In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened.

In 2018, Diplomats Warned of Risky Coronavirus Experiments in a Wuhan Lab. No One Listened.

Josh Rogin                      

 

On January 15, in its last days, President Donald Trump’s State Department put out a statement with serious claims about the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. The statement said the U.S. intelligence community had evidence that several researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory were sick with Covid-like symptoms in autumn 2019—implying the Chinese government had hidden crucial information about the outbreak for months—and that the WIV lab, despite “presenting itself as a civilian institution,” was conducting secret research projects with the Chinese military. The State Department alleged a Chinese government cover-up and asserted that “Beijing continues today to withhold vital information that scientists need to protect the world from this deadly virus, and the next one.”

 

The exact origin of the new coronavirus remains a mystery to this day, but the search for answers is not just about assigning blame. Unless the source is located, the true path of the virus can’t be traced, and scientists can’t properly study the best ways to prevent future outbreaks.

The original Chinese government story, that the pandemic spread from a seafood market in Wuhan, was the first and therefore most widely accepted theory. But cracks in that theory slowly emerged throughout the late winter and spring of 2020. The first known case of Covid-19 in Wuhan, it was revealed in February, had no connection to the market. The Chinese government closed the market in January and sanitized it before proper samples could be taken. It wouldn’t be until May that the Chinese Centers for Disease Control disavowed the market theory, admitting it had no idea how the outbreak began, but by then it had become the story of record, in China and internationally.

In the spring of 2020, inside the U.S. government, some officials began to see and collect evidence of a different, perhaps more troubling theory—that the outbreak had a connection to one of the laboratories in Wuhan, among them the WIV, a world leading center of research on bat coronaviruses.

To some inside the government, the name of the laboratory was familiar. Its research on bat viruses had already drawn the attention of U.S. diplomats and officials at the Beijing Embassy in late 2017, prompting them to alert Washington that the lab’s own scientists had reported “a serious shortage of appropriately trained technicians and investigators needed to safely operate this high-containment laboratory.”

But their cables to Washington were ignored.

When I published the warnings from these cables in April 2020, they added fuel to a debate that had already gone from a scientific and forensic question to a hot-button political issue, as the previously internal U.S. government debate over the lab’s possible connection spilled into public view. The next day, Trump said he was “investigating,” and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Beijing to “come clean” about the origin of the outbreak. Two weeks later, Pompeo said there was “enormous evidence” pointing to the lab, but he didn’t provide any of said evidence. As Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s relationship unraveled and administration officials openly blamed the Wuhan lab, the U.S.-China relationship only went further downhill.

As the pandemic set in worldwide, the origin story was largely set aside in the public coverage of the crisis. But the internal government debate continued, now over whether the United States should release more information about what it knew about the lab and its possible connection to the outbreak. The January 15 statement was cleared by the intelligence community, but the underlying data was still held secret. Likely changing no minds, it was meant as a signal—showing that circumstantial evidence did exist, and that the theory deserved further investigation.

Now, the new Joe Biden team is walking a tightrope, calling on Beijing to release more data, while declining to endorse or dispute the Trump administration’s controversial claims. The origin story remains entangled both in domestic politics and U.S.-China relations. Last month, National security adviser Jake Sullivan issued a statement expressing “deep concerns” about a forthcoming report from a team assembled by the World Health Organization that toured Wuhan—even visiting the lab—but was denied crucial data by the Chinese authorities.

But more than four years ago, long before this question blew up into an international point of tension between China and the United States, the story started with a simple warning.

***

In late 2017, top health and science officials at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing attended a conference in the Chinese capital. There, they saw a presentation on a new study put out by a group of Chinese scientists, including several from the Wuhan lab, in conjunction with the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Since the 2002 outbreak of SARS—the deadly disease caused by a coronavirus transmitted by bats in China—scientists around the world had been looking for ways to predict and limit future outbreaks of similar diseases. To aid the effort, the NIH had funded a number of projects that involved the WIV scientists, including much of the Wuhan lab’s work with bat coronaviruses. The new study was entitled “Discovery of a Rich Gene Pool of Bat SARS-Related Coronaviruses Provides New Insights into the Origin of SARS Coronavirus.”

These researchers, the American officials learned, had found a population of bats from caves in Yunnan province that gave them insight into how SARS coronaviruses originated and spread. The researchers boasted that they may have found the cave where the original SARS coronavirus originated. But all the U.S. diplomats cared about was that these scientists had discovered three new viruses that had a unique characteristic: they contained a “spike protein” that was particularly good at grabbing on to a specific receptor in human lung cells known as an ACE2 receptor. That means the viruses were potentially very dangerous for humans—and that these viruses were now in a lab with which they, the U.S. diplomats, were largely unfamiliar.

Knowing the significance of the Wuhan virologists’ discovery, and knowing that the WIV’s top-level biosafety laboratory (BSL-4) was relatively new, the U.S. Embassy health and science officials in Beijing decided to go to Wuhan and check it out. In total, the embassy sent three teams of experts in late 2017 and early 2018 to meet with the WIV scientists, among them Shi Zhengli, often referred to as the “bat woman” because of her extensive experience studying coronaviruses found in bats.

When they sat down with the scientists at the WIV, the American diplomats were shocked by what they heard. The Chinese researchers told them they didn’t have enough properly trained technicians to safely operate their BSL-4 lab. The Wuhan scientists were asking for more support to get the lab up to top standards.

The diplomats wrote two cables to Washington reporting on their visits to the Wuhan lab. More should be done to help the lab meet top safety standards, they said, and they urged Washington to get on it. They also warned that the WIV researchers had found new bat coronaviruses could easily infect human cells, and which used the same cellular route that had been used by the original SARS coronavirus.

Taken together, those two points—a particularly dangerous groups of viruses being studied in a lab with real safety problems—were intended as a warning about a potential public-health crisis, one of the cable writers told me. They kept the cables unclassified because they wanted more people back home to be able to read and share them, according to the cable writer. But there was no response from State Department headquarters and they were never made public. And as U.S.-China tensions rose over the course of 2018, American diplomats lost access to labs such as the one at the WIV.

“The cable was a warning shot,” one U.S. official said. “They were begging people to pay attention to what was going on.” The world would be paying attention soon enough—but by then, it would be too late.

The cables were not leaked to me by any Trump administration political official, as many in the media wrongly assumed. In fact, Secretary of State Pompeo was angry when he found out about the leak. He needed to keep up the veneer of good relations with China, and these revelations would make that job more difficult. Trump and President Xi had agreed during their March 26 phone call to halt the war of words that had erupted when a Chinese diplomat alleged on Twitter that the outbreak might have been caused by the U.S. Army. That had prompted Trump to start calling it the “China virus,” deliberately blaming Beijing in a racist way. Xi had warned Trump in that call that China’s level of cooperation on releasing critical equipment in America’s darkest moment would be jeopardized by continued accusations.

After receiving the cables from a source, I called around to get reactions from other American officials I trusted. What I found was that, just months into the pandemic, a large swath of the government already believed the virus had escaped from the WIV lab, rather than having leaped from an animal to a human at the Wuhan seafood market or some other random natural setting, as the Chinese government had claimed.

Any theory of the pandemic’s origins had to account for the fact that the outbreak of the novel coronavirus—or, by its official name, SARS-CoV-2—first appeared in Wuhan, on the doorstep of the lab that possessed one of the world’s largest collections of bat coronaviruses and that possessed the closest known relative of SARS-CoV-2, a virus known as RaTG13 that Shi identified in her lab.

Shi, in her March interview, said that when she was first told about the virus outbreak in her town, she thought the officials had gotten it wrong, because she would have guessed that such a virus would break out in southern China, where most of the bats live. “I had never expected this kind of thing to happen in Wuhan, in central China,” she said.

By April, U.S. officials at the NSC and the State Department had begun to compile circumstantial evidence that the WIV lab, rather than the seafood market, was actually the source of the virus. The former explanation for the outbreak was entirely plausible, they felt, whereas the latter would be an extreme coincidence. But the officials couldn’t say that out loud because there wasn’t firm proof either way. And if the U.S. government accused China of lying about the outbreak without firm evidence, Beijing would surely escalate tensions even more, which meant that Americans might not get the medical supplies that were desperately needed to combat the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the United States.

Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton seemed not to have been concerned about any of those considerations. On February 16, he had offered a totally unfounded theory of his own, claiming on Fox News that the virus might have come from China’s biowarfare program—suggesting, in other words, that it had been engineered deliberately to kill humans. This wasn’t supported by any known research: To this day, scientists largely agree that the virus was not “engineered” to be deadly; SARS-CoV-2 showed no evidence of direct genetic manipulation. Furthermore, the WIV lab had published some of its research about bat coronaviruses that can infect humans—not exactly the level of secrecy you would expect for a clandestine weapons program.

As Cotton’s speculation vaulted the origin story into the news in an incendiary new way, he undermined the ongoing effort in other parts of the U.S. government to pinpoint the exact origins and nature of the coronavirus pandemic. From then on, journalists and politicians alike would conflate the false idea of the coronavirus being a Chinese bioweapon with the plausible idea that the virus had accidentally been released from the WIV lab, making it a far more politically loaded question to pursue.

***

After I published a Washington Post column on the Wuhan cables on April 14, Pompeo publicly called on Beijing to “come clean” about the origin of the outbreak and weeks later declared there was “enormous evidence” to that effect beyond the Wuhan cables themselves. But he refused to produce any other proof.

At the same time, some members of the intelligence community leaked to my colleagues that they had discovered “no firm evidence” that the outbreak originated in the lab. That was true in a sense. Deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger had asked the intelligence community to look for evidence of all possible scenarios for the outbreak, including the market or a lab accident, but they hadn’t found any firm links to either. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There was a gap in the intelligence. And the intelligence community didn’t know either way.

Large parts of the scientific community also decried my report, pointing to the fact that natural spillovers have been the cause of other viral outbreaks, and that they were the culprit more often than accidents. But many of the scientists who spoke out to defend the lab were Shi’s research partners and funders, like the head of the global public health nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak; their research was tied to hers, and if the Wuhan lab were implicated in the pandemic, they would have to answer a lot of tough questions.

Likewise, the American scientists who knew and worked with Shi could not say for sure her lab was unconnected to the outbreak, because there’s no way they could know exactly what the WIV lab was doing outside their cooperative projects. Beijing threatened Australia and the EU for even suggesting an independent investigation into the origins of the virus.

In May, Chinese CDC officials declared on Chinese state media that they had ruled out the possibility that the seafood market was the origin of the virus, completely abandoning the original official story. As for the “bat woman” herself, Shi didn’t think the lab accident theory was so crazy. In her March interview, she described frantically searching her own lab’s records after learning of the coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan. “Could they have come from our lab?” she recalled asking herself.

Shi said she was relieved when she didn’t find the new coronavirus in her files. “That really took a load off my mind,” she said. “I had not slept a wink in days.” Of course, if she had found the virus, she likely would not have been able to admit it, given that the Chinese government was going around the world insisting the lab had not been involved in the outbreak.

***

A key argument of those Chinese and American scientists disputing the lab accident theory is that Chinese researchers had performed their work out in the open and had disclosed the coronavirus research they were performing. This argument was used to attack anyone who didn’t believe the Chinese scientists’ firm denials their labs could possibly have been responsible for the outbreak.

But one senior administration official told me that many officials in various parts of the U.S. government, especially the NSC and the State Department, came to believe that these researchers had not been as forthcoming as had been claimed.

What they were worried about was something called “gain-of-function” research, in which the virulence or transmissibility of dangerous pathogens is deliberately increased. The purpose is to help scientists predict how viruses might evolve in ways that hurt humans before it happens in nature. But by bypassing pathogens’ natural evolutionary cycles, these experiments create risks of a human-made outbreak if a lab accident were to occur. For this reason, the Obama administration issued a moratorium on gain-of-function experiments in October 2014.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology had openly participated in gain-of-function research in partnership with U.S. universities and institutions. But the official told me the U.S. government had evidence that Chinese labs were performing gain-of-function research on a much larger scale than was publicly disclosed, meaning they were taking more risks in more labs than anyone outside China was aware of. This insight, in turn, fed into the lab-accident hypothesis in a new and troubling way.

A little-noticed study was released in early July 2020 by a group of Chinese researchers in Beijing, including several affiliated with the Academy of Military Medical Science. These scientists said they had created a new model for studying SARS-CoV-2 by creating mice with human-like lung characteristics by using the CRISPR gene-editing technology to give the mice lung cells with the human ACE2 receptor — the cell receptor that allowed coronaviruses to so easily infect human lungs.

After consultations with experts, some U.S. officials came to believe this Beijing lab was likely conducting coronavirus experiments on mice fitted with ACE2 receptors well before the coronavirus outbreak—research they hadn’t disclosed and continued not to admit to. In its January 15 statement, the State Department alleged that although the Wuhan Institute of Virology disclosed some of its participation in gain-of-function research, it has not disclosed its work on RaTG13 and “has engaged in classified research, including laboratory animal experiments, on behalf of the Chinese military since at least 2017.” That, by itself, did not help to explain how SARS-CoV-2 originated. But it was clear that officials believed there was a lot of risky coronavirus research going on in Chinese labs that the rest of the world was simply not aware of.

“This was just a peek under a curtain of an entire galaxy of activity, including labs and military labs in Beijing and Wuhan playing around with coronaviruses in ACE2 mice in unsafe labs,” the senior administration official said. “It suggests we are getting a peek at a body of activity that isn’t understood in the West or even has precedent here.”

This pattern of deception and obfuscation, combined with the new revelations about how Chinese labs were handling dangerous coronaviruses in ways their Western counterparts didn’t know about, led some U.S. officials to become increasingly convinced that Chinese authorities were manipulating scientific information to fit their narrative. But there was so little transparency, it was impossible for the U.S. government to prove, one way or the other. “If there was a smoking gun, the CCP [Communist Party of China] buried it along with anyone who would dare speak up about it,” one U.S. official told me. “We’ll probably never be able to prove it one way or the other, which was Beijing’s goal all along.”

Back in 2017, the U.S. diplomats who had visited the lab in Wuhan had foreseen these very events, but nobody had listened and nothing had been done. “We were trying to warn that that lab was a serious danger,” one of the cable writers who had visited the lab told me. “I have to admit, I thought it would be maybe a SARS-like outbreak again. If I knew it would turn out to be the greatest pandemic in human history, I would have made a bigger stink about it.”

The Secret Life of the White House

The New Yorker – The Political Scene

The Secret Life of the White House

The residence staff, many of whom have worked there for decades, balance their service of the First Family with their long-term loyalty to the house itself.

February 24, 2021

A White House Houseman stands in front of a window.
The binding ethos of many White House residence workers is discretion and service to the physical structure—and, by extension, to the President who occupies it. Photograph by Tina Hager / White House Photo Office. 

Before Inauguration Day, the White House residence staff were already exhausted. For several weeks, many of them had worked sixteen-hour days preparing for the transition—the approximately six-hour-long window between when the Trumps would depart and the Bidens arrive. White House transitions typically demand superhuman effort, but this year’s was among the most physically demanding in recent memory. At risk of falling ill with the coronavirus, staffers worked in close quarters to transform the upstairs rooms of the White House, where the windows don’t open and are paned with thick, bulletproof glass, in accordance with the strong preference of the Secret Service.

In previous transitions, the residence staff brought the White House to a state of as-ready-as-possible without making major changes until the new First Family arrived and redecorated. If a departing family took a personal sofa with them, the staff replaced it with one from the White House collection, so that the incoming family need not walk into a bare room. But, under a new White House chief usher, Timothy Harleth, the transition became a far more ambitious affair. Hired by the Trumps, in 2017, Harleth had previously been a rooms manager at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Early in the Administration, he had hired a “creative manager,” and on Inauguration Day Harleth enlisted that person to make the upstairs rooms look “ ‘Architectural Digest’-ready,” a residence worker said. In the frantic final hours, the creative manager was laying out guestbooks and new stationery, filling the bookcases with decorative plates and candles, and staging throws on furniture. “They wanted these rooms to look like a high-end hotel,” the worker added.

Harleth wanted to make a good impression on Joe and Jill Biden, who could have extended his tenure. But, Harleth told me, shortly after eleven o’clock on January 20th, less than an hour before the official Presidential changeover, one of the last remaining Trump officials, in the Office of Administration, came to Harleth’s office and told him that the Bidens had requested his departure. The Biden White House hedged on the matter, telling CNN that Harleth was “let go before the Bidens arrived.” (The Trumps could not be reached for comment.) Harleth was shocked at the time, but a week later he told me, “Every family deserves to have the people they want there.”

With or without Harleth, the residence staff soldiered on. The move unfolded at a rapid but methodical pace, with boxes upon boxes stacked and transferred between the historic rooms. “The White House is not big,” another career White House employee, whom I will call Jason, said. “The East Room is chock-full of boxes.” The White House’s two elevators, only one big enough to move furniture, were in constant use. “If you could carry something, it wasn’t going down the elevator,” Jason said. The move was conducted while keeping up appearances for a nationally televised Inauguration celebration later that night. “Imagine your house is being used for a TV show while you were moving, and no one could know you were moving,” Jason said. And, as they always have, the residence staff pulled it off. By the end of the morning, they had set out the Bidens’ family photographs and stocked the kitchen with the family’s favorite foods.

The full story of the residence staffers’ ecosystem is rarely told. Many of the workers have served multiple Presidents, and for that reason they call themselves lifers. Their binding ethos is discretion and loyalty to the White House itself—and, by extension, to whoever is President. They are perpetually insecure in their jobs. Although their employment continues across a transition, it is never guaranteed—they serve at the pleasure of the President. Keeping their jobs requires persuading his staff of their indispensable authority on the arcane methods necessary to operate the old and leaky structure, and of their loyalty and willingness to adapt to a First Family’s needs. They balance those requirements with another: to protect the physical White House itself, often from the people who occupy it.

I met the White House lifers while working as a speechwriter for President Barack Obama. For the past four years, I have spoken with dozens of lifers, former and current, about how they survived the Trump Presidency. I came to understand that the White House does not shed the identities of past Presidents so much as it accumulates them, abides them up to a point, and, ultimately, waits them out. By continuing to do their jobs and serve whoever moves in, the lifers embody the White House’s independence. Donald Trump was yet another test that they survived.

The residence staff numbers ninety people: butlers, chefs, curators, florists, housekeepers, electricians, and others who work in the bowels of the White House. They not only serve a First Family’s use of the White House as a home. They also serve its use of the White House as a stage to advance a political agenda.

Under Trump, that stage grew deathly quiet. On multiple occasions, Trump held events in the White House’s grand rooms—the gold-curtained East Room, the Diplomatic Reception Room, the marble-columned State Floor—to advance his chief political cause: himself. Amid a thirty-five-day government shutdown, Trump served hundreds of hamburgers, buffet style, to the Clemson University Tigers, the N.C.A.A. college-football champions, in the State Dining Room. More recently, he held the Republican Party’s 2020 National Convention on the South Lawn and an Election Night watch party in the East Room. But the level of publicity that those events generated belied how few of them occurred. Among the lifers, a malaise set in. “Nothing happens. It’s a bare-minimum situation,” Jason told me, before Biden’s Inauguration. “For four years, we’ve done two months’ worth of events.” The Trumps hosted only two state dinners, compared with six that the Obamas hosted during their first term.

The covid-19 pandemic increased the White House’s emptiness. “People stayed home. Everything from food service to national security—if it could be done at home, it was done at home,” Jason said. Harleth told me that the residence staff took covid-19 precautions more seriously than others at the Trump White House. “We were the ones wearing P.P.E., pushing to get our folks tested,” he said. Still, he conceded, “most of our folks can’t easily telework,” and by his count seven or eight residence staff workers contracted the virus. Once they recovered, those workers were asked to fill in for others, because of their presumed immunity. “It meant that they could work safely while others stayed home,” Harleth said. According to Jason, the lifers were given conflicting advice: stay home; later, come in. “There was lots and lots of confusion, no direction from the top, a complete lack of empathy, sympathy,” he said. “The Christmas parties with maskless hordes were catered, but [the staff] would have to be there for this and that. Someone’s got to be there, not everyone can leave while the catering crew comes in. There was not a steady message on how to keep you safe.”

When not upstairs, in the family quarters, the staff works in a labyrinth of rooms below the White House’s northern steps, a space concealed from onlookers milling about on Pennsylvania Avenue. Their corridor is a covered portion of the original northern driveway, with push-button double doors at either end. As I remember it, between those doors, trucks and forklifts rolled in and out, delivering groceries and carting away trash. An Adirondack bench under a flapping white awning was a place to smoke when it rained. Inside, carpenters and electricians pushed rolling carts of tools between white linoleum countertops. Fresh flowers filled walk-in freezers that resembled a Costco produce aisle. Plastic storage boxes stacked against the wall were labelled with their contents: “linens and lawn ornaments,” “tablecloths and patio-furniture covers,” for use on the Truman Balcony. On the occasion of a state dinner, florists laid out thousands of orchids, like dolls, on every available surface, a blinding sea of white. At times, operations men packed the hall with stacks of East Room chairs, backed with bevelled slats painted gold, cream cushions tied to their seats. Around Easter, the Fourth of July, Halloween, and Thanksgiving, lifers filled the hall with enormous craft pumpkins and rabbits, and also red-white-and-blue bunting, for use on the South Lawn. During Christmas, the corridor was transformed into a canapé-making assembly line, overpowered by the smell of fresh pine needles, bacon, baking bread, and propane from the temporary ovens set up on the drive.

Daniel Shanks White House Usher sets a table.
According to Daniel Shanks, who was an usher for twenty-two years, a shift in relations between First Families and lifers has changed the feeling of the White House.Photograph by Tina Hager / White House Photo Office

 

When I worked at the White House, I walked through the lifers’ corridor in the mornings, past a Secret Service officer seated by a telephone, head drooping at the end of a sixteen-hour double shift. Dale Haney, the chief groundskeeper since 1972, who is still at the White House, was often walking through the corridor with the Obamas’ dogs, their leashes in one hand and his boxed lunch or breakfast in the other. Butlers and valets leaned against the doorways, talking with chefs. The letter “R” printed on their blue plastic badges granted them access to the upper floors of the house, and they wore expressions of smiling, unyielding discretion. History is etched in the corridor’s stone walls. When the British burned the White House in 1814, oxygen-starved flames rushed out, licking them. A few are still unpainted so that passersby can study the charred spots. Hitches for nineteenth-century horse-drawn carriages stick out from the stones. Chiselled grooves, slightly askew, convey the wobble of the hands that carved them. In 1794, Thomas Jefferson helped recruit Scottish stonemasons to complete the White House.

The lifers’ constancy is useful in a house where the occupants change every four to eight years. Originally, Presidents paid the staffers’ wages, but in the nineteenth century, when the lifers’ ranks grew, Congress began paying their salaries instead, solidifying their status as fixed employees of the house. “The President’s House,” a two-volume history by William Seale, tells many of their stories. A doorkeeper named Tom Pendel began working at the White House in 1864, during the Lincoln Administration. Pendel babysat Lincoln’s youngest son, Tad. He fetched Lincoln to inform him of the arrival of guests or of bad news from the front lines during the Civil War. He nailed wood strips and lines of tallow candles inside the White House windowsills to illuminate the building in celebration of Union military victories. On those occasions, hundreds of people would gather on Pennsylvania Avenue and sing to Lincoln, who would stand at a window to address the crowd. Pendel would “draw the curtain back and stand just out of sight against a wall, holding a candle high, so that the President could be seen,” Seale wrote. After Lincoln’s assassination, Pendel remained at his Pennsylvania Avenue post. Under Rutherford B. Hayes, in a time of particularly high tourist traffic at the White House, Pendel policed souvenir hunters, who would snip tassels from the drapes or pocket inkwells and chandelier pendants. During the Garfield Administration, Pendel repeatedly turned away Garfield’s future assassin—a man who had sought a government position and to whom Pendel said, each time, “The President is unable to see you today.” Pendel held an umbrella over Grover Cleveland’s wife on the rainy Inauguration Day when she moved out of the White House, and he was standing in the entrance hall when news rang out that Cleveland’s successor William McKinley had been shot. Pendel died in 1911, at the age of eighty-four, while standing at his front-door post during the Taft Administration.

Before he retired as the White House maître d’, in 1983, John Ficklin had been on staff for forty-four years, serving nine Presidents in total. Around the time of his retirement, Ficklin spoke to the Washington Post about his career. The son of a slave, Ficklin found work at the White House during F.D.R.’s Administration, through his brother, a White House butler at the time. Ficklin became the head butler under Eisenhower. “You just can’t put down on paper everything that a butler would do,” he told the Post. “Instead of calling someone and saying the President or First Lady wants such and such, you’d just go do it yourself.” About the nearly all-Black butler staff, Ficklin told the Post that he had interviewed white people for butler positions over the years but few seemed really to want the job: “We got quite a few applications, but when it came down to really working, they weren’t very interested.”

Historically, many residence-staff jobs have been passed down through generations of Washington, D.C.,’s Black and white families. “It’s a long tradition,” Betty Monkman, who started in the White House curator’s office in 1967 and retired as chief curator in 2002, told me. Those who worked in the residence “were local people, family members—somebody was always a cousin of somebody else on staff.” When Monkman started, during the Johnson Administration, segregation was still fresh in people’s minds. “I heard many stories about segregated lunchrooms for the residence staff—they were integrated in the fifties,” she told me. “Even when I started, in the late sixties, it wasn’t so integrated in terms of the roles people played. For a long time, African-Americans were butlers, maids, and housemen, versus the engineers, electricians, painters, and carpenters, who were white. Bit by bit, they were hired into the trades.” The distinction meant that white workers often had control of their whereabouts, whereas Black workers had to sit at the ready, to be summoned upstairs at any moment.

For decades, many department heads were white. George W. Bush hired the first Black chief usher, Stephen Rochon. Rochon came from outside the White House, breaking a long tradition of hiring the chief usher from the residence staff. Previously a rear admiral in the Coast Guard, Rochon attempted to bring military efficiency to the staff, but he never gained their full trust, according to those I spoke with. He took great pride in the history of the White House and the role of chief usher, but he gave endless personal tours, a violation of the staff credo to remain behind the scenes. Some of the staff supposed that the tours were Rochon’s undoing; the Obamas reassigned him to the Department of Homeland Security. The Obamas hired or promoted first-generation immigrants and women of color to the roles of head chef and chief florist, and they replaced Rochon with Angella Reid, who is Black. She, too, was an outsider, coming to the White House from the Ritz-Carlton company, where she had worked for twenty-one years. Work was difficult for the residence staff under Reid, who earned respect but also a reputation as a taskmaster, and who ran the White House with the exacting and fear-inducing sensibilities of a luxury-hotel manager. Several people told me that Reid made a point of humiliating workers, disparaging their performance in front of their colleagues. (In a statement, Reid said that working at the White House “was not only a highlight of my career but memories I will hold dear for my entire life. I look back fondly and often think about the residence staff, continuing to root them all on. I wish them nothing but the best.”)

The Obama Administration brought a new set of challenges, from the lifers’ perspective. The family hosted events late into the night and again the next morning. They also had some notions that clashed with the lifers’ sensibilities, including setting up a Nintendo Wii in the China Room for their daughters during a holiday break and holding exercise classes in the East Room. “Lincoln lay in state in that room. Kennedy lay in state in that room,” Bill Yosses, the White House pastry chef from 2007 to 2014, told me. The Internet, or lack thereof, was a problem at first, because Obama, his family, and staff were used to accomplishing tasks online; the lifers lacked Internet in many of their offices, and, in some cases, shared e-mail accounts. Early in the Administration, when he realized that valets were fulfilling his Amazon orders from their homes, Obama ordered the installation of good Internet for the residence workers’ use.

In other ways, the Obama Administration adapted to the residence staff. For decades, the stage built for speeches and events in the East Room left a couple feet of space between the risers and the ground, exposing unsightly cables. So Dale Haney, the longtime groundskeeper, would line a row of potted ferns along the stage to conceal the gap. But Desiree Rogers, the Obamas’ first social secretary, sought to expel pervasive nineties frump. Yosses said, “The ferns became a four-letter word.” As he recalled it, Haney “always had his ferns ready. He’s, like, ‘Oh you need risers? I’ll get the ferns.’ But Desiree was, like, ‘No fucking ferns. I don’t want ferns.’ ” Rogers left, after just over a year on the job, and the ferns returned. “It was just too easy,” Yosses said. Rogers disputes saying this, and maintains that there was “a wide selection of greenery around the stages at all times.”

The residence staff will tell you that they avoid discussing politics at work, yet in recent years that pact has frayed, as it has elsewhere in America. Tensions surface more than in the past, prompted at times by knowledge of their colleagues’ Facebook posts. “Most people know more or less where people stand,” the residence worker told me. About half of the lifers are people of color, which raises questions about how they tolerated working for Trump. “We have to be impressed with the idea that a bunch of Black and brown people can survive this daily onslaught,” Jason told me. “It speaks to their diligence and loyalty to the house itself—they are not really there for the person.” But they were not impervious to the tone of the Administration. Under Trump, Jason said, Black and brown lifers noted that white people on staff were “saying some real shit . . . meaning they’re comfortable to say what they want to say.”

A little over four years ago, the lifers awaited the Trumps with nervous anticipation. They knew little about the new President, beyond that he owned hotels and fired people on television. He lived in a gilded penthouse apartment on Fifth Avenue modelled after the Palace of Versailles, the very building that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson deemed the anti-White House. In his stump speech, Trump objected to the routine of holding big state dinners in tents on the South Lawn, and promised to build a hundred-million-dollar ballroom. There was “an anticipation of radical change and substantial change, because of the whole ‘Apprentice’ thing, you know—‘You’re fired!’ ” Daniel Shanks, who served as the usher responsible for food and beverage at the residence for twenty-two years, and who retired in October, 2017, recalled. “That wasn’t dispelled immediately, because there was nobody to dispel it.”

Five months in, the Trumps did fire someone: Angella Reid. “It’s not uncommon that you might have a transition of staff when a new Administration comes in. And it’s simply nothing more than that,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who was then the deputy White House press secretary, said at the time. After Reid’s firing, the residence staff braced for what might come. The Trumps’ selection of Timothy Harleth, who was relatively young and mid-career, caused some head-scratching. “He didn’t carry the mystique,” Shanks told me. “He was someone from down the street.” Another lifer remembered Harleth’s unceremonious first day, when the new boss wandered the corridor where the workers sit, poking his head around and asking, “Hello, is anybody back there?”

Some workers I spoke with saw Harleth as a kindlier manager than Reid, and expressed respect and admiration for his efforts. But, ultimately, Reid and Harleth shared the same ambitions: to make the White House run more like a hotel, an objective at odds with the philosophy of the longest-serving lifers, who say that a hotel is a place where guests pay to stay. The White House, they will tell you, is a home. According to residence staff workers, Harleth cracked down on overtime pay and led peppy, hotel-staff-style stand-up meetings. As his tenure progressed, he hired former industry colleagues from the Trump International Hotel and the Mandarin Oriental. By the time Harleth left, several workers told me that they believed he was hostile to the lifers. “He saw us as dinosaurs . . . recalcitrant, most likely to complain, most likely to resist change,” the residence worker said. “There was a real condescension on his part for the people who had been there a long time.”

Harleth told me that he was most proud of overseeing renovations to the White House: polishing handrails that hadn’t “been touched in seventy years,” redoing marble floors, replacing doors, restoring wood floors and drapery. Renovations in the Rose Garden involved the removal of the garden’s ten trees, which one garden historian and Reagan Administration staffer said had left her “aghast.” “As politically charged as it was, the work in the Rose Garden was closest to my heart, because of the effort that went behind that,” Harleth said, adding that plant disease had blighted the garden. It’s a healthier space now as a result,” he said. He also cited innovations that he brought to entertaining, such as synchronized plate service, in which each course is set before all the guests at once. “It’s very easy to criticize and say that this is a home, not a hotel, as opposed to taking an issue and debating the merits of whatever is at hand,” he said. Nevertheless, Harleth, who told me that he supported Bernie Sanders, said that he had deep respect for the residence staff, who taught him “the value and the meaning of service to the country—that’s what they do every day, through their service to the Presidency.”

The former Trump Hotel colleagues whom Harleth hired included Arvind Chadha, who was charged with new authority to oversee the butlers. But the butlers, the consummate lifers and innermost layer of the residence staff, were not easily managed—their proximity to the President gives them independent power that other residence staffers lack. “The butlers don’t like anybody and nobody likes the butlers,” Dennis Hawk, who worked as the head of operations until June of 2020, told me. In the battle between Chadha and the butlers, the butlers easily outmaneuvered him, one lifer told me, over the summer. “Arvind thought he knew what he was doing, but he had no clue,” Hawk said. “He’d tell people he could do things without knowing he couldn’t,” he added, giving as an example the time Chadha promised to fit three hundred chairs in the East Room while also abiding by social-distancing requirements. (Chadha did not respond to a request for comment.)

Shanks told me that he left the White House because he had hit a length-of-service mark that made retirement advantageous, and because, at seventy, he was about to be married. He also felt the staff was changing, and although some of the changes had been positive it was time for him to move on. Other lifers left under Trump for similar reasons. The chief curator, housekeeper, and calligrapher all retired, with eighty-five years of combined service to the White House among them. Also departed: an electrician, a butler, the lead carpenter, a longtime housekeeper (for reasons of illness), a laundrywoman, two florists, and two ushers; one, Jim Doherty, who supervised the trades, died suddenly, in his fifties, and with him went a vast knowledge of the building’s every squeaky hinge. Many lifers who retired did not say that Trump, specifically, caused them leave. Pat Blair, the former chief calligrapher, who retired in 2018, told me, “It just felt like the right time—the end of an era.”

Most of the turnover reflects a broader culture clash that pits old and new ways of running a grand household against each other. Cataloguing the changes of recent decades, lifers point to the shift from hiring through word of mouth across generations of families to recruiting from Washington’s hotels, and to an increased use of outside consultants and decorators. The shift means the staff often takes direction rather than giving it. It also results in more cooled relationships over all between the lifers and First Families. The butlers remained more distant with the Obamas, who had never had a staff of housekeepers and craved privacy. The Trumps treated the residence staff like a “twenty-four-hour concierge desk,” according to Jonathan Lee, who served in the calligrapher’s office until 2017. (He was fired without explanation, though Lee speculates that the cause was Trump officials learning that he had held a political role under Obama.)

According to Shanks, the shift in relations between the First Families and lifers has changed the feeling of the White House. “The Obamas and the Trumps were the first Administrations when the residence was considered the upper floors and not the entire building. For us, it’s always been that the ‘home’ was from ‘basement to the sniper on the roof,’ ” Shanks said. “It doesn’t have the concept of the home of the First Family that it used to, but, again, that’s more societal.” Now it feels more like the public rooms are a museum or a convention center. In the twenty-first century, Shanks suggested, the White House became a sound set—events are less about the impression they will make on the people attending them and more about the buzz they will create online.

Traditionally, Inauguration Day at the White House flows as a series of fixed events orchestrated by the lifers: tea in the Blue Room, move out, move in, and, at night, a party for hundreds of people. “They go out the door and hours later, when a new family walks in, we’re totally devoted,” Shanks said. “We’ve made that split of having served and now serving.”

Between Obama’s departure and Trump’s arrival, the residence staff had just five hours to transform the private quarters. Reid, then the chief usher, stood before the elevator doors, directing the movement of furniture in and out. Lifers darted from room to room, carrying art, hanging drapes, laying out gowns, painting a few walls, unpacking china, and assembling beds. They held objects up to the White House curators, who would reply “ours” or “theirs.” There was a false alarm when someone thought a new mattress was the wrong size. In the frantic final hour, another lifer opened Sasha Obama’s bedroom closet and groaned, because it was still filled with the teen-ager’s clothes.

Four years later, when the hour came for the Trumps’ departure, the staff gathered in a hallway on the ground floor. Donald and Melania Trump each spoke brief words of thanks, and Harleth presented the outgoing family with the flags that had flown over the White House during their time there, a long-standing tradition. That was the last time that many of the staff saw Harleth. Moments before the Bidens arrived, they were told that Harleth had been fired. For some, it was an emotional moment. “He’s been a very strong leader in terms of he’s the one in charge, and to have him disappear on such an important day—we were just reeling from the emotion of it,” the residence worker said. Suddenly, moments before the Bidens walked through the doors, the exhausted staff were once again thrust into uncertainty over what the future held. As the residence worker told me, “Tim wasn’t without his faults, but he was the most competent and least partisan of the last three we’ve had.”

Meanwhile, outside, the Bidens ambled west on Pennsylvania Avenue, in the late-afternoon sunshine. Biden jogged over to greet and acknowledge questions from a trickle of supporters and reporters lining the bike racks, a mainstay of Secret Service crowd control. They turned left and walked up the right flank of the north drive, slowly, amid a noisy Rockwellian jumble of flags, horns, photographers, and advance staff. The Bidens stood on the top step of the North Portico, atop the workers’ main passage, and gazed out, as “God Bless America” played. Joe and Jill Biden embraced, squeezed hands, and turned to enter the White House as President and First Lady for the first time. Some observers noticed that they were made to wait for an awkward moment before the White House’s front doors opened—this, several people told me, was a sign of a departed chief usher. (The Bidens have named an acting chief usher and have not permanently filled the role.)

Inside, the residence staff was staged on the State Floor, ready to greet the Bidens. When they bid goodbye to the Trumps, hours earlier, they had all stood in one room. But now they were spread out in a line, through the entire floor, to put more distance between their bodies. “It’s like night and day,” the residence worker told me, describing the difference between the two families’ concern over social distancing. “The Bidens came in and the first thing they did was make a loop of the State Floor and greet the staff,” the worker said, pausing, and then beginning to cry. “We were all very flattered. Usually we meet them in the first days or first weeks, but never in the first minutes.” The Bidens went down the line, greeting the staff, some of whom spoke brief, deferential words of welcome and said that they were glad they were there. To one of the well-wishers, Biden was heard to respond, “We’re glad we’re here, too.”

This piece was supported by the Robert B. Silvers Foundation.

‘Let the people vote’: Biden signs executive order to expand voting access

NBC News

‘Let the people vote’: Biden signs executive order to expand voting access

Biden issued the order after the House passed an election and ethics reform package and as GOP legislatures try to enact more restrictive voting measures.
Image: U.S. President Joe Biden makes remarks from the White House after his coronavirus pandemic relief legislation passed in the Senate, in Washington

President Joe Biden speaks at the White House after his coronavirus pandemic relief legislation passed in the Senate on Saturday. Erin Scott / Reuters

President Joe Biden signed an executive order Sunday calling on federal agencies to expand voting access as part of his administration’s efforts “to promote and defend the right to vote for all Americans who are legally entitled to participate in elections.”

“It is the responsibility of the federal government to expand access to, and education about, voter registration and election information, and to combat misinformation, in order to enable all eligible Americans to participate in our democracy,” the order read.

Biden announced the order in virtual remarks played before the Martin and Coretta King Unity Breakfast in Selma, Alabama, which commemorates the 1965 “Bloody Sunday” crossing of the Edmund Pettus Bridge, where police beat Black demonstrators fighting for access to the ballot box along their march.

The House on Friday passed H.R. 1, a wide-ranging package of electoral and ethics reforms that Biden said he would sign into law should it make it through the Senate. Republican legislatures across the country are seeking to enact more restrictive voting measures after former President Donald Trump’s defeat in November.

In his remarks Sunday, Biden said the Republican efforts were “an all-out assault on the right to vote.”

“During the current legislative session, elected officials in 43 states have already introduced more than 250 bills to make it harder for Americans to vote,” he said. “We cannot let them succeed.”

Biden said H.R. 1 was “a landmark piece of legislation that is urgently needed to protect the right to vote, the integrity of our elections, and to repair and strengthen our democracy.”

“I hope the Senate does its work so that I can sign it into law,” he said. “I also urge Congress to fully restore the Voting Rights Act, named in John Lewis’ honor.

“Let the people vote,” he added.

Biden marks “Bloody Sunday” by signing voting rights order.

Biden’s order calls on federal agencies to “consider ways to expand citizens’ opportunities to register to vote and to obtain information about, and participate in, the electoral process,” make it easier for federal employees to vote by recommending how to “expand the federal government’s policy of granting employees time off to vote” and increase access to the ballot for voters with disabilities, Native Americans, active-duty military service members, overseas Americans and eligible federal prisoners.

H.R. 1 remains Democrats’ best hope to secure increased voter protections, however. As an official said, the Biden administration does not have the jurisdiction to override restrictive voting measures enacted at the state level.

LeBron James launches new ad for campaign to protect Black voting rights

NBC News

LeBron James launches new ad for campaign to protect Black voting rights

“They saw what we’re capable of, and they fear it,” James said of the get-out-the-vote effort among black voters in Georgia.
Image: LeBron James

LeBron James of the Los Angeles Lakers helped found More Than a Vote, a group that works to increase Black voter registration. David Sherman / NBAE via Getty Images file

A new ad campaign narrated by LeBron James is taking aim at Georgia and other states that are pushing laws restricting access to the ballot box. The Protect Our Power campaign was launched by the organization More Than a Vote, founded by Black artists and athletes, and the ad will air ahead of the NBA All-Star Game on Sunday.

The 30-second ad is a collection of images and videos from this summer’s wave of Black Lives Matter protests and Black politicians, athletes and activists — juxtaposed with clips of the destruction from the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

“Look what we made happen. What our voices made possible,” James said in his narration. “And now, look what they’re trying to do to silence us. Using every trick in the book, and attacking democracy itself. Because they saw what we’re capable of, and they fear it.”

The organization was founded last year after the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Ahmaud Arbery, and it just announced partnerships with the Georgia NAACP, Black Voters Matter Fund, Fair Fight Action and the New Georgia Project to go after bills being advanced in the state.

Republicans in Georgia are pushing legislation to change voting processes based on former President Donald Trump’s false claims of election fraud. Parallel efforts can be seen in Arizona and Iowa. Civil rights organizations across the country say that, if passed, the laws would target Black voters disproportionately.

Once such bill was passed by the Republican-controlled Georgia House on Monday. It would limit early voting on Sundays, further restrict absentee ballots and change processes for ballot drops.

“Black and brown voters changed the game in 2020. So in response, lawmakers are trying to change the rules in 2021,” ​one of the new co-owners of the WNBA’s Atlanta Dream, Renee Montgomery, a More Than a Vote member, said in a news release​. “We know that as athletes and as leaders we have to keep our foot on the gas to protect our power, preserve and expand our voting rights, and to continue turning moments into momentum. More Than a Vote is just getting started.”

Sen. Tina Smith supports ending filibuster

Star Tribune

Sen. Tina Smith supports ending filibuster

The Minnesota Democrat says the 60-vote threshold should be abolished.

WASHINGTON – Sen. Tina Smith said Thursday she supports abolishing the Senate filibuster amid growing debate over whether Democrats should throw out the 60-vote threshold now that they control the chamber.

“I believe that the filibuster should be abolished in all cases, not just for any particular piece of legislation,” Smith said. “We have already abolished the filibuster for judicial nominations and the Supreme Court, and to me this is a very important step that we need to take in order to make sure that the Senate can function and can do the work that we need to do.”

The Minnesota Democrat, who was elected to a full term in the 2020 election after being appointed to replace former Sen. Al Franken, said the issue was “sort of a theoretical” one when Republicans were in the majority. But with Democrats now holding a razor-thin edge by virtue of Vice President Kamala Harris’ ability to cast a tiebreaking vote, the issue has become more timely, Smith said.

But even with Smith’s support, she conceded that Democrats still lack enough support to eliminate the filibuster.

“To be honest, it’s not clear to me that there is a majority in the Senate right now that is in favor of getting rid of the filibuster,” Smith said.

The filibuster has become a major political flash point in the early days of President Joe Biden’s administration, given the expansive policy changes Democrats hope to make now that they have control of the White House and Congress.

Because the filibuster allows the GOP minority to try to block most legislation it opposes, Democrats are using the budget reconciliation process to try to pass a $1.9 trillion COVID relief package, meaning the legislation only needs the votes of the 50 Democratic senators and Harris.

On Wednesday night, the Democrat-controlled House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act and soon after, the voting and ethics overhaul Democrats named the For the People Act. But even after passing the House, both need at least some GOP support in the Senate to overcome the 60-vote threshold. That’s unlikely to happen given the steep GOP resistance to the measures.

Minnesota’s GOP House delegation opposed both bills, and former President Donald Trump criticized the House version of the For the People Act as “a disaster” and a “monster,” during his Sunday CPAC speech as he called for the further tightening of voting restrictions.

What’s at stake in the filibuster discussions also hasn’t been lost on Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. She said Thursday night that “something has to change or we’re going to be just in this quagmire of not being able to advance legislation,” and emphasized that she has already supported filibuster reform.

Klobuchar is a leading driver of the For the People Act on the Senate side. Before the House passed its version Wednesday, she had already announced a hearing in the Senate’s Committee on Rules and Administration, which she chairs. The House passed a version of the bill in 2019, months after Democrats won back control of the chamber. But the legislation failed to gain traction in the then-GOP-controlled Senate.

“I’ve acknowledged there’s different ways you could do it,” Klobuchar said of filibuster reform. “You can get rid of it, which I support. You can change the numbers needed, which is something that we had talked about in early days, you know, have less numbers, not to get to 60. You can require what we call a talking filibuster, where you have to actually be there and object and speak the whole time.”

Fears of further inaction in the Senate despite Democratic control have only added to the filibuster debate.

Smith’s stance on what has become a key issue early in the Biden era is playing out against a backdrop of division within her own party over the filibuster.

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia has maintained his clear resistance to doing away with the filibuster, along with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz.

In an explanation on Facebook of her stance, Smith said when she arrived in the Senate she “started out believing that we should keep the filibuster.”

“I kept thinking about what would happen, what would stop a conservative president and a conservative Congress from doing terrible damage, for example, to women’s health care without the filibuster,” Smith said. “But the more I’ve thought about this, the more I realized that the filibuster has long been the enemy of progress.”

It’s time to flush out secret political donors

It’s time to flush out secret political donors

Rick Newman, Senior Columnist                

 

The Jan. 6 Capitol Hill rioters had some unseen help. Shady fundraising groups such as Women for America First and Turning Point Action helped organize the gathering and transport people to Washington for the event. Secretive shell companies and nonprofits affiliated with former President Donald Trump’s own campaign committee supported other elements of the rally.

It’s nearly impossible to know who funded such organizations, or what exactly they spent their money on, because the most sordid money in American politics hides—legally—in “dark money” groups that don’t have to report such details publicly. While many of the rioters who committed crimes at the Capitol now face charges, we may never know the names of political financiers who helped make it happen.

The House of Representatives passed new legislation on March 3 that would address this problem and end the ability of political donors to launder their money to avoid connection with unsavory causes. The For the People Act, as it is known, includes a provision that would require all political groups to disclose the names of donors who give more than $10,000, and ban the transfer of money from group to group to hide donor identities. “Dark money comes into the election system without anyone knowing its true source,” says Adav Noti, chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center, which backs campaign-finance reforms. “This would eliminate dark money contributions that end up in campaign systems.”

Campaign finance in the United States is a complex web of opaque activities that invites abuse. Traditional campaigns and political-action committees must abide by four- or five-figure donation limits and identify donors, except for those giving small amounts. They must also detail what they spend their money on in regular reports to the Federal Election Commission.

FILE - In this Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021 file photo, supporters of President Donald Trump climb the west wall of the the U.S. Capitol in Washington. In what could be the longest of legal longshots, several of those arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol are holding out hope that President Donald Trump will use some of his last hours in office to grant all the rioters a full and complete pardon. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
In this Jan. 6, 2021 file photo, supporters of President Donald Trump climb the west wall of the the U.S. Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

 

So called “super PACs” must identify donors and expenditures as well, but there’s no limit on donations. Since these are “independent expenditure” groups, they’re not allowed to coordinate with the candidate or campaign they’re backing. But they do coordinate informally and some just break the rules. The biggest super PACs raise millions of dollars per election cycle and run many of the ads that blanket the media during campaigns.

Anonymous donors

Dark money groups are different. Many have nonprofit status but don’t have to report anything to the FEC. Some run ads or conduct campaign activities—such as transporting protesters to the Jan. 6 Trump rally. Others raise money from donors able to remain secret, then contribute to super PACs able to accept huge donations. Those PACs must list the dark-money group as a donor, but whoever gave the money in the first place remains anonymous.

A new dark-money twist is a shell company affiliated with a traditional campaign that can spend campaign funds without the normal disclosure requirements. The 2020 Trump campaign used a private company called American Made Media Consultants for nearly half of its $1.3 billion in spending on advertising, direct mail, software and a variety of other things. The Trump campaign had to disclose disbursements to the shell company, but the shell company didn’t have to disclose what it spent the money on. That raises the possibility the firm is a kind of slush fund directing donor money to favored vendors and perhaps even Trump family members getting paid as “consultants.” The Campaign Legal Center filed a complaint with the FEC, arguing the arrangement is illegal.

Dark-money groups spent at least $750 million in the 2020 elections, a record. One dark-money group funneled more than $1 million in foreign donations to Trump operations, which is flatly illegal. Author Jane Mayer asserts in her book “Dark Money” that secret funding by billionaires allows plutocrats to control government policy, worsening wealth and income inequality.

Photo by: JT/STAR MAX/IPx 2021 3/5/21 Feds continue probe between US lawmakers and Capitol rioters. STAR MAX File Photo: 1/6/21 The United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. was breached by thousands of protesters during a
The US Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. was breached by thousands of protesters during a “Stop The Steal” rally in support of President Donald Trump during the worldwide coronavirus pandemic. (STAR MAX File Photo: 1/6/21)

 

The For the People Act wouldn’t ban any donations. It would only illuminate dark money, by requiring disclosure of the donors and the activities their money is spent on. That’s a deliberate effort to survive court challenges, given that the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision in 2010 opened the financial floodgates by allowing unlimited corporate donations to super PACs. “The bill has been drafted with great care and with the Supreme Court in mind,” Noti says. “The court has been hostile toward democracy reform laws, but it has been uniformly supportive of disclosure.”

The For the People Act has gotten more attention for controversial changes to voting procedures that are arguably partisan. Democrats say these changes are necessary to prevent Republican-led states from restricting access to the polls, while Republicans argue it represents federal overreach. The bill passed the House with no Republican support, and it’s likely to die in the Senate, because it would take 10 Republicans in addition to all 50 Democrats voting for it to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

The disclosure measures should be less controversial, since there’s nothing democratic about funding political activity in secret. The Capitol riots should be a further spur for basic reforms. Yet Democrats have pushed to bring dark-money funding into the light for nearly a decade, with consistent opposition from Republicans, and that seems likely to continue. If the overall voting-reform bill dies, Democrats can introduce the disclosure requirements as a standalone measure, and if Republicans still block it, run on the issue in the 2022 and 2024 elections. If political money is vital to democracy, the people who provide it should be happy to say who they are.

Nalleli Cobo: How a nine-year-old fought an oil company and won

Nalleli Cobo: How a nine-year-old fought an oil company and won

Patricia Sulbarán Lovera – BBC Mundo, Los Angeles     March 5, 2021
Nalleli Cobo
Nalleli Cobo

 

When a Latino community in Los Angeles began their fight against an oil company they claimed was polluting their neighborhood, a young woman played a central role.

Nalleli Cobo was nine years old when she started suffering from asthma, nosebleeds and headaches.

It was the beginning of a battle against an active oil well site located in front of her house in South Los Angeles.

Nalleli and her mother soon found out that some of their neighbors were also getting sick.

The community, mostly composed of low-income families, protested until the site was temporarily shut down.

Cobo didn’t stop there. Joined by a group of young activists and organizations, they sued the city to demand more regulations in oil extraction. And they won.

A criminal case against the company, Allenco, and its handling of the site, resumes later this month. They declined to comment for this story but have previously stated that they invested capital to comply with regulations.

She has been compared to Greta Thunberg, although her name has been recognized locally for over a decade.

Nalleli Cobo and Greta Thunberg
Nalleli Cobo and Greta Thunberg have worked together on environmental campaigns.

 

Cobo paused her activism activities in early 2020 after being diagnosed with cancer at the age of 19.

Her doctors don’t know what caused her illness.

After three surgeries and medical treatment, she has recently been declared cancer-free.

This is her story.

I grew up in University Park, in South Central Los Angeles, 30ft across the street from an oil well owned by AllenCo from 2009.

I lived with my mom, my three siblings, my grandma, my great grandpa, my great grandma all in one apartment. We were eight people, including me.

My mom is from Mexico and my dad is from Colombia. He was deported when I was two years old and my mom raised me.

It was the year 2010 and I was nine years old. All of the sudden I started having stomach pains, nausea.

I got body spasms so severe I couldn’t walk, my mom would have to carry me because I would freeze up like a vegetable.

I got nosebleeds so severe that I would have to sleep sitting down so I wouldn’t choke on my own blood at night.

Nalleli Cobo at 9 years old
Nalleli Cobo started suffering from nosebleeds, body spasms and other symptoms at nine years old

 

I was being poisoned in my home by a silent killer.

It was crazy to notice not just how my health was affected but everybody else’s in different ways.

My mother got asthma at 40 which is really rare, my grandma got it at 70 which is even more rare. My sister had fibroid problems, my brother had asthma, everybody had some kind of health issue.

But it wasn’t just my family, it was most of our community.

Moms started talking to each other and the word spread that there was there was something wrong.

We could smell it in the air. It smelled like rotten eggs and once it got into your house it wouldn’t go away, even if you close the windows, turned on fans and put air purifiers in the traverses of the windows.

Other times it would smell like guava or chocolate. These were artificial smells.

At the beginning, we started looking into if it was a leak in the building until we found a group of toxicologists to come speak to our community.

They explained that certain chemicals are used for oil extraction and emissions can harm human health if exposed for a long time.

The oil well that AllenCo operated from 2009 is located in a residential area, close to buildings and schools in South Los Angeles.
The oil well that AllenCo operated from 2009 is located in a residential area, close to buildings and schools in South Los Angeles.
A pipeline that signals "Warning Petroleum Pipeline" close to Nalleli's childhood home.
A pipeline that signals “Warning Petroleum Pipeline” close to Cobo’s childhood home.

 

That is when we made the connection with the oil well across the street.

So we started organizing in the community and created the campaign People Not Pozos (“pozos” means oil wells in Spanish).

We filed complaints with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and we knocked on doors asking people if they’d be willing to share their stories at a City Hall hearing.

It was so powerful to know that this community, the Spanish-speaking, black and brown immigrant community that nobody cared about was coming over to the City Hall to make our voices heard.

Nalleli Cobo speaking in a public hearing with LA elected officials.
Nalleli Cobo speaking in a public hearing with LA elected officials.

 

They would ask me if I could share my story and I would use my little note cards and talk.

I was always super shy but I always felt comfortable doing public speaking.

The Los Angeles Times wrote a story about us and it captured the attention of former US California Senator Barbara Boxer.

At the press conference, Boxer brought investigators from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and they went in to do a check up.

They were in there for a few minutes because they started getting sick from the smells.

(After local and federal investigations, AllenCo agreed to shut down the site temporarily).

(The city of Los Angeles sued the company and in 2016 secured a court order that requires AllenCo to follow stringent regulations if it wants to resume drilling).

We were happy when this was announced but it took time. We started organizing in 2010 and it shut down in 2013.

And now we want it to shut down permanently.

Nalleli Cobo in January 2020.
Nalleli Cobo became a figure of environmental activism in Los Angeles.

When we started campaigning, we noticed that we weren’t the only community being affected.

There are 580,000 angelenos that live within a quarter of a mile or less to an active oil and gas well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4KpTsapzUg

Most are low-income communities of color.

Whenever I go somewhere to talk about this and I say I’m from Los Angeles, people are like: “Oh! That’s awesome, the Walk of Fame, Hollywood, celebrities…”

Well, LA is home to the largest urban oil field in the country and we don’t talk about it.

Nalleli Cobo
Cobo is studying Law and wants to become a civil rights attorney.

 

I am one of the cofounders of South Central Youth Leadership Coalition and along with other organizations we sued the city of Los Angeles in 2015 for a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

We won, and that means that when opening or expanding wells there is a new application process.

Even though I moved out of University Park, I’m campaigning to set up a 2,500 feet health and safety buffer zone between oil wells and schools, hospitals and parks.

At the same time, I am a normal kid. I am obsessed with makeup, I am a dancer, I love travelling and I am in college.

The only thing that makes me different is that I found my passion much earlier.

Nalleli Cobo and Mark Ruffalo in a tour around oil wells in Los Angeles in 2016.
Cobo’s activism has been praised by Hollywood figures such as Mark Ruffalo and Jane Fonda

 

I was diagnosed with cancer on January 15 of 2020.

For a while I kept it quiet because it was such a scary word to process. The “C word” is something you never expect to hear at such a young age.

My mom and I were also worried about medical bills because I had to undergo surgery.

But we were fortunate enough to reach our goal through a crowd funding campaign.

Physically and emotionally the hardest thing was getting a radical hysterectomy. It took me 6 weeks to get out of bed.

My mom had to bathe me for six months and I had to take dozens of pills.

My oncologist still doesn’t know why I got cancer; they have been able to know by doing tests that it is not genetic.

I told them where I had grown up and asked if there was an environmental test I could take.

Nalleli Cobo
Cobo has recovered from cancer after a year of surgeries and medical treatment.

 

She said that, until we have new science, I am just a question mark.

I am recently cancer-free as of 18 January and feel really happy and excited about that.

I want to pursue my career as a civil rights attorney and go into politics afterwards.

My definition of environmental justice is the ability to breathe clean air despite my age, my gender, my ethnicity, social economic status or zip code.

It is fighting, it is protecting my community, my home.

Earth’s largest-ever mass extinction is a warning for humanity

Earth’s largest-ever mass extinction is a warning for humanity

Katherine Niemczyk                    March 4, 2021

 

Right now our planet is in the midst of what science says is an unprecedented rate of change, unlike anything seen in tens of millions of years. Overconsumption, unsustainable practices and the release of immense amounts of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels are altering our life-sustaining climate at a dangerous pace, oceans are acidifying and losing oxygen, and species are dying off.

But this is not the first time that life on our planet has faced an epic challenge. The worst came a little over 250 million years ago — before dinosaurs walked the earth — in an episode called the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction, or the Great Dying, when 90% of life in the oceans and 70% of life on land vanished.

 / Credit: CBS News
/ Credit: CBS News

 

Recently, two groundbreaking studies on the Great Dying reveal that the causes of that mass extinction bear some striking similarities to what’s happening today. In fact, in some ways the pace of change, such as the rate of release of greenhouse gases, is much faster today than it was 250 million years ago.

Scientists say historic episodes like this offer a timely warning to humanity of what can happen when ecosystems change too fast for life to keep up.

In fact, the evidence compiled by scientific research on today’s pace of change is ominous to say the least. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a pace 100 times faster than it naturally should. Our planet is warming 10 times faster than it has in 65 million years. Our oceans are acidifying 100 times faster than they have in at least 20 million years, and oxygen dead zones in our oceans have increased tenfold since 1950.

Given the similarities, and what is at stake today, digging into the causes and impacts of the Great Dying can open up a window into a possible dire future for our planet — and also elucidate how urgent action is needed to avoid ecosystem and societal collapse.

What led to the Great Dying?

Digging is exactly what Professor Uwe Brand does for a living. As a geoscientist from Brock University in Canada, his job is to dig deep into Earth’s past by digging into the Earth itself, looking for clues about what the planet was like millions of years ago.

In this capacity, Brand is like a crime scene investigator looking for forensic evidence to help him put together the pieces of the Great Dying puzzle, an event which preceded his existence by hundreds of millions of years. Not an easy task.

For this story, CBS News interviewed Brand to help us understand how this all happened. “I call it the perfect storm,” said Brand, because as he explains, it was not a single game-changing event like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Instead it was a domino effect — a series of events, all related to each other, which eventually put a nail in the coffin.

After decades of uncertainty, two studies published around the same time illuminated how it happened. Brand was co-author of one of these studies, an October 2020 paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience examining the causes of the Permian-Triassic Mass Extinction.

In the study Brand was involved in, the authors employed a technique using the element boron from fossil brachiopod shells, which they found in rocks in modern-day Italy, to derive a record of ocean acidity during the time of the mass extinction. This, combined with carbon isotope data using a sophisticated model, enabled the researchers to reconstruct the likely chain of events that killed almost all life on Earth 252 million years ago.

In another paper that was released at around the same time, researchers discovered a rare molecule called coronene in Italy and China which can only be formed when underground deposits of fossil fuels are super-heated. This was another clue which helped put the pieces together.

Here’s how Brand describes how the events unfolded: Over the course of a million years, extensive volcanic activity in what is now Siberia flowed through cracks and crevices of sedimentary rocks, searing oil and gas deposits as it moved along, producing the coronene scientists recently discovered.

Lava in the Kilauea region near Hilo, Hawaii, in 2018. Scientists believe massive volcanic activity some 250 million years ago led to widespread extinctions. / Credit: DVIDS/Hawaii National Guard
Lava in the Kilauea region near Hilo, Hawaii, in 2018. Scientists believe massive volcanic activity some 250 million years ago led to widespread extinctions. / Credit: DVIDS/Hawaii National Guard

 

Consequently, massive lava beds were created. “It would cover at least half of the United States and to a thickness of at least several kilometers,” said Brand.

This process gradually released gigantic amounts of heat-trapping carbon gases at levels much higher than today. For comparison, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations during that time period are estimated to be a few thousand parts per million (ppm), whereas today, our CO2 level, while higher than it’s been in the last 3 million years, is still significantly less, at 415 ppm (but rising fast).

The immense amount of greenhouse gases present back then warmed global atmospheric temperatures to levels 18 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today. Because of the impact this had on ecosystems, it forced land animals to rapidly adapt, move or die. Seventy percent did not make it.

In the ocean, atmospheric carbon dioxide was absorbed, mixing with water and forming sulfuric acid, acidifying the seas. As a result, coral disintegrated and the shells of ocean creatures dissolved.

Back on land, the hotter climate shifted vegetation and ignited fires. That exposed more rocks, and erosion went into overdrive. As a result, an overabundance of nutrients flowed into the oceans, causing at first an explosion of life. But then there was the inevitable death and decomposition, which ate up most of the life-giving oxygen in the ocean. Ninety percent of ocean life died. Brand says existence was getting hit from all angles.

“These are not individual and separate causes, but they all acted together, they acted in concert, and that is why I call it the perfect storm. You got hit on this side with temperature, on this side with acidification and then finally the knock-out punch came from deoxygenation.”

Learning from history

As catastrophic as the Great Dying was, scientists are concerned the Earth could now be headed for another disaster. Right now, the planet is warming abruptly to levels not seen in over 100,000 years, oceans are acidifying and oxygen dead zones are multiplying.

And astonishingly, Brand says that the rate of release of heat-trapping greenhouse gases now is much more radical than it was back then. “Right now our emissions are 10 to 20 times higher than what happened at the end of the Permian mass extinction, which was the largest and biggest mass extinction,” he said.

To save ourselves, he says we must learn from events like the Great Dying. “You know what they say, learn from history, because if you don’t you will repeat it.”

“The way I see it is, it is going to happen if we don’t stop it or don’t mitigate what we are doing,” he said. But Brand stressed that we still have time to turn it around by moving away from the burning of fossil fuels.

Biodegradable plastic production in China outpacing ability to break down waste, says Greenpeace

Biodegradable plastic production in China outpacing ability to break down waste, says Greenpeace

Marcus Parekh        Greenpeace
A man carries a bag of plastic bottles on a roof at a recycling centre in Hefei - Jianan Yu /Reuters
A man carries a bag of plastic bottles on a roof at a recycling center in Hefei – Jianan Yu /Reuters

 

China has begun producing biodegradable plastic at such a rate that it can no longer break down the material at the same pace, according to a new report from Greenpeace.

According to the report, companies in China have ramped up production of biodegradable plastic to a capacity of 4.4 million tons per year. That capacity is expected to reach five million tons in the e-commerce sector alone by 2025, when a nationwide ban on non-biodegradable plastics is set to come into effect.

“Switching from one type of plastic to another cannot solve the plastics pollution crisis that we’re facing,” said Dr Molly Zhongnan Jia, a Greenpeace East Asia plastics researcher. “We need to take a cautious look at the effect and potential risks of mainstreaming these materials, and make sure we invest in solutions that actually reduce plastic waste.”

Non-biodegradable plastics take decades to decompose and release microplastics, which contaminates soil, water and the food chain.

People sort plastic bottles for recycling at a reclamation depot on in Qingdao - Hong Wu /Getty Images AsiaPac 
People sort plastic bottles for recycling at a reclamation depot on in Qingdao – Hong Wu /Getty Images AsiaPac

 

By contrast, current forms of biodegradable plastic take up to six months to be broken down, but they require specific industrial treatment at high temperatures and humidity. If the material is left in landfill, the process takes much longer and still releases carbon into the atmosphere.

Most households do not have the ability to properly dispose of biodegradable plastics as they are often not suitable for household recycling and composting.

This results in many forms of biodegradable plastic being thrown away after a single-use, compounding the problem of plastic pollution.

“Reusable packaging systems and a reduction in overall plastic use are much more promising strategies to keep plastic out of landfills and the environment,” said Dr Jia.

Arizona GOP lawyer tells Supreme Court the party needs certain voting restrictions to compete with Democrats

Arizona GOP lawyer tells Supreme Court the party needs certain voting restrictions to compete with Democrats

Tim O’Donnell                             March 2, 2021

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments by Arizona Republicans in defense of two voting restrictions they are looking to keep intact. At one point, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Michael Carvin, a lawyer representing the Arizona GOP, what the party’s interest in maintaining the policy of discarding ballots cast at the wrong precinct was. Carvin answered, without hesitation, that removing the rule would prevent Republicans from competing in the state.

“It puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” he told Barrett. “Politics is a zero sum game. Every extra vote that they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election.”

Critics argued Carvin was essentially admitting some Republicans believe “it is okay to manipulate elections to gain partisan advantage.”

Per Reuters, part of the reason voting rights activists have targeted the precinct rule is that voters sometimes inadvertently cast their ballots at the wrong polling station because their assigned location is not always the closest one to their homes. However, Reuters reports the high court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is likely to uphold the restriction, as well as another that makes it a crime to hand over someone else’s ballot to election officials during early voting.