump was referencing an event that took place on Sunday, when Trump left the hospital in his motorcade in order to briefly wave to onlookers before returning to Walter Reed. That incident prompted scrutiny over the risks posed to the Secret Service agents who shared space with the coronavirus-infected Trump in the nearly-airtight, chemical weapon–proof vehicle that he drove in.

Although Trump insists that he is feeling fine, that analysis is contradicted by other reports, and is also contradicted by the normal timeline of coronavirus infection. Coronavirus patients are vulnerable for seven to ten days after their first symptoms, and those with severe symptoms — as Trump seems to have had, based on some of his own doctors’ reports — are often hospitalized for that length. If one believes the administration’s stated timeline of symptom appearance, that would suggest Trump should stay under observation in the hospital until at least October 8. 

At one point the president reportedly took the steroid dexamethasone to combat his low blood oxygen levels, a common side effect of moderate to severe COVID-19 infection. Dexamethasone is generally used to stop a patient’s immune system from fatally overreacting to a disease. Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon by email on Monday that “dexamethasone is only approved for patients with very severe disease mechanically ventilated in the hospital.” She noted the oddity of having him take this drug despite his doctors’ statements that his case was not severe. “This drug can cause harm in more mild disease,” she added.

Gandhi is not alone in noting these contradictions. Dr. Robert Wachter, chairman of the University of California at San Francisco’s department of medicine, told The Washington Post on Monday that “for someone sick enough to have required remdesivir and dexamethasone, I can’t think of a situation in which a patient would be okay to leave on day three, even with the White House’s medical capacity.” Remdesivir is an antiviral drug that “may shorten hospital stays but are usually given to patients with more severe disease,” Dr. Gandhi told Salon. Trump is also reported to have taken an experimental drug called REGN-COV2 from the biotechnology company Regeneron, which has not been approved for public use. 

Wachter’s views were echoed by William Schaffner, a professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University’s medical school, who told the Post that he would “absolutely not” have a patient like Trump return to work after only three days, adding that “I will bet dollars to doughnuts it’s the president and his political aides who are talking about discharge, not his doctors.”

Trump is at an unusually high risk of developing serious complications from COVID-19, or even dying, because of his sex, weight and advanced age. A recent compilation of COVID-19 studies compiled in the scientific journal Nature found that roughly 12% of people with Trump’s demographic profile have died from the disease. 

Trump’s tweeted statements that people should not “be afraid” of COVID-19 led to an outcry on social media and among public health experts. More than 200,000 Americans have died so far of COVID-19, while more than 7.4 million in this country have been diagnosed with it, according to the Johns Hopkins University & Medicine Coronavirus Resource Center. Many of those who recovered have long-term side effects. Trump admitted to reporter Bob Woodward in February and March that he deliberately played down the pandemic, and the United States has performed worse both medically and economically than other developed countries which were proactive in dealing with the deadly disease.

De-escalation is the new customer service: Training to deal with angry, maskless patrons

As a small grocery chain owner, Summer Auerbach has spent a lot of time over the last few months thinking about a particular brand of viral video that emerged during the pandemic. They have titles like “Woman asked to wear mask throws food in Dallas grocery” and “Another ‘Karen’ Has Grocery Store Meltdown Over Masks,” and feature shoppers — often older white women — berating supermarket staff after being asked to wear a mask while shopping. 

Sometimes they throw a fit and knock over the grocery end caps, sending soup cans and cracker boxes tumbling into the aisles. Other times they simply leave in a huff, threatening to sue under their breath. Inevitably, someone films and uploads it for people to comment upon, voicing their disdain or support, and then keep scrolling 

But for Auerbach, who owns Rainbow Blossom Natural Food Markets in Louisville, Ky., her response to the videos is a little more personal. 

“The background of any of those videos — that could be one of my stores,” she said. “It has started to feel like encounters with customers have become more heated, more fueled. And our staff started talking about how they didn’t feel like they were prepared to deal with these customers.” 

Auerbach has since joined the increasing number of members of the restaurant and grocery industry who are investing in de-escalation training for their staff to better equip them for more civil interactions with customers who refuse to wear masks. It’s an ongoing point of tension for many customer-facing businesses, which feels especially fraught right now following the COVID-19 diagnoses of President Trump and several top Republican leaders after attending White House events without taking proper precautions. 

“De-escalation” is an approach to conflict resolution often used in psychiatric and social work circles. There are a variety of techniques utilized in trainings, but according to research by John Baker and Owen Price in the “International Journal of Mental Health Nursing,” professionals agree that de-escalation should involve safely, calmly and empathetically supporting the client with their concerns. 

That was at the heart of the training done at Rainbow Blossom

“Our director of operations went to every store and did an in-person training with our staff,” Auerbach said. “The training involved a little bit of role-playing and practicing so people can understand how the way they respond to customers also impacts the way that customers respond back or behave.” 

There’s a difference, Auerbach said, between asking a disagreeable customer “Are you asking me to remove you from the store?” and expressing empathy. 

“We can say, ‘I’m sorry that you don’t want to wear the mask, but we can offer you curbside service or will provide you with a face shield so that you can shop in the store,'” Auerbach said. 

But Auerbach acknowledges that navigating these conflicts — where people’s health is literally on the line — wasn’t part of many of her staff members’ job descriptions when they started, and she will always have their backs during this period of increased tensions. 

“The past several months have been very stressful, just kind of all around, and it feels like everyone is just kind of on edge,” she said. “So, I hope we’ve empowered them to tell customers, ‘Thanks for sharing your opinions and we’ll keep it in mind,’ or ‘I’ll be sure to pass this along to the owner and here is their contact information if you want to lodge a further complaint, but we’re not able to engage anymore on this topic.'” 

Clarissa Rodriguez is a waitress who gave up her job at a downtown Cleveland restaurant after feeling like she didn’t have the skills to engage with angry customers who didn’t want to abide by mask and social distancing requirements.

“Work was already exhausting because I’m worried about my health and making sure I get in enough hours to make rent,” Rodriguez said. “But add customers who were just screaming at me and tossing masks on the floor . . . I couldn’t do it anymore.” 

Rodriguez is now working the night shift at a local supermarket stocking shelves. 

“It’s not my ‘dream job,’ but it’ll do for now, and I don’t have to deal with customers anymore,” she said. “But I definitely would have felt safer if I had some kind of training, which my old employer didn’t provide.” 

National organizations are stepping up to provide trainings that are available for individual industry workers like Rodriguez. Defend Yourself and Safe Bars have classes offered on a sliding scale like “Boundaries for the Pandemic (and the rest of life),” “Safe at Work: De-escalation for Essential Workers” and “Safe Bars: De-Escalation for Hospitality Staff.” 

Last week, the National Restaurant Association and ServSafe launched a series of online trainings for industry members, including a course titled “ServSafe Conflict De-escalation: COVID-19 Precautions.” 

The transcript from the course states that the easiest way to resolve a tough situation is to prevent it in the first place, and that “letting guests know about management’s requirements upon arrival or even before they arrive will help do this.” 

“Another thing you can do is prepare yourself in advance,” the transcript states. “You don’t want an emotionally charged situation with a guest to be the first time you’ve thought about possible solutions. A critical step is to just be aware! Recognizing disruptive behavior can help you solve little problems before they become big ones.” 

And while it’s admirable — and honestly essential — that organizations like these and employers like Auerbach are ensuring that food and beverage industry staff are equipped to deal with a new brand of disgruntled employees amid the “new normal,” it’s depressing that these kinds of trainings are even required. 

For months, essential employees have been working hard and putting their health at risk to keep Americans fed while navigating new social and sanitation regulations. Now they are forced to adapt yet again to handle customers who don’t want to follow the rules. 

“I used to think that a bad tipper was the worst kind of customer,” Rodriguez said. “Little did I know.”

 

Two housekeepers test positive for COVID-19 as White House outbreak widens: report

The support staff in the White House mansion are starting to test positive for COVID-19 after the president, first lady and the staff in the West Wing has spread the virus around the building.

The New York Times’ Maggie Haberman explained that two housekeepers have tested positive. They reportedly didn’t come in contact with the president or the first family, which is concerning as it means the virus has spread through the building. Trump’s team frequently doesn’t wear masks in public nor do they wear them inside the halls of the White House. They assumed that because they are tested daily, they are safe.

The Coronavirus Task Force and the CDC told people to wear masks for exactly this reason.

“When their tests came back positive, they were told to use ‘discretion’ in discussing it,” said Haberman.

The housekeepers certainly won’t get the same standard of medical care that Trump did at Walter Reed.

Trump’s bespoke COVID-19 drug regimen would not be accessible to the average American, experts say

After being diagnosed with COVID-19 last week before heading to the hospital, President Donald Trump received cutting-edge coronavirus treatments and the best health care that the United States has to offer. Today, Trump reportedly left the hospital in good spirits, telling the public “don’t be afraid of COVID,” in spite of the 210,000 American deaths from COVID-19 registered so far. 

Yet the treatments and the medical care lavished on Trump and which led him to a quick recovery were unique, experts say. Indeed, the president had access to special medical resources, drugs and attention that the average COVID-19 hospital patient is unlikely to get, and which likely sped his recovery and greatly raised his chance of recovery.

The president’s regimen at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Washington, D.C. included the steroid dexamethasone to address his lowered oxygen levels, according to The New York Times. Medical experts agree that the use of dexamethasone suggests the president’s lungs were compromised, as that drug is intended to stop one’s immune system from killing the patient with an immune overreaction. Notably, the drug is only recommended for patients with severe illnesses, because it is quite risky. If given to a patient who does not need it, dexamethasone actually increases their chances of dying.

“Dexamethasone is only approved for patients with very severe disease mechanically ventilated in the hospital, so the President does not fit the criteria for dexamethasone by the statements coming from his doctors, and this drug can cause harm in more mild disease,” Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease doctor and professor of medicine at the University of California–San Francisco, told Salon by email.

Trump is also receiving a five-day course of the antiviral drug remdesivir, according to CNN. This drug is meant to improve recovery time for patients. In August the medical journal JAMA revealed that remdesivir was successfully used during a Phase 3 clinical trial (the last phase before a tested substance can officially become a drug) in hastening recovery for patients who were moderately ill with COVID-19.

“Remdesivir may shorten hospital stays but are usually given to patients with more severe disease, although the severity of disease was difficult to tell with the conflicting information coming out about the President regarding oxygen saturation and other signs/symptoms,” Gandhi told Salon.

In addition to dexamethasone and remdesivir, Trump is also receiving an 8 gram dose of an experimental drug called REGN-COV2 from the biotechnology company Regeneron, according to CNBC. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved REGN-COV2 for public use, the president is being allowed to take it due to a “compassionate use” request by his staff. REGN-COV2 is a monoclonal antibody treatment that, according to Regeneron’s website, shows “greatest improvements in patients who had not mounted their own effective immune response prior to treatment.”

In an interview with CNBC, Regeneron CEO Dr. Leonard Schleifer explained the decision to allow Trump to use their experimental medication as “a very tough situation” for the company, arguing that they were taking “a principled approach” and concluding that “giving it to [Trump] or to others who might not be able or don’t qualify for clinical trials is the right use of compassionate use. That’s for small numbers of people, for these exceptions. We want everybody to be potentially able to benefit. We understand we don’t make that decision. This is a decision the FDA has to make.”

If Trump leaves the hospital today as he has stated he will, it is very possible that his specialized medical care is what helped him recover so quickly. The president’s age, weight and sex put him into a high risk category, and there is a chance that despite the medical community’s best efforts, he may join the ranks of presidents like William Henry Harrison who died in office because they ignored medical advice (in Trump’s case, to wear a mask and social distance).

Yet assuming Trump’s medication regimen did indeed speed his recovery, does that mean other Americans will also benefit from similar treatments? 

“The therapies that President Trump is getting are available to many patients with COVID-19, [but] there are two issues,” Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Salon by email. “The first is VIP medicine where there is the risk of over-treatment or under-treatment because of who he is and not his clinical condition. We don’t know the extent of this either way because they have not been as transparent with his clinical status.” Benjamin specifically expressed concern about Trump being prescribed dexamethasone because it can be dangerous.

“The second issue is the fact that he has universal access to all the care he needs from the military health care system, which in fact has all the attributes of a single payer health system: a form of health care funding and delivery he has politically opposed,” Benjamin added. “Most Americans do not have access to that kind of care at one of the best hospitals in the world. Access to any test he needs, and any medication, without a concern for costs.”

Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, echoed Benjamin’s observations.

“Privilege is the key adjective to describe not only the medical care Trump is now receiving but the entire package of first-rate health care provided freely to top officials, the Congress, etc,” Wolff wrote to Salon. “It is a long-standing reproach to the deep inequalities of US capitalism that the same governmental officials whose votes deny a first-rate universal health care system to the mass of Americans can and do luxuriate in just such a system for themselves. It only adds insult to that injury that the President gets medicines and treatments not available to the public.”

He added, “Were democracy to be taken seriously, especially in a country as rich and medically equipped as the US, the quality of healthcare given to officialdom would match that given to us all.”

Gandhi expressed the same view, telling Salon that “the drugs the President got are not given to ordinary Americans, especially the antibody cocktail which has not been approved and is still under study. Similarly, a patient of his description would not be given medications for severe disease (Remdesivir, dexamethasone) since the steroids can be harmful and the anti-viral is of uncertain efficacy in that situation.”

The man who would be president: Mike Pence, corporate theocrat

If President Trump dies from the coronavirus that has killed more than 210,000 Americans, largely due to his deliberate negligence, the man replacing him will be no less dangerous. While Mike Pence has eluded tough media scrutiny — in part because he exhibits such a low-key style, in contrast to Trump — the pair has been a good fit for an administration that exemplifies the partnership of religious fundamentalism and corporate power.

The vice president, a former Indiana talk-show host who went on to become a six-term congressman and then governor, has described himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order.” But he remains at cross-purposes with the biblical admonition (Matthew 6:24) that “you cannot serve both God and money.” Whether Pence has truly served God is a subjective matter, but his massive service to money — big money — is incontrovertible.

Pence ranks high as a Christian soldier marching in lockstep with Trump on all major policy issues, a process that routinely puts business interests ahead of human lives. Whatever his personal piety might be, the results of Pence’s fidelity to right-wing agendas have further consolidated a de facto coalition of those seeking ever-lower taxes on wealth and corporations, denial of LGBTQ rights, a ban on abortion and severe restrictions on other reproductive rights, voter suppression and barriers to voting by people of color, obstruction of health care for low-income people and on and on.

Pence embodies the political alliance of very conservative evangelical forces with anti-regulatory forces of corporatism. In the arenas of elections and governance, that coalition is the present-day Republican Party, dedicated to imposing the edicts of religious dogma, rolling back democratic reforms and serving the rich at the expense of everyone else.

“As vice president, Mike Pence is doing everything in his power to control people’s bodies,” the Planned Parenthood Action Fund declares. Meanwhile, those who are inclined toward racism or outright believers in white supremacy are bolstered. And Wall Street has never had a better friend in Washington.

Pence’s most consequential role during 44 months as vice president has been as chair of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Since late February, he has functioned — in effect — as Trump’s willing executioner, standing by and blowing smoke while Trump obfuscated and lied as the death toll kept mounting.

“The truth is that we’ve made great progress over the past four months,” Pence proclaimed in a mid-June statement, “and it’s a testament to the leadership of President Trump.” Pence charged that “the media has taken to sounding the alarm bells over a ‘second wave’ of coronavirus infections” — but “such panic is overblown.”

To underscore his full devotion to Lord Trump’s downplaying of the virus, the vice president concluded with a blame-the-messenger flourish: “The truth is, whatever the media says, our whole-of-America approach has been a success. We’ve slowed the spread, we’ve cared for the most vulnerable, we’ve saved lives, and we’ve created a solid foundation for whatever challenges we may face in the future. That’s a cause for celebration, not the media’s fear mongering.”

Pence’s June 16 statement made its way into the Wall Street Journal as a prominent op-ed piece whistling past COVID graveyards. “It was so clearly wrong back then and has turned out to be so clearly wrong since that I hope there’s some part of him that’s embarrassed,” Ashish Jha, the head of the Harvard Global Health Institute, said in late summer. “I had already been seeing data for a good week that things were really heading in the wrong direction.” The Washington Post editorial board immediately responded with a denunciation under the headline “Mike Pence Is a Case Study in Irresponsibility.”

No one with any discernment would associate Trump with religiosity because he held up a Bible at a photo op. But the other half of the ticket is a very different matter. Days after the November 2016 election, Jeremy Scahill wrote that Trump is “a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors.”

Scahill quoted an author of books on far-right fundamentalism, Jeff Sharlet, who said that “when they speak of business, they’re speaking not of something separate from God, but they’re speaking of what, in Mike Pence’s circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system is God-ordained.”

What does all this mean for progressives? The case of Mike Pence should be an ongoing urgent reminder that, as toxic and truly evil as Donald Trump is, the current president is a product and poisonous symptom of an inherently unjust and anti-democratic status quo.

Instead of focusing our rage on the persona of one destructive leader, we should remember that corporate domination provides an endless supply of destructive leaders. While they come and go, the system of corporate power remains — and we must replace that system with genuine democracy.

“Openly trying to cheat”: Trump campaign tells local election officials to ignore voting rules

President Trump’s campaign is waging a behind-the-scenes effort to threaten low-profile county officials into ignoring election rules and sowing doubt in the mail voting process.

Trump’s campaign launched an “unusually aggressive” push on the local level, sending 100 county election officials in North Carolina “threatening letters” and “misinformation” to urge them to disregard a new rule that makes it easier for voters to fix mistakes on their mail ballots, according to the Associated Press. The warnings came after the state Board of Elections settled a lawsuit after ballots cast by Black voters in the state were disproportionately rejected.

The campaign also sent letters to more than 1,800 municipal clerks in states like Wisconsin and Georgia that raised questions about the security of mail voting, according to CNN. The campaign also threatened to sue officials in Pennsylvania for blocking “poll watchers” from observing election offices where people register to vote and apply for mail ballots, according to the AP.

Trump’s team has repeatedly filed lawsuits in response to states easing access to mail ballots amid the coronavirus pandemic but such litigation has so far been unsuccessful. Trump has suggested that he aims to fight the expansions all the way to the Supreme Court as he hopes to add Amy Coney Barrett, his third conservative justice in four years, to the high court before November. Less visible has been the campaign’s quiet efforts to undermine voting rules on the local level, where his team has bombarded officials with letters that have raised alarm among election experts.

“Through threatening letters, lawsuits, viral videos and presidential misinformation, the campaign and its GOP allies are going to new lengths to contest election procedures county-by-county across battleground states,” the AP reported, highlighting a “blizzard of voting-related complaints” from the campaign.

In North Carolina, a key swing state that Trump carried by just three points in 2016, Black voters have had their mail ballots rejected at four times the rate of white voters. It’s even worse in certain areas. Guilford County, which includes Greensboro, has a rejection rate six times higher than the rest of the state. Officials say ballots there are currently “in limbo” as they await further guidance.

Last week, a judge approved a settlement between the state’s Board of Elections and voting rights groups allowing voters to fix missing signatures or addresses on their ballots without filling out a new ballot. The Trump campaign told local officials simply to ignore the new rule.

“The NC Republican Party advises you to not follow the procedures,” Trump campaign operative Heather Ford told officials last week in an email obtained by the AP.

“It’s clearly based on an overall strategy to disrupt the election as much as possible,” attorney Barry Richard, who represented George W. Bush’s campaign in the 2000 Florida recount, told the AP. “You’re really seeing a broad-based, generalized strategy to suppress the vote by the Republican Party.”

S.V. Dáte, HuffPost’s White House correspondent, argued that the effort showed the campaign was “openly trying to cheat in the coming election.”

Trump’s campaign argued that it was simply trying to “ensure a fair election” — apparently by encouraging local officials to ignore a court-approved settlement.

“Since when is fairness a bad thing?” campaign spokesperson Thea McDonald said in a statement to the AP. “County board members need guidance on how to proceed in the wake of these unelected Democrats’ attempt to radically rewrite the law 40 days out from Election Day.”

But North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, a Democrat, included the campaign’s email to officials in court documents to show that the “party was improperly undermining an official state directive,” according to the report.

Two Republican members of the Board of Elections have quit in protest against the new rule (despite previously supporting it) and the panel’s Democratic majority has since told counties to hold off on allowing voters to fix their ballot errors, pending further court battles.

“What we’re talking about is an effort to deliberately place these barriers in front of people. And many may be discouraged from trying to cure, or making it impossible for them to cure, a deficiency,” Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University, told the AP.

Pennsylvania, another key swing state that Trump narrowly carried in 2016, has also become a focal point in the Republican effort to torpedo new rules making it easier to vote by mail.

The campaign has sued the city of Philadelphia in order to gain access for Republican “poll watchers” to election offices, which are not polling places. The state’s Republican leaders are also fighting a state Supreme Court decision that allowed mail ballots to be counted up to three days after the election as long as they are postmarked by Election Day and blocked “poll watchers” from monitoring polling places in areas where they do not reside.

Republicans have long planned to deploy an “army” of some 50,000 poll watchers nationwide for the election, which critics argue would amount to voter intimidation.

Republicans have also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a lower court ruling that blocked a South Carolina witness signature requirement for mail ballots, due to the risk of COVID infection from person-to-person contact.

These efforts have not been limited to ballot issues. The Wisconsin Republican Party recently warned the city of Madison against holding a “Democracy in the Park” event, arguing that it could be used for the illegal collection of ballots. City officials ignored the cease and desist letter but a day later Republicans warned the city of Milwaukee that it would be illegal for its sports teams to have mascots present while their venues are used as makeshift polling places, arguing that would violate laws against “electioneering” at voting locations.

A recent voter registration event at Miller Park, home stadium of the Milwaukee Brewers, featured the team’s famous Racing Sausage mascots, the Trump campaign noted.

“It would be ludicrous to think that that was electioneering,” Claire Woodall-Vogg, executive director of the city Election Commission, told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Although most of the Trump campaign’s efforts have been petty and ineffective, election experts say they offer an insight into a coordinated behind-the-scenes efforts to “work the refs.”

“All of this conduct is so beyond the pale,” Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, told the AP. “It’s hard to put in context because there’s been nothing like it in modern American campaigns.”

Greg Abbott: Criminal allegations against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton “raise serious concerns”

Senior officials in the Texas Attorney General’s Office have asked federal law enforcement to “investigate allegations of improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential crimes” by their boss, the Austin-American Statesman and KVUE-TV first reported Saturday.

The senior staff members, including Jeff Mateer, who resigned from his post as Paxton’s top aide this week after several years leading the agency, notified the agency’s human resources director that they sought the investigation.

“We have a good faith belief that the attorney general is violating federal and/or state law including prohibitions related to improper influence, abuse of office, bribery and other potential criminal offenses,” seven agency leaders wrote in a one-page letter obtained by the Statesman.

The brief letter, dated Oct. 1, says the officials notified law enforcement of a potential crime on Sept. 30, but does not provide detailed accusations. The officials also say they notified Paxton himself of the accusation via text message on Oct. 1.

Paxton, a second-term state official and former state legislator who serves as co-chair of the Lawyers for Trump coalition, has been under indictment for more than five years on felony charges of securities fraud. Paxton has yet to go to trial on the charges amid side battles over where the case will be heard and how much the special prosecutors appointed to take the case to trial will be paid.

The Houston Chronicle reported Sunday that the allegations are tied to Paxton’s relationship with Nate Paul, an Austin real estate investor and campaign donor, citing the text message Mateer and the other officials sent to Paxton last week.

“General Paxton, yesterday, each of the individuals on this text chain made a good faith report of violations of law by you to an appropriate law enforcement authority concerning your relationship and activities with Nate Paul,” Mateer told Paxton in the Oct. 1 text, obtained by the Chronicle.

According to the report, Mateer and the other officials felt compelled to act after Paxton allegedly appointed a special prosecutor to target “adversaries” of Paul.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office said in a statement that “the complaint filed against Attorney General Paxton was done to impede an ongoing investigation into criminal wrongdoing by public officials including employees of this office. Making false claims is a very serious matter and we plan to investigate this to the fullest extent of the law.”

She declined to comment further, citing an open investigation.

Ryan Bangert, the deputy first assistant attorney general and one of the seven aides who signed on to the letter, wrote to agency staff Sunday encouraging them “to ensure the agency continues its important work without interruption.”

“I write to assure you that the executive team remains committed to serving you, this office, and the people of Texas. The work we do together makes a difference every day in the lives of our fellow citizens,” Bangert wrote. “Your work, your sacrifice, and your dedication to this office inspire us all.”

Meanwhile, top Texas Republicans reacted cautiously to the allegations against Paxton.

“These allegations raise serious concerns,” Gov. Greg Abbott said Sunday in a prepared statement. “I will withhold further comment until the results of any investigation are complete.”

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called the news “obviously concerning.”

“I learned about this from media reports,” Patrick said in a statement. “I will wait until the investigation is complete before making any additional comments.”

An attorney with Paxton’s defense team in the securities fraud case, Philip Hilder, declined to comment. Brian Wice, one of the special prosecutors on the case, said Sunday that “we’re going to look into this,” but declined to elaborate further. It’s not clear whether the latest allegations are related to the pending securities fraud charges.

Jordan Berry, a political adviser to Paxton, confirmed Sunday that he had resigned in the wake of the allegations.

Michelle Lee, a public affairs officer for the FBI, declined to comment on the matter, citing internal policy within the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice not to comment on the existence of pending or potential investigations. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney for the region said “we have no comment.” Travis County District Attorney Margaret Moore said Saturday evening “we do not have an investigation.”

Paxton has faced numerous questions over his ethics over his more than a decade in public life. To help pay for his stacked team of defense attorneys, he has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts for his legal defense fund, claiming the contributions came from “family friends” and are exempt from a state bribery law that bars elected officials from receiving gifts from people who are subject to their authority.

In the securities fraud charges that are still pending, Paxton is accused of convincing investors to buy stock in a technology firm without disclosing that he would be compensated for it. He has maintained his innocence and criticized the prosecution as politically motivated. In 2014, the Texas State Securities Board fined Paxton $1,000 for soliciting investment clients without being registered, and he signed a disciplinary order without disputing its findings.

Last year, his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, filed a bill that would have expanded her husband’s power as attorney general, giving him the power to exempt individuals from state regulations like the one he has been charged with violating.

In 2018, Paxton’s office filed — and then abruptly recalled — a formal court brief in a lawsuit over Plano’s zoning policies, in a move that his supporters attributed to political influence from conservatives in his home county.

Paxton, a conservative who has often elbowed for airtime as the state’s top culture warrior, has kept up a busy and high-profile role during the coronavirus pandemic.

This spring, he declared that Gov. Greg Abbott’s ban on elective medical procedures, an effort to conserve hospital resources for coronavirus patients, also barred abortions in the state, sparking a lawsuit that would drag on for weeks and force hundreds of women to cancel appointments to terminate their pregnancies. His office threatened to sue the state’s biggest cities if they did not roll back coronavirus-related safety precautions, including mask mandates, and told local officials they could not keep landlords from evicting their tenants during the pandemic.

Paxton used the power of his office to lean on a Colorado county after it shut its doors to vacation home owners — including a top donor.

Paxton has led major multi-state lawsuits to overturn laws like the Affordable Care Act and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, often landing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s made equally political choices in the cases he chooses not to take. His office refused to defend a state agency, as it typically would, when it was sued for disciplining a state judge who refused to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. And it declined to defend the Texas Ethics Commission in a lawsuit brought by the hardline conservative group Empower Texans, a political donor.

Last year, he was a major player in Texas’ botched effort to review its voter rolls.

Paxton often boasts of his close relationship with the president, frequently greeting him on the tarmac when Air Force One touches down in Texas, and sharing stories during public appearances about their communication on major Texas-led litigation — the time Trump called while Paxton was in the shower is a favorite.

In 2018, Paxton narrowly bested his Democratic opponent, Justin Nelson, to win reelection in an unexpectedly tight race. Nelson had made Paxton’s indictments the centerpiece of his campaign.

“Ken Paxton is the top law enforcement official in the state,” Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa said in a statement Saturday. “Yet, he has proven for years that he cannot follow the law himself.”

Calls could build in the coming days among other Republicans for Paxton to more specifically address the charges or resign. On Sunday, state Rep. Sarah Davis, a Houston Republican representing a district that Democrats are targeting this year, became the first known GOP member at the Legislature to suggest Paxton resign if he does not “quickly address these allegations.”

“Although innocent until proven guilty, AG Paxton has been under indictment for the past five years,” Davis tweeted. “With these new allegations of bribery and abuse of office, Paxton needs to quickly address these allegations or resign so he can devote his time to his own personal legal matters.”

Cassandra Pollock, Patrick Svitek and Abby Livingston contributed reporting.

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Justice Clarence Thomas suggests Supreme Court should overturn same-sex marriage in scathing attack

Obergefell v. Hodges was the landmark 2015 ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Two of the dissenters in that ruling were Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito — and now, Thomas and Alito are calling for that decision to be overturned. This comes at a time when there is a very real possibility that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a far-right social conservative nominated by President Donald Trump, will be replacing the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

In a petition, Thomas and Alito argue that Obergefell was an attack on religious freedom, saying, “The Court has created a problem that only it can fix. Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ‘ruinous consequences for religious liberty.'”

Half a decade ago, the majority in Obergefell v. Hodges came from both the left and the right. Justice Anthony Kennedy, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan in 1987, sided with Ginsburg in that decision. Kennedy was fiscally conservative, yet his libertarian streak showed itself when he agreed with Ginsburg on social issues like gay rights, same-sex marriage and abortion.

But the makeup of the Supreme Court has changed a lot since Obergefell. The late Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenters in Obergefell, died in 2016 and was replaced by Justice Neal Gorsuch — another social conservative — in 2017. Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch wasn’t a game-changer for the high court, but when Kennedy announced his retirement in 2018 and was replaced by the more socially conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that was a game-changer. And now, with Barrett likely to replace Ginsburg, the Supreme Court is facing the possibility of an even greater game-changer — one in which Obergefell could be in danger along with Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and many other right-to-privacy decisions.

Voters sue Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over his order to shutter ballot drop-off locations in Texas

Voting rights advocates and civic groups have filed two separate federal lawsuits to block Republican Gov. Greg Abbott‘s last-minute order that allows Texas counties to provide no more than one drop-off location for voters casting absentee ballots.

Late Friday, the Texas Alliance for Retired Americans, the get-out-the-vote group BigTent Creative and a 65-year-old voter asked a federal judge in Austin to overturn the governor’s Oct. 1 order, which forced Travis and Harris counties — two of the state’s most important Democratic strongholds — to shutter a number of drop-off sites they had already opened this week. The challenge came a day after The Texas and National Leagues of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Women Voters of Texas and two Texas voters filed a lawsuit calling the directive an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote that will disproportionately impact voters of color in the state’s biggest cities.

“The impact of this eleventh-hour decisions is momentous, targets Texas’ most vulnerable voters—older voters, and voters with disabilities—and results in wild variations in access to absentee voting drop-off locations depending on the county a voter resides in,” attorneys in the LULAC suit argued. “It also results in predictable disproportionate impacts on minority communities that already hit hardest by the COVID-19 crisis.”

Attorneys in both cases also pointed out that Abbott was making a major change to election procedures just weeks away from an election — an action the state and its attorneys argued was improper in a separate federal lawsuit over straight-ticket voting.

Unprecedented numbers of Texas voters are requesting mail-in ballots for the highly charged election as the nation is in the grip of the coronavirus pandemic. Many of those voters are expected to drop off their ballots in person rather than entrusting them to the U.S. Postal Service, which has been plagued by cutbacks and doubts over its ability to deliver ballots early enough to be counted.

Texas Republicans have vigorously fought efforts to facilitate increased mail-in balloting, particularly in Harris County, the state’s largest and a Democratic stronghold where voter turnout could prove pivotal in this year’s election.

Asked about the lawsuit, Abbott spokesman John Wittman said the governor “has expanded access to voting.”

Months ago, Abbott extended the early voting period by nearly a week and allowed voters to deliver their absentee ballots in person earlier than usual, citing the pandemic. His order this week limited where voters may turn in those ballots, not when.

Wittman added that the governor’s Oct. 1 order concerns only absentee ballots, most of which he said are submitted by mail.

“The additional time provided for those who want to submit their mail-in ballot in person is sufficient to accommodate the limited number of people who have traditionally used that voting strategy,” Wittman said.

But more absentee ballots than ever are expected to be cast this year — some counties have already sent out twice as many as usual — and there are concerns about delays from the U.S. Postal Service.

The lawsuits will have to move quickly, with early voting set to begin in less than two weeks on Oct. 13.

Harris and Travis counties had each set up multiple locations for accepting absentee ballots and had already begun accepting them before Abbott issued his order shutting down the satellite locations. Voting rights experts say access to these locations is especially important given concerns over U.S. Postal Service delays and that closing them will disproportionately impact voters with disabilities or without access to reliable transportation. Harris County is home to 2.4 million registered voters and stretches across some 1,700 square miles, more than the entire state of Rhode Island.

Ralph Edelbach of Cypress, an 82-year-old voter among those suing Abbott, had planned to drop his ballot off at a Harris County location that was 16 miles from his home — but now will have to travel 36 miles, nearly 90 minutes round trip, to reach the only location Abbott has allowed to stay open, according to court documents.

At a press conference Friday morning, Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins said he could reopen the shuttered locations “at the drop of a dime.”

“Ultimately, anything that’s done to decrease voter convenience, to put obstacles in the way of the voter, is voter suppression, and will lead to disenfranchisement,” he said.

Abbott’s order, which came a day after the Texas solicitor general approved Harris County’s plan for multiple locations under earlier guidance from the governor, also said counties must allow poll watchers to observe goings-on at ballot drop-off sites. Voting rights advocates fear that poll watchers, who are selected by candidates or political parties, will seek to intimidate voters, as has been documented in the past.

Abbott claimed the limits on drop-off locations were necessary to ensure election integrity. But he provided no evidence that the drop-off sites enable voter fraud, which experts say is rare.

And the procedures for delivering an absentee ballot are strict. Voters must present an approved form of identification, show up during specified hours and can only deliver their own ballots.

Texas is one of just a few states that is not allowing all voters to cast their ballots by mail during the coronavirus pandemic. Beyond extending the early voting timeframe, the state has done very little to expand Texans’ options for voting safely this fall. And its criteria for absentee ballots are unusually strict: Voters can vote by mail only if they are 65 or older, confined in jail but otherwise eligible, out of the county for the election period or cite a disability. The Texas Supreme Court has said that lack of immunity to the novel coronavirus does not itself constitute a disability, but that voters may consider that alongside their medical histories to decide whether they qualify.

Harris County started accepting completed ballots Sept. 28, and had collected 39 as of Thursday evening. Travis County opened four locations Oct. 1.

Democrats and voting rights groups immediately condemned Abbott’s as an attempt at voter suppression.

Ross Ramsey contributed to this report.

Disclosure: The League of Women Voters has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Donald Trump Jr. “wants to stage an intervention” because he thinks his dad’s “acting crazy”: report

President Donald Trump’s hospital joyride and his manic Monday-morning tweets aren’t just being panned by political pundits — they’re also reportedly freaking out some in the president’s own family.

According to Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman, the president’s eldest son has been alarmed by his behavior over the past couple of days, in which he’s been desperate to project strength while being hospitalized at Walter Reed Memorial Hostpital.

“Don Jr. has said he wants to stage an intervention, but Jared and Ivanka keep telling Trump how great he’s doing,” one source tells Sherman. “Don said, ‘I’m not going to be the only one to tell him he’s acting crazy.'”

However, even Jared and Ivanka reportedly agreed with Donald Jr. that the president’s Monday morning all-caps tweet storms — which included messages such as “SPACE FORCE. VOTE!” — went way over the edge.

“They’re all worried,” said one source. “They’ve tried to get him to stop tweeting.”

 

Four Texas Republicans vote against House of Representatives resolution condemning QAnon

WASHINGTON — Four Texas Republicans in the U.S. House were on the losing end of a lopsided and bipartisan vote on Friday that approved a measure condemning the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.

The resolution, titled “Condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes,” passed 371 to 18. Among the 18 dissenters were Republican U.S. Reps. Jodey Arrington of Lubbock, Brian Babin of Woodville, Michael Burgess of Lewsiville and Bill Flores of Bryan.

Four other Texas Republican representatives did not cast votes: U.S. Reps. Michael Cloud of Victoria, Louie Gohmert of Tyler, Kenny Marchant of Coppell and Ron Wright of Arlington. (Wright is currently being treated for cancer.) The 27 other Texans serving in the U.S. House, including all 13 Texas Democrats, voted to condemn QAnon.

The FBI has identified the movement as a domestic terrorism threat. BuzzFeed reported earlier this week that followers of QAnon targeted the resolution’s author, New Jersey Democratic U.S. Rep. Tom Malinowski, with death threats. Malinowski’s resolution condemned and rejected the conspiracy theories the movement promotes and included a list of crimes in which the perpetrators cited QAnon as a guiding inspiration. The resolution additionally pointed to FBI and U.S. military warnings about the movement’s potential to foment political tension and radicalization.

The QAnon movement adheres to an unfounded theory that a cryptic government official named “Q” is exposing a plot against Trump by “deep-state” actors involving satanism and child sex trafficking. It has gained more attention as it has spread in conservative political circles online. Some believers have been accused of plotting or carrying out violent crimes. In April, an Illinois woman was arrested after she traveled to New York with illegal knives and wrote on Facebook that Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden need to be “taken out.”

In statements to the Tribune, three of the four Texas Republican dissenters dismissed the resolution as a political stunt and said House leadership should instead be focused on addressing the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s a swampy strategy to call out a fringe right-wing group with no mention of ANTIFA and other radical Leftist groups after over one hundred days of unmitigated mob violence in cities across America,” Arrington said. “Instead of political stunts, Democrat leadership should be working on bipartisan legislation to provide relief to working families and small businesses in a time of unprecedented crisis.”

Said Burgess: “This resolution was designed as a blunt force weapon to be used against the Administration — not to condemn conspiracy theory groups.”

“I know next to nothing about this Qanon stuff, but I do know that this resolution put forward by the House Democrat Majority will serve only to give its devotees the publicity and legitimacy they are desperate for,” Babin said in his own statement. “We’ve got big, real issues to deal with in Congress, and instead we spent most of today debating this silly, pointless, powerless resolution that was written and brought to the floor for one reason: to make campaign commercials.”

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a GOP congressional candidate who openly supports the movement, won her primary runoff this summer in Georgia and will likely join the U.S. House in January.

The Texas Tribune is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

McConnell says Supreme Court hearings won’t be delayed as third senator tests positive for COVID-19

While President Donald Trump is hospitalized at Walter Reed Medical Center with COVID-19, many of his Republican allies in the U.S. Senate are in quarantine — and three of them have tested for the novel coronavirus: Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to The New York Times, has announced that the U.S. Senate will not be meeting as planned this week. But McConnell also said that Republicans still plan to proceed rapidly with the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In an official statement, McConnell declared, “The Senate’s floor schedule will not interrupt the thorough, fair and historically supported confirmation process previously laid out.”

Tillis, who is fighting a tough battle for re-election in North Carolina, and Lee are both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee — which is chaired by Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The Senate’s most high-ranking Democrat, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, is stressing that given all the COVID-19 infections GOP senators are facing, it’s dangerous to proceed with Senate Judiciary hearings for Barrett — which are scheduled to begin next week on Monday, October 12. Schumer, in an official statement, warned, “If it’s too dangerous to have the Senate in session, it is also too dangerous for committee hearings to continue. Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham’s monomaniacal drive to confirm Judge Barrett at all costs needlessly threatens the health and safety of senators, staff and all those who work in the capitol complex.”

On September 26, Republicans held a ceremony for Barrett’s nomination in the White House Rose Garden — and some of the Republicans who attended have tested positive for COVID-19, including Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway (who has been helping Trump with debate preparation). Times reporters Catie Edmondson, Maggie Haberman, Nicholas Fandos and Lisa Lerer note that “many top Republicans attended” that ceremony “without masks or social distancing, raising concerns that others might have contracted the virus but had not yet been diagnosed.” And Monday morning, October 5 on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski noted that the September 26 ceremony in the White House Rose Garden was followed by an indoor event in which few masks were worn and there was a painfully obvious lack of social distancing. That indoor event, Scarborough and Brzezinski stressed, was even more dangerous than the gathering in the Rose Garden because it was indoors.

Graham, like McConnell, has said that the Senate Judiciary hearings for Barrett’s confirmation will begin on October 12 as planned. The Times reporters note, “Mr. Tillis and Mr. Lee said they would isolate for ten days, which would enable them to emerge in time for the hearings.”

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany tests positive for COVID-19

The White House announced that press secretary Kayleigh McEnany has tested positive for the coronavirus. 

According to a New York Times report Sunday, McEnany came into the office despite exposure to the virus over the weekend. The White House said she was “fine,” because she is tested daily. For that reason, she could ignore the Coronavirus Task Force guidelines to quarantine for 14 days after exposure.

“After testing negative consistently, including every day since Thursday, I tested positive for COVID-19 on Monday morning while experiencing no symptoms. No reporters, producers or members of the press are listed as close contacts by the White House Medical Unit,” she claimed in a statement.

She adds to a growing list of people who’ve had contact with the White House over the past week who are now COVID-positive.

McEnany also has a newborn at home, who is now likely at risk for the virus.

Trump didn’t disclose first positive COVID-19 test in Fox News interview with Sean Hannity: report

President Donald Trump did not disclose that he had already tested positive for COVID-19 and was awaiting a second test when he was interviewed by Fox News host Sean Hannity on Thursday, according to a new report.

Trump received a positive result from a rapid test on Thursday evening before his Fox News interview, The Wall Street Journal reported. The president mentioned that his top aide, Hope Hicks, had tested positive for COVID-19 — but not that he was awaiting the results of a second test to confirm the preliminary result.

“I’ll get my test back either tonight or tomorrow morning,” Trump told Hannity hours before confirming on Twitter that he and first lady Melania Trump had both tested positive for the disease.

Trump appears to have attempted to keep Hicks and other aides’ positive results under wraps, as well. 

“Don’t tell anyone,” Trump told an adviser after their own positive test, according to the report.

Campaign manager Bill Stepien, who worked closely with Trump and Hicks on debate preparations, was not informed of Hicks’ positive test until Bloomberg News reported it on Thursday. The Trump campaign announced Stepien tested positive on Friday.

Trump traveled to a fundraiser at his New Jersey golf club despite the White House learning he had been exposed earlier in the day. More than 200 people may have been exposed at the event, according to the New Jersey Department of Health.

“Holding the event in spite of knowing that one of the team was infected and had exposed others was a recipe for spreading disease,” Lisa Lee, an infectious disease expert at Virginia Tech University, told The Journal.

The lack of disclosure has alarmed White House aides as the virus continues to impact advisers, senators, reporters and attendees of Trump’s Supreme Court announcement last month.

“I’m glued to Twitter and TV, because I have no official communication from anyone in the West Wing,” one administration official told The Journal.

Trump has continued to try to keep his condition concealed from the public. White House physician Dr. Sean Conley told reporters on Saturday that the president was recovering well at Walter Reed Medical Center moments before White House chief of staff Mark Meadows privately contradicted his statement to reporters.

“The president’s vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care,” Meadows said Saturday. “We are still not on a clear path to a full recovery.”

The disclosure “outraged” the president, CNN reported.

“Who the f— said that?” Trump complained, according to The Journal.

Conley admitted on Sunday that he had falsely told reporters that the president had not received supplemental oxygen on Saturday. He went on to predict that Trump could be discharged from the hospital as early as Monday despite announcing that doctors had begun treating him with the steroid dexamethasone. The steroid, which is typically reserved for patients with severe illness, has not been shown to benefit those with mild symptoms, according to The New York Times. Doctors say the drug may “harm some patients,” and it has been linked to mania and psychosis.

The White House’s efforts at contact tracing, which is key to reducing the virus spread, has also been anemic.

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany held a press conference on Thursday, apparently unaware of Hicks’ positive test. At least three White House reporters have tested positive.

Former Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., who worked on Trump’s debate prep before testing positive, did not learn of the initial White House positive tests until he heard about it on the news, The Journal reported. He has since checked himself into a hospital.

Former White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, who was also on the debate prep team, announced she had also tested positive.

Christie and Conway were also both present at Trump’s announcement of Amy Coney Barrett as his Supreme Court nominee, where cramped attendees sat maskless in the Rose Garden of the White House. Some also attended indoor receptions.

The lack of disclosure, particularly from Trump’s medical team, has alarmed doctors.

“I’d have to say that they’re hiding things,” CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta said on Sunday, adding that Conley was “clearly . . . being told what to say, and what not to say and how to present things.”

“Donald J. Trump defeats COVID”: The absurd Soviet-style propaganda campaign around his illness

Four years ago, almost to the day, Donald Trump was on the campaign trail mocking Hillary Clinton’s bout of pneumonia and insisting that contracting such an illness rendered her too weak and unfit to be the president. The campaign ran what was called by some the nastiest political ad ever, called “Dangerous.” It depicted Clinton as a doddering invalid who was so incapacitated she couldn’t handle foreign policy and national security.

It’s not news that Donald Trump is a crude and cruel piece of work, of course. But it’s worth recalling that ugly incident because it provided a window into his twisted psyche and the way he views his “brand” as being a virile strongman with superior genes. One aspect of that brand is that he isn’t one of those losers who gets sick.

Perhaps the best way to understand exactly how Trump wants people to view him is to read the ludicrous letter he dictated to his New York physician, Dr. Jacob Bornstein, during the 2016 campaign, in which he described himself as potentially “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,” whose “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary.”

Various reports have trickled out since we found out that Trump had tested positive for COVID-19, revealing that at first he was in denial about having been exposed to the virus, so much so that he flew around the country, further exposing hundreds of his supporters and donors to it. When he finally realized that he was sick, Trump reportedly got scared, asking his staff if he was “going to go out like Stan Chera,” an old friend of his from the New York real estate world who died of the disease last spring.

But just as Trump has admittedly “downplayed” the pandemic from the very beginning — spreading more disinformation than any other source, according to a recent study — he is now attempting to “downplay” his own illness by staging one amateurish propaganda stunt after another. It would be downright amusing if the stakes weren’t so high, and if so many other people’s lives weren’t hanging in the balance.

Although we can’t state this as a scientific certainty, it certainly appears that the gathering in the White House Rose Garden to announce the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett on Sept. 26 was a “super-spreader” event. There’s a long list of people who were in attendance and have since tested positive, and since it can take up to 14 days to show symptoms, there could still be more. Trump’s reckless visit to his golf club fundraiser in New Jersey to meet with donors from all over the country last week, after he knew that his aide Hope Hicks was sick, could well have been another super-spreader event: More than 200 people were there.

It remains unclear whether Trump had been tested before his debate with Joe Biden last Tuesday. He and his entourage showed up too late to be tested, refused to wear masks and were on the “honor system” when they all claimed they had tested negative that day. The timeline strongly suggests that Trump had already been infected, and the White House is not being forthcoming about his testing history. So far, Biden has tested negative three times. But until two weeks have passed, I don’t think anyone can feel reassured that Trump’s toxic aerosols didn’t make their way across the stage during his 90-minute primal scream session.

The Washington Post reports that even though the White House is clearly the site of a major COVID cluster, officials there didn’t bother to issue instructions to the staff until Sunday night — and even then, all they said was that staffers should stay home and call their health care provider if they feel sick. By all accounts, people are still working at the White House without masks and the CDC hasn’t started any official contact tracing. According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump told people who had tested positive to keep it quiet and even his campaign manager, Bill Stepien, was kept in the dark as the virus ran unchecked through the White House. Stepien has since tested positive and is quarantining at home. 

So it’s a chaotic mess in TrumpWorld, as usual. But what isn’t so usual is the way the medical professionals are handling this. It’s clear that Trump has been much sicker than anyone let on at first. He required supplementary oxygen at least twice, needing oxygen and has been given cocktail of experimental therapeutic drugs. All this is clearly threatening to his self-defined brand as the “healthiest individual ever elected.”

Presenting that image is so important to Trump that he has apparently convinced Dr. Sean Conley, the White House physician (and a Navy officer), to throw his integrity away in press conferences that are such obvious cover-ups he’s tripping over his own tongue. When questioned over his inconsistent reports about the status of the president’s health, Conley replied, “I didn’t want to give any information that might steer the course of illness in another direction,” which is such an absurd statement you almost feel sorry for him. (Unless he really believes he could make Trump sicker by telling the truth.)

Meanwhile, Trump is staging videos from the hospital, having pictures taken of him signing blank pieces of paper and giving the impression that he’s working in different rooms around the clock — when the metadata makes clear that the photos were taken within minutes of each other. On Saturday night, his daughter posted this preposterous tweet:

This propaganda is reaching Soviet levels of absurdity, except that instead of the party and the bureaucracy going to extreme lengths to hide the ill health of their leader, this time it’s the leader himself running the cover-up. And because it’s Trump, it’s an outrageous exercise in narcissism.

In his video on Saturday, he said:

This was something that happened, and it’s happened to millions of people all over the world, and I’m fighting for them. Not just in the U.S., I’m fighting for them all over the world.

His fans are actually saying he led us into this battle against the virus by modeling the reckless and irresponsible behavior we should all be following:

They’re already commemorating the great victory:

Apparently, Donald Trump has Made America Great Again by getting COVID-19. 

Will Trump’s illness break his hold over his followers? Mental health experts say probably not

On Friday, Donald Trump was hospitalized at Walter Reed Medical Center near Washington after testing positive for the coronavirus and exhibiting symptoms. His wife Melania and other members of Trump’s inner circle have also tested positive for the coronavirus.

Given the consistent strategy of disinformation, contempt for the American people and outright lies that have come from the Trump White House, all reports about Trump’s health and the timeline for his infection must be viewed with suspicion. It remains unclear exactly when Trump tested positive and was diagnosed with COVID last week, but it appears likely that even after knowing he had been exposed to the virus, the president put his staff members, financial donors and family members, as well as members of the public at risk. He could well have exposed Joe Biden and members of Biden’s campaign team to the virus during their debate last Tuesday, although Biden has so far tested negative.

Trump’s condition has been described in contradictory ways, and reports from his medical team have been inconsistent. It is possible Trump will soon be released from the hospital — and also possible that he faces a long and serious illness. 

Trump was clearly unwell when he spoke to the American people on Saturday by video. That same day, the White House released a series of photos which purported to show the president “hard at work.” In fact, the photos showed Trump using a marker to sign blank pieces of paper positioned next to empty plastic binders. On Sunday, Trump, eager for narcissistic fuel, was briefly driven through the area around Walter Reed Medical Center so he could acknowledge his followers gathered outside. He is suffering from a highly infectious disease and instead of remaining in quarantine chose to imperil the health and lives of his Secret Service detail and whoever else he came in close contact with.

All this intrigue and lack of transparency by the Trump regime is another example of how the White House has become the Kremlin on the Potomac, a place where the public is left to decipher the schemes and machinations of the ruling party.

Donald Trump is not a normal president (or human being). He is a fascist authoritarian who leads a cult of personality and revels in what he considers “alpha-male” displays of toughness and violence. He presents himself as being immortal. To his cult followers, he functions as a type of godhead whom they love and to whom they constantly express devotion. Trumpism is a form of collective narcissism and groupthink in which the self is subsumed by the libidinal, violent and other pathological emotions and behaviors of the mass movement.

Karma has asserted itself: Donald Trump has now been inflicted with the same disease that he lied about, showing no human concern for the 210,000 Americans who have died so far. This is the same disease for which he actively sabotaged relief efforts and common-sense public health measures. In total, Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic is an act of de facto genocide against the American people, and should be prosecuted as criminal negligence and homicide.

As Dan Froomkin of Salon and Press Watch recently explained, it isn’t gloating “to point out that this could have been avoided if Trump had taken the obvious and proper precautions that he petulantly and ignorantly chose not to”:

The entirely self-inflicted nature of this tragedy is one of its central elements, as is the way Trump’s incredible irresponsibility and arrogance was mimicked by his supporters, significantly exacerbating the pandemic…. But I fear that, especially if Trump’s condition worsens, the attention will shift so entirely to the coverage of incremental developments and the political fallout that the American public will be deprived of this crucial context: He brought this upon himself.

Dan Kois’ essay for Slate, “How Should We Feel About The Suffering of This Man?”, channels what many Americans and others around the world are feeling about Trump suffering the effect of a disease he lied about, mocked and belittled, expressing callous indifference about the death and destruction it has inflicted:

The burst of unseemly glee that accompanied the news of the president’s positive test was yet another salvo in this four-year war between my feelings, my intellect, and what I’ve always thought of as my morality. In 2020 the president’s malignancy has expanded. He now directly threatens the lives of every person in America. Over 200,000 of them have died so far, in large part because of his incompetence and cruelty. And so hearing that the virus he has spent months downplaying, lying about, and ignoring has, at long last, stricken him was a moment of such narrative perfection that its power was nearly overwhelming.

I’m not inclined to condemn people for finding the news of the past 36 hours, in addition to alarming and embarrassing, richly comic. To laugh at the shitstorm currently overwhelming the Republican Party, including Trump, is not to disrespect life, as the outraged tone police might insist. To laugh at what the Republicans and Donald Trump have brought upon themselves is to respect life, to understand that to take wanton risks with life was always a fool’s game.

How will Trump’s followers respond to his diagnosis and hospitalization? How will they manifest and confront this cognitive dissonance? Trump and his supporters exist in a state of collective narcissism and mass delusion. Will his illness bind his followers closer to him? Or will they finally turn on Trump, seeing him exposed as not just a mere mortal but a lying hypocrite?

In an effort to answer these questions and to better understand Trump and his followers’ relationship to one another in a time of plague and death — largely because of him — I asked several of the country’s (and the world’s) leading mental health experts for their thoughts and analyses. 

Elizabeth Mika, counselor and therapist, contributor to the 2017 bestseller “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President”:

The bond between a malignantly narcissistic leader and his followers, created by a narcissistic collusion — the belief in each other’s specialness and exceptional greatness — is virtually unbreakable. To sever it, those individuals who worship and unreservedly trust their leader would have to experience a life-shattering catastrophe for which the leader would be directly and indisputably responsible. But even, then their need to maintain their beliefs and thus their identity would likely override reality and even solidify their beliefs in the leader’s specialness and infallibility, and, by association, their own.

We can actually see this in Trump’s supporters’ reactions to the pandemic in general and his own infection specifically. They deny the reality and severity of the pandemic and act accordingly, endangering themselves and others; and when they can no longer do so, they attribute it to nefarious plots designed to harm their leader and his plans to restore the country’s — and their own — greatness. Trump’s own illness has introduced some cognitive dissonance into those beliefs, which his supporters are trying to minimize by blaming it on others and shifting focus to other subjects.

I want to stress that those are normal defense mechanisms, commonly encountered in almost all of us, that we use in situations that challenge our worldview and cherished opinions.

But those defense mechanisms, when fortified by narcissism, become an emotional-cognitive web that ensnares and enslaves us, and blinds us to the reality of who we are and what the world around us is like.

Narcissism makes us part ways with reason, truth and reality itself, and instead create self-aggrandizing myths about our existence. All cults — religious, political, technological (yes) and others — are based on individual and collective narcissism of their members. Trumpism, with its imperviousness to facts, can be seen as a political cult, with a malignantly narcissistic leader at its center. Its members’ main function is to maintain the leader’s delusion of his greatness by providing constant affirmations of it, reality be damned. They, in turn, bask in his reflected glory, believing, erroneously, that his greatness and favors will rub off on them and fulfill their dreams.

Of course, none of that will happen and the cult will eventually collapse, usually with the demise of its leader. But even then, true believers will continue their worship. To this day, there are people who revere and miss some of the greatest tyrants in history. Our human propensity for self-deception, of the kind that protects our cherished and narcissistically embellished view of ourselves, our false self, is boundless.

Dr. Lance Dodes, former assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School; training and supervising analyst emeritus at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute. He is also a contributor to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

Interviews with Trump’s most fervent supporters have repeatedly shown that they minimize or deny his lies, incompetence and absence of morality because they share his conviction that he is (as he has suggested, himself) a godlike figure protecting them against all they hate and fear. Like all populist tyrants, his actual characteristics and actions are, therefore, irrelevant or even praised (leading to increased violence among those who copy his violence). The fact that Trump now has the disease he mockingly said was not serious and would disappear is sadly very unlikely to have any more influence on this group than his past lies and self-contradictions.

Dr. John Gartner, psychologist, psychoanalyst and former professor at the Johns Hopkins University Medical School. Gartner is the founder of Duty to Warn, an organization working to raise awareness about the danger Trump poses to the U.S. and the world. He was also a contributor to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” and is featured in the documentary “Unfit: The Psychology of Donald Trump.”

Malignant narcissists feel so special and entitled, they believe they are above laws of both man and nature — and because they are also psychopaths, they have no guilt or anxiety about the consequences of breaking those laws. What they can get away with is mind-boggling. Trump should have been successfully impeached 30 times over by now, having crashed through almost every redline we have. Yet thus far, he seemed to defy the laws of gravity — until he didn’t.

He is like the old Warner Bros. cartoon characters who would go over a cliff, and just hang suspended in mid-air — until they suddenly plunged, “Trump seemed to defy the laws of science and disease. Then the virus caught up with him,” read a headline from the Washington Post. “Invincibility punctured,” read another.

There’s a reason you don’t see many retired drug dealers, and the Thousand-Year Reich ended in a bunker. Call it reality’s revenge. Ultimately, malignant narcissists are self-destructive, as they and those that follow them off the cliff learn the hard way.

The laws of nature and karma can be suspended … until they aren’t.

Dr. Bandy Lee, assistant clinical professor, Yale University School of Medicine and president of the World Mental Health Organization. Lee was editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

Announcing his sickness is advantageous for him with his “base,” since their first thought would not be: “You said this disease was on its way out!” — which is rational thinking. Their emotional response would more likely be isolated sympathy for him — never mind that he caused the sickness of millions — identification with him, since many will know by now someone who has fallen sick, and fearful idealization and even less criticism of him, since he is supposedly their only protector and they are defenseless without him. The posturing and grandiose claims arising out of his defensiveness will likely be more compelling to them than his actions.

Dr. Seth Norrholm, translational neuroscientist and one of the world’s leading experts on post-traumatic stress disorder and fear. He is currently the scientific director at the Neuroscience Center for Anxiety, Stress, and Trauma (NeuroCAST) in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences at the Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit.

For his supporters, it is another opportunity for a reckoning with their support for Trump, given the fluid, ever-changing, and unpredictable nature of this president’s behavior. For some, as exemplified by Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, Trump is the victim of an attempted coup: She tweeted: “Remember: China gave this virus to our President.”

That perspective reflects a sense of collective, grandiose narcissism and will work for Fox News and will be echoed by millions. For others, they will have to ignore cognitive dissonance and allow for an acceptance of the president’s “moving the goal posts” — starting with it’s “their new hoax,” moving to “the 15 [cases] within a couple of days is going to be close to down to zero,” then to “I think I saved two, maybe two and a half million lives” and finally to “we’ll produce a vaccine in record time.”

Their support for the president is unwavering, even with the mental gymnastics required to go from hoax to vaccine. This too reflects cult psychology in that loyalty to the leader is maintained despite emerging evidence that he might be flawed. Yet for others, this represents a time to see the naked emperor, to change their beliefs about the deadly nature of the virus, and to actually start practicing mitigation techniques.

Dr. David Reiss, psychiatrist, expert in mental fitness evaluations and contributor to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.”

Trump and his spokespersons have consistently presented information and opinions intended to strongly impact the emotional state of their followers. This leads vulnerable followers, who rely on their feelings to define reality rather than examining objective facts, to strongly “feel” that the “information” they are provided is accurate. 

Feeling convinced, they will not explore or consider any other information or facts; they distrust, disbelieve and (angrily) reject as “fake” any contrary information; they disregard logical inconsistencies; and ultimately, they act decisively on the basis of the “information” provided (in a manner that meets the purposes of the Trump cabal). Despite the total inconsistency with objective facts, they continue to view Trump as essentially infallible, honor him with adulation, rally to his support — and project onto perceived “enemies” blame for any negative events that befall Trump or his admirers.  

This is occurring at the current time when, even at their own peril and even though medical evidence and objective facts clearly indicate that Trump himself has dangerously ignored warnings and left himself, his administration and his followers vulnerable to COVID infection, Trump’s followers continue to maintain convoluted explanations or conspiracy theories in order to justify feeling that they and Trump are innocent victims.

That illogical world view reinforces the belief that Trump is to be admired, adulated and held beyond reproach — particularly for tolerating the “slings and arrows” of “deviant enemies.” Whether orchestrated or spontaneous, rallies and “counter-demonstrations” reinforce these emotions and whip followers into an irrational frenzy of Trump adulation and rage at perceived enemies.

Republican “privileged f**ks” with COVID are getting “top-tier” health care while others die

The case for Medicare for All was once again made by the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., tweeted on Sunday, after Republican politicians, including President Trump, were able to check themselves into hospitals shortly after announcing they had tested positive for COVID-19.

Markey noted that throughout the coronavirus pandemic, in which more than 7.4 million cases have been detected and more than 209,000 people in the U.S. have died, people have attempted to get care at hospitals after testing positive and showing worsening symptoms, only to be turned away and “told only to come back when they could not breathe.”

“Now politicians are checking into hospitals as a ‘precaution.’ Healthcare should be a right, not a privilege,” Markey wrote. “We need Medicare for All.” 

The senator’s statement came a day after former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a member of the president’s debate prep team this past week, announced he was checking himself into Morristown Medical Center after testing positive on Saturday. 

“While I am feeling good and only have mild symptoms, due to my history of asthma we decided this is an important precautionary measure,” Christie tweeted.

Christie’s announcement angered social media users whose own family members had been denied admission at hospitals even as their symptoms grew more severe earlier this year, as medical centers faced severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) — and as the Trump administration seized shipments of the supplies and claimed the federal government was not responsible for ensuring health care workers were equipped to combat the pandemic.

“Mystifying that people think this kind of class system in healthcare is worth fighting to preserve,” tweeted journalist Steve Lubetkin. 

The details of the president’s condition, and how far into the illness he is, remained murky on Sunday after a press conference the previous day in which his physician, Dr. Sean Conley, suggested that Trump had first been diagnosed with COVID-19 last Wednesday, rather than late Thursday night. After Trump on Sunday released a video of himself at Walter Reed Medical Center, where he’s been since late Friday, saying he was feeling “much better,” his medical team reported that his oxygen levels had dropped to 93%, below normal range and to a level that doctors generally consider a severe case of COVID-19. The president was reportedly given the steroid dexamethasone on Sunday as well as the experimental drug remdesivir. Dexamethasone has been shown to help patients with severe coronavirus cases. 

The time and place where Trump contracted the coronavirus is unknown, but the ceremony he hosted last Saturday at the White House to celebrate his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court has been called a “super-spreader” event, after at least eight people who attended have tested positive for COVID-19 in recent days. The White House is reportedly overseeing contact tracing of the event, where more than 100 people gathered both indoors and outdoors, social distancing was not observed, and few people wore face coverings.  

On Twitter, journalist Anand Giridharadas summarized the last week in Trump’s presidency, during which the New York Times also reported that Trump had paid no taxes at all for 10 of the 15 years preceding his term, and paid just $750 in 2016 and 2017. 

“The moral of the story is, he lied to you for months and encouraged you to live recklessly during a pandemic, and when it got to him he received every top tier treatment and medication to ensure his survival while your friends and family died alone,” wrote comedian and writer Travon Free. “Remember that on Nov 3rd.”

Mitch McConnell’s legacy is a conservative Supreme Court shaped by his calculated audacity

Unless Democrats win both the White House and the Senate in November, abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is about to finish his project of remaking the federal judiciary from top to bottom.

The impact of that achievement will outlive the 78-year-old Kentuckian, making it the biggest piece of his large legacy in Senate history.

This feat could hardly have been predicted when Senate Republicans elected McConnell their leader in 2006. For most of the 40-plus years I have watched McConnell, first as a reporter covering Kentucky politics and now as a journalism professor focused on rural issues, he seemed to have no great ambition or goals, other than gaining power and keeping it.

He always cared about the courts, though. In 1987, after Democrats defeated Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, McConnell warned that if a Democratic president “sends up somebody we don’t like” to a Republican-controlled Senate, the GOP would follow suit. He fulfilled that threat in 2016, refusing to confirm Merrick Garland, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court.

Keeping that vacancy open helped elect Donald Trump. Two people could hardly be more different, but the taciturn McConnell and the voluble Trump have at least one thing in common: They want power.

Trump exercises his power with what often seems like reckless audacity, but McConnell’s 36-year Senate tenure is built on his calculated audacity.

McConnell’s political rise

It was audacious, back in 1977, to think that a wonky lawyer who had been disqualified from his only previous campaign for public office could defeat a popular two-term county executive in Louisville.

McConnell ran anyway.

It was audacious to think that a Republican could get the local labor council to endorse him in that race, but he got it, by leading the members to believe he would help them get collective bargaining for public employees.

McConnell won the race. He didn’t pursue collective bargaining.

Seven years later, it was audacious to think that an urbanite who wore loafers to dusty, gravelly county fairs and lacked a compelling personality could unseat a popular two-term Kentucky senator, especially when he trailed by 40 points in August, but McConnell won.

As soon as he won a second term in 1990, McConnell started climbing the Senate leadership ladder, facilitated in large measure by his willingness to be the point man on campaign finance issues, an area his colleagues feared. They reacted emotionally to this touchy issue; he studied it, owned it and moved higher in the leadership.

Business, not service

In politics, lack of emotion is usually a drawback. McConnell makes up for that by having command of the rules and the facts and a methodical attitude.

The recording on his home phone once said, “This is Mitch McConnell. You’ve reached my home. If this call is about business, please call my office.”

Business. Not something like “my service to you in the United States Senate,” but “business.”

This lack of emotion keeps McConnell disciplined. I am not the only person he has told, “The most important word in the English language is ‘focus,’ because if you don’t focus, you don’t get anything done.”

Last year, I spoke to the McConnell Scholars, the political-leadership program he started at the University of Louisville. One thank-you gift was a letter opener bearing two words: focus and humility. The first word was no surprise, because of McConnell’s well-known maxim; the second one intrigued me.

The director of the program, Gary Gregg, says adding “humility” was his idea. But it fits the founder. With his studied approach and careful reticence, McConnell is the opposite of bombast, and that surely helped him gain the Republican leader’s job and stay there. He has occasionally described his colleagues as prima donnas who look in the mirror and see a president, something he claims to have never done.

When the colleagues in your party caucus know you are focused on their interests and not your own, you can keep getting reelected leader, as McConnell has done without opposition every two years since 2006.

McConnell’s Supreme Court

McConnell’s caucus trusts him. When he saw Obama as an existential threat – someone who could bring back enough moderate Democrats to give the party a long-term governing majority – McConnell held the caucus together in opposition to Obamacare, and Republicans used that as an issue to rouse their base in the 2010 midterm election.

Meanwhile, McConnell was working on the federal judiciary. He and his colleagues slow-walked and filibustered Obama’s nominees, requiring “aye” votes from 60 of the 100 senators to confirm each one. The process consumed so much time that then-Majority Leader Harry Reid abolished the filibuster for nominations, except those to the Supreme Court.

That sped up the process, allowing Obama to appoint 323 judges, about as many as George W. Bush. But Republicans’ additional delaying tactics still left 105 vacancies for Trump to fill.

When Democrats weakened the filibuster, McConnell warned, “You’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

Seven years later, Democrats may concede that point. McConnell and Trump have put nearly 200 judges on the federal courts, making them all the more a white-male bastion of judicial conservatism.

When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016 and McConnell said the seat wouldn’t be filled until after the November election, it was another case of calculated audacity.

Democrats cried foul, but they were powerless to reverse his decision because Republicans stuck with him.

Trump’s victory preserved the Senate Republican majority, which then did away with the Supreme Court exception, allowing McConnell and his colleagues to install by simple majority vote the sort of Supreme Court justices they wanted: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh – and, now, it seems almost certain, Amy Coney Barrett.

Al Cross, Director and Professor, Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues, University of Kentucky

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Why are so few drugs tested for safety in pregnancy?

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, scientists have churned out research papers at an unprecedented rate. Among the most closely watched studies are clinical trials, which are designed to determine whether a given treatment is safe and effective in humans. Hundreds of these trials have been approved around the world over the past six months. And yet one group of patients — pregnant and lactating mothers — are being left out.

An analysis of 927 Covid-19 clinical trials across Asia, Europe, and North America published online in May found more than half explicitly excluded pregnant women. Others simply failed to mention that pregnant women could enroll. Only 16 trials — less than 2 percent — were pregnancy-specific, meaning they aimed to evaluate a treatment’s effects on fetuses and expectant mothers. This means that even as researchers learn which treatments work for most people, there will be a gap in the medical community’s understanding of how these treatments perform during pregnancy.

The problem is not unique to studies of Covid-19. For decades, expectant mothers have been considered a vulnerable group to be shielded from potential harms of research for the sake of their fetuses’ health. This view stems, in part, from tragedies caused by two now-infamous drugs that were widely prescribed to pregnant women in the mid-20th century: thalidomide, which caused thousands of children around the world to be born with flipper-like limbs and other birth defects, and diethylstilbestrol (DES), which was linked to higher rates of cancer in both mothers and the daughters born to them.

But some experts say that regulations aiming to prevent such disasters could cause damage of a different kind. The near absence of clinical trial data leaves pregnant women “widely exposed” to drugs that have not been vetted for use in pregnancy, says bioethicist and OB/GYN Anne Lyerly of the University of North Carolina. Excluding pregnant women from clinical trials doesn’t eliminate risk, she points out. It simply shifts the risk from research studies to the doctor’s office, where pregnant women receive treatments rarely supported by robust data about how they will respond and whether the drugs are effective in pregnancy.

In fact, today, little is known about how the vast majority of drugs affect maternal and fetal health. One study, published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology in 2002, found that 90 percent of the drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 1980 to 2000 had an “undetermined” potential to cause fetal malformations. “Inadequate information is available for pregnant women and their physicians” to decide whether the benefits exceed the risks for most drugs introduced during the study period, the authors concluded.

Over the past few years, federal agencies have made changes that, in principle, should help to include more pregnant women in clinical trials. But closing the data gap, some say, will also require a shift in how risk is conceptualized. Currently, when it comes to research, “the focus is so often on fetal risk that we’ve failed to recognize the benefits of including pregnant women,” says bioethicist and OB/GYN Amina White, also at the University of North Carolina.

Pregnant women should have access to drugs that have been vetted for safety, says White. “It’s an issue of justice.”

* * *

Today’s clinical research is guided by a set of principles laid out in 1979 by a federal commission that had been created five years before with the aim of bolstering the ethical underpinnings of research conducted on humans. Key tenets outlined in the final report included beneficence, the notion that researchers have an obligation to maximize benefits and minimize risks, and justice, which ensures that the benefits and burdens of research are equitably distributed to all populations.

Fears about whether administering drugs during pregnancy violates these principles can be traced back to problems with drugs developed decades earlier. Launched in 1938, DES was marketed as a preventive for miscarriages and premature births. The drug was widely used, despite a 1953 study finding no effect on either outcome. In 1971, researchers found the drug caused a rare vaginal cancer in girls born to those who took DES while pregnant, leading to an FDA warning against its use in pregnancy. Subsequent research revealed additional risks to pregnant women who had been prescribed the drug and their daughters.

Beginning in 1957, another drug, thalidomide, was distributed to thousands of pregnant women around the world as a remedy for morning sickness. (Notably, the FDA did not approve the drug for sale in the U.S. at the time due to lack of evidence for its safety.) In the 1960s, reports began to emerge of severe birth defects in babies born to women who had taken the drug; researchers and regulators eventually recognized it as the cause of limb malformations in babies and stopped its use in pregnancy. “Those events clearly had a bearing on recommendations that ended up being codified in the federal regulations we have today,” White says.

Thalidomide’s unusual risks were partly a result of unfortunate timing — the symptoms of morning sickness typically coincide with the time when limbs are forming in the womb. Generally, drugs taken early in pregnancy have greater odds of affecting the formation of organs and other body parts, while drugs taken later in a pregnancy may affect brain development and birth weight. “The concern that you may disrupt something in these early stages” — with potentially lifelong consequences — “carries a huge weight,” says pediatrics researcher Christina Chambers of the University of California, San Diego.

In 1977, the FDA issued guidelines that excluded pregnant women and women “with childbearing potential” from phase I and phase II clinical trials, where new drugs are tested for their safety and efficacy. Inclusion in some studies became possible with the passage of the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, which sought to increase gender and racial diversity in clinical trials.

But while pregnant women are now able to enroll in studies, concerns about their participation linger. Federal regulations currently require any study involving pregnant women to meet 10 criteria, including that, “where scientifically appropriate,” data first be collected on pregnant animals and non-pregnant human subjects to assess risk, and that any risk to mother or fetus be “the least possible for achieving the objectives of the research.”

Whether these protections would catch another thalidomide-like drug before tragedy occurs is unclear. “I would hope it would be detected,” says OB/GYN Beatrice Chen, vice chair of the Institutional Review Board at the University of Pittsburgh. Chen notes, however, that sometimes a drug’s risk to mother and fetus isn’t discovered until after it comes to market.

This is why some researchers say regulators have taken the wrong lessons from the thalidomide tragedy. “It wasn’t that research was done and it was harmful,” says Lyerly. “The problem,” she says, is that thalidomide “was distributed for widespread use” without first testing it for safety.

Recent regulatory changes have been made to include more pregnant women in studies. One crucial shift is classifying pregnant people as “medically complex” rather than “vulnerable.” The latter is a term usually reserved for prisoners and other groups at risk of exploitation or unable to make decisions for themselves, says bioethicist Maggie Little of Georgetown University. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services removed pregnant women from its list of subjects “vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.” Draft guidance from the FDA published in 2018 avoids the term entirely in recognition of the need to include pregnant women in clinical research.

“The change that’s now needed is a cultural shift,” Little says. “Instead of thinking it’s unethical to do research with pregnant women,” researchers should consider that “it’s unethical not to include them.”

* * *

But federal regulations don’t mandate inclusion. The final call rests with the specialists on institutional review boards, who still tend to err on the side of caution, says University of Pennsylvania OB/GYN Michal Elovitz. For example, when Elovitz and her colleagues launched a trial for convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19, they were asked to submit extensive support for their decision to include pregnant and lactating mothers. Plasma transfusions are commonly used to help with pregnancy-related problems, such as certain immune disorders or bleeding, so the reams of evidence they had to provide to allow pregnant women to participate felt “a bit excessive,” Elovitz says. In such instances, regulators need to reconsider what evidence of safety they consider sufficient for a trial to be conducted, she adds. “We have to be careful about where benevolence crosses over to patriarchy.”

Trials that include pregnant women are often costlier, and they take longer to launch, given the additional safety and monitoring requirements. To glean evidence of whether a drug is safe and effective in pregnancy, researchers also need to enroll sufficient numbers of pregnant mothers, which can increase the size of a trial. In addition, drug makers worry about insurance for liability if harm occurs, Lyerly says.

With little incentive for inclusion, most drugs on the market today are approved without any data on their use in human pregnancy. As a result, that data is still usually obtained after the drugs reach market, where women’s experiences and possible side effects are tracked over time in registries. But this design creates biases, experts say, since women are only likely to report severe reactions that they perceive as being related to their use of a drug while pregnant. Milder reactions such as headaches or fatigue may go unnoticed and registries rarely, if ever, keep score of instances where neither mother nor offspring experienced negative side effects. “That limits the generalizability of any ‘evidence’ that appears to come from registries,” White says.

* * *

There is growing acknowledgement that drugs are not the only risk to fetuses — maternal disease is too. If left untreated, for example, diabetes increases the risk of congenital abnormalities from 3 percent to as high as 25 percent. Untreated hypertension can cause babies to be born several weeks premature. But until recently, researchers didn’t have enough data to know which existing medications could most effectively minimize these risks and whether drugs that were being prescribed carried risks of their own.

To identify solutions, the NIH began to fund studies of how drugs were metabolized in pregnancy. Simply observing metabolic changes in blood samples yielded new information, such as finding that quicker kidney filtration during pregnancy meant that pregnant women needed higher doses of drugs that were filtered out of the blood by the kidneys. This was true of both a common diabetes drug and a new HIV drug.

Surveys suggest that many pregnant women are keen to participate in clinical research. In 2013, researchers tested a common hypertension drug to treat pre-eclampsia, a life-threatening pregnancy complication. Although already coping with high-risk pregnancies, study participants said they enrolled because they preferred assuming the risk of any potential side effects to access the drug’s benefits to delivering a baby at 34 weeks — the likely outcome of leaving their condition untreated.

In other cases, patients find themselves unable to access treatments they need outside of trials. Thirty-seven-year-old Marisa Sprowles was born with hepatitis C, the fallout of a blood transfusion her mother had after knee surgery as a child that had then been passed on to her. The viral infection is curable, although treatments have historically been expensive and only covered by insurance for patients with advanced symptoms. Newly pregnant, Sprowles jumped at the opportunity to access treatment via a small clinical trial at Magee-Womens Research Institute in Pittsburgh. Her own infection was cured, and her and her husband’s now 2-year-old son was born disease-free.

“There’s been a slight movement of the needle,” says Sylvia LaCourse, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle. One large U.K.-based study of Covid-19 drugs, the Recovery trial, does include pregnant and lactating women. And in response to feedback, the World Health Organization amended the Covid-19 clinical trial it’s sponsoring to permit the inclusion of pregnant women. “Whenever there’s a successful large-scale trial that includes pregnant women, it sets a precedent,” says LaCourse. Even a small number of pregnant study participants, she adds, can illuminate whether a drug might behave differently during pregnancy.

Of course, greater inclusion doesn’t eliminate risk. But in a closely monitored study, it does make it possible that potentially harmful drugs can be caught before they affect thousands in unfathomable ways. Clinical research minimizes the potential for harm, Lyerly says. “There’s no way to take the risk away entirely. But if you don’t look, it doesn’t mean it goes away.”

* * *

Jyoti Madhusoodanan is a science writer based in Portland, Oregon.

This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.

Promises kept? On health care, Trump’s claims of “monumental steps” don’t add up

When it comes to health care, President Donald Trump has promised far more than he has delivered. But that doesn’t mean his administration has had no impact on health issues — including the operation of the Affordable Care Act, prescription drug prices and women’s access to reproductive health services.

In a last-ditch effort to raise his approval rating on an issue on which he trails Democrat Joe Biden in most polls, Trump on Thursday unveiled his “America First Healthcare Plan,” which includes a number of promises with no details and pumps some minor achievements into what the administration calls “monumental steps to improve the efficiency and quality of healthcare in the United States.”

As the election nears, here is a brief breakdown of what Trump has done — and has not done — on some key health issues.

Affordable Care Act

Trump has not managed to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, despite his claims that the law is dead.

But his administration, and Republicans in Congress, have made changes to weaken the law while not dramatically affecting enrollment in marketplace plans.

Congress failed to rewrite the law in summer 2017, but Republicans who controlled both the House and Senate at the time included in their year-end tax cut bill a provision that reduced the penalty for failing to have health insurance to zero. That change eliminated what was by far the most unpopular provision of the law.

It also sparked a lawsuit by Republican state attorneys general and governors arguing that the tax change undercuts the law and thus should invalidate it. The case is set to be heard by the Supreme Court the week after the Nov. 3 election. The Trump administration is formally supporting the GOP plaintiffs in that suit.

The administration also used executive and regulatory action to chip away at the law’s efficacy. Trump ended disputed cost-sharing subsidies to help insurers lower out-of-pocket costs for policyholders with low incomes. And the administration shortened the open enrollment period by half and slashed the budget for promoting the plans and paying people to help others navigate the often-confusing process of signing up.

Administration officials have complained that plans sold on the ACA marketplaces are not affordable, so they set new rules that allowed companies to sell competing “short-term” policies that were less expensive than ACA-sanctioned plans. But those plans are not required to provide comprehensive benefits or cover preexisting conditions.

Now, weeks before the election, federal officials are taking credit for premiums coming down, slightly, on ACA plans. “Premiums have gone down across all of our programs, including in healthcare.gov, which had been previously seeing double-digit rate increases,” Seema Verma, who runs Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA exchanges, told reporters in a Sept. 24 conference call.

Premiums have come down this past year, confirmed Sabrina Corlette, who tracks the ACA as co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, but only after many of the Trump administration’s changes had driven them even higher. Insurers were spooked by the uncertainty — particularly in 2017, about whether the law would be repealed — and Trump’s cutoff of federal funding for subsidies.

“The bottom line is, rates have gone up under Trump,” Corlette said.

Women’s reproductive health

Before he was elected, Trump pledged his allegiance to anti-abortion activists, who in turn urged their supporters to vote for him. But unlike many previous GOP presidents who called themselves “pro-life” but pushed the issue to the back burner, Trump has delivered on many of his promises to abortion foes.

Foremost, Trump has nominated two justices to the Supreme Court who were supported by anti-abortion advocates. With the help of the GOP Senate, Trump has also placed 200 conservative judges on federal district and appeals courts.

While many of the policy proposals advanced by the Trump administration are tied up in court, the sheer volume of activity has been notable, outstripping in less than four years efforts by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush over each of their two-term presidencies.

Among those actions is a re-implementation and broadening of the “Mexico City Policy” that restricts foreign aid funding to organizations that “perform or promote” abortion. The administration has also moved to push Planned Parenthood out of the federal family planning program and Medicaid program. In addition, it has moved to make private insurance that covers abortion harder to purchase under the Affordable Care Act.

Trump’s efforts on women’s reproductive health reach beyond abortion to birth control. New rules would make it easier for employers with a “moral or religious objection” to decline to offer birth control as a health insurance benefit. Other rules would make it easier for health workers to decline to participate in any procedure to which they personally object.

COVID-19

Trump often claims that his decision in February to stop most travel from China was a critical factor in keeping the coronavirus pandemic in the U.S. from being worse than it has been. But the “travel ban” not only failed to stop many people from entering the U.S. from China anyway, scientists would later determine that the virus that spread widely in New York and other cities on the East Coast most likely came from Europe.

Although the White House has a coronavirus task force, the administration primarily has allowed states and localities to determine their own restrictions and timetables for closing and opening. The administration also had difficulty distributing medical supplies from a stockpile established for exactly this purpose. The president’s son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, said at one point that the purpose of the stockpile was to supplement state supplies, not provide them.

Testing was also a problem. An early test developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention turned out to be faulty, and despite continued promises by administration officials, testing remains less available six months into the pandemic than most experts recommend. Meanwhile, Trump has claimed repeatedly — and falsely — that if the U.S. did less testing there would be fewer cases of the virus.

But many public health observers say the administration’s biggest failing during the pandemic has been the lack of a single national message about the coronavirus and the best ways to prevent its spread.

More than 200,000 people in this country have died. Although the United States has only 4% of the world’s population, it has recorded 21% of the fatalities around the globe.

Prescription drug costs

Trump pledged to attack high drug costs as one of his main campaign themes in 2016 and again this year. But he has not had the success he hoped for.

In one of the administration’s biggest moves, the Department of Health and Human Services approved a rule last week that allows states to set up programs to import drugs from Canada, where they are cheaper because the Canadian government limits prices. Yet, it’s unclear if the program will get off the ground, given drug industry opposition and resistance from the Canadian government.

In his health care policy speech Thursday, Trump promised to send each Medicare beneficiary a $200 discount card over the next several months to help them buy prescription drugs. The initiative is being done under a specific innovation program and must not add to the deficit. Administration officials Friday could not answer where they will get the nearly $7 billion to pay for what is perceived by many observers as a last-ditch stunt to win votes from older Americans.

The president previously signed an executive order that seeks to tie the price Medicare pays for drugs to a lower international reference price. The administration, however, hasn’t released formal regulations to implement the policy, which could take years, and the policy is expected to be challenged in court by the drug industry.

In addition, Medicare will cap the price of insulin at $35 per prescription starting in 2021 for people getting coverage through some drug plans. More than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries use insulin to control their diabetes.

Trump also signed a law banning gag clauses used by health plans and pharmacy benefit managers to bar pharmacists from telling consumers about lower-priced drug options.

The administration’s plan to require drug companies to provide prices in pharmaceutical advertising has been beaten back in court.

The administration points to the increased number of generic drugs that have been approved since Trump was elected, but many of those drugs are not on the market. That’s because generic companies sometimes make deals with brand-name manufacturers to delay introducing lower-cost versions of their medicines.

At the same time, several bills the president supported to lower prices have stalled in Congress because of partisan differences and industry opposition.

“I don’t think there has been any meaningful action that has had meaningful effect on drug prices,” said Katie Gudiksen, a senior health policy researcher at The Source on Healthcare Price and Competition, a project of UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

Yet, she said, it’s possible Trump’s harsh criticism of the industry has had a chilling effect that led to lower prices.

Still, out-of-pocket costs for many individuals continue to climb as private and government insurance shifts more responsibility to the patient via higher cost sharing. Good Rx, an online site that tracks drug prices, noted this month that prescription drug prices have increased by 33% since 2014, faster than any other medical service or product.

Medicaid

The Trump administration has tried — but largely failed — to make many major changes to the state-federal health insurance program that covers more than 70 million low-income Americans.

Efforts by Republicans to repeal the Affordable Care Act would have ended the federal funding for the District of Columbia and the 38 states that expanded their programs for everyone with incomes under 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $17,609 for an individual. About 15 million people have gained coverage through the expansion.

Trump administration officials have argued that Medicaid should be reserved for the most vulnerable Americans, including traditional enrollees such as children, pregnant women and the disabled, and not used for non-disabled adults who gained coverage under the ACA’s expansion. Since Trump took office, seven states have expanded Medicaid — Idaho, Maine, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Utah and Virginia.

In 2018, federal officials allowed states for the first time to require some enrollees to work as a condition for Medicaid coverage. The effort resulted in more than 18,000 Medicaid enrollees losing coverage in Arkansas before a federal judge halted implementation in that state and several others. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The administration also backed a move in Congress to change the way the federal government funds Medicaid. Since Medicaid’s inception in 1966, federal funding has increased with enrollment and health costs. Republicans would like to instead offer states annual block grants that critics say would dramatically reduce state funding but that proponents say would give states more flexibility to meet their needs.

When the congressional attempt to establish block grants failed, the administration tried through executive action to implement a process allowing states to opt into a block grant. Yet only one state — Oklahoma — applied for a waiver to move to block-grant funding, and it withdrew its request in August, two weeks after voters there narrowly passed a ballot initiative to expand Medicaid to 200,000 residents.

Medicaid enrollment fell from 75 million in January 2017 to about 71 million in March 2018. Then the pandemic took hold and caused millions of people to lose jobs and their health coverage. As of May, Medicaid enrollment nationally was 73.5 million.

The administration’s decision to expand the “public charge” rule, which would allow federal immigration officials to more easily deny permanent residency status to those who depend on certain public benefits, such as Medicaid, has discouraged many people from applying for Medicaid, said Judith Solomon, senior fellow with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research group based in Washington, D.C. 

Medicare

Seniors were among Trump’s most loyal voters in 2016, and he has promised repeatedly to protect the popular Medicare program. But not all his proposals would help the seniors who depend on it.

For example, invalidating the Affordable Care Act would eliminate new preventive benefits for Medicare enrollees and reopen the notorious “doughnut hole” that subjects many seniors to large out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs, even if they have insurance.

Trump also signed several pieces of legislation that accelerate the depletion of the Medicare trust fund by cutting taxes that support the program. And his budget for fiscal 2021 proposed Medicare cuts totaling $450 billion.

At the same time, however, the administration implemented policies dramatically expanding payment for telehealth services as well as a kidney care initiative for the millions of patients who qualify for Medicare as a result of advanced kidney disease.

Surprise Billing

Trump in May 2019 promised to end surprise billing, which leaves patients on the hook for often-exorbitant bills from hospitals, doctors and other professionals who provide service not covered by insurance.

The problem typically occurs when patients receive care at health facilities that are part of their insurance network but are treated by practitioners who are not. Other sources of surprise billing include ambulance companies and emergency room physicians and anesthesiologists, among other specialties.

An effort to end the practice stalled in Congress as some industry groups pushed back against legislative proposals.

“The administration was supportive of the pretty consumer-friendly approaches, but obviously it doesn’t have any results to speak of,” said Loren Adler, associate director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy in Los Angeles.

“At the end of the day, plenty of people in Congress did not really want to get something done,” he said.

Taking a different route, the administration finalized a rule last November that requires hospitals to provide price information to consumers. The rule will take effect Jan. 1. A federal judge shot down an attempt by hospitals to block the rule, although appeals are expected.

Brian Blase, a former Trump adviser, said this effort could soon help consumers. “Arguably, the No. 1 problem with surprise bills is that people have no idea what prices are before they receive care,” he said.

But Adler said the rule would have a “very minor effect” because most consumers don’t look at prices before deciding where to seek care — especially during emergencies.

Public health/opioids

Obesity and the opioid addiction epidemic were two of the nation’s biggest public health threats until the coronavirus pandemic hit this year.

The number of opioid deaths has shown a modest decline after a dramatic increase over the past decade. Overall, overdose death rates fell by 4% from 2017 to 2018 in the United States. New CDC data shows that, over the same period, death rates involving heroin also decreased by 4% and overdose death rates involving prescription drugs decreased by 13.5%.

The administration increased funding to expand treatment programs for people using heroin and expanded access to naloxone, a medication that can reverse an overdose, said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

Meanwhile, the nation’s obesity epidemic is worsening. Obesity, a risk factor for severe effects of COVID-19, continues to become more common, according to the CDC.

Twelve states — Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia — have a self-reported adult obesity prevalence of 35% or more, up from nine states in 2018 and six in 2017.

Benjamin said some of the administration’s other policies, such as reducing access to food stamps and undermining clean air and water regulations, have made improving public health more difficult.

But the pandemic has been the major public health issue this administration has faced.

“We were doing a reasonable job addressing the opioid epidemic until COVID hit,” Benjamin said. “This shows the fragility of our health system, that we cannot manage these three epidemics at the same time.”

“Oh my god”: Joe Scarborough stunned Kayleigh McEnany may have knowingly exposed reporters to COVID

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were appalled that White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany interacted with reporters despite knowing she’d been exposed to the coronavirus.

President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump and White House adviser Hope Hicks have all tested positive for the highly contagious virus, and Associated Press reporter Jonathan Lemire said some senior officials knew they had been exposed before holding public events.

“That’s an important moment because it raised eyebrows at the time that he travelled with, this is before we knew anything about Hope Hicks, he travelled with a smaller party than usual yesterday to New Jersey,” Lemire said, “and Kayleigh McEnany, who we were told was slated to travel with him did not. Instead, one of the deputy press secretaries did. Kayleigh McEnany was, we have now learned, notified of Hope Hicks’ positive diagnoses yesterday and later in the day still held a briefing with White House reporters, and, of course, she was not wearing a mask.”

“Good lord,” Scarborough said. “Are you kidding me?”

“Oh my god,” Brzezinski added. “Stop right there.”

“Wait,” Scarborough said. “She knew before that press conference where she didn’t wear a mask, in front of all of those reporters and had heated exchanges with Fox News reporters?”

“Screaming about the river,” Brzezinski added.

“She knew that she had been exposed to this disease, and went out and still had a press conference in front of members of the press?” Scarborough said.

Lemire agreed that may have happened, although subsequent reporting showed McEnany did not know about Hicks’ positive test until shortly before the news broke Thursday evening.

“That’s correct, Joe,” he said. “She still took the podium in the White House briefing room. Yes, she took to the podium in the White House briefing room and spoke to reporters after learning that Hope Hicks had not been feeling well, after learning that Hope Hicks tested positive. The president himself did not interact with reporters, which was noteworthy — that’s rare these days. No reporters had contact with him, other than waving at a distance headed to the helicopter headed to his New Jersey fundraiser.”

“Another key person in this, if the person were to be sick, is Vice President [Mike] Pence,” Lemire added. “He did not travel with the president the last two days. He’s had his own travel schedule, he was not in Washington [on] Wednesday or Thursday, he was on the campaign trail but he was seen Tuesday ahead of the debate heading into the White House residence, presumably to wish the president luck. So on Tuesday, we believe, there was contact between the president and vice president.”

Corona-fied: Employers are now spying on remote workers in their homes

The future of work is here, ushered in by a global pandemic. But is it turning employment into a Worker’s Paradise of working at home? Or more of a Big Brother panopticon?

Disturbing increases in the use of digital surveillance technologies by employers to monitor their remote workers are raising alarm bells. With the number of remote workers surging as a result of the pandemic—42 percent of U.S. workers are now doing their jobs from their kitchens, living rooms, and home offices—a number of employers have begun requiring their workers to download spying software to their laptops and smartphones. The goal is for businesses to monitor what their remote employees do all day, to track job performance and productivity, and to reduce so-called “cyber-slacking.”

Business software products from Hubstaff, which tracks a worker’s mouse movements, keyboard strokes, webpages visited, email, file transfers and applications used, are surging in sales. So are sales for TSheets, which workers download to their smartphones so that employers can track their location. Another product, called Time Doctor, “downloads videos of employees’ screens” and uses “a computer’s webcam to take a picture of the employee every 10 minutes,” NPR reports. One employee told NPR, “If you’re idle for a few minutes, if you go to the bathroom or… [to the kitchen], a pop-up will come up and it’ll say, ‘You have 60 seconds to start working again or we’re going to pause your time.'”

Another system, InterGuard, can be secretly installed on workers’ computers. The Washington Post reports that it “creates a minute-by-minute timeline of every app and website they view, categorizing each as ‘productive’ or ‘unproductive’ and ranking workers by their ‘productivity score.'” Other employers are using a lower-tech approach, requiring workers to stay logged in to a teleconference service like Zoom all day so they can be continually watched.

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, one surveillance company, Awareness Technologies, says it has seen its sales triple. Executives at Hubstaffand Teramind also say demand for their companies’ monitoring products has tripled. One website showing “Employee Monitoring Software in the USA” lists nearly 70 companies with products for sale.

Outdated laws keep it legal

Despite this surge in online surveillance activity, currently, it is a legal practice in the United States. Individual state laws vary over whether companies must inform workers that they’re using tracking software, but in reality, “When you’re on your office computer, you have no privacy at all,” says Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute. “Anything and everything you do is probably monitored by your boss.”

Current laws are vastly outdated, as they are based on the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, when the primary form of electronic communication was the telephone. That was a distant time when desktop computers were first becoming popular, and smartphones were not yet a glint in Steve Jobs’ eye.

And now, in response to the coronavirus outbreak, companies such as Pricewaterhouse Coopers and Salesforce have developed intrusive applications that enable companies to continuously track the health status of their employees. Often they include a system for tracking contacts between employees within an office, and a mobile app for collecting information about their health status. A number of large U.S. employers, including AmazonWalmart, Home Depot and Starbucks, are taking the temperatures of their employees before they are allowed to work. Certainly, employers have a legitimate need to collect the necessary data to safeguard their workplaces, especially in response to a pandemic. But what is the appropriate level of “health intrusion”? How voluntary is the participation of workers, and who gets to decide?

The reality of this constant Big Brother digital spying in people’s homes is that dozens of remote workers are starting to complain that they feel burned out by this pressure. A recent Fishbowl survey of major companies’ employees found that three-quarters of those polled were opposed to using “an app or device that allows their company to trace their contacts with colleagues.” Yet many fear they will be branded as a troublemaker or lose their job if they speak out. And since remote workers hardly see each other—and increasingly may not even know many of their coworkers—these factors will make labor organizing and collective worker empowerment increasingly challenging.

U.S. labor unions have been slow to advocate for updating these outdated laws. One union, the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, has been working to blunt the worst of the abuses. Labor-friendly media have been missing this story as well. Not only should unions advocate to update the laws and limit digital spying, but why not also demand that home-based workers be compensated by employers for use of their house, utilities and the internet? And that the employer remains responsible to provide equipment and a safe workplace, even in the home?

Remote workforce growth — the new normal?

As the number of remote workers rises, concerns are growing among labor advocates that this is quickly becoming the “new normal.” One survey by Gartner, Inc. found that 74 percent of companies intend to keep some proportion of their workforce on permanent remote status, with nearly a quarter of respondents saying they will move at least 20 percent of their on-site employees to permanent remote status. Google/Alphabet recently announced it will keep its 200,000 full-time and contract employees home until at least July 2021, and half of Facebook employees will work from home over the next decade. Hub International, a global insurance brokerage, has shifted 90 percent of its 12,000 employees to remote status. “Teleperformance, the world’s largest call-center company, estimates that around 150,000 of its employees [nearly half its global workforce] will not return to a physical worksite,” according to Social Europe.

Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom says:

“A recent separate survey of firms from the Survey of Business Uncertainty that I run with the Atlanta Federal Reserve and the University of Chicago indicated that the share of working days spent at home is expected to increase fourfold from pre-COVID levels, from 5 percent to 20 percent.

“Of the dozens of firms I have talked to, the typical plan is that employees will work from home one to three days a week, and come into the office the rest of the time.”

But not all at-home workers are created equal. Bloom continues:

“Taken together, this is generating a time bomb for inequality. Our results show that more educated, higher-earning employees are far more likely to work from home—so they are continuing to get paid, develop their skills and advance their careers. At the same time, those unable to work from home—either because of the nature of their jobs, or because they lack suitable space or internet connections—are being left behind. They face bleak prospects if their skills and work experience erode during an extended shutdown and beyond.”

The future of work has become more uncertain than ever. In this “brave new world,” labor unions and advocates must ensure that the pandemic is not misused by businesses as an excuse to worsen conditions for employees who work out of the office. It is easy to imagine how the lines between ‘remote’ work and ‘platform’ work could blur, leading to more ‘Uberization’ as work devolves into ‘independent’ contracts, bogus self-employment and ‘pay-by-project’ arrangements that can be easily outsourced to remote (and lower-cost) destinations.

Worker advocates must push for a strong and modern legal data protection framework. And that should include an effective enforcement system against privacy abuse that disincentivizes illegal spying behavior. Remote work should not become a downward slide toward a Big Brother panopticon that penetrates into society ever more deeply, including into our homes.

“They are hiding things”: CNN’s Sanjay Gupta nails Trump doctor after he finally admits oxygen use

CNN medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta went off on Donald Trump’s medical team for “hiding” details about the president’s illness.

On Sunday, Dr. Sean Conley — head of the president’s medical team — seemed to reverse remarks he made a day earlier by admitting that the president had been put on supplemental oxygen after he experience “two episodes of transient drops” in his levels.

“I understand the inclinations of the people in the public to believe doctors,” CNN host Jake Tapper explained following Conley’s press conference. “There is a long and ugly history in this country of presidents not being honest about their health with the American people and doctors being used as part of that cover up.”

“I have to say, they are hiding thing,” Gupta agreed. “Clearly he’s being told what to say and what not to say and how to present things. He should be saying, ‘Look, I want to brief people, I’m a professional but I need to be able to answer all the questions honestly.'”

“Or don’t do it at all,” the CNN doctor continued. “Because it’s very hard to trust or believe or make sense of everything that he’s saying because of that.”

Gupta noted that the president’s medical team have no “obligation” to share details about his health.

“But when they do, the typically need to be more transparent and honest,” he explained. “My sense was Dr. Conley was told you cannot divulge that I’ve been on oxygen. So every time he got asked about it, he would say, ‘He’s not on oxygen right this minute.'”

“I mean, it’s just ridiculous,” Gupta added. “And it seems really, really juvenile, frankly, in the wake of such a serious situation to be behaving that way.”

Watch the video below from CNN.