#pandemic preparedness plan

[hislop3]

OIG Issues Report on SNF Emergency Preparedness

Since the COVID pandemic, regulatory officials have escalated the review, via various audits, of SNF emergency preparedness. COVID highlighted the sporadic and often, non-existent preparations for disasters (natural and other) and disease outbreaks (pandemic or other) that existed with the SNF industry. In reality, the issues have been present for years but only regionally, highlighted by floods,…

[covid-safer-hotties]

The next pandemic is inevitable. Australia isn’t ready - Published Sept 23, 2024

(Before you Americans yell at me, It's already the 23rd in Australia. This is very late-breaking)

I thought this was a really good breakdown of the current situation given the government-approved covid denial we live in. Long, but worth a read.

By Kate Aubusson and Mary Ward

Top infectious disease and public health veterans at the nerve centre of the state’s war against COVID-19 are sounding the alarm.

NSW is less prepared today to fend off a deadly pandemic despite the lessons of COVID-19, say top infectious disease and public health veterans at the nerve centre of the state’s war against the virus.

And we won’t have another hundred years to wait.

NSW’s gold standard Test-Trace-Isolate-Quarantine and vaccination strategies will be useless if a distrusting population rejects directives, refuses to give up its freedoms again, and the goodwill of shell-shocked public health workers dries up.

A panel of experts convened by The Sydney Morning Herald called for a pandemic combat agency akin to the armed forces or fire brigades to commit to greater transparency or risk being caught off guard by the next virulent pathogen and misinformation with the potential to spread faster than any virus.

“It’s inevitable,” says Professor Eddie Holmes of the next pandemic. A world-leading authority on the emergence of infectious diseases at the University of Sydney, Holmes predicts: “We’ll have less than 100 years [before the next pandemic].

“We’re seeing a lot of new coronaviruses that are spilling over into animals that humans are interacting with,” said Holmes, the first person to publish the coronavirus genome sequence for the world to see.

“People are exposed all the time, and each time we are rolling the dice.”

The independent review of NSW Health’s response to COVID-19 opened with the same warning: “No health system or community will have the luxury of 100 years of downtime.”

Pandemic preparedness needs to be a “permanent priority”, wrote the report’s author, Robyn Kruk, a former NSW Health secretary, “rather than following the path of those that have adopted a ‘panic and forget strategy,’ allowing system preparedness to wane”.

Why we don’t have 100 years to wait for the next pandemic The World Health Organisation has declared seven public health emergencies of international concern since 2014, including the current mpox outbreak.

Climate change is turbocharging the factors that coalesce to create the perfect breeding ground for a pandemic-causing virus, including population increases, bigger cities, and better-connected global markets and migration.

“Animals will be forced into more constrained environments, and humans that rely on those environments will be again constrained in the same environments. There will be more wet markets, more live animal trade that will just increase exposure,” Holmes said.

“It was clear that we weren’t ready [for COVID],” said Jennie Musto, who, after seven years working for the World Health Organisation overseas, became NSW Health’s operations manager for the Public Health Emergency Operations Centre, the team responsible for NSW’s COVID-19 contact tracing and containment.

“Everyone had preparedness plans gathering dust on a shelf, but no one was actually ready to respond, and so everyone was on the back foot,” Musto said. “Perhaps none of us really thought this was going to happen. We were waiting 500 years.”

Who would willingly become the next doomed whistleblower? Eddie Holmes, known for his repeated assertion that SARS-CoV-2 did not come from a lab, is deeply concerned that when the next pandemic-causing virus emerges, chances are it will be covered up.

“My worry is that if the virus appeared in a small population, say, somewhere in Southeast Asia, the people involved wouldn’t blow the whistle now, given the fact that you would get blamed,” he said.

Li Wenliang, the Wuhan doctor who tried to raise the alarm about a virulent new virus, was reportedly reprimanded by police for spreading rumours and later died of COVID-19.

The global blame game, culminating in a deep distrust of China and accusations that the virus was grown in a Wuhan lab, is why Holmes believes “we’re in no better place than we were before COVID started, if not worse”.

“I work with a lot of people in China trying to keep the lines of communication open, and they’re scared, I think, or nervous about saying things that are perceived to counter national interest.”

From a vaccine perspective, our defences look strong. There have been monumental advancements in vaccine development globally, driven by mRNA technology. In Sydney this month, construction began on an RNA vaccine research and manufacturing facility.

“But the way I see it is that nothing has been done in terms of animal surveillance of outbreaks or data sharing. The [global] politics has got much, much worse,” Holmes said.

Combat force Conjoint Associate Professor Craig Dalton, a leading public health physician and clinical epidemiologist, called for a dramatic expansion of the public health workforce and the establishment of a pandemic combat force that would routinely run real-time pandemic simulations during “peacetime”.

“No one is upset with fire brigades spending most of the time not fighting fires. They train. A lot. And that’s probably how we need to move,” he said.

“We need exercise training units so that every major player in pandemic response is involved in a real-time, three to four-day pandemic response every three to five years at national, state and local [levels].”

The federal Department of Health and Aged Care recently ran a health emergency exercise focused on governance arrangements involving chief health officers and senior health emergency management officials, a spokeswoman for Health Minister Mark Butler said. The outcomes of this exercise will be tested later this year.

Dalton said desktop simulations and high-level exercises involving a handful of chiefs didn’t cut it, considering the thousands of people working across regions and states. He instead suggested an intensive training program run in the Hunter New England region before the 2009 H1N1 pandemic provided a good model.

“We were ringing people, actors were getting injections, just like a real pandemic,” said Dalton, who once ordered a burrito in a last-ditch effort to contact a restaurant exposed to COVID-19.

Our heroes have had it The expert panel was emphatic that our pandemic response cannot once again rely on the goodwill of the public health and healthcare workforce.

According to the Kruk review, what began as an emergency response ultimately morphed from a sprint into an ultra marathon and “an admirable (yet unsustainable) ‘whatever it takes’ mindset”.

They were hailed as heroes, but the toll of COVID-19 on healthcare workers was brutal. Workloads were untenable, the risk of transmission was constant, and the risk of violence and aggression (for simply wearing their scrubs on public transport in some cases) was terrifying.

“We got through this pandemic through a lot of people working ridiculous hours,” Dalton said.

“You talk to a lot of people who did that and say they could not do it again.”

Tellingly, several expert personnel who worked at the front lines or in the control centre of NSW’s pandemic defences were invited to join the Herald’s forum but declined. Revisiting this period of intense public scrutiny, culminating in online attacks and physical threats, was just too painful.

So long, solidarity Arguably, the biggest threat to our pandemic defences will be the absence of our greatest strength during COVID: the population’s solidarity and willingness to follow public health orders even when it meant forfeiting fundamental freedoms.

The public largely complied with statewide public health orders, including the stay-at-home directive that became the 107-day Delta lockdown, and other severe restrictions prevented many from being at the bedside of their dying loved ones, visiting relatives in aged care homes and attending funerals.

“My worry is that next time around when those sorts of rules come out, people may say, ‘Well, don’t worry about it.’ They relax it in the future. Why don’t we just not stick to the rules?” said Professor Nicholas Wood, associate director of clinical research and services at the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance.

“I’m not sure we quite understand whether people [will be] happy with those rules again,” he said.

Dalton was more strident.

“I tend to agree with Michael Osterholm … an eminent US epidemiologist [who] recently said the US is probably less prepared for a pandemic now than it was in 2019, mostly because the learnings by health departments in the COVID pandemic may not make a material difference if faced with a community that distrusts its public health agencies,” he said.

“If H1N1 or something else were to spill over in the next couple of years, things like masks, social distancing and lockdowns would not be acceptable. Vaccination would be rejected by a huge part of the population, and politicians might be shy about putting mandates in.”

As for the total shutdown of major industries, people will struggle to accept it unless the next pandemic poses a greater threat than COVID, said UNSW applied mathematician Professor James Wood.

The risk of the virus to individuals and their families will be weighed against the negative effects of restrictions, which are much better understood today, said Wood, whose modelling of the impact of cases and vaccination rates was used by NSW Health.

“Something like school closure would be a much tougher argument with a similar pathogen,” he said.

A previous panel of education experts convened by the Herald to interrogate pandemic decision-making in that sector was highly critical of the decision to close schools for months during NSW’s Delta lockdown.

Greg Dore, professor of infectious diseases and epidemiology at the Kirby Institute, said the public’s reluctance to adhere to restrictions again may, in part, be appropriate.

“Some of the restrictions on people leaving the country were a bit feudal and too punitive,” he said. “Other restrictions were plain stupid, [for instance] limitations on time exercising outside.”

Meanwhile, the delays to publicly recognise the benefits of face masks and the threat of airborne transmission “ate away at trust”, Dalton said.

“We shouldn’t make those mistakes again,” he said.

Transparent transgressions Uncertainty is not something politicians are adept at communicating, but uncertainty is the only constant during a pandemic of a novel virus.

Vaccines that offered potent protection against early iterations of the COVID virus were less effective against Omicron variants.

“[The public], unfortunately, got hit by a rapid sequence of changes of what was ‘true’ in the pandemic,” James Wood said.

Political distrust can be deadly if governments give the public reason to suspect they are obfuscating.

The expert panel urged NSW’s political leaders to be far more transparent about the public health advice they were given before unilaterally enforcing restrictions.

There was a clear line between public health advice and political decision-making in Victoria. The Victorian chief health officer’s written advice was routinely published online.

In NSW, that line was blurred as Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant stood beside political leaders, most notably former premier Gladys Berejiklian, at the daily press conferences.

Public health experts said that they looked for subtle cues to determine the distinction between the expert advice and the political messaging during press conferences, paying attention to body language, who spoke when and who stayed silent.

“It is fine for public health personnel to have a different view to politicians. They have different jobs. What is not OK is to have politicians saying they are acting on public health advice [when they are not],” he said.

The ‘whys’ behind the decisions being made were missing from the daily press conferences, which created “a vacuum for misinformation”, said social scientist and public health expert Professor Julie Leask at the University of Sydney.

“The communication about what you need to do came out, and it was pretty good … but the ‘why we’re doing this’ and ‘what trade-offs we’ve considered’ and ‘what dilemmas we’ve faced in making this decision’; that was not shared,” Leask said.

The infodemic In the absence of transparency, misinformation and disinformation fill the vacuum.

“We had an ‘infodemic’ during the pandemic,” said Dr Jocelyne Basseal, who worked on the COVID-19 response for WHO in the Western Pacific and leads strategic development at the Sydney Infectious Diseases Institute, University of Sydney.

“The public has been so confused. Where do we go for trusted information [when] everyone can now write absolutely anything, whether on Twitter [now called X] or [elsewhere] on the web?” Basseal said.

A systematic review conducted by WHO found misinformation on social media accounted for up to 51 per cent of posts about vaccines, 29 per cent of posts about COVID-19 and 60 per cent of posts about pandemics.

Basseal’s teenage children recently asked whether they were going into lockdown after TikTok videos about the mpox outbreak.

“There is a lot of work to be done now, in ‘peacetime’ … to get ahead of misinformation,” Basseal said, including fortifying relationships with community groups and teaching scientists – trusted and credible sources of information – how to work with media.

In addition to the Kruk review’s six recommendations to improve its pandemic preparedness, NSW Health undertook a second inquiry into its public health response to COVID-19, which made 104 recommendations.

NSW Health Minister Ryan Park said: “We are working hard to ensure the findings and recommendations from those reports are being implemented as quickly as possible.”

The expert panellists spoke in their capacity as academics and not on behalf of NSW Health or WHO.

The ‘As One System’ review into NSW Health’s COVID-19 response made six recommendations 1. Make governance and decision-making structures clearer, inclusive, and more widely understood 2. Strengthen co-ordination, communication, engagement, and collaboration 3. Enhance the speed, transparency, accuracy, and practicality of data and information sharing 4. Prioritise the needs of vulnerable people and communities most at risk, impacted and in need from day one 5. Put communities at the centre of emergency governance, planning, preparedness, and response 6. Recognise, develop and sustain workforce health, wellbeing, capability and agility.

[rederiswrites]

Why are we afraid of a Trump presidency? Well, here's the beginning of political historian Heather Cox Richardson's daily writeup:

April 30, 2024 (Tuesday) This morning, Time magazine published a cover story by Eric Cortellessa about what Trump is planning for a second term. Based on two interviews with Trump and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisors, the story lays out Trump’s conviction that he was “too nice” in his first term and that he would not make such a mistake again. Cortellessa writes that Trump intends to establish “an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.” He plans to use the military to round up, put in camps, and deport more than 11 million people. He is willing to permit Republican-dominated states to monitor pregnancies and prosecute people who violate abortion bans. He will shape the laws by refusing to release funds appropriated by Congress (as he did in 2019 to try to get Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to smear Hunter Biden). He would like to bring the Department of Justice under his own control, pardoning those convicted of attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and ending the U.S. system of an independent judiciary. In a second Trump presidency, the U.S. might not come to the aid of a European or Asian ally that Trump thinks isn’t paying enough for its own defense. Trump would, Cortelessa wrote, “gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.” To that list, former political director of the AFL-CIO Michael Podhorzer added on social media that if Trump wins, “he could replace [Supreme Court justices Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and 40+ federal judges over 75 with young zealots.” “I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles?” Cortellessa wrote. No, Trump said. “‘I think a lot of people like it.”

[izooks]

Some of Joe Biden’s accomplishments:

**Domestic policy**

* **American Rescue Plan (2021)**: Provided $1.9 trillion in COVID-19 relief, including direct payments, enhanced unemployment benefits, and funding for vaccines and testing.

* **Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021)**: Allocated $1.2 trillion for infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, broadband, and clean energy initiatives.

* **Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022)**: Expanded background checks for gun purchases and provided funding for mental health services.

* **Child Tax Credit Expansion (2021-2022)**: Temporarily expanded the Child Tax Credit to provide up to $3,600 per child in monthly payments.

* **Affordable Care Act Expansion (2021)**: Made health insurance more affordable for low- and middle-income Americans by reducing premiums and expanding subsidies.

**Foreign Policy**

* **Withdrawal from Afghanistan (2021)**: Ended the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

* **Re-joining the Paris Agreement (2021)**: Re-committed the United States to global efforts to address climate change.

* **Strengthening Alliances with NATO and the EU (2021-present)**: Repaired relationships with key European allies after strained relations during the Trump administration.

* **Supporting Ukraine in the Ukraine-Russia War (2022-present)**: Provided military, humanitarian, and diplomatic support to Ukraine in its defense against Russia's invasion.

* **Nuclear Deal with Iran (2023)**: Revived negotiations with Iran on a comprehensive nuclear deal, aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

**Other Notable Accomplishments**

* **Appointing Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court (2022)**: Made history by being the first Black woman appointed to the nation's highest court.

* **Signing the Respect for Marriage Act (2022)**: Ensured federal recognition of same-sex and interracial marriages.

* **Establishing the Office of the National Cyber Director (2021)**: Coordinated federal efforts to combat cybersecurity threats.

* **Creating the COVID-19 National Preparedness Plan (2021)**: Developed a comprehensive strategy to respond to future pandemics.

* **Launching the Cancer Moonshot (2022)**: Re-energized the government's efforts to find a cure for cancer.

[feminist-space]

"Today, December 20, marks the official end of the Marburg Virus Disease outbreak in Rwanda. It has been 42 days – two full incubation periods – since the last confirmed case left the national Marburg treatment centre after testing negative.

In previous outbreaks, Marburg, which is caused by a virus related to Ebola, has killed up to 88 per cent of people infected. And Rwanda had never seen this disease within its borders before the current outbreak began in September. Despite Rwandan physicians having never encountered it before, the mortality rate observed in this outbreak is under 23 per cent – the lowest-ever death rate for a Marburg outbreak in Africa.

While the virus initially spread fiercely in two major hospitals in the capital Kigali and among family members of one of the initial cases, Rwanda’s rapid response, with implementation of strict infection prevention and control, isolation and containment of cases, prompt initiation of aggressive supportive care, delivery of investigational therapeutics and vaccines, and tracing and monitoring of contacts quickly brought the outbreak under control. The rate of new cases halved between the outbreak’s second and third weeks and dropped by around 90 per cent thereafter.

One of the most remarkable aspects of this response was an international effort, initiated and led by the Rwandan government, to administer thousands of doses of a promising experimental vaccine to front-line health workers under a clinical trial protocol, with the first subjects vaccinated in a remarkably short timeframe.

...

Rwanda, for its part, has invested heavily in its healthcare system and has incorporated epidemic preparedness into its national health policies. Rwanda has well-trained medical staff working in well-run hospitals and community-based health services. It has been investing in technology-based disease surveillance systems and its laboratories can handle fast, accurate diagnostic testing at scale.

In early September, after months of planning, Rwandan scientists and health officials joined CEPI and other private sector partners to walk through a “tabletop exercise” about the 100 Days Mission. It was through this in-person training exercise that key relationships between disease outbreak experts, Rwandan health authorities and researchers, vaccine developers and clinical trial specialists were cemented.

...

We also have no doubt that with the right focus and funding, such nationally-led, globally-supported, life-saving responses to novel disease outbreaks could be accomplished by any government in any region. By taking a proactive approach and using the 100 Days Mission as a game plan, all countries can get ahead of epidemic and pandemic threats and neutralise their catastrophic potential."

Read the full piece here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/partnerships-preparedness-halted-rwanda-marburg-outbreak/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/partnerships-preparedness-halted-rwanda-marburg-outbreak/

[mugiwara-lucy]

I should point out voters are NOT trying to "fear monger" people into voting. (The majority I've seen anyways) BUT we're trying to tell people the consequences of what would happen if the MAGA Crowd wins.

For example, if Trump gets in office one of the thing he plans on doing is CLOSING DOWN THE PANDEMIC PREPAREDNESS OFFICE. You know, the office that helps get people prepared for widespread diseases that Trump shut down because he's too ignorant and stupid.

No BS:

Keep in mind we're STILL NOT FULLY RECOVERED from the COVID-19 Pandemic four years ago and if he does it again, ANOTHER Pandemic will ensue and MORE jobs will be lost and more people will be stuffed in freezer trucks.

PLEASE VOTE.

[mariacallous]

The U.S. President’s Emergency Relief Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, is possibly the single most successful policy to date in U.S.-Africa relations. It is one also one of the most successful foreign policy programs in U.S. history. Yet very few people have heard of it, and its future funding is currently on shaky ground in the current U.S. political climate. As Congress decides on spending allocations and discretionary spending for the following fiscal years, and with the March 25, 2025 PEPFAR reauthorization deadline looming, at the top of the agenda should be one key mandate: Fund PEPFAR. Why? For the following three key reasons:

PEPFAR is an extremely popular foreign policy program with historical bipartisan support that has saved over 25 million lives1 and boosted the global economy.

PEPFAR is a cost-effective program that provides positive net benefits to the U.S. and the world. At very low cost to the U.S., it provides outsized returns in health security and strengthened diplomatic relations with PEPFAR country partners in Africa.

PEPFAR is an indispensable tool to strengthen national and global health security by reducing not just HIV epidemic risk, but also strengthening pandemic preparedness globally.

[fatehbaz]

A devastating rail crash that left almost 300 people dead has refocused international attention on the importance of railways in the lives of Indians.

Indeed, to many Western observers, images of men and women crammed into overcrowded cars serve as a metaphor for modern India. Take, for example, a report by German newspaper Der Spiegel on India’s population surpassing China’s. Published just weeks before the accident in Odisha province on June 2, the now much-criticized cartoon depicted a shabby Indian train crammed with passengers rushing past a streamlined Chinese train with only two people in it.

Where does this enduring image in the West of Indian railways – and of India – come from? As a scholar of Indian history and author of 2015 book “Tracks of Change: Railways and Everyday Life in Colonial India,” I believe the answers lie in the gigantic infrastructure projects of the 19th century – forged at the intersection of colonial dictates and capitalist demands.

---

A carrier of freight, not people

Railways remain the backbone of passenger traffic in India, transporting some 23 million people daily. In the pre-pandemic 2018-19 financial year, 7.7 billion passenger journeys in India. [...] Yet, when first planned in the 1840s, India’s railways were intended to primarily transport freight and livestock, not people. Indians were thought unlikely to become railway passengers by directors of the English East India Co., a merchant monopoly that gradually annexed and administered large parts of India under U.K. crown control. [...] However, early colonial railway policy was driven by pervasive Orientalist imaginings of a people rendered immobile by poverty, living in isolated villages [...]. The trope interlocked with colonial thinking that railways would foster greater industrialization which in turn would further a capitalist economy. They also aligned with the practical needs of a colonial trading monopoly which needed raw materials for English industries, such as cotton, to be moved swiftly and efficiently from India’s interiors to port towns [...].

---

Despite the doubters, the new Indian railways attracted an increasing number of passengers. The half-million passengers recorded in 1854 when tracks became operational increased to 26 million in 1875. By 1900, annual passenger figures stood at 175 million and then almost trebled to 520 million by 1919-20. By the time of the partition of India in 1947 it had risen to more than 1 billion passenger journeys annually. Indeed, images of overcrowded trains came to epitomize the upheaval of partition, with the rail system used to carry swaths of uprooted peoples across the soon-to-be Pakistan-India border. Third-class passengers, overwhelmingly Indians, comprised almost 90% of this traffic. These escalating figures did not, however, generate a lowering of fares. Nor did they result in any substantial improvements in the conditions of [...] travel. [...]

---

The generally British railway managers seemed disinclined to remedy systematic overcrowding, which included transporting passengers in wagons meant for livestock. Rather, they insisted that such overcrowding was caused by the peculiar habits and inclinations of Indian passengers: their alleged [...] inclination to follow one another “like sheep” into crowded carriages. These attributes were soon rendered into a more public narrative, especially among Western mindsets. Journalist H. Sutherland Stark, writing for the industry publication Indian State Railways Magazine in 1929, stated that though “unversed” in railway administration and traffic control, he knew railway facilities were not the problem. Rather, Indian passengers lacked the mental preparedness, “self-possession” and “method” necessary to travel like “sane human beings.” Stark suggested passenger education as a solution to the perceived problem, making railway travel a tool for “self-composure and mass orderliness.” [...]

---

More than a century later, this depiction endures, though, ironically, it now serves as a foil to understanding contemporary India. In a piece published in The New York Times on March 12, 2005, the author lauded the then-new Delhi metro, emphasizing that it had “none of the chaotic squalor of hawkers and beggars that characterizes mainline railroads in India, nor do desperate travelers hang from the sides of the trains.” As the debate rages on whether safety has taken a back seat to “glossy modernization projects” in India – early analyses suggest signaling failure might have caused June 2, 2023, accident – railways continue to represent India’s history.

In the heyday of empire, they were deemed the technology through which Britain would drag India into capitalist modernity. In 1947, they became a leitmotif for the trauma of the partition that accompanied the independence of India and Pakistan. As the coverage of Odisha accident reminds us, it continues to be a metaphor in the West for evaluating contemporary India.

---

Headline, image, caption, and all text above by: Ritika Prasa. “Overcrowded trains serve as metaphor for India in Western eyes -- but they are a relic of colonialism and capitalism.” The Conversation. 9 June 2023. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me.]

[saddiedotdk]

Kamala Harris accomplishments as VP:

Cast tie-breaking vote for the American Rescue Plan of 2021.

Passed the American Rescue Plan, resulting in $1.9 trillion in economic stimulus.

Extended the Child Tax Credit through the American Rescue Plan.

Extended unemployment benefits through the American Rescue Plan.

Passed the $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for electric school buses in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding to combat wildfires and droughts in the infrastructure bill.

Secured funding for replacing lead water service lines.

Engaged with lawmakers at least 150 times for infrastructure investment.

Led diplomatic mission to Guatemala and Mexico to address migration issues.

Launched the "Central America Forward" initiative.

Secured $4.2 billion in private sector commitments for Central America.

Visited Paris to strengthen US-France relations.

Visited Singapore and Vietnam to bolster economic and strategic ties.

Visited Poland to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Visited Romania to support NATO allies during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Launched the "Fight for Reproductive Freedoms" tour.

Visited a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota.

Passed the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.

Promoted racial equity in pandemic response through specific initiatives.

Chaired the National Space Council.

Visited NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center to promote space policies.

Passed the Freedom to Vote Act in the House.

Passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the House.

Built coalitions for voting rights protections.

Supported the Affordable Care Act through specific policy measures.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Passed initiatives for debt-free college education.

Hosted a STEM event for women and girls at the White House.

Championed criminal justice reform through specific legislation.

Secured passage of the bipartisan assault weapons ban.

Expanded background checks for gun purchases through legislation.

Increased the minimum wage through specific policy actions.

Implemented economic justice policies.

Expanded healthcare coverage through policy initiatives.

Secured funding for affordable housing.

Secured funding for affordable education initiatives.

Launched the "Justice is Coming Home" campaign for veterans' mental health.

Proposed legislation for easier legal actions against financial institutions.

Strengthened the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Secured investment in early childhood education.

Launched maternal health initiatives.

Launched the "Call to Action to Reduce Maternal Mortality and Morbidity".

Made Black maternal health a national priority through policy actions.

Increased diversity in government appointments.

Passed legislation for renewable energy production.

Secured funding for combating climate change.

Passed infrastructure development initiatives.

Secured transportation funding through the infrastructure bill.

Developed a plan to combat climate change.

Reduced illegal immigration through policy actions.

Equitable vaccine distribution through specific policy measures.

Supported small businesses through pandemic recovery funds.

Secured educational resources during the pandemic.

Promoted international cooperation on climate initiatives.

Secured international agreements on climate change.

Passed economic policies benefiting the middle class.

Criticized policies benefiting the wealthy at the expense of the working class.

Promoted racial equity in healthcare through specific actions.

Promoted racial equity in economic policies.

Reduced racial disparities in education through specific initiatives.

Increased mental health resources for underserved communities.

Secured funding for affordable childcare.

Secured federal funding for community colleges.

Increased funding for HBCUs.

Increased vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Secured policies for pandemic preparedness.

Ensured equitable vaccine distribution through policy actions.

Secured international cooperation for COVID-19 responses.

Reduced economic disparities exacerbated by the pandemic.

Passed digital equity initiatives for broadband access.

Expanded rural broadband through specific policies.

Secured cybersecurity policies through legislation.

Protected election integrity through specific actions.

Secured fair and secure elections through policy measures.

Strengthened international alliances through diplomacy.

Supported the Paris Climate Agreement through policy actions.

Led U.S. climate negotiations through international initiatives.

Passed initiatives for clean energy jobs.

Secured policies for energy efficiency.

Reduced carbon emissions through specific legislation.

Secured international climate finance.

Promoted public health policies through specific initiatives.

Passed reproductive health services policies.

Supported LGBTQ+ rights through specific actions.

Secured initiatives to reduce homelessness.

Increased veterans' benefits through legislation.

Secured affordable healthcare for veterans.

Passed policies to support military families.

Secured initiatives for veteran employment.

Increased mental health resources for veterans.

Passed disability rights legislation.

Secured policies for accessible infrastructure.

Increased funding for workforce development.

Implemented economic mobility policies.

Secured consumer protection policies through legislation.

Engaged in community outreach through public events.

Organized public engagement efforts.

Participated in over 720 official events, averaging three per day since taking office.

Supported efforts to modernize public health data systems.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Eric Cortellessa at Time:

Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice. We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not? As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.”  Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words.

What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.”

The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.” Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

[...] The spectacle picks up where his first term left off. The events of Jan. 6, during which a pro-Trump mob attacked the center of American democracy in an effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, was a profound stain on his legacy. Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, “Yes, absolutely.” As Trump faces dozens of felony charges, including for election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national-security secrets, and falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments, he has tried to turn legal peril into a badge of honor. [...] In a second term, Trump’s influence on American democracy would extend far beyond pardoning powers. Allies are laying the groundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the unitary executive theory, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the White House by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful Commander in Chief.

Nowhere would that power be more momentous than at the Department of Justice. Since the nation’s earliest days, Presidents have generally kept a respectful distance from Senate-confirmed law-enforcement officials to avoid exploiting for personal ends their enormous ability to curtail Americans’ freedoms. But Trump, burned in his first term by multiple investigations directed by his own appointees, is ever more vocal about imposing his will directly on the department and its far-flung investigators and prosecutors.

[...] Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. Advisers say he plans to cite record border crossings and fentanyl- and child-trafficking as justification for reimposing the emergency measures. He would direct federal funding to resume construction of the border wall, likely by allocating money from the military budget without congressional approval. The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. “People need to be deported,” says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “No one should be off the table.”

[...] As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, he has sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.

Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.” I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump says, “because we now have it back in the states.”

Presidents typically have a narrow window to pass major legislation. Trump’s team is eyeing two bills to kick off a second term: a border-security and immigration package, and an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. Many of the latter’s provisions expire early in 2025: the tax cuts on individual income brackets, 100% business expensing, the doubling of the estate-tax deduction. Trump is planning to intensify his protectionist agenda, telling me he’s considering a tariff of more than 10% on all imports, and perhaps even a 100% tariff on some Chinese goods. Trump says the tariffs will liberate the U.S. economy from being at the mercy of foreign manufacturing and spur an industrial renaissance in the U.S. When I point out that independent analysts estimate Trump’s first term tariffs on thousands of products, including steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines, may have cost the U.S. $316 billion and more than 300,000 jobs, by one account, he dismisses these experts out of hand. His advisers argue that the average yearly inflation rate in his first term—under 2%—is evidence that his tariffs won’t raise prices. [...]

Trump’s intention to remake America’s relations abroad may be just as consequential. Since its founding, the U.S. has sought to build and sustain alliances based on the shared values of political and economic freedom. Trump takes a much more transactional approach to international relations than his predecessors, expressing disdain for what he views as free-riding friends and appreciation for authoritarian leaders like President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary, or former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil. That’s one reason America’s traditional allies were horrified when Trump recently said at a campaign rally that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country he believes doesn’t spend enough on collective defense. That wasn’t idle bluster, Trump tells me. “If you’re not going to pay, then you’re on your own,” he says. Trump has long said the alliance is ripping the U.S. off. Former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg credited Trump’s first-term threat to pull out of the alliance with spurring other members to add more than $100 billion to their defense budgets.

[...] Trump has historically been reluctant to criticize or confront Putin. He sided with the Russian autocrat over his own intelligence community when it asserted that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Even now, Trump uses Putin as a foil for his own political purposes. When I asked Trump why he has not called for the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been unjustly held on spurious charges in a Moscow prison for a year, Trump says, “I guess because I have so many other things I’m working on.” Gershkovich should be freed, he adds, but he doubts it will happen before the election. “The reporter should be released and he will be released,” Trump tells me. “I don’t know if he’s going to be released under Biden. I would get him released.” America’s Asian allies, like its European ones, may be on their own under Trump. Taiwan’s Foreign Minister recently said aid to Ukraine was critical in deterring Xi from invading the island. Communist China’s leaders “have to understand that things like that can’t come easy,” Trump says, but he declines to say whether he would come to Taiwan’s defense. 

[...] Yet even his support for Israel is not absolute. He’s criticized Israel’s handling of its war against Hamas, which has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza, and has called for the nation to “get it over with.” When I ask whether he would consider withholding U.S. military aid to Israel to push it toward winding down the war, he doesn’t say yes, but he doesn’t rule it out, either. He is sharply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once a close ally. “I had a bad experience with Bibi,” Trump says. In his telling, a January 2020 U.S. operation to assassinate a top Iranian general was supposed to be a joint attack until Netanyahu backed out at the last moment. “That was something I never forgot,” he says. He blames Netanyahu for failing to prevent the Oct. 7 attack, when Hamas militants infiltrated southern Israel and killed nearly 1,200 people amid acts of brutality including burning entire families alive and raping women and girls. “It happened on his watch,” Trump says.

[...] Another inside move is the enforcement of Schedule F, which allows the President to fire nonpolitical government officials and which Trump says he would embrace. “You have some people that are protected that shouldn’t be protected,” he says. A senior U.S. judge offers an example of how consequential such a move could be. Suppose there’s another pandemic, and President Trump wants to push the use of an untested drug, much as he did with hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19. Under Schedule F, if the drug’s medical reviewer at the Food and Drug Administration refuses to sign off on its use, Trump could fire them, and anyone else who doesn’t approve it. The Trump team says the President needs the power to hold bureaucrats accountable to voters. “The mere mention of Schedule F,” says Vought, “ensures that the bureaucracy moves in your direction.”

TIME Magazine interviewed 2024 GOP Republican nominee Donald Trump twice over the span of just over two weeks, and in those interviews, Trump told Time's Eric Cortellessa his plans for what his 2nd term would be.

His plans would include a full-scale fascist takeover of the United States should he get elected to a 2nd term are as follows:

He would enact draconian anti-immigration policies such as deporting 11M+ undocumented immigrants and build concentration camps for not just undocumented immigrants but those opposed to his agenda.

He would also aid and abet in cruel anti-abortion policies that invade the privacy of a pregnant person and criminalize those who obtain abortions.

He would destroy the nonpartisan civil service system by enacting Schedule F to give jobs to his MAGA cronies.

He would pardon every domestic terrorist who participated in the J6 Capitol Insurrection that he incited.

He would endanger national security by refusing to come to the aid of our allies if attacked, effectively doing China and Russia's bidding.

He would summon the National Guard and the military to put down protests against him and his anti-American regime.

He would turn the DOJ into his partisan political tool to go after his critics.

The Project 2025 agenda would be used to guide Trump into making decisions that would end America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.

These interviews he gave to Time should be a remind that America does not vote to put the tyrant back in office and that re-electing Joe Biden is essential to keeping America free.

See Also:

Time: Full transcript of Time's two interviews with Trump.

Read the full article at Time Magazine.

[darkmaga-returns]

By Bradley Greer January 23, 2025

Local councils, government officials, and emergency service teams are set to participate in a large-scale “pandemic preparedness exercise” aimed at enhancing readiness for potential future crises.

Labour minister Pat McFadden announced that the exercises, involving thousands of participants across various regions in the UK, are scheduled for the autumn and will span several days.

These plans come as part of the government’s response to the initial recommendations of the Covid-19 Inquiry.

According to the BBC, the inquiry’s chair, Baroness Hallett, concluded that the UK was “ill-prepared” for the coronavirus pandemic and “failed” its citizens.

The government describes the upcoming pandemic response exercise as the first of its kind in nearly ten years. Its purpose is to evaluate and strengthen the nation’s capabilities, strategies, and procedures against emerging threats.

The results and insights from the exercise will be shared publicly, aligning with Baroness Hallett’s recommendations outlined in a 217-page report published in July 2023.

Additionally, the government plans to conduct a comprehensive test of the emergency alert system later this year.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive! (<-follow this link to access more than 1,000 news and opinion articles about covid and more!)

By Dr. Merrilee Fullerton

The U.K. COVID Inquiry is creating a much-needed push to update Infection Prevention & Control (IPAC) guidelines with respect to the predominant mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

COVID has finally begun to be acknowledged as an airborne disease, but policy hasn't kept up on the issue of aerosol spread, including how to deploy HEPA, UVC, masking protocols and other measures. Successful mitigation hinges on accurately identifying the mode of transmission as early as possible and clearly communicating appropriate guidance.

It’s not that washing hands is bad or should be stopped. It’s just that it shouldn’t be the main message or relied upon to address the transmission of COVID in a meaningful way.

Thorough updating of Public Health and IPAC guidelines with new scientific knowledge surrounding airborne spread is required along with more room for critical thinking and speed during responses to outbreaks of infectious disease such as COVID.

Accurately identifying the mode of transmission is not just an academic exercise. It is key to mitigating death, disease, and disability related to COVID as well as avoiding the massive toll on productivity and the economy that this disease has taken.

There are pivotal lessons to be learned through the U.K. COVID Inquiry which has been ongoing for a couple years, but it has only recently reached Module 3: The Impact of the COVID Pandemic on Healthcare Systems of the U.K. Included in this are issues surrounding transmission mechanisms and Long COVID.

Much can be learned from the U.K. Inquiry. Our Canadian experiences responding to COVID had many parallels to those of the U.K. Countries around the world were similarly impacted since most were following the advice and guidance produced by the World Health Organization which consistently repeated — erroneously — that COVID was not airborne.

The U.K. has proven to be transparent about peeling back the layers of Public Health measures and delving into scientific misunderstandings with respect to the spread and potential mitigation of SARS-CoV-2. The U.K. COVID Inquiry is being chaired by retired judge Baroness Heather Hallett who promised the inquiry would be thorough and fair. Lady Hallett has already provided the first report of the inquiry indicating “fatal strategic flaws” and calling for an overhaul of the national civil emergencies system with ten recommendations, including “a radical simplification of civil emergency preparedness and resilience systems.”

She also recommended external teams should regularly challenge groupthink on the principles, evidence and advice on emergency plans. An important point in the Executive Summary is as follows:

"Advisers and advisory groups did not have sufficient freedom and autonomy to express dissenting views and suffered from a lack of significant external oversight and challenge. The advice was often undermined by ‘groupthink’.”

This is a relatable point as I refer to Chapter 4 in my book, notably pages 74 to 83, where I describe the challenges I experienced in conveying my concerns about SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic, including the risk and likelihood of COVID being an airborne disease.

A major independent report by expert witness Professor Clive Beggs was provided to the Inquiry for Module 3. Beggs’ report is essential reading for anyone interested in the COVID pandemic response and future pandemic planning. See below for a series of excerpts highlighting the most significant findings.

Meanwhile, in Canada, instead of calling for a national inquiry into our own COVID response, the federal government has created another agency. On Sept. 24, 2024, federal Ministers of Innovation, Science and Industry, and Health announced the launch of Health Emergency Readiness Canada (HERC).

The official announcement outlined key features of HERC once it is operational:

Integrated decision making to build life sciences capacity

Strengthened partnerships with industry, academia and international counterparts

The development and maintenance of a Canadian industrial game plan to mobilize research and industry in the event of a health emergency

World-leading innovation to advance next-generation technology platforms

Sounds nice, but how about accurate and timely identification of the main mechanism of transmission and being open to hearing from highly qualified people who disagree rather than engaging in groupthink?

Critical thinking and swiftness are not often features of expanding bureaucracies and, too often, people within large bureaucratic structures must go along to get along to move up the hierarchy. Different perspectives may be seen as a nuisance, or even adversarial to the bureaucracy's stated aims. The ability to be agile in response to rapidly changing circumstances is critical, even foundational, but it's wholly unaddressed by grafting yet another agency onto our suite of existing agencies.

Recall that in 2004 a previous federal health agency was created with a mission to promote and protect the health of Canadians in response to the 2003 SARS crisis: PHAC.

The Public Health Agency of Canada was created to provide “clear federal leadership on issues concerning public health and improved collaboration within and between jurisdictions.” SARS-CoV-2 and the massive multi-year COVID pandemic, which is still ongoing, puts much doubt on PHAC’s ability to do what it was designed to do.

How about another agency then? And no information regarding costing or the additional staff.

HERC is intended to “bridge the gap between research and commercialization, meaning Canadians could get faster access to most relevant and effective vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and other products, including when they need them the most."

Faster access is certainly important, but will another layer of bureaucracy really speed up access and do what Health Canada and PHAC could not?

Health Canada was relatively slow in approving much-needed rapid antigen tests for COVID early on, when other countries had already done so. It’s hard to believe that slow bureaucratic processes will become faster with even more bureaucratic processes.

---

Dr. Merrilee Fullerton is the former Ontario Minister of Long-Term Care. Her book chronicling her time in politics, including the events surrounding Ontario's early pandemic response, can be read here.

---

I leave you with a series of excerpts from the UK COVID-19 Inquiry Module 3 concerning significant points from Professor Beggs' report. I expect Baroness Hallett will have recommendations pertaining to the airborne nature of COVID-19 and the failure of Public Health and IPAC to appropriately address the virus' mode of transmission.

Page 24, paragraph 54 and 55:

“While primarily focused on SARS-CoV-2, the discussion here is equally applicable to other respiratory viruses, such as influenza, as well as to TB. Historically, this subject has been largely neglected by the mainstream IPC community, with the result many misconceptions and erroneous ‘facts’ have crept into scientific literature, (culminating) in the WHO and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) denying in 2020 that SARS-CoV-2 could be transmitted by the airborne route. Therefore, in order to learn lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic, it is important to understand how infectious respiratory particles behave once they have been exhaled into room air."

"... this affords the opportunity for NPIs, such as improved room ventilation and air cleaning, to reduce the viral load and thus mitigate the risk of transmission.”

Page 36, Fomite and contact transmission of respiratory viruses, “Key findings:"

-It was assumed ... that contact transmission was a major contributor to transmission, but there was little evidence of this from studies of other respiratory viruses.

-Evidence for the effectiveness of handwashing in Covid-19, influenza and other respiratory viruses is mixed, showing only modest benefits.

-Transmission through the air is likely more important than contact routes, though occasional contact transmission is also possible.

-The assumption that contact routes are a major contributor to transmission was flawed, and led to many IPC policy-makers, practitioners and researchers requiring a higher standard of causal evidence to accept that airborne transmission was occurring than they required for contact transmission.

Page 41, paragraph 105:

“... evidence largely does not support the historical assumption that the contact and fomite routes make a major contribution to the transmission of respiratory viral infections. Indeed, the authors of the two 2011 PIP reports on influenza both concede this ... stating: "Since the role of hands in the transmission of influenza has actually never been demonstrated, one may hesitate to attribute a great proportion to this pathway.'"

"... it is surprising that at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, the default assumption amongst the IPC and public health professionals was that the fomite and contact routes made a major contribution to SARS-CoV-2 transmission ... the first confirmed epidemiological association between surface contamination and the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 did not emerge until 2023 ...”

Page 46 and 47, paragraph 115 and 118:

"Many medical and IPC professionals have misconceptions regarding the nature and behaviour of infectious respiratory aerosols. These misconceptions are historical, widely accepted and often repeated in medical textbooks and in scientific papers, despite being factually incorrect."

"While the historical controversy surrounding droplets and aerosols might appear rather academic, in reality, the misconceptions held by the medical community on this subject had a far-reaching impact on the preparedness of the UK and the world for the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as on the IPC measures adopted and the PPE used."

"... IPC advice issued in the UK (and overseas) during 2020 and much of 2021 focused on prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the droplet, contact and fomites routes, rather than through aerosols."

Page 112, selected Recommendations:

- "i. A more multidisciplinary approach should be taken to future pandemic preparedness by the UK Government, including but not limited to hospital IPC. This should specifically include scientific advice from experts in the physical sciences ..."

-"iv. ... In particular, the duration of time that someone is exposed is of critical importance and should be acknowledged in guidance."

-"vi. There is a need for further multidisciplinary research to better understand how air and infectious aerosols move around hospital wards, so that appropriate strategies and standards can be developed for hospital ventilation systems to mitigate the transmission of infection."

"vii. There is a need for robust evidence and guidelines on the deployment of portable supplementary air cleaning devices (both HEPA and UVC devices) in hospitals, before and during the next pandemic. The evidence base in support of portable HEPA devices, in particular is reasonably strong."

"ix. ... guidelines need to consider the risks posed by patients and HCWs with regard to Covid-19 and influenza on general wards and in non-clinical areas such as waiting and staff rooms, so that prescribed ventilation regimes fulfil their role in the hierarchy of IPC controls to ensure that viral loads in the room air are maintained at safe levels.

"They also need to consider the role that CO2 monitoring might play in ensuring that day-to day ventilation rates in clinical and non-clinical spaces are maintained at appropriate levels."

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 30, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAY 01, 2024

This morning, Time magazine published a cover story by Eric Cortellessa about what Trump is planning for a second term. Based on two interviews with Trump and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisors, the story lays out Trump’s conviction that he was “too nice” in his first term and that he would not make such a mistake again. 

Cortellessa writes that Trump intends to establish “an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.” 

He plans to use the military to round up, put in camps, and deport more than 11 million people. He is willing to permit Republican-dominated states to monitor pregnancies and prosecute people who violate abortion bans. He will shape the laws by refusing to release funds appropriated by Congress (as he did in 2019 to try to get Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to smear Hunter Biden). He would like to bring the Department of Justice under his own control, pardoning those convicted of attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and ending the U.S. system of an independent judiciary. In a second Trump presidency, the U.S. might not come to the aid of a European or Asian ally that Trump thinks isn’t paying enough for its own defense. Trump would, Cortelessa wrote, “gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.”

To that list, former political director of the AFL-CIO Michael Podhorzer added on social media that if Trump wins, “he could replace [Supreme Court justices Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and 40+ federal judges over 75 with young zealots.” 

“I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles?” Cortellessa wrote. No, Trump said. “‘I think a lot of people like it.” 

Time included the full transcripts and a piece fact-checking Trump’s assertions. The transcripts reflect the former president’s scattershot language that makes little logical sense but conveys impressions by repeating key phrases and advancing a narrative of grievance. The fact-checking reveals that narrative is based largely on fantasy. 

Trump’s own words prove the truth of what careful observers have been saying about his plans based on their examination of MAGA Republicans’ speeches, interviews, Project 2025, and so on, often to find themselves accused of a liberal bias that makes them exaggerate the dangers of a second Trump presidency. 

The idea that truthful reporting based on verifiable evidence is a plot by “liberal media” to undermine conservative values had its start in 1951, when William F. Buckley Jr., fresh out of Yale, published God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom.” Fervently opposed to the bipartisan liberal consensus that the federal government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, protect civil rights, and promote infrastructure, Buckley was incensed that voters continued to support such a system. He rejected the “superstition” that fact-based public debate would enable people to choose the best option from a wide range of ideas—a tradition based in the Enlightenment—because such debate had encouraged voters to choose the liberal consensus, which he considered socialism. Instead, he called for universities to exclude “bad” ideas like the Keynesian economics on which the liberal consensus was based, and instead promote Christianity and free enterprise.

Buckley soon began to publish his own magazine, the National Review, in which he promised to tell the “violated businessman’s side of the story,” but it was a confidential memorandum written in 1971 by lawyer Lewis M. Powell Jr. for a friend who chaired the education committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that insisted the media had a liberal bias that must be balanced with a business perspective. 

Warning that “the American economic system is under broad attack,” Powell worried not about “the Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system.” They were, he wrote, a small minority. What he worried about were those coming from “perfectly respectable elements of society: from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians.” 

Businessmen must “confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management,” he wrote, launching a unified effort to defend American enterprise. Among the many plans Powell suggested for defending corporate America was keeping the media “under constant surveillance” to complain about “criticism of the enterprise system” and demand equal time. 

President Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the Supreme Court, and when Nixon was forced to resign for his participation in the scheme to cover up the attempt to bug the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate Hotel before the 1972 election, he claimed he had to leave not because he had committed a crime, but because the “liberal” media had made it impossible for him to do his job. Six years later, Ronald Reagan, who was an early supporter of Buckley’s National Review, claimed the “liberal media” was biased against him when reporters accurately called out his exaggerations and misinformation during his 1980 campaign. 

In 1987, Reagan’s appointees to the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine that required media with a public license to present information honestly and fairly. Within a year, talk radio had gone national, with hosts like Rush Limbaugh electrifying listeners with his attacks on “liberals” and his warning that they were forcing “socialism” on the United States. 

By 1996, when Australian-born media mogul Rupert Murdoch started the Fox News Channel (FNC), followers had come to believe that the news that came from a mainstream reporter was likely left-wing propaganda. FNC promised to restore fairness and balance to American political news. At the same time, the complaints of increasingly radicalized Republicans about the “liberal media” pushed mainstream media to wander from fact-based reality to give more and more time to the right-wing narrative. By 2018, “bothsidesing” had entered our vocabulary to mean “the media or public figures giving credence to the other side of a cause, action, or idea to seem fair or only for the sake of argument when the credibility of that side may be unmerited.”

In 2023, FNC had to pay almost $800 million to settle defamation claims made by Dominion Voting Systems after FNC hosts pushed the lie that Dominion machines had changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and it has since tried to retreat from the more egregious parts of its false narrative. 

News broke yesterday that Hunter Biden’s lawyer had threatened to sue FNC for “conspiracy and subsequent actions to defame Mr. Biden and paint him in a false light, the unlicensed commercial exploitation of his image, name, and likeness, and the unlawful publication of hacked intimate images of him.” Today, FNC quietly took down from its streaming service its six-part “mock trial” of Hunter Biden, as well as a video promoting the series. 

Also today, Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over Trump’s criminal trial for election fraud, found Trump in contempt of court for attacking witnesses and jurors. Merchan also fined Trump $1,000 per offense, required him to take down the nine social media posts at the heart of the decision, and warned him that future violations could bring jail time. This afternoon, Trump’s team deleted the social media posts. 

For the first time in history, a former U.S. president has been found in contempt of court. We know who he is, and today, Trump himself validated the truth of what observers who deal in facts have been saying about what a second Trump term would mean for the United States.

Reacting to the Time magazine piece, James Singer, the spokesperson for the Biden-Harris campaign, released a statement saying: “Not since the Civil War have freedom and democracy been under assault at home as they are today—because of Donald Trump. Trump is willing to throw away the very idea of America to put himself in power…. Trump is a danger to the Constitution and a threat to democracy.” 

Tomorrow, May 1, is “Law Day,” established in 1958 by Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower as a national recognition of the importance of the rule of law. In proclaiming the holiday today, Biden said: “America can and should be a Nation that defends democracy, protects our rights and freedoms, and pioneers a future of possibilities for all Americans. History and common sense show us that this can only come to pass in a democracy, and we must be its keepers.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[democracyunderground]

26 MINUTE READ (w/o ads)

APRIL 30, 2024 7:00 AM EDT

Donald Trump thinks he’s identified a crucial mistake of his first term: He was too nice.

We’ve been talking for more than an hour on April 12 at his fever-dream palace in Palm Beach. Aides lurk around the perimeter of a gilded dining room overlooking the manicured lawn. When one nudges me to wrap up the interview, I bring up the many former Cabinet officials who refuse to endorse Trump this time. Some have publicly warned that he poses a danger to the Republic. Why should voters trust you, I ask, when some of the people who observed you most closely do not?

As always, Trump punches back, denigrating his former top advisers. But beneath the typical torrent of invective, there is a larger lesson he has taken away. “I let them quit because I have a heart. I don’t want to embarrass anybody,” Trump says. “I don’t think I’ll do that again. From now on, I’ll fire.”

Six months from the 2024 presidential election, Trump is better positioned to win the White House than at any point in either of his previous campaigns. He leads Joe Biden by slim margins in most polls, including in several of the seven swing states likely to determine the outcome. But I had not come to ask about the election, the disgrace that followed the last one, or how he has become the first former—and perhaps future—American President to face a criminal trial. I wanted to know what Trump would do if he wins a second term, to hear his vision for the nation, in his own words.

What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world. To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland. He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding. He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

Trump remains the same guy, with the same goals and grievances. But in person, if anything, he appears more assertive and confident. “When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people,” he says. “I had to rely on people.” Now he is in charge. The arranged marriage with the timorous Republican Party stalwarts is over; the old guard is vanquished, and the people who remain are his people. Trump would enter a second term backed by a slew of policy shops staffed by loyalists who have drawn up detailed plans in service of his agenda, which would concentrate the powers of the state in the hands of a man whose appetite for power appears all but insatiable. “I don’t think it’s a big mystery what his agenda would be,” says his close adviser Kellyanne Conway. “But I think people will be surprised at the alacrity with which he will take action.”

The courts, the Constitution, and a Congress of unknown composition would all have a say in whether Trump’s objectives come to pass. The machinery of Washington has a range of defenses: leaks to a free press, whistle-blower protections, the oversight of inspectors general. The same deficiencies of temperament and judgment that hindered him in the past remain present. If he wins, Trump would be a lame duck—contrary to the suggestions of some supporters, he tells TIME he would not seek to overturn or ignore the Constitution’s prohibition on a third term. Public opinion would also be a powerful check. Amid a popular outcry, Trump was forced to scale back some of his most draconian first-term initiatives, including the policy of separating migrant families. As George Orwell wrote in 1945, the ability of governments to carry out their designs “depends on the general temper in the country.”

Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

Trump steps onto the patio at Mar-a-Lago near dusk. The well-heeled crowd eating Wagyu steaks and grilled branzino pauses to applaud as he takes his seat. On this gorgeous evening, the club is a MAGA mecca. Billionaire donor Steve Wynn is here. So is Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who is dining with the former President after a joint press conference proposing legislation to prevent noncitizens from voting. Their voting in federal elections is already illegal, and extremely rare, but remains a Trumpian fixation that the embattled Speaker appeared happy to co-sign in exchange for the political cover that standing with Trump provides.

At the moment, though, Trump’s attention is elsewhere. With an index finger, he swipes through an iPad on the table to curate the restaurant’s soundtrack. The playlist veers from Sinead O’Connor to James Brown to The Phantom of the Opera. And there’s a uniquely Trump choice: a rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” sung by a choir of defendants imprisoned for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, interspersed with a recording of Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. This has become a staple of his rallies, converting the ultimate symbol of national unity into a weapon of factional devotion.

The spectacle picks up where his first term left off. The events of Jan. 6, during which a pro-Trump mob attacked the center of American democracy in an effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, was a profound stain on his legacy. Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, “Yes, absolutely.” As Trump faces dozens of felony charges, including for election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, willful retention of national-security secrets, and falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments, he has tried to turn legal peril into a badge of honor.

In a second term, Trump’s influence on American democracy would extend far beyond pardoning powers. Allies are laying the groundwork to restructure the presidency in line with a doctrine called the unitary executive theory, which holds that many of the constraints imposed on the White House by legislators and the courts should be swept away in favor of a more powerful Commander in Chief.

Nowhere would that power be more momentous than at the Department of Justice. Since the nation’s earliest days, Presidents have generally kept a respectful distance from Senate-confirmed law-enforcement officials to avoid exploiting for personal ends their enormous ability to curtail Americans’ freedoms. But Trump, burned in his first term by multiple investigations directed by his own appointees, is ever more vocal about imposing his will directly on the department and its far-flung investigators and prosecutors.

In our Mar-a-Lago interview, Trump says he might fire U.S. Attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone: “It would depend on the situation.” He’s told supporters he would seek retribution against his enemies in a second term. Would that include Fani Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney who charged him with election interference, or Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan DA in the Stormy Daniels case, who Trump has previously said should be prosecuted? Trump demurs but offers no promises. “No, I don’t want to do that,” he says, before adding, “We’re gonna look at a lot of things. What they’ve done is a terrible thing.”

Trump has also vowed to appoint a “real special prosecutor” to go after Biden. “I wouldn’t want to hurt Biden,” he tells me. “I have too much respect for the office.” Seconds later, though, he suggests Biden’s fate may be tied to an upcoming Supreme Court ruling on whether Presidents can face criminal prosecution for acts committed in office. “If they said that a President doesn’t get immunity,” says Trump, “then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes.” (Biden has not been charged with any, and a House Republican effort to impeach him has failed to unearth evidence of any crimes or misdemeanors, high or low.)

Such moves would be potentially catastrophic for the credibility of American law enforcement, scholars and former Justice Department leaders from both parties say. “If he ordered an improper prosecution, I would expect any respectable U.S. Attorney to say no,” says Michael McConnell, a former U.S. appellate judge appointed by President George W. Bush. “If the President fired the U.S. Attorney, it would be an enormous firestorm.” McConnell, now a Stanford law professor, says the dismissal could have a cascading effect similar to the Saturday Night Massacre, when President Richard Nixon ordered top DOJ officials to remove the special counsel investigating Watergate. Presidents have the constitutional right to fire U.S. Attorneys, and typically replace their predecessors’ appointees upon taking office. But discharging one specifically for refusing a President’s order would be all but unprecedented.

Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. Advisers say he plans to cite record border crossings and fentanyl- and child-trafficking as justification for reimposing the emergency measures. He would direct federal funding to resume construction of the border wall, likely by allocating money from the military budget without congressional approval. The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second. “People need to be deported,” says Tom Homan, a top Trump adviser and former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “No one should be off the table.”

For an operation of that scale, Trump says he would rely mostly on the National Guard to round up and remove undocumented migrants throughout the country. “If they weren’t able to, then I’d use [other parts of] the military,” he says. When I ask if that means he would override the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law that prohibits the use of military force on civilians—Trump seems unmoved by the weight of the statute. “Well, these aren’t civilians,” he says. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country.” He would also seek help from local police and says he would deny funding for jurisdictions that decline to adopt his policies. “There’s a possibility that some won’t want to participate,” Trump says, “and they won’t partake in the riches.”

As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. At the same time, he has sought to defuse a potent campaign issue for the Democrats by saying he wouldn’t sign a federal ban. In our interview at Mar-a-Lago, he declines to commit to vetoing any additional federal restrictions if they came to his desk. More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says. When I ask whether he would be comfortable with states prosecuting women for having abortions beyond the point the laws permit, he says, “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions.” President Biden has said he would fight state anti-abortion measures in court and with regulation.

Trump’s allies don’t plan to be passive on abortion if he returns to power. The Heritage Foundation has called for enforcement of a 19th century statute that would outlaw the mailing of abortion pills. The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes more than 80% of the House GOP conference, included in its 2025 budget proposal the Life at Conception Act, which says the right to life extends to “the moment of fertilization.” I ask Trump if he would veto that bill if it came to his desk. “I don’t have to do anything about vetoes,” Trump says, “because we now have it back in the states.”

Presidents typically have a narrow window to pass major legislation. Trump’s team is eyeing two bills to kick off a second term: a border-security and immigration package, and an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. Many of the latter’s provisions expire early in 2025: the tax cuts on individual income brackets, 100% business expensing, the doubling of the estate-tax deduction. Trump is planning to intensify his protectionist agenda, telling me he’s considering a tariff of more than 10% on all imports, and perhaps even a 100% tariff on some Chinese goods. Trump says the tariffs will liberate the U.S. economy from being at the mercy of foreign manufacturing and spur an industrial renaissance in the U.S. When I point out that independent analysts estimate Trump’s first term tariffs on thousands of products, including steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines, may have cost the U.S. $316 billion and more than 300,000 jobs, by one account, he dismisses these experts out of hand. His advisers argue that the average yearly inflation rate in his first term—under 2%—is evidence that his tariffs won’t raise prices.

Since leaving office, Trump has tried to engineer a caucus of the compliant, clearing primary fields in Senate and House races. His hope is that GOP majorities replete with MAGA diehards could rubber-stamp his legislative agenda and nominees. Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, a former RSC chairman and the GOP nominee for the state’s open Senate seat, recalls an August 2022 RSC planning meeting with Trump at his residence in Bedminster, N.J. As the group arrived, Banks recalls, news broke that Mar-a-Lago had been raided by the FBI. Banks was sure the meeting would be canceled. Moments later, Trump walked through the doors, defiant and pledging to run again. “I need allies there when I’m elected,” Banks recalls Trump saying. The difference in a second Trump term, Banks says now, “is he’s going to have the backup in Congress that he didn’t have before.”

Trump’s intention to remake America’s relations abroad may be just as consequential. Since its founding, the U.S. has sought to build and sustain alliances based on the shared values of political and economic freedom. Trump takes a much more transactional approach to international relations than his predecessors, expressing disdain for what he views as free-riding friends and appreciation for authoritarian leaders like President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, or former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil.

That’s one reason America’s traditional allies were horrified when Trump recently said at a campaign rally that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country he believes doesn’t spend enough on collective defense. That wasn’t idle bluster, Trump tells me. “If you’re not going to pay, then you’re on your own,” he says. Trump has long said the alliance is ripping the U.S. off. Former NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg credited Trump’s first-term threat to pull out of the alliance with spurring other members to add more than $100 billion to their defense budgets.

But an insecure NATO is as likely to accrue to Russia’s benefit as it is to America’s. President Vladimir Putin’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine looks to many in Europe and the U.S. like a test of his broader vision to reconstruct the Soviet empire. Under Biden and a bipartisan Congress, the U.S. has sent more than $100 billion to Ukraine to defend itself. It’s unlikely Trump would extend the same support to Kyiv. After Orban visited Mar-a-Lago in March, he said Trump “wouldn’t give a penny” to Ukraine. “I wouldn’t give unless Europe starts equalizing,” Trump hedges in our interview. “If Europe is not going to pay, why should we pay? They’re much more greatly affected. We have an ocean in between us. They don’t.” (E.U. nations have given more than $100 billion in aid to Ukraine as well.)

Trump has historically been reluctant to criticize or confront Putin. He sided with the Russian autocrat over his own intelligence community when it asserted that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Even now, Trump uses Putin as a foil for his own political purposes. When I asked Trump why he has not called for the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been unjustly held on spurious charges in a Moscow prison for a year, Trump says, “I guess because I have so many other things I’m working on.” Gershkovich should be freed, he adds, but he doubts it will happen before the election. “The reporter should be released and he will be released,” Trump tells me. “I don’t know if he’s going to be released under Biden. I would get him released.”

America’s Asian allies, like its European ones, may be on their own under Trump. Taiwan’s Foreign Minister recently said aid to Ukraine was critical in deterring Xi from invading the island. Communist China’s leaders “have to understand that things like that can’t come easy,” Trump says, but he declines to say whether he would come to Taiwan’s defense.

Trump is less cryptic on current U.S. troop deployments in Asia. If South Korea doesn’t pay more to support U.S. troops there to deter Kim Jong Un’s increasingly belligerent regime to the north, Trump suggests the U.S. could withdraw its forces. “We have 40,000 troops that are in a precarious position,” he tells TIME. (The number is actually 28,500.) “Which doesn’t make any sense. Why would we defend somebody? And we’re talking about a very wealthy country.”

Transactional isolationism may be the main strain of Trump’s foreign policy, but there are limits. Trump says he would join Israel’s side in a confrontation with Iran. “If they attack Israel, yes, we would be there,” he tells me. He says he has come around to the now widespread belief in Israel that a Palestinian state existing side by side in peace is increasingly unlikely. “There was a time when I thought two-state could work,” he says. “Now I think two-state is going to be very, very tough.”

Yet even his support for Israel is not absolute. He’s criticized Israel’s handling of its war against Hamas, which has killed more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza, and has called for the nation to “get it over with.” When I ask whether he would consider withholding U.S. military aid to Israel to push it toward winding down the war, he doesn’t say yes, but he doesn’t rule it out, either. He is sharply critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once a close ally. “I had a bad experience with Bibi,” Trump says. In his telling, a January 2020 U.S. operation to assassinate a top Iranian general was supposed to be a joint attack until Netanyahu backed out at the last moment. “That was something I never forgot,” he says. He blames Netanyahu for failing to prevent the Oct. 7 attack, when Hamas militants infiltrated southern Israel and killed nearly 1,200 people amid acts of brutality including burning entire families alive and raping women and girls. “It happened on his watch,” Trump says.

On the second day of Trump’s New York trial on April 17, I stand behind the packed counter of the Sanaa Convenience Store on 139th Street and Broadway, waiting for Trump to drop in for a postcourt campaign stop. He chose the bodega for its history. In 2022, one of the store’s clerks fatally stabbed a customer who attacked him. Bragg, the Manhattan DA, charged the clerk with second-degree murder. (The charges were later dropped amid public outrage over video footage that appeared to show the clerk acting in self-defense.) A baseball bat behind the counter alludes to lingering security concerns. When Trump arrives, he asks the store’s co-owner, Maad Ahmed, a Yemeni immigrant, about safety. “You should be allowed to have a gun,” Trump tells Ahmed. “If you had a gun, you’d never get robbed.”

On the campaign trail, Trump uses crime as a cudgel, painting urban America as a savage hell-scape even though violent crime has declined in recent years, with homicides sinking 6% in 2022 and 13% in 2023, according to the FBI. When I point this out, Trump tells me he thinks the data, which is collected by state and local police departments, is rigged. “It’s a lie,” he says. He has pledged to send the National Guard into cities struggling with crime in a second term—possibly without the request of governors—and plans to approve Justice Department grants only to cities that adopt his preferred policing methods like stop-and-frisk.

To critics, Trump’s preoccupation with crime is a racial dog whistle. In polls, large numbers of his supporters have expressed the view that antiwhite racism now represents a greater problem in the U.S. than the systemic racism that has long afflicted Black Americans. When I ask if he agrees, Trump does not dispute this position. “There is a definite antiwhite feeling in the country,” he tells TIME, “and that can’t be allowed either.” In a second term, advisers say, a Trump Administration would rescind Biden’s Executive Orders designed to boost diversity and racial equity.

Trump’s ability to campaign for the White House in the midst of an unprecedented criminal trial is the product of a more professional campaign operation that has avoided the infighting that plagued past versions. “He has a very disciplined team around him,” says Representative Elise Stefanik of New York. “That is an indicator of how disciplined and focused a second term will be.” That control now extends to the party writ large. In 2016, the GOP establishment, having failed to derail Trump’s campaign, surrounded him with staff who sought to temper him. Today the party’s permanent class have either devoted themselves to the gospel of MAGA or given up. Trump has cleaned house at the Republican National Committee, installing handpicked leaders—including his daughter-in-law—who have reportedly imposed loyalty tests on prospective job applicants, asking whether they believe the false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen. (The RNC has denied there is a litmus test.) Trump tells me he would have trouble hiring anyone who admits Biden won: “I wouldn’t feel good about it.”

Policy groups are creating a government-in-waiting full of true believers. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has drawn up plans for legislation and Executive Orders as it trains prospective personnel for a second Trump term. The Center for Renewing America, led by Russell Vought, Trump’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, is dedicated to disempowering the so-called administrative state, the collection of bureaucrats with the power to control everything from drug-safety determinations to the contents of school lunches. The America First Policy Institute is a research haven of pro-Trump right-wing populists. America First Legal, led by Trump’s immigration adviser Stephen Miller, is mounting court battles against the Biden Administration.

The goal of these groups is to put Trump’s vision into action on day one. “The President never had a policy process that was designed to give him what he actually wanted and campaigned on,” says Vought. “[We are] sorting through the legal authorities, the mechanics, and providing the momentum for a future Administration.” That includes a litany of boundary-pushing right-wing policies, including slashing Department of Justice funding and cutting climate and environmental regulations.

Trump’s campaign says he would be the final decision-maker on which policies suggested by these organizations would get implemented. But at the least, these advisers could form the front lines of a planned march against what Trump dubs the Deep State, marrying bureaucratic savvy to their leader’s anti-bureaucratic zeal. One weapon in Trump’s second-term “War on Washington” is a wonky one: restoring the power of impoundment, which allowed Presidents to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. Impoundment was a favorite maneuver of Nixon, who used his authority to freeze funding for subsidized housing and the Environmental Protection Agency. Trump and his allies plan to challenge a 1974 law that prohibits use of the measure, according to campaign policy advisers.

Another inside move is the enforcement of Schedule F, which allows the President to fire nonpolitical government officials and which Trump says he would embrace. “You have some people that are protected that shouldn’t be protected,” he says. A senior U.S. judge offers an example of how consequential such a move could be. Suppose there’s another pandemic, and President Trump wants to push the use of an untested drug, much as he did with hydroxychloroquine during COVID-19. Under Schedule F, if the drug’s medical reviewer at the Food and Drug Administration refuses to sign off on its use, Trump could fire them, and anyone else who doesn’t approve it. The Trump team says the President needs the power to hold bureaucrats accountable to voters. “The mere mention of Schedule F,” says Vought, “ensures that the bureaucracy moves in your direction.”

It can be hard at times to discern Trump’s true intentions. In his interviews with TIME, he often sidestepped questions or answered them in contradictory ways. There’s no telling how his ego and self-destructive behavior might hinder his objectives. And for all his norm-breaking, there are lines he says he won’t cross. When asked if he would comply with all orders upheld by the Supreme Court, Trump says he would.

But his policy preoccupations are clear and consistent. If Trump is able to carry out a fraction of his goals, the impact could prove as transformative as any presidency in more than a century. “He’s in full war mode,” says his former adviser and occasional confidant Stephen Bannon. Trump’s sense of the state of the country is “quite apocalyptic,” Bannon says. “That’s where Trump’s heart is. That’s where his obsession is.”

These obsessions could once again push the nation to the brink of crisis. Trump does not dismiss the possibility of political violence around the election. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he tells TIME. “It always depends on the fairness of the election.” When I ask what he meant when he baselessly claimed on Truth Social that a stolen election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump responded by denying he had said it. He then complained about the “Biden-inspired” court case he faces in New York and suggested that the “fascists” in America’s government were its greatest threat. “I think the enemy from within, in many cases, is much more dangerous for our country than the outside enemies of China, Russia, and various others,” he tells me.

Toward the end of our conversation at Mar-a-Lago, I ask Trump to explain another troubling comment he made: that he wants to be dictator for a day. It came during a Fox News town hall with Sean Hannity, who gave Trump an opportunity to allay concerns that he would abuse power in office or seek retribution against political opponents. Trump said he would not be a dictator—“except for day one,” he added. “I want to close the border, and I want to drill, drill, drill.”

Trump says that the remark “was said in fun, in jest, sarcastically.” He compares it to an infamous moment from the 2016 campaign, when he encouraged the Russians to hack and leak Hillary Clinton’s emails. In Trump’s mind, the media sensationalized those remarks too. But the Russians weren’t joking: among many other efforts to influence the core exercise of American democracy that year, they hacked the Democratic National Committee’s servers and disseminated its emails through WikiLeaks.

Whether or not he was kidding about bringing a tyrannical end to our 248-year experiment in democracy, I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles? Trump says no. Quite the opposite, he insists. “I think a lot of people like it.” —With reporting by Leslie Dickstein, Simmone Shah, and Julia Zorthian

[trump-executive-orders]

Organization of the National Security Council and Subcommittees

Issued January 20, 2025.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby direct the following:

As President, my highest priority and responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of the United States and its people. The national and homeland security threats facing the United States are complex and rapidly evolving. These issues often do not fit neatly into the categories that single departments and agencies are designed to optimally address, a fact recognized and exploited by our strategic competitors and adversaries in their adoption of whole-of-government and even whole-of-society approaches.

The United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address national security challenges must therefore be equally adaptive and comprehensive. They must be able to competently design and execute cooperative and integrated interagency solutions to address these problems, and protect and advance the national interests of the United States. Therefore, to advise and assist me in this endeavor, I hereby direct that my system for national security policy development, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring shall be organized as set forth in this Memorandum. This Memorandum prevails over any prior orders, directives, memoranda, or other Presidential guidance related to the organization of the National Security Council (NSC or Council).

A. The National Security Council and Supporting Staff

Functions, Responsibilities, and Chairs.

(a) Functions and Responsibilities. The National Security Act of 1947, as amended (the Act), established the NSC to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security. The Homeland Security Council (HSC) has the distinct purpose of advising the President on matters pertaining to homeland security. The NSC shall convene as the HSC on topic areas agreed to in advance by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (National Security Advisor) and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (Homeland Security Advisor). Along with its subordinate committees and staff, the NSC shall be the President's principal means for coordinating Executive departments and agencies in the development and implementation of national and homeland security policies, strategies, activities, and functions, their integration across departments and agencies within their purview, and for long-term strategic planning.

(b) Chairs. The President will chair the NSC. When the President is absent from a meeting of the Council, he may appoint a Cabinet-level official to chair.

2. NSC Staffing Responsibilities of the National Security Advisor.

(a) Role of the National Security Advisor. The National Security Advisor shall be responsible, as appropriate and at the President's direction, for determining the agenda for the NSC, ensuring that the necessary papers are prepared, and recording and communicating the Council actions and Presidential decisions in a timely manner.

(b) Role of the Homeland Security Advisor. When convened as the HSC, the duties referenced in subsection (2)(a) shall be the responsibility of the Homeland Security Advisor.

3. Designating NSC Members, Attendees, and Invitees.

(a) Membership. The NSC membership consists of the statutory members set forth in section 101(c)(1) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 3021(c)(1)):

The President;

The Vice President;

The Secretary of State;

The Secretary of the Treasury;

The Secretary of Defense;

The Secretary of Energy;

The Director of the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy;

and additional members hereby designated by the President pursuant to section 101(c)(1) of the Act:

The Attorney General;

The Secretary of the Interior;

Chief of Staff to the President (White House Chief of Staff); and

The National Security Advisor.

When the NSC convenes as the HSC, members shall also include:

The Secretary of Homeland Security; and

The Homeland Security Advisor.

(b) NSC Meeting Attendees. The National Security Advisor retains the discretion to determine the attendee list for all meetings of the NSC, including by requesting the attendance of any senior official of the Executive Branch. The Homeland Security Advisor retains this same discretion when the NSC convenes as the HSC. This discretion shall be exercised based on the policy relevance of attendees to the issues being considered, the need for secrecy on sensitive matters, staffing requirements, and other considerations.

As regular practice, the National Security Advisor and Homeland Security Advisor shall include as additional non-voting attendees:

The Director of National Intelligence (non-voting advisor);

The Assistant to the President and Principal Deputy National Security Advisor (non-voting advisor and principal notetaker), or, when convening as the HSC, the Deputy Homeland Security Advisor (non-voting advisor and principal notetaker);

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (non-voting advisor); and

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (non-voting advisor);

(c) NSC Regular Invitees. Unless specifically restricted, these officials are invited to attend any NSC and HSC meeting as non-voting advisors:

The Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President;

The Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy;

The Assistant to the President for Policy; and

The Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Counsel to the National Security Advisor.

4. Right to Propose Agenda Items.

Any NSC member attending a meeting in a voting capacity may propose, in advance and in accordance with a timeline set by the National Security Advisor or his designee, agenda items for their consideration. [A footnote is included here in the original text. This footnote leads to a broken link.] The National Security Advisor will determine whether to include these items on the agenda. The Homeland Security Advisor shall have this same discretion when the Council is convened as the HSC.

5. The National Security Council Staff.

(a) Staff Fusion. There is a single NSC staff within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) that serves both the NSC on national security matters and the HSC when the Council is considering homeland security matters. The staff is headed by a single Executive Secretary, in accordance with section 101(e)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021(e)(1)) and section 905 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 495).

(b) Purpose. The purposes of the National Security Advisor and subordinate staff are to

(i) advise and assist the President in the course of conducting activities that relate to or affect the carrying out of the President's constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties pertaining to national or homeland security, pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, as amended; [A footnote is included here in the original text. This footnote leads to a broken link.]

(ii) advise and assist the other members of the NSC (and the NSC when convening as the HSC), and others in the White House;

(iii) help the President plan and set priorities, in accordance with section II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 or 1977;

(iv) advise and make recommendations to the President with respect to, and establish, integrated domestic, foreign, and military policies and procedures for the departments, agencies, and functions of the Government relating to national and homeland security, pursuant to sections 2 and 101(b)(1) of the Act (50 U.S.C. 3002, 3021(b)(1));

(v) coordinate, facilitate, monitor, oversee, and review Administration policies and their implementation with respect to national security, and make resulting recommendations to the President;

(vi) help the President resolve major conflicts among departments and agencies with regard to national security, in accordance with section II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977.

(c) Fair, Balanced, and Thorough Processes. In accordance with sections I and II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, the NSC staff shall ensure that the processes it organizes, coordinates, and manages fairly and thoroughly gather the facts, intelligence, and other relevant information necessary to NSC decisions; fully analyze the issues, consider a full range of views and options; assess the prospects, risks, costs, and implications of each option; and distill these options for the President, other NSC principals, and senior officials participating in the subsidiary committees of the NSC or HSC, in a fair, balanced, and organized way. The National Security Advisor and subordinate NSC staff shall represent the views and differences of NSC principals and other senior officials to the President with accuracy and fidelity.

(d) Policy Development. In accordance with sections I and II of the Message of the President in the Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, [A footnote is included here in the original text. The footnote leads to a broken link.] the NSC staff shall facilitate the development and refinement of interagency policy options, and develop additional options besides those proposed by departments and agencies as necessary, both to complement, supplement, and enhance their work, and to offer the President and other NSC principals and other senior officials a sufficiently broad menu of operationally feasible options for consideration, deliberation, and decision.

B. The Principals Committee

Principals Committee Establishment.

(a) (i) Functions and Responsibilities. The Principals Committee (PC) shall continue to serve as the Cabinet-level senior interagency forum for considering policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States. The PC shall develop options and recommendations for the President on national security and homeland security matters requiring the President's attention, and with the Committee's full consensus shall set priorities, issue policy guidance, and facilitate coordination and integration on national security policy and implementation issues as appropriate that do not require Presidential attention. [There is a footnote here in the original text. This footnote leads to a broken link.] Issues involving matters that are statutorily authorized for decision by a principal, or delegated to a principal by the President, can be coordinated and decided by the principals without requiring Presidential attention.

(ii) Voting and NSC Referral. Consensus is reached when all voting (i.e., non-advisory) attendees present either vote affirmatively for the same decisional option or formally abstain, and all such votes shall be recorded and minuted. Issues for which the Committee fails to reach consensus shall be referred to the NSC for decision, with a formal nonconcurrence required by at least one non-advisory attendee presented for such a referral. Whether an issue requires Presidential attention, and the Committee attendees' positions on the issue itself, shall be separately polled. If a voting attendee does not concur with the determination that Presidential consideration is not required, the issue shall be referred, along with the results of the PC's deliberation on the issue itself and its recommendations, to deliberation by the NSC.

(b) Role of the National Security Advisor. The PC shall be convened and chaired by the National Security Advisor. The Chair shall determine the agenda, location, and meeting materials, in consultation with the appropriate attendees.

(c) Substitute Chairs. At his sole discretion, the National Security Advisor may delegate authority to convene and chair or co-chair the PC to an appropriate attendee of the NSC or EOP policy council senior official. The Homeland Security Advisor, who is Chair when the PC considers matters that would be raised to the NSC convening as the HSC, may similarly delegate such duties.

(d) Right to Propose Agenda Items. Any PC member attending in a voting capacity may propose, in advance and in accordance with a timeline set by the Chair, agenda items for consideration by the PC. The Chair will determine which, if any, shall be included.

2. Executive Secretary Responsibilities and Process.

(a) Responsibilities. The Executive Secretary shall ensure that the necessary papers are prepared, serve as executive secretary of the PC, and shall record and communicate accurately, and in a timely manner, the Committee's conclusions and decisions, what was not decided, and any responsibilities for implementation by departments and agencies or taskings to the Deputies Committee or subsidiary policy coordination committees that have been agreed or assigned, if appropriate. [There is a footnote here in the original text. This footnote leads to a broken link.] The Executive Secretary shall generally be assisted in these tasks by the senior directors and other NSC staff by the senior directors and other NSC staff.

(b) Dispute Resolution Process. If a PC voting attendee disputes that the conclusions or decisions of the PC were correctly minuted, this must be communicated in writing to the Executive Secretary and the National Security Advisor (and any substitute Chair if appropriate) within three business days, although those officials may allow additional time if exigent or extenuating circumstances require it. If resolution of the dispute cannot be achieved, and any necessary amended report of the PC proceedings was issued within a week of the dispute being communicated, the disputing attendee may appeal the matter to the White House Chief of Staff or, should that official so designate, to the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, whose decision shall be final.

3. Principals Committee Attendees and Invitees.

(a) Principals Committee Attendees.

(i) The National Security Advisor retains the discretion to determine the attendee list for all PC meetings on national security. The Homeland Security Advisor retains this same discretion when chairing the PC. This discretion shall be exercised based on the policy relevance of attendees to the issues being considered, the need for secrecy on sensitive matters, staffing needs, and other considerations. As regular practice, the National Security Advisor and Homeland Security Advisor shall include as additional non-voting attendees:

The Director of National Intelligence;

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;

The Principal Deputy National Security Advisor;

the National Security Advisor to the Vice President; and

The Executive Secretary (principal notetaker).

(ii) PC Regular Invitees. Unless specifically restricted, these officials are invited to attend any PC meeting as non-voting advisors:

The Assistant to the President and Counselor to the President;

The Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy;

The Assistant to the President for Policy; and

The Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs and Legal Counsel to the National Security Advisor.

(iii) Staffing Invitees. At the discretion of the Chair, staff members of the NSC or other appropriate EOP policy councils may be invited to attend specific PC meetings to assist the Executive Secretary in the performance of their executive secretary duties.

C. The Deputies Committee

Deputies Committee Establishment.

(a) Functions and Responsibilities. The Deputies Committee (DC) shall continue to serve as the senior sub-Cabinet interagency forum for consideration of and, where appropriate, decision making on, policy issues that affect the national security interests of the United States. The DC shall review and monitor the work of the interagency national security process, including the interagency groups established pursuant to section D below. The DC shall work to ensure that issues brought before the NSC, the NSC when convening as the HSC, and the PC have been properly analyzed and prepared for decision. The DC shall also focus significant attention on monitoring the implementation of these policies and decisions and shall conduct periodic reviews of the Administration's major national security and foreign policy initiatives.

(b) Role of the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. The DC shall be convened and chaired by the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor. The Chair shall determine the location, agenda, and meeting materials in consultation with the DC attendees.

(c) Substitute Chairs. At his sole discretion, the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor may delegate authority to convene and chair or co-chair the DC to an appropriate regular attendee of the DC or other appropriate EOP official. The Deputy Assistant to the President for Homeland Security (Deputy Homeland Security Advisor) shall chair meetings when considering issues that would be raised when the NSC is convened as the HSC. The Deputy Homeland Security Advisor has similar delegatory authority.

(d) Right to Propose Agenda Items. Any DC member attending in a voting capacity may propose, in advance and in accordance with a timeline set by the Chair, agenda items for consideration by the DC. The Chair will determine which, if any, shall be included.

2. Executive Secretary Responsibilities and Process.

(a) General. The Executive Secretary shall ensure that the necessary papers are prepared, and shall record and communicate accurately, and in a timely manner, the Committee's conclusions and decisions, what was not decided, and any responsibilities for implementation by departments and agencies or taskings to subsidiary policy coordination committees that have been agreed or assigned, if appropriate. The Executive Secretary shall generally be assisted in this task by the senior directors and other NSC staff.

(b) Dispute Resolution Process. If a DC voting attendee disputes that the conclusions or decisions of the DC were correctly minuted, this must be communicated in writing to the Executive Secretary and the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor or the Deputy Homeland Security Advisor, as relevant, within three business days, although those officials may allow additional time if exigent or extenuating circumstances require it. If resolution of the dispute cannot be achieved, and any necessary amended report of the PC proceedings issued within a week of the dispute being communicated, the disputing attendee may appeal the matter to the White House Chief of Staff, or should that official so designate, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, whose decision shall be final.

3. Designating Deputies Committee Regular Attendees and Invitees.

(a) Deputies Committee Attendees. The Principal Deputy National Security Advisor retains the discretion to determine the attendee list for all DC meetings.

The Deputy Homeland Security Advisor retains this same discretion when chairing DC meetings. This discretion shall be exercised based on the policy relevance of attendees to the issues being considered, the need for secrecy on sensitive matters, staffing needs, and other considerations.

As regular practice, the Principal Deputy National Security Advisor shall include as DC attendees:

The Deputy Secretary of State;

The Deputy Secretary of the Treasury;

The Deputy Secretary of Defense;

The Deputy Attorney General;

The Deputy Secretary of Energy;

The Deputy Director of National Intelligence (non-voting advisor);

The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (non-voting advisor);

The Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (non-voting advisor);

The Executive Secretary of the NSC (non-voting advisor and principal notetaker); and

The National Security Advisor to the Vice President.

When homeland security issues are on the DC agenda, the DC's regular attendees will also include:

The Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security; and

The Deputy Homeland Security Advisor (chair).

(b) DC Regular Invitees. These officials are invited to attend any DC meeting:

The Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and

The Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Policy Strategist.

D. Policy Coordination Committees

Management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple Executive departments and agencies typically shall be accomplished by Policy Coordination Committees (PCCs), with participation primarily occurring at the Assistant Secretary level. As the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination and integration of national security policies, PCCs shall develop and provide policy options and analyses for consideration by higher echelon committees of the national security system. PCCs shall ensure timely responses to, and implementation and monitoring of, decisions, directives, objectives, instructions, inquiries, tasking, and policy guidance of and by the President, National Security Advisor, and the higher-echelon committees of the national security system.

PCCs shall be established at the direction of the National Security Advisor or Homeland Security Advisor, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff or her designee. Members of the NSC staff will chair the PCCs.

PCCs shall review, coordinate, integrate, and monitor the implementation of Presidential decisions in their respective national security and homeland security policy areas. The Chair of each PCC, in consultation with the Executive Secretary, shall invite representatives of departments and agencies to attend meetings of the PCC where appropriate. The Chair of each PCC, with the agreement of the Executive Secretary, may establish subordinate working groups to assist that PCC in the performance of its duties.

Interagency Policy Committees (IPCs) chartered under the aegis of the process established by National Security Memorandum-2 (NSM-2) may continue to be operated as PCCs by the NSC staff until renewed or discontinued by the National Security Advisor.

E. General.

(a) The President and the Vice President may attend any meeting of any entity established by or under this directive.

(b) This document is part of a series of National Security Policy Memoranda, which have replaced both National Security Memoranda and National Security Study Memoranda as the instrument for communicating relevant Presidential decisions. This directive shall supersede all other existing Presidential directives and guidance on the organization or support of the NSC and the HSC where they conflict, including National Security Memorandum-2 of February 4, 2021 (Memorandum on Renewing the National Security Council System), which is hereby revoked. This document shall be interpreted in concert with any Presidential directives governing other policy councils and offices in the EOP mentioned herein, and with any Presidential directives signed hereafter that implement this document or those Presidential directives.

[body-mind-motion]

Covid-19 & The Government

While recalling the days I spent during the coronavirus outbreak, I remember seeing people in Nepal waiting for long hours in line to get vaccinated. It was when my curiosity regarding the role of government in managing the pandemic and working on its citizen’s health peaked. People learn new things every day but the things people learn from their personal experiences are everlasting. With this belief of mine, I would like to talk about what I observed during the coronavirus outbreak and the conclusions I drew regarding the role of government, with the help of this article. 

My curiosity to understand the responsibility of government during the pandemic, led me to take part in the One Young World Academy ‘Pandemic Preparedness Series’ where I received an opportunity to listen to experts working to handle the pandemic. While taking part in the program, I understood the lack of adequate doses of vaccines in Nepal was a result of a supply chain problem that should have been solved by the government. When borders of countries get closed as coronavirus cases rise, it becomes hard to move materials from one place to the other. It impacted the supply chain a lot. The solution to this problem could be making sure the borders of countries are open when supplying medicines and vaccines. I believe the main role of government in promoting its citizens' health is to ensure that goods are flowing freely across different nations so there is no lack of medicines and vaccines. 

In addition, pre-planning is also extremely important as the government needs to make sure there is a stock of raw materials and components so that there is no shortage of raw materials when the country needs them. After this, the right doses of the right vaccines and medications can be provided to the people in case of an emergency. 

Along with this, during the coronavirus outbreak, there was negativity all around us. Even when people tried to distance themselves from the negativity, I noticed they were still struggling to do so, which led to a detrimental impact on their mental health. Social media, news channels, and several other mediums of communication played a role in conveying the message of how devastating the pandemic is. I realized although spreading awareness regarding the pandemic was important, helping people not to lose hope was equally important as well. It led me to volunteer in the Live Now Regional Campaign for Youth Positivity and COVID-19. Here I contributed by providing content in the format of poems which was published on the website and social media of the Live Now Platform and was shared not only in Nepal but across the Asia-Pacific Region and beyond. Although people individually worked in sectors like mental health and youth positivity, I realized the role of government in Nepal in helping people to have a good mental health status was limited. I believe the government should be working efficiently in the sector of mental health as well for the promotion of its citizen's health. 

In conclusion, the main roles of the government to holistically promote its citizens' health are ensuring there is no lack of raw materials, goods are flowing freely across different nations, and putting equal effort in all dimensions of health. The observation of my country during the unprecedented situation of the pandemic helped me to draw these conclusions and place my beliefs accordingly. 

-Sarwagya Bhattarai