Evelyn Reynolds

More stories

  • 175 Shares93 Views

    in US Politics

    RFK Jr accused of ‘reckless disregard for science and the truth’ in Senate hearing

    The US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, faced the Senate finance committee in a tense and combative hearing on Thursday, during which lawmakers questioned his remarks expressing vaccine skepticism, claims that the scientific community is deeply politicized and the ongoing turmoil plaguing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).In a hearing lasting more than three hours and ostensibly about the Trump administration’s healthcare agenda, Kennedy defended his leadership at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming that his time at the agency will be focused on “unbiased, politics-free, transparent, evidence-based science in the public interest”.Senate Democrats on the committee began the hearing calling for Kennedy’s resignation. “Robert Kennedy’s primary interest is taking vaccines away from Americans,” ranking member Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, said in his opening remarks. “People are hurt by his reckless disregard for science and the truth in this effort. I hope the very least, Robert Kennedy has the decency to tell the truth this morning.”Raphael Warnock, also a Democrat, called Kennedy a “hazard to the health of the American people”, repeating calls for him to step down or for Donald Trump to fire him.Last week, Kennedy fired the CDC director, Susan Monarez, less than a month after she was confirmed to her position. She is now mounting a legal case challenging her removal.Shortly after Monarez’s termination, several leading public health officials at the CDC resigned from their positions, citing frustration with Kennedy’s approach to vaccines and his management style.Kennedy said Monarez was “lying” about her claims that she was fired for refusing to sign off on the secretary’s new vaccine policies. Instead, Kennedy said that she was removed after admitting to being untrustworthy.The Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, was unconvinced – citing Kennedy’s prior characterization of the former CDC director as “unimpeachable”.“You had full confidence in her and you had full confidence in her scientific credentials, and in a month she became a liar?” she asked. Thom Tillis, the outgoing Republican senator of North Carolina, asked about the same contradiction in his questioning.Monarez’s lawyers responded in a statement to Kennedy’s comments, calling them “false” and “at times, patently ridiculous”. They added that Monarez would repeat her published claims “under oath”.Kennedy also justified wider firings at the CDC , calling them “absolutely necessary”.“We are the sickest country in the world,” he said. “That’s why we need to fire people at CDC. They did not do their job. This was their job to keep us healthy.”In June, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee – a move that defied a promise he made during his confirmation hearing to Republican senator Bill Cassidy, a physician who chairs the Senate health committee. Many of Kennedy’s replacements for the advisory panel have a history of vaccine skepticism.When asked about the changes to the advisory committee, and how that will change vaccine recommendations and scheduling, Kennedy said he didn’t anticipate changes to the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine.In an exchange with Kennedy, Cassidy noted the possible conflict of interest with some of the panel’s new members who are involved in ongoing litigation with vaccine manufacturers.Cassidy cast a critical vote to confirm Kennedy earlier this year. He had previously expressed a number of concerns about the health secretary’s historic comments that undermined vaccine efficacy. The senator has since been critical of a number of Kennedy’s policies, including his decision to cut half a billion dollars worth of mRNA vaccine funding – calling the move “unfortunate”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionLast month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the new batch of Covid-19 vaccines, but placed restrictions on who would be able to access them. The agency has authorized shots for people 65 and older, who are known to be more at risk from serious illnesses from Covid infections. Younger people will only be eligible if they have an underlying medical condition that makes them vulnerable. Infectious disease experts say that this policy could prove extremely dangerous, particularly for young children.On Tuesday, Kennedy defended HHS’s handling of the measles outbreak that affected several states in an opinion piece. While the secretary branded his agency’s response as effective, public health experts said Kennedy’s own messaging around vaccines was muddied and confusing.Cassidy concluded his remarks at the hearing by telling Kennedy that his policies were “effectively denying people the vaccine”, sharing an email from a doctor friend who expressed confusion about Covid inoculation eligibility given the FDA’s new recommendation policies.Kennedy snapped back: “You’re wrong.”The Republican senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, also a doctor, expressed similar concerns about Kennedy’s policies. “In your confirmation hearing you promised to uphold the highest standard for vaccines,” Barrasso said. “Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned.”During a back and forth with the Virginia senator Mark Warner, a Democrat, Kennedy falsely claimed that there are “no cuts to Medicaid” under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act – Trump’s hallmark domestic policy legislation that was signed into law in July.The congressional budget office estimates that around 7.8 million people stand to lose their health insurance over a decade, due to Medicaid changes under the law.Multiple Democrats on the committee had heated exchanges with the health secretary. Many of them pointed out the inconsistency between Kennedy’s recent support for the president’s “Operation Warp Speed” and his disparagement of the Covid-19 shot. He has previously called it the “deadliest” vaccine ever manufactured.At the hearing, Kennedy refused to acknowledge the wealth of data that shows that the Covid-19 vaccine has saved lives.“Trump has said the vaccine works, and has saved millions of lives. Your own process, on the other hand, has not been transparent,” said the Democratic senator Maggie Hassan, of New Hampshire. “You repeatedly choose to ignore data because it doesn’t match your preconceived notions and lies.” More

  • 175 Shares58 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump’s domestic troop deployments aren’t about crime – they’re about intimidation | Moira Donegan

    “We’re going in,” Donald Trump said on Tuesday, when asked whether national guard troops would be sent to invade Chicago. The comment came as reports emerged that national guard troops from Texas – not yet federalized under direct presidential control – were preparing to deploy to Chicago in the coming days, in defiance of the opposition repeatedly and forcefully expressed by the Chicago mayor, Brandon Johnson, and the Illinois governor, JB Pritzker, both Democrats.The White House and the president’s allies have claimed that the deployment is a response to violent crime in Chicago. This is a lie. Crime in Chicago has dropped dramatically over the past decades, as it has in every major American city – including Los Angeles, where Trump deployed the national guard and the marines earlier this year, and Washington DC, where armed federal agents have patrolled the streets for much of the past month. The deployment of armed forces to American cities – serving at his pleasure even when they are not officially under his direct command – has nothing to do with “crime”, except insofar as the administration has sought to redefine the term to mean Democratic governance, racial pluralism or the presence of immigrants. There is no violent crime in Chicago, or in any of these cities, that federal troops can be usefully deployed to quell.Instead, the federal agents who will probably invade Chicago in the coming days are there to serve a very different purpose. They are there to assert Trump’s personal authority over government actions, to intimidate populations that did not vote for him, to terrorize and kidnap immigrants and destroy their families, and to make sure that every American knows that even if they succeed in electing Democrats to run their cities and states, the Trump regime can send armed men to their neighborhoods who answer to Republicans.As Trump expands his military occupation of opposition-controlled cities, the chances of a violent confrontation between armed agents of the regime and ordinary Americans rise dramatically. American city dwellers have not yet been terrified into silent submission; many of us still retain the self-respect that has been engendered by a lifetime of democratic citizenship. These people will inevitably, and righteously, protest the Trump administration’s incursions. They will shout with outrage when they see their neighbors dragged into vans by masked men; they will jeer and mock the jackboots sent to terrorize them. Eventually, it seems inevitable that someone will throw a rock, or slam a door too loudly, or frighten one of the masked, armed men who knows he has been deployed by an unpopular ruler to suppress a once-free public. And one of those men, terrified and hate-filled and ashamed, might, in that moment, fire his gun. By sending troops into cities that do not support him, the Trump administration is assembling kindling in neat stacks around a frayed and fragile civic peace; they are pouring lighter fluid, and lighting a match. They are hoping for a conflagration that will provide an excuse for even more brutality.It seems almost naive to ask if any of this is legal. The supreme court has made it clear that the president – or, at least, this president – has virtually no limits on his authority under conditions of an “emergency”. That no emergency is in evidence in Chicago or any of the other opposition-controlled cities that Trump-aligned forces are invading is irrelevant: an “emergency”, like a “crime”, can be whatever Trump wants it to be. The supreme court will, eventually, either greenlight Trump’s actions or delay intervening against him for long enough that he will be able to accomplish his aims anyway.But lower courts are showing more willingness to check Trump’s more flagrantly illegal conduct – at least temporarily. In California on Tuesday, a court ruled that Trump’s deployment of the marines and the federalized California national guard into Los Angeles earlier this year violated the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that prohibits the use of federal armed services to enforce domestic law. But in Chicago, the Trump administration is trying a workaround: according to Pritzker, the troops that are amassing are un-federalized members of the Texas national guard – technically under the command of Greg Abbott, the governor, though unambiguously serving the president’s aims. If Pritzker’s claim – which Abbott’s office has disputed – is true, then the theory is apparently that Republican-controlled states have the authority to send their own troops into Democratic- controlled states – against the wishes and without the permission of the local authorities – to enforce partisan policy preferences.Pritzker, in an attempt to calm his people and prevent needless violence, implored Chicagoans to “not take the bait”. And certainly the ground forces will create some viral video moments that the president will enjoy posting to his followers. But the line between what is a mere performative display of power and what is an actual seizure of power is no longer quite clear. The boots and the guns, at any rate, are real.

    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • 188 Shares87 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump’s killing of 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers sets a dangerous precedent | Kenneth Roth

    The US military’s killing of 11 alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers traveling by boat in international waters in the Caribbean is an illegal use of war powers to address what should have been a situation of law enforcement. Unless this dangerous precedent is condemned and curtailed, it will enable US authorities to summarily shoot anyone they choose by simply declaring a “war” against them.Last month, it was reported that Donald Trump had signed a secret decree authorizing the Pentagon to use military force against certain designated Latin American drug cartels, claiming that they were “terrorist” organizations. On Tuesday, Trump wrote that on his orders the military had targeted Tren de Aragua “narcoterrorists”, accusing them of “operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro”, the Venezuelan leader, and being “responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere”.No reported attempt was made to interdict and detain the boatload of people. The video accompanying Trump’s statement suggests that the boat was simply blown up. When asked why the boat wasn’t stopped and its occupants arrested, Trump ducked the question and suggested that the killings would force traffickers to think twice before trying to move drugs to the United States.Under international standards for law enforcement, lethal force can be used solely as a last resort to meet an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. That rule makes sense because law-enforcement officials should ordinarily seek to arrest and prosecute criminal suspects. That is the best way to ensure they have committed the offense in question. It also respects the fact that for most crimes, the penalty upon conviction is a prison sentence, not the death penalty – let alone summary killing without trial.Trump has sought to evade those standards by in effect declaring war against Venezuelan drug cartels. Beginning with Richard Nixon in 1971, US presidents have repeatedly referred to a “war on drugs”, but that was a metaphoric war, a rhetorical claim that the effort was important, not a literal war. The distinction is important, because in genuine armed conflicts, opposing combatants can be summarily shot unless they are surrendering or in custody. There is ordinarily no duty to try to capture or arrest them.There was nothing in the encounter in the Caribbean Sea that is indicative of a war. There has been no suggestion that the alleged drug traffickers were firing at US forces or otherwise engaged in what could fairly be described as combat. The US military simply blew them out the water. It wrongly applied wartime rules in what should have been a law-enforcement situation.That Trump calls drug-trafficking suspects “terrorists” doesn’t change the rules for law enforcement. Terrorists are criminals, not combatants. Absent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, they must be arrested, not shot.That illicit drugs such as fentanyl cause enormous harm also does not alter the rules governing law-enforcement operations. Much criminal activity causes serious harm, but unless that harm constitutes an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and cannot be stopped by other means, law-enforcement standards require arrest and prosecution, not the use of lethal force.Nor does it matter that the people killed may have been hardened criminals. Even despicable individuals are entitled to arrest and prosecution rather than summary killing.If war rules could be applied to suspected terrorists or drug traffickers by a mere declaration of “war”, the risks would be enormous. Law-enforcement officers could shoot anyone anywhere on the mere assertion, never proved in court, that they were part of the group against which a “war” had been declared. What just happened at sea in the Caribbean could be replicated on the streets of New York, London or Paris.Until now, the most visible example of a leader treating a “war on drugs” as a genuine armed conflict has been the former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte. Under his direction, Filipino security forces summarily killed thousands of poor young men. The international criminal court charged him for these executions, and he is now in custody in The Hague awaiting trial.Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator and a Republican leader on foreign policy, met the killing of the 11 with callous bravado: “I hope America’s adversaries are watching & now understand there’s a new sheriff in town.” But even a new sheriff must abide by policing rules. Trump did not.We have every reason to worry that the Trump administration intends to continue this lawless behavior. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, warned that such operations “will happen again”.To avoid normalizing such flouting of law-enforcement rules, the Trump administration’s killing of the alleged drug traffickers must be broadly and firmly criticized. If we close our eyes to this instance of misapplied war rules because of dislike for Venezuelan drug cartels or fear of illicit drugs, we risk setting a precedent in which our most basic right to life is suddenly dependent on whether Trump or other leaders decide in effect to declare a war against us.

    Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments, was published by Knopf and Allen Lane in February. More

  • 125 Shares119 Views

    in US Politics

    Latte-swilling ‘performative males’: why milky drinks are shorthand for liberal

    Another week, another somewhat fictional online buzzword to parse. This time it is the “performative male”, basically the idea that posturing straight men only read books to get laid, outlined in recent trend pieces including the New York Times, Vox, Teen Vogue, Hypebeast, GQ and millions of TikToks.According to the Times, this man “curates his aesthetic in a way that he thinks might render him more likable to progressive women. He is, in short, the antithesis of the toxic man.” Apparently these heterosexual men who read Joan Didion, carry tote bags and listen to Clairo are not in fact human beings who enjoy things but performative jerk-offs who don’t really care about any of that girly stuff and are just trying to impress their feminine opposites. As Vox put it: “think Jacob Elordi when he was photographed with three different books on his person, or Paul Mescal publicly admiring Mitski”. Reading! Enjoying music by women! Perish the thought.Each piece differed slightly in what it defined as the key characteristics of the performative male, but they all shared one detail: he drinks matcha lattes.This was unsurprising. For three decades the latte has been the favored blog-whistle of the trend piece writer. It signals liberalism, femininity, gayness, pretension, gentrification – ideally all of the above – so reflexively that its origins as an insult are rarely revisited.It began in earnest in 1997, when journalist David Brooks writing in the Weekly Standard coined the term “latte liberal”. He was trying, disparagingly, to give name to the crunchy consumerist leftism of the time, in which organic vegetables and world music had become part of the social justice hamper: “You know you’re in a Latte Town when you can hop right off a bike path, browse in a used bookstore with shelves and shelves of tomes on Marxism the owner can no longer get rid of, and then drink coffee at a place with a punnish name that must have the word ‘Grounds’ in it, before sauntering through an African drum store or a feminist lingerie shop.”Brooks wanted to hint that leftism is a luxury only the bourgeois can afford – an idea encapsulated by the earlier formation of champagne socialist. But the latte proved a stickier, more evocative symbol, painting liberals as soft and effete.In 2004, lattes really entered politics, when a Republican Pac ran an ad accusing presidential candidate Howard Dean of being a “latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving left-wing freak show”.Lattes also became a byword for gentrification. In 2000, when the Brooklyn neighborhood Williamsburg was, the Times bemoaned at the time, reaching “the point of hipster saturation”, the final straw was “a local Italian specialty store and a working-class institution … advertising the arrival of the Chai latte”. In New York Magazine’s 2005 feature L-ification, the publication mapped out how gentrification was spreading further east into Brooklyn along the route of the L train with little latte icons, a milky glyph of whiteness by that point understood by everyone.Noticeably, the latte form remains permanent, even as the type of latte shifts. Newt Gingrich accused New York mayor Bill De Blasio of “small soy latte liberalism” in 2014 – emphasising that the only thing more girlish than drinking a big dairy milky coffee was drinking a small vegan milky coffee. On Drake’s 2010 song Thank Me Now, when he’s asking the woman he’s left behind if she still thinks of him, he croons: “But do I ever come up in discussion / Over double-pump lattes and low-fat muffins?”Now the performative male has once again given rise to the idea that there is something inherently disingenuous about a milky beverage. Interestingly as the latte has changed colour, from white to green, the stereotype has expanded beyond the white liberal: matcha hails a diverse new generation of milky boys.The idea of the performative male started out mostly as a joke on TikTok, where knowing posters would show a man reading at the gym, for example, and joke that he was pretending. Contests in which men meet in parks to compete to be the most performative have been funny, postmodern, heterosexual versions of drag.But with each passing write-up, the knowing humorous element has been rinsed away, until Vox earnestly announced in its piece that the “MeToo movement showed us that even supposed ‘nice guy’ could be capable of alleged manipulation and abuse – that in fact, they could use their enlightenment as a kind of shield”. If you see a man with a matcha latte, you need to run!None of the pieces particularly wanted to reckon with the fact that, as Judith Butler put it, “gender identity is a performative accomplishment” to begin with, or that Arthur Schopenhauer was complaining in the mid-19th century that a performative reader “usually confuses the purchase of books with the acquisition of their contents”. Do we read in order to get laid? Only since forever.View image in fullscreenIronically much of this ribbing comes from the same people who decry a crisis of masculinity, and worry for future generations of boys who feel like they lack purpose and companionship. Yet in the world of the performative male, even having female friends and drinking milky coffee is a divergence from true masculinity.Why is the latte such an enduring emblem for this distrust – a way to call men you do not like effeminate?Partly it is the allegory of milk, the pursed mouth of a graphic designer on a coffee cup as a surrogate for the Madonna del Latte, the thousands of medieval depictions of Jesus nursing at Mary’s breast. Grown men drinking milk has always been laden in symbolism, the blend of nurture and eroticism evocative of a sexual infantalization. It is why so many films from A Clockwork Orange to Babygirl centre milk as a poison beyond a place of regular intoxication. When Kelis sings that her milkshake brings her boys to the yard, the lyric is so heavy in implication that the exact innuendo she is reaching for is irrelevant.Even the ancient Greeks used to have their own version of the latte joke, belittling the Persians who drank milk: Aristotle said Empedocles described it as “whitish pus”.But the milk in the context of the latte also turns coffee, a drink which was sold as fuel, bitter black stuff for TV detectives and the working man, into a sweet little treat. A latte fundamentally dilutes the taste of coffee and so it is easy to present those who drink it as watering down their wine. Even though the iconography of the latte liberal is now so strong it has stretched to drinks that do not contain any coffee to begin with. According to the performative male trend pieces, drinking a matcha latte indicates to women that you are soft, feminist-leaning and worldly (after all, it’s from Japan).Even though the latte is supposed to be this bastion of girlishness, women are not exempt from being chastised for drinking them, although the latte trope for them is more often a reflection of being superficial than performatively feminine. The logic of this makes little sense: latte liberal men are supposedly too European to be masculine, yet iced latte girlies are gormless Americans sucking on the straw of consumerism. No matter, the two sit side by side, one clutching a hot cup of simp soup, the other a pumpkin-spiced lobotomy. They are a pair one can project all their prejudices towards, without having to interrogate any of it too much.The irony is that hipsters and gentrifiers in coastal towns are rarely drinking lattes these days. They are much more likely to be sipping on a single origin V60 that’s been carefully weighed out on a digital scale. Indeed the stereotype could easily be flipped around – that it’s red states where complicated online Starbucks orders and Stanley cups filled with 32oz of latte abound. In the best survey of the coffee Americans actually drink and how it aligns with their politics by Diana C Mutz and Jahnavi S Rao, the differences were negligible. Although it is true that liberals do prefer lattes over conservatives (16% v 9%), the same research found liberals also prefer the more masculine-coded espressos over conservatives by a much bigger margin, and the vast majority of Americans prefer brewed coffee.But the milky latte stereotype persists because it is creamy and white (or green) and vaguely Italian. When GQ is asking “Are Matcha Men the New Soy Boys” you have got to wonder if gendering beverages has become the most performative act of all. More

  • 138 Shares93 Views

    in US Politics

    Why Trump’s firing of the US jobs chief has economists worried

    As it has for over a hundred years, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will release its latest monthly jobs report on Friday.But the routine monthly update on the health of the US jobs market has been overshadowed by Donald Trump’s firing of the agency’s commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, hours after July’s statistics were released last month.The BLS’s data is parsed by Wall Street, Federal Reserve officials and company bosses across the US. It is also widely watched – and admired – internationally as a barometer of the US economy.Both liberal and conservative economists have criticized Trump’s nominated replacement at the BLS and have raised concerns over what will happen to the agency after the dramatic shake-up. Here’s what we know about what’s happening to the bureau.What does the Bureau of Labor Statistics do?The bureau reports key economic statistics through surveys of employers and prices. Every month, it releases data on the labor market, including the current unemployment rate, and the Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures the cost of a basket of goods and services. This data is an important monthly snapshot of the US economy and how it changes over time.Why did Trump fire the bureau’s commissioner?Last month, the bureau announced the US had added just 73,000 jobs in July – far lower than expected – and made big revisions to previously released stats on the labor market in May and June. The number of jobs added to the economy across those two months was dramatically cut by over 250,000.Trump, who spent months boasting about the strength of the economy amid fears about the impact of his trade wars, was furious. “Today’s Job Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,” he declared on social media.Hours after the numbers were released, Trump announced he was firing McEntarfer and that she would “be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified”.Has Trump firing of the bureau’s commissioner changed its operations?Economists say that Trump’s firing hasn’t changed the bureau, yet. Although the White House has made other job cuts at the BLS, as it did throughout the federal workforce. Since Trump took office, the bureau has seen a hiring freeze and has lost 15% of its workforce.While the bureau said it was downsizing its data collection for CPI, it did not say it was making any significant changes to its survey to employers.Economists say that, for now, the bureau’s operations have largely remained the same. William Watrowski, a longtime leader within the bureau, is currently its acting commissioner. But there are still many questions about the future of the bureau, especially after Trump announced his nomination for McEntarfer’s replacement.Who does Trump want to appoint as the bureau’s new commissioner?Trump has nominated EJ Antoni, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, as the bureau’s commissioner.Antoni was a contributor to Project 2025 – the Heritage Foundation’s rightwing blueprint for reshaping the US government – and was a vocal critic of the bureau last year, claiming that it manipulated numbers to make them more favorable to Joe Biden and Democrats. Last November, Antoni said on Twitter that Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency needed to “take a chainsaw” to the bureau.“Month after month, the government bean-counters under former-president Biden published overly optimistic estimates for everything from job growth to the size of the economy, only to have those numbers routinely – and quietly – revised down later,” Antoni wrote in May.When announcing his appointment, Trump said Antoni “will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST AND ACCURATE”.Antoni has yet to be confirmed by Congress, and a confirmation date has not been set.Why did the bureau revise its job figures for May and June?Revisions are standard to the bureau’s reporting of the labor market, which is based on surveys to employers throughout the country.Large revisions often happen when employers take more time to complete the bureau’s surveys or revise their own figures due to changing circumstances. Economists have pointed out that uncertainty can lead to larger revisions. The pandemic, for example, saw jobs figures in flux as employers were handling different shutdown laws and the spread of the virus.The impact of Trump’s tariffs on data collection could be a major factor in the revisions seen earlier this year. Businesses have been reporting rollercoaster levels of uncertainty over tariff policy, with sentiment among US small businesses dipping down in the spring before going up again in the summer.“We’ve gone through periods where there were larger revisions before,” said Michael Madowitz, principal economist at the Roosevelt Institute who served on the bureau’s data users advisory committee before it was dissolved by the Trump administration. “This is like so standard, and the idea that it’s what actually set off this big political kerfuffle – this is a really unprecedented political situation.”Has the bureau gone through any political fights before?This isn’t the first time the bureau has been accused of manipulating numbers for politics. In the mid-90s, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chair at the time, criticized the way the bureau was calculating the CPI. Greenspan argued that the bureau was overestimating CPI, making inflation look higher than it actually was.Thomas Stapleford, a historian at the University of Notre Dame and author of The Cost of Living in America: A Political History of Economic Statistics, pointed out that Greenspan’s criticism led to a series of hearings where the bureau’s methodology came under question and debate. There were congressional hearings and a committee of economists was formed to investigate the methodology.“There’s all this detailed look at digging into the methodology by these outside experts and also testimony from [the bureau],” Stapleford said. “In my mind, if you have questions about the methodology, that’s the way to approach it.”But Trump has pushed the bureau into uncharted waters. Stapleford noted McEntarfer’s firing was the first time the president fired a bureau commissioner.“What the administration, in the eyes of critics, is doing is pushing the numbers in a particular direction. Not for reasons that it can justify publicly in terms of methodology, but simply because it would like a different outcome,” Stapleford said. “That’s a really big deviation from how the bureau has operated in the past.”What does this all mean for the future of the bureau?The commissioner isn’t involved in much of the day-to-day operations of the bureau. A new leader could have major sway over how the bureau collects and reports data in the long term, but there are protections in place, and any significant changes would be subject to public scrutiny.“The commissioner isn’t directly involved in the data calculation. Most of the BLS staff are long-term civil servants. They’ve been there a long time, they have various protections around them,” Stapleford said. “If the new commissioner started to force major methodological changes, I think that would raise a lot of red flags if those changes were controversial.”But even if major changes aren’t made immediately, the fact that Trump has called the bureau’s data into question could risk confusing Americans over whether the data can be trusted.“It takes a whole lot longer to build credibility than to lose. I don’t think any of the experts involved at this point are at all worried about the credibility of BLS’s work, but I know a whole lot less about what’s filtering down to the average person right now,” Madowitz said.As an example, Madowitz pointed out how the science around climate change has been clear.“But having a one-side, other-side public position on what the science says has left the public really confused,” Madowitz said. “It would be really bad if that’s how we decided to understand the economy.” More

  • 125 Shares112 Views

    in US Politics

    Trump asks US supreme court to overturn trade tariffs ruling

    Donald Trump has asked the US supreme court to overturn a lower court decision that most of his sweeping trade tariffs were illegal.The US president filed a petition late on Wednesday to ask for a review of last week’s federal appeals court ruling in Washington DC, which centred on his “liberation day” border taxes introduced on 2 April, which imposed levies of between 10% and 50% on most US imports, sending shock waves through global trade and markets.The court found in a 7-4 ruling last Friday that Trump had overstepped his presidential powers when he invoked a 1977 law designed to address national emergencies to justify his “reciprocal” tariffs.The decision was the biggest blow yet to Trump’s tariff policies, but the levies were left in place until 14 October – giving the administration time to ask the supreme court to review the decision.Trump has now appealed and the supreme court is expected to review the case, although the justices must still agree to do so. The administration asked for that decision to be made by 10 September.The appeal calls for an accelerated schedule with arguments being heard by 10 November, according to filings seen by Bloomberg. Justices could then rule by the end of the year.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe ruling that the tariffs were unlawful upheld a previous decision by the US Court of International Trade.The federal appeals court said last Friday that US law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency, but none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax”.It said many of Trump’s steep tariffs were “unbounded in scope, amount and duration”, the ruling added, and “assert an expansive authority that is beyond the express limitations” of the law his administration has leaned on.A defeat for Trump’s levies would at least halve the current average US effective tariff rate of 16.3%, and could force the country to pay back tens of billions of dollars, according to Chris Kennedy, an analyst at Bloomberg Economics. It could also derail the preliminary trade deals the president has struck with some countries, including the UK and the European Union.Tariffs typically need to be approved by Congress, but Trump claimed he has the right to impose tariffs on trading partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which in some circumstances grants the president authority to regulate or prohibit international transactions during a national emergency.Earlier this week, the US clothing brand Levi’s said that “rising anti-Americanism as a consequence of the Trump tariffs and governmental policies” could drive British shoppers away from its denim. Other brands, such as Tesla, have also suffered in Europe and in Canada, while protests against US goods have led to a slump in sales of Jack Daniel’s whiskey. More

  • 150 Shares81 Views

    in US Politics

    Louisiana prison chosen for immigration detainees due to its notoriety, says Noem

    The Trump administration purposefully chose a notorious Louisiana prison to hold immigration detainees as a way to encourage people in the US illegally to self-deport, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary Kristi Noem said Wednesday.A complex inside the Louisiana state penitentiary, an immense rural prison better known as Angola, will be used to detain those whom Noem described as the “worst of the worst” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) detainees. Noem was speaking to reporters as she stood on the grounds of the facility near a new sign reading, “Louisiana Lockup.”“This facility will hold the most dangerous of criminals,” Noem said, adding it had “absolutely” been chosen for its reputation.Officials said 51 detainees were already being housed at Angola. But Louisiana governor Jeff Landry said he expects the building to be filled to capacity, expecting over 400 people to come in ensuing months, as president Donald Trump continues his large-scale attempt to remove millions of people suspected of entering the country illegally.The dirt road to the new Ice facility meanders past lofty oak trees, green fields and other buildings – including a white church and a structure with a sign that says, “Angola Shake Down Team”.The facility is surrounded by a fence with five rows of stacked barbed wire. Overlooking the outdoor area is a tower, where a guard paced back and forth.At the prison entrance a sign reads: “You are entering the land of new beginnings.”View image in fullscreenThe Associated Press joined officials for a brief tour of the facility, viewing some of the cells where detainees would be held. The cells, built of three cinder block walls and steel bars on the front, were single occupancy – one bed, toilet and sink in each.Outside were confined enclosures of chain-link fencing, tall enough for multiple people to stand in.“If you don’t think that they belong in somewhere like this,” Landry said of the detainees during Wednesday’s news conference, “you’ve got a problem.”The building holding Ice detainees is not new, but rather refurbished after sitting vacant for years. The rest of Angola, which is made up of many buildings, has remained active. Many of Angola’s 6,300 inmates still work the fields, picking long rows of vegetables by hand as armed guards patrol on horseback.In addition, the prison is home to more than 50 death row inmates. The most recent execution was in March, using nitrogen gas to deprive the inmate of oxygen, causing death. The state’s electric chair, nicknamed “Gruesome Gertie”, is still on display in the prison’s museum.The notoriety of the 18,000-acre (7,300-hectare) prison stretches back well over a century. Described in the 1960s and 1970s as “the bloodiest prison in America,” it has seen violence, mass riots, escapes, brutality, inhumane conditions and executions.The Trump administration has crafted its immigration messaging to reinforce a tough-on-crime image and create a sense of fear among people in the US illegally, most pointedly with the detention center dubbed Alligator Alcatraz that it built in the Florida Everglades.View image in fullscreenThe Everglades facility may soon be completely empty after a judge upheld her decision ordering operations there to wind down indefinitely.Racing to expand the infrastructure necessary for increasing deportations, the federal government and state allies have announced a series of new immigration detention facilities, including the “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana and the “Cornhusker Clink” in Nebraska.The approximate 400 people the Angola immigration facility will be able to hold is just a tiny percentage of the more than 100,000 people that Ice seeks to detain under a $45bn expansion for immigration detention centers that Trump signed into law in July.The prison traces its history back to a series of wealthy slave traders and cotton planters who built an operation known as Angola Plantation. An 1850s news report said it had 700 slaves, who historians say were forced to work from dawn to dark in Louisiana’s brutal summer heat.The plantation became the state prison after the Civil War, with a former Confederate officer awarded a lease that gave him control over the property and its convicts.“The majority of black inmates were subleased to land owners to replace slaves while others continued levee, railroad, and road construction,” the museum’s website says. White inmates at the time worked as clerks or craftsmen.Inmate leasing ended in the late 1800s amid a public outcry, and the state took direct control of the prison in 1901. More